Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

Select a section:

WP:RD/H

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.

July 26

Weapons of rainforest tribes

What types of weapons did pre-industrial rainforest tribes, such as those of Southeast Asia, the Amazon, and the Congo, use? Did they use swords? What materials were the weapons made of? Did they have access to metal for their weapons, and if so, how did they get the metal? —SeekingAnswers (reply) 00:11, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bow and arrows, poison blow darts, spears, etc. The machete came later. Before they could mine metal themselves they could trade with those who did, or for the finished metal products. StuRat (talk) 00:25, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding "before they could mine metal themselves": did pre-industrial rainforest tribes have the ability to mine metal themselves? —SeekingAnswers (reply) 00:44, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This depends on what you mean by rainforest and tribes. If ancient south India and Sri Lanka counts then the answer is very much yes. See Wootz steel, for example. There's also a lot of info at History of ferrous metallurgy. Pfly (talk) 01:14, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Southeast Asia, the Amazon, and the Congo have very different histories. I don't think iron working was developed in the pre-Columbian Americas, but the history of metallurgy in Southeast Asia is ancient (see, for example, [1]). Iron working spread through Africa at a later date; see Iron metallurgy in Africa. Pfly (talk) 00:40, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The question is so vague as to include just about every neolitic people on earth. But the Khoisan and the Yanomami both have the bow and arrow. μηδείς (talk) 01:50, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm? Most Neolithic people did not live in the rainforest. I'm specifically asking about rainforest tribes. —SeekingAnswers (reply) 17:33, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What Medis said... you need to be specific about who you're asking about. Many human societies had access to metal working at different times, but the transition into steel is fairly significant. Shadowjams (talk) 03:53, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was specific: I'm not asking about human societies in general, but specifically rainforest societies. Wouldn't rainforest terrain make mining and metallurgy difficult? —SeekingAnswers (reply) 17:38, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Substitute the Bambuti people for the Khoisan if you insist on rainforest neolithic level peoples. μηδείς (talk) 23:51, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Many cultures figured out methods for working copper, silver, and gold, but the development of hard metals which could keep a sharp edge (bronze, steel) happened in middle eastern civilizations, and was not particularly associated with tropical hunter-gatherers. In the pre-1492 western hemisphere, metal-working was associated with jewellery far more than with tool-making... AnonMoos (talk)

You don't need to mine metal if you have access to Native copper which can be used to make tools and weapons, see Copper Inuit (who were not really a rainforest tribe), but copper was found in Coro Coro, Bolivia. Also if you could find stones or bones you can make a wide range of stuff. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 05:58, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I saw a TV program about this very subject a few days ago. This speculated that the Inca or Maya (I forget which) used wooden swords with Obsidian pieces forming the cutting edge. This was a double whammy as the pieces might become dislodged and stick into the victim. Yesterday, I saw an obsidian tipped Pacific Island spear featured on an antiques TV program. --TrogWoolley (talk) 12:21, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are referring to the Macuahuitl. V85 (talk) 18:58, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Southeast Asian metallurgy is indeed quite ancient resulting in some quite unique melee weapons, a lot of them having evolved from agricultural implements. See List of premodern combat weapons. Swords (slashing, thrusting, and hacking), spears (both stabbing and throwing), polearms (notably tridents in common with South Asia), slings, claw weapons, knives (including throwing weapons), sickles, and mace weapons (including staffs) were common pre-European contact, though archery in warfare is rare in Southeast Asia (in my opinion due to the fact that they're useless in the limited line-of-sight environments of jungles). Here are some:

Click to show->

Visayan swords, most of which are also functional and carried around for everyday tasks in addition to personal defense
Southeast Asian kris, the most common sword used exlusively for warfare in Southeast Asia (note: those are not axes beside them, but sheaths)
The Kampilan longswords of the Philippines
Panabas, the Southeast Asian equivalent of the European waraxe and (in some larger examples) polearms
Karambit, a claw weapon
Sundanese Kujang
Balinese kris
Filipino kalis, a kind of kris

In contrast, Pre-Columbian American weapons tend to be clubs, spears, bows and arrows, slings, blowguns, and stone tomahawks. As the early state of their metallurgy meant most available metals were soft or rare, hence the preponderance of stone tips in weapons, notably obsidian.

Click to show->
Aztec tepoztopilli, a sort of spear/halberd made of wood tipped with obsidian shards Aztec warriors with macuahuitl, wooden "swords" with edges lined with sharp obsidian Moche stone mace-heads The tupi when made with metal, use soft ones like copper, gold, or silver and thus were mainly ceremonial

I don't know much about African weapons, but I think it was mostly a spear, club, and bow affair.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 09:05, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

shooting memorial ribbons

I recently looked on Google for some memorial ribbons to the 2012 Aurora shooting. A couple images contained two different Batman logos. One of the ribbons was also in the colors of the Colorado state flag. How can I obtain one of each memorial ribbon?142.255.103.121 (talk) 07:54, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not clear whether anyone has started selling them; perhaps it is too soon for people to feel comfortable capitalizing on the tragedy. Keep an eye on http://pinterest.com/waywire/remembering-the-aurora-shooting/ where someone is collecting memorabilia, some of which is very likely to become commercial. You could make your own by laminating a color print cut-out at a copy shop. 207.224.43.139 (talk) 00:45, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

very specific: has anyone become totally famous in two professions under two names?

I'm looking for an example where like Mark Twain is really Samuel Langhorne Clemens, but Houdini is also really Samuel Langhorne Clemens - the same guy. Posthumity knows him in the first profession (writer, poet, artist), whatever, under one name, but also under the second under a second name.

It's also appropriate if one is the stage name one is the real name. (e.g. if Lewis Carroll was known to mathematicians as Charles Lutwidge Dodgson, which is not the case.)

or if noam chomsky used a slightly different name in politics and as a linguistics professor. the key thing here isn't the two professions - it's the two names or slightly different name. Thanks! 84.3.160.86 (talk) 13:15, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The only possibilities I can think of would be actors/musicians who used a pseudonym and then their real name. And the only one in particular I can think of is Dwayne Johnson, who is now known more as an actor than for his wrestling career when he was called The Rock. But of course he is also still known as The Rock too. Also, Natalie Portman published scientific papers under her real name (Natalie Hershlag), but I wouldn't say she's a famous scientist... Adam Bishop (talk) 14:42, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Trevanian was a successful novelist who was also a respected academic under his real name, but I'm not sure how "famous" he was as an academic. eldamorie (talk) 14:47, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

These are all excellent examples and right in line with what I was looking for. Keep them coming! 84.3.160.86 (talk) 15:07, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean Jack Black/Tenacious D? --TammyMoet (talk) 15:40, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Savage is a conservative talk-radio host, and has published books on topics such as herbs and nutrition under his real name Michael Weiner. (He holds a Ph.D. in nutritional ethnomedicine.) I've only heard about him as a political commentator, though. V85 (talk) 15:56, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OP here - didn't have one specific person in mind. Keep them coming! These are great. 84.3.160.86 (talk) 15:59, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how well this fits with your criteria, but Iain Banks is a novelist, whilst Iain M[enzies] Banks writes Science Fiction. I'm sure there are others - I'll keep thinking! - Cucumber Mike (talk) 16:04, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Got one! Natalie Portman was a co-author on published scientific studies under her real name, Natalie Hershlag, gaining herself an Erdős–Bacon number of only 6. I like this game! - Cucumber Mike (talk) 16:10, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I already mentioned her :) Adam Bishop (talk) 16:32, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

She must be doubly famous then! Sorry! - Cucumber Mike (talk) 16:51, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Both of these are quite good too. How about historically, such that the person's work has passed down on two vines? (Charles Lutwidge Dodgson as a mathematician would be a good example here.) 84.3.160.86 (talk) 16:39, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what the measurement is of "totally famous". Brooke Magnanti PhD is well respected by her peers as a published scientist, but first achieved fame pseudonymously as Belle de Jour (writer), the London call girl with a blog. Since being outed, Magnanti writes under her own name about sex work, libel laws, and popular science. BrainyBabe (talk) 16:53, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

John le Carré is a famous novelist who was also known by his real name, David John Moore Cornwall, when he worked as an M16 officer and foreign consul (I don't know how "famous" he was - or could be (!) - in the latter roles though!). Loriski (talk) 17:00, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See Ignacy Jan Paderewski. He was an internationally ranked pianist as well as being the Prime Minister of Poland. 2001:18E8:2:1020:EC9F:440D:1B5F:FA57 (talk) 17:28, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Linebarger, a noted East Asia scholar and leading expert on psychological warfare, also wrote science fiction under the name Cordwainer Smith. John M Baker (talk) 17:34, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another pen name: The writer Julie Edwards, author of The Last of the Really Great Whangdoodles and many other noted children's books, has also had a measure of success as an actress using her maiden name, Julie Andrews. John M Baker (talk) 17:48, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Her maiden name was Julia Wells. Julie Andrews is her nom de guerre. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 23:01, 26 July 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Yes, that's correct. I was confused because she sometimes uses Julie Andrews Edwards as her pen name. John M Baker (talk) 13:27, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like two US airforce bases were named after her. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 19:51, 27 July 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Charles Ives seems to have been known better as an insurance salesman than as a composer, at least for a while after he started composing actively. 2001:18E8:2:1020:EC9F:440D:1B5F:FA57 (talk) 17:44, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I completely missed the "under two names" part. Sorry. 2001:18E8:2:1020:EC9F:440D:1B5F:FA57 (talk) 17:46, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Juliet Hulme was a well-known murderer, and as Anne Perry, a well-known novelist. (If "murderer" counts as an occupation.) Adam Bishop (talk) 17:45, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They are actually variations on the same name, but you might not recognize Brigadier General James Maitland Stewart as being actor Jimmy Stewart. StuRat (talk) 17:46, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

James Tiptree, Jr. was well know as Major Alice B. Sheldon and also wrote as Raccoona Sheldon ,so a triple whammy there, Hotclaws (talk) 18:30, 26 July 2012 (UTC) Link fixed --ColinFine (talk) 18:41, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard that Noam Chomsky is known under two names in Russia, and some Russians who have heard of both are unaware he's the same man: there's the linguist Ноам Чомски with a "ch"-sound (as in "chair"), and there's the political writer Ноам Хомский with a "kh"-sound (as in "chutzpah"). But I can't guarantee this is true; it's a story I heard and maybe it's false. Pais (talk) 18:48, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At least I've also heard it; with the refinement that one of them is Ном rather than Ноам. — On a distant tangent, I once (long ago) had dealings with someone whose parents were Chinese and Japanese, and whose name could be romanized in two very different ways. —Tamfang (talk) 02:25, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The writer, critic and translator Philip Heseltine used the pseudonym Peter Warlock when he wore his composer's hat. He's much better known as a composer these days, but that wasn't always the case. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 21:52, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

J. I. M. Stewart was fairly well known as a literary scholar (he wrote a volume of the Oxford History of English Literature) but also quite well known as Michael Innes, author of detective novels. Deor (talk) 22:45, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was not aware until well into my adult years that the Scottish novelist John Buchan (best known for The Thirty-Nine Steps) and the Governor General of Canada Lord Tweedsmuir were one and the same person.

There would be various other British and Commonwealth people who chose/inherited a new title upon entering the peerage who finished up as politicians or colonial governors, but were previously better known as military officers, administrators etc under their original names. For the last 24 years of his life, Lord Dacre of Glanton had the right to sit in the House of Lords and make British laws (I don't know that he ever actually bothered, but he might have), but he's also known as the historian Hugh Trevor-Roper. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 23:01, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alexis Leger was a famous French diplomat in his day, being Secrétaire-général (Deputy Minister) of the French Foreign Ministry in the 1930s and a key figure in various international negociations in those days. He is now better known as the poet Saint-John Perse, winner of the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1960. --Xuxl (talk) 08:59, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Louise Mensch MP is Louise Bagshawe, novellist. --Dweller (talk) 14:10, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Child actress Shirley Temple and ambassador Shirley Temple Black? Pais (talk) 16:24, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was also going to mention John Cougar, John Cougar Mellencamp, and John Mellencamp, but he fails on the "two different professions" requirement. Pais (talk) 16:32, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Danish illustrator and linguist Ingahild Grathmer, noted for her work in connection with Danish editions of the works of J R R Tolkein, is otherwise known as Queen Margrethe II. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:50, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Elisabeth of Wied, Queen Consort of Carol I of Romania, poet, novelist and translator under the name Carmen Sylva. - Jmabel | Talk 05:56, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how separate one would consider the fields, but country music icon Hank Williams recorded spoken-word religious records under the name "Luke the Drifter". - Jmabel | Talk 06:01, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese politician Akiyuki Nosaka, according to our article (but lacking solid citation, and I don't know this one independently) a writer under the name Yukio Aki and a singer under the name Claude Nosaka. - Jmabel | Talk 06:13, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps not very famous even in Poland, but (according to Polish Wikipedia) Tadeusz Żakiej published his books about music under the pseudonym Tadeusz Marek and his cookbooks as Maria Lemnis and Henryk Vitry (a curious example of a double pseudonym of single author). — Kpalion^(talk) 15:14, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mrs.Wm H. Murray

I have found a picture in my mothers things that is of a lady sitting by a Quilt,( It shows different districs ,) There is a name under the Picture that says Mrs.Wm H. Murray I would like infromation on her and the Quilt ..... The quilt has 48 Squares and aflag of Oklahma and aMap that shows Numbers instead of countys. there is one squre thats a picture of Sequaha in the center and indian signs around the outside. Can you help me this has really made me wonder about this Quilt maybe being made for the Gov. ans Mrs Murray back in the 30s. I would really appreciate any infromation that I could get.

Thank you very much: Dorothy Hames 8:42 Am. 26 July 2012 Ps. my mother was in home diminstration clubs about this time. She has past away Last January at the age of 97. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jiggs2 (talk • contribs) 13:46, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have googled a bit, and I have found out that in 1927-1931 a woman by the name of Camille Nixdorf Phelan created the 'Oklahoma History Quilt', which seems similar, but not identical, to the one that you describe. It presented the history of Oklahoma from 1541-1931, in 54 squares, one of them including 'Sequoyah and his alphabet', and several of them including 'Mrs. Murray'. The quilt was presented to the Oklahoma Historical Society in 1935. Governor E. W. Marland accepted it on behalf of the society. You can read more about this quilt, either on this blog or in The Chronicles of Oklahoma, (1935) V. 13, No. 4. Is this the quilt in the picture? V85 (talk) 16:27, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think we are looking for information on Mary Alice Hearrell Murray wife of William H. Murray the ninth governor. Worldcat show one biography: Alice "Crossing the Bar".—eric 16:45, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Secret Service protection for the US President's girlfriend?

Taking the proposed fictional relationship between Michael Douglas and Annette Bening in The American President as the premise, at what time point would a US President's girlfriend receive Secret Service protection? Is it based on 'when would she become in danger of being abducted to extort state secrets' or 'when she would know enough secrets herself (i.e. the President's whereabouts) that she could be extorted herself' or 'when she would become in danger of being harmed in a politically driven act of sabotage or crazed act of violence' or perhaps there's no real guideline and it's just a subjective call by the head of the Secret Service? DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 14:13, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The last time there was an unmarried President with a girlfriend was 1915 when many things including the Secret Service worked much differently. (And married President's girlfriends now would also be treated differently) Rmhermen (talk) 15:00, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The President's girlfriend would likely fall under "Other individuals as designated per executive order of the President" as per the Secret Service article. Smurdah (talk) 15:09, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder what is the likelihood of an unmarried man standing any chance of getting elected nowadays. I'm thinking the answer is "slim to none". In any case, as Smurdah notes, that would be the President's call. (If Clinton had had Lewinsky protected, maybe things would have turned out differently.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:22, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Interpreting a C18 portrait in a catalogue

Can an art historian help with this catalogue entry?

Lady Mary CARR, nee Vane (c. 1727-1781), pstl, 58x44, 1753-54 (Lord Barnard, Raby Castle). Lit.: L&R 154 repr.; R&L 270, fig. 398 [omega symbol]

It comes from the Dictionary of Pastellists before 1800 article on Jean-Etienne Liotard by Neil Jeffares.

Here is what I understand so far.

Lady Mary CARR, nee Vane (c. 1727-1781)

Mary was the daughter of Henry Vane, 1st Earl of Darlington (and the younger sister of Harriet, but not this red herring). She married an untitled man, and so got to keep her natal rank, correct? Any idea who her husband was, where the couple lived, what they did with their lives?

pstl

The piece of art is a pastel. I'm not really sure what this "means" in the context of the time. Wouldn't it have been more usual to do a portrait in oil? Was pastel cheaper or quicker or more trendy or believed to be better for some specific reason? More suitable to young girls, perhaps?

58x44

Dimensions in inches, presumably.

