Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

• Computing
• Entertainment
• Humanities
• Language
• Mathematics
• Science
• Miscellaneous
• Archives

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

• Select the section of the desk that best fits the general topic of your question (see the navigation column to the right).
• Post your question to only one section, providing a short header that gives the topic of your question.
• Type '~~~~' (that is, four tilde characters) at the end – this signs and dates your contribution so we know who wrote what and when.
• Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. Any answers will be provided here.
• Please be as specific as possible, and include all relevant context – the usefulness of answers may depend on the context.
• Note:
  • We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice.
  • We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate.
  • We don't do your homework for you, though we'll help you past the stuck point.
  • We don't conduct original research or provide a free source of ideas, but we'll help you find information you need.

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

• The best answers address the question directly, and back up facts with wikilinks and links to sources. Do not edit others' comments and do not give any medical or legal advice.

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

August 7

US Consuls to Tahiti

Dorence Atwater was appointed US Consuls to Tahiti in 1870. Was this a diplomatic gesture to France (having many consuls in French areas of controls) or was it because of a treaty/recognization of the still semi-independent kingdom? Was there ever an American-Tahitian treaty?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 00:04, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

If the US considered it independent, presumably a chargé d'affaires or minister would have been sent, not a consul... AnonMoos (talk) 04:32, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't fully understand how the consular system worked at that time, but apparently it had more of an economic function than a diplomatic one. In any case it looks like the first U.S. consul to Tahiti was a Belgian named J. A. Moerenhout, appointed Jan. 1835 (oddly he later became the French consul!).--Cam (talk) 23:27, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Appointing a consul would not meant the same as recognising a country as independent. A country might have an embassy in the capital of a country and several consulates scattered around the country. So, if a country has an embassy in DC and consulates in NY, LA and Houston, that doesn't mean it recognises those places as independent, but that for whatever reason, it is necessary to have some sort of official representation in those places (lots of business going on in those places, or just to make it easier for citizens of their own country to get paperwork, or citizens of the other country to get visas). My guess is that the US at the time view Tahiti as an area of interest where it was necessary to have some sort of official representationwho could deal directly with the local authorities, rather than having communcations having to pass through Paris all the time. V85 (talk) 16:04, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Paintings by John Cleveley the Younger

• 
• 
• 

These are a set of four Views of the South Seas:

1. View of Huaheine, one of the Society Islands;
2. View of Morea, one of the Friendly Islands;
3. View of Charlotte Sound in New Zealand (sic, actually a view in Matavai Bay, Tahiti);
4. View of Owhyhee, one of the Sandwich Islands (also known as 'The Death of Cook')

My questions are which is which? Which painting is missing here and what does it look like. Also where is "Morea, one of the Friendly Islands", the Friendly Islands was Tonga; it isn't Moorea since that was called "Eimeo" at the time. I am assuming that the third image is 'The Death of Cook' but why does it differ from the other version, also credited to John Cleveley the Younger, File:Deathofcookoriginal.jpg, File:Death of Captain Cook, Alexander Turnbull Library.jpg and File:John Cleveley the Younger, The Death of Cook (1784).jpg; which is the original one?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 00:35, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Here's a description of the set of four at the time of their auction by Christies in 2004. There's a tiny thumbnail of the missing one. These four watercolours of Matavai Bay in Tahiti, the nearby Morea, Huaheine and Sandwich slands (Hawaii). These are thought to be the original drawings from which a set of prints was published in 1788. The scene of the Sandwich Islands depicts the skirmish that resulted in the death of Captain Cook. However, this watercolour shows Cook trying to defend himself, whereas the subsequent print depicts Cook being attacked from behind. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.88.9.92 (talk) 09:44, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Looking at the original Christies listing, compare lots 35, 40 and 41. You may have images of J. Martyn's aquatints, not Cleveley's originals? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.88.9.92 (talk) 09:49, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

And The Independent, reporting on the sale, explains why the Death of Cook is different: it shows what actually happened, from Cleveley's brother's original sketch (Cook fought the Hawaiians). Martyn and other aquatinters revised the image to show the "official" version (Cook tried to make peace).

Dozens of aquatints produced after his death in 1779 show Cook acting the peace-maker...this image of Cook became the authorised version of his death... But a painting by John Cleveley, on which the etchings were based, exposes another version...Cleveley died in 1786 and by the time his four watercolours were turned into aquatints by John Martyn two years later, the changes to the scene had been made... Clevely's previously unknown work makes clear that 18th-century engravers deployed the art of spin to boost sales...Nobody had known until now that the Martyn set of aquatints, called Views in the South Seas , were so clearly an act of historical revisionism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.88.9.92 (talk) 09:56, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

United Kingdom Government

There has always been a discussion about the monarchy in the UK. One of the Royalist arguments is to say that a monarch, as the permanent (ceremonial) head of state, is more experienced than a temporary elected one (and saves a small fortune on not having to organise and facilitate elections). If the head of state is ceremonial then couldn't they just do away with monarchy altogether, and just continue, unceremoniously, as they already do? — Fly by Night (talk) 01:06, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

You'd likely be interested in Republicanism in the United Kingdom. Dismas|^(talk) 01:34, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

"Couldn't they just do away with monarchy altogether, and just continue, unceremoniously, as they already do?" Yes. μηδείς (talk) 02:39, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

And if they died, what then? Who would succeed them? The point of a monarchy is that the succession is a matter of fact rather than election: this in itself removes uncertainty, promotes stability, and facilitates the transfer of experience. --TammyMoet (talk) 08:25, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

"They" who? I don't think FbN was proposing an elected ceremonial head of state, but rather dispensing with a ceremonial head of state altogether.

This is one of my issues as well. Constitutional royalists often respond to cost questions by saying that, if you didn't have the monarch, you'd still need a head of state. But do you, really? Why is a head of state necessary at all? --Trovatore (talk) 18:12, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

The way international relations work, you do need a head of state. You could just have the Prime Minister as head of state, though. --Tango (talk) 19:12, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Why? The Queen doesn't really do anything as regards international relations. She is toasted, she shows up, people are introduced to her. None of that is in any obvious way essential to conducting international relations. People seem to assume it is, but I have never seen any good reason given for it. Do you have an example where it has been tried and failed? --Trovatore (talk) 20:15, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Diplomacy is all about protocol and tradition. It's part of how you show respect to a country. When a foreign head of state comes to the UK on a state visit, they expect to be hosted by the the British head of state, for instance. It's really just a name, though. You could call the Prime Minister head of state and that ought to work just fine for diplomatic purposes. --Tango (talk) 21:36, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Do you really think, if the UK (UR?) were to decide to just dispense with all this protocol and tradition, other countries would want to stop interacting with it? --Trovatore (talk) 21:56, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

That's no argument for change. Every country has its protocols and traditions, almost none of which are strictly necessary for the continuation of the country, or life on the planet. They are part of the set of things that make other countries interesting, and people have a funny habit of being interested in things that are interesting and different, but not particularly interested in things that are the same as what they're familiar with. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 00:18, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

But I wasn't making an argument for change. I was attempting to refute an argument I've heard against it, another matter entirely. --Trovatore (talk) 01:12, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

It sure read like an argument for change to me: Why is a head of state necessary at all?. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 01:53, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

The argument I'm attempting to refute says that the monarchy is not a waste of money, because in any case a head of state is necessary and money would have to be spent on one. I am questioning the underlying assumption that a head of state is necessary. Now, even if a head of state is not necessary, there is a possible argument for having one along the lines you bring up, but that is a separate argument from the one that says a head of state is necessary. --Trovatore (talk) 01:59, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Consider just one aspect; the right to grant pardons. In the US, pardons are given freely to the highest bidder, especially if the criminal in question is of the same party as the governor or president, who happens to be retiring. In the UK, that type of corruption doesn't happen, because the Queen has plenty of money, so has no reason to risk the scandal, which could ultimately result in the monarchy being dissolved. StuRat (talk) 04:37, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Like most actions of the monarchy, royal pardons are done "on the advice of a government minister" (Pardon#United Kingdom) and the Queen would never normally refuse, so the existing system could easily be modified by giving the Home Secretary or Justice Secretary the formal right to pardon. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:01, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Then he would sell pardons to whoever contributes the most to his party, as in the US. If he recommends pardons to the Queen based on such bribery, however, and she gets wind of it, she would refuse to grant them, and he would be disgraced. It's an extra level of safety. Hopefully she would also be suspicious if an outgoing minister suddenly submits hundreds of pardon requests (since he will soon be beyond caring about voter contempt). StuRat (talk) 09:31, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

He would, Stu? Really. You are wildly and baselessly speculating, something we don't engage in on the ref desks. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 11:11, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

The question of why any system of government is used requires thinking of possible ways that governments have failed, and can fail again, so we can then determine if the system in question is more or less likely to have the same failings. StuRat (talk) 11:29, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

As Colapeninsula mentioned, the Queen pretty much never acts against ministerial advice. Technically, she could, but it would be a major constitutional crisis and it is generally assumed that she would lose whatever reserve power she had used in the aftermath. She's unlikely to intervene in that way to prevent corruption and would just leave it to the justice system to deal with (selling pardons is illegal - if the minister tried to pardon themselves from the corruption charges, that is where the Queen might step in!). --Tango (talk) 19:12, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Can the Queen just delay granting iffy pardons until an investigation is concluded ? StuRat (talk) 20:32, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

If advised to by her ministers, yes. Otherwise, no, not in practice. --Tango (talk) 21:38, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

She wouldn't lose power if the decision (to act against ministerial advice) had popular support. This is one function of the monarchy: as a backup system against the unlikely event that the elected government is utterly corrupt. See Thailand.  Card Zero  (talk) 22:03, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

She probably wouldn't lose her position, but using her reserve powers like that would draw attention to them and people will generally be uncomfortable with her having that kind of power. One of the main reasons the UK has never got rid of its monarchy is because we really don't care all that much. It would be a lot of work and we don't really see any harm in just letting things carry on the way they are. There are a small number of strong supporters of the monarchy and a small number of ardent republicans, and the rest of the population doesn't have a strong enough opinion to really do anything about it. The Queen overruling elected officials, even in a beneficial way, would force the argument and the result would probably be to at least remove the power she used. --Tango (talk) 21:36, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Stu, have monarchs historically refused to create peerages (etc) that were motivated by donations to the party in power? —Tamfang (talk) 00:08, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

No. The Queen didn't play any significant role in the cash for honours scandal. --Tango (talk) 21:36, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

The crux of the debate is that we, the people of the United Kingdom, rather like things the way they are, thank you very much. Yes, we could do without them, but we'd rather not. Alansplodge (talk) 10:55, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I'd like change. You speak for yourself, not the 'people of the United Kingdom'.Dalliance (talk) 12:04, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Apologies if that sounded a bit pompous; what I meant was that the Constitutional Monarchy continues by the grace of Parliament, which represents (however poorly) the collective will of the people of the United Kingdom. If and when a reasonable majority come around to your way of thinking, then the time for change will have arrived. Alansplodge (talk) 19:27, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Granted that this seems to be a theoretical question (can the UK become a republic?) rather than one of likelihood (is the UK likely to become a republic?) or procedure (what would it require for the UK to become a republic?), the simple answer is, of course, yes: the UK could indeed become a republic if the necessary legal changes were made, much in the same way that the Supreme Court was made a separate entity from the House of Lords.

However, I don't think that it's likely, at least not anytime soon (let's come back to that one when King Charles III has been crowned), for two reasons: firstly, the Monarch would have to be written out of all legislation and whoever holds the actual power would have to be written in, instead. Secondly, when I read the OP, I got hung up on the formula 'just continue, unceremoniously, as they already do?', which seems to show a lack of understanding for how British society works. The British do not do things unceremoniously, they do them with all the pomp and circumstance that they can muster. V85 (talk) 16:42, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

You wouldn't need to rewrite legislation like that, you just have to pass one piece of new legislation that says all references to the monarch in existing legislation should now be interpreted as references to whatever replaces them. References to the monarch are fairly rare, anyway, outside of Acts specifically pertaining to the monarchy (which would probably just need to be repealed). --Tango (talk) 19:15, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Medeis answered this question. This question was put intending to cause debate and seek opinions, rather than to seek answers and references adequately. This question has been repeatedly asked and answered as demonstrable from the archives. The history of parliamentary supremacy is reasonably well known in the British constitution just as well known as the failure of potential Commonwealth forces in supraparliamentary movements like the Chartists or the disinclination for the UK Labour party to take republican stances. Can we all now go and read the archives; for this is as tiresome as a question seeking debate on abortion politics, US firearms law, or the moral deficiency of the Australian. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:56, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Resolved

Arcadia, South Sea Islands

Where is Arcadia, South Sea Islands?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 05:36, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

In some Nicholas Chevalier admirer's art collection?[1]. The only other Arcadia with any connection to the South Seas I can find is MV Arcadia, which will be sailing there in 2013. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:02, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Is it made up? Or is it an archaic European name for a South Sea Island?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 06:05, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Chevalier was just using "Arcadia" in its extended sense of "an idyllic place". As the text at Clarityfiend's link states, the actual setting was Opunohu Bay on Moorea. Deor (talk) 10:04, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

See also Et in Arcadia ego. I'm not sure the article is brilliantly done, currently, as to my mind, it seems to bury the information about the phrase while explaining the paintings' contents and significance. Might need to split the article. --Dweller (talk) 09:01, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

list of marriages of famous people which took place in a particular year

Looking for names of famous personalities who got married in a particular year say 1949 (my current interest). Appreciate any help — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.111.228.20 (talk) 06:57, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Of course the Internet has a "Celebrity Weddings Archive"! There are 160 listed for 1949 there. Adam Bishop (talk) 08:47, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Buddhism, meditation and illusion

When Buddhists say meditation is good against daydreaming, do they imply daydreaming is bad for you? And, assuming they imply that, do they say that because daydreaming is just an illusion? And, how do Buddhists view things like prestige? Is that also just an illusion? Budddhhha (talk) 17:54, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

See Buddhist meditation, satipatthana, and mindfulness. Neutrality^talk 18:04, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

They do not explicitly say daydreaming is bad, or that the prestige that you get from, as an example, being fashionable is just an illusion that has to be avoided. I've already read similar articles, but it's difficult to find concrete information. Budddhhha (talk) 18:14, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

If you daydream you are not living in the present, fully experiencing what it is to be human now. That is what Mindfulness is about. (I doubt whether a Buddhist would say anything is bad, actually. I think what they'd probably say is that it keeps you from doing something which is better for you.) Prestige I think they view as a diversion from the pursuit of nirvana. Having a status in the eyes of others is irrelevant really. What is relevant is the achievment of nirvana and the Eightfold Path. --TammyMoet (talk) 19:46, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

How many of the world's technological advancements have come from Buddhists? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:14, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

If that's a serious question, Bugs, it should have its own section. μηδείς (talk) 02:45, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Paper, gunpowder, rocketry...you know, nothing special. Adam Bishop (talk) 06:24, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Daydreaming is "outside the box" thinking, and if someone really opposes that concept, I don't see how they could invent anything. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:36, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

According to the Gunpowder article, it was invented by Chinese warriors. Buddhist warriors??? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:38, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Kind of like how the atom bomb was invented by Judaism? μηδείς (talk) 04:52, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

The Jews invented it after all? I always though the atomic bombs were just a Jewish hoax. OsmanRF34 (talk) 19:02, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

"Daydreaming is "outside the box" thinking" sure, and jaywalking ought to be confessed before the community of Christ as a sin. You're projecting quite badly here, and could probably do with closer reading of articles surrounding mindfulness. Many, if not most, practising Buddhists are aware of the idea of mindfulness and mindful action in the world. Daydreaming is a typical act which is unmindful, it is a thought process occurring to an individual and catching them up in their attachment to the contents of the though process. Given that some strands of Buddhism spend a great deal of time thinking about the way the mind works on the basis of its observed workings, and, given that a significant number of Buddhist practices encourage mind states involving "outside the box" thinking—even if only in a pedagogical context—I'm not exactly seeing your point Bugs. Finally, given that a large part of day dreaming appears to be a result of a process lying prior to the mind, in external reality, it is hard to prevent a mind from wandering because this is the nature of the mind—but it is possible for some people to do so "mindfully," and without "attachment" to the desiring nature of having your mind wander. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:14, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

August 8

Oceania

The Wikipedia page of Oceania says that there are different opinions on which areas of the world are part of Oceania.

