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

August 18

Jung Sceptic?

Is it a fact that Carl Gustav Jung witnessed an irrefutable sight of haunting while staying at a friend's country house in England ?  Jon Ascton  (talk)

It is a fact that Jung believed it was irrefutable, it is not a fact that the event was in fact an irrefutable haunting. Recall (very roughly, so don't hold me to it) a story I heard about Jung and Freud discussing the supernatural. Freud asked for proof of the supernatural and at that very moment a loud and unexplainable knock was heard in the room. Jung felt this was proof enough, Freud was unconvinced. --Daniel 02:10, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, it is irrefutable in the sense that there is nothing one could do to refute it. Whether it is convincing is another question. Looie496 (talk) 02:17, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Here is a link to a book that mentions Jung's experience [1]. I don't think it mentions if he thought it was irrefutable or not, but he certainly believed he was in contact with the supernatural. --Daniel 02:19, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, may be Jung was still dreaming but was unaware of the fact that he was dreaming. This seems to be the most appropriate explanation.

Austria-Hungary ethnic groups

Resolved

The map shown above is very interesting, and although I have seen it before, I have always had a question to which I was never able to get a proper answer (I remember asking to my history teacher in high school, he didn't know), nor do I know how to find the answer.

Here it is: how did the distribution of the German speaking people happen across the Hungarian and Romanian lands? and when did it happen? I mean the areas around Budapest, Timisoara, Sibiu, Brasov etc. which were settled by Germanic speaking people. I can think of 2 ways it could have happened:

1. The Germanic people settled these areas around the time of the Roman empire, and managed to remain there, even as the Romans were settling and converting the locals in Romania into a latin speaking people, and later in the ninth century they managaed to remain in Hungary as the Hungarians invaded from the East and took most of the Land from them, but not all of it?

But then things are more complicated if you look at the Szekler land, which was Hungarian speaking. It can't have been like the German speaking people who may have been there during Roman times, as the Hungarians didn't arrive until the 9th century. So did they settle in 2 different areas in the 9th century when they arrived to Central Europe, they settled in Hungary and in Szekler land?

Or is it, instead:

2. The Austro-Hungarian Empire allowed or even promoted, in the centuries during which it controlled these areas, its 2 main ethnic groups to settle in areas away from the home lands, like colonies, and therefore allowed them to take lands from the locals? Or were those land areas poorly setlled and therefore there was room and farmable land for newly arrived settlers without changing the local ownership of most of the already farmed land? But then why would it allow the Germans to settle in Hungarian lands, and not promote the Hungarians to settle their own land instead, did they believe in mixing up cultures as a mean of bring them closer together?

Could there be a 3rd explanation, which is that most of the people in these aeras simply decided to switch culture and language, in order to be able to communicate and trade with the majority populations of their empire?

Thanks--Lgriot (talk) 09:47, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

It's the second - the Habsburgs encouraged German settlement, or colonization of a sort, of non-German areas of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Often this was just for commercial reasons, not to displace the Hungarians or Slavs or whomover. See Germans in Hungary for example, and Germans in Russia too for settlement even further east. Adam Bishop (talk) 09:53, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Ah, there seems to be a lot of different articles about this phenomenon - also History of German settlement in Eastern Europe and Ostsiedlung. Adam Bishop (talk) 10:29, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, this article History_of_German_settlement_in_Eastern_Europe explains the German settlements very well, so it is mostly medieval and renaissance settlements, mostly peaceful following the damage of the wars with the Ottman empire or the plagues, except for the baltic settlements which were mostly due to the northern crusades. Also for the Szekler_Land, I figured from the article that it was settled by Hungarians even before Hungary itself, so that is quite different, it was much earlier than the Germanic settlements in that same area. Thanks for your help. --Lgriot (talk) 15:07, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

The Crimean Goths are an example of the first type, tribal Germanic settlers on the Black Sea coast from late Roman times. μηδείς (talk) 15:48, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

It should also be noted of the first type, many Germanic peoples became "Latinized" when they settled into various parts of Europe; i.e. the Franks became the French when they settled in Gaul, the Lombards became Italian when the settled in Italy, the Anglo-Saxons became the English when the adopted lots of Norman French into their language. --Jayron32 03:08, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

We were English a long time before the Normans turned up; Bede's History of the English Church and People was finished in 731. Harold II was the King of England, not Anglo-Saxony. Alansplodge (talk) 21:28, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Catholic Church and Reading the Bible

Is it true that the Catholic Church didn't want people to read the bible themselves before the invention of the printing press? If so, when was this officially reversed? --CGPGrey (talk) 12:43, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

No, it's not true. It is commonly said that the church didn't want people to read the Bible in any language other than Latin, which is also not exactly true; the Latin Vulgate was (and actually still is) the only one officially used by the church, but there were vernacular Bibles (or at least partial translations), which were often officially sanctioned. The church did not want people to read unsanctioned translations, especially since they were often made by heretical groups (particularly the Waldensians and Cathars) who did not have the proper training to make an accurate translation, or skewed the translations to fit their own heretical beliefs. See Bible translations in the Middle Ages for more about that. They certainly didn't want to prevent people from reading the Bible at all, but most people wouldn't have been literate enough to read it in any language anyway. (This is, by the way, one reason that medieval churches are so visually-oriented, with statues and other carved images, and stained glass - people could see the Bible stories, along with hearing them told, even if they couldn't read the Bible themselves.) Anyone who was literate enough to read their own vernacular language, if there was even a vernacular literature to read, would have also known Latin, so having a Latin Bible wasn't a big problem. With the advent of the printing press it just became more difficult to stop people from translating and publishing themselves. Adam Bishop (talk) 13:00, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

But look at the case of Joan Waste a blind weaver from Derby; "She was sentenced for buying a New Testament which she asked friends to read to her for a penny a time." and was hanged and burned. Thomas Moore had six people burned to death for possession of Bibles translated into English. If other translations were available, why would people put themselves at such risk? Alansplodge (talk) 13:22, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps those were heretical translations? --CGPGrey (talk) 13:33, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. The point of reading a particular translation was not to read "the Bible", but the read the one true translation. Unfortunately, people disagreed (and still disagree - see King James Only movement and "If English was good enough for Jesus Christ, it's good enough for me") about the validity of different translations. Moreover, during the reformation/counter-reformation time, particular translations were not only aligned with different religious groups, but these religious groups were strongly aligned with different political factions. Thus, reading an unauthorized version could be interpreted not only as heresy, but also as treason. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:44, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

As for Joan Waste and Thomas More, well, sixteenth-century England was a dangerous time to be either Catholic or Protestant, depending on who was in power at the time, and that was certainly after the introduction of the printing press, which made it possible for someone like Joan Waste to obtain a Bible in the first place. I'm not familiar with the people Thomas More had executed, but if they had copies of the Tyndale Bible, then that was an unauthorized translation. Adam Bishop (talk) 14:00, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

The Catholic church was interested in protecting their interpretation of the Bible and their doctrines (all translation involves interpretation). Bible translations in the Middle Ages indicates that what the Roman Catholic church objected to wasn't the translation, it was people reading, studying, or preaching from the Bible - any Bible - outside the power structures of the church. Rome controlled the interpretation of the Bible, and anyone who interpreted it in different ways would be punished, even executed, or excommunicated (see e.g. Jan Hus, Martin Luther). This was not about correct or incorrect translation as a linguistic exercise, it was about maintaining power over a large realm. In practice, restrictions on the Bible varied from place to place and time to time, and where there were a lot of nonconformists, translation and publication was restricted.

As an aside, William Tyndale and John Wycliffe both included denunciations of the church in their Bibles, which was probably part of the reason why they were treated so harshly. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:39, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

The problem is not just with the Church worrying that some heretic might have put heresy into his Bible translation. Liturgical churches, such as Roman Catholics, Episcopals and Lutherans continue the age-old Roman Catholic practice of having Bible readings as part of every service, often an Old Testament lesson, an Epistle, and a Gospel. These fit into the church calendar by what theme or church doctrine they illustrate. This small subset of the Bible is called the "Lectionary." The Roman Catholic church has a similar lectionary. The Lectionary principle has been in place since the fourth century. Many denominations use this same 3 year cycle of excerpts which get read. These frequently read passages are not the whole Bible; I expect they are a very small fraction, maybe 10% or less. The other unread 90% might lead laypersons to come up with their own notions of salvation, for instance, or resistance to authority, or that every man is a priest, based on unofficial interpretations that occur to the reader. Keeping the Bible in a language the common people are unlikely to learn to read was a method of reserving to the Priest the ability to read selected scripture to the people. The "correct" interpretation of the tiny subset of Bible verses would be given to churchgoers by the Priest. Edison (talk) 18:55, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

A Catholic website says the weekly Lectionary readings today cover 3.7% of the Old Testament and Psalms, and 40.8% of the New Testament. I've long wondered what "good stuff" they left out. Another Catholic website says that before Vatican II, the lectionary was much smaller, omitting 37 books of the 46 OT books in the Catholic canon completely. The RC church back then only had an Epistle and a Gospel reading, and avoided the OT completely most of the year except for special holy days. The RC church pre-Vatican II omitted completely 9 books of the New Testament. The weekly churchgoer would only hear 16.5% of the New Testament (compared with 40.8% of the NT today). Edison (talk) 19:00, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

So is there some website which has the "non-Lectionary" portion of the Bible extracted for convenient reading, or which has the entire Bible with the complete Lectionary highlighted (so one could selectively read the verses the church doesn't like?). Edison (talk) 19:20, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Googling 'lectionary omissions turned up several refs noting that the lectionary omissions remove many passages telling of women's stories. These are snipped out of extended passages, so that churchgoers never hear of "the Hebrew prophet" Huldah (2 Kings 22:14-20), a temple prophet who "validated" a scroll found in the temple remodeling, thereby validating a core portion of scripture. Romans 16:1 is omitted, which tells of Phoebe, Paul's co-worker. Deborah, OT "judge and military leader," is hidden from churchgoers. Sunday reading omit Esther, who saved her people. The "brave midwives" Shiphrah and Puah who refused to conduct genocide, in Exodus are omitted from the lectionary. One hears little of Ruth. All sounds like part of "keeping women in their place." Edison (talk) 02:54, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Well sure, if you look at only the Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation, which are the absolute minimum requirements for a Catholic to attend, you find that a Catholic doing no outside reading and only the minimum required would only hear the most important 40% of the New Testament, and only the most important 3.7% of the Old Testament. If they attend daily Mass, they'll hear the rest: there is a separate 2-year cycle for daily Mass readings, designed to cover as much of the Bible as possible. The weekly and Holy Day readings are designed to get everyone familiar with the big stuff. Separately, there's the Liturgy of the Hours which the laity are supposed to be encouraged to follow (much easier these days, with Internet) which has the Office of Readings every day.

As to the rest, just clarifying that when you say, "The RC church pre-Vatican II omitted completely 9 books of the New Testament.", you are of course talking about the weekly Mass readings, not the actual content of Bibles. There's enough weird rumour about what is in Catholic Bibles that I feel I have to quash any potential rumour in the making! The Book of Ruth (a small but lovely book) isn't read during the weekly cycle, but line "The Lord be with you!" from Ruth 2:4 is said several times in every Mass. Not something that the typical Catholic will necessarily know where it comes from, but then the Church takes the position that not everyone is called to study this stuff in detail: many people find other devotions or practices better use of their time. The weekly readings may omit many women, but there aren't that many women in the Bible in the first place, and those who are aren't usually given important roles. If you're choosing a selection of readings to introduce someone to the whole Bible and what can be found there, you're simply not going to include a lot of women. Sad but true. And if you have decided to prioritise the Gospels and passages which relate to the Gospels, it will only exacerbate this.

And the percent of the Old Testament read would probably look bigger if compared to the smaller Protestant version of the Old Testament, which omits entire books and chapters of books even from the Bibles you can buy to read at home ;) 86.163.214.39 (talk) 09:24, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh, also also, the 3.7% of the Old Testament read over the Sundays and Holy Days (13.5% if you include daily Mass) actually excludes the Psalms, if you look at your source, because the Psalms are treated differently to the rest of the Old Testament and used so heavily. You might also find this site interesting, if you can get it to work properly. The only book of the Bible not represented in any Mass is the book of Obadiah. But all of this is really by the by: the Catholic Church does encourage the reading of the Bible, although (like most Christian groups) it considers translations made by other groups to support their view as less useful and reliable than their own approved translation. But, unlike the more evangelical wings of Christianity, it does not consider reading the Bible as the most important way to learn about God and be a Christian, and doesn't consider every bit of the Bible to be equally important. And it has ways for people to become familiar with the important bits without reading it by themselves. 86.163.214.39 (talk) 09:54, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

It does not excuse the omission for the Sunday readings to say "Oh yes, there is more text in the daily readings." In the Catholic and common protestant lectionaries, these women of the Bible are consistently omitted from the Sunday reading, or verses mentioning what they did are "optional" and skipped over. And I reiterate my earlier statement about the Catholic church historically opposing Bible translations into the vernacular (burnings at the stake) because they wanted the people to learn the official views and a few Bible verses behind them, rather than reading for themselves the "treasure of the Bible" as they gave lip service to post Vatican 2. Many firebreathing evangelical churches are worse, with a few short "proof texts" drilled into peoples' heads to support their doctrinal views. "The Bible means what I want it to mean, and the 10 % of it you hear in church proves I am right about my doctrines." They will sometimes quote one verse which says adultery or homosexuality is a horrible sin, and ignore the next one which says it is a horrible sin to wear clothing made of different materials. They will quote a verse which says a woman should be quiet in church, or should obey her husband, and ignore verses telling of women prophets or national leaders. I don't recall hearing from the lectionary readings (maybe I was dozing) sections telling of the Israelites killing captive boys when they conquer a town, but dividing up the virgin girls between the victors, with the priests getting their share. I don't recall hearing from the lectionary a reading of Leviticus 27:28-29, which requires the Israelites to carry out human sacrifice if they have said they are going to do it. Human sacrifice (of enemies or slaves) were not unknown. Kill'em, burn 'em on a pile of stones. How about Judges 11:29-40 where Jephthah celebrates a victory over the Ammonites and then carries out a rash pledge and sacrifices his virgin daughter Mizpah. The "almost sacrifice" of his son by Abraham would be more compelling if we heard of the other children who were not so fortunate. Edison (talk) 13:38, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

That is just one person's interpretation of what is important. And if you start having anybody's version you might as well start reading the Conservapedia version of the bible where they try to play down liberal ideas as in the Good Samaritan or like some Korean church start reading the bits to try and make yourself wealthy. Dmcq (talk) 14:55, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Also bear in mind that (at least for the Gospel readings) there are four versions of each event in the life of Christ. Therefore you only need to read out 25% to avoid repeating yourself. The exception is the Christmas narrative which only appears twice. Also, tho Old Testament (in the Anglican Lectionary at any rate) is only quoted where it supports or sheds light on the New Testament writings. There wouldn't be much point in reading out the bit in Dueteronomy that says you're not allowed to eat owls, because it doesn't have much bearing on the Christian message. I suppose the exact nature of that message is at the nub of the issue. Alansplodge (talk) 21:15, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

So, Edison, do you have any criticisms of the Catholic Church? μηδείς (talk) 00:24, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Lol, Medeis, I actually laughed out loud. Alan, if that were true about the Gospels, we'd all use the Diatessaron rather than keeping 4 of them. The three-year cycle of the Sunday lectionary means that one year reads through Matthew continuously, one year reads through Mark continuously, and one year reads through Luke continuously. John is used on various feastdays, but I've never really checked to see how thoroughly it's covered: maybe I should. Anyway, the point is that the lectionary considers the Gospels the most important bit, so (as you say) the Old Testament readings are chosen to fit them. While it wouldn't be possible to cover the entire Biblical canon in Sunday readings that were short enough to avoid putting off the very people unlikely to read the Bible outside them, without using such a long cycle that people wouldn't become familiar with the important bits, it is possible to cover the Gospels completely. 86.163.214.39 (talk) 10:46, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Name of a tort

What is the name of the tort when you sue somebody for abusing their authority? For example, someone in a position of power is arbitrary and capricious in their decisions, so you sue that person for damages. I first thought it would be Abuse of Process, but that turned out not to be it. Is there even a name for it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rabuve (talk • contribs) 14:44, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Misfeasance in public office for England and Wales. Not sure what jurisdiction you want, but that'll get you started. The criminal equivalent would be Malfeasance in office. --Jayron32 16:20, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

In the United States, "deprivation of rights under color of law" federal civil rights claims (Section 242, Title 18) - see here. More generally, the common law torts of malicious prosecution and abuse of process might be of interest to you. Neutrality^talk 16:33, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

It is a rare cause of action but you can sue under the doctrine of Ultra Vires. The threadbare article implies it is only related to corporations but that is not the case.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:43, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

By the way. Typically the nature of a suit, when some person in authority is abusing their power, is to sue the corporation/government branch/municipal agency etc. itself since whoever the person is, they are acting in their capacity for the entity. Note also the doctrine of Respondeat superior. --Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:52, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Arbitrary and capricious, in U.S law, is the standard of review in challenges to administrative/agency rulings, in both federal and most if not all states. You don't hold the agency or official liable for damages in this case; you instead try to get the decision reversed or the enacted rule struck down, and it's usually in the context of a process tailored to agency review (Article 78 proceedings in New York, for example). As Neutrality noted above, you're really not going to get the government liable for damages just because they acted arbitrarily and capriciously, or abused their discretion (the std for many decisions of judges), etc., unless your constitutional rights were violated, and then you still have qualified immunity to overcome. Just because a government official did something contrary to the law doesn't mean it will be treated as more than just a mistake to be undone. postdlf (talk) 23:48, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply and hope you are still checking here. The answer is that it may depend on how, specifically, the public official abused his or her authority. If it was arresting someone for no reason, it might be false arrest or false imprisonment; if it was entering someone's property without permission, it might be trespass; if it was attacking someone physically without good cause, it might be assault or battery, and so forth. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:43, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Japanese Soldiers waiting for a victory that never came

Who was the last known soldier of the Japanese Imperial Army to surrender to the Allies (soldiers or civilians) and when did he do it? I know someone surrendered 29 years after the close of the War. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 14:56, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Hiroo Onoda and Teruo Nakamura in 1974. See Japanese holdout. Acroterion (talk) 15:02, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Ah, so 29 years was the latest. :P I was looking for the right article as well. Thanks! Poor fellow wasted their lives. =( Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 15:05, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Could have been worse. At least they kept their lives. Many did not. Googlemeister (talk) 18:33, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

That's a subjective view. To the Japanese, to lose one's life while fighting for the country was a far more glorious end than to be taken prisoner. HiLo48 (talk) 20:41, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Indeed; Onoda "killed some thirty Filipino inhabitants of the island" before he saw the error of his ways. Alansplodge (talk) 19:10, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I wonder whether they got 29 years worth of accumulated back pay. PhGustaf (talk) 20:48, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Our article on Nakamura says that he received USD 227.59 because as an enlisted private, he wasn't entitled to a pension (presumably his salary ceased at the official end of hostilities). Alansplodge (talk) 21:01, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Anyone ever collapsed or died on the trading floor of the NYSE?