1753-54

When it was produced. (Does one say "painted" for pastels?) Mary would have been 26. The portrait appears to be of a pubescent girl. I must be missing something. Is it possible that Mary was the artist, and the item is mentioned in Liotard's article because... he was her teacher, or something? (I'm clutching at straws.)

(Lord Barnard, Raby Castle).

Given that the sitter is female, would this be the person who commissioned it? Or is it the current owner? Or someone else? There is a Baron Barnard. If I read our article correctly, at that date, this was Mary's father. It says " In 1754 he was created Viscount Barnard, of Barnard Castle in the County of Durham, and Earl of Darlington, in the County of Durham." Is the date significant? Was it usual, on gaining titles, to commission family portraits? In which case, were others commissioned? From the same artist or from others?

Nearby Raby Castle is associated with the Vane family. Is the painting/pastel there now?

Lit.: L&R 154 repr.; R&L 270, fig. 398

Does "Lit" mean "mentioned in the literature"? No idea what journal this is/ these are, or the difference between repr[oduction?] and fig[urative?].

[omega symbol]

The end. But the end of what? Just the description of this work of art, or some larger entity I cannot grasp?

"All professions are conspiracies against the laity." But why so many unnecessary abbreviations in an online source?

Any help in filling in the blanks (but not by random guesswork} would be appreciated.

BrainyBabe (talk) 16:26, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Simple solution to your confusion, Babe; the images appear below the relevant entry in the pdf, so Lady Carr is not the young girl but the woman with the pointy nose. As for the greek letter, it's not an omega, it's a phi. Since it appears only after the figure number for the illustrated examples, and seems to come in small, capital, and bold versions, it's presumably just something to do with page layout in the original book. FiggyBee (talk) 17:39, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) I am not an art historian, so most of what I'd be able to contribute would be 'random guesswork' (or as I like to think it 'educated guesswork'), so I won't give you loads of what I think this might mean. However, the website does provide a list of abbreviations used, where some of the information you'd like can be found:

pstl does indeed mean pastel.
L&R means 'Loche & Roethlisberger, Liotard, 1978', which is a book published by Renée Loche and Marcel Roethlisberger in 1978 - from the latter's WP article, presumably L'opera completa di Liotard. Milan; Rizzoli, 1978.
φ, phi, not omega, means photo available.
repr. means reproduced/reprinted.
Dimensions are given in centimetres. — Preceding unsigned comment added by V85 (talk • contribs) 19:10, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The article you link to, ends with the following text: 'The definitive catalogue, R&L, came out in 2008. Catalogue numbers have been added in the form R&L n (references to the earlier edition are given as L&R n); copies and variants are cited by page (R&L p. x).' This does seem to contradict the information in the list of abbreviations, (edit:) but the Roethlisberger article does state that a second version was published in 2008(/edit). I could tell you how I would've interpreted these, but since you don't want guesswork, I won't.

The list of abbreviations also states that photos of pictures follow the description, so the picture of the girl goes with the text preceding it, whereas the picture of Lady CARR is the picture following it, which would seem to fit an age of ~26. V85 (talk) 17:42, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When it comes to spouse: Lady Mary Vane is the daughter of Henry Vane, 1st Earl of Darlington and Lady Grace Fitzroy. She married Ralph Carr in 1752. From 1752, her married name became Carr. V85 (talk) 17:48, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And with regard to the "Lord Barnard, Raby Castle", the parenthetical material in similar positions in other entries includes museums and such, so I think it's safe to conclude that it refers to the current owner and location of the work. Deor (talk) 22:30, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks all. My bad thricely! I don't know how I didn't see the list of abbreviations, and once I'd mis-remembered the symbol as an omega, of course I assumed that the entry was finished, and thus that the image above was the one referred to, not the one below. Thanks for that education in how to read a catalogue; there remain some unanswered questions, and some new ones. I'll number them this time:

1. Titles: is it correct (or would it have been correct then) that the daughter of an earl is addressed and referred to as Lady FirstName until her marriage, and, on marrying an untitled man, becomes Lady HerFirstName HisSurname?

2. Material: what's up with the choice of pastel? See my questions above. Our article is remarkably uninformative on why it was used historically, when the norm was oil painting.

According to the French wp article Pastel [2], the medium had its greatest popularity, especially for portraits, precisely in the 18th century, before giving way to oil after the French Revolution. --Xuxl (talk) 12:44, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

3. Date: Lady Mary married in 1752, according to the source given. (I had found thepeerage.com before, but am not sure if it is a reliable source, or dubiously scraped.) The picture is dated 1753-54. Was it normal in this time and place for husbands to commission portraits of their wives? Or is it more likely to have been ordered by her father, to look at in her absence, as it were? ("You're not losing a daughter; you're gaining a pastel masterpiece!") Or was it likely to be linked to his new titles, as I hypothesised above? NB the portrait is owned by Lord Barnard, i.e. it would appear to have been passed down through her birth family, not her descendants (though there may have been a cousin marriage later).

4. Artistic abbreviations: what is the difference between "repr" and "fig"? The first term features in the list of abbreviations as "reproduced; reprinted". Does that mean that copies of the portrait exist? Unless I'm going blind, "fig" isn't in the list at all.

5. Sitter: Are there any other tidbits of information to be found about Lady Mary, and indeed her husband Mr Carr? Were they just anonymous county squirarchy, or did they make their mark?

Many thanks for any leads. BrainyBabe (talk) 11:00, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2. The pastellists.com website where you found this article, mentions one reason why pastel was popular for portraits: 'The overwhelming majority of the pastels in the Dictionary are portraits, no doubt as a result of the unique suitability of this medium for the depiction of human flesh.'

3. I don't know how reliable thepeerage.com is either, but it would seem to fulfil our requirements for reliability, as it does provide a source for the information it provides. You could look up that source and double-check.

4. The best way to find this out, is, of course, to get your hands on a copy of the L&R and flip through it and see where that picture is reproduced and how that relates to those numbers. My guess is that 'fig.' means 'figure', perhaps page 270 has more than one figure on it (e.g. 315-325) and 319 is the one we're interested in. But that's just random guesswork.... V85 (talk) 15:09, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

5. Mary's husband, Ralph Carr, was the son of Ralph Carr, who was the son of Ralph Carr, who was the son of Sir Ralph Carr. This Carr line associated with a place called Cocken in Durham county - possibly Cocken Hall? Ralph Carr's sister (i.e. Mary Vane's sister-in-law), Isabella Carr, married Henry Ibbetson, sheriff of York, who sponsored 100 men during the '1745 rebellion' (the Jacobite uprising?), and who was made baronet. [3]. So while Ralph Carr himself doesn't appear to have a title, there is a sir in his lineage, and his sister married a baronet (albeit, before he became one). V85 (talk) 18:49, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ralph Carr, Mary's husband was born 1728-05-31 and passed away 1788-09-11, leaving no children. [4] (p. 354-6) The Cocken estate was then passed on to his sister Isabella's third son, Carr Ibbetson. As the latter didn't have any children either, the estate passed to Ralph Carr, Ralph Carr's cousin (as far as I can make out), and grandson of sir Ralph Carr. When Ralph Carr died, the property was inherited by his son, who was called (you guessed it) Ralph Carr.

So, what did Ralph Carr do? I don't know. Obviously there is a reference to coal in Cocken article, so it's tempting to think that any of them could be Ralph Carr (1711-1807) 'A Newscastle Merchant', whose endavours as a trader have been studied, due to his failures. While Ralph Carr is a contemporary of Ralph Carr, I can't find anything connecting Ralph Carr to the Cocken estate to which Ralph Carr was the heir. V85 (talk) 20:34, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lit (literature ?) indicates the bibliographic details listed on this page. On it, as indicated here above, L&R: Renée Loche & Marcel Roethlisberger, L'opera completa di Liotard, Milan, 1978. — AldoSyrt (talk) 08:20, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It looks as if we've gone about as far as we can go with this query. Thanks, everyone. BrainyBabe (talk) 15:08, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Federal Insurance Administration

Where in the US government was the Federal Insurance Administration located in the late 1970s? It seems that it's been renamed and moved to FEMA, but where was it before that? 2001:18E8:2:1020:EC9F:440D:1B5F:FA57 (talk) 17:23, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Department of Housing and Urban Development.—eric 18:10, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but ^{[citation needed]}. 2001:18E8:2:1020:EC9F:440D:1B5F:FA57 (talk) 19:17, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to this report prepared for FEMA, the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 or Title XII of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968 created both NFIP and FIA under HUD.—eric 19:34, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I did my best with Google but wasn't able to find anything. 2001:18E8:2:1020:EC9F:440D:1B5F:FA57 (talk) 19:35, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, here's the text of the act: [5].—eric 19:36, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Western trade with the East

When did the West first contact/trade with India and China? --146.7.96.200 (talk) 18:20, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If by the West is meant Europe, then Alexander the Great (with his army) may be one of the first Westerners we know of to reach India. However, I'm curious if someone here knows of earlier confirmed contact. - Lindert (talk) 19:01, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is definitive evidence of trade between India and Babylonia going back to 900 BC, and less definitive evidence for trade between India and the Hittites hundreds of years earlier. Looie496 (talk) 19:32, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Babylonia was in modern day Iraq. I don't think that is "the West" by anyone's definition. The Hittites were in modern central Turkey, which could possibly be considered in "the West", but not by most definitions. ("The West" is a modern term, so you need to consider the location in a modern world when trying to give it meaning in ancient times.) --Tango (talk) 19:59, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Silk Road and Tocharians articles might be of interest to you. 69.62.243.48 (talk) 23:26, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't there evidence of silk reaching Ancient Egypt, found in mummies, thousands of years before Alexander the Great?--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 05:19, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Egypt however, is not usually included in 'the West'. And besides, silk reaching Egypt does not prove that there was direct trade/contact Egypt and India/China. They might have bought it e.g. from Middle Eastern traders, who in turn traded with India. - Lindert (talk) 08:56, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article Indus Valley Civilization says the Harappan culture (in Western India) may have traded with Crete in the 3rd millennium BC, though this seems uncertain. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:33, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Most trade was not done directly - it was done via intermediaries. Most people did not traverse the length of the Silk Road - one group traded with the next group, who traded with the next group, etc. The same principle applied to trading by sea. So, goods may have traveled long distances without any direct connection between the source culture and the ultimate destination, or knowledge of each other. (As Lindert said...) Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:58, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There were lots of Greeks who went to India after Alexander -- see Heliodorus pillar, Indo-Greeks, etc. Some coins of Kanishka had "BODDO" in Greek letters on them (i.e. Buddha). Nevertheless, books written by Greeks in the Mediterranean area show only the most shallow and superficial understanding of Indian civilization and religion. For semi-direct Roman-Chinese contacts, such as they were, see Romano-Chinese relations... AnonMoos (talk) 18:27, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Megasthenes, author of the Indica the first Western well known account of India. He was born in Asia Minor and became an ambassador of Seleucus I of Syria to Pataliputra, India, some time before 298 BC.184.147.121.51 (talk) 03:00, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

July 27

Good French Revolution movie?

I'm looking for good fictional films on the French Revolution — films that might be appropriate for showing to students at the high school level (say, 14-15 years old). (So no Marquis de Sade flicks, please.)

Preferably I'm interested in something that gives a sense of Reign of Terror, Robespierre, and all that. Much any period of the Revolution would be fine. Things that give a palpable sense for being there at the time, even if they take some liberties with the literal history. (Sade wouldn't be the worst film, if it weren't for the age-inappropriateness...)

I'm posting this here, and not in Entertainment, because I'm more interested in something that conjures up a sense of History than something that entertains. (Though it would be nice if it did also entertain.) --Mr.98 (talk) 00:00, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't actually seen it, but A Tale of Two Cities (1958 film) seems like it might be the sort of thing you are looking for. The book certainly gives a sense of the Reign of Terror. There is also The Scarlet Pimpernel (1982 film), which I also haven't seen, but if the novel is any indication it wouldn't be a good place to look for realism. Looie496 (talk) 00:57, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think both A Tale of Two Cities and Scarlet Pimpernel would be be great, even if not always realistic. Personally I think the 1930's versions of both are still wonderful, and remember watching them as a teenager and being totally involved - but I don't have any idea if modern kids in general would go for black and white movies that old. Cataobh (talk) 17:49, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little confused, Mr.98. You ask for fictional films, yet three things tell me you're really after non-fiction films:

you want the balance of history vs. entertainment to be in the history direction
you allow only "some liberties with literal history" (that could apply to most films that purport to present what actually happened, not just to fictional films)
you ask it on the Humanities desk rather than the Entertainment desk.

So, is it only fictional films you want? -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 01:27, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm looking for fictional films. I don't want a documentary. Another way to put it is that I'm looking for something good in the genre of historical fiction. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:22, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, re: the non-fiction version, I asked my parents to bring me back documentaries on the Revolution from a trip to France. They told me there weren't any. When they asked why, they were told "We don't want another one" :). They brought back Danton, and La Nuit des Varennes, both mentioned below. So if it helps the OP, these were the two films that were rated as closest to a documentary, by French people. Or just the ones they thought an Australian dilettante might appreciate. IBE (talk) 04:26, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How about Reign of Terror (1949)? Dealing with the downfall of Robespierre, it gives a reasonable feel of the period and it's mildly entertaining. Other possibilities are listed in Category:French Revolution films. Danton (1983) and That Night in Varennes (1982) look promising. I found Ridicule interesting, but it's a bit off-topic for your stated aim. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:07, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No Marquis de Sade pics? I dispute your claim. Peter Weiss' Marat/Sade as filmed by the British is great for high school students. It involves sex, but not too much (the nyphomanic is physically restrained). The worst bit for high schoolers, the Priest's discussion and meditation on identity in modernity is elided from the film version (but not from the play of course). And Sade argues for man's animality as opposed to Marat's argument of man as cogito. Worse—Roux, the only individual who could blow the whole thing wide open is systematically gagged by the bourgeois elite. "Marat we're poor, and the poor stay poor, Marat we're scared but we don't care anymore, we want Marat, and we don't care how! We want a revolution, now Fifelfoo (talk) 06:03, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For the purposes of referring a colleague to a text, this is a sample of the work on youtube. Did I mention, it is a musical? Fifelfoo (talk) 06:06, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Lady and the Duke (2001) by Eric Rohmer is a bit wordy, but it gives a good sense of how Aristocrats perceived the mounting terror.[6]. Vent de galerne (1989) is about the Revolt in the Vendée from a counter-revolutionary point of view [7]. Sade (2000) [8] with Daniel Auteuil has little or none of the sex and a lot about the Marquis being imprisoned while the Revolution is raging outside. Les adieux à la reine (2012) is another Marie-Antoinette centered flick [9]. This list has more titles worth checking out, including some that are more pro-Revolution. --Xuxl (talk) 09:27, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The TV series Les nuits révolutionnaires [10] was set against the backdrop of the Revolution, and if you can find it, is a definite must (IMO). I'm lucky to have in on VHS but I wish it would be released on DVD. --TrogWoolley (talk) 13:59, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Lose Your Head FiggyBee (talk) 14:44, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Scarlet Pimpernel for sure. We watched it in my high school European history class, and we all loved it. Nothing inappropriate. Ruby 2010/2013 02:52, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, enjoyable movie though it may be, I'd tend to disagree that The Scarlet Pimpernel is a "Good French Revolution" story; rather, it's a British-upper-class-centric ripping yarn which uses a few corny French stereotypes as backdrop. For an additional British-upper-class-centric ripping yarn which uses a few corny French stereotypes as backdrop, but which nevertheless makes a great movie, see A Tale of Two Cities. FiggyBee (talk) 03:46, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. While they may be entertaining, they would certainly be inappropriate as educational materials about the revolution. It seems strange that the French Revolution, this major event in modern Western history, has generated such precious few good movies. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:53, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Big Mac Index and the Euro

I know much about the Big Mac Index, PPP and international economics. I know that prices are fairly rigid in comparison with exchange rates and interest rates and I know that PPP usually does not work well and I know that comparing Big Macs' prices is not a good test of PPP.

I just wonder if Euro, as a currency for the Eurozone and many other countries, really work as advertised. If so, then I expect to see that pre-tax Big Mac prices within the Eurozone to converge. I mean beef hamburgers shall be about the same price whether you're in Paris, Frankfurt or Madrid (certainly not).

The Economists does not provide individual Big Mac Index entries for each Eurozone countries. I can understand this because this index is used to measure the over- or under-valuation of each currency and Euro is ONE currency.

