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

June 29

Sichuan Migrant Workers in China

How many Sichuan migrants workers are living in each of these Chinese provinces and region: Guangdong Province, Fujian Province, Zhejiang Province and Guangxi Region? Sonic99 (talk) 03:21, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Could the U.S. hock Taiwan?

Suppose the U.S. made an agreement not to do anything with Chinese rebels - no arms sales to Taiwan, close the consulate, no threats to intervene in conflicts with them (certainly no more nuclear posturing about it), no high level meetings with the Dalai Lama (or Panchen Lama, if he turns up). From the U.S. perspective it would be nothing but accepting reality and putting some IRL trolls out of work disappointing some hawkish commentators, but the Chinese seem to care about that stuff a lot. Question: do they care about it enough that they could be talked into forgiving some meaningful amount of U.S. national debt in return? Wnt (talk) 03:49, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

What is "IRL"? Within Wikipedia, that's a disambiguation page, which doesn't seem to list anything relevant to this topic. As for "rebels"....the Communists rebelled against the government that retreated to Taiwan. Michael Hardy (talk) 18:15, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

In this case, "IRL" means "in real life". Though I spent some time on open wheel racing forums shortly after the split, I doubt that Indy Racing League fans are, as a group, that passionate about Taiwan. :-) Wabbott9 Tell me about it.... 01:07, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

There's levels of wrongness with that question so deep and profound I don't know where to begin to correct them, never mind even answering it. The assumptions that the question makes are so unconnected to reality it would take volumes to begin to peel back the layers of misunderstanding within it. --Jayron32 04:09, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh, but please do! The level of ignorance in the U.S. regarding the Taiwan situation is indeed hard to exaggerate. And people have all kinds of odd ideas about it. So some remedial education here would be most useful to the public interest ... especially with crazy news stories running about the U.S. getting involved in some kind of military conflict over some dispute between Vietnam and China over oil prospecting! Wnt (talk) 05:48, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

You have a question about the Spratly Islands dispute? --Jayron32 05:50, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I didn't want to get into that - I'm looking for the more basic perspectives you hint at. For example, to begin with, do you dispute the commonly presented model that U.S. pressure prevents China from invading Taiwan? Wnt (talk) 06:54, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure what you mean by calling the Taiwanese "IRL trolls". --Saddhiyama (talk) 07:14, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry! I never meant for that to be taken to mean Taiwanese people. I meant, certain commentators in the U.S. who push relentlessly and in my view heedlessly for military confrontation or cold war with China over issues like Taiwan and Tibet, which to me seem very unlikely to produce results and distract from any broader goal of supporting human rights as a universal principle. Wnt (talk) 22:49, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

US pressure does not prevent China from invading Taiwan, military reality does. China does not have a navy capable of transporting troops in sufficient quantity to do more then die uselessly on a beach were they to attempt to invade. Think about how many ships and landing craft it took for the D-Day invasion of Normandy. I don't think that China has anything even close to those kinds of numbers, and logistically, Taiwan would be more difficult, not less. Googlemeister (talk) 13:35, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

OK, I'll take it on:

1) Such a betrayal of a US ally would cause all other US allies to jump ship, leading to the collapse of NATO. This would leave the world vulnerable to all sorts of military threats, from terrorists to pirates to Iran, North Korea, China and Russia.

2) The US would do better to default on it's debts. This would cause a worldwide economic crisis, but, in the long run, if the US could no longer borrow money, it would be forced to live within it's means.

3) China and other creditors would want to avoid a US default, so would negotiate down the debt. This is both because getting some of the money is better than none, and also to avoid losing exports to the US as a result of economic collapse there. StuRat (talk) 08:07, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Stu, I would just like to point out that America doesn't own NATO, and NATO would not fall apart just because America reneged on an agreement with an ally. America pulled out of full operation in Libya pretty quickly and NATO didn't fall apart. The US refused to help the UK (and even threatened action at one point) in the Falkland War, but NATO didn't fall apart. America went into Iraq against intenational law and the rulings of the United Nations, boycotting trade with fellow NATO members who helped in the UN rulings, but that didn't cause NATO to fall apart. We've got NATO because we need it, and we will continue to need it even if one member does have a consistent track record of behaving badly from time to time. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 13:46, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

The US is pretty much the core of NATO. If the US wasn't part of it, the other members would have to make major increases in their military budgets, perhaps on the order of 10X, to maintain it's current abilities. I see no sign of a political willingness to do so. StuRat (talk) 14:05, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I can't disagree with you there. However, we are not talking about the US not being part of or leaving NATO. We are talking about what would happen to NATO if the US did something (which we both agree as) disagreeable, and the simple answer is nothing. NATO would continue just as it always has. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 15:50, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

The reference desk does not answer requests for opinions or predictions about future events. Do not start a debate; please seek an internet forum instead. (Taken from the text at the top of this page.) This is a ridiculously speculative question. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:06, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

No predictions of future events? So if I ask when the next total eclipse of the sun will be, that's not one for the reference desk? And since when aren't requests for opinions answered here frequently? Michael Hardy (talk) 18:19, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Technically the sun is perpetually being eclipsed. You can see it every night if you look at the ground. Googlemeister (talk) 19:04, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Hardy - WP:FUTURE does a pretty good job of explaining it. Note the phrase "unverifiable speculation". —Akrabbim^talk 19:13, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I was actually interested more in what was within the current range of possibilities, but due in part to some very unclear phrasing on my part we went off track. Though I doubt NATO has much to say with Taiwan, does it?

But there's another assumption to consider: does the U.S., which does not recognize Taiwan as a nation, have any possible treaty obligation to Taiwan? I know that for decades presidents have vaguely been saying "help Taiwan defend itself", but so far as I know, there's no literal betrayal involved if they just stop. Or is there? Wnt (talk) 22:55, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

The real answer is that you are confusing the interests of politics with the interests of business, and in many cases, they operate in distinct spheres. In the tricky case of Taiwan, they two do not even operate in the same universe. In the political world, everyone has to pretend that Taiwan doesn't exist. The One China Policy is so entrenched it borders on blind faith that the policy cannot be touched. So everyone in the political world operates under the "don't piss off the PRC with regards to Taiwan" mindset. However, businesspeople don't really care to play political games; their more interested in generating profits, and for them Taiwan is a real place with which to do real business. The political world is at worst a nuisance for these people. In fact, as recently as one year ago, the business world directly influenced the political, and China and Taiwan signed the Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement which removed many of the barriers to cross-strait trade (which many wiley businesses were likely skirting anyways with a bit of a "nod and a wink"). You should also read the Cross-Strait relations article, which has lots of good stuff on recent detente between the PRC and Taiwan. --Jayron32 01:12, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

The OP may also want to consider the current state of amphibious capability within the People’s Liberation Army.DOR (HK) (talk) 07:02, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Honestly, I feel like that is a red herring. Posturing over Taiwan has gone over decades - plenty of time for China to build as many transports and naval vessels as desired. Heck, with the time and labor force available to them they should have been able to build a 99-mile mole leading out to it like Alexander in the Siege of Tyre... Wnt (talk) 22:56, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you could remind us of the last time the PLA successfully projected power beyond China's immediate land borders?DOR (HK) (talk) 08:28, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

house of Hanover

Henry VII was the first Tudor king of England. The Tudors ruled the country from 1485 to 1603. They did so by allying with the Parliament and curbing the powers of the feudal lords. This period in English history led the country to progress and also witnessed the Renaissance and Reformation movements. The Stuarts ruled the country from 1603 to 1714. Thereafter the House of Hanover has been ruling England. seen here This is from a school text book. Hanover dynasty ended at the beginning of the twentieth century. So this is palpably wrong. I can't figure out how come such an obvious error in a text book learnt by hundreds of thousands students. Is there an approach which assimilates the later dynasty under Hanover itself? --117.253.190.68 (talk) 04:24, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

The House of Hanover was "ended" after the death of Queen Victoria, so if you read Queen Victoria's descendants as being in "her" dynasty rather than that of Prince Albert, monarchs down to the present day could be mistaken as being in the House of Hanover.

Or perhaps that particular text book has not been updated since 1899... --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 05:59, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It isn't palpably wrong. The House of Windsor is the current British Royal House; the house of Windsor was created by decree when the house was renamed from the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha to make it sound more "Britishy". The question is whether a "house" can be passed "matrilinially". After all, the British Kings/Queen of Windsor/Saxe-Coburg and Gotha are all still directly descendents of the Hanoverians through Queen Victoria, who was unambiguously a Hanoverian. By convention, the house name changed to that of her husband, Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, however it isn't automatically clear that such change of house name is automatic or standard practice. Prince Charles is still considered to be of the House of Windsor officially, even though his father was a Prince of Greece (so technically, if we followed Victoria's precedent, he'd be of the House of Greece, or perhaps of the of the House of Mountbatten, or of Battenberg, or of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg). There have also been precedences in many other countries where the children of a female ruler adopted her "house" as their own (i.e., they didn't automatically take the dynastic house of their father). Look for example on various members of the House of Romanov; several Romanov emperors claim to be Romanovs through female lines, e.g. Peter III of Russia is a Romanov though his only connection to that Dynasty is because his mother was a daughter of Peter the Great. His patrilinial decent is of the House of Oldenburg. Back to the throne of the United Kingdom; since the throne has passed via uninterupted primogeniture (i.e. it has always passed to a legal heir who has a legitimate, direct descent to a prior recent monarch, almost always to the closest availible heir) there's not necessarily any reason to consider a "dynastic change" to have occured during the "Victoria-Edward VII" transition; i.e. why should a "dynastic change" occur when a child of a monarch legally inherits the throne without controversy. This is very different from the situation which caused the Tudor family, or later the House of Hanover, to assume the throne... --Jayron32 06:11, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Prince Charles has the "personal surname" Mountbatten-Windsor, as do his sons, so that may become the Royal House when he (or one of them) accedes to the throne, though there seems to be some doubt about the matter. AndrewWTaylor (talk)

I think you will find that as a Prince, he still has no surname (but it is unclearly worded). Rmhermen (talk) 15:00, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's why I put scare quotes around "personal surname", which is the expression used in the article I linked to. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 16:07, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

It seems that, in practice, members of Charles' family use the surname "Wales" when needed, and not "Windsor" or "Mountbatten" or "Mountbatten-Windsor". You can clearly see this on the military uniforms of Princes William and Harry, who have the name "Wales" on their uniforms, see here which clearly shows the names "William Wales" and "Harry Wales". This is, of course, because there isn't any official or traditional custom or practice when dealing with the "last names" of British Royalty. There just isn't any standard practice or guidance to go by; prior to the early 20th century (when Victoria asked for guidance on what the surname of her children might be) even the concept that Royals would need to carry a surname was seemed "beneath them", as such matters were largely seen as unimportant. Even names like "William Wales" and "Harry Wales" aren't an endorsement that those last names are their "Official, Sanctioned, and Honest-to-God real Last Names"; rather it is merely a convenience, i.e. in some applications it becomes necessary to put something down in the "Last Name" field, the Princes have chosen to use "Wales" for that purpose. The use of the name "Mountbatten-Windsor" as a legal surname is more likely to only be important to later decendents for whom having a surname may be important. In the British practice, untitled children of the nobility are officially considered commoners; it is the existance of the Title which imparts nobility. This sort of standing may extend to the monarchs children and grandchildren, but eventually there will become a time when the connection to Roylaty becomes tenuous. For example, imagine Prince Harry has a son, and then that son has a son, and then that son has a son. So by what surname will Harry's great-grandson be known (and then pass on to his kids)? Mountbatten-Windsor would be the likely result. This is despite the fact that Harry himself has no official surname, and appears to use "Wales" as his default surname. Furthermore, Prince Williams "convenience surname" likely recently changed; since he is now the Duke of Cambridge, usual practice among the nobility is to use the highest given title as a surname, so perhaps Williams "convenience surname" is now Cambridge instead of Wales. Or maybe he will keep "Wales" to avoid confusing all of the existing paperwork with that name. Who knows. --Jayron32 16:06, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

"... prior to the early 20th century (when Victoria asked for guidance on what the surname of her children might be)" - it must have been very early in the 20th century, as the century was only 22 days old when she snuffed it. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 16:17, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, late 19th is better. The information on Victoria's "Search for a surname" is detailed at House_of_Saxe-Coburg_and_Gotha#Names_of_the_British_royal_house, where it was determined that her Children would have the surname "Wettin" if they followed normal naming practices. The statement has a "cn" tag in our article, but I distinctly remember the information in my pre-Wikipedia memory, so I generally trust it... --Jayron32 16:34, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Some more examples from the Royal Family. Queen Elizabeth's sister, Princess Margaret maried a man whose birth name was Antony Charles Robert Armstrong-Jones, and who carried no titles prior to his marriage, and so used Armstrong-Jones as his surname; however he was given the title Earl of Snowdon, and so began to use Snowdon as his surname. Their son's birthname is "David Albert Charles Armstrong-Jones", but he uses the name "David Linley" (Linley as a last name) because he has the title "Viscount Linley". Even though his father used the surname Snowdon, and he uses the surname Linley, his children currently use the surname "Armstrong-Jones", being that they don't have any titles of their own. --Jayron32 16:45, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree with some of that. When a peer such as the Earl of Snowdon signs something as simply "Snowdon", he is not claiming that is his surname. His surname remains Armstrong-Jones, but his title is Viscount Snowdon. Now, his son David has the courtesy title Viscount Linley, It's a courtesy title because the Earl is still alive, and David is not yet a peer in his own right, but he is expected to succeed his father when he dies, whereas any younger siblings he may have are not expected to do so. David's surname remains like his father's, Armstrong-Jones. His use of "David Linley" is like a stage name; it's recognised as a practicality, but its status is unofficial. His children have the surname Armstorng-Jones because that is his own surname. Had it become Linley, their surnames would also be Linley. But it didn't, and they're not. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 18:43, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but how is what you say any different from "Harry Wales" Isn't "Harry Wales" equally as much of a "Stage Name" as "David Linley" is? That was my only point, that the Royal Family has no defined surname, and that any existing "surnames" in use by the close members of the family are "stage names" as you put it. The 1960 decree cited above doesn't make any change to the situation of close family members of the monarch, that is it doesn't make Charles's surname "Mountbatten-Windsor", what it does is to give anyone who isn't royal enough to claim "I'm Royal enough not to have a surname" an actual, legal surname, being Mountbatten-Windsor. --Jayron32 19:11, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

The difference is that Princes William and Harry and Charles have no surname at all, and they have to borrow or assume or adopt one when the occasion demands it. Charles used Mountbatten-Windsor when he married Diana; William and Harry use Wales in the armed services - so already we can see these are temporary personal choices and not family names that carry on to the next generation. William's children may well choose to be known as Whoever Cambridge. Whereas, the Earl of Snowdon and Viscount Linley have always had a surname, Armstrong-Jones, and they don't need to borrow anything. That the Viscount chooses to be known professionally as David Linley is no different from Frances Gumm choosing to be known professionally as Judy Garland, or Paul Hewson choosing to be known professionally as Bono. That he has taken a part of his courtesy title, Viscount Linley, and reused it in his nom de guerre is neither here not thuerre.  :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 19:32, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes. --Jayron32 19:52, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

A further amusing example is that (as I recall from my (and his) youth) when Prince Charles wanted to remain relatively incognito while staying at modest local hotels, visiting museums, etc, he used to sign registers and visitors' books as "Charlie Chester" which, as the Earl of Chester, he legitimately was, though it was also a deliberate allusion to the better known Charlie Chester. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.166 (talk) 22:52, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

This whole thread makes me think of the scene in Tom Sawyer in which Tom and Huck are pretending to fight a mediæval battle: Huck asks the "other name" of Richard, is told that "kings don't have any but a given name", and is quite displeased. Nyttend (talk) 11:51, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

"divers Abuses"

What is divers Abuses?Curb Chain (talk) 10:40, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Many abuses. Think diverse. In the context, I think we're chiefly thinking of rotten and pocket boroughs. --Tagishsimon (talk) 10:43, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I first came across this meaning of divers in the Biblical reference to people speaking in "divers tongues". Deep sea divers? Scuba divers? Springboard divers? And what did their tongues have to do with anything? Such were my questions, until the phrase was explained to me. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 11:59, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Some deep sea divers breath a special air mixture. During decompression, helium may be added, causing raised voice pitch. I've heard a recording of Scott Carpenter making a call from the Sealab II undersea research project to the Johnson White House, and the White House operator not wanting to put the call through because she thought it was a prank. The "diver's tongue" was too diverse for her taste. Edison (talk) 15:24, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Obviously it's an archaic spelling of "diverse", meaning many different kinds. Michael Hardy (talk) 18:20, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Or similar to the French divers, meaning "several" or "various", as well as "diverse". French election returns often include a line or column for divers gauche or divers droite (other left-wing or other right-wing parties or candidates). —— Shakescene (talk) 22:35, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

• Chambers 20th Century Dictionary, 1983 edn., page 366. "Divers, adj. sundry: several: more than one: same as diverse." DuncanHill (talk) 22:40, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

OED suggests that while it was originally just an alternative spelling of "diverse", the two words are no longer the same (the meanings which are identical to diverse are marked archaic in the OED). "Diverse" means "many different" and "divers" means simply "many". --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 01:41, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Chambers is flat out wrong in the final three words; "diverse" has a stronger sense of heterogenity among the nouns that it modifies than "divers" does. Nyttend (talk) 11:46, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I remember as a small choirboy singing a hymn which included the line "Oh, in what divers pains they met; Oh, in what joy they went away". I read it as "diver's pains" and having watched too much Jacques Cousteau on the telly, imagined that it referred to the bends. I have now noticed - on trying to find the words to link to - that many versions on the net now say "many pains". Shame. Alansplodge (talk) 22:21, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

In the EU, but not in the NATO

Why are these countries - EastlandEstonia, Sweden, Finland, Austria, Ireland, Malta - not in the NATO? Being EU members does not guarantee a place in the NATO, but it certainly could be easies for them to enter it. I'm specially amazed that Finland is not a part of it; having Russia as a neighbor should be a compelling cause to have powerful friends on the other side. Wikiweek (talk) 11:09, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

• NATO is primarily a military/defence organization and some of those countries have no interest in mixing themselves up with that. I think Finland was neutral in World War II, but I'm not sure. - 194.60.106.38 (talk) 11:13, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

But, if you think you could be attacked, which is not the case of Austria, a landlocked country, surrounded by (at present) peaceful countries, it makes sense not to mix yourself up with that. However, Finland and EastlandEstonia have reasons to fear Russia, a bigger and sometimes instable country. Wikiweek (talk) 11:28, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

The Austrian State Treaty required Austrian neutrality. I believe Finland had obligations to both NATO and the Warsaw Pact during the Cold War. DuncanHill (talk) 11:57, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Finland was certainly not neutral during the second world war. Most of these countries subscribe to a principle of neutrality and would avoid joining any military alliance. However, NATO has various cooperation agreements with non-member states, which cover some of the nations listed. 81.98.38.48 (talk) 12:12, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Where is Eastland?
Sleigh (talk) 11:41, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Estland is an alternate name for the country most commonly called Estonia in modern English. Though the name derives from the name of the Aesti people who lived their during Roman Empire times, (i.e. Aesti-land, similar to the name of England coming from "Angle-land"), it is so close to "Eastland", and it actually does lie in the Eastern part of Europe (i.e. other that Russia, it is to the "East" of almost everything else) one could see the easy confusion. --Jayron32 15:03, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, Estonia is a member of NATO. As for the others, our article on neutrality, referenced by 81.98... above, explains some of the reasoning behind neutrality. A relatively small country, potentially threatened by much larger powers, might wisely choose not to take sides with either of them. If that country joined NATO, for example, it could make itself a target for military action by NATO's foes. As a small, peripheral member of the alliance, the country might fear that other NATO members, if they themselves also faced threats, might not offer an effective protection against attack. Estonia has chosen to join NATO because of a history of Russian aggression. However, its accession to NATO has arguably led to increased Russian hostility. In any conflict between NATO and Russia, Estonia would inevitably face Russian aggression. Finland has a somewhat different history. While Finland was once part of the Russian empire, but during World War II, it found itself a pawn between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. Wanting to avoid such a fate after the war, it adopted a policy of neutrality, which allowed it to maintain its democracy, unlike other countries bordering the Soviet Union in Europe (apart from Norway with its tiny Arctic boundary). So, neutrality is prized in Finland, whereas Estonia has chosen a different strategy. Marco polo (talk) 15:40, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I think you'll find that the Finns were forced to accept nuetrality in a crippling peace deal with the Soviet Union. Besides having to give away large chunks of their territory to the Russians, they were obliged to enter into the "Agreement of Friendship, Cooperation, and Mutual Assistance" by which they narrowly avoided slipping behind the Iron Curtain, on the understanding that they would observe strict nuetrality, and accept Soviet dictated limitations on the size of their armed forces and the volume of Soviet goods and services that they had to buy. Alansplodge (talk) 20:50, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

"Crippling" is hardly accurate - the Finnish economy benefited from the ability to trade with the USSR under favourable conditions as well as with the West. Which is another answer to the question why one may want to maintain neutrality.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 23:31, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Finnish anti-NATO sentiment is based on several traditions: first, the careful neutrality of the Cold War era was adopted out of necessity but internalized by the majority of the population as something to be proud of. Second, there is a lot of nationalist sentiment tied with the idea of independence and military self-sufficiency. Third, knee-jerk anti-American ideas are widespread especially in leftist circles, and NATO membership is believed to lead to participation in US-led foreign wars. Only about a quarter of Finns favour NATO membership, and the opposition is vehement enough that few people in the political elite are willing to take steps toward membership. It is ironic that the majority of Finnish military officers, i.e. the people responsible for planning Finnish defences, are in favour of NATO membership. 188.117.30.209 (talk) 20:19, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Academics debates these issues as the concept of Finlandization. Matt's talk 06:15, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Joining NATO doesn't just mean the other members will defend you if you are attacked, it also means you have to defend the other members if they are attacked. The countries you mention may not want such obligations. --Tango (talk) 21:45, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

This isn't an answer, just a thought: I think that there are dangers to having NATO and Russia physically adjacent to one another. To give an extreme example, suppose that the Republicans had had their way in making Georgia a NATO member, so that NATO would have considered South Ossetia its own territory, even though that region had claims of independence, and was inhabited primarily by Russian citizens largely favoring Russian rule. What would have happened when the shooting started? But in any situation where NATO is patrolling one one side of a fence and the Russian Federation on the other, one wonders how quickly things could get out of hand. Wnt (talk) 06:13, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

¶ At the beginning, in the mid-1950's, the European Economic Community had only six members (West Germany, Italy, France and Benelux), but the alignments of the NATO, Warsaw Treaty Organisation and neutral nations had already been set. Spain had not been admitted to NATO because Francisco Franco's government had been aligned too closely with the fascist Axis powers and Spain's admission would have caused anti-NATO outrage in many European members, but had a long-standing defence agreement with the United States. So Spain was neither a NATO member nor really neutral. Otherwise, NATO's members comprised the U.S., Canada, Iceland, Norway, Denmark, the UK, the EEC countries, Portugal, Greece and Turkey.

