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 20

Mystery Medal

I'm looking for identification and translation of this medal, possibly dating from WWII:

Images

Any information would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. -- 74.137.105.0 (talk) 00:35, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Hm. I can't say anything, but the golden bit is vaguely kamon-like, but then the factory motive would in this day be most easily associated with Communist China, but could also be an early industrialist Japan motive. Can't say anything about the angel. The wording underneath is, funnily enough, in two styles - the left most character is 章 and written in the regular printed CJKV characters, and the middle and right one are in a stylized "ancient characters" script that I can't read for the life of me - maybe someone else here can do better. Incidentally, I suspect it's highly likely read from the right to the left, and since (at least in Japanese) the character 章 means either chapter in a book or a badge/emblem, I'd say this is the emblem of some society or other. A membership badge or something like it. That's all I can tell for now, maybe someone else can have a go at the seal script - it looks fairly simple and should be readable to someone even vaguely familiar with it. TomorrowTime (talk) 05:50, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Seems to me more like the figure on the Brandenburg Gate or other (neo-)classical victory angel ("Nike") than anything oriental... AnonMoos (talk) 12:10, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Agreed - this[1] is "Victory" on the Wellington Arch in London. Looks pretty similar including the laurel wreath and four-horsed chariot. Does anyone recognise the trefoil or Triquetra symbol in the small golden disc? A Celtic knot or a Japonese Mon (emblem)? Alansplodge (talk) 16:37, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Has anyone looked at the second picture and tried to translate the writing on the back? DuncanHill (talk) 16:42, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

習勤章 壹ケ年習勤 昭和八年度 東洋レーヨソ 株式會社 滋賀工場 — Medal of hardworking —

One year of learning and practice, The year of 1933, Toyo Rayon Company Limited, Shiga Factory http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toray_Industries http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shiga_Prefecture http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mon_(emblem) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chantaiman2 (talk • contribs) 16:49, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Chantaiman2. There is an image of the mon on the Toray website at [2]. DuncanHill (talk) 17:00, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I never even realized there was a backside picture :) And there it is, the mystery seal script from the front side: 習勤章. TomorrowTime (talk) 17:26, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Where can I see the backside picture? I think 習勤章 is wrong. There's no such word in Japanese. It must be 皆勤章/賞. And 壹ケ年習勤 should be 壱ケ年皆勤. Not レーヨソ, but レーヨン. I think it's a medal given to someone who had a perfect attendance at work in 1933. Oda Mari (talk) 19:15, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

The backside should be available in a link on the frontside's page, however you can access it directly here. -- 74.137.105.0 (talk) 19:35, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you all! This has been quite informative. I don't know how the medal got from there to here, but at least I now know what it is. -- 74.137.105.0 (talk) 19:35, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the link. I checked a paper dictionary and found out 壹 is a variation of 壱. The meaning is the same. The letters looks like seal script. Maybe that is why 皆 looks like 習 and is different from this font "皆". Oda Mari (talk) 20:04, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

壹 is the standard Chinese complex version of 一, but I've never seen 壱 in a Chinese context. Steewi (talk) 02:37, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Atheist's Golden Rule

Anyone ever hear of the "Atheist's Golden Rule", which is to "Do in the present what you want to remember in the future as having done in the past." --96.252.208.240 (talk) 01:36, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

We have an article on the Golden Rule, which discusses it from many perspectives, though not specifically from that of atheism that I could see, except perhaps to some extent in the Criticisms and responses to criticisms section. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 01:48, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I am more interested in a comparison of each rule and their criticisms and note in that respect that the Criticisms and responses to criticisms does not mention the easy (and perverted) application of the Golden Rule by pedophiles who apply it to children as meaning that it is okay to touch the gentiles (spelling error corrected) genitals of children because that is what a pedophile wants children to do to them. --96.252.208.240 (talk) 02:38, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, all platitudes such as the Golden Rule suffer from analysis; by defintion platitudes work in the general, but tend to break down in the specific. Your personal version of the golden rule you stated above suffers from this as well. One could come up with many situations where your personal rule above could lead a person to do harm rather than good. --Jayron32 02:49, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Although not my rule it does fall into the category of misapplication but if you go further with the Golden Rule than if you misinterpret then misinterpretation will be visited upon (or at least invited to visit) you. --96.252.208.240 (talk) 03:16, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

96.252.208.240, see gentile - it basically means a person who is not a Jew. Nothing to do with genitals. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 03:56, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

See Freudian Slip. schyler (talk) 05:26, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

...in the world, not of the word... --96.252.208.240 (talk) 15:20, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure why that would have to be an exclusively atheist golden rule. Is there anything specifically atheistic in it? And vice versa, I see no reason an atheist shouldn't follow the original golden rule - in fact, I think a lot of atheists do. TomorrowTime (talk) 10:03, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Matthew 7:12 for reference. I agree with TomorrowTime. This "Atheist's Golden Rule" sounds like avoiding regret to me, which, if one failed to do so, would require something like Repentance. schyler (talk) 14:16, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Or at least the negative/prohibitive form. Most atheists that I know make a strong distinction between the two forms, probably because they are tired of people assuming that they have the same desire for treatment as everyone else. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:18, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

96.252.208.240's formulation is a bit long-winded, too. You could cut it down to: "Don't do anything you'll regret." Also, I found "The Platinum Rule" interesting: "people should treat others as those others would like to be treated." Also, Google turns up a lot of hits for "Atheist's Golden Rule" but no single one seems formally endorsed by "Atheism" as a whole, for whom anyway I suppose it would be better called a "Golden Heuristic" to distinguish it from some supernatural "commandment". That said, I do not see why it would have to be all that drastically different from other, non-atheist formulations. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 14:12, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Atheists when asked seem to have little other resort except to say that apart from consideration that they themselves are God that time or gravity runs a close second. This rule seems to support the former, namely time. --96.252.208.240 (talk) 15:25, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Atheists don't have/believe in a God, and so would not say that they themselves, time, or gravity is God. Have you read our Atheism article? WikiDao ☯ (talk) 15:43, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

The problem with all wiki articles is that the moment after you download and while you are reading the article it can change. Have you read this article? --96.252.208.240 (talk) 15:55, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Certainly one should never take WP to be the Word of God. ;) That's a nice page at that link, how is it relevant to your OQ and the answers to it so far? (If it is that you are using WP just to push a point-of-view, please don't do that – we have enforceable guidelines about that sort of thing. Thank you.) WikiDao ☯ (talk) 16:09, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

...the belief in fact versus fiction. Atheists may not believe in anything specifically as a deity but suggest that belief in logic is superior to belief in God. By our actions for instance few of us would ignore freezing weather and remain outside in such weather without clothes. The article, to a degree, explores the ultimate direction of logical thinking and holding it above a belief in God. Hence, perhaps logic can be thought of as the atheist's God? 96.252.208.240 (talk) 16:39, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps some atheists may (implicitly or explicitly) hold such a view, but there are many kinds of atheists. Our Atheism article says:

"Some of the ambiguity and controversy involved in defining atheism arises from difficulty in reaching a consensus for the definitions of words like deity and god. The plurality of wildly different conceptions of god and deities leads to differing ideas regarding atheism's applicability. The ancient Romans accused Christians of being atheists for not worshiping the pagan deities. In the 20th century, this view fell into disfavor as theism came to be understood as encompassing belief in any divinity."

So, it is going to depend on what you understand a divinity to be as far as how you conceive what it is that an atheist does not believe in. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 16:57, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

The article suggests divinity as being that entity "...capable of reducing an infinite number of logical equations having an infinite number of variables with an infinite number of states to minimum form instantaneously and be the first entity to do it..." assuming logic is the ultimate criteria upon which everything is based? In other words, it does not matter what you believe or think or say what you believe in but rather what actions existence forces you to take despite thinking or belief? 17:36, 20 November 2010 (UTC) --96.252.208.240 (talk) 17:40, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Are you asking or asserting all that? If asking, you should ask the author of the article at wikia.com what that person meant. If asserting, please see WP:SOAPBOX, and in either case please try to limit discussion in this thread to responses or pertinent follow-ups to the original question. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 18:14, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

You say atheist believe in nothing which seems to mean that they only go by facts. So what facts do they go by? The fact that time passes by, that gravity rules the universe or that belief in logic is superior to belief in God or all three? In other words, I'm asking what rules atheists? 96.252.208.240 (talk) 12:23, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

The same thing that rules all people, a mixture of instincts, passion and rationality. To elaborate: You are asking a question that would require excessive generalisation in order to answer it. Atheists are not a homogenous group of people nor are atheism a single school of thought. It varies from individual to individual, much like with most religious people. --Saddhiyama (talk) 12:38, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

You may be encumbered by a notion of a hierarchy of known absolute facts, as opposed to something open-ended and network-shaped, like critical rationalism, where all facts are subject to fallibility and of uncertain and context-dependent importance. Hope that made things clearer. :) 213.122.60.193 (talk) 13:37, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

That's the problem... I know of no mariners who say, "We do not need a light house for we can tell where the rocks and the shore are by watching for white caps and surf and hearing the sound of breaking waves." 96.252.208.240 (talk) 23:59, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Mariners today mostly use GPS, which incidentally, like the lighthouse, is a man-made invention. Do you have a point with your analogy, or can we close this one as having moved into the realm of proselytising now? --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:49, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I am quite satisfied to part with the notion that atheists have no rules to steer them clear of danger and destruction unless of course you or anyone can enlighten me further. 96.252.208.240 (talk) 19:45, 22 November 2010 (UTC).

What ever would have given you "the notion that atheists have no rules to steer them clear of danger and destruction" in the first place? There are an awful lot of atheists that seem to do so just about as well as everyone else on a daily basis.

I would strongly recommend that before discussing this further you read through our article on Atheism – and then, with specific reference to what it says there, ask further questions about atheism here. Regards, WikiDao ☯ (talk) 20:01, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

What rules did the Epicureanists or other atomic materialists have to protect one's soul from danger and destruction? 96.252.208.240 (talk) 21:20, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Buddha was an explicit atheist, and so was Confucius I think, and they both came up with a Golden Rule different from the one Jesus supposedly did. 66.65.142.101 (talk) 01:31, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

hi

my brother not intrested in studies? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.82.96.22 (talk) 07:14, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Have you looked into Alternative education for him? --Jayron32 07:25, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Or a work release program?--Wetman (talk) 14:04, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

How is that relevant, Wetman? WikiDao ☯ (talk) 14:19, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Study is interesting if what you are interested in is studied. schyler (talk) 14:10, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

And your sibling is your brother if your sibling is male. 84.153.227.35 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:54, 20 November 2010 (UTC).

First English child in The New World

It appears that two people carry the same title. Virginia Dare (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Dare) and Peregrine White (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peregrine_White) both carry the description as the first English child born in The New World. Which one is the "real" first child.Twokamprs (talk) 13:04, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

We have an article First white child... -- AnonMoos (talk) 13:10, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

(e/c)Virginia Dare was born in 1587, and Peregrine White in 1620. White was the first born to the Pilgrim Fathers, but they were not the first English settlers - that was the Roanoke Colony, where Virginia Dare was born. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:12, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

say you have an eye for real estate and renovation... and $10k

So, my wife is a real estate and renovation champ. She can always spot an awesome location and bring out a huge amount from it. The owners are so happy they usually waive rent for a few months. But, we're only in our twenties and don't have much capital, like $10k. I was wondering: where in the world could you buy a house for $10k, that has modern cities and infrastructure so that we could put her skills to use? I mean, due to local buying power, that $10k would be more like $150-$300k in real estate buying power. I'm open for anything, though I'd think places like Brazil, or India would be most likely. Even within these locations, which cities are the best candidates?

Basically, this is a finance/economics question, about modern cities with good healthy growth rates (since real estate prices are usually tied most closely to net income) but where $10k will buy you a shabby house you can renovate and flip. Thanks so much!! 84.153.227.35 (talk) 14:48, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

It might be a good idea to stick to a market you know - you might run into unforeseen problems in foreign markets, plus the return is probably going to be low as well. If you are confident in this, you could consider getting a loan and going into this seriously right where you are. (Incidentally, your post reminded me of The Buddha of Suburbia, a novel by Hanif Kureishi, in which the narrators family does this for a living: they buy a run down flat, redesign it, sell it at a profit and use the profit to buy a new one and to live on for the next year or two, while they redesign this next flat). TomorrowTime (talk) 15:12, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

In the U.S. Rust Belt there are certainly plenty. Cities like Detroit, Cleveland, Akron, and others have hundreds of houses available for next to nothing; many are foreclosures. In Cleveland alone, according to Zillow this morning, there are 30 single-family houses on the market for between $1,000 and $5,000. Before grabbing one though you'd be advised to look at the local situation in detail. Some of these are likely to rebound in value if the economy improves. Antandrus (talk) 15:29, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for you help, guys, but I want to clarify two things. First, and most importantly, our most important criteria is a burgeoning local economy with very good job prospects for everyone and high growth rates in the economy. I said this. Why is this so important? Because house prices depend most strongly on salaries and the health of the economy. So, the places with foreclosures and 20% unemployment are the exact OPPOSITE of the kind of market we're looking for!! Let me say this. I'm not interested in the U.S., where a really healthy vibrant fast-growing city where everyone wants a house, means prices are like $150k-$1 million depending on the market. I want a vibrant, fast-growing market, in a country where the purchasing power is much higher (cost of living much lower), such as the "BRIC" economies (Brazil, Russia, India, China). Secondly, I do not want to get into any kind of debt. I want to buy a house outright, do our magic on it, as I've personally seen my wife perform half a dozen times, have the value double, and sell it, all within 3-5 months. This is what we're capable of. If I had $100,000, I would buy a house in California, maybe. But we have $10,000 right now, I'd like to buy a house outright in a place with low unemployment, very high growth, and where that kind of money buys you, say, a very nice house downtown, but one that we see good prospects in improving. Thanks for any actual economic insight you have on the world's thousands of cities not in the United States, Western Europe, Japan or the like. I'm talking South America, or Eastern Europe, or Asia, or northern Africa, or whatever. Thanks again. 84.153.227.35 (talk) 15:51, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

You're suggesting following the herd. But this is likely to mean jumping on the band wagon just before prices crash. The way to make money is to forsee the future: "buy on despair, sell on euphoria". You get the best bargains when nobody else expects things to turn around. When its clear they have turned around and things are improving, then its usually too late, prices have already risen. 92.15.27.119 (talk) 18:25, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

(OP here). Um, that is VERY good advice for any kinds of securities. Buy when theres blood on the streets. What youre missing here is that I am not buying securities, I am planning on investing major work INTO a property. So a better analogy would be, I am an executive and have a chance to get BOTH equity and a salary. I want to know what the prospects of different companies are, so I will get equity that, together with the amazing VP work that I do, will really give me return on my equity. Or, lets say I am a watchmaker, and pick up a shitty watch to repair. Before I spend three months of labor repairing it, I would like to know if I can sell it afterward! So, while your advice is VERY good for equity where you cant make any kind of direct improvement, it does not apply to my question. Thanks for trying. (Sorry about no special characters in this reply such as apostrophes.) --194.196.95.89 (talk) 18:56, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

You're also forgetting gearing. Use your money as a 10% deposit. When prices rise 10%, you've doubled your money. The "$300000 worth of real estate for $10000" applies to what you find in Detroit, if the details on Zillow are to be believed. They are giving them away. 92.24.181.96 (talk) 23:33, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I was going to suggest Belgrade as an up and coming business hub of Southeastern Europe, but then I checked real estate prices there, and from a brief glance they seem to be a bit steep for your price range. Oh well, maybe someone else will have a better suggestion. TomorrowTime (talk) 17:34, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks anyway. This is my experience too, I hear good things about up-and-coming areas of the world, but, in fact, real estate is a bit rich for my blood. Thanks for the tip anyway! Anything anyone else has along these lines is very welcome... 84.153.227.35 (talk) 17:47, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

You mentioned finance/economics so this is technically OT but have you really thought this thorough? Someone mentioned culture shock, but more then that, coming up with a list of countries is fine, but have you considered the difficulty of doing what you're trying to do? Many countries restrict what foreigners can do, buying property is often one of those restrictions. A quick search suggests in India if you aren't a citizen or non-resident Indian, you have to be resident in India (meaning for more then 183 days a year) something you can't do without a suitable visa. You may be better off in Brazil where from what I can tell you can own property. But even so, if your wife is doing her wonders, there's a fair chance this won't be allowed on a tourist visa, plus this will limit the amount of time you can stay there whatever the case. If you have enough money or some high demand skills (likely with some good experience to go with it) or whatever you can often get suitables visas to work in most countries if you try hard enough but considering your age and as you agree $10k isn't much, it's probably not going to be easy, if possible with what you have. However brillant your wife is, without something substanial to show for it it's not likely to count for much. Also the culture shock is not just about you adjusting to life there and the problems communicating if you don't know the language/s. Someone already mentioning "stick to a market you know", but beyond not understanding what's good to buy and the possibility of being ripped off when you're in a country with little knowledge; buying materials, negotiating with vendors etc is not likely to be easy. And even what you do to the house to spruce it up is likely to vary from what your wife does where you currently life. Consider that you are to some extent competing with very low cost even if relatively unskilled labour (in Malaysia for example just knocking down a house and building a new one is fairly common). Then there's also those dealings with the lawyers, bureaucrats etc. These will add to your cost and complexity. For example I know in Malaysia you generally have to pay a bribe to the land office if you want them to process any transfer fast and even then it takes about 3 months. (+1 month before you get your deposit, this means it may be about 4 months from selling the house to getting all the money.) IIRC you are originally from Australia but with UK (or Irish?) citizenship and currently resident in Germany, sticking in the EU may be a decent bet. These are only a small set of the pitfalls and problems you're gonna need to consider and I would suggest you consider them before you start to consider what places. Nil Einne (talk) 20:58, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I recall seeing a tv programme about someone doing this in Morocco I think, so its not impossible. 92.24.181.96 (talk) 23:11, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

India? Goa? Costa Rica? Morocco? Tunisia? "Have the value double" is the difficult part - my guess would be that this only happens in an affluent country with high prices, where consumers have the luxury of buying based on appearances rather than fundamentals. I think you are going to have a lot of culture shock - the rest of the world is very different to the US. On the other had, you could try a country that is starting to open up to Holiday home tourism, like Morocco or Tunisia, buy a run-down house and after renovation and modernisation sell it to a tourist as a holiday home. You are likely to be asking for the impossible - all the attributes you've listed do not exist in one place. 92.15.27.119 (talk) 18:08, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

In a few parts of France you could pick up a derelict barn to convert. But only in a few parts, and only just. Expect to spend many more thousands renovating, but at your own pace. Just getting an architect to do the plans will cost at least 1K euros. Wouldn't it be better if one of you worked and earned enough to borrow on a mortgage, then you can buy in the UK for, say £60K (Stoke-on-Trent? Hastings?), and gradually work your way up? Itsmejudith (talk) 23:45, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

If we on the ref desk knew where to buy real estate that would double in value in 3-5 months, I think most of us would be out buying properties right now instead of answering questions. Googlemeister (talk) 15:48, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Or doing both. 92.15.6.86 (talk) 11:47, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

The mention of culture shock up there reminded me of one more thing to look out for - people in a completely different part of the world might not appreciate your work the way people in your country do. There's no accounting for taste. I remember watching American Chopper quite regularly, because I enjoyed seeing the construction of the bikes in action (didn't care all that much for all the make believe drama, but hey), and while the process was fascinating, I almost always hated the finished product - the bikes were (to me) just plain tacky and really cheap looking with all the unnecessary bells and whistles. And talking to my friends about this, I was far from the only one to feel that way. But since apparently they sell well in Orange County, I figure the people over there just feel differently about what makes a chopper look cool. TomorrowTime (talk) 13:37, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Hope you know that that's Orange County, New York, not the more famous west-coast "OC". And I doubt whether they sell many of their fancy prestige motorcycles locally... AnonMoos (talk) 08:59, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Swiss military

Switzerland is always neutral, so why do they need an army? --75.33.217.61 (talk) 20:55, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Well to state the obvious, Switzerland is unlikely to be neutral if someone tried to invade them. Nil Einne (talk) 20:59, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I suppose they do hope for some measure of deterrence.