I just want to know if Big Mac prices are widely varied with Eurozone and if the adoption of Euro for the past decade really helped to reduce the spread. -- Toytoy (talk) 02:53, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to [[11]] the price of a "combo meal, mcdonalds or similar" is 7.44 € in Paris and 4.77 € in Tallinn. I would assume that the variance can be explained by differences in wages and real estate costs. According to [[12]] convergence is nevertheless happening. 130.188.8.27 (talk) 08:55, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. The price of a Big Mac is only very tangentially influenced by the price for the bread and the patty. A much higher percentage of the price covers the physical restaurant, the employee wages, and marketing and branding. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:45, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which makes the function of the Economist as the home of the political economy movement (cf: Thompson on the Moral Economy) interesting, as the Big Mac index appears to be constructed to discipline labour and the propensity of national capital to pay social wages. Fifelfoo (talk) 11:49, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, don't forget that the price of a Big Mac is not the same as the cost to make a Big Mac. There will be a profit margin in there as well. It may well be that the profit margins vary from place to place based on what optimises total profits. If people are wealthier in Paris than Tallinn they may be willing to pay more, so McDonalds can include a larger profit margin and without it damaging their sales. Competition will also affect that - if there is more competition in one city than the other there will be less room for profit since people can more easily switch to a substitute good. It is only when there is perfect competition that prices are driven down to cost (plus the minimal necessary profit to make it worth running the business at all), and no market is perfectly competive. --Tango (talk) 12:27, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO, the main factors in setting Big Mac prices in Europe are (1) local income levels; and (2) local competition. DOR (HK) (talk) 09:24, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How Much of a Role Did 9/11 and the Iraq War (separately) Play in Gaddafi's Decision to Give up his WMDs and Nuclear Program in 2003?

Does anyone have any reliable sources on this, even it these sources are speculative? Futurist110 (talk) 05:09, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Our Iraq War article says, "After investigation following the invasion, the U.S.-led Iraq Survey Group concluded that Iraq had ended its nuclear, chemical and biological programs in 1991 and had no active programs at the time of the invasion, but that they intended to resume production if the Iraq sanctions were lifted", and gives references. So the answer is, no role at all, because the programs had ended over a decade earlier. Looie496 (talk) 05:44, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Looie misunderstood the question. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 05:51, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Be patient with Looie, he has to answer many questions here, he's probably tired or stressed out. OsmanRF34 (talk) 16:24, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Argh, I was thinking the question was about Saddam Hussein. Brain fart. Looie496 (talk) 16:30, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See Gaddafi#Western_acceptance for some ideas. But, of course, only Gaddafi knows, and he hasn't been saying much for a while now, for some reason. :-) StuRat (talk) 06:19, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In an interview in December 2003, Gaddafi did suggest that the impending invasion of Iraq may have played a role in his thinking on this point. Remember that the WMD program was somewhat indisputably discovered just before he decided to come clean on it, too. I suspect there were numerous factors involved, plus a lot of back-room dealing with the US. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:19, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Average cost vs. Average Total cost

Are Average Total Cost and Average Cost same in definition?

According to Average Total cost, Total cost is divided by quantity of output.
ATC = TC/Q

So what happens to the Average cost? So, can the equation be written like:
AC = TC/Q (by following the same definition).

Thanks--180.234.246.231 (talk) 17:22, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They seem to be synonymous. Our article is at Average cost, with Average total cost redirecting. FiggyBee (talk) 17:51, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, synonymous on the most common definitions. - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 21:34, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Colonial east Africa

What was the colonial situation in the Horn of Africa in 1860 (before Italy united)? I tried finding maps but I was unsuccessful. Were modern-Somalia and Eritrea part of the Ottoman Empire, under Ethiopian control, or something else? Thanks. 64.229.5.242 (talk) 17:29, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Geledi sultanate, in the case of Somalia, while Eritrea was mostly under Ottoman influence. The Horn of Africa was not of particular interest to Europeans until the Suez Canal opened in 1869 - Italian Eritrea came into being in 1882. FiggyBee (talk) 17:47, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Displaying the Flag of England

I understand that the English Flag has some political connotations, typically associated with far-right movements. On my trip to the United Kingdom, I took some walks in the fens, and on a number of farmhouses, I saw the English flag being displayed (sometimes with the Union Flag as well, but more often not). Is it likely that these homeowners were associating themselves with the political connotations of the flag? Or is this likely just an apolitical display because they're in England? Buddy431 (talk)

Most likely because the England football team was playing. Not really about politics, or at least not directly. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:11, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The flag had political connotations of the far-right. It has been reclaimed by the general population and is now commonly used to show patriotism, particularly support of English sports teams (especially football, as Andy says). --Tango (talk) 21:33, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article you linked to does have a section on this: Flag of England#Perceived association with the far right. --Tango (talk) 21:37, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Context is everything. If it was on a farmhouse, they're probably patriotic with gentle to less-gentle xenophobia at the back of their heads. If it was on a council house, there was probably a football game on. If they were in a crowd in town, you've found an extremist march. (Stereotyping for simplicity, but the context point is genuine) --Saalstin (talk) 22:18, 27 July 2012 (UTC) (Edit to add: Anecdote: years back, I was showing a boyfriend from London my home in the rural south west. He was genuinely astonished to see all the churches (Church of England) flying English flags - this was apparently not something he was used to. It's probably the least contentious use they'll ever have. --Saalstin (talk) 22:20, 27 July 2012 (UTC))[reply]

The big change is often said to have come about due to Euro 96, which made the St George's Cross acceptable again. Not to mention that some groups always flew the flag (OR: I have a Church of England church opposite my house which has flown it for at least 20 years)--iamajpeg (talk) 22:30, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think Euro 96 was as much about using the correct flag for England (i.e. not the British flag) than about "reclaiming". The Cross of St George as far right symbol was always overplayed, the Union Jack was much more common. 90.214.166.145 (talk) 21:14, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why do they call it "Women's Gymnastics"

When they're obviously girls? ScienceApe (talk) 23:33, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting they should call it "Girls' Gymnastics"? -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 00:33, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If there is a serious question here that can be answered with wikipedia resources please mention that on the talk page and we'll gladly entertain it. μηδείς (talk) 01:03, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reverting your closure. ScienceApe's can absolutely be answered without opinion or predictions or whatever it is you're accusing him of wanting. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:45, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Many sports will have a mix of adolescents and adults, and the adults might resent being called girls (or boys), so they just call them all adults. StuRat (talk) 02:31, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Women's gymnastics has been a part of the modern Olympics since its inception in 1896. It's worth noting that while women aged under 18 are "girls" in most countries today (see age of majority), ages of majority tended to be far lower back then. In Scotland, at least, a woman reached the age of majority at 14 until 1969 I believe. By that standard, every "girl" competing in the original Olympic games would be an adult woman. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:45, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

cite needed for women's gymnastics in 1896, as only [[one woman competed. I think 1908 had a demonstration event, and 1928 was the first official competition.—eric 03:04, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my bad. I was looking at Artistic gymnastics at the Summer Olympics and in my brain fart thought that 1896 was its first appearance because it was on the table of women's results. I see now that all the entries for that column are marked with an X. I maintain the rest of my point still stands :) Thank you for correcting me. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:11, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind that the early female competitors were generally adults. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:43, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They probably don't call it girl's gymnastics for the same reason they don't call "Miss Ebony USA" the "unmarried black girl sex-appeal show off" even though that is what it is. (Maybe they called it that back when you could auction such girls off?) And of course we don't have anyone checking whether these girls are menstruating yet, or if the have popped cherries, which would entitle us to call them women in most cultures. μηδείς (talk) 05:58, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ScienceApe -- many sports have a preferred body type (i.e. possessing such a body type gives an athlete an advantage for that particular sport), and the preferred body type for women's gymnnastics appears to be rather short and compact and slim. Also, they start incessantly practicing at a very young age, and the longer they're in the sport, the more their bodies get banged up. It's not all that different from ballerinas... AnonMoos (talk) 05:42, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Girls' Gymnastics" would suggest Olympic competition has a maximum age limit, which it does not. FiggyBee (talk) 11:11, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Checking the careers of icons such as Cathy Rigby and Nadia Comenici, they competed in the Olympics both under and over age 18. The typical age has crept downward over time (as with female skaters, leading some waggish sportswriters to refer to these kids as "The Young and the Breastless") but as Figgy notes above, changing the name would imply there's an age limit. It could be changed to "Women and Girls Gymnastics", but why bother? If you're going to get technical with the words, "Gymnastics" should be performed nude, but that's not generally done, at least not on purpose. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:17, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no maximum age limit as FiggyBee says so it's obviously called women. I don't know any sport where it's called girls. Lots of elite gymnasts are above 18. I looked at the 2008 Olympic champions and Yelena Posevina was 22 when she won in Gymnastics at the 2008 Summer Olympics – Women's rhythmic group all-around. A more relevant question would be why the 2010 Summer Youth Olympics for 14–18 year olds said men and women about the events, for example in Category:Gymnastics at the 2010 Summer Youth Olympics. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:45, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One aspect of this is that groups of women (not just sportswomen) often refer to themselves collectively as "the girls", and men talk about "the boys", whether it be their sports team or their close friends or whatever. But anyone outside these groups who dares to refer them as "girls" or "boys" had better be prepared for some strong criticism, for having dared to use what is generally considered grossly offensive and demeaning terminology. Playing fields in the area of human communications are not always level. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 22:38, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When you are competing at the most senior level available in your sport, being called "men" and "women" doesn't seem to be much of a stretch, especially when the minimum age for woman is to be 16 in the year of the Games in which you participate. Most females will have reached menarche by 16, if that is a possible standard. Bielle (talk) 22:51, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Most women, yes, but athletic women may have a delayed onset of puberty due to low body fat. Also, those chosen to go to the Olympics in gymnastics might be preferentially picked due to their late onset of puberty, as being prepubescent generally involves greater flexibility, lower weight, etc., which are important in winning gymnastics medals. StuRat (talk) 00:56, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It has nothing to do with age whatsoever, it is defined by the equipment and how that is used. The rings for example are a part of men's gymnastics, and the beam is for the ladies. If a boy gets onto the beam he is doing women's gymnastics, and a lady using rings is doing men's gymnastics. Penyulap ☏ 15:05, 29 Jul 2012 (UTC)

It could very well be labeled as female gymnastics as an all-encompassing term. → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 17:23, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Beth Tweddle is 27. --Dweller (talk) 10:42, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oksana Chusovitina is 37, a mother, and a finalist in the vault this year. There is a minimum age of 16 - see age requirements in gymnastics

Passport References

Greetings from Canada. Why are references required for passport applications? "References may be contacted to confirm my identity." But isn't that what the guarantor is for? Thanks in advance. --Mayfare (talk) 23:37, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Government of Canada's "Passport Canada" site says of the two roles:

Your guarantor and your references must be people who have known you personally for at least two years. They may be contacted to confirm your identity.

You must provide information with respect to references in the section "References" of your passport application. They cannot be members of your family. To avoid delays, it is preferable that your references reside in the same country as you.

There are specific eligibility criteria for guarantors and their duties are slightly more complex, including completing the "Declaration of Guarantor" section of the application and signing the back of one of your photos according to Passport Canada's instructions.

Please note that you cannot use your guarantor as a reference.

Essentially, the right to contact anyone you name on your passport application arises in order to confirm your identity. One person may not be enough. References don't sign your passport, so you could have made them up. Contacting them is a way to cut down on the possibility that you (or they) are making fraudulent representations. Bielle (talk) 01:56, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

July 28

Can people in North America make it the workforce and survive if they have a disability and didn't even complete high school?

Can people in North America make it the workforce and survive if they have a disability and didn't even complete high school? The modern Amish community don't finish grade 8 and they seem to do ok. So is completing school in North America (Canada and US) necessary to put food on your table? Buffyfan84 (talk) 01:38, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For the U.S., of more than 6 million persons with a disability, over 25, and less than a high school diploma, 10.2 percent are part of the workforce (employed or looking for work)[13].—eric 02:06, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Americans with Disabilities Act means employers have to make allowances for disabilities, but without a high school diploma, or at least a GED, you aren't likely to get much of a job. StuRat (talk) 02:08, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

After e/c: same thing said above, but with more words:

The Amish community, and those like them, are essentially farmers. They teach the skills they believe their children need to thrive in an Amish setting.

In very general terms, a minimum of a high school (or trade school/apprenticeship equivalent) education is required for most jobs offered by companies and promotions are unlikely without this minimum level. (Student part-time jobs are an exception.) I know of personal-fitness trainers without high school completion, for example, but with job-specific training. If you are creative and talented, you don't need high school to be a singer, dancer, visual artist, photographer etc., but you will need to be very, very good to rise above those who have both talent and schooling. General labourers in construction, office cleaning, agriculture and the like may not even need the local language, but will be limited to minimum wage or less.

There may be jobs in small offices where, if you are numerate, "computerate" and/or literate, even without the pieces of paper, jobs may be available. You aren't likely to be first on the list, though, unless your wage demands are very limited. What you need, at base, are the skills you would have picked up in high school, even if you didn't finish the course. (Some jurisdictions allow "life experience" to count towards earning higher academic standing.)

If you are disabled, you may qualify for upgrading courses that can help you get a job. Bielle (talk) 02:16, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The figure is surprising. What do the remaining 89.8% do? They can't be all getting benefits - isn't America (as opposed to W.Europe) "too capitalist" for that? Are they cared for by the relatives? Уга-уга12 (talk) 02:50, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Their lives might suck by some definitions, but there is a wide array of potential benefits for the permanently disabled. If the disability is so severe that work has become impossible, a couple of options are available. If the disability was suffered on the job, the individual may qualify for worker's compensation or disability insurance, which may have been procured privately or provided by the employer. If the individual had been working for long enough prior to the disabling injury, he may qualify for very early retirement under US Social Security. Regardless of the source of the disability or job history of the disabled, if this individual has become a dependant of a family member, he may be able to get dependent health insurance, which may even be heavily discounted by the family member's employer. If the individual had already had health insurance, he will be able to keep it, provided he can still afford it. If the individual is having trouble affording health insurance, he may qualify for medicaid. And in the worst case scenario, emergency rooms are required to treat anyone who comes in with a genuine medical emergency, even if that person can't afford the bill. So, what, you Europeans think we just dump our disabled in the gutter? :p Someguy1221 (talk) 03:08, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot more expenses involved in living than just medical bills... When I was in the US recently, I saw a large number of disabled people (particularly amputees) out begging, so you can understand why people might think you don't take good care of your disabled... --Tango (talk) 15:13, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm on income assistance. I have no idea about government polices in Europe. What percent of people in united states with mental illnesses are on a income assistance plan? How come not everyone with a disability or illnesses is on social assistance? Can the American government address this issue? Buffyfan84 (talk) 03:26, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

US American's tend to have a particular aversion to the theft that would be required to finance such a scam. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 09:26, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The general American opinion is that it's better for everyone if those who can work do work, including those with manageable disabilities and mental illnesses. There's the taxation issues, but also the sense of pride and value a person gets from contributing to society. StuRat (talk) 09:31, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The vast number of people people starving on the streets in America should answer the question. μηδείς (talk) 04:54, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is the NHS that good?