Traders seem like the kind of folk who would have big consequences for even stepping off to go to the bathroom if nature struck during a very volatile moment and they needed to unload some stock or get in on something while the getting's good. I'm actually basing this opinion on real footage I've seen from the news and not Hollywood depictions. So given the strong forces telling them to keep going no matter what, has it ever happened? Have paramedics ever had to come to the trading floor? Would they even stop or slow down, or would they just keep screaming their orders over the men trying to revive the ill one? 20.137.18.50 (talk) 15:16, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes; see this Baltimore Sun article from 1997. Looie496 (talk) 15:46, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

No sources, but you do read about this occasionally in the NY papers. μηδείς (talk) 21:47, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Mecca and gambling

Why is the use of the name “Mecca” for gambling very offensive? --84.61.188.59 (talk) 15:36, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

It would be offensive to Muslims because Mecca is the holiest city of Islam, and gambling is forbidden and considered sinful by Muslims. Imagine naming a whorehouse "The House of the Virgin Mary" in a place with devout Catholics. Marco polo (talk) 15:41, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

How many gambling casinos use the name “Mecca”? --84.61.188.59 (talk) 15:44, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Mecca_bingo#Mecca, for instance. --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:49, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Is “Mecca” one of the most offensive names ever be used for gambling? --84.61.188.59 (talk) 15:46, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I think the issue is not so much with using Mecca as the name of a casino (never heard of that), as in referring to a place like Las Vegas figuratively as "a Mecca for gamblers" -- meaning that gamblers make pilgrimages to it just as Muslims make pilgrimages to Mecca. Looie496 (talk) 15:51, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Exactly... The English language has adopted the word "mecca" as a metaphorical adjective for any destination that people associate with a particular activity and travel great distances to visit in order to perform that activity (a "place of pilgrimage" - in a non-religious sense). Atlantic City is routinely described as a "gambling mecca"... St. Andrews is a "golfing mecca"... The Maul of America is a "shopping mecca".... etc. I strongly suspect that name "Mecca bingo" was chosen as a reference to this common meaning, and not as a direct reference to the Muslim holy city located in Arabia.

Muslims may take offense at this usage... but it is not intended to be offensive. Blueboar (talk) 16:19, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

See Mecca bingo hall drops name after Muslim protests. Alansplodge (talk) 17:04, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Percent of Population Working in Agriculture in 1300s / Early 1400s

Are there any estimates for what portion of the population in Europe in the 1300s / early 1400s were working in agriculture? --CGPGrey (talk) 17:47, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I have not been able to find any figures for this outside of England, but it would have to be significant since London only had a population of 20-25,000 in 1377 and no other towns in England were more then 10,000. In fact, of the 5-10 million people that lived in England in 1377, only 100,000 lived in the largest 30 towns, so the rural population, and the % of people who worked in agriculture would have been quite high. Googlemeister (talk) 18:30, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

There were almost certainly no more than 3 million people in England in 1377, after the Black Death. Still, you are probably right that no more than 100,000 lived in towns. Still, some of the population living in the countryside were not engaged in agriculture. There were full-time blacksmiths and millers even in rural places, and of course the clergy, nobility, and knights did not engage in agricultural labor. I have seen estimates that 80% to 90% of the population in Europe in the late middle ages were engaged in agricultural labor. The percentage would vary somewhat by region. In regions that were more urbanized and that had larger manufacturing sectors, such as Flanders and northern and central Italy, the percentage was lower than in more agrarian regions such as Poland or Ireland. Marco polo (talk) 19:04, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

It's been estimated that only 5.6% of the population of Europe in 1500 lived in towns, so 94.4% lived in more or less rural areas, but as Marco points out the percentage working in agriculture must have been rather smaller, since we have to allow for gentry, clergy and craftsmen. According to an article in International Currency Review before 1500 80% of the population of Europe lived on the land. Another article in the Journal of the History of Ideas claims that 'In the Middle Ages proper – le Haut Moyen Age – a very large proportion of the population of Europe – probably more than half – were unfree men, serfs.' This figure would be smaller than the proportion of people working in agriculture since it excludes free peasants, in England called franklins. --Antiquary (talk) 19:29, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Is it legal to.....

Hello, i was wondering if it is legal in Canada to make a video testament and last will... Using a webcam and recording my Testament and Last Will, can it be done if so what are the procedures to rendeer it legal and uncontestable for all involved? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Micheldoyn (talk • contribs) 17:48, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

We cannot offer legal advice. Please check with a lawyer licensed to practice in your province. Marco polo (talk) 18:51, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Marco polo is correct that we cannot offer legal advice (like your last sentence), but as far as looking up what the law says on its face — This page full of articles about wills has an "Introduction" article that's silent about videotaped wills. You may be interested in the holographic will, though. The intro of that article discusses one extremely brief example from Saskatchewan. Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:42, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I couldn't help noticing the Canada-re(i)ndeer connection. Micheldoyn must have a hunting trip coming up,  :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 21:48, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Thomas Ball

(referring to the man who immolated himself in protest in New Hampshire two months ago, see this article) I am mildly surprised that there is no Wikipedia article on Mr. Ball, if only from the aspect that self-immolation as a form of protest in the United States is exceedingly rare. Is anyone aware if there have been Wikipedia discussions on the desirability of such an article? Thanks, W. B. Wilson (talk) 17:50, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

In the US alone, about 35,000 people a year kill themselves, and more than a third of a million try (ref). The suicide note article suggests that at least 12% of suicides leave a note, many of them detailing the reasons for their suicide, some including details of what they feel is wrong with their lives or with the world in general. An unusual method of suicide doesn't, of itself, bring a sufficient degree of notability or verifiability. We have an article about Mohamed Bouazizi because we have a plethora of independent reliable sources that describe him and the events around, and consequent of, his death. We don't have one for Thomas Ball because there does not seem to be such coverage of his. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 18:17, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Finlay, thank you for your comments. What strikes me as odd is that (one's own views notwithstanding) Ball's death and his "manifesto" ring a political note, and, as I mentioned, self-immolation is not particularly common. Not many suicides (at least as far as I know) take place in front of courthouses. I agree that many sources don't appear to cover this and find it strange that the mainstream media did not cover this more thoroughly given their coverage of other deaths that they have apparently selected to make more well-known. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 18:28, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Ah, found this, referring to the Wikipedia discussion about the article on Ball that was ultimately deleted. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 18:41, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

head of state salary

What head of state / head of government receives the highest official salary? Googlemeister (talk) 19:39, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Lee Hsien Loong is the highest paid head of state based on official salary only. -- kainaw™ 19:43, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

This chart is not comprehensive but is useful. Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:49, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Why doesn't the U.S. release employment data day by day, not once a month?

I just saw another one of those stories about the stock market abruptly sinking after unexpectedly bad jobs data.^[2] "Uncertainty" is supposed to be a big part of what drives down stock prices and other economic indicators. So why doesn't the U.S. release the unemployment data on a daily basis? I would think that nowadays everyone who goes to an unemployment office is getting something typed into the system the same day, so releasing this data (at least on a provisional basis) would be just a matter of some simple computer scripts.

Admittedly, it occurs to me that advance knowledge of a whole month's jobs numbers must be worth billions, and so there must be a small and secretive but very powerful group of people who would oppose any such change. Wnt (talk) 19:58, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the Bureau of Labor Statistics doesn't have very accurate numbers even for the previous month, much less the present day. That's why their monthly estimates undergo repeated revision, months after the fact. In fact, employment data are not collected in some central database. Tax data are collected by employers but reported to the IRS only once per year, for example. Marco polo (talk) 21:00, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Surprisingly, the unemployment system in the US is primarily designed to help the unemployed, rather than statisticians and statistiquonks. Given that benefits are issued on a weekly basis, it is less surprising that they be reported on a monthly than a daily basis. μηδείς (talk) 22:36, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I think I found the answer, which is surprising to me: According to this FAQ answer on the Bureau of Labor Statistics website, US unemployment data comes from a monthly survey of 60,000 homes. Comet Tuttle (talk) 22:54, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

The government does release weekly data on unemployment claims every Thursday. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:55, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Long lasting subArfican leaders

Why by some leaders like Denis Sassou Nguesso Jose dos Santos of Angola, and Blaise Compaore last that long. They been around since 1970s to 1980s. What does opposition leader in politics basically means. Paul Biya's article said 20 worst tyranny leaders, how many politician guys are there in Sub-Saharan Africa total. 40 something. They have enough money to run a election, they suppose to step down after 12-14 years. is it because there are not too many effective candidates experience enough to run for new leaders or lost lasting leaders is more to do with dictators and tyranny.--69.229.6.251 (talk) 21:43, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure it is much more to do with the ability of incumbents to dominate their political environments, than it is an absence of effective candidates. And it's Africa's loss. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:48, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Talking about African's worst dictator I answer my question. Information I got that link from here. with 10 worst guys nationalwide Robert Gabriel Mugabe and Omar al-Bashir is the top two. Hu Jintao is one if them. The other 11-20 halfs is Teodoro Obiang, Meles Zenawi, Idriss Deby, King Swaziland, and Paul Biya. I need that note to avoid seeing a picture of Robert Mugabe's face. Thistells me why Idriss Deby is bad--69.229.6.251 (talk) 04:48, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Did the Zulu use bows?

If not, why not? ScienceApe (talk) 21:54, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Seems they did. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:05, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

The native Zulu word for bow and arrow, umcibisholo is definitely not a borrowing from Arabic, English, Dutch or some other colonial non-Nguni language. Proto-Bantu has words constructed for bow, arrow, and bowstring. μηδείς (talk) 22:32, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

The primary ranged weapon used by the Zulu was the assegai. I don't believe that there are documented instances of serious Zulu bow usage in the Anglo-Zulu war, for example, and Shaka's military reform did not introduce bows. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 22:37, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

The use of click consonants in the Nguni languages is a result of intermixture with the Khoikhoi (Hottentots) or Bushmen. The Khoikhoi used the bow and arrow.

From our article Impi: "The bow and arrow were known but seldom used." (unreferenced)

From Metaphor in Zulu (p129} "The bow and arrow is not a Zulu weapon, although they know of it from contact with the Khoi and San people, and there is often debate among Nguni translators about whether to use umnsalo (bow) or umcibisholo (bow and arrow) to translate ..."

μηδείς (talk) 01:26, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

August 19

The Euro

Have there been any serious proposals about abandoning the Euro as a currency what with the financial problems going on in Europe? Googlemeister (talk) 15:41, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

There has not yet been an official proposal for a euro breakup. However, the possibility of such a breakup is certainly under discussion. A number of commentators (such as this one) have argued that without a fiscal union, a breakup of the euro is inevitable. Germany, the main paymaster of Europe and an essential member of any fiscal union, is at present opposed to such a union. Serious German sources (such as this one) have analyzed the possible effects of a euro breakup, which would be very costly. However, no actual proposal has been put forward for a euro breakup as yet by any responsible party. At this point, the most likely such proposal would not involve a complete abandonment of the euro. Instead, there would more likely be a decision to end German support for the heavily indebted and deficit-ridden euro members, such as Greece, Portugal, and Ireland, and possibly Spain and Italy. That would force those countries to leave the euro and redenominate bank balances and debt in a devalued national currency. In the short term at least, the euro would remain as the currency of Germany and several of its neighbors, as well as Finland. On the other hand, Germany might decide to support a fiscal union, which might allow all euro members to retain the currency. Marco polo (talk) 15:56, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

You mean renominate bank balances, I think. That's BTW, not a necessary measure. In the same way you can now keep your money in a foreign currency, you'll be able to keep your savings in Euro. One thing is however sure: if a country gets expelled from the Euro, its new currency will plummet like lead. Quest09 (talk) 17:09, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

• Nope. It's actually re-denominate, see denomination_(currency). Renominate would be changing the name, which indeed is also possible (it has already happened once for the euro), but financially not a big deal. I ask myself however how the new currencies would be named: with the old names? Or with the old names preceded by the prefix new? Or something completely different?88.9.108.128 (talk) 20:11, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Additionally, this is seen as a possible method from the current problem, which is a daily one. As the introduction of the Euro proved, replacing as currency takes time; everything from designing and printing the banknotes to the "grace period" for the switchover. Another point is that if you are a saver in Greece, with your account in Euros, and a new currency about to be installed which will devalue, it would be easier to move it to, say, Germany. (That was, after all, an advantage of the single currency.) This creates additional liquidity problems for Greek banks. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 17:15, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

One might think that Greek savers would be able to keep their euro accounts or withdraw euro cash from those accounts. However, as soon as Germany and other northern European countries ended their support for Greece's government, Greek banks would become insolvent because so much of their depositors' money is invested in Greek government debt. There would have to be a bank holiday to prevent a run on Greek banks while a new currency regime and bank-rescue plan was imposed. Part of that rescue plan would have to involve a forced devaluation of savers' balances, most likely by redenominating them in a new national currency, trading at some fraction of the euro. A similar process would have to take place in Portugal and probably Ireland. Incidentally, in an emergency, after the bank holiday, banks could resort to limiting the size of withdrawals and stamping euro notes to indicate that they were no longer euros while waiting for the government to print a new currency. It's not unlikely that a partial barter economy would develop during the transition period. The Argentine economic crisis (1999-2002), when Argentina was forced to abandon its peg to the US dollar and to devalue its currency, is a kind of precedent. Ultimately, the debt has to be written off somehow, and ultimately bank depositors are holders of debt. Marco polo (talk) 18:34, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that was my point. People would want to move out before it was devalued. With the whole "single currency" thing, they could do this very easily (more than, say, British savers). The moving out of money would worsen the banks' problems. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 19:54, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure that the wealthiest Greeks have moved much of their money out of Greece already, and they could no doubt leave Greece too if they chose. However, the vast majority of Greeks don't have the means to open bank accounts outside of Greece. Also, they need to work for a living and don't have the language skills or inclination to take jobs outside of Greece, quite apart from the ability of the rest of Europe to absorb several million new migrant workers. As for bank runs in the future, if things deteriorate, the government will just be forced to declare a bank holiday before banks' cash reserves are depleted. Most likely, the Greek government could get the Germans to wait to announce the end of their support until a bank holiday had been declared. Marco polo (talk) 23:26, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that most Greeks cannot afford a foreign bank account. A bank account at another European country is normally at reach to most Europeans, even without leaving the home country, even if you only have a couple of thousand Euros. 88.9.108.128 (talk) 23:41, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

One might think that the history of the breakup of the Austro-Hungarian krone might be a cautionary example of what happens when a multinational currency is split. -- Arwel Parry (talk) 22:07, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Did Abraham Lincoln have ties with the South and slavery?

I am interested to know if Abraham Lincoln had ties with the South and slavery. One source, Ingersol, Abraham Lincoln on page 17 stated "The sympathies of Abraham Lincoln, his ties of kindred, were with the South." Cmguy777 (talk) 16:11, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Not really, Abraham Lincoln's southern background is in Appalachia, which was never politically aligned with the Plantation south; most of Appalachia didn't own slaves and never supported secession. That's why West Virginia itself seceded from Virginia, and why you find lots of union sympathies in places like Western North Carolina and Eastern Tennessee. I believe that Abraham Lincoln's mother was possibly from a Melungeon family, which weren't at ALL part of the Southern secession or slavery movement, even if they were in what was technically "the south". Abraham Lincoln claimed some descent, through his maternal grandfather, to landed southern interests, but it is unclear if this was actually the case, or merely a political move. From his early life, his family was anti-slavery, being attenders of the Separate Baptists church. His father was a leader in said church. --Jayron32 16:21, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I call bullshit on Lincoln being from Appalachia. His birthplace, like most of Kentucky, is west of Appalachia, per Wikipedia maps. He was a flatlander, not a hillbilly. Edison (talk) 00:32, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

His wife's family were from Kentucky, a slave-owning region. And some of his brother-in-laws fought on the side of the South.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 17:07, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Remember that Kentucky, despite being a slave state, did not support secession. And besides, he spent much of his youth in Spencer County, Indiana.67.169.177.176 (talk) 03:17, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

N.B.: Abraham Lincoln and Jefferson Davis were born less than 150 miles apart (LaRue County, Kentucky and Christian County, Kentucky, respectively). A seemingly good argument for the "nurture side" of Nature versus Nurture. Schyler (exquirere bonum ipsum) 18:01, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Not really, unless you are implying that being racist could somehow a) genetic or b) has terroir and somehow people can absorb racism from the soil, I don't see how evidence of where the two were born leads any credence to any part of the argument. --Jayron32 18:40, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Racism is a separate issue then Southern ties to slavery. However, Lincoln did make a speech claiming whites were superior to blacks. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:52, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Seems like there is some division in terms of whether Lincoln had ties with the South and slavery. Kentucky initially was neutral, however, there was a Southern invasion of the state. Union troops were called into the state to remove the Southern troops. I would say there is debate if Kentucky was officially part of the Union. That is a separate question. Lincoln's parental extended family owned slaves in Pennsylvania. His immediate parental family did oppose slavery, that is true. However, Lincoln married into the family of a wealthy slave owner. In my opinion that is a tie with slavery. His friend, Joshua Speed, was a prominent Kentucky slave owner and Lincoln spent much time with this person. Speed had told President Lincoln to hold off on emancipating the slaves. Lincoln, as President, also permitted the Southern cotton trade. Why did Lincoln allow the Southern cotton trade during the Civil War? Did not this fund the Confederate army? Cmguy777 (talk) 18:48, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Most likely this was because at the beginning of the war the Union navy simply did not have the ability to blockade the Southern ports. Besides, it is also possible that he didn't want to risk political trouble with England, which was the primary buyer of Southern cotton. Remember, England at the time had the most powerful navy in the world, so if they decided to enter the war on the Southern side to protect the cotton trade, then the North would have been really fucked (pardon my French). 67.169.177.176 (talk) 03:26, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Not just England - Scotland, Ireland and Wales owned a bit of the Royal Navy too! ;-) Alansplodge (talk) 08:57, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

That's right, but England was the one in charge. 67.169.177.176 (talk) 18:54, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

England at that time did not have a high demand for cotton, since the southerners had attempted to market cotton war bonds in Europe, unsuccessfully. Funding the Confederate Army by allowing the sale of cotton, in my opinion, could mean Lincoln had ties with the South and slavery. Remember the cotton was an intensive labor job that was worked by black slaves. Lincoln to the very end demanded that the slaves be paid for to the slave holders. The Radicals in Congress would have nothing to do with paying for the slaves. Also, Lincoln's "Let em up easy" at the end of the War would also point to ties with the South. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:15, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

---

Abraham Lincoln had a lot of childhood and extended family ties to the so-called "border states" or "upper south", and saw the workings of slavery up close on a number of occasions, but neither he nor any members of his immediate family were ever slave-owners, and the large-scale Lower South type of cotton plantation which is often associated with the image of the antebellum U.S. South would have been quite remote from their lives. As a politician, Lincoln consistently hated slavery (as an Illinois state legislator in 1837, he issued a public statement against an Illinois legislature anti-abolitionist resolution, even though this would have been of no conceivable benefit to his political career at that point) -- but it's now often forgotten that many who hated slavery were not mainly motivated by a concern for black rights as such. It's useless to blame Lincoln for not being a thoroughly-consistent ideological immediatist abolitionist or racial-equality advocate, because he never claimed to be any of those things, and someone who held such views would have had no realistic chance to be elected president of the U.S. in 1860. In the Lincoln-Douglas debates of 1858, Stephen A. Douglas came out as a full-on demagogic race-baiter of "the Republican party wants niggers to marry your white daughters" type, and Lincoln in his replies revealed that he hated slavery and insisted that blacks had natural rights, but did not directly oppose claims that blacks were inherently inferior to whites in some respects, and specifically disclaimed any intention of "amalgamating" the black and white races, or giving all blacks full political and social equality with whites. Lincoln expressed pretty much the minimum amount of racism necessary to be a serious candidate for Senator from Illinois in 1858 (some might say that he expressed less than the necessary minimum, since he lost that election). AnonMoos (talk) 08:57, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Now, you've heard the Judge [Douglas] make allusion to those who advocate voting, and eating, and marrying, and sleeping with negroes. Whether he meant me specifically I do not know. If he did, I can only say that just because I do not want a colored woman for a slave I do not necessarily want her for a wife. I do not need to have her for either. I can just leave her alone. In some respects, she is certainly not my equal, any more than I am the Judge's equal in some respects. But in her natural right to eat the bread she earns with her own hands without asking leave of somebody else, she is my equal and the equal of all others. [3]