Our Military of Switzerland article says: "Because of a long history of neutrality, the army does not take part in armed conflicts in other countries, but is part of several peacekeeping missions around the world."

There also seems to be a sizeable group of people, the Group for a Switzerland without an Army, who support a Switzerland without an Army. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 21:40, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Nuetrality is not a guarantee that you won't be attacked. Poland, Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxemburg, Denmark, Norway and Greece were all nuetral in 1939/1940 but were invaded anyway. The USA was nuetral when the Pearl Harbor attack started. Alansplodge (talk) 21:49, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

("Neutral.") From the Japanese point of view, the US was not neutral except by name. They were doing all sorts of things that made it clear whose side they were on, even though Congress had not declared war. --Mr.98 (talk) 23:54, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Agreed but it works both ways. Spain's nuetrality clearly favoured the Axis (they even sent a division of volunteers to fight the Soviets in 1941) but they weren't attacked by the Allies. Switzerland made sure they were useful to the Axis by providing no-questions-asked financial services. Alansplodge (talk) 12:55, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Poland was member to Franco-Polish alliance (1921) and Anglo-Polish military alliance. The latter may be viewed as a last-minute attempt to deter Germany, but still it's far from being neutral. East of Borschov 20:29, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

See armed neutrality (although the article is very stubby). Neutrality does not imply pacifism. -- 174.24.198.158 (talk) 20:19, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Switzerland during the World Wars details many of the actions of the Swiss military in armed neutrality. They believed they were defending Swiss sovereignty, presumably, by not letting anyone who wanted just ignore the fact they were there. - Jarry1250 ^{[Who? Discuss.]} 20:33, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Costa Rica has no military either, but that didn't prevent them from sending in "armed police" to the territory that Honduras declared theirs, the other day. Corvus cornix_talk 20:32, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

November 21

Elective Monarchy to Hereditary Monarchy

It seems like all the monarchies of Europe were at one point ceremonially elective (ex. Kings of the Anglo-Saxons had to be elect and early Kings of France had to crown their children to ensure their succession) but then they became hereditary. How come the Holy Roman Empire was never fully able to transit into a hereditary monarchy? The title remained in the Habsburg family for hundreds of years.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 05:15, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

One of the possibly contributing factors, and this is just speculation on my part, was the lack of an identifiable capital city. England had London, and France had Paris, and all of the other nominal "cities" in those nations were quite smaller. The King of those countries, who resided in the largest city, and thus controlled it, was clearly the most important figure of it. The nominal capitals of the HRE were probably Aachen or Frankfurt, but none of these served as the seat of government; the Emperor usually resided in whatever his familial homeland was, or perhaps a nearby free city or bishopric. The Habsburgs made their seat Vienna, but that was merely because of it being the most important city in the Habsburg hereditary lands. The assembly of nobles, the Reichstag, tended to meet just about anywhere. What this means is that the Emperor was never able to consolidate power in any one location, to "call his nobles" to his court, if you will. The English nobility and French nobility spent a sizable amount of time in London and Paris respectively, often at the courts of the King. In the HRE, since there was no capital, they pretty much spent most of their time in their own fiefs, which is why they had so much more control over those lands, and why the nobility in the HRE tended to become more powerful over time rather than less, as was happening in France and England. Since the HRE nobility tended to stay home, those individual fiefs became semi-autonomous from the Empire itself. This lack of centralization meant that it was in the interests of the nobility to keep the monarchy elective; to prevent the sort of centralization of power that occured in Paris and London. --Jayron32 06:02, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Another possible reason for the decentralized nature of the HRE was the uniquely German institution of the Stem duchy which did not exist in other parts of Europe. These duchies were essentially the settled Germanic tribes that occupied the land that made up the HRE. These stem duchies generally had the right to manage their own affairs independently of the monarch; that tradition likely influenced the sort of arrangement that led to the uniquely elective nature of the HRE and functional independence of its member states. --Jayron32 06:11, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

The Kings of Poland were elective, and Poland had a capital. It just became a tradition. But then, the nobility of Poland were notorious for ther me-firstism. The Sejm required unanimity, not just a majority, or even a super-majority. Corvus cornix_talk 20:36, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

The Irish always elected their kings.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:20, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

The trope of a king acclaimed by the "people" is a common element in the founding myth of many peoples, always looked back upon as a sample of pristine tradition in archaic times: take the convention with a grain of salt and judge the uses to which it is being put in the contexts in which it turns up. "Why" didn't the Roman Empire ever fully establish inheritability either? Whose expectations are being expressed in such a question?--Wetman (talk) 17:45, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Do most people admire their boyfriend/girlfriend?

By admiration, I mean admiration for a person's personality, talent, or intelligence--in the same way that one would admire a hero, for example. Admiration for a person's appearance doesn't count.

Does this vary across gender? Is one sex more likely to choose mates who are "better" than themselves?

Of course I have a lot of anecdotal evidence, but I want to know if any academic studies have been done on this. --140.180.14.145 (talk) 09:40, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I believe there's some evidence people may initially have difficult seeing their partners faults as the parts of the brain responsible are semi shut down, I'm having trouble finding a good source but see [3], [4], [5] which discuss this somewhat. If your up to it, you can try reading the original article [6]. This doesn't mean they admire their personality, talent or intelligent, in fact my impression is the ability to critically analyse someone is affected so even though you don't see their flaws so well you may not really see what makes them good either. In any case, this doesn't tend to last more then 2 years in to a relationship Nil Einne (talk) 16:13, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Define admiration, if you would. Then think, "how many people actually admire anyone or anything", in the sense that you have just defined. My guess is, the majority will just shrug their shoulders (I would). Even if a particular culture has a concept of "admiration", and it does not discourage speaking about it in public, not everyone there actually practices it, and some will just refuse to talk about it. And, of course, nothing beats mother nature: emotional life changes with hormone level, there's no way around it. East of Borschov 16:02, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

In the beginning of a romantic relationship men and women tend to view their loved one through a pretty pair of rose-tinted glasses, hence the term Love is blind. As time passes, familiarity sets in, then boredom and annoyance. What once attracted instead becomes an irritant, and a sexual turn-off.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:10, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

European Union legislation: How much is codecision, how much is consultation?

Title asks the question. What fields or what particular supranational subjects are prone to the EU's consultation procedure, and which are handled through the codecision procedure? These seem to shift bit by bit with each treaty, with more and more becoming codecision. Is there an available chart online?

Thank you much in advance! 88.90.16.74 (talk) 13:20, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Google [[7]] is your friend[[8]]. Codecisions involve both parliament and the council agreeing on an action; consultation (used in agriculture, taxation, competition law) is when a proposal from the commission reaches the council and the latter then consults parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. Assent, the third type of decision (not mentioned in the OP) is where the Council has to obtain parliament’s assent before certain decisions are taken. It is a yea/nay vote, with no amendments allowed.DOR (HK) (talk) 08:37, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Classic autobiographies

What classic autobiographies or memoirs are worth reading? For example I enjoyed reading the first part of Maxim Gorky's autobiography, and will read the other parts when I can get them. I also enjoyed The Autobiography Of Benvenuto Cellini. Thanks. 92.28.244.180 (talk) 17:47, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Father and Son by Edmund Gosse is an absolute gem of a book. Interesting, funny, sad, and beautifully written. DuncanHill (talk) 17:54, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Usama ibn Munqidh wrote a book that is sometimes called "memoirs". Paul Cobb's recent translation (titled "The Book of Contemplation") is a good read. If you like Cellini you might also like him (although Usama lived several centuries before Cellini). I also enjoyed Goodbye to All That by Robert Graves. Adam Bishop (talk) 23:35, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

A few more - both Boy and Going Solo by Roald Dahl are worth reading. The Diary of a Country Parson by James Woodforde is fascinating and moving, Paupers and Pig Killers by William Holland also, and those two make a good pair - two very different men in the same occupation at about the same time. Anthony Blond's Jew Made in England is fun. DuncanHill (talk) 23:52, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

And of course. Seven Pillars of Wisdom by T.E. Lawrence. DuncanHill (talk) 00:07, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

The Education of Henry Adams; Personal Memoirs of Ulysses S. Grant. —Kevin Myers 03:05, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

And an older but memorable one: The Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin. PhGustaf (talk) 03:32, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Not a classic yet, though I suspect it may become one Autobiography of Mark Twain, published recently in full for the first time: see here. Definitely on my reading list. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:45, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Good-Bye to All That is a very good read. P. S. Burton (talk) 17:42, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

In French, the Mémoires d'Outre-Tombe by François-René de Chateaubriand, the memoirs of the Duc de Saint-Simon, and those of Giacomo Casanova (Histoire de ma vie) are all classics. The Words by Jean-Paul Sartre and Memoirs of a Dutiful Daughter by Simone de Beauvoir are popular modern examples in the genre. --Xuxl (talk) 18:14, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

The Pulitzer-winning Angela's Ashes is fantastic, easily Frank McCourt's best work. The film version stuck remarkably close to the source material if you'd prefer to experience it that way (and anything with Robert Carlyle in is worth watching). The followups, 'Tis, and Teacher Man, don't really capture the imagination the same way, though. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 19:38, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

A Fortunate Life was written by Bert Facey, someone nobody outside his family had ever heard of until then. He became an instant celebrity in 1981 at the age of 87, he died the following year, and his book has been considered a timeless classic since Day 1 of publication. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:52, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

In Christian Theology, why do we have hiccups?

It seems pretty obvious that the biological hiccup serves no useful purpose, but is just an inconvenience. It is a minor evolutionary hiccup, if you will. But that explanation certainly won't mesh with a Creator who designs everything. So, if Humans are designed, then what design requirement does the occasional hiccup serve? In other words: what is the theological significance of the hiccup? 84.153.230.45 (talk) 17:49, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

(In other words, when Christian philosophers have turned their attention to the hiccup, what have they concluded?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.153.230.45 (talk) 17:53, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

This isn't about Christian theology, it's about creationism. Christians are not required to be creationists, and creationists are not necessarily Christians. But note that if not being able to explain everything invalidated belief systems, humans wouldn't have any belief systems at all, because none of ours are complete in the logical sense (except for ones that are self-contradictory). Paul (Stansifer) 19:03, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

"Christians are not required to be creationists" - if only they reject the Creed (I believe in God, the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth ... ). It's a minority (Free Christians etc.). East of Borschov 20:24, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

First of all, not all Christians place such importance in the Nicene Creed. And you must surely recognize that the vagueness of the word "creator" permits considerable leeway. See theistic evolution. The vast majority of Catholics/Anglicans/mainline Protestants are not creationists in the strict, young-earth sense of the word, if only because the position has become tarnished by its association with crazy tambourine-shaking Evangelical types. Even in places like the United States, where Evangelicalism is epidemic, a slim majority of the total Christian population accept the fact of evolution, albeit without recognizing its full philosophical implications. As for places like Africa and the Caribbean, I couldn't say. The situation is probably worse there. LANTZY^TALK 21:30, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Christians are not required to be creationists in the sense of ignoring scientific explanations. For example, the Catholic Church says of reading the Bible:

110 In order to discover the sacred authors' intention, the reader must take into account the conditions of their time and culture, the literary genres in use at that time, and the modes of feeling, speaking and narrating then current. "For the fact is that truth is differently presented and expressed in the various types of historical writing, in prophetical and poetical texts, and in other forms of literary expression."76

For gory details, see here. Oh, and if you were interested in a pretty detailed exegesis of what the Vatican's official position is on the Nicene Creed, it's detailed in the Catechism. For example, here is the section in the word 'creator' in the line 'creator of heaven and earth'! So, there are certainly Christians who take the Nicene Creed seriously, and yet have no truck with Creationist 'science'. 86.164.26.153 (talk) 23:54, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

(EC)Paul wrote (2 Corinthians 12:7-10 KJV) about some unspecified weakness or affliction which acted as a "thorn in the flesh" to keep him humble. Hiccups, bad vision, deafness, or acne, like epilepsy, might be said by some religious philosopher to serve such a function. (added) Even Christians who are creationists might endorse this explanation.Edison (talk) 19:09, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Per Edison. These things are sent to try us. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:32, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I did try to do some research, but I was not able to find any evidence that anyone writing in the field of intelligent design or creation science has addressed the question of the causes of hiccups. In response to the sub-question, many Christians believe that the two creation stories in the beginning of Genesis should be read as metaphoric or mythic truth, and not as a literally accurate version of the origin of life on earth. I could find a source for that if you like, but it really is common knowledge. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:40, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Given a reasonably elastic and paradoxical (ahem, I mean "mysterious") set of foundational beliefs, only a small investment of imagination is required to reconcile any given phenomenon with those beliefs. One strategy is to treat the universe like a Rube Goldberg machine, in which every localized evil is dismissed as part of a concatenation of events whose telos is good. If that's too much work, say "God works in mysterious ways", threaten the curious with hellfire, and call it a day. But religious people, like all humans, love to explain. From the perspective of religious authorities, the difficult part is not how to create just-so stories, but how to keep them from proliferating too quickly, and in undesirable directions. The power of theodicy is that it comes as naturally to a child as to a scholar, and is scalable from the most trivial to the most earth-shattering questions. Why do fireflies light up? So we can hunt them at night! Why did God cause the Holocaust? Because he loves the Jews! LANTZY^TALK 21:59, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Following the Original Sin man became imperfect, and genetic mutations began to occur. A hiccup is, like you say, an "inconvenience" with which we would surely not have to deal if Adam had not sinned. schyler (talk) 03:26, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

ok sorry, this might be a stupid question but, would we exist if Adam had not sinned ? 200.144.37.3 (talk) 10:19, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

According to some creationists, no. It was needed for him to take a fancy in the pleasures of the flesh with Eve. :-)

According to me, Adam never was of course. --Lgriot (talk) 11:45, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you would like to reexamine your thesis: "It seems pretty obvious that the biological hiccup serves no useful purpose". I, myself, suffer from a narrow esopahgus and find hiccups are useful in helping free stuck food. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 00:12, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Heresy trials in Scandinavia

The trial against Botulf Botulfsson seem to be the only heresy trial ending in an execution in Sweden, but what about the other Scandinavian countries? Does anyone know about any heresy trial in Denmark or Norway? Thanks--Aciram (talk) 19:00, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Our page on the Stockholm Bloodbath of 1520 details the trial (if such kangaroo court proceedings deserve the name) and execution of 82 people, ostensibly for heresy. Their real crime appears to have been opposition to Christian II of Denmark's invasion of Sweden. Antiquary (talk) 19:43, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I know about that occasion, but as you say; the real reason was not heresy, but politics. That's why the Botulf-case are pointed out as Sweden's only heresy trial, I believe. The trial against Eric Clauesson is also dubious. I feel secure in my knowledge about Sweden in particular, but I am not that informed about Denmark and Norway. What I search for are cases in Denmark and Norway. Where there any? --Aciram (talk) 20:07, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

All "heresy" is politics.--Wetman (talk) 17:31, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

November 22

European anti-hate laws

Are European anti-hate laws such that you can get in trouble if you say that fewer than 6 million Jews were killed in the Holocaust (for instance 5.4 million)? 71.203.138.231 (talk) 00:18, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

There is no single European law on this: see here. The exact number of victims of the Holocaust will probably always be unknown, and it should be remembered that Jews were not the only victims. Most prosecutions for Holocaust denial have related to just that: denial that the events occurred at all, or at least an attempt to systematically minimise the number of victims. I doubt anyone would be prosecuted for an academic argument over numbers: it probably comes down to intent.

Incidentally, Wikipedia should not be used as a source for legal advice, though I'd assume that this wasn't the reason you asked the question! AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:23, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, just general interest, not legal advice. 71.203.138.231 (talk) 02:13, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

There are Nazi groups who like to lower the number though, to say "only" a few hundred thousand people were killed, as if that's somehow better. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:46, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

What? Obviously if only a tenth as many people had been killed it would have been "somehow better"! 84.153.242.138 (talk) 14:18, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

The real danger (in my opinion) is not from blatantly neo-Nazi groups, but from revisionist "historians" who write plausible sounding, semi-scholarly books on the subject. It's easy to dismiss a claim that the Nazis were handing out ponies and candy. It's not so easy to dismiss a claim that, maybe most deaths in concentration camps were due to tuberculosis, and that the Nazis, while disregarding the well being of detained undesirables, weren't actually trying to kill them. I mean, it was disease and malnutrition that did in a lot of the people at concentration camps, so such a claim is harder to refute. Or maybe you say that while there were certainly incidents of violence against Jews and other unwanted people, there was no centralized plan to exterminate them, that any violence was just due to overzealous guards rather than Nazi authorities. These type of guys can look a lot like legitimate academics, and indeed, sometimes the line is blurred. How do you classify someone like David Irving? Yes, he's obviously somewhat of a Nazi sympathizer, and has at times written things that are pretty blatantly holocaust denial. However, he's also written a lot of World War II books that are pretty well received, and does actually do research into the events he writes about. He was successfully prosecuted in Austria for holocaust denial. Buddy431 (talk) 05:39, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

From what I've seen, most prosecutions under such laws have been of people who went out of their way to attract the attention of the authorities, seeking 'martyrdom'. Perhaps the most appropriate punishment for their crimes might be to ignore them, rather than giving them an excuse to make themselves out as victims. Still, as I've noted, these are national laws, and have to be seen in their own particular contexts. I tend to think that neo-Nazis and the like present ample opportunities to be charged for their actions, so prosecuting them for their historical delusions is unnecessary. Typically, they have little ability to argue about history in a logical manner anyway. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:01, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd actually disagree with a lot of that. A number of the people charged under such laws that they had no intention of breaking, and in places that they had no intention of being. The most famous is probably Gerald Fredrick Töben, who was issued a German arrest warrant for a website that he ran, from Austria. He was arrested in the UK because of the arrest warrant, a nation with no such holocaust denial laws. That a man could be arrested in one country because he did something in his home country that's illegal in a third country is really pretty scary. He did nothing specific to attract the attention of the German authorities, and indeed, probably had no intention of breaking German law. The case really highlights the legal problems that the internet creates. If my website can be accessed in Country A that has less permissive freedom of speech laws than my home Country B, can a warrant for my arrest be issued in Country A? Evidentially yes. Can that arrest warrant be carried out in a third country that I've never been in before, Country C, whether or not what I did is illegal there? Apparently, at least in some cases. It's easy to blow off a case like this, given Toben's nutty views, but there are places in the world that go a lot further than outlawing holocaust denial, and it's really scary to think that I might have to worry about those countries laws even when I'm not in them. Buddy431 (talk) 05:08, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

As opposed to the situation where you can be imprisoned (or worse - much worse), by the police in country A because they have surrendered to country B who blames all its problems on people it insists are conspiring on behalf of imaginary country C? If you are that worried about being arrested for asserting your rights to 'freedom of speech' by talking crap, then don't do it. Bogus martyrdom doesn't justify stupidity. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:27, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I think you're trivializing a very serious issue. The point is not Töben. The point is laws that criminalize dissenting views. Such laws should never be permitted, as they represent an officialization of truth. One of truth's worst enemies, historically, has been its codification into official status. --Trovatore (talk) 07:08, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Being American, reading about these sorts of laws just makes me facepalm. What's the purpose of fighting for freedom if you turn around and make laws like that? I'm no Nazi sympathizer myself, but it does seem rather ironic that European countries would have such laws. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 08:00, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

In some cases German laws are ridiculous, someone with an anti-Nazi swastika with a strike-through was arrested. This was reversed on appeal but even so it shows that it is not only blatant extremists who are targeted. -- Q Chris (talk) 09:21, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

While some of the laws are problematic, we should still be careful about how we discuss them. In the case referenced, nobody was arrested. Someone was fined, and the fine was overturned on appeal. So the law is not to blame in this case - the court was. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:44, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

We do have an article, Laws against Holocaust denial, which also specifies which countries has these sort of laws. As can be seen not all European countries have them. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:40, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Time line of Robert Graves life

In my english class i have a report I am doing on the poet Robert Graves. For the report I am thinking about explaining and showing how different key events in his life reflect and show up in his poems but I need some help. I have found some very large things such as when he was in the wars but that is too vague. I was wondering if anyone knows of a website i could find more specific key events that altered his poems. Thank you verry much its greatly appretiated. --99.89.176.228 (talk) 04:13, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia. Entering 'Robert Graves' in the search facility might help. If that is too difficult, click on this: Robert Graves. Actually, I'd suggest that the way to understand Graves is to study his poetry, and the history of the time he lived in. If you can't see the connection then either he was a lousy poet, or (more likely) you need to study something else.