On the other side of the Iron Curtain were the Warsaw Pact nations which before 1962 comprised the Soviet Union and her satellites: the Polish People's Republic, the (East) German Democratic Republic, the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic, the Hungarian People's Republic, the Romanian People's Republic, the Bulgarian People's Republic and the People's Republic of Albania. Albania and Romania later withdrew their military cooperation with the Warsaw Pact. Tito's Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, although Communist, was in an anomalous position, having been expelled from the Cominform in 1948, but not militarily allied with the West and helping (together with India and Indonesia) to found the assertively neutral Non-Aligned Bloc.

The remaining nations had adopted a policy of neutrality either before, during or after World War II: Sweden, Finland, Switzerland, Austria and the Republic of Ireland. You'd have to do your own research into the reasons, but Sweden's been neutral since the end of the Napoleonic Wars. Denmark and Norway (like Belgium before World War I) had also been neutral, but were occupied by Nazi Germany in 1940; neither Sweden nor Finland had been occupied by the Germans, although large parts of Finland — part of the Russian Empire before 1917 — had been invaded (and much annexed) by the USSR. (Iceland, then a dependency of occupied Denmark, was "pre-emptively" occupied by the Allies and declared independence in 1943.) Switzerland has been neutral for centuries, and was even hesitant about compromising her neutrality by joining the United Nations. Austria and Finland, as earlier posts explain, reassured Russia of their military (and in Finland's case diplomatic) neutrality as part of post-war treaties that ended or avoided Soviet occupation. Ireland, under Éamon de Valera, was neutral (much to Churchill's outrage) during World War II, and had no interest in joining a military alliance with the United Kingdom, from which she broke after a long bloody struggle for independence, in 1922, then leaving the British Commonwealth by declaring herself a Republic in 1949.

¶ However, there are still natural questions arising from that chronology. How did Portugal, a dictatorship on quasi-fascist lines under Dr António de Oliveira Salazar, join the Free World NATO when her fellow Iberian dictatorship (Spain) could not? What do Greece and Turkey, discontiguous with the other allies, have to do with the North Atlantic? And, like Portugal, how did they fit into a democratic alliance in periods when they were under military (or royalist) dictatorhip? What about countries that were neither allied with either bloc nor traditionally neutral, like Spain, Yugoslavia, and, later, Romania and Albania (the latter aligning herself in 1962 with the People's Republic of China? How did Denmark and Norway (feeling unable to defend themselves against another totalitarian country) end up in NATO, while Sweden and Finland remained outside?

¶ And all this ignores the other half of the question: the complicated set of economic and geo-political considerations that dictated the not-always-consistent pattern of European Union and NATO expansion after the fall of the Iron Curtain 1990. —— Shakescene (talk) 21:35, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

history quotes

I have been looking for quotes about the period 1913-1935, though with rather little success. I have little idea where to look for them, other than trying to find specific events from the period to read about, and that seemingly provides few results. I was rather hoping for a wide variety, with references to events and places all across the world.

Any advice on how to better go about doing something like this would be most welcome, to save me having to come back another 118 times to ask after different periods.

79.66.97.193 (talk) 11:18, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd advise reading a history book or two, dealing with the period. Something like this, for instance, has great quotes about the period. --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:37, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

You're not looking for quotes from 1913-35 but about 1913-35, even ones from 2011?
Sleigh (talk) 11:44, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

You could find both quotes about that period and from that period by reading significant literature from authors of the period. I would recommend F. Scott Fitzgerald, Ernest Hemmingway, W. Somerset Maugham, Dorothy Parker, etc. While not strictly an author, Will Rogers is eminently quotable. --Jayron32 14:57, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Aqueduct in Israel near Lohamei HaGeta'ot

The perimeter wall, of sorts, of Kibbutz Lohame HaGeta'ot is an old Roman aqueduct. It's a rather nice one, fun to walk on and walk alongside on my way to the strip mall nearby, but I don't know its name. All aqueducts have names, no? What is the name of this one? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 16:53, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

There's a picture of it in our article Al-Sumayriyya, it's possible one of the sources used there would give it a name. DuncanHill (talk) 18:37, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

When I saw "strip mall" my first thought was a street dominated by strip joints and was a big shocked given the context.--PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 01:37, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

It's known as the Pasha's Aqueduct or the aqueduct of Jezzar Pasha. It is "only" about 200 years old.--Cam (talk) 14:21, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

The Jezzar Pasha article suggests he caused it to be refurbished; so presumably it dates from an earlier age? --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:28, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

This guide to the antiquities of Accra (page 19/54) says "A new aqueduct was built in the end of the 18th C by Jezzer Pasha, the Ottoman builder of Acre. It was rebuilt by his son, Suleiman, in 1814. The aqueduct was in operation until 1948. This photo shows the aqueduct in Kibbutz Lochamei-Hagetaot, about 6km from the end of the water line in Acre. The next photo shows the aqueduct at the same location, with a double level structure.". Alansplodge (talk) 15:05, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

If you scroll down to page 23/54, it says that the original Jezza Pasha aqueduct (which ran in pipes) was destroyed during Napoleon's siege of 1799; the open-channel structure visible today is Suleiman Pasha's aqueduct which was built 1814-15. It describes how the double level structure came about. Alansplodge (talk) 16:44, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

The Hebrew name is אמת עכו. --Cam (talk) 15:49, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I've added a small paragraph about the aqueduct to the Lohamei HaGeta'ot page. Alansplodge (talk) 16:39, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I see now. So it's a Hellenistic one (structure-wise) that was refurbished by this Pasha fellow (kind of like how the Great Wall of China was built (sorta)). That is mildly disappointing. Though it does make the statement about it working up until 1948 more sensible now. I am looking at that aqueduct now (specifically the part you can walk over), from where I am chilling with my laptop. The funny thing is that the source is our digsite. xD At least one part of Kabri Spring is where we do our wet sieving, and believe you me, you don't want to drink that water, but I think the rest of the springs are still in use for Akko and Nahariyya's water supplies (possibly the Kibbutz's water as well). I think my photos are much better than theirs there btw. :p Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 06:58, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I have started an article on it in my userspace. Hope you guys don't mind me using the wording that some of y'all have used here. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 07:55, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Taxes - Good or Bad?

Republicans say raising taxes is bad for the economy and cutting taxes is good for the economy. Democrats say cutting taxes is bad for the national debt. What do objective economists say? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.91.89.34 (talk) 17:43, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Do you want the opinions of Republican economists or Democrat economists? --Jayron32 17:49, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

At least 12 opinions were forthcoming from the 11 who were asked. All of the opinions in your question are true - within limits. All things being equal, decreasing taxes increases consumer demand, which is good for the economy. But cutting taxes (if government services & subsidies are not also cut) will increase the national debt; and the national debt tends to be a bad thing. In part it's a question of timescales - short term good, long term harm. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:52, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

You must force the politician to define what it means to "cut" or "raise" something. The usual politician definition is not what us commoners tend to use. When a politician says he will cut taxes by 2%, what he means is that the current plan is to increase taxes by 5%, but he will cut that down to a 3% increase. When a politician says he will cut spending by 10%, he means that the current plan is to increase spending by 30%, but he will cut that down to 20% increase. There is also a timeframe. If a politician makes a wild claim like cutting taxes by 10%, he means that he plans to cut taxes by 10% over 20 years with the first actual cut to take place 5 years in the future of about 0.1% and an assurance that the tax cut bill will be scrapped long before any change is actually made. So, all in all, neither side is saying anything at all that is meaningful. -- kainaw™ 18:08, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Note that this also works in reverse. If a temporary tax-cut designed to stimulate the economy is allowed to expire, as planned, the Republicans will then accuse Democrats of "raising taxes". StuRat (talk) 23:24, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

This is also compounded by the problem that you can quite literally get a published economist to give a valid, mathematically sound "proof" of any economic theory in existance, and get such works published in peer reviewed journals.

Lets say, for the sake of arguement that you have two political parties, The Haters and The Griefers. The Haters want to cut all taxes and spending and the Griefers want to increase taxes and spending. The Haters and Griefers have these opinions a priori and without any actual proof as to their efficacy.

Now, here's the kicker: they need proof, and somewhere some economist (lets call him Joe Blow) has published some work which provides "sound economic theory" which exactly supports the Haters position. A completely different economist (Say Peter Pumpkineater) has done the exact same thing for the Griefers position. Now, even if neither economist was previously well known or respected for their opinions, because the Haters have decreed Joe Blow's theory to support their political plan, both Joe Blow's unsusbtantiated theories AND the Hater's unsubstantiated political ideology instantly gain credibility. They grant it to each other.

It doesn't matter if actual academics think Joe Blow is a nutjob, the general public doesn't read economics journals, they read newspapers (or blogs, or watch political "news" networks), where they see things like "The Hater's tax cutting plan is supported by economist Joe Blows theories" which is a true statement, but doesn't necessarily mean that Joe Blow is correct, merely that his theories correlate to the Haters tax plans. It is true that he is an economist, and it is true that his theories are in line with what the Haters want to do.

It's all a house of cards, however, because none of it is actually any indication that either party has a workable plan for a sound economic policy. The exact same thing is done with the Griefers and the theories of Peter Pumpkinhead; what you end up with is battling "experts" who's contradictory theories are only held in any regard at all because they are in line with people who's personal political interest happens to match them, and not because they are sound in any meaningful way.

The reality is, real respected economists with sound economic theories probably preach some middle ground (we should provide some services, and tax the people somewhat to pay for them, but the best plan lies somewhere between "no taxes and no spending" and "tax a lot and spend a lot"), the problem is middle-ground opinions don't win elections, even if they are right... --Jayron32 18:29, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Paragraph breaks in short supply shock horror probe. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:37, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

There is a supply shortage of said breaks so they were too expensive I expect. Googlemeister (talk) 19:01, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

It's true that no economist is really objective and that facts can be cherry-picked. However, I would like to present the following facts. Here are the top marginal U.S. income tax rates (income tax rates on income in the top income tax bracket, that is, affecting only the very affluent) every 5 years since 1955:

1955: 91% 1960: 91% 1965: 70% 1970: 71.5% 1975: 70% 1980: 70% 1985: 50% 1990: 31% 1995: 39.6% 2000: 39.6% 2005: 35% 2010: 35% (source: [1])

Now here is the average annual growth rate in real US GDP over the preceding 5-year period for every 5 years since 1960:

1960: 2.5% 1965: 5.0% 1970: 3.4% 1975: 2.7% 1980: 3.7% 1985: 3.2% 1990: 3.2% 1995: 2.5% 2000: 4.3% 2005: 2.4% 2010: 0.9% (source [2])

Do you see a correlation between tax rates and economic growth rates? Economists on the left would argue that, by redistributing income from the rich, who tend to save it, to the less affluent, who tend to spend it, income taxes can spur economic activity. Also, they would argue, government spending on infrastructure and education tends to raise an economy's productivity and to spur growth more effectively than consumption by the rich. But of course those economists are biased. Marco polo (talk) 20:23, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Hey now, no fair bringing facts into this discussion. Facts have no place in helping people reach politicial conclusions. Politics must only be decided by demagoguery and propaganda, and not by reasoned consideration of actual facts. How are people going to win elections if they can't declare their opponents to be evil, and instead have to defend their policy positions with actual facts? Hmmm? What do you have to say about that? --Jayron32 20:33, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Marco has not adduced any (useful) facts. All sorts of things impact on economic growth. Is Marco seriously suggesting there is no link between tax rates and demand for goods & services? --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:35, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I am suggesting that high tax rates on the affluent, spent in ways that increase wages for the non-affluent, increase the demand for goods and services. I know that this is contrary to current economic fashion, but Paul Krugman would back me up, and current economic fashion has a lot to do with the fact that the real money in the economic profession comes from saying what people with real money want you to say. Marco polo (talk) 20:39, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Should I be seeing support for this theory in the figures? They seem to show no positive or negative correlation between tax rate and growth rate, for instance both 91% tax and 31% tax seem to cause a 2.5% growth rate, and both 2.5% and 5.0% growth correspond to 91% tax, and although the most recent figures tie low tax to low growth, growth is affected, or ostensibly managed, by a great many factors other than tax rate, isn't it? Like Tagishsimon says, I can't see the use of those facts.  Card Zero  (talk) 21:34, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I thought Marco polo's point was that there is no correlation either way (probably because these parameters are parts of a much more complicated set of relations), though both sides might use such figures to support their own arguments. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.166 (talk) 23:05, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

This all depends on what you consider "good" or "bad". For instance, if increasing corporate profits and GDP are your primary goals, then you'll have a very different set of policies than someone who primarily values public health, happiness, and social justice. When you say "good for the economy" -- what exactly do you mean? Do you mean that the majority of Americans will benefit from the policy (be able to afford housing, education, healthcare, etc.), or that the Dow Jones and GDP will rise?

Also, economics is a social "science", therefore the notion of "objective economists" is absurd. Economists can of course emulate physical scientists (i.e. actual science) by drawing up clever-looking mathematical equations to justify their ideological programmes, but that doesn't mean that these equations are objectively describing reality in the same manner as the laws of thermodynamics. The swill taught in college economics textbooks serves the interests of corporate America, which hires economists to increase profits. They pretend to be immutable "laws" on the same footing as gravity, however, in reality they are just pseudo-scientific justifications for a certain type of economic policy, that benefits a certain group of people (see Dowd, for an interesting history of the development of modern textbook economic theory). ~ Mesoderm (talk) 20:58, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, economic laws are much more akin to (for example) the laws of fluid dynamics than to the law of gravity. The laws of fluid dynamics break down when the number of molecules becomes small enough that Brownian motion becomes a significant factor. A large part of the problem is that the number of "particles" (i.e., humans) isn't large enough to completely drown out the influence of random individual decisions. Wikiant (talk) 23:26, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

The issue of "random individual decisions" (i.e. those made by human beings with free will and a sense of morality, rather than by purely rational economic calculators) is a serious issue with neo-classical economic theory, to be sure. But it is just one of many flawed assumptions about human nature and society, upon which the theories are based. Others include the assumption of a capitalist economic system (when other alternatives exist) and the complete lack of concern with ecological limitations on consumption. Most of the laws only apply to a non-existent universe occupied by abiotic robots whose primary function is to accumulate wealth. Of course, all scientific models misrepresent reality in some way. But in the case of economics, the particular misrepresentation taught in college textbooks has horrid social consequences when applied in the real world. ~ Mesoderm (talk) 23:58, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Most assumptions (e.g., absence of ecological limitations) are abstractions akin to that of the frictionless surface in physics. The abstractions enable the theory to focus on a specific phenomenon. Like the frictionless surface, the fact that the abstractions are unrealistic does not negate the theory, but rather causes predictions to deviate from observations. For every abstraction, there is a more complex theory that removes the abstraction. As expected, fewer abstractions mean a more complicated theory. The economist must then choose between the rock (too many abstractions but equations that are solvable) and the hard place (few abstractions but equations that have no easily attainable solutions). Wikiant (talk) 01:42, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I think economics is a real science. I like to compare it with meteorology. In both cases, there's real science underneath, but measuring and weighting all the variables is so complex that long-term predictions are not very accurate. StuRat (talk) 23:28, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

The difference is that the physical systems that cause weather don't have free will, emotions, and a sense of morality/conscience. They are describing systems to which mechanistic models can realistically be applied. ~ Mesoderm (talk) 23:58, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, the law of large numbers applies to both cases, if you have enough random variables, eventually a somewhat predictable pattern will emerge. StuRat (talk) 00:11, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

There are, however, also totally bogus economic theories, like, IMHO, Supply side economics, which argues that the way to improve an economy is to give more money to the rich. This seems like a rather transparent excuse to give more money to the rich. StuRat (talk) 23:32, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

That seems like a rather transparent excuse to brush the theories aside. Do the rich or the poor contribute most to wealth-creating activity? I don't know: the rich do all the big, important stuff, because they've managed to persuade other people that they should be allowed to (i.e., that they should have money); they are the after all people we have as a society arbitrarily decided deserve to have the money, and can be assumed to spend the money most wisely (I only mean on average, I'm not denying the existence of rich, lucky idiots!) - they are sort of like our elected directors of activity, where currency units are like voting tokens. On the other hand, there aren't many of them, and there are a lot of the poor, and so a lot of activity there. Since I can't see the point in picking on anyone, I support a flat tax.  Card Zero  (talk) 10:19, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

As noted previously, poor people must spend their money to survive, while rich people have the option of stuffing it in their mattress, if they so please. Also, let's not forget the middle class, which have been the main driver of economic growth. Why ? There are many of them, and they tend to do things like start small businesses, while rich people tend to own large, old, inefficient businesses that have lost their entrepreneurial spirit. StuRat (talk) 19:58, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Sometimes there is a substantial philosophical component to an economist's ideas - which doesn't make them any less objective, if by objective we mean "sincerely attempting to describe reality". Ideas about knowledge and creativity can matter a lot: creativity is connected to creating wealth. So ignoring philosophy, and so epistemology, and so creativity, leads to a rather blinkered and mechanistic form of economics. (Which might be the sort of thing Mesoderm had in mind.)  Card Zero  (talk) 10:22, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Now, as to whether raising or lowering taxes is best for the economy, it would depend on the current tax rate. If the current tax rate is above the ideal tax rate, lowering it is best, if it's below the ideal tax rate, then raising it is good. What's the ideal tax rate ? It's the theoretical amount where government has enough to provide those things which help the economy, like infrastructure, education, police, fire departments, etc. (and which can't be provided more efficiently by private companies), yet the government doesn't have so much money that it wastes it on unnecessary projects. What percentage is that ? It's hard to say, but since the US and European economies have both done fairly well, I'd assume the ideal tax rate is somewhere in those ranges. Countries with much lower tax rates tend to be third world nations with poor economies. StuRat (talk) 23:43, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

About the argument that you can increase tax revenue by cutting taxes: This is pretty much as silly as it sounds, at least in the short term. Let's say you cut taxes by 10%. You would then need the economy to grow 10% more than it would have, this year, to make up the loss. That's not going to happen. In the long term it might, but then you not only have the 10% to make up, but all the money borrowed, and interest on it, until the economy grew. Plus, in the current economic situation in the US, the government might have to default on it's debts while waiting for growth to catch up. StuRat (talk) 23:48, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

A lot of people agree that the Laffer curve does exist -- that is, there is a point past which higher taxes actually reduce revenue, just like a store can only raise the price on a product so much before people stop buying it and revenue goes down. The difference is liberal economists would say we are nowhere near that point. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:01, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I once had the difference between the European and American attitudes towards wealth and taxes explained to me this way... a European and an American are walking down the street and see a rich man driving by in a limousine. The European says: "Someday I am going to make that guy get out and walk like me"... the American says: "Someday I am going to be rich enough to ride in a Limousine, like that guy". Blueboar (talk) 00:59, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but it's important to add what follows the ellipses at the end of the European's statement, namely "...so that we can spend the extra tax revenue to fund schools, health care, and other social programs." ~ Mesoderm (talk) 01:05, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

"...because we can't trust the guy in the limousine to fund such things, because we are at heart authoritarians and have no respect for the individuals we wish to bestow education and health on."  Card Zero  (talk) 10:34, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, there's a non sequitur. You can't leave it up to the rich to pay for schools, health care, etc., of their own free will. First of all, it's vanishingly unlikely that they would, except for their own family members (even then, only the ones they're currently getting along with), and second, why should the poor be dependent on the whim and good will of the rich to ensure their human rights are protected? But anyway, what Blueboar heard is bullshit. Europeans are just as interested as getting into that limousine, and kicking in the teeth of anyone who gets in their way, and then (once in the limousine) loudly whining about being expected to pay taxes on their astronomical incomes, as Americans are. Pais (talk) 11:10, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

(EC) That's a fairly stupid explanation, but thanks for sharing this gemette of doleful rightwing propaganda. . --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:07, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't know of any economist (right or left) who believes that the Laffer curve does not exist. All agree on two points: 0% income tax rate yields zero income tax revenue and 100% income tax rate yields zero income tax revenue. Disagreement surrounds what the Laffer curve looks like between those two points. Wikiant (talk) 01:45, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Taxes are bad. Taxes remove income from people which decreases their welfare. Taxes also distort the decisions of economic actors by disincentivising the choice that is now taxed (be it the purchase of an item with sales tax or income subject to income tax or corporate tax). Government spending is good. The provision of public goods as well as welfare programs and other interventions where market failures exist enhance welfare. The question is not whether taxes are bad, the question is whether the damage caused by taxes is worth the benefits gained from what the money is spent on (including administrative costs). Welfare economics is the field that studies this question.Jabberwalkee (talk) 18:32, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Taxes are a weapon, and like any weapon, they are good when you're pointing them at someone else, and bad when someone else is pointing them at you. In the current American class war, for example, it is generally accepted that the wealthy and wealthy corporations pay little if any tax, and investments and speculations are largely free of tax, while even very low-paid employees pay 15% of their income in FICA tax for "social security" which is an open kitty for the government to borrow against without the intention to repay; plus income, sales, excise and property taxes. Wnt (talk) 01:49, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Not all taxes are bad. They can be used to discourage bad behavior, as in sin taxes. Perhaps a carbon tax might also encourage alternative energy development. But, of course, even these taxes must be kept to reasonable levels, or you would get smuggling and, in the case of the carbon tax, destroy the economy.

