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

July 8

North Koreans stranded in Libya after the regime change - How to get them help?

There were a handful of North Korean workers in Libya on some type of labor exchange program. Then when the rebellion rose up to overthrow Gaddafi, the North Korean laborers witnessed dissent.

Fearing that they'd sow the seeds of dissent back home, the North Korean government abandoned their workers there.

Now that they're stranded in Libya, I would be more than happy to get them to seek asylum at the closest US diplomatic mission.

We have a policy to accept North Korean defectors. Now the next step is, how do I contact / find the abandoned North Koreans and get them to seek asylum at one of our embassies? --70.179.170.114 (talk) 02:58, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, to begin with, how did you find out about these labourers? Snow (talk) 03:09, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I believe the OP is referring to this, which I found on Google. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 16:14, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

It might be easier to go the other way: contact the embassy and let them know about the abandonded North Koreans, and let them take it from there. RudolfRed (talk) 03:11, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

If the embassy could go on the local news there and tell people the North Koreans will be welcome in the US, and give out the address of the US embassy, I imagine many would find their way there. If you want to spend some money to make this happen, perhaps some ads in the local papers, in Korean, might help. Of course, verify that this is OK with the US embassy, before telling people to go there. Also, if South Korea will accept them, many might prefer to go there, especially if they have relatives in SK. StuRat (talk) 04:19, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

They will probably prefer to go to a country where North Korean is spoken. μηδείς (talk) 01:21, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

You mean the Korean language (shared by NK and SK) ? StuRat (talk) 02:40, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Can't get anything past you, can one? μηδείς (talk) 02:51, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

You might want to use small text and/or a smiley, when making a joke. Otherwise, people might take you seriously. :-) StuRat (talk) 18:47, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Who are you? Do you work for the US embassy in Libya? If not, I don't really see why it has anything to do with you. Just let the US embassy deal with it. I'm sure they know as much as you do about the situation. --Tango (talk) 02:32, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Maybe the OP is Korean? My family did what they could for our relatives behind the Iron Curtain. μηδείς (talk) 02:40, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

They may know about it, and be obligated to help, if the North Koreans show up and ask to defect, but that doesn't mean they will lift a finger to make this all happen. If the North Koreans don't know they would be welcomed there, and have heard anti-US propaganda all their lives, they aren't likely to walk in uninvited. StuRat (talk) 02:43, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I am pretty sure that they will have the common sense to sort themselves out. These are doctors and nurses, as well as construction workers. They are well educated. I am sure they will have the sense to act appropriately. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 08:31, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Given that the news was broken by a South Korean news agency, it sounds like South Koreans are well aware of the situation and the usual charities and pressure groups would no doubt be trying to get them rescued to South Korea already. It's been about 10 months since that news report, if they are willing to go there they are probably in South Korea already. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:32, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Since the U.S. considers North Korea a supporter of terrorism and a nuclear state, I would doubt that the U.S. would grant asylum to North Koreans unless they were trying to defect, which, according to the OP, does not seem to be the case. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 11:49, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

The worse the nation is, the more likely the US is to grant asylum to those trying to leave it. We don't get a lot of requests for asylum from Canadians ("If you send me back, they'll force me to say OOT !"). StuRat (talk) 01:00, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Historical nominal GDP statistics for various countries before 1960?

Is there any site that gives reliable historical nominal GDP statistics for many countries for periods of time before 1960? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Futurist110 (talk • contribs) 05:56, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

These should get you started: 1, 2, List of regions by past GDP (PPP) Snow (talk) 06:49, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, but I explicitly want nominal (not PPP) GDP data for years before 1960. Futurist110 (talk) 09:34, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

measuring worth? Fifelfoo (talk) 10:05, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I saw that one before, but it only has 4 countries or so on it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Futurist110 (talk • contribs) 10:08, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Various pages linked to on reference number 2 above have this data for different countries/regions. Unfortunately I haven't found any indexes that provide concentrated statistics for the whole world (at least, not indexes of the free variety), but if I turn anything else up, I'll let you know. Snow (talk) 10:09, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Is Fraserburgh the furthest north settlement in the United Kingdom that has over 10,000 residents?

I think it is, but I am not sure. Am I correct?--XKQ7 (talk) 15:01, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Also, is there a way of getting a chart which tells me which settlements in the United Kingdom exist that have no settlements at a more northerly latitude that have a higher population? For example it would include at least London (nothing bigger further north), Glasgow (nothing bigger further north), Aberdeen, Inverness, Elgin, Fraserburgh, Stornoway, Kirkwall and Lerwick (and probably some other English settlements that I have missed out, as well as some tiny settlements on Shetland).--XKQ7 (talk) 15:07, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

A method of correlating lattitude and population should be a fairly simple job for a database program, but I doubt it is possible here on WP. Roger (talk) 16:28, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

It may be worth pointing out to the OP, before embarking on such a task, that Glasgow, Aberdeen, Inverness, Elgin, Fraserburgh, Stornoway, Kirkwall and Lerwick are not 'English settlements' in that they are not in England, but Scotland. Maybe they were in the past, but I doubt anyone considers them so nowadays. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 17:19, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I think XKQ7 meant "English settlements other than London"—for instance, I don't think there is any UK city north of Birmingham with a greater population. Deor (talk) 19:31, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

To confirm what Deor implied, there is one major gap in XKQ7's list. Our list of largest United Kingdom settlements by population places Birmingham between London (larger, to the south) and Glasgow (smaller, to the north), and the list of urban areas in the United Kingdom (which uses a different definition, of contiguous urban areas) places the West Midlands conurbation in that position. Whichever you choose depends on your definition of the term "settlement". Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:56, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

PS: If you rely on the "urban areas", you would interpose the Greater Manchester Urban Area and then the West Yorkshire Urban Area between the West Midlands and Glasgow - increasingly far north (though their areas overlap in latitude), and decreasingly large. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:41, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

The list of towns in the Aberdeenshire article would seem to rule out any there - all the major towns are significantly further south. Moray and Highland (council area) don't have such convenient ordered lists, but the only towns I can see that have articles and come close on both measures are Elgin, Buckie, Thurso, and Wick. You mentioned Stornoway, Kirkwall, and Lerwick, which all come pretty close to 10 000, and are the largest settlements in the Western Isles, Orkney, and Shetland, respectively. So I would guess that these are the only contenders - some of them are close enough that I suppose it could come down to where you draw the settlement boundaries, and where you measure the latitude from. Also, note that most of the population data is still based on the 2001 census, so could be a little out of date. 81.98.43.107 (talk) 20:29, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Elgin is certainly larger than Fraserburgh, but is also further south.  :) Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:10, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I did say "come close". There only seem to be a couple of miles in it. 81.98.43.107 (talk) 23:29, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Here are some 2008 figures and it looks to me that Fraserburgh is the right answer.[4] Thincat (talk) 23:42, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

How did Stalin "backstab" Japan?

H. Beam Piper's story "The Mercenaries" (1950) contains this line (explaining why Sugihara is unlikely to be the spy):

“ ... The Japs'll forgive Russia for that Mussolini backstab in 1945 after the Irish start building monuments to Cromwell. ”

Huh? —Tamfang (talk) 21:55, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Declaring war and invading Manchuria 3 days after Hiroshima, perhaps?FlowerpotmaN·(t) 22:19, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

That would be my best guess; doing so was a violation of the Soviet–Japanese Neutrality Pact signed just a few years earlier. I'm unsure though, since backstab seems strong wording for something everyone had to see coming. Japan and Russia (and the U.S.S.R.) have a long history of conflict over territory in northeast Asia so it could refer to any number of events, but the Mussolini reference does seem to imply that it took place in a context around WW2. But seeing as Piper was primarily a sci-fi/alternate history writer, are we sure this event even took place? I'm unfamiliar with "The Mercenaries". Snow (talk) 22:24, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I think everybody saw it coming but the Japanese, where overly optimistic thinking had completely divorced them from reality. StuRat (talk) 22:28, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

"in 1945" also seems to imply a context around WW2. — The Manhattan Project is mentioned in backstory, so it's not alt-hist (as of when it was written!). The "mercenaries" are scientists and technicians working on one of several rival projects to establish a military Moonbase. —Tamfang (talk) 22:36, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I had to check too to see if it was one of his Paratime stories, but nope.... :) Written in 1950, but set in 1965. Haven't had a chance to read it all, but the context seems to suggest the back-stab refers to the breaking of the non-aggression pact as a reason the character wouldn't help the Commies. (It's on gutenberg.org, if anyone wants to have a look; a lot of H. Beam Piper stuff is as copyright wasn't renewed in the 70s)FlowerpotmaN·(t) 22:48, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

"'in 1945' also seems to imply a context around WW2." Woops, heheh, quite right. Snow (talk) 23:02, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

The reference to Mussolini is a bit odd, though. I suspect that the author was conflating the Tripartite Pact (Germany, Italy, and Japan) with the Soviet–Japanese Neutrality Pact. StuRat (talk) 22:32, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

It might also be that someone (the author, the editor or someone else) wrote "Mussolini" instead of "Manchuria"... --Martynas Patasius (talk) 22:51, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I think the Mussolini reference is to the fact that Mussolini declared war against France only after Germany had crushed all serious resistance there, and then swept into southern France to pick up as much territory as they could grab. Looie496 (talk) 23:52, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Could be, but that wasn't exactly a "backstab", as France and Italy weren't allies. StuRat (talk) 23:54, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

My recollection is that they did actually have a treaty of neutrality (the Italians were terrified of the French and British fleets), and it was certainly seen at the time as a purely cynical backstab. Looie496 (talk) 23:56, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

But "swept into" isn't quite the right phrase. The French gave them a bloody nose, despite being on the verge of military collapse. They never got past the Alpine Line and their thrust along the coast could only advance 8km. See Italian invasion of France. Alansplodge (talk) 00:35, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. But in any case that article gives the quote that is the key to this question, from Franklin Roosevelt: "On this tenth day of June 1940, the hand that held the dagger has struck it into the back of its neighbor." Looie496 (talk) 00:46, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Seems like a solid and probably accurate analysis for Piper's phrasing to me. But we're unlikely to know for certain, I suppose. Snow (talk) 02:00, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

July 9

Concealed carry laws stopping a spree shooting

One of the more interesting (to me) results of the Luby's massacre in Texas was the relaxation of concealed-carry firearms permit regulations. One of those present at the shooting stated publicly numerous times that had she been legally armed, she could have ended the massacre.

