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

November 2

carol o'connor

why did carol o'connor where a ring on the middle finger of each hand ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.91.1.214 (talk) 01:15, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

This is apparently an often asked question on the net. Searching for phrases such as Carroll O'Connor Ring brings up numerous results. This source claims that he wore a Masonic ring on his middle finger because he thought that many Southern Sheriffs did so as well. This forum which is dedicated to All In The Family discusses it briefly and thinks it has something to do with the belief that the blood supply from the heart flows directly to that finger. Although these aren't the most reliable sources, I think they're about the best you'll get unless it's in a published biography about O'Connor. Was there one? I don't know. Dismas|^(talk) 01:22, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Here's a better source... People magazine states that "For sentimental reasons, O'Connor wears his grandfather's diamond ring on the middle finger of his right hand." Dismas|^(talk) 01:28, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Shooting yourself in the foot - US Senate seniority and pork

It occurred to me today, as I read the endless articles about American voter anger at the incumbents, that this - at least in the US Senate - might be somewhat akin to shooting yourself in the foot. Take the Nevada contest, for example. Reid has been in the Senate forever. The man has tremendous seniority on a variety of powerful committees, and innumerable people probably owe him favors. When it comes to the ability of bringing home the pork to Nevada, surely he can secure more than his novice challenger. Is there a study out there that comprehensively examines Congressional seniority and pork-barrel spending? I'd love to see how much impact (if any) electing a neophyte has on a state's take. The Masked Booby (talk) 01:55, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

It depends. A big part of the Tea Party Movement is the reduction in government spending, full stop. Pork barrel spending is still spending. The movement, and the right wing of the Republican party in general, seems to have as a platform reductions in government spending accross the board, even when that spending has local benefits. Over the past few years, some governors of Southern states have refused to accept federal money for a variety of things, from education spending to the recently passed stimulus bill, and as recently as this past week, the State of New Jersey effectively blocked the construction of a new Hudson River rail crossing by refusing to accept federal money to fund it. This is a fundemental ideology of this movement, and while it seems counterintuitive to the principle that people will take all of the money they can all the time, it is very clearly a real ideology which informs people. Basically, (whether you agree with it or not) the Tea Party Movement is acting outside of local financial interests with the express purpose of changing the way the federal government works. Ostensibly, they are still acting in financial self interest if they believe that the money they save in reduced taxation would compensate for the money they receive back from the federal government in the form of pork barrel spending. Even so, not every self-interest is always financial, and such movements may still have local self-interest at their core even if they are ultimately reducing their local share of the pork barrel. --Jayron32 02:04, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

e/c I can only guess that a similar situation exists in the US, but in Australia pork-barrelling tends to favour swinging seats rather than particular candidates. --jjron (talk) 02:07, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

And what references do you want from the reference desk? --Lgriot (talk) 13:22, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, the OP's question was, has someone made a comprehensive study on the correlation between seniority and pork? And sure enough, there is plenty of information about it. Just a quick google search for seniority pork turns up a lot of stuff, such as this paper and this newspaper article. Senior congresspeople get more pork, simple as that.--Rallette (talk) 15:47, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Stock Markets -- Quite Safe?

I'm not exactly a pro when it comes to economics but am I right in believing that stocks markets, in a way, are quite a safe investment when at in this way. If I have money (say 5000 $/£ or whatever) which I can afford to invest in stocks and I don't need to worry about getting the money back (i.e. I can leave it invested in whatever stocks for as long as I want) it would be harder to make a loss due to the fact that stock prices are always fluctuating and will likely eventually reach a price greater than or equal to the purchase price?

Obviously I realise that this is probably a simplistic view of things and I do understand that if you have no idea what you are doing and purchase shares that are doing VERY well at the time you're at a higher risk of the price dropping and then it would be less likely for the above to be true. Also there are probably other factors as well (e.g. even if I get back 100% of my money 5 years later that would in a way be a loss due to infaltion and the fact I could have made money off of interest by just putting it in a bank instead) but would you say my understanding of things are correct? I guess my understanding of things can be summed up as follows: the longer you can afford to keep your money invested in any particular stocks, the less likely you are to make a loss? --212.120.248.252 (talk) 04:48, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Individual stock prices may never recover to the point of their purchase price (eg Enron), and if you bought stock in the wrong Japanse companies in 1990 or American companies in 2000, it may be a very long time to ever see your original purchase price again, if at all - see the graphs at Stock market bubble. Holding on to shares, assuming that in the long run, you'll always make a profit, is described in the Buy and hold strategy. Unilynx (talk) 05:21, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

In general what you're saying is held as conventional wisdom, but with about a million caveats. For example many experts recommend that to invest in the sharemarket you should have a long-term investment strategy in place of say a minimum of five to ten years; cash investments can produce more reliable (though not necessarily better) returns over the short-term. Typical recommendations also include 'not putting all your eggs in the one basket', i.e., diversification. Dollar cost averaging is also a technique used to try to dampen out short-term fluctuations in share prices. --jjron (talk) 06:08, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, probably, although there was a time in the 1920s or 30s when things seemed to have settled down in the stock market but then they suddenly fell, and it would take a very long time to get your nominal money back. My guess is that at the worst time in real terms you might be waiting decades, given the inflation of the 1940s. I recall reading something that was a detailed study of exactly this question, but I cannot remember where. You should first of all use the money to help pay off any loans or mortgages, and understand the Efficient markets hypothesis, but after that for money you are willing to lose, you can have fun with it. 92.29.115.229 (talk) 11:03, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I would add that having a spread of shares is safer than investing in one or two companies. Individual companies can do a lot better or worse than the stock-market in general. -- Q Chris (talk) 11:37, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Conventional wisdom is that stocks go up like an escalator and down like an elevator. Googlemeister (talk) 13:22, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I can recommend the book The Intelligent Investor. More likely to impress is that Warren Buffett recommends it, calling it by far the best book on investing ever written. Comet Tuttle (talk) 16:49, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

... but Warren Buffet knew when to take his money out of the stock market! The UK FTSE 100 is still lower than it was eleven years ago! Dbfirs 19:47, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

What was Duong Van Minh's religion?

And would it belong in his article? Thanks. Imagine Reason (talk) 05:11, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I haven't been able to find that information (it was not even in a couple of newspaper obituaries I read through, nor in some of our articles connected to him) but the presumption would be that he was a Catholic – given his privileged Francophile background, and also just that he managed to become a high ranking general under Diem: speaking of another general, our 1963 South Vietnamese coup article says, "Dinh converted to Catholicism as Diem trusted his co-religionists and promoted officers on loyalty and not competence" (and a couple of sources are cited for that statement). If I ever come across an actual source, though, I'll be sure to put it in the article! WikiDao ☯ (talk) 00:38, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

However, it's notable that Minh tried not to favor the catholics as blatantly as Diem did, and the coup that he led did help put a Buddhist in power. Buddy431 (talk) 13:43, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

The Vatican during World War II

I am curious as to why the Germans did not invade the Vatican after they had occupied Rome? How was the Pope able to maintain its neutral status?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:25, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

The occupation of Rome was late in the war, when there was more emphasis on survival and less on plundering. The Vatican had no military value, so there was nothing to gain from occupation. On the other hand, a large fraction of people in Germany and occupied territories were catholics (including, at least nominally, Hitler himself). So an obvious interference with the pope might have significant negative impact on morale, and would have given the allies propaganda ammunition for free. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:05, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

The reason I ask is that I watched a film on Italian TV last night which depicted the Pope convincing a German general who happened to be Catholic that it would be a sacrilege to occupy and plunder the Vatican. The reason I asked is that the treasure within could have been used to finance the Germans who needed materials to continue the war.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:11, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

It's beyond question that the Germans did plunder (see Nazi plunder), but as I understand it primarily for their own gain, eg Herman Goerring had a collection of art work stolen from all over Europe (also see Bruno Lohse). But, I doubt that any plunder could be used for financing as they had nobody to trade with, except possibly Sweden (see Sweden during World War II) which I imagine would be unwilling to accept such goods.87.102.115.141 (talk) 08:52, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

This book claims that the both Germany as a whole, as well as the war effort specifically, was mainly financed by plunder. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:14, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I just happen to find it bizarre that the two treasure troves of Europe; namely the Vatican and Switzerland were able to remain neutral and escape German occupation and plunder. I'm sure Goering would have loved to ransack the Holy See.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 10:30, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

You should take Italian movies on WWII with more than just a grain of salt. The Italian nation never went through de-nazification like Germany did and has no problems romanticizing their own involvement as an Axis power in WWII, conveniently forgetting their own crimes and painting pictures of the WWII Italians as "gentle people", utterly crime and blame free (incidentally, Japan has similar issues). Even nowadays neo-Fascism is not considered particularly problematical (again, unlike Germany, where neo-Nazism is seriously shunned by ordinary folks) and a neo-Fascist relative of the WWII butcher tyrant even has a sterling political career. That said, the Vatican was trying to be neutral during WWII and did not rush to condemn many of the atrocities of the Nazis or condemned them in lukewarm terms at best - and keeping in mind the old adage that "he who keeps quiet, approves" and peppering this with propaganda, the Germans could present the Vatican as friendly to their cause. The Vatican even helped Axis war criminals after the war so there might actually have been some truth in this. So in addition to the Germans fearing a backlash from religious troops, why attack someone you have labeled a friend? One that supplied what the propaganda machine could make out to pose as moral justification for what the Nazis were doing during the war? I think fear of sacrilege, while probably present, was a minor part of the reason the Vatican remained unoccupied. TomorrowTime (talk) 10:32, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

The very reason I asked the question is because I happen to live in Italy and I do know that Italy has been trying to whitewash its collaboration with Hitler as well as its own persecution of Jews (legge razziale), by producing films which depict all Italians as heroic partisans rescuing Jews and fighting German occupation. Shirer pointed out in Rise and Fall of the Third Reich that Mussolini wanted the spoils of war with the Germans doing most of the actual fighting. I think there is more to Vatican neutrality than will ever be admitted by the Holy See.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 10:42, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Mit brennender Sorge was 1937. I know the German newspapers made no menion of it, but how was it possible for the Nazis to portray the Vatican as friendly to their cause after that? If it was just by lying wholesale, that wouldn't seem like an incentive to not invade, since you could just lie about that too. (I also think it's quite funny, given the main criticism of the Vatican regarding that time is that they didn't speak out enough publically, when they claim to have tried to remain neutral to an extent so that they could help more, that the main criticism of Mit brennender Sorge seems to be that they spoke out publically, which led to suppression and limited how much they could help :/ )86.166.42.171 (talk) 12:13, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

An Ode to Neutrality:
Oh, Hitler!
Why do you kill the Jews?
It is wrong
Yet, it fills my pews!
Oh, Hitler!
Why do you make war?
I'll turn a blind eye;
What was it about that Great Whore?

Seriously, though, the Catholic Church was officially neutral (see this), but did take some drastic steps to aid and abet Nazis after WW2. See this. This last link I found is educational, but severly biased, and claims so in the first paragraph, found here. schyler (talk) 13:45, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Related: this editorial from Newsweek this year, in which the author argues in passing that the sovereignty of Vatican City is "bogus", a sweetheart deal between Mussolini and the Papacy that is the last remnant of the Axis Powers. (The author's outrage is that a US cardinal fled to the Vatican where he enjoys ostensible immunity from the child-rape scandals.) Comet Tuttle (talk) 16:47, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Once you start calling another religion The Great Whore, I think it's clear you're just spouting Jehovah's Witness beliefs. A risky move, bringing up random religious slurs, when your own is so easy to mock: but I won't. In any case, Mit brennender Sorge is an early example of the Catholic Church making it's non-neutrality obvious, which led to all sorts of reprisals (as briefly mentioned in the article) and made it harder for many Catholics, particularly priests, to help those in need of help, and also led to many ending up in concentration camps. This offers some support for the claim that they did not make their non-neutrality obvious at other times, and went along with some stuff, to avoid unnecessary deaths and ensure they could continue to do good, since speaking out actually did lead to deaths and a limit on their ability to do good. In any case, the point is that after Palm Sunday 1937, every Catholic in Germany must surely have been aware that the Vatican opposed the actions and beliefs of the Nazis, which was the point of the encyclical. How could they pretend, to these German Catholics, that the Vatican was on friendly terms with the Nazi government? 86.166.42.171 (talk) 17:33, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Well this is all very hypothetical, really; you have to assume that every Catholic knows and/or cares what the Vatican says, which is certainly not true today, at least. Maybe they identified as German first and Catholic second (or further down the line). Adam Bishop (talk) 20:55, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, so then why not invade the Vatican? That's the point: if German Catholcs didn't care, or already knew that the Church opposed the Nazis (as any German Catholic who had attended Mass on Palm Sunday 1937 - a major festival - or knew anyone who did would know, which was why the encyclical was written in German and snuck into all the churches in time for that Mass), why pretend to be friendly with the Vatican? And if you're not pretending to be friends, why not invade? 86.166.42.171 (talk) 22:07, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Jeanne Boleyn, you might find some answers in these pages.

• Reichskonkordat
• Concordat Watch - Germany | Von Papen, papal chamberlain and Nazi negotiator
• Vatican’s Concordat With Hitler's Reich
• Pope Pius XII and the Holocaust

—Wavelength (talk) 01:02, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Tibor Koeves wrote the 1941 book Satan in Top Hat: The Biography of Franz von Papen.

—Wavelength (talk) 01:55, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

There is a page in Italian at Il sistema nazista, where the second last section, "Gli stessi luterani, ...", says that the Vatican did not delay in accepting the terms of the Concordat, because it feared the persecution of Catholics and because it feared that the new regime would consider Protestantism a state religion.

—Wavelength (talk) 16:18, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

There is http://hubpages.com/hub/Why-Didnt-Pope-Pius-XII-Condemn-Hitler-and-the-Holocaust.

—Wavelength (talk) 16:35, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

The Concordat is mentioned briefly at http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/biography/documents/hf_p-xii_bio_20070302_biography_it.html.