Another tax that might be useful is on short-term speculation, stock and otherwise. Hopefully such a tax, without a corresponding long-term capital gains tax, would encourage stockholders to hold stocks longer, and thus discourage corporations from going for short-term profit at the expense of the companies' long-term health.

Inheritance taxes and progressive taxes can also be used to fight the natural tendency of money to migrate from the poor to a few wealthy families, which eventually can otherwise lead to bloody revolutions. Import tariffs can discourage imports and thus support local industries (but, of course, they may cause other nations to impose such tariffs against your nation's exports).

Taxes can also be used to make product prices reflect the cost of the entire product life cycle. Without these, a product which is cheap to produce, doesn't last long, and expensive to dispose of properly, will inevitably be produced in large quantities, sold cheaply, and disposed of improperly. StuRat (talk) 14:54, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Taxes are an individual's contribution to society. Corporations and rich people hate it when people join together with their power to act in the public interest because that is in direct opposition to their interests. When taxes are spent on programs or regulatory activity the result is that money is saved in massive amounts because it prevents very expensive problems from coming about later (it's spending smart money sooner rather than an expensive clean up later - multiply that by every program and agency.) Unfortunately, it takes very intelligent and complex analysis to realize this. Blaming welfare recipients for "getting over" on the system and all of the other criticisms involve very simple minded analysis and blaming the victim. It is very easy to target real humans, and very difficult to criticize faceless institutions. Using the media, the power elite has portrayed to the public that taxes are sooooo baaad, and they have been completely successful at this. However lowering taxes are not the real priority in these considerations - increasing wealth and income are the priority. Wouldn't you rather have a million dollars a year taxed high or $10000 a year taxed low? When the economy was very strong in the sixties, the tax rate for some wealthy people was almost 90%. I favor a 100% inheritance tax. Taxes good. Greg Bard (talk) 18:14, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

100% might be a bit much, leaving the heirs of a rich but uninsured parent homeless. But a highly progressive inheritance tax, topping off at maybe 90% for billionaires, might make sense. StuRat (talk) 21:24, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

A good reason to temporarily raise taxes is to control an overheated economy, which may lead to inflation and then recession or depression, otherwise. StuRat (talk) 21:20, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I personally don't enjoy paying taxes, but I learned to appreciate Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.'s Taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society. Roads, public pools, museums, law enforcement, environmental protection, schools, hospitals, public transport, social security, health and safety regulations, border security, public media, ... they all rely to a great degree on public money, and hence taxes. Not everyone will use all services at any one time, but most probably use more than they realize, and will use even more throughout life. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:28, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

What are the consequences of 9/11 on government policies all around the world regarding terrorism?

I'm working on our article on 9/11 and I need to add a subsection on the 9/11's consequences on government policies all around the world regarding terrorism. I'm looking for some ideas (and sources!) for what to write about. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:45, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Well it has made commercial flying a lot less convinient. I remember the good old days when you could wear your shoes through security, and have some bottled beverages along with you. Googlemeister (talk) 18:58, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

On the other hand, if you go through airport security in nothing but a schlong sock, everyone will understand your reasons. --188.29.241.38 (talk) 22:19, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

9/11 wasn't responsible for either the liquids ban (that was the 2006 transatlantic aircraft plot) or the shoe removal (that was Richard Reid, in 2002). Except, I guess, in a very broad terrorist-freakout sense, but it was not directly responsible for either of those policies. --Mr.98 (talk) 23:21, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Perhpas not directly, but it created an environment where such nonsense would be politically viable. Googlemeister (talk) 13:08, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

The United States is quite easy — the PATRIOT Act, the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, the general consolidation of intelligence assets, and the increased use of wiretapping (including warrantless wiretapping) and "coercive interrogation methods" are among the easily documentable results. --Mr.98 (talk) 23:23, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Add to that the decisions to invade Afghanistan and Iraq - overt acts in contrast with the long history of covert regime change. Plus ca change. --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:16, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

wouldn't it be fair to charge next-of-kin?

if someone kills someone but escapes, wouldn't it make sense to incarcerate their next-of-kin until they show up for a trial? Then they don't "get away with it". --188.28.68.241 (talk) 19:18, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

What crime did their next-of-kin commit that would necessitate their incarceration? Why should the fact that a man had sex with the woman whose womb I was in mean that I should be held responsible for that man's crimes? --Jayron32 19:32, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

It might be regarded as expedient, but it would hardly be "fair"! It would be a kind of hostage-taking (though not a kind discussed in that article), which is generally viewed rather negatively in the modern world. Collective punishment is another article which touches on the idea. --ColinFine (talk) 19:46, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

If you didn't happen to like your next of kin it would be a wonderful way to "get" them. APL (talk) 21:32, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

The logical response would be for the imprisoned person's family to capture a member of the judge's family. Franamax (talk) 02:34, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

The idea that people should be held responsible for actions of their relatives is a very old one, and the Bible is rife with examples. However, with the exception of holding parents responsible for some actions of their underage kids (like habitually skipping school), we no longer believe that. StuRat (talk) 23:59, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

No, no, no! You don't call her a hostage, you call her a material witness. Though charges of aiding and abetting are also handy to throw around.

Understand that it is acceptable to threaten to charge, or actually charge, family members for potential crimes, then plea bargain to drop their charges in exchange for a guilty plea from the main target of the investigation. Wnt (talk) 23:01, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

war disease deaths

Looking at Civil War deaths, it seems like less then half the deaths were caused by things like bullets and most was from disease. I have a couple questions on that area. First, what was the disease death % for US troops in WW2, and what was it for the Iraq campaign of the 21st century? Googlemeister (talk) 19:20, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

The military may have some official records that come close to your requirements, but I reckon it's a pretty tricky request. Do you count depression followed by suicide two years after returning from active service as a war "disease" death? HiLo48 (talk) 20:23, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Not unless the Civil War tallied the same. Googlemeister (talk) 20:36, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, the most reliable estimates of total excess deaths resulting from the Iraq War are on the order of hundreds of thousands of civilians (with very few sources saying that it is fewer than 100,000). However, interestingly, it seems that the large majority of these excess deaths are violent deaths (gunshots, bombs, etc.), unlike the Iraq sanctions, which also killed somewhere on the order of hundreds of thousands of civilians, but mostly from disease and malnutrition. It seems from the numbers in the Lancet survey and others that a relatively small proportion of the excess deaths are occurring as a result of disease. I'm not sure about WWII, but would also be very interested to find out. ~ Mesoderm (talk) 21:35, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

"The aftermath of the Civil War" Anderson, 2004) page 7 shows far more deaths from "disease" than "killed in battle, including fatal wounds." The book says that official estimates are unreliable. Union: 114,904 from battle, 227, 580 disease. Confederate: 94,000 battle, 164,000 disease. World War II casualties has footnotes following the table "Military Casualties by branch of service" which say for the Germans, "The number killed in action was 2,303,320; died of wounds, disease or accidents 500,165." For the USSR "6,329,600 combat related deaths, 555,500 non combat deaths." US noncombat deaths are not reported in the article, but a footnote refers to Army battle casualties and nonbattle deaths in World War II" which would not open for me. I could not find up-to-the minute tallies for the ongoing wars breaking down the deaths by cause. Modern medicine and a good supply chain likely greatly reduced the proportion of disease deaths in these current wars among the US, Britain etc. Certainly there were many deaths from disease in WW2 and likely in Korea, since the supply chain was hampered and only early antibiotics were available. Allied soldiers as well as Japanese soldiers suffered from limited water, food, and medical supplies in muddy hell holes in the Pacific. Many allied POWs of the Japanese died of disease due to poor food and poor sanitation, as well as lack of medical treatment. Edison (talk) 21:50, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Note that proper sanitation is also a critical factor that reduced the percentage of non-POW soldiers who died of disease in later years. For example, digging proper latrines, not near the water supply. StuRat (talk) 00:03, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Depending on how you measure, either the Korean War or the Vietnam War was the first major war in history where more soldiers died from wounds than died from disease. --Carnildo (talk) 00:49, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Presumably the OP is referring to the American Civil War. There have been lots of Civil Wars. --Dweller (talk) 09:44, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Considering my question was US military specific, it is hard to imagine I was talking about the Kongo Civil War now isn't it? Googlemeister (talk) 13:07, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

You only specified US deaths in one of the three conflicts you mentioned. I assumed you wanted all combatants for the Iraq conflict, as did Mesoderm above, which left room for uncertainty. However, if you look, I did indeed presume which Civil War you wanted for exactly the reason you say, which leaves me wondering why your reply is snarky, rather than simply confirming that was what indeed you meant. --Dweller (talk) 15:55, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Mostly because it appeared to me that you would justify others for being obtuse. I thought I was quite clear from the context that I was not particularly interested in the Jacobites or the Czarists or some other non-US conflict. Googlemeister (talk) 18:27, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

To folks in the US, the "Civil War" is the one that happened here, and others are identified as "The English Civil War" or whatever. How many civil wars resulted in more deaths and injuries than the American Civil War (~585,000 dead, ~412,000 wounded, out of 3,164,000 combatants)? Death and casualty info is lacking from the list of civil wars and even from the articles about some civil wars. Edison (talk) 20:11, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

There have been several English civil wars, but let's not have a Wikipedia civil war. I was shot down in flames for trying to help once. I have no idea what Googlemeister means by "Mostly because it appeared to me that you would justify others for being obtuse." but it doesn't exactly sound conciliatory. --Dweller (talk) 21:43, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

How close do the English Civil Wars of the 1600's in total come to 3.1 million combatants and close to a million dead or wounded? Which other Civil Wars since then meet or exceed those numbers? Just curious, and can't find a ready answer in Wikipedia. Edison (talk) 01:54, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh, well, one could start with the Russian Civil War, the Spanish Civil War, the Chinese Civil War, the Mexican Civil War, ... They make the Irish Civil War (1922-24), which killed more people in two years than the Irish War of Independence (1916-22) had in six, look positively bloodless. —— Shakescene (talk) 05:18, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

June 30

Declaration of Independence

Copies of the declaration were almost certainly sent to England and France. Where are those copies now? Where can they be seen?James E Curtis (talk) 02:07, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

List of surviving drafts and copies of the United States Declaration of Independence may be informative reading for answering your question. --Jayron32 02:14, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

As that list shows, there are several known copies in the UK, but none in France. Lafayette was said to have had a framed copy on his wall. I think we'd know about that copy if it still existed. Perhaps it was primarily news of the Declaration that was sent to France, rather than English-language broadsides. —Kevin Myers 02:54, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

It could have been a real one; there were literally hundreds of copies of the first three broadsides created (the July 1776 version, the Dunlap broadside, and the Goddard Broadside). That only a few dozen of those first printings survive is actually not all that surprising, it wouldn't be odd for any of the copies to have disappeared, even ones owned by such important figures as Lafayette. --Jayron32 03:13, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, there's every reason to suppose that Lafayette had a "real one" on his wall, since he was in America for much of the war. He could have easily taken a broadside overseas on his journeys to France during the war. The lack of extant broadsides in France today suggest that broadsides may not have been sent there in any great number, if at all. The Declaration was widely printed in newspapers, and this was the way folks overseas usually read it. There were more than three early broadsides, by the way: our article's reference to a "July 1776" version is really a catch-all phrase for the 16 or so versions of broadsides printed privately or by the states to spread the word. Our article on the surviving broadsides is a little vague on these details and needs some work. —Kevin Myers 04:17, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Back in 1949, an article in the Harvard Library Review listed the location of 71 known broadsides (none in France, I think). A few more have been discovered since then, so our list is only about half complete. I'll put this on my "to do" list. —Kevin Myers 04:42, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Presumably most Europeans outside of UK would only have wanted versions in their own languages, since English was not known by many in Europe at that time. So the ones dispatched to France and other countries, apart from official uses or sentimental reasons (like Lafayattes), would have gone to translators and printers and have been discarded after having served their purpose. The Journal of American History (vol. 85, no. 4, 1999) had a theme issue on the international reception of the Declaration and its translation history which might be of interest. The article on French reception specifically mentions that it is the version Dunlap also used for his broadsides, which was used for the first French translations (which incidentally appeared as clandestine editions printed outside of France). --Saddhiyama (talk) 07:17, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Service of the document is a puzzle. The Declaration presumably was intended to be a legal document, declaring that the United States were no longer subject to the British Crown. If a government wants to summons someone, or break a lease, or foreclose on property, or declare war, it is customary to hand the other party an official document, signed by the person with the authority to do so. Did the Continental Congress depend on newspapers and reports of British colonial officials to convey the action of separation to the King? It would seem that the Secretary of the Continental Congress should have sent a letter to George, along with a copy of the declaration, also signed and sealed to establish that it is the official approved document and not a variant or draft. In theory, at least, when a country declares its independence, the "mother country" might just say, "Well, so be it. Lots of luck and don't come crying to us if it doesn't work out for you," the same as if someone resigned from a business partnership. Edison (talk) 20:03, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

There were copies that were sent to King George, the list notes at least two that ended up in his hands, obtained by some of the Generals and sent back on ships to England. There are several confounding issues, however, with treating the actual document as an "official writ" like a summons or a subpeona, or something like that, which requires a specific act of transferance to put it into action (i.e. a subpeona is only official once it is recieved by the intended party).

• Firstly, the so-called "engrossed copy", the one that everyone signed, was considered to important of a symbol to ship anywhere, so they weren't going to just send it off.
• Secondly, the actual written declaration was always intended to be a symbolic, and not a legal, document. For most involved, the event which was the "official" moment when the U.S. became independent wasn't the signing, it was the vote whereby the Second Continental Congress decided to declare the United States to be independent. John Adams himself thought more of this date (July 2) than of July 4.
• Thirdly, for many independence was already a fait accompli, they were already de facto independent from the UK, and while the formal vote and the pretty signed paper were a nice touch, the "situation on the ground" was that the U.S. wasn't subject to the British Crown and Parliament any more. They had their own working national legislature (The Congress), military, etc. Furthermore, some actually saw the independence of the States as already endorsed by Parliament and George well before the Declaration by the Continental Congress, the Prohibitory Act had specific language in it which treated the various colonies in rebellion as enemies rather than revolters; that is it treated them as a foreign power in war with the UK, not as subjects of the UK in revolt; it was an act of war, not an act of policing.

Those are some reasons why the Declaration wasn't treated as an "official writ" which required service to an intended recipient in order to come into affect. And, of course, it is all mooted by the Treaty of Paris (1783) which made the independence of the 13 colonies "official" in the really we mean it, it's really official sense. --Jayron32 20:31, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I disagree that the colonists were "de facto" independent already on July 4, 1776. Many of them were still loyal to their King, who had a large army on the ground, easily able to control the major cities and harbors and the coastline. They were only a bit more "de facto independent" than some guy in Idaho or Texas announcing his farm is a sovereign nation. Edison (talk) 15:11, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Today, we usually think of the Declaration as a "document", but we're better off thinking of it as an "announcement" that was printed in a variety of documents. It was more of a press release than a legal document, since there was no court of law where Congress could have presented the Declaration to show that the United States were independent. Instead, the Declaration is a justification for independence addressed to a "candid world". It was the announcement, and the argument therein, that mattered, not any specific document. Congress did not send the Declaration to King George, since it was not addressed to him, although of course some copies found their way to him. —Kevin Myers 02:32, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

When I left a job, I handed the boss a letter of resignation. It seems that someone declaring independence, sovereignty, or whatever might be expected to do at least as much. So what letter or document did the Continental Congress send to the King, to Parliament, to the King's Governors, his Generals or whomever? Our article on the Declaration just says "British officials in North America sent copies of the Declaration to Great Britain." Did they get an official copy with a transmittal letter, or was it just "revolution by hearsay?" Edison (talk) 01:50, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

This is an interesting question. I don't recall reading that Congress sent the Declaration in any form to any British official. As far as I know, the broadsides that did come into British hands came indirectly, either intercepted or turned over by a Loyalist. I believe that protocol would prevent a British official from officially receiving a document from a Congress not recognized by the Crown, so perhaps Congress did not bother to send notice through official channels. They did send a broadside overseas to Silas Deane at the French court, but it got lost, and by the time Deane got ahold of another, it was old news. —Kevin Myers 07:33, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

No one has come up with evidence of an official communication from the US to George announcing "independence." In some cases, lack of an official and timely communication has been the basis of major propaganda. The Japanese government tried to send a declaration of war to the US government before the Pearl Harbor attack in 1941, but it was, well, just a bit late, justifying Franklin Roosevelt's "Day of Infamy" speech and motivating a previously isolationist America to want to crush Japan. Even a half hour between handing the declaration to Secretary of State Cordell Hull and the bombs falling would have made a major difference, in making it a mere attack rather than a "sneak attack." All the language an=bout respect for the opinions of mankind is obviated by lack of valid service. Wasn't there some sympathy with the demands of the colonists among the Brits before the initiation of hostilities, with the lack of appropriate communications lessened? When the Southern US states seceded in 1861, did they serve the US government with some "notice of secession," or did they just communicate by newspaper headlines as in 1776? Edison (talk) 02:38, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Interesting question about 1861. The Declaration was widely published in 1776, so a "lack of valid service" had no impact on its dissemination. Had Congress sent the Declaration to the King and not the newspapers, the British people might have not read it, since the British government could and did suppress publication of certain items. If there was a "lack of appropriate communications", it had no impact on British public opinion, which was somewhat favorable towards the Americans until the French became a US ally. —Kevin Myers 06:37, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Route 101 collectibles

I'm interested in buying some U.S. Route 101 patches. Where's a good place to start?24.90.204.234 (talk) 08:18, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Here. ~ Mesoderm (talk) 09:35, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Inflatable rats at strikes

I've seen some hints somewhere that there is a custom in the US of erecting a giant inflatable rat outside scenes of strike action. Could someone explain the significance of this, or preferably link to an article or webpage discussing it? Thanks! ╟─TreasuryTag►Subsyndic General─╢ 10:53, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

We have an Inflatable rat article which has a little info on it. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 11:26, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

StuRat puffs up with pride. StuRat (talk) 19:50, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Submarine enemies

I was watching a tv program about current UK submarines last night, where people were being trained to attack other submarines. I can understand that submarines could be used as a platform for nuclear deterrent to rogue states. But my questions are, 1) after the peaceful end of the Cold War (despite Putin apparantly wishing to be more belligerant again) which nations could enemy submarines come from? 2) Of these, are there any potentially enemy nations that have nuclear-powered modern submarines? Thanks 92.24.188.232 (talk) 11:00, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

