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

December 23

2010 & 2000 US Census numbers

I searched the archives and could not find a definitive discussion relating to protocol on the topic, but for most cities the 2000 Census data has been replaced by the 2010 numbers. However, there are a few articles which both sets of numbers exist; on one article where I manually entered the 2010 data and deleted the outdated 2000 data, my deletion of the 2000 numbers was reverted. Has a protocol been established whether geographical articles should retain older census numbers after new data is added? It seems pointless (and clunky) to have two sections of Census data, one of which is outdated.--Chimino (talk) 01:05, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

The reference desk is not the appropriate venue to discuss policies, content or editing disputes on Wikipedia articles, and thus you should probably redirect your question elsewhere such as Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) or the appropriate WikiProject. That said, there was a centralized discussion a couple of years ago on Wikipedia:2010 US Census for updating this content, but that now seems inactive, so you you should definitely ask elsewhere. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (talk) 02:45, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Gun Control

I am researching the names of domestic and military gun/weapons manufacturers in America. Can someone please send me a list of these manufacturers, especially those who make both domestic and military weapons? Location by state would be helpful too.

Thank you, Etoile1 (talk) 04:21, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

This [1] should help you get started.Dncsky (talk) 04:28, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Photography in Tonga

When did photography first reached Tonga? When was the first photograph taken in Tonga?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 05:34, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps The Camera in the Coral Islands documents it? --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 17:06, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

No that is too late. I know of a photograph of a Tongan who died in 1862.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 20:39, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

First nations to receive the New Year

I know of the Republic of Kiribati, is there any other nation besides New Zealand or Australia? Keeeith (talk) 13:22, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Lots of them ... see our article on the International Date Line. Blueboar (talk) 14:52, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with "lots of them". According to the illustration at that link, only the Line Islands are in the GMT+14 time zone, so they will celebrate New Years before everybody else. Every point in that time zone will celebrate New Year at the same moment. How far East it is would only affect the first point to see the sun rise on the new year. StuRat (talk) 16:31, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Then we can say that Kiribati is the first country on Earth to receive the New Year? Keeeith (talk) 17:09, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually since the time zone change last year, (Western) Samoa uses UTC+14 during Daylight Saving Time and of course, they're observing DST during the New Year (I presume we're referring to the Gregorian or perhaps Julian calendar new year) so Samoa also celebrates the new year at the same time, see Time in Samoa and UTC+14. Nil Einne (talk) 17:45, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Why did so many Nazis commit suicide?

What drove them into killing themselves?. Fear?, guilt?, what? Keeeith (talk) 18:05, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

This appears to be a bad Ref Desk question. We can't ask them, so we can only speculate, and that's never good. HiLo48 (talk) 18:17, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

That's true, but it's always caught my attention as to why so many killed themselves. Keeeith (talk) 18:20, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

That's not true. It is more than possible that a historian of NSDAP mentalités or a psychohistorian could have in fact answered this question. Fifelfoo (talk) 20:21, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I'll try to answer the question. In most cases, it's so that they wouldn't get caught. Nazis like Adolf Hitler would rather die with some dignity rather than be captured, put on trial, and executed (like what Hideki Tōjō faced after the war). It's the same reason why samurai used to kill themselves when they lost their honor, or why most spree shooters kill themselves at the end of their killing spree. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 18:23, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Your answer is awesome, especially for the multiple links. Keeeith (talk) 18:25, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

One clarification... while a core group of the Nazi leadership committed suicide, the vast majority of Nazis (ie the rank and file members of the Nazi Party) did not. Blueboar (talk) 20:33, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Next time try searching the archives, this question's been asked and answered more than once, and recently. μηδείς (talk) 20:28, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it's deja vu all over again:

Timothyhere (talk · contribs)
Iowafromiowa (talk · contribs)
Keeeith (talk · contribs)

←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:24, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I have nothing to do with those users, if a block comes about because of this senseless act of intolerance, I'd be very dissapointed with Wikipedia. Keeeith (talk) 23:35, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

What's being pointed out to you is that a) the answers to a question like this should be based on what reliable sources have said and it is unlikely that there would be reliable sources - however I can see that pointing to a psychological study could be a reasonable answer. And b) the question has been asked before and it would be nice if you would check the archives for a similar question before. There is a convenient box at the top of this page to aid you in such queries. Dmcq (talk) 00:33, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Notice that the OP has been blocked as an obvious sock puppet and long term obvious ref desk troll. --Saddhiyama (talk) 00:40, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

I suppose it might be relevant to note that he threatened to become "another Adam Lanza" because of this block, although only for a minute. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:40, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

You may be interested in Mass suicide in Demmin where hundreds of Demmin residents committed mass suicide. Also see Mass suicides in 1945 Nazi Germany. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:56, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Well his questions have felt to me like the sort of thing that should worry the Department of Homeland Security. Dmcq (talk) 12:05, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Who was the second Byzantine female historian?

While reading about women in the Byzantine Empire years ago, I remember several authors saying that they were only two female writers in the history of the empire, both historians. One was Anna Comnena, of course, but I can't remember the name of the other one. I do remember that she lived cirka 800, that not much of her is known but that she is often mentioned because she is regarded to be the only female writer in the history of the Byzantine empire except the much more famous Anna Comnena. Does any one recognized this and knows who she was? Thank you--Aciram (talk) 18:59, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Irene of Athens?? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 19:10, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