Has that ever happened? Has a spree shooting ever been stopped by a civilian with a legal firearm? gnfnrf (talk) 00:38, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

There are success stories with concealed-carry permits. Here's one is about a hostage situation:[5], and this is about someone storming a church wth a shotgun: [6]. There are other examples in the news, if you search for them. Neither of these were shooting sprees, but that could be because they were stopped at the start. RudolfRed (talk) 01:00, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Here are a few recent ones over the last month: [7] [8] [9]. These stories aren't uncommon. As for shooting sprees, Trolley Square shooting was ended when an off-duty officer exchanged shots with the shooter, after which on duty police arrived and killed him, which I think is close to your question. While I believe most U.S. states allow officers to carry concealed anyway when off duty, the argument is that an armed populace can respond faster than on duty police could. Shadowjams (talk) 01:37, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

When I read the "this is about someone storming a church wth a shotgun:", I thought it was going to link to the case where the counter-armed man missed the armed man and killed a little girl instead, no shots ever fired by the first armed man, but I can't find that article through google. Unique Ubiquitous (talk) 02:15, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm interested in this story as well.A8875 (talk) 02:37, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

That was a plot point in an episode of The West Wing. Was it also a real story? RudolfRed (talk) 02:38, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Ha, that could very well be where I got that from, my bad, facepalm. But still while searching for it I did come across many cases of Americans shooting each other in churches... really what are guns for but for killing... Unique Ubiquitous (talk) 02:58, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I've seen better examples than those linked above. (I even had some links, but they're broken now.) Trouble is, when a bunch of people don't get murdered, it's less likely to make the news. —Tamfang (talk) 23:00, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Given the number of shootings and attempted shootings in the US, and the number of people that routinely carry guns, it's sure to happen sometimes. You need to compare the lives saved in such instances with the lives lost in accidental shootings and people getting hold of the gun (I heard a statistic somewhere that more US policemen are shot with their own gun than are shot with other guns, although I have no idea if that is actually true) to get useful information on the merits of concealed carry permits. --Tango (talk) 02:40, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with statist calculations of utility. US Citizens have rights [10], among them the right of self-defense,[11] and the government has no place abrogating them. μηδείς (talk) 02:43, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Sure, but in other nations people think that a person's right to carry massacre capable weapons is less important than a person's right to not be constantly threatened by others. But still, congrats to the US on leading the developed world in murder, 11x Japan, 4x Europe, 3x Canada, maybe more guns would stop the murderers. Unique Ubiquitous (talk) 02:58, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

What in the world are you talking about? The right to carry concealed nuclear weapons? Or the number of people murdered in WWII by Japan and the Axis compared to by Americans with guns? Or how much better it is to be stabbed to death than shot? Or saying that the murder rate in Mexico, two and a half that of the US, is better because their rate of death by firearm is only half hours? Or implying that murderers generally have legal weapons and seek concealed carry permits? Bizarre. μηδείς (talk) 03:55, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

The high murder rate in Mexico is mostly due to the irrational US drug policy, which ensures that drug gangs in Mexico will fight violently for control of the multi-billion dollar illegal cross-border drug smuggling operation. Their murder rate would also be lower if they weren't able to smuggle US guns into Mexico. StuRat (talk) 18:33, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

The high murder rate in the US has to do with the US drug policy. And absolutely nothing to do with the second amendment or the right to self defense. Next someone will say they don't have black people in Japan. μηδείς (talk) 01:14, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd say that the murder rate is due to both, as many murders in the US are unrelated to drugs. StuRat (talk) 05:12, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry, but without statistics, what you would say is rather dubious. Murder in NYC correlates almost entirely with drug crime; dealing and robbery.[12] Where statistics are known, the vast majority of murders are commited with unregistered guns [13] and the crime rate with registered gun users is very low.[14] It defies reason and evidence to claim that the right of law abiding citizens to defend themselves is a significant cause of gun murders. μηδείς (talk) 02:25, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Where do you think unregistered guns come from ? They are registered guns which were stolen, sold illegally, etc. Also, you stats are rather questionable. I think you made a mistake on your 1st link, since it's just a map, showing something by race (homicides by race of victim ?). There's no correlation with drug shown on the map. Your 2nd link states that, in Canada, "where registration status was known, 7 in 10 firearms used to commit homicide were reported by police to be unregistered". Leaving aside the issue of those cases where the status is unknown, it's entirely possible that 70% of the guns in Canada are unregistered, meaning there's no difference in the tendency of registered or unregistered guns to be used in crimes. As for your third link, that's entirely useless. The percentage of Florida gun owners who've had their guns revoked would only be those who committed a crime with the gun, were caught, and subsequently had the permit pulled. You can't infer anything from this. Your 2nd link did have a relevant chart, though (number 4), showing that the non-gun homicide rate in the US is similar to other nations, but that the gun crime rate is up to 34 times higher. StuRat (talk) 19:34, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

The U.S. has 11x the murder rate of Japan because we have 13x the incarceration rate of Japan. We have 3x the murder rate of Canada because we have 5x the incarceration rate of Canada. See List of countries by incarceration rate. Most of the people in the jails, mind you, are not there for murder, but for non-violent offenses; but the purpose of prisons is to recruit people, in fear for their life, to join gangs and learn criminal trades. Wnt (talk) 15:56, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't think anyone argues that unlimited weapons should be given to anyone who wants them (machine guns for felons ?). As to how much the right to bear arms should be limited, that varies from state to state and from election to election. StuRat (talk) 03:01, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I happen to agree (more or less) with Medeis, that there is a natural human right of self-defense. But I don't thereby conclude that empirical outcomes are not worth considering. Not everyone has the same theory of rights. —Tamfang (talk) 23:00, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

On the other hand, someone was in a nearby store carrying a gun at the time of the Gaby Giffords shooting, and later said that if they had been slightly less restrained, they would have started shooting at a time when the original shooter had already been caught and was being restrained by members of the public... AnonMoos (talk) 14:08, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Her self-restraint is an argument for allowing law-abiding adults to carry weapons. Either that or the fact mass transit should be banned because if I had been slightly less retrained on the subway platform today I could probably have pushed half a dozen small people to their deaths. There's no getting away from the need for people to be responsible for their actions. μηδείς (talk) 01:19, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Please, let us provide references for the original poster specifically connected to their question, and discuss other potential questions by starting new sections (US gun politics is one of the most boring recurrent discussions online). Fifelfoo (talk) 03:21, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I wonder why people outside the US care about this topic so much and also about the death penalty. OK, both are probably bad ideas under many aspects, but there are worse things out there. OsmanRF34 (talk) 12:38, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I can think of two reasons for this of the top of my head. The first reason is that these are topics that are much discussed in US society, and as such, people outside the US, who are interested in society/politics etc. get a lot of information on it, and can discuss it.

The second reason, which perhaps feeds of the first one, is the comparison between what the US is and what the US perceives itself to be. The US describes itself as a peaceful, prosperous, just and democratic society. Keep in mind that the legal, political and philosophical traditions of Europe and America are very different. However, for a European, it seems like a contradiction that a modern, democratic state should be executing its own citizens, and that in a country with the rule of law, citizens should see the need to heavily arm themselves. And, of course, the different histories of the US and Europe will mean that these differences in opinion can lead to hours and hours of fun debates. ;-) V85 (talk) 15:34, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you all for your answers and links. Of course, this is a touchy subject, and I don't think it's productive to rehash the basic arguments here. Just a few clarifications: I'm looking for a very specific scenario here, which I don't quite see. Many of the links are to incidents where robberies or other crimes were stopped by armed civilians; I know that happens, and that's not what I'm looking for. I want to know if the specific scenario of an actual spree shooting (where a criminal is in fact trying to kill people with a gun) is stopped by a civilian (not an off-duty police officer or other person with a professional reason to carry a weapon), presumably by shooting them. This is the scenario that Suzanna Hupp described in hearings before Congress about expanding concealed-carry rights. I don't know of it every actually happening, though, and I wanted to find out if I missed it. gnfnrf (talk) 01:56, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

This is incredibly easy to find on google. I started typing in "citizen stops shooting" and before I had gotten to the 's' in 'stops' google suggested the search term "armed citizen stops shooting spree" which generated the following results: http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=armed+citizen+stops+shooting+spree&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8 μηδείς (talk) 17:20, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

That's certainly a useful search (I admit, it's a combination of terms I just didn't think to try) but the results have a lot of uncited forum posts and discussions like this one, and theoretical speculation. But, I'll go through the forums and see what I can find for actual answers.

• Appalachian School of Law shooting - Close by some accounts, a little farther by others, but not actually concealed carry.
• Pearl High School shooting - Another very close match, but still not actually concealed carry. Intriguingly, in neither of these two cases did the defending civilian actually shoot.
• Tyler courthouse shooting - Also very close, but here, the intervening civilian didn't succeed in stopping the shooting, though his intervention may have helped police (at the cost of his own life).
• Shooting by/of Ernesto Fuentes Villagomez in May 2008 in Winnemucca, Nevada. I'm having difficulty finding a complete news article about this event, only short excepts posted to blogs. It may fit the criteria very well, but it's hard to tell when the only sources I can find are advocacy-based.
• A spree stabbing in Salt Lake City stopped by an armed citizen who fired no shots. The perpetrator wounded several people but didn't kill anyone. [15]

And a bunch of general crime stories, repeats, and stories with too few details for me to track anything down. The Winnemucca case looks very promising, but I just couldn't find a (in Wikipedia terms) reliable source for it. However, others may have better luck or better sources (I mainly tried Google News in the months following the event, using the perp's name.) Other than that, this search doesn't actually provide anything (that I saw) that directly fits the scenario I'm wondering about. Was there a specific incident you saw in that search that I missed, Medeis? gnfnrf (talk) 02:37, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I suggest you try google news if you want more "reliable" results, you'll get stories like this one http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2170728/Two-die-bloody-gun-battle-childrens-soccer-match-raising-death-toll-three.html where bystanders returned fire and killed the assailant. Using quotes around "shooting spree" also helps, although "stop" is very unspecific. As for a list, if it doesn't exist here it probably won't exist anywhere--but starting such an article might draw contributors to do the work for you. There is also the huge issue of what is seen and what is not seen. Given, as I have said, I don't think the statistics are relevant one way or the other in regards to allowing people to use guns to defend themselves you'll forgive me if I don't do the drudge work myself. μηδείς (talk) 02:53, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Can't resist replying to some of the slightly more tangential comments above, sorry. One (just one) problem with assuming it's a good idea to arm citizens more heavily in order to deal with other people who run amok with a gun, is that it potentially leads to situations like the Beslan massacre. An awful lot of the local populace seemed to be exercising their constitutional rights to bear arms (who'd a thunk it, I thought the parts of the former USSR mostly weren't free countries even now?), but this didn't stop the massacre, and in fact mostly resulted in the citizens hindering the police by taking potshots at the hostage-takers with their own rifles. (Thereby possibly actually provoking the massacre that ultimately took place.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:51, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Single payer savings in the U.S. post-TB coverup

Given [16] is single payer savings over Obamacare going to be closer to $1.3 or 1.5 trillion per year? 71.212.249.178 (talk) 07:03, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

File:PNHP poster.jpg

An analysis of the United States National Health Care Act by Physicians for a National Health Program who estimated the savings at $350 billion per year in 2008.[1] Others have estimated a 40% savings[2] from preventative care and elimination of insurance company overhead costs[3].

I don't see how that link relates to your question. StuRat (talk) 07:19, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

"The state of Florida has been struggling for months with what the Centers for Disease Control describe as the worst tuberculosis outbreak in the United States in twenty years.... the coverup began as early as last February, when Duval County Health Department officials felt so overwhelmed by the sudden spike in tuberculosis that they asked the [CDC] to become involved. Believing the outbreak affected only their underclass, the health officials made a conscious decision not to not tell the public, repeating a decision they had made in 2008, when the same strain had appeared in an assisted living home for people with schizophrenia. That decision now appears to have gone terribly awry, partly because the disease appears to have already spread into the general population but also because just nine days before the CDC warning was issued, Florida Governor Rick Scott had signed a bill downsizing the state’s Department of Health and closing the A.G. Holley State Hospital that had treated the most difficult tuberculosis cases for over 60 years.... as many as 3000 people may have been exposed to the strain over the past two years, mainly in Jacksonville’s homeless shelters, jails, and a mental health clinic. Only 253 of those have been found, of whom one-third have tested positive for TB exposure.... the strain has not only spread beyond the underclass but has started appearing in other parts of the state, including Miami.... The drugs to treat a simple case of TB cost only $500, but if a patient does not take them regularly and the strain becomes drug-resistant, the cost skyrockets to $275,000. And, as the Post notes, 'the itinerant homeless, drug-addicted, mentally ill people at the core of the Jacksonville TB cluster are almost impossible to keep on their medications.'"