The article List of submarine operators might help but it clearly needs some work. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:08, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

(e/c) Nuclear submarine lists 6 nations with nuclear submarines (USA, Russia, UK, France, China, India). Brazil is working on one[3][4][5]. Israel has non-nuclear submarines with nuclear weapons.[6][7]; see also Nuclear weapons and Israel. None of these nations seem to be enemies of the UK. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:15, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

You should realize that Si vis pacem, para bellum. Certain countries may be unable and unwilling to attack today but may become so in the next couple of years. They may be unable to build nuclear submarines today but they may buy them from another country or even learn how to build them themselves. To maintain a solid core of experienced officers and crews during peacetime is IMHO a wise policy because they will teach and pass their skills to the new sailors (recruited when the political climate becomes worse). Who knows of the future? The allies of today may become the enemies of tomorrow and vice-versa. Flamarande (talk) 12:02, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. The first of the newest Astute class submarines took 9 years from being laid-down to completion. I'm sure it could be done a bit quicker, but you get the idea. If all the skills for designing, building and operating them are lost, then the whole thing is going to take longer and be less efficient in the end. Either we keep these things in service or lose them forever - a likely fate for our aircraft carrier capability. Alansplodge (talk) 12:55, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

On the other hand, the rise of the military industrial complex can tend to increase the opportunity for wars of choice, or so Eisenhower claimed in his Farewell Address. The wars between the U.S. and China/North Korea, Viet Nam and Iraq could have all very likely have been solved with diplomacy or espionage instead of military action, but the ease and availability of mass produced mechanized arms and easily available soldiers on both sides led to hostilities which are seen by most as unproductive in retrospect. If only there was a diplomatic industrial complex. Or maybe a diplomatic commercial complex, or a diplomatic residential complex, or all three and a few million more exchange students. 99.24.223.58 (talk) 03:02, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

No reason to limit ourselves to nuclear subs. According to Libyan Navy, it isn't clear what happened to all of their conventional subs. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 14:47, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

IMHO if the war machines become too expensive for a country, it should dismantle/disband/sell them. Security is very important but to bankrupt a country is foolish. Supposedly the British defence budget can't afford both the maintenance of the old aircraft carriers and the building of new ones at the same time. Therefore the old British aircraft carriers are going to be dismantled/sold so that new ones may be built. That seems to be reasonable. Flamarande (talk) 19:41, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I suspect they'd save more money by just upgrading the old carriers, instead of building a new fleet. StuRat (talk) 19:48, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

The "scrap-old-carriers-to-build-new-ones" argument has been used before. Alansplodge (talk) 20:59, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

There are certain limits of upgrading old carriers like size, technology, cost of maintenance, seaworthiness, age, etc. Certainly, to announce-something-only-to-cancel-it-later is a true possibility (happened before and happens all the time). However to maintain old ships and build new ones at the same time is very costly, some argue too costly for the UK. Flamarande (talk) 23:59, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how an old hull limits technology, you can upgrade the radar, etc., as needed. Seaworthiness should be addressed by the maintenance. Age isn't in itself a problem. The cost of maintenance has got to be less than building a new fleet. Now size could be a valid reason. If they need a carrier twice the size, they need to build a new one. They might be able to extend decks a bit on the old one, but not that much. Hmmmm, I wonder if you could mate two aircraft carriers together to make a Frankenstein carrier twice as long. StuRat (talk) 02:30, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

To go with your example of an upgraded radar, the new radar may require more electrical power. This, in turn, would require installing a new, bigger generator. This might not fit in the compartment allocated for the old generator, which means moving bulkheads to make room (or moving the generator, but the need to run steam lines to and from the boiler rather limits where you can put it). The bulkheads may be part of the ship's load-bearing structure, in which case moving them reduces seaworthiness. There are also weight and balance issues (the new radar may require additional ballast to keep the carrier seaworthy, which could reduce the number of aircraft carried).

No matter how much effort you put into it, a WWII carrier such as the USS Yorktown could not effectively operate modern carrier aircraft such as the F/A-18 "Super Hornet": the boilers don't generate enough energy to run the electrical load of a modern carrier, they don't generate enough steam to operate a catapult capable of launching the aircraft, and there isn't enough room inside the hull to fit all the pieces you'd need for an upgrade. --Carnildo (talk) 01:06, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, with my Frankencarrier, you'd have two boilers and therefore twice the electricity and twice the steam. :-) But seriously, if you could build a new carrier at the same cost as upgrading an old one, that would be the way to go. However, more likely, the choice is between upgrading 2 or 3 old carriers or building a single new one, in which case the larger quantity of upgraded carriers is probably the better deal, overall. StuRat (talk) 04:56, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Why doesnt the West or Europe run their warships in common, rather than duplicating them in each country? Or hand them over to NATO? So instead of several western countries having their own aircraft carriers, the carriers are owned and run by NATO or Europe and used by any country as needed. 92.28.251.70 (talk) 15:35, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, duplication of effort in having them each build their own, potentially incompatible military equipment wastes money. However, I suspect that each also wants to maintain it's own ability to act unilaterally, such as when the UK fought the Falklands War. StuRat (talk) 23:20, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

ordinary in South Carolina

What was the function of a district or county ordinary in South Carolina during the 19th century?

It was a county-wide office. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.183.132.79 (talk) 11:30, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't know about then, but this job description talks about the position of a County Ordinary now, as an official responsible for various hearings to do with local government. This describes the Ordinary as being the official concerned with issuing marriage licences. I'm surprised that Wikipedia doesn't appear to have an article (or link) about that (the Ordinary article talks instead about the comparable ecclesiastical official). -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 11:43, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I've added a paragraph to the article about the civic ordinary. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:20, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

You may also be able find information on this from a local historical society, or perhaps (since the current ones seem to be associated with marriage licenses) even a geneology group. Not being from South Carolina, I don't know how things are there for sure; but the city I grew up in in Indiana had one, and it's less than 100,000 people, and Indiana isn't as old of a state as South Carolina, so I imagine there's a few historical societies or associations there. Wabbott9 Tell me about it.... 15:39, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

In the 1800's, the job of the ordinary was primarily to adjudicate probate matters. The ordinary kept a minute book of them, which served as a timeline for when things were filed. If you search for "south carolina ordinary minute book", you'll certainly find a few. I quickly found one for Marion County, SC 1800-1814. -- kainaw™ 02:44, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Bride kidnapping

Where can I find prevalance statistics for the countries listed in Bride kidnapping per capita? Also why does this reference desk page say "view source" instead of "edit" when I'm logged out? I can still edit. 69.229.154.254 (talk) 14:07, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Not a direct answer, but a caution. You will get very different "prevalence statistics" if you go by records of crimes reported to the authorities, or by a victim study such as the British Crime Survey. Remember also, as it says in the article, that the term "bride kidnapping" covers marriages along a spectrum of consent. BrainyBabe (talk) 12:38, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Apparently at least one government refuses to collect statistics[8] but the trend has increased after religious freedom was restored when the USSR fell. 99.24.223.58 (talk) 02:00, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Referendums on independence from sovereign states

Scotland, ruled by the Scottish National Party in a devolved parliament, are intending to have a referendum on independence near the end of their second term in office. Whether the referendum will be in favour of independence is another subject, but are there other western countries today who would constitutently allow a referendum on whether a part of a sovereign state could be split. I just realised it can and has happened in Canada, but would the US, France, Spain etc allow a referendum to take place? For the record, I am in favour of an independent Scotland. Carson101 (talk) 16:10, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Puerto Rico votes occassionaly and always stays in the U.S. (1967, 1991?, 1993, 1998) (and still the UN bugs us for keeping them as a colony.) Rmhermen (talk) 16:33, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Surprising they would have so many votes on it in such a small space of time. I assume the votes were always very close? Carson101 (talk) 17:01, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Political status of Puerto Rico goes into more detail on individual referendums (or plebiscites as they call them), and you can also read in Politics of Puerto Rico how the issue of independence has continually been a distinguishing characteristic of major party platforms. Since both of those articles are kind of sprawling, you can check out the sections of the Puerto Rico article that summarize them pretty well, if you're not interested in all the gory details (Puerto#Government and politics and Puerto#Political status). —Akrabbim^talk 17:32, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and this looks like you might be able to learn some more about independence movements in general: Lists of active separatist movements. —Akrabbim^talk 17:36, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Note that Puerto Rico is not actually on the United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories, they were removed after a vote and while there have been attempts and there is discussion to re-add them, they are clearly not officially considered a colony. Also the issue is likely not simply about the independence (or lack thereof) but whether their current arrangements meet the expections of the international community. For example our article says:

Though the subject continues to be debated in many forums it is clear that (1) the current territorial status has not satisfied Puerto Rican political leaders,[75] and (2) that despite the divergent views that Puerto Ricans have with respect to their preferred political status, 'all factions agree on the need to end the present undemocratic arrangement whereby Puerto Rico is subject to the laws of Congress but cannot vote in it.'[75]

While the referenda did propose various options, I'm sure some would say none was the right option (similar perhaps to the Australian republic referendum that a few here like to mention) or if they were they weren't actually followed. For example the commonwealth option seems to leave open enhancement of the current arrangement and in the 1998 vote 'none of the above' was the winner.

It's worth remembering even both major political parties in the US don't seem to think the current arrangements are ideal.

Nil Einne (talk) 17:51, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Not strictly "independence" per se, but questions of sovereignty have come up in referenda/plebiscites in the past, see South Jutland County, which voted to join Denmark in a plebiscite in 1920. The Saarland voted in a referendum in to join West Germany rather than be an independent state in 1954, see Saar_(protectorate)#Independence_Referendum_and_the_Little_Reunification_with_Germany. --Jayron32 18:04, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

The situations of Puerto Rico and Scotland are not fully analogous. Puerto Rico is one of the unincorporated territories of the United States. As such, it is not an integral part of the United States. Its status is that of a dependent territory, and its relation to the United States is similar to the relationship of Bermuda to the United Kingdom. By contrast, Scotland is an integral part of the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom got its name from the political union of Scotland and England (which then included Wales). A referendum by Scotland on independence would be more comparable to a referendum by Texas (or some other state) on independence from the United States. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Texas v. White that, constitutionally, states do not have a right to secede. The last time any state attempted to secede, war resulted. Marco polo (talk) 18:11, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Of course, SCOTUS probably wouldn't care if Scotland left the UK, so who would have the power to force Scotland back into line if they attempted to leave the UK? Googlemeister (talk) 18:19, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I was just answering the OP's question whether other countries, such as the United States, would allow their constituent parts to declare independence. Whether the United Kingdom would allow Scotland to declare independence is a different question. As to who would have the legal power to overrule Scotland's voters, presumably that would be the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom. If your question is who would have the physical power to force Scotland in the line, answering that question would require us to speculate on future events, which we try not to do. Marco polo (talk) 18:30, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Marco, just a teensy correction. The political union of England and Scotland was the Kingdom of Great Britain, created in 1707. The word "United" did appear in the legislation, but consensus is that it was meant as a descriptor of the new state, and was not a formal part of its name. The term "United Kingdom" only came into existence proper when Ireland was added to the mix in 1801 - at that time it was United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 21:18, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Of course, regarding the history of the relationship between Scotland and England and the UK specifically, the single event which led to the eventual political merger of the two nations into a single sovereign state wasn't a takeover of Scotland by England, it went the other way around: it was the Scots that took over England, in a manner of speaking, the House of Stuart, a Scottish royal house, in the person of James VI and I, who inherited the English throne on the extinction of the Tudor line. (Of course the Tudor's weren't an English family either. They were Welsh, Rhys ap Tewdwr was the founder of the dynasty). While it took about a century for the union of Scotland and England to be completed, the genesis was still initiated by a Scotsman, and not by an Englishman. What this has to do specifically with Scottish Independence, I don't know, but its a nice bit of tangentally related trivia to munch on. --Jayron32 20:10, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

• There was the Norwegian union dissolution referendum, 1905 (which passed with 99.92% support) - it is very similar conceptually to what the SNP wants, as it was not constitutionally binding but was used to force a political agreement. There's a few others listed at Independence referendum. Shimgray | talk | 20:32, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

More recently, Czechoslovakia split into the Czech Republic and Slovakia in 1993 - an act that always struck me as a particularly dumb move. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:54, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

• In 1973, Northern Ireland held a border poll to stay within the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland or to join the Republic of Ireland. Since nationalists who opposed continuing the union boycotted the poll, there was an overwhelming 99% pro-UK majority. As there was no independence option as such, it's closer to the other 20th century plebiscites, referred to by Jayron32 above, on the future of the Saar and South Schleswig and Memel. —— Shakescene (talk) 00:42, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Sopron was another place that had a plebiscite, voting to join Hungary rather than stay in Austria. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:40, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

• In 1861,Texas, Virginia and Tennessee ratified secession from the United States by popular referenda, the electorate consisting of free white adult male citizens meeting whatever other qualifications (e.g. property) those states required for the suffrage. South Carolina seceded by ordinance of her legislature, and almost all of the other states that considered secession, following a long tradition in such matters, decided the issue through the vote of an elected special convention. ¶ For details, see, for example, Confederate States of America#Seceding states, The Confederate Nation and The Confederacy as a Revolutionary Experience by Emory Thomas, The Confederate Republic by George C. Rable, chronological almanacs of U.S. history like those edited by Richard B. Morris and Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., or a short article on "Confederate States and Secession" that's reprinted in almost every edition of The World Almanac and Book of Facts (p. 494 in the 2011 edition). Several of these sources, including the first and last, give each state's popular and convention votes for and against secession. —— Shakescene (talk) 22:27, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Mountain north of Mexico City

What large(?) mountain is immediately north of Mexico city? I can see it in Google Earth, but there are no labels or anything, and this doesn't tell me much. The border of the federal district comes near the summit, where it looks like there is some sort of mansion or resort. —Akrabbim^talk 18:17, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

It's called the Sierra de Guadalupe. Here is a link to an article on the mountain in the Spanish Wikipedia. It has several peaks, the most prominent of which is Cerro del Chiquihuite. Marco polo (talk) 18:35, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Fantastic, thanks. —Akrabbim^talk 18:47, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Loki

Do the Egyptian, Greek, Roman or Hindu cast of gods have a trickster god like the Norse Loki? Googlemeister (talk) 19:34, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

We have the categories [[Category:Trickster gods]] and [[Category:Trickster goddesses]] which list a number of different trickster deities in numerous religions. --Saddhiyama (talk) 19:41, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Here are direct links for those categories: Category:Trickster gods and Category:Trickster goddesses. --Dismas|^(talk) 19:52, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, English mythology has a character who always tried to Puck things up. StuRat (talk) 19:43, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Hermes sometimes has characteristics of a trickster god. Adam Bishop (talk) 08:32, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

(in response to "Egyptian, [...] Roman or Hindu": Hermes's close correspondent in Roman mythology is Mercurius aka Mercury. The article on Trickster mentions both, and others. The subsection tricksters in various cultures' oral stories lists Mohini and also Krishna for Hindu mythology, and Set and Isis for Egyptian mythology. (None of these are quite like Loki, whose article's subsection on "Theories" shows him elusive and confusing as ever :-) ---Sluzzelin talk 09:15, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

what do the Germans and Japanese have in common?

what do the Germans and Japanese have in common? Note: I mean besides the fact that they were allies in World War 2 . --188.29.128.61 (talk) 22:37, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Industrial capacity. I think that amounts to coal and iron ore, but I'll leave it to someone else to look that up. Wnt (talk) 23:03, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I looked a bit further: apparently Japan began steel production in 1901, and rapidly increased its capacity.[9] As a country it was always struggling to obtain coal and iron ore.[10] The Japanese invasion of Manchuria (1931) and Second Sino-Japanese War (1937) made these more obtainable. Wnt (talk) 17:24, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

A rather queasy feeling about nuclear power. Really, it could be anything, given the declared territory. Please put us out of our misery before we get fractious and remember that the RD isn't an appropriate venue for trick questions. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:05, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

They are both major US allies housing multiple US military bases, although technically I suppose that is a legacy of WW2. StuRat (talk) 23:24, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

A low fertility rate below the replacement figure (2.1). Read: List of sovereign states and dependent territories by fertility rate. Flamarande (talk) 00:06, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Both known for their auto industries. Rckrone (talk) 00:15, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I like this. Is there some cultural similarity that explains the auto industries?

The US also has an auto industry. Bus stop (talk) 01:46, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

The Japanese auto industry expanded dramatically from the 1960s onwards as they created cheaper copies of British cars, with much better quality control, and quickly outsold the British. The German auto industry was older, with the Beetle being the mass market vehicle from Hitler's time.

Both countries have strong camera industries. In that case, it was German technology that the Japanese copied, and made cheaper. HiLo48 (talk) 02:15, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

But I'd like to know the underlying similarity that led both of them to go into the auto industry (as opposed to other countries which did not). Same for Cameria industries. Why were they particularly and specifically them in that position? 188.29.123.18 (talk) 03:14, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

All industrial countries had an automotive industry at some time in the 20th century. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:31, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. So how is that a legitimate answer to my question of what Japan and Germany had or have in common! (OP here). --87.194.221.239 (talk) 16:21, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Both are societies that value order and have a strong work-ethic. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 10:16, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Both names start with the "j" sound in English. Pais (talk) 10:47, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

This disappeared in an edit: "Both are societies that value order and have a strong work-ethic. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 10:16, 1 July 2011 (UTC)"

I like this answer, Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie, it both answers my question and matches my experience (i.e. seems to be true) but it is kind of vague. Could you be more specific? 87.194.221.239 (talk) 16:25, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

This is entirely subjective, but neither culture really views diversity as a positive thing. Also subjectively and probably controversially they are fairly uncomfortable with their internal racial minorities in some ways, Japan with Koreans and Germany with Turks. 98.209.39.71 (talk) 23:15, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

For centuries the numerous German states existed as relatively autonomous entities, applying very varying systems of government, adhering to various Christian denominations, as well as differing very much in industry, economy and culture. Germany was literally a patchwork of states with only the language and the emperor in common. As such I can only agree that your opinion on this is entirely subjective. --Saddhiyama (talk) 23:41, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

the below has become irrelevant after a title change

If this is a "trick question", then likely the OP knows the answer. Why are we spending time searching for something that the questioner knows? Is this "Test the Ref Desk Week", and I missed the parade? Bielle (talk) 23:28, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

That's not how I read it. They probably saw it in a quiz somewhere, and want us to suggest an answer. StuRat (talk) 23:31, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, instead of complaining about the question, perhaps we can suggest references that would help answer it (we are a reference desk after all). Blueboar (talk) 23:40, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

It's not really a "trick question", the only reference to that was in the title. I am normally extremely smart and have wide breadth and depth of knowledge, and could not come up with the similarities on my own: that's why I had that title in frustration. It is a legitimate question. I am most interested in cultural similarities: which might explain why they became allies in world war 2. I would like to remove this whole subsection, because the question has begun to be answered above it. 188.29.201.9 (talk) 00:38, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Note that "What do the Germans and Japanese have in common?" and "What did the Germans and Japanese have in common, which lead to them being allies in WWII?" are similar but distinct questions. (Most importantly, similarities which occurred post-1950 are irrelevant to the latter, but perfectly appropriate for the former.) We do have an article on German–Japanese relations, which does discuss the issue a little. Part of it was a mutual movement away from a weak fledgling democracy, and (back) toward consolidation of power under a single person (the Emperor/Reichspresident). Possibly even more important was the signing of the Anti-Comintern Pact, which was effectively an anti-Russia agreement. As I read the article, the main answer to the question "What did the Germans and Japanese have in common, which lead to them being allies in WWII?" was "they both were enemies of the Russians". -- 174.24.196.217 (talk) 04:23, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

And enemies of the United Kingdom, France, the Netherlands and the United States. The system of government in pre-war Japan was really quite different to Nazi Germany. In Japan, although there was public deference to the Emperor, real power was in the hands of the military establishment. Hitler completely sidelined the traditional military elite by means of the Nazi party. His style of governance veered unpredictably from giving subordinates total freedom of action to enforcing his own micro-management when the fancy took him. The similarities (in my view) were:-

1) The perceived need for military expansion

2) The subordination of personal freedom to the needs of the state

3) Resentment of the dominance of the great powers (US UK France and USSR)

4) Belief in their own racial superiority (although this was problematic because both regarded the other as racially inferior)