There are four in Category:Byzantine women writers, the two from approximately that period being Kassia and Eudokia Makrembolitissa. Adam Bishop (talk) 19:19, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I have looked, but I clearly remember that she was neither royal nor a nun, which does not seem to fit in with those. Also, I remember the books saying something like: "Except for the work, not much is known about this female writer", which does not fit in with those either - and the work itself was, I think, very small and only significant because of her unusual position as a female writer who was neither royal nor a nun. --Aciram (talk) 20:11, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Still, I think Kassia would be the most likely canditate. In The Byzantine World Paul Stephenson writes that "In the Middle Byzantine period we have two women who wrote in their own name, the liturgical poet Kassia or Kasiane (ninth century) and the historian Anna Komnene (twelfth)." That seems to be related to the claim you remember about there being only two female authors of the Byzantine Empire. - Lindert (talk) 20:42, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Hm, when you put it like that, it does seem Kassia is the likely candidate: this phrase does remind me of what I read. When I looked at her article, she did not seem to fit in because she was a nun and because so much seem to be known about her, while I seem to remember that this writer was some one not very well known and not a nun. Still, it was a while ago I read about this, and your quote reminds me so much about the one I read that it may actually be the very same phrase. I think I must consider this to be the answer after all. Thank you very much. A minor disappointment, in some way: there seem to be no notable women in the Byzantine Empire who was not either a royal or a nun. I will read the Kassia article more carefully - if that quote is not already in there, it would fit in the article very well!--Aciram (talk) 00:02, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, for great chunks of Western history becoming a nun was the way for non-royal women to be free to pursue academic or other achievements. Even famous Saint nuns (such as St Teresa of Avila) were on record as initially choosing the convent because they were ambitious and wanted interesting opportunities. And others joined convents to escape arranged marriages. If you were a non-royal woman who was likely to become notable, you would become a nun. I would actually be surprised to find many notable non-royal, non-nun women from the period. 86.129.14.69 (talk) 20:24, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Incinerator robberies

I don't fully get why in Debden incinerator robberies and in another similar case mentioned there the participants were found guilty - since money were to be incinerated, they aren't subject of further circulation (presumably due to weariness, or even no longer represent a legal tender) and as such a person who possesses them can't be liable for theft. Brandmeister^talk 22:51, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Because the Theft Act 1968 makes no allowances for the dishonest appropriation of property which is not legal tender. (Even the lone act of replacing a price label showing a greater price on goods with one showing a lesser price can amount to theft, despite there being no physical appropriation of property and no loss sustained by the owner.) Ankh.Morpork 00:15, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

And the reason it's illegal is the same as for counterfeiting, increasing the total amount in circulation reduces the value of each unit. StuRat (talk) 23:55, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

The OP is overlooking the likelihood that these worn-out bills were replaced with others, i.e. new ones. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:53, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

I think the question being asked involves the legal technicality of whether the bills are legal tender or not. Is there a difference between the law broken in stealing legal tender currency and no-longer-legal-tender currency? Bus stop (talk) 01:16, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Even if it's monopoly money it's still theft. Theft applies even if the owner does not incurr a loss as a result of the approriation. Only a few items can't be legally stolen such a wild creatures or land in certain circumstances. Ankh.Morpork 02:35, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Although the value of the stolen objects may determine whether the crime is a felony or misdemeanor. StuRat (talk) 06:11, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Both the crime and the Acts referred to above are in the UK, where we have not had the treason/felony/misdemeanour distinction for quite a long time. AlexTiefling (talk) 08:36, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Legally stolen? Clarityfiend (talk) 19:55, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Poorly worded on my part. I meant only a few items are excluded from the Section 1 offence of theft, while the rest all fall under scope of the act. Ankh.Morpork 20:51, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Brandmeister -- speaking purely as a non-lawyer, it seems to me that they must have been guilty either of stealing money or passing off non-money as money, so there would be a crime either way... AnonMoos (talk) 02:31, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Interesting. I imagine this is why if you bring in DM coins or notes to a branch of the Bundesbank, they shred them (or place the coins between rollers which thoroughly deform them) before they leave the premises, so contractors are just handling loads of metal or shredded paper.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:42, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Overturned libel cases

The Sunday Times is suing Lance Armstrong over a lost libel action for publishing doping allegations, a claim now corroborated. What other high profile cases have there been of damages being claimed for a lost libel action subsequent to the emergence of new evidence? e.g Jeffrey Archer settled a claim for damages in 2002 after having been awarded damages in his 1987 libel case. Ankh.Morpork 23:31, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

The convoluted case of Tommy Sheridan may be relevant here; I don't know if damages were claimed against him, but he did end up imprisoned for perjury... Andrew Gray (talk) 16:56, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Convoluted indeed. A defunct newspaper, ongoing police investigations and the longest perjury trial in Scottish legal history. It seems the News of the World did appeal Sheridan's libel victory. Ankh.Morpork 17:25, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

December 24

Trying to understand treasury stock

All that I understand about treasury stock comes from the original Railroad Tycoon, so I'm trying to compare that to the real-world understanding provided by our article — specifically applied to US federal investments laws, which would be relevant to the game if it were 100% realistic. Of course I understand that many of my scenarios aren't likely to happen in real life, between SEC restrictions and the fact that you can't use the game's cheats in real life.

1. Under current US federal law, is it true that "Treasury stock has no voting rights"? Let's say that your company buys up 90% of the outstanding shares and holds them for re-sale. Does that mean that your competitor can take over your company by buying 5%+1 of the total shares? Or is the game realistic in that it's impossible to mount a hostile takeover of a company whose stock is 50%+1 held for resale in the treasury?
2. In the game, owning treasury stock will increase your total assets when the stock price rises. In real life, if your company has some treasury stock held for resale, will rising prices on the open market cause your total assets to rise, fall, or stay the same?
3. Upon purchasing stock, are companies always allowed to choose between cancelling it and holding it in the treasury for resale? Or is there a situation in which one or the other would be required?
4. Is there a legal minimum percentage or number of treasury shares that can't be repurchased? For example, in the game you can't buy back the last 10,000 shares.

Thanks for the input; I'm just having a lot of trouble understanding much of the article, including the "Accounting for treasury stock" section, and I'd appreciate someone expanding or simplifying what's in there right now. Nyttend (talk) 01:35, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

It's helpful to start with the precept that a corporation is owned by the holders of its outstanding capital stock. There typically are more shares authorized than outstanding; these may include shares authorized but unissued, shares issued by the corporation but repurchased and held in the corporation's treasury, and shares repurchased and canceled. The distinction between treasury shares and canceled shares is usually insignificant for corporate purposes, although the accounting presentation is somewhat different.