If you are really stuck, you might ask yourself how you'd expect a poet to react to being stuck in a trench, surrounded by the stench of cordite and decaying corpses. It isn't that difficult to see that this would affect him. Now read his poems, and figure out how.... AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:15, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, that was rather grumpy. Adam Bishop (talk) 06:09, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I grump, therefore I am. Seriously, you can't do homework on a poet without actually reading poetry, and thinking about the poet. Most likely, our anonymous IP student has given up and found something on the web to plagiarise, but I had to at least make the point. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:25, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

True, but we were lazy students once too, weren't we? Well I was anyway. So here is a brief timeline of Graves' life, to help get started: http://www.humanitiesweb.org/human.php?s=t&p=l&ID=35. Adam Bishop (talk) 06:50, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I under stand what you are saying but I have done reserch (including wikipedias page) and have found some connections but i was hoping to find more specific events in his life for instance when he started dating a new person or a family member died or even when he was fired from a job. I want events besides the obvious events that he went to war, those are the easy ones because theyre so big. Thanks for the help.--69.58.36.2 (talk) 16:16, 22 November 2010 (UTC)--69.58.36.2 (talk) 16:16, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

You've been given quite a difficult task. If you search on Google Books for "Robert Graves biography" you will find some books telling his life. They would be really helpful to you. But I think they will probably not be in your school or local library. Ask the librarians if it is possible to obtain such a book. For now you are left with the Internet. Our article on this poet is not brilliant, but it's probably still one of the best things you can find on the Web. Break down the information we do have into decades. 1920s for example. What was happening in his life, what books did he write? Itsmejudith (talk) 21:56, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Graves' autobiographical Good-bye to All That appeared in 1929; it's available in paperback. Why not relate passages in poems to that, rather than to some hint in a Wikipedia article?--Wetman (talk) 17:29, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Stronger economy = stronger army?

Does a stronger economy mean a given country will have a stronger army? Have there been studies that show the faster an economy grows the more of a threat its army becomes? --Ghostexorcist (talk) 05:25, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I was digging around for info and found this document. Hopefully it will hold some good info. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 05:28, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Economy of Japan, Constitution of Japan and Defense budget of Japan suggest that a strong military is not a necessary outcome of a strong economy. DOR (HK) (talk) 08:43, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

How would you define a strong economy? Which indicators would you look at? (Likewise for defining a "strong" army). Smallman12q (talk) 14:02, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Not always. See Vatican City. Lots of wealth (strong economy), minimal military (and they are all mercenaries). Googlemeister (talk) 15:36, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

The book you are looking for is "The economics of World War II: Six Great Powers in International Comparison"[9] by Werner Abelshauser et al. This is now a more widely accepted theory: that GDP directly influences military strength and success. I recall several articles that analyzed the collapse of the Soviet Union that followed these same theories. They most likely cite the authors of this book. NATO countries outpaced GDP growth during the Cold War. The criticism of this theory is the example of the war in Vietnam. There are several theories of why that one didn't succeed and those would have to be synthesized for a good paper on the topic. Gx872op (talk) 17:27, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't North Korea have the highest % of its state budget going to the military? --Soman (talk) 18:42, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the equation is correct. South Korea has a much stronger economy than North Korea, but North Korea probably has the stronger military. Britain's economy is not stronger than Germany's but Britain clearly has the stronger military. Maybe you could make a case that, given a similar political economic commitment to military might, the country with the stronger economy will have the stronger military. However, there is a point of diminishing returns. That is, when a country exceeds a given percentage of GDP in military spending, that military spending begins to erode economic strength. This happened in Britain in the early 20th century, in the Soviet Union by the 1970s, and arguably is happening in the United States today. Marco polo (talk) 20:38, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

However, North Korea has more military than it can really afford, as pointed out by Soman. If the Songun policy means that N.Korea is continually dependent on international food-aid handouts to keep its population above the starvation level, then that's a signal that it's devoting too many economic resources to the military, according to any rational criteria -- especially since the current size and strength of the military is only necessary for North Korea to pose a credible offensive aggressive threat (a much smaller military would be sufficient for purposes of self-defense only). AnonMoos (talk) 15:24, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I doubt any serious student of North-South Krean military affairs would agree that North Korea has a stronger armed force than South Korea, except in the very narrow nuclear weapons arena. In fact, the general assumption I've come across is that North Korea's mechanized and armored forces would struggle to reach Seoul, simply for lack of fuel. DOR (HK) (talk) 09:00, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

something humanity related

when i was at school i was looking at this girls ass then she saw me and smiled and give me a wink what does this mean? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.188.213.194 (talk) 06:05, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

She were fockin' with ye. LANTZY^TALK 06:57, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

It means that she is comfortable with her body image. HiLo48 (talk) 06:59, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

And it means you got extremely lucky; many girls I know wouldn't react so kindly, to put it mildly. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 08:01, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

The smile and wink probably means that you are good-looking. Most girls are flattered when hunks notice them, whereas they act offended when geeks or ugly guys leer at them.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:17, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Good gravy! No, that's the sort of victim-blaming stuff that contributes to rape culture: there is no reason to assume that girls who 'act offended' are not actually offended and deeply uncomfortable with people staring at their body parts when they're just living their lives. That other girls are comfortable and confident enough to react in a different way doesn't make the uncomfortable girls hypocritical or wrong. Girls might be flattered to receive interested looks from guys they are interested in, because people like flirting with people they want to flirt with, but then again they might not. For most women, this won't be a perfect correlation with some strange 'hunk' -> 'geek' continuum (does anyone view the world like that anymore?). 86.166.40.2 (talk) 11:15, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Rape is an an of violence that has nothing to do with a woman's attractiveness or whether or not she welcomes male appreciation of her body.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:36, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad you agree. Did you follow the link? 212.183.128.70 (talk) 13:54, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes and it fails to mention that women historically have always been at physical risk from men whether it be rape, beatings or murder. Society and religion have usually turned a blind eye to it as did the law up until a couple of decades ago in some countries.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:18, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes? Rape culture isn't a new thing, but it's certainly depressing seeing it continue into the 21st century. And I cannot believe that Adam, below, goes straight into the slut shaming. Jesus Christ! Is life not hard enough? Is there a need to make things worse for teenage girls, force them into the slut/frigid pigeon holes? 86.164.164.239 (talk) 12:08, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Maybe she's a slut. Why are we answering this? Adam Bishop (talk) 14:19, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Maybe the OP it a troll. Ditto. 80.123.210.172 (talk) 15:33, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

We don't know, you'll have to ask the girl. I see no cause to speculate about the girl's moral character from the information given, Adam... WikiDao ☯ (talk) 15:42, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

We do have an article on the Wink, though, which covers some of its more common meanings (one of which is flirtation). WikiDao ☯ (talk) 16:53, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

It means she likes you. (It took a long time to get to that simple conclusion, which reinforces the stereotype of girlfriendless internet nerds.) 92.15.6.86 (talk) 12:40, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

The OP was giving her the eye and she smiled back and he wonders what this means??? No wonder the birth rate is on the decline. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:42, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Most popular U.S. president worldwide

(Moved from the Language desk) -- the Great Gavini 08:03, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Who is the most popular president outside the United States? I mean of all time. My guess would be Lincoln, but what do I know? I suppose opinion would differ from one country to another. I suppose certain presidents would be particularly unpopular, for example I'd imagine that Nixon, Reagan, and Bush fils would be particularly unpopular in South America. Who is most popular there? Who is most popular in Europe? Who is most popular in Africa? Who is most popular in Japan? Etc. LANTZY^TALK 07:57, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Outside Serbia and Russia, Bill Clinton is highly regarded in Europe. The Russians would most likely consider Ronald Reagan to have been the USA's best president. I would say it definitely varies from country to country. I need to point out having lived in Europe for over half my life, that Nixon is not demonised in the Old Continent as he is/was by Americans. Jimmy Carter, I recall, was quite popular in the UK when he was incumbent.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:13, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Given the attitude towards the USA in many places, have you considered the alternative category of Least Unpopular President? HiLo48 (talk) 08:32, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

There could also be an alternative category of Most forgettable US Presidents.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:34, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Possibly JFK, he was certainly respected in the UK and continental Europe. -- Q Chris (talk) 08:35, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes and his assassination received worldwide coverage and an outpouring of international sympathy (with the glaring exception of China).--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:38, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

JFK is the only American to have a statue in Parliament Square. Alansplodge (talk) 11:21, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Your guess about Lincoln is not very good, I think. Here's the thing: the US only became seriously powerful and (most of all, important for your question) influential worldwide political and military actor after WWII, so most people outside the US don't care much about presidents before that. Of the preWWII presidents, the British may hold a grudge against the guys who turned the Colonies into the US (although I doubt it), but beyond that... So you really are looking at a very small number of potential candidates here IMO. JFK, Clinton, Obama (and possibly Carter) are the few that even come into question here, would be my guess. And this is because while they may have carried (carry) the same big stick as the rest of the US presidents, at least they spoke (speak) softly. TomorrowTime (talk) 09:31, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I only mentioned Lincoln because I recalled once reading that Lenin, in his boyhood, played a "cowboys-and-indians" game in which the protagonists were the Union and the Confederacy. I thought that perhaps Lincoln enjoyed some sort of mythical status around the world on account of the philosophical/moral/political significance which was imputed to him at home. LANTZY^TALK 09:36, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and as for early "anti-colonial" presidents, my intuitive impression is that most Britons were ambivalent or sympathetic. Consider the satirical words of Flanders and Swann: "The War of American Independence was enjoyable by and large / Watching England's free descendants busy defeating German George". Despite a few decades of political antipathy, I doubt if the peoples of the U.S. and the U.K. ever harbored heartfelt hatred for one another. Historians, am I wrong? LANTZY^TALK 09:40, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about wrong, but while burning down DC might win support from some of the more radical Americans today, it probably was not a popular move in 1814. Googlemeister (talk) 15:31, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

From my point of view, I'd say JFK, too. Clinton is not as popular as one might suspect - he gets plenty of sympathy points for having sex, but his main accomplishments were fixing the US economy, something that is visible in Europe only very indirectly. So while he is well-liked, he is not that well-known. Carter is well-regarded, too. From before WWI, at a guess I'd say most Europeans only know Washington, Jefferson, and Lincoln. Of those, Jefferson is probably the most popular, for the Declaration of Independence. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:57, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

You say Carter is well-regarded? Would you say this good will is based on his presidency or his post-presidency? LANTZY^TALK 10:03, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Both, I'd say. As a president, he is popular for arms reduction talks, his opposition to the death penalty (which is widely regarded as barbaric in Europe), Camp David, and an unamerican degree of concern for the planet and the environment. He also had a very bad deal, through little fault of his own, with the Iranian embassy hostage crisis. His humanitarian work after the presidency has, of course, further strengthened this image. I think he is widely regarded as a very moral person who did the best he could in fairly bad situations. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:25, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

That makes sense. In other words, he is admired in Europe for the very reasons he is disdained in the United States! LANTZY^TALK 10:30, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

A non-American vote for Kennedy here. Tho other nominees would have been Clinton, Carter and Obama. The latter still has time on his side. Sad about the Republicans. HiLo48 (talk) 11:12, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

And a vote for FDR who saved (at least some of) Britain's bacon from 1940 onwards with the Destroyers for Bases Agreement and Lend Lease. His horse-trading at the Yalta Conference with Stalin at our expense took some of the shine off, but he was a dying man then. Alansplodge (talk) 11:29, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Lantzy, what exactly do you mean by "popular"? Well liked (and if so, is it his achievements or him personally that's the focus)? Well respected? Well known? Much talked about? Much admired? These are definitely not the same things. The popularity of a president cannot be measured in the same way as the popularity of a singer, e.g. in terms of records sold. And even that can be misleading; according to sales figures, Celine Dion must be one of the most popular singers in the world, yet she seems to be almost universally reviled and despised. Nobody's ever explained why, to my satisfaction, but I get that there's a gravy train effect happening, whereby it's fashionable to say you hate her even if you actually love her. Mathematically, there has to be a large number of people who buy her records and enjoy them in private but are in the closet about it publicly. So, is she popular or not? I have no idea how to interpret these conflicting pieces of evidence. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 11:44, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps a lot of people like her, and a lot of people dislike her, with relatively few in the middle - she polarises opinion. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:15, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

In China, I would say the most "popular" ones might be Washington (a revolutionary leader, and with surrounding mythology that has been transmitted in China for generations), Lincoln (a leader in a war against secession, something that traditional nationalistic values identify strongly with, plus freeing slaves squares with socialist / Communist values), and more recently, Roosevelt (for defeating Japan in World War II) and Nixon (for switching recognition to China from Taiwan). Amongst the most recent presidents, the younger Bush is almost universally reviled. Clinton is generally held in fairly high regard but the bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade (1999) is a national humiliation that is still fairly fresh in memory. Obama was wildly popular early on but becoming less so with US policies increasingly setting up China as its notional enemy. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 12:04, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I notice I am the only one who brought up Reagan and it was his collaboration with Gorbachev that brought about the collapse of the Berlin Wall, surely a remarkable achievement which benefitted Germany, Europe and ultimately the rest of the world!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:34, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

That's because most of the world doesn't buy into the "Reagan singlehandedly defeated Communism" propaganda. TomorrowTime (talk) 14:10, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I never said he singlehandedly deafeated Communism. I said he collaborated with Gorbachev, who is generally credited with ending Communism in the Soviet Union and its Warsaw Pact satellites.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:13, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

It was Gorbachev who had the common sense and guts to facilitate a reasonably painless dissolution of the ailing and failing Soviet empire. Reagan just hitched a ride with him and stole some of his thunder five minutes before midnight. Reagan saying "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down that wall!" no more made Reagan instrumental in the fall of the wall than Kennedy's "Ich bin ein Berliner" magically got Kennedy an apartment, permanent address in Berlin and a German citizenship. TomorrowTime (talk) 15:03, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Reagan didn't collaborate very efficiently and he was always back-and-forth over it. There were a few nice photo ops, but Reagan would immediately go home and claim how tough he is on Communism and how it was still an Evil Empire and all of that jazz. He was totally distrustful of Gorbachev until Thatcher convinced him that Gorby was actually not the same as Brezhnev. Reagan's stubborn interest in his Star Wars plan allowed him to miss multiple opportunities for gigantic, if not complete, reductions in nuclear arms. It's a very mixed legacy if you actually look at the history of it. Saying Reagan collaborated with Gorbachev is in my opinion significant revisionism. Reagan's diary reveals a guy who never really thought Gorbachev would amount to anything. Recommended reading on this is Hoffman's The Dead Hand. In my view, Gorbachev would have done what Gorbachev did whether Reagan had been there or not. It might have even been easier for Gorbachev if there had been someone less outwardly hawkish in the White House, constantly looking to score domestic political points by being tough on the USSR and not working with them. It's easy to imagine an end of the Cold War without Reagan; it's hard to imagine it without Gorbachev. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:06, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

JFK may be popular in some areas but in others he's sometimes seen as the guy who nearly caused a nuclear war. Nil Einne (talk) 14:15, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Compared to what Mao, Castro, Herman Kahn, and certain U.S. generals were advocating in 1962, Kennedy was a model of nuclear restraint... AnonMoos (talk) 14:21, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I saw a documentary on TV here in Italy which praised Kennedy's diplomacy during the crisis and opined that Nixon would not have been able to prevent a catastrophe had he been in the driver's seat back in '62.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:27, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

We have an article on various Historical rankings of United States Presidents.
Abe Lincoln seems to consistently get the popular vote for "Greatest US President". WikiDao ☯ (talk) 15:26, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, but those are US rankings, the OP was asking about rankings outside of the US. TomorrowTime (talk) 15:29, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Not all of the polls were restricted to American respondents. The Rasmussen poll seems just to have used "random" internet users. The Scholar survey results section would seem to include non-American views, too. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 15:48, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Here in Italy, the most popular Presidents are the ones with flair, charisma, and drama. JFK, Reagan, and Clinton usually receive positive press; while George Bush and George W. Bush are openly disliked and criticised. Nixon is middle-of-the-road, whereas Eisenhower, Johnson, Ford, and Carter never existed as far as the Italian media is concerned. Obama is still popular although less so than his first year in office.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:18, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

In Manchester, UK, there's a Lincoln Square with a statue of the man put up by his admirers among the city's mill workers - despite the fact that they suffered very badly from the blockade on Southern cotton. Admittedly it's not a very big square, but it's the thought that counts. I think in the UK we think quite well of Lincoln, FDR, JFK, Carter, Clinton and Obama, while people of a certain age recall Eisenhower in his military role, and we're not dead set against Nixon who, after all, did manage to open up China (OK, he was a crook, but he wasn't all bad!). In the former Czechoslovakia they're quite keen on Wilson, for obvious reasons - the main railway station in Prague was "Wilson station" throughout the First Republic, and again from 1945 until some years after the Communists took over. -- Arwel Parry (talk) 18:20, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

It might also be worth mentioning Monrovia, the only non-American capital city named after a U.S. President. One who is now quite obscure, actually. Not sure what the average Liberian thinks of him now though. Qrsdogg (talk) 23:03, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

The Monroe doctine is still well-remembered. As for European places named after U.S. presidents, there's Franklin D. Roosevelt (Paris Métro)... AnonMoos (talk) 00:00, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

There are streets in Prague named after Washington and Wilson. The train station used to be named after Wilson, too. There's a Lincoln Street in Tel-Aviv. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:59, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

My guesses would be FDR and Obama. FDR, of course, was president during World War II, and most of the world was either part of the Allies, occupied by the Axis or part of an Axis country hoping to lose to the Americans and not the Russian. Obama is tremendously popular outside of the U.S. one, because people love the story of an African-American president and two, because Europeans and Canadians think every Democratic presidential candidate is going to win over the big meanies in American and turn the U.S. into a pacifist nation on the forefront of efforts against climate change. In June, a poll found 87% of French respondents and 84% of Brits though Obama "will do the right thing in foreign affairs," compared to 65% of Americans. A third-place candidate might be Woodrow Wilson, whose idealism made him very popular in Europe outside of the WWI losing countries. Even the Armenians hoped Wilson would rescue them from the Turks. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:50, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Since he didn't is Wilson highly unpopular in Armenia? Googlemeister (talk) 16:39, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea. I'm guessing Wilson is not on people's minds a lot 90 years later. I asked a group of Czechs around 18 years of age not too long ago if they knew why there was a Wilson Street in Prague and what it had to do with the Independence Day holiday they were getting a day off for. None of them knew. I said, "Come on, Woodrow Wilson, World War I, the Fourteen Points -- don't they teach you any of this stuff in school?" One of them said, "Yeah, they teach it to us, and we all forget." -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:31, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

In Sweden I think the ranking is probably JFK, Obama, FDR, Clinton. While Nixon and Bush Jr. are the most disliked. Reagan probably places somewhere in the middle, popular among some liberal, but disliked by the socialists. P. S. Burton (talk) 00:21, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

"Liberal" in the above comment meaning the opposite of what it means in the U.S. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:57, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes: Liberalism in the United States and Liberalism worldwide. P. S. Burton (talk) 14:23, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Measures in lieu of criminal prosecutions

I have learnt that certain countries have "measures in lieu of criminal prosecutions" (I don't know what they are exactly called) by which the offenders would not be prosecuted if the public prosecutors find that they have committed the offences by negligence or committed the petty offences and the injured parties can be compensated or the agreements of compromise can be adopted, etc.