—Wavelength (talk) 18:34, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I am curious as to whether or not Pope John Paul II, during his sweeping wave of apologies on behalf of Chutch atrocities committed throughout the centuries, ever offered an aplogy for Pope Pius' indifference? This is not an attack on the Catholic religion or Church, but I am seeking to know why the Germans did not occupy the Vatican? The fact that Hitler was a former Catholic (and desired to enter the priesthood when a lad) does not convince me.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:44, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I do not know about such an apology, but there might be a clue in this document.

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/series_from_vatican_secret_archives_on_pius_xii_going_digital/

—Wavelength (talk) 19:20, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I have just found Category:Pope Pius XII and the Holocaust, into which you might wish to delve. I have other ideas to pursue.

—Wavelength (talk) 19:25, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality is discussed in paragraph 3 at http://ww2db.com/country/vatican_city.

—Wavelength (talk) 20:15, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for all the links. They make very interesting reading.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:09, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Utility of Stock markets

from the article I understand that the stock market gives industries access to cheap credit in the form of IPOs but does actual share trading add value to the economy? Do traders make more money from dividends or from buying cheap shares and selling them when they are expensive?

Where do I find out the ratio of money spent on shares over dividends paid out? Is that ratio a useful indicator of an economy's health?

Lastly are stocks the only method of raising money for ventures from the general public or have other schemes been tried? --Diwakark86 (talk) 15:03, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Companies can also use some bond (finance) to raise money. Sorry no idea where to find ratios of profitability between share price increase and dividends. --Lgriot (talk) 15:58, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Companies can also get a direct loan from a bank or other financial institution. Googlemeister (talk) 18:21, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Banks usually only issue really short term loans to companies. Comet Tuttle (talk) 20:15, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

It really depends. Small businesses loans are fairly similar in many ways to personal loans. Googlemeister (talk) 21:05, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

. Banks want to loan small businesses money for weeks or months, not years. Comet Tuttle (talk) 20:35, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Angel investors. Comet Tuttle (talk) 20:15, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

The ratio isn't a good indicator. Some companies choose to pay a dividend (which means the investor realises some of the benefit from the company doing well right now), others choose to pay down debt, develop new products and new markets, or to reinvest the money (all of which means the investor gets the benefit when they sell their stock). Which a company chooses to do depends on the prevailing tax regimes (in some places dividends are taxed differently to capital gains), the company's plans and its field of operation, and on what the stockholders (through the board) tell it to do. This article discusses whether or not Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway will issue a dividend; as far as I know BH never has. But BH is a very (very) successful company that has made lots of people rich. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 22:02, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

The secondary market (NYSE, CBOE, AMEX, NASDAQ, et. al.) provide liquidity and price discovery. When an investor purchases stock in an IPO they price that stock based on several types of risk including: business, default, and liquidity. If the circumstances in which you can sell your stock and realize a capital gain are very limited, then the liquidity premium charged by investors will be much higher and stock price will be lower. By providing a way to easily trade stocks after their initial purchase, the secondary markets decrease this premium charged and allow the company to realize higher sale prices for their IPO.--74.196.68.191 (talk) 21:38, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

riddle

The people who did it, couldn't have done it.
The people who could have done it, didn't.
The people who didn't do it, should have.
What is it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.230.235.170 (talk) 15:18, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Lied. Googlemeister (talk) 16:29, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Could also be "told the truth." -- kainaw™ 17:18, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Is this a classical riddle from somewhere? I'm not familiar with the reference. Could someone enlighten me please? Buddy431 (talk) 19:02, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

The first statement is false by the Principle of contradiction. Therefore you, sir, are a knave. ;) WikiDao ☯ (talk) 19:25, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Something to do with remembering, perhaps. 92.15.0.194 (talk) 13:54, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Liberal Democratic Party (Japan)

Why is Japan's main conservative party called the Liberal Democratic Party? --J4\/4 <talk> 15:20, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Why wouldn't it be? Names like "liberal" and "conservative" are completely subjective, and take on different contexts in different political systems. The main ends of the political spectrum tend to revolve around "rightist", which tends to be backwards looking, aiming to preserve established order and "leftist", which tends to be forwards looking, aiming to introduce change and advancement to the system. You should also see Classical liberalism, which was a "leftist" philosophy of the 19th century in some parts of the world (especially Europe), but is a clearly "rightist" philosophy of the 21st centure North American political world. --Jayron32 15:36, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Yours is the standard answer, but it seems to me another angle is that the march of history in the West has been to the left for the last few centuries, so a party calling itself "Liberal" -- at some point in history -- might stay in the same place and later find itself to the right of the political center. --Sean 16:46, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Which is pretty much exactly what I said, almost word for word, in the last sentance. --Jayron32 20:29, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Using the international definitions of "liberal" and "democratic," pretty much all major political parties in the industrialized world nowadays are both liberal (supportive of personal freedom and free markets) and democratic (supportive of democracy). The usage of the word "liberal" to mean left of center is pretty much an American thing. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:41, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Because it's a combined name of two parties. The LDP was formed in 1955 as a merger between two of Japan's political parties, the Liberal Party (自由党, Jiyutō, 1950–1955, led by Shigeru Yoshida) and the Japan Democratic Party (日本民主党, Nihon Minshutō, 1954–1955, led by Ichirō Hatoyama), both right-wing conservative parties, as a united front against the then popular Japan Socialist Party. See History of the Liberal Democratic Party (Japan). Oda Mari (talk) 06:25, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

U.S. Bill of Rights

I've heard arguments that the Bill of Rights is preventing the U.S. from becoming some Orwellian nightmare with people arrested for asking the wrong question, etc. Though it could happen, this doesn't seem very likely to me. For one thing, a would-be evil government could have just gotten rid of it by now. Second, it seems like there have got to be some countries that don't have a written document guaranteeing individual rights and yet are free countries. What are they? 68.104.175.130 (talk) 16:59, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you are asking a question here until your last sentence. List of national constitutions has easy links to articles about all current (and some past) constitutions. If we're allowed to pick and choose individual rights, I'll volunteer that Great Britain does not have a constitutionally enshrined freedom of speech. (Correction: The UK incorporated the EU's guarantee of "freedom of expression", as mentioned in this article section. I am not certain whether this would be considered "constitutional". It still has many limitations on freedom of speech not found elsewhere.) Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:05, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

It's of note that in various times in American history, that the Bill of Rights did not protect individual freedom of expression very well. See, e.g., the Alien and Sedition Acts, the Sedition Act of 1918, the two Red Scares, etc. Whenever individual expression runs up against (real or imagined) security threats, it becomes significantly less protected. --Mr.98 (talk) 18:16, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Read the article Inter arma enim silent leges. Many rights are de facto (if not de jure) suspended during a war. This also happened during the American civil war and World War II. It's the same story everywhere. Flamarande (talk) 18:35, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

To some degree, but it's worth noting that a lot of the periods in question did not take place during any declared war, and its pretty debatable whether or not we'd agree today with those suspensions (e.g. the use of the Sedition Act during WWI to prosecute anybody who implied that the war wasn't a great thing to go off and fight, or even cast historical aspersions against the British). --Mr.98 (talk) 19:35, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

We just had a question sort of relating to this: Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2010_October_25#how_do_I_protect_my_utopia.27s_constittution_against_corrupt_judges. I think that people put a lot more stock in the U.S. constitution than they probably should. There are many countries without a written constitution that do a pretty good job protecting civil liberties (the U.K is a pretty good example). There are also lots of countries with written constitutions that nominally protect civil liberties, but where civil liberties are still not very well respected (Russia, maybe [1]). It takes a lot more than a written document to ensure that civil liberties are maintained. It takes a legal and political culture that respects civil liberties. It takes judges who are able to rule that something the government is doing is wrong, and it takes a legal culture that respects the rulings of said judges. Buddy431 (talk) 19:00, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

IP: a few points you're missing:

1. The design of the constitution is such that 'getting rid of' articles is extremely difficult. a would-be evil government would have to be incredibly powerful and entrenched to do (at minimum dominating 2/3 majorities of the both the house and the senate, and controlling the white house and the supreme court). It would (frankly) be easier to hold a coup and suspend/rewrite the constitution than amend it by conventional means.
2. Every country - even highly repressive regimes - claim that they are free countries protecting the rights of their citizens. In fact, most citizens of most countries - even highly repressive regimes - enjoy a comfortable degree of safety and freedom. The problem lies with those who are considered 'subversive' or otherwise dangerous to the state. The Bill of Rights is designed (primarily) to prevent a regime from stamping out opposition or undesirables through brute force. You might think that stamping out problematic elements through brute force is a good idea, if you're thinking about (say) terrorists. But in fact terrorist is just a label, and I don't think you'd want (say) the Republicans to declare that the Democratic party is a terrorist organization and stamp them out with brute force.
3. The only places that do not have something like a bill of rights but but maintain a high degree of liberal freedom are fringe regions that have set themselves up as havens for semi-legal activities: Monaco, the Cayman Islands, etc. These places protect the rights of people because people give them lots and lots (and lots) of money to protect those rights, usually from the legal authority of other states. Countries that do not rely on their reputation for discretion as the primary element of their GNP tend to make bright-line distinctions between 'good' citizens and 'bad' citizens, and many, many regimes view Bills of Rights as an impediment to protecting national interests against 'bad' citizens.

just so you know...--Ludwigs2 19:05, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

All countries, by definition, have a constitution (small c), in the sense that a constitution is the foundational principles that allow the government to govern. Even an absolute monarchy has a constitution, in the sense that the basic idea "What the monarch says, goes" is ultimately a "constitution" of sorts. Not all countries have a Constitution (big C), meaning a document that defines how the government works. There's nothing that says that a Constitution is required in order to have an orderly government. The U.K. has no Constitution (that is, single organizing document), but it certainly has a constitution, that is a set of guiding principles that organizes and defines the parameters of the government. Even in the U.S., there are constitutional principles (that is, fundemental parameters which define the role and scope of the government) which are not explicitly stated in the Constitution, but which are generally accepted to be, nonetheless, constitutional. Among these are judicial review and the right to privacy. There is unlikely to be any notable correspondance between writting down a set of rights of the citizen, and actual existance of those rights. There are likely as many countries which guarantee freedom of speech (or something similar) in writing, and then don't provide it for its citizens as there are countries which have no explicit guarantee, but where such freedom is widely availible. --Jayron32 20:38, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

"while I understand the point you're making, you're really stretching the hell out of the word. All societies are 'constituted' (meaning that they have an implicit set of pragmatic rules that define the society as a functional unit), but that's not the same as having a constitution. --Ludwigs2 01:47, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

As I've mentioned several times on this page, many authoritarian countries have had constitutions that theoretically were very liberal with broad protections for human rights that were completely ignored, while the U.K. has no written constitution and is a fairly free country. That is not to say the U.S. Bill of Rights means nothing -- the First Amendment, for example, leads to some very important differences compared with British society. But what's most important is a culture that values human rights. Without that, all the constitutional guarantees in the world mean nothing. The Bill of Rights is a product of the relative liberalism of American society (and the British society where it came from), not the cause of it. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:37, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

That's a naive view of complex American politics. The Bill of Rights, via court orders, has stopped many, many intrusions upon personal liberties in every state. Comet Tuttle (talk) 00:26, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm definitely not saying the Bill of Rights makes no difference. I said above you can see its impact in the differences between U.S. and British laws, for example. However, the Bill of Rights and the subsequent interpretations of it are products of liberalism that were already extant in American society, not the causes of that liberalism. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:04, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, as historian Gordon S. Wood recently wrote in Empire of Liberty, "The Bill of Rights remained judicially dormant until the twentieth century" (p. 72). Because of the high status of the Bill of Rights today, it's tempting to imagine that the courts have been using the Bill of Rights to protect individual liberties for more than 200 years, but it's just not so. A number of the original 13 states did not even bother to preserve or keep track of their official copy of the Bill of Rights. Americans of the 19th century valued their liberties as much as we do today, if not more so, but they didn't look to the Bill of Rights to protect those liberties in the way that Americans do today. —Kevin Myers 02:25, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

That's playing a little loose with "20th century" and your other dates... the Bill of Rights weren't largely applied to State actions until after the passage of the 14th Amendment in the late 1860s. Echoing the comments above, the people who apply the constitution are critical to how strongly it's enforced, however it's willfully naive to imply that the Bill of Rights was irrelevant until the 20th century: it functioned as it was intended--to restrain the federal government. At the end of the civil war the 14th Amendment represented a massive change in constitutional coverage. There's no anomaly there, and I don't think Wood ever suggests otherwise. Shadowjams (talk) 09:29, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

No, the Bill of Rights was not applied to the states in the late 1860s. The 14th Amendment was eviscerated soon after passage, starting with the Slaughter-House Cases in 1873. The incorporation of the Bill of Rights is a 20th century phenomenon. As to the misapprehension that the Bill of Rights has always meant what it means now, Eric Foner writes: "Today, when Americans are asked to define freedom, they instinctively turn to the Bill of Rights and especially the First Amendment, with its guarantees of freedom of speech, the press, and religion. Yet the Bill of Rights aroused little enthusiasm on ratification and for decades was all but ignored. Not until the twentieth century would it come to be revered as a quintessential expression of American freedom." (The story of American freedom, p. 25) —Kevin Myers 12:30, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

You misread what I wrote. It was passed in 1868. I didn't discuss its application to the states (incorporation). But it's missing the big picture to call the Bill of Rights dead letter until incorporation against the states. Jefferson used the Bill of Rights to protest the Alien and Sedition Acts. And although there aren't as many cases specifically dealing with the Bill of Rights prior to the Civil War as there are after, Barron v. Baltimore was considering the 5th Amendment in the 1830s. In fact, there are even examples of state supreme courts using the Bill of Rights prior to actual incorporation Nunn v. Georgia is a good example.

I can't argue with your central point, which is whether or not Americans considered it important until after incorporation, but I think it's hyperbole to call it judicially dormant. Shadowjams (talk) 21:35, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Poppy day

Why does England use a poppy + oak leaf while Scotland uses a poppy alone? Kittybrewster ☎ 17:47, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

The poppies are made and the annual Poppy Appeal run by two different organisations in the two countries. In England The Royal British Legion runs the Appeal and its poppies are made at its factory in Richmond. In Scotland the Appeal has since 1921 been run by Earl Haig Fund Scotland (latterly rebranded as Poppyscotland) which states on its website:

"Why is there a different poppy in England, Wales and Northern Ireland? - Since Earl Haig first launched the Poppy Appeal in Scotland in 1921, we have always had our own unique design. The Scottish poppy features four petals, whereas the poppy produced by the Royal British Legion for their appeal in England, Wales and Northern Island has two petals and a green leaf."