1) What is the reason for these different opinions? It seems odd to me - geographical areas should be an agreed, set thing, it isn't exactly a dispute over differing scientific theories. 2) What do most people, in modern-day every-day usage, refer to when they say Oceania?

I find it to be particularly problematic when nation-wide tests will ask a question about Oceania, for example on a history test, because there are different opinions on what exactly Oceania is.

Thanks.

--Activism1234 00:02, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Continents are a matter of convention, shaped by cultural and historical influences. Oceania is not only the only continent subject to different definitions. Boundaries between continents lists several others. OsmanRF34 (talk) 00:06, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Oceania is not really a "continent" — I know that word is sometimes used, but it's imprecise. The relevant continent is called Australia and does not include New Zealand, which is made up of volcanic rather than continental islands. --Trovatore (talk) 02:12, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Hmm... Interesting... But still, if I said "Africa" people would know what and where I'm referring to. If I say Oceania, where would I be referring to (meaning, what's the most commonly accepted definition?) Thanks. --Activism1234 00:31, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

People will get the general idea of "Africa" or "Oceania". The only problem is on the boundaries and islands of both continents. OsmanRF34 (talk) 00:45, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

If you have a nationwide test which uses a certain convention, you need to use an educational curriculum which uses the same definition. Even if the differences are a bit arbitrary, just use the same convention the test-writers used. It doesn't pay to argue with a test. It can't argue back. --Jayron32 00:22, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Well I'm a bit above the age of taking tests, my question was hypothetical, but your response is very true. --Activism1234 00:29, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

For 1), the lead in our maritime boundary points out several potential causes behind geographical areas boundary dispute: A maritime boundary is a conceptual division of the Earth's water surface areas using physiographic and/or geopolitical criteria. As such, it usually includes areas of exclusive national rights over mineral and biological resources. Sometimes it's national pride, but Fishing zones + potential oil extraction sites are especially problematic - see List_of_territorial_disputes and especially Territorial disputes in the South China Sea. Royor (talk) 01:41, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Very interesting. Will check it out. --Activism1234 02:15, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Concepts are tools, and how they are used depends on the context. There are circumstances under which the Arabian plate is seen as part of the African continent, so even "Africa" is not so well defined. See Sahul, Zealandia, and the Geography of New Caledonia for some interesting facts. My experience with "Oceania" is that it is a convenient term for encyclopedists when they want to refer to what is left over after the look at the Old World, The Americas, and Antarctica. μηδείς (talk) 02:53, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Nazi plans for the occupation of the US

In the Ken Burns series The War, Episode 6, The Ghost Front, near the start, a former US soldier stated that a captured German claimed that he had been trained for the administration of captured US mainland territories:

1) Did such training occur ?

2) Do we have an article on it ? StuRat (talk) 01:28, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

We have an article that goes into detail on Axis operations in North American during WWII, as well as plans for the same that never saw fruition. There is no mention of a planned occupation, however: American Theater (1939–1945). I also looked through our categories on cancelled German military operations of WWII, and didn't see anything of the like. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:38, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Not sure, but almost positive that Hitler planned to conquer America at some point. --Activism1234 01:45, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I completely believe that, and we do have Category:Cancelled military operations involving Germany as well as the more general Category:Cancelled_invasions, whose contents are mostly from WWII. But I have a suspicion that the occupation of the United States was more of a pipe dream for Hitler than anything else. There were certainly efforts to get spies and saboteurs on the American mainland, and plans for military attacks, as well as rampant speculation of an future Nazi invasion, but I find no solid sources that any such plan moved beyond the imaginary. Maybe someone will show me something that really should be on Wikipedia. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:51, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah I don't think he got anything ready before he died, since he was busy in the east/west Europe front, but I don't think it's disputed he did intend on eventually conquering America. Indeed, see New Order (Nazism), which describes Hitler's plans to bring Nazism to the entire world. --Activism1234 02:22, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I fixed your link. StuRat (talk) 03:18, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

So the implication of the documentary was incorrect ? StuRat (talk) 03:08, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I completely believe that a US soldier claimed that a German soldier said he was trained for such an operation. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:23, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

But one of the two must have been lying, right ? StuRat (talk) 03:52, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Allegedly, after the Navy Seals killed Osama bin Laden, it became very popular for douchey men at bars to claim they were seals to make themselves look macho. It wouldn't surprise me if POWs did much the same thing, especially the comparatively well treated ones held by US soldiers. The German soldier could also have just been trolling. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:22, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I have a question--if Nazi Germany wanted to occupy the entire U.S., how exactly were they planning to deal with the massive resistance that would follow afterwards? Also, I seriously doubt that Nazi Germany would have been able to cross the Atlantic in large numbers AND build a nuke before the U.S. built some nukes of its own. Futurist110 (talk) 05:23, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, any plans to invade the US would have been foolish, but that doesn't mean they didn't make them anyway. After all, the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was just as foolish, since they had almost no chance of winning, based on industrial capacity, but they went ahead with that plan anyway. As for how the Nazis would deal with resistance, their usual pattern was massive reprisals against civilians. As for nukes, the Nazis didn't know how quickly the US program was progressing. StuRat (talk) 05:29, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

The Japanese proved to be tough fighters. In many battles with the Japanese, far too many American soldiers were killed, for the reason that Japanese soldiers in WWII fought to the very last man, and even the last man kept on fighting. That was one of the factors in the decision-making of whether to launch a nuke on Japan. Launch a nuke and kill thousands, or invade and lose thousands of soldiers?

The Nazis as well would likely have attempted a form of blitzkrieg which they did across Europe, with a possible Battle of London style bombings taking place beforehand. I doubt they would've been able to conquer America in 1945, but given enough time and strength, it's possible they may have been able to in the future. That's not a future I would want to live in.

If their own citizens (especially white ones) are killed Americans tend to get extremely angry and go out of control. And didn't the Nazis have spies in the U.S. to determine the pace of the U.S.'s nuclear program? Futurist110 (talk) 05:55, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Fighting to the death isn't always the best military strategy. If outnumbered and about to be surrounded and wiped out, if often makes military sense to retreat to a more defensible position, where your forces will be more effective. Force preservation is important even if you have an inexhaustible supply of trained soldiers (which the Japanese did not), in that the equipment the retreating soldiers carry with them and prevent from being captured may also be critical to winning future battles. StuRat (talk) 20:37, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

In a recent movie about the Japanese Army "Letters from Iwo Jima," the Japanese soldiers in a bunker killed themselves with hand grenades, which is hardly "fighting to the last man." If they had run down the mountain toward the Allied soldiers and THROWN that same hand grenade, then made a bayonet assault, that would have been "fighting." In some cases, on other islands there were such forlorn hope human wave assaults. Edison (talk) 18:14, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

It's tougher to provide resistance when you're locked inside a ghetto with fierce guards and forced to toil because you're not an Aryan, or under strict military control with soldiers who don't mind to shoot you, even if you're a child, on spot, or send you to a gas chamber, or a death camp. See Warsaw Rebellion, one of the few rebellions in concentration camps, which ultimately failed and ended up with everyone being killed. --Activism1234 23:28, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, if I was with the resistance, I wouldn't attack, knowing it would get everyone in town massacred. What I'd do, instead, is stockpile weapons and bide my time, until when they were too weak to retaliate (maybe due to a counter-offensive, maybe due to a power struggle within the Nazi Party, etc.) StuRat (talk) 06:37, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not aware of the Nazis having any real idea how well the Manhattan project was coming along. The Soviets did, for sure, and even had the blueprints for the bomb. We have a section on it at Manhattan_project#Espionage. The German attempts to infiltrate the project is barely a blip its history. Coincidentally, the Soviet spy that penetrated the project was born in Germany. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:11, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

A lot of this reads rather like American Exceptionalism to me. If their own citizens (especially white ones) are killed Americans tend to get extremely angry and go out of control? Please. Do you genuinely think that people in other countries don't mind their citizens being killed?

The Nazis had various unpleasant methods to quell resistance in occupied territories – read Harry Turtledove's short story The Last Article for a counterfactual look at a Nazi occupation of India to see some of the methods they might have used on the conquered Americans. 87.112.129.180 (talk) 19:03, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

And racist exceptionalism, to boot. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 20:00, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, the racist part is right. When a cute white girl goes missing or is killed it's national news here, but not when it's a black girl. StuRat (talk) 20:04, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Careful, Missing white woman syndrome is generally not considered unique to the US so you risk more American Exceptionalism. Nil Einne (talk) 20:16, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm no expert on Nazi Germany and its "plans", but I understand that the dominance of the Third Reich was meant to last for 1000 years, or some equally silly, very long time. It's virtually a certainty that some folks with that belief structure would have felt that taking over every country in the world was simply a matter of time (within that "very long time"). So yes, there would have been "plans" to invade and occupy the US (along with everywhere else) in some peoples' heads, but they probably weren't very detailed, nor possibly even written down, nor would they been intended for implementation in late 1945. HiLo48 (talk) 20:19, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Training people to administer the occupied US territories implies that they thought they could conquer the US far sooner (certainly within the lives of the people they were training, but probably in the 5-10 year zone, since, if it was going to take longer than that, they could use those people in the war effort early on and train them later). StuRat (talk) 20:32, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

We have an article on the equally silly Kaiser Bill's plan to invade the US called Operational Plan Three. A recent reprint of some maps from a 1942 issue of Life Magazine seem to represent how the US imagined that it might be invaded, or more likely what the US Government imagined would make the war effort seem more urgent to tthe folks at home. This page apparently reproduces a Wikipedia article called Axis plans for invasion of the United States during WWII which seems to have been deleted. This forum discusses an entry in the Goebbels Diaries, suggesting that weapons and equipment might have been manufactured by secret factories in Mexico, so that only personel needed to be moved across the Atlantic. Alansplodge (talk) 23:00, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

The deleted articles only sources were a history channel program and various German plans to conduct long-range bombing raids on U.S. targets. Rmhermen (talk) 17:12, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

If we're extending this to the WW1 period, then the Zimmermann Telegram is by far the most famous... AnonMoos (talk) 01:03, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Any plausible invasion of the USA by Germany during the Second World War, would first have required that Germany conquer the fifty-first state. After German defeat in the Battle of Britain in 1940 before the USA even entered the war, such conquest was pretty much impossible. Of course, this wouldn't have stopped a few small units still carrying out planning or training, for morale or deception purposes. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:55, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I doubt if the Nazis planned for WWII to end when (and how) it did. HiLo48 (talk) 23:05, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Well indeed - they invaded Poland in 1939 in the hope that Britain and France didn't really intend to do much about it. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:57, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Why Are Druze Much More Patriotic Than Other Israeli Arabs?

Some Druze even vote for Likud and Yisrael Beitenu, despite the latter's anti-Arab platform and the former's desire to keep all of Jerusalem united under Israeli control. My question is--why? Futurist110 (talk) 05:54, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Becouse they not consider themseves Arab or Muslims.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 06:26, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

The Druze have traditionally been somewhat less permeated by Arab nationalist sentiments than either Arab Muslims and Arab Christians, and they certainly do not have the same attitude of historical entitlement ("We should be the rulers!") that Muslims do, so many decades ago they made a pragmatic decision to serve in the Israeli army, and reap the corresponding benefits... AnonMoos (talk) 06:27, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

The Druze, being a minority, might fear that they would be mistreated in a Palestinian state. Similar logic applies in Syria, where ethnic and religious minorities have supported the current regime, because they fear how they might be treated under a new regime (of course, this logic changes once they believe the current regime will soon collapse). StuRat (talk) 06:29, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I was under the impression that Druze were Arabs. This is like how I am partially ethnically Jewish even if I do not want to be. Also, Druze consider themselves to be "an Islamic Unist, reformatory sect", which implies that they consider themselves to be Muslims. If Druze are afraid of being mistreated in a Palestinian state, then why is there not such a large support for Israel among Arab Christians in Israel and Palestine? Also, why exactly was Arab nationalism less popular among the Druze than among other Arabs? Futurist110 (talk) 06:39, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

While Christians are a minority in Israel, they are a far larger group, overall, than the Druze, so may feel they would be protected by other nations, should Israel collapse. StuRat (talk) 06:46, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Christian countries sure haven't done much protecting of Christian minorities in Muslim countries lately, such as the Copts in Egypt. Futurist110 (talk) 07:05, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Are they being systematically massacred ? StuRat (talk) 07:46, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

No but I haven't read of any countries systematically massacring or wanting to massacre Druze either. Futurist110 (talk) 08:24, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

As to why Druze have been less influenced by Arab nationalist ideologies, I would assume it's because many of the special factors which made Christians and Muslims nationalistic didn't apply to the Druze. In particular, Christians were more likely to be literate town-dwellers, and to be influenced by European modernism and nationalisms, and felt pressure to prove themselves to be just as patriotically Arab as were Muslims. So many of the early theorists of Arab nationalism (Antonious, Aflaq, etc.) were Christians. Muslim Arabs resented Ottoman Turkish rule, and remembered the glorious history of the early Arab Caliphates, and felt that as Arab Muslims they had a natural right to rule. All this would have been less relevant to the Druze, who tended to keep to themselves to some degree... AnonMoos (talk) 17:45, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Our excellent article on the Druze shows that they have experienced periodic persecution from what could be described as the more mainstream branches of Islam since the eleventh century. The article also says, "the Druze religion doesn't endorse separatist sentiments, urging the Druze to blend with the communities they reside in". --Dweller (talk) 08:46, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

What exactly is it that the OP means by the Druze being more "patriotic" than other Israeli Arabs in this scenario? Could the OP give some examples? --Saddhiyama (talk) 14:13, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Serving in the Israeli army, being members of some right-wing Israeli political parties, etc. For example, a recent terrorist attack from the Egyptian border was thwarted a few days ago, and a Bedouin Reconnaisance Unit in the Israeli army were crucial for this. Bedouins are excellent in the army for border control, as they know the desert very well and are great hunters and trackers. --Activism1234 14:19, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