Although Lincoln may have "hated" slavery, that does not negate that he had ties with slavery. He married a prominent slave holder's daughter, Mary Todd, who had slaves. He did pay the slaves money for their work, however, his wife had slaves. He spent much time at his friend, Joshua Speed's slave plantation. Speed convinced Lincoln to hold off on freeing the slaves in the early part of the Civil War. As has been mentioned before, Lincoln allowed the sale of southern cotton that funded the Confederate Army and his Attorney General lightly enforced the Confiscation Acts. He always wanted to give the slave owners money for the emancipated slaves under the Emancipation Proclamation. I would say those things are worth considering that Lincoln had ties to the South and slavery. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:34, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

That's nice -- Lincoln was not a New Englander moral purist theoretical absolutist abolitionist, and he never claimed to be, and no one with the slightest knowledge of history has ever suggested he was. But some of what you're saying seems to be nonsense -- there were no non-transient slaves in Illinois, Mary Todd did not own slaves, and Lincoln did not have slaves around him in Illinois. As for Joshua Speed, there's a well-known letter to Joshua Speed which you can read here and elsewhere (just Google the phrase "continually exercises the power of making me miserable"). As for his general attitude and conception of his duty as president early in the war, if you have any interest in the matter at all, then you should be well-aware of the famous closing of the letter to Horace Greeley -- "My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men everywhere could be free." -- AnonMoos (talk) 09:20, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

From what I have read the Lincoln's had servants. I believe these servants came from Mary Todd's family and that Lincoln paid them. Technically in Illinois they were not slaves. This link states that Mary Todd Lincoln's family had a household of slaves. Mary Todd Lincoln House. What is interesting is that Lincoln did not marry someone from Illinois, but rather a woman from a prominent Kentucky gentry slave holding family.Cmguy777 (talk) 15:59, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Dude, every single middle-class family household in the mid-19th century had servants -- if they didn't have servants (or at an absolute minimum, girls or women who came in several times a week), then ipso facto by definition they were NOT middle class. During those times, there were very few labor-saving gadgets as we would understand them today, and just doing the laundry alone in a middle-class household was an extremely strenuous and fatiguing chore which generally had to be done every week using technology which was not too far advanced from pounding clothes with rocks by the side of the village stream. If we look at actual facts (as opposed to your apparent fantasizing), then according to the 1850 census, the Lincoln family had one (1) servant, born in Ireland... AnonMoos (talk) 18:54, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I apologize for any historical inaccuracies in this discussion. The Todd family had many household slaves. Lincoln, by marriage, was a member of a slave-holding family. An Irish servant does not negate this historical fact. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:34, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

It could possibly be said that Lincoln married into a slave-holding extended family (though at the time the expression "marry into" was in fact applied to women much more often than to men), but he did NOT marry into slaveholding itself (as George Washington did), and you seem to be rather confused on that point and several others -- such as the difference between Illinois and Kentucky, and the necessity of servants to the mid-19th century middle-class lifestyle... AnonMoos (talk) 23:39, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

"If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that." ——— Abraham Lincoln to Horace Greeley

The above quote by Lincoln, in my opinion, gives a neutral statement on slavery. There is nothing anti-slavery in this statement. In other words the Emancipation Proclamation had nothing to do with Lincoln being anti-slavery. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:59, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

That's nice -- you echoed back the quotation I previously gave, but chose to leave out the final sentence "I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men everywhere could be free." Were you being disingenuous or dishonest? In any case, you still haven't bothered to explain why Lincoln issued a public anti-slavery statement in 1837, when this would have had no possible advantage to him in terms of the central Illinois politics of the time (and could have been a definite disadvantage if political opponents had tried to make a big issue out of it). AnonMoos (talk) 19:06, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I was not being disingenuous nor dishonest. Expressing the "wish" that all men were free, is not necessarily an anti-slavery statement. Lincoln's view that slavery could be abolished in Washington D.C. was made at a time when he was single and had less ties to the South and slavery. In 1841 Lincoln married into a prominent wealthy slave holding family. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:29, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but it was in fact an anti-slavery statement -- just not an official governmental anti-slavery policy (or not yet publicly at that point). And Lincoln voiced his anti-slavery protest in 1837, voted repeatedly for the Wilmot proviso during his one Congressional term in the 1840s, and joined the "anti-Nebraska" movement or Republican party in 1854, so that his basic alignment -- anti-slavery but not strict abolitionist -- remained pretty consistent before and after his marriage... AnonMoos (talk) 23:39, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

From Lincoln's letter written to Joshua Speed, Lincoln opposed the extension of slavery and was abhorred by the oppression of Negroes, i.e. them being shackled. Lincoln and Speed were friends, not political opponents. Speed was a prominent slave holder in Virginia. Lincoln married into a wealthy slave holding Todd family. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:14, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

That's nice -- he hated slavery, but was much more of a pragmatist than an ideological absolutist, and didn't have a personal "boycott" policy against people connected with slavery (except actual long-distance slave-traders, whom he seems to have regarded as the scum of the earth). The thing to remember is that the ideological absolutists such as William Lloyd Garrison had no concrete achievements in practical politics -- and no ideological absolutist could have been elected president in 1860 (Gerrit Smith apparently ran as an ideologically-pure abolitionist in 1860, and got a truly negligeable number of votes). The election in 1860 was not a choice between Lincoln and Garrison -- it was a choice between Lincoln, Douglas, Bell, and Breckinridge. If you don't like Lincoln, then you're sure to loathe and despise Douglas, Bell, and Breckinridge... AnonMoos (talk) 19:28, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I admire Abraham Lincoln. This discussion or evaluation was to find out how much Lincoln had ties to slavery in personal and public life. President Lincoln continued the cotton trade in the South, desired compensation to Southerners for freed slaves, and wanted to export the freed slaves from the country. Since I seem to have little support from other editors on this subject, then anymore discussion would prove fruitless. Thanks for all who joined the discussion. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:39, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

That's nice -- if you really admire him, then you'll admire him for what he actually was, and not try to judge him based on not being something which he never claimed to be (and which if he had been, he never would have become president, and you never would have heard of him)... AnonMoos (talk) 23:39, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

That is true. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:44, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Just a note: Abraham Lincoln did visit his wife's slave holding family's home in Kentucky many times. Experiences with Slavery Cmguy777 (talk) 21:06, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Modern French colonies

Is there any movements for independence in any of the present day French colonies such as French Polynesia, Wallis and Futuna, French Guyana, and ect.? --KAVEBEAR (talk) 17:11, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Apart from any discussion of independence, it should be noted that French Guiana is an overseas department (along with Guadeloupe, Martinique, Réunion and Mayotte) and is, as such, considered an integral part of France. A similar relationship is that of Hawaii to the United States. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 17:24, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

And it should also be noted that France doesn't have colonies anymore. It overseas departments and territories (known colloquially in France as "DOM/TOM" for "départements d'outre-mer/territoires d'outre-mer). Overseas departments have the same rights and privileges as any department in Metropolitan France and are legally no different. The other major classification (since 2003) for a populated area is known as an "Overseas collectivity", and these have somewhat more autonomy from France itself (and thus consequently, less connection to the rest of France), however they do have fully proportional voting representation in the French legislature (quite unlike, say, territories of the U.S.). --Jayron32 17:42, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

The short answer to your question is yes, though of the dependencies or overseas departments that you mention, I can find evidence of a substantial pro-independence movement only in French Polynesia, whose president, Oscar Temaru, is a supporter of independence at some undetermined future date. However, there is a much stronger independence movement in New Caledonia. In general, France's overseas dependencies and departments benefit quite substantially from French government spending, which typically far exceeds French tax collections in those territories, so their inhabitants tend to support an affiliation with France. Marco polo (talk) 17:52, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, New Caledonia. μηδείς (talk) 21:03, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

On French Guiana, see [[4]]. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:01, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Why are Australians proud of their criminal ancestors?

Why? Quest09 (talk) 22:32, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

To the extent they are, I suspect it is because the sentence of transportation was manifestly unjust for the petty crimes committed. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:36, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not the OP obviously but could it have something to do with the idea that they have a well respected country that was borne out of this rough and tumble past? Dismas|^(talk) 23:22, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Define "criminal". There's people who rape and strangle 75 grandmothers with extension cords, and there's people who pass bad checks, and there's people who steal bread for their kids. I suspect that much of the criminals who settled Australia were of the "petty crime" type than of the "mass murderer" type. Everyone sitting on the Group W bench isn't necessarily a mother-raper or a father-killer. Most of those sorts of criminals are criminals because of their economic situation; if given ample opportunity they will live an honest life. Honestly, taking people who only commit crimes because they can't find honest work, and giving them honest work, sounds like something to be proud of. --Jayron32 00:02, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Litterers though, those are the real nasty kind. Adam Bishop (talk) 07:08, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

'Twas not always thus. It's an attitude that's undergone a big reversal in my 60 or so years. Asking why it has changed is just as interesting a question. And I'm not sure of the answer. Similarly, 40 years ago many Australians hid any Australian Aboriginal ancestry they may have possessed. That too has reversed for many. HiLo48 (talk) 01:24, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

• How can you hide that? You could always say your ancestors were Africans, but why would it be better? 88.9.108.128 (talk) 10:40, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

• That question seems to involve the assumption that a person with Aboriginal background would inevitably look different, perhaps having conspicuously darker skin, thus making Aboriginalilty obvious. Sorry, but that's a false assumption. There's a lot more to being Aboriginal than skin colour There are many reasons why one Australian may have darker skin than another. Many immigrant groups have rapidly mixed by marriage, etc. with paler (and darker) Australians. And Australians, in general, aren't obsessed with skin colour as a cultural divider. HiLo48 (talk) 16:11, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

True. There are 2 people very closely connected to me who are partly of aboriginal descent, and in both cases I had no idea until I was told. Remember that only a very small proportion of urban aboriginals have unmixed ethnicity. Most are like the rest of us, with contributions from other bloodlines, sometimes many others. A random rural aboriginal would have a better chance of being "full-blood", but the numbers of such people are vanishing rapidly. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 01:06, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I may have told this anedcote here before. My parents got into researching their genealogies about 30 years ago. My mother soon discovered she was descended from a convict, and only as far back as her great-great-grandfather. Even though a monument to his post-release achievements had been erected virtually in her backyard a few years earlier, and even though he is now regularly described as a "pioneer of the Mittagong district" [5], none of that mattered against the fact of his having been a convict. When she told me of our joint heritage, there was nobody within earshot and we were inside her house with all the doors and windows closed, but she still felt it necessary to whisper, and then adjure me not to reveal this to anyone outside the family. This would have been around the early 1990s, I guess, because the monument I mentioned was a Bicentennial project (1988). She's somewhat more relaxed about it now, but it still isn't quite the badge of honour with her as it with me. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 01:54, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I might add that there is a similar phenomenon in the fame of Ned Kelly and other bushrangers. These people may have done much wrong, but they were caught and tried, and of course in Ned Kelly's case, executed, so there is still a fitting end to an exciting story. The thought that our convicts were (obviously) caught and punished renders them somewhat harmless, while retaining the sense of adventure. I must admit I am really surprised by HiLo48 and Jack's answers - I had never imagined it. I'm a little bit younger, but a convict ancestor would have probably always excited me. It's been emotional (talk) 04:54, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I have no link with Australia, but my gut feeling is that the Ned Kelly story illustrates the strongest root of such pride - because the "outlaws" were often defined by national, racial, and religious differences within the British Empire. Resistance along such divisions would appear to be fairly comparable to the American rebellion, except that it didn't fully succeed. Am I wrong? Wnt (talk) 00:32, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the Ned Kelly story was deeply connected with the poor Irish Catholic immigrant group being and/or feeling persecuted by the wealthier English, self appointed aristocracy, "rulers" of the day. HiLo48 (talk) 02:33, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

non-Aussie: "Is it true that Aussies are descendents of criminals ?"

Aussie: "I take offense at that comment ! I'll have you know we're descendents of criminals AND whores !" StuRat (talk) 04:57, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Reminds me of an exchange I had with an Australian friend of Scottish extraction:

Me: "Australians are all descended from criminals."

Friend (indignantly): "We're not all descended from criminals."

Me: "That's true. Only white Australians are." (duck to avoid getting hit). Pais (talk) 13:23, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

When The Ashes Test Cricket is on, English fans like to chide Australians for being convicts. It's a strategy that has definitely lost impact over the years. As for why we're proud of it, I guess the response is "Why not?" They ARE our ancestors. It's the truth. They faced huge hurdles, overcame them, and baby, just look at us now! Like members of any other "national" group, we have egos, and like to think that all the things that went before have contributed to where we are now. Well, that's my completely humble, OR perspective ;-) HiLo48 (talk) 07:39, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is true the Australians have perhaps the worst of all English language accents. Maybe that can be attributed to the convict status of their ancestors, among other things. But given that, if just one of one's ancestors hadn't procreated when they did, one wouldn't exist, why shouldn't one be proud, to a certain extent, of all one's ancestors? Or should the Anglo inhabitants of Great Britain consider themselves superior to those of the colonies, as, childless, they, all but the Chavs, cede their sceptered isle to the Dar al Harb? μηδείς (talk) 22:49, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Better chavs than Pakis, by all means. And I don't see any reason why most Aussie ancestors (mostly petty thieves and fraudsters, from what I've heard) were any worse than the chavs in today's England, or the "white trash" here in the USA... 67.169.177.176 (talk) 23:25, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I feel compelled to bite. How does one decide that a particular English accent is "the worst", Medeis? Who sets the yardstick? -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 23:38, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

And I am compelled to ask, "Which Australian accent?" Even a non-Australian of very limited exposure to our speech would detect some obvious difference between the accents of our current and most recent former Prime Ministers, being two examples that have appeared on the international stage. I could also throw in Dame Edna, Rolf Harris and Geoffrey Robinson as examples, even though all have had their accents corrupted by British influences. HiLo48 (talk) 00:06, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

That's Geoffrey Robertson, HiLo. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 00:57, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

So true. Thanks. And here he is. Still recognisably Australian, but..... HiLo48 (talk) 06:35, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I heard an interview in which he was asked about his very unusual accent for an Aussie. He said that as a child he would spend his days playing indoors, with ABC Radio playing in the background. Back in the late 1940s, early 1950s, ABC announcers were required to sound "upper-class", preferably British. He said he was an extremely late talker, and claims he was influenced by these announcers far more than by his parents or his peer group. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 06:50, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Nothing personal, guys. Ask me again when we Yanks with GenAm vowels start affecting Aussie accents to get jobs. Rachel Griffiths, Heath Ledger, Mel Gibson, Chris Egan (actor), Russel Crowe. So far as your speech is distinctive it is marked and at best you mock RP. Only those americans who mistake Jesse Spencer for Irish think he talks sexy. No offense.

Indeed, I find a good RP pronunciation more prestigious than my own American East Midland dialect, joost. But even my six-year-old nephew with a Boston accent was watching Farscape with me and wanted to know, "Are the ones that talk funny special?" Your vowels are much worse, so much more painful to listen to than Palin's, that I'd vote for Obama again before I'd ever consider your Howard, believe me. I'd rather listen to Geordies, Cockneys, Zummerzeters, Ozarkians and, yes, even Bostoners. Even the untutored Rosie Perez. And Pakis? They sound like angels to you in comparison. No offense. μηδείς (talk) 00:13, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

How well received was our Russell Crowe doing his West Virginian accent in A Beautiful Mind? (If you didn't like him, he's really a New Zealander.) HiLo48 (talk) 00:28, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I disliked the movie, while my boyfriend loved it. I don't remember commenting on the accent, it was probably mild. I will find a clip and get back. In the meantime, this is Rosie Perez before she took voice lessons. μηδείς (talk) 00:32, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Just remember to qualify "much worse", "so much more painful" and similar expressions as personal subjective opinions, Medeis. They come across here as absolute truths, which of course they're not. I'm actually very surprised that a person with your obvious smarts with linguistics would use such vague and non-professional language as "worst" when comparing accents. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 00:45, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry Jack, but I expect better of my audience than to think that they cannot distinguish between physical measurements and aesthetic judgments. I am glad we have you to coddle such misfits. As it stands, painful is a most adequate word to express my personal opinion. If necessary, feel free to explain to our readers that my personal opinion is...my personal opinion. I grant it is possible they may be confused on that point, yet I doubt it.

Quote: "... it is true the Australians have perhaps the worst of all English language accents". That doesn't sound much like an opinion to me, but an assertion of objective truth or at least something about which there's general agreement, neither of which is actually the case. My request to label opinions as such stands. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 04:15, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, that's your opinion. μηδείς (talk) 18:02, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I just listened, HiLo48, to a few minutes of Crowe in A Beautiful Mind. His accent is sufficiently "southern" (primarily changing the diphtong /ai/ to /a:/) to allow suspension of disbelief. But his accent is too broad to be identified as West Virginian, and his consonants too precise to sound other than like stage pronunciation. If you want to hear a passable and distinctively West Virginian actor's accent listen to Jodie Foster as Clarice Starling in The Silence of the Lambs (film). Unfortunately I cannot find non-pirated links to either film.

μηδείς (talk) 00:59, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

"Why are Australians proud of their criminal ancestors?" Pride is natural. It is the default mental condition. One's ancestors are oneself. One need not have a comprehensive understanding of genetics to understand that there is a connection, generationally, between oneself and one's ancestors. Our language embodies this understanding: "Kith and kin", "Blood thicker than water", "My own flesh and blood". One can only be ashamed of one's ancestors if actions taken in this life lead one to feel ashamed. Thus if other people fault us for our ancestor's supposed misdeeds, and marginalize us based on this, and perhaps discriminate against us because of this—we are likely to internalize this negative assessment. It should be noted that in most cases the the only past that can be referred to is a mythic one because in most cases family history is not all that intact or clear. The traits implied are even less clear. But if somehow the society around us is powerful enough to impose that mental-shaping on us, we would no longer have pride in either our ancestors or ourselves. Bus stop (talk) 05:12, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

• Australian nationalism reconfigured itself between 1940 and 1988. This reconfiguration overwrote long standing cultural tendencies, like ruling class shame regarding convict ancestry. This can be associated with the shift from British to US imperial alliance, and to the increased power of manufacturing capital over mining and agricultural capital in the period 1940–1988. Irving and Connell on Australian class might be useful here. Fifelfoo (talk) 11:23, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Can you be a member of the US Congress and a state officer or representative at the same time?