As for the oak leaf, have you a reference stating that's what it is? I agree it does look a bit like an oak leaf, but I've always assumed that it's a stylised poppy leaf outline, which is in reality rather too fractal to model accurately with a simple paper cutout. If it is indeed an oak leaf, I too would be interested to know why. Anyone? 87.81.230.195 (talk) 19:01, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

No; somebody told me it is an oak leaf but I can't verify it. Kittybrewster ☎ 19:58, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I've just bought my poppy for this year and all I can say is, if it's supposed to be an oak leaf it's a really poor effort. Compare your paper leaf with this[2]. I'm certain it's supposed to be a stylised poppy leaf. Alansplodge (talk) 21:59, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Appeal

In Jimmy Wales appeal he says that wikipedia is the 5th most popular website in the world. He goes on to say that the four others have been built and maintained with billions of dollars in investment, huge corporate staff and relentless marketing. I'd like to know who are the top four websites, but I'd also like to know if Wikipedia is run with only individual donations or do big businesses also donate, and if so, why? As for marketing, surely Wikipedia must market themselves in some way, whether it's relentless or not. Jack forbes (talk) 20:41, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Jimmy refers to the Alexa ranking system, where Wikipedia bounces around a bit between fifth and seventh place. The four busiest sites are Google, Facebook, Yahoo!, and Baidu. Wikipedia is primarily run from individual donations, though there have been substantial grants from bodies such as the Stanton Foundation, the Ford Foundation, the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, etc. A small number of companies (such as Google) have also donated money, though there were no strings attached to the donations. As for marketing, the budget is really, really, REALLY low. The annual fundraiser still raises by far the largest proportion of funds for the Foundation. Other marketing efforts include the frequent talks given by Jimmy and a few other Foundation members to raise awareness and support, the annual Wikimania conference, collaborations between chapters and local GLAMs and...well...that's about it, really. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 21:01, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your detailed answer, GeeJO. Much appreciated. Jack forbes (talk) 11:26, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

electric guitar canon!

I don't mean Canon in D or whatever - I mean a real CANON!! How do I find one on Youtube??? I want to see six or eight or - God forbid - TEN guitars, coming in one stanza after the other, in a giant wall of CANON SOUND. The first five seconds of this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GTdt-Tyaa3M&feature=related has inspired me on this quest. How do I find it?? First five seconds is gold. 85.181.145.78 (talk) 21:38, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

p.s. It doesnt' matter what the canon is OF as long as it's not pachelbel!

Try looking through different practitioners of Neo-classical metal, especially Yngwie Malmsteen. --Jayron32 02:11, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Model of the US government

Hey all! I'm doing a project for my History class concerning the elections now taking place. I need to make a graphic to accompany it, and I was wondering if this would be an accurate critical representation of the US government:

Party A is in power; problems exist -> Party A is voted out of power; Party B is voted into power for promises to fix the problems -> Party B spends 3/4 of its time in power repealing Party A's actions and 1/4 passing new actions, most of which are either trivial or will not come into effect until after or close to election time -> Problems still exist under Party B; people are dissatisfied -> Repeat (switching all parties) Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.92.78.167 (talk) 22:35, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

A bit cynical, and I think you overestimate how much time is spent repealing past laws. Most of the time is spent advancing petty causes and pork barrel politics GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 23:17, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

The question is whether that model applies historically or not. It sounds a bit too much like a post-2008 political analysis, rather than a general model. Here, for example, is a nice graphic that illustrates the back and forth of party control of the Presidency, the House, and the Senate over the entire history of the US. As you can see from it pretty clearly, while there is some back and forth, it is not a simple "one party, then the other party, then the other party again" model. Note, for example, Democratic dominance of Congress from 1955-1981, even though the Presidency switched on a fairly regular basis. --Mr.98 (talk) 23:20, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

The way that Congress works, it's pretty difficult to get things done. This is by design. This includes repealing past laws. For example, it seems that a great many Republicans have been swearing with a straight face that they are going to make "repeal Obamacare" a priority, should they come into power; but this is wishful thinking; these attempts will get filibustered in the Senate. Comet Tuttle (talk) 00:17, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, with a majority in the senate, Democrats won't need to filibuster it, they can just vote such attempts down. Googlemeister (talk) 14:59, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Royal Saints

Why did Western European monarchies have less saints who were monarchs then Eastern European monarchies? A fair amount of Byzantine emperors and empresses were canonized by the Eastern Orthodox Church which may have been their autocratic power over the Church and State, but the ratio of Royal Saints in England compare to Hungary, both Catholic states, Hungary has far more; most of the Arpad dynasty were canonized while England had only Edward the Confessor. France, also, for being such an ancient monarchy had few saint kings.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 23:19, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

There are a couple of answers to this. Firstly, the Papacy was a temporal power in addition to a spiritual power. Hungary and other Catholic Eastern European nations weren't really all that big of a threat to either the Papacy itself, or any of the city-states of the Italian Peninsula, where the vast majority of Popes originated from. So it didn't "cost" anything to canonise nobles in such places, where canonising the King of France or England would grant their successors unnecessary additional power. Secondly, Eastern Europe was near-constantly engaged in military conflicts with Pagan and Muslim powers, which both gave monarchs opportunities to demonstrate their worth to the Church, and meant that securing the Catholicism of the populace was pretty important (letting the locals know that their kings were good Catholics gave them both a source of pride and good role-models for repelling the infidels.) Thirdly, a lot of Western kings simply weren't that pious. For every Edward the Confessor there was a Henry VIII, for every Saint Louis a Charles V. Fourthly, though a minor point, there weren't that many Popes from France or England (only Pope Adrian IV for the latter), so there was no particular predisposition for favouritism towards either country for most of the time. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 23:54, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

And England doesn't only have Edward the Confessor. There's also Edward the Martyr, Alfred the Great (according to some Catholics), and Charles I of England (according to the Anglicans). If you allow monarchs before England was united, there's a long list in the sub-categories of Category:Anglo-Saxon saints. Warofdreams talk 02:07, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

The churches are also organized differently. Canonization in the Orthodox church is much more informal than the bureaucratic formality of the Roman church. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:08, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. It took almost 500 years for the Church to canonise Joan of Arc!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:55, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

The OP mentions Hungary as an example, and that was historically a Roman Catholic country. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:08, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

True, but Hungary is a special case; it was Christianized rather late, St. Stephen was (or so later kings believed) crowned by the Pope, and they were frequently putting down rebellions and waging war against pagans. This may be in contrast to Spain, where they were always fighting Muslims, but had always been Christian and had no particular special relationship with the Papacy. I don't know the exact process of canonization for the Hungarian kings, but since they were also heavily influenced by Byzantium, it could be that the kings were just considered saints by everyone, in the Orthodox sense, and this was later accepted by Rome. Adam Bishop (talk) 14:58, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

November 3

Roger Corman saying of himself that he's not an artist, but a businessman

I have vague memories of him saying this, but need to find a definite reference. Can anyone help? Thanks Adambrowne666 (talk) 01:50, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

You may be remembering that Samuel Z. Arkoff said of him "I'm not saying Roger's not a good director. I'm saying that, from the beginning, he was an entrepreneur." See Ed Naha, The Films of Roger Corman: brilliance on a budget (1982), p. 91. Moonraker2 (talk) 02:56, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I also found an interview with Jonathan Demme saying

"Roger also said something I'll never forget. He said that as far as he was concerned the formula for a director was 40 percent artist, 60 percent businessman."

(From an interview by Adrian Wootton in the Guardian (October 10, 1998) Guardian News & Media Ltd. Reprinted in Jonathan Demme : Interviews, Robert E. Kapsis, University Press of Mississippi, 2009, p96)

A snippet I caught in the The Films of Roger Corman - Shooting My Way out of Trouble (Alan G. Frank, BT Batsford, 1998, p40), has

"I'm not a pure artist by any means, but I'm not a pure businessman either; I'm a little of both, and, being that way, I can make movies the way I think they should be made - on low budgets."

I couldn't find out where and when Corman made that statement. ---Sluzzelin talk 00:11, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, both of you - they're useful, despite that they're not what I'm looking for. As ever, it's one of my false memories (Chris Marker says memory is thinly wrapped around a well of forgetting -- or something - forgotten that too now). Nice to see you, Sluzz. Adambrowne666 (talk) 06:41, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

ACTUAL poll results of the Delaware Senate race?

This is driving me crazy. Coons won handily, as many articles say, over O'Donnell. But I can't find a single damn article giving the estimate percentages! Other Delaware races list the percentages - Attorney General, etc - in the same article but none give the Senate results. Would someone please help me track down a number? I'm starting to suspect it was just an outrageous landslide and people are being polite by not reporting the numbers... The Masked Booby (talk) 02:10, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

See here. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:23, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Also just found this one. The Masked Booby (talk) 02:27, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

For all races, this is perhaps the best (neutral) source: [[3]]. DOR (HK) (talk) 05:17, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Canterbury Tales

One of the things I like about my edition of Beowulf (trans by Seamus Heaney) is having the original language text opposite the modern English translation. I'd like to get an edition of The Canterbury Tales that does the same thing, but the blurbs included by most online booksellers often don't mention such details and there have been... a few translations to say the least. Can anyone recommend a particular edition that does this and which hopefully is also well translated? An ISBN would be great. I live in Canada and order from Chapters and Amazon.ca semi-regularly. I don't mind paying a bit if the book is good. Thanks! 99.236.168.205 (talk) 04:09, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I thought I remembered that Penguin published a copy of the Nevill Coghill translation with original and translation on facing pages, but I can't find it. I find attempts to translate into modern-language poetry to be a little distracting for the prologues and most of the tales (would prefer to read a prose translation)... AnonMoos (talk) 08:32, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

What you need is a parallel text. A swift Google of "parallel text"+"Canterbury tales" produces several results, including some online editions, such as this. DuncanHill (talk) 10:15, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Just a mention that (unlike Beowulf) it's not too difficult to read Chaucer in the original English. We studied it at school without a translation, but with the help of a glossary at the back of the text. I've looked at some translations since but IMHO they seem to lose some of the flavour of the thing. Alansplodge (talk) 21:10, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip, Duncan; knowing the term will makes things easier. I understand the reservations of the poster above, which is why I wanted a parallel text (without knowing what it was) so that I could switch back and forth at will. Thanks all. 99.236.168.205 (talk) 21:17, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Guitar technique question

I was listening to a song by Tool and there is an odd sounding guitar technique used towards the end. Fastforward to about minute 7:50 here. Is that a single guitar or two guitars playing in unison. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 04:11, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

If you are refering to the rapid notes played at the end of the song, see shred guitar for some general ideas on the technique; a reasonably talented guitar player (read: someone better than me) can achieve such speed using hammer-on and pull-off technique. Just about any professional player uses these techniques with regularity. It's fast in that song, but not outside of the norm. --Jayron32 05:00, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, it's hammering on the bottom 3 strings. It's fast, but a bit easier to play than it sounds because it's a repeated pattern using open strings. What really makes it sound distinctive is that the bass and drums are playing quickly in unison with the guitar, an approach most associated with old Rush. That's what makes it difficult: three guys playing quickly in unision is hard to do; I've even heard Rush screw up the intro to "The Spirit of Radio" when playing live. —Kevin Myers 08:49, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Serving process on un-sue-able defendants

Let's say that I want to become the next Jonathan Lee Riches, so I start suing anything and everything for no reason at all. Would my suits against un-sue-able defendants, such as the Appalachian Trail, be thrown out specifically on the technicality that the defendants weren't capable of receiving the paperwork? Or would some court agent deliver the paperwork to a related entity, such as the National Park Service or whoever it is that administers the Appalachian Trail? Nyttend (talk) 04:45, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

As noted in the article you cite, many of Riches suits are dismissed more-or-less instantaneously for being farcical or intentional disruptive to the judicial system, i.e. the suits were not legitimate suits for relief from the named defendants, but were specifically just to fuck with the judicial system. I think that, in cases where someone in good faith wishes to file suit on a non-suable entity, a reasonable proxy would be found (such as the National Park Service or the Appalachian Trail Conservancy for the suit you site). This is also why people get lawyers. If you went to any lawyer and said "I wish to sue the Appalachian Trail for damages", then that lawyer would ascertain the correct entity to name as a defendant, and would file proper paperwork. --Jayron32 04:55, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

An interesting article on difficulties with suing entities that are non-corporeal is Lawsuits against God. Googlemeister (talk) 14:55, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Out sourcing support services

Hello, I operate a small company which publishes medical educational software. We wish to out source our customer service and support functions. Does any one know of a firm who can provide said services cheaply? Does any one have any advice on how I find such a firm?

It might be easier to give a useful answer if you were to disclose in which country or countries in the World you are located in and wish to market to. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 15:43, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

The OP's IP geolocated to Worcester, Massachusetts, USA --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:52, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

This isn't what the original poster wanted to hear, but I feel the need to play the devil's advocate and recommend that these functions be kept inhouse whenever possible, because that's possibly the most important point of contact you have with your customers, which are the reason for your company's existence; and do you really want to outsource that critical relationship to individuals who have no real stake in your company's success? Comet Tuttle (talk) 16:26, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Bonds: maturity and interest

Why does a 10 years bonds have a higher interest than a 2 years bonds? It seems logical at the first glance, you'll money will be tied longer, so they pay you more for that. However, you can buy a 10 years bond and re-sell it in a secondary market after 2 years. So, if you just want to tie your money down for only 2 years, why would you go with the 2 years bond? Quest09 (talk) 13:22, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Two things: one, secondary market participants aren't going to pay you what you paid for the bond because some of the coupons have already been paid. two, you face the risk of a price movement against you (in addition to the effect already mentioned) in the bond market in two years' time or even a risk that no-one wants to buy it from you at all because, for example, a global financial crisis has happened.