1. Corporate voting rights are determined by the jurisdiction in which the corporation is incorporated, which almost always is a state; there are only a few corporations, mainly national banks and federal savings banks, organized under federal law. However, in every jurisdiction of which I am aware, treasury shares do not have voting rights. In general, someone who acquires a majority of the outstanding shares will then have voting control of the company. A competitor may not be able to do this because of antitrust restrictions. It is also possible that the company may have antitakeover defenses to make hostile takeovers more difficult, but these generally are not dependent on the availability of treasury shares as such.
2. Increased market prices of the corporation's shares will not increase the corporation's own assets, unless it chooses to take advance of the favorable prices by selling its shares.
3. Under corporate law, corporations can choose between canceling repurchased stock and holding it in the corporation's treasury.
4. I'm not sure if there is a requirement that a corporation never repurchase all its stock, but there is no specific minimum number of shares that must remain outstanding. There are some restrictions, of which the most important is that a corporation cannot effect a repurchase that would impair its stock (i.e., it can't spend so much on the repurchase that the company is rendered insolvent). John M Baker (talk) 03:36, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Jesus and Sodom

A few months ago in my (Catholic) Religion Class, we were doing a reading activity, looking through several passages and summarizing them. I don't remember the specifics, but one of them in the Gospels had a verse where Jesus told his followers to go spread the word of God. The passage that our teacher told us to summarize was cut off short before the chapter ended, and I read the last verse and it was something along the lines of "and if they do not believe (or maybe it was "let you enter their home"), their fate will be those as Sodom." I tried looking it up (since I lost the sheet) but I surprisingly couldn't find it. Does anyone know it? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.93.61.139 (talk) 02:51, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Matthew Chapter 10. --Jayron32 02:57, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

... or Mark 6:11 or Luke 10:12 Dbfirs 10:10, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Hense Synoptic Gospels... --Jayron32 15:19, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Are you cure? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:54, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Math–verbal achievement gap

What is this sentence from the article even means: "Typically the number of Asian students taking the SAT is more than 100 percent higher than their overall numbers in the U.S. population."?184.97.227.164 (talk) 04:38, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

That is rather vague, but I take it to mean something like "If 5% of the US population is Asian, then 10% of the people taking the SAT are". StuRat (talk) 04:58, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Not only is it badly worded, but it is not supported by the source cited. The article is essay-like and probably plagiarised. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:33, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Were it supported by evidence, then a better way to make a precise statement might be: "of the students taking the SAT, the proportion [or percentage] who are Asian is more than double the Asian proportion [or percentage] in the U.S. population." Dbfirs 10:03, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Well if you guys saw there is something wrong with it then why don't you guys just fix it? It's literally takes less than 1 minute. I already fixed it anyway.184.97.240.180 (talk) 21:31, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

The same Q goes right back to you. You spotted it first, so you should fix it, as you did. StuRat (talk) 01:44, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

UN General Assembly

I heard almost all of the 205 countries speeches and one that caught my attention was the one by Anote Tong. Is there any country in the World willing to receive the inhabitants of Kiribati as climate refugees? Ukboyy (talk) 14:55, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Kiribati only has a population a bit over a hundred thousand. So, yes, it would be easy to take them in (not like if we had to evacuate China). However, if they all want to stay together, and remake some other place into "New Kiribati", that might be a bit harder, as the existing residents of the new place must either move out or become a minority. StuRat (talk) 03:18, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

That's non-responsive to an interesting question. The article on Anote Tong says: So far, however, no country has agreed to relocate substantial numbers of I-Kiribati., which answers the question up to the present time. That article also says that Tong hopes that they may become productive members of their host society, and avoid becoming merely "environmental refugees". So he doesn't want them to be received as climate refugees, but rather as ordinary immigrants. In any event, according to the article Tong is warning that his country may become uninhabitable by the 2050s, so there are several decades to go before they have to be all relocated; I kind of doubt that any countries are actually going to take anybody in that far in advance. Duoduoduo (talk) 12:22, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Question upon US presidential succession

Dear Wikipedians. I know that the following question might be unrealistic, but I asked it myself several times. Let us assume that the U.S. President becomes ill or has an accident and is at sometime decleared dead my the doctors. The message is published and the following moment the Vice President is sworn in as new president (not acting president) and immediantely assumes his duties such as making appointments and signing bills into law. Some hours later the doctors recognize that the previous President is not dead (there are people who have been decleared dead and later it turned out that this was false). What's going to happen in that case? Is the "old" president again in office or out of it. Does the former Vice President remain head of state because he took the oath and assumed presidential duties or must he step down to the Vice Presidency again?

I assume that the constitution does not have a specific answer, but does somebody know which case is likely if it comes so far? Thanks a lot in advance. --78.52.57.176 (talk) 18:00, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

If it's the VP, the Constitution is pretty clear: In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the Same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be elected. [2] I'd say "oops, not dead yet" counts as removing a Disability. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 18:20, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

However, if he was comatose, the VP would probably continue in the job until the Prez is actually able to resume the job. Lt. Governors in states sometimes take over for Governors when they're indisposed, and it's not really a big deal. It's a big deal at the national level just because it doesn't happen very often. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:52, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Really, what's at issue here is not Article Two. It's the Twenty-fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. That certainly would have been invoked if the president was so seriously ill, and so the Veep would have had the authority to sign bills, make appointments, etc. The swearing in as actual president was void as unauthorized as the president was not dead, and so that was a nullity, but his actions should be fine. However, I doubt he will ever live it down if there was the least bit of eagerness on his part.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:40, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

You mean like "as of now, I am in control here"? --Trovatore (talk) 21:40, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

From what I recall, that mocking came from only one side of the political spectrum.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:31, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Probably, but it was pretty silly. Haig had no authority to declare himself "in charge". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:29, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

OP's scenario is not far from what actually happened when Wilson had a stroke in 1919 (well prior to the 25th Amendment). In that case his wife Edith was de-facto President, which wasn't too popular - even Scott Fitzgerald called her a "female Rasputin" (Echoes of the Jazz Age). Zoonoses (talk) 05:09, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Discrimination based on sexual proclivities

Wikipedia forbids editors to identify as pedophiles and blocks editors that do so. Would a similar discriminatory practice be permitted in the workplace? Can employers discriminate based on sexual proclivities in the absence of previous criminal offences, or a credible risk posed by such sexual attractions? Ankh.Morpork 21:17, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

What jurisdiction? Most of the United States observes some modified form of the at-will doctrine, according to which employment is an arrangement between willing buyer and willing seller, and either may decline to enter that arrangement for any reason, unless specifically prohibited (race, sex, religion, color, national origin — note that "sex" here means what many nowadays unfortunately refer to as "gender"). This is not legal advice; if you are planning to discriminate against someone on the basis of sexual attraction you should consult a lawyer in your state. --Trovatore (talk) 21:24, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