From what I can tell based on Article I, Section 6 of the US Constitution, a Congressman isn't allowed to accept an executive position that was created or whose compensation was increased during his term. He also must resign from Congress if he holds "another office under the United States". Now, my question is whether it's possible for someone to be both a member of the United States Congress and a member of a state legislature or hold a state office (such as governor) at the same time. I can't easily find anything in the constitution that prohibits it. So, is it allowed? Has it happened? sebmol (talk) 23:06, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

It is matter of state law, see Minnesota as an example: http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/hrd/pubs/comptoff.pdf. μηδείς (talk) 01:33, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

This practice is called dual office-holding. It is, as Medeis mentioned, a matter of state law (either constitutional, as is the case of Texas an Pennsylvania, or statutory). The National Conference of State Legislatures has a handy chart with a summary and an extensive list of each state's laws on holding two state offices at the same time, or a state office and a municipal office, or a state office and a federal office. No sensible person would really want to be governor or a member of the state legislature and a member of Congress at the same time, because the legislative sessions will overlap and a person can only be in one capital at a time. As to whether it has ever happened before: Many states make a variety of exceptions to their dual office-holding review for non-elected "state officers" such as notaries, attorneys-at-law (they are often considered officers of the court), justices of the peace, members of state constitution conventions, and officers of the state militia. Some members of Congress have simultaneously served in those state offices, although they aren't elected. Dual office-holding was much more prevalent in the early republic than it is today; members of state legislatures were sent as delegates to the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, for example, in 1819, Roger Skinner was simultaneously a federal judge, state senator, and member of the Council of Appointment; New York passed a law prohibiting holding multiple offices shortly afterward. Neutrality^talk 05:00, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you both for your thorough answers. sebmol (talk) 09:23, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

The relevant article seems to be Dual mandate. 81.98.38.48 (talk) 13:43, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Note that federal laws could also prevent holding national office while holding a state office, but don't. Also, related to this is the problem of people holding state office while running for a federal office, which often makes them unable to perform their full duties in the state office. Some people resign to run, but others do not. StuRat (talk) 14:40, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

People have said the same thing about holding federal office while running for president. Googlemeister (talk) 14:07, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Largest economy with no loans

What is the largest economy that doesn't owe any other government/state any money in loans, bonds, etc.? (BTW, I'm not a financial guy really, so if I've oversimplified or used the wrong terms, take it easy on me) Dismas|^(talk) 23:18, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

There are not many countries with 0 debt. See here for a list of countries by external debt. I'll say it's Norway. Quest09 (talk) 23:27, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

The thing is, people confuse having debt to being in debt. Having debt is common and normal way to do business. As long as your assets exceed your liabilities, however, you are not in trouble. Take China for example; I believe they are in the black in terms of sovereign debt; that is they are a creditor nation; they own more of other countries sovereign debt than they have debt of their own. But that doesn't mean that they don't ever have their own debt. People, after all, can have a credit card and still have a net positive income every month. As long as your debt is used to purchase things of more earning potential than the interest on the debt; that is called investing. --Jayron32 23:57, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

There are Chinese and Norwegian bonds. Vatican City doesn't appear to issue them, maybe a few other tiny states(?), but those are probably about the only exceptions. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:17, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

The zero-entry there was almost certainly vandalism; in fact, that list is edited so much that I would be reluctant to trust any given number on it. Norwegian external debt is 3.5 billion NOK; 600m NOK is government debt and the remainder is corporate/private. Shimgray | talk | 22:52, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I found one glaring error, compounded by an error in the source article. The table lists Hong Kong as tied for 16th place for the largest public debt in 2010. The source article has nothing about debt at all, although Economy of Hong Kong does. In the sidebar, gross external debt is listed at $78.84 billion as an end-2008 data point. The text, however, quite correctly points out that Hong Kong has “virtually no public debt.”

Government debt HK$11,227.5 million (US$1.44 billion; June 30, 2011) [[6]] That works out to 0.001% of 2010 nominal GDP. And, for an economy of US$225 billion, that certainly qualifies for consideration. DOR (HK) (talk) 07:53, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Forgive me, but if 1.44 billion was .001%, wouldn't that mean the total was 14.4 trillion? Or is this comparing HK debt to US debt? Googlemeister (talk) 18:54, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

August 20

Restaurant worker pouring dirty water down a sewage drain

Why didn't he do it inside the restaurant? I think he poured the water from a bowl, but I don't remember exactly. Imagine Reason (talk) 01:52, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Huh? Details? Edison (talk) 02:24, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Might not have been water. It could have been grease which would clog the internal pluming in the restaurant. It is probably illegal to dispose of waste grease this way, but that doesn't mean that people don't do it. If it was actually water then your guess is as good as mine. --Daniel 07:36, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I suppose it's possible the garbage disposal is out of order, and he didn't want to pour old soup with chunks of veggies down the sink like that, for fear of it clogging, so dumped it outside, where the opening is big enough to not clog. StuRat (talk) 14:34, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

As one with restaurant experience I can imagine dozens of plausible reasons, but using a sewer drain would be illegal and draw a fine. μηδείς (talk) 19:58, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I heard of a case where a restaurant in Palo Alto dumped grease into what seemed to be a sewer grate, but was in fact the housing of an electrical transformer ... —Tamfang (talk) 03:18, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Shocking. Was he charged? Googlemeister (talk) 14:04, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

If I was a transformer and someone emptied a bowl of greasy dish water over me I'd blow a fuse!--Aspro (talk) 14:13, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Why not just transform into something waterproof ? :-) StuRat (talk) 18:38, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

What the hell?..

What relation (if any) might there be between the Norse Hella and the Finnish Pohjola? Is it likely that both these mythical places had a common origin, given the fact that both are described as cold and dark, and that the Vikings and Finns are (and were since time immemorial) practically next-door neighbors? (I do think that both these places were based on an actual geographical location in the far north -- the different possibilities being Lapland, the Kola Peninsula, or the Pechora River basin.) 67.169.177.176 (talk) 03:13, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Did you mean Hel? Norse Hel is an afterlife thing and Pohjola is just another place where you can go to find a wife and steal mystery objects. Tuonela is the Finnish underworld. Having said that, I can't speak to their origins. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 07:54, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I meant Hel -- Hella is the Germanicized name for it. But from what I have read, Pohjola is said to be bounded by a river of spears and arrows, and anyone who tries to cross it invariably dies. (Sounds a lot like the Pechora or the other rivers in the far north, which are often lethally cold.) So it is likely that some Finnish tribes have Pohjola as their underworld, while others have Tuonela. FWIW 67.169.177.176 (talk) 08:45, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Side note: 'Hel' is already Germanic. The Norse were Germanic people. Calling it 'Hella' does not Germanicize an already Germanic word. If anything, it Latinizes it. Or is it a Finnish term? KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 16:38, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Answer: By "Germanicized", I mean that this is the name used by Germans (as opposed to Scandinavians) to denote Hel (most notably by Richard Wagner in The Ring of the Nibelung). Clear skies and tailwinds 67.169.177.176 (talk) 19:07, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

By which is meant, then, a word specifically used by the arisocratic, literary class of 19th Century German, and more specifically Wagner, as opposed to the general German word for 'Hel', which is 'Hölle'? This word, 'Hölle', is related to 'Hel'. 'Hella' is a romanticised construct, and is neither German nor Germanic. Sorry to be picky, but language very often does play a part in helping one understand origins or relationships across cultural barriers, and this may or may not be relevant. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 11:27, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

After reading and comparing both articles, another idea has occurred to me: that Tuonela may actually have been a part of the larger realm of Pohjola, similar to how Hel is a part of a larger realm called Nibelheim. How likely does this appear? 67.169.177.176 (talk) 08:54, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

The Kalevala does describe Tuonela as having a "death-stream" where Lemminkäinen met his end. In that case, he wasn't killed by the river per se; he was pierced by a serpent "like an arrow from a cross-bow" and then later tossed in the river by the shepherd that summoned the serpent. It doesn't seem that Tuonela is geographically part of Pohjola: in rune XVIII, Väinämöinen is seen sailing from Tuonela to Pohjola. In fact, a lot of the Kalevala's action takes place on the sea to and from Pohjola. But there are other ways to get there: rune XLIX describes a scene where Väinämöinen tries to cross a river to Pohjola, but this river is merely "rough and rapid." In rune XXVI, the resurrected Lemminkäinen enters Pohjola by land and does have to endure a lot of danger to get there, but I believe that it's just because Pohjola is well-defended by magic, not because it's the underworld. Note that I am no Kalevala scholar-- just a fan. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 10:23, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I looked in the Finnish Wikipedia to see what they say. There's a whole article on the topic of the geography of Finnish mythology. There are some interesting theories there, including the idea that Pohjola is Gotland, or that the land of Kalevala is actually northern Estonia and thus Pohjola is southwest Finland. One particularly striking theory (described in the article as "non-scholarly") posits that Pohjola is Constantinople. In short, nobody knows for sure, but I haven't seen anything linking Pohjola to Hel or Niflheim. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 17:53, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

American Historical Association

Is it mandatory to have an academic degree in history to become a member of American Historical Association? Can I join American Historical Association if I don't have a degree in history, but studied the subject independently and have written a history book? --Tyrozzz (talk) 07:35, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

No, it is not mandatory to have an academic degree in history, and yes, members of the public appear eligible to membership in the association. From the website of the American Historical Association: "Whether you are a museum professional, an academic, a K-12 teacher, an independent scholar, or a public historian, you can benefit from membership in the American Historical Association (AHA)..." Membership dues are between $46-$210 (annually, I assume), depending on your income, with certain other categories that are discounted (e.g., students have dues for $40). Neutrality^talk 07:47, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Legal status of strange US law

What does happen in case someone gets sued by one of these strange US laws? (if they indeed are not a hoax). For example: New Hampshire: It’s forbidden to sell the clothes you’re wearing to pay off a gambling debt; Nebraska: Bar owners may not sell beer unless they brew a kettle of soup simultaneously; Hawaii: All residents may be fined for not owning a boat; Quest09 (talk) 13:48, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think a lawsuit would be involved, as these are most likely criminal laws. Specifically, they sound like civil infractions (like traffic tickets) or possibly misdemeanors. I'd expect a police officer to give you a ticket, which you can pay or fight in court. The judge might criticize the cop for trying to enforce such a stupid law, or they might choose to enforce it, too. If so, there's not much basis to fight the laws. Being stupid isn't unconstitutional.

The soup law sounds like an attempt to limit brewing beer to restaurants. No doubt the legislators felt the need to do more than call any place which serves food a restaurant, as any bar could then serve peanuts to get around the law. Since brewing soup while making beer isn't much of a burden to place on a restaurant, but is for a bar without any cooking facilities, they felt this would get the job done.

The boat law sounds like it could possibly be challenged on the basis of it being impossible. That is, can everyone afford a boat, and are their dock facilities for all of them ? I suppose it depends on how they define a boat. If a rowboat will do, I suppose everyone could stash them in their garage/storage room.

The not selling clothes to settle gambling debts sounds like it was passed by the gambling industry, to avoid the bad PR it would cause if people did this. StuRat (talk) 14:16, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Or perhaps it was an attempt to prevent people from gambling away everything? Nyttend (talk) 18:13, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Are these things ever real laws? I always see lists of them presented humorously, but there is never any proof that they are real. It would be fairly easy to make something like this up, mad-libs style. Adam Bishop (talk) 19:14, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

The question I ask is: Who can guarantee me they would never be used against people? We're told they've been "superseded", but they're still on the statute books, they are still "the law", and someone could choose to enforce them. No? -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 23:32, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, if they really were superseded, meaning subsequent laws were passed which changed or eliminated the penalties, then they are no longer in force. StuRat (talk) 21:30, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Although if the superseding law is later repealed or no longer applies, then the original law goes back into force again. This has happened in the US, where the national symbol, the bald eagle was protected by the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, then this was superseded by it's protection under the Endangered Species Act. Since it is no longer endangered, and that Act no longer applies, it is now again protected under the original law. StuRat (talk) 23:15, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

In addition, there is the concept of desuetude - something may be considered void by a court if it has been nominally in force but not actually enforced for a prolonged period. Shimgray | talk | 22:27, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the soup issue, see the Raines law and similar legislation - an attempt to force alcohol to only be served in hotels led to, among other things, the provision of a sandwich that the customer was explicitly expected not to eat. Shimgray | talk | 22:27, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

This is uncited and a no-no, but I couldn't resist. I recall reading that in london it is still illegal to drink wine in public unless you are wearing your sword and silver buckled shoes.Phalcor (talk) 20:39, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

See Dumb laws. Examples are often false, or formulated in an exaggerated or misleading way. For example, somebody might have been convicted of public nudity under a normal law, and unsuccesfully attempted the defense that he had to sell the clothes he was wearing to pay off a gambling debt. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:19, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

To be fair, there could be a specific written law forbidding depriving someone of the clothes they are wearing to pay a debt, and it might state that the debtor themself is not allowed to sell their own clothes (that they are wearing) to pay the debt, to prevent them being pressed to 'choose' to do so. I know that in the UK, that are all sorts of stipulations about what may or may not be seized to pay back debts: you can't take someone's bed that they sleep in, or a workman's tools with which he earns a living. It would hardly be surprising to find a law that specified you couldn't sell or take the clothes someone was wearing to pay a debt. 86.163.214.39 (talk) 10:51, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

The typical "dumb law" one reads about is a hoax or a deliberate misrepresentation. An example is a supposed law against "tieing an alligator to a fire hydrant." The real law might be against tieing any animal to a fire hydrant, since a vicious dog tied to a hydrant might delay for a bit the fire department getting a hose hooked up. The writer makes a sensible lar silly by instantiating it with a weird example. Edison (talk) 23:45, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

One of the very, very few of those kinds of laws that I've found to be genuine was a San Francisco city ordinance which stated, "An elephant may not stroll down Market Street unless it is on a leash". Most are more like what you describe; the Florida law about not being allowed to tie alligators to parking meters is actually a prohibition on tying anything to parking meters, as it would make it rather difficult to feed said meter if an angry mastiff or bobcat (yes, I know someone who has a bobcat as a pet) was tied to it. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:56, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Traditional pareve dessert

What pareve desserts are there in traditional Ashkenazi cuisine? Jewish cuisine doesn't go into much detail about desserts, and those it mentions are mostly associated with a specific holiday. Googling "pareve desserts" gets me a lot of recipes that are pareve because they use modern dairy substitutes like Cool Whip and margarine. I'm not Jewish myself, so I don't have a Jewish mother or grandmother to ask. But I'm interested to know what might have been served after a fleyshike Shabbes dinner about 100-150 years ago in Eastern Europe. What would Sholem Aleichem's mother have made for dessert for Friday night? Pais (talk) 15:50, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Some types of rugelach are parve. Neutrality^talk 18:22, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

As are most kinds of halva, which I think had made its way up through eastern Europe by then. They did have vegetable oil, so maybe recipes like this apple cake are closer to traditional. They must also have had various kinds of cooked fruit desserts. These are all guesses, though. Lesgles (talk) 01:08, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

There's a little discussion here that is slightly on-topic, under the heading "Jewish Apple Cake". Bus stop (talk) 01:25, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Not Jewish myself, but the first Jewish desert I can think of is hamentaschen. --Jayron32 05:16, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I have to disagree because I hardly think of a hamentaschen as receiving "…an extremely low amount of precipitation, less than enough to support growth of most plants." Of course this would depend on placement. Bus stop (talk) 14:52, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I certainly wouldn't want to eat a hamentash that was wet enough to support growth of plants. Pais (talk) 17:46, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, but hamentashn are closely associated with Purim, and I was looking for something not particularly associated with any certain holiday. As for halva, is it something an ordinary person would be likely to make at home, or is/was it typically store-bought? The apple cake looks tasty! Pais (talk) 17:25, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Soup to nuts is a popular phrase not necessarily having anything to do with Judaism, or at least nothing I'm aware of. But nuts I think would be pareve. Bus stop (talk) 18:02, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Further proof that Wikipedia has an article on everything: The Great Latke-Hamantash Debate. So where do you stand on this, Bus stop? ;-) AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:11, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

One of the things about Jewish people is that we were (often forcibly) moved to enclaves here and there and everywhere, and once there often isolated, and so there are Jewish food traditions in many different parts of the world that have developed for quite a long time and have predictably folded in aspects of the surrounding culture; concomitantly, there are many different food traditions. Speaking strictly from an Ashkenazi standpoint (which I am), there are many different food traditions depending on whether the Jews were from Poland, or Germany or Austria or Hungary, etc. and even some particular part of those countries—even different towns can result in a different tradition. Take Matzoh ball soup: I think even more important than the latke-hamantashen issue is this schism—the irreconcilable divide—between those who like disgusting, spongy "floaters", and those of us who have good taste and like delicious hearty "sinkers". Anyway, from my perspective with grandparents one from a small town in Austria, and another from Hungary, traditional pareve desserts include mohnstrudel (no Wikipedia article) various kugels (lokshen kugel) and my grandmother used to always make these incredible plum dumplings, like nothing you've ever had (also made with poppy seeds). Basically, you take whole ripe plums, carefully halve them then remove the pit, fill the center with sugar and other things, then close them up as if they were whole, then wrap them in pastry that has a layer of poppy seed confection smeared on the inside that I don't know how she made, then wrap them making sure you have no air bubbles and that they are completely sealed, then boiling them (yes boiling) them, and then finishing them with baking. Indescribable.--108.46.107.181 (talk) 21:05, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Sounds tasty, and sounds very similar to Germknödel. Pais (talk) 21:19, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Ashkenazi pareve desserts? May vary culturally with geography but Ashkenazis in the UK might go for (off the top of my food-loving head) lokshen kugel (a bit old hat these days), fruit crumbles/pies/tarts or other pastries, chocolate mousse made with dark (ie non dairy) chocolate, served with jelly or pareve ice cream or even pareve custard. Not many of these are very "traditional" I'm afraid. Other than perhaps the first. --Dweller (talk) 12:27, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Term for scholarly study of children

Those who study the elderly are gerentologists, and their field is gerentology. Do we have a similar term for those who study children or for their field? I don't want pediatrics or pediatricians — I'm trying to write more of a early childhood development topic, but I'm really not looking at it from a psychology angle. Nyttend (talk) 18:08, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Pedology? Or perhaps "developmental anthropology" or "developmental human physiology" or something. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 18:52, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Usually the adjective developmental (or pediatric in medicine) implies dealing with children, as in developmental psychology. See, for instance, Jean Piaget. μηδείς (talk) 18:55, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Homecoming and prom dress lengths for formality

When it comes to homecoming and prom dresses, I notice that many retailers (including high-end ones) sell dresses intended to be worn at these occasions that are around knee length, which I have always got the impression were more casual than full length dresses. I was always under the impression that these two dances were formal enough occasions that they called for the more formal, more traditional full length dresses, but it seems that the shorter dresses aren't exactly uncommon at them. Is there something I'm missing somewhere that makes these shorter length dresses appropriate for formal dances like homecoming and prom? Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 20:07, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you are missing the fact that many teens don't actually know what traditional formal wear actually is. To many teens, a knee length cocktail dress is formal. Blueboar (talk) 01:02, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Times change and dress styles change with them. Clearly from your own narrative the vendors are in concert with their clientele. The notion that contemporary youth should copy the style of their mothers and grandmothers would not seem to have empirical support. I tend to think we are better, not worse, for that. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:10, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

A very polite and diplomatic version of “Get with the times, old man!”. lol Royor (talk) 07:17, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia article Hemline. Back in the late 1960s, some women got married in miniskirt wedding dresses (File:BrideMiniskirt1968.jpg)... AnonMoos (talk) 09:00, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Re changing times, I'm reminded of something Miss Manners once said: "Nowadays I wouldn't dare tell anyone not to dress for dinner." Anyway, I don't think there has ever been a necessary correlation between dress length and formality. This dress seems to be quite long, but is hardly formal. Pais (talk) 17:31, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

August 21

Why is right collar over left?

Why is this chap's coat's right collar over left ( he is not female )?  Jon Ascton  (talk) 03:52, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Do you have any proof the image was not flipped from left to right? μηδείς (talk) 02:18, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, got it from Wiki itself. You can trace the original position. That's what came to my mind too but at page source the author/uploader has given no hint (whether flipped or not) as far as I could see.  Jon Ascton  (talk) 03:52, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Maybe the gentleman hasn't buttoned his coat, but is merely holding it closed while the photo is taken? AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:51, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

According to this page written by a Rabbi, "Many people may not have noticed that men's clothes typically close left over right. This served to ease access to a concealed weapon with the right hand. Clothing made especially for religious Jewish men buttons right over left, perhaps to emphasize that the Jew is not interested in drawing a weapon and certainly not in advertising the fact.". Looie496 (talk) 02:57, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

"Orthodox Jews do not adhere to the traditional principal of men and women's buttoning. Both sexes button their shirts right over left. Dr. Yitzchok Block explains that "Our garments are traditionally buttoned right over left because we bear no weapons.... The Kabbalah says that the right side of a person should always take precedence over the left, for the right side of man signifies kindness while the left signifies sternness, justice and retribution." This unique difference explains the importance of what appears to be a very small difference."