Alansplodge (talk) 15:54, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I think the answer lies in the fact that Germany and Japan had common enemies, and that led them to ally. That's about it. The real answer is that they both had the same groups of enemies. Other than China, most of Japan's enemies were the major European colonial powers: The British (Burma and India and Malaysia) and the Dutch (Indonesia) and the Americans (Philipines and Hawaii). Germany, remember, also had an alliance with the Soviet Union at the start of the war (the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact) which Germany rapidly ignored as soon as it wasn't in Germany's interest to be allied with the Soviet Union anymore. The only thing that kept the Germans and the Japanese allied was the fact that Japan's territory and imperial interests didn't lie in the path of the Germans; that is the Germans had no impending need to invade Japan or compete for territory that Japan was also trying to take. This is quite different from the Soviets, which is why Germany ended up invading the Soviet Union. So, Japan and German were allies because a) they had common enemies and b) Germany didn't have any reason to stab them in the back. --Jayron32 16:23, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I'd argue that the reason Germany and Japan didn't fight was that neither had the ability to defeat the other, due to their geographic isolation. Of course, that didn't stop them both from declaring war on the US, even though neither seemed to possess the ability to invade North America and defeat the US. They must have thought that the US was a weak democracy which would refuse to fight. StuRat (talk) 17:53, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Not to put too fine a point on it, but I find it VERY hard to read your response as anything other than "The only thing they had in common - and which united them - was a mutual hatred of Freedom and Free societies." I realize this borders on flamebait, I am not saying this is what I think! This is just my IMPRESSION from reading your paragraph above, which seems to me to imply it. Maybe you could elaborate given this impression on my part, so that you are more specific and can "set me straight". Thanks! Note: this applies more to the paragraph above beginning "And enemies of the United Kingdom, France, the Netherlands and the United States" and ending "Belief in their own racial superiority". 87.194.221.239 (talk) 16:27, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

That was my paragraph. I'm not sure that they had "a mutual hatred of Freedom and Free societies"; they didn't want a free society themselves and saw it as a weakness in their opponents. What Japan wanted was its own empire in mainland Asia to ensure security of resources, such as oil and rubber. That these were controlled by the western powers was seen as a major threat to Japanese prosperity. BTW none of the western powers had very "free societies" in their Asian empires. Germany wanted its pre-1919 borders back, and later to expand into Soviet territory. Germany kept the USSR from attacking Japan. Japan distracted the US and UK from their war with Germany. Alliance was pragmatic rather than idiological in my opinion. Alansplodge (talk) 17:15, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree. There were strategic reasons for alliance (the enemy of my enemy is my friend), and the ideological positions were close enough not to be an obstacle. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:08, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

An interesting article, Honorary Aryan, proves me at least partly wrong on point 4) above. Alansplodge (talk) 19:46, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

July 1

Thunder and lightning

I'm not sure whether to put this here or in Science. I'm wondering, in pre-modern societies that lacked a scientific understanding of light and sound, what (if any) explanations were posited for the time delay between thunder and lightning? --Lazar Taxon (talk) 01:40, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

They probably thought of light as instantaneous, but sound is so slow you can tell it's not. There's the thunder and lightning example, but also you can hear the delay when a distant person hits two rocks together. StuRat (talk) 02:34, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Some symbolic beliefs separated the two. A couple examples: Vikings knew that blacksmiths heated the iron before striking it. So, the flash of light came before the thunder when Thor was striking his hammer on an anvil. Some Native American tribes attributed it to a lightning bird. The lightning came from the flaps of its wings and the thunder from its cry. -- kainaw™ 02:37, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Bear in mind that (by definition) pre-scientific societies didn't see any need to "explain" everything. But it is easy to observe a time lag when watching, say, farm labourers at a distance, or hearing an echo.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 07:49, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

For an example from a pre-modern society that did sort of have a scientific understanding, the Greeks (or at least Aristotle) knew that sound was a physical thing moving through a physical body (the air), and took time to do so. They didn't really understand what light was though; I think it was Plato, rather than Aristotle, who thought that light was not a physical thing and was just there, shooting out from your eyes onto everything you see, instantaneously, at infinite speed if it had a speed at all. Adam Bishop (talk) 08:30, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think you can say the Greeks had a "scientific understanding", rather it would be better to say they "guessed right." Saying what the Greeks did was "science" is like saying what a lottery winner did was "investing". The Greeks didn't do science any more than other pre-modern societies, but they had a mythology and a philosophy that through nothing more than dumb luck happened to have a coincidental resemblance to the results of modern scientific experiment. And even less so; the biases of Western culture hold the ancient Greeks in such high regard (and other pre-modern cultures in such low regard) that it tends to skew its view of how "right" the Greeks were, coloring our interpretation of their philosophy to make it seem as though the Greeks were somehow prescient in their understanding of the physical universe; in reality the same arguement could be made for just about any pre-modern society, it just takes a willingness to draw connections between the myths and the science in the way we've done with the Greeks. --Jayron32 14:00, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to disprove that they guessed right, but bear in mind that much of the Greeks' knowledge did not come from Greece. Greece and Macedonia dominated much of Turkey, Egypt and other lands and collected a great amount of information (and actual books and scholars) from those sources. In much the same way Rome became scientifically advanced later on by dominating Greece. Wnt (talk) 17:11, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

All science is based on trial-and-error, but the important part is that you accept the correct answer when you "guess right", rather than ignoring it if it goes against your preconceptions, religions, etc., as in the later case of the Catholic Church suppressing the fact that the Earth is not the center of the universe. The Greeks also conducted some experiments, like the one where the length of shadows at the same time along a north-south axis was used to determine the diameter of the Earth. While it's true that there was also some rather non-scientific thought going on, with people saying the world was one way because they wanted it to be so, like that related to the perfect solids representing 5 fundamental elements, this is also true in our time, with Intelligent Design being an example. StuRat (talk) 18:06, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I can imagine pre-modern societies trying to explain some inexplicable things with the phrase "God made it that way". Astronaut (talk) 15:11, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Aside from StuRat's example of "the Greeks" doing science like we do science, I should also point out that many of the scientific/natural philosophers lived before Greece had any power over Babylonia and Egypt. There was presumably contact and influence before that, but they didn't just discover science after conquering Egypt. (And in much the same way, Rome was influenced by contact with the Greek colonies in Italy, long before they conquered Greece.) Adam Bishop (talk) 20:59, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

French phrase for owner of loot?

There's a French phrase for the informal contract that, say, people enter into when they find (often in wartime) an amount of gold, hide it, and agree that it belongs to the last surviving member of those party to the agreement. I can't remember the phrase; does anyone know? Thanks, Ericoides (talk) 05:46, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Have you tried asking at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language? It might have a higher concentration of people able to answer your question. —— Shakescene (talk) 05:52, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

It's a tontine, like in english. 80.169.233.244 (talk) 06:43, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, that's the one. Ericoides (talk) 08:11, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I wonder how many people are familiar with tontines only from Raging Abe Simpson and His Grumbling Grandson in "The Curse of the Flying Hellfish". Adam Bishop (talk) 08:14, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Somewhat older folk may be familiar with them from an episode of M*A*S*H involving a tontine of which Col. Potter was a participant. Deor (talk) 11:27, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Or The Wrong Box (1965) about two elderly brothers who stand to benefit from a tontine should the other die. "The film is so British that it met with a gentle success in most places except Britain, where it was a terrible flop. I suppose this was because the film shows us exactly as the world sees us - as eccentric, charming and polite - but the British knew better that they were none of these things, and it embarrassed them." (comment by Michael Caine). Alansplodge (talk) 14:52, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I didn't know there was a movie. The novel (by Robert Louis Stevenson) is great fun. Looie496 (talk) 18:13, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I remember seeing that movie at the cinema when it was current. I laughed myself sick, particularly at Tony Hancock addressing a crowd of unsuspecting gallery patrons and telling them they were all mad, before storming out of the room. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 22:31, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

How tall is Elizabeth II?

How tall is Elizabeth II? --John (talk) 18:44, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

5' 4" according to IMDb, which isn't, of course, a formal reliable source. I don't think that any answer other than "not very" can be considered definitive. Tevildo (talk) 19:24, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I would say that 5'4" is about right - I was surprised how short she was. Alansplodge (talk) 19:31, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. So is it safe to say there is no "official" height for HM? --John (talk) 00:27, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps she has an "official" height and an actual height, like her birthdays. -- Arwel Parry (talk) 00:50, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

can you elaborate on 'her birthdays'? (naming the two). 188.28.55.61 (talk) 01:23, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I'd say the reference is to the fact that, while British monarchs have a real, natural birthday just like any other human, being the anniversary of the day they were actually born - in Queen Elizabeth's case, 21 April 1926 - there's also a celebration of the Queen's Official Birthday, which is almost always held on a different date (or dates; it varies between Commonwealth realms, and even between jurisdictions within a single realm). -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 02:20, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

It is maddening that you follow my request "naming the two" by naming the one - 21 April 1926. Can you please "name the two" so that I can be sure I am not misunderstanding you! (i.e. please name another date for the Birthday of Queen Elizabeth, besides 21 April 1926.) --188.28.104.202 (talk) 04:55, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Jack did name the two; it's just that the second one varies over time and place, as you'll see by consulting the article on the Queen's Official Birthday. It's often celebrated in June or just before because (I would venture to guess) Her Majesty was crowned on 2 June 1953. —— Shakescene (talk) 05:07, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I think it would take quite a bit of research to discover exactly why the Queen's Birthday is celebrated on so many different dates in different realms. And why it has changed within realms, and why it keeps changing in certain places. Take Australia - "Until 1936 it was held on the actual birthday of the Monarch, but after the death of George V it was decided to keep the date on the second Monday in June." Now, George V's birthday was 3 June, which cannot ever fall on the 2nd Monday in June, so why did they choose the 2nd Monday rather than the 1st Monday? Western Australia celebrates it on a different day from the rest of the country, sometimes late September, sometimes early Octonber, but it could be pretty much any time of the year. The Governor of WA has to make a special proclamation each year before anyone knows what the date's going to be. He takes his advice from the Premier of WA. What goes into the advice s/he tenders? And that's just one country. In the UK, it's on either the 1st, 2nd or occasionally 3rd Monday in June - why does it vary, and what factors are taken into account? We have a long way to go before we're World Experts on the dates of the Queen's Official Birthday. Does that unmadden you somewhat, 188.28.104.202? -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]}!

American calendar-makers and school planners work years in advance, although occasionally they're thrown by Congress fiddling with the start and end of Daylight Savings Time as a substitute for an energy policy or by the addition or moving of some legal holiday. What do British and Australian calendar makers do for (say) the year 2014? put in a lot of question-marks (interrogation points), asterisks and "TBD"s ? —— Shakescene (talk) 07:40, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

In Australia holidays are mostly matters for the state governments. We have a couple of strongly agreed "national" ones, like Anzac Day and Good Friday, but others can move if a state government chooses. There are strong guidelines for others. My state, Victoria, gives the Queen a birthday on the second Monday in June. The states can also change daylight saving dates on a whim, and do. HiLo48 (talk) 07:56, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Almost every one of the United States has its own state holiday or holidays, such as Victory Day in Rhode Island or Admission Day in California. But about eight holidays are set nationally for Federal employees and generally followed in the states (although not always by private business). Daylight Savings used to be much more a matter of state discretion than it is now, although states that border or straddle time-zone boundaries, such as Arizona and Indiana, have some leeway on whether and where (but not when) to observe it. —— Shakescene (talk) 08:12, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

That's a bit like George Washington, who was originally born on February 11, then was born on February 22, and finally ca.1970 he was born on the third Monday in February. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:26, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

And by the oddest of coincidences, 42 other presidents happen to share the exact same birthday on the third Monday in February. —— Shakescene (talk) 05:07, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

No coincidence! We vote that way on purpose to keep the used car advertisements restricted to a single day.

I think I heard that there was some controversy over rumors that our current president was born in August, and therefore upset the pattern, but he was able to produce a birth certificate proving his case. ... or maybe I'm remembering that wrong. APL (talk) 10:11, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Did his birth certificate mention how tall he was? HiLo48 (talk) 21:43, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Don't you see? That's why THEY don't want anyone to see his real birth certificate; not only his birthday, but his height, weight and age (under the constitutional 35 years old) would all be suspiciously different. —— Shakescene (talk) 07:26, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Is the messenger god Hermes associated with water and is war god Ares associated with fire and arrows?

Is the messenger god Hermes associated with water and is war god Ares associated with fire and arrows? Thanks! Neptunekh2 (talk) 19:34, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Not directly. Check the infobox on Greek sea gods under "Aquatic deities" for a list of the Greek gods associated with water. As for Ares, in his role as war god I'm sure you can say he was associated with arrows, and possibly military incendiaries, but the only weapon he's ever depicted with is a spear, and more often he just has a shield without a spear (perhaps because it's a lot easier to sculpt a shield.) Apollo and Hephaestus are directly associated with archery and fire, respectively. 99.24.223.58 (talk) 21:40, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Income of at least £34 million a year, every year, for ever

What would £34M a year every year in perpituity pay for in terms of public services in the UK? (Schools, doctors, old people's homes, weekly bin collections etc). Capitalised at say 2.5% (as it appears to be inflation-linked), then its equivalent to £1.36 billion. 92.24.141.227 (talk) 21:47, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

For that salary, I would be delighted to offer my services to the government as an advisor. Looie496 (talk) 23:13, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I would offer my services for half of that, £17 million per year, if Looie does not make a counteroffer. The other half of the fund can go to various charities as described. --188.29.154.125 (talk) 23:42, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I think we know where this is heading, but if you really want to know, look up the total budgets for various local authorities and you can work out what size of town it would maintain. Or you can get the turnovers of various charities. Itsmejudith (talk) 00:02, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't know where this is heading. What is this figure all about?Wikiweek (talk) 11:10, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

This is the amount the British monarchy is supposed to cost. Every week we have a post trying to convince the whole world that the British monarchy is too expensive, not needed, deprecated, whatever. So far, the monarchy was not affected. 88.14.198.240 (talk) 11:29, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

The republican group, aptly named "Republic", say that the £34M per year is only the tip of the iceberg, and that if you include things like policing and security, then the true cost is £200 million per year. 92.28.244.187 (talk) 17:51, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

To answer the question... probably very little. The town council budget of my 90,000 pop town is around £25M a year, while the county council's budget is around £740M a year. My town is also in need of new hospital but at a cost of around £1,000M I think the town will be struggling on with its old hospital for some time to come. You see, £34M may sound like a lot (especially if you had it as a pile of used tenners in front of you), but on the scale of the country as a whole, it is hardly worth bothering about. Astronaut (talk) 14:35, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Its silly to insist on dividing very large amounts of money by 62 million and then claim its virtually nothing. Looks like the money would build 1.36 hospitals or provide all the services for ever for about 150000 people according to Astronauts figures. Hardly "very little". 92.28.247.58 (talk) 18:33, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Umm, I'm a little confused. How would you turn £34M a year into £1.36 billion? As for paying for council services, and judging from my council tax (which accounts for less than half of the cost of the services - the rest comes from central government and business rates), your £34M a year would only pay for the services to around 15,000 homes; and if you are spending it on council service, you can't build a hospital as well. Astronaut (talk) 19:45, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

For the first question, I assume we have an article on discounted cash flow. --Trovatore (talk) 19:56, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Tontine (redux)

Given the discussion above about tontines, what is the etymology of the name of the small settlement in Yorkshire (now best known for the pricey restaurant there) called Cleveland Tontine (it's just south of Ingleby Arncliffe). Mills' Oxford Dictionary of British Place Names doesn't have it (under Tontine or Cleveland Tontine). The OS map calls the (equally tiny) place just south of it "Little Tontine", confirming that it's not just the name of the inn. 87.113.82.26 (talk) 22:10, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

According to this page, the site was developed into an inn in 1804 with financing derived from a tontine subscription. Looie496 (talk) 23:11, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

July 2

Richard Francis Burton and getting into Mecca

One thing I've always wondered is why Burton pretended to be a Pashtun instead of a European. Why couldn't he have said that he was a Briton who had converted to Islam while in India? It seems to me that the hostility of many Muslims (both Arabs and others) to Europeans might have been overcome by the novelty of a European who had converted, and the fact that he'd spent plenty of time in India might well have been a sufficient explanation for such an unlikely conversion. Nyttend (talk) 01:58, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

As far as I can see, most non-Europeans who had to deal with Europeans learned pretty quickly not to believe anything they said. Any time Europeans came to look at something, the basic assumption was that they were scouting it out as a preliminary to invasion -- which was usually not far from the truth. Looie496 (talk) 02:09, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that's a fair observation. The real explanation is, of course, that it was extremely uncommon at the time for a European to convert to Islam, and hardly any Muslim would have believed Burton if he had said he had. Victorian Britain was not today's Britain; converting to Islam, for a British person, would have meant having to move to an Islamic country to be able to lead anything like a "normal" social life.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 15:48, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Can anyone list any celebrities who are half white and half black besides Obama and Halle Berry?

Can anyone list any celebrities who are half white and half black besides Obama and Halle Berry? Neptunekh2 (talk) 03:25, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I hope not. Given that 'white', 'black' and 'celebrity' are all simplistic social constructs (at best), I can't see any reason why any sane person would want to. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:34, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

[After an edit conflict] I suspect that's a very American question. To me as a non-American, it just seems a very odd and probably racist question. What does half black mean? Is black explicitly defined? Is white explicitly defined? It's my understanding that a lot of African-Americans have some "white" ancestry anyway. (And maybe some of those "whites" have....) I just wish skin colour didn't worry people so much. HiLo48 (talk) 03:37, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Here's a simple example of somebody half black and half white: [11]. StuRat (talk) 04:46, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Some worry about it; others are merely interested in it as being part of the variety of the human species. I think Derek Jeter is mixed-race. Roy Campanella was. So was Ted Williams, if you consider Hispanic to be a separate "race" (which I don't, but the US government apparently does). Alex Haley had mixed ancestry. Moses Fleetwood Walker, the first or at least best-known black ballplayer before they drew the color line, was described by contemporaries as "Mulatto", a term that's no longer in favor but essentially means mixed-race. Tiger Woods and Tai Babilonia are also mixed race, but not "pure" black + white, but rather a "rainbow". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:18, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

AFAIK and supported by our article the US government doesn't generally consider Hispanic to be a seperate race. Nil Einne (talk) 23:09, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I saw on PBS a show a while ago in which Henry Louis Gates, the host, asked a number of famous black leaders if he could test their DNA to determine what proportion of recent European ancestry each of them had. It emerged that virtually all of them had more than they believed, even Don Cheadle, who looks as purely African as anybody could. Gates himself was surprised to find that he had 50% European ancestry, which he said was almost a little bit embarrassing, since he is head of the Black Studies department at Harvard. Looie496 (talk) 04:29, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Followup: The show was African American Lives. Reading our article, it says that 19.6% of African Americans have at least 25% European ancestry, but only 1% have more than 50% European ancestry. Looie496 (talk) 04:37, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Followup question; why would someone's racial background be relevant in their feeling comfortable or embarrassed at being head of a department at a major university? Does this sort of comfort or embarrassment happen a lot in the USA? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:25, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Sure! (This is a good question). Michael Jackson is half white and half black. I wonder who else... --188.28.104.202 (talk) 04:45, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Then there's Clarence Thomas, who many would argue is "black on the outside and white on the inside". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:58, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

And, while I usually disagree very strongly with Justice Thomas, those who would argue that would be quite wrong, as can be seen by the grounds of his dissent on a law that forbade burning crosses; his personal experience and interpretation of what such acts meant to Southern blacks was very different from those of his liberal and conservative white brethren on the court. As an aside, since Justice Thomas's wife is white, their children might fall into a similar category as Barack Obama. —— Shakescene (talk) 02:25, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Another perspective. Is this only about American celebrities? Most (certainly not all) Australian Aboriginal people who have ever become famous would have a mixture of Aboriginal, European, and possibly other ancestry. Do Americans think Australian Aboriginal people are black? HiLo48 (talk) 04:50, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Maybe Neptune will enlighten us. Australian Aborigines are obviously dark-skinned, but they're not "black" in the sense we USA'ns use it, as a synonym for (and predecessor to) "African American". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→

I disagree completely. I would call someone of significant Australian aboriginal descent "black". (But not "African American", because that would be silly.)

"Black" is a visual descriptor, like "tall" or "blonde".