I note that LGBT doesn't feature on your list, is that intentional? Ankh.Morpork 21:30, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

A majority of states do not make sexual orientation a protected category. --Trovatore (talk) 21:35, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

If you've described WP's policy accurately, I'm somewhat amused. It seems that they don't mind if an editor is a pedophile, but they object to him/her coming out and saying so. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 23:10, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

A classic Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy. This policy actually makes sense if your goal is to avoid controversy. This way, you don't end up with any known pedophiles, and it's only the known ones which cause controversy. StuRat (talk) 01:39, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Sadly, the unknown ones still cause nasty things to happen. --Jayron32 02:53, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

You can apparently be fired for being too attractive in the US state of Iowa. Dismas|^(talk) 04:54, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

You can be fired for any reason in the state of Iowa, just like in all other at-will employment states, with the exception of the aforementioned protected categories. Your hair is 4 inches instead of 3.8? You're fired. You like apples and not oranges? You're fired. --140.180.249.194 (talk) 09:30, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Reading about that situation, unbelieving the audacity of both the doctor and the supreme court, nonetheless there's probably a lot more going on there than was made public, and that guy is probably headed for eventual disaster in his marriage. Regardless, in a corporation he couldn't get away with that, no matter what state it was in, because corporate internal policy wouldn't allow it. Being a small business, he can get away with more. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:28, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Given the at-will doctrine, I'd say there's noting stopping a person or company from refusing to hire someone based on actual or perceived sexual proclivities (barring internal company policy). However, I don't assume one could back out of an already-signed contract on the grounds of such a discovery. Firing an employee on such grounds may well constitute Wrongful dismissal. If this is a practical real-life issue for you, be it as employer or employee, I'd say you should speak to an employment lawyer, as wrongful-dismissal laws may vary greatly between jurisdictions.

Also, I note that in regulated professions (medicine, psychology, nursing, etc), one's proclivities or inclinations are not generally of themselves grounds to deprive or strip someone of their registration (barring posing a risk, having broken the law, or engaging in an act of professional misconduct). Of course, this doesn't oblige an employer to hire you. You may find this article to be of relevance.

As to Wikipedia policy, I'd say it's more an issue of avoiding disruption or reputational damage to the project (which is perfectly reasonable, IMHO), rather than getting into moral judgements regarding editors' fantasies. I'd say the disruption issue is likely the bigger of the two. There's no reason we Wikipedians need to be told such details (a classical case of TMI?). Of course, if you are in fact molesting children (as opposed to merely fantasizing about it), please do tell us, so we can inform your local police department, and hopefully have you stopped. 58.111.227.60 (talk) 18:08, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

@AnkhMorpork 2nd post: Partly it's the fact that the 15th Ammendment, the 19th Ammendment and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 occurred before LGBT rights issues had been popularized. Universities and corporations have non-discrimination statements, and the ones that I've seen prohibit discrimination based on LGBT status. Other than high-profile gay marriage referenda, I don't know much about what non-discrimination laws have been passed (and resisted) since 1964.--Wikimedes (talk) 02:49, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

December 25

Early American History New York University

A few months ago, the NY Times posted an article and included a photo of a Library bldg [ I think, if memory serves me right ]. I hope it was NYU and not Harvard inter alia.

The photo showed the front steps and massive columns at the entrance. An overhead inscription, in part, read something to the effect of " ... in the province of ". The remaining portion out of the photo shot.

I wrote the NYT, asking if that building was relocated from some Canadian province originally, or was NYC originally in a province. Also, could the original photo have included the whole inscription overhead. The reply from NYT was simply that no answer was available.

Any relevant info ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve8rox (talk • contribs) 00:23, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Province of New York would likely get you started. --Jayron32 02:51, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like Low Memorial Library.--Cam (talk) 04:11, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Source for quotation

"I believe stories are written and read to rebel against the fact that you only live once." Any idea who said this? It's supposedly from an author. Dncsky (talk) 03:43, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Did you try asking The Guardian Angel - it's one of his/her favourite authors, so he/she might know. Mitch Ames (talk) 07:00, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

I'll try to message that person but I doubt they know the original source.Dncsky (talk) 07:10, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Christianity and America

If America is a secular state with separation of church and state, it doesn't have a Christian heritage, and it wasn't founded as a Christian nation, then how come the following things?

1. In the Declaration of Independence, it says, "All men are created equal. They are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights."

2. When its presidents swear into office, they hold a Bible and say "So help me God.".

3. Its motto is In God We Trust. In its money, it is written, In God We Trust.

Annihilationism (talk) 05:41, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Your 2nd assumption is wrong, it does have a Christian heritage. Also, all your examples show the belief in some God, not particularly Christianity, although I do agree that a secular state shouldn't profess a belief in God at all (and using God in the singular also exclude polytheists, like some Hindus). StuRat (talk) 06:06, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that's the Christian Bible in the example of the swearing in ceremony. HiLo48 (talk) 08:26, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Not always. John Quincy Adams, Teddy Roosevelt, and Lyndon B. Johnson didn't use a bible.Dncsky (talk) 09:53, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Why are some people here so keen to prove a non-existent point? Annihilationism mentioned the Bible. I said it was the Christian Bible. To say that some didn't use a Bible is to actually disagree with Annihilationism, not me. HiLo48 (talk) 10:04, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Annihilationism posited that the Bible is mandatory, and I proved him wrong, which in turn makes your point void. I assumed that my response to you would be read by Annihilationism as well, so there's no need for a second reply specifically addressed to him.Dncsky (talk) 11:20, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

No, it doesn't make my point void at all. HiLo48 (talk) 14:35, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

"God" is undefined. Also, "In God we trust - all others pay cash." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:17, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Annihilationism -- See Ceremonial Deism... -- AnonMoos (talk) 06:12, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

"So help me God" isn't prescribed by law. The president can say whatever they want; I see nothing that proscribes the president from ending the oath with "So help me, FSM.".Dncsky (talk) 06:54, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

You're right, there's no "So help me God" in it.[3] If they say it, that's because it's strictly a custom. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:13, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

The Declaration is not a part of the US Constitution. Also, "Creator" can be taken any number of ways. "Mother Nature", for one. And by the way, the wording is "UNalienable". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:10, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