But how does that make them more patriotic than others not doing this? --Saddhiyama (talk) 14:34, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't know how personally patriotic Druze or bedouins feel towards Israel, but as communities, they've been able to make pragmatic decisions which have brought them some practical benefits -- whereas Muslim and Christian peasants and town-dwellers are much more likely to be motivated by abstract rigid inflexible ideologies, and so make decisions on a maximalist "100% of what we want or nothing" or "the best is the enemy of the good" basis (and Muslims in particular are likely to have a burning sense that the world owes them sovereign authority, and that Muslims ruling over non-Muslims is the natural state of affairs, while non-Muslims ruling over Muslims is a grievous insult which must be avenged). Frankly, abstract maximalist and rejectionist ideologies have been the curse of Arabs in the Palestine area for at least the last 65 years, and those subgroups which have been least motivated by such ideologies have come out the best... AnonMoos (talk) 16:44, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure I agree with you on your characterisation of Muslims, but I do appreciate your interpretation of the special characteristics of the Druze regarding this question, it does make it more clear and seems to be a good answer to the original question. I think patriotism is a questionable term to use at random without any kind of specific definition to go with it, and of course it is a very loaded term that is also extremely subjective (one mans terrorism is another mans patriotism and vice versa). --Saddhiyama (talk) 17:37, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Quite. Basically, since the inception of the state, the existing differences between the Druze & others have been used to divide & rule, in a very common pattern. In this conflict, as usual, the abstract rigid inflexible maximalist rejectionist ideology is generally not - or at the very least not solely or predominantly - the province of the ruled & occupied side.John Z (talk) 20:45, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Yet during the British Mandate period, the Yishuv leadership were experts at obtaining incremental practical short-term gains to help consolidate their long-term strength, and not letting fantasy daydreams get in the way of the immediate pragmatic needs of the moment. AnonMoos (talk) 00:50, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Saddhiyama, the examples make them patriotic because it shows that Arab Bedouins are more than willing to serve in the Israeli army and thwart terrorist attacks, thus recognizing that Israel is their country and taking the voluntary decision to serve that country. They are not required to serve in the Israeli army, unlike other citizens of Israel (since they're Arabs, and it's given that most Arabs would object), who are required. Rather, many of them volunteer to do so, feeling that they owe something to the state. The Bedouins are content with their nomadic lifestyle and are free to practice it. Compare this with other Arab citizens, very few of which serve in the Israeli army, and most of which serve secretly out of fear that members of their community would attack them. In the Bedouin community, there is no such fear. Perhaps best way to explain this is to watch this YouTube video of a short interview with a Bedouin soldier and his father, to see their perspective. Hope it helps. --Activism1234 23:21, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, there are so many variables in your post subject to discussion, but I am going to let it slide, because it will only play into the hands of the OP, who is obviously a ref desk troll, and I am going to stop feeding him. --Saddhiyama (talk) 23:30, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

The OP is a good editor whose using the ref desk in good faith, which should be encouraged, although I find that his posts are questions that can be done on talk pages that experienced editors know, as most editors here aren't going to be able to answer these questions which are typically on the same topic, and would prefer if that could be taken to talk pages (I'd be willing myself)... --Activism1234 01:28, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not a troll, but if someone gets emotional or upset when I mention Israel or another topic, then I apologize, but all the topics that I post about are legitimate subjects of discussion. Futurist110 (talk) 20:48, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

You're certainly not a troll, but a lot of your legitimate posts have made the ref desk into a mini-Guardian newspaper, in which one small country the size of New Jersey receives disproportionate coverage nearly every day from all other topics. You understand what I'm mean? There's nothing wrong, it's just awkward and it will mainly be the same people who will answer them. --Activism1234 21:24, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I see what you mean. I'll try talking somewhat less about Israel and somewhat more about other countries from now on. For the record, though, some of my past posts do discuss other countries, such as the U.S., the U.S.S.R., Finland, Burma, Pakistan, Iraq, and other countries. Futurist110 (talk) 22:16, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm entering this discussion late (after an unannounced Wikibreak) to make a few considered remarks on the information proffered above. No doubt all participants wrote to the best of their knowledge and in good faith. My concern is that it be understood that a lengthy exchange of remarks here is no substitute for seeking out and reading authoritative sources on the topic. Bear in mind that a WP page is only as good as its contributors use of verifiable content, and that any source provides only partial information - in both senses (i.e. incomplete and/or biased). Here are some statements which I believe are valid, pertaining to - and in some points contradicting - what's been written above:

• Druze is the religion of an Arab people. Druze do not marry outside the faith and so have the identity of an ethnic/cultural community.
• Druze are loyal to the government of the country they live in, which may obligate them for military conscription.
• A law-abiding citizen's military service and voting behavior do not necessarily indicate a motive of "patriotism".
• Bedouins in the north of Israel live in villages and towns.
• Military service by Israeli Bedouins is by no means widely accepted in that community.

Sources supporting these statements might be found in the Israeli print media and their electronic editions accessible on the Web. These are produced by journalists practicing their profession by accepted standards, though inclusion or exclusion of content is necessarily determined by their employers' editorial policies. Some relevant information would be kept, and possibly published, by the Israel Central Bureau of Statistics, some might be classified for reasons of security. With all due respect, there are some things current inhabitants of Israel are likely to know better about their own communities and their neighbors, than would those who only (or never) visit, but original (primary) research is inadmissable for WP mainspace page content. So while I hope what gets shared here is reliable, I remind us all to bear the caveats in mind and take responsibility for verifying information as we acquire knowledge. -- Deborahjay (talk) 13:17, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Kaliningrad Oblast

What benefit does Russia get from Kaliningrad Oblast? Why haven't they sold it to Poland or Lithuania? --108.227.27.111 (talk) 05:56, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Your second question seems to assume that any bit of land that is not contiguous with the main geographical part of the country is of no interest to them. Why hasn't the USA sold Alaska to Canada or Russia? Countries do not just give up bits of themselves like that. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 06:09, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

It could be a year-round naval port, for one thing. And Lithuania is poor. Indeed, would Poland or Lithuania be interested? Surely some Germans would, but other Germans would be repelled. But let's suppose that nation X wants Kaliningrad. (China or Saudi Arabia could afford it, and might find some use for it.) Yes, common sense says that if (say) Argentina is so keen on (re) acquiring the Malvinas, it should just make an offer for them. But common sense and national dignity clash. (NB national dignity, or anyway his notion of it, seems to be of particular importance to Putin.) Also, the inhabitants of the Malvinas consider themselves British and not Argentinian, and the inhabitants of Kaliningrad consider themselves Russian, even though the EU may beckon. ¶ NB this is all just off the top of my head. -- Hoary (talk) 06:16, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

What does NB mean? Also, I agree with everything you wrote, and I also want to point out that Kaliningrad is a large city (not some small rural area) and thus it has important economic (and strategic) value for Russia. Also, considering that most (or a very large part) of the Soviet casualties during WWII were Russian (Russia formed a majority of the U.S.S.R.'s population at the time), many Russians even today feel that Kaliningrad is their compensation from Germany for being forced to endure so many casualties and damage during WWII. Futurist110 (talk) 06:34, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Nota bene, or "note well". (Or New Brunswick, but that might not apply here.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:01, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Futurist110 (talk) 08:24, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

See Nota bene, which includes a link through to the Wiktionary article. --Dweller (talk) 08:52, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Russia's need for a year-round warm water port was a huge concern for the country in the 18th and 19th centuries, but with improvements in shipping technology and operations, and the building of the trans-sib, that's not such a concern any more. If it had to, Russia could operate its commercial and military shipping from Murmansk, Archangel, and Vladivostok alone. St Petersburg's ports (incl. Ust-Luga and Vyborg) are iced about 40 days / year, and can still be operated with icebreakers (with only occasional major closures). To the extent that it still has a blue-water capability, the Russian Navy's fleet is centred around Kola Bay and to a lesser extent Vladivostok - the Russian Navy doesn't harbour (sic) any fantasy about maintaining a strategic ocean-going presence from enclosed seas like the Baltic and Black Sea. But, while not being strategically or economically vital, Kaliningrad is still a major port and a major economic asset. Between them the Baltic ports handle the majority of Russia's shipping, of which the St Petersburg ports seem to get the lion's share, but Kaliningrad's traffic is growing. The Port of Kaliningrad is hooked up to the Russian railway and pipeline networks, which means its convenient for the Russians to use, and the transit fees they pay to the Baltic states are a nice earner for them. So (tl;dr) Kaliningrad is not strategically necessary, but it's nice for Russia to have, and profitable to run. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 11:46, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

The article Kaliningrad says "Kaliningrad is the only Russian Baltic Sea port that is ice-free all year round and hence plays an important role in maintenance of the Baltic Fleet". --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:26, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. Its primary benefit is military in nature — even more so now that the Warsaw Pact is kaput. Having a forward outpost on the Western front is highly advantageous to Russia; giving it up for a cash settlement would be a bad idea even if the Russians were not flush (which they are, at the moment). --Mr.98 (talk) 16:27, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

But, as I said at the outset, the notion of a nation just selling off bits of itself is wrong-headed. We don't ever need to find reasons to justify why Russia has NOT sold Kaliningrad. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 19:56, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

To be fair, we are not just talking about giving up parts of your territory but selling it (Mr.98 in particularly noted cash settlement and Russia being flush). Although it's very rare nowadays, it wasn't unheard of in the past with colonialism etc, to sell some of your territory when you were desperate for cash, particularly if you thought someone was just going to take it anyway. E.g. speaking of Alaska and Russia; Alaska Purchase. Nil Einne (talk) 20:22, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

The world has moved on a pace since then. And we should too. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 20:45, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

But 'moving on' doesn't mean we can't consider what things would be like if it were different. There's nothing wrong with pointing out to the OP their basic misconception, but there's also nothing wrong with explaining even if their misconception wasn't a misconception, their suggestion still made little sense. Also, we have no idea how the world would change in the future so there's even less reason why people shouldn't give the question are more thorough analysis rather then saying people aren't allowed to because someone already pointed out one flaw in the premise. Nil Einne (talk) 21:37, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Apart from the fact that up above in the rules we explicitly ask people not to ask questions that would involve us engaging in hypothetical discussions. Apparently we regulars are permitted to initiate such hypotheticals ourselves, but outsiders can't initiate them. Worst double standard I've ever seen. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 10:41, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Of course, this ignores the part where we ask why the Russians that live in Kaliningrad would be keen on suddenly being abandoned/sold off by Moscow to some foreign power to which it has no connection. True, it had been a German territory in the past, but the Germans were driven out after World War II, and it's been an almost entirely Russian territory since then. There are a few smatterings of ethnic minorities there (I believe a small number of Volga Germans were relocated there at some point), but it is basically as Russian as Moscow or St. Petersburg today. Russia has LOTS of territories which aren't very convenient to hold on to, which is still does (i.e. Chechnya), why it would want to get rid of a loyal, peaceful, productive territory which is populated mostly by ethnic Russians is completely silly. --Jayron32 01:33, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, has Kaliningrad's isolation provided it any protection against the mafia infiltration that has so blighted the rest of Russia? Wnt (talk) 00:02, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

do all humans have synesthesia?

like if there is an food flavoring that is clear but tastes like orange, and you put an equal small-ish amount in two glasses of water, but in the second you also put orange food coloring that has no taste - then will people actually "taste" the second glass as having more orange taste? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.3.160.86 (talk) 10:03, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

not asking what they would say about it - just whether it ACTUALLY "tastes" more ornage-y. (becaues the raw input from taste is mixed with visual cues or knowledge to come up with "sense of taste"). here is another example of two sense affecting each other. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-lN8vWm3m0 . --84.3.160.86 (talk) 10:05, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Have no idea what the experimental results of the test you proposed in your question would be, but I'm not sure that this would really test for synesthesia as such. When I was younger, I had an association between letters of the alphabet or numerical digits and colors -- not activated when I read words and numbers in context, but only when I considered isolated symbols in the abstract -- and this seems to be more what synesthesia in the classic sense is (though a very mild case)... -- AnonMoos (talk) 11:51, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I see from our article Synesthesia that that's "Grapheme → color synesthesia" (though I didn't actually see letters or numbers on a printed page as being colored -- only when I contemplated them in my mind's eye with eyes closed). AnonMoos (talk) 11:58, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

The bouba/kiki effect suggests that almost everyone has at least some degree of "synesthesia-like mappings" -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 12:01, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

• That's not exactly synesthesia in the strict meaning of the term, but probably all humans have interactions between sensory modalities. You might be interested in the McGurk effect, an even more striking example. Looie496 (talk) 15:42, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

The scenario you propose would not be a case of synesthesia but rather just the power of suggestion; there is no direct interplay between the visual and gustatory processing centers but rather a cognitive influence first suggested by a visual queue but influencing (in your hypothetical) gustatory perception. This is quite different from the top-down influence of synesthesia where sensory data from two different modules is fused into a single (and automatically unified) perception. So, this situation does not suggest the influence of synesthesia. Even so, the answer to your initial question is still yes - the current popular view amongst neuroscientists who have studied synesthesia in its more striking forms is that they are probably not isolated and anomalous conditions so much as they are examples of particularly strong associations in pathways which are common in neurotypical individuals but not as robust as they are in the synesthete. In other words, synesthesias are not best defined as binary conditions so much as a variation in degree of potency. Snow (talk) 10:21, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

National anthems that are fanfares.

I read in our article on national anthems that some countries only use a fanfare as their national anthem. What are particular examples? Is Jordan one? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:36, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

This webpage, National Anthems of the World: Origins of National Anthems says; "Fanfares: A small group of anthems, mainly those of oil-producing countries in the Middle East (Bahrain and Kuwait) amount to little more than a fanfare-like flourish without text."

The National Anthem of Jordan, Al-salam Al-malaki Al-urdoni (Arabic: السلام الملكي الأردني‎ "Long live the Jordanian King"), is a bit fanfare-like, but has lyrics which you can hear on this YouTube clip, meaning "Long live the King! His position is sublime, His banners waving in glory supreme." It has the virtue of brevity, unlike the full version which runs to several verses. Alansplodge (talk) 20:45, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Badges on UK numberplates

150px|right

This is not a request for legal advice: I don't even have a driving licence.

On modern UK numberplates there is a space to the left of the registration number where the country code is shown. Below this there is often a badge indicating in which part of the UK the car is registered. Are there any particular restrictions on what badges may be used here, and if so, what? In particular, I often see plates bearing the arms of the Football Association (right) in this position, which I suppose is a mistake for the royal arms of England (left). Is it legitimate to display the emblems of sporting organisations there, or is it in fact restricted to symbols of constituent countries? Marnanel (talk) 11:34, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Those symbols are discussed in Vehicle registration plates of the United Kingdom, Crown dependencies and overseas territories#National emblems within Great Britain (it's from the owner's preference, not the place of registration - one could live in England and have a SCO emblem, for example). I don't believe other symbols, beyond those described in the article, are permitted. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 11:52, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

The following does not constitute legal advice. As always, if you want to know the law on something, contact a lawyer. Vehicle registration plates as displayed on a vehicle in the UK must conform to certain specifications. They need to be a certain size, shape and colour, and have writing in a certain font. They must also display either the EU flag, one of the flags of a constituent nation*, or no logo at all. Other logos (including football clubs' & associations') are not permitted. However, it is possible to buy 'vanity plates' to put on your wall, in the front window of your truck or to be used on cars at motorshows. They sometimes have unusual fonts, irregularly spaced letters, or different logos. These plates must not be used on the roads, although it does happen. A car with such a plate will fail its MOT, and cannot be passed until the plates are replaced. Normally, the police have better things to do than pull over cars for having irregular number plates, although if you are pulled over for another offence they will be quite happy to stick on another 3 points (I think) for the dodgy plates.