From the other perspective, the issuer of the bond doesn't care whether or not you sell it - the important thing for them is that they've got the money for 10 years' time, and they are willing to pay more for the security of having that than only having the money for 2 years and then having to refinance in 2 years' time. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 13:35, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

See yield curve. 92.15.0.194 (talk) 14:39, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I am doubtful about PalaceGuard008's first couple of assertions. All other things being equal (and things are never equal — prevailing interest rates and the general economic outlook change), Treasury bonds on the secondary market sell for about what you paid for them, regardless of how many coupons have been paid, with the price becoming particularly stable toward maturity, because the bondholder gets paid the face value of the bond at maturity. That stability may actually be the reason that investors are preferring 2-year bonds rather than 10-year bonds. I second 92's reference to the yield curve article; what you're talking about is an "inverted yield curve". That article attributes an inverted yield curve to a belief that interest rates are going to fall; but there must be other factors, because interest rates can't fall, really, any lower than they are now. Comet Tuttle (talk) 16:23, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

If ten year bonds have a higher interest rate than two year bonds, then its not an inverted yield curve as far as I am aware. 92.24.178.95 (talk) 17:26, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Ack, that's what I get for not reading carefully. You're correct, sorry; I've stricken various statements of mine above. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:06, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Think of it this way: Suppose you know that, in two years, you will need to pay $100,000. You can buy a two-year U.S. Treasury obligation for $99,245, and in two years it will mature, with your aggregate principal and interest amounting to $100,000. (For this purpose, it doesn't matter whether you buy a newly-issued two-year note or a longer-term note or bond that has only two years of remaining maturity.)

But that gives you an interest rate of only 0.38%, and you want more. You decide instead to buy a ten-year instrument, which pays 2.67%, so you'll only have to pay $94,866 to buy it. You're a clear $4,379 the richer!

Now it's two years later, and your plan is to sell the note and realize the $100,000 you need. Unfortunately, in the interim interest rates have jumped to 6%. People aren't willing to pay you $100,000, because they can buy an eight-year note for about $77,465 that, in eight years time, will be worth as much as the note you're selling. You're short by $22,535 (or by more than $18,000, if you banked the $4,379 you saved originally).

Investors don't want to take that risk, so they insist on higher interest rates for longer-term obligations. Also, there is more risk that the borrower will be unable to repay if the period is longer (that's less of a concern if the borrower is the U.S. Treasury), so they require a higher interest rate to reflect that risk as well.

I haven't checked my numbers, so there may be some errors in there somewhere, but that should be good enough to outline the basic concerns. John M Baker (talk) 18:26, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I may be missing something here, but Comet Tuttle seems to be only referring to government bonds? Corporate bonds do not usually trade at par on the secondary market. Does the term "bond" only refer to government bonds in the US? --195.33.121.133 (talk) 09:29, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Some of the comments above are quite confusing and misleading. Let's compare two bonds issued by the same company and have the same coupon rate but Bond A matures in 2 years and Bond B matures in 10 years. The interest rate on B will likely be higher for the following reasons (technically, it's the gross redemption yield that will be higher - but I assume that's what you are referring to):

• B has more credit risk. This is because you are taking a longer view on the credit riskiness of the company when you buy B. You could, as you say, go to the market after 2 years and sell B but you take the risk that the market's outlook for the company has changed (e.g. its credit rating is lower) or the market's outlook for the industry/class/etc has changed in those two years and therefore B is worth less. The former risk is usually included in "credit risk" - the second is market risk.
• B might be less liquid. If this is the case the market will require additional compensation for liquidity risk.
• Volatility. The ten year bond has a higher duration and therefore is more sensitive to general changes to interest rates (ie higher interest rate risk). This might also impact the gross yield.

So basically investors are risk averse so they require more yield for more risk. That's why B would be cheaper. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 17:07, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

What is an International petition?

And should Wikipedia have an article about it? I recently heard about international petitions, and I could only find petitions to sign, but no other information. Wikipedia have several articles that mention it, and at least I could learn in Arndt Pekurinen that they were already used in 1930. Seems like they have an interesting history, and some of them seems notable. What do you say? Kind regards, Dodoïste (talk) 14:02, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Surely this is just a petition which people in multiple countries are encouraged to sign? If you've found some interesting material on the origins or growth of this practice, I think this would fit well into the petition article. Warofdreams talk 16:15, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I moved this discussion to Talk:Petition, and we'll see if someone can find interesting material to add to the article. Yours, Dodoïste (talk) 01:40, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

NY Elections

Are recounts mandatory in all NYS elections? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.194.5.142 (talk) 18:01, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I can find nothing at Elections in New York nor at New York state elections to indicate if it does. The article Election recount indicates that mandatory recounts do exist, but makes no indication of which jurisdictions use them. --Jayron32 01:36, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

It appears that recounts can only be ordered by courts in New York: [4]. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:59, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

What states allow voting on taxes?

Is there a list on wiki of what states allow what sorts of rights to votes on taxes in the US? I know some states in the East for example don't or almost never vote on taxes and it's State Legislature and Governor, but then some states like CA, WA, and OR do stupid things like letting people micromanage all sorts of tax laws and rules and rates with voting. Is there a list comparing all of these state by state? Please leave a note on my talk when you answer in case I miss it Merrill Stubing (talk) 21:27, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

There are many levels of tax: City tax, County tax, State tax, and Federal tax are the main ones. A list as you mention would be too large to be worth much of anything. I am certain that every state, at some point, has put some sort of tax up for vote. County and city governments often put taxes up for vote. I have never seen a Federal tax up for vote. Also, keep in mind that there are many kinds of tax at each level: sales tax, property tax, and income tax are just the very well-known ones. There is also alcohol tax, gasoline tax, inheritance (death) tax, etc... -- kainaw™ 23:48, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

See Initiatives and referendums in the United States. In some states, these are known as "propositions", while in Europe, they are often called "plebiscites". Not every state uses them, and not all states use them for the same thing. The article is also somewhat inaccurate, in that it lists North Carolina as "not having initiatives or referendums" but it does have what are called "Ballot Measures" in limited usage, municipalities and counties can only issue municipal bonds if voted on in a Ballot Measure. --Jayron32 01:31, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

November 4

US State declaring bankruptcy

Has a US state ever declared bankruptcy? I have a friend from the state of Indiana who claims they once defaulted and as such came to an agreement with their creditors that they are disallowed to ever take on debt. I can't find anything about this, and it sounds a little excessive - I'm sure there's a nugget of truth to what he told me, as well as an exaggeration. I'm interested because I'm absolutely convinced California is on the path to bankruptcy (or bailout) - if there were a way to invest against it, I would take it.

On a side note, are there any municipalities not mentioned at Category:Government units that have filed for Chapter 9 bankruptcy that have declared bankruptcy? Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:01, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Your friend is thinking of the Indiana Mammoth Internal Improvement Act and its aftermath. DuncanHill (talk) 00:11, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

"So, what shall we call this act to enable really big improvements to our state infrastructure ?"

"Well, we could call it the Really Big Internal Improvement Act."

"Naah, that just sounds silly. How about ..." Gandalf61 (talk) 10:55, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, many did in the 19th century. Here is a page with some examples, don't know how complete it is. The last mentioned is Arkansas in 1933.John Z (talk) 00:43, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

That's not exactly right. They may have defaulted, but that's always been different than "bankruptcy". The link you provided doesn't even talk about bankruptcies, and in 1933 the Bankruptcy Act of 1898 was in effect which certainly didn't permit States to declare bankruptcy (or put more correctly, the States didn't allow the federal government to administrate their debts). Shadowjams (talk) 09:20, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

If you think California's fiscal situation is going to hell, one way you can profit is by buying credit default swaps on California debt. A CDS is insurance against default. The greater the risk of default, the higher the price of the CDS. You could have tripled your money in a few months last winter had you bought CDS's on Greek debt and sold them during the peak of the European debt crisis. That said, I don't know where an average person can go to buy credit default swaps. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:55, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

With regard to the "1840s" entry in John Z's link, Sydney Smith was rather upset that Pennsylvania defaulted on its bonds (in which he had invested) and vented his spleen on the subject in some articles and letters, as was Wordsworth, who wrote a sonnet "On the Pennsylvanians". The state apparently did, however, eventually make good on its debt. Deor (talk) 01:59, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

The above link (how it's described) isn't accurate... States cannot declare bankruptcy. In fact, States cannot be compelled to pay their debts (except maybe to the federal government). In fact the link is really referring to modern municipality bankruptcies which are covered under Chapter 9, but implicitly are with the consent of the state that they're in. The states have sovereign immunity which effectively precludes them from federal court jurisdiction, except in specific circumstances. The 11th amendment provides some key background on this fact. But no, a State has never formally declared Bankruptcy under the modern constitution, to my knowledge. I'd be very surprised if I'm wrong on that point... although if I am please tell me soon... Shadowjams (talk) 09:18, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Help in identifying found necklace for unknown deity (possibly Germanic in origin?)

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3544/3336377574_af608d9a32_m.jpg http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3369/3336377368_78d76f9abd_m.jpg http://www.flickr.com/photos/36083176@N05/

So, kind of a long story but, about 15 years ago my oldest brother found this somewhere near our middle school. We asked the nuns there at the time what it was and the only answer we could get was the usual "it's the devil!" My brother passed away last year, and while settling his belongings we rediscovered it in a small jewelry box. Since then I have been trying to figure out what it is, but have had little luck.

I think it is related to late 1800's American Occultism because of the amalgamation of several different mythologies. The serpent eating it's tail is Germanic in origin I believe. The body of the figure on the front reminds me more of a Greek or Roman deity, but the head seems Egyptian. The text is Greek I believe, and the ABPACAE on the back I have seen referred to as a "mystic name" but I have no idea what that really means. Anyone have any ideas? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.8.46.60 (talk) 00:26, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

There is some information in our article on Abraxas (aka Abrasax). It even has an image of a similar piece of jewelry. ---Sluzzelin talk 00:33, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Just beat me to it... see also this image. Also, my sympathies about your brother. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:35, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

And see in particular the section on Abrasax stones. The creature is sometimes called "anguiped". ---Sluzzelin talk 00:37, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

North & South Indian migrants in Northeast India

How many North and South Indians migrate to Northeast India each year? How many of them return from the Northeast India? 99.245.73.51 (talk) 03:01, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

The number of South Indians would be quite marginal, limited to staff in government institutions. --Soman (talk) 02:12, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

A political science question on violence in some areas

Any good resources/links/starting points for this question:

Why have some ethnically diverse countries and localities experienced many instances of violence, while others have not? Evaluate the competing theoretical approaches, and examining the empirical evidence in the cases of India, Nigeria, former Yugoslavia, and Rwanda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.247.147.31 (talk) 06:39, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

We don't answer homework questions here, unless you show that you did at least some of the work yourself and are stuck at some particular point. That said, ex-Yugoslavia was a model multicultural state up until to the war, so it had a by far longer history of peace and cooperation between ethnicities than it did of violence. TomorrowTime (talk) 17:38, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I'll add, this is a very complex question with a number of different theoretical approaches. you'd best stick to the resources your teacher pointed you to, oterwise you're going to swamp yourself and/or doa crappy job with it. --Ludwigs2 21:42, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Eugene O'Neill play with "Ape II" yacht and rowing crew race?

Hi, all. I'm almost sure I remember reading a short O'Neill play, years and years ago, in which one of the scenes took place on a yacht named, Ape II. Can anyone remind me of the name of the play? I recall the yacht belonged to a wealthy industrialist. Its socialite passengers were watching an Ivy-League crew (rowing) race on some American river and, as I recall, the dramatic tension was supposed to revolve around whether the industrialist's son ("Gordon"?) had inherited a tendency to mental illness from, I think, his troubled mother. It wasn't a very plausible story line, nor a very creditable work, as I recall (although I esteem O'Neill mightily for his other work); the idea was that if the son's team won the race that would somehow prove that he had not inherited the tendency. Btw, I'm of course familiar with The Hairy Ape; that's not the play I'm thinking of. Extra points ;-) if anyone happens to remember the home port of the yacht; I'm pretty sure that was mentioned in the play, as well. I'm asking because a good friend has a life-ring labeled "Ape II" and (I think) something like "Vinalhaven" as the home port that he displays in his home and that he says belonged to a relative's yacht by that name. It looks like a theatrical prop to me, seems to be made of paper and paste, and I think I recall the boat and port from O'Neill. Don't worry, I don't intend to call him on the conceit ( we all have our secret vanities, I suppose ) but the thing always sets my brain a-buzz, trying to remember the name of the play, every time I visit his house, and it would be nice to know. Any help appreciated. Best,  – OhioStandard (talk) 09:39, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

What you're describing is almost certainly Act 8 of Strange Interlude, but in a hasty scan of the act I don't see that the boat is anywhere named, Ape II or otherwise. Deor (talk) 11:48, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Huh! I'd read Strange Interlude at least twice, I know, although not for a decade or two. I just now re-read Act 8, and you're of course correct. But no mention of Ape II. Very odd. I suppose it's possible I've confused two distinct stories in my recollection. Perhaps a short play by a different (?) author, published along with Strange Interlude in a collection of plays? I was so nearly certain ... As I recall, the industrialist yacht-owner was touting himself as something like the next step in man's evolutionary development, and had named his boat accordingly. I'm more confused about my recollection than ever, but I appreciate your reply, Deor, very much, indeed. Thank you.  – OhioStandard (talk) 13:47, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Male and female accents (?)

For some reason, I am absolutely "deaf" to regional accents spoken by male native speakers of my language. That is, I don't notice their accents until I really try to. I've been involve with acoustics for quite a while and listening to people is an important part of my RL work. I can analyze voices acoustically, emotionally etc. - but the former takes effort. The same regional accents in women's voices seem striking - they are the first thing I hear. So, silly jokes aside, is it just my own idiosyncrasy, or a sampling bias glitch, or is it something related to the physics of female formants? Or could it be that the same accent is, indeed, radically different between men and women from the same area, same social and educational background etc.? East of Borschov 10:23, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Anecdotally, having grown up with parents of four different accents (father was vaguely Oxonian, mum is East London by way of a decade or so in Scotland, stepfather is NZ, stepmother is quite plummy) and the associated extended family accents, there isn't much difference except in timbre. I'm thinking specifically of my maternal great-aunt and uncle, who are fairly cockney and indistinguishable apart from the basic male/female differences. Out of curiosity, are you able to distinguish the gay accent? While it seems to be confined to male homosexuals, it's still fairly distinct within (and occasionally from) a regional/class/etc accent. Your ability to hear/not hear that might shed some clue as to how or why your hearing difference exists. → ROUX ₪ 10:45, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I have an interesting story that relates to this question. It's a bit long; I hope you won't object to that.