"Creator" was chosen as opposed to "God", not as a synonym of it. This is perfectly in line with the Enlightenment belief in deism, because not all of the "founding fathers" (is there a more neutral term?) were sure they believed in the Christian deity. --140.180.249.194 (talk) 09:25, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. The Declaration of Independence is not law, as the United States Constitution is. It's not at all difficult to understand that a nation has a particular religious "heritage", but that doesn't necessarily become its law. Shadowjams (talk) 10:52, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Japanese home funerals

A few days ago, I watched the last episode of the anime Chūnibyō Demo Koi ga Shitai!. At the beginning of the episode, the main female character is mourning the death of her father. What I noticed is that the funeral took place at their house (which, in a previous episode, was revealed to have since been demolished). Since then, I have been wondering: are home funerals commonplace in Japan? I read the article on Japanese funerals way back (before watching the series, in order to understand one of my earlier questions on Japanese funerals), but it doesn't mention anything about home funerals. However, from what I've read about the topic, wakes and funerals frequently take place in temples or halls. So are home funerals common or rare in Japan?

As a side question, are home funerals common in the United States? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:44, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the US: The article Wake (ceremony) says "A wake (Irish: faire) is a ceremony associated with death. Traditionally, a wake takes place in the house of the deceased, with the body present; however, modern wakes are often performed at a funeral home. In the United States and Canada it is synonymous with a viewing." Duoduoduo (talk) 15:39, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

As for Japanese funerals, our article leaves it unclear to me as to whether the wake (viewing) is typically held at the home shrine or at a public temple. But the section Japanese funeral#Funeral implies that the norm is to hold the funeral itself at the temple. However, a February 2012 edit on the article's talk page says "The article as it stands is not very informative about the current practices, there is a desire often seen in articles about Japan to pick out a few extreme practices and emphasize those, but not to discuss the most common practices." So I don't know how much one can safely infer from this article. Duoduoduo (talk) 16:01, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

I cannot speak for Japan, though as for America: It may depend on what part of the US, but I've not heard of any home funerals occurring in my lifetime. There are funeral homes all over the place, a few going back to the 19th century. I've seen home funerals occasionally in movies, usually in not in the present day, and generally rural areas or in areas with higher Irish, Latino, or Asian populations. This New York Times article shows that this is still not the norm. This Washington Post article confirms my suspicion that most areas in the 19th and 20th century came to require funeral homes to be used for health reasons (and sometimes for the benefit of the funeral industry).

Checking with my mother, the last home funeral she went to was when she was a teenager, about 40 years ago, and in a poor town that was 20 miles away from a funeral home. She knows from her genealogical research that home funerals were pretty much the only option in the early 19th century and earlier. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:27, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Home funerals have been getting fewer in Japan. See this translated page. According to this pdf file (page 13), funeral at home was 45.2% in 1995 and 12.7% in 2007. Oda Mari (talk) 05:56, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Exactly why is the United States relatively conservative compared to European countries and Canada?

I've noticed that the United States seems to tend to lean towards conservatism while Europe and Canada seem to tend to be liberal, in both cultural and political aspects. For example, while same-sex marriage is now legal in some states, European countries legalized it first. Europeans and Canadians also tend to be more open-minded (for example, Canadians and Europeans [even the British except for some values like speed] use the metric system, they travel abroad more often than Americans, and Europe [Iceland to be precise] even has an openly gay prime minister), whereas in the United States, everyone wants to be politically correct. And let's not even get started on American exceptionalism and American xenophobia. But what are the factors as to why the United States tends to be conservative while Canada and Europe tend to be liberal? I've read articles on Wikipedia about the topic, but they don't answer the question why America seems to be more conservative than Canada or Europe. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:14, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

For a classic work, you can look at "Why is There no Socialism in the United States" by Werner Sombart. Also, in many European countries, the death penalty was abolished, the metric system adopted, currency decimalized etc. often in spite of the wishes of the majority of the population, while in the United States, the widespread public adoption of the metric system failed precisely because of public discontent -- which may make Europe more enlightened than the United States, but it doesn't seem to make it more democratic. In Germany, when the Euro was adopted and the Deutschmark abolished, this decision ignored the contrary views of a very significant proportion of the German population, probably a majority -- and it's precisely that fact which now greatly constrains Merkel's political freedom of action to implement sweeping measures in response to the situation in Greece etc... AnonMoos (talk) 12:47, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

P.S. As for traveling, if you've looked at a map, you may notice that only Canada and Mexico directly border on the U.S., and many parts of the U.S. aren't very close to either... AnonMoos (talk) 12:59, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

• And Canada borders...? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:09, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

The U.S. (or also St. Pierre and Miquelon and Greenland if you count sea boundaries). The patterns of Canadians travelling to the U.S. and Americans travelling to Canada are not going to be symmetrical, because the Canadian population is heavily-concentrated in areas within a few hundred miles of the Canada-U.S. border, while the U.S. population is not concentrated in such areas... AnonMoos (talk) 05:48, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

• Which would, theoretically, preclude Canadians from being more dominant in Europe than Americans. I generally have to travel through the US anyways when I go back home. Toronto's just too far.

As a side note, Americans seem more common than Canadians here in Indonesia, although Australians and some Europeans (French and Dutch, especially) are much more common. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:07, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to see some reference for the claim that in many European countries, the death penalty was abolished, the metric system adopted, currency decimalized against the majority opinion. Also for the claim that establishing the Euro in Germany was contrary to the views of a significant proportion of the population. Both claims sound like a pipe-dream of the British/American tabloids to me. The introduction of the Euro in Germany was never controversial enough for it to become an important issue in any elections. 81.156.176.219 (talk) 00:12, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

We've had this discussion several times before at WP:RDH, it should be possibly to dig up some older discussions. --Soman (talk) 15:41, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Re the travelling bit... As an Australian who has visited the US a few times, there's an uncomfortable recurring conversation point I've experienced while there. People discover I'm Australian (usually as soon as I open my mouth), and then say "I've always wanted to visit Australia, but it's so far away." The thought that immediately goes through my head is "Well, I've made it here. What's really stopping you?", but I've never felt confident that I could express that thought diplomatically, so I usually just change the subject, sit back, and enjoy the great hospitality. (Still confused about tipping though.) HiLo48 (talk) 16:03, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