I got that at a site that is on our "Spam blacklist" (ehow.com).

Our own article Hasidic Judaism mentions this. Bus stop (talk) 04:11, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

It mentions it, but without mentioning that reason: it just says "for kabbalistic reasons". Our article Suit (clothing) gives a similar, but different reason (marked as unreferenced). When I've looked at this question before, I've only ever come across the story that men and women were dressed in different ways (one by themselves and the other by servants. I can't remember which way round it's supposed to be). All these explanations have the ring of stories invented to explain an arbitrary happenstance. --ColinFine (talk) 21:53, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I hope you are not implying this guy is Jewish, a Rabbi, or an Hasid. μηδείς (talk) 04:57, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Two outta three ain't bad. See Yisrael Meir Lau. --Jayron32 05:00, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Traditional Eastern European Jewish dress was always worn (even before buttons came in use) right-over-left. Left-over-right suits were only worn late in Eastern European Jewish history due to Western influence and were considered "modern" (in a negative sense) by traditionalists. Most Orthodox Jewish men now wear Western-style suits, but rabbinic dress (as pictured) is usually more traditional (as can also be sen from the velvet collar).
Hasidic leaders (in particular Rabbi Menachem Mendel of Rimanov, who published a dress code) of the time considered the introduction of European fashions spiritually detrimental, and invoked the principal of "Minhag Yisrael Torah" as forbidding any change of style of dress. They also tried to explain the significance of the tradidtional style according to Kabbalah - the right side, representing good, must subjugate the left side, representing evil (compare with the watered-down version above). Hasidic suits/kaftans are exclusively buttoned right-over-left, regardless of the class of the wearer. (The rabbinic distinction is left to the type of fabric and style of pockets.) Hasidic men may wear right-over-left shirts as well. Ratzd'mishukribo (talk) 08:46, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Conservative/libertarian awards

Can anyone please provide a list of conservative/libertarian awards. --Toiutbn (talk) 09:09, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

What sort of awards? Those given to public figures, like the Cato Institute Friedman Prize[7]? Those for students? Bursaries and scholarships? Essay competitions[8]? Those awarded to media with a conservative leaning, like the various awards for "family-friendly" media? Those awarded by right-wing newspapers and magazines to media, politicians, etc, of whom they approve? Qualifications from Brigham Young University? Boy Scout badges? --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:40, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I can give one example: the "Sons and Daughters of Liberty Award", which is presented by the conservative group Freedom Works to selected supporters. 67.169.177.176 (talk) 04:50, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Why can't Keynes and Hayek both be right?

So I've been studying economics at university for a couple of years, and more recently watching the Keynes/Hayek rap battles (which are excellent, and very accurate in the main), and I have a question. I get that some aspects of the Austrian school of economics and the Keynesian are technical disagreements, but the main thrust seems to be that Keynesianism wants to spend out the bust and Hayek and Co. want to restrict the boom. Are these actually mutually exclusive? Why can't the answer be that we listen to Hayek when times are good and Keynes when times are bad? Prokhorovka (talk) 10:55, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Keynes also supposedly advocated reducing spending when times are good [9], but governments never quite seem to get round to that part. Hayek's big idea was that central planning is an obstacle to information flow: our centrally-managing leaders are unable to micro-manage us in an efficient way, because they just can't understand what's needed on a small scale, or administer it, unlike individuals. Public spending creates illusionary institutions which create lots of employment (the boom), and then collapse again due to not connecting to whatever it is that people really want. Hence, spending out of the bust causes the boom which needs to be restricted.  Card Zero  (talk) 11:33, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that private spending and unregulated markets can also produce credit-driven booms (e.g., the real estate bubble), which lead to debt-driven busts in which only the government can generate effective demand. The fallacy involved in so much of economic thinking, including that of Hayek, is that prices are the only efficient way or the most efficient way of transmitting information. Prices fail to transmit the crucial information, for example, that a country's economic potential is drastically underutilitized because a large part of its work force is unemployed or underemployed. Marco polo (talk) 18:21, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Are you saying that public policy ought not to avoid causing booms-and-busts because the private sector can also cause them? (As we all know, public policy has had no influence on the money supply, or on the real estate market.) — It's plausible that the price of labor will fail to communicate the existence of unemployment if it is legislatively forbidden to decline. —Tamfang (talk) 03:29, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd think if you borrow money to stimulate the economy during a bust, then you'd have to raise taxes during the boom, in order to pay it down, or you would inevitably face bankruptcy. StuRat (talk) 22:57, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that politically, it is easy to spend money, but it is hard to raise taxes. Googlemeister (talk) 20:39, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. It might help if it was done as a package deal, as in "we will borrow X dollars and then, once the growth rate exceeds Y%, will raise the nominal tax rate to Z until such time as X is repaid". StuRat (talk) 21:39, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I remember being in first year English and hearing all these different theories as to the 'purpose' or value of art. Near the end of the course it dawned on me that although these theories were all proposed as counters to other ideas, well, that was all just so much vanity, and all of them had something to offer. So yes, disregard the squabbles of competing thinkers and just take away whatever ideas suit your fancy. Vranak (talk) 06:34, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money is all about disequilibrium. Keynes believed investment was more controlled by the animal spriits (or the emotions of investors) than it was by market influsnces. All the cheap labour in a recession caused by high unemployment would not be more convincing than people's sentiments about the economy. Modern ideas like sticky prices and menu costs imply that economies might take a long time to return to full employment and Keynes believed they might never do so. Hayek (and the Austrian school generally) on the other hand had immense faith in free markets. They believed that people acting rationally would very quickly fix any general disequilibrium. They believe that the business cycle is caused by governments messing with individuals. Most mainstream economists consider the Austrian perspective to be wrong or erroneous for a number of reasons (see Austrian Economics). Even Milton Friedman, probably the most successful "anti-keynsian" economist viewed the Austrian explaination of business cylces as incorrect.Jabberwalkee (talk) 12:56, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

So to answer the OP's question, they both can't be right, because they are both wrong. Googlemeister (talk) 13:22, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Minimum wage and the gold standard

Could a minimum wage be made to work with a currency backed by gold (or any other precious substance)? What would happen to the inflation that would have occurred using fiat money? 78.105.228.237 (talk) 11:46, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

You can have inflation with a gold-backed currency. It would just be a varying of the relative values of gold and whatever it is you are buying. What you don't have is inflation caused by an increase in the money supply (unless someone discovers new gold deposits), but that isn't the only cause of inflation. If a minimum wage does cause inflation (I've not heard that before - the usual claim is that it causes unemployment) then I think it would be due to an increase in the velocity of money, rather than the money supply. (See equation of exchange for details of how all these concepts interact.) --Tango (talk) 15:44, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I thought a minimum wage would cause some inflation as well, because not all the jobs affected can be sent abroad or scrapped completely. Offices will always need cleaning, for example, even if the work done isn't considered (in theory) to be worth the new rate of pay. Wouldn't that count as an increase in the money supply, because it would be a pay rise without any change in efficiency? 78.105.228.237 (talk) 13:35, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm kind of confused as to why this would help in any case, but I'm no economist. If your minimum wage is pegged at a relatively stable value (assume for the moment that gold is, even though it's had a huge run up lately and is probably bubbling), but the rest of the world's products and currency are not, how does that help you any? Doesn't that just make the poor poorer, unless they are buying gold? --Mr.98 (talk) 18:38, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

There is no reason why you couldn't have a minimum wage and a gold standard. The U.S had a minimum wage when it was on a de facto gold standard during the Bretton Woods system era. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 21:13, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

And could the gold run up be explained by a decrease in confidence of fiat currencies? Googlemeister (talk) 13:58, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I've read that the Spanish Empire experienced severe inflation during the 1500s because of the massive influx of gold from South America -- it essentially destroyed the Spanish economy. Looie496 (talk) 23:29, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

The Spanish problem was that the precious metals were landed in Spain, and there was generally more of them circulating in Spain than in other parts of Europe at any given moment -- which meant that prices were higher in Spain than in the rest of Europe, which made Spanish exports uncompetitive, and so did nothing to encourage the increase of productive economic activities in Spain...

During much of the 19th century, there was an overall long-term deflationary trend in most Western economies, which was periodically counteracted by new gold discoveries. That's what happens when the money supply has no real connection with the size of the economy... AnonMoos (talk) 00:06, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

OR caveat: I’m an economist and have just spent a lot of time on Hong Kong’s new minimum wage law. We don’t have a gold standard here, just a peg to the US dollar. The minimum wage / price change issue is less about inflation – legal minimums are easily raised – but deflation. Unless a government has a very powerful position, either through votes or the lack of a need for voter support, it is very likely to be next to impossible to reduce a statutory minimum wage rate. Hence, in a deflationary environment, the adjustment would be strictly through unemployment. IMHO, this is the least optimal course of action. DOR (HK) (talk) 08:03, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Has anyone heard of the poet B. Tresz?

Hi, I've recently acquired a beautiful 3 stanza poem from an old book (which I can't remember the title to), sort of fell out actually, quite the eerie move-like moment! I googled both the poems title, the poet, and lines from the poem but get absolutely no results! So I was wondering if anyone has atleast heard of this poem/ poet? It's called "Aimo the Finn" and I'm pretty sure the copy I've got is handwritten (or perhaps made with a really good quality laser printer hehe) Here are the first few lines;

The cold blue north is in your eyes
And in your skin, in the thin
Ghost of a beard that blurs
The strong line of your chin.
That worn dark coat but half conceals
The gauntness of your shoulder frame -
Ill at ease on you it hangs
And short in the sleeve reveals,
Unkindly, your long thin large-boned hands
Whose insufficient flesh leaves
The more exposed to scorn
Their untanned nakedness.

June, 1968. B. Tresz.

Strange isn't it? Thanks for any light you're able to shed!202.61.204.151 (talk) 12:36, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I just searched a newspaper database that claim to contain over a billion scanned pages - nothing found. You might want to rethink your AFC submission since we can't have a perma-stub on a topic where only one line is ever verifiable and where notability cannot be shown through sources. What you wrote is partly original research also. You don't know if this is "his or her most famous work." All you know is that it was published in the book you found it in. By the way, I have reformatted the poem to appear as I think you intended.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:06, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Relative prevalence of child sexual offenders in general populace versus in the Catholic clergy? (Western societies only)

The article on child sexual abuse mentions victim percentages in the general populace but not offender ratios (the % of people who are abusers). I was wondering if the offenders within the Catholic clergy represent an abnormally high percentage of the whole, or if they are roughly analogous to the distribution observed in wider society? The Masked Booby (talk) 12:44, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Just guessing here... but one reason why the article may be silent as to statistics on offenders is a lack of reliable sources. We can't give offender ratios if there are no sources to support the statistics. Blueboar (talk) 12:51, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

See "Abuse in Social Context: Catholic Clergy and Other Professionals", Catholic League (2004). I did some fact checking on this report some time back and the numbers seem sound. Some pertinent points:

• About 85 percent of the offenders [of child sexual abuse] are family members, babysitters, neighbors, family friends or relatives. About one in six child molesters are other children.
• Most American churches being hit with child sexual-abuse allegations are Protestant, and most of the alleged abusers are not clergy or staff, but church volunteers.

Whoa! Are you saying "most of the alleged abusers in protestant churches are not clergy or staff, but volunteers"? If true, this would seem to strengthen the argument regarding catholic clergy, not weaken it. In those catholic churches subject to allegations, who are the main abusers? 203.45.95.236 (talk) 13:38, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

• About 6,000 coaches in the U.S. who have been tried and found guilty of sexual offense against children.
• Between 3 and 12 percent of psychologists have had sexual contact with their clients.
• 15 percent of all students have experienced some kind of sexual misconduct by a teacher between kindergarten and 12th grade.

---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 13:39, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

The site's been rearranged: try htm Sexual Abuse in Social Context: Catholic Clergy and Other Professionals, Catholic League (2004). I really would recommend everyone read it. It mostly made me think "Jeez, America. When stuff starting coming out in the 80s and 90s about children's homes and schools and vicars and youth groups, we completely overhauled how everything to do with children worked. People complained that it went too far, but frankly it seems to mostly work. How can you possibly still be moving abusive teachers from school to school? I've been CRB checked three times in the last couple of years, and that's only the start of basic child safety. Why on Earth are you worrying about priests?" 86.163.214.39 (talk) 09:42, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

St. Peter rolls his eyes

I wouldn't quite use those as an authoritative source. It's not impartial and is quite blatantly pointing fingers mainly at Protestant churches while attempting to downplay the wrongdoings of their own priests by claiming them to be *gasp* homosexuals. *rolls eyes* As usual, blaming the gays, because gays are supposedly unquestionably innately evil. *rolls eyes harder* And here I am, still waiting for the day I get those supernatural evil gay powers supposedly granted to me by Satan and possibly rain hellfire and brimstone on everyone.

Just because a male pedophile touches a male child, it does not make him a homosexual. Pedophilia has nothing to do with the gender, and everything to do with age. The Catholic church, being a patriarchal religion, has strictly separate gender systems. In absence of contact with the other gender, which would a pedophile then be most exposed to? Give a man two boxes of beer - Brand A and Brand B. Lock the box of Brand B so that he can only drink Brand A. Would it then be accurate to conclude that the man only likes Brand A?

The original reference of that article actually points that out explicitly. But the context by which they were mentioned in the Catholic League's study is very different, making it sound like homosexuality itself caused priests to commit pedophilia. On a side-note, it's interesting how society accepts a legally adult male's relationship with a female teenager, not only accept but actually make it an ideal (the 'schoolgirl' fetish for example). Yet if an 18 year old guy has sexual relations with a 16 year old guy, he's immediately a pedophile.

That lie has been going on since Anita Bryant and her sanctimonious hypocritical BS, and probably caused the deaths of a lot of people. But it obviously served her well, given the virulent unreasoning homophobia of most evangelical Christianity today. In order for them to be righteous, someone else has to be pure evil. And it's best to pick the ones least likely to protest the label. All religions have massive issues, but for pete's sake, when will they stop dragging gays again and again into their own brand of dementia and have them burn for the sins they themselves are committing.

Nonetheless, the issue here is not that there are pedophiles in the Catholic church (there will be pedophiles, whatever the sector of society, sadly), it's that the church itself protected these individuals. Protesting the accusations against them are unfair falls a bit flat when they have also been unfairly pointing fingers at other people for the very sin they themselves desperately cover up. They're now suddenly using empirical data because it suits them, hilarious when they've ignored them for decades. It's honestly a bit satisfying to at least finally see it backfire on them. -- Obsidi♠n Soul 19:20, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

So what was the point of your beer analogy? How does that even remotely address the question of the OP? I think you need to take a breath Obsidian and comment when you are more calm. Googlemeister (talk) 20:38, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Well obviously it was and is very wrong to cover up padophilia. But, the point the report makes is that the popular image of the Catholic priesthood as having a disproportionate number of pedophiles, or as breaking from commonly accepted and recommended practice in the past, isn't really accurate. When you've had certain people claiming that the Catholic Church has a priesthood in which pedophilia is normal, or generally calling the Catholic Church out as being uniquely pedophilic, it is highly relevant to point out that the rates of accused and convicted pedophilic ministers are lower in the Catholic Church than in Protestant churches: perhaps you haven't heard Protestants use 'pedophilia' as a general slur against the Catholic Church?

I can certainly see how you'd read the report as accusing homosexuals of pedophilia, particularly if it's something you've encountered before, but I don't think that's what it's saying. It's saying that the common image (seen in various works of modern fiction) of a Catholic priest abusing a small child isn't actually representative of the vast majority of cases that are counted in the percentage of priests accused of child sexual abuse: mostly they were having sexual contact with adolescent boys, which is a peculiar and interesting contrast to the statistics of child sexual abuse from other groups, and does raise questions about why that is.

But I stand by my initial reaction of "How on Earth can teachers accused of abuse be moved around the system? How on Earth can the rates of sexual abuse in American schools be so high? Why would you worry about any other source of child sexual abuse in that situation?" If you have a good critique of those particular statistics, and some better source, I would be very grateful. Otherwise I think American schoolchildren will be in my prayers for a long time... 86.163.214.39 (talk) 20:45, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Yep, I read the original academic source, and yes,I understood about how most statistics just lump ephebophilia (more commonly known to the American public as statutory rape) with pedophilia resulting in very misleading results.

Nonetheless, the Catholic League's stance on LGBT issues are well-known and what really is the difference? Donohue defines it as starting between 12 to 13, which is still shockingly young to be shoved aside as "not pedophilia". I still stand by the initial impression that it's undeniably an attempt to blame homosexuals again. See the following: "William Donohue, wrong on abuse" (Michael Tomasky, The Guardian)

So no. Bill Donohue and the Catholic League are not what I'd call impartial reliable sources. It might be better to read the sources used in that article directly and derive your own conclusions.

A study mentioned (but not included) in the Catholic League article has also since been released. We actually have an article on it. See John Jay Report. The full PDF can be downloaded here: The Nature and Scope of the Problem of Sexual Abuse of Minors by Catholic Priests and Deacons in the United States (John Jay College of Criminal Justice, 2004). Note that it deals with allegations not falsified or withdrawn since the 1950's concerning victims below 18, but not necessarily proven true either. Online summary can be seen here. Interesting points listed below:

• When the multiple surveys for the 143 priests who were the subject of allegations in more than one diocese or religious community are condensed to a single record, the total number of Catholic priests and deacons in the United States who have been accused of sexual abuse of children is 4,392.
• If the total number of priests in religious communities who have had allegations made against them is presented as a percentage of all religious priests in ministry, as estimated form the study data, the percentage accused of child sexual abuse is 2.7%.
• When allegations were made to the police, they were almost always investigated, and about one in three priests were charged with a crime. Overall, few priests with allegations served criminal sentences; only 3% of all priests with allegations served prison sentences. The priests with many allegations of abuse were not more likely than other priests to be charged and serve prison sentences.
• The single age with the greatest proportion of sexual assault victims among all victims reported to law enforcement was age 14.
• Unlike in the general population, more males than females were allegedly. In fact, there was a significant difference between genders, with four out of five alleged victims being male.

Download the PDF for more, it's certainly more reliable than a compilation by a Catholic group with an agenda anyway, despite being commissioned by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.

But yes of course I agree that the perception of the entire Catholic clergy as pedophiles is unwarranted. Media-skewing and the propensity of the public to go vindictively hysterical and all.