So, is there any Wikipedia article in connection with the said concept? And would you please recommending the laws (Acts, etc) of any country (because "I don't know what they are exactly called")?

Thank you so much, :)

182.52.99.142 (talk) 09:06, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I think this sort of thing goes on frequently. In the UK filing a false tax return is an offence, but if done through negligence then the tax office will frequently accept payment of tax owing plus interest. Is this the sort of thing you mean? -- Q Chris (talk) 09:14, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Also in the UK England and Wales, police (rather than the public prosecutor) can give a "caution" instead of prosecution[10].

"A 'simple caution' is used to deal quickly and simply with those who commit less serious crimes. It aims to divert offenders away from court, and to reduce the likelihood that they will offend again. If you are given a simple caution you will be officially warned about the unacceptability of your behaviour, and the likely consequences of committing further crimes will be explained to you." Alansplodge (talk) 09:28, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

There's also Restorative justice although it's not really in lieu of criminal prosecutions and doesn't require the offences be by negligence (but they do have to take responsility). It's used in NZ, particularly with youth offenders although this isn't explained very well in our article. But see [11] [12] Nil Einne (talk) 14:00, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh and I just remembered of course there's also Diversion program which more fits what the OP is describing since you usually avoid a criminal conviction as the police withdraw the charge if you successfuly undergo one although again negligence is not required (the offence has to be minor though). [13] [14] This old [15] discussion may also be of interest. Note that even if it comes to court and you please guilty, you can sometimes be discharged without conviction [16] [17] [18] Nil Einne (talk) 15:22, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Teen courts exist in some US states. Their trials aren't exactly criminal prosecutions, and are, like many of the other things mentioned here, aimed at discouraging repeat offenses through leniency toward young offenders. -Elmer Clark (talk) 05:58, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Travelling from France to England in 14th century

If someone were to have embarked on a journey from Picardy, France to the English court in April/May 1366 roughly how many weeks would it have normally taken? Thank you.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:27, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Do you know which bit of Picardy? I wouldn't say many weeks, just a few days. The traveller would have come up through Picardy to a port such as Boulogne or Calais, then crossed the Channel, either sailing into London, or disembarking at Dover and coming up on horseback or by carriage. Assuming that the English court was sitting at Westminster. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:30, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

The castle of Coucy. OK, now I'm going to be difficult. Is it likely a mother having recently given birth would have undertaken the journey? The reason I ask is that while going through Barbara Tuchman's A Distant Mirror it mentioned the date of Isabella de Coucy's marriage as ahving occurred on 27 July 1365. Their firstborn child was born the following April. Well, it then has the couple and their baby at a ceremony at Windsor Castle on 11 May 1366. I am trying to figure out whether Isabella might have been pregnant when she married Enguerrand VII, Lord of Coucy, seeing as she had pressured her father, Edward III to let them marry. I don't believe carriages were in use then, women often travelled by wagon, litter or on horseback (the side-saddle had not yet been introduced to England).--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:53, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I always feel obliged to mention that Tuchman is not an historian and sometimes has a very active imagination. *grumble grumble* Adam Bishop (talk) 14:17, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Her book was based on primary sources which all give the exact dates I have mentioned. Besides, Tuchman never once suggested that Isabella had a shotgun wedding, I am the person intimating that, having had four children myself and annot see how a medieval woman could have braved a Channel crossing and journeys over muddy, rutted roads two weeks after childbirth.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:20, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, she may have used primary sources but it is normally very difficult to figure that out. I don't see any notes for Isabella's birth or marriage, or any notes at all for dozens of pages before or after. How do you know where she got that info? Adam Bishop (talk) 14:36, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh, blargh, it's all in the "endnotes", with no notes actually pointing to them. So in this case, everything Tuchman knows about Isabella comes from Mary Anne Everett Green, "Lives of the Princesses of England", and B.C. Hardy, "Philippa of Hainault and her Times" (1910). I don't know those books, but those are the ones based on primary sources, not Tuchman (and certainly there must be better and more recent secondary sources than 1851 and 1910). Adam Bishop (talk) 14:42, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't know anything about it, but our article currently says, "Tuchman relies much on Froissart's Chronicles." WikiDao ☯ (talk) 15:00, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Yeah, sorry, I wasn't paying attention to the difference between carriage and wagon. To get to Windsor it would have been more convenient to come up the river, transferring from ship to barge probably at Gravesend. She could have travelled part of the route by river on the French side too. Getting to the Somme at St Quentin looks the most likely. As for how soon after a birth a woman would travel, a pure guess, but wouldn't a noblewoman have been "confined" for about four weeks, between the birth and her churching? It would be worth confirming both dates with other sources. You do find serious mistakes made in dates for that period because Victorian historians sometimes tried to correct for the Gregorian calendar. The year started not on 1st Jan but on Lady Day, as you probably know, and that gives rise to mistakes too. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:37, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I have seen the April 1366 DOB for Isabella's daughter and the 27 July 1365 marriage date for Isabella and Enguerrand in every book on English royals and peerages I have ever come across; and we are talking about well nigh 40 years as I have been a history fanatic since grammar school! Therefore seeing as she would have been confined since April sometime and then churched before stepping aboard the caravel that took her home to England to be on time for the ceremony at Windsor on 11 May 1366 (which made her husband Earl of Bedford), I feel that it's likely she and Enguerrand anticipated their bedding ceremony by about a month or so. This would place their child's birth at the very beginning of April. I do realise that none of this can go into Isabella's article, however, it is interesting. She was 33 when she married, so I guess she needed a wee bit of a push to get him to the altar. Whew! Sorry I have been so verbose.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:40, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Even if it is reported everywhere, Froissart could well be the sole source for the dates, and also for where people were at particular times. And a baby could be born prematurely - 1st April is 35 weeks by my calculation, so not all that premature. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:54, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, a noblewoman with a baby would absolutely have traveled mainly by water, and otherwise probably mainly by litter, though it's possible that for the land portions of the journey, the noblewoman would have traveled on horseback while handmaidens on foot carried the baby. I think that it probably would have taken two days by litter (or on a horse moving at a walk) from Coucy to St. Quentin on the Somme, then something like 4 days by riverboat from St. Quentin to Port-le-Grand, the medieval port at the mouth of the Somme. There would likely have been a wait of a couple of days at the port (or just upstream at Abbeville, while agents rode back and forth to the port) for favorable winds and tide (and to make arrangements for the passage), then the passage across the Channel. With favorable winds, it would have been possible to make Dover in one day, but probably not all the way around Kent and up the Thames to a transfer point. In fact, given the prevailing westerly winds, it could well have taken another two days (three days total) to reach Gravesend. From Gravesend, it would have been about three days' travel up the Thames by riverboat to Windsor. So, I think that this would amount to close to a two-week journey. The journey could have been made much faster by horseback with a change of mounts every 10 miles or so (which a king or powerful noble could arrange), but that mode of travel would have been much too strenuous for a woman with an infant. Marco polo (talk) 16:00, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your answers. Isabella was already pregnant by November as extant letters from King Edward to Isabella confirm this. Two weeks for the journey sounds right. The baby was likely born well before 27 April! Isabella was Edward's favourite child and de Coucy was a good match for her. I think it can be safely assumed (for my own personal interest not Wikipedia's) that the couple did have sex prior to their wedding. What had they to lose? De Coucy was Edward's honoured prisoner of war, Isabella well past 30. It wouldn't be the only time in English history a pregnant woman approached the altar expecting a child-look at Anne Boleyn!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:58, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I know it sounds counterintuitive and incongruous, but a child is only illegitimate if they are born out of wedlock, not if they are conceived out of wedlock. Even if the marriage is only a few weeks before the birth, the child would still be considered legitimate issue. --Jayron32 07:48, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I never implied that Isabella's child had been illegitimate (just as Anne Boleyn's daughter wasn't either). If there had been any hint of illegitimacy in regards to the elder daughter, the vast Coucy estates would have passed to the second daughter, wife of the Earl of Oxford, Richard II's favourite. Winston Churchill was actually born 7 months after his parents' marriage!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:22, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about modern times, but in the Middle Ages it was fairly simple to legitimize illegitimate children, especially noble children, even if they were born long before the marriage. Unless the religious authorities didn't like you; then it would be very difficult. It's all politics. Adam Bishop (talk) 17:03, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, in Italy it was very common as in the case of Bianca Maria Visconti, who succeeded her father to the Duchy of Milan; and there were also the Borgias. However, in England or France I cannot think off-hand of an illegitimate child who bypassed the legitimate heirs (William the Conqueror notwithstanding).--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:28, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, suffering from TLDR, so someone may have covered this already, but how much money you had available to you, weather and luck would all be major factors that could add massive delay to such a journey. --Dweller (talk) 16:46, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Money would not have been a problem for Isabella, as she had plenty of that, however, unfavourable winds or poor weather could very well have delayed a cross-Channel sailing, not to mention muddy roads in England. Spring can be very unpredictable.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:44, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

At that time of year, one has the warm winds coming up from the south brining the April Showers. A common boat like a Cog might do 3½ to 8 knots per hour for as long as the wind blows and in March and April when does it not blow 24 hours a day? So this type of boat could have gone as far up the Thames as London Bridge without stopping. Also, they would not have had to sail around Margate. Instead they would have nipped through the shallow channel which was still open between the Isle of Thanet and the rest of Kent. Being able to travel 24 hours a day would have probably made the sea route faster than landing at Brighton or Worthing -as well as being cheaper. Most long distant trade in England at that time was via the coastal waters. Black fossil coal for that reason was referred to as 'Sea Coal' in London, to differentiate it from wood charcoal, because it arrived by ship.--Aspro (talk) 16:26, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Helping yourself

I'd read that the phrase "God helps those who help themselves", typically spouted as gospel by those looking for justifications for not helping the disadvantaged, isn't actually scripture. What's its actual origin? GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 19:00, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Its origin is probably lost in the mists of history, but according to our article on Erasmus's Adagia, Mr. E recorded the proverb in that work in the sixteenth century. Deor (talk) 19:34, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

There's also something very like it in Aeschylus Fragments 395, "God likes to assist the man who toils", but it turns up in so many languages that I wouldn't despair of finding it in a Sumerian cuneiform tablet. Lost, as you say, in the mists of history. Antiquary (talk) 19:40, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I've never thought of this saying as an excuse not to help others but rather as a word of advice for people to take command of their lives and have a good work ethic. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:35, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. I've often seen it cited to Poor Richard's Almanack by Benjamin Franklin, but Deor's link predates that. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 11:59, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

That quote and a few earlier variants are listed at wikiquote:Algernon Sydney. The earliest listed there is "Heaven ne’er helps the men who will not act" from Sophocles. Staecker (talk) 13:39, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

“Verily never will Allah change the condition of a people until they change it themselves (with their own souls).” (The Qur’an 13:11). [19]. Many years after the bible of course, but at least this proves it does exist in some holy book. Zunaid 11:17, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

That's interesting. I'll have to remember that the next time someone prefaces the phrase with "as The Bible says:..." GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 21:53, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

What is the point of huge discounts on big-ticket items?

Today I see two deals on TVs: a 26-inch for $198, shipping included, and a 32-inch for $250. What is the point of such promotions besides raising brand awareness? People won't tend to buy more than one and not again for many years. Imagine Reason (talk) 20:09, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

See bait and switch. Especially in the U.S. on Black Friday, stores will advertise DEEP discounts on a tiny number of items. So, they'll sell you a TV for like 90% off, but the store has like 5 of these in stock, and the sale is only good on stock in store, no rainchecks or anything. So the first 5 people get a TV super cheap, and the next 1000 people who show up expecting to get the TV end up buying something much more expensive cuz, well, they fought traffic and they might as well get something if they went through all the trouble to get to the store, etc. etc. This happens ALL the time --Jayron32 21:16, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Over here, stores have to have a "reasonable" amount of merchandise they advertise on stock. I don't know the exact definition of "reasonable", but I have seen stores who ran out handing out rebate notes for a later time. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:33, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Also, Black Friday items often aren't as good a deal as you might think. I once was the lucky "winner" of a laptop from one of these deals with 63 megs of memory. No, no, that's NOT a typo, *63* megs of memory. Usable for most (but not all) things you can do with 32 megs. The stuff may be cheap, but you're getting rejects and returns, things that didn't make the grade for the other 364.25 days of the year. Wnt (talk) 00:15, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

The deals I'm seeing are online ones, available today, and won't end for a couple of days at least. Imagine Reason (talk) 05:00, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Atheist rules

What rules do atheists have to protect one's soul from danger and destruction? 96.252.208.240 (talk) 22:06, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Do many atheists believe they have a soul? Itsmejudith (talk) 22:13, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

What do you believe to be a "soul" and what danger and destruction do you believe it needs protection from? If it is in some way connected to the notion of a personal God, it is likely that what you mean by "soul" is not something that atheists believe they have. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 22:41, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Atheists follow actual real principles of ethics, as opposed to what we see as imaginary and delusional metaphysical speculation. Many, if not most atheists are humanists, which is to say that we place our faith in humanity to do the right thing without any need for what theists call "God's plan." Humans are perfectly capable to figure out right and wrong without a hierarchical organization telling us what to do. Whether or not atheists believe in a "soul" is not universally agreed upon, however the vast majority reject any dualism of mind and body in favor of a monist materialism (also called physicalism or scientific materialism.) No dualism means no soul, no spirits, demons etcetera. Another consequence of all this is that there is nothing from which to be saved, therefore no need for salvation. There is no hell, devil, or afterlife; much less any eternal punishment. Many, if not most atheists find the idea of hell to be quite an immature reason to behave ethically. Atheists do the right thing, not because they will be punished like children if they do not. We do the right thing for its own sake, because it is right in principle. This is a more intellectual ethical system.Greg Bard (talk) 00:51, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

So then do atheists view laws and prisons as immature? They serve much the same purpose. Googlemeister (talk) 16:34, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

No they do not. Prisons and laws are necessary for safety of the public. Belief in hell is not. They are totally different. However, a theist might not see it that way. Some theists cannot imagine behaving in a decent manner without the specter of hell looming, or the reward of heaven awaiting. Atheists have no problem with the more intellectual position, taking good-in-itself and right-itself seriously. Very often a theist will say to an atheist "Well you just believe in nothing." or "If you don't believe in God, you just don't believe in right and wrong." Only a theist sees it that way. They just can't imagine doing the right thing without some reward or punishment looming. That is a consequentialist view, and there are other valid moral theories out there. I think for many theists, if they realized at some point that there is no god that they would have a hard time continuing to be decent people. That isn't the fault of the universe having no god. That will be their own fault for not being more morally reflective and intellectual. I, for one, do not constantly think about avoiding prison in my daily life as a means of behaving civilly. Anyone who does this is probably not operating on a mature and responsible level. Greg Bard (talk) 04:00, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

A well-stated summary of the position. :) WikiDao ☯ (talk) 01:44, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Or at the very least one does the "right thing" because there are, say, laws and other very non-soulful consequences to doing the "wrong thing." You'll note that absolutely zero human societies, even those which are known for high levels of religiosity and piousness, leave all of their desires for social order up to the demands of scripture or the idea that people will in a self-interested way always care about their eternal soul. Every society that I know of has laws that are enforced by a secular (e.g. non-supernatural, even if they claim religion as their justification) order. When we all agree something is the "wrong thing" (e.g. murder, stealing), we make a law that prohibits it (and back up the prohibition with force). Why people think that the fear of sin alone would have any powerful social effect is kind of mysterious to me — it's pretty clear that "your eternal soul will burn in hell" is not a deterrent against people committing crimes, as everybody finds a way to justify what they are doing morally or believes that their religion has a "loophole" that gets them out of the bind. --Mr.98 (talk) 02:17, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Any atheist can answer this question easily : None at all. There's no such thing as a soul. APL (talk) 03:58, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

You don't have to be a theist to believe in souls. You might for example take the existence of qualia — the hard problem of consciousness which has no materialist solution that satisfies everyone — to be evidence of souls. That would not necessarily imply that you believe in God. --Trovatore (talk) 04:20, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Notably Jainism has a concept of a soul but God in Jainism says it's "Thus, Jainism is polytheist, monotheist, nontheist and atheist all at the same time". Similarly some those following Buddhism may sometimes considered be atheist (see God in Buddhism) but also have a concept that may or may not be considered a soul depending on how you understand the concept (see Soul#Buddhism). Nil Einne (talk) 11:40, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Fully agree with T's point about consciousness. And if I squint my eyes and turn my head just right, I can even see something like Spirit (capital S) "moving through" evolution, history, what-have-you (without necessarily the need to ascribe anything like "personality" to it;)). There are many Conceptions of God, some of which (including those mentioned by Nil) tend to be undreamt of by the "hyper-religious" adherents of any religion. The notion of the Absolute, as another example, is worth considering (depending on one's interests and time...). WikiDao ☯ (talk) 14:07, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Atheist rules - followup

What rules do atheists have to protect themselves from evil? 96.252.208.240 (talk) 05:31, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

First, 96, all your posts so far have been questions about what atheists do about this or that. Starting a new thread isn't helpful. You'd be better off, if you're looking for information rather than trolling, reading the many articles we have concerning atheism, or Googling around for other information.