HiLo48 -- Australia is a long way from the continental United States for a pure pleasure vacation, without definite goals. The travel times mean that a vacation of less than about five days is not too practical (i.e. it's not a weekend getaway), and if you're contemplating taking at least five days off and traveling halfway around the world, then you're probably also contemplating some alternatives -- and if you mainly want some beach/pool lounging with a little light sightseeing, then there are more accessible (and cheaper) destinations than Australia. Ditto if you're looking for some exposure to exotic cultures. Australia is also less easy to combine with other countries on the same itinerary (the way you can have a sightseeing trip which covers parts of both Germany and France, etc.). AnonMoos (talk) 00:08, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't think you have understood my point at all. HiLo48 (talk) 00:20, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

HiLo, I think I understand your point. It is true that Americans are probably less likely to leave their country than Australians. (Europeans are also likely to travel outside their countries, but that's not a fair comparison because it is easy to leave a European country by traveling a few hundred kilometers for a weekend getaway.) Probably the biggest reason is that most Americans get no more than a week or two (if that) of vacation/holidays per year. It is relatively easy for Europeans and Australians, who may get more than 4 weeks paid leave from work per year, to travel across oceans and time zones. If you get just one week of vacation, it will take you half of that week to travel to and from Australia, and you will leave long before you've escaped from brutal jet lag. I'd like to see how far you travel with a typical American job. Another factor is that, let's face it, there isn't really that much to see in Australia. The country has half a dozen cities worthy of the name. Certainly there are some beautiful natural features, but after a few years you've seen most of them. By contrast, Americans don't have to leave their country to experience a wide variety of cultural and natural regions, and there are at least a couple dozen major urban areas rich in culture and worth a visit. While I have traveled to many countries on several continents, I have been much more fortunate than most Americans in having gaps between commitments or jobs with liberal vacation allowances. Typically, when I visit another country on a quick 7-10 day trip, I run into Europeans and Australians halfway through a 6-week odyssey. Easy for them. If I did that, I'd be out of a job. Marco polo (talk) 01:20, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I could easily find some Americans who unconsciously believe that any distance leaving US is magically much larger than the distance coming to the US. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:33, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually, how far or near you are willing to travel is psychological. Objective is only the distance (x miles), but your disposition not. OsmanRF34 (talk) 03:28, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Despite claiming/trying to be a melting pot, and despite having a fair amount of diversity, much of the US is isolated from radically different cultures (I once dated a woman who had never had Mexican, Thai, German, Japanese, Arabic, or Indian food, and had no American Southern food beyond the occasional KFC or Popeyes). (I'm also amazed at how many Americans, even Southerners, have any trouble understanding Gullah). The US (being barely over two centuries old) is also only just "finishing" (as if a culture can do so and survive) developing a unique identity (though the rapidly increasing Latino and Asian populations should make things more interesting), and a lot of that is based on opposition to the left-wing ("liberal") Soviets in the 20th century, and a big (conservative) Romantic "ain't home great?" attitude in the 19th century. Europe became more left-wing and socially liberal while the US was still figuring out whether or not it was going to grant some basic human rights (c.f. Benjamin Disraeli and American Civil War). However, our right-wing politics aren't as commonly insane as other countries. The largest US Neo-Nazi party only has about 400 members (with the non-member votes maybe balancing out the guaranteed felon members lost votes), while in much smaller countries, the UK's National Front has twice that many votes, multiple Swiss groups each have at least twice that many votes, and Greece's Golden Dawn has a hundred times that many votes. The US's far-right may be equally common and crazy, but most of them pretend to be sane, totally-not-racist Republicans like Michael Bloomberg from 2001 to 2007. (Re tipping: leave the server an amount equal to 15% of the bill for acceptable service, 20% to 25% and a quick thank you note for good to great service, but really only 10% at buffets or poor service. Tip delivery but not take-out or drive-throughs. A lot of servers get paid near nothing because they get tip money, and may bring home more that way for doing a better job than not. When paying by card, it is also acceptable to write "sorry, I can't math" in the tip field and give something sorta/approximately/maybe/not close to the correct tip amount to round the total up to some nice even number. If the server takes your payment (instead of paying at the register), it is also acceptable to round up to the next highest $5, $10, or $20 (depending on how expensive the meal is) and tell the server to keep the change because "sorry, I horrible with math.") Ian.thomson (talk) 17:11, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

The United States is one of, if not the, most multicultural country in the world (Brazil has a strong claim on this too, but I can't think of any other country of any size who would otherwise). If you lump all western European nations together and still continue with the "not a melting pot" line, over 10% of Americans are foreign born and the U.S. Our article on the U.S. says "It is one of the world's most ethnically diverse and multicultural nations, the product of large-scale immigration from many countries.[6]" Shadowjams (talk) 00:13, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Of those %10 who were foreign born, how many of them are still in major port cities? The US is extremely multicultural overall, but that multiculturalism is concentrated on the edges of the country. The Midwestern United States (except Illinois, thanks to Chicago; and Michigan, thanks to Dearborn) are not especially diverse, and the northern Mountain States are also a bit isolated (though I gather it's easier to find Native Americans there than the West coast). Idaho is about as white as the insides of their potatoes. Most of the non-WASP larger populations are in the west (Asian, Latino, see San Francisco as an example), the south (Latinos, African-Americans, see Atlanta or Houston for examples), or in larger cities along the East Coast (such as New York City). The boonies in Minnesota or Nebraska? Around 90% white, give or take a few points. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:33, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Based on the info in this article (Non-Hispanic Whites), 18 out of 50 U.S. states were 80.0% or more Non-Hispanic White in 2010. This number has probably been lowered to 17 states (or even less), since Utah was just barely above 80.0% white in 2010 and that was two years ago. Even some of the other states which are above 80.0% non-Hispanic white by population are just barely above that 80.0% mark, and will fall below this mark in the next decade or two. Futurist110 (talk) 00:55, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

The west coast of New York City is the Hudson River, though I've never heard it described as a West Coast city. --Jayron32 01:39, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

D'oh! That's what I get for editing sober (and tired). Consarn egg nog didn't have any rum just because there was a Southern Baptist preacher there too. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:42, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

They say that Jewish people don't recognize the divinity of Jesus, that Protestants don't recognize the authority of the Pope, and that Baptists don't recognize each other at the liquor store. --Jayron32 01:50, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

ATTENTION ATTENTION!! Read this previous discussion: [4]. And Merry Christmas. --140.180.249.194 (talk) 21:25, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

"I don't understand why you're not more fascinated with this! I mean, we could be living next door to a murderer, Larry."