Can you explain to a foreigner, is the NHS in the UK that good that a whole segment of the Olympics opening ceremony is dedicated to it? thanks F (talk) 04:24, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I for one would quite possibly be dead without it, so why not? Having said this, I didn't watch the ceremony, and it seems from what I can find out via Google that you are exaggerating a little. Anyway, if we are going to indulge in a little dubious patriotic boosting, there are worse things we could have chosen to base it on. A re-enactment of the Battle of Britain (or possibly Agincourt)? A celebration of a hundred years (or possibly a thousand) of football hooliganism? A celebration of Bus queues, and their antithesis, the drunken brawl as everyone scrambles to board the last bus home? Olympic opening ceremonies aren't supposed to be taken seriously. At least, I hope not... AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:38, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As the American commentators noted, it was in part a convenient way to bring in the Peter Pan stuff and other fairy tales, as Barrie had some strong connection with the NHS. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:46, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Barrie had a strong connection with Great Ormond Street Hospital for children; the NHS was established a decade after his death... The NHS has had some problems down the decades, but when most Britons contemplate the alternative (such as seen in the U.S.), they're generally for it. AnonMoos (talk)

Yeah these "American commentators" would do well not to pronounce on subjects of which they know nothing. --Viennese Waltz 07:32, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's what they are paid to do, though, and it doesn't sound like that was any hugely disastrous error. After all, the show itself linked the concepts of the NHS and that particular hospital. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 07:55, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not talking about that error, I'm talking about the ridiculous assertion that the NHS was only featured as "a convenient way to bring in the Peter Pan stuff". --Viennese Waltz 09:31, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One comment from an American reporter was quite amusing. When the North Korean contingent walked in, he mentioned how their "Glorious Leader" was apparently the best athlete in all of North Korea, having gotten 11 holes-in-one during a single golf game. Then he added "I imagine all North Koreans were filled with pride when he bounced the ball off the windmill and the clown's nose." I find myself wondering what happened to the 7 people who were unable to guarantee him a hole-in-one on the remaining holes. Keeping with the British children's literature theme, I imagine he said "Off with their heads !". :-) StuRat (talk) 09:37, 28 July 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Don't blame Bob Costas for my own faulty memory. It was indeed the GOSH that he was referring to. And the point being that they had all these beds with children and NHS nurses, which overlapped nicely with discussions of Peter Pan and other fairy tales, and bad and good dreams. And the miniature golf joke Costas made was pretty good. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:07, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(OR and personal thoughts) A lot of the ceremony seemed to be aimed at making Britons proud of their country. In particular, the opening sequence with the singing of Jerusalem, Flower of Scotland, Danny Boy and Hen Wlad Fy Nhadau gave me goosebumps. There were also blink-and-you'll-miss-'em references to parts of our culture like East Enders, Grange Hill and Kes (most of which would mean nothing to someone who didn't spend a large amount of their childhood in the UK), and longer tributes to HM The Queen, Rowan Atkinson, Sir Tim Berners-Lee and the Industrial Revolution. In this context, I think the celebration of the NHS was just a demonstration of something that most British people would agree is something that we can be proud of. It might be a rather clunky organisation, and absolutely not a perfect system, but we do enjoy the thought that anyone, regardless off who they are, what they do or what they've done, has the ability to receive the same level of healthcare as anyone else. So, to go back to the question, I don't think the point was that the NHS is 'so good' - it's that this is something that us Limeys are (possibly irrationally) rather proud of. If the opening ceremony had been in the US, maybe there would have been a section on something that the Americans are proud of yet seem incomprehensible to the rest of the world, like the system of lobbying, or relaxed gun controls. You might be interested in the member of the governing party who described the ceremony as leftist multicultural nonsense (my paraphrasing) but received such a barrage of criticism from the public that he's now having to furiously backpedal on those comments. We do enjoy a bit of leftist multicultural nonsense on occasion. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 12:16, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Something else unrelated to the question was a comment I saw on Twitter last night - that the NHS should be celebrated as 'the gift we gave ourselves for surviving the Second World War'. I thought that was a nice way of looking at it. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 12:19, 28 July 2012 (UTC) [reply]

It wasn't actually Hen Wlad Fy Nhadau that the Welsh choir sang - it was Cwm Rhondda a.k.a. "Guide Me O Thou Great Redeemer/Jehovah". Since they were using rugby clips to illustrate the songs, I suppose it was fairly logical. -- Arwel Parry (talk) 16:49, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The NBC-TV commentators in the U.S. really didn't understand that "Jerusalem" is the English quasi-anthem, as opposed to "God Save the Queen" being the UK anthem... AnonMoos (talk) 15:36, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The opening ceremony of the Sydney Olympics in 2000 included a celebration of a clothesline. I doubt if that meant much to non-Australians, but we Aussies understood. HiLo48 (talk) 21:53, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tupou I painting

Does anyone know who drew the portrait of King Tupou I here? I am not sure if was originally drawn as a portrait or was it improved from an engraving/sketch of the King. Does anyone know when the piece was made and who made it?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 07:19, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like a painting or painted photograph. There are black and white versions from Google Image Search on it which look more like the photograph the engraving was based on, rather than the other way around. 207.224.43.139 (talk) 06:57, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also when did photography first arrive in Tonga? --KAVEBEAR (talk) 07:34, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

About 1865 given they were a few years behind Pacific rim urban centers. See Carte de visite. 207.224.43.139 (talk) 07:05, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Price and quantity in a perfectly competitive industry

In economics, How price and quantity is determined in a perfectly competitive industry? Thank you--180.234.123.164 (talk) 09:45, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In perfect competition, the sales price will be just slightly more than the total production cost. How much more is determined by the opportunity cost of producing that item. That is, if the money to do so were invested elsewhere, how much would it earn ? If they can get a 10% annual return on investment elsewhere, then they would either get an average 10% profit in the current industry, or they would leave it. There are some caveats, though, as leaving the industry may also cost money.

Quantity is a bit more iffy, but I wouldn't expect much overproduction. That is, they would only make as many items as they could sell at a profit, with some exceptions, like when a firm with deep pockets tries to force a competitor out of the market by selling at a loss. StuRat (talk) 09:51, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Sturat. I want to make a note on this topic. Should I write the term Quantity is a bit more iffy, but I wouldn't expect much overproduction in exam script or wherever. I want to present it more formally. Thanks in advance--180.234.193.128 (talk) 15:15, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You could make it sound more formal by using "indeterminate" in place of "iffy": "Quantity is more indeterminate. However, overproduction is unlikely." StuRat (talk)

I would point out that in mainstream economics, cost (unless otherwise specified) includes all opportunity costs. Thus, price is equal to average cost in perfect competition. (Also note that by virtue of the definition of perfect competition, leaving the industry does not cost money.) Industry production is equal to market demand at industry price (in the long run, min(AC)). - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 15:25, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a reference to show that opportunity costs are automatically included ? This doesn't seem like it would work, since it's near impossible to tell what return on investment you could make, if you switched to a different type of investment. (You can look at historic returns for that investment, but past performance is no guarantee of future performance.) StuRat (talk) 22:08, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Meh, it's a theoretical construct. Varian, Intermediate Microeconomics (7th Ed) p. 335 would be one possible source. Also see this Gbook which equates economic cost and opportunity cost. - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 19:06, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, strictly theoretical, I can believe. No real firm is going to set prices based on opportunity costs. StuRat (talk) 19:58, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You've got it backwards: in perfect competition, the firm is a price-taker not a price-setter! In the perfect competition model, firms end up pricing at minimum average cost because that's what competition drives prices down to, not because they consciously choose to set prices in that way. The model specifies that the goods are homogeneous, completely undifferentiated, so consumer purchase decision are based on price alone. Individual firms face infinite price elasticity of demand (if they raise prices even slightly above their competitors, they lose all their sales) even though elasticity of demand for their industry overall is finite. If firms are able to price and sell their goods in such a way they make a profit (economic profit, i.e. deducting opportunity costs - sometimes called a "supernormal" profit, rather than an accounting profit that doesn't deduct opportunity costs) then the rate of return to capital in that industry is higher than the average across all industries. Capital flows into that industry and more firms enter the market. Conversely if firms in the industry are making an economic loss (on paper they may be making an "accounting profit", but their capital could be making higher returns elsewhere - an opportunity cost), then firms will withdraw from the market as that capital is reallocated more efficiently. Equilibrium in the perfect competition model occurs when all firms make zero economic/supernormal profit - at this point, there is no incentive for firms to either enter or exit the market. The firms must produce at minimum average cost (the quantity produced by each firm will be the minimum efficient scale of the company's production function, the quantity produced in the industry is the minimum efficient scale times the number of firms, and is also the equilibrium quantity found by the intersection of supply and demand curves), and price at this cost, to record zero profit. No other price makes sense: obviously no firm can achieve a profit pricing goods below minimum average cost, but if firms try pricing above it, then competitors who produce at the efficient scale can undercut them by charging less and will completely eliminate their market share. ManyQuestionsFewAnswers (talk) 05:16, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

exporting

"with Britain now exporting more to the rest of the world than Europe"

Exporting what, and to who exactly? Really more than all of Europe combined??

- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.173.200.107 (talk) 09:57, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It means that Britain now exports less to Europe than it does to the rest of the world, not that its exports outstrip the combined exports of the rest of Europe. 87.112.129.180 (talk) 10:34, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a careful syntactician would have written "than to Europe" to eliminate the ambiguity. Deor (talk) 10:55, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I dare to say that if he means "to Europe", which is almost sure, the only correct form would be "to Europe", being "Europe" alone without "to" in front simply a mistake, and not ambiguous. 79.148.233.179 (talk) 17:14, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. --Immerhin (talk) 21:45, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think he was speaking, though, and grammar in speech is generally a little less precise than in the written word and relies on context to make the meaning clear. If we quote a little more, he said: "the economy is rebalancing, with Britain now exporting more to the rest of the world than Europe." In the context of a balanced economy, it is clear that he's talking about Britain's exports being better balanced between Europe and the rest of the world. It's only ambiguous when taken out of context. (It is still a little ambiguous if you aren't that familiar with economics, but his intended audience is people that read the business news, so they generally will be familiar with the concepts.) --Tango (talk) 21:53, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ocean-submerged writing and print recovery possibilities

I suppose this is technically a science question, but I expect people in the humanities to have a greater familiarity with whatever answers might exist. I would like to know, first of all, what experience there has been with the recovery of written materials from shipwrecks, either very old or more recent; and, second, what speculative scientific work might have been done on possibilities of recovering things written that are currently lost at sea. For example, The Titanic was first and foremost a postal ship. Is there any reason to think that what was being carried could at all in the future be recovered to any meaningful degree, or would even well-closed books be expected to have totally bled out by now?173.15.152.77 (talk) 12:20, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There have apparently been only two successful attempts to recover paper from shipwrecks. The Titanic was one, the German battleships scuttled at Scapa Flow was the other. At Scapa Flow postcards were rescued, having been preserved longer than expected by being stored in a metal box. A 'variety of papers and books' were rescued from the Titanic - I haven't yet been able to establish what those were. This company were apparently involved in the salvage, rescuing 'luggage labels and photos'.

Although it's not specifically about shipwrecks, many of the techniques involved will be similar to those mentioned in this advice for librarians tackling flooding and other water damage. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 14:26, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One example of a paper artifact recovered from the Titanic is shown at the top of this page. Deor (talk) 14:43, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Water soluble inks (like in felt pens) would be lost soon after such paper got wet, so would only be preserved in a waterproof container. Most inks are not water soluble, however.

In that case, deterioration of the paper would be the next concern. Bacterial action would be one mechanism, and having limited surface area, as in a tightly closed book, might limit that to the edges. Leather pouches can also release tannins, and retard bacterial decomp of their contents for some time. Then there are areas of the sea which have too little dissolved oxygen for animals and/or carbon dioxide for plants, so decomp is halted in that way.

The paper could also be torn apart by animals or tides/waves, so having it protected in some way is important. A book with pages flapping in the current wouldn't last long. StuRat (talk) 22:16, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for responses. By the way, this question has been somewhat at the back of my mind since (I think) reading here at wikipedia of some notable author having died in a shipwreck and that certain complete or nearly complete writing not yet published had been lost along with her. I would expect that permanent loss of written material would be mitigated against based a bit on the size of the craft, with currents and animal life having little effect on internal ship compartments for large vessels.173.15.152.77 (talk) 12:23, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree on currents, but not on animal life. Any number of fish, worms, etc., would love to hide out in the interior compartments of a sunken ship, and might well try to eat the paper. An exception, of course, is for a water-proof compartment. However, over years or decades, the seals are likely to decay or the walls might rust through or leak. StuRat (talk) 19:53, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

King George of Ireland

Is there any "King George of Ireland" related to Charles I of England OR Mary II of England OR William III of England OR James II of England?--Doug Coldwell ^talk 12:47, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

George I/II/III? See Monarchy of Ireland. George III was the last King of Ireland as distinct from a King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. George I was related to James II and Charles I through James I - George's great-grandfather, James II's grandfather and Charles I's father. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 12:56, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for putting the picture together for me. That's cool! Cool as a Cucumber....--Doug Coldwell ^talk 13:37, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

George III was not the last King of Ireland; see Monarchy of Ireland. George V, Edward VIII, and George VI of the United Kingdom were also Kings of Ireland. Nyttend (talk) 23:03, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, George III was the last King of Ireland. He and his heirs from 1801 to 1927 were Kings and Queens of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. FiggyBee (talk) 15:17, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act and Disproportionate share hospitals

I have read a few op-ed/blogs (e.g. here) saying that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) greatly slashes the Disproportionate share hospital (DSH) funds, and that will be a problem because undocumented immigrants are covered by the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA), but not the PPACA. And yet, when I come here, I see no mention of DSH's in the EMTALA article and I see no mention of EMTALA in the DSH article. What is the setup for reimbursing hospitals for EMTALA shortfalls? Is it some informal arrangement? Or something setup after EMTALA? Or do DSH funds just cover any hospital shortfall, including EMTALA and Medicaid, etc.? If they are connected somehow, it seems some mention should be included in both articles. Thanks... Wknight94 ^talk 17:21, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Children with disabilities encounter a similar unfunded mandate under the PPACA. The implications remain to be litigated in cases such as these. Canadian style single payer universal healthcare saves about $1.4 trillion per year relative to the PPACA, mostly because many more cancer patients are caught in stage one instead of stage two or three in emergency rooms. 207.224.43.139 (talk) 22:27, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish population in Soviet Union

Thread retitled from "Jewish population for each of the Soviet Socialist Republics from 1926 to the present day".

Does anyone have info as to where I can find the Jewish population for each of the SSRs in the USSR from 1926 to the present day? Thank you very much. I know that there is info for some of the SSRs on Wikipedia, but it doesn't have all of the SSRs separately. Futurist110 (talk) 19:46, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[I am revising the heading of this section from Jewish population for each of the Soviet Socialist Republics from 1926 to the present day to Jewish population in Soviet Union, in harmony with WP:TPOC (point 13: Section headings). Please see Microcontent: Headlines and Subject Lines (Alertbox).

—Wavelength (talk) 20:32, 28 July 2012 (UTC)][reply]

The FSU desk of the JDC is likely to have this information, though I don't know how accessible it is. -- Deborahjay (talk) 10:28, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. However, I appear to have found what I was looking for. Luckily I can read Russian. :) http://demoscope.ru/weekly/ssp/sng_nac_39.php?reg=1 Futurist110 (talk) 20:48, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

US Greencard for Estonians and Mexicans

Thread retitled from "How Hard is it to Get a United States Greencard for an Estonian-born person relative to a Mexican-born person, assuming that both of them do not have any sufficiently close relatives in the U.S.?".

I read in a TIME Magazine article about illegals a month or two ago that the U.S. only allows 25,000 (apparently non-family related) Greencards to be issued for each country of birth per year. Thus, they wrote that it's much easier for an Estonian-born person in my scenario to get a Greencard than a Mexican-born person, due to their huge differences in population. Futurist110 (talk) 19:49, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[I am revising the heading of this section from How Hard it is to Get a United States Greencard for an Estonian-born person relative to a Mexican-born person, assuming that both of them do not have any sufficiently close relatives in the U.S.? to US Greencard for Estonians and Mexicans, in harmony with WP:TPOC (point 13: Section headings). Please see Microcontent: Headlines and Subject Lines (Alertbox).

—Wavelength (talk) 20:26, 28 July 2012 (UTC)][reply]

[This revision was made by the original poster at 20:35, 28 July 2012.

—Wavelength (talk) 21:03, 28 July 2012 (UTC)][reply]

That's odd. What I'm finding on US government websites is that there are four ways to get a green card: through family, a job, as a refugee, or other. Other is things like being from Haiti or Cuba or special categories of refugees etc but it does include the Diversity Immigrant Visa Program, which is: 50,000 visas available annually, drawn from random selection from countries with low rates of immigration to the United States." That's certainly a lot less than 25,000 per country, and there is not a set number per country. In addition, Mexico is not considered a qualifying country for the program, though Estonia is (so perhaps for people who qualify no other way, you can say Estonians do have a better chance). In 2012, there were 2,294 applicants from Estonia and 14,768,659 overall. 184.147.121.51 (talk) 21:33, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just the difference in population that is significant - the desire to move to the US is going to me much less in Estonia than in Mexico. The US borders Mexico and has a large Hispanic population. If Mexicans want to move somewhere with better economic prospects, then the US is the obvious choice. For Estonians, the obvious choice is somewhere else in the EU, since they don't need any kind of visas or work permits, and they are much closer. While Estonia has about 1% the population of Mexico, I imagine it has much less than 1% the number of people that want to move to the US. --Tango (talk) 22:08, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have some relatives in Estonia, which is why I'm asking this question. They do not have Estonian citizenship due to the stringent requirements for citizenship there, especially for ethnic Russians (they are ethnic Russians). Thus, they cannot move to other EU countries and permanently live in those countries. I think they (or at least some of them) might be interested in moving to the U.S. if they'll get this opportunity. Futurist110 (talk) 04:34, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.time.com/time/subscriber/article/0,33009,2117243-3,00.html

Here's the article itself, but it might only be viewable for subscribers. Anyway, here's the relevant part:

"Obtaining a green card means navigating one of the two principal ways of getting permanent legal status in the U.S.: family or specialized work. To apply for a green card on the basis of family, you need to be a spouse, parent, child or sibling of a citizen. (Green-card holders can petition only for their spouses or unmarried children.) Then it's time to get in line. For green-card seekers, the U.S. has a quota of about 25,000 green cards per country each year. That means Moldova (population: 3.5 million) gets the same number of green cards as Mexico (population: 112 million). The wait time depends on demand. If you're in Mexico, India, the Philippines or another nation with many applicants, expect a wait of years or even decades. (Right now, for example, the U.S. is considering Filipino siblings who applied in January 1989.)"