I'm friends with a speech-language pathologist, and a large part of her work involves listening over and over to recordings she has made of school kids who have complex speech impediments, trying to figure out what the kid is doing wrong with regard to placement of his lips/mouth/tongue as he speaks. A single sound substitution can often be identified by an untrained listener: when a five-year old can't say the letter "S", for example, it's typical that he will (unknowingly) substitute a letter he can enunciate; I once met one of her young clients who called his friend "Sam" by the sound "Ham". But when, as is often the case, a kid's speech is more of a jumble, and multiple substitutions for different sounds are taking place, it requires a lot of patience from a trained professional listening to the same "conversation", over and over, trying to understand what the kid is trying to communicate.

I remember one kid, in particular: My friend had listened to a recording of an initial session with him probably 20 times, with very little success. Even the kid's mother had great difficulty understanding him. My friend was very frustrated with her lack of progress. On a week end she visited another friend, who had made some marijuana brownies to try to help cope with the sickness from chemotherapy. My own friend isn't a drug user, had tried marijuana only in college, and that on a limited basis, but for some reason she indulged in eating a marijuana brownie with her friend. I saw her about six hours later, when she thought, as she said, the effects had completely subsided. Evidently they hadn't; because when she listened again to the recording of the kid, she was amazed. ( She always brings work home, she's profoundly dedicated; very overworked school employee. ) I was there, and I have no doubt from her response that her report of being able to understand the kid perfectly, without effort, was 100% accurate. She listened to tapes she had of other kids (three she'd puzzled out previously, one she hadn't listened to again after the initial evaluation) and had the same amazing experience of easy comprehension, no effort at all, she said, immediate understanding without having to replay and replay the recording, as she usually did. The results held up, too, i.e. the notes she made while evidently "under the influence" were accurate interpretations of what the kid was saying, or of what he thought he was saying, actually.

Now I would never encourage someone to try an illegal drug, but this example is corroborated by the experience of other drug users' reports, as I understand it. I've read that others have said that marijuana, especially, but also cocaine, can greatly enhance a person's ability to hear and simultaneously follow multiple "layers" in a musical performance, that they discover a richness and hear a complexity that they are sure is in fact objectively present, but that they never could grasp or appreciate before. Anyway, I thought you might be interested to hear of this because it seems to confirm the idea that the ability to "hear" complexity in sound might be state-dependent in some as-yet unresearched or undiscovered physiological way. Best,  – OhioStandard (talk) 12:32, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

A related trope, and much more common, is the drunken or stoned person who has a brilliant insight, and upon waking up, is embarassed by its banality. Comet Tuttle (talk) 16:54, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Hmm ... the incredulity I infer in the above comment prompted me to investigate a bit: (1) "And the drug also seems to heighten the hearing — so that, for instance, strange chord formations seem easier to analyze under marijuana." Time Magazine, 19 July, 1943. (2) "It was concluded that alcohol ingestion in moderate amounts alters the central auditory processing under difficult listening conditions. When compared with a previous study using marihuana, it was found that the discrimination ability was reduced by alcohol ingestion while marihuana significantly improved speech discrimination. Journal of Otolaryngology. 1980 Jun;9(3):207-14. Cheers,  – OhioStandard (talk) 18:26, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Very cool anecdote and sources, Ohio! :) CT, has there been a published study of the commonality of that trope, and if so how do those numbers compare with the relative frequency of having brilliant vs. banal insights when sober? WikiDao ☯ (talk) 18:42, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Ladies and gentlemen, it's my privilege and pleasure to announce that the 2010 OADDSC ( Ohio Award for Delightfully Droll & Supportive Commentary ) in the Truly Funny Demand for Sources category goes to .... WikiDao!!!!" Best,  – OhioStandard (talk) 19:55, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Cheers! WikiDao ☯ (talk) 22:17, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, a quick search yielded the Ballmer Peak] graph, which I think concludes this matter. Comet Tuttle (talk) 23:37, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Roux: I'm not familiar with real (that is, not Hollywood) English gay dialects - despite having lived in the United States for a couple of years (Chicago, New England - eons ago). I sometimes notice peculiar tones in German spoken by gays in Vienna, but it's a world city and my knowledge of German is very basic to make conclusions (what sounds like gay may in fact be Italian). My native Russian language does not have a gay culture of its own, for good or bad. East of Borschov 13:51, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I doubt there's much explicit gender difference in accents, but there are probably sociological differences. Women (as a rule) are socially trained to be more cognizant of communication: it's entirely possible that women will be more aware that there are communication problems inherent in accents than men are, and therefore will be more likely to over-enunciate or otherwise try to compensate (which can often perversely increase the perception of an accent). --Ludwigs2 18:47, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Brains are very plastic, but also very in-tune with economics, i.e. with the advantages and disadvantages of provisioning the very "expensive" physiological resource of neurons for different purposes. Combine that realization with the recognition that we were, for the overwhelming majority of our species' evolution, nomadic tribesmen, hunter-gatherers. This background leads me to ask, "What individual or genetic advantage might result from deploying precious brain resources in this assymetrical way?" Since the "advantage" that men (and evolution) are most interested in with respect to women is the opportunity for mating with a high-value/high-status female, I have to wonder whether regional accents are good indicators of value/status among females in his region of the world? And since the "advantage" that our hunter-gatherer forefathers sought with respect to other males was usually centered around the ability to defeat a potential competitor in battle, well, what then? Why wouldn't male accents be important-enough to allocate neurons to, in the OP's environment and context? Perhaps (just guessing) he's a very large, physically-imposing man who never really had to worry much about competitors in possible battle? Thus questions of relative status (with which accents are often associated as telltales) don't matter as much for him with men, since he's not likely to have to fight them and they're not potential mating partners. These suggestions may be very far off the mark, of course; this is speculation entirely. Another alternative could be that the OP just happens to be at one end of a particular normal distribution that evolution is trying out to see if his particular provisioning of neuronal resources confers any long-term genetic advantage. He's a mutant, in other words (as are we all, of course) or a "specialist", if you want a more polite term, and nature is just watching and waiting, metaphorically, to see if his particular mutation constitutes an advantageous pattern for configuring the very expensive physiological real-estate of the brain. Cheers,  – OhioStandard (talk) 02:44, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanksgiving more important than Christmas?

I may be wrong but I get the sense over the decades the average american has shifted from thinking Christmas is the most important family holiday of the year to placing more emphasis on Thanksgiving. Is there any evidence for or against this anecdotal observation?

One bit of evidence I can think of is the days before Thanksgiving are the busiest travel days of the year since people are going to see extended families. Still is there any sort of survey that has asked people which they consider the more important family holiday? TheFutureAwaits (talk) 11:44, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I offer as counter evidence my own observation that American expats rarely celebrate Thanksgiving beyond America's borders, but take raucous pleasure in celebrating Christmas. Personally, I completely forgot Thanksgiving the first year I was in China. A Chinese friend mentioned that the day was TG day and I was rather shocked. On the other hand, I'd never forget Christmas. The Masked Booby (talk) 12:27, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with The Masked Booby. Most Americans consider Christmas far more important than Thanksgiving. As for travelling, perhaps the weather plays a large part in their decision to visit relatives in November rather than December as many airports get closed, flights cancelled, etc. due to poor weather conditions during the Christmas season.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:40, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

No. Thanksgiving is the day you have a big meal so that you're ready to sit in line all night for those great Black Friday morning deals on Christmas presents. Rmhermen (talk) 12:42, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

A visit to the distant relatives on Thanksgiving is a way of seeing them over the holidays without having to share the really important day with folks you hardly know. (YMMV) —Kevin Myers 13:03, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

The Thanksgiving vacation is shorter and less variable than the Christmas vacation. Almost everybody works for the first two days of the week, leaving only one day to travel. (Notice that all the people traveling on the day before Thanksgiving are presumably taking two-way trips. But some go back on Saturday and some go back on Sunday). There's no standard time that the Christmas vacation starts, so there's no big concentration of travel on one day. Paul (Stansifer) 13:11, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Historically, Thanksgiving was celebrated mostly in New England, where Christmas was largely ignored, until the 1860's or later. The modern "merchants' $mas"where people must spend themselves into the poorhouse buying gifts is largely a modern (20th century) invention. Edison (talk) 18:39, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Puritans didn't celebrate Christmas at all did they? Alansplodge (talk) 21:50, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

The U.S. Department of Agriculture claims that the biggest food-gathering days of the year in America are Thanksgiving and Super Bowl Sunday. Presumably, Christmas is third. I'm sure a lot of Americans would say that Christmas is more "important" because it is (for them) a real religious holiday. Incidentally, I had a great experience with Thanksgiving in Prague at a big party held by the owners of a local hostel. They couldn't find turkeys so they served chicken, but it was great getting to know all the expats. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:56, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanksgiving more important than Christmas? Only in the same way that the World Series is the most important international sporting competition. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:05, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

As an American, Christmas is a much bigger deal in this part of North Carolina than Thanksgiving (which is a somewhat-big deal). Thanksgiving is widely regarded here as an excuse to eat a lot, and yes, we do travel a lot to do that. Christmas however, at least in my family, tends to be something that we like to keep within the immediate family, and we usually (at least 75% of the time) celebrate it at home. We often do our traveling before or after Christmas, but it is somewhat rare that we (my family) travel for Christmas with someone else. I do come from a (semi) Christian family, so that obviously puts a different value on Christmas for my family than many families in the area who practice different faiths. Falconus^{p t c} 03:54, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanksgiving is an American holiday with spiritual overtones, while Christmas is a Christian holiday; with significant secular touches of harvest time and winter time thrown into them respectively. The shop-till-you-drop situation with Christmas really sprang up after World War II, when suddenly we were prosperous again after a 15-year depression-and-war doing-without period. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:20, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

How did Russian billionaires get rich?

The relevant articles tend to say thing like "made his fortune by capturing state assets at knockdown prices during Russia's rush towards privatisation". But how was this done, specifically? 92.28.250.172 (talk) 14:16, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

See Privatization in Russia. The cynical view would be that Boris Yeltsin (see the section on the 1996 election) essentially bribed a group of telecommunications and financial businessmen for their support in the 1996 election. The businessmen had become moderately rich in the initial privatization efforts (the government issued vouchers to buy shares in state industry. Most people sold theirs for cash to a smallish group of investors, who then made a lot of money), and then became fantastically rich when Yeltsin gave them large shares in some of Russia's state-owned assets. Buddy431 (talk) 14:36, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Didn't you know they got rich saving money by switching to DirecTV? [5]. Grsz¹¹ 14:40, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

When the Soviet Union and the ruble collapsed around 1991-1992, a lot of goods - particularly things like raw materials, scrap metals, etc - were still available at subsidized Soviet prices that did not take into account the fall in value of the ruble. If you were an insider with access to sources of these materials, they could be bought for almost nothing, and then sold on the open market for hard currency. The trick was that most goods were unavailable to the average post-Soviet consumer. You needed to have special connections to, for example, buy a ton of copper for pennies, and many of the persons who did did not understand capitalism enough to take advantage of those opportunities. But the few who did became millionaires almost overnight. --Xuxl (talk) 14:49, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

People's Republic Of China - no longer communist?

Is China still communist? Or is it now a capitalist country ruled by the communist party? Or what? Thanks 92.28.250.172 (talk) 14:23, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

It has some aspects of communism and some aspects of capitalism. It is very difficult to have complete communism or complete capitalism. -- kainaw™ 14:26, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Economy of the People's Republic of China is pretty indepth. Grsz¹¹ 14:27, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

It all depends, of course, on how you define "communism" and "capitalism". There is a rather bogus "no true Scotsman" argument that runs as follows: communist societies are not economically successful; modern day China is economically successful; therefore modern day China is not a true communist society. Gandalf61 (talk) 14:35, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

They have an authoritarian government which still exerts a strong degree of control over their economy, but they have loosened restrictions on private ownership and entrepreneurship. It's a self-consciously mixed or hybrid political and economic system. It's hard to categorize according to classical definitions of "Communist" or "capitalist," but then again, so is practically every Western economy, too. The labels are less important than they used to be. What people mostly want to know is how they act, not what the supposed underlying ideology is. They don't very well resemble anything of what Marx would have recognized as "Communist," albeit no "Communist" country ever has. They don't economically resemble the "Communism" that characterized the Soviet bloc during the Cold War. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:26, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

China was never communist, none of the countries were, communism is a state of having no real government, amongst a lot else. The point is that the soviet union, china and so on were aiming towards communism, hoping, or so they claimed, to achieve the ideals set out by Marx back in 1848. The question, then, is whether China is still aiming towards becoming such a land with no government and perfect equality..? 148.197.121.205 (talk) 16:30, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

That's why I make the distinction between the term "Communist" in the strict Marxist sense, and the term "Communist" that is used to describe the general forms of politics and economies of the Soviet Union, the early PRC, and so forth. In almost any case, people today mean the latter and to say "but they were never truly Communist in the sense that Marx meant" is usually just being pedantic unless one is specifically discussing Marx's writings. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:41, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Our article title on the latter is Communist state, and the article on the movement is of course Communism. Comet Tuttle (talk) 16:44, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

See also Socialist market economy. As someone in China once put it, "We are the Communist Party, and we shall decide what Communism means." The Communist party is definitely in charge and in fact owns much (most?) of the country - companies, banks, you name it. Not entirely unlike state capitalism, keeping in mind that "state" in this case means the Party, not the official state. (This distinction is significant: the Chinese Communist Party actually exists outside and above the law and the state.) Some have drawn parallels between the reforms of Deng Xiaoping and the period of NEP in Lenin's Soviet Russia, when the Party permitted some measure of private enterprise. Finally, please pardon the plug, but there's a book about the rulers of China out recently called The Party, by Richard McGregor, which is very interesting reading indeed.--Rallette (talk) 08:02, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Earnestly-plugged references are always desirable, no need to excuse them. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:06, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Identity of subjects in 19th century painting

Inside one of the rooms at Arundel Castle, family seat of the Dukes of Norfolk, I recall having seen a portrait of two young women in 19th century costume. They are obviously members of the Fitzalan-Howard family, but can anyone identify them? Thank you. Their identity has bothered me since I first saw the portrait on a visit to the castle in 1975.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:03, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Maybe you could ask the people at Arundel castle archive [6]? Surely they have records of the collection. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.171.56.13 (talk) 19:19, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Bio on Stephane Gauthier, a French Economist who received his PhD from MIT?