"New York is a melting pot!" Shadowjams (talk) 00:04, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Here's another link to an earlier RefDesk discussion on this topic. Marco polo (talk) 01:28, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

This would be an educated guess, but perhaps the U.S. not enduring two world wars on its territory might have something to do with it, as well as the whole concept of American exceptionalism and the stronger influence of the Religious Right here in the United States. Futurist110 (talk) 06:11, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Maybe you're unaware of some of the stuff the Germans and the Japanese were up to during WWII, including attacks not just at Pearl Harbor but also on land. Regardless, Rugged Individualism figures into it also. There's an inherent distrust of authoritarian governments or expecting someone else to fix our problems. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:23, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Where else on American soil besides Pearl Harbor did the Germans and Japanese attack? Futurist110 (talk) 20:11, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Attu and Kiska, the Oregon forests I, and the Oregon forests II. The general article is American Theater (1939-1945) (whose content would appear to be more accurately summarized by its former name "Attacks on North America during World War II")... AnonMoos (talk) 21:23, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Alright but the impact of those attacks on the U.S. wasn't anywhere near the impact of WWII (and perhaps WWI as well) on many/most European countries. Futurist110 (talk) 00:48, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

We've had quite enough wars on our soil. To say that Europe "endured" two world wars (the first of which led to the second one) suggests those wars were imposed by some external force somehow. As to the original poster's question, if you think "puritanism", it explains a great deal about the USA. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:14, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you about Puritanism. As for the wars, Europeans started them but these wars took a heavy toll on Europe to an extent that I doubt most wars on U.S. soil did. In the last 200 years, only the U.S. Civil War even comes somewhat close to the extent of the damage that WWI and WWII did on some/many European countries, and that was because Americans were fighting themselves in the U.S. Civil War. Futurist110 (talk) 11:36, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Types of criminal gangs

From my extensive knowledge of television, I have become aware of three different types of organised crime gang: the "traditional" Mafia -style mob (including Irish, Jewish, etc. mobs) like on The Sopranos, biker gangs such as the Hells Angels like on Sons of Anarchy, and street gangs like the Crips and Bloods, of the sort depicted on The Wire. I was thinking about this earlier and I got to wondering how different these organisations really are. I could tell you that Mafiosi wear suits, and bikers ride motorbikes, but does anyone know what the major differences between how these gangs work and how they're structured are? That is, if there really are major differences. --149.135.146.66 (talk) 14:50, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

This is also based on my extensive knowledge of television, but the Mafia seem to penetrate more deeply into a society than any other type of gang, and enjoy something close to social respectability in some circles. They also assassinate judges, which I think is very rare for other types of gangs. Bikie gangs typically espouse the "one-percenter" lifestyle, that is, they officially deem themselves outside the law. Not that the Mafia follow it, but they seem to try to control the law, so perhaps you could say bikies see themselves as outside the law, mafiosi as above it. IBE (talk) 16:36, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

And maybe I could add that street gangs are below it? IBE (talk) 16:45, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

books set in maine

i would like an exhuastive list of all childrens and young adult literature set entirely or partially maine (including fiction set in imaginary places in maine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.247.60.254 (talk) 20:53, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, I guess I can contribute a few books (so by no means is this exhaustive): From my own collections: the Emergency Rescue! series by James and Lois Cowan, and Santa Paws and the Christmas Storm by Kris Edwards (takes place on a fictitious island off of Maine). Also, on Google Books, I found a book called A celebration of Maine children's books; if you could get a hold of that, that would provide you with quite a few books set in Maine as well. Brambleclawx 21:38, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

We have Category:Novels set in Maine and Category:Maine in fiction. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 21:41, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

You may also wish to look at Maine#Maine in fiction. Brambleclawx 21:43, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Practically anything Stephen King writes. 216.93.234.239 (talk) 23:51, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't classify him as a children's writer. Young adult is closer, but he's still probably not what the OP is looking for. Matt Deres (talk) 21:40, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

December 26

Mecca, California Muslim populated place before

Is this true that Mecca, California used to have Arab-speaking Muslims? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donmust90 (talk • contribs) 00:04, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

The United States is a diverse country, and Southern California is among the most diverse of areas. I would not be surprised to find at least one Arabic-speaking Muslim in any community there. I have no data one way or the other, but it would not be a surprising thing either. --Jayron32 00:11, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't seem like it from the article, unless Hi Jolly wandered through... AnonMoos (talk) 00:16, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Mahomet, Illinois is indirectly named for Muhammed, but it was never a Muslim community. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:55, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Contrawise, Arabs and Arab-Americans are the largest single ethnic group in Dearborn, Michigan, though the person it was named for has no connection to Islam or Arabs in any way that I know. --Jayron32 01:08, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

The reason I asked that because one Muslim scholar said that Mecca, California was founded by Arab Muslims and made relics in that city and still today the relics still there. [video clip]. --Donmust90 (talk) 20:42, 26 December 2012 (UTC)Donmust90

In the past, a lot of small towns in the United States were given "exotic" names from ancient or medieval history, or from news reports or traveller's accounts of far-distant regions (Troy, New York; Memphis, Tennessee; Pekin, Illinois etc. etc.), and some of these inevitably touched on Arab/Islamic history (Cairo, Illinois; Elkader, Iowa etc.), but generally without any actual Arab or Muslim presence on the scene involved or implied. I hope this scholar is not one of the same ones who claims that many pre-Columbian Indians were Muslims!... -- AnonMoos (talk) 21:35, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Relationships in society

Why has society evolved to make relationships almost compulsory? I.e. single men and women are often asked why they are? This seems to be especially true in the younger generations. 176.27.208.210 (talk) 02:40, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Because societies that encourage controlled breeding are beyond "more likely" to survive than those that do not. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:44, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