Is this article wrong? I want to make sure. Futurist110 (talk) 04:41, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the Time Magazine article is wrong, I'm seriously surprised that they made such a big mistake when writing it. Futurist110 (talk) 20:07, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not an expert, but I think the article is right. There's a total limit on how many green cards per country of births they issue each year. But you must also qualify in one of the approved ways, e.g. by family, or through getting an H1-B, or something else. If you do qualify for a valid reason, you go into the queue, and they only issue those 25K cards per country per year, so it can take several years to get processed, if you are unlucky to be from China or India or Mexico, I imagine. There's also a lottery which is a separate thing, and other ways around the process for special categories of people. --50.136.244.171 (talk) 02:58, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. As for family, one needs to be a brother, parent, or sibling of the individual who's sponsoring him/her, right?--not a cousin or nephew/niece or anything like that. Futurist110 (talk) 01:11, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

does choice make something more powerful

is a magnetic field more powerful if it has an off switch (generated) versus just being a magnet just sitting there?

my thinking is that I would not want a position of great power if in fact I had no choice in what to do. that's not real power - real power is your choice affecting others. 84.3.160.86 (talk) 21:09, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are talking about an electromagnet versus a permanent magnet, in which case the electromagnets can be far stronger. I don't understand how this relates to political or military power. StuRat (talk) 21:55, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated my question to reflect that I meant ceteris paribus. The relation between political and military power is obvious: we call it "power" because of the wielder's ability to affect the world in some way. The presence of the magnet does so as well. My question is whether it is any less powerful if the effect is not subject to a "choice" or switch - the magnitude of the effect itself being the same. 84.3.160.86 (talk) 22:08, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you have what you call "great power" but have no choice in whether or not you exercise it, then surely you're the agent of some higher "power". You're a puppet and you have no power at all. You have no more power than a gun. It cannot choose to fire itself, propelling a bullet to a high speed and penetrating an object such as someone's body. Only the holder of the gun has that power. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 22:20, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is interesting. The specific example I was thinking, is a single man who with a couple of years of education and nothing but thought and academic publication is able to alter history. (e.g. inventing cheap household fusion, whatever). But in fact he doesn't control what thoughts he has - he can only (e.g.) cause the world to have a cheap fusion plant in each house (just because it's so darn easy and useful), he's not a businessman and can't do anything but publish. So he can change 7 billion people's lives pretty dramatically (due to what household items are possible with free electricity) OR he can not publish and then not even get tenure. He has no other power - despite his "vast" power. That doesn't make him very powerful, in my opinion. 84.3.160.86 (talk) 22:28, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A gun that goes off by itself at random or regular intervals produces considerably more physical power than a well-controlled gun, but is certainly much less politically powerful. Therefore, the electromagnet analogy is probably unhelpful. 207.224.43.139 (talk) 22:23, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But I really meant that the equal amount of physical power is produced. I should have specified that the two produce an equal number of fers - or whatever you measure magnetism in - but one has a switch and one is always on. 84.3.160.86 (talk) 22:28, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. it's apples and oranges. You might as well ask "How can I improve my security the most, by installing anti-virus software or a deadbolt ?". StuRat (talk) 22:29, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I thought my analogy was pretty clear... Suppose for example that it is true AIDS had a patient 0 who had intercourse outside species; that person ended up exerting an extremely powerful effect on tens of millions of people, you could say half a continent. (sub-saharan africa). Obviously the idea to "give ten million people AIDS" is huge (negative) power. But unlike some villain, that guy didn't have a choice to do that - for all he knew, he was just banging an ape. 84.3.160.86 (talk) 22:41, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

True enough. When Archimedes said "give me a place to stand and I can move the Earth," he had a lever in mind. 207.224.43.139 (talk) 00:30, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This entire discussion is nonsense, more of a half-baked philosophical soapbox than an actual question, but I feel compelled to point out that the hypothesised origin of HIV is people eating apes and monkeys, not "banging" them. FiggyBee (talk) 00:45, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly eating them, but being bitten by them or other blood contact with bush meat. What does this have to do with electromagnets? μηδείς (talk) 04:50, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect example. Suppose the species-jump came at one point in one bite. That bite had a powerful effect on the world, then. If the guy had gotten a fortune cookie "You will have a powerful effect on the world" it would be been correct (..."by being bitten by a monkey" is too much specificity to ask of a fortune cookie). But how powerful is this guy, really, compared with someone who has a choice of what to do? 84.3.160.86 (talk) 09:52, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That bite didn't just occur at one point. It occured in time, and since the Sun shines upon Earth, 2 – major Time points are created on opposite sides of Earth – known as Midday and Midnight. Where the 2 major Time forces join, synergy creates 2 new minor Time points we recognize as Sunup and Sundown. The 4-equidistant Time points can be considered as Time Square imprinted upon the circle of Earth. In a single rotation of the Earth sphere, each Time corner point rotates through the other 3-corner Time points, thus creating 16 corners, 96 hours and 4-simultaneous 24 hour Days within a single rotation of Earth – equated to a Higher Order of Life Time Cube. In 1884, meridian time personnel met in Washington to change Earth time. I am flabbergasted that the "big brother" hired pedants can brainwash and indoctrinate the powerful antipode human mind to ignore the simple math of 4 simultaneous 24 hour days within a single rotation of Earth, to worship one and trash three. This a major lie has so much evil feed from it's wrong. No man on Earth has no belly-button, it proves every believer on Earth a liar. Your dirty lying teachers use only the midnight to midnight 1 day (ignoring 3 other days). Is Wikipedia a Singularity Brotherhood controlled Trojan Horse indoctrination - that edits Time Cube to a negative view? Who edits the Time Cube on Wikipedia? Gene Ray (talk) 14:10, 30³ July 2012 (FSD) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.170.127.234 (talk) 10:27, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but, uh... what? Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 10:35, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Click on the user's name and you'll see he's blatantly promoting his own website, which I am sure is prohibited behaviour. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 20:11, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's a religion, but a pretty dumb one as it doesn't incldue Tithing. Gene Ray, if you calculate why the time cube means people should give us 5-10% of their money so we can promote the truth, I'll join your cause. Since I came up with the idea I would like to be treasurer Contact me on my userpage. 84.3.160.86 (talk) 09:41, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Prank calling on 911

Is it punishable offense? In the USA? — Preceding unsigned comment added by GiantBluePanda (talk • contribs) 21:39, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, varying from a fine to imprisonment, for repeat offenders. StuRat (talk) 21:49, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Or sometimes just a warning and/or citation. I was accused of abusing 911 once when I reported a malfunctioning crosswalk signal back in the payphone era, but when I called back on the non-emergency number to the same dispatcher and asked to be connected to the traffic engineer, I was treated with considerably more respect. 207.224.43.139 (talk) 22:19, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the sign was telling people to walk into traffic, then I'd agree that this was an emergency, as someone was likely to be injured or killed in short order. StuRat (talk) 22:27, 28 July 2012 (UTC) [reply]

It was just disconnected or otherwise unresponsive, not allowing anyone to cross, at a T intersection where it was the only thing that would change the lights short of a car turning left from the perpendicular. I stood there for at least ten minutes.... 207.224.43.139 (talk) 00:35, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When calling 911, it's important to be brief and to the point. The only times I've called 911 were when I was on a rural highway and there was a road hazard of some kind. I called 911 and immediately said this was not necessarily an emergency, I only wanted to report a road hazard. They either took the info or patched me through to the appropriate desk. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:33, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely, but if it is an emergency, dispatchers prefer that you start with your location, and then the emergency. If you get cut off after "Someone just shot a person..." they can do a lot less than with "I'm at First and Main...." 207.224.43.139 (talk) 00:35, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. But I want to first inform them that it's not particularly an emergency, but something that someone should deal with. Then I tell them what mile marker it was on the highway. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:56, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've called 911 twice in the past year. Maybe I live in more of an emergency-prone area. (Once for an unresponsive man slumped on the street in January when it was twenty below zero; one for a gas leak. Both IMO real emergencies.) --NellieBly (talk) 06:15, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In other countries also, there are penalties for misusing the emergency telephone number. Eg in Queensland, Australia (where the emergency number is 000), the penalty is a fine of up to $7500. Mitch Ames (talk) 02:03, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

^{Note the exchange rate to get a better idea of that amount. --70.179.170.114 (talk) 05:27, 29 July 2012 (UTC)}[reply]

Congratulations to Mitch on actually providing an article and a link. I was going to hat this as fruitless chat rooming otherwise. The questioner might also find Prank_call#Legality helpful. μηδείς (talk) 04:47, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And, since that would yet again be an inappropriate hatting on your part, I, or somebody else, would have immediately reverted it. StuRat (talk) 09:32, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is it punishable? And if it wasn't, you would do it? Shaking my head... (now of course, I'm not accusing you of that, you may just be curious... Just seemed like a weird question to me). --Activism1234 05:35, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All emergency calls are recorded and are admissible as evidence in courts in the United States. Basically, you need to hope that the police in your local area are so busy that they cannot spare enough time to chase you down, as there is just about no way in which you can disguise your voice that current technology can't identify you just the same.

On the other hand, there are a great many federal criminal offences in the United States which are not enforced. it is a Federal CRIMINAL offence to possess a lobster for example. If you annoy them enough, they will track you down even if they can't do it until many years later on. Penyulap ☏ 15:20, 29 Jul 2012 (UTC)

I watched the video. No it is not a criminal offence to possess a lobster, and nor does he say it is. Good video though! FiggyBee (talk) 01:13, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Suppose One call an emergency number from a online VoIP site connected through anonymous proxy, then is it possible that they would make full efforts to catch the pranker ? GiantBluePanda (talk) 18:59, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As with any offence, they will weigh up the benefits of investigating the offence against the costs of doing so. What conclusion they will reach in any particular situation is not something we can help you with. I will point out that the main downside to prank emergency calls is not getting prosecuted - the downside is that you might be responsible for someone dying because you were wasting the time of the person that could have saved their life. --Tango (talk) 21:34, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is the Wikipedia reference desk. Wikipedia reference desk. Wikipedia has an article on that. See Prank_call#Legality among other things. μηδείς (talk) 01:46, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

July 29

Anger allegedly gives an extra will to live, so...?

You see, Anakin/Vader had so much anger while being immolated, that it helped him survive. I have read that his seething emotions gave him an incredible will to live.

Therefore, I wonder: How about a during a heart attack? Would thinking livid, seething thoughts just as a heart attack is coming on, increase the chances of survival? Are there statistics / reports / (non-fiction) stories / etc. backing this up?

Also, what other (improbable to survive) conditions were overridden by such emotions, and what stories and stats can you cite to back this up? Thanks. --70.179.170.114 (talk) 05:23, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you asking us about Star Wars characters? 203.27.72.5 (talk) 06:12, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anakin/Vader is a fictional character living in a fictional world created by a writer who has absolutely zero background in medicine and who has created medical whoppers before. In the real world real seething anger leads to a spike in blood pressure and has been reported (by Nuland, a.o.) to have triggered fatal heart attacks.

In fact, one of the first things EMTs do with a heart attack patient is to try to calm him or her down, because being relaxed (and not anxious, angry, etc.) slightly increases the chance of survival by lowering blood pressure. Given that an MI often leads to a spike in adrenaline that's not always possible, but your idea that you can somehow magically and miraculously will yourself to live by feeling strong emotions because Darth Vader did it is just not realistic and has no factual support behind it. Fiction is not realistic: that's why it's called "fiction". --NellieBly (talk) 06:12, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, emotions can kill us, or keep us alive when we would otherwise die. This is very well known and understood across most of the world, people can die simply from believing that they will. Elderly who understand this can completely confound western medicine whilst they make final plans and say final farewells and then pass away much to the astonishment of the attending doctors. This is more common than you think, however where you live you will probably find easier to study examples where people 'go into shock' after a serious fright. Googling for 'died of shock' with earthquakes or car accidents, it is especially common with the elderly. The live expectancy of otherwise health people who have been diagnosed with a mental illness is about 25 years less than the remainder of the population, even though their bodies are the same. Generally though, I think in America it's accepted that Mother-in-laws never seem to die and that is mainly out of spite. :) You can also find examples where a parent must fight to save their children, even when burnt or half drowned, other people would give up the will to live and pass, but many fight on and with good reason. Penyulap ☏ 15:38, 29 Jul 2012 (UTC)

The reason that Darth Vader's anger helped him to survive is because anger is one of the features of the dark side of the force, which helps the user generate strength. --82.37.233.93 (talk) 15:47, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Shock" in this context doesn't mean surprise. It's a medical condition with physical causes, such as extreme blood loss. See shock (circulatory). The elderly tend to less resilient, so shock can kill them more easily than it kills younger people. --Tango (talk) 15:57, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

no it's not at all, there are many causes of shock, and yes some are physical but certainly not all. Adrenalin gets pumping for reasons that are not always physical, and shock is another symptom caused by certain mental states. Heart attack itself is caused by mental states as well as physical causes. study people ! Shock is the body conserving it's precious blood supply for the vital organs at the expense of the soon to be bitten off/blow off/chopped off/burnt off limbs. Penyulap ☏ 17:03, 29 Jul 2012 (UTC)

Penyulap, if you are going to speak so "authoritatively" about medical matters, a cite or five would help you become credible. Bielle (talk) 17:14, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In particular, I would refer you to this sectionin the WP article on circulatoryshock also cited by Tango (emphasis mine):

Circulatory shock should not be confused with the emotional state of shock, as the two are not related.

Circulatory shock is a life-threatening medical emergency and one of the most common causes of death for critically ill people. Shock can have a variety of effects, all with similar outcomes, but all relate to a problem with the body's circulatory system. For example, shock may lead to hypoxemia (a lack of oxygen in arterial blood) or cardiac arrest.

One of the key dangers of shock is that it progresses by a positive feedback mechanism. Once shock begins, it tends to make itself worse. This is why immediate treatment of shock is critical.

Bielle (talk) 17:24, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Penyulap is misunderstanding the reports they are quoting. When someone is reported to have "died of shock" following a earthquake, it means they died of circulatory shock, not emotional shock. --Tango (talk) 21:36, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well actually it's called "fiction" because it's from the same Latin root as "effigy", fingere". So an appearance of realism is an important part of it. Card Zero (talk) 21:31, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Justo Pérez de Urbel

This one falls about equally under Humanities & Language.

I'm currently translating es:Justo Pérez de Urbel. Referring to the period immediately after the Spanish Civil War there is a sentence, "Al mismo tiempo, resolvía las solicitudes de nuevas autorizaciones de tebeos." On a literal level, I understand it, but I have no idea what it actually means. "At the same time, he resolved (possibly satisfied?) the demands for new authorization of comics." I have no idea whether this means that the Falangist children's magazine he was running (Flechas y Pelayos) met that demand, or that he was somehow (how?) in a position to authorize others to produce comics, or something else entirely. Does someone know enough about the cultural history of the early Franco era to explain this better? - Jmabel | Talk 05:33, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He produced enough comics to meet the new increased quota, I'm guessing. A more idiomatic guess: He solved meeting the demands for newly authorised comics. Get a second opinion from a native speaker! 207.224.43.139 (talk) 06:40, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

207, that concurs with my first guess, but I'm looking for someone who knows the cultural history well enough to do more than guess. - Jmabel | Talk 16:45, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, he took care of requests for authorizing new comic books in a religious sense. See imprimatur and nihil obstat. In any case, this has been asked here and on the language desk, and been answered at the Spanish wikipedia. μηδείς (talk) 00:48, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. - Jmabel | Talk 05:26, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Willard bibliography

I have found the titles of 3 books for children not listed by Wikipedia. How do I get them added? They are all published by Bethlehem books, one in 1969 and two with impossible (i.e. after her death) dates, obviously reprints. 31.52.41.62 (talk) 09:00, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can add them to our Barbara Willard article yourself, using the edit button on the section where you want to put them. Note that sometimes books are published (the first time) posthumously, but, in your case, they likely are reprints. StuRat (talk) 09:28, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Olympics

Why is the United Kingdom referred to as Great Britain at the Olympics, when officially we're the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Great Britain is just the name of the largest island, the title "Team GB" seems to completely ignore Northern Ireland and the other islands that comprise the UK. Just wondered if there was a reasoning behind it. --Thanks, Hadseys (talk) 15:41, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As Great Britain#Use of the term Great Britain notes, the use of GB and UK as effective synonyms, while wrong, was formerly quite commonplace, but has been waning over the last few decades. As Team GB#Calls for renaming notes, there have been calls for the Olympic team to rename, for the reasons you describe. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 15:53, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The official ISO 3166-1 country code for the United Kingdom is "GB" (although "UK" is reserved so no other country can use it). I'm not really sure why, but it means GB is technically the correct abbreviation. --Tango (talk) 16:06, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

except the olympic team predates the ISO code. Hot Stop 16:09, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The explanation I was given is that athletes from Northern Ireland have the choice as to whether they represent Ireland or Great Britain. For that reason it's inaccurate to use "UK" as in the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland". The other parts of Great Britain don't have a choice to offer their athletes as to who they represent. It's the only explanation I have heard that makes sense. --TammyMoet (talk) 16:11, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dual eligibility is discussed at Great Britain at the Olympics#Eligibility, but isn't sourced. That also notes the non-UK entities whose people are eligible. Of these the Isle of Man has had (in the distant past) two medallists. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 16:31, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you're interested, a full list of this Olympics' Team GB is here. That lists where members were born, which might be instructive as to which territory one might say they "belong". I see two, including Cavendish, from the Isle of Man, and two from Guernsey. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 16:43, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that those places are not formally part of the United Kingdom but their residents are eligible for the national team would explain why the team is not called "United Kingdom". But it does not help to justify calling it "Great Britain". The Isle of Man and the Channel Islands are no more part of Great Britain than they're part of the UK. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 20:27, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If "Team GB" changed their name to "Team UK" the IRA would specially come out of retirement to bomb a stadium. "Blame the Irish" is the standard answer to all questions related to the name(s) of various British and related entities. Roger (talk) 11:42, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At the time the Olympics started "Great Britain" was the common name for the United Kingdom, it is only now particularly after Irish independence that we have a move to change the word back to its original geographical meaning. It would have been common in in the 1900s to use "Great Britain" for all of the United Kingdom, it is still in common use and most of the population would still relate GB to UK rather than the largest island of the British Isles. MilborneOne (talk) 19:26, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That may have been true from an English viewpoint. On the other hand, the Queen is commonly referred to as the "Queen of England" but you won't see that expression used in any official context, anywhere, because it's been inaccurate and misleading since 1707. Did the people of Ireland consider they were part of "Great Britain" in 1896? After partition, did the people of Northern Ireland consider they were part of "Great Britain"? Wouldn't either of those make a mockery of the union of "Great Britain and (Northern) Ireland", which is what their United Kingdom was supposed to be all about? If the Games were just being inaugurated today, is there any way the UK team would be referred to as "Great Britain"? I seriously doubt it. Using something that might have had relevance in 1896 but has long since lost it smacks of tradition for its own sake ... wait, we are talking of the UK here, so .... -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 20:04, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not they're embraced by the geographical "Great", the majority of people in Northern Ireland post-partition did and do (though the majority is now slimmer) rather vehemently assert their being "British", wherein lies much of certain problems. As for "Queen of England", that term may commonly be used outside the UK, but isn't, I think, commonly used by a significant proportion of we British ourselves (though I'm willing to be contradicted by firm evidence).