Kindly locate & add bio / cv of Dr. Stephane Gauthier, who received his PhD from MIT & is a French Economist in Paris. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.249.80.228 (talk) 15:04, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

All Wikipedia editors are volunteers. You are welcome to join us. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:13, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Nothing on him at French wikipedia. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 15:48, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

You, OP, may also want to read our "notability" requirements at Wikipedia:Notability (people), but you may also request a new article at WP:Requested articles/Biographies. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 15:56, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

This may be the person concerned, if anyone wishes to consider doing something about it. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:05, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

divorce rates with and without prenuptial agreements

Hello expert researchers. I am looking to find out if divorce rates are different for couples that have prenuptial agreements compared to couples who don't have such agreements. My google-fu is failing me – I'm only turning up articles that say high divorces rates are reason to consider a prenup. But what I want is simple statistics: in marriages with prenups, this percentage get divorced; in marriages without prenups, this percentage get divorced. Stats for Canada or the US would be ideal. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.22.236.140 (talk) 17:10, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

This article says, "There are no statistics on how many prenuptial agreements are written, probably because they do not need to be filed until they're enforced, attorneys say", so there may be no way to find what you're looking for. Even if such stats did exist, I imagine situations with prenups will generally have confounding factors (later marriage, wealth disparity, etc.). --Sean 18:05, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts Sean. I appreciate it. If anyone else does find the stats, please still do post here. One of the reasons people shy away from prenups is the feeling that to create one is to set oneself up for divorce. I hoped to find some hard data that speaks to this fear and whether it has any actual basis in experience. --User:67.22.236.140 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.107.246.140 (talk) 19:07, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I don't know why my number has changed. I am the same person who wrote that. Also, how do you make the signing work? --User:67.22.236.140 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.107.246.140 (talk) 19:07, 4 November 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.134.250.140 (talk)

To make a signature, just type "--~~~~", or press the button that looks like a writing pen. --Sean 20:46, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

And your IP address will change if you use a different machine, or connect through a different ISP; but if your ISP allocates IP addresses dynamically, it might change even though you are using the same computer in the same place. This is one of many reasons why registering an account is helpful. --ColinFine (talk) 08:28, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

is there a published account that Wikipedia *can't* work and will go down in flames?

I personally believe that Wikipedia can't possibly work as a concept (despite the fact that it does, at the moment), and that, therefore, it will go down in flames within ten years. Is there a published confirmation of my suspicion? Thank you. 84.153.188.184 (talk) 17:40, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Try googling for news article like this one. There are lots of them. -- kainaw™ 17:59, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Note, BTW, that the linked article was published on 5th December 2006 and claims that "Wikipedia will fail in four years, crushed under the weight of an automated assault by marketers and others seeking online traffic."

It appears we have a month left to live. Goodbye, cruel world. TomorrowTime (talk) 18:37, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Note a few things. 1. "Wikipedia" is not static. Certain aspects of it are likely to be consistent, but, as has been demonstrated over the last few years, some aspects are more fluid than one might have guessed. New tools for fighting vandalism, automated entries, spam, and so on, are created and used and implemented all of the time. Some aspects of its much-vaunted "openness" have been rescinded over time. So any prediction of the future operation based on the status quo might be woefully wrong for a number of reasons, especially since the "problems" are generally incremental, and there are a lot of technically clever people contributing to Wikipedia who are probably willing to help solve them. 2. You're not going to be able to "confirm" your suspicion without it actually happening in this case. Which means that you're going to have to wait in 10 years and see where we all are then. Might be true, might not. But there's no article that can "prove" this to be the case, any more than they can "prove" that in 10 years we'll all be wearing underpants on our head. There might be suggestive trends, but there's no real confirmation there, unless you are just looking for "confirmation" that someone else out there feels the same way you do. --Mr.98 (talk) 18:41, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I would also note that even if Wikipedia were to collapse in ten years, it's licence allows anyone else to publish an archive of the encyclopedia or use all of the content that we have made to start a new encyclopedia with different editing rules. So, as long as anyone has an archive copy of Wikipedia, our work-to-date can't be undone by mass-vandalism or even the server being shut down. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 19:31, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

"It turns out that the people who believe in truth and objectivity are at least as numerous as all the crazies, pranksters and time-wasters, and they are often considerably more tenacious, ruthless and monomaniacal. On Wikipedia, it’s the good guys who will hunt you down," observes David Runciman, Cambridge University, reviewing Andrew Lih, The Wikipedia Revolution; his is the most sensible description of Wikipedia ever: read it.--Wetman (talk) 19:37, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Your suspicion, as stated, contains a paradox, so nothing could possibly confirm it. No evidence could ever make a proposition including "Wikipedia can't possibly work as a concept ... despite the fact that it does" true. --Sean 20:50, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Sounds a lot like the zeroth law of Wikipedia - "The problem with Wikipedia is that it only works in practice. In theory, it can never work." Incidentally, does anyone know who first came up with that quote? I'm sure it's been discussed before, but can't find it now. the wub "?!" 23:26, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia already has "gone down in flames." In fact it is continuously "going down in flames." Wikipedia is a dynamic entity. It is metamorphosing daily. That is actually a plus. A person reading Wikipedia only needs look at the History of the article and the Talk page as well as the History of the Talk page (plus archives—whew!) to understand a lot more about a topic than a "static" encyclopedia article can give you. The repository that Wikipedia is will continue for the foreseeable future. Its demise is based on thinking of it as an online Encyclopædia Britannica. It can fail in some ways as a replacement for Encyclopædia Britannica but still be very valuable. Bus stop (talk) 23:51, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Everything ends in one way or another. Will wikipedia still be here for the remainder of our lifetimes, or our childrens? It might do. What's certain is that something will come along one day to make it redundant and old fashioned. As of now, Wikipedia is making a good job of creating an encyclopedia Jack forbes (talk) 00:06, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

One thing about Wikipedia is that (depending on your perspective) it is either stabilizing or stagnating in recent years. See Wikipedia:VPM#Wikipedia_editing_stats_over_time for the most recent analysis to show this. In several major metrics, from new users, to new administrators, to number of edits per day, to number of new articles, Wikipedia reached a plateau sometime around 2007 and has showed much slower growth since then. Depending on your perspective, this either means that a) Wikipedia has reached a mature phase, and no one expected it to maintain the astronomical growth it showed in the early years, and that this is a healthy thing or b) Wikipedia is being crushed by its own weight, and its entrenched culture is driving away old contributors and keeping out new ones, which explains the decline in production. You will likely find an equal number of people who ascribe to each perspective. I personally hold mostly to perspective A), but then again I'm still here. If you ask people who have left Wikipedia, they will likely tell you more about perspective B. In reality, it is such a huge community, you will get a wide range of opinions on what is really going on. The truth is likely somewhere in the middle, as it always is. --Jayron32 04:03, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Or it could be that we are running out of Japanese train stations and US elementary schools to write about. Googlemeister (talk) 13:08, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a fait accompli. Even if it froze now and was developed no further, it would still be a much better encyclopaedia than all rivals. The only way it could fail would be if every copy of it was erased. 92.15.10.141 (talk) 12:58, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely true. If the community spirit that built Wikipedia turned out to be a fad that faded away, we'd just say "Well, lucky thing that the good feelings lasted long enough to make an awesome encyclopedia.", Restore from an old, known-good database dump, and lock the database.

If you're worried about a sudden catastrophe (Perhaps you believe WP will literally go down in flames.), you could use the Wikipedia:Database_download feature to get your copy of the database today. APL (talk) 14:00, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking that a successful libel lawsuit for millions might give some irate article subject ownership of the servers and the name. The Saturday Evening Post, a well known US magazine, was shut down when it lost a libel suit in the 1960's. It was gratifying when someone pointed out that the articles would still be available for anyone to copy in such an event, so it could be open for business the next week under a new name. One failure mode would be a loss of interest by vandal fighters and administrators, leaving many articles in possession of propagandists, advertisers, promoters, loons, hoaxers, rabid nationalists, racists, and vandals. It might be indistinguishable from Uncyclopedia with the accuracy and credibility of any wall covered with graffiti or any extremist blog. All that gives it value is the hard work of thousands who create and improve articles and remove point of view edits and vanispamcruftisements, while requiring civility among contributors. Edison (talk) 14:57, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

November 5

cal/osha

where can i find the cal/osha law online? is there a checklist of everything that a business can do wrong online somehwere? what are the most common mistakes employers make i.e. missing osha posters? is there a consumer website that covers these issues? a law firm that has a inspection list that you can flip through? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hemanetwork (talk • contribs) 00:23, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

California's Occupational Safety program is described here. Laws requiring employers to provide a safe workplace for their employees can be more constructively thought of as things to do right. You can find the most frequently cited violations as listed and also by an employer's Standard Industrial Code here. One resource seems to be the Cal/OSHA Consultation Service, state program consultants who appear to work with various employers to improve the workplace safety and health conditions for employees.--Romantic Mollusk (talk) 01:09, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Le Pont de l'Anglois

Hi I believe I recently acquired the original water color of this painting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vincent_Willem_van_Gogh_070.jpg in a charity shop in the USA, from your web site it says it was last known to be in a private collection in Berlin, Germany, but it does not specify when ? or with whom ? so it really could be anywhere, hopefully with me, can you supply any further information which may help me get my painting authenticated, I will gladly send you photo's of my painting if you request them, please let me know, thanks. Yours faithfully Benedict McGowan —Preceding unsigned comment added by BenM66 (talk • contribs) 07:20, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Frank Elgar's Van Gogh: a study of his life and work (1966) says it was then in a private collection in Berlin. Other sources may suggest it was acquired by the Wildenstein collection (see our article on Daniel Wildenstein). If you think your water-colour could be the real thing, I should take it to a major auction house. They will be able to access someone with the expertise needed. Moonraker2 (talk) 08:11, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Art students, hobbyists and forgers love to paint copies of famous works of art. Could your acquisition possibly be such a copy? Deepest congratulations if it is. If it is not, then I hope you paid an amount appropriate for a nice copy to decorate your wall with. Edison (talk) 14:46, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Westboro Baptist church

how does westboro baptist church get the money to pay for their many protests? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.20.180.19 (talk) 09:08, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, they're a church, so I don't know why they wouldn't get it from their parishioners and others who agree with what they do. Besides, protests are fairly cheap. Much of it is volunteer driven, after all it doesn't cost anything to stand on a street corner. And the signs are likely made at home or by businesses who either support what they do or don't turn away jobs based on political or religious reasons. Dismas|^(talk) 14:31, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

They're really not structured as an ordinary "church"; the majority of members have a family relationship with the original founder and live in closely neighboring houses in the same neighborhood in Topeka, etc. AnonMoos (talk) 14:44, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I have read several articles (which I cannot myself corroborate) suggesting that they (several of whom are qualified lawyers) live mainly off the legal damages they are awarded in court cases after they, by behaving provocatively but remaining within the strict letter of the law, have successfully provoked others into violating their legal rights. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 21:56, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I've also heard this, but the one time I tried to track down good sources I was rather frustrated in the attempt. (This is mostly a matter of picking search terms for a quick web search; proper scholarship might dig them out...) Wnt (talk) 23:42, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Coin or Fiddle (Antonín Dvořák)

The question: What's the original title of the work Coin or Fiddle by Antonín Dvořák and when was it published? Two top-ranking Slovene ballet dancers were awarded the highest national prize (the Prešeren Award) for the ballet choreography Coin or Fiddle (Slovene: Cekin ali gosli) in 1949. Google offers only one result. ([7]). Thanks a lot. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 09:34, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

why is an idea a deeply worthless thing?

Can someone explain why my ideas are deeply worthless things, and that I need to do something stupid, rather than capitalize on them? Thank you. 84.153.205.142 (talk) 13:42, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Because everyone has lots of of them. APL (talk) 13:53, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Supply and demand. Assume you need 1 idea. Given 10 people, you will get 100 or more ideas. The value of the ideas is very small. What is valuable is implementation of the ideas. Assume you need 1 implementation. Given 10 people, you will be very lucky to get 1 implementation that succeeds. So, to capitalize on your ideas, you must pick one idea and put your effort into implementing the idea yourself. A common failure is to assume that someone else will be happy to implement your idea. Why? Everyone else has ideas of their own. It is up to you to implement your own idea and prove that it is a good idea. -- kainaw™ 13:59, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

This is really not anything we can answer on the Ref Desk, because we don't know whether your ideas are good or just worthless — what you are being told might be eminently practical, or it might be misleading. But it does bring to mind one of my favorite quotes, attributed to Linus Pauling: "If you want to have good ideas you must have many ideas. Most of them will be wrong, and what you have to learn is which ones to throw away." --Mr.98 (talk) 14:00, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Even a good idea is near worthless on it's own. No one will buy an idea off you on its own.

An invention might be very valuable, but it takes a tremendous amount of effort, and often money, to get from an idea to an invention. (Other things that come out of ideas that are valuable : Books, Movies, Political movements, works of art, scientific discoveries, religions, and more. All require effort before they become valuable.) APL (talk) 14:22, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

An idea is both a deeply worthless thing and the most valuable thing. Now I will take my philosopher's cap off and swab the deck, matey. Bus stop (talk) 14:04, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I almost deleted this question for not being "answerable" or "serious" or whatever the applicable problem with it might be. But, since others have already partaken, I might as well bite, too.