The original purpose of these logos was to do away with the need for an International license plate code when travelling abroad. All vehicles registered in the EU can carry the EU logo and the 2- or 3-letter code for their country on the registration plate. Due to controversy over the display of the EU logo on all British number plates, a compromise was negotiated whereby there was an option to carry a national flag or no logo instead, but those vehicles still need to carry a separate country code sticker when abroad.

(*)The permitted flags are: the Union Flag, the English, Welsh or Scottish flags or the EU stars on a 'AB XX CDE' style plate, along with the letters 'UK', 'ENG', 'England', 'CYM', 'Cymru', 'Wales', 'SCO', 'Scotland' or 'GB' as appropriate; and the Union Flag and the letters 'UK', or the EU stars with 'GB' on a 'AIZ 1234' style plate in Northern Ireland. A coat of arms from a Crown Dependency would not be permitted on either of these plate styles, since the Crown Dependencies have separate registration systems and different plate styles. The English coat of arms is similarly not permitted, because it's not on the proscribed prescribed list above. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 17:30, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Moving slightly away from the question, the Royal Arms of England (three gold lions on a red ground) are widely respected as a Royal emblem and are very rarely seen in England. The only exception I can think of was that in my 1960s childhood, you could buy little sets of paper flags on sticks to decorate sandcastles with, and they always included the three Royal lions of England. I don't know if the College of Heralds eventually caught-up with the manufacturers. The FA lions however, are seen everywhere when there's an international football tournament afoot, but disappear quickly when we crash out of the competition at an annoyingly early stage. Alansplodge (talk) 20:58, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

The College of Heralds in England have very little enforcement authority, as compared with Lord Lyon in Scotland... AnonMoos (talk) 00:56, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Although the Royal Arms of Scotland. the "Lion Rampant", seems to be used by every Tom, Dick and Jock north of the border. Alansplodge (talk) 11:54, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I've never noticed either of those two badges on a UK numberplate. Since I noticed this thread earlier this week, I've been actively looking. All I've seen are the flags shown in our article, as linked by Finlay. --93.96.36.99 (talk) 08:43, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

And that's as it should be. As I say, if you do see a different logo, the driver of the vehicle is breaking the law by driving an unroadworthy vehicle (i.e. a vehicle that, in its current state, would fail an MOT). But most people are law abiding, and it takes a conscious decision to go and buy a vanity plate and put it on your car. Nonetheless, it does happen, although I seem to find that more often it's the font or the spacing of the letters that people change. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 09:41, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Bach Cantata #4

No question here, folks. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ [your turn] 19:53, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Roger Wagner Chorale; Concert Arts Orchestra; Roger Wagner, conductor; recorded in Hollywood, California in 1960; first issued in January 1961 on Capitol Records SP 8535; re-released transfer from Angel Records S-36014; CD reissue Pristine Audio PACO 071. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.147.236.205 (talk) 15:11, 8 August 2012 (UTC) Do you have a question? Deor (talk) 15:13, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Michigan legal weirdness

A petition has been signed and approved to place on the ballot a proposal to repeal the Michigan Emergency Manager Law. This part I understand. However, the effect seems to be that the Emergency Manager Law is suspended immediately, until the vote results are counted. This I don't understand. Why does it not stay in effect until the vote ? StuRat (talk) 21:19, 8 August5 2012 (UTC)

That does sound strange. Can you provide a reference? It may be easier to understand if we can read the reports for ourselves. --Tango (talk) 21:42, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

[2] (2nd paragraph). StuRat (talk) 21:49, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

It seems to come directly from the constitution: "No law as to which the power of referendum properly has been invoked shall be effective thereafter unless approved by a majority of the electors voting thereon at the next general election." [3]. It does seem very strange. It gives a group equal to 5% of the voters at the last gubernatorial election the power to temporarily overrule the elected legislature... I guess the idea is that the legislature shouldn't be able to deprive the people of this right by simply not giving them time to enact it. --Tango (talk) 23:19, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. StuRat (talk) 20:21, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't know the details of the Michigan referendum procedure, but the Washington state procedure (which seems similar) is that a law goes into effect on a certain date, unless a petition with a sufficient number of signatures is submitted before that date, in which case a vote on the law is part of the next general election, and if passed, the law goes into effect the day the election is certified. Referendums don't suspend the law because the law never went into effect in the first place. (See Washington Referendum 74 (2012) for the most recent invocation of the process.) --Carnildo (talk) 03:02, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

That seems a bit more reasonable, since it prevents the law from going into effect, rather than suspending an existing law. The Michigan law seems likely to cause chaos. StuRat (talk) 20:21, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I will mark this Q resolved. StuRat (talk) 20:22, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Resolved

East Jerusalem Arabs and Israel

• http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/story/2011-09-19/east-jerusalem-palestinian-state-arab-israel/50470736/1
• http://www.jpost.com/NationalNews/Article.aspx?id=203269

Why have only 5% of East Jerusalem Arabs accepted Israeli citizenship so far when a very recent poll showed that at least 35% of them would prefer to continue living under Israeli rule? Was the poll that came up with the 35% figure flawed, or is there another reason, such as many East Jerusalem Arabs wanting to have dual Israeli-Palestinian citizenship but being afraid that if they accept Israeli citizenship before a Palestinian state is created, they will be denied Palestinian citizenship later on due to fear of having dual loyalties? Also, this is a separate but related question--how come no politician (at least to my knowledge) has proposed holding a referendum in all the Arab East Jerusalem neighborhoods (excluding the Old City, since that's a special case) to determine if these neighborhoods should belong to Israel or Palestine in a final peace deal? At least with a referendum, none of the sides can complain that they didn't get as much as they could have gotten in Jerusalem. Futurist110 (talk) 22:19, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I think it's difficult to answer that, as people can have a variety of reasons. What you mentioned could be significant, also there could be social pressure among Palestinian Arabs/Muslims against holding Israeli citizenship. - Lindert (talk) 22:28, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

The answer to the second question is easy: No one wants to split Jerusalem. Even along the most general lines of Arab/Jewish neighborhoods, no one is really that keen on the idea. And, given the fact that the neighborhoods are often distributed haphazardly, with little regard for geography or contiguousness, such a solution would probably not be practical anyway. Regarding the first question, I'd say Lindert's thoughts regarding social pressures are a strong possibility. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:34, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Your statement about no one wanting to split Jerusalem is inaccurate. Ehud Barak and Ehud Olmert offered to divide Jerusalem in a final peace treaty in the past, and likewise Yasser Arafat and Mahmoud Abbas demanded that Israel divide Jerusalem when they were negotiating with Israel. It's true that some Israeli politicians (such as current Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu) oppose dividing Jerusalem, but there is no consensus among Israeli politicians about whether or not Jerusalem should stayed united under Israeli control. Futurist110 (talk) 22:50, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Allow me to rephrase that: No one with any great amount of political power currently wants to divide Jerusalem. As long as Likud and friends are in power, it's highly unlikely that any two-state solution that entails a divided city is going to be agreed upon. Yasser Arafat is dead, and Abbas has had little credibility with the majority of Palestinians for years. In 2009, the Palestinian Authority refused to endorse even the basic principle of a two-state solution, so even if significant portions of the civilian population want a divided city, the leaders currently in place on both sides are either dead-set against it (Netanyahu), or highly unlikely to be able to effect it (Abbas), even through a plebiscite. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:05, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Your examples though are cases of Israeli leaders offering concessions to Palestinian leaders, and this hasn't happened yet the other way around regarding Jerusalem. Also, I find it tough to imagine the Israeli public (not just right-wing) accepting a divided Jerusalem, if that ever happens, which I doubt it will. Note that Yitzchak Rabin, who started the "peace process" with Oslo, specifically said he opposed dividing Jerusalem.

The Arabs in East Jerusalem (and Golan Heights) were offered citizenship following the 1967 war. Most refused, not wanting to recognize Israeli sovereignty. Since then, those have been permanent residents, but they have municipal voting rights and are entitled to municipal services. Since then, as that poll indicates, many of them have seen how life under Israeli rule differs from that under Palestinian rule, and prefer Israeli rule, although are not yet ready to accept citizenship and become actual citizens. This is despite the fact that the poll shows that more East Jerusalem Arabs would prefer Israeli citizenship over Palestinian citizenship. Thus, it is possible that they simply haven't accepted Israeli citizenship yet due to social pressure, although they would prefer it. --Activism1234 23:13, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

In regards to my statements about Israeli leaders making concessions to Palestinians in Jerusalem, my point was that there is no unanimous consensus in Israeli politics not to divide Jerusalem. As for the Palestinians, they made some concessions on the Jewish neighborhoods of East Jerusalem in the past, but not on the Arab neighborhoods (at least not yet). As for Rabin, he said that he opposed dividing Jerusalem, but that's what Barak and Olmert also said and then proceeded to offer Jerusalem up for re-division afterwards. This is especially interesting in the case of Barak, who was aware that Peres lost to Netanyahu just 4 years earlier partially due to Netanyahu's allegations that Peres would divide Jerusalem. It's possible that Rabin would have also embraced the division of Jerusalem had he survived, especially if he would have been Prime Minister or another prominent official at the time of the 2000 Camp David Summit. Barak was aware that refusing to agree to divide Jerusalem could certainly mean that the U.S. (and the world) would put some or all of the blame for the summit's failure on Israel. Barak was not prepared for that, and I'm not sure that Rabin would have been prepared for Israel to get blamed either.

You're right that a vote for the re-division of Jerusalem might or might not pass a public referendum in Israel (which is required by Israeli law right now). There have been a number of polls asking Israelis about the division of Jerusalem, and the results so far have been mixed, since I've seen some polls where a majority said that they opposed re-dividing Jerusalem but also some polls where a majority said that they supported a final peace deal based on the Clinton Parameters and the Geneva Initiative (both of which call for Jerusalem to be re-divided). Futurist110 (talk) 01:42, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

---

Futurist110 -- the 5% citizenship statistic is not too surprising, since changing citizenship would require them to make an irrevocable decision (burning the bridges behind them in a rather final way), and take the risk that their family's place of residence wouldn't end up in Israel in a final settlement, etc. The far more self-defeating action is actually the boycotting of Jerusalem municipal elections, since this ensures that East Jerusalem's interests receive an even lower priority than might otherwise be the case, in the service of some kind of theoretical political rhetoric. The Palestinians are long-term experts in shooting themselves in the foot and denying themselves immediate pragmatic and practical short-term gains and accomplishments in the name of abstract maximalist and rejectionist ideologies. AnonMoos (talk) 00:44, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, there would be a practical point in accepting Israeli citizenship since that will guarantee that your residency permit in Jerusalem will not be revoked. Also, if one has Israeli citizenship, then one can move to other parts of Israel outside of Jerusalem, and one would also be able to vote in Israeli national elections. If one expects that one's place of residence will end up in Israel anyway, then the only reason why one wouldn't accept Israeli citizenship right now is due to the fear of being denied Palestinian citizenship later on (if one wants dual citizenship). I strongly agree with you that it's especially stupid that East Jerusalem Arabs don't vote in municipal elections (which they can do even without being Israeli citizens), either due to strong social pressures or fear of rejection by their communities afterwards. Maybe if more Arabs voted in Jerusalem there would be much more government efforts to improve the lives of East Jerusalem Arabs, thus causing their financial situation to improve. Futurist110 (talk) 01:43, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I also want to point out that the reason that I asked about holding a referendum in each Arab East Jerusalem neighborhood was that the international community, some American officials (Bill Clinton, etc.), and even some Israeli politicians have completely embraced the Palestinian position on Jerusalem. A much fairer and more neutral proposal for solving the dispute over East Jerusalem would be to hold a neighborhood by neighborhood (with the exception of the Old City) referendum there. I don't see how either side would be able to wiggle out of accepting this proposal (if the referendum was monitored by neutral observers to make sure that it was free and fair), considering that both the Jews and the Arabs in Israel/Palestine have consistently argued for national self-determination for several decades by now. Futurist110 (talk) 01:42, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

The Old City is one of THE obstacles in the peace process. The other neighborhoods can be negotiated. It's the Old City that is a tough one. Palestinians claim it as Islam's 3rd holiest site and their capital, while Jews claim it as their #1 holiest site and are scared of a 1949-1967 situation if they give it up, in which Jewish religious sites would be destroyed and Jews would not be allowed into the city, compared with the current situation in which every religion is allowed. --Activism1234 01:59, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

In regards to the Old City, I think that either the status quo should remain or that some (such as the Temple Mount) or all of it should be put under international control. Do you honestly think that the Palestinians would be willing to give up all the Arab neighborhoods of East Jerusalem to Israel in exchange for having parts of all of the Old City be put under international control? To be honest, I don't see what huge value the Arab neighborhoods in East Jerusalem outside of the Old City have for the Palestinians. Futurist110 (talk) 02:06, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

However, I think that if the Temple Mount becomes an international zone Israel should demand that the same be done to the Cave of the Patriarchs and other places that are important to both Jews and Muslims. I don't see the fairness in internationalizing the Temple Mount while letting the Palestinians have sovereignty over Jewish holy sites. Futurist110 (talk) 02:09, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

When did Russian unmarried women reach legal majority?

I have been told that in the 19th-century, all unmarried women in Europe - with the exception of Great Britain, as I understand - was under the guardianship of the nearest male relative their entire life. This started to change with legal reforms in the late 19th-century.

My question is: when was the law changed in Russia, to allowed unmarried women to be regarded as capable in the eyes of the law?

I recently read that in the 1860s, radical Russian women in intellectual circles entered in to marriages with male intellectuals merely to escape guardianship and separate afterwards on mutual consent, as the marriage was arranged by the couple only to free the woman from guardianship.