So, if Obamacare costs $1 trillion/year over pre-Obamacare baseline, and single payer would have saved $350 trillion, if that kind of behavior is typical of government response to virulent disease, then presumably single payer would actually save somewhat more, would it not? 71.212.249.178 (talk) 18:18, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Your assumption that this is the typical result is faulty. The combination of a Republican government there and being in the dark on the situation and bad timing is unlikely to recur. (Even the Republicans wouldn't have evicted TB-ridden patients from hospitals if they realized this would cause a spread of TB and garner bad PR for themselves.) StuRat (talk) 18:26, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I think you underestimate their ability to make sacrifices for their faith... I should note also that there is some evidence (though also contradictory results) favoring the idea that simple malnutrition, especially lack of meat, makes people more vulnerable to the disease; for thousands of years major and minor medical works have been recommending to give those with tuberculosis meat, often organ meat, often from carnivores (the sort of stuff one could catch gout just thinking about). I don't think the question has received satisfactory treatment in the recent literature that is indexed by PubMed, but I wonder if some basic food assistance for these people could limit the spread of the disease - and that too isn't going to happen. Wnt (talk) 00:42, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps there's a Republican solution to the TB problem in Florida more in line with their values. They could make a law that says having no permanent address and TB makes you a danger to public safety and subject to confinement, for the public good. The effect would be to criminalize having TB, if you are poor, allowing them to arrest all these people and imprison them until they die. StuRat (talk) 05:07, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Contradictions under international law

I was thinking one day about how many laws can come into conflict, especially with complex things like contract law, where (in my understanding) different laws and principles can affect the case, without any clear right or wrong. In the laws of individual nations, we have the government to clamp down with a binding legal process, including, typically, some single final court of appeal. Because there is no such power in international law, enforcing its decisions, it seems somewhat silly to talk of international law at all (note I'm not soapboxing, just making a point). Are there any cases that have come under international law where it was quite clear that different laws or legal principles had come into conflict, and no one could do anything much because of the lack of a strict process? What was the outcome? IBE (talk) 14:44, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure there are cases that can be interpreted that way, but the term international law basically implies a treaty that has been signed by a large number of nations. Since all of those nations have signed the same treaty, they are all bound by the same set of rules. Looie496 (talk) 15:44, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but they sign a lot of different treaties, and one government can then be bound by the treaties signed by several of its predecessors, including from parties with a very different outlook. They can revoke the local laws of the predecessors, so they could either just revoke the treaties as well, or sign different ones. Then the problem of jurisdiction will come up - who has the right to overrule decisions to prevent conflict among treaties/ statutes, and who has the power? Or, more exactly, what happens in practice when people argue out these things? IBE (talk) 16:19, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

(ec)Typically (although not always) the consequence of a state signing a treaty is that it passes legislation in its own parliament which enacts, in a framework consistent with that country's constitution and existing law, the core principles of that treaty. So for individuals or corporations dealing with one another over an international matter, the dispute is still settled in the court of one or other of the relevant nation states. Resort to a supra-national adjudication is available only in some circumstances, as described by those treaties. For contracts, it's very common for a contract to stipulate the prevailing jurisdiction (which might not be immediately relevant); so for example a German subcontractor of a Spanish building company building a Qatari funded skyscraper in Kuwait might all be bound by a contract under English law which mandates that disputes be settled in a commercial court in England - there just isn't a workable framework where, if contracts were written for German and Spanish and Qatari law, the conflicts between them could be resolved. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 16:31, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Say, for example, you fly from Mexico to Spain, and your bag gets lost. The prevailing treaty is the Montreal Convention, which establishes and limits liability and describes how claims against airlines are to be conducted, and in what jurisdiction. But you, and the airline, are not parties to the Convention - it's an Inter-National treaty (one nation to another). Both Mexico and Spain will have passed laws in their own legislatures which implement their obligations under that treaty, so you'd pursue your case in whichever the treaty (and thus the laws) specified. There isn't a need for an over-arching adjudicator, as both laws are broadly the same. If one country failed to pass a law, or if it then failed to enforce that law, then it would be in breach of the treaty. That's a rare event, but if it happens there's not much you as an individual can do about it. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 16:46, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

The United Nations Convention Against Torture has been ratified by a lot of countries who have continued to torture, e.g. Syria, Pakistan, but nobody can investigate or prosecute. There's the Kosovo War and 2003 invasion of Iraq: aggression is customarily against international law (see War of aggression, Crime against peace), but both of these had various justifications including defending the rule of the UN, self-defence (Iraq), enforcing the Genocide Convention (Kosovo). The International Court of Justice advisory opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons or Nicaragua v. United States might also be relevant. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:44, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

See Conflict of laws (a.k.a. private international law). — Kpalion^(talk) 07:03, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

When the UK fought a war with Argenina, the US had treaty obligations to aid both sides. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 08:00, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

theory of Aristotle climate

According to the theory of Aristotle climate Is something can tell me what he say, where poeple live, where were the monster...

I think

1. Warm areas (Zona torridaTorrid Zone) - from the Tropic of Cancer (23.5°) in the north, through the equator (0°), to the Tropic of Capricorn (23.5°)
2. Cold regions - where?
3. Temperate zone
4. * In the northern - human live?
5. * In the southern people inversive feet (Astaiodes)?--109.186.6.158 (talk) 16:55, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

There is some information about Aristotle and his theories in Geographical zone#History. Is this what you're looking for? - Karenjc 18:44, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

That's actually a pretty cute example of the dangers of extrapolation. Looking at the map of Africa, at the vast expanse of the Sahara, who would have pictured that the equator would be survivable? Wnt (talk) 00:27, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I suspect that if the Earth wasn't tilted, it would be hotter at the equator, perhaps uninhabitable where it's in the center of a continent, like Africa. StuRat (talk) 05:01, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

IIRC, Herodotus (who was earlier than Aristotle) seemed quite comfortable passing on a story of Phoenician sailors completing a circuit of Africa without claiming that the bulk of it was uninhabitable; and there were reports that Carthaginian sailors got past the arid parts of the Western African coast and reached more equatorial bits of Africa.

Early travellers' accounts make for interesting reading but it's really tempting to read too much into them, to take some details literally and others metaphorically. Of course St Brendan saw an iceberg! bobrayner (talk) 10:07, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

But, of course, it's much cooler on the coasts, due to the moderating effect of oceans on temperature. If Eurasia was much farther south, so that it's longest East-West stretch straddled the equator, it might also be uninhabitable there. StuRat (talk) 18:42, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Interestingly, before the Greeks realized the earth was spherical, they knew it was not flat, and believed it to be like a great mountain, with position on the slope determining temperature. The Greek word climate is cognate with the Latin inclination and the English lean. http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=climate μηδείς (talk) 17:08, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

U.S. involvement in Syria

Is the U.S. breaking any international laws with its involvement in the Syrian uprising? --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 23:30, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't think so. The U.S. involvement is actually pretty minimal -- it consists mainly of talking. Looie496 (talk) 00:25, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

It's almost surely sending arms as well, if not doing other things. I wouldn't be surprised if the US was also clandestinely doing other stuff. As for whether this violates international law, I don't know. If it is a violation of international law, it's one that the US and many other countries violate routinely. --Mr.98 (talk) 02:03, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

That source says that American agents are helping other countries decide which rebels to arm. Sitting in a border camp in Turkey and telling some Turkish officers "Don't arm the Al Qaeda ones, mmmkay" is different from American agents actually handing arms to rebels. Such distinctions are important if we're talking about "law". bobrayner (talk) 10:26, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

A true point. But providing logistical support is still important, and I'd be surprised if the US wasn't doing more than that. They have at this point real motivations in getting Assad out of there and they've been selling this insurgency pretty hard, so the idea that they'd let that go its natural course seems unlikely to me. --Mr.98 (talk) 11:27, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

(Clandestine steps are an option, of course, but secret intervention has the potential to go very wrong and result in nasty headlines. Why should the current American government take that risk, when there are other allied governments who have openly discussed intervention, who have the capability, and who have much greater immunity to bad headlines?) bobrayner (talk) 10:33, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

(Why are you whispering?) Because the Americans take that risk more often than not. --Mr.98 (talk) 11:25, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't it have an embargo against Syria? That's an act of war under international law, though I suppose it's not a breach of it. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 08:03, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Embargoes are not typically considered acts of war. You may be thinking of a blockade which no country is attempting against Syria. The U.S. has similar embargoes against Cuba, North Korea, and Iran. D Monack (talk) 23:30, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

July 10

Canadian Obama

This is more of a theoretical question. Say Obama immigrated to Canada, became a citizen, and later became a politician. Based on his political values, beliefs and ideologies (which, I have to say, I know little about, as with his Democratic party), which party would he most likely lean towards as a Canadian? Thanks! 64.229.5.242 (talk) 01:54, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Its very hard to say as his actions and publicly revealed thoughts must be kept moderate for political/electioneering reasons. For example, Obama has made some changes to the healthcare system. Does the new healthcare system represent Obama's ideal? Probably not, it is probably just a move in the direction he wants to go, how far he wishes to go is unknown. So, if Obama was placed in Canada with public health care already in place, would he move even more towards greater access/funding of public healthcare or perhaps would he think the Canadian system is just fine how it is? Who knows.

In general however, the Canadian political spectrum is shifted quite a bit to the "left" of the american spectrum, I mean, issues like gay marriage, abortion, and public healthcare aren't even issues in Canada, though many "right-wingers" in the US still get in a huff over these issues.

The democrats are supposably near the conservative party, but Harper and Obama are hardly similar. Unique Ubiquitous (talk) 03:17, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion he'd be either a Red Tory like Joe Clark or a Blue Liberal like Scott Brison. However, the definition of "conservative" and "liberal" in Canada are strikingly different than in the US; for one thing, many of the hot-button issues in the US are (as Unique Ubiquitous says) just not issues here to the same extent, and the issues we have - national unity, crime (or the appearance of it), Afghanistan, robocalls (ugh), oil sands, rising housing prices, shortages of workers in the West - are either untranslatable to American politics or the opposite of what you're going through. And although Obama is popular, he isn't the most popular US president even today - Bill Clinton is still not just the most popular US president by far, but perhaps the most popular American. I think he has an approval rating still in the high 90s. --NellieBly (talk) 13:09, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Out of interest, does anyone know of a politician who has been active in the national politics of multiple countries? Obviously there are examples like Sinn Fein and the Basque Nationalist Party who campaign in cross-border regions, but I am wondering if there are real examples of high-profile politicians adjusting their publicly-stated beliefs to fit into a different political culture. 130.88.73.65 (talk) 15:54, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Simón Bolívar might work there. He led Venezuela, Ecuador, Colombia and Bolivia to independence. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 19:32, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

There've been numerous cases of politicians from Commonwealth countries who've been elevated to the peerage and sat in the UK House of Lords, contributing to the making of British laws (Stanley Bruce and Richard Casey, Baron Casey are two Australian examples. In 1942 Winston Churchill had appointed Casey to the post of Minister Resident in the Middle East; having an Australian serving in a UK ministry put noses out of joint in two countries). And a few cases of members of the UK House of Commons who've migrated to the former colonies and got involved in local politics (William Yates (politician) is one I know about). Also, a few cases of former politicians who migrated to the UK and got themselves elected to the lower house there (such as Sir George Reid, former Prime Minister of Australia, who was elected unopposed to a London constituency and later died there). -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 01:00, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

If you go back to the colonial era, I imagine people have served as governors of several colonies, (hopefully) adjusted to fit the cultures of each. StuRat (talk) 02:37, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh yes, many examples of that. Not sure that they fit the notion of "politician", though, as they were all, at least in theory, representing the monarch and above politics. In fact, at least in Australia till the mid 1930s, they were representing the British government and doing their bidding, but that doesn't make them politicians in the sense I think friend 130.88 means. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 03:52, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

To be a good colonial governor, a person should concern himself with local customs, opinion, etc., to avoid pissing off the locals and getting a rebellion. So, if kissing babies is required to avoid this, so be it. StuRat (talk) 19:28, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Being a politician may sometimes require you to kiss babies. But not everyone who kisses babies is a politician. Most parents, for example, are not politicians. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 00:30, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

You'd know better if you'd ever had your kids ask you which of them is your favorite. :-) StuRat (talk) 03:32, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

It sounds like you're mainly asking about politicians in democracies and/or republics, 130.88, but there's also the example of Jean Bernadotte. Not really a politician of any stripe until elected king of Sweden, but if being a general in Napoleon's army is an apolitical job, I will eat my hat. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 14:45, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

There's Giuseppe Garibaldi, who was a freedom fighter/guerilla not just for his homeland Italy, but also for Brazil and Uruguay. Not really a "politician", though. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 19:16, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Tadeusz Kościuszko immediately sprang to mind; even in terms of countries extant during his lifetime, there's at least two unconnectedly: the USA and Poland. Similarly, Marie-Joseph Paul Yves Roch Gilbert du Motier, Marquis de La Fayette was politically active in the USA and in France. I'm sure there are other well-known examples. If I think of any, I'll post them. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:24, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

WW2 POW internment

Dietrich Fischer-Dieskau's biography says, "[h]e was captured in Italy in 1945 and spent two years as an American prisoner of war."