Given the sound arguments advanced above for not using "UK" in this context, what then would you suggest, Jack? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.109 (talk) 21:23, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tangential to the original question, but I have just received an Electoral Register renewal form, and I notice that my nationality cannot be "English" or "British" but must be coded as "GB" which, in this context, includes Northern Ireland, the Irish Republic, Cyprus and Malta. As Jack says, it's sometimes difficult to see the logic in British tradition! Dbfirs 21:13, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's a big difference between being "British" and saying you come from "Great Britain" when you don't (Northern Ireland people). It's not up to me to solve this problem, but I maintain that if the Games were just being inaugurated today, there is no way the UK team would be referred to as "Great Britain". They would have found some other, better, more suitable term. If the diplomatic fraternity can dream up "Chinese Taipei" and "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia", there's no limit to their inventiveness. Fwiw, imo "United Kingdom" would be a lot better. The fact that eligibility is extended to some of the adjacent islands that are not formally part of the UK is not a problem. They are intimately connected historically to the UK; they are not intimately connected with Uzbekistan or Vietnam or Madagascar. If it's OK to have a team called Great Britain that includes part of another island, then it's just as ok to have a team called United Kingdom that includes other islands. The advantage is that it would also implicitly include Northern Ireland, which the current formulation "Great Britain" appears to implicitly exclude.-- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 22:06, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While the government of the Republic of China has never used the name "Chinese Taipei" to refer to the state that it administers, FYROM is a translation of what was the official name of the southernmost portion of Yugoslavia for a while after independence. Nyttend (talk) 22:59, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anybody's actually given the correct answer and the real reason. The reason goes back to 1908 and the first London Olympic Games. The process of requiring competitors to be formally part of national teams was relatively new (before the 1906 games, they had all competed as individuals). The British Olympic Association had been formed under that name in 1905, but covered the whole of the United Kingdom which at the time included the whole of Ireland. The large majority of Irish were firmly committed to having home rule and did not wish to be considered part of Britain, and many Irish potential Olympic competitors would have refused to participate as part of a British team. Wanting the games to be a success, the BOA got permission to enter the team under the name 'Great Britain and Ireland', opting for what sounded like a geographical rather than a political description. The International Olympic Committee also allowed a separate Irish team to enter in some events.

The team has been called 'Great Britain' since 1912. Almost all sport in the United Kingdom is organised in separate nations of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland rather than the UK as a whole. In 1912 there was a protest from France when the BOA entered three teams for the cycling (from England, Ireland and Scotland; the French also protested at the appearance of separate Austria and Hungary teams). Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:29, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yet, where are the howls of protest when China has 2.5 bites at the cherry: (a) under China, (b) under Hong Kong (China) and (c) under Chinese Taipei, which China has always maintained is an integral part of China. In line with this, I imagine that in China they trumpet any medal wins by Chinese Taipei as wins by China proper. They would certainly claim Hong Kong's wins as their own, even though the teams are separate. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 00:23, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A little late to the party, but this explanation of the differences between the United Kingdom, Great Britain, and England is well worth watching. 121.44.75.220 (talk) 01:28, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Torrents site

Why no government is taking any action against those torrents sites like piratebay.org or mnova.eu while they are sharing all those copyrighted materials as pirated? I heard that Swedish government took action against piratebay.org, but why not us government and why not against other sites? ? GiantBluePanda (talk) 19:04, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know that no action is being taken? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:02, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The UK and Irish governments have both mandated blocking of the Pirate Bay, as have other, mainly European countries - see The Pirate Bay#Blocking for details. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 21:27, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Bugs, I know that no action is being taken, because I have been using such sites since 6 years and it isn't closed yet.;) GiantBluePanda (talk) 21:29, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Only the government of the country where the servers are hosted can actually take any direct action to bring the site down, so your observations are only evidence that one government hasn't taking action, not that no government has. And actually, the relevant governments have tried to take action, but it is easier said than done - the people running the sites can just move to new servers in a new country very quickly. --Tango (talk) 21:45, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just because it has not being closed down doesn't mean the US government is taking no action (see e.g. here and the failed SOPA bill) - for comparison the US government takes quite a lot of action against illegal drugs but people can still buy them easily. --Colapeninsula (talk) 22:22, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The argument used by torrents sites, such as Pirate Bay, is that they do not host any infringing material themselves. Instead, they only index torrents that are available, and when you download, you download it directly from another person (P2P). Therefore, the torrent site isn't breaking the law by making anything illegal available, merely providing you with information on how you might get it. (If I tell you where you can buy weed, I'm not a pusher, and it's your choice whether you want to go and purchase it, or not. Or something like that.) I guess that might make it hard to create a legal framework to deal with such websites, and that's why SOPA ended up being as dravonian as it was: It included blocking websites with links to pages with infringing material. (I.e. content alone was not the sole factor, but also telling people where they could access it was illegal.) And, of course, once you start talking of blocking websites, there is the matter of who gets to decide what is being blocked, and does that potentially damadge freedom of speech? V85 (talk) 10:10, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The "we don't host it, we just signpost to it" argument does not appear to interest the US government, in one notable case at least. - Ka renjc 14:03, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vision: Defining Your Destiny in Life (Portable 7 Habits)

Hello there, I am thinkng to purchase this book. But before proceeding, I want to know further about vision:defining your destiny in life. Amazon.com only have one customer review on this book. But what this book is actually for? I am an avid reader of self-help book. Can anyone help me to clarify about this book a bit? Thanks--180.234.49.65 (talk) 22:38, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You could try and find it in a bookshop or library, so you can flick through it and see what it is about before you buy it. --Tango (talk) 00:37, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the subtitle ("The Portable 7 Habits"), it looks like a shrunken version of The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People, his best-known book. I wouldn't expect to find anything that isn't in the other book. Looie496 (talk) 02:31, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can't flick through it,because it's wrapped with polythene. What valuable thing may this book cover? Thanks--180.234.217.193 (talk) 07:05, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Opara island tahiti

What is the modern name for the island of Opara near Tahiti? Is there a wikipedia article on it.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 23:10, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rapa Iti, formerly called Oparo?184.147.121.51 (talk) 23:32, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure? Another clue seems that the island was proposed for a "coaling station in the Panama run".--KAVEBEAR (talk) 23:49, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no contradiction. In The Story of Merchant Steam Navigation in the Australasian Coastal and Intercolonial Trades, and on the Ocean Lines of the Southern Pacific by WILL LAWSON, it is written: "the establishment of a coaling station between Wellington and Panama [was] a necessity" ... "At last [Captain John Vine Hall] decided on Rapa or Opara, an island first discovered by the English navigator, about 700 miles east of the Society Group." The Rapa Iti page confirms that the Oparo island was discovered by George_Vancouver. — AldoSyrt (talk) 08:22, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks. I just wanted to be sure.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 08:34, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This (around pages 433-434) ties all the threads together. Zoonoses (talk) 03:31, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

July 30

Number of soldiers in a British Napoleonic Infantry Unit

Hi, could someone tell me the average number of soldiers in a British Napoleonic infantry unit, or perhaps list some references which might provide that information. Thanks, Uhlan ^talk 06:59, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This site gives numbers for various units in "Organization of infantry" (about halfway down), with a English/Scottish/Irish breakdown for three regiments in the preceding section. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:32, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks. Uhlan ^talk 05:39, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Thakombau, Vu-ni-valu, King of Mbau Fiji"

Does anyone know who (artist) created this reproduction and who made the original? When was this reproduction made and when was the original made? The only I know is from the caption which reads: "Thakombau [Cakobau], Vu-ni-valu, King of Mbau [Bau] Fiji. Copied, by permission from an original portrtait in the possession of Captain Denham, R.N. made during the Officers survey of the Fji Islands in H.M.S. Herald.". Who is Captain Denham?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 07:29, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the answer to your last question is Henry Mangles Denham. - Ka renjc 10:21, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The picture has a caption bottom right. If you enlarge it, it includes references to "La Rivière", "litho" and "Clifton St." The lithograph chart placed immediately above the portrait here is expressly credited to Anthony La Riviere, so it's possible that he's the creator of the reproduction. According to this site he was a lithographer working out of 18 Clifton Street, Finsbury, between 1855-65. The original portrait would presumably have been done by someone on board Herald during her Fiji surveys, probably one of the several naturalists on the voyage. It's tempting to assume it was Williams, since it's grouped with some of his other work on the justpacific.com page dedicated to him, and the face and head in particular resemble some of the other Williams work on the page. - Ka renjc 13:42, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When you say Williams are you talking about Thomas Williams? It seems Williams was the author of the book Fiji and the Fijians where this reproduction was used on the first few pages. Was he (Thomas Williams) on the Fiji survey abroad the Herald?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 01:34, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Teaching slavery

I have a few questions dealing with the teaching slavery to slave-owning children/teens (let's say during 1700s to early 1800s):

Were they directly taught about slavery?
Were they taught to "hate" slaves?
Were lessons always truthful (e.g., saying the slaves were at fault and that's the reason they were enslaved)?
How was slavery justified in lessons? Were they justified at all?
What would happen if children questioned slavery?

Thanks, 64.229.5.242 (talk) 15:36, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where? In the United States? In the North, or the South? In another country? Are you only talking about white children? Context matters a lot towards trying to answer such a question... In general, though, I don't think children of the slave-owning classes were ever taught to "hate" slaves. They would have been taught (not necessarily explicitly) that they were "above them" in every respect, but "hate" doesn't really become an part of it until they are no longer slaves and are considered legally to be equals of some sort or another. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:49, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason to believe that textbooks defended a different position than the mainstream perception of slavery of the relevant time or place. They were the product of there time, however, that also might include Yankee Protestant and the Second Great Awakening influences. OsmanRF34 (talk) 19:13, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the general way black slavery was defended was to say that they were inferior, even subhuman. Thus slavery is just like owning cattle. The Bible also doesn't seem to have any qualms about slavery (you don't see any of the Ten Commandments forbidding it, for example). StuRat (talk) 19:31, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's incredibly simplistic, Stu. There's no Commandment against doing drugs, or using birth control measures, or cheating on your homework, or zillions of other specific things. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 19:41, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hold on. Stu has a point. The Bible and slavery states "The regulation of slavery in the Bible, and absence of outright condemnation of it as an institution, was later used to justify slavery by its defenders." Clarityfiend (talk) 21:00, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, slavery was widespread then, and the lack of a global condemnation of slavery amounts to tacit approval. Birth control barely existed then, although there is a prohibition on the "spilling of seed", apparently meaning ejaculation outside of the vagina. Cheating on homework wouldn't have come up before schools were widespread. Drugs weren't the problem they are now. StuRat (talk) 22:56, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, the simplistic analysis I referred to was your using the 10 Commandments as a sort of black-and-white tool with which to gauge the rightness or wrongness of anything. Or suggesting that slave owners or any other non-children ever did that. Not to defend them, but slave owners had a somewhat more sophisticated rationale than "The Ten Commandments don't explicitly prohibit it, so it must be perfectly OK". There was no prohibition of rape in the Ten Commandments either. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 00:13, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is the "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbors' wife..." (not to mention his ass). StuRat (talk) 00:16, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Damn! -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 01:31, 31 July 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Thy neighbors' wife? (The grammar police never rest.) Clarityfiend (talk) 03:39, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, I should have said "neighbors' wives" or "neighbor's wife". StuRat (talk) 05:41, 31 July 2012 (UTC) [reply]

The prohibition against adultery would also cover rape (unless you rape your wife, which was considered ok well into the 20th century in most countries). --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:01, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, although it often has the odd result that the rape victim is also considered guilty of adultery, as under Shariah law. StuRat (talk) 09:05, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The children of slave owners were generally brought up by slaves, serving as nannies, cooks, etc., so their attitudes were bound to be complex. You just about have to read a book like Uncle Tom's Cabin or Gone with the Wind to get anything resembling a comprehensive picture. Looie496 (talk) 20:48, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Or the fake history book embedded in Nat Lamp's 1964 High School Yearbook parody, which stated something like, "Horses were not only treated better than slaves; they were also generally better educated." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:30, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think that in the South children were taught that blacks (all or almost all salves were black) were inferior to whites and that the Southern economy and their families' profits would collapse if these slaves were ever freed. Futurist110 (talk) 05:39, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, salves came in all colors: [14]. StuRat (talk) 05:44, 31 July 2012 (UTC) [reply]

US inflation

In J. Edgar, DiCaprio is initially promoted (at around the 5 minute mark in the film) and tells his mother that he'll now be earning $3000.00 a year. Using an inflation calculator, I calculated that $3000.00 in 1924 is only inflated to a little over $40K in 2012 dollars -- am I missing something? It certainly doesn't seem like a sizable sum. Unless of course items for sale/rent haven't inflated at the same rate as incomes have, in which case I don't really understand how an inflation calculator works. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 15:55, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The average income of all industries was $1407 at the year 1920 and $1388 at the year 1930. I don't have the data for 1924, but I'm pretty sure it has to be in the ballpark of $1400. Even if you could only buy the equivalent of 2012's $40,000, you'll be earning double the average. OsmanRF34 (talk) 16:44, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Something you are missing is that, until recently, incomes went up relative to things we can buy with them. For example, a radio might have cost the average person several day's income then, while now it's a better radio (smaller, with FM stereo added) and you can afford it on less than an hour's income (I bought one new for $1). So, you really need to compare his income with incomes back then, not adjust them for inflation and try to compare with current incomes. StuRat (talk) 19:21, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Many investors don't rely on the official government numbers to calculate CPI and other price indicies as they believe that they're under estimated. The way the Bureau of Labor Statistics has calculated the CPI in the US has changed over the years, and some believe that these changes were to mask higher real inflation rates. A quick google search will show private companies that produce data on inflation, but most require some sort of subscription to access the figures. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 20:18, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're using CPI inflation for a servant of the bourgeoisie, which isn't appropriate, measuringworth supplies the following table:

contemporary standard of living value of that income or wealth is $80,100.00
economic status value of that income or wealth is $184,000.00
economic power value of that income or wealth is $501,000.00

I would suggest that the latter two figures represent Hoover's stipend. You don't appear to understand how inflation calculations work. CPI inflations are only good to determine how much it would cost in current dollars to buy a consumption bundle (as purchased by proletarians) in the year you calculate from. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:42, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For once I kind of agree with Fifelfoo - CPI here isn't a good measure for what you're trying to measure. Where this would have put him in relation to other people is probably a better one. - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 10:34, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Legal aspect of mass murder and the insanity defense

What happens to people who commit mass murder (like the Aurora shooting) and are declared insane? Do they spend the rest of their life in a psychiatric facility? Or just until they are feeling better? OsmanRF34 (talk) 17:29, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Start with insanity defense and you'll learn a lot. It depends on jurisdiction, of course. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 18:41, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Been there, read that, and I'm back. Was it ever applied by a planed mass murder or serial killer? OsmanRF34 (talk) 18:52, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Kendall Thaw, although apparently he only killed one person. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:59, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

and apparently, no planning either. OsmanRF34 (talk) 19:01, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to our article on Evelyn Nesbit, "In spite of the suffocating heat, which did not abate as night fell, Thaw inappropriately wore a long black overcoat over his tuxedo, which he refused to take off throughout the entire evening." The pistol was under it. That's a little bit of planning. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:53, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to Gary Solis, Robert Bales will probably plead insanity. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 21:52, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It also seems likely that Jared Lee Loughner will plead insanity. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 21:56, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It has been speculated that Nidal Malik Hasan will plead insanity. I'm finding lots of cases where there's a chance that maybe they will plead that way and be found not guilty on the basis of a mental disease or defect, but I'm having a hard time finding any case where it has actually happened. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 22:03, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

John Hinckley, Jr. is an interesting case, he shot the president of the U.S. and was found "not guilty by reason of insanity" and sent to a psychiatric hospital. After 25 years or so he was allowed a few trips out to visit his family. A lot of Americans thought he got off with too light of a sentence and some laws were changed in the aftermath. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:58, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Obama ate dog?