By that, I conclude that Russia was not an exception such as Great Britain, but that unmarried women were under guardianship there as well. When was this changed? Was it not until the 1900s? Thank you.--Aciram (talk) 22:41, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

It's complex, but a good place to start your research would be Women's rights. It took over a century, but there was serious intellectual consideration given to full equality for women as early as the late 18th century, in Britain Mary Wollstonecraft published A Vindication of the Rights of Woman in 1792, and a few years prior Abigail Adams was writing letters to her husband John in the early years of the United States in the Continental Congress to press for women's rights. In France at around the same time, Olympe de Gouges was agitating in France much the same way as Mary Wollstonecraft and Abigail Adams was in France. I'm not exactly sure what the situation was in Russia, per se, at the same time Category:Women's rights by country does not seem to have an article for Russia. Digging around a bit, I did find Timeline of women's rights (other than voting) which has some interesting entries for Russia, which have references. The Russian references are cited to this Book titled Women is Russia: 1700-2000, which may give you somewhere to start your research. --Jayron32 01:22, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

In the common-law countries, the main governing principle was Coverture (a restriction on married women only) until various Married Women's Property Acts started being passed in the second half of the 19th century. In much of continental Europe during the 19th century, forms of Code Napoleon prevailed; this was overall somewhat regressive, but sometimes gave married women more property rights than traditional common law did. Don't think any of this has much to do with Russia... AnonMoos (talk) 18:55, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

If have checked the book linked above, but I could not find this answer. My question pertains to unmarried women, rather than married ones. Reading about the history of women's rights, the question does not seem to be that complex: each country have a clear year, when the unmarried woman was declared of legal majority - in Sweden, for example, that was in 1858, in Denmark in 1857, and so forth. I am looking for the year for Russia. It is somewhat odd, of course, that England is the only example in the Western World were unmarried women was not placed under guardianship, but so it seems. In no country other than England, as far as I am aware, was unmarried women free from guardianship. --Aciram (talk) 10:39, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

August 9

Partition of india- Boundary Comission members

Can I get names of the members of the two boundary commissions for PUNJAB and BENGAL( Four member each beside Cyrill Redcliff ) before partition of British India in 1947?? Thanks AANIRUP' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aanirup (talk • contribs) 02:28, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

The members of the Punjab Boundary Commission were Din Muhammad, Muhammad Munir, Teja Singh, and Mehr Chand Mahajan. The members of the Bengal Boundary Commission were Abu Saleh Muhammad Akram, S. A. Rahman, Charu Chandra Biswas, and B. K. Mukherjea. (source)--Cam (talk) 06:15, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Burma Reforming

Why exactly did the Burmese junta suddenly decide in 2010-2011 to begin reforms, after essentially running a poverty-stricken police state for several decades? The pace of reforms in Burma so far has been very rapid, so I'm wondering what the causes of it were. Futurist110 (talk) 02:35, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Your incredulity is understandable and the answer to this seemingly unlikely rapid change of affairs comes in two parts. First, pressure for change did not occur starting in 2010 alone; since the middle of the last decade there was considerable mounting popular resistance to the regime which culminated in widespread protests in 2007. This, combined with external pressure (coming mainly in the form of considerable U.N. scrutiny) and the need to court foreign aid to cure the countries economic woes, led to a constitutional referendum in 2008 which ultimately paved the way for the dissolution of the State Peace and Development Council. However, this leads to the second point - many Burmese feel that the military, while diminished somewhat in it's authority, morphed it's approach to controlling the nation more so than it really gave up power; the military-backed Union Solidarity and Development Party (UDSP) won over 80% of open parliament seats in the initial election under questionable circumstances with many of these positions going to former military officers - this is in addition to the 25% of the seats which are held in reserve for standing military officers under the current constitution. Of nearly 60 new cabinet positions, the vast majority are held by individuals who formerly served in high positions in the former regime, including the president. There have also been continuing reports of consistent ongoing suppression and mistreatment of ethnic minorities. However, yes things do seem to be slowly on the upswing for the beleaguered state and to the extent reform is pressing ahead, it can be largely attributed to the decades long work of opposition and humanitarian groups; see, for example, Aung San Suu Kyi who only just two months ago was able to formally accept the Nobel Peace Prize she was awarded more than two decades ago, just three years into her effort to resist the Junta, which, in a broken series of arrests, kept her imprisoned or under house arrest for nearly 16 years. So the answer as to how reform could take place so rapidly is that it really hasn't in reality; it was the result of a long-fought contest and continues to progress in starts and fits. For more information on the matter, the BBC, which has covered these events in detail, has an impressive backlog of articles on their Asian news site. Snow (talk) 06:12, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

There was an article about this in a recent New York Review of Books: [4]. Pfly (talk) 08:01, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

And a well-written and comprehensive article at that - thanks for bringing it to attention. Snow (talk) 09:55, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

In my view, it all depends on how cynical you want to be. If you aren't very cynical, the point of opening up would be to actually change and become more democratic, and 'giving in' to external and internal pressure calling for increased democratisation. If you want to be very cynical, the reason for doing reform isn't to really become more democratic, but to present a veneer of democracy that will make Burma palatable as a business partner for other states, particularly the West. The reason for wanting more business is obvious: From being a pariah state that only has the ability to sell raw materials that are then processed in other countries before reaching the market, by opening up, the Burmese brand can be exported, and processing of natural resources and production of goods can take place in Burma before being exported directly to markets, without having to take a detour to other countries (such as China, India and Thailand), and leaving big chuncks of the profit there. In the latter case, the ruling elite of Burma is no longer the military holding the country in a powerful grip, but rather the military-cum-capitalists holding all the resources and exploiting those resources and the population for its own gain. There are other countries that aren't boycotted due to Human Rights abuses, but that still are less than democratic, and where the elites earn millions on trade with other states through exploitation of their own populations. V85 (talk) 15:49, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

French codes in Oman's History

I have asked this question at the Peninsular War talk page but no editor is replying. So i'll ask it here with any luck. I noticed that this article uses citations from Oman's A history of the Peninsular War. I'm just interested in understanding how the French codes used during the Peninsular War worked. If anyone has a copy of Volume 5 of the histories there is a description of how the French codes worked in Appendix 15 of that book. It would be much appreciated if anyone with a copy could provide me with a brief explaination of those French codes or perhaps list an internet link to a digitalised copy of the book, as I have found neither E-book nor hard copy of Oman's histories. Thanks, Uhlan ^talk 05:08, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Does this link work for you? It's the start of the appendix you want, from Google Books.--Cam (talk) 05:50, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

That won't work from an IP outside the US; but the same scan at Internet Archive should. jnestorius^(talk) 14:54, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Why did Nixon resign

I heard a theory that the original Watergate breakins were ordered by John Dean to remove evidence of his now wife of her call-girl/high end escort past. The press at the time glossed over this and most assumed that G. Gordon Liddy and others were caught on the 1st attempt but G. Gordon and others have admitted that it was NOT their first break-in to DCC HQ at the Watergate. Nixon being in a bunker mentality and paranoid with the anti-war rallies at the WH gates for years, violent protests and even the '68 MLK and RFK killings instinctively started covering it up and protecting his "plumbers" and friends on staff. The way I heard it John Dean basically orchestrated the whole response. The missing 18 minutes of tape and Ehrlichmans recollection that Nixon was afraid of the "whole Bay of Pigs thing" coming out seems like Nixon the 8 year VP for "beware the military/industrial complex" Eisenhower and architect of the original plot to get Castro in 1960 knew something that was far more destructive and crippling that resignation was the better choice. One WH insider I remember stated "what was Nixon's motive for the break-in? what was his motive to coverup specifically the break-in?", it seems like there was some other big reason that the break-in lead back to prompt him just to have the nation turn the page instead. Thoughts? user:Marketdiamond MarketDiamond 11:23, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

He resigned because his position became untenable. I don't know that the truth of the matter was, but the truth isn't really relevant - if enough people thought he had done something wrong, that's enough to make it politcally impossible for him to continue. He could have tried to prove his innocence in an impeachment trial, but that wouldn't have helped much politically. The old adage "there's no smoke without fire" tends to be relevant in this kind of thing - if enough accusations are made, people will believe there must be some truth to them. --Tango (talk) 12:05, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

He resigned because he had "lost his base of support in Congress". That was his way of saying that his own party was sitting ready to join the Democrats, to impeach him and throw him out of office. So he resigned instead, and almost immediately was pardoned by his successor, and dat was dat. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:48, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

To answer the other question, which is "Why did he have to go", there are a few layers to the answer, which amounts to why he was not going to be President anymore, whether he resigned or was fired. First of all, a chief executive is expected to be directly responsible for the misdeeds of his charges. This is true in many walks of life: American college football coaches get fired when their students are on the take, principals get fired when their teachers cheat on tests, CEOs get fired when companies are mismanaged by their underlings. It is a common thing. The fact that the break-in was tied to people who were underlings of Nixon in various capacities (whether on the White House Staff, he personal staff, or in the Republican Party structure, like the Committee to Re-elect the President (CREEP)), Nixon must bear some culpability for that. Secondly, and perhaps more damning, was that Nixon was directly involved with the cover-up of the break-in. It is possible that the break-in occurred without his prior knowledge, and without his direction. However, the minute he becomes aware that the break-in was managed by his own people, he has an obligation to cut those people loose, turn them over to the authorities, and disavow them entirely. Had he done so, it may have likely saved his job. The fact that he knew about the break in, and all the details, and continued to protect the people involved is why he was forced to resign. As Howard Baker famously quipped, the key piece of information that cost Nixon his job was "What did the President know and when did he know it?" The fact that he knew a lot fairly early, and did nothing about it, was the difference between keeping his job and losing it. --Jayron32 19:46, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

In a recent interview with Woodward and Bernstein, Bob Woodward (himself a Republican) said that Nixon was "operating a criminal enterprise" in the White House. The thought of turning in those "third-rate burglars" likely never crossed his mind. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:57, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

The simple answer to "why did he resign" is that he surely would have been impeached and convicted had he not. I'm not sure if a pardon from Ford was counted on at all. It was an unpopular decision at the time Ford made it too. Shadowjams (talk) 00:46, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Yep. There were claims that a fix was in, but Ford always said that he did it to basically put an end to Watergate and let America move on to other things, which was likely the wise and, frankly, statesmanlike thing to do. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:20, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

As there are lots of opinions above I'll add mine: In my opinion there is NO WAY that the pardon wasn't pre-negotiated. Just because Ford appeared (uncharacteristically ) 'wise and statesmanlike' doesn't mean he was. Tom Haythornthwaite 16:49, 11 August 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hayttom (talk • contribs)

Philosopher studying philosophies of other men

Thread retitled from "Does a philosopher really need to know exactly all the philosophies of all other men before him or during his existence or is it him who would pick those he think is essential for him".

I need to know if these philosophers studies/studied every specific detail in philosophical terminologies or did some of them proceed immediately to the normative area with the aid of philosophical information of some philosophers, and not all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smilingswordfish (talk • contribs) 12:33, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

All of the above. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:58, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

1. Does a philosopher really need to know exactly all the philosophies of all other men before him or during his existence No.
2. is it him who would pick those he think is essential for him Yes
3. these philosophers Which philosophers?
4. if these philosophers studies/studied every specific detail in philosophical terminologies The terminology of philosophy is great and I think it's safe to assume that no philosopher studies terminology for areas of philosophy of no concern to him or her.
5. did some of them proceed immediately to the normative area What do you mean by "normative area"?
6. with the aid of philosophical information of some philosophers What do you mean by "philosophical information"?

-- Hoary (talk) 13:05, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

When you talk about what a philosopher needs, what do you mean by "need"? Needs to get a qualification or an academic position? To be published? To perform philosophical analysis? To be a professional applied philosopher such as a medical ethicist? To put "philosopher" under profession on their passport?

No philosopher has studied every past philosopher (although Gilles Deleuze came close), but you have to be aware of the work of previous philosophers in your area, and the normal method of doing philosophy in an academic context is to analyse and critique the work of earlier philosophers. Virtually all philosophy PhDs and published papers will be responses to the work of an earlier philosopher, ancient or modern. If you look at the greatest philosophers, they all started by studying and critiquing the work of earlier philosophers. The influence of even the oldest philosophers is still felt today in the way questions are phrased and analysed and the terminology that is used, so a broad historical overview is very useful.

Having said that, there's a difference between educational procedures that focus on the history of philosophy and those that focus on contemporary philosophical issues - in both cases you'll be studying the work of older philosophers, but if you're studying some philosophical topics then all the important work is from the last 100 years and Plato or Aristotle won't do you much good. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:48, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I am revising the heading of this section from Does a philosopher really need to know exactly all the philosophies of all other men before him or during his existence or is it him who would pick those he think is essential for him to Philosopher studying philosophies of other men, in harmony with WP:TPOC, point 13 (Section headings). Please see Microcontent: Headlines and Subject Lines (Alertbox).

—Wavelength (talk) 14:50, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

• Would you please just get yourself an undergraduate philosophy textbook and stop plaguing the Reference desk with these inane questions? Looie496 (talk) 15:41, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

"All philosophies" "every specific detail" implies a lot of stuff. OsmanRF34 (talk) 18:49, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Can i entitle myself as a moral philsopher

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

You have been warned regarding this conduct Smilingswordfish, the reference desk is not your blog Fifelfoo (talk) 22:02, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

---

The above answers were incredibly specific and helpful! So this is my question; I am engaged in moral philosophy and studies it as autodidact and fortunately and successfully I have recently made and submitted a paperwork concerning my own view of meta- ethics, and normative ethics, the problem is how I would represent my self to the society of scholars, can entitle myself, because of the thought I am engage unto, a moral philosopher, in such manner that I belong to such field. I really need answers fast, the conference is nearing! Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smilingswordfish (talk • contribs) 14:14, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

My personal point of view would be that anyone who philosophises could be a 'philosopher' (moderate it as you see fit). However, I think that scholars tend to look more at what someone has accomplished rather than what they call themselves. I.e. if you haven't produced any notable work, they wouldn't really accept you as anything other than 'some guy'. Of course, if you have published something (like a scholarly article or two, or something similar) - especially recently - I think that you could claim such a title, since it would seem that this is something you plan to pursue. V85 (talk) 15:24, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I take offense to that. Someguy1221 (talk) 18:26, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Without academic credentials I do not believe anyone within academia will take an autodidact seriously. misspells like 'philsopher' won't also be helpful for your objective. OsmanRF34 (talk) 15:34, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

When presenting yourself to academic and professional scholars (say, when applying for a conference or presenting/submitting a paper), you should title yourself simply an "independent scholar." This is the preferred term for someone who is outside of the academic discipline. To some people it will say, "possibly nutty" (because most academics deeply distrust anyone who is not an academic), but to other, less-insecure folks it will say, "someone who, for whatever reason, has opted out of the traditional system," and with any luck they will give you a fair shake. Titling yourself "moral philosopher" will simply say "definitely nutty" to such people, if you aren't already published and respected. Nobody titles themselves things like that — they say, "professor in moral philosophy at the university of such-and-such" which is a professional title, not one necessarily descriptive of their work or even self-identity. If you want to be accepted into such circles as an equal, start humble, make no disguise of your outsider status, and work to make alliances within the academic circles so that others will take you seriously. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:01, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

There's an article on that: independent scholar.OsmanRF34 (talk) 18:23, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

unidentified symbol

The bottom line of this image of the original proposal for braille consists of an apostrophe, hyphen, and a character I don't rec. I think it might be an end-of-verse symbol. Does anyone recognize it?