Why did the US keep prisoners for 1.5+ years after the war ended? Where did they keep them?

67.117.146.199 (talk) 04:14, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Camp Rupert held POWs until the end of 1946. There's a list of other camps here, most only until 1946. I didn't check them all, and not all list the dates, so perhaps there was one open until 1947. RudolfRed (talk) 05:22, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

According to this book he was captured by U.S. forces in the Po valley on May 5, 1945, spent the next two years in U.S.-run POW camps in Italy, and released and returned to Germany in June 1947.--Cam (talk) 12:31, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Speaking generally, Prisoner of war#Treatment of POWs by the Allies and Forced labor of Germans after World War II say many were kept until 1947 or even 1948 and used for forced labor, particularly doing agricultural work; many were initially kept in the USA or Canada and later sent to camps in the UK. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:00, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

He should (and probably did) consider himself lucky he wasn't captured by the Soviets. Forced labour of Germans after World War II states "The last major repatriation of Germans from the Soviet Union occurred in 1956." Clarityfiend (talk) 18:30, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Also note that returning massive numbers of prisoners immediately to Germany may have been unwise, as, without adequate housing or industry to employ them, they were likely to become criminals or die. I believe this happened following the US Civil War, for example, where many returning rebel soldiers became criminals, like Frank and Jesse James. StuRat (talk) 18:33, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I think that there was real concern that returned POWs might join the Werwolf resistance movement. This article from LIFE Magazine, 18 Mar 1946, Nazi PWs Learn Democracy suggests that they weren't released until they had been "de-Nazified". Alansplodge (talk) 23:55, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

If you have time for a lengthy read, The War for the German Mind: Re-Educating Hitler's Soldiers by Arthur L. Smith is viewable online. Alansplodge (talk) 00:14, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Me again. www.historicaleye.com - The art of survival says; "For those in British and French hands repatriation was relatively slow, primarily because the POW had become a vital component within the workforce of these countries, particularly in the agriculture and reconstruction sectors. A second factor in the slow return of German POWs was the Allied denazification programme, a gargantuan but necessary task that sought to screen the prisoners’ histories and to ascertain where their sympathies now lay.". Some of them chose not to go home at all, a famous example is Bert Trautmann. Alansplodge (talk) 00:25, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for these excellent answers. 67.117.146.199 (talk) 02:18, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Utility and Util

The greater the utility, the greater the util is... Is this concept correct? thanks--180.234.38.225 (talk) 08:36, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

It's very hard to say. What might "util" be? Is it a real word? -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 08:40, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

wikt:util suggests that 'util' is a real word, and that it is used in (eg) economics, to provide theoretical quanta of utility. So by definition, the greater the utility of something, the more utils it provides to an effective user. However, outside such theoretical discussions, the term is useless. AlexTiefling (talk) 08:43, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Quantity of utility? Oh lord, I thought we killed off that research programme in the 19th century as pseudoscience with the critique of utilitarianism. Fifelfoo (talk) 09:56, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

We did, but someone forgot to tell the econometricians. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:24, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Somehow neuroscientists never got the message. There is a pretty strong case that decision-making within the brain is based on a neural representation of utility -- at any rate research into that idea has been active and productive. If you are interested, the book Your Brain Is (Almost) Perfect: How We Make Decisions by Read Montague covers the ideas at a popular level. As far as I know, nobody talks about 'utils', though. Looie496 (talk) 15:34, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I would be extraordinarily surprised if neuroscientists actually demonstrate the commensurably of desires between individuals; which leaves any single individual model as an individual preference ranked order, which IIRC wasn't ruled out by the critique of utilitarian economics. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:52, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I thought the summary of behavioral economics (Kahneman Nobel Prize for prospect theory etc.) was basically the opposite of that there was a consistent utility function in humans. 67.117.146.199 (talk) 00:54, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Prospect theory describes a vulgar economic model which is reliant upon the standard vulgar economic equation of utility with marginal cost preference as price. To quote Brecht here, "I don't know what a man is, I only know his price." The problems with using price as a proxy for actual utility are manifold. Firstly, and obviously, price preference only measures effective demand, and not utility. Price can't allow comparative utility because it poorly represents actual satisfactions of desire. At a more fundamental level, desires are satiated with actual useful things (in capitalism: some forms of use values) within the person; marginal cost preference as price relates in no way to real utility as the satisfaction of desires. We can say that consumers desire objects, that consumers relatively preference desired objects, sometimes even in price order; but none of this relates to the differences in the capacity of objects to satisfy desires or actual utility. You're confusing a "term of art" in vulgar economics with actual utility per utilitarianism. Many political economics consider vulgar economic's conflation of utility with price to be absurd; compare to Marx's non-quantified denomination of utility in commodities through his differentiation of "use value" (boolean, incommensurable) with "exchange value" (having an extent, commensurable), both of which are incommensurable with the other. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:12, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

• the greater the utility of something, the more utils it provides to an effective user - I think I found the answer. It is similar to the statement I mentioned above. If not then let me know. Thanks Alex.--180.234.253.130 (talk) 15:12, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Whether it's the right answer depends on the context. If you tell us a bit more about the context, we may be able to give you better advice. AlexTiefling (talk) 15:15, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

In standard utilitarianism, utility depends on the user. Thus, one liter of water would provide only a very small number of utils, but a large number of utils to a thirsty traveler in the desert. This leads to interesting concepts like a the utility monster that derives so much utility from everything that naive optimization of utility would deprive all other members of society of resources. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:24, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

• Well, I am talking about cardinal utility (I should've mentioned it). Cardinal utility can be measured directly by utils (well, it can also be measured indirectly in terms of money which is not my point). So the greater the utility the greater the util is.--180.234.253.130 (talk) 15:46, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

[Nitpick alert] If the util is a unit, your sentence should read: "the greater the utility, the greater the number of utils" or something like that. However, using such an obscure word seems to me to be a good way to generate lots of futils. Clarityfiend (talk) 18:25, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

"How many utils can I buy with a mon ?" :-) StuRat (talk) 23:43, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

It's just the units of utility in a utility function. So yes. 124.170.120.245 (talk) 07:32, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Turkish cruiser Hamediah 1913 ?

Hello learned ones ! I've discovered a little book : Spunyarn, written by Sub (A.C. Barker , R.N.V.R. , S) , in which Sub describes his time aboard a HMS (cruiser) patrolling about 1913 the Lebannon coast , along with a German and a US man of war , while anti-european mobs riot in the ports & a turkish cruiser (the Hamediah) "plays havoc in the eastern Mediterranean" , "camouflaged during the day and without lights during the night" . To what events does Sub refer ? Is that Hamediah known ? What do "R.N.V.R. , S" mean ? Thanks a lot beforehand for your answers . T.y. ~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arapaima (talk • contribs) 08:56, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve. Sorry can't help with the S (maybe it stands for Seaman?). --TammyMoet (talk) 09:21, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

A brief google reveals a contemporary who might be the same person, "231080 A.C. Barker. L.Sig. R.N." (though Barker is not a very rare surname). L.Sig would be Leading Signalman. bobrayner (talk) 10:47, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Although the OP's A C Barker is R.N.V.R. not R.N. However, this Google Books link to The WRNS: A History of the Women's Royal Naval Service says; "The first six off1cers were appointed to the RNVR(S) Officers' Signal Course ...", which suggests that the "S" does indeed stand for "Signals". There are several Google results for "RNVR Signals Branch"[17]. I suspect that someone with the nom de plume of "Sub" is likely to have been a Sub-Lieutenant. Alansplodge (talk) 23:37, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

The events referred to is the famous raid of the Ottoman cruiser Hamidiye during the First Balkan War. Constantine ✍ 10:59, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks a lot to all jack-tars ! Arapaima (talk) 09:40, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Qing wigs

What is the name of the wig/hairstyle pictured here on Empress Cixi which was common among the Imperial women during the Qing Dynasty and what is the history behind it? Was it a Manchu fashion?--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 09:31, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

ChinaCulture.org names it (without references) "Liangbatou, "Qitou" or "Jingtou" and says it is a Manchu style. Not found historical discussion yet. 174.88.9.150 (talk) 11:40, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

The Chinese names corresponding to those terms are "两把头", "旗头", and "京头" respectively. The three terms mean, respectively, "hairstyle with two bunches [of hair]" (which refers to the way the hair is split in the middle before being tied to the headdress), "hairstyle of [the people of] the Banners" ("Banners", referring to the Eight Banners, is commonly used to refer to the Manchus), and "hairstyle of the capital" (since the hairstyle was often seen in Beijing, the capital).

To clarify, this hairstyle is arranged by tying the hair at the top of the head and then splitting into two and tying into a knot/bun; the "board" that can be seen in photos like the above is a fan-shaped headdress. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 13:59, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Turns out Chinese Wikipedia has an article on this: zh:二把頭, as do the Japanese and Korean Wikipedias (Wikipediae?), talking about the simpler, origianl form of the hairstyle, and also separately zh:大拉翅 (that's "Dalachi", transliterated), about the headdress as used in the more elaborate form favoured by imperial women in the late Qing dynasty. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 13:23, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Just what does SIPC cover?

If SIPC doesn't cover fraud, only insolvency, then what prevents an MF Global or PFGBest from happening in the stock brokerage industry? Imagine Reason (talk) 15:04, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

That's Securities Investor Protection Corporation for those who thought SIPC may have been a reference to the 10th Sydney International Piano Competition, currently under way. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 19:24, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not expert on the SIPC or its rules, but I believe that it protects against broker-dealer collapse. I think your question is referring to fraud in the underlying security, which is not what the SIPC (or most other forms of insurance) protect. Shadowjams (talk) 22:43, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I think that's what they mean, but their wording is quite ambiguous. Imagine Reason (talk) 02:09, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Note that SIPC does cover some kinds of fraud; its coverage of Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities represented the largest set of claims against SIPC ever. John M Baker (talk) 19:05, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

World Jewish Population in 1850-1890

Does anyone have data on what the total world Jewish population in 1850, 1860, 1870, and 1890 was? Thank you. Futurist110 (talk) 19:06, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

There seems to be a lack of good information, based on what it says at Historical Jewish population comparisons and Jewish population. Reasons include countries not conducting detailed censuses or population surveys, censuses not asking about religion, and the complexity of who counts as a Jew (ethnic or practising religious). With 7.8m in 1882 and 10.6m in 1900[18] you could probably estimate 1890 and less accurately extrapolate to the earlier years. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:00, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I extrapolated for some years but I did manage to find estimates for the total world Jewish population in 1840, 1850, 1860, and 1880.