Of course, that makes the question difficult to answer literally, but I suppose he's probably looking for someone with one parent with dark skin and another parent of light skin, which is straightforward enough. APL (talk) 10:04, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

"Black" is definitely not a synonym for "African American". "Black" is a description of skin colour and, by inference, ethnicity. "African American" includes a description of nationality. --Tango (talk) 11:51, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Note that I said in the USA. Elsewhere in the world, "black" will obviously mean different things. The term "black" in South Africa obviously didn't refer to African Americans. More like "Native Africans" or "Aboriginal Africans". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:46, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Once in awhile, we get a question that people avoid answering directly in order to make a point. This is one of those. The main point that people want to make -- that "race" is a social construct that doesn't really lend itself to "half" this and "half" that in any truly meaningful way -- is a good one, and one that should be made. Having made that point, we can now rephrase the question to make it meaningful. Here goes: there are a number of famous people who have one parent considered "black" by their society, and another considered "white". Barack Obama and Halle Berry are two examples. Are there others? I would guess that there are very many, from Frederick Douglass to Rashida Jones. —Kevin Myers 07:04, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

personal conflict unrelated to answering the question
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I didn't avoid answering just to make a point. I couldn't answer because the question needed an awful lot more definition to make sense to a thinking person. Maybe it was simpler for Americans, but I won't apologise for not being one. HiLo48 (talk) 12:02, 2 July 2011 (UTC) You don't have to apologize for not being American. It's not your fault. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:47, 2 July 2011 (UTC) You should apologize, though, for the very obvious chip on your shoulder about Americans, and you should take it off your shoulder. --Trovatore (talk) 18:34, 2 July 2011 (UTC) Trovatore your post is ad hominem and out of order. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 21:21, 2 July 2011 (UTC) No more out of order than HiLo "suspecting", without adducing any shred of evidence whatsoever, that the question is "very American". that is incredibly offensive. HiLo should apologize. --Trovatore (talk) 21:35, 2 July 2011 (UTC) The question names only American celebrities and it uses racial categories that are central to Racial segregation in the United States, which is also the country that enforced anti-miscegenation laws from 1913 to 1948 in 30 out of 48 states. Instead of directing your misguided knee-jerk patriotic kick at HiLo48 who obviously could cite unending examples of American preoccupation with black/white social isues I suggest you quietly respect the belated progress made by ethical Americans in this field, to wit Abraham Lincoln, the Supreme Court judges in Loving v. Virginia and Martin Luther King, Jr.. No other country than America where you happen to live and work has endured this shameful history. HiLo has said nothing that is offensive. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 16:56, 3 July 2011 (UTC) Cuddlyable, that's total bullshit as a defense of what HiLo said. Giving no justification whatsoever, he "suspected" that it was "a very American question", and then went on to assume that it was, saying as though it were relevant that he was a non-American. That there's a history of American bad acts on race is undisputed, but in no way ameliorates that extremely offensive behavior, which is outside the pale of civilized discourse. By the way I am not particularly a patriot, but I will not be silent in the face of such utter provocation. --Trovatore (talk) 18:21, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Ryan Giggs and his dad Danny Wilson sort of illustrate why the question is a bit odd. If Giggs's dad is half-black then is Giggs a quarter black? In this photo, is Danny Wilson black? 86.144.90.37 (talk) 07:26, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

There are countless such examples. We don't need to belabor the point that terms like "half black" don't mean much, but readers who wanted to learn more about such terms could start with quadroon. —Kevin Myers 07:43, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps a better way to approach this is to ask about famous people who have a self-identity as being "multi-racial". Blueboar (talk) 18:24, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Lenny Kravitz is half black, half white. Tiger Woods is about as multiracial as you can get. I think he has ancestors from all inhabited continents except South America and Australia. Pais (talk) 22:56, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Would Franco Harris have been the first "half-white, half-black" American to become famous in the modern era? His success might have been a landmark, coming just a few years after the Supreme Court threw out miscegenation laws. Harris was embraced by both the Italian-American and African-American populations. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 03:40, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

In common terminology this question can be answered. But as soon as someone tries to answer with any semblance of objectivity or based upon defined terms, responses break down to almost meaninglessness. This may be true for many other questions as well, but this particular one seems especially suited to being unanswerable—except in common terms—which probably embody some of the overly simplistic thinking that objective responders are trying to avoid. But it is a question that has resonance with a lot of people, as evidenced by the considerable number of responses. It is perhaps a question that arises involuntarily in even those such as myself trying to avoid giving a response that plays into a "street level" and unsophisticated mentality concerning race. Bus stop (talk) 18:51, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

• Alicia Keys and Dan Hill come to mind. Lenny Kravitz is half Black and half Semitic. Wiwaxia (talk) 00:57, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
• Jaye Davidson is also half-black, half-white, though maybe he doesn't count as a celebrity anymore. Pais (talk) 10:14, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Section 29 of the Canadian Charter Rights of Freedom

Does Section 29 only applies to Roman Catholic and Protestant schools? What about Islamic schools and Jewish schools? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.22.250 (talk) 16:11, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it means that Catholic schools in provinces where Catholics are a minority (notably Ontario) and Protestant schools in provinces where Protestants are a minority (i.e. Quebec) have official school boards and government funding. This is in the Charter because the 1982 Constitution reaffirms this point from the 1867 Constitution, when it was more of a serious problem - the Catholic church dominated Quebec at the time, and Protestants (mostly Anglicans) were dominant in Ontario, to the point that the Protestant and Catholic minorities in those provinces were effectively second class citizens. In 1867 there weren't many Jews in Canada, and there probably weren't any Muslims at all, so they didn't get any special mention, and they still don't. By he way, we also have an article on Section 29 of the Canadian of Charter Rights and Freedoms. (And all the other ones, for your other questions.) Adam Bishop (talk) 20:47, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

According to our article on Islam in Canada, the 1871 census found 13 Muslims in the country. So some, but hardly a significant community. Warofdreams talk 12:03, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

what is wrong with the gold standard

I watched a documentary called money masters and there solution for the economic downturn is: Step 1: Directs the Treasury Department to issue U.S. Notes (like Lincoln’s Greenbacks; can also be in electronic deposit format) to pay off the National debt.

Step 2: Increases the reserve ratio private banks are required to maintain from 10% to 100%, thereby terminating their ability to create money, while simultaneously absorbing the funds created to retire the national debt. Also getting rid of fractional reserve banking and the federal reserve in the process Inflation wont be a problem as they will use the extra money to give to the banks so they have the money they need cover the money they have loaned out.

However, they disagree with the gold standard saying then that gold is too scarce and it could not be used efficiently and the people that have the gold would have the power of the currency. Is there anyway to keep the gold backed money flexible also? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.38.96.241 (talk) 20:38, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

See the article Gold standard, particularly Gold standard#Disadvantages. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 21:11, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, not as long as gold is scarce, no. However, we could use more common metals, like silver, or perhaps a broad range of natural resources. Using more than one natural resource to back currencies does create a problem when the prices of those resources change, relative to each other, though. Also, this tends to increase the price and lead to the hording of those resources. Still, these effects may well be better than the risks of inflation, hyperinflation, and total currency collapse with an unbacked currency. StuRat (talk) 21:12, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

That's insane. If you set the reserve ratio for banks to 100%, they will have to retain all the money deposited in them, which means they will have no way to make money, which means there will be no banks. (And that isn't the only problem with the proposal.) Looie496 (talk) 00:14, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Would this devalue the U.S. dollar and increase the price of imports? Or would the dollar need to be unfloated and revert to a fixed exchange rate?
Sleigh (talk) 12:31, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

The banks would make a profit based on the difference between the interest they charge on the loans they make, and the interest they pay to their depositors. To sleighs point all the new money created would have to go to the banks somehow ,I have not figured out, to stop the inflation but that's where my question about the gold standard comes in — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.38.96.241 (talk) 00:42, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Society Islands Kingdoms

How many seperate kingdoms were there in the Society Islands in French Polynesia? I know Huahine, Raiatea, Tahiti, and Boro Boro were. But were the other islands seperate kingdoms before they were annexed to France. Also Society Islands article gives the annexation date of all the islands in 1880 but most of other islands were not annexed till 1888 and Boro Boro wasn't annexed until 1893. Why is that? --KAVEBEAR (talk) 21:47, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

codifying an existing debt

This is not a request for legal advice, but I was reading the contract article, which pretty much says that the main thing (or just about) that makes a contract valid is consideration. I was wondering what were to happen if a relationship were going south and you wanted to codify an already existing (orally agreed) debt, for example? If you say "B has owed A $2000 since 2000, when A did some work for B" and both sign it, does it become something A can collect on or what? This is just a hypothetical example, but I'm curious how "consideration" is dealt with when getting onto paper something from before... Thanks... --188.28.30.218 (talk) 22:23, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, putting it in writing does make it legally binding, while an oral contract is typically only enforceable if both parties agree to the terms in court. The consideration, here, is the work which was done and/or the $2000. One potential problem is if a court thinks the attempt to collect the $2000 is only due to the end of the relationship. StuRat (talk) 22:57, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

stu, not asking for legal advice here (in fact, this is just about hte hypothetical! There is no $2000 or work done in 2000). But, the uestion here is: why would it be a problem if the "atempt to collect the $2000 is only due to the end of the relationship"? I would think that would not matter... 188.28.41.89 (talk) 00:04, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

The important point is that the contract is _not_ the physical piece of paper, but the _agreement_ between the parties. A and B aren't creating a new contract, they're just putting their existing one (in which the consideration due to B is getting the work done, and the consideration due to A is getting the money) into writing. It _may_ help A's chances of recovering the money (for example, B's acknowledgement of the debt may deprive him of a limitation defence), but the reasons for A and B deciding to put the matter in writing won't affect the validity of the original contract. Incidentally, StuRat's statement "putting it in writing does make it legally binding" isn't necessarily true. Some types of contracts (such as Deeds) have more stringent requirements for execution (We don't have an article on the legal execution of documents?) than just the parties' signatures, and an oral contract which isn't legally binding can't be made binding just by writing it down. Putting a contract in writing may make it more _enforceable_ (as the courts will now have concrete evidence that it exists), but there's nothing miraculous about a piece of paper (in law, at least). StuRat's point about motivation is that B may have an estoppel against A - if A assured B that he wasn't going to enforce the contract (and insist on payment), then A will be prevented in equity (rather than in law) from attempting to enforce it because of the relationship breakdown. But that would require evidence that A _did_ make such a representation (and that B acted on it to his detriment, and various other things which make it advisable for A and B to consult a lawyer in this sort of situation). Tevildo (talk) 00:37, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

To put it in simpler terms, the court might be worried that this work was really a gift, and that once the relationship ended, person A then starting claiming it was work for pay. The two ways to disprove this notion is for both parties to testify in court that it wasn't a gift, or for them to both put that in writing and then present that in court. In a case such as this, a simple written contract should do the trick. The only ways I see to get out of the written contract would be if person B argued successfully that their signature was forged, or that they signed under duress, or didn't understand what they were signing (this would be difficult to prove with such a simple contract, unless person B had diminished capacity). Then there's always bankruptcy, which doesn't really invalidate the contract, it just makes it uncollectable. StuRat (talk) 08:05, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

old british public schools system

I'm reading early PG Wodehouse, which are school stories. I have no problem following the cricket and rugby football stuff, and the slang is pretty easy to figure out, but I would like some sources that explain the school system. These books were published around 1905 and are set in England. How old are the boys in each form? Why do the forms start at 4 instead of 1 and why are only two of them divided? (4th and 5th, lower and upper) Did they have any other classes besides maths, Latin translation and Greek translation? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.147.120.65 (talk) 22:24, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Bible Study?, For the time period and type of school, non participation in the Anglican or Catholic churches was virtually unheard of. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:27, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

It would have been known as Religious Instruction or RI, or maybe Religious Education or RE. --TammyMoet (talk) 08:19, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

While I'm not familiar with Wodehouse's books, we still had forms in secondary school in my day, early/mid 70s. 1st formers were 11-12 years old, 4th formers were 14-15, 5th formers 15-16, lower 6th 16-17, and upper 6th 17-18. I presume the particular schools only started with 14 year-olds, hence the 4th form would be the initial class (back in those days I think the end of compulsory schooling was at 14 - it certainly was for my parents in the 1930s - so the pupils in Wodehouse's schools would be the privileged ones who could continue to be educated after the working class had started working). -- Arwel Parry (talk) 23:44, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Similarly but not identically, my own (Public (≡ US Private) boarding) school in the late 60s and early 70s began with 2nd formers of ages 11-12, the "1st form" notionally covering the 7-11 year olds at its associated primary Prep School (and more abstractly the majority who had attended other primary schools). The 2nd and 3rd forms were marked off as "Lower School" from the 4th form (13-14) and up; it also inserted (as was common in such schools) a "Remove form" at 14-15, therefter being aligned with Arwel's description. The "Remove" may have been a relic reflecting a once existing division between those who were expecting to go on to University and those who were not: it features in fictional schools of roughly the Wodehousian period by writers such as "Frank Richards"; the article on Richards' Greyfriars School includes a detailed analysis of its form structure, yet another slight variant, which may be of interest.

P. G. Wodehouse himself attended a Prep school from 10-12 before entering Dulwich College which, as you will see its article's lede, retains today a 4-tier (Junior, Lower, Middle and Upper) structure with divisions at ages 11, 13 and 16. His fictional schools were likely modelled on something similar.

As to (boys') Public school subjects in Wodehouse's period, this probably varied somewhat from school to school depending on the preoccupations of their Headmasters and/or owners. From my general knowledge and particular reading of similar stories by Frank Richards and others, not to mention Tom Brown's Schooldays, they might also have included some or all of History, Geography, Art, Chemistry, Physics and Biology and/or Science. Some of these might have been alternatives to others, and/or optional extras, as likely would have been Music for some pupils, though at some schools some pupils would have explicitly entered as choristers. Girls' Public schools would have course have had a markedly different emphasis in that period, though they would have had some subject overlap. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.62 (talk) 02:21, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

The religious class might have been known as "Divinity" as it was at the fictional St. Custard's, attended by Nigel Molesworth. The curriculum would have been extremely limited but there would have been History, Geography and probably also a nod at Science. English came into the public schools quite late. French, I would have thought, but perhaps it was optional. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:46, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

There's also "Religious Knowledge" (RK) or "Scripture", both of which I remember from my (non-public-school) youth. Bertie Wooster famously won a prep-school prize for "Scripture Knowledge", which is mentioned in many of the Jeeves & Wooster stories. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 10:58, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

In the traditional British fee-paying school system, young children of primary school age attenf a Preparatory school until the age of 13 when can sit the Common Entrance Exam. This is their passport to a private secondary school - the older and grander ones are confusingly called Public schools, because they started as charitable institutions. Fiction set in prep schools includes the Jennings books. Alansplodge (talk) 11:56, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

July 3

Do you think an article about the monthly press conferences by the European Central Bank would work?

Perhaps this sounds ridiculous - but if so that may be precisely the point, and what would make the article interesting! There are all sorts of cunning code words used to signal what is being thought (nothing is straightforward)... there have been a few surprises along the way... there are a couple of regular characters amongst the journalists as well as the panel (although pretty much it's only trichet/head of ecb at time talking from the panel) and so on... Anyhow I want to sound out a bit of opinion before I write it, and might as well ask at the ref desk as it seems a good place to look for people interested in "things". Egg Centric 01:30, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps, but if it's not long enough to merit it's own article it might be better as a section under the European Central Bank article. One strategy might be to start it there, then break it off as it's own article if it gets too big. StuRat (talk) 03:20, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

If you're really into this, you might experiment (perhaps on a trial page created by adding a slash to your user name followed by a title, e.g. "User:Centric/Sandbox 1" before exporting to a new main article) with comparing European Central Bank announcements, press releases and press conferences with those of the Federal Reserve Board, the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank (and if they give such conferences, the Bank of England and the Bank of Japan). The periodic statements, occasional interviews and recent minutes of the Fed's chairman, board and Open Market Committee often give rise to comment and movement on the markets. —— Shakescene (talk) 04:14, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

This post on alphaville would be the kind of content that I would be referencing, for what it's worth. Incidentally (since this is the reference desk) the Fed have these conferences, but not after every meeting, same goes for BOJ. BOE don't have post meeting confverences but have quarterly inflation reports and various other events where they communicate with the media - and both BOE and FED release minutes, which can be market moving (as can the FOMC statements). It's very rare that I've seen IMF stuff move markets in the same way as a central bank announcement (Greece a notable exception but that's hardly exclusively IMF and it certainly doesn't relate to a press conference) and I've never seen World Bank move them. More I think about it I don't feel I'm perfectly focussed yet on what exactly I want to write... I'll keep on thinking Egg Centric 15:23, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Remember that such content (whether in its own article or not) is permitted only if it is based on reliable secondary sources, written about these press conferences, not about the conferences themself. In particular, these "cunning codewords" must not be written about unless they have been written about in secondary sources. --ColinFine (talk) 21:20, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Talking about something = healing wounds?

Psychologically speaking does talking about something over and over again heal wounds? if so why? Shouldn't it depend on the feedback been received? Wikiweek (talk) 02:31, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

That would depend on what happens when you talk about it. Some people just get angry when they bring up "old business", while others are able to move past it, once they fully understand what happened. StuRat (talk) 03:18, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Carl Rogers's Person-centred therapy is the type of therapy you seem to be referring to. --TammyMoet (talk) 08:15, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

The evidence I've seen has indicated trying to write about something bad that has happened is much better for getting over it than talking about it. Talking about things is not necessarily a good thing and may actually stop people getting over it and coping in some cases. If it isn't causing problems just putting on a brave face getting on with things seems to work quite well. Dmcq (talk) 11:48, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

A relevant concept is the Catharsis, a purification of the soul of its excessive passions, that may be a benefit for some from church Confessionals. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 17:13, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Monaco regency

Why is Prince Albert of Monaco not King Albert? DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 03:28, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Because Monaco is a Principality, not a Kingdom. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 03:31, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

George W. Bush was chatting to Queen Elizabeth II one day. He said he wouldn’t mind being a king, to which the Queen replied “You would first need to have a kingdom. The USA is not a kingdom”.

• “Well then, couldn’t I be a prince?”
• “No, sorry, Mr President. You would need to first have a principality”.
• “Oh, I get it, Maam. Looks like I’ll just have to settle for being a president”.
• “Well, you do run a country”, she suggested. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 03:40, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Note that the four-letter-word in question is _not_ generally applied to males in the USA, therefore our American readers may not get this joke. Tevildo (talk) 09:47, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I fully understand the "four-letter-word", and I still don't see the joke. Unless you're playing with "country" somehow. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:40, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I have yet to come across a joke where the punchline is other than at the end. And a certain word was italicised for a reason. That should answer your query. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 13:54, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, an obscure play on "country". If that's the best joke the queen can come up with, she'd best not quit the day job. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:07, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Note: "I didn't get the joke" does not equal "it was obscure". -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 14:17, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I do "get" the joke; it just doesn't make logical sense. Where does the "ry" ("ree") part figure into it? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:22, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

The classic form of the joke (which I associate, perhaps erroneously, with Kenny Everett, although his political views were diametrically opposite to the sentiment it expresses), is: "Once we were an Empire, and we had an emperor. Then we were a kingdom, and we had a king. Now we're a country, and we have Margaret Thatcher." Is that a little more obvious? Tevildo (talk) 14:26, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

That makes logical sense. You have to already know the Thatcher joke in order for the other joke to make sense. Obscure to an American, not so obscure to a Brit. Also extremely rude. But Thatcher was a tough old broad, and could take it and dish it right back out. 14:30, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't see the difference between this one and the Bush one, unless it's that Bush is male. --Trovatore (talk) 19:54, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

A variation sometimes told in Australia is the story of a member of parliament representing a rural electorate declaring "I'm a country member", with the response "Yes, we remember." HiLo48 (talk) 21:15, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

That was attributed, perhaps apocryphally, to Fred Daly. But back to my joke. Like Trovatore, I don't see the difference in punch between the 2 versions above. I honestly, for the life of me, can't understand Bugs's problem. Isn't it the same thing in both jokes: a kingdom is run by a king, a principality is run by a prince, so a country must need a ..... ? Isn't that where the "ry" part figures in it? What's so illogical about that? One's a -dom, one's an -ipality, and one's a -ry. The word endings themselves are not consistent, and that is completely beside the point of the joke. Aaarrrggh, there's nothing worse than explaining a joke, particularly one you've told yourself. Nothing. So, thanks for nothing, Bugsy!  :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 21:25, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Along similar lines, John Cleese was on Keith Olbermann's show the night of the 2008 election, and read a poem about Bush in which the "punch" line, rhyming with something else of course, called Bush a "Berk" or some such. Also a fairly obscure joke except to a Brit who knows rhyming slang. And as I recall, Cleese had to explain to Olbermann that "Berk" was short for "Berkeley Hunt". At that point, the light went on, and Olbermann quickly cut to a commercial. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:35, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

-- Hamlet: ' Lady, shall I lie in your lap? '

-- Ophelia: ' No, my lord.'

-- Hamlet: ' I mean my head upon your lap? '

-- Ophelia: ' Aye, my lord.'

-- Hamlet: ' Do you think I meant country matters? '

-- Ophelia: ' I think nothing, my lord.'

-- Hamlet: ' Thats a fair thought to lie between maids legs.