Second, you seem to be assuming unanimity among atheists about many matters. Atheists are less organized than, for example, the Roman Catholic Church. Ask two atheists any philosophical question, and you'll probably get three different answers. PhGustaf (talk) 05:49, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

When I visit the library reference desk I would normally include the preface, "Where can I find an answer to the following question..." and the reference librarian would normally lead me to the section where I might find the answer. If she is knowledgeable of the topic, she might ask me specifics or to explain exactly what I want to know. Here if I use the word atheist that is all that is heard and even though I have read the article and many of the articles it links too instead of suggesting additional references which will answer my question I get personal opinions instead of references to the location of specific information. Consequently I always get the impression that the reference desk is not manned by any reference librarian but by work study students who could care less except for finding the opportunity to be snerd. You fit this image perfectly so I will in fact withhold my financial donation and look somewhere else for the information I am seeking which is unavailable here. My regrets to Jimmy Wales. 96.252.208.240 (talk) 06:34, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

You are correct in thinking that this reference desk isn't manned by actual reference librarians. Like the rest of Wikipedia, it can be and is edited by anyone who comes along with something to contribute. Anyone, including you, is welcome to start answering questions, though relevant and referenced answers (no matter who they're from) are of course strongly preferred. -Elmer Clark (talk) 06:07, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

What is evil, and what rules do non-atheists have to protect themselves from evil? HiLo48 (talk) 05:41, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

OK 92.... Take your bat and ball and steam off in a huff. But really, what do you expect? Your question only makes sense inside the context of your obvious narrow Christian discussion cohort. You probably would be best off and more comfortable discussing those nasty atheists there. Evil is a pretty meaningless word outside your narrow world. It gets flung around by politicians hoping to impress folks like you. But it has no concrete meaning to someone who has no belief in your God and/or some metaphysical opponent like the devil. An atheist doesn't believe in such things so there is NO ANSWER. The ignorance and tunnel vision you show in even asking the question is what leads to the snerdness that concerns you. (BTW, thanks for that new word. I'll use it often.) HiLo48 (talk) 06:50, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure it is necessarily fair to berate the OP. One just needs to explain, calmly and succinctly that athiets do not necessarily believe in concepts such as souls or evil (some athiests might, but many do not). Athiests can still obey a moral code, but they do not necessarily derive that code from the influence of a supernatural being; there are lots of sources of morality, one common source cited by some athiests is natural law. Athiests can still recognize that certain actions, like murder and theft and adultery are ultimately harmful to society and to humanity, and thus formulate a moral code based on not killing, stealing, or cheating on your spouse, without necessarily refering to any God, nor the concept of evil, nor to a spirit or a soul. --Jayron32 07:34, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

That's all fair and right, Jay, but if you read the discussion so far you'll see that that's exactly what's been done, more than once. 92 didn't come here so much to ask questions as to hear answers that will confirm what he already believes, and is now irritable because that's not what he got. Incidentally, the "I have no intention of reading the atheism article" and "I'll take my donation money elsewhere" statements have a strong stench of trolling to me. TomorrowTime (talk) 08:43, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I know it's possible that 92 was a totally naive and innocent, brainwashed Christian from a very narrow sect of that faith, but to be a Wikipedia user and not have a broader outlook than that shown here today is hard to accept. I'll back trolling. HiLo48 (talk) 09:51, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

We're discussing 96, who moans about atheists. 92 is the one who moans about more Daily Mail issues. 86.164.164.239 (talk) 12:19, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Great word ("snerd"), 96, thanks! :) WikiDao ☯ (talk) 15:09, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, ethics and morality basically. Not to mention the rule of law. There is a fiction among Christians that ethics and morality must be derived from scripture. That's simply not true. They can be worked out pragmatically, and passed down from generation to generation with no problem.

Your mother doesn't have to believe in God to tell you not to steal, and you don't have to believe in God to take her advice to heart.

On top of all that, like most social animals human beings have an instinctive sense of empathy, which helps us understand right and wrong.

Good reading here is Secular ethics and Morality without religion. APL (talk) 15:59, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I think the question can be answered. Soul translates into terms that are applicable to the atheist. Just because someone is an atheist doesn't imply that they have no compunction about committing murder for instance. So the answer to the question would involve those "rules" that atheists use to prevent themselves from (to use my example) committing murder. They would use anger management techniques. They would get adequate rest. They would cultivate good relationships. They would pursue meaningful interests. Those would be the "rules" atheists use to "protect themselves from evil". Bus stop (talk) 16:45, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps of interest to some is that there is, in fact, even from a Christian perspective, scriptural support for what APL is saying above. In Hebrews 10:15-17, Paul (citing Jeremiah 31:33) writes:

¹⁰ This is the covenant I will establish with the people of Israel after that time, declares the Lord:

"I will put my laws in their minds and write them on their hearts.

"I will be their God, and they will be my people.

¹¹ "No longer will they teach their neighbor, or say to one another, ‘Know the Lord,’

because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest.

¹² "For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more."

¹³ By calling this covenant "new," he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear.

God is, in other words, giving his people a measure of autonomy and freedom – much as parents will let their children live their own lives and make up their own minds once they have grown up and become adults themselves. Perhaps some, like the OP, still need some degree of "divine guidance" (or believe they do), but there is no need (says the Lord) for them to "teach their neighbor" about what they believe that guidance to be, or to insist that "atheists" need such guidance when in fact they do not. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 19:17, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

The devout have often told me that moral laws (such as those listed in the Ten Commandments) derive from God. I retort that those laws derived from the need of groups of people to cooperate within the group, in order for their particular group to survive - an attempt to impose order upon chaos, and to punish those who disobey and hence threaten that order. Ascribing it to God (with the implication of eternal punishment for disobedience) just kicks that idea up a few notches. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:23, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

facebook

Hi I feel this question is realevent and effects everyone...

• • does faceboook employees know all there friends pesonally or do there rules only apply to members as I am currently banned from certain features and think it say's a lot about the true nature and intentions of faceboook its purpose and of course implys much more but will leave that to other people to use there own minds and thoughts on that one. This question descibe's many realevant to the cause and effect off today superseeding universal topics thatI believe should be addressed**

           0101010001000100             End Transmission    0000010010101010

The_₦ΛֻఋḒ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.213.149.210 (talk) 23:01, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you are looking for a blog or an Internet forum rather than a reference desk? Dbfirs 08:45, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Is there an optimum theoretical level of income inequality?

Class warfare has led to a polarization between communists and capitalists, between complete sharing of wealth and complete concentration of wealth. But if all assets in society are held by one corporation, it is no different than if all assets are held by one central government. One would suppose that to provide incentive for people to work harder or take risks, that some pattern of limited economic inequality would be optimal, providing people enough resources to be capable and to try and to risk failure, but not eliminating the reward. But other factors also enter in - most notably, the cold-blooded immorality of establishing starvation or other inhumane penalties for failing to play the economic game correctly.

Question: has anyone tried to work out such factors and establish an optimal curve of income distribution, and presumably redistribution (whether by taxes, royalties, inalienable rights or any other means), to which current social inequalities could be compared quantitatively?

I'm looking for an answer based on a single philosophy, rather than a purely parliamentary compromise between two different belief systems. Wnt (talk) 23:57, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

See Kaldor–Hicks efficiency and Pareto efficiency. 68.198.183.69 (talk) 02:20, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Those aren't measures of income equality. Ginger Conspiracy (talk) 03:27, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

This is going to depend largely on your philosophical and political beliefs. Most economic theory is really dependent on a lot of political assumptions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.120.81.183 (talk) 02:32, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

If your goal is to maximize per-capita GDP, then the optimal income inequality seems to be around a Gini-coefficient of 30 (you can see this by graphing gini against per-capita GDP for a cross-section of countries). It makes sense that the optimal would be neither perfect equality (there is no disincentive to laziness) nor perfect inequality (there is no incentive to work). Wikiant (talk) 02:59, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Where is the figure 30 from? Ginger Conspiracy (talk) 03:26, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

"you can see this by graphing gini against per-capita GDP for a cross-section of countries" woah there cowboy! Correlation is not causation! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.120.81.183 (talk) 03:19, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I think there's a distinction between the idea that people only work for income, and the idea that people expect income when they work. For example, from the Soviet Union, a person expects that when he plants a tomato in his garden, he'll be the one to eat it. There's an aspect of civil liberties to it. In this regard Wikipedia work isn't really given for free; actually, by editing an article or a Reference Desk question, people expect to get back their own research as a permanent reference work, hopefully with interest. It's hard to measure intangible profit from intangible work, but the sense of it can be gotten when deletionists crash the party and start destroying what you've built up; it tends to make a person furious. But it's easier and of more immediate practical importance to measure the distribution of payments that come in dollars and cents.

The graph of the Gini coefficient (x100) in the article is interesting, but unfortunately it's over 10 years out of date... Wnt (talk) 10:13, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

There are so many implicit assumptions in this question that it is unanswerable. You will note for a start that it assumes that people only 'work' for 'income', which is demonstrably false - you are looking at a counterexample right now. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:06, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

This question is perfectly answerable - in fact, I'd say it's an excellent example of how to phrase this sort of query in an answerable way. The asker makes it clear that he's not looking for some definite answer, but for notable attempts that have been made to address this question, of which multiple examples have already been provided. -Elmer Clark (talk) 06:11, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Intrinsic motivation is vulnerable to the overjustification effect. Money isn't everything, despite what those with huge bonuses say. 86.164.164.239 (talk) 13:00, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

November 23

Quotation question

The quote goes something like this "a short answer is likely to be wrong, but a long enough answer will lose the attention of the audience" I can't remember the exact quote, or where I heard it or who said it, but I have a sense that it might have been about some aspect of the Roman Empire in Britain. I would love the full, accurate and attributed quote.... Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.120.81.183 (talk) 02:30, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Saki once wrote: A little inaccuracy sometimes saves tons of explanation. But I'll bet others before him expressed similar views in different words. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 09:26, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - that isn't it though - it definitely had something to do with losing the attention of your audience. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.105.163.82 (talk) 17:29, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Extreme penalty for collaboration?

Could somebody tell me why Ragnar Skancke was executed after the end of World War II? His article doesn't describe any acts that would seem to justify such a sentence. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:36, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

His high position and general support of the Quisling government was likely justification enough. See Legal purge in Norway after World War II for a rather too-brief article. The lead to that article states "The scope, legal basis, and fairness of these trials has since been a matter of some debate.", in other words that, in the opinion of som, and in some cases, the retribution against some of those who collaborated with the Nazis may have been excessive. That does not mean that everyone feels this way, or that everyone who was executed was innocent, just that it is a source of contention. --Jayron32 07:42, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Back around early 2002, a lot of people were wondering why Nazi nurse Hanna Kvanmo was ever appointed to the Nobel peace prize committee in the first place, and what possible moral right she had to launch into vitriolic ranting tirades condemning other people's putative sins. It seems that the purge wasn't strict enough in her case... AnonMoos (talk) 15:17, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Hanna Kvanmo's remarks about Peres figured prominently in her obituaries, but are absent from Wikipedia's article on her. So I suppose our readers will be left wondering why a lot of people were wondering. The omission is "grotesque and unbelievable". :) - Nunh-huh 19:14, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Did she commit a crime? Her article says that she was found of treason but did she do anything else besides being a nurse to wounded German soldiers fighting in the Eastern front? Did she torture someone? Did she denounce a Jew or member of the resistance to the German authorities? Did she hurt someone? Flamarande (talk) 21:27, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

At the very least she seems to have: [1] volunteered to serve as a Nazi nurse on three separate occasions, at ages 16, 18, and 19; [2] joined the Nazi Party in Germany; and [3] worked as a translator for the Gestapo when they conducted interrogations of Norwegian Resistance fighters [20]. Whether this is 'hurting someone' is left as an exercise for the reader. - Nunh-huh 22:15, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to trust your word in this matter [1] A "Nazi nurse"? What the hell does that mean? Were all nurses from occupied countries which nursed German soldiers "Nazi nurses"? [2] I'm not defending that, but please notice that she was very young (and with youth comes foolishness) [3] Your link leads to a book but the description doesn't reveal anything (at least I was unable to find anything and no, I'm not going to buy it). Flamarande (talk) 22:37, 23 November 2010 (UTC) I'm interested in credible and clear sources.

That link takes me directly to p. 251. If it doesn't take you there, that's the page to look at. - Nunh-huh 22:56, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry it doesn't lead me there. I also tried through Amazon but page 252 was unavailable. However I think that some of the details about Hanna Kvammo are unclear: she seems to have joined the Norwegian Red Cross (then under German control) at 16 [21] and was sent to Germany at 18 to work in a hospital. Details are sadly lacking but your statement that "she voluntered to serve as a Nazi nurse on three separate occasions, at ages 16, 18, and 19" is a bit unclear. I would still like to have some credible and clear sources. Flamarande (talk) 00:06, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Hanna Kvanmo got onto the Nobel peace committee in 1991. WWII ended in 1945, 40-50 years earlier. That somebody volunteered to help wounded soldiers 40 years earlier, at a time when ordinary Germans supported the Nazis and voluntarily ratted out Jews to the Gestapo, is hardly indicative of that person's current moral beliefs. Even if Kvanmo did torture people and abuse inmates at a concentration camp--and of course, it's highly unlikely that she did--it still wouldn't indicate that she's anything except a normal human being. --140.180.14.145 (talk) 02:21, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Way off-topic soapboxing. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 15:49, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I don't know that it makes her a horrible person, but it makes her peculiarly unsuited to put on hypocritical airs of sanctimonious smugness and issue ranting tirades about other people's alleged moral failings (as she chose to do in a very public way in early 2002), and it contributed significantly to tarnishing the image of the Nobel peace prize in the minds of some. AnonMoos (talk) 04:50, 24 November 2010 (UTC) Was she hypocritical? Did she ever deny her failings? Or did she suggest she was better then those she criticised? AFAIK she never received the Nobel Peace Prize herself so it seems a bit ridiculous to expect her to live up the standards in her ancient history she apparently expected in current times of those who do anyway. As others have noted it's not even clear what he crimes were. The International Committee of the Red Cross doesn't appear to think she was doing anything terrible (it's obviously not her fault that the Nazi's nationalised the German Red Cross although according to above it was the Norwegian Red Cross anyway) and to be honest I trust them more then I trust occupying powers intent on revenge (the victors write the history as they say). It's hardly uncommon that those who have made mistakes in their past live to regret these mistakes and publicly acknowledge their failings yet start to speak up against other people doing similar or other bad things. It's not unresonable to forgive people for the mistakes of their past, which they have done their best to make up for and to accept that these mistakes don't somehow justify others continuing to do bad things nor do these fully acknowledged mistakes somehow prevent people from speaking out against bad behaviour in current times. I would note many people have standards in their elected leaders, standards they may expect of other leaders even ones they didn't elect that go beyond what they impose on themselves precisely because they think such people have to meet higher standards, even if you think this is hypocritical. Note that I'm not suggesting her comments were fair, simply her failings in her ancient history have little bearing on them particularly if she had fully acknowledged them and tried to make up for them. Nil Einne (talk) 06:23, 24 November 2010 (UTC) Getting on her high horse and assuming extravagantly haughty and lofty airs to condemn the "mote in her brother's eye" (as the Bible puts it) is certainly flagrantly flamingly hypocritical in my book, and it did more to discredit the Nobel peace prize bureaucracy than anything else in recent decades (giving the two northern Irish women the peace prize almost right at the moment when their movement was starting to fall apart, and without any evidence that they would have any meaningful lasting overall impact on the NI situation, was a little bit stupid, but was not open to being considered motivated by ugly malignant hatred, like Hanna Kvanmo's rantings). AnonMoos (talk) 09:33, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

do Filipinos worship chicken bones?

Well, do they?--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 12:48, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't know. Do Roman Catholics worship statues? Do Protestants worship dog-eared Bibles? I'm sure their is a reference to religion in the Philippines somewhere in Wikipedia, and I'm sure you are capable of finding it. As for what constitutes 'worship', and whether people anywhere apply this specifically to the skeletal remains of domesticated fowl, I'm not sure there is likely to be a definitive answer. Why do you ask?

Before trying the Reference Desk, I read the Religion in the Philippines article, and it didn't say anything about chicken bones, so perhaps I was simply misinformed, or the article needs to be updated.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 13:40, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

If you could give an indication of where this (mis)information came from, perhaps we might be able to throw some light on the matter. The article says that more than 90% of Filipinos are Christian, and between 5 and 10% are Moslem, and as far as I'm aware, chicken bones don't feature notably in either faith. The article also mentions "Animism, folk religion, and shamanism", where chicken bones might conceivably be involved somehow, but without further data, any suggestion that "the article needs to be updated" seems a little premature. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:04, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

If Catholicism in the Philippines is anything like Catholicism in much of Latin America and other post-colonial Catholic countries, it may be highly syncretic in some areas and incorporate some traditional local customs that aren't a part of the mainstream religion elsewhere. That said, I've never heard of any such custom and can't find any reliable sources mentioning it (or anything at all unrelated to some comments made by comedian Adam Carolla). -Elmer Clark (talk) 06:18, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

this and this say something about it, albeit sarcastically. LiteralKa (talk) 17:14, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

So the 'source' for this is a rant from an ignorant comedian? And on this basis, a regular 'contributor' to Wikipedia thinks we should edit an article? Jeeez... AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:22, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

What do you call this life stance?