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:58oywoZKYNYJ:www.lapetus.uchile.cl/lapetus/archivos/1272744939Jud%25C3%25ADosenEuropa3vv.pdf+&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESj00vqu4StSzv3uYWVauyaTZnHoyh4IcKxHULjjZ1JpNya2Ois0WjsS89ITruFmYStvCAhpZHXVRhRtAMdlLtciWrlG1V8eelfu4Emx7gedhpg1UQEET8505m8JlbhqXJZNFEG-&sig=AHIEtbQLQEX0TpVsdoNgeAYan8DhzmH20A

http://www.jewishgen.org/databases/givennames/dbdespop.htm

I used this data to create a new table of the world, U.S., and Palestine/Israel Jewish populations between 1850 and 1910 on that Historical Jewish population comparisons page.

Futurist110 (talk) 01:07, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Meaning of "Wayane" in the current Eritrean or Ethiopian political context

Hi,

There are many mentions of "wayane" on the web but I can not find a definition anywhere (in the context of the Eritrean independence war or current Eritrean or Ethiopian politics). Is this definition available anywhere online?

Thanks. Apokrif (talk) 19:19, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Found and Tigrayan People's Liberation Front says: "TPLF ... known more commonly and sometimes pejoratively in Ethiopia as Woyane or Weyane". See also Woyane rebellion. Apokrif (talk) 19:27, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

slaget på Loheden (1331)

Is the "slaget på Loheden (1331)" ([19]) and a "battle at Danevirke" in Eric Christoffersen of Denmark's article the same event? Okay now this source says "Paa Flugten efter Kampen ved Slesvig 30. Nov. 1331 styrtede E. med Hesten ved Danevirke, og Faldet forvoldte, at han kort efter døde i Kiel (1332)." or "On the flight after the battle of Schleswig 30th November 1331 E. crashed with the horse at Dannevirke and fall injury that he soon after died in Kiel (1332)." But if Danevirke is only the site of his accident and not the battle why does his fahter's article place his defeat in 1331 at Danevirke. We got Loheden, Schleswig and Danevirke now, and I still have no idea where Loheden is.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 19:26, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Some quick iw-searches reveals that Danish Wikipedia has an article entitled Slaget på Lohede, but that battle occured in 1261, and an article on a place called Lohede. The final n in Loheden, I guess, would be the definite article. Given that Danish Lohede is relatively close to the Danevirke (Norwegian Wikipedia even places the 1261 Slaget på Lohede at Danevirke), it seems plausible that these are two different names for the same battle...

Another option is that the historians who wrote those books got their Erik Christofferesen's confused.

• 1261: Slaget på Lohede, Erik V Christoffersen (son of Christopher I) was defeated and taken prisoner along with his mother. (The battle is refered to as Battle of Lo Heath in the article Eric V of Denmark.)
• 1331: Battle at Danevirke, Eric VI Christofferson (son of Christoffer II and grandson of Erik V) is defeated and flees to Kiel where he dies.

I have very little knowledge about medival Danish history, I am just referencing WP articles... V85 (talk) 15:48, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

the meaning of robinson crusoe and cast away

What is the message of the story of Robinson Crusoe, and spin offs like the film Cast Away? Is it disgrace can happen in your life and why perseverance will take you out of it OOOOR is the portrait of those years on your own, in a desert island, trying to make sense of it all, simply an allegory for life itself? Plusanother (talk) 20:09, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

The message of Robinson Crusoe seemed to be that "savages", namely Friday, are just as moral as us, perhaps moreso (although it did seem to say that they need to be "civilized"). StuRat (talk) 20:47, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

In my reading, it's less that Friday is "just as moral", it's that all of the savages are completely lost without civilized people to teach them not to eat each other and to worship the right god. Once shown the light, though, they recognize its truth, become pretty manageable, yadda yadda. The representation of the "savages", and Crusoe's unabashed belief in his right to keep them as slaves (literal slaves — I'm not being metaphorical, that's the term he uses), struck this reader as the most appalling part of the narrative from a modern viewpoint. I find the religious arguments that Crusoe lectures on at length to be closer to the intended interpretation. I don't think Cast Away is quite the same thing in this respect, but I haven't actually seen it. --Mr.98 (talk) 23:18, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I won't reveal any information about Cast Away if you didn't see it, but yes, you are right on your supposition. Plusanother (talk) 23:22, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Robinson believed in slavery at the beginning, but did he by the end ? StuRat (talk) 23:20, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Ha, here's where I reveal that I'm actually 80% through it, and currently reading it, so I don't actually know the end, and don't want to spoil it by looking it up! But I was indeed surprised to find that he crashes on the island while on a slavery run, which made me think, oh, he'll conclude that slavery is the cause of his evil. But then, just before he gets Friday (whose footprint was not the one on the island, incidentally — I had always thought it was the same in cultural depictions, but it is not so!), he contemplates how great it would be to have a slave, and even has Friday call him "Master". But who knows, maybe he'll change his tune. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:23, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I believe Daniel Defoe was trying to slowly drag the reader from a pro-slavery to anti-slavery position, by having us watch as Robinson takes that journey himself. Of course, the book was written at a time when pro-slavery attitudes were prevalent. The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn is similar, in it's method, although this was published after slavery had been abolished (Twain apparently thought some Americans still needed convincing). A modern equivalent might be Archie Bunker, who, over the course of All in the Family, slowly changed from a racist, sexist, homophobic bigot, to a more tolerant bigot. :-) StuRat (talk) 00:39, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, this theme is more mixed in the novel (there's quite a bit of exhalation of the superiority of "civilized" people, while still making some critics of the excesses of certain colonial forces. But in modern film adaptations the message is less direct and more idealized towards modern perspectives, with Crusoe rejecting his earlier sense of superiority more or less completely. Likewise, Friday goes from a character who is converted to Christianity and "saved" from savagery in the book, to a character who slowly brings Crusoe around to a more balanced perspective in the movies (especially the most recent one). Regardless, to address the OP's question more directly, I'd say the major themes, in all versions, concern he nature of variance in culture and what constitutes the truly core principles that make a person "moral," with a particular slant towards religion and social hierarchy. Snow (talk) 03:55, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

You can read many messages into such stories. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:46, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Always handy to have an encyclopedia to consult to answer such questions: Robinson Crusoe#Interpretations --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:50, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I have read that link before posting the question, Tagishsimon, however, maybe I expressed my doubts poorly. The interpretations there don't touch the topic of how it related to life, more from an existential perspective. I want to know if it's too much bending, if we don't just interpret it as a moral or religious message, but as an analysis of life at it is. Plusanother (talk) 23:15, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I thought the message of Cast Away was that if you're going to be stranded, try to do it where there will be lots of useful stuff washing ashore. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:50, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Also, volleyballs are terrific people. Snow (talk) 03:58, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Violation of Principle of equal marginal utility

Under what curcumstances Principle of equal marginal utility is violated? I found a link here, which states "Limitation of the Law of Equi- Marginal Utility". Should I assume it the violation of Principle of equal marginal utility per dollar spent?

Are Equimarginal Utility and Principle of equal marginal utility same?--180.234.240.203 (talk) 21:15, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

They seem to list the conditions where they are violated, in that article. Except for them being poorly translated into English, I agree with them. And yes, I believe that "Equimarginal Utility" is just a shortened way to write "Principle of equal marginal utility". StuRat (talk) 21:29, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Let me rewrite the reasons for violations of this principle, but in proper English:

• Ignorance: If a consumer is ignorant of prices, utility, etc., he may make suboptimal choices.

• Inefficient organizer: The inefficient business organizer will fail to achieve the best result from the land, labour and capital that he employs.

• Unlimited resources: When the resources are free, this law is meaningless. (Air, for example.)

• Hold of custom and fashion: It the purchase is strongly influenced by custom and fashion, the choices will not be optimal. (Although, one could argue, that those customs and fashions change the utility of those items. I'd also throw religion into the mix, as pork may be the best value of protein for the rupee/dollar, but, if your religion prohibits it, that's out.)

• Frequent changes in prices of different goods and services make observance of this law difficult. For example, constantly changing gasoline/petrol prices make it difficult to buy from the least expensive station.

StuRat (talk) 21:39, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

And let me add some more:

• Short-term orientation: Those only concerned with the short-term may make poor choices in the long term. For example, rent-to-own stores provide furniture, appliances, etc., at a lower initial cost, but higher long-term cost.

• Fraud and deception: Customers may purchase items which seem to have a high ratio of utility to price, but are actually cheap counterfeits (sometimes legal), which will soon break.

• Insufficient math skills: If prices are provided for different units, time frames, etc., possibly with compound interest, the customer may be unable to compare them, even though the information is all available to do so. For example, gasoline prices in the US are in US$ per gallon, while, in Canada, they are in CAN$ per liter, making comparisons difficult for cross-border traffic.

• Incompatible units: In another example, apples and oranges may be sold as price per weight, price per item, or price per volume. Comparing these various prices is difficult, and requires equipment, like a scale.

• Veblen goods, where much of the value of the product is due to it's price alone, not it's inherent utility.

StuRat (talk) 21:46, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you Sturat. Just another Silly questions, can I write "Law" instead of "Principle" of equal marginal utility per dollar spent? Is law and principle in this context same ragarding equal marginal equality?--180.234.217.32 (talk) 08:01, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

This depends almost entirely on how closely you want to tie your argument to the correctness or fallacy of marginalist models. If you're making a marginalist argument in a marginalist forum and marginalists call it a law, then call it a law. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:05, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Steady on, Fifelfoo. Don't diss my man Alfred Marshall. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:36, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, when I'm not an encyclopaedist I'm much more collegial about other people's strange and inexplicable disciplinary practices (provided that I explain that they're wrong...in fact, isn't that what collegiality is all about?; social tolerance combined with scholarly critique). As an encyclopaedist contextualism is almost mandatory. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:44, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Personally I'd only use "law" to mean something without exceptions, like "the law of gravity". But, economics seems to use it more liberally, so, I suppose, it's OK. StuRat (talk) 18:59, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

July 11

Queen Victoria's Jubilee List

Does anybody know where I can a complete list of all the royal guests at Queen Victoria's Golden Jubilee and Diamond Jubilee?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 01:21, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps from a newspaper report of the time? You could ask at [20] for someone who has access to The Times archive. (The New York Times search is free [21] but currently down.) 174.88.9.150 (talk) 12:28, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Montparnasse

Hi all. I just saw Les Mis the musical, which got me thinking about the book it is loosely based on, Hugo's celebrates Misérables. The character of Montparnasse (in the book) interests me in particular: from what I remember reading the book, Montparnasse was the young, handsome, well-dressed criminal, the one that spoke standard French rather than the dialects of the other villains. Thinking back, there must be some symbolism there but at the time I didn't notice it because I was too busy struggling with the French to think deeper into the book. What might have been Hugo's commentary there? 152.97.171.80 (talk) 04:56, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm just guessing here, but if he was treated better due to being "upper class", then Hugo might have been making a comment on the unfairness of the justice system. StuRat (talk) 06:26, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Montparnasse is in no way a member of the upper classes; he's a thug who has learned how to parlay his good looks into charming those he would otherwise disgust. It was a common trope of the 19th century: the charming, superficially attractive violent criminal served the same purpose as the Pretty Missing White Woman trope does today, providing a combination of superficial shock and horror with secret titillation. Hugo's portrayal is a minor deconstruction - charming and handsome as Montparnasse is said to be, he's still clearly a thug - but he doesn't smash the trope to bits in the way that (for instance) Conan Doyle does in The Red-Headed League. --NellieBly (talk) 09:30, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

For another example of this trope, check out the Count of Monte Cristo, where Benedetto quite successfully charms the Parisian elite but doubles as the most reprehensible character in the book. eldamorie (talk) 13:42, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Pierre Pelleprat

Is anyone know more about this man than here [22]? --109.186.6.158 (talk) 06:58, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

but more important I look for someone who wrote dictionary about the new world in the fifteenth century - I found so many in wiki. His name is like Fifka - someone know? --109.186.6.158 (talk) 07:11, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

The second part of your question brings Peter Martyr's De Orbe Novo to mind, although I admit he doesn't sound much like "Fifka". Karenjc 10:44, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Surely 16th rather than 15th century? Itsmejudith (talk) 17:47, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

By and large yes, but he was chronicling some of his material in letters from the 1490s onward, with a chunk in 1501. Technically he wrote at least some of it in the 15th century even though publication in book form came later.I thought it was close enough for a quick suggestion :) - Karenjc 07:40, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Not sure what information you want... According to Backer-Sommervogel, Pelleprat was born in Bordeaux in 1609, entered the noviciat on 27 September 1628, initially was a teacher before becoming a missionary in 1639, died in New Spain on 21 April 1667, published works in Latin, French and Spanish including several funeral sermons... anything more specific you are looking for? eldamorie (talk) 17:30, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks a lot!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.186.6.158 (talk) 06:14, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

How can law of demand be derived from the Principle of equal marginal utility per dollar spent.