Cuddlyable3 (talk) 17:22, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

A king can't raise a principality to a kingdom. The Emperor of France or the Holy Roman Emperor never raised Monaco to a kingdom because it was too small and unimportant.
Sleigh (talk) 11:57, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

A sovereign can do whatever they like. That's what it means to be a sovereign. Monaco's sovereignty is a little confusing. It certainly wasn't completely sovereign in the past and even now France has significant say in who the Minister of State is. The Prince may need France's consent to re-designate Monaco as a Kingdom and himself as a King, but otherwise there is nothing stopping him. Other countries wouldn't have to recognise the new title, but I can't see why they wouldn't. Monaco has traditionally been a principality, though, and the Prince and his people are probably happy with that tradition. --Tango (talk) 13:17, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

The sovereign of a country can do whatever they want. Zog of Albania just made himself King of Albania one day, on the legal principle known as "because-I-felt-like-it". --Jayron32 13:45, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

No way can the sovereigns of constitutional monarchies "do what they like"; certainly not when it comes to changing the status of their country. Do you guys get your information about how monarchies work from The Wizard of Id? -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 13:54, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I was simplifying slightly. I was talking about national sovereignty more than individual sovereignty. The constitution is an internal thing and (apart from the weird stuff with France) doesn't affect what the country can do. --Tango (talk) 14:04, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I suppose Monaco could declare independence and initiate a war with France, which would progably last about 5 minutes. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:07, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

The level of wrongness in this response is astounding. The French work some 38 hours per week, which often includes their unworked lunchtime. In the case of a war between Monaco and France, talks would immediately be initiated: the negotiations would be fierce and prolonged, with the French working overtime, up to 39 or even 40 hours per week, setting up committees to elect representatives to choose delegates for elevated discussions, and within 8 or 12 weeks you would have firm resolutions regarding whether either country was, in fact, at war, and another 6 months and everyone would know exactly why. The forces, meanwhile, would be eyeing each other menacingly, or rather squinting at each other, with the French camped a respectful 5-6 kilometers from the border, lest anyone rush the matter. Monaco and France would both spend $1-5Billion (more, since it will be in Euros) electing flags and displays, so that anyone within, well, 5-6 kilometers, would be able to see exactly who was camped there. Within one year, by which time the members of the delegates to conduct talks would surely have been moved on to squabbling over the logistics of the coming hostilities, real munitions will have begun to roll off of French factory lines, run at a blistering pace and in double shifts: 80 hours per week. The productivity is not going to be very high, so even at that pace soldiers on the France-Monaco front will only begin to receive 1 bullet every three days, compared with a kilo of exquisite French cheese during the same period, but soon the pace will be up to a bullet a day. Monaco will be pretty smug, as its soldiers will have each come with several weeks' worth of bullets by that calculation: however, they will envy France's generosity with its cheese. As Monaco waits for the French soldiers to start getting enough bullets that they can start to fight (this is further delayed by a prolonged strike at the aforementioned French bullet factory: picketing means that for several month fighting must cease) both sides decide to make the best use of their time that they can, and start digging trenches. The soldiers on both sides unite in a brief strike of the trench conditions, and French and Monaco forces (the latter in solidarity, being, themselves too, after all, paid soldiers, and having great sympathy for the French) join a picket line against cruel digging conditions: within 1 week a ceasefire is agreed with the union leaders, and both sides trudge back to their respective fronts: in the case of the Monaco forces, this itself takes two weeks, as they celebrate their labor victory on behalf of France by frolicking through the French countryside with the cheese and wine rations their French brethren have been kind enough to share. Just as digging of trenches is supposed to have commenced again at the just-agreed 16 hour per week, one week on, two weeks off, worker-friendly pace, news comes that France and Monaco have been able to negotiate their way out of the war! At first this is chalked off to French diplomacy, but later it will be a considerable scandal when it comes to light that France lavished upon the entire principality of Monaco a number of sex workers (both male and female) that amounts to one for every man, woman, and child, all costing taxpayers some 2 billion euros. Stuck between either admitting that the children of Monaco may have been exposed to the services of French sex workers, or else admitting that many citizens of Monaco may have made use of the services of more than one sex worker at the same time -- an affront to the rights of sex workers (this being exceedingly degrading) and to women's rights in general (for the case that two or more women sex workers were in use by a single man, though obviously two male gigolos used by a single woman of Monaco was a clawing back of some of the historical outrages suffered by women) -- France argued that the local culture did not make the latter anything out of order. France spends some 500 million euros on a PR campaign equating 'menage a trois' with the Enlightenment (a French export), and the issue seems to simmer down. Environment groups lobby for France and Monaco to fill in the trenches it has started to dig for the war, but the budget has already been depleted by the aforementioned activities and public relations campaigns. At any rate, it is argued, the trenches might be needed in some future war, whereupon digging could resume. In the mean time, anarchist squatters, many of them not citizens of the EU at all, make use of the trenches, or rather, the housing, lighting and sewage systems built up by both countries to service soldiers digging the trenches -- and neither France nor Monaco want to disturb this precarious peace by cutting off electricity. A committee is appointed to come up with an appropriate name for this cost on the annual budget, however it has yet to meet... As is the entire embarrassing war, its existence at all is quickly forgotten... 188.29.88.52 (talk) 04:53, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

That's two jokes in one thread that haven't worked. See cheese-eating surrender monkeys. Tevildo (talk) 07:52, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Even the United States had an Emperor. --Jayron32 14:59, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Monaco is independent. It has some strange links with France, but it is recognised as a country in its own right. --Tango (talk) 15:04, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

What Bugs may have meant is that Monaco could repudiate the treaty that currently provides for Monaco's absorption into France should it fail to produce an heir. I suppose we could say Monaco has a sort of "conditional independence", which is almost a contradiction in terms. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 21:29, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, if Monaco were truly independent, this would be a non-issue: The Prince of Monaco could call himself King, Emperor, Tsar, or Jijjiboo J. O'Shea if he wanted to, not that anybody else need care about it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:54, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

See also Principality. The multiple different meanings of the word Prince are explained in its own article. 188.117.30.209 (talk) 13:26, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Per Sleigh's comment — there's at least one instance in recent history that a sovereign prince became tired of being a prince and decided that he wanted to become a king. See Nikola of Montenegro. Nyttend (talk) 03:13, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Townships in Newfoundland

Hi all - I've been sorting stub articles on Newfoundland and Labrador, and a lot of them contain the line: "This settlement was depopulated in 1965" (1966, 1967...) What happened? Did the local government simply decide to shunt people from lots of small hamlets into larger towns? Grutness...wha? 03:44, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Newfoundland entered the Canadian Confederation in 1949, thanks to Premier J.R. Smallwood. He wanted to industrialize Newfoundland's use of natural resources. In the 1950s the provincial government tried to diversify the economy to reduce its dependence upon its cyclical natural resource base. Public funds were used to finance new industries that, once successfully operating, were to be sold to private enterprise. Few buyers emerged so the government tried to lure foreign capital through an offer of 50 per cent funding of loans to start up new factories. Most of these ventures failed and by the mid 1950s the provincial government’s cash surplus was exhausted with virtually no permanent jobs or other economic benefits to show for it. ref. To this end, he also conceived the British Newfoundland Development Corporation in 1952, and stated the fisheries development program to help local fishermen. (This it did too well - it helped to contribute to the later Collapse of the Northern Cod Fishery.) It helped fishermen get modern technologies like high-powered boats and affordable freezing systems. refs. This led to overfishing during the 1950's and 60's. ref. This probably is what caused a lot of smaller fishing communities like Lally Cove Non-RS ref. to dry up. With so many of these little communities, it was thought the best thing to do was to resettle them into more urban areas. In a press release, dated Oct 29, 1957, Premier J.R. Smallwood estimated that as many as 200 settlements in Newfoundland “with no great future” and involving as many as 50,000 people could be resettled (Stacey Collection, CNS). ... Between 1954 and 1965 110 communities were abandoned, with a population of about 7,500. ... A new federal-provincial resettlement programme was introduced in 1965, administered by the Department of Fisheries. ... Between 1965 and 1975 some 148 communities were abandoned, involving the relocation of an additional 20,000 people. ... Overall, some 307 communities were abandoned between 1946 and 1975, and over 28,000 people relocate. ref. (This ref also cites Encyclopedia of Newfoundland and Labrador, which was commissioned by Premier Smallwood.) Following this link from List of communities in Newfoundland and Labrador will take you to the Newfoundland and Labrador Abandoned Communities Index, were a quick look gives some extra information that's not in our articles (e.g., the Batteau article mentions it was depopulated, but doesn't give a date, whereas here it's shown as abandoned 1966.) See also: a nifty Google Map of Abandoned Communities in Newfoundland and Labrador - you'll notice almost all of them appear around coastline.

TL;DR (in short) Overfishing caused smaller communities to all but disappear, and the provincial government decided to help finish that via resettlement.

(Forgive me if the above isn't the clearest - I'm a little under the weather and drugged at the moment.) ^Avic_ennasis @ 11:21, 1 Tamuz 5771 / 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks - that answers things nicely. Get well soon! Grutness...wha? 01:30, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

South California Proposal: Tax Diversion Unique to 4 Riverside County Cities?

Per this news article, the backer of South California proposal claims the purpose is that the vehicle tax is diverted from Eastvale, Jurupa Valley, Menifee, and Wildomar specifically. Is this because this is his district as Supervisor and its happening to other cities within California or its a unique problem for those four based on a decision made by recent budget legislation signed by Jerry Brown?--98.112.224.106 (talk) 06:31, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

is there any culture with a national sleepy-time?

Is there any culture where there is a national "sleepy-time" (I don't mean government mandated, I mean cultural, a de facto fact), so that, for example, every single day between 2 PM and 3 PM everyone in the whole country is taking a nap? (It can be a smaller community than a country if there is no such country). Also obviously it doesn't have to be EVERYONE, every single person - I am asking about a cultural trend, like watching prime time TV in America. Thanks. --188.28.126.11 (talk) 14:37, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Have you read over Siesta#Siesta in other cultures? ^Avic_ennasis @ 14:42, 1 Tamuz 5771 / 3 July 2011 (UTC)

No, sorry, I was trying to follow the redlink sleepy-time. Interesting, thanks! --188.28.220.179 (talk) 15:10, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Since you looked for it, I've blue linked it - you're probably not the only person who thinks like you! Egg Centric 15:25, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Sleepy time should probably be a dab (redir-ed from sleepytime, sleepy-time, Sleepy Time too) which links Bedtime, siesta, Sleepytime Gorilla Museum, Sleepy-Time Tom, Sleepytime Trio, Sleepytime Pig, and maybe to Psalty. Also, for some reason, Sleepy-Time redirects to SpongeBob SquarePants: Battle for Bikini Bottom. 87.113.82.26 (talk) 16:02, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

You're probably right. I'll make a go of it in a couple of minutes once I read the guidelines on making a DAB (or you can do the honours now if you wish!) Egg Centric 16:09, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Quickly scanning guidelines, perhaps not per WP:PTM. Other thoughts? Egg Centric 16:10, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I would say all those links are reasonable entries on the proposed Sleepytime (disambiguation) - WP:PTM is to cover more extreme examples, such as linking The Presidents of the United States of America (band) from USA (disambiguation). NOTE: Be sure to create the DAB page with (disambiguation) in the title, they'll get into a tizz at WP:DAB if you don't. And am I the only one to find the track listing at Psalty#Kids' Praise! 3: Funtastic Family (1982) rather - disturbing? Tevildo (talk) 17:01, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

You are not the only one. Such indoctrination amounts to child abuse that must be counteracted by the liberating gospels of Saints Tinky Winky, Dipsy, Laa-Laa and Po. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 17:41, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Another item for the disamb page is Sleepytime Tea: [12]. StuRat (talk) 18:05, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Cheers. I think I have a bit of formatting and loose ends to tidy up, but supper calls and I am also on the final table of a poker tournament, so I shall take my time, others welcome to get stuck in! Egg Centric 18:17, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Aaaaaaargh. Somebody needs to read WP:PTM and WP:MOSDAB. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:05, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

9/11

Okay, we all know that American Airlines Flight 587 was an accident. However, would Flights 11, 77, 93, and 175 be accidents? Everyone knows that these were hijacked and had targets (although we didn't know the target for 93). 161.130.178.7 (talk) 17:30, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

• Accident is generally reserved for things which were not done deliberately. That is, (based on official findings after lots of research and analysis), it was determined that flight 587 wasn't intended to be crashed into a neighborhood in Queens, no one wanted that result. The 9/11 attacks were intentiononal acts, that is the crashes were the intended outcomes (excepting, if you really wanted to stretch it, the one that crashed in Pennsylvania). --Jayron32 17:34, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

According to ICAO, [13] an "accident" is "An occurrence associated with the operation of an aircraft which takes place between the time any person boards the aircraft with the intention of flight until such time as all such persons have disembarked, in which: a) a person is fatally or seriously injured as a result of being in the aircraft, [...] except when the injuries are from natural causes, self inflicted or inflicted by other persons [...] or b) the aircraft sustains damage or structural failure [...] except for engine failure or damage, when the damage is limited to the engine, its cowlings or accessories." So, the deaths of the passengers weren't accidents, as they were deliberately inflicted, but the damage to the aircraft _were_ accidents, as there's no similar exception in clause b of the regulations. Tevildo (talk) 17:48, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, well, I'm not sure my brain is capable of the twists of logic to allow that deliberate deaths can be caused by accidental crashes, though the official agencies involved must be composed of people who are smarter than I, because apparently they can make such insane convolutions work. For those of us who use English which is unconfined by bureaucracy, I think we can allow that nothing involved in the 9/11 crashes was "accidental" (excepting, as I already noted, the crash in Pennsylvania, and then only on a technicality). --Jayron32 17:55, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Had a similar debate to this on another page recently. It's obvious that ICAO's definition of accident differs considerably from that used by a lot of users of English in normal speech. We have some editors here who argue very strongly that Wikipedia should use ICAO's definition when we're talking about aircraft incidents. I very strongly disagree. C'est la vie. HiLo48 (talk) 21:00, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Unless specific qualifications are made overtly in the text (according to ICAO, the incident was ruled an accident) Wikipedia articles should use common English, that is word defintitions and usage should reflect what people, without any specific technical knowledge, would expect them to mean. Also, per WP:SYN, it is not permissible to apply the ICAO defintion of "accident" to an incident based just on the specifics of the indicident, i.e. if I read about an incident, and if in my opinion the speicifcs match what the ICAO calls an "accident", I can call it that. No, what we need is specific connection that the ICAO has called the specific incident an accident. In summary, one always defaults to common, non-technical English usage when possible, unless the non-standard usage is specifically and overtly cited, and even then only when using the non-standard usage is justified by prior usage, and doesn't require original research to make the connection. Capice? --Jayron32 21:35, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

The problem is there are two common definitions of "accident": something bad that is no one's fault, or any "unforeseen and unplanned event or circumstance," as Merriam-Webster says. Some people use the word "crash" to describe car accidents to avoid confusion. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:21, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but neither of those describes 9/11. It was neither "no one's fault" nor was it "unplanned". The crashes were planned, and fault can be assigned. --Jayron32 23:23, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't really have a strong opinion on this particular issue, but how would you describe KAL 007? The navigational error was a mistake, but the Soviet pilot did intend to shoot down the airliner. An accident? Tevildo (talk) 00:31, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't use that word; the plane was shot down because of a deliberate act; that is some Soviet in charge of deciding to fire a missle at the plane deliberately fired a missle at the plane. He did so based on the commands of his superiors to do so. It was hardly accidental. --Jayron32 01:29, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

My earlier discussions on this were at Talk:Qantas Flight 32, which involved an exploding engine, ultimately found to be caused by faulty manufacturing by Rolls Royce (and they knew it), who have now paid near $100 million compensation to Qantas. Hardly an accident in my book. HiLo48 (talk) 03:35, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Being accidental and someone being responsible aren't necessarily mutually exclusive. Accidents can be caused by negligence; that is Rolls Royce didn't necessarily make the decision to kill people. Avoidable accident is sort of the rudimentary definition of negligence anyways. --Jayron32 03:56, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

It was unplanned and unforeseen by the airline and regular passengers, so it fits the definition above from their perspectives, so it could be classed as an accident to them. Mingmingla (talk) 16:49, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

curiosity and hatred

Is it possible for someone to have a pervasive curiosity about all aspects of the world coupled with a deep-seated hatred of everything within it? --188.28.0.141 (talk) 21:27, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't see why not. You may want to read Misanthropy for the second set of beliefs, but any two sets of beliefs are never really mutually exclusive. If you like learning about stuff, but still dislike it, I don't see that as being any sort of impossibility. If disliking things makes you happy, have fun! --Jayron32 21:37, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Neither of those phrases actually means anything, they are just rhetorical. If you think they have a definite meaning, answer this: if a man has a deep-seated hatred of everything, does he enjoy seeing people suffer? Or does he hate it? Looie496 (talk) 22:43, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

No, they do though. I don't think it's appropriate of you to understand "hatred of" as "enjoy" suffering. I don't think hatred = enjoy suffering. Let's take an example. Normally when a Unix hacker comes over to the Windows world, they hate everything about the way Windows does things, its architecture, etc. And they are not at once curious - they want to stop having to work with it! On the other hand, as they get more and more curious and learn more and more, it seems the hatred withers. . My question is. . . can you be very curious about something, and want to learn more and more about it, while absolutely despising that thing and all aspects of it? And this extended to all aspects of reality? I mean, when I imagine people showing genuine hatred (the Nazis of Jews), I do not see any genuine curiosity on their part into Jewish culture and history. On the other hand, when I see genuine curiosity (by University professors of a subject), I don't see an abiding hatred of all parts of that subject to them. So it seems to me that there could very well be ZERO people in the intersection of "People intensely curious about all aspects of the world" (of whom there are many) and "people with a deep-seated hatred of all aspects of the world" (of whom perhaps there are as many). Any counterexamples? --188.29.120.206 (talk) 22:47, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Counter examples? How about police detectives who hate murderers, but spend their lives tracking and studying them? Or feminist academics who hate the repression of woman, but study it in nevertheless? There is no reason one can't want to learn about things which you find distasteful.

Yes, but I'm asking about EVERYTHING. Not hating and learning about one thing in particular. I do agree with you when it comes to studying one odious subject - my question is a more expansive one however. 188.28.160.38 (talk) 01:41, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Look under "narcissist" - someone who cares only about himself, and will learn as much as he can about the world, in order to further his earthly gains. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:46, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Although only fictional, Captain Nemo from Jules Verne's Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea fitted this description. 92.28.244.187 (talk) 16:41, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

July 4

Rufio ?

Resolved

In Cleopatra (1963 film), one of Mark Antony's commanders was named Rufio. I can't find any mention of him beyond the movie, though. Was he fictional ? (The link above is for some band.) StuRat (talk) 00:37, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Smith's Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology lists four Rufios -- the relevant one is The son of a freedman of Julius Caesar, was left by him in command of three legions at Alex­andria. (Suet. Caes. 76.). Looie496 (talk) 01:00, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks ! StuRat (talk) 06:56, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

can anyone be CFO?

say there's a small startup, 2 people. one's great at marketing, but is a lying scoundrel. so none of the people he has a relationship with believe in a deal with them. but the two people have a legal entity they own, the company itself. so, the question becomes: can they somehow agree for the other one of the two to "be" the CFO and make binding contracts on behalf of the company? Meanwhile, NEITHER of them have any formal account or any other training...they're just two kids. The same question would apply to everything: chief counsel (i.e. lawyer, if none of them are), through everything else. how do "corporate" roles possibly get doled out when it's just two kids owning a registered company? Please note that while I appreciate as detailed answers as possible to my hypothetical quesitons, they are just that: hypothetical. I am not asking for legal advice.--188.28.160.38 (talk) 00:46, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe such a small company has a CFO. I suppose somebody can call themself that, if they wish, but they aren't going to have anywhere near the responsibilities or accounting requirements of a major firm. So, yes, anyone can call themself that, regardless of education. StuRat (talk) 01:07, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Won't matter who they have as CFO, or not. I wouldn't do business with a lying scoundrel, so they probably won't last long anyway. HiLo48 (talk) 03:29, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

That's true. That's why the lying Scoundrel has absolutely no control (this is the idea), being given only job titles that allow them to use their creativity to give the company a direction, while the other party who is more levelheaded makes real commitments. This is, in my opinion, why Steve Jobs does not address shareholders on their conference calls. Doesn't mean that the guy who does should really be CEO of Apple. It just means that Apple is the kind of company whose CEO should not be reading earnings statements -- and I prefer that kind of company to the kind of company whose CEO knows exactly, to the number, how many Vietnamese babies the company is grinding per sausage eaten, how many cents it takes in marketing costs to sell one sausage to an American housewife, fuck, he even knows the number of dollars in profit for the company that ONE pound of fat actually on the consumer's belly created directly by his sausages represents - and can even consider the risks that the consumers who walk around with $200-$300 in lifetime profit for his company represent, should they go on a diet that excludes his sausages. Such are the CEO's who are not "lying scoundrels" but cold, rational calculating machines, and I equate them with Hitler. I would deal only with companies run by lying scoundrels if I could - provided, of course, that they have their company set up so that they are not the ones signing contracts, etc. My question is whether a company of 2 or 3 can be set up in this way. 188.29.88.52 (talk) 04:23, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Hehe, IP I like you Egg Centric 09:08, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

There is a great deal of flexibility in setting things up. In response to a previous statement... there is no such thing as not having a CFO. If there is no officially designated CFO, the CEO is the CFO, and that is true for every function in a corporation. If there is no marketing department, the CEO is the marketing department. In response to your question, you have all kinds of options with some limitations. Every state is different, so you will have to look it up: some states require that the president cannot also be the treasurer, or that the secretary and the treasurer cannot be the same person, etcetera. As a way of dealing with your situation, you may designate certain people as "staff" and certain other people as "officers." The officers such as the president, vp, treasurer, secretary don't really do anything but have meetings and make the decisions. The staff carry out the decisions as formulated by the officers, but are able to decide how to carry out the decisions. Also, you can designate that a person be an assistant to the actual person in authority so that they can act on the corporation's behalf within some limits. There are all kinds of other ways to designate things. If this has help give you some ideas, I would be glad to help you flesh it out. (I'm a corporate CEO myself, and I have served on several boards of directors.) Greg Bard (talk) 16:27, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

"Can anyone recommend any new romance books that are not in any series that have a love_triangle or mysteries?"