@Googlemeister, my previous post was about the reliability of the article linked, which pertains to the OP's question. As for the beer analogy, while tangential, it should be rather obvious wouldn't it? Though only distantly similar, Prison sexuality might help. -- Obsidi♠n Soul 22:55, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Ica, Peru Mayoral Election Candidates

Good morning, everyone. I am trying track down the names and parties of the candidates in the most recent Mayoral election in Ica, Peru. I think that it was in October 2010, but I am not certain. I believe that Mariano Nacimiento was the successful candidate. I have tried doing some research on Google, but it has uncharacteristically let me down today. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:14, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

cult symbols

I'm guessing that the sect mentioned in this anecdote is LDS, and it occurs to me that I wouldn't recognize a LDS symbol if it bit me. (Do two young "Elders" with white shirts and bicycles count as a symbol?) What might be on the ring? —Tamfang (talk) 22:10, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, the Mormons do have a history of using rather obscure symbols. This talks about some of those used by the founding members: Anthon transcript. StuRat (talk) 22:20, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

The Angel Moroni blowing his horn while standing on a sphere is a popular symbol with Mormons too: [10]. Would that be a Moronic symbol ? :-) StuRat (talk) 23:07, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

On that note I looked up the etymology for 'Mormon'... If I may say so, the truth is a bit more mo... er never mind. ;) -- Obsidi♠n Soul 18:11, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

The ring would probably be a Choose the Right or CTR ring. They were originally given to children as a reminder to live righteously, but are worn by some adult members of the church as well. Tobyc75 (talk) 00:00, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

August 22

Pointless English eccentricity: To the Manor Born

Wonders will never cease. For those who’ve never seen the program, To the Manor Born starts off with how the owner of Grantleigh Manor has just died, leaving his widow Audrey in financial circumstances so dire that she has to sell up. The late owner is never seen, just mentioned at various times.

His name was Martin – except it wasn’t Martin at all, but Marton [sic]. This was not the writer's plan for the character. It came about as a simple typo, and when he was made aware of it, the writer wanted to correct it. But the producer liked the unusual spelling and insisted on keeping it, in the spirit of the family name also being unusually spelt: fforbes-Hamilton [sic]. His justification was: “everyone will pronounce it as Martin so what's the difference”. What’s the difference indeed? Viewers never see Marton’s name written anywhere, and its spelling is never mentioned, hence viewers would naturally assume, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, that it was spelt in the usual way, Martin. A perfectly justified assumption normally, and one completely in keeping with Occam's Razor, but one that turns out to be wrong in this case.

There seems to be nothing resembling a point in having an unsuspected and never-mentioned spelling variant like this. It’s pure unadulterated eccentricity for its own sake. And we can’t even blame the writer, except for incompetent typing. Eccentricity I dig big time, but pointless eccentricity just seems like a waste of time.

Are there any similar cases, where in the mind of a writer or co-creator there’s something unusual about a (seen or unseen) character, but it’s decided not to reveal (*) that unusual fact to the readers/viewers, who remain blissfully unaware of it? -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 01:55, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

(*) Those who happen to access the program’s website or get hold of the scripts of the series would discover it’s Marton, but even then they’d probably assume it was a typo and would need some convincing otherwise.

I think you have the answer to your question already - this is 'Pointless English eccentricity' - but since the English are renowned for (amongst other things) their eccentricity, it is an assertion of Englishness. Actually, to anyone who has ever been within a hundred yards of a Marxist, and has observed the English class system for more than five minutes, it is clear that isn't merely an assertion of Englishness, but an assertion by the old land-owning aristocracy that they are still in charge, and that they control English orthography (hence the bizarre mismatch between the way they spell their names, and the way they pronounce them). It isn't 'pointless' at all - it is class struggle, pure and simple. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:16, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Why draw racist conclusions regarding the spelling rather than attributing it to the quirks of writers as writers? And is there some objective answer or actual help you are looking for? Gotta love Mrs Poo. μηδείς (talk) 02:27, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

What has race got to do with Jack's question, or with my response? AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:34, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Typical English thing to do? What if he had said Irish, Welsh or Scotch? Next he'll be saying Englishmen have loverly accents. μηδείς (talk) 02:43, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

You were the first to mention the word "typical". Please confine your comments to things I actually write. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 02:52, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Given I was answering Andy, who said "renowned" and "assertion of Englishness" and used English six times in his answer, and that I didn't put quotes around the word, I think you knickerbunching over this is a typical overreaction. μηδείς (talk) 03:00, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Medeis, if you knew anything about the program in question, you would know first and foremost that it is English, and that the program itself is a statement about English culture (or at least one section of it), and in light of this, Andy's comments about it being not "merely an assertion of Englishness, but an assertion by the old land-owning aristocracy that they are still in charge" made perfect sense. Calling that comment racist, and implying he could have said Irish, Welsh, or Scotch (which is a type of whiskey, not a nationality) is actually ridiculous, nonsensical, and even irrelevent. Think about it. Or watch the program and then think about it. It's an English program about England. :) --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 08:51, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

What is your goal in pointing out that the show is about the old English aristocracy? I didn't suggest it was actually Vietnamese. I didn't say "he could have said Irish, Welsh, or Scotch". I asked what if he had said Irish, Welsh, or Scotch. As in, oh, it's just 'an expression of Irish belligerence' or 'Welsh stinginess'? (And btw, Scotch is a perfectly cromulent adjectival parallel to Irish and Welsh. Given that I didn't say Irishman or Welshman its hardly relevant to claim I should have said Scot.)

What are you talking about? 'English' isn't a race, it's a culture. Possibly an ethnicity, although I am yet to be sold on that. There's nothing racist about pointing out the properties and rules of a culture, or the entire field of anthropology would be hounded out of the universities. Is Watching the English a racist book? Weird spellings of upper-class names and many (non-class-based) place names, are indeed typical in English culture. And eccentricity is indeed famously tolerated or even celebrated, but generally only when found in the upper classes. If the upper classes use a weird spelling of a common name, it is 'eccentric' and a sign of their ancient breeding. If the underclass use a weird spelling of a common name, it is a sign of how tacky and déclassé they are. This isn't race: it's the class system alive and thriving. 86.163.214.39 (talk) 08:59, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

...And need I point out that I am English? AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:47, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Racism is the attribution of moral or psychological traits to ethnic groups as collectives, whether positive or negative, whether done by self or others. If JackofOz had meant English speakers or British subjects he could have said so. μηδείς (talk) 18:25, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

So you think that cultural anthropology is racist? A rather extreme perspective... AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:31, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

You'd have to give an example. To say that shipbuilding was a part of Viking culture or that Vikings praised martial valor in songs would be one thing. To say Vikings are valiant is another. And to say the English are silly yet another. The French, on the other hand. μηδείς (talk) 19:15, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't have to give an example at all. You have accused me of racism on the most ridiculous of grounds. I think this says a great deal about you, and nothing about me, though frankly I've got better things to do with my time than engage in pointless debates. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:58, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

You are the one who asked the fatally vague question if I think cultural anthropology is racist--and if you expect an answer, yes, you will have to give an example. If anyone is wasting anyones time it is he who asks questions for which he expects no answer. μηδείς (talk) 21:23, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it was you who started this, by implying that I was racist. Can I ask you to withdraw that? I'd hate to have to bring such a trivial matter up at WP:WQA, but I think you need to acknowledge that such comments are entirely inappropriate. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:55, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Actual help? Why, yes. Please re-read my question that starts "Are there any similar cases, ....". -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 02:36, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

This sort of thing is common in the writing of all sorts of shows, and seems, again, to be a quirk of writers, not of any sperticular ethnicity. Can't think of any other examples off the top of my head, but check inside joke. Always wanted to be Penelope Keith when I grew up. μηδείς (talk) 02:43, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree that a simple misspelling is kind of... odd, but unseen jokes in scripts and screenplays are pretty common, I think. My favorite is a stage direction in the play Der Besuch der alten Dame, which begins something like

Morgens. Stadtzentrum. Der Bahnhofvorstand steht vor den Bahnhof.

If your German's rusty, this says "Morning. The city center. The station inspector is standing in front of the railway station." Except that the German word for "station inspector" is, in the German manner, literally "railway station in-front-of stander." So the inside joke is at the expense of the playwright's own language. Very droll, and of course doubly delightful to a struggling American college student. —Steve Summit (talk) 03:01, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

This doesn't seem that odd really, as there is an actual person named Marton Csokas...okay, he's Hungarian, but still. Adam Bishop (talk) 07:32, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

One counterexample does not disprove the oddness of Marton. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 08:44, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Can anyone share with us an eccentricity which had a point? HiLo48 (talk) 08:07, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the original question, are the entries in All There in the Manual (Warning: TV Tropes will ruin your life) what you're after? Professor Dumbledore's homosexuality is something that was never revealed in the Harry Potter books either. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 13:56, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Not answering Jack's question but have to agree that there's no denying it, the English are an eccentric lot, not just tv producers. They get up in the morning to a hearty full English breakfast, before donning their Morris Dancing suits followed by a quick burst of God Save the Queen. They then jump on a double-decker bus for the nearest pub to enjoy a pint of warm beer before heading out for a game of cricket on the village green. The spectators respond with rousing shouts of "splendid", "what-ho" and "terribly good, what?" The players go off at 4pm for tea and cakes each one raising their little finger while sipping the lovely beveridge. Oh, and of course their sole topic of conversation is the weather.

Now then, my real reason for responding here: as one born and bred in the northern part of the island of Great Britain, I have never been so insulted in my life to be told that Scotch is a type of whiskey. A type of whiskey indeed! It is WHISKY, what? --Bill Reid | (talk) 14:13, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, whisky. It's not your averidge beveridge.  :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 19:40, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Ho,ho. Yes, my excuse is our new neighbour has surname Beveridge. Has same root though ;o) [11] --Bill Reid | (talk) 15:24, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

---

By the way, in some Scottish manuscript traditions, "ff" was used at the beginning of a word in place of upper-case "F", which is where the thing of lower-case "ff" at the beginning of a name comes from. (Not to be confused with Welsh "ff", which can occur at the beginning of a word, but does not replace capitalization.) AnonMoos (talk) 23:06, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

It wasn't really "ff", just a capital "F" written in the Gothic or Blackletter script. See this 15th century example. Alansplodge (talk) 15:56, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Maybe -- but when it was translated into other script styles, it sometimes came out as "ff", not "F"... AnonMoos (talk) 23:28, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

War Powers Resolution lawsuit

Just one of the things Muammar Qaddafi has killed

What is the current status of the Kucinich lawsuit against Obama for sending military forces to Libya, supposedly in violation of the War Powers Resolution? It seems that the media has neglected this topic, most likely because the public has lost interest in the matter. Is the case likely to go all the way to the Supreme Court? Is this likely to become an issue in the upcoming presidential election?Ragettho (talk) 03:19, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

See http://www.politico.com/blogs/joshgerstein/0811/Justice_Department_asks_to_toss_congressmens_lawsuit_over_Libya_.html. μηδείς (talk) 03:27, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I can't see it being a political issue in the presidential election. It could be an issue for other Democrats to use against him in the primary, but a major primary challenge is rare for a sitting President. As for Republicans using it against him in the general election, that doesn't seem like it would work. After all, Ronald Reagan started the fight with Kadaffi, so criticizing the man whose actions seem to finally be eliminating him as a terrorist threat would backfire. StuRat (talk) 04:38, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I was in Germany when Reagan bombed Qaddafi. I was in NYC when PanAm died. I hope to wake up tomorrow to hear that Qaddafi has been hanged. Of course no one will hold it against Obama if that drag queen dies today. Only Nixon could go to China. μηδείς (talk) 05:27, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

If he hasn't been hanged yet, then he's still covered by WP:BLP, including here, so please comment with care. (Drag queen? Lol.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 11:12, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh, certainly, no offense meant to drag queens. I should have said retro Queen Latifa impersonator. Or dusky Dame Edna.μηδείς (talk) 16:22, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

And this from the man who wanted to be Penelope Keith when he grew up. Pais (talk) 17:35, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Next time she blows up a PanAm jet dressed like Bozo the Clown, you let me know. μηδείς (talk) 18:18, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I think he dresses like Zippy the Pinhead: [12]. Also notice the common facial hair stubble: [13]. StuRat (talk) 18:31, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Here is the docket: [14]. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:12, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

When did Babylon die?

The city of Babylon existed in the 2nd millennium BC, and still existed around 300 BC when Alexander the Great overthrew the Persian Empire that had threatened Greece. I see to recall that within a century after the time of Mohamed, it was still there and it got conquered or colonized by Muslims. But now it lies in ruins. Was it still a living city in the year 1000? Or 1300? Or 1500? Or 1700? Michael Hardy (talk) 04:00, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

The Dictionary of Biblical Prophecy and End Times writes that Antiochus I moved the capital to Seleucia (90km away from Babylon) and moved Babylon's civilian population there too. "Except for a brief period of renewal under Antiochus IV (173 B.C.), Babylon for all practical purposes ceased to exist." Mithridates II of Parthia apparently "found Babylon in desolate ruin" around 122 B.C., and Trajan found "nothing but ruins" in 116 a.d. Lucian wrote that people would soon be searching in vain for Babylon, comparing it to Nineveh. (J. Daniel Hays, J. Scott Duvall, C. Marvin Pate, Dictionary of Biblical Prophecy and End Times, Zondervan, 2009, ISBN 9780310571049)---Sluzzelin talk 04:21, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

You might have been confusing two different Babylons, since there was an Egyptian fortress of some importance by that name, and a town surrounding it. Medieval writers often made the same mistake. The Egyptian Babylon was captured by the Moslems in 640, eight years after the death of Muhammad. --Antiquary (talk) 17:44, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

International Criminal Court and domestic prosecution

The sentences handed down by international criminal tribunals such as the ICTY often seem quite lenient relative to those given to 'everyday' murderers and other serious criminals by domestic courts in many countries. See e.g. Veselin Šljivančanin. Given that, I could understand a certain reluctance on the part of countries deposing their dictators (e.g. Libya) to hand them over to the ICC if they might one day be released, whereas a domestic trial might result in a sentence of death or life imprisonment. If someone like Saif al-Islam Gaddafi, now apparently captured, is handed over the ICC and for whatever reason ends up with a ten-year sentence (perhaps they aren't able to pin direct responsibility on him for certain crimes), does this preclude his eventual prosecution and re-sentencing for the same crimes in Libya? As I understand it, the preference is that signatories to the Rome Statute deal with the kind of crimes it covers domestically if possible, and the ICC is there to catch those that fall through the cracks. This would lead me to suspect that under which jurisdiction a trial is held (domestic or international) is a kind of either-or matter, but is that legally the case? If it is, would Saif al-Islam Gaddafi, as a Libyan citizen, ever be discharged into the hands of the Libyan authorities (either at the end of a sentence or if he was found not guilty), if the Libyan authorities intended to prosecute him themselves for whatever he'd faced trial for at the ICC? Similarly, could people currently serving sentences imposed by the ICTY one day find themselves released from international custody then back in jail wherever they'd committed their crimes, after new trials there? Beorhtwulf (talk) 17:13, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I have no special knowledge of international law, but one consideration in a case like Gaddafi is to ask under what domestic law he could be prosecuted. If the alleged crimes were in fact acts carried out legitimately according to the recognized government at the time, they would arguably not be (domestic) crimes at all. To prosecute would require retroactive legislation being enacted, which would then run the risk of criminalizing a large number of citizens when the incoming régime and world opinion wishes to see reconciliation. So to transfer a few high-ranking people off to The Netherlands may be a solution acceptable to all. Only time will tell. Sussexonian (talk) 09:04, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Scipio Africanus brother

Scipio Africanus had a younger brother named Lucius Cornelius Scipio Asiaticus. How much younger was Lucius? How many years younger?
According to Lucius's article: He was finally elected consul in 190 BC with his co-consul being his brother's old second-in-command Gaius Laelius. That last sentence in the section Early career doesn't seem to make sense to me, in the part ...with his co-consul being his brother's old second-in-command Gaius Laelius. --Doug Coldwell ^talk 18:34, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Additionally, in the reference book "A greater than Napoleon: Scipio Africanus" By Sir Basil Henry Liddell Hart
http://books.google.com/books?id=LfoxYQhpMBUC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Scipio+Africanus+Napoleon&hl=en&ei=b6NSTrOQAeHj0QHNtuD0Bg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=brother%2C%20Lucius&f=false
it states on page 14 that Lucius is Scipio's elder brother. In the article on Scipio Africanus it says:
Scipio offered himself as a candidate for the quaestorship in the year 213 BC, apparently to assist his less popular cousin, Lucius Cornelius, who was also standing for election.
Is it really suppose to be "less popular cousin, Lucius Cornelius" or is it suppose to be "younger brother" instead?--Doug Coldwell ^talk 18:56, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

According to Livy, Scipio Asiaticus is Scipio Africanus' brother, but it's possible that they had a cousin with the same name (in fact I bet they had a whole bunch of cousins with the same name...). I haven't found anything yet about who was the older brother, though, or their relative ages. As for Gaius Laelius, each year had two consuls, so that year Asiaticus was one consul and the other was Gaius Laelius. As Laelius' article says, he was second-in-command of Africanus' army that conquered Spain. Adam Bishop (talk) 07:22, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Adam. I am a little confused with these names and trying to get them all correct as to who was who. I did just find in Polybius Book X Paragraph 4 (p110) After this his elder brother Lucius was a candidate for the aedileship, which is almost the highest office at Rome open to young men, it being the custom to elect two patricians...

http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Polybius/10*.html

In our article on Lucius Cornelius Scipio Asiaticus it says He was the son of Publius Cornelius Scipio and the younger brother of Publius Cornelius Scipio Africanus. - perhaps the article is wrong? Maybe it should be older brother. In the article on their father it indicates that he only had 2 sons. Since Lucius must be an older brother should the article on Lucius Cornelius Scipio Asiaticus be changed to reflect this.

Now while it's possible that they had a cousin with the same name (maybe a whole bunch of cousins with the same name), how many were running office with Scipio Africanus (with a reference). It appears there is just an older brother that can be verified with that name that was running office with Scipio. Let me know IF you find further on this. Thanks...--Doug Coldwell ^talk 11:46, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Polybius seems to be the only one who says that, everyone else either doesn't say who was older or says that Africanus was older. That would make sense, since Africanus held higher offices and military commands. Adam Bishop (talk) 13:39, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Maybe Africanus was more popular and better liked than his brother. Can you give me references that say Africanus was older. I thought Polybius was suppose to be an excellent reference, perhaps even better than Livy.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 15:32, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I thought so too, especially in this case, because Polybius apparently interviewed Laelius himself. But Africanus must have been older. For arguments that Africanus was the elder brother, see "Scipio Africanus in the Second Punic War" and "Scipio Africanus: Soldier and Politician" by H.H. Scullard, and the article "L. Cornelius Scipio: A Salvage Operation" by J. P. V. D. Balsdon. Adam Bishop (talk) 16:18, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Adam for reply. One of the Secondary sources for Scipio Africanus is Scipio Africanus: Greater Than Napoleon, W Blackwood and Sons, London, 1926; Biblio and Tannen, New York, 1976. ISBN 0-306-80583-9 by B.H. Liddell Hart. Hart on page 4 of the 1992 edition ISBN 1-85367-132-0 it says

“ The reliable data on which to base a study and a judgment are practically limited to the words of Polybius and Livy, with but a few grains from other, and admittedly less trustworthy, ancient authorities. And of these two, Polybius, the earlier, is almost contempory with events, the friend of Gaius Laelius, Scipio's constant subordinate, from whom he could get first-hand evidence and judgments. He had the family archives of the Scipios at his disposal for research... ”

Hart goes on explaining why he feels Polybius is the most reliable source for Scipio Africanus. I tend to go along with him, rather than the sources you provided. While you say, But Africanus must have been older. you have not furnished any evidence or good sources to this info. Why do you say "But..."? I can provide in both Primary and Secondary sources that Scipio had an older brother. You have not shown any EXACT references, just general Secondary sources that is NOT backed up by any Primary sources or any logic why you believe that Scipio was the eldest son of the family.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 18:46, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, neither of us really have anything, we both have Polybius and we both have secondary sources that agree or disagree with Polybius. Clearly some disagreement about it. This has nothing to do with you or me, so let's not make it personal. Polybius is probably the best source, and is certainly the closest in time. Liddell Hart certainly agrees with him, and that is a valid route to take. But the secondary sources I mentioned, Scullard and Balsdon, disagree, especially Scullard, since he was one of the major Scipio scholars in the twentieth century. Scullard thought it was very unlikely in Roman history for a younger brother to eclipse the older. Africanus went through the cursus honorum before Asiaticus, Africanus had higher military commands, etc. Here is Scullard's argument from Scipio Africanus in the Second Punic War (if that doesn't go to the right page, it's pages 38-39, including the footnote on 39. Notably, Africanus was already consul apparently before Asiaticus had served in any office, and Asiaticus was not consul until many many years after Africanus. Maybe we can find more people who agree or disagree with Polybius if we looked, but there could be other reasons to disagree. Polybius was Greek and wrote in Greek, even when writing about Roman affairs; did he speak Latin? When he interviewed Laelius, did Laelius speak Greek? Did Laelius forget who was born first? Did Polybius misremember what Laelius said? Did Polybius just make a simple mistake? Did Laelius have some ulterior motive to pretend that Lucius was the elder brother? Of course it's possible that Polybius was right, Lucius was the older brother, and there are other reasons why Publius was the more famous and more honoured despite being younger; maybe Lucius was incompetent, or less ambitious. So in summary, we know the timelines of both men's careers, where it seems that Africanus is the elder, but we also know that Polybius says Asiaticus was the elder. Other than that, what else can we say? Adam Bishop (talk) 19:50, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

By the way, now that I am reading Liddell Hart, I notice that he is not an historian and his biography of Scipio is not a work of critical scholarship. He seems content to quote Polybius and Livy and leave it at that. I'm not sure why you would prefer him to Scullard or anyone else. Adam Bishop (talk) 20:21, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and questioning the logic of the statements in Polybius and Livy also helps the argument that Asiaticus was older. Livy (28.3 and 28.17) says that Asiaticus was with Africanus in Spain, and we know that Africanus was still very young at that time, only about 25. Would it make sense that there was another military commander who was even younger than him? No one wanted to go to Spain except Africanus, so maybe that included the older and more experienced Asiaticus. But we could also conclude that because no one else wanted to go, Africanus had to bring anyone he could find, even his younger brother. Adam Bishop (talk) 09:24, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Very good points Adam. Thanks for looking up the Livy references and the other items. Its an interesting argument.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 11:50, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Enron - Enterprise Risk Management

What were the three leading practice enterprise risk management measures/principles Enron had in place that were appropriate to its business model? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.135.14.17 (talk) 18:47, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Please do your own homework.