How can I address the above metnioned issue? this book explains a bit but rest of the (pages) explanation is restricted to commoner.--180.234.217.32 (talk) 08:13, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I think you already asked this question above. Shadowjams (talk) 09:37, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

• Did I? It'd be best if I get specific explanation on this issue. That book link did not show it properly.Thanks in advance--103.10.78.202 (talk) 17:45, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

How can law of demand be derived from the Principle of equal marginal utility per dollar spent. 2

Hello, I asked this question before but got stuck in middle as I have not got proper explantion on this issue yet. Can anyone explain a bit or give direction How can I address this topic. I shall be greatful fo that. Thanks--180.234.108.99 (talk) 05:44, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I hate to be a skeptic, but I would do this by using the observation from formal logic, that a false premise implies any conclusion. AlexTiefling (talk) 08:43, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Haven't you asked this at least twice before? Shadowjams (talk) 09:05, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

People already attempted to answer your question. Please stop asking it. Shadowjams (talk) 09:07, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

You say you got stuck in the middle. If you tell us exactly where you got stuck, we may be able to help, but other than that, please see the answers you got earlier. --TammyMoet (talk) 10:45, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

resolving diamond water paradox

How can I present a situation where diamond may be cheaper than water? thanks--180.234.217.32 (talk) 08:43, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Increase the Organic composition of capital in the production of diamond to a higher rate than that of water, thus making diamonds cheaper in labour to produce than water, and taking advantage of the movement of value from low OCC to high OCC producers. In terms of short term price, glut the market due to the trade cycle (itself derivative of the cycle of replacement of capital goods in the OCC) temporarily changing the exchange values. You could also remove the use-value of diamonds, giving them an effective price of zero; or increase the labour hours per diamond to delta over zero ("electricity so plentiful it wouldn't need to be metered"). Fifelfoo (talk) 08:53, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)What about water that has been nuclearly enriched to be isotopically pure ¹H₂¹⁶O? Plasmic Physics (talk) 08:56, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Man with two bottles of water meets very thirsty man with diamonds in the middle of a desert ... Gandalf61 (talk) 09:02, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

There can be many variations on this: people in a lifeboat on the ocean, in a spaceship, in a submarine, on a mountaintop, etc. In each of those scenarios water is more important than diamonds. StuRat (talk) 09:26, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

One of the problems with these hypotheticals (much like the "deer::arrow" hypothetical) is that they're divorced from the conditions establishing market rationality as the basis of human relationships. On a lifeboat the person who can command the persons with the guns/knives, on a submarine always respect the chain o'command, etc. I appreciate the impulse to model in vulgar economics, but more concrete models such as preference for wheat or rye at price points make more sense (except when you need to capture the imagination of 5,000 undergraduates...). Fifelfoo (talk) 10:09, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

There isn't necessarily one person in charge. There may not be any guns, or, if there are, that doesn't automatically mean that the person with them will become a dictator. And, even if he wanted to, he has to sleep sometime. StuRat (talk) 18:55, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Sci-fi scenario - A desert planet where diamond is a very common mineral but water needs to be imported from other planets. Roger (talk) 09:16, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

No fiction required, that can really happen. A lack of water is quite common on planets. Being plentiful in diamonds isn't common, but is possible. StuRat (talk) 09:26, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Jewels being common as dirt was used by Cordwainer Smith in his short story "On the Gem Planet" (one of his weakest efforts BTW). The Twilight Zone had a very similar plot device (with gold) in the episode "The Rip Van Winkle Caper", wherein practical transmutation leaves time-traveling robbers in the desert with worthless ingots. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:46, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Note that diamonds may actually have a negative value in parts of Africa, where, if they find them near your house, they will evict you from your house to mine them, and kill you if you resist. StuRat (talk) 09:29, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Also, heavy water is worth more, by volume, than tiny, flawed, uncut diamonds. StuRat (talk) 09:33, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Since water is a prerequisite for life, I think it'll always have to be cheap, otherwise people will die out. (Assuming that all other liquids, such as beer and coffee, are more expensive than water, since they contain water+.) It would, of course, also depend on what type of water we are talking about: If we mean clean, safe drinking water, that is very different from stagnant, dirty marsh water. If we define "water" as the former, it could be easy to find circumstances where water is more expensive, if we define "water" as any form of water, regardless of how suitable it is for human consumption, the price of water will be lower. (I'll happily pay more for a bottle of clean, drinkable water, than I'd pay to drink out of a puddle on the street.) Similar to StuRat's point above that heavy water is more expensive.

As some people have hinted: Diamonds are only as valuable as people make them. (In certain contexts, any water could be perceived as more valuable than anything, such as in a lifeboat on the sea or in the desert, where there is a limited amount of fresh water.) Any scenario where diamonds have become less attractive than water could lead to water becoming more expensive than diamonds. If people decide that they don't want diamonds - it could either be a fashion thing (diamonds permanently fall out fashion, just as gold has in Thomas Moore's Utopia), or a protest to object against blood diamonds (or something of the like) - could lead to the supply of diamonds being larger than the demand leading prices to drop. If at the same time, clean drinking water became more scarce, water might become more expensive more expensive... However, so long as society is willing to view diamonds as expensive, both for their use and potentially as an investment object, it seems unlikely that such a drop in value for diamonds would occur in society at large. V85 (talk) 15:09, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Can you explain what you mean by "water will always have to be cheap"? Are you talking about some central planning board setting prices? Or do you just mean available? μηδείς (talk) 22:15, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Cheap = available. If it cost $1000 an ounce, most people on the planet would die of dehydration. StuRat (talk) 00:15, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, by cheap, I mean readily available. Prices might increase a bit, but it would still have to be available at prices that are 'affordable' for most people. V85 (talk) 05:09, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not seeing this. We regularly have famines where the market price of good mandates that a large proportion of the labouring population simply cannot afford to eat adequately and dies. We continuously have drinking water priced beyond the effective demand of a large proportion of the labouring population, and an appreciable number of people die of water borne disease. (Not singling the Western market out here, corresponding phenomena infamously happened in the Soviet-style societies.) Fifelfoo (talk) 00:20, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

As was noted elsewhere, cheap water does not always mean cheap, safe, drinking water. A fair amount of the Earth's population must just take their chances. But this is nowhere near as bad as if all water was somehow priced beyond the ability of most people on Earth to buy it. This would be an "extinction level event", since, of course, plants and animals also need water. StuRat (talk) 05:45, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I am still not understanding the context of the price, V85. Water is generally available, and where it is already hard to come by people know and are prepared for this unless the state prevents them from acting in their self interest. Are we talking about some future like The Sunmakers where aliens are holding humans in thrall and overcharging them for everything? Or some future where a passing black hole has sucked away the oceans and water has become scarce? The problem would seem entirely political in the former scenario, and apocalyptic in the second. Or are we just talking about the utility board imposing a new congressionally passed green tax raising the price of drinking water to $20/oz, and outlawing access to rivers, rain, and runoff? My question is, prices aren't primaries, they are the result of prior factors. What prior factors have to be controlled to keep it cheap? μηδείς (talk) 06:42, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Does it matter what the calamity is ? For whatever highly theoretical reason, most of the world's water disappears or becomes unusable, and the price of the small remaining stock therefore skyrockets. If you want a specific scenario, how about if most of the water is contaminated by something deadly, which we can't remove (or maybe we can, but doing so is extremely expensive). In any case, the same scenario which makes water that expensive would also have to kill off most of the world's population, since they couldn't pay for it. Or, put another way, when you have a scarce resource, only a few can get it, and the decision of who gets it, in capitalism, is dependent on who has the money. StuRat (talk) 07:10, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Diamonds do have some intrinsic value, for cutting, abrasive, and optics applications, so, if they fell completely out of fashion, the price would drop much lower, but not to zero (except in lifeboat scenarios and such). StuRat (talk) 18:52, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

And gold also has certain uses, for instance in electronics, unlike what Thomas Moors asserted that it was only valuable because it was 'rare' and 'pretty'. Even if there was no use for diamonds, they would still have a value higher than zero, since some people would be willing to buy them. I've been to many V85 (talk) 05:09, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

You've been to many what? -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 10:35, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Hehe, sorry. I've been to many places where they've sold polished non-precious stones, such as birth stones, and people seem to be willing to buy that, even though those stones don't have much value beyond looking pretty. V85 (talk) 14:28, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

"Looking pretty" is a use value which can underlie an exchange value in capitalism. Celebrities "look pretty" for industrial purposes. People satisfy a desire by wearing such objects. I think your construction of value may be deeply faulty given that you're just used your conception of "value" to delegitimise the consumption preferences of billions of human beings because they enjoy consuming pretty things. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:53, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Gold has far more intrinsic value than diamonds, IMHO. If it was cheap enough, all of our wiring would be gold, and almost all metal objects would be either gold plated or gold alloys (but not 100% gold, since that's a bit too soft), to prevent corrosion. And, incidentally, I've found 1000 gold bars, 20 lbs each, free to anyone who wants them, located at StuRat (talk) 03:27, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Use value and exchange value may be relevant. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:16, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Diamonds are cheaper than water. The average price of 1 carat of diamonds is ~$69 whereas bottled water costs around $6000/m³. 101.173.170.146 (talk) 10:31, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

OK, but what does a cubic metre of diamond cost? -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 10:35, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Why would that particular unit of measurment be any more relevant? The point with the above is that comparing the relative values of things that don't come as discrete quantities is pretty meaningless. It becomes a lot more meaningful when you can assign discrete values of some importance to human preference though e.g. what's worth more, a satisfied thirst or a satisfied desire to display some bling. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 08:14, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Because comparing one measly carat of diamonds with an entire cubic meter of water (which weighs a tonne, literally) is a meaningless comparison. It's like comparing the cost of one banana with the cost of an entire truckload of potatos and concluding that potatos are more expensive. Duh! -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 08:59, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Use water to create something that is a greater store of value per comparable unit than diamonds. For instance—currently the most expensive painting is The Card Players by Paul Cézanne, which sold for $250 million in 2011. Anything can be a work of art. Damien Hirst is reputed to be the "richest living artist". Some of his works might surprise those who are unfamiliar with the value of fine art. It is not inconceivable that a work of art could be made of plain water that could command a high price in the marketplace relative to even that of diamonds. Bus stop (talk) 15:00, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Not just water. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 20:31, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Water might be more valuable to the inhabitants of PSR J1719-1438 b. Staecker (talk) 11:38, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Finding information from the Federal Register

I have the text of a Community Services Administration regulation published in the Federal Register, but unhelpfully it's just the text, not a copy of the Register. How do I find out the page numbers and the precise date of publication for the Register issue in which it was published? I've already put some of the text into Google without finding it; apparently they've not yet digitized the late 1970s yet. At the top I have some mysterious numbers (not close enough to each other that they're obviously related to each other): 6315-01; CSA Instruction 6143-4; "Title 45 - Public Welfare"; "Part 1061 Emergency Energy Conservation Program, Subpart 1061.70 Energy Crisis Assistance Program". The last one appears to be the numbers given to the regulation in question. It was published at some point in late 1979; they speak of an event on 31 July 1979 in the past tense, and CSA "will accept" written comments through 19 September 1979. 129.79.34.222 (talk) 14:28, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Learn about the annual Federal Register Index at [23]. Most U.S. law libraries will go back way past the 70s. 71.212.249.178 (talk) 16:56, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