Life is like a movie. The screenplay is written (depending on your religious stance) by God or collectively by the characters. The story is logical and everything happens for a reason; even disasters that come out of nowhere serve to make the characters better characters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.189.219.60 (talk) 12:50, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Predeterminism? TomorrowTime (talk) 13:33, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Fatalism, pre-destination. 92.15.6.86 (talk) 13:35, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps the movie could be shown in Plato's cave. Matt Deres (talk) 14:51, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Panglossianism. -- AnonMoos (talk) 15:10, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

When you say the story is "written", do you mean in advance? Before the universe started? Or now, as we go along? APL (talk) 15:38, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

The story is written as we go along. The present words and actions of the characters "write" the story. Everyone's movie is different, of course, but as the main character in your movie, you do the most "writing". You cannot write for the other characters but much of their "writing" is influenced by you. Also, in the variation I believe in, God is like another character, but with a bit more powers. Based on your actions, he can choose to reward or punish your, or he can make you have an accident, hoping that you will grow as a character, but of course whether you actually grow as a character depends on what you write. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.189.216.11 (talk) 03:48, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

This really just sounds like a metaphorical way of expressing a pretty mainstream Judeo-Christian view of life. It seems to boil down to "one's own actions have the greatest impact on his life, but the actions of others and the will of God also play a role." I think most followers of Western religions (except those believing in predestination or a completely inactive Watchmaker god) would generally agree with this view. -Elmer Clark (talk) 06:25, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

In philosophy of mathematics, there is a theory called fictionalism. This is to say that mathematics doesn't express any deep truths about the world, but rather all of the equations, expressions, etcetera are convenient fictions. They make it more convenient to understand the world, but do not express deep truths about the world. Perhaps you are looking for a form of fictionalism.`The "screenplay is written" by logicians and mathematicians. (In fact, the rules of inference and/or axioms used in formal systems are chosen by their authors by fiat.) The "stories told" by mathematics all are portrayed as "happening for a reason." Even the idea about "disasters" serving to make the "characters better" can be seen in non-classical systems such as non-Euclidean geometry or paraconsistent logic.Greg Bard (talk) 04:16, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

If your life is already 'written', then so are the answers you read here. They are neither 'true' nor 'false', but merely the answers you will see, and therefore not worth reading. If you think you have any choice in whether you read them or not, then exercise this choice by not reading them (except this one of course). Go out and stare at the Moon instead... AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:37, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

The "everything happens for a reason" phrase seems to come up a lot in folk-psychology, it gets 885000 hits in a Google search, including a quote by Marilyn Monroe. I dislike that sentiment: it encourages people to be passive and not take responsibility for running their own lives. 92.15.15.224 (talk) 15:40, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

It depends on what they think the "reason" is. Some think it's God micro-managing the universe. Others think it's more generically an "opportunity". To many people, the notion of things happening purely randomly, without any grand design, is very unsettling. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:04, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Shakespeare had Macbeth saying that life "is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." 92.28.251.194 (talk) 18:57, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Kurt Vonnegut parodied that idea in his book, The Sirens of Titan, indicating that the entire course of human history had something to do with extraterrestrials trying to get a spare part for their spacecraft. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:07, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

"We will wear Bally's"

I was looking at a slide-show of pictures about the English Defence League, and in one of the pictures, there was an EDL sign that read "If they wear burkhas, then we will wear Bally's". (It's picture number 6 at http://english.aljazeera.net/photo_galleries/europe/2010112275625847519.html.) As an American, the only Bally's I'm familiar with off-hand is the gym chain -- I assume the sign isn't about the threat of well-defined abs, but a couple of google searches turned up nothing relevant except companies that made belts or shoes, and I can't see how that would relate to burkhas. Anyone able to shed light on this? 96.246.58.133 (talk) 15:53, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Despite being from the UK, I've never heard it as a term before. Looking at the image, however, it appears (in a misspelt way) to refer to balaclavas. Warofdreams talk 16:11, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, judging by the photo's, by "Bally's" they mean balaclavas: often worn by individuals intending to engage in political violence. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:15, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Confirmed in this article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:39, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Is that the wrong link or is there some reference to ballys or even balaclavas in that 1913 article about rabbit foot company that I missed? BTW the image mentioned above appears to be number 5 for me. Nil Einne (talk) 20:10, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Yikes! That's what happens when you're in a rush, click on the wrong tab, and don't check things before you rush out to visit the real world for a few hours. Profuse apologies all round - now corrected (I hope...) Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:56, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Haha. But if you don't mind sharing, why were you looking in to the rabbit food company thing? Nil Einne (talk) 13:59, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Not food, foot. I was checking a new ref added at The Rabbit's Foot Company.  :-) Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:17, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay thanks, that makes a lot more sense than bragging about muscle tone. 96.246.58.133 (talk) 23:52, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

It's certainly more comfortable than wearing a pinball machine, which is the first thing that "Bally's" made me think of! --Anonymous, 23:57 UTC, November 23, 2010.

Me too. That's the thing with those pesky apostrophes - put them in where they're not needed and people will think you're talking about something possessive in nature, when actually you're talking about something plural in nature. Big difference. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 01:46, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Still, the pinball games were actually marked "Bally". Just goes to show you. --Anon, 00:07 UTC, November 25, 2010.

It's difficult to eat Baklava while wearing a Balaclava. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:29, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

"I thought I was the Bally table king......" from the Who and Elton John's Pinball Wizard.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:35, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

There's always Bally Shoes, but I suspect that "balaclava" is the right answer. Alansplodge (talk) 09:28, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

What's a runekjevle?

81.131.33.14 (talk) 20:25, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, according to this article a "runekjevle" is a "cylinder shaped piece of wood with a smooth side for the runes". There are a few photos online of the remains of such items. Here's one I found: http://www.arild-hauge.com/arild-hauge/rune-N648.jpg --The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 20:32, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh! I recognise it. There are several like that in an illustration in a book I've got where it calls them "a selection of merchants' labels excavated in Bergen". Wouldn't have figured that out from "cylinder shaped piece of wood". Thank you. 81.131.33.14 (talk) 20:41, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

November 24

Complacency and South Korea

According to the Guardian: Park Weon-sun, a shopkeeper in central Seoul, as people crowded around a TV screen in his shop. "Koreans tend to be more complacent than they should be. I don't think it has yet really shaken them out of their complacency." http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/nov/23/seoul-south-korea-north-korea

According to Bloomberg's William Pesek: "Isn’t it odd that we in Tokyo or folks in Washington tend to fear Kim Jong Il’s missiles more than those residing 35 kilometers (22 miles) away from North Korea?" http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-11-23/black-swans-abound-as-north-korea-lobs-shells-commentary-by-william-pesek.html

I too have also heard that ordinary South Koreans weren't so worried about what North Korea could do. Does anybody else have any other direct anecdotal experiences of this. And if this theory does seem plausible, can anyone explain why there was this "lack of worry" among the public? (Obviously general perception within South Korea may have changed with recent events) 124.149.25.208 (talk) 01:08, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Living in a state of abject terror is usually not possible for most people. People generally go on living their lives because it isn't really helpful to cower in fear all the time. See also the related concept of gallows humor. --Jayron32 01:30, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

(EC)I lived and worked in South Korea last year, and I can say that most South Koreans I met weren't bothered at all about the situation with the North. I was there when a computer virus - purported to be from North Korea - hit government agencies (and hence the school I worked at), and no-one was really bothered about it. The situation was acted upon and contained quickly enough. As to why the situation is like this, I can only guess (in fact, I think anyone can only guess), but I will say that it must be remembered that the majority of the present South Korean population has been born since the cease-fire that brought about the present state of affairs with North Korea, so it can be said that that is all they know. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 01:34, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

It is entirely possible that the 'ordinary South Koreans' are more aware of what is really going on than the world media circus, or at least more used to this sort of posturing, and believe that this will all lead to nothing, as usual: unlike the media, they have no particular need to hype it up. I hope they are right. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:39, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I didn't mean to imply that anybody in South Korea who did worry about North Korea were "not ordinary". I only used that term to try and distinguish between the public and the politicians/army. Politicians and the army are obliged to worry about external threats. I'm not really interested in their perceptions. Feel free to ignore the term "ordinary" if you feel it makes unnecessary assumptions.124.149.25.208 (talk) 01:55, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that Americans are truly that afraid of North Koreans — for example, I didn't see anyone but myself thinking out loud on forums that the "mystery missile" two weeks ago^[22] might have been a demonstration of sub-missile-?nuke? capability by the North Koreans. Mostly the interest runs more along the line of macho-juvenile fantasy regarding what might be done if/when people have the opportunity to put aside all ethics and restraint. Wnt (talk) 02:41, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I disagree completely on this. I think many Americans are afraid of North Korea. They have nuclear weapons. They are run by a loony. They export WMD technology to other hostile nations. They are within striking distance of tens of thousands of US troops. That's enough to be worried about, without having to resort to conspiracy theories or fantasies. --Mr.98 (talk) 02:12, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree with Mr.98's assessment. I am quite amazed that here in Italy, the media is really downplaying the whole situation, which has the potential to turn into a nuclear inferno.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:30, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

It's far away and in no direct connection to them, that's all. Also, I think Italians (probably Europeans in general) just don't see the nuclear option as quite as feasible (and even if it went that far, it's, as I said, far away and in no direct connection to them). It's the same thing here over the border in Slovenia - no real reporting or general interest in the whole thing. I'm really anxious to know what's going all, since I'm a Japonologist and these thing are happening dangerously close to Japan, but I have to get my news from the Internet. TomorrowTime (talk) 11:55, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I think the source of the disagreement here is the use of words like 'fear' or 'afraid' and such. Nobody here in the UK was truly afraid of nuclear annihilation during the Cold War era - we really had a lot more to think about, like the economic upheaval of the 1980s, the Falklands War, Prince Charles' wedding, and so on. Same with thee days - no-one is really that bothered about the situation in North/South Korea. We are in the middle of the worst recession since the 1920s, as well as fighting in Afghanistan, and Prince William has just announced his marriage. When North/South Korea comes up on the news, it may spark a little bit of conversation in my house, but only because I have spent my life studying East Asia, and for no other reason. There's too much else going on for people to worry about whether two nations they know nothing about on the other side of the planet are going to go to war. If it does happen - God forbid - and if it does spark into a wider conflict, then there will be cause for concern, but not before. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 12:41, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

"Nobody here in the UK was truly afraid of nuclear annihilation during the Cold War era". Speak for yourself. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:01, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. Why am I suddenly getting a mental picture of Neville Chamberlain? Or, for that matter, the average American during 1939-1941? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:05, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Why so little diplomatic progress?

Why is there so little diplomatic progress between the Koreas? Would a citizens' armistice reenactment based on [23] help? Do we have an article on the list of issues which need to be resolved? North Korea#21st century suggests that whether U.S. troops remain may be the largest difficulty. Is that correct? Ginger Conspiracy (talk) 21:25, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

That is a deeply political question, and one you're unlikely to get answered here in any definitive sort of way. I'd start by suggesting that 'diplomatic progress' doesn't occur because it is in the interest of a lot of powerful entities that it doesn't. As for who the 'powerful entities' are, no doubt this will be debated... AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:33, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, there has been some considerable diplomatic progress, actually, though it is often of the "two steps forward, one step back" variety; we often feel during the "one step back" times that nothing good has happened. That is quite far from reality; Korean reunification shows a significant amount of progress, though we are still far from a true "single Korea". The Sunshine Policy covers about a ten-year period of entente between the countries. The past two years or so have been pretty shitty, but it's still nothing like it was in the past, on the balance. --Jayron32 21:54, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

It takes two to tango. When one side maintains a huge, expensive army bigger than Russia's, they're not interested. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:34, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I think you'll find that the military presence is 'huge', and 'expensive', on both sides of the border. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:45, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but only one side is straining itself economically while its people starve in order to maintain a military that contains over 10% of its population. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:56, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

True enough. On the other hand, would they be doing this without the perceived threat from outsiders? Or more to the point, would they be able to justify it to their own population? North Korea may be a particularly nasty dictatorship, but external threats (real or otherwise, though in this case the threat is hardly entirely fictitious) make their nastiness easier to 'justify'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:04, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Wasn't the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand seen by the rest of the world as just a Balkans incident? And weren't the soldiers marching off to hell convinced they'd be home in a few months?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:08, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

True enough, but on the other hand, many people see this potential war as just sable rattling by proxy between China and the US, and a similar war like that a few kilometers to the west started, went on and finished without drawing the rest of the world into WW3. The fact that neither the US or China would at this time gain anything by a full out war (rather loose a lot) makes people think that this will not escalate. Weasel wording aside, I personally am still concerned this doesn't blow out into full scale war, even if it does remain localized. TomorrowTime (talk) 17:09, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Communication between America and England in the 18th century

How long did it take for messages to travel between America and England during the 18th century? --75.33.217.61 (talk) 02:46, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I've found one reference which gives 7 to 12 weeks from England to Philadelphia [24]. I guess at much the same coming back? --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:52, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Mail moved on packet boats. See Packet trade.
Sleigh (talk) 04:31, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

The 1800s are the 19th century. Packet boats with scheduled departures followed the Napoleonic Wars (which played havoc with shipping).--Wetman (talk) 23:38, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

It could vary significantly depending on whether a ship had favorable winds or not. And of course it took further time for information to get from the main port cities (Boston, New York, Charleston) to less maritime locations. AnonMoos (talk) 04:44, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

According to Boatner's Encyclopedia of the American Revolution, "it normally took an 18th-century sailing vessel a month to cross from America to England and twice that time to return. (Westerly winds prevailed.)" He then notes that there are examples of faster and much slower trips, due to weather. This was particularly important in political, military and economic matters because people were often acting on information or orders that were at least a month old. —Kevin Myers 08:00, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Wasn't that delay a factor in the outbreak of the War of 1812?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:15, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

You may be thinking of the Battle of New Orleans, an American victory about 2 weeks after the peace treaty had been signed. Tobyc75 (talk) 17:56, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

It's more likely a reference to the Orders in Council dispute. The British repealed the orders, hoping to improve relations with the US. Not knowing this, 2 days later the US declared war. Whether prior knowledge of the repeal would have changed the outcome is open to question. —Kevin Myers 19:17, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

That's it, Kevin.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 05:54, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

To illustrate the unreliability of travel by sailing ship, have a look at this[25] New York Times article from 1912. On 12 June, a steam liner off the West Indies found a sailing barque which had left Pensacola on 27 February - 14 weeks previously. The crew had been living on one biscuit a day for 40 days. The captain of the barque took on 6 weeks' stores with which to finish his voyage to Montevideo. Alansplodge (talk) 15:12, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Lee Harvey Oswald's guilt

I have noted that while American's are pretty much divided as to whether or not Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone in assassinating Kennedy, most Europeans I have met are firmly convinced he was part of a conspiracy. I am curious as to whether the Americans who believe he was guilty and acted alone tend to be politically right-wing or left-wing?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:24, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

It depends on which conspiracy you place him in. Was he part of a Soviet/Cuban conspiracy to bring down America? Or was he part of a rightist conspiracy to bring down a popular, young, leftist President? The article John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories is a fairly comprehensive list of the more popular conspiracy theories; some appear to appeal to right wingers, and others appear to appeal to left wingers. Take your pick. --Jayron32 07:31, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Well another factor is regional. In Texas, where I lived for two years most people believed the US government to have been behind it. They tended to be right-wing.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:49, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Off hand, I would say those of us who don't believe in conspiracy theories -- of all kinds -- tend to be the politically middle-of-the-road, normal, reasonable, thoughtful, balanced sort of folks. DOR (HK) (talk) 09:06, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

You mean you don't believe that Oswald (real name: Elvis) was working for Haliburton to kill JFK because he was a space alien hired by Communists to write Shakespeare's plays and turn America socialist? You must be part of the coverup! —Kevin Myers 09:14, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I strongly question Oswald's sole guilt therefore I must be abnormal, widely-veering-off-course, unreasonable, thoughtless, unbalanced! Actually, I am all of those things; however, I do draw the line at Elvis Presley, Martians, and the ghost of John Wilkes Booth!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 10:14, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect, most Eurpeans are not interested in LHO and have no opinion about him although they may know what he did. 92.15.15.224 (talk) 11:40, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

How would they know what he did?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:48, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

For those alive at the time it was reported in the news, for others it is part of the general historical knowledge that all but the most ignorant would be expected to have. 92.15.15.224 (talk) 14:05, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

According to a 2003 Gallup poll, "Republicans are almost twice as likely as Democrats to believe Oswald acted alone (28% vs. 16%)." This is after the publication of the Posner book and other anti-conspiracy efforts of the 90s. (For what it's worth I'm a Democrat who doesn't believe in a conspiracy.)--Cam (talk) 14:08, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, my parents were both Democrats and they believed in a conspiracy (from the moment Ruby shot Oswald in the stomach on live television).--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:12, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I only have anecdotal evidence, but I'd concur with the IP above. As a European who knows many others knowledge of what he did is fairly widespread but conspiracy theories are both broadly uninteresting to us and those who do know in my experience don't believe it. Prokhorovka (talk) 17:33, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm only judging by the considerable number of European people I have met in my lifetime, as well as the myriad documentaries about the JFK assassination which are still produced for television viewer consumption.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:36, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

There's not much money to be made in denial of conspiracy theories, although such a book can effectively shoot down (so to speak) the conspiracists' stuff and severely cripple the market for it. After a rash of books about the "Bermuda Triangle", someone investigated the claims in more details and proved that every one of the so-called mysteries had a reasonable explanation and/or was distorted by the promoters of those books. One thing that was demonstrated in Oswald's situation was that someone of his pretty-good rifle skills would indeed be able to squeeze off two more rounds in the 6-to-8 seconds following the first shot. In short, it was possible for Oswald to have pulled it off all by himself. The JFK conspiracy stuff has somewhat faded over time, along with the UFO mania, as new conspiracy theories have come along that have more currency, such as 9/11. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:24, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd think that in the UK, it is mainly people on the right that are attracted to conspiracy theories, though I'm not sure how you could reliably test this. By and large, such theories tend mostly to be concerned with issues that effect the theorist, or at least with issues they think affect them, and the circumstances surrounding the killing of JFK doesn't really matter that much to most of us here this side of the pond. Personally, I think Lee Harvey Oswald shot JFK, with a Carcano rifle fired from the Texas School Book Depository... AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:54, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I believe I 'd have to concur with Baseball Bugs that interest in JFK and Lee Harvey Oswald has indeed waned since 11/9. I brought up the issue because half my life has been spent in Europe and virtually every single (European) person I have spoken to about the JFK assassination believe it to have been a conspiracy hatched from within the US Government.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:26, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

At the time it happened, most of us figured the USSR and/or Cuba were behind it - as did LBJ, apparently. In one of his final interviews, with Walter Cronkite, he admitted that he had never fully rid himself of the notion that there was foreign involvement. It was politically important to be sure that Oswald acted alone, as such an accusation leveled against a foreign government would have made JFK's own international crises seem like a picnic by comparison. Another problem was that the Kennedys themselves pulled the wagons into a circle (for good reasons, as we now know), and that had the unfortunate side effect of fueling the theories further. There was also the squeamishness of the media in their portrayals. Abraham Zapruder's famous film did not come into the public arena for like 10 years - and as I recall, the Kennedys opposed it even then, understandably so, it being a "snuff film". Although Life Magazine published a number of Zapruder frames soon after the event, they left out the bloodiest ones, which showed his head being blown apart. The idea that the US government was behind it doesn't really hold water - but a significant number of Europeans have no shortage of reasons for hating the US, so they will often embrace anything that seems to justify it. In fact, embracing a particular conspiracy theory says more about the one embracing it than it does about the theory itself. There is also no shortage of folks who I think would prefer that there were a conspiracy, because the idea that one solitary individual could change the course of human history is very unsettling. But the bare fact is that it was possible for Oswald to have done it by himself, and no solid evidence has emerged to contradict the lone assassin theory - and is less likely to as time goes on, as most of the principles are long deceased. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:58, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking of how to put it, but I basically agree with what BB is saying here. From my observation, there is no lack of people over here in Europe who see the US government as an ominous overpowering puppet master who doesn't flinch at even the most extraordinary conspiracy - JFK might be a bit dated, but try asking otherwise perfectly reasonable and intelligent people about 9/11 and you'll be shocked at the number of "It was an inside job, obviously" replies you get. Part of it is due to being outsiders and being able to see (and sometimes feel) the ugly side of US foreign policies, I suppose. What I find surprising is how many people fall for conspiracy theories that are specifically geared at Americans and engineered to tickle specifically American fears, though. TomorrowTime (talk) 12:12, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

As far as Democrats vs. Republicans embracing conspiracy theories, it depends on the paranoias of a specific era. Maybe some of you recall Hillary Clinton referring to a "vast right-wing conspiracy" during the impeachment proceedings. Meanwhile, in the 1950s, there was talk of a "vast Communist conspiracy", which in fact the right wing still holds to, except now they use terms like "socialist" and "liberal" as synonyms. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:01, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I believe it is entirely possible for one individual to change the course of world history (look at Hitler), and as in the case of loser Mark David Chapman, an insignificent, drab non-entity was able to eliminate the iconic musical giant who bore the name of John Lennon. It's not the mere fact that Oswald was a nobody who managed to kill a somebody; rather it was the logistics involved in the assassination, of which I was always suspicious, especially after having visited the TSBD in 2006.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:30, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Hitler had lots of help. The issue with these assassins essentially is that no one was paying attention, or at least insufficient attention (as with the Columbine massacre and other such events). What did you see in 2006 specifically that raised questions? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:45, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Out of interest Jeanne, where in Europe have you lived? I wonder if our different experiences are national variations? Prokhorovka (talk) 10:44, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

To answer BB, it was the trajectory from the window, as well as the relative distance from Oswald's sniper's nest to the stairwell (haVing wasted precious seconds carefully hiding his rifle between boxes). In answer to Prokhorova's question, I have lived in England, Ireland, and Italy where I am residing now. But I have friends from all over Europe including the Czech Republic, Romania, Russia, Germany, Austria, Moldavia, etc.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 10:51, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

The trajectory was practically straight down from the sniper's viewpoint. Hard telling how long it took him to exit the building, but given the shock and unexpectedness of the whole thing (to everyone except the assassin), I expect he would have had time to beat it before someone decided to lock down the building. But do you know how much time elapsed between the shooting and the building lockdown? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:02, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

90 seconds had elapsed from the third shot to Officer Baker meeting Oswald on the 2nd Floor. There's a big oak tree blocking a clear view from the sniper's window (It was already there in 1963).--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 11:46, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Presumably the officer didn't try to detain him. 90 seconds I could see. It wouldn't take all that long to go down 4 flights of stairs. Interesting point about the tree. I wonder if it had leaves on it and how tall it actually was - and how Posner got around that problem. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:27, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

The tree was not in the line of sight when the shots were fired. These points have been raised and refuted endlessly elswhere. This is not the place to do it yet again! —Kevin Myers 13:36, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

It seems like the trees at that point were only about 1 story high, which might have given him enough clearance. The crux of the conspiracists' many questions is the underlying assumption that they can demonstrate it was impossible for Oswald (or anyone) to have done it alone. And the counter to that is to demonstrate that it WAS possible. Which doesn't prove he did it, but undercuts a conspiracists' core premise. It's also important to remember that the whole situation was absolute chaos. There hadn't been a succesful assassination attempt in 60 years, and people were running around like decapitated chickens. So it's no surprise that the facts were hard to pin down. It can be hard to pin down the particulars of a traffic accident, never mind an assassination. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:50, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Agree with BB. There's no way to know, it's all opinion and speculation.