Did he? — Preceding unsigned comment added by OsmanRF34 (talk • contribs) 18:57, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did you hear/read this somewhere? Could you show us where so that we might read the same thing you are and have a little more to go off of? Dismas|^(talk) 19:20, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The place I read it is not worth commenting, let alone linking to. OsmanRF34 (talk) 19:25, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you found this on a conservative web site, it's probably because he ate a hot dog. StuRat (talk) 19:26, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Obama ate dog as a child in Indonesia, where it was a normal thing to do. He would not have had any idea at the time, nor even have had any reason to consider the fact that some people in his future home of the USA would think that was a good reason to not vote for him 50 years later. HiLo48 (talk) 19:32, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if it was normal then or in the particular part of Indonesia that he was in, but my Indonesian wife was horrified when I asked her if dog was eaten where she was from (East Java) and she'd never heard of the practice anywhere in Indonesia at all. In all the time I've spent in Indonesia I've never heard of it other than from tourists claiming ignorantly that all the meat they see is dog and all the seafood was caught in the sewer. In reality, the only odd thing that I've noticed is that when you order lamb, you often get goat. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 20:04, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Hardly a neutral source, but this does at least link the story to a quote from the President's own memoir, so the origin is checkable. If the quote is correct, he was apparently given it to try along with other local foods (namely raw chillies, snake meat and grasshoppers) during his time in Indonesia as a child. - Ka renjc 19:34, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indonesians definitely eat raw chilli (by the bucket load), but snake and grasshopper...it's not something I've ever come across. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 20:07, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OP: The thing that intrigues me most about this question is that you have no credible evidence the claim is true. You've declined to identify the source, but describe it as "not worth commenting on". If the source is crap, surely the information it contains is also suspect. That's unless you have some other corroborating source. But if you had, surely you'd have mentioned it, no? So, what's the deal with coming here to supposedly check on something you already know is rubbish, if not to give fuel to it? Why would one want to add fuel to something they know is rubbish? Is there any positive purpose in that? -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 21:30, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As Karenjc mentioned, it was corroborated by Obama himself in Dreams from my Father, more specifically in chapter 2. We had an article on it before it was deleted at AFD. And to W203, we also have a small section on dog consumption in Indonesia: Dog_meat#Indonesia. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:45, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That came later. According to his own testimony, the OP had no reason to believe the story was true, and a good reason to discount it, at the time he asked his question. But he raised the topic anyway. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 06:26, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jack, you must be far too immersed in proper Wikipedia practices if you think it's weird for someone to trust what they read on the web. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:00, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That was over my head, sorry. Some things you can trust, others not. The OP told us early on that he has such a low opinion of the source of this claim that he wasn't even prepared to identify it. Clearly, he had no reason to believe it. Who would, without any corroborative evidence? At that stage, it had the status of baseless scuttlebutt, with which the internet is bursting at the seams. If one came here to check every piece of such rubbish, we'd have literally a million questions a day. So why was this particular one given an airing? That's all I'm asking. It may be that it fits into the "Any rumour about Obama, no matter how absurd, is worth spreading". Or maybe not. Now, it turns out that the claim may be true. If so, that has nothing to do with my point about the OP's motives. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 08:26, 31 July 2012 (UTC) [reply]

The story isn't rubbish; it's completely true, assuming of course that Mr. Obama didn't make it up in order to spice up an otherwise dull Indonesian childhood. It's also completely irrelevant to the current state of American politics, but you know... Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:35, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Someone linked to the Huffington Post above. They're generally a left-wing source (although reliable), so we can take what they say on this issue that Fox News reported as well and remain confident it's true (and yes, it is). Is it relevant? Should people vote or not vote for him because of this? Of course not. I've done my fair share of criticizing him, but it's just silly to make a big issue out of this. --Activism1234 03:45, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh ooh! I wrote the article for such a dish, it's known as saksang. It's traditional among the Batak people, probably because islands didn't use to have a lot of large animals to hunt (note that the Bataks are also known for their previous practice of ritual cannibalism). And yes in modern Indonesia, the pork version is considered exotic, and definitely not eaten by the vast majority of Indonesians at all, as it's haraam. The dog version is an even more alarming dish to most Indonesians (also haram). Not to mention that it uses blood as a main ingredient, also haraam. It's only eaten by native Bataks of northern Sumatra (who have a Christian and animist majority) or Indonesians of Chinese descent. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 07:47, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Wouldn't it be haraam, rather than halal?) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 08:20, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I got confused, heh. Fixed. Thanks.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 09:30, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Our Dog meat article actually discusses the consumption of dogs in Indonesia. As Obsidian Soul has mention, dog meat is normally considered haram so isn't something a majority of Indonesians are likely to eat probably particularly not nowadays. I think it's already well established that although Obama's stepfather was muslim, he wasn't particularly adherent so the fact he ate dog meat is perhaps not surprising. Perhaps the more important thing to remember is giving the strange foreign kid a bunch of weird stuff which are rarely eaten by most Indonesians and perhaps even you isn't exactly particularly surprising. Since dog meat is eaten by some Indonesians, the fact you could find it somewhere in Indonesia where Obama went with his stepfather isn't surprising either. E.g. InN Malaysia I've definitely heard of snake meat, turtle meat (and more controversially turtle eggs [15]), frog meat, and I think other things I can't recall being eaten. I would expect if you look hard enough you would also get the opportunity to eat more exotics things like insects, particularly if visiting some of people who are or were until recently primarily hunter gatherers, e.g. the various Orang Asli tribes of Peninsular, the Penan in Sarawak. This doesn't mean it's common. Personally, I've never understood the fuss over dog meat, it seems to me shark's fin should be something more controversial. Nil Einne (talk) 10:43, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Antonio Krastev's world record

The article says that his record is not recognized now due to restructured weight classes. However, since International Weightlifting Federation didn't remove superheavyweight, I still don't get it - why he is not categorized within modern 105+ kg IWF category?--176.241.247.17 (talk) 20:33, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do I have the right to call my self a philsopher?

This is my first time to ask here, for my past experiences in Yahoo Answers were unsatisfactory, for all questions were answered tactlessly and incoherently, I am greatly hoping that Wikipedia is far more better!

Though such question may somehow appear subjective it encompasses all men of such curiosity, which I am of these moment, Often times when I read articles it approves of man being a philosopher by having the desire, eagerness, knowledge, and reason regardless of his life in an academe, though it may help, some men may choose a different path to a more specific philosophical school, it is not the title that I emphasize but rather the activity which is not only of the right of those with educational attainment, for so here is my predicament:

Right now and for the past years of my life I am deeply engaged with topics with relation to Ethics, God, Knowledge, and the mind, I have also prepared numerous essays and still continuing to do so which I wish to classify under Philosophy, I have that "unexplainable" desire and feeling that I really need to search and make answers to my questions with relation there unto, I may not have a degree for this moment for I focus to specific schools with the aid of different notable philosophers of that area rather than pouring my entire self to all of its branches, but despite such do I have the right to regard myself and be regarded as a philosopher, that if somebody asks me something and furthermore asks of me can I state and be acceptable to call myself such?

I am really of great craving to have a conforming answer from the scholars of Wikipedia, for this is one of the question that cannot be answered by a person for himself, Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.194.244.33 (talk) 21:34, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you need external and anonymous people to give you approval for applying the term "philosopher" to yourself, then you're no philosopher. It's up to you what you call yourself (as long as you don't break any laws by doing so), not up to us or anyone else. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 21:36, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

♬ Jack of Oz ♬ - you're right anyone can regard himself a philosopher! However this is not an egotistic world, philosophers create various ideas but if he is the only one considering himself as such then who would value his arguments? His knowledge then dies with him, for it is only himself that knows of such for nobody considers him to be like one, What I am asking is how does a person qualify to be known as a philosopher, is it by virtue or requirements, by the society of intellectuals? or in other words how do we know philosophers like Kant, Hume,etc.. up to this moment, it is not only him then that should know of this arguments he created but all or most. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.194.244.33 (talk) 21:50, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you mean "what, objectively, is a philosopher?" Card Zero (talk) 22:12, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let us first acknowledge that there are people whose job title is "philosopher" — they usually work in Departments of Philosophy — and there are all of the others in the world who are recognized as philosophers despite never having a degree in it or having taught in a university. You're wanting to know, how does the person in the latter category get established as a philosopher? He or she writes, writes, writes! And if what they write is inspired and useful to others who like to think big ideas, they are thus, magically, considered a philosopher by posterity. (And that university professor who is not inspired or useful to others? Often as forgotten as the next man. Never be fooled into thinking that a published book and a fancy title is any guard against being irrelevant one generation hence. Out of all of the tens of thousands of would-be philosophers, only a handful are remembered today, much less remembered favorably.) The philosophers like Kant and Hume and etc. wrote things that sparked immense interest and controversy amongst other learned people of their times; that is why they are remembered today, and most of their contemporaries not. --Mr.98 (talk) 23:57, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

how to make someone creative?

There's total math nerd who is completely uncreative in any way. If they were interested, could I make them become creative? How? 84.3.160.86 (talk) 22:14, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In any way? Really? I put it to you that you are using a narrow definition of "creative", and would accept the creation of art, but would not accept the creation of understanding of mathematics. Creativity can mean the creation of external novelty but can also mean personal novelty, such as new explanations in one's own mind. Card Zero (talk) 22:34, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Often, math lovers will take a step in venturing outside of a high school or college math curriculum (your friend, if you're describing one, may have done such) towards topics such as number theory. Topics like these often require a great deal of creativity.

Alternatively, you can have them babble for an hour, starting off with one topic and holding a conversation with them, until you shift through multiple topics and the person creates creative, albeit ludicrous, ideas that verge on the point of insanity. True story. --Activism1234 22:37, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For the general question of how to teach creativity, a teacher poses an open-ended problem to the class, like "How do we solve world hunger ?", then has each of them write down a list of ideas. They then critique each of their own ideas, to determine which is the best. Next they present their best idea to the class. You can have the class vote on the best idea. Do a secret ballot, though, as you want to avoid having anyone think their idea is bad, which also means no grading, at least in the early grades. StuRat (talk) 22:45, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are actual scientific studies on creativity. Some of them are in Jonah Lehrer's book, Imagine: How Creativity Works. Unfortunately, Lehrer has recently (just today) admitted to making a lot of stuff up (very creative?), and the publisher is withdrawing the book, so it may not be the most reliable source. But there are lots and lots of studies that have tried to really make sense of what actually works for stimulating creativity ("brainstorming" does not, interestingly enough). --Mr.98 (talk) 23:59, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They shouldn't try too hard to make sense of it. Pablo Picasso said: "The enemy of creativity is common sense". Making perfect rational sense of creativity is like trying to relax. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 01:42, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The brain is ultimately a material object; creativity is an observable function of the brain. There is no reason any aspect of brain activity should be considered out of bounds for scientific investigation. Lots of people find it plausible to try to relax. I find reliance on quotations and aphorisms to be fairy wooly minded. --Mr.98 (talk) 03:42, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it is my opinion that those who "find" things to be a certain way are engaging in judgmental behaviour. If you're serious about exploring the whys and hows of the universe, you'd better be prepared to drop that sort of attitude pronto. It will close your mind as nothing else can. And Fairy Wooly? He's my second-best friend.

Meditation does indeed take some discipline, but it is not about "trying", in the sense of expending effort or doing hard work. Unless you're talking about achieving a transcendent state via certain dance rituals, trying to relax or meditate is a contradiction in terms. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 06:21, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is the most suitable Philsophihcal Journal to which I can submit my work about Morality

I am currently finished of my essay about morality however which is the best, in your opinion with regards to specializing in the field of ethics, philosophical journal that accepts such essay to be part of their publication or library? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.194.244.33 (talk) 22:43, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We do have List of philosophy journals. Some of the following might be suitable: American Philosophical Quarterly, Erkenntnis, International Journal of Applied Philosophy, Journal of Moral Philosophy. Note that most scholarly journals have a publication process that involves peer review, and that one expectation reviewers will have is that the article is written in a scholarly manner and demonstrates a reasonable understanding of the literature (as evidenced by liberal use of references). Even then, acceptance rates can be quite low - somewhere around 30% is not unusual. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:02, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Post-Communist Transitions in Russia Versus Those in the Former Warsaw Pact Countries?

How come the post-Comunist transition in Russia was much worse than that of, say, Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic? The former Warsaw Pact countries managed to have a relatively quick and sucesful transition without too much problems (other than a declining population), yet Russia also experienced economic stagnation up to 1999/2000, a period of almost ten years. Also, Russia experienced a large increase in crime, alcoholism, poverty, and a large HIV/AIDS epidemic, as well as large declines in life expectancy for both women and men. My question is--why? Futurist110 (talk) 23:14, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It has to do with the successful nations having had a history of capitalism and, in some cases, democracy, before the communists took over, while Russia had neither. Also, being able to join the EU, and, in the case of East Germany, joining with West Germany, gave them an additional kick start. StuRat (talk) 23:50, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic quickly turned their aspirations toward the EU, and engaged on the membership path to the EU. The criteria for this emphasised the rule of law, an open and accountable democratic system, and a rational open-book state accounting. Money from the EU, and the influx of investors and industry from the EU, certainly helped, but Russia had lots of money too (from fossil fuels and minerals). Under Yeltsin, Russia degenerated into a kleptocracy - the assets which had sustained the state economy were sold off to the "New Russians" for peanuts. Bereft of income, the state couldn't pay its bills - doctors and policemen and school teachers didn't get paid and eventually stopped coming to work. Competent and educated professionals and managers either migrated to the private sector or left the country. Faced with poor funding, a broken market, and competition from European manufacturers (who'd by a Lada when you can buy a VW) many public and private enterprises failed. The idea was that the old Soviet central economic planning (which, while clumsy and bureaucratic just about managed to keep things working) would be replaced by the market. But a free market relies on the rule of law, where contracts are fairly enforced, corruption is suppressed, and fraud (by company insiders and government officials) is actively policed. So while the functions of the state disintegrated, there wasn't a matching rise in the private sector. Through the cold war, the Soviet propaganda was that the west was a broken society ruled by corrupt politicians and criminal businessmen, leaving the people suffering in a heartless anarchy - the tragic irony is that 1990s Russia achieved just that, while retaining much of cruelties and inefficiencies of the Soviet system. Chrystia Freeland's book Sale of the Century covers this period. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 00:19, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

East German manufacturing actually suffered quite a bit during the transition to part of the BRD. No one wanted a Trabant when they could have a VW. East German utilities such as the barely commissioned Greifswald Nuclear Power Plant were shut down due to the belief that communist designs were inherently bad (and because western companies wanted to supply power from their own sources). Employment in some regions has never really recovered. But I suppose it's not as bad as the Russian experience. As previously mentioned I think corruption is a key factor. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 00:46, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