Welcome to the Wikipedia Reference Desk. Your question appears to be a homework question. I apologize if this is a misinterpretation, but it is our aim here not to do people's homework for them, but to merely aid them in doing it themselves. Letting someone else do your homework does not help you learn nearly as much as doing it yourself. Please attempt to solve the problem or answer the question yourself first. If you need help with a specific part of your homework, feel free to tell us where you are stuck and ask for help. If you need help grasping the concept of a problem, by all means let us know. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:52, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

(1) The Big Lie.

(2) We're too big to fail!

(3) 2012 isn't too far off. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:32, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Storage Wars

I was watching the TV show "Storage Wars" the other day. For those unfamiliar with this program, it is a show where several people buy abandoned storage unit contents at an auction, usually without either the buyer or the seller knowing exactly what is in there. My question is what would happen if they were to find stolen goods in the locker, such as "The Concert" by Vermeer? I doubt they would be permitted to keep the piece, but would they get reimbursed for their purchase cost since the seller is not supposed to benefit from the proceeds of a crime (trafficking in stolen goods in this case)? Googlemeister (talk) 19:05, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

The stolen material would be returned, presumably making the sale void in part or full. There is presumably some sort of contractual arrangement about what to do if there is some complication in the sale. They could always sue. μηδείς (talk) 19:19, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

The sale is as is FWIW. Heck, if I were them, I'd return it to the rightful owners for the reward money. I recall that when the auctioneer (in Auction Hunters I think) spotted a seemingly illegal firearm, he had to take it to the police to check it out, but if it wasn't in plain sight, it was up to the buyers. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:43, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Well yes obviously in the scenario I outlined, there is a substantial reward, but I could just have easily substituted a kilo of cocaine or an M-60 with "Property of the United States Army" stamped on it. Googlemeister (talk) 20:59, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

In the US, it varies by state, of course; but in general, Frank, the guy buying the storage unit, is obliged to call the police and report the stolen property. If Frank knows he has stolen property and does not report it, this is a crime; as this California law states, Frank could do a year in jail. When Frank does report the stolen property, the police will seize the stolen property and try to return it to the rightful owner. Frank is out of luck, monetarily, and will not get reimbursed at all. If the owner cannot be found then the police department will usually auction the property after a couple of months or maybe a year; and the money goes to the state. Comet Tuttle (talk) 20:58, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

So then Frank gets punished for acting in good faith? Googlemeister (talk) 21:00, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

<broad generalisation>Yes. If you buy goods, which later turn out to be stolen, then you lose the goods, and what you paid for them; you have to sue the seller to reclaim the money. However, it is not a crime to buy, in good faith, stolen goods. </broad generalisation> CS Miller (talk) 21:15, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

How is not reporting stolen property that you are aware of acting in good faith? This thread is tendentious, and you have been answered. Are you trying to argue that a private "as is" sale abrogates laws forbidding the transfer of stolen property? Do you have some actual further question? μηδείς (talk) 21:18, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Buying in good faith Medeis. I said absolutely nothing whatsoever about not reporting said property so I don't know where you came up with that. Googlemeister (talk) 21:24, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, no, you said "acting" in good faith, which is what I reacted to. As long as you understand that intermediate good faith actions don't establish title over stolen goods you're good to go. μηδείς (talk) 22:43, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

In the United States, a purchaser acquires all title which his transferor had or had power to transfer.[15] This is the law in all 50 states. Because the trasferor of stolen goods does not possess title to them, they cannot be transferred legally. If someone purchased the goods, the contract is void and the purchaser may recover the value i.e. the purchase price. Normally, a storage unit facility will gain title to the goods deposited at the facility. The storage facility is permitted by law to seize the assets in the facility for satisfaction of a debt. It is by operation of law that the title to the goods passes from the renter of the unit to the storage company. If the renter never had title to begin with, title cannot pass. Gx872op (talk) 19:49, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

cultural mixing

How is it that some countries like Australia, the US, and the UK have been pretty successful at running a country where there are a large amount of immigrants who came from a different culture, whereas other countries were not so successful, such as those of the Balkans, or Sudan? Is it because the successful countries had a very dominate culture at the start and brought in other cultures in smaller doses? Googlemeister (talk) 19:56, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Sudan and the Balkans might be more comparable, in the UK context, with The Troubles, than with its patchy record on cultural integration. I think the one is a question of polarised communities tending to extremism, the other a question of cultural assimilation and acceptance buttressed, as you note by a dominant culture. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:01, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Because it's much easier to absorb incoming immigrants into a melting pot rather than to assimilate a native population into a larger cultural space. In the second case, forcing language shift and so on usually takes centuries —and the sudden emergence of nationalism is a constant possibility during the process—; whereas in the first case cultural assimilation only requires two or three generations. --Belchman (talk) 20:45, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Our article melting pot is all about the subject of immigrants' cultural integration, mostly in the US but also in other countries; and its "See also" section lists other related articles. Comet Tuttle (talk) 20:45, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

This is really a case of apples and oranges.. as far as one can say the Balkans and the Sudan are dealing with demographics shaped by immigration, that 'immigration' took place at least 500 years ago.

True, but I am not referring to immigration, rather the mixing of culture within a nation. Immigration is one vehicle but not the only one. Googlemeister (talk) 21:21, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Having more recent immigrants can be helpful, in that any trouble-makers can be deported, like in the case of the Rajneesh movement in the US. If they had US citizenship, the only option would be imprisonment, which would then lead followers to commit acts of violence, etc. Note that this implies that new immigrants must be evaluated and deported if they don't properly integrate into the larger society. StuRat (talk) 21:24, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

It's notable that of the three nations you listed as being "successful", one was one that had a long history of multi-cultural empire, and the others were originally colonies of the same said nation. It does not seem to be a wild jump to suggest that this long history of multiculturalism (usually at the barrel of a musket or cannon, to be sure) did not pave the wave for (centuries later) more stable multicultural societies, as opposed to nations who never had foreign holdings and spent a considerable amount of time squabbling over a single piece of land, or attempting (in the case of the Balkans) to establish themselves as a unitary "nation" in the first place in the hopes of overthrowing oppressors or things of that nature. This is a broad brush to paint these with, to be sure, and not a very good way of understanding either the "success" stories (which are individually more complicated than your lumping lets on) or the "unsuccessful" stories (which have their own very particular histories). It is an unoriginal observation that imperial powers become themselves colonized as well, at least culturally, by their colonies. --Mr.98 (talk) 23:35, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

• One of the things that helps places like the U.S. and the U.K. with "cultural mixing" is that the disparate cultures are not neighboring cultures, usually. That is, there is not a long history of millenia of cultural warfare between, say, the Pakistanis and the Scottish; so they don't really have much of a reason to hate and distrust each other in the same way that the Serbs and the Croats do... --Jayron32 02:46, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

The sheer affluence of Australia, America, and England stand out from your counterexamples of Sudan and 'Balkan states'. Where there's wealth, there's harmony. Vranak (talk) 06:31, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

The USA, Australia, and England all have significant histories of racist violence and hatred. E.g. Ku Klux Klan, Jim Crow laws, Elijah Mohammed, National Front, English Defence League, Pauline Hanson, 2005 Cronulla riots... There's never been a Rwandan-style massacre, but that doesn't mean it's always harmony.

Part of it is probably that inter-ethnic conflict in a region tends to occur as the result of wider sudden changes and instability, e.g. the collapse of communism in eastern Europe; the independence of Nigeria (the Biafran War); the various wars in the Congo and central Africa (which were largely about money and resources) leading to the Rwanda genocide; the Great Depression leading to various fascisms in the 1930s Europe, etc. Different ethnic groups lived alongside each other in e.g. the Balkans, central Europe, or west Africa for centuries, with the occasional war, but no attempt at genocide, then something happens and a rapid downward spiral begins. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:58, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Last time I checked, Australia was founded on the physical and cultural genocide of a whole variety of ethnic groups. Much of the physical genocide was based on massacre, Myall Creek massacre gives an account both of the culture of massacre and a particular incident. In general, the physical elimination of people was connected with direct attempts to dispossess people of land, usually outside of white law, as part of an illegal stock running process. Fifelfoo (talk) 14:20, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

The relative harmony can also be explained by the fact that the English do not do ideology. If you are a Jew among right-wing Germans, you won't integrate, no matter what. Being a part of English, American or Australian society is more a pragmatic question, a question of how you behave. 88.9.108.128 (talk) 14:06, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

paramilitary/terrorist groups and their opposition to drugs

Why is it that many (most?) paramilitary or terrorist groups claim they're against drug dealing? --Belchman (talk) 20:32, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Because if they were advocating dealing drugs, they would not be viewed so favorably. These groups are at the root making a political statement, and like a politician, they try not to give ammunition to their opposition. That and a certain religion is not in favor of drugs, so their group doesn't brag about being dealers. Googlemeister (talk) 20:34, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

The Spanish Basque separatist group Euskadi Ta Askatasuna has murdered at least one well-known drug-dealer. Do you think they did it for propaganda purposes "we are a 'clean' group fully dedicated to our cause" as you suggest —if I understood what you said correctly— or for another, more "practical" reason? --Belchman (talk) 20:50, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I am speaking in broad generalities. These groups are varied and encompass a wide swath so applying this to any one specific group is not going to give consistent results. I mean there is a whole segment out there called narco-terrorism that this totally does not apply to. Googlemeister (talk) 20:56, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

ETA sees drugs as a perversion of their basis (the young). People on drugs normally won't engage in any political activity - violent or not. That would undermine their basis. On a side note, I have to say that ETA is quite weak nowadays, comprised probably by less than 100 terrorist, almost unable to plan and carry any attack. 88.9.108.128 (talk) 23:50, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

"Stop terrorism...encourage drug use among teenagers." :-) StuRat (talk) 02:12, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

The IRA were sometimes sarcastically called "social workers with armalites" when they tried to punish Catholic wrongdoers and perform police functions among the Catholic community, due to the fact that large numbers of Catholics did not trust the Protestant-dominated police. However, paramilitary groups in Colombia, Burma, Afghanistan etc. are heavily involved in narcotics production... AnonMoos (talk) 22:54, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

A lot of arguably terrorist groups, from Hamas and Hizbollah to the Black Panthers have combined social provision with militarism. If they didn't do anything for their communities, they would be unlikely to get support; most terrorists, guerrillas, etc, depend on at least tacit support from large parts of the community. Some people join terrorist groups to fight oppression, others to fight anyone they can. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:02, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Note that while they claim to oppose drug use, many still get money from drug traffickers. They can form a symbiotic relationship, where the drug cartels provide financing for the terrorists, who in turn offer protection from government forces. StuRat (talk) 02:16, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

August 23

Egg on the sidewalk

Where did the urban legend of egg frying on a sidewalk come from? And has anybody ever made it actually work? --KAVEBEAR (talk) 06:48, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

See this Oda Mari (talk) 10:00, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Many of those look staged, as if someone fried the egg then placed it on the ground. One of the eggs is over easy, and another has snowdrifts in the background! This one from the Google results is a bit more 'honest'. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 11:14, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I have done it before when it was 110F outside. It still took about a half hour to fry the egg so a stovetop is much more efficient. Googlemeister (talk) 13:13, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Bill Nye suggests it's possible on a sidewalk, at about 55 C (130 F) but doesn't seem to have tried it himself.[16] The Library of Congress Everyday Mysteries says it needs a temperature of 158 F (70 C) to denature egg protein but a sidewalk probably won't get that hot[17]. That page also points out that if you leave an egg on a hot sidewalk for 20 minutes, a lot of the fluid will evaporate. Then there's the Oatman Solar Egg Frying Contest[18][19]. So, maybe? --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:19, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Technically mine was on a blacktop driveway rather then a sidewalk. Perhaps that makes a difference? Googlemeister (talk) 15:26, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Legends are sometimes true. In this case, it is. Schyler (exquirere bonum ipsum) 19:40, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Harold McGee says egg whites start to thicken at 63°C and "becomes a tender solid" at 65°C. For the yolk he says that will set at 70°C. He says ovalbumin, the major egg white protein, doesn't coagulate until 80°C. He doesn't talk about desiccating an egg, but diluting one (say with water) raises that 70°C to about 80°C, because the protein molecules encounter others (with which to bond and cause the material to set) less often - I guess that means that a partially dehydrated egg (one left on the tarmacadam for a few hours) will set at a slightly lower temperature than 70°C. As to actual temperatures, this report about the 2009 Bahrain Grand Prix reports track temperatures of 57°C, with a fairly mid-grey track. I'd imagine a darker section of track, with a higher albedo, could get a bit warmer. So those numbers are getting pretty close, and so maybe it's just possible, but as others have said, it looks like it'll be slow and inadequate. Various unreliable sources like this press release claim a road surface temperature of around 99°C for the Badwater Ultramarathon in Death Valley, which would clearly be enough. McGee says 120°C is the ideal pan temperature for frying eggs. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 19:53, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I was told by an Arizonan once that a Tuscon radio station held sidewalk egg-frying contests of some sort during the summer. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:08, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Spanish Civil War deaths

I'm hoping to document death rates during the Spanish Civil War due to the Red Terror (Spain). I have one set of estimates but I would like many more. Anything anyone can find with at least one named author, the more reputable the better, would be greatly appreciated. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 13:37, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

De la Cueva, who's quoted, is a bit of a mystery - I can't see the figure of 72,344 anywhere in that article, and it seems to be the same as th article cited to source clerical deaths. JSTOR 30036431 gives a "minimum" figure of 37,843 deaths, which explains Beevor's figure. I'll skim the library tomorrow and see what turns up... Shimgray | talk | 23:12, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

The Nationalist Government published the "Causa General" [General Cause] in 1943, covering executions in the Republican zone, which referred to 85,940 cases in its conclusion. Per Hugh Thomas (pp.172-3, "The Spanish Civil War", 1964) this is "...certainly not an under-estimation, though it compares favourably with the wilder accusations of three or four hundred thousand during the war. [fn: On the other hand, there is just a possibility that the figure was played down to avoid giving too terrible an impression abroad of Spanish characteristics.]". Presumably, as Thomas argues, we can take this as an approximate upper bound; an estimate significantly greater than the "official line" by the opposing side seems unlikely.

Gabriel Jackson (pp.530-533, "The Spanish Republic and the Civil War", 1965) strongly challenges that figure, noting that while it does not claim to be complete, it does cover the main occurences of mass murder, and yet only makes reference to around 6,000 cases. He uses Red Cross figures as the basis to estimate 6,000 deaths in Madrid, and builds on this for a total assumption of around 20,000 people killed. Of these, about half would be clergy, Falangists or Civil Guards (he supports Montero's figure of 6,800 clergy, and builds on it to estimate totals for the other groups). This figure probably reflects the lowest estimate around; I'm not sure if Jackson's published a more recent correction, though. Shimgray | talk | 12:34, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

How could refinancing when market value < mortgage value not be scam

Every time a commercial comes on saying "now you can refinance even if your home is worth less than your mortgage" I can just smell the BS coming out of the TV. But if I'm wrong and it actually is possible, how? If company A was the current mortgage servicer on a mortgage for $100,000 x% interest with $y per month payment, and the home was now worth $50,000, any company B that bought the mortgage would have to pay company A $100,000 for it. So company B entering into any kind of deal with me in which I pay them back less than $100,000 is not going to happen in the real world because if I defaulted, they would have basically no chance to sell it for anywhere near what they paid for it. 20.137.18.50 (talk) 13:43, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

It might be a scam, but historically some companies have offered mortgages worth more than the value of the property - Britain's notorious Northern Rock offered 125% loans; it didn't end well.[20] This works better if property values are rising, when you can seize the property after a few years and make a profit, but if you're careful to pick good credit risks it might work even without that - after all, banks routinely lend money without security, albeit at higher rates of interest. (An alternative explanation would be that there's some sort of government funding to make up the difference, but I don't know if this is true.) --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:26, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm assuming from your IP address that you're in the United States. If so, there are a couple of government programs for dealing with 'underwater' or 'upside down' mortgages; see [21] for more details. In particular, the Home Affordable Refinance Plan (HARP) can help with mortgages up to 125% of a home's market value, and the Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP) may be applied to mortgages up to 105% of the property's market value. As our article on foreclosure rescue schemes notes, there are also a large number of scams, and you should be very wary of signing anything without qualified, competent advice. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:44, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

This kind of refinancing can make sense for the party offering the mortgage, but only in jurisdictions in which mortgages are recourse debts (that is, the borrower is liable for the full amount of the mortgage regardless of the value of the mortgaged property), and only in cases in which the borrower's assets, income, and credit rating give some assurance that the borrower is not likely to file for bankruptcy. Such an offer would probably not be made in jurisdictions where mortgages are nonrecourse debts. If you live in the United States, you may have heard of Californians "walking away" from their mortgages when the mortgage amounts to much more than the market value of their houses. However, that situation is specific to California and a few other "nonrecourse states" (see this site for a list). Most US states are recourse states, in which the borrower is liable for the full amount of the mortgage. In practice these days, hardly any US bank or financing company offers mortgages with any degree of risk or at a competitive interest rate unless the bank or financing company is fairly certain that the mortgage qualifies for repurchase by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac, for example under the HAMP or HARP programs. Any other refinancing offer is likely to be a scam. Marco polo (talk) 14:45, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

For an example of debt trading at a value less than face value, see junk bonds. Risk of default can lower the value of the mortgage and a lender may be willing to trade it at that lower rate. You must imgaine that some banks may have billions wrapped up in these mortgages. These assets may make it difficult to obtain financing of their own. Bundling the toxic assets and selling them to investors hoping to make a return might make more sense. The advertisers could be anything: credit counselors who will negotiate with your bank for a fee, investors seeking to bundle an asset back security trading at below face value like a junk bond, law firms, or other banks. I see nothing new with negotiating to pay less than face value. Attorneys negotiate settlement payments all the time. You get your money quick and avoid years of litigation. In this case, it could be avoiding a foreclosure or picking up something like a junk bond. Gx872op (talk) 19:22, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Marco Polo says it well. Let me add a few things. A bank that does not take sufficient collateral is taking a risk but they minimize their risk in various ways. If you have an excellent credit rating, for many years have never walked away from a debt, the bank can gamble that if it loans X number of people with this profile, only Y number will walk away after Z number of years and make a credit risk assessment based on this analysis. The banks can then figure in, in recourse jurisdictions, that after they foreclose on the statistical portion who do default, they will in most cases also be awarded a deficiency judgment against the homeowners (an unsecured judgment for the balance owed after selling the collateral and crediting it to the total owed), and that they will ultimately collect X percentage of those deficiency judgments over Y number of years, which is also added to the analysis. Note that judgments in most jurisdictions are excellent investments if they are ultimately paid off because of the typical high legal interest rates (9% in many jurisdictions). This means that a bank can gamble a bit higher if they have good statistical tables of how often they will collect, because when they do, it's quite a payday. Anyway, my best advice to you is to hire a lawyer (your own lawyer, not the recommendation of a mortgage/real estate broker, etc.) before ever closing on real property or refinancing, and do some research on them, e.g., through Martindale-Hubbell or similar rating agency.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:07, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Russian debt to CZ?