The legal citation to your register is 45 CFR 1061 (1979). When you pick up a volume edition of the CFR (Code of Federal Regulations 1979 edition) you will look first to find title 45 among the volumes, you will then page through that volume until you come to part 1061. The experience of doing this is similar to what you would do if you looked up "crystal" in a volume edition of a 1979 encyclopedia where the content of the article on crystals changes every year. Part of your problem is that this is a very old regulation that appears to no longer exist. The legal search services of Lexis and Westlaw do not even have this regulation in their databases. You have two options: find an old book edition of the CFR/FR in a law library, or use Heinonline. Heinonline seems to have a digital copy of the CFR and FR going back to 1936 (a total of 8,500 volumes). You might ask a law librarian at a law school to help you do this search as every law school has a subscription to Heinonline. You are looking for a very specific piece of historical information that will take some extensive digging. You don't need a page number for the citation however. A reference to the part, the title and the year is enough and is all that is used by attorneys. Because this is not readily available information, if I was using this in some research I would provide a copy of the text in my end notes as it is doubtful that a court would discover the information itself. It will take some digging for you to find the page number in the federal register[24]. Your regulation is in volume 44, which has 77,498 pages. You will want to look for the Federal Register Index (1979) where you can look up 45 CFR 1061 (1979). This is not the same as the Code of Federal Regulations index. A guide to legal research of the FR and CFR can be found here[25]. Unfortunately, the internet will not provide an easy answer for you. You might consider calling a library rather than physically going down there. If you work in government, they might be more willing to help you. If you are a student, a law library may be more helpful especially if you go through your own librarian. Your citation, when you find it, will look something like 44 Fed. Reg. 40,325 (October 5, 1979), which means volume 44 of the Federal Register page 40,325. A real life example of this from the Bluebook legal citation reference is Federal Acquisition Regulations for National Aeronatics and Space Administration, 55 Fed. Reg. 52,782 (Dec. 21 1990) (to be codified at 48 C.F.R. pt 1). Most law libraries do not go past the 1970s as there are about 8,500 volumes of these since we first started the Federal Register. Gx872op (talk) 17:03, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Most U.S. law libraries have Lexus/Nexus, Westlaw, or similar. 71.212.249.178 (talk) 06:05, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Did the children of Adam and Eve commit incest?

The way I understand it genesis makes it pretty clear that the world began with two naughty people, Adam and Eve. So isn't every single person in the world today related to each other, and aren't all marriages incestuous? To me, from a Christian perspective, it reads like the whole world as we know it today is the result of inbreeding, which today Christians condemn? --Thanks, Hadseys (talk) 19:58, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

So from a non-Christian/non-religious point of view, everyone is not related to each other? The thing is, if it goes beyond like first cousins, then being "related" to someone doesn't really mean all that much, and it sure isn't considered inbreeding if distantly related people have kids. 109.97.169.53 (talk) 20:04, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Everyone is related to one another, but that doesn't get you out of the population bottleneck issue that you have if you postulate that there were specifically two first humans. Evolutionarily it's easy to account for — there weren't just two homo sapiens to begin with. There was a relatively large population of folks. Even then there were a few major known population bottlenecks where the human breeding population got very small, but nobody said evolution was a story for the squeamish. --Mr.98 (talk) 21:41, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

The way the religious scholars seem to handle this is by saying that the first people were "genetically pure", meaning, in a modern context, they didn't have any recessive genetic disorders to worry about. Also note that, due to mutations, etc., more distantly related people are less likely to have as many genes in common. StuRat (talk) 20:09, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Also, I'm sure there isn't any Christian group which promotes incest, so leave the tendentious header at home next time around. 109.97.169.53 (talk) 20:10, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

• It isn't tendentious its a direct inference of the first few chapters of the first book of the bible. If they believe the bible they believe that we're all inter-related --Thanks, Hadseys (talk) 22:06, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

There are two solutions to this that Biblical folks have proclaimed which I have seen:

1. That incest didn't matter back then.

2. It wasn't incest, because God created other people that aren't mentioned in the Bible.

Neither of these are terribly satisfying. Google "Cain's wife" (I'm surprised we don't have an article on this) for lots of endless discussion about how this is supposed to work out. (Who did Cain go off and marry? A sister or a person whose existence is not accounted for in the Genesis story, if read as an exclusive account of all creation and a single-human origins story?)

Even if you solve it for Genesis, though, you still have to deal with two other problems. One is the repopulation of the world after Noah's flood — which leads to all sorts of incestual questions as well (at least with first cousins). The other are the explicit instances of incest which are apparently condoned by the Bible, notably the case of Lot who gets it on with both of his hot daughters and this is generally proclaimed to have been a good thing. (Before anyone wonders if Lot was being abusive, strictly speaking, the daughters raped him, if you trust the Biblical account. But there you go.) --Mr.98 (talk) 21:38, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

In the story, while Genesis is not specific about the matter, incest is the only reasonable way for the population to have grown. In general, Christians and Jews will acknowledge this, point out that the laws and cultural taboos against incest came much later, and move on with their day. As you've noticed, this doesn't work very well with what we know now about science. But if you are reading the Bible from the beginning and trying to make scientific sense of it, this was not the first logical dilemma you encountered, and it will not be the last. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:52, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

But the question still exists as to where the other people came from that Cain went off to go see and marry. Did Cain marry his sister? Or someone who was separately created? It's an issue if you read this stuff literally. These sorts of things were big questions at various points in time, and to some people, still are. --Mr.98 (talk) 23:50, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I doubt the Catholic Church, which does not contest the truth of evolution, gives much truck to StuRat's scholars' hypothesis of genetic purity as relevant. I seem to remember reading there were "giants" and other sapient beings on the earth in Genesis. Any easy solution would be that Adam and Eve were the first to have souls, with those who were their descendants with whomever they bred also inheriting souls. Once you introduce one fantastic element you can "reason" however you like. Any contradiction implies every contradiction. μηδείς (talk) 22:13, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

The "genetic" answer that StuRat refers to generally come from hardcore "Creation Scientists" like Answers in Genesis (who make this very argument), who have written entire books on this stuff. As with all Christianity, there are many, many interpretations, though the AiG types have gotten a lot of play because they're more savvy with the Internet and evangelizing than the Catholic Church is.

You can "reason" however you like, but there are consequences to the logic. If the other human beings are from separate creation, then not all are descended from Adam and Eve. If that's the case, things can get theologically rather sticky — see Polygenism. (This was a huge debate in the 19th century, incidentally, and one of the reasons that many anthropologists of the time rejected Darwin — they believed that different human races were different lineages, as described in their interpretation of the Bible, and thus disputed common descent on these grounds. Darwin's Descent of Man, despite its title, is not really devoted to the evolution of the human from the ape, but on the evolution of different races, which was in part to address this question. There's a book on this if you're curious.) If they aren't, then you do start to get into questions about genetics, population size, etc.

Now you and I can pretty easily say, the Biblical account is quite silly from a scientific point of view. I think this myself — I am no believer. But I still find it interesting the ways in which true believers, of which there are many, try to be intellectually honest about this. The AiG crowd is probably the group that has done the most thought-out approach to the question, even if they happen to be an especially loopy (seven literal days of creation, etc.) group. They've done the most to actually try and flesh out the genetics of a literal Biblical world. It doesn't work out, but I admire them trying... --Mr.98 (talk) 23:50, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

As an atheist, I tend to vastly prefer the reasoning of Jews and Catholics to that of creationists. I find a God as stupid as theirs an insult to humanity. That being said, I believe there are apocryphal books that speak of the children of Lilith? μηδείς (talk) 02:14, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Humans (= homo sapiens) do not have to have children with other homo sapiens. There were other homo something (homo neanderthalis, for example) out there. Cain married one of them. OsmanRF34 (talk) 00:07, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

"Citation required" to Cain marrying a Neanderthal. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 00:26, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Scandalous! So Adam and Eve (who are certainly both Homo sapiens) were just civil partners? Does this make all humans bastards? :P -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 00:34, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

This is one of those things that, from the outside, seem to put the Bible in a tricky position, because either alternative is 'bad': Adam and Eve's children committed incest, which we consider morally apprehensible, or the Biblical account isn't completely accurate, as God created more people than just Adam and Eve. (I suppose it's worth mentioning that Adam and Eve had more children than Cain and Abel, so we don't just have the problem of Cain propagating the human race by himself (Gen. 4.25, 5.3-4).

When Cain has killed Abel, he is sent out into the world by God, but he is reluctant, as he is afraid that other people will kill him, but God puts a protective mark on him, so that they will know that he is under God's protection, and that he is not to be killed (Gen. 4.13-16). Assuming Cain can marry one of these other people, the issue of incest is resolved, but it yields loads of other questions, such as: Who are these people? Where did they come from - were they also created by God? Were they also in the Garden of Eden, or were they second class citizens who were never allowed in the garden in the first place? If they never were in the garden of Eden, did they still call the animals by the names that Adam gave them (Gen. 2.19)? V85 (talk) 02:47, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

This is only a significant problem for readers who believe that the text is literally true, and that this "literalism" is the only true reading. Most readers do not hold this, and thus get to enjoy the text in different ways. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:10, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

And then there's the verse containing "And the sons of God married the daughters of men..." (Gen 6: 1 - 3) Who? What? How? Oh well, guess we have to take it at face value... --TammyMoet (talk) 09:09, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

There are two different creation stories. In the first, God creates humankind. No mention of Adam and Eve. In the second story, which begins 2 or 3 lines into Genesis 2, Adam and Eve are created. The assemblers of the Bible spliced these two stories together. Hence the apparent contradiction. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:09, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

If you look at the blood groups which we share with the apes then there's too many to have had an Adam and Eve bottleneck unless you start saying the same blood groups arose twice from mutations afterwards - which is very very unlikely! I'd be interested in how these Question Evolution people deal with it - perhaps he had the apes have those blood groups as a test of peoples' faith? I find it particularly amazing considering only two of each of those apes was supposed to be in the Ark. Dmcq (talk) 10:44, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

What's so hard about this question? God gave those apes the same blood groups as humans. Problem solved. 92.80.31.46 (talk) 11:50, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

You can't have all those shared blood groups in just two people. You'd really need the contribution of the different type apes as well. I guess that's okay if as said below prohibition about various sexual acts only came after Noah. ;-) Dmcq (talk) 13:24, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

If Adam was type A, and Eve type B, their kids could have had any of the four groups... You don't need every group to be expressed in the two people, you just need the "system" to be there 92.80.31.46 (talk) 17:50, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Obviously Lilith had descendents (probably with ur-Frazier Crane) with whom Adam and Eve's kids could procreate. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:59, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Just in case anybody wants (ahem) references, just google for "cain's wife incest" and you'll see lots and lots of "in universe" explanations. Staecker (talk) 11:11, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Traditional Judaism has no problems with this. Prohibition against various sexual acts only comes with the Noahide laws; Noah was in the 10th generation from Adam. The genetic purity of the early generations is demonstrable by the long lives they had, which dramatically decrease... from the generation born after the flood in Noah's times. See Genealogies_of_Genesis#Genesis_numbers. --Dweller (talk) 11:19, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Seems to me, the Judaeo-Christian God created the Judaeo-Christian world, or maybe even the whole actual world, and the Judaeo-Christian Adam and Eve, and the "other people" out there who might have murdered Cain were the creations of other false gods/demons/test tubes, to whom oblique references are in any case made in other bits of the Old Testament (not the test tubes). So Cain was sent out into the world and had it off with someone who had been created by one of these false gods/demons/test tubes, a counterfeit human if you will, but managed to control the upbringing of his kids enough that they believed in his God. And whenever they asked him who it was that had created mummy's ancestors, he told them to shut up and get back to the ploughing. No contradictions with the literal word of the bible so far right? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 13:48, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Ridiculous as the Biblical account may seem to some of us now in the light of modern biology, this question must occur with every attempt to explain the peopling of the world from one original couple. Not knowing about Neanderthals, how else were the ancient Hebrews going to explain the origins of humanity? You may say that they could have left it unexplained, but that is not really human nature. Children ask questions, someone suggests a story, then the story becomes fixed. There can't be many cultures without an origin myth. And from our article on Cain, it seems that the Cain-Abel story might be an attempt to make sense of the origins of herding and cultivating. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:56, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

If someone believes in a God that created the entire universe and everything in it, it's pretty facile for them to believe that the original products of that creation were rather well built... and therefore not prone to genetic difficulties. IIRC, traditional Jewish sources say that no-one in the generations before the flood ever became unwell. --Dweller (talk) 14:03, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Also, the Tree of Life story predates Judaism and is found throughout the Near East. The Golden Apples is a version that comes to us in a roundabout way from the Greeks.