So, clarification please: what makes you ask whether you "need to do something stupid"? Why would that necessarily be "rather than" capitalizing on your ideas? If your ideas truly are deeply worthless, then that is most likely why you cannot capitalize on them. But: not being able to capitalize on them does not in itself prove that they are deeply worthless. Assuming they are, though, per your question, there is a wide variety of reasons as to why that might be. Mental illness could be one reason (certainly, at least, that you are perceiving them to be worthless), and if so there may be medication you could take to help with that! If you think that may be it, you should consult with a medical doctor or clinical psychologist. Otherwise, perhaps some of the responses above will help. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 14:15, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

(Notice that this question is asked by the same IP who asked about finding investors that would be interested in investing after hearing "A few words" about his idea. That gives a hint to the sort of "worthlessness" he's thinking of. ) APL (talk) 14:24, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Ideas are not necessarily worthless, if they are combined in such a way as to represent a convincing plan for generating income. For example, a product innovation that meets an unfulfilled market need, combined with a plan for producing this innovation cost-effectively, could well be worth a great deal. The usual way to turn ideas into revenue is to create a solid business plan and market it to investors. Investors usually need more than "a few words" to make an investment, though a few well-chosen words from the right person might interest them enough to take a look at the business plan. Your plan will be more plausible if you can demonstrate a record of experience in the field of the innovation, which would help to create confidence that you know what you are doing. Marco polo (talk) 16:41, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Einstein's idea of Special relativity is not worthless. 92.15.2.255 (talk) 16:45, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Darn this infernal machine!

I came across this article in my local Vermont paper yesterday and it got me wondering, what is an "infernal machine" according to Massachusetts law?

Note: I am not seeking legal advice. I don't live in Massachusetts, I live in Vermont as my user page has said for years. I am not in my 70s. This is a legal curiosity only. If I happen to lose a game of trivial pursuit or a pub quiz based on the information given to me here, I swear not to hold Wikipedia, its owners, or editors libel for my losses. I may, though I am not promising, reward Wikimedia financially if there happen to be any financial gains from the knowledge gained in receiving an informative response for the question I have posted here today. Dismas|^(talk) 14:27, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I believe it's a quaint equivalent of "bomb." Acroterion _(talk) 14:33, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

We have a stub on infernal machines. DuncanHill (talk) 14:36, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

• This link gives the definition in the Massachusetts Code as follows: The term “infernal machine”, as used in this section, shall include any device for endangering life or doing unusual damage to property, or both, by fire or, explosion, whether or not contrived to ignite or explode automatically and whether or not disguised so as to appear harmless. DuncanHill (talk) 14:45, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

And thus we see the major difference between Vermont's legal situation and much of the rest of the Northeast, with its very restrictive anti-gun laws. As far as your question — Chapter 266, §102a of the Massachusetts General Laws defines an infernal machine. You'll notice that the wording was removed from the law in July, but I'd be very surprised if there were any other definition in the General Laws. Nyttend (talk) 14:50, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

(e/c)Alas, it appears the General Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts has decided to do away with their charmingly antiquated terminology, and rename an "infernal machine" as "an explosive or a destructive or incendiary device or substance", which is much less jolly as effective from 15th July 2010. DuncanHill (talk) 14:52, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Interesting! Thanks! I should have known to check for an article first. Dismas|^(talk) 15:03, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Old Testament believers

Is there a title for people who accept only the Old Testament as the word of God, and reject the Torah, New Testament, Books of Mormon etc.? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.70.240.226 (talk) 14:54, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I think Torah and the Old Testament overlap. If one rejected the Torah—wouldn't one be rejecting the Old Testament? Bus stop (talk) 15:07, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I think they might mean reject the Talmud but I don't know anyone that accepts only the Torah. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 15:13, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't aware of the overlap. So the question should be, "what do you call someone who accepts only the Old Testament and no other 'holy books' as the word of God and sole source of religious/spiritual authority?" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.70.240.226 (talk) 15:32, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I would call such a person a human being. (Just being funny.) Bus stop (talk) 15:39, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

A Karaite. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 15:42, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Ethiopian Jews were uninfluenced by Mishnaic/Talmudic writings... AnonMoos (talk) 15:49, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Not quite the right answer, but Samaritans have their own version of the Pentateuch. Adam Bishop (talk) 18:38, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Hang on - I think Jews in general accept only the Torah (i.e. the first five books of Tanach (roughly the "Old Testament") as the word of God. The other parts of Tanach and other writings such as Talmud are studied and revered by most sects, but are regarded as human not divine. --ColinFine (talk) 14:11, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Fornication in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts

Chapter 272, Section 18 of the Massachusetts General Laws prohibits fornication, under penalty of three months or $30. What do they mean by fornication? It's not adultery, as that is punishable under another section, as are unnatural and lascivious acts, the abominable and detestable crime against nature, either with mankind or with a beast, and incest. DuncanHill (talk) 15:17, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Extramarital sex needn't constitute adultery (if neither partner is married, for example). Along this line, it often signifies premarital sex. See also article on fornication. ---Sluzzelin talk 15:22, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I read that article, but it isn't specific as to what fornication means in Massachusetts law. DuncanHill (talk) 15:23, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

A Compendium and Digest of the Laws of Massachusetts (William Charles White, Munroe, Francis, and Parker, 1810, p634) defines it as "the act of incontinency between single persons; for if either party be married, it is adultery." ---Sluzzelin talk 15:32, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I hope "incontinence" had a different meaning to the one used now!! "Fetch the rubber sheets nurse!" Alansplodge (talk) 16:08, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Fascinating. Living in Massachusetts, I had no idea before I got married that I was engaging in criminal acts! I don't think this law is enforced much. Marco polo (talk) 16:28, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, neither is it "made the subject of prosecution" nor is its constitutionality seen as watertight "at least as applied to the private, consensual conduct of persons over the age of consent."". ---Sluzzelin talk 16:32, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Presumably any trial would end in the law being invalidated based on the Supreme Court's decision in Lawrence v. Texas, though not all the Justices who voted with the majority agreed with Kennedy's rationale. Comet Tuttle (talk) 16:39, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you everyone. DuncanHill (talk) 22:32, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Massachusetts certainly isn't the only state with laws that are constitutionally invalid but yet remain on the books. Nebraska (among many others) has a Flag burning law on the books, and many states also have old common law torts and sometimes crimes on the books (the common law tort of seduction is fun). Most states also criminalize adultery although the constitutionality of that is questionable (Lawrence doesn't speak to this, but the argument's been made both ways). Finally, it's ironic that Massachusetts still has this law on the books; contrast that to the political tenor of the State's recent court headlines. Shadowjams (talk) 08:29, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

This article might be of interest: Elizabeth Fones.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:56, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Secret Police in Eastern Europe, after 89-91

Dear Wikipedians, I am a student of the history of Central and Eastern Europe, ca '45-91. I was wondering if any of you could help me to a question that has me puzzled: What happened to members of the security forces/secret police (securitat, Stasi, etc) in the different CE European countries after the war? (EDIT: Not after the war, but after the fall of the communist rules!)

The answers may exist in the different articles, but don't seem to be easy to find. I imagine that, while for instance Hungary might have had a process where it cleared up its ties with its organizations (did it?), Albania might still retain some of the same members and politicians high in the political system.

Does there exist a summary anyone of you can give me on this matter? I would be deeply obliged. Thank you in advance! 88.90.16.74 (talk) 16:17, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

The situation varied from country to country, but in most countries, the former "security" personnel were dismissed and forced to find new livelihoods or else lived on state welfare benefits. In some countries, individual members of the secret police, such as Erich Mielke were prosecuted for crimes they committed in their former jobs. Marco polo (talk) 16:34, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

The article you link states that Mielke was prosecuted (symbolically?) on the murder of the police officers before the second world war--not at all about his involvement with the security forces. This in itself begs the question I just asked, about how involvement with the security police was handled after the fall of communist rule in these lands.88.90.16.74 (talk) 16:49, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

OP: The confusion probably stems from the way you worded your question: "What happened to members of the security forces/secret police (securitat, Stasi, etc) in the different CE European countries after the war?". Since there was no war in most Eastern European countries following the fall of the Soviet bloc, most people would think that you asked what happened after the Second World War (which was the only war that affected most of the Soviet bloc countries). --Saddhiyama (talk) 17:10, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! That was an awkward mistake to make. I've added an edit tag up there. 88.90.16.74 (talk) 17:39, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Many of them just kept right on working for the new regimes. The new governments still needed people with highly-specialized training, and this isn't something you can pick up just anywhere. In Dealing with the Communist Past: Central and Eastern Experiences after 1990, it states "Dealing with former high-level communists and security apparatuses were clearly among the central tasks facing governments immediately after communism disintegrated in much of Central and Eastern Europe. ...in all countries, the extent of decommunisation was quite limited in nature." This CIA document, Intelligence Reform in Europe's Emerging Democracies, also mentions the problem of "legacy intelligence services" and how "The states that negotiated their revolutions--Hungary, Poland, and, initially, Czechoslovakia--'grandfathered in' substantial numbers of personnel from the former regimes." The more enterprising probably used their influence and knowledge to enrich themselves, particularly in Russia. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:43, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

See also Lustration and Decommunisation Nil Einne (talk) 17:03, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Skinner v Freud

hey all. I'm starting to study psychology, and in class we're talking about the two most influential psychologists, BF Skinner and Sigmund Freud. Whil we're not actually going to read them in class until Psych II, i plan to supplement our discussion by actually reading Freud's and Skinner's work. Which should I read first? That is, how do Freud and Skinner compare not in terms of content, but in terms of how easy their arguments are to follow, how consistent they are with their content, how well they support their theories, how organized their writing is, and really how much they "make sense"? Thanks. 24.92.78.167 (talk) 20:54, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Skinner comes later, and his Behaviorism is, in part, a response to Freud's introspective theories, so it would make sense to read Freud first, to understand exactly what Skinner was objecting to... --Jayron32 21:00, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Freud's Introductory Lessons on Psychoanalysis are eminently worth reading. (No comment on Skinner – ptah! ;) WikiDao ☯ (talk) 21:20, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

The theories of both have fairly major problems from the modern point of view (and neither provided a solid foundation for later developments in the same way that Darwin's theories did for evolution, etc.), so I'm not all that sure what the point of going into great historical detail in an introductory survey course would be. AnonMoos (talk) 00:02, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Heck, why not just recommend that the OP change majors? WikiDao ☯ (talk) 00:22, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Would I recommend that someone studying astronomy change majors because the first several thousand years of astronomical work were carried out under mistaken views of the basic relationship between the sun and the earth, and often mainly for astrological purposes? No. But I would recommend that an introductory survey course on astronomy not go into great detail on the history of Babylonian astrology... AnonMoos (talk) 12:49, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

The OP did not ask for advice about whether to read Skinner and Freud, but what to read, and which of them is more readable. I think the question indicates that the OP is most likely an excellent student, and ought to be encouraged, especially here. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 13:04, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

wikidao, you are risking me calling you bad names. Do not disparage the highest of all philosophies because you worship the lowest common denominator of intellect... so there, hah!

Not sure what you may mean. I have a philosophical dislike for some Skinnerian assumptions, but respect the work, as far as it goes and for what it's worth. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 13:04, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Read Freud first, because you will not understand Skinner's complain about psychology unless you understand Freud. After you read Skinner, read G.H. Mead. Freud developed a (rather questionable) clinical approach to the human psyche based on (what he assumed to be) the unseen internal processes of the human mind. Skinner objected to the clinical approach as a theoretical model (and in the process, rejected all unseen processes as irrelevant), leading him to a very mechanistic view of the mind. Both Freud and Skinner are still used in limited contexts, and both have suffered some fairly heavy (and largely well-deserved) criticism. --Ludwigs2 05:59, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Just to add to that, Skinner's work on behaviourism is the direct ancestor of some popular modern psychological theories and therapies such as Cognitive Behavioural Therapy. Whereas I can't trace a modern therapy directly back to Freud - anyone?--TammyMoet (talk) 10:17, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

All psychotherapy comes from Freud, Tammy. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 13:04, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I think TammyMoet is either saying that psychotherapy is not a "modern therapy" or that most therapeutic versions are pretty distanced from Freud (e.g. via Jung or what have you). But there definitely are practicing Freudian psychotherapists, either way. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:01, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

CBT is a psychotherapy, one of many, and owes its general existence to Freud, who "invented" modern psychotherapy. Its specifics are heavily influenced by Skinnerian Behaviour Therapy, it's true. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 14:46, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Funny, Freud isn't mentioned in its article at all. Probably because his influence is pretty minor. I mean, OK, all forms of the modern "talking cure" derive in some way from Freud starting the trend, but that doesn't actually mean that Freud's theories have anything interesting to do with them. Reading over CBT, I see absolutely no Freudian influence whatsoever in its therapeutic approach or theorizations, other than the fact that it is a form of therapy that often involves talking to people. You can say, "all physics goes back to Aristotle," but that doesn't actually tell you very much about physics, and obscures some pretty big changes that have happened. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:21, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I think "Attributing Newtonian physics to Newton does no disservice to Watt" would be a better analogy (if one wanted to be generous to Skinner ;), and optimistic about CBT's lasting impact on psychotherapy as a whole) WikiDao ☯ (talk) 15:39, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

But attributing Einsteinian physics to Newton is incorrect. Do you see my point? --Mr.98 (talk) 16:31, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

We are still in a "classical" realm of psychology, especially clinical psychology. There has been no revolution comparable either to relativity or quantum mechanics in (clinical) psychology after Freud. (And Skinner, in any case, was no Einstein -- whereas Freud is a comparable historical figure.) WikiDao ☯ (talk) 17:10, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

If for some reason you are really going to read Skinner, you might also want to check out Chomsky's "A Review of B. F. Skinner's Verbal Behavior".