Thanks, — kwami (talk) 19:52, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, it's so obscured I'm having trouble making even a decent guess. Given the symbols it is grouped with, we can probably assume it's a fairly common feature of punctuation in French, but, racking my brain, I can't seem to come up with an even outdated typographical feature that fits. I'm wondering if maybe it's meant to represent an underscore or space? Our French braille article indicates that the braille configuration corresponding to that symbol in the chart in question is currently used to represent the "@" symbol. Snow (talk) 21:44, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I must be blind. You were correct, that same article indicates the configuration doubles as a notation for an end-of-verse mark. Snow (talk) 21:56, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

And it appears to be a kind of typographic lozenge. <> Fifelfoo (talk) 22:01, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I suggested the verse mark because most French-braille characters have retained their original values. (The guillemet is also barely legible, but can be ID'd because it still has that value in French.) I just have no idea what an early 19th-century French end-of-verse mark may have looked like. — kwami (talk) 22:40, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

In any event, our article seems to support your assumption, though unfortunately it lacks a citation for this specific meaning, nor a link to a clearer representation of the symbol. Snow (talk) 23:28, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

(Well, I wrote that article; that sense is inherited from WP-fr, as are a couple others. — kwami (talk) 00:35, 10 August 2012 (UTC))

You might wish to ask a librarian at Bibliothèque nationale de France.

• BnF - Poser votre question

—Wavelength (talk) 23:23, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. Will do. — kwami (talk) 00:42, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

It seems that this is a sign that isn't very frequently used in typography (intended for the non-blind), or at least not in modern typography, as neither French Wikipedia, nor French Wiktionary are capable of giving an actual sign for it (either Unicode or as a picture file), but describe it using words. I guess this could be due to the ability of a seeing person to see the end of the verse (there is no more text on the page, the verse-form is exchanged for conventional prose form, or some other symbol is used, such as a short line across the bottom on the page or a centred asterisk), while a blind person might need some other primer to indicate the end of a verse. Similarly, French Braille includes a sign indicating italics. A seeing person can easily see the difference between normal and italicised text, while a blind person, so long as Braille doesn't include a second set of characters for italics, would need some other primer.

Personally, I would compare it to that little circle or square one sometimes sees at the end of articles in newspapers or magazines, indicating that there is no more text beloning to that article on the following pages. The most commonly used symbols (that I've seen) used to indicate this are □, ■, ○ and ●. Conversely, to indicate that anarticle continues on the following page/s, there might be no mark, or a small arrow that points to the right. V85 (talk) 18:11, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I didn't get anywhere with detexify but it is often useful for this sort of thing if you are persistent. 67.122.211.84 (talk) 09:43, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Person that signed most bills into law in the U.S.

Hello. This here might be a difficult question: Which officer in the U.S. (president or governors) signed most bills into law during his tenure in office in the histrory of America? And how many? Is this known? Thanks a lot in advance. --78.50.226.128 (talk) 20:18, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm unable to find a source to confirm it, but I would be amazed if it were anybody other than Franklin Roosevelt. Looie496 (talk) 22:09, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I suspect that Looie is correct. Hard numbers are hard to find, but Roosevelt seems to be the consensus based on a few simple Google searches, along with more dubious claims that the honor goes to Bill Clinton, Barack Obama (I seriously doubt that one), or Lyndon B. Johnson. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:44, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

How could he not beat out the other presidents? He had more terms to do it. He certainly tops the List of United States presidential vetoes. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:58, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

He almost certainly beats all other presidents, but maybe not some governors who aren't always term limited. Bill Clinton had a combined 17 years between Ark. governor and President. NY Gov. George Clinton is the longest serving governor in U.S. history with 21 years in office, but I doubt his 18th/19th century bill signing record rivals FDR. D Monack (talk) 02:04, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

It's definitely not Obama — the Congresses under his term have enacted a historically low number of bills. The number of bills passed by Congress in general has been decreasing since the 1940s. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:29, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• It's definitely FDR. As Mr. 98 said, the number of bills passed by Congress has been decreasing since the 1940s -- but it's actually even more dramatic than the chart that he cites to suggests. That chart only shows public laws. There used to be an enormous number of private bills, which are laws that only affect one person or a small number of people. The US Constitution bans private bills that punish someone, but not private bills that are helpful or neutral. Back before the rise of federal agencies, Congress spent much of its time dealing with matters that now get handled by Veterans Affairs, Social Security, etc. Part of the reason for the Administrative Procedure Act of 1946 was that it was getting out of control, with congressmen getting more requests than they could possibly even read, let alone vote on. --M@rēino 15:42, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

FDR sounds like a reasonable guess, but without something more empirical I wouldn't say with 100% certainty it's the correct answer. If you're just talking about presidents who signed in the most public bills as president (to narrow down the criteria), you could do an analysis by looking at public laws (the PL or statutes at large) by time-frame. If you removed overturned vetoes (which are rare and you could probably safely exclude) then you could get a count by year and use that to determine who had the highest count.

The question asks about governors too... that makes it trickier because you'd have to do this for all 50 states. Very good question, but hard to answer. I think finding a definitive answer from scratch would be a time consuming process. Shadowjams (talk) 00:43, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

FDR was also governor of New York for a while... AnonMoos (talk) 01:20, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

August 10

Code of Pomare 1819

Does anybody know where I can find a copy of the Code of Pomare 1819 in English? It seems the only versions I can find are French beginning with "Dieu a donné comme roi à Tahiti", but the London Missionary Society was in Tahiti at the time and probably helped with Pomare II in writing it.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:16, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

August 11

Gold reserves and currency

So is it possible to raise a a country's currency's values if all the gold in that country was mined and sent directly to its gold reserves? And will such a move improve a country's economy? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew

Keeping it in reserve would have no significant impact, but if the country used the gold to buy up some of its circulating currency, you would get a deflationary impact that would increase the value of the currency. The economic impact would be negative, though. Looie496 (talk) 00:02, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

U.S. Census Bureau Classification of Asian

How come the U.S. Census Bureau classifies all people of Asian origin (excluding the Middle East) as Asian, rather than creating separate categories for South Asian and East/Southeast Asian (or "Oriental")? All the other race and ethnic U.S. census definitions seem to make sense, but it would appear to make more sense to separate the "Asian" category into two parts.

Also, this is a similar question--does anyone have data on the East/Southeast Asian ("Oriental") and South Asian population in the U.S. in 2000-2010, 1950-1970, and before 1910? Thank you very much. Futurist110 (talk) 01:02, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Race and ethnicity in the United States Census... -- AnonMoos (talk) 01:15, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

The census definitions are, at best, tailored to fit the needs of the government and, at worst, the ugly results of years of political compromises. There is apparently no great desire from constituents, or from the government statistical bureaus themselves, to make a distinction between Indians and Southeast Asians, though one could imagine that changing over time. There is no end of controversy about census categories of race and ethnicity. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:04, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

This has gone way far off track, let's draw a line under it please Looie496 (talk) 06:51, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Just putting this here: "Oriental" is pejorative in American English. It exoticizes and objectifies. It was almost always spoken with condescension in its heyday and brings up all the connotations of the negative things it was associated with in 19th century America—the image of the early Chinese immigrants working on railroads in the western United States with broken English, pigtails, and fu manchu beards. People who were incidentally one of the most common targets of [often state-sponsored] racial violence in the wild wild west. The word itself is innocuous, it's the history behind the word that's offensive. I can't help but think of it as someone's polite way of saying "coolie". It remains acceptable in British English where it was used more correctly in the meaning of "eastern". Same thing happened with "negro" which literally just means "black", but has become highly offensive in the US, although it remains acceptable in a lot of other countries where it has never acquired a racist connotation. Also I'm wondering why you separate South Asia but still lump East Asians and Southeast Asians together? The difference between the latter two are just as vast. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 02:21, 11 August 2012 (UTC) That's a big WP:NPOV, buddy. If it actually is pejorative, you don't need to argue that it exoticizes (stripper aerobics?) and objectifies (makes a follower of Ayn Rand?). No one complains the term "Western" is racist. Well, maybe at Berkeley.... μηδείς (talk) 03:45, 11 August 2012 (UTC) Tell me why "Yankee", "Nigger", "Guido", "Guinea", "Limey", and "Cracker", etc. are all pejorative then? None of those words actually originated from anything bad yeah? But go ahead, call every Asian you know an "Oriental" or a "Mongoloid". And then act all haughty when they take offense, after all "Occidental" and "Caucasian" aren't offensive at all, so they should just shut their big yellow mouths about it. I wonder how many Asian friends you'll have left, if you even have any in the first place.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 04:16, 11 August 2012 (UTC) "Yankee" is not pejorative. Some non-Americans try to make it so. But it ain't. (Unless you're talking about the Evil Empire in the Bronx.) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:04, 11 August 2012 (UTC) You just realized that? Now compare your revelation with what I just said about "Oriental". Pay close attention to how I differentiated the difference in the acceptance of different words in different regions.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 05:23, 11 August 2012 (UTC) Which is why if you google [oriental restaurants] almost nothing will show up. (Ha.) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:17, 11 August 2012 (UTC) Last time I checked restaurants weren't people. Neither are rugs. See Yellow Peril for context. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 04:16, 11 August 2012 (UTC) You said, without qualification, "'Oriental' is pejorative in American English." Obviously, it isn't, necessarily. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:06, 11 August 2012 (UTC) Ah semantics.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 05:23, 11 August 2012 (UTC) I apologize if someone was offended by my use of the term Oriental, but I do want to point out that the Gerontology Research Group (a very respected gerontology research organization) and even the Wikipedia page List of supercentenarians from the United States uses the letter O as an abbreviation for Oriental. The reason that I used the word Oriental was because I do not know of a better, more politically correct, short term for collectively saying East Asians and Southeast Asians combined. If you know of such a short politically correct term, please let me know. Keep in mind that English isn't my first language, though I am rather good at it. As for why I separated South Asians but not Southeast Asians is because the cultures and appearances of Southeast Asians are much closer to East Asians. In contrast, the cultures and appearances of South Asians are very different from those of East Asians. I can always easily distinguish between an Indian and Chinese person by looks, but it is much harder to distinguish a Chinese person from a Laotian or Thai person. Futurist110 (talk) 03:39, 11 August 2012 (UTC) I know you didn't, just had to mention it because "Oriental" is actually banned or discouraged by law in some parts of the US, hence why it's unlikely to appear in census forms. Anyway, Indochina (which includes the Thais and Viets) is closer to East Asia in culture. But Maritime Southeast Asia isn't. The latter is actually culturally closer to South Asia and ethnically to the Pacific Islands. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 04:16, 11 August 2012 (UTC) Your apology is unnecessary. But the term Mongoloid race is probably safer. μηδείς (talk) 03:47, 11 August 2012 (UTC) The funny thing about people who object about political correctness, is that they're usually just objecting because they still want to call their neighbors "niggers" whenever they want to. Out here we usually just call that "rude". Arguing that it's not pejorative, but then using it pejoratively... yeah, very convincing, sahib. Incidentally, if you want me to still keep calling you gwailo, just say so. After all, we're all friends here, right?-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 04:16, 11 August 2012 (UTC) "Gwailo"? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:02, 11 August 2012 (UTC) WP:WHAAOE - Gwailo -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 05:23, 11 August 2012 (UTC) Well fuck you, Obsidian, on behalf of my black family, for pretending that the terms "nigger" and "oriental" have any sort of moral equivalence anywhere among English speakers. Please refrain from implying racist motives as if it were a valid form of argument, and please provide a reliable source that shows where anyone has ever used the term oriental itself with the intention of insulting anyone. Not source that says people find the term offensive. A source that says people use the term to give offense. This is the ref desk, and your hijacking it to create a politically correct niche controversy is not welcome. μηδείς (talk) 05:36, 11 August 2012 (UTC) LOL. You just basically called me mongoloid above and you have the guts to pretend it wasn't anything racist? "Anyone has ever used the term oriental itself with the intention of insulting anyone". Please, why do you people always pretend it doesn't exist when you don't want it to? Don't blame me for telling you something you already know but don't want to accept because it's so inconvenient to have to watch your words. I already gave you a reason why we find it insulting, which you pooh-poohed away. You can do a Google search if you want more. I've read enough 19th century and early 20th century books to make me cringe every time the word was used (same with "chinaman" or "yellow races"). It was usually used as if it referred to an animal. Or someone who doesn't deserve to be American, but will always be the alien "oriental". The history of the word has always been an ugly "us vs. the strange inscrutable people" and the violence and segregation that came with it. Read a few newspapers from those days to get an idea of the other invisible minority and their largely forgotten fight to gain the same rights other Americans had, [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21] And you wonder why Asian Americans don't want to hear it anymore? And how exactly did I "hijack" the thread for a "niche controversy"? It was relevant to the thread because it involved the US and it involved the government. And I posted a link on why it's highly unlikely that the category "Oriental" will ever appear in US census forms. It is offensive to Asian Americans, just not you, because you apparently have a black family and thus is entitled to say fuck you to every Asian American that says so. You hijacked the thread by turning this into yet another PC debate. If someone tells you not to call them Bob because it brings painful memories they'd rather not talk about, do you call them Robert, or do you still insist on calling them Bob because Bob's not a bad word, and Bob's probably just being a ninny. So shut up Bob. I said shut up Bob, and fuck you on behalf of my dad Bobby Lee.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 06:44, 11 August 2012 (UTC) Silly, silly, silly. I would have hoped that all of you would realise that English meanings vary hugely around the globe, just as what is considered nice and what is considered nasty varies too. Why you are all being so certain about such meanings being global truths is beyond me. Derogatory meanings are very often only regional. HiLo48 (talk) 05:17, 11 August 2012 (UTC) A fact I pointed out explicitly and was still jumped upon.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 05:23, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

To answer the original question — as Mr 98 says, a lot of it is for practical purposes. When you have only a few options to pick for race (White, Black or African American, Asian, Native American, Pacific Islander, or more-than-one-of-the-above), it would be rather absurd to split just one of them, and it would probably be too confusing to split many or all six of the options. Note that individuals are asked to self-classify; while a person having origins in the native peoples of Europe or the Middle East is defined as white, an Afrikaner born in Johannesburg who picks African American will not be rebuked or otherwise have difficulties from census takers. Nyttend (talk) 17:30, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

It wouldn't necessarily be absurd to split Asian into South-Asians and East-Asians, nor would it be absurd to have a separate category for people from the Middle East (as opposed to lumping them in with "White," which is not respective of their sociological position whatsoever), but anyway, whether it is rational or absurd is not really the issue, again, it's about the politics and compromises that produce such an outcome. The current census definitions, so far as I can tell, satisfy almost nobody — they make the data retrieved extremely hard to interpret. --Mr.98 (talk) 17:53, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

To be honest, somehow I seriously doubt that a White person born in South Africa would be able to self-identify as black on the census if a census taker is with him. What counts is your original place of origin (original as in 100, 200, 300 years ago) rather than simply where you were born. As for Middle Eastern, the problem with that is that you'd have to include Jews in the Middle Eastern category, due to their close genetic relationship with Arabs. However, Jews look White (and for that matter, so do Arabs) and are culturally very close to non-Jewish White Americans. Futurist110 (talk) 18:23, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I thought the purpose of census takers was simply to hand-deliver census forms to people who hadn't responded by mail? At any rate, I was simply trying to provide an example of someone who clearly doesn't fit the definition despite fitting the name of the classification. Perhaps you should say "your ancestors' place of origin". Nyttend (talk) 23:45, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