20 years doesn't constitute a "never". If the nuke plant was of the Chernobyl design, I'd want to shut it down or made safe, too. Any other design should have been analyzed to see if it was safe, then sold to a West German power company, which presumably would need the additional capacity to power East Germany. The Trabant plant should have been converted to make VW's or some other West German car. StuRat (talk) 01:08, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you're getting at Stu. Unemployment hasn't recovered so far. I'm not saying it never will. And while the relative safety of nuclear power plant designs is way off topic for a discussion on geo-politics, the Greifswald reactor was not an RBMK like the one at Chernobyl. The plant was basically shut down because of West German commercial interests. Any safety concerns could have been rectified, but the government opined that it was not in Germany's economic interest to have so many plants to service so few consumers, so all of the engineers, operators, management and support staff who had permanently relocated to Greifswald were out of a job. And I don't see why the buyer would have to be West German. Was there something wrong with Energiewerke Nord (an East German firm) buying it? 203.27.72.5 (talk) 01:57, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably the East German firm had questionable safety training. I also don't see how adding East Germany would lead to overcapacity, if they both added new plants and new customers, especially since there probably were many outdated plants that really did need to be shut down. StuRat (talk) 02:03, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So basically the Russian govt. didn't do enough to fight corruption and fraud and to use Western investment properly in the 1990s, unlike the former Warsaw Pact countries? Here's the question, though--why did Russia not try following the Eastern European model sooner, say, in 1995 rather than in 2000 and onward? Also, democracy doesn't always matter when it comes to strong economic performance and economic growth. China, Russia (post-2000), South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, Vietnam, and other countries all had long periods of large economic growth and development with dictatorial (or in Russia's case, de facto dictatorial) governments. And for the record, I wasn't talking about Poland, the Czech Republic, and Hungary specifically. I was just using them as examples from the former Warsaw Pact countries. Futurist110 (talk) 02:21, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is also a difference between being oppressed by a foreign occupier, in which case you want to throw off all signs off oppression, versus being the oppressor yourself, in which case you want to change things just enough so the people don't revolt. StuRat (talk) 02:31, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whether Yelstin actually supported the Communist economic system or at least a most of it is up for debate. Keep in mind that a lot of Russians in the 1990s were also fed up with the failed Communist economic system that they had before. Futurist110 (talk) 05:33, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but not those in power. Unlike the more successful nations, who wanted to purge their society of all remnants of their Soviet overlords, those in power in Russia wanted to preserve their privileged status and wealth while giving the public just enough to prevent a revolt. StuRat (talk) 08:56, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Russia had a capitalist economic system before 1917. Futurist110 (talk) 02:25, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, it was more like what you have now. That is, a few people made all the economic decisions, and everyone else had to do as they were told. Then the few people were friends of the Tsar, while, after the fall of the Soviet Union, they were friends of Yeltsin. "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss." StuRat (talk) 02:28, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See feudalism. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 02:45, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I am an American, not a Russian, though my ancestors did live in the U.S.S.R. for decades. Secondly, I'm pretty sure that the Tsar allowed Russians to have private property and to have private control over the means of production, which meant that Russians could have run their own businesses and make lots of profits if they did not anger the Tsar. There probably was some corruption in Russia under the Tsar, but I'm not sure how large the corruption was back then. Also, feudalism ended in Russia in 1861 when all its serfs became emancipated. Futurist110 (talk) 05:33, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On paper, yes, but capitalism never really got started in Russia. It was very backward up until the Russian Revolution, with minimal industry. Mostly what we might call sharecroppers. Also note that pretty much anyone who remembered how things were under the Tsar was dead by the time the Soviet Union fell, whereas in the more successful nations, there were still plenty of older people who remembered. StuRat (talk) 08:51, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What I don't understand is that a little country like West Germany can steadily spend $100+ billion a year on East Germany for 20 years, have it stay at an 18% unemployment rate, and still end up as "the powerhouse of Europe", overshadowing countries like Spain or Greece that have no such excuse. Wnt (talk) 03:28, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's the best of a bad lot. With a few exceptions like Ireland, no European countries had really great economic performance in the previous decade. And it's also the most populous European nation, so for it not to be the "powerhouse" there would have to be something very wrong in Germany. And Germany is at least somewhat fiscally responsible. I've often heard it said that this is due to their historical experience with hyperinflation. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 03:38, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

3/4 of the German population lives in the former West Germany, so the former East Germany isn't dragging Germany down by much. West Germany was an economic powerhouse even during the Cold War, so it's no surprise that Germany is the economic powerhouse of Europe right now with its huge population. Also, I've read that the situation in the former East Germany has improved lately, though I'll need to find the article again. Futurist110 (talk) 05:33, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

...or the situation in the rest of Europe has deteriorated to match East Germany. However, there is something about the German zeitgeist that rejects the "live for today and to hell with tomorrow" attitude you tend to get closer to the Mediterranean. Perhaps it's the Puritan work ethic. StuRat (talk) 05:37, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The situation in the New states of Germany has improved lately in what way? I would definitely like to see that source. I've lived there as recently as 2008 and I doubt it's improved much in the interim given the prevailing global economic conditions. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 07:25, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Our article has some minor discussion of this:

Ever since the reunification, the unemployment rate in the east has been almost twice that of the west, currently at 12.7%[12] (as of April 2010) after having reached a maximum of 18.7% in 2005. In the 1999-2009 decade, economic activity per person has risen from 67% to 71% of western Germany.[10] According to Wolfgang Tiefensee in 2009, the minister then responsible for the development of the new federal states, “The gap is closing.”[10] Eastern Germany is also the part of the country least affected by the current financial crisis.[13]

Nil Einne (talk) 09:24, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the gap only closes by 4% per decade, it will take over 70 years to close completely. StuRat (talk) 10:42, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

July 31

Neo-Hittite Kingdom of Patina

this article talks about the Neo-Hittite Kingdom of Patina and its capital city, Kunulua. There are no mentions of either in the Neo-Hittite article. Does anybody have any idea as to whether any of the kingdoms mentioned in the article are related to this kingdom/city? 69.62.243.48 (talk) 00:09, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They are mentioned in our article; see Syro–Hittite states#List of Syro-Hittite states, fourth bulleted item under "The southern, Aramaic, group includes". Deor (talk) 01:05, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks. 69.62.243.48 (talk) 01:07, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese scales

Which note is the root of the Hirajōshi scale? The article gives three different interpretations, but they're all modes of the same interval pattern. Why do they all correspond to the In scale? --108.206.7.65 (talk) 03:26, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Philiosophical Articles/Essays/Works Arguing in Favor of Absolute Bodily Autonomy?

Does anyone know of any philosophical works that argue in favor of absolute bodily autonomy using an argument other than the law, common practice, tradition, or popular opinion? All of these arguments are fallacious and thus I'm wondering if there are any works arguing in favor of absolute bodily autonomy (with no exceptions) using arguments other than the ones I mentioned above. Thank you. Futurist110 (talk) 02:31, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly sure what you mean by "absolute bodily autonomy", but as I understand it Murray Rothbard argued from an axiomatic approach for total ownership of one's self and property. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 02:48, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By absolute bodily autonomy, I meant refusing to allow someone to use someone else's body (including organs, blood, and bone marrow) without the other individual's consent in any circumstances, even when the second individual made the first individual dependent upon him to survive (such as by infecting him with a kidney illness). Futurist110 (talk) 05:25, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The word "allow" is problematic there (since you can still be autonomous and allow someone to use your body). Anyway, if we substitute "force" or "coerce" for "allow", then yes, that is what Murray Rothbard and also Hans-Hermann Hoppe argue. Hoppe's argument is; "self-ownership is a presupposition of argumentation, thus a person contradicts oneself when one argues against self-ownership. The person making this argument is caught in a performative contradiction because, in choosing to use persuasion instead of force to have others agree that they are not sovereign over themselves, that person implicitly grants that those who one is trying to persuade have a right to use their body in order to argue." 203.27.72.5 (talk) 07:17, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Musical scales

Why are pentatonic and heptatonic scales so much more common worldwide than other scales (e.g. hexatonic)? --108.206.7.65 (talk) 03:43, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are they? The scale database in Scala (program), [16], lists 192 five note scales, 608 seven note scales, and well over a 1,000 twelve note scales (the database includes scales using any tuning, not just equal temperament, obviously, or there would only be one twelve note scale). If you meant why are five note scales used more often than others, again--are they? I would guess seven note scales are more frequently used. Pfly (talk) 10:23, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Countries ruled by one royal family

Besides Japan, has any country had only one royal family in its entire history? --108.206.7.65 (talk) 05:29, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you're going to use a broad definition of "family" (including proven relatives and all that), then the United Kingdom (which existed since 1707) would probably work. Futurist110 (talk) 05:37, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you're not restricting yourself to parent-to-child succession, there is an indirect line of descent through all English monarchs from William I covering all monarchs of England, Britain and the United Kingdom to Elizabeth II; this can be traced back even further with the descent of Elizabeth II from Egbert of Wessex, first king of England. But since the European royal families are closely interrelated the same is probably true of all of them. The concept of a royal family or royal house is rather artificial; it depends on how tightly you limit the relationship between each monarch. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:17, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Netherlands likewise has had only one royal family, that is if you ignore Napoleons brother, who was installed as a puppet king during the French occupation of the Netherlands.

I might note that the first statement is true of Japan only if you use a similarly broad definition of "family" as would permit William the Conqueror and Elizabeth II to be described as one "family" - Emperor of Japan#Succession has a more detailed description. --10:16, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Cumulative Total Number of People Killed in the Name of Religion Throughout History?

Does anyone have reliable statistics as to the cumulative number of people killed in the name of various religions throughout history? Futurist110 (talk) 05:58, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No. We don't even have reliable statistics for people killed in modern wars (see e.g. the debate about the Lancet surveys of Iraq War casualties), much less for historic conflicts. And then the definition is very unclear. Did the crusaders "kill in the name of religion"? Arguably yes. But their opponents, also arguably, killed to defend their homelands, with a religious component creeping in over time. And so on on countless occasions. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:27, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which is suprising considering the fact that people can estimate how many people have been ever lived on this planet?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 06:39, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, not really. It's typically easier to answer better-defined and more general questions than to answer more ambiguous and more specific questions. That said, I bet there are serious error bars on "the number of people that have ever lived", not just from the estimation process, but also from unclear definitions. Who counts as "people"? All Homo? All Homo sapiens? All Homo sapiens sapiens? All humans since the development of behavioral modernity? All humans since the advent of civilization? And what counts as "have ever lived"? Up until modern times, most people died in their very early childhood. Do they count? What about stillborn babies? The only thing that keeps these errors somewhat in check is that human population has been growing very much, so the influence of the earlier questions is not very large. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:14, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has an article on that. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 07:31, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Both the Crusaders and their Muslim opponents killed in the name of their religion. This is in contrast to someone like, say, Hitler, who killed in the name of pseudoscience or Stalin who killed in the name of Communism. Futurist110 (talk) 07:00, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I quite disagree with nearly everything you say in this sentence. It's much to simplified. Stalin killed some people in the name of communism, but also a lot of people in the name of the defence of the Motherland. And why do you think that the average inhabitant of palestine fought the crusaders for purely or mostly religious reasons? Note that e.g. Damascus had been, on and off, allied with the crusaders until the disastrous Second Crusade - do you think they had a religious epiphany when the crusaders decided to attack them? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:14, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For a WAG estimate, the cumulative human population is estimated at around 100 billion, so let's say 1% of those were killed for religious reasons, to arrive at a total of 1 billion killed for religious reasons. StuRat (talk) 07:17, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt 1% were even homocide, let alone homocide on the basis of religion. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 07:27, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, cause of death give 2.84% for "Intentional injuries" (but presumably not including suicide since it has it's own category. Violence also has it's own category to confuse matters further.) 203.27.72.5 (talk) 07:35, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, 1.28%. Violence included suicide so that had to be taken off the figure to get homocides only. Unless you're including people who killed themselves in the name of religion...

So anyway, of the 1.28% of people killed by another person, I doubt fully 1.00% were killed in the name of religion. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 07:39, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Those figures are for the year 2002, not historic averages. The rate is certainly far higher during major wars. StuRat (talk) 09:08, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see...in 2002 we had Sierra Leone Civil War, Algerian Civil War, Somali Civil War, Burundi Civil War, Ethnic conflict in Nagaland, Insurgency in Ogaden, Nepalese Civil War, Republic of the Congo Civil War, Second Congo War, Second Liberian Civil War, Ituri conflict, Second Chechen War, Second Intifada, 2000–2006 Shebaa Farms conflict, Operation Defensive Shield, Ivorian Civil War, Insurgency in the Maghreb (2002–present) and of course War in Afghanistan (2001–present). 101.172.42.165 (talk) 09:30, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

None of which, even totaled, come even close to the deaths in WW2. StuRat (talk) 09:48, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Does it matter? Very few of the deaths in wars are attributable to religion. I think it's pretty safe to assume that 2002 was a fairly average year for war i.e. not particularly peaceful and not particularly violent. If you look at the List of wars by death toll and take the sum of the upper estimates of dead for all wars over 1,000,000 million killed, then add a further million for every listed war with less than 1,000,000 killed and then double it you get about 1 billion, which is your estimate just for people killed in the name of religion. 101.172.42.156 (talk) 10:42, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Taiping Rebellion which killed around 20 million Chinese was by far the bloodiest war which can be blamed on religion (and its causes were more complex than that); there have been very few significant wars motivated by religion (distinct from nationalism or race) since the 17th century, when populations were far lower and casualties therefore fewer. The Thirty Years' War, which was partly caused by religion but also by other tensions, killed something like 8 million (including plague deaths and other civilian casualties) in the 17th century, the 16th-century French Wars of Religion 2-4 million, and the Crusades 1-3 million which included Christian-on-Christian violence like the Siege of Constantinople (1204) (see List of wars and anthropogenic disasters by death toll). --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:27, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Very few wars can really be ascribed to religion. Most are really down to fear, hate or greed (often with a good measure of stupidity), even if religion is the banner used to justify them. Here's a terrific example of fear, hate, greed and stupidity at work in the name of religion: Fourth Crusade. --Dweller (talk) 10:23, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Zara and Peter Phillips

According to Anne, Princess Royal, her children have no titles due to her husband never having one given to him. If she wanted to, could Anne give some sort of title to her children anyway? Dismas|^(talk) 10:26, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it, only Parliament can confer titles, since the Queen had to ask Winston Churchill to grand her husband the title Prince. But apparently, the parliament has no control over who is worshipped as a god. 101.172.42.156 (talk) 11:15, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not quite sure what was going on with the Duke of Edinburgh's case, but I think the Queen usually decides on titles for the royal family herself, although she probably consults her ministers. It is definitely not Princess Anne's decision, though (although I think it was at her request that her husband wasn't given a title, so if she asked the Queen may well be willing to grant some titles now). --Tango (talk) 11:32, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you're right. It's her decision who gets titles. She was just treading carefully because the other commonwealth nations might object to his title including them under "other territories" or some such. 101.172.42.154 (talk) 11:41, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that if either Peter or Zara Phillips really wanted a title, he or she would ask Grandma for one ... the Queen would consult Parliament (and Parliament would probably approve the request) ... and the Queen would grant one. The real question is whether either of them would feel the need for a title ... after all, titles are fairly empty honors these days. Blueboar (talk) 11:55, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was pretty well reported at the time that Princess Anne's children would have no titles because that's what Princess Anne wanted. But finding a decent source for this, 30 years later, is proving more difficult. This forum is quite informative. This site also confirms my assertion. --TammyMoet (talk) 12:38, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

is there a world in finance/economics for "intrinsic" demand?

Let's say that I am making a crown for an exacting king, the total project value is $500,000,000 - it's huge. Well, it calls for a particular gemstone in one place, something that is only semiprecious like a ruby.

Now, it could be the case that "intrinsically" I don't give a shit if I have to pay $80,000,000 for any ruby of any size - I'll take it, to meet the requirements. But in fact I wouldn't ACTUALLY pay that much because of the fact that others are making it available CHEAPER.

So in a world where my only option is to pay $80,000,000 or not receive the gemstone - I would still pay that much. but in the actual world my demand isn't nearly as high due for any particular ruby because of the others that are on the market.

By comparison, if the crown did NOT specify "ruby" that it HAS to be made from, then if my only choice is an $80m ruby or no ruby, I choose "no ruby" and put something else there.

So here are two cases with a high intrinsic demand a low intrinsic demand. Another example would be debt: let's say you absolutely have to borrow $3000 for a week not to lose your business that is worth $800,000 and with many orders about to come in. Your "intrinsic" demand might be up to 1000% annual interest rate (which is 19% in a week, the $3000 plus 19% - however that week is enough for you to not go under until you recive the funds that are coming in, which far more than pay for that money. Or you have customers and you can immediately within 3-5 days flip any amount of borrowed money up to $8,000 into twice as much, due to your customer's demand.) So here are cases where your "intrinsic" demand is for money at a cost of 1000% interest rate provided you can account it on a prorated daily basis and pay it off immediately at any time.

Nevertheless, your ACTUAL demand isn't for 10,000% interest rate, since let's add that you can get an unsecured credit card in addition to the ones you have at a much more reasonable rate - and so you would use that; and you do. So you see, here is an example of a high intrinsic demand that is met by a lower supply. Nevertheless if the choice were not to borrow money or borrow it at 1000% interest rate you would use the latter due to the fact that it's still free money for you as soon as you flip it with inventory.

so what do we call the intrinsic demand? 84.3.160.86 (talk) 13:00, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]