No, it's the other way round. Skinner wins :-) --Radh (talk) 16:27, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

"Tell it in Gath" (Biblical reference)

I have come across a number of books entitled Tell it in Gath [8] [9] but am unsure of what the precise reference is and what it means; it seems to be something to do with Samuel II 1 and/or Micah 1 – can anyone help? :) ╟─TreasuryTag►most serene─╢ 22:12, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

The quote is actually "tell it not in Gath...lest the Philistines rejoice" (KJV 2 Samuel 1:20). It appears in the original negative form in several Charlotte Bronte novels... AnonMoos (talk) 23:01, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

But it means...? ╟─TreasuryTag►UK EYES ONLY─╢ 23:02, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

What else do you need to know other than that the Philistines were the traditional enemies of the Israelites during that period? AnonMoos (talk) 23:05, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Like what/where is Gath? ╟─TreasuryTag►secretariat─╢ 23:07, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Gath was a Philistine city. You can read more about it at the linked article, but the only thing that's important in this context is that it's a Philistine city. In the original Bible verse, it's paired with Ashkelon, which was also a Philistine city. AnonMoos (talk) 23:14, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

(e/c)Perhaps why one must not tell it in Gath, and why if "it" was told in Gath, would the Philistines rejoice? And lastly, what is "it"? --Saddhiyama (talk) 23:08, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

There appear to have been several Gaths, according to our article Gath (city). DuncanHill (talk) 23:11, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

(ec) The phrase could have several exact meanings depending on the context -- TT, are you curious about a specific use of the phrase? Consider that Gath is the place of origin of a great but famously defeated champion (Goliath); what would be the significance of telling something there? Our article on Goliath makes the interesting point that the David-Goliath conflict was later framed as a Church vs. Satan one; there's lots of ways you could go with this. Antandrus (talk) 23:21, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Anybody who actually bothered to read the second half of II Samuel chapter 1, in combination with a little fairly-easily acquired background knowledge, could tell what it meant without much need for speculation. I'm kind of tired of spoon-feeding in mini-teaspoon sized doses. AnonMoos (talk) 23:40, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I have a qualification in English Literature, and I am a paid teacher of Hebrew & Jewish Studies, extremely familiar with the Old Testament, as my userpage notes. However, clearly not everybody is perfect in their knowledge and their ability to make inferences; that is what the RefDesk is for. Sorry if it offends you. ╟─TreasuryTag►Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster─╢ 09:00, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Then don't. You don't have to post here. DuncanHill (talk) 23:41, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm more than happy to post relevant factual information or participate in intelligent discussions; what can annoying is when people seem to consider it too much effort to make fairly obvious inferences, or do a simple search for a specific word in Wikipedia. AnonMoos (talk) 23:52, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

This place is maintained by volunteers who enjoys knowledge, both in the giving of it and acquiring it. And this is without regard for the level of learning of the questioner, as long as the questions are posed in good faith. If it ever feels like a burden to answer questions, I would seriously advice that you take a break from the ref desk for a while. At least just for as long as it takes to regain that sense of enjoyment in sharing knowledge just for the sake of it, even if it has to be spelled out (or "spoon-fed" as you seem to prefer). --Saddhiyama (talk) 00:15, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Agree. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 00:40, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

In Samuel II 1:20, David, having just learned of the death of Saul, says:

"Tell it not in Gath, publish it not in the streets of Ashkelon; lest the daughters of the Philistines rejoice, lest the daughters of the uncircumcised triumph."

And then I'm not entirely sure what is going on in Micah 1:10. But it seems to be an injunction against giving "aid and comfort" to one's enemies. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 00:40, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Verse 17 of (the previously linked) II Samuel tells us that this verse's context is a Dirge. There is some hint of a ruse by who is apparently Saul's armor-bearer. The amalekite tells David that he has put Saul to death because of Saul's request, apparently to gain David's favor. Being one of Jehovah's anointed servants, however, made this a serious crime and David had the amalekite put to death. Saul had actually killed himself. Saul did what was bad in Jehovah's eyes and most likely took on the practice of "honorable" suicide from the Philistines. The later part of I Samuel in chapter 31 (a page before the account in question) tells that the Philistines already knew about Saul's death and took their bodies and "fastened [them] on the wall (1 Samuel 31:10)," quite a gruesome picture. Later on in the days of David the bloodguilt incurred by Saul was washed clean by the slaying of some of his descendents (2 Samuel 21:1-9). I hope this enlightens you as to the content of Samuel's history books he wrote (n.b. Gad and Nathan also contributed to the books of Samuel). schyler (talk) 02:41, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for this – so then the context of those books entitled Tell it in Gath would be, essentially, "Publish and be damned," then? ╟─TreasuryTag►Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster─╢ 09:00, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
  • You are welcome. By the way, I forgot to cite one of my references. I already cited I and II Samuel, but I also read from Insight on The Scriptures to answer this question. It is a pleasure to help a seeker of knowledge!
    
    As for your secondary question to have told it in Gath would be like not reading The writing on the wall or not telling people about The Kingdom of Heaven; for lack of a better term, blasphemy, but in a song! :) 71.21.143.33 (talk) 13:23, 6 November 2010 (UTC)(schyler IP)

The first book you list, TreasuryTag, Tell it in Gath by Joseph Osgood, 1918, seems to be a defense of Southern US literature in the face of "The Tradition of New England Ascendancy" (the title of the first chapter). Given the feelings that some Southern writers have had about that ascendancy in cultural matters, I expect that the fact of publishing the book at all at the time was considered "telling it in Gath" by the author in this case (but suggests that he had something to say in the book that was a "cause of woe" to disenfranchised Southern writers, so may have been a unintentional misuse of the phrase).

I'm not entirely sure though what might be meant by the phrase in the second book you list, Tell it in Gath:British Jewry and Clause 43, the Inside Story. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 14:16, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

The second book is mentioned in this pdf, search it for clause. "Clause 43" appears to be something to do with the Board of Deputies of British Jews, and the impossibility of getting orthodox, reform, liberal and progressive congregations to agree on anything whatsoever. DuncanHill (talk) 17:44, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

November 6

Pope Paul VI's views on feminism

What were they? 24.189.87.160 (talk) 01:19, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

His were most likely based on the history of Women in the Bible as well as the large contribution of Women in Christianity. 71.21.143.33 (talk) 13:43, 6 November 2010 (UTC)(schyler IP)

What kind of feminism? New feminism, difference feminism, pro-life feminism? Lots of types of feminism are embraced by Catholics, but probably not the kind that immediately springs to mind when we think of "feminism". Paul VI was the man behind Humanae Vitae, which is either pro- or anti-feminist, depending on what you think feminism is. (He was also an influence on John Paul II, who was also either pro- or anti-feminist, depending on where you stand.) Adam Bishop (talk) 13:57, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I mean specifically new feminism. 24.189.87.160 (talk) 17:03, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, I don't think he specifically referred to it, but anyway, new feminism (in the Catholic sense) is pretty much based on Humanae Vitae and JPII's writings. So, he probably would have liked it a lot. Adam Bishop (talk) 18:13, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

He never criticized the movement at all? Never said anything negative about it? No pope ever did, for that matter? 24.189.87.160 (talk) 18:25, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant the radical feminists of the 60 and 70s. 24.189.87.160 (talk) 18:26, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh, well, even when the church is at its most modern it is still pretty anti-modern, going back at least to Leo XIII in the nineteenth century, so you can be pretty sure that Paul VI wasn't fond of those kinds of feminists. I don't know if he specifically said anything about them, but all of his writings are on the Vatican website (although not always in English, which doesn't help). Adam Bishop (talk) 05:00, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

November 7

US law protecting the Swiss arms

Why does US law provide special protection for the arms of the Swiss Confederation (US Code, Title 18, Part I, Chapter 3, Section 78)? DuncanHill (talk) 01:09, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

The footnote at this copy of the statute (which most of you probably can't see) seems to imply that it's been around since 1940 (or maybe 1936; it's hard to tell). The only thing I can think of is the similarity to the Red Cross, which is protected by section 706 (and more recently, 706a). Buddy431 (talk) 03:08, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Chapter 33 seems to be primarily about preventing someone passing themselves off as an official of any of various sorts. Keep in mind that the Swiss are always neutral and commonly used as intermediaries between states that have broken diplomatic ties. We don't want some corporation adopting the Swiss flag as a logo and then trying to pass itself off as a neutral party in order to gain some kind of advantage over their competitors. That would (a) be unfair, and (b) damage the credibility of the Swiss as neutrals. --Ludwigs2 08:25, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I suppose the last paragraph in the US Code excludes the Swiss knifes. Is that right?--Quest09 (talk) 11:07, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what was in their heads when they debated the law. I suspect the idea was to not inconvenience established companies in general without need. If I'm correct in thinking that the law is intended to prevent deceptive practices, then a company with a long-standing usage of the arms as part of their trademark could not reasonably or easily pass itself off anew as having some sort of diplomatic status, and so it would be a non-issue. --Ludwigs2 18:31, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Charles E. Whitmeyer

I came across the article for Charles E. Whitmeyer and am looking for any sources that can confirm his existence and exploits. Particularly of concern are the claims that he was illiterate, invented the child leash and used moonshine as an embalming fluid. A search for the only reference used in the article only brings up Wikipedia and its mirrors. Gobonobo ^{T C} 01:22, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

There is at least one book reference, cited in the article. I can't find anything online, but that doesn't mean that he didn't exist, or isn't notable. He very well could be. I have done some research for Wikipedia before on long deceased North Carolinians; next time I am at the Library I can look him up. --Jayron32 03:40, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

"Child leashes" have existed for many centuries, called leading strings... AnonMoos (talk) 13:49, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Identify this novel

I remember reading a novel back in grade 6 where the main character is named "Alex" and the story is set in the Soviet Union, with some of Alex's family members being arrested by Soviet authorities. What was this novel titled? 66.212.129.130 (talk) 05:52, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I can answer your question, but if it was anything like Red Scarf Girl, which I read in the 7th grade, it is all a bunch of propaganda. schyler (talk) 13:59, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Sourcing Nietzsche

Various websites credit Friedrich Nietzsche with the following quote:

Talking much about oneself can also be a means to conceal oneself.

Anyone know if this is legit and if so, the origin? 83.70.229.15 (talk) 12:16, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Perfectly legit, yes. It's ch. 4, §169 of his Beyond Good and Evil, which you can find at Wikisource. Antiquary (talk) 12:53, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

in this PDF what was the "December 25th incident"?

In this PDF: http://www.npr.org/assets/news/2010/05/17/concern.pdf

What is the mentioned "recent incident (on December 25th)" (near bottom of third page)? 84.153.207.135 (talk) 12:58, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

The pdf twice caused Chrome to freeze, so I can't help. DuncanHill (talk) 13:05, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Duncan, for the conspiracist in me, will you write a disclosure of whether you have any interest in the matter? 84.153.212.109 (talk) 16:25, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

It's a very interesting document, a "letter of concern" to the Assistant to the President for Science and Technology from some faculty members at UCSF, dated April 6, 2010. The passage in question is:

"Lastly, given the recent incident (on December 25th), how do we know whether the manufacturer or TSA, seeking higher resolution, will scan the groin area more slowly leading to a much higher total dose?"

Presumably, this is in reference to the Christmas Day bombing attempt in which the would-be bomber concealed explosives in his underwear. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 14:29, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Alternate history

Would it be an even remotely plausible PoD to have Mexico take back Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California during the 1930s when the American military was weakened by the Great Depression? --75.33.217.61 (talk) 13:34, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

The article Plan de San Diego may be an interesting read to you. The Great Depression weakened the US economy in all sectors, including the military, but war (and especially invasion) has historically, in all nations, contributed to a sense of a collective "we can do it" spirit. I seriously doubt, even with the large Mexican-American population at the time, that Mexico would have been able to conquer these lands. Most Mexican-Americans' families at the time had fled to these areas because of the political unrest in their native country and were usually already second generation Americans; assimilation had begun. Some other articles you may wish to look at: History of Mexico#Part VI: The PRI and the Rise of Contemporary Mexico (1929-present) and Zimmermann Telegram. schyler (talk) 13:56, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

It's actually worse than just a "we can do it" spirit. Wars stimulate economies and do wonders for politics. Had the US gotten into a border war with Mexico at this point, they probably would have pulled out of the Great Depression faster and earlier than they otherwise did. As it happened, it took WWII to get the US out of it. We would have to be talking about very remote assets to imagine the US not deciding it was "worth" mobilization to reclaim them. Texas and California in particular were pretty valuable assets, though, and would be well-worth reclaiming. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:44, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't seem very plausible to me, unless in connection with the Zimmermann Telegram and a WWI that turned out very differently... AnonMoos (talk) 14:07, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Quote from Rabbi Joseph H. Hertz

I've been trying to find a source for this quote: can anyone help? Best, ╟─TreasuryTag►Tellers' wands─╢ 15:30, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

The quote seems to be attributed more often to Solomon Schechter (see this example).--Cam (talk) 16:00, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

what is fat people's psychology?

Like, when I see them buy three donuts, why do they do it if they know it makes them fat? 84.153.212.109 (talk) 17:43, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

See obesity.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 17:54, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Under "causes" it doesn't list pyschology except to say "Certain physical and mental illnesses", meaning something more serious. I don't mean a mental illness, I mean the simple choice. If I, who weigh 160 pounds, and am not on a diet, know I don't need more than one donut, and so I don't buy one, why does someone weighing 300 who knows they don't need more than one donut, then buy three? Like, I don't understand this. Also, sometimes nobody on the train is eating, it might be a very dirty and disgusting metro that is totally unappetizing. Only one person will be eating, who is grossly overweight. What is the psychology behind eating at this time? I mean, if people who aren't working on losing weight are grossed out enough not to even consider eating (even if they have food), doesn't it follow that someone who is working on losing weight would definitely not be eating in that situation? But the observation is just the opposite: even from 80 people, they might be the only one eating in that situation. Or, while walking somewhere. Etc etc. So, what is the psychology behind it? I'm not talking about people with mental hindrances who don't realize that they should not eat 5 donuts if they are not trying to quickly gain weight (the only situation in which someone would eat 5 donuts, or an eating contest) -- I'm talking about people with a normal IQ who know this fact, but still do it? I've removed the ref desk alert after adding this clarification, hopefully you will now understand the exact perspective I have in asking this question. It is totally bizarre to me. It would be like if the only people building a house in this city this week are people who don't want a house. This doesn't make sense to me on pure utilitarian grounds, and so I would like a psychological explanation. Thank you. 84.153.212.109 (talk) 18:29, 7 November 2010 (UTC)