"Can anyone recommend any new romance books that are not in any series that have a love_triangle or mysteries?" Neptunekh2 (talk) 01:49, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

"Pismo totemami" of Lenin

I found this odd image on the Wikimedia commons: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Pismo_totemami_of_Vladimir_Lenin.jpg Just what sort of document is this? (For instance, is it school work?) Google translates the phrase "pismo totemami" as "letter totems", but I'm not sure what that means in context. 69.111.79.129 (talk) 02:19, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Totemami is plural and is in instrumental case, which we don't have in English. It denotes the agent of an action. So, a better translation would be "letter written in symbols" (rather than the usual words).

The article uses a similar example: Я написал письмо пером - Ya napisal pis'mo perom - "I wrote the letter with/using a pen", where пером is the instrumental case of перо, pen. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 03:01, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

According to the accompanying text in the journal where it was published, this was a letter "written" on birch bark by 12-year-old Lenin by means of pictograms, inspired by the way North American Indians used them (the pictograms have been mistakenly referred to "totems"). It was made for fun, and addressed to some of Lenin's playmates as a part of some game of theirs, in which they were pretending to be hunters. The exact meaning of the message is apparently not known to anybody. The text suggests that it might be a request by children with the nicknames "Stork", "Crab" etc., where these are asking somebody swimming in a lake to prepare a meal for the hunters or else they'll collapse due to starvation (as depicted in the lower-right corner). The letter is preserved in the Lenin museum (part of the State Historical Museum of Russia).--91.148.159.4 (talk) 14:58, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you both! I posted this, with the information you gave me, on my [personal blog]. 69.111.79.129 (talk) 15:43, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

trying to track down an exact quote (postmodern)

I am trying to track down a quote that is something like:

“ Everything is art: all you need is a frame ”

or

“ What are the limits of art? What separates art from non-art, or what is the minimum needed before you can call something art? Really, there is no definition of art, whatever you define, someone can just point to something less than that and say, no, even that, is art. All you need for it to be art is someone pointing: all you need is a frame ”

(Both quotes, as written, are my own impression! They do not quote anything verbatim)

What I am looking for is the actual, original quote. I am almost 100% sure I have the subject, context, and the "frame" word right. Can someone help me out? 188.29.88.52 (talk) 04:17, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I thought at first it was a quote from this text which accompanies Michael Craig-Martin's An Oak Tree, which for me goes some way to answering the question "what is art?" However, despite the similarity in theme, the text is quite different. A search did lead me to this page of quotations which includes "Y'know, all you need is a frame, and you can call it 'art.'" Astronaut (talk) 06:50, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

You are probably looking for this quote, which is attributed to Frank Zappa:

“ The most important thing in art is the frame. For painting: literally; for other arts: figuratively - because, without this humble appliance, you can't know where The Art stops and The Real World begins. You have to put a "box" around it because otherwise, what is that shit on the wall? ”

I can't say if Zappa actually said it and where.--Rallette (talk) 07:02, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

...then again it may not be what you're looking for, now that I reread your question, but at any rate it is from The Real Frank Zappa Book.--Rallette (talk) 07:19, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Amalia of Oldenburg's religion

By any chance does anyone known what were Amalia of Oldenburg religious views throughout life? I'm guessing she was probably born Lutheran, but did she converted to Roman Catholicism after her marriage to the Roman Catholic King Otto of Greece from the Catholic Bavarian Wittelsbach family? Also what was her opinion on Greek Orthodoxy as the first Queen consort of Greece?--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 09:24, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

This confirms that she was a Protestant. Apparently, the marriage was conducted by a Catholic bishop, but there is no mention anywhere of a conversion. According to this book, the couple agreed that any children would be brought up Orthodox, and Florinsky describes her as becoming "the guiding spirit of the Orthodox party", implying that she had a positive view of Greek Orthodoxy. Warofdreams talk 11:23, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

A question on Andrew Jackson

I've just been watching The Daily Politics on which the comedienne Ruby Wax was a guest. There was a piece on the unveiling of a statue of Ronald Reagan in London towards the end of the show after which there was a discussion on US Presidents. Wax said that Andrew Jackson is the only President not to have had an affair. Is this true? 86.135.227.245 (talk) 11:39, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Keep in mind she's a comedian. For one thing, James Buchanan was unmarried, so there was no first lady to have had an affair "on". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:12, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

In fact, as far as I know, Jackson was one of the few, if not only, presidential candidate to have been demonstrably in a bigamous relationship. Read his article for more of the juicy details. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:15, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

No, it's not true. Although we know about a few presidential affairs, or alleged affairs, most presidents didn't have one as far as we know. Presumably, she threw out Jackson's name off the cuff, without knowing the details of his personal life. As Bugs suggests, history geeks would have found it funnier had she said Buchanan, who is thought by some to have been gay. —Kevin Myers 16:26, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Fascist intellectuals

Please name some fascist and Nazi intellectuals and academics other than Giovanni Gentile, Filippo Tommaso Marinetti, Ardengo Soffici, Giuseppe Ungaretti, and those listed in Manifesto of the Fascist Intellectuals. By fascist and Nazi intellectuals and academics I mean intellectuals and academics who have made theoretical contributions to fascist and Nazi ideas, and have written on subjects such as sociology, philosophy, history, political science, ethics, etc. from fascist/Nazi perspective. Fascist/Nazi politicians or state leaders who do not fit the definition of intellectual and academic should be excluded. Thank you. --111Engo (talk) 11:40, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Also please provide the names of some fascist/Nazi economists. --111Engo (talk) 11:55, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

That looks like a homework question.

No it is not homework. I am interested in this topic and I spend considerable time in google. But the google search did not help much, this is why I am asking here. --111Engo (talk) 12:12, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I find it interesting that you will have a hard time finding another question on this or the other reference desks that is phrased as an order ("Please name", follow-up "Please provide"). Don't take my work for it -- you can check. I will not comment on whether this has any correlation with the subject of your question. 188.29.150.129 (talk) 13:39, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

"Fascist intellectuals"? Have you looked under "Oxymoron"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:44, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

It may sound like oxymoron, for obvious reason, but still even despots and tyrants need to justify their action using scholarly jargon which is done by some knowledgeable people called intellectuals. And fascist Italy and Nazi Germany definitely had economists appointed by the state. I need to know their names. Please, if anyone knows, name some fascist and Nazi economists. --111Engo (talk) 14:28, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

It's not oxymoronic at all. It just reflects a lack of realization that indeed, very smart people can defend really bad ideas. It would be wonderful if all people who did bad things did so for sheer greed, stupidity, or avarice. But that's just not the case — ergo the classic saying about the road to hell being paved with good intentions. In the case of the Fascists, it is not so much the case that the regimes commissioned intellectuals to justify their existences. The intellectuals often predated the regimes (esp. in the case of Italian fascism), and after the regimes were put into place, intellectuals often (independently) figured out that if they supported the state (and denounced their colleagues) they could get quite ahead. And there were of course many true believers for all of these ideologies, especially in places where democracy wasn't working out so well (interwar Germany) and the only other option anyone was putting on the table was Communism. The essential claims of intellectual Fascism seem almost tailored made for philosophers — they are about the ability of a limited elite to grasp pure truth, to lead with pure knowledge, and to overcome, with force of will and a fundamental earthiness, the trappings and distractions of "modern life". Fascism seeks a purity and simplicity, at its core, and if you're willing to overlook the cost of that, it can be very appealing. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:38, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Even when the intellectuals predated the specific regimes, the views they expressed already served certain powerful groups in society, so they were, in a sense, commissioned. The description of fascism you gave is at best grossly insufficient, fascism doesn't just boil down to anti-democratism and radicalness ("purity and simplicity"), and it is by no means particularly suitable for philosophers, even apart from "the cost". While intellectuals and philosophers can be opposed to democracy and to the "common sense" of the average, the fundamental "earthiness" and irrationalistic mysticism of fascism would be repulsive to many or most intellectual elitists - ultimately, academia has always been about reaching pure truth and knowledge through some kind of intellectual reasoning, whereas fascism is primitivistic and simplistic, appealing to "the guts" and to raw power. Its radical nationalism and collective egoism is difficult to reconcile with the universalism of most philosophy, and its open embrace of total indoctrination and totalitarianism is antithetical to the conditions under which philosophy and philosophers thrive.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 18:22, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

"Gottfried Feder, formerly Undersecretary of economy and official interpreter of the party programme, was considered the representative National Socialist economist during the rise of the party and its first year in power.", source --Soman (talk) 14:43, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Alfred Rosenberg was, I believe, the major ideologue and theorist of the Nazi party.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 15:20, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Milosevic, the former leader of Serbia, might qualify, having been an economic adviser and bank president previously. StuRat (talk) 14:46, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

While Milosevic's actions have indeed been compared to Nazi-style genocide by many, he can't be said to have espoused anything like a fascist or Nazi doctrine officially. He didn't really have anything particularly noticeable in terms of ideology; as far as his words are considered, at most you could say that he was an old-fashioned Serbian nationalist, actually not even a very radical one.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 15:20, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Alfred Ploetz, his student Fritz Lenz, Eugen Fischer and the director of 'Kaiser Wilhelm Institute of Anthropology, Human Heredity, and Eugenics', Otmar Freiherr von Verschuer, could be considered intellectuals and academics who contributed heavily to the Nazi idea of racial hygiene; ultimately leading to the deaths of millions, including 6 million Jews in The Holocaust. Astronaut (talk) 15:38, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Have you read our quite good article on fascism, and the much worse one on fascism and ideology? Both name various intellectuals who meet your definition as they made theoretical contributions to fascism, although in some cases this came about despite their opposition to some or all elements of the ideology. Warofdreams talk 15:41, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

There has been considerable debate over whether Martin Heidegger should be considered a Fascist intellectual for parts of his career. (See Heidegger and Nazism.) He was certainly pro-Nazi for some of it, and much of his philosophy is tinged with things which appear pretty compatible with Fascism in particular. Jeffery Herf's Reactionary Modernism (Cambridge UP, 1984) discusses this in some detail, though I can't say I think it's actually a very compelling book. For a great overview of intellectual conditions during the Nazi reign, Mark Walker's Nazi Science is actually quite good at painting a well-rounded picture. But that is a separate thing from fascist intellectuals in particular. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:38, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Regarding bio-medical science, a wonderful book is Robert Jay Lifton's The Nazi Doctors, which not only covers the academic theories that doctors used to justify their atrocious experiments and "euthanization" of "lesser beings", but also covers how they presented it all to the public. Anyhow, it covers quite a few intellectuals who defended the mass killing and Nazi human experimentation programs. ~ Mesoderm (talk) 16:42, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

The medical profession in Germany under the Nazis is pretty fascinating even if you don't look at the ones who committed atrocities. It was one of the first professions to undergo "Nazification" (quite voluntarily). Robert Proctor's book Racial Hygiene: Medicine Under the Nazis is a pretty fascinating account of this. (It is, of course, reflective of a fundamental error of assumption on our part that we find such things surprising — the idea that radical ideologies cannot be appealing to the highly educated.)--Mr.98 (talk) 16:48, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

The "radicalness" part could hardly be surprising to anybody - in fact, the highly educated have always been very much inclined to take positions deemed "radical" and far from the "golden mean". "Radical" doesn't necessarily equal "bad" or "wrong", even under the assumption that both Nazism and Communism are pure evil. I suppose the surprising thing is that a profession that is supposedly empiricist and definitely self-confident to the point of arrogance towards the general public would accept to be imposed any kind of ideology from the outside, that an otherwise internally cohesive profession would accept to be purged of ideological dissidents, that a supposedly humane profession would voluntarily accept an anti-humanist ideology, or that a supposedly intelligent profession would accept an obviously ridiculous ideology.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 17:48, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Interestingly, regarding being an "anti-humanist ideology", many of the doctors that Lifton discusses in fact believed that theirs was a humanistic ideology. For example, they thought that their euthanization of mentally disabled individuals was best for both the people they were killing and for society. Much of the Nazi leadership, of course, was not motivated by humanistic concerns, but many of the people who actually implemented their program were. A modern day example of this type of "humanitarian atrocity" is the war in Iraq, where the U.S. has killed approximately one million civilians, by the most reliable estimates (and hundreds of thousands by almost any measure). Much of the leadership that ordered the invasion was doing it simply for oil money, etc. and simply lied and exploited the public's humanitarian concerns to further their own interests. However, most U.S. soldiers are not motivated by greed as these people are, and are actually over there risking their lives because they believe that they are fighting for "democracy" and "freedom", etc. In both cases - the Nazi case and the Iraq case - horrific actions were committed by people who told themselves that their actions were part of a great humanitarian program. My point is that one can't assume that just because something is horrible in hindsight, that people who committed the atrocity were not motivated by humanistic concerns. ~ Mesoderm (talk) 18:04, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Just because the doctors said that they were motivated by humanistic concerns, that doesn't mean that they really believed in that themselves. Nazism was against humanism as commonly understood, since it didn't believe that the life of an individual human as such has value as such - outside of its belonging to a race and its usefulness for the race, that is (this naturally lead not only to the Holocaust, but also to stuff like Action T4). Nor did humankind as a whole have value (as opposed to specific races).--91.148.159.4 (talk) 18:43, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

actually, there is only one Fascist intellectual, ever, and that's Ezra Pound, and he later recanted. 188.29.47.35 (talk) 17:29, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I really don't know how you can overlook Heidegger, unless you consider Nazism not to be fascist (not a totally unreasonable position if you use fascist in the original Italian sense). --Trovatore (talk) 18:06, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Another name I don't see above is Oswald Teichmüller (like Heidegger, a Nazi rather than an italo-fascist). --Trovatore (talk) 18:08, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

On the Italian side, for a while at least, Luigi Pirandello, though he eventually fell out with the Fascist Party, and apparently it's not clear how sincere a Fascist he ever was. --Trovatore (talk) 18:13, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

There's a vast literature about the intellectual pre-history that produced Fascist ideology or ideologies (see, e.g. Ernst Nolte's Three Faces of Fascism or its German original, and The European Right: A Historical Profile, ed. Hans Rogger and Eugen Weber [U. California, 1965]), but fascism only lasted as a significant force for about twenty-five years (1918-1945), and once underway was (especially an an anti-intellectual movement) far too preoccupied with achieving its immediate and intermediate goals to allow itself to be trammeled by ideology. In their own way, Hitler and Mussolini were just as much pragmatists with a purpose as Franklin D. Roosevelt. So the intellectuals who contributed most to Fascist thought did so before there was a fascist party to join or champion, and when they could identify themselves explicitly with fascism weren't able to contribute much to shaping the further development of fascist thought. ¶ Though I've only read about them at second or third hand, there are many French intellectuals, such as Charles Maurras and Maurice Barrès, and many Spanish intellectuals who did contribute to the fascist ideologies in their countries, although Vichy France and Franco's Spain was much more conservative-authoritarian régimes using extreme measures than truly Fascist. On the other side, the weak fascist movements in Great Britain, Ireland and the U.S. elicited little support from intellectuals, the most notable exception being W. B. Yeats (Ezra Pound identifying more with Italian fascism than American movements). A German political scientist whose critique of democracy is cited frequently in Franz L. Neumann's Behemoth: The Structure and Practice of National Socialism is Carl Schmitt. ¶ By the way, I posted a very long answer to your question about Haendler vs Helden (a nation of shopkeepers) here. Ironic that we're talking about this on The Fourth of July: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these rights are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." — sentiments with which few fascist intellectuals would agree, although I think Ezra Pound tried, in a 1936 pamphlet called "Jefferson and/or Mussolini". But anti-Semitic though Pound had been, he got on well with a worshipful Allen Ginsberg who came to visit him in Italy near the end of Pound's life. —— Shakescene (talk) 19:54, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Accountacy of real estate plummeting

If a company buys a building for x and write x on the books, and after some years (pretty realistic) the value falls, how does it have to book it? Only when it sells the building? Right now? (but that would imply always correcting the value) Once in a year? (when it makes a balance of the situation)

Depends on so many things, not least which country this is in. If the company wants to borrow money, the lender may ask for the assets to be valued. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:37, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Our article on depreciation (and the links therein) may help shed some light on this. Matt Deres (talk) 17:53, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

And you might also want to read Write-off#Writedown. There are Generally Accepted Accounting Principles that are pretty universally accepted in the Western world, but the specifics vary according to jurisdiction. I'll give a rough outline here (based on the specifics in Sweden, but I don't think it's very different from the UK or the US).

Basically, there are two ways that the value can fall: one is because the building is getting older and the other is when something unexpected happens, like a fire or that the property market collapses.

Depreciation is a way to gradually decrease the value of the building as it gets older. The reduction shows up in the income statement as a cost every year until the value in the books (the balance sheet) is zero. Writedown is done when there is a substantial reduction in the building's value, so that it's worth less than the value in the books. The company then reduces the value of the building in the balance sheet and the result is an increased cost that year. So, as Itsmejudith said, it depends.Sjö (talk) 19:27, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Average amount of tax paid by UK taxpayers per year

How much is it please? 92.28.244.187 (talk) 16:37, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

That depends on what you mean. There are many different kinds of taxes, income taxes, VAT, etc. Adding them all together to see the total amount of taxes paid by a typical UK taxpayer can be tricky. Our article "List of countries by tax revenue as percentage of GDP" claims that the total tax revenue is between 34.3% and 39% of the UK's GDP. Gabbe (talk) 17:03, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Far too much, due to the majority of the population being spongers. Scotland is even worse with only about 100 000 being net tax contributors. Sincerely, A very angry if he thinks about this Egg Centric 17:16, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

To be more specific, 1) of those people who pay income tax in the UK, what is the a) mean average or b) median amount paid of income tax per person per year? 2) For all UK adults, including non-income tax payers, what is the a) mean average and b) median amount paid of income tax per person per year? 92.28.244.187 (talk) 17:57, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Bear in mind, of course, that most of the highest earners pay almost no income tax, they pay in different forms. Egg Centric 18:03, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

92.28.244.187: I think this page has the data you're asking for. Gabbe (talk) 18:19, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

The highest earners nearly always do pay some income tax, perhaps not as much as you think they ought to. Unlike low and middle earners they may also pay some capital gains tax. And everyone pays VAT. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:03, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

According to the information linked to by Gabbe, for the latest available year the mean tax paid was £5,010 per year, and the median £2,430 per year. If correct then the figures indicate that it requires all the income tax from 6,786 people every year to support the Royal Family; or 13,992 individuals if you use the median figure. The Royal Family are given an income which is 1,838 times greater than the family of someone with a median income. 92.28.244.187 (talk) 20:09, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't get your maths. The civil list is currently at 7.9M£. Dividing that by £5,010 gives me 1576, dividing by 2430 gives 3251. How do you get to 13992? And I really doubt that the mean family income is ~4300£ per year. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:50, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

See http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13984364 Another interesting comparison would be comparing the Queen's income with that of an average UK pensioner of the same age. I would guess its probably around 4,000 or more times higher. 92.28.244.187 (talk) 21:17, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Stop, thief !

Good evening. Firstly, please excuse my English, it is not my native language (it's French, but since this is the English Wikipedia and to prevent miscommunication, I ask all respondants to please respond in English). And now onto my question: My own beloved Paris is known for the Eiffel Tower, fine dining, high culture, and... pickpockets. When one realizes that one's pocket has been picked, or an unsuccessful attempt to pick said one's pocket has been made, and in both cases one has identified to reasonable surety the offending party, what is the correct response? Suppose that this is in an hypothetical crowded area and the pickpocket can not easily escape. Is it to shout « Pickpocket ! » or « Il a volé mon portefeuille ! » loudly I ask because I was recently on the Métro and I felt a hand reach in my coat pocket, but while I was lucky enough to prevent my pocket being picked, I was not so lucky as to see the hopeful miscreant. Profuse thanks. PS: Please do not allow any consideration of courtesy to restrain you from correcting my language errors. In France we actually consider it more polite to correct an error once and forever, than to let it pass and be repeated again. --Camille — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.166.114.74 (talk) 21:19, 4 July 2011 (UTC)