As per Jewish people, you might want to look at Sephardi Jews and Ashkenazi Jews. Shadowjams (talk) 18:49, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm aware of both of these Jewish categories, but the U.S. and other Western countries have successful and very assimilated Jews from both categories. Besides, Ashkenazi and Sephardi Jews are related if you'd go back far enough. Futurist110 (talk) 19:10, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

The United States census bureau is forbidden from asking any questions about religion, which creates a problem for Jews when there's a question going beyond the basic race categorization to ask about ethnicity, or "ancestry" as the census calls it (as there was in 2000, but not 2010). Probably the majority of U.S. Jews have ancestors that came from current-day Germany, Ukraine, and Poland, but most of them do not consider themselves to be German-Americans, Ukrainian-Americans, or Polish-Americans, but instead ethnically Jewish-American (even many of those who are atheists). AnonMoos (talk) 19:37, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

My point was that if one creates a race category for Middle Easterners, then one would need to include Jews in it, despite Jews being White by appearance and having a culture very similar to those of non-Jewish White Americans. Futurist110 (talk) 20:26, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

What Shadojams was trying to point out is that most American Jews are not Middle Eastern at all — they are of European descent. The majority are Ashkenazi. There is no "Jewish race." Arguably there is an ethnicity, like "Hispanic," but even that is complicated. (Nobody can really answer Who is a Jew?, so I don't expect the census, of all bureaucracies, to try.) --Mr.98 (talk) 22:46, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Even Ashkenazi Jews are of Middle Eastern ancestry if you go back 2,000+ years. Futurist110 (talk) 03:24, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm missing something, but didn't the 2010 census already differentiate between various subgroups of Asian? It didn't attempt to include only two categories for Asian, East Asian/South-East Asian and South Asian; as OS pointed out in the closed discussion, such a distinction is questionable at best, but rather gave several options and allowed people to specify Other Asian if they didn't feel they fit in to any of the given categories but it unless I'm misunderstanding our article, it didn't just give Asian as one category. (Asian as one category distinct from Middl Eastern is also not perfect of course.) Nil Einne (talk) 10:20, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

The solution seems obvious: Stop worrying about classifiction and have a simple prefilled tick-box saying "Human" (of course, some fuckwit will complain about that too). Either that or have an empty box in which you can write about your origins. Astronaut (talk) 15:57, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Paumotu and Tuamotu

Why were the Tuamotus also called the Paumotus in the past?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 03:28, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Looks like two different ways to romanize the same name in English. After all, Peking and Beijing are the same city, with different romanizations. So, the native word may sometimes sound like it starts with a T and sometimes with a P. StuRat (talk) 04:07, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Maro ʻura

Are there any existing examples of the maro ʻura, the feather loincloth, of the chiefs of the Society Islands left in museum or other? --KAVEBEAR (talk) 17:33, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Current on-the-ground status of Azawad

No opinions, please, on what the de jure status of things is; I'm just curious about the de facto status.

To my surprise, Azawad is written in the past tense; this, together with the lack of recent edit wars, suggests to me that consensus holds Azawad not to be in existence anymore, even de facto. However, it doesn't give the name used by the people who are now running things in the region, Mali is written with Azawad in the present tense, and I can't find anything at Movement for Oneness and Jihad in West Africa, Tuareg rebellion (2012), or Battle of Gao. Imagine that you could talk with the head of whatever organisation is presently ruling things in the former Azawad: if you asked him to provide a name for the country or region or jurisdiction that he headed, what would he call it? Nyttend (talk) 17:41, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I haven't heard or read anything about Mali recapturing Azawad, so as far as I know Azawad is still around and de facto independent. Futurist110 (talk) 20:28, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

The impression I got from the article is that the people who put together the Azawad declaration of independence got conquered by Islamists, and that their demise meant that "Azawad" was no longer being used as the name of the self-declared state. Are the Islamists using a different name? Nyttend (talk) 23:43, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

The rebellion was not uniform and homogenous. There were two main groups; basically, tuareg and islamists. (The detail is a bit more complicated than that). These subsequently quarrelled, making it easier for the hitherto inept Malian central government and military to regain ground. Azawad is the tuareg aspiration; the islamists are not aiming for a particularly national goal. Right now, well, you could argue about whether "Azawad" meaningfully exists, but some parts of northern Mali are still not under government control - although government control is not boolean, and many areas away from towns were never particularly strongly controlled to begin with. In some cases, local people living in northern towns (not necessarily Bamako's biggest fans) may have got together and kicked out their new soi-disant governors - but don't expect wholly neutral coverage from news that travels via Bamako. However, the MNLA have captured some Malian government soldiers, which might make a useful bargaining piece. Adding to the confusion, there has been a coup in Bamako, followed by a failed counter-coup; the junta currently seems to oppose foreign intervention. If you were planning to visit Mali, that would still be practical - they're still issuing visas &c and the only sane ways to enter the country are under central-government control. It would be possible to travel through some areas of the north with a great deal of caution and a pile of €5 notes, whilst you'd get robbed in other areas; that's not drastically different from the situation before the rebellion. The HUBB is often a good source of information if you really want a western/anglophone view of the actual situation on the ground, but sadly there's not much discussion there right now... bobrayner (talk) 03:13, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

How's your French? Here's a very recent account from a reporter travelling in northern mali: [22] bobrayner (talk) 03:21, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Can't understand what IF and AND and OR commands have to do with this, and I've never heard of the HUBB (here?), but otherwise this is really helpful. I'm not planning on leaving the USA anytime soon; it's simply a matter of not understanding the article too well. Thanks for the detailed response! Nyttend (talk) 04:30, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Non-sovereign monarchy in Easter Island

Has Chile recognized a non-sovereign monarchy in Easter Island in the person of Valentino Riroroko Tuki or is it just a claim?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 20:03, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

The latest news that I can find online is TIME: A Quest for Independence: Who Will Rule Easter Island's Stone Heads?, which is dated 12 March 2012 and says; "Riroroko and Rapa Nui leaders made good on (their) pledge and filed a lawsuit seeking independence from Chile. Their claim: that the South American nation has violated the 1888 treaty that let Chile annex the island..." A search on the Time website reveals no update on that, nor can I find anything more recent anywhere else. Alansplodge (talk) 15:32, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

A bit more digging in the bowels of Google reveals Hamburger Abendblatt: Ein König geht vor Gericht (A King goes to Court) - if only I could read German! Google Translate suggests that he intends to "...bring the action before an international court. 'Later this year,' he says". Although what happened in the original lawsuit is unclear to me, the general tone of the piece suggests that he lost. Alansplodge (talk) 15:43, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I have now found this November 2011 article El Chileno: Pacuenses eligieron un rey de la isla (Islanders elected a king of the island) The Google Translate vesion says; "If the claim is lost, the case is now in the hands of the lawyers of Indian Law, an American organization that protects the interests of native peoples, who shall submit it to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of the OAS." Alansplodge (talk) 16:04, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Right to Privacy

I have a question--wouldn't secretly taping what Pamela Smart and Wanetta Gibson (http://aol.sportingnews.com/ncaa-football/story/2012-05-25/brian-banks-cleared-of-rape-wanetta-gibson-facebook-high-school-football-star) said be a violation of their right to privacy? Don't get me wrong, I'm glad that Pamela Smart got convicted and that Brian Banks got exonerated, but it seems like if one would argue for a right to privacy it should have been illegal to secretly tape and record what they said in private. Futurist110 (talk) 20:05, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

There is no explicit right to privacy. Prosecution of any criminal statute is strictly at the discretion of the district attorneys in the jurisdictions involved, and they very often decline to prosecute wiretapping and similar crimes when such privacy violations expose criminal or civil wrongdoing. But, it's a crap shoot. 75.166.207.214 (talk) 20:30, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Wait, what exactly are you describing as a "crap shoot"? Secretly recording someone and hoping not to get prosecuted yourself afterwards? So basically, they could prosecute people for secret records, but decline doing so because these people actually provided and delivered justice? That appears to make sense. I have a friend who is a strict Constitutionalist and a Ron Paul supporter who said that he would have opposed wiretapping Smart and Gibson due to it being a violation of their right to privacy. Futurist110 (talk) 20:55, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's right. Ron Paul doesn't believe there is a constitutional right to privacy, by the way. See Political positions of Ron Paul#Sodomy laws. And to the extent that there is one, he wants to completely abolish it per Sec. 3(1)(B) of his We the People Act. 75.166.207.214 (talk) 23:19, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

The article you link to says Banks recorded the conversation between himself and Gibson. That is quite different to someone else recording it without either of them knowing. The legality of it varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but it isn't always illegal. --Tango (talk) 21:46, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I knew that Banks recorded Gibson, just like a former student of Pamela Smart's recorded her confession. My question was about anyone recording something that someone else said without the other individual's consent when it pertains to justice (a crime or an exoneration). Futurist110 (talk) 22:01, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Am I missing something? While both of these cases involved secret recordings they don't seem comparable to me. In one of them someone falsely convicted of a crime wore a wire to record his accuser exonerating him, something he seems to have decided to do by himself. In this case, the legality of recording probably wasn't much of an issue (at least when it came to the use of the evidence), since it seems fairly problematic for a court to throw out the clearly exonerating evidence simply because it was acquired illegal. However in the other case, the police are the ones who got the party to carry out the secret recording. In such a case, one would expect the police would try to make sure their recording would be admissible (e.g. by acquiring a warranty if necessary) since there was a very real risk of it being thrown out if acquired illegally. Nil Einne (talk) 00:01, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

There is no expectation of privacy in a criminal act. μηδείς (talk) 22:36, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Quite true, but that doesn't technically prevent a discretionary prosecution of a surreptitious recording where it's illegal, even when it exposes a crime, because it's an offense against "the people" instead of the recorded criminal. It's just that most prosecutors won't do it. 75.166.207.214 (talk) 23:19, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the point is only that evidence of a crime cannot be excluded solely on the grounds of its invading privacy. The evidence can be sealed, excluded if it is illegally obtained by the authorities, or be used in a later prosecution on other grounds. μηδείς (talk) 00:07, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Right, but evidence can't be excluded if it is illegally obtained by non-government employees. However I seem to remember that a civilian performing an illegal search for the sole purpose of hoping to turn incriminating evidence over to law enforcement can be considered to be working with law enforcement even if they weren't specifically instructed to perform the illegal search under some circumstances which I forget. I think it has to do with the "wink and a nod" for example if Banks met with a prosecutor who told him over and over that the prosecutor could have nothing to do with helping to record a conversation and obtaining a warrant to do so would be unlikely, or something like that. 75.166.207.214 (talk) 01:59, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Given the inconvenience for American law enforcement that they can't circumvent Bill of Rights protections for US suspects by use of their deputizing powers or discretionary budgets to hire or appoint agents to do their dirty work for them, one can sympathise with residents of the land of Lincoln and Barack Obama who want to flee to the most nearby commonwealth where one can trade one's freedom for a little more . . . security. μηδείς (talk) 02:48, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Is government debt spending on infrastructure, education, and preventative health care inflationary?

If a government prints money (or borrows) for spending on things which unquestionably pay for themselves at a rate greater than prevalent inflation (or the interest rate on government debt) like infrastructure, education, and preventative health care, does that spending cause inflationary pressure, reduce it, or is it neutral? 75.166.207.214 (talk) 20:28, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

On any reasonable interpretation of what you are saying, "pay for themselves at a rate greater than prevalent inflation . . ." it reduces it, pretty much by that assumption.John Z (talk) 20:37, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure I understand the idea that these things "pay for themselves"... most roads do not charge people to drive on them, public education does not charge tuition. They are paid for by taxpayers (ie they don't pay for themselves). Blueboar (talk) 21:02, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

That's a narrow, short term, tunnel-visioned accountant's view. Roads pay for themselves by enabling businesses that depend on them to run more efficiently. Public education provides better educated employees for businesses. HiLo48 (talk) 21:39, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

And that's a simplistic command economy view of the economy. A road may pay for itself if it is built economically between two destinations the increased commerce between which generates enough revenue to pay for the cost of the road's building and upkeep. It is perfectly possible to waste money on a highway boondoggle. μηδείς (talk) 22:32, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

On the other hand, the free market very rarely produces the public infrastructure on which it thrives. There is no avoiding incremental empirically justified elements of a planned economy in the presence of market failure without suffering very low growth rates.75.166.207.214 (talk) 23:58, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Right.John Z (talk) 02:48, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

There are very detailed CBO studies about how much these kinds of spending return to the economy. It's easy because if you don't pay to maintain, say a bridge, it's fairly simple to predict how long it will last and how much more it will cost when it fails. [23] says you get $1.92 for each $1 in nonresidential construction on average. If you pay to put a kid through college, you get back several times as much in net present value tax revenue, even considering dropouts and emigrants. Preventative health care can save hundreds of billions of dollars by catching cancers at stage one instead of stages two or three in the emergency room. They pay for themselves by reducing necessary spending later on. 75.166.207.214 (talk) 02:25, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

All would be inflationary in the short term, and really, with regard to inflation, the short term is everything. In the long term, you're going to see less inflationary pressure as production expands, possibly tipping into a downwards effect; but that's far more empirically difficult to show. - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 21:46, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

• Short answer: printing money is inflationary, but growth is deflationary. However, it is difficult to use government policy to increase the long-term growth rate of a fully developed economy such as that of the USA. The main thing that government policy can do is to influence whether the growth curve is smooth or bumpy. Looie496 (talk) 21:55, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Is growth actually deflationary, or does it just put downward but nonnegative pressure against inflation? 75.166.207.214 (talk) 23:26, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

If you have growth without an increase in the money supply, you get actual deflation. Looie496 (talk) 23:31, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Ah, that makes perfect sense now. Of course if the growth is driven by infrastructure etc. fiat spending then it balances without additional taxation. If only.... 75.166.207.214 (talk) 23:43, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

:The question is clearly concerned with a (normal) government that can print its own money. E.g. the USA, the UK, most countries outside the Eurozone. It is then a mistake to say "taxpayers pay for government spending". In this, the normal case, government spending provides taxpayers with the money that the government demands from them in taxes, and again, in the context of the somewhat vague assumptions, which may not always hold, this spending must be if anything disinflationary / deflationary. (Aside - In current conditions it is almost certainly the case that spending by "printing money" (= "borrowing" + Quantitative Easing ) would be / is less inflationary than "borrowing". See Gibson's Paradox for some (inadequate) background. )

It is not necessarily true that all would be inflationary in the short or long term, without assumptions. When you talk about inflation, you are talking about interactions of the financial, the flow of money, credit through the economy, and the flow of real goods & services through the economy. This is complicated & there are many things to take account of. E.g. growth without money supply increase being deflationary makes some kind of constant Velocity of money assumption, or constant proportion of private credit money leveraging off of what is being considered the base money supply assumption. For example, suppose that the preventative health care spending is on a vaccine for a disease which kills a substantial portion of people of working age & so damages the nation's productive capacity. Then the spending would be disinflationary or deflationary, especially relative to an extremely foolish country which did not do this "because there wasn't enough money". It is very easy for today's "advanced" economies to increase long-term growth, as they have been run for decades with higher unemployment compared to the Post–World War II economic expansion era, simply by the government employing people on doing useful stuff like the examples given, or by cutting punitively high taxes, particularly economically destructive ones like most sales taxes & social security taxes.