I personally think that it was a CIA/military op, using mobster assets, with a couple of hitmen from Marseilles doing the actual killing from the sewer, and two "Lee Harvey Oswald"s, (the one who shouted out "I'm just a patsy", and was then shot on TV, actually having been just a patsy). WikiDao ☯ (talk) 15:02, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and definitely the Freemasons did it, too. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 15:15, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Don't forget the theory that it was done by 3 or 4 different guys, each of which had been issued just one bullet. That's the "Barney Fife Single Bullet Theory". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:19, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

...And don't forget Opus dei, the Illuminati, and the shape-shifting lizards. Does Wikipedia really need another "who shot JFK" thread? Probably time to put this one to bed...

I don't know, Opus dei...? Doesn't seem too plausible. There are no modern-day Illuminati, and do you mean to say JFK wasn't a shape-shifting lizard? Agree it's end-of-story time now... WikiDao ☯ (talk) 15:40, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Who says there are no illuminati lurking about? One thing that nobody has ever been able to answer is how Oswald managed to get out of his sniper's nest within that 90 second time frame? Did he take a running leap over the stacks of boxes containing books or push them aside, then back in place? Have you seen the stacks as they were that day? I have and they look very heavy and hard to move.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:03, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Jeanne, now your real agenda is coming through. You want everyone here to believe it was a conspiracy, and you're adducing argument towards that end. That wasn't your original question, which was whether the Americans who believe he was guilty and acted alone tend to be politically right-wing or left-wing. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:08, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Problems with Optimum Currency Area: Models and differing GDP exposure

Hi

On the topic of OCA, I was wondering if there is no consideration paid to differently exposed economies (industrial exports, oil exports, agriculture, etc). Mundell's model in the OCA article does not seem to raise this concern, but I'd think that the different economies of eg Norway (if it was in the Eurozone), France and Ireland would react differently to, say, an oil crisis: Norway would likely profit, others not so much. As I understand Mundell's theory, any loss or disturbance in one state is cushioned by capital mobility to the other members of the OCA. Consequently, gains must also follow the same rules. If the state owns (or partly owns) eg the oil industry, how much capital mobility is there really? Can we attribute differing levels of capital 'permeability' to profits made in different types of corporations, such as part or wholly nationalised ones?

The way I see this (and I am asking whether I've understood the matter correctly!), with anything less than ~100% labor and capital mobility, there will not be any efficient 'cushion' the way Mundell speaks of it. Therefore, arguing for or against a state's level of compatibility with an OCA, you would include the factor of how their GDP is exposed; what the country creates or makes wealth out of, setting them apart from others. In industrial economies which are tied to geographical dispositions (eg raw materials not found elsewhere), this is very relevant.

Is there an updated model that discusses GDP exposure?

Furthermore, I find it very interesting how America provides an illustration for labor and capital mobility (the rust belt and migration of jobs to other states). Would I be correct in stating that as far as Mundell's model goes, the only 'imperfections' of America's OCA are due to either natural resources, or, and I believe more prominently, differing state legislation?

Thank you! 88.90.16.74 (talk) 10:48, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

The surname Griffin

I have read the article on the surname Griffin. I am seeking information as to whether or not the Irish Griffins are descended from the Welsh who arrived with Strongbow? The surname Griffith is obviously Welsh whereas Griffon exists in France. Most Irish Griffins come from the deep southern counties of Ireland (Cork, Kerry, Clare), and there are no Scottish or Ulster equivalents to Griffin. I therefore must conclude it has a Welsh and possibly earlier Breton origin. Thank you.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 11:32, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Have you seen this site? It says that "Griffin was a very popular choice of personal names in medieval Ireland; it had been introduced to the country by Bretons who came over with the Normans in 1172. At this time too, a clan with the surname Griffin settled in Ireland. There is no doubt however, that the great majority of Irish Griffins are really O¹Griobhtas of Gaelic stock who merely anglicized their name during the seventeenth century." Any use? Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:38, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

International debts

Which countries are net lenders, and which are net borrowers? Thanks 92.15.15.224 (talk) 13:59, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I haven't read the details, but someone else asked a similar question on Yahoo Answers here and got a surprisingly well put-together answer. Vimescarrot (talk) 14:16, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I suppose its difficult to distinguish between a lender and an investor. 92.15.15.224 (talk) 15:29, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

where can I change the source

I would like to change the actual source (i.e. reality) behind our clock articles, as until you flip back to zero, obviously it makes sense to count "10 p.m.", "11 p.m.", "12 p.m." before getting back to 1. It doesn't make sense that 12:48 at night should be "AM" when you are at 12, which is like 10 or 11. It should become AM after 12:59 PM, by which I mean in the middle of the night. So, I would like the change this. How could I do that? 84.153.199.218 (talk) 15:15, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

AM means before noon (and after midnight) while PM means after noon (and before midnight), which is why the hour after midnight is 12:00 AM to 12:59 AM (not PM). In fact, clocks and telling time use a simple "modulo 12" counting system, with 12 taking the place of 0. Please don't edit Wikipedia articles to reflect how you think things should hypothetically be (as opposed to how they actually are)... AnonMoos (talk) 15:23, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, you'd have to change how the world standard works, not just Wikipedia. Don't think that's going to happen. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:51, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Um, I specifically said I would like to alter REALITY, not just the wikipedia article. It's very simple. It makes more sense to flip between AM and PM when you flip from 12:59 back to 1:00 again. Let me put it another way. It would be as though we flipped the tens digits at 8, then continued to 9 anyway. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 19, 10. Does that make sense? No: because the tens digit is flipped, but you still count one more. That's exactly what happens. 1 AM, 2 AM, 3 AM, 4 AM, 5 AM, 6 AM 8 AM 9AM 10AM 11AM 12PM 1PM. Obviously the flip should happen when you flip from 12 to 1. How do I change the world measurement system to reflect this? THanks. 84.153.199.218 (talk) 16:25, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that clarification. In order to change observed reality, you'd need to sell many millions of people on the good sense of your illogical views. I sense your need for a regular pattern, but sadly it is not provided by ack emma nor by her cousin pip. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:29, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

84.153.199.218 -- In that case the AM/PM changeovers would not occur at noon and midnight, but instead an hour off from noon and midnight. It would be much more self-consistent and less disruptive to change the hour "12" in clocks and AM/PM timekeeping to "0" (if you could do it). AnonMoos (talk) 16:44, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

No, because 12 midnight really is 12 hours after noon. It doesn't make any sense for it to read "0 pm" or "0 am" since it is neither zero hours after noon or zero hours before noon!! Of course, the AM's don't have a semantic meaning (what is 1 AM?) but all the same, it would at least make sense to let 12 keep its meaning... I mean, 10:59-11:00 11:59-12:00, 12:59-1:00. At which point would you expect the AM/PM to change? 84.153.199.218 (talk) 16:57, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

But you understand me if I suggest we meet at 00:15? 0am is the first hour of the day and makes complete sense (but does not fit your argument very well). All reminiscent of the discussions around the turn of the millennium: did it take place on the 1999->2000 transition, or the 2000->2001? --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:01, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Why not get more of the world to accept a 24 hour clock and your quest would be half complete. Dismas|^(talk) 17:08, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm a little surprised no one has mentioned the terms Ante Meridiem (AM) and Post Meridiem (PM) meaning "before midday" and "after midday" respectively. Taken as such, the two labels actually all make sense (though as mentioned above the numbers don't, semantically). If we consider noon to be midday (which we do), then everything prior is before midday, or Ante Meridiem. That includes midnight as well, because 12 noon cannot be before midday and the clock must contain exactly 2 halves of 12 hours each. What the OP would need to do is change midday to make this work, not change AM and PM. The numbers bear no relation to the AM/PM divide. In other words, 1-2 am is actually the second hour of pre-midday. Think of what we call 1 am in spoken language: 1 o'clock. Or, 1 of the clock. Or, first hour (and x minutes) of the clock. 12-1 am is the first hour, completed at 1 am, etc. It's the same way we name the years. Aaronite (talk) 18:26, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

It's probably easier to modify your own personal reality rather than that of the consensus of the rest of our species. Try imagining the measurement of time as a way of tracking your own personal daily journey around the circumference of the Earth. Imagine looking down on the Earth from above one of the poles as it rotates. Imagine a dot on the surface marking your house. At your local noon you are at the closest point of one Earth rotation to the sun. The Post-meridian period is that of your 180 degrees of travel between noon and your local midnight, at which point you are at the furthest point from the sun (we'll disregard the precession of the Earth around the sun for convenience). Ante-meridian is the subsequent 180 degrees traveled as you approach your next local noon. You may then appreciate that midnight is zero-hour as at that point you have zero degrees to travel towards the point of furthest possible distance between yourself and the previous noon and have traveled zero degrees towards your next one. Blakk^{and ekka} 18:39, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm a little surprised Aaronite did not notice the first response to the OP which did indeed explain the meaning of AM & PM. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:40, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

So am I, actually... I was looking for the Latin. My mistake. Aaronite (talk) 21:46, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Essentially, the OP seems to be wanting each new calendar date to start at 1 am rather than at 12 am. That has a certain logical appeal, as months start with day 1, not day 12. But the am/pm thing is still based on noon, which has been defined for the past 2000+ years as 12 o'clock in the day. Under the OP's proposed system, mornings would go from 1 am to noon (11 hours) and afternoons would go from noon to 1 am (13 hours). That's a bit lop-sided. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 22:03, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

The choice of 12 is actually rather arbitrary. I think what the OP is proposing is to change the clocks so that 1 represents both High Noon and Midnight, and put 1 rather than 12 at the top of the circle on the clocks, shifting all the numbers back. Its perfectly logically consistant, its just kinda pointless in terms of overcoming the inertia of the prior system. That is to say that it wouldn't be impossible; the calendar used to change years at March 22nd, such that March 22, 1250 would be followed by March 23, 1251. This was because of the connection of that date to the Equinox. This lasted for thousands of years, and was only changed during the changeover from the Julian Calendar to the Gregorian Calendar, which occured in stages over several hundred years; in some parts of the world have only been using the Gregorian calendar for about a century. However, unlike the calendar change (which occured during another calendar change, the need to shift the days due to inaccuracies in calculating the leap year. The change of the start of the year date was kinda snuck in as a "rider" on the more important change) the change to the clock doesn't have a lot of justification beyond change from one arbitrary start time, to another slightly less arbitrary start time. --Jayron32 22:21, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

It was more often "Lady day" (March 25th) which was taken as the start of the year (though it varied considerably between different jurisdictions). As to why days start at midnight, it's because out of the four quadrant points of the day-night cycle (sunrise, noon, sunset, midnight), midnight is the one where people were generally asleep in agricultural societies... AnonMoos (talk) 04:19, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Heh. Imagine a race where most everyone was asleep at the start. Maybe those who are most capable of carpediemically seizing the day are those who are awake at midnight.  :) -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 04:32, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

March 25 was once the actual vernal equinox, and December 25 was the winter solstice, which is how those dates were chosen for Anunciation Day and Christmas Day respectively. Although the Gregorian calendar fixed one problem, the mistake that had led to those days sliding toward the 21st was never corrected, which is kind of a shame. And just as the first day of spring was taken to be the start of a new year, sunset was taken to be the start of a new day. That last fact is echoed in the many Christmas celebrations that occur on Christmas Eve, as in the old days once Christmas Eve arrived, Christmas was "already there". Christmas Day of course followed it - until sunset. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:46, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

The Gregorian calendar reform basically tried to change the alignments back to how they were at the time of the Council of Nicea (325 A.D.), not at the time of the beginning of the Julian calendar three centuries earlier... AnonMoos (talk) 23:41, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I believe that in Jewish custom, the new day started at sunset the previous evening. Anyway, the new day starts sensibly at 0hrs 00mins, its just that clocks somewhat confusingly display 12 rather than 0. 18:43, 25 November 2010 (UTC)92.28.251.194 (talk)

That's because there ain't no place on an analogue clock (or what we used to call a clock) for 0 hours. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:00, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Saxe-Coburg-Kohary and Bragança Line

I was wondering were the line of Saxe-Coburg and Bragança (the descendants of Princess Leopoldina of Brazil) rival claimants to the Brazilian throne to their cousins, the descendants of Isabel, Princess Imperial of Brazil. Also why were they considered undynastic after 1908? I can't tell from any of their articles since most of them are just stubs.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 20:53, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

There are still descendants of Isabel alive today so why would the issue of rival claimants ever arise? 75.41.110.200 (talk) 03:21, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

OECD tax haven treaty

I am having a hard time understanding the current legal status of the OECD's prohibitions against tax havens. It takes several minutes for [26] and [27] to load in my browser. In particular, I would like to know why the United States is not listed on [28] as a supporter. Who in the US could change that? Hillary Clinton? What are the names, phone numbers, and email addresses of the people who work on this for her?

[29] represents a bilateral law enforcement agreement, [30] seems to be a list of bilateral agreements, and there are some new bilateral agreements from 2008-9 in [31]. Do these bilateral agreements represent any kind of progress over multilateral agreements?

What is keeping multilateral agreements from being enacted? Maybe [32] can help answer these questions. Ginger Conspiracy (talk) 21:19, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

History of the colonial history of Nigeria

I wan't to read about the colonial history of Nigeria. What would be the best books to start with? P. S. Burton (talk) 22:57, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

The article History of Nigeria (1500–1800) has some references, including book references, listed at the bottom. No idea if these are any good, but its a start. --Jayron32 00:11, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

YOu also may want to read through Colonial Nigeria, there's a book reference listed for that one as well. --Jayron32 00:14, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

The history of the colonial history of Nigeria can be found here and here. schyler (talk) 02:17, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

...And humour can be found here. You seem to lack it :) P. S. Burton (talk) 21:38, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

This is the Reference Desk. Perrsonal cracks about editors trying to help here are particularly inappropriate. :) Wetman (talk) 21:49, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Lenin

Did Lenin speak English ? I'm writing a book and it involves the main character meeting Lenin, but I do not want the character to speak Russian. What other languages did he speak besides RUssian ? Thank you a lot. 24.92.78.167 (talk) 23:45, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Vladimir Lenin understood several languages, as noted early in the article. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:47, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

The only language other than Russian that he could really speak was German. He might have understood a bit of English but couldn't really speak it. Marco polo (talk) 00:23, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

According to the article he studied "the Classical languages of Latin and Greek, and the modern languages of German, French, and English, but had only limited command of the latter two". He lived briefly in London, and maybe picked up a bit of the idiom there - I've seen it suggested that he attended Speakers' Corner, though whether the idiom of that locale was particularly useful, I'd not like to say... AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:33, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Maybe it needs rephrasing, but "limited command" also gives me the impression that German was the only modern foreign language, besides his native Russian, that he could speak well. --Saddhiyama (talk) 01:56, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

That's the way I read it too. He spoke good German, but only a little English and French. I'd have to check outside sources to be sure but I think this is probably correct. There was possibly as great a proportion of German-speakers in London while he was there as there are now, so maybe he got by without any English, though if he'd studied it, presumably he understood a little?

It might have been a case of understanding English but not sufficiently schooled in it to be able to speak and write it well. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:29, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I remember a story about Lenin saying that he taught himself what he thought was English from books, but found that, after he got to London, although he could read it fine, no Englishman understood his spoken English. I don't remember where I read this though, or how reliable the source was. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:10, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Lenin lived for a while in London, where, among other things, he did some research in the library of the British Museum. His "Collected Works" include some letters Letter to the Secretary of the Socialist Propaganda League, TO THE SECRETARY OF THE BRITISH LABOUR REPRESENTATION COMMITTEE written by him in English. One of them he concludes with "I must apologise for my bad English." (I am not sure, though, if the text of this particular letter on marxists.org is Lenin's original English text, or back-translation from the Russian translation, as published in the Russian "Collected Works").

In the delegate's questionnaire Lenin filled in at the 10th Congress of the Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks), he responded to the question «Какими языками вы владеете?» ("What languages can you use?") as follows: «Английским, немецким, французским — плохо, итальянским — очень плохо» ("English, German, French - poor, Italian - very poor"). Soviet biographers usually would say that this was an indication of his modesty, and in reality he was perfectly fluent in the first three languages, and had a good reading knowledge of Italian. -- Vmenkov (talk) 19:21, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

November 25

Musing about nonconsecutive terms

As a resident of California, I was struck by Jerry Brown's election to a third term as governor, following his first two terms that ended before I was born. I wonder, how many politicians have been elected to nonconsecutive terms in major executive office (governors, presidents, prime ministers, etc.)? What is the longest interval between terms? Perhaps this topic deserves some kind of list article.

Of course, I know about Grover Cleveland. A quick Google search turned up pages and pages about Cleveland, but nothing else relevant. I then searched Wikipedia and discovered Edwin Edwards, who managed the remarkable feat of serving as governor of Louisiana for sixteen years over a twenty-four-year period. (However, this is still shorter than the twenty-eight years that have elapsed since Brown's most recent term ended.) So, what other major politicians have done repeat performances?