Finger (gesture)

Finger (gesture) (see the obscene gesture here) has been updated and approved at DYK; I was trying to firm-up some of the references to its classical origins; Aristophanes, Diogenes Laertius, and Martial I've found; but am struggling with these factoids (1) "Roman gladiators reportedly used the gesture towards Nero when he sentenced them to die with his thumb"; and (2) "The historian Tacitus wrote that German tribesmen gave the middle finger to Roman soldiers as they advanced during battle" (didn't immediately spot in Germania, Annales are long...); anyone happen to know the chapter and verse for these? thanks, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 20:40, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

A search on 'Tacitus German "middle finger" Roman Soldiers' gave many results at google [26], including an attribution to a professor Thomas Conley. You might search for his paper. μηδείς (talk) 03:05, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks; the goodly professor of "classics and communication" asserts this for the BBC and also in his book here published by the University of Chicago Press, and this has of course rebounded to the far corners of the internet; sadly he appears to have felt no need for a reference, just says the Germans were giving the "digitus infamis"; a search on Perseus for this and all its possible inflected forms gives no Tacitus or related; I'm not exactly into message-boards but according to User:EleaticGuest here "I wrote Mr. Conley and he was gracious enough to concede that he actually holds no proof for this, but assumed this from hearsay at his alma mater where this notion seems to have been popular then"; I wonder which is the more reliable source... Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 07:30, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Hahahahaha! You should be able to search older texts of Tacitus, etc, at google books. μηδείς (talk) 17:54, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

The stuff about the Battle of Agincourt may be referenced but it's rubbish. The gesture in question was the V sign which our article calls "A widespread urban legend" and says "This story can be traced to the 1980s". This article says "However it really came about, we can be pretty sure that it’s bugger all to do with medieval archers." This article states "...in the US this legend is applied to the middle finger alone, American mythchiefmakers clearly being unaware that "giving the bird" is not native to the UK.". I never saw anyone use the one-fingered gesture in London before about 1980, and trust me, the school I went to had a comprehensive vocabulary of vulgar gestures. Whether Tacitus used it or not, it's a purely American and recent import. Finally, from a letter to the editor of The Guardian newspaper; "Resorting to this (one-figer) gesture is simply a further example of American cultural imperialism. We in Britain have the perfectly serviceable two-finger gesture to be used on such occasions." Alansplodge (talk) 21:31, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Alansplodge. The finger (gesture) was also unknown in Germany before the 1960's, according to the German WP. Perhaps the misconception of professor Thomas Conley results from mixing up in memory Tacitus with Trajan and the finger gesture with the oath gesture of the Germanic prince depicted on Trajan's column [27]. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 22:21, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Yep as in Australia. "Flipping the bird" is American and rare or nonexistent pre-80s. Until then the up-thrusting thumb with elbow bent (sometimes saying "up yours"), and the double digit salute wrist-flicked upwards, was more than enough for many. Aussies call it "giving the finger" (with or without "F*** you") but now, newspaper reporters are using the bird term. Pity. More American expansionism. Manytexts (talk) 03:21, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry, is OJ over there busting heads? Has Cheney waterboarded all you folk? Here I thought you blokes had free will and chose your words yourselves. ("Flipping the bird", BTW, is not an Americanism, but a California thing. No one East of Phoenix uses it. But you guys think what you see on TV is America, of course. μηδείς (talk) 05:03, 13 July 2012 (UTC))

My mate from Michigan says it all the time. 101.170.213.73 (talk) 09:37, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

But since the 1950s Australians have been using, or have been learning off other Australians new physical insults from European cultures, such as the thumb between the forefingers, or slapped extended forearms. The unfortunate side effect of such valuable multiculturalism is the uncritical absorption of Americanisms. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:12, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Uncritical at the point of absorption, but after they've had their 4 millionth Big Mac and "fries" or their 3 millionth serve of KFC or watched their 750,000th American comedy show, then they bitch and whinge about American expansionism. Nobody forced them to consume those products. The truth is that Australia is a sponge for cultural influences from all over the world; some are more high profile than others. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 04:42, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

God bless you, Jack. 05:03, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

One problem with US culture is that US mass culture is aggressively "dumped" on the market. US High or regional cultures often have to be sought out, with difficulty. For the left the idea that Australians have any capacity to control this economic situation is laughable. For the more democratic right, I'm sure they would point to the state supported monopolies that restrict access to more substantial US imports. For one, why can't I find a Philly cheese steak or Reuben readily in Sydney? Fifelfoo (talk) 05:54, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I assume you have access to common cuts of beef like brisket and top round? I'm pretty sure every ingredient necessary to make a rueben or a cheesesteak is availible in any market in Sydney. --Jayron32 06:33, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Butchery and delis do differ, corned meat is rarely available shaved and the Coles Woolsworths monopolists are doing their best to crowd out delis that will actually shave meat for you. Also, after seeing Australian cookbooks from the 1970s suggesting what an "authentic" curry or pizza should be like, I've learnt to eat food prepared by people who professionally cook such food. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:00, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

July 12

Term for extending spoken sounds in acting/ singing?

I've been paying attention to old school British actors speaking: they seem to drag out some of the vowels or intonate them for effect. It's especially noticeable in say, in the BBC's Sherlock Holmes cases with Jeremy Brett. It was sent up in Fawlty Towers when Manuel says: "Ay lee-yawn Ing-lee-urshh. ..." It's more obvious in singing.

What is the term for this? I looked up Vibrato but that seems to be for singing and I'm not sure if it's the same thing. Thanks in advance, Manytexts (talk) 03:11, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Enunciation is saying everything clearly, but, if you overdo it, it can sound like what you describe. StuRat (talk) 03:14, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Prosody, diction, and elocution all have relevance here (as does the link Stu provided above), but I gather that you are rather looking for a term for the specific process you site, rather than the general nature or study on pacing and emphasis. If there's a specific formal term for this kind of exaggerated emphasis, I'm drawing a blank on it, but the above links and Stress (linguistics) may help you to understand the underlying mechanics. Snow (talk) 03:34, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Hispanic/Latino Population for All U.S. States in 1950-1960 and before 1940

Does anyone have Hispanic population data for all U.S. states in 1950-1960 and before 1940. In 1950 and 1960, I only found state-level data for the Southwestern U.S. states and in 1910-1930 I only found state-level data on the Mexican (not total Hispanic) population. Before 1910 I could not find any state-level Hispanic/Latino population data at all. Thank you. Futurist110 (talk) 07:49, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

The census categories have been changed several times, and may not be strictly comparable between various censuses. From perusing Race and ethnicity in the United States Census it seems that any kind of indication of Hispanic identity on census forms was optional write-in information before 1930. Before 1912, some of them were territories, not actually states... AnonMoos (talk) 15:25, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Aliyah Data By Year for Various Countries

Does anyone have aliyah data BY YEAR for various specific countries?

http://jppi.org.il/uploads/Jewish_Demographic_Policies.pdf

This report (pages 135-136) lists figures for some countries for which I have not seen individual year data. Can anyone find the source of all of these country-level figures on pages 135-136 in this report? Also, I do not want data for groups/sets of year, but rather for EACH, INDIVIDUAL year. Thank you. Futurist110 (talk) 07:49, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Have you tried contacting Professor Sergio DellaPergola at the The Hebrew University of Jerusalem? --Dweller (talk) 09:36, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

About local economy

What is the Local Economy Contribution? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.30.45.107 (talk) 11:54, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

An award in China, although I suspect that's not what you meant. You might need to give us a bit more context, because it's ambiguous as to which of the two obvious answers is right: either what a person or company contributes to the economy or what a local economy contributes to a national or pan-national one. --Dweller (talk) 12:23, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

You might want to start with our articles Local economy, Local economic development, or even Local Economy (journal). Itsmejudith (talk) 15:41, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Hymn to Liberty as the anthem of Greece and Cyprus

Just a quick question: exactly what was the reason why Cyprus decided to adopt Greece's anthem as their own anthem? The article doesn't mention exactly why. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:26, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Probably the same reason why you'll see the Greek flag flying next to the Flag of Cyprus, or why the Cypriot National Guard uses pretty much the same insignia as the Greek armed forces: the Cypriot government was controlled by (and since 1974, is exclusively comprised of) the Greek Cypriot majority, and the national ideology and symbols were taken over wholesale from Greece. Furthermore, before 1974, the expectationots among Greek Cypri was that eventually, there would be enosis with Greece, and post that, well, de facto the Republic of Cyprus = Greek Cypriots and the Turkish Cypriots don't have any say in the matter (actually, that was the case since 1963/1964 at least, when they began boycotting participation in the government, cf. Cyprus intercommunal violence). Constantine ✍ 12:35, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Modern pretenders to the Byzantine throne

Do any surviving royalty have a plausible claim by descent to the crown of the Eastern Roman Empire? Or is it just too far back to disentangle? 163.1.25.35 (talk) 14:02, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Presumably the House of Gonzaga, the heirs of the Palaiologoi, who were the ruling house until the death of Constantine XI Palaiologos in 1453. With the final end of the Roman Empire, some of the family found their way to Italy and married into the Gonzaga family line, according to our article, but because I've never heard of them before, I have no clue what happened to the family after the last member mentioned in our article, although there's a source saying that the line is yet unbroken. As former sovereigns of the Duchy of Mantua, they seemingly qualified as royalty, as if I'm reading it rightly, Mantua had what the Germans called "Reichsunmittelbarkeit". Nyttend (talk) 14:11, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

The Russians partially based a claim to be the spiritual heirs and successor civilization of the Byzantine empire on marriages such as those of Sophia Palaiologina, though they weren't necessarily "pretenders" in the sense you have in mind (see Third Rome). AnonMoos (talk) 15:15, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Name for a piece of clothing

If you look in some children's picture books about the first American settlers, the Indian men are sometimes depicted wearing nothing except a string around their waists with a flap of cloth in front and in back to hide the pubic region. What do we call such a piece of clothing? I know I've heard the term time and time again, but I'm completely blank on the name, and we don't have any images of it at Clothing. Nyttend (talk) 14:13, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Breechcloth. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 14:28, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I knew it was a simple and common term...Nyttend (talk) 14:49, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

single transferable vote

under STV, does the quota increase each round as the number of empty seats goes down?? for example, if an election is for 5 seats with 500 votes, the droop quota would be (500/5+1)+1 = 84.3 BUT then once somebody's been elected there would then only be 4 seats so would the quota change to (500/4+1)+1 = 101? Or does the quote stay the same for the whole elction? thanks. Amisom (talk) 14:50, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

US military in WWII

Of the 16 million who served in US military in WWII, how many were foreign born?