Public spending for decades in many / most "advanced economies" (particularly the USA) has been so low that even the pure wasting of money on highway boondoggles, would have non-inflationary, beneficial effect. In any case, governments "getting" more revenue from a road then it cost to build it is neither necessary nor even usually a good thing. What counts is the effect on the economy as a whole. When economies, governments, high taxes, austerity prevent resources, above all labor, from being fully employed, wasteful government expenditure is productive, and conversely, government thrift & penny-pinching is economically destructive and possibly even inflationary. Take for example the USA since the financial crisis - large deficits - major money printing, e.g. on the inadequate stimulus. But no inflation to speak of, because it is hardly keeping up with the destruction of credit money among other things. The command economy view is correct, because a monetary economy is by its very nature a kind of command economy, as many, like David Graeber or Abba Lerner have emphasized. Of course broad &/or narrowminded, but above all correct, accounting is essential.John Z (talk) 02:48, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Why did the U.S.S.R. not Invade Yugoslavia when Tito left the Soviet Bloc in 1948?

I'm thinking:

• Harsh terrain (mountains, etc.)
• It's a waste of money
• Risk of Western intervention
• Risk of an intense insurgency, especially in the Catholic and Muslim areas of Yugoslavia

Were there any other factors? Futurist110 (talk) 20:59, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

According to Informbiro_period#History, the reasons are unclear, although Khrushchev thought that if Yugoslavia had actually bordered the Soviet Union, Stalin would have invaded. 69.62.243.48 (talk) 21:31, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

That's interesting, but then again the Warsaw Pact states were Soviet puppets, so in essence they were like Soviet territory from a military and strategic perspective. Futurist110 (talk) 21:59, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

The Warsaw Pact was much later, though (mid-1950s). And they were never regarded as true Soviet territory — they were just puppets meant to stand in the way of an invasion from the West, or to host military and weapons. --Mr.98 (talk) 22:17, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Even before the Warsaw Pact was officially created, the Eastern European countries that would later be in it were still Soviet puppets. I said that they were like Soviet territory from a military and strategic perspective, and I stand by that, considering that the U.S.S.R. could have put as much troops and weapons in those countries as it would have liked to. Futurist110 (talk) 22:37, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

There's a famous scrap of paper that is meant to have been was passed from Churchill to Stalin, and implicitly approved by Stalin, during one of the Big Three conferences proposing to give the USSR 90%/10% influence in Bulgaria Rumania, the West 90/10 influence in Greece, and splitting Yugoslavia 50/50. (I can check some more details later, if they're not readily to another editor's hand.) This was in fact roughly the balance that did prevail in the end, as Yugoslavia did not join NATO or ally herself with the West but went on to co-found the Non-Aligned Movement. —— Shakescene (talk) 22:35, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I've found the reference: it's in Volume 6 (Triumph and Tragedy, 1953) of Churchill's History of the Second World War, near the beginning of Book One, Chapter 15, "October in Moscow". This refers to a visit by Churchill and Eden to Stalin and Molotov in October 1944, without FDR but joined by the U.S. Ambassador, Averell Harriman. Churchill writes,

...I said "Let us settle about our affairs in the Balkans. Your armies are in Rumania and Bulgaria. We have interests, missions, and agents there. Don't let us get at cross-purposes in small ways. So far as Britain and Russia are concerned, how would it do for you to have ninety per cent predominance in Rumania for us to have ninety per cent of the say in Greece, and go fifty-fifty about Yugoslavia?" While this was being translated I wrote out on a half-sheet of paper: [a more detailed proposed allocation of influence in Rumania (90-10), Greece (10-90), Yugoslavia (50-50), Hungary (50-50) and Bulgaria (75-25)]. I pushed this across to Stalin, who had by then heard the translation. There was a slight pause. Then he took his blue pencil and made a large tick upon it, and passed it back to us....
    Of course we had long and anxiously considered our point, and were only dealing with immediate war-time arrangements. All larger questions werer reserved on both sides for what we then hoped would be a peace table when the war was won.

[ quoted in many places, e.g. here ] —— Shakescene (talk) 07:09, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

As I learned it—as part of a class in the final semester before I earned my bachelor's degree—the "large blue tick" in question was Stalin's striking-through of the Bulgaria (75-25) part, and penciling in "Bulgaria (90-10)" before he signed, initialed, and returned the scrap of paper to Churchill. Pine (talk) 10:55, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

The US assessment at the time was that the Yugoslav ability to wage a guerilla campaign (proven during WWII) made it a hard nut to crack for the USSR, who also had many entanglements elsewhere (Berlin Blockade, for example, and, a few years later, Korea). During the period, the US also made public and private overtures towards supporting Tito directly through both economic and military means. Apparently Stalin did try to build up the military in the states around Yugoslavia (e.g. Hungary) with potential future designs on the place, but he died too early to enact these plans. --Mr.98 (talk) 22:17, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

The U.S.S.R. did not fight directly in Korea, though. Also, I think that if Stalin had designs on Yugoslavia he would have invaded in 1949-1950 after the U.S.S.R. built some nukes, since that way the U.S. and the West would probably avoid intervening directly. Futurist110 (talk) 22:25, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, a number of Soviet "advisers" did actually fight (and die) in Korea (but everyone pretended they didn't, for simplicity's sake), but either way, it's clear that Stalin did worry quite a lot about it, and considered it a major entanglement of resources, money, and risk. Don't overestimate the importance of the USSR getting the bomb: the USSR did not have any reliable means of hitting the US with nuclear weapons until after Stalin's death; they had exactly one nuclear weapon in 1949, which they detonated. By the time of Stalin's death in 1953 they had 120 nukes, nothing to scoff at, but this was against the US's 1,400 nukes kept on bombers on foreign bases within reach of the USSR. The USSR did not feel that it was in a state of nuclear parity until the development of ICBMs (1957 is much more important strategically than 1949), with the exception of fighting wars in Europe itself. --Mr.98 (talk) 22:38, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Even a couple nukes and an effective delivery system might have been enough to prevent the U.S. and West from directly intervening in Yugoslavia in the event of a Soviet invasion, though. This is similar as to how George W. Bush never made any noises about attacking North Korea due to them already having several nukes. Futurist110 (talk) 22:42, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

It's possible, but it was a gamble. But remember that fear of American counteraction was likely one of many factors here. Separately (I don't know if Stalin considered this), the US at that point in time likely would have been willing to sacrifice one of the European capitals if it meant the USSR was no longer a long-term threat. The US strategists correctly judged that they had a large atomic advantage over the USSR, but that this would steadily erode over time. There were many who argued for preemptive war. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:32, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

That's rather facile: no American president ever made noises about attacking NK. The position of the South Koreans was what was relevant. The US could have taken them out had there been a good reason to do so and no good reason not to. μηδείς (talk) 23:55, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Mr.98 is right. Preparations were under way for a multiple army invasion, but these proceeded slowly for predictable reasons:

• The Soviet Union did not trust the first echelon on military forces attacking, the fraternal socialist countries militaries were formed from a significant body of right wingers—and 1948-1953 was the height of an internal party purge period where the Soviet and Soviet-style societies were persecuting those who had waged the class struggle in their home countries during the second war.
• The expected losses were quite high—from an economic perspective. The Soviet Union went through a recessionary phase from 1949-1952 associated with breakdowns in the supply chain. Additionally, of course, Korea was considered a viable investment of time and energy to liberate the working class and demonstrate to imperialism that the Soviet sphere wouldn't be swayed by the US's failures. Korea sucked up a great deal of economic capacity, the Soviet Union's capacity was extremely limited, and the Soviet Union was surviving, to a significant extent, by dislocating soviet-style societies' economies.
• In the later period prior to Stalin's death the whole "nationalism communism" thing didn't spread to Italy, or France, or Great Britain ideologically; and, the so called "national communists" had been successfully purged in the soviet-style societies. Why proceed when there is no threat? Then Stalin died. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:04, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

There's a famous scrap of paper that is meant to have been passed from Churchill to Stalin, and implicitly approved by Stalin, during one of the Big Three conferences proposing to give the USSR 90%/10% influence in Bulgaria, the West 90/10 influence in Greece, and splitting Yugoslavia 50/50. (I can check some more details later, if they're not readily to another editor's hand.) This was in fact roughly the balance that did prevail in the end, as Yugoslavia did not join NATO or ally herself with the West but went on to co-found the Non-Aligned Movement. —— Shakescene (talk) 22:35, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

American Army uniform colors

During the American Civil War, Union soldiers wore blue uniforms. During World War II, they wore green or olive drab. During World War I, the doughboys apparently wore tan or khaki. When did the colors change? Was it gradual, or all at once, and why? 69.62.243.48 (talk) 21:27, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

In a word, camouflage. The ACW and other period conflicts that saw widespread use of the rifle drove military tactics away from massed formations and toward personal concealment. — Lomn 22:07, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I remember hearing that there was a marked advantage in the grey uniforms of the South. This was probably from Ken Burns' documentary. The French wore red in WWI, which was a distinct disadvantaged based on a poor theory of the supposed benefits of increased morale over camouflage. There is currently a huge scandal with the US military's now-cancelled $5 billion pixilated Universal Camouflage Pattern. http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=pixelated+uniform&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8 μηδείς (talk) 22:26, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

The American Civil War is often claimed to be a turning point in modern warfare, but the facts sometimes speak against this. The US Army actually replaced blue with khaki in the field in 1898[24], more than 30 years after the end of the ACW. The British Army had adopted khaki field service dress for overseas use in the previous year, although the British Indian Army had been experimenting with khaki uniforms since the 1860s. At the start of WWI, the only major power not to have adopted drab uniforms was France, (although only their trousers and caps were red, tunics and greatcoats were dark blue)[25], and they were replaced with "horizon blue" uniforms within a few months and khaki in the 1920s. The US Army in WWII used a variety of designs and colours introduced from 1937 onwards[26]. So yes, gradual change, but the US was only one of the leaders of world military fashion. Alansplodge (talk) 23:38, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I think that claim has more to do than just uniforms. And the gray uniforms had the advantage because of their lighter color, and since they were made out of cotton and not wool like northern unis. Hot Stop 04:51, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, maybe, but " widespread use of the rifle drove military tactics away from massed formations" is not entirely true. The Prussian Army used infantry attack in massed columns[27] and cavalry brigade charges[28] with devastating effect in the Franco-Prussian War in the following decade; and their successors, The Imperial German Army, surely the most technologically advanced army in the world at the start of the 20th century, was still attacking in close-order in 1915[29].

BTW, not all confederates wore grey. Alansplodge (talk) 09:54, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Pashtun Awakening vs. Sunni Awakening

How come there wasn't a Pashtun Awakening in Afghanistan (yet) like there was a Sunni Awakening in Iraq in 2005-2008? I'm thinking:

• The Taliban did not really change the life of rural Pashtuns that much when they were in power. Most rural Pashtuns opposed their women and lived pre-industrial lives even before the Taliban came into power. In contrast, the ideology of al-Qaeda heavily contrasted and conflicted with that of urban Iraqi Sunnis.
• The Sunnis in Iraq were afraid of a genocide should the U.S. leave prematurely, and thus were willing to work with the U.S. and the Shiites in order to fight al-Qaeda. In contrast, Pashtuns have no such worry in Afghanistan.
• The Taliban in Afghanistan is a native movement (and thus more powerful and influential), in contrast to al-Qaeda in Iraq, which was a foreign movement.

Are there any other factors that I'm missing? Futurist110 (talk) 22:35, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

The primary political powers in Afghanistan are the tribal warlords, who are loyal to clans instead of larger ethnic or religious groups. That will probably remain the case until education, health care, and family planning infrastructure is very substantially increased and opium is replaced with legal crops. Sadly foreign occupation makes slow to negative progress on these issues. My opinion is that NATO, the EU, Russia, China and India should prop up the Red Crescent with UN troops to address infrastructure first, but there's no political will for that. And they should reconstitute the Green Crescent first, because the Red Crescent is widely thought to be a NATO collaborator on the ground in Afghanistan. 75.166.207.214 (talk) 23:36, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

So you want to put in general UN troops as well as NATO, identify Red Crescent with occupying troops, and prop up a terrorist organization to achieve that? Not going to happen, dreadful idea, and no thanks to more jihadists is my opinion of al that. What is needed from an occupying force to effect change is force respect and concern, there's the force okay and a bit of concern but respect has been rather lacking till quite recently and it is hard to fix things when one starts off wrong. I'm quite hopeful they will reject the Taliban soon anyway there and in Pakistan but their only models are US forces and Sharia law. Dmcq (talk) 08:51, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

No, I want NATO out, and UN troops in, protecting decent aid workers associated with an organization which isn't useless because it has a NATO collaborator reputation, which is the main reason respect is lacking from the populace. Respect has to be mutual or it's nonexistent in short order. I want that paid for by NATO, the EU and all the rich neighbors, because it's worth it to them to eradicate opium, but the troops should be from the UN and the Red/Green Crescent workers from the neighboring Muslim regions. The Taliban gives the warlords leverage against the central puppet regime, so they aren't going anywhere until there's enough widespread infrastructure that civil society can gain a foothold over the clans. What generates more jihadists: occupying troops from Christian superpowers, or aid workers propped up by the UN long enough to give civil society a foothold? I'm not suggesting sending in the tiny minority terrorist collaborator element that got the old Green Crescent in trouble. The occupying powers have to accelerate the natural development of society, not just impose a new one from whole cloth. If they keep trying the latter, they won't do better than any of Afghanistan's other attempted occupiers. 75.166.207.214 (talk) 09:28, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Um, is this really the right place for a political discourse?Pine (talk) 10:57, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

August 12

British crown dependencies and global intercourse.

Greetings!

As of late, I've been researching the geopolitical quirks concerning Guernsey, Jersey, and the Isle of Man and their rather quaint role in international relations. Namely, I've read about when they represent themselves before organizations such as the EU, UN, WTO, and when they defer to the authority of Great Britain.

Thus far, however, I've encountered numerous (rather equivocal) claims that although they are not members of the EU, they generally apply nearly all EU laws and regulations, and also that while they are not even observers at the World Trade Organization, their status mirrors that of the U.K. All this really confuses me.

If, for instance, somebody in America or Japan wished to co-ordinate manufacturing and logistics operations in Man, how may he go about doing so apropos international trade regulations? Does America or Japan (again, for instance) recognize the Isle as a "most-favored nation?" Or—much as with Monaco and France—would they simply treat it as part of Britain for excise and duty purposes?

I apologize if this question seems akin to splitting hairs, but the wikipedia articles on both the WTO, and on each of the crown dependencies remain strangely silent (or unclear) on this matter. Pine (talk) 11:22, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Caliphate system during Rashidun Caliphate

Is there a website that shows how the caliphate system looked like in diagram during the Rashidun Caliphate's time (meaning Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman and Ali)?