--Smack (talk) 05:56, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

In Canada, this has happened a few times with the Prime Ministers: John A. Macdonald (1867-1873, 1878-1891), Arthur Meighen (1920-1921, 1926), William Lyon Mackenzie King (1921-June 1926, September 1926-1930, 1935-1948) and Pierre Trudeau (1968-1979, 1980-1984). I think it has happened numerous times in the UK as well (Winston Churchill and Harold Wilson, for example). Adam Bishop (talk) 06:59, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

In the UK, most notably William Ewart Gladstone, Prime Minister 1868–1874, 1880–1885, February–July 1886 and 1892–1894. Churchill's span as PM only covered 15 years (1940-45, 1951-55), although he was Home Secretary as early as 1910. Harold Wilson was first a Cabinet member in 1947, and PM 1964-70 and 1974-76. List of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom gives info on all the others. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:38, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

George Wallace comes to mind, although his was a special case, to put it mildly. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:01, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

The lists of rulers at www.rulers.org conveniently tag non-consecutive terms with "1st time", "2nd time", etc. (a person reelected to the same office is not counted as a separate time). Of course, these "times" don't necessarily mean a new election each time; in parliamentary systems, for example, the leadership can easily change in between elections.

Anyway, the highest "time" number shown in this way on that site is the "12th time", and that honor belongs to Domenico Fattori of San Marino. Now, that country uses a rotating-dual-leadership system, where the Grand and General Council elects two people (from different parties) to serve jointly as captain-regent for a 6-month term. So although Fattori held the position 12 times, non-consecutively, over the period 1857-1914, all those times added up to only 6 years in total; and he was only a joint leader.

If that's not considered to count, then the next highest number is "10th time", achieved by two people. The site shows ex-king Norodom Sihanouk as prime minister of Cambodia 10 times over the period 1945-62, as well as holding several other leadership titles over the years. And Alexandros Koumoundouros is shown as prime minister of Greece 10 times over the period 1865-82. In both cases, Wikipedia does not detail all these terms of office.

The next highest is "8th time". This is given for 8 additional people on the site, from four countries and one colony, and I have not looked them up except to see if they have Wikipedia entries. (The ones not linked don't, unless they're under alternate forms of their names.)

• Iran: Mirza Hassan Khan
• Iraq: Nuri Pasha as-Said
• Lebanon: Bashir ibn al-Qasim ibn Umar; Rashid Karami
• Netherlands: François Ermerins; van Haersolte, heer van Staverden
• Pitcairn Island: Thursday October Christian II; Charles Richard Parkin Christian

--Anonymous, 08:05 UTC, November 25, 2010.

Thursday October Christian II. Now, that's a name to reckon with! He's already my all-time favourite politician. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 09:20, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

He was a son of Thursday October Christian I, who married his girl Friday. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:28, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Heh. But read the article! Thursday October Christian I was known for a while as Friday October Christian I, before resuming his original name! --Anonymous, 05:18 UTC, November 26, 2010.

would someone take being cheated on any better if the person their spouse cheated with was ALSO married?

would someone take being cheated on by their spouse any better if the person they cheated with was ALSO married? (my reasoning is that it would make it more credible if the spouse makes the argument that it was just sexual, they had no deeper feelings or long-term plans for each other... this is harder to believe if the person they cheat with does not have someone else in their life that they are emotionally and long-term attached to.) thanks for any insight you may have in this matter. 188.174.80.195 (talk) 09:58, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

It would depend entirely on the individual, so it's not really an answerable question. If you go to Google, you might be able to find some surveys on the matter, to see what the probability of various reactions would be. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:00, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Here in Italy this is usually the case, as regards the cheating husbands, seeing as most single girls are interested in finding a husband of their own so rarely go out with a married man. Married women, on the other hand, will cheat equally with married men (in many cases the spouses of their best friends) as well as single guys (usually much younger than themselves).--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 10:10, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

The same sort of question is sometimes posed in relation to married guys who have a fling with another man, and whether this is better or worse than if it had been with another woman. I've known cuckolded wives in this situation who've gone both ways:

• from - Well, at least it wasn't another woman; I couldn't have dealt with that
• to - If only it had been another woman; I could at least have dealt with that.

So, there's no way of knowing how people are going to react to that sort of thing. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 12:32, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, better keep infidelity a secret from one's spouse at all costs. See: Anne Boleyn, Catherine Howard, Laura Lanza.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:57, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Except that in Anne Boleyn's case, she was not the one who was being unfaithful (and particularly not with her own brother, as claimed!) - Henry himself was the guilty party here, having an affair with Jane Seymour (not the actress) while married to Anne, yet she got the chop for it. What hypocrisy! Of such tawdrinesses are churches built on. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:56, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Korea - UK's obligations?

With all the sabre-rattling in Korea, no-one in the British media has mentioned whether the UK has any obligations to help defend the South. Does anyone know if the UK made any commitments under the terms of the Armistice? Alansplodge (talk) 11:45, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

The full text of the armistice is available at wikisource:Korean Armistice Agreement. A quick glance through doesn't show any section under which the UK could make any such commitment, although I may have missed something. Warofdreams talk 12:22, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Was the UK involvement covered as part of United Nations Security Council Resolution 83 which was to provide assistance as part of the UN forces? MilborneOne (talk) 16:19, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

No, I think the UK voluntarily sent 12,000 troops and about a dozen ships to help the UN forces in Korea.[33] There was and is no formal obligation. Ginger Conspiracy (talk) 19:38, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Longest gap in service

Following on from the question above, what it the longest gap in service someone has had in an elected office? For example, Simpson Gibson recently returned to the Northern Ireland Assembly, having previously served in the 1982-86 assembly, a gap of 24 years. The O'Gorman Mahon (an interesting character) was a UK MP in 1830, then from 1847 to 1852, 1879 to 1885 and 1887 to 1891 - a 27 year gap in there, and 57 years from the end of his first period of office to the start of the final one. Can anyone beat these? Warofdreams talk 12:01, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I believe the U.S. record is Cecil H. Underwood, who had a 36 year gap between his terms as West Virginia governor. The current Governor-elect of California, Jerry Brown, will, when he takes office, have a 28 year gap between his terms. --Jayron32 14:41, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

The longest I found was only 23 years for William Cutten who resigned both times. [34] says it's the longest for the Parliament of New Zealand. Alexander Dubček is a famous comeback case with special circumstances. He was out for around 20 years depending on what you count him out of. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:49, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Lewis Nott had a break of 21 years (1928-1949), a record for the Australian parliament. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:49, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

There is also Simeon_II_of_Bulgaria who abdicated as Tsar of Bulgaria in 1946 and came back 55 years later as democratically elected prime minister. 86.162.106.18 (talk) 21:56, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

If you suffer from dislexy

do you believe in dog? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.169.188.173 (talk) 12:03, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Generally speaking, most people believe both in dogs and bad jokes. Warofdreams talk 12:15, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

What if you are a dyslexic atheist? TomorrowTime (talk) 12:19, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Woof. Is the inability to spell "dyslexia" one of the signs of dyslexia? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:36, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

eh, a dyslexic atheist is just a titeash... --Ludwigs2 15:55, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanksgiving

Well it's that time of year again! Except it isn't because in Canada it was celebrated over a month ago which is frankly ridiculous. The holiday has the same purpose and has already been moved in the past so why doesn't Canada stop making this an issue and just share the date with the US. 300 million people already accept the established date so why take something so simple and make it a big cultural debate? TheFutureAwaits (talk) 13:55, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Quite so, it really is appalling that people who aren't American don't celebrate American holidays, and do you know, they don't pledge their allegiance to the American flag either? Goddam pinko liberal foreigners, nuke 'em all! DuncanHill (talk) 14:02, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Bloody colonials arguing amongst themselves again? Time to send the redcoats back... AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:08, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Good, that will make them easy targets. Did you know Canada has a Fourth of July? Except they celebrate it on the 1st. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:09, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Good God. I hope they at least celebrate Cinco de Mayo like every true American! —Kevin Myers 14:30, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Every day's a holiday somewhere. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:52, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, what we should do is Franksgiving-plus, i.e. move the date to the Canadian date. Thanksgiving is too close to Christmas, and in fact it's a lot like Christmas (being a family gathering), minus the tree and the deficit spending. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:54, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

We also celebrate Flag Day in February! Except no one actually celebrates it. Adam Bishop (talk) 15:14, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Festivus. For the rest of us. Rimush (talk) 15:32, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I celebrate Holiday myself. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:37, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Winterval. --TammyMoet (talk) 15:48, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually I'm going to be BOLD by suggesting that Bastille Day should be made an American holiday in recognition of the help the French gave the American colonists during the Revolutionary War. Vive la France--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:54, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Wasn't it King Louis XVI of France who helped you out? The Revolution gave him a pain in the neck. Alansplodge (talk) 16:52, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

A capital idea. Maybe we should honor the French Revolution by dispensing with lethal injection, the noose, the chair, etc., and replacing them all with the guillotine. A nice bit of historical nostalgia. ("This execution has been brought to you by Gillette...") ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:59, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Hey BB, don't you mean "brought to you by Jeanne boleyn?" After all, it's my idea not Gilette's--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:11, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

"Today's decapitation sponsored by Gillette, makers of the new Jeanne Boleyn razor; and by Pepsi, makers of Diet Slice." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:18, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

hey, a whole new world of 'theme' executions. veterans day with military-style rifle corps executions, Thanksgiving would be good old Puritan 'burnings-at-the-stake', the anniversary of 1920's stock market crash with defenestrations, etc... Easter should be fun. --Ludwigs2 03:59, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Canadian Flag Day, if you really don't want to celebrate a holiday in Canada, scheduling it for February is a good choice. Our Flag Day is June 14, but it doesn't get a lot of attention, especially with July 4th coming up. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:01, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanksgiving, of course, is a harvest festival, and the last week of November is more appropriate for an snow festival in much of Canada. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:55, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, we do have an actual get-a-day off holiday in February now, called Family Day (at least in Ontario), and which happens to coincide with Flag Day anyway. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:47, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I just saw The Matrix!

Wow, what a film! I just saw the Matrix, but I just have one question. How come when they awake from the simulation, the person who wakes up looks EXACTLY like the simulation?? If these people have been raised in a pod from birth, it doesn't make sense that the robots would program exactly that "look" into a simulation. I would expect the pod-body to have no resemblance to the simulation-body. It would have been a better film if it were true. Like in Avatar. Also, why didn't they go in deeper, like in Inception, with a matrix in the matrix, and a totem to see if you're in a matrix or not? It would have been more interesting. 84.153.212.127 (talk) 14:28, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I think part of the justfiication is that one's self-image in matrix needs to have some connection to one's actual self outside of the Matrix so that the mind-body connection is preserved somehow; if not the body would basically die which would make humans useless as batteries for the machines. (this is in the Matrix universe, its not supposed to make sense in the real world, I know that) Not to give too many spoilers, but if you watch the sequels (Matrix Reloaded and Matrix Revolutions) and the sideproject the Animatrix, you get additional information regarding the Matrix and its history; I don't know that they cover this directly, but they do go into some important details which you do not get in the first movie. --Jayron32 14:37, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

It's important to keep in mind that (1) the film came out 11 years ago, and a lot of stuff has happened since then; and (2) it's fictional, and we weren't its authors, so "why didn't they" as pertains to a movie can be hard to pin down. The most important aspect of that movie might well be technical, as it pushed the envelope on concepts of fast and slow motion in cinema. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:52, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

There's a good storytelling reason that the people looked exactly the same: it would be really confusing for the viewers to have to match up two different actors and identify them as the same person. (The TV series Dollhouse involved mind-transplantation, and so it was pretty confusing that way, even though typically only a couple people were involved per episode.) Regarding recursive matrices, there was some speculation that that was going to be revealed to be happening in the third Matrix movie. Unfortunately, that wasn't what happened; the third movie made no sense and was terrible. I suspect that they thought that it would've been too "obvious". Paul (Stansifer) 15:35, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

It was confusing enough in Oklahoma! when they had a dream/ballet sequence with dancers that looked kind of like the main players but not exactly. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:12, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

TVtropes.org has an article on this trope: "Inside a Computer System", which supports some of the comments made above in that much is done "to make things easier for the audience". WikiDao ☯ (talk) 16:49, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I once saw an episode of The Simpsons on a streaming site. The episode included quite some reminiscing, so the story unfolded in three time lines: when Marge and Homer first met, when Bart was a toddler and Lisa had just been born, and in present time. It was all pretty straightforward, run-of-the-mill stuff, you just had to look at hairstyles and/or the size of the kids to figure out which timeline you were in. And yet, about half of the comments under the video were about how terribly confusing the ep was and how it was hard to follow. I wouldn't believe it if I didn't see it, and I have to chime in with Socrates: the youth nowadays is terrible, the world is screwed. TomorrowTime (talk) 17:24, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

The third movie of the Matrix made perfect sense, though getting that sense might not be easy. Ask yourself: in the first Matrix, how would Neo's ascension look to the people who stayed behind? Then consider the opening sequence, showing worlds within worlds within worlds, even using recognizable fractals for artwork. In the third Matrix Neo ascends another level, but you see it from the perspective of those left behind. Wnt (talk) 23:23, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

British Monarchy

I can't seem 2 find WHY, when the Prince marries, his wife will Bcum Queen when he Bcums King, yet the Queen's husband is NOT titled King!

This question was asked a few days ago. Basically the present Queen Elizabeth II is the queen regnant, i.e. the monarch. In order of precedence, the title King takes precedence over Queen, so her husband could not be the King, as he would then be the monarch himself. Is this clearer? --TammyMoet (talk) 15:46, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Seems like they could invent a title such as "King consort" that would rank below "Queen regnant". But presumably the Brits like things the way they are. During the 1950s, when ERII was expecting, if the press then were as cheeky as they are now, they might have headlined it, "Queen Regnant Pregnant!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:04, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

The wife of a reigning king, such as Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon, becomes Queen consort. The husband of a reigning queen, such as Philip Mountbatten, is a Prince consort. Ain't no sense in it - that's just the way it is. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:28, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

It's even more senseless than that, because in 1952 the powers-that-be wouldn't give poor old Philip the title of Prince Consort - he was understandably annoyed. He may be a prince consort but he's not The Prince Consort. There's only ever been one; Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. Alansplodge (talk) 16:35, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Mary, Queen of Scots was foolish enough to make her husband, Lord Darnley king. It didn't go down too well with her Scottish subjects, so they first took him down; then Mary, herself was brought down. Far better to keep the husband a Prince consort and stick him in the stud farm, like Victoria's Albert and George of Denmark.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:33, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, I think the word you're looking for is usually spelled "become", not "Bcum". 87.114.101.69 (talk) 17:21, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Maybe he was dictatin'! 84.153.212.127 (talk) 17:38, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

This is the way things work throughout the British honours system: when a man is knighted, he becomes Sir Bob and his wife becomes Lady Wilma. But when a woman is knighted, she is Dame Gladys while her hubby remains plain old Steve.
Equally, the wife of Lord Smith is Lady Smith, but the husband of Baroness Jones is Mr Jones. Seems sexist, but I can't quite get my head around how: just odd, basically. ╟─TreasuryTag►secretariat─╢ 18:33, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

It's definitely sexist. Men are rated higher than women -- any explanation that leaves that aspect unclear is inadequate. Another sexist aspect is that any son takes precedence over any daughter, even if the daughter is older. Until the reign of Mary it was unclear whether women could become monarchs at all -- in France they couldn't, because of the so-called Salic law. Looie496 (talk) 19:02, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

The Empress Matilda was never allowed to become Queen Regnant, though her son wound up as King. Corvus cornix_talk 20:09, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Technically, Sir Bob Smith's wife is plain Lady Smith, not Lady Wilma Smith or Lady Wilma. But the point remains: a knight's wife is a lady, but a dame's husband is still a nobody. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:29, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I find it amusing that all this fuss over a royal wedding, no doubt much of it from folks who adore the system of royalty, is bringing to the surface again all those things that are wrong, unfair and illogical about it. HiLo48 (talk) 20:33, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's far better than it was in the days when the monarchy really counted for something. If Brits want to spend all that money to maintain their theme park for tourists, I suppose that's OK. It does irritate me a little that the Canadians are still officially part of it, though. That sort of thing should stay on the old continent. --Trovatore (talk) 20:42, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Not the place, folks, for a debate on the merits of the monarchy. That wasn't what the question was about; and it's been answered. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:45, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

There was talk of changing the succession rules to the throne a couple of years ago. Did any of that ever go through? I'm finding several news articles where people are saying it's going to change, but none about whether it did or not. Buddy431 (talk) 00:22, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Nothing came of that, and I can't see that anything will in a hurry. The Statute of Westminster 1931 requires all the realms to change the law of succession unanimously. There are currently sixteen of them. This would require a feat of international co-operation beside which the Olympics begin to look like a kick-about in the park. Marnanel (talk) 04:05, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

And it gets worse. An English High Court Judge is automatically knighted by HMQ so he becomes Sir John (off the Bench - with his wife becoming Lady Jane), but on the Bench he is addressed as My Lord or Your Lordship, but his wife stays as Lady Jane. But in Scotland, a High Court Judge is NOT knighted by HMQ, though he is appointed by her, and thus he cannot call himself Sir John, on or off the Bench. But he automatically assumes the honorific title of Lord, both on and off the Bench, with his wife becoming Lady Jane. And yes, it's true that the husband of a lady High Court Judge gets nothing. Confused? It's designed to keep the masses in the dark.92.30.10.122 (talk) 04:09, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Chinese

In China I know schoolchildren traditionally memorize a variety of ancient Chinese poems. About how many does the average Chinese child memorize ? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.92.78.167 (talk) 17:11, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

November 26

Are gov. bonds traded through the stock exchange?

--212.169.184.210 (talk) 00:59, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Which stock exchange? AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:04, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

A general answer can be found here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:08, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

In the NYSE, you certainly can buy funds comprised of bonds (of all kinds). I don't know if gov. bonds (do you mind US or something else?) are presently traded there. Quest09 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:15, 26 November 2010 (UTC).

The NYSE or LSE. I tried to find them, but no luck. So far, I could only found the funds composed of bonds (also mentioned above). If it is possible to trade them, can anyone find the symbol of any European or US bond? 212.169.184.210 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:28, 26 November 2010 (UTC).

James Cook R.N.

I'm a bit confused and would appreciate some help. I am British and know that in the Royal Navy, the commander of a naval vessel, irrespective of his official rank, is addressed as Captain by his crew. Cook made 3 voyages before being killed; the first when he was a Lieutenant when he circumnavigated and mapped New Zealand; the second when he had been promoted to the rank of Commander and charted the Eastern seaboard of Australia; and the third after he had been promoted to the rank of Captain. So who really "discovered" Australia? Was it Captain Cook as the history books tell us. Or was it more accurately Commander Cook? Thanks. I did explain I was confused. And is it known whether any of his descendants are still with us? 92.30.10.122 (talk) 03:49, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Cook had six children: James, Nathaniel, Elizabeth, Joseph, George, and Hugh. Elizabeth, Joseph, and George died in infancy. James and Nathaniel were lost at sea with no issue. Hugh died of scarlet fever while a student at Cambridge, again without issue. So: no, his descendants are not still with us. Reference. Marnanel (talk) 03:59, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

He landed in Australia on the first voyage, so really, the eastern coast was first charted by Lieutenant Cook (he did not discover it, Australia had been discovered in the seventeenth century by the Dutch). But as you say, the commander of a naval vessel is the captain, so it is still accurate to say "Captain Cook", even though Cook did not yet have that official rank.

For further details, see European exploration of Australia. The Dutch got here in March 1606, and they're generally agreed to be the first Europeans to reach Australia. There's evidence the Portuguese were here almost a century earlier, but whether that's compelling evidence or not is up to you. Historians generally are not compelled by it. Then there are the Australian aborigines, who arrived here from overseas parts 40-80,000 years ago, besides which the achievements of the Europeans look positively tardy. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 05:10, 26 November 2010 (UTC)