An article in http://www.milavia.net/news/archive.php?2005-12 (25 May 2005) said "Russia supplied the Mi-35s as part of repayments of its debt to the Czech Republic." - what debt is this? Did Yeltsin agree on some form of compensation to the east bloc countries after Soviet's demise? I've never heard of any formalised debt in this manner.

Thank you in advance for any answers that could help illuminate the issue, and the wording of the article!

88.91.84.136 (talk) 16:33, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Apparently, it is largely debt from the days of the Soviet Union, which Russia inherited, although some of it relates to payments due for exports more recently.[22][23][24] I'm not sure exactly why the USSR needed to borrow money from Czechoslovakia, but evidently it did (Czechoslovakia was one of the most prosperous parts of COMECON and the Warsaw Pact). --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:49, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Journalistic Usage: Borders or State Lines?

Is there an important distinction, in journalistic usage when reporting events within the USA, between "border" and "state line"?216.251.5.64 (talk) 17:39, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Recent example: MSNBC reports on 8/23/11 an earthquake near the CO/NM "border". What border? New Mexico has a border, far to the south, Colorado does not.

See also: Appomattox, Treaty of;

         Articles of Confederation; 
         Border Patrol, US; 
         "Border States" 1861-1865;
         Burr, Aaron;
         Checkpoints, Military;
         Civil War, US;
         Customs Inspection re border crossings
         Full Faith & Credit clause, US Constitution;
         Fort Sumter, SC, shelling of;
         Fremont, John C.;
         Gettysburg, Battle of;
         Glorieta, Battle of;
         Habeas Corpus, suspension of by A. Lincoln;
         Immigration & Naturalization Service (INS); 
         Israel Defense Forces (IDF);
         Lee, Gen. Robert E.;
         Lincoln, Abraham;
         Mexican War, US;
         Mormon Rebellion;  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.251.5.64 (talk) 18:08, 23 August 2011 (UTC) 
         Passports, submission of;
         Secession;
         Sitting Bull, deportation of by Canada;
         Statehood, of US States;  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.251.5.64 (talk) 18:15, 23 August 2011 (UTC) 
         Texas, Republic of;
         Texhoma, OK;
         Texhoma, TX;
         Unity, National

No, I don't think there is any distinction. They are synonyms. The CO/NM border would be the border between the two states. If they meant the Mexican border, they would have said Mexico/NM border, or something like that. —Akrabbim^talk 18:27, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Something like that? You make my point for me. Anywhere in this country, but especially in the southwest US, where the word "border" has a distinct and powerful meaning, the interchangeable usage of the term is both confusing and incorrect. As the lines between nations and between our US States are not synonymous (and the record shows the issue to have been much in contention, see above ref.), the synonymous usage of a single term describing two distinct geographic demarcations is factually inaccurate on each occasion in which a boundary between nations is not being described. Suggesting that states have borders with other states is an affront to the idea that they are united states.

Whether you like it or not, state boundaries are commonly described as borders. If a distinction is needed, you can distinguish between "state borders" and "international borders". Marco polo (talk) 18:57, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

That is a lot of syllables, column space and airtime. "State line", the accurate term, has two syllables, ten character spaces. I advocate its usage as the norm, and the meaning of the distinction being well taught in journalism curricula, and its inclusion in industry-standard usage guides. Is there a convincing argument against the term "state line"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nygdb (talk • contribs) 19:04, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

No, there is nothing wrong with 'state line'. And please remember that this is not the place to promote your own ideas on education and journalism standards, though we are still more than willing to answer any other factual questions you have. —Akrabbim^talk 19:15, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'm new to this. I do consider this topic to be worthy of scholarly review, and encourage users in the journalism profession to ponder the deeper issue of historic accuracy involved here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nygdb (talk • contribs) 19:23, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

In journalistic usage, I have never seen the phrase "state line." I have only ever seen "county line," most often in the discussion over dry counties, 'n' sum ther' fellas crossin' thuh coun'y lion t' git sum booze. Schyler (exquirere bonum ipsum) 19:37, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

A state line belongs to one state. A border can be shared by two. You can speak of the New York state line or the New Jersey state line but, because New York-New Jersey is not a state, there is no such thing as the New York-New Jersey state line, only the New York-New Jersey border. μηδείς (talk) 20:26, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

A border is a type of line. There is no need to draw any greater meaning than that; state line and state border are perfectly interchangable, though state border is probably the prefered formal usage. I have pulled up several atlases (atli?) and they all describe the line between U.S. states as "state border"; likewise in Canada as "provincial border". This appears to be the prefered usage in formal geographic writing. --Jayron32 22:58, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Interestingly, the Oxford English Dictionary defines "border" as "The boundary line which separates one country from another." However, Random House defines it as "the line that separates one country, state, province, etc., from another," and Google says "A line separating two political or geographical areas, esp. countries." Before the Civil War, the Mason-Dixon Line was commonly referred to as the "border," even though it was not an international divide. This 1862 New York Times article refers to the "state border" of Kansas. I was thinking perhaps this is an American vs. British English thing, but the questioner is from Oklahoma. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:06, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

When I look at the OED online entry, the first definition reads "a line separating two countries, administrative divisions, or other areas"; it doesn't limit it to two countries. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 23:11, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

There is the border between states (and don't forget that each of the 50 states is at least semi-sovereign, with its own sets of laws) and then there is "The Border", as in "South of the border", which means Mexico. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:13, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

The phrase "state line" is common when reporting crime... as in: "The kidnapping became a Federal crime as soon as the kidnapper crossed State lines". And cities and towns have boarders too... they are colloquially referred to as city/town "limits" (as in: "The sheriff escorted Black Bart beyond the town limits, and told him to never return").

So... whether to use "Border" or some other term really depends on context. Blueboar (talk) 12:47, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

August 24

US debt to China

China currently holds about 26% of the United States public debt.

Does China own enough of the US debt that if it decided to make the US repay it, the US would collapse and/or be owned by China? --75.10.48.39 (talk) 01:08, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

No. --Jayron32 01:32, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean by "decided to make the US repay" ? If you mean that they would stop loaning the US money and thus cease to be a creditor after the US paid off it's current debts to China, then the US would have two options:

1) Find other places to borrow money.

2) Learn to live within it's means.

Some combo of those two is most likely. StuRat (talk) 01:54, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Right. The debt is mainly in the form of bonds, which come due at a fixed date. All China could do would be to stop financing the running deficit by buying more bonds each year -- that would cause a lot of trouble but wouldn't be likely to cause a collapse, at least not in any sort of direct way. And the problems that resulted would be at least as severe for China as for the US, because they would no longer be able to support their economy by selling stuff to us. Looie496 (talk) 02:03, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

No, the US obligations to China come due over time, and they can not demand, for example, that the Treasury pay 10 year notes before they have matured. Almost all Treasury securities are currently auctioning at a negative real interest rate, but that has not been the case for almost all of the previous decades. So if China were to arrange the early payment of the obligations they hold, they would be rolled over and that would substantially reduce the financial burden on the US. 76.254.20.205 (talk) 02:09, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

China has to do something with the proceeds from its current account surplus. Up to now, China has put much of those proceeds into US Treasury bills. As others have said, China cannot demand repayment of those bonds before they are due. China could stop buying more bonds, but then it would have to figure out what to do with its surplus. If China converted its surplus dollars into its own or some other currency, its target currency would rise against the dollar. The volume of the surplus is so great that any external target currency (say, the euro or the Australian dollar) would rise dramatically against the US dollar, jeopardizing exports from the holder of the target currency. The owner of the target currency would practically be forced to implement capital controls to stop Chinese purchases. Ultimately, the Chinese would have no other option than to convert the dollars into their own currency, driving it up relative to other currencies, until Chinese exports lost their price competitiveness and the Chinese current account surplus disappeared. On the United States, the effect of a Chinese rejection of its debt would inevitably be to drive down the US dollar. Internally, the US government would not necessarily have any difficulty financing its debt, since the Federal Reserve System has a theoretically unlimited ability to create money to purchase Treasury bills through open market operations. Externally, however, the resulting drop in the dollar would make imports (including oil) much more expensive. This would force US consumers to cut their consumption of imported products, including gasoline, and would have a negative impact on the large part of the US economy focused on consumer spending. This would almost certainly send the US economy back into technical recession. Meanwhile, however, the drop in the US dollar would make US exports much more competitive, boosting economic sectors (including many areas of manufacturing) that are export-oriented or that would gain from the effective removal of Chinese competition. Growth in export-oriented or import-replacing sectors could eventually counterbalance contraction in the consumer sectors such that the US economy, with a devalued dollar, could eliminate its current account deficit and its need for external financing. Marco polo (talk) 13:06, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

There is one more thing the Chinese could do. They could attempt to sell the treasury bills they are currently holding on the secondary market -- i.e., sell them to other investors. This would complicate the US government's attempt to borrow more money because the government would have to compete with the Chinese government to find buyers for treasury bonds. Of course, the Fed could buy up the bonds, but that would create inflation complications. Having said this, the Chinese couldn't do this at zero cost. They would take a serious financial loss if they attempted to flood the secondary market with t-bills. Wikiant (talk) 14:18, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

It is very hard to imagine the Chinese doing what Wikiant has described, even as an act of war. Selling their holdings would force the Fed to intervene and would cause the value of the US dollar to crash or even collapse. As a result, the Chinese would take a huge loss. What they would probably like to do, ultimately, is to convert their US holdings into tangible assets of real value, such as agricultural land, mines, and oil fields. To do that, they need to cash out of their holdings gradually, so that they can still get some real value for the dollars they receive. Marco polo (talk) 14:37, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

"Our ancestors died for our freedom"

I hear this line a lot from Americans, and I'm curious about how true it actually is. Certainly in today's world, Britain, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand are very successful and multicultural democracies, arguably with more civil liberties and better human rights than the U.S. (I included only the colonies where the native population was eliminated and replaced by white settlers, since that's what happened in the U.S.) In the 20th and 19th centuries, Great Britain and its colonies seemed to be ahead in granting civil rights to natives and Africans. Even back in 1783, although the non-U.S. British North American colonies obviously didn't have autonomy, they weren't exactly North Korea style dictatorships either.

So, my question is: how much freedom did the American Revolution help gain, and for long after the Revolution could the U.S. decisively be considered more "free", in our modern sense of "democratic with good civil rights", than the British colonies? --99.237.252.228 (talk) 01:17, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, the US did gain more control over it's own affairs, including the right to vote, and that can be called "freedom". Also, the freedoms granted to other British colonies are likely at least in part due to the success of the American Revolution. That is, the British could see that denying the other colonies freedom to vote and a degree of autonomy would lead to more wars of independence, which would be expensive, and which they might lose.

However, I tend to think that winning WW2 was ultimately more important for maintaining freedom in the US and worldwide. StuRat (talk) 01:59, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Your "arguably" implies bullshit in the logic. Admittedly, some of the founding fathers of the US (Washington, Jefferson, others?) held African slaves, which is not much of a demonstration of "freedom" or "liberty." The British got rich transporting the slaves to North America, so they have absolutely no high moral ground. The American Revolution at least gained independence from the British and their evils. Edison (talk) 04:16, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

My "arguably" implies that I'm neither agreeing nor disagreeing with the phrase that follows. There was no bullshit in the logic because I was offering an observation of what many believe, not an argument. --99.237.252.228 (talk) 05:54, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I do not appreciate that this question was closed, and marked as a "discussion", with no justification whatsoever. Just because the question may insult some fanatical American right-wingers who can't accept the facts does not imply that it's an open-ended invitation to a debate. My question was very clear:

"how much freedom did the American Revolution help gain, and for long after the Revolution could the U.S. decisively be considered more "free", in our modern sense of "democratic with good civil rights", than the British colonies?"

Granted, it's hard to measure this objectively. However, if we insisted on perfect objectivity in every instance, social science wouldn't exist because some amount of judgment is always necessary. Furthermore, I think this question is highly relevant and interesting because, as I said, I've heard many people claim "our ancestors died for our freedom" in relation to the revolutionary war. I'm simply curious about the extent to which this is true, and the extent to which it's unjustified nationalism.

StuRat offered some good points: I do know that, for example, the generosity of the Quebec Act was partially due to the unrest in the Thirteen Colonies. As for Edison's comments, with regard to slavery, I was referring to the fact that Britain banned the slave trade in 1807, and slavery as a whole in 1833, which is 30 years ahead of the U.S. I'm also curious about what you consider the evils of the British, and for how long those evils affected the other British colonies to the north. (Again, not an argument; I'm in no way arguing that the British had no evils to speak of.) --99.237.252.228 (talk) 05:54, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

As always, this probably has something to do with American exceptionalism. Adam Bishop (talk) 06:35, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Freedom from rule by foreign powers, which, alas, we've allowed to erode over the years. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:10, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I can see why you might argue that other freedoms have been eroded, such as privacy, but freedom from rule by foreign powers seems quite intact in the US, to me. StuRat (talk) 09:13, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Officially, sure, and maybe I should have said foreign influence. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:33, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

We can compare the history of suffrage in the UK and USA, although different states in the USA can set different voting laws.

In the late 18th century, both countries still restricted voting to property-owning males.

The USA removed property restrictions for men in various states between 1812 and 1860 and the 15th Amendment nominally gave all men of all races the vote in 1870, while the UK didn't fully remove property restrictions for men until 1918. So white men in the USA were better off until 1918. However, blacks in some parts of the USA could not in practice vote until the 1960s. Hence if you were a poor black male, you were nominally freer in the USA from 1870 until 1918, but depending on where you lived, you might have been better off in the UK until about 1965. After that, I assume equality.

Some women got the vote in the UK (1918) before the USA, but full female franchise in the US came in 1920, and didn't come until 1928 in the UK. Hence, there wasn't much difference, but young US women were better off from 1920-1928.

On the other hand, people in the US still have greater rights to free speech than in the UK: for instance laws on libel, defamation, contempt of court and incitement to racial and religious hatred restrict speech in the UK. And laws on e.g. the right to avoid self-incrimination (Fifth Amendment rights) are clearer and perhaps wider in the US. In other areas, e.g. gay marriage, there is so much variation between states you can't make a general comparison. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:24, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think you can really make blanket statements like 'people in the US still have greater rights to free speech than in the UK'. This basically comes down to a value judgment about the extent to which different types of speech should be protected, and for example the Reporters Without Borders Press Freedom Index gives the UK a slightly better score than the US. Anyway, going back to the original question, even if you did compile some sort of historical measure of freedom for the US and the UK, it doesn't really tell us what life would have been like for people in the British colonies in North America if the revolutionary war hadn't happened - for example, they could have gained independence in a different manner at a later date. 81.98.38.48 (talk) 12:57, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Owning stock in all (or most) available companies

Is there a term for owning stock in every company (or at least the major players) in a given industry/service? For instance, owning stock in Lowe's, The Home Depot, and Ace Hardware. If there is a term and article for this, my following questions might be answered by that article.

Also, is there any advantage to this? If, using my example again, hardware stores were an up and coming market then I would expect that it would be beneficial to own stock in all of them. After all they'd all be growing or, at least, most would grow and the companies that didn't grow might be bought out by those that did. Although, I can see the other side of the coin (if there are only two sides) in that when one goes bankrupt, the others might grow in value enough to balance out the losses. Dismas|^(talk) 04:52, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

This sounds like some sort of exchange traded fund or something like that, sort of a "sector specific" SPDR or something like that. --Jayron32 05:03, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, List of American exchange-traded funds lists several sector-specific funds, under the "Market sector ETFs" section. --Jayron32 05:04, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

If there was an advantage to doing this, then wouldn't the market adjust prices to take account of this accordingly? Assuming that the market operated on rational principles - which has yet to be proven ;-) AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:06, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Or, if you don't use ETFs, simply an industry-focussed portfolio?

As for advantages, buying stocks in all companies in the same industry would minimise the intra-industry risks, for example the risk that Lowe's might perform badly due to increased competition from The Home Depot. On the other hand, it does nothing for the risks facing this whole industry. So if your portfolio is entirely exposed to a certain sector, then your fortunes will basically wax and wane with the average performance of that industry. It might be a good idea if you are absolutely convinced that this particular industry overall will keep going up, and you wanted to iron out the risk that any particular company within the industry might perform worse, with its share of the market taken up by another company within the same industry. It should also be noted that the flip side of protecting yourself against Lowe's losses (for example) is losing out on The Home Depot's gains, as the two will offset each other (how much depends on the weighting of your portfolio). --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 06:56, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Dramatic History

Can we sort a type of history writing something dramatic history: which more concerns people's relations and characteristics and their dramatic stories? and if there, is there any examples? Flakture (talk) 06:52, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

There is a whole genre of historical writing about "Great Men", which is similar to your description. Adam Bishop (talk) 07:57, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Or there's the exact opposite: the Annales approach. --Dweller (talk) 10:24, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

literature the chronicles of narnia the lion the witch and the wardrobe

what changes in nature are occuring as Aslan is coming nearer to narnia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.18.229.10 (talk) 09:39, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Please do your own homework.

Welcome to the Wikipedia Reference Desk. Your question appears to be a homework question. I apologize if this is a misinterpretation, but it is our aim here not to do people's homework for them, but to merely aid them in doing it themselves. Letting someone else do your homework does not help you learn nearly as much as doing it yourself. Please attempt to solve the problem or answer the question yourself first. If you need help with a specific part of your homework, feel free to tell us where you are stuck and ask for help. If you need help grasping the concept of a problem, by all means let us know. --Dweller (talk) 10:22, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Underground Railroad Notable Locations

In the Wiki for the Underground Railroad there is a heading labelled "Notable Locations" under which is Pickering, Ontario. I am doing research on black settlers in the Pickering Township and was interested to see that Pickering was a notable location along the Underground Railroad. However, an explanation as to why it was notable is not given. If you could give me any information or sources where I could find such information that would be greatly appreciated http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underground_Railroad#Route 99.243.27.222 99.243.27.222 (talk) 14:45, 24 August 2011 (UTC)