This is arguably less true than it was in the past, when not just "relationships" but marriage and raising a family was the overwhelming norm. But while I wouldn't entirely disagree with Ian Thomson's suggestion, I would put the answer at a more fundamental biological level than a societal level: we are evolved to breed, and to form emotional attachments in order to breed, so those who don't are strange. --ColinFine (talk) 12:10, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I must admit I don't see how we can really answer this except with loads of speculation, but one thing I would suggest is that very few single people have had no desire in their lives, perhaps none. The implication is that they have had the same longings as others, but something hasn't quite worked out for them. That doesn't answer the fundamental question of the existence of these desires, but the answers above seem to suffice. I would agree with Colin, except that "strange" is too strong - it's more that they are not strange, hence perhaps just unlucky. As a single person myself, I can assure you sometimes it is just as much about time and energy. Reading a book or watching tv gives more certain reward than trying to meet someone. IBE (talk) 13:02, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Because of an underemphasis on vocations and discerning which one is right for you personally... ;) 86.129.14.69 (talk) 18:30, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Refusing Middle East oil

I was discussing with someone on the recent problems with Middle Eastern terrorism, and we contemplated this: Say that the Western countries (i.e. the Americas) refuse to buy Middle Eastern oil in protest of Islamic extremism, terrorism, human rights violations, etc. (and perhaps some European countries join in).

Two questions:

1. Would this act of protest cause any harm (financial, civil unrest) among the , that may perhaps "threaten to change their ways?"
2. Could the West (and Europe?) survive on the oil available in the Americas?

Thanks! 174.93.61.139 (talk) 02:47, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

This is pretty much what we're doing now, in the case of Iran. To answer your Q's:

1) Yes, it would cause massive harm to Middle-East economies.

2) Yes, it would cause massive harm to Western economies.

Unfortunately, one of the nations in the Americas which produces the most oil is Venezuela, and their current leader, Hugo Chavez, is an ally of Iran and any other oppressive dictatorship he can find. StuRat (talk) 03:14, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Please do not use the Reference Desk for soapboxing. --ColinFine (talk) 12:12, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't seem like soapboxing to me, just a statement of facts.

The reason the embargo on Iran is reasonably successful is that the US is threatening to impose sanctions on any country that trades with Iran. It would be difficult to do this with the entire Middle East. Probably they'd sell much of the excess to China, who continues to trade with Iran (it is difficult to impose sanctions on a nation to whom you are in serious debt).--Wehwalt (talk) 11:33, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Being indebted with someone doesn't mean he has power over you, quite in contrary, you have power upon him. OsmanRF34 (talk) 13:21, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Defaulting on debt for political reasons wouldn't increase confidence in the dollar or US government bonds.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:24, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Saudi Arabian and Kuwait produce lots of oil consumed on the West. Not buying it anymore would be a huge disruption towards all. However, if you decide to buy elsewhere, Canada, and the UK also have lots of oil. Australia is relatively independent. And Libya (that's not Middle East, right?) also has oil. The same applies to Angola.

It would be a huge blow, but similar to any war, governments should be prepared to this. OsmanRF34 (talk) 03:25, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

According to our article Petroleum, of the top 15 oil exporters (who account for the vast bulk of exports), exporters outside of the Middle East and North Africa export about 18.2 million barrels per day. Meanwhile, according to the US Energy Information Administration, North America and Europe alone import 21.5 million barrels per day. That's not even including Japan or South Korea, both of which are big oil importers, or other oil-importing countries. So, the answer is, no there is not enough oil being produced outside the Middle East, broadly defined, to meet the needs of the West. The result of cutting oil consumption to the level of available supplies (outside the Middle East) would be to ration those supplies, either by government fiat or through a price for non-Middle Eastern oil significantly higher than that for Middle Eastern oil. Either way, both production and consumption of all products in the West would have to fall, as would the GDPs and living standards of Western countries. Middle Eastern countries would see a drop in the price of their oil, with some harm to their economies, but at the resulting lower price, demand from importers such as China would probably rise, and the price of Chinese products would fall, further damaging the economies of the West, as Western products would lose competitiveness against products from countries with a lower energy price. Marco polo (talk) 17:53, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

We have an article on what happened last time the Arabian oil supply was stopped: 1970s energy crisis. -- 20:24, 26 December 2012‎ TammyMoet

Many who were around during that time remember it as the first time that Saudi Arabia stabbed the U.S. in the back. In any case, for a variety of reasons, the effects of a mid-east oil stoppage would be rather different now than in 1973... AnonMoos (talk) 20:40, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Anti-German Jewish violence

Was there shortly after the end of WWII any violence from Jewish against Germans? OsmanRF34 (talk) 03:19, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

For some examples see Nakam. Gandalf61 (talk) 05:32, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Name of a young Jewish assassin prior to World War II?

What's the name of that boy who assassinated a top Nazi official and from there on, the persecution of Jews got even worse.? Ukboyy (talk) 11:16, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

You're talking about Herschel Grynszpan, right?--Wehwalt (talk) 11:21, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

He certainly mucked things up, eh? It's like the countless terrorist acts committed by Palestinian extremists which make it difficult for law-abiding Palestinians to gain credibility. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:21, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Whatever facile similarities may appear valid to User:Baseball_Bugs, a Ref Desk Regular, in this specious, gratuitous and invidious comparison, it has a fundamental flaw. The latter-day Palestinian Arabs have been and are subjected by the sovereign Israeli administrations (governmental and military) to serious, en masse restrictions of their civil and human rights, due to a perceived security threat based on many terrorist (i.e. targeting civilians) attacks by Palestinian Arab militants, their organizations' as well as elected Palestinian Arab leaders' oft-repeated threats to destroy Israel and its people, and denying the Jews a right to national identity (ignoring two-thousand continuous years of Jewish Diaspora institutions) and hegemony (granted by world powers in the manner accepted at the time). Now compare this to the Nazi regime's restrictions of Jews' civil and human rights, even prior to the assassination of Ernst vom Rath, based on the Nazi doctrine alleging that the Jews were an economic and racial threat to the German people. The Nazis' response to the particular assassination is arguably the Kristallnacht pogroms, while the Holocaust is more likely attributable to comprehensive policies such as the Final Solution. -- Deborahjay (talk) 06:08, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

The OP's premise was that the presumably well-intentioned assassination by this one Jew only made things worse for the Jews. And the presumably well-intentioned terrorist acts of a number of Palestinian extremists have only made things worse for the Palestinians, as per the examples you've provided above. That's not to compare Nazi Germany with Israel, by any means - only to point out the actions of extremists can result in large-scale restrictions, and worse, against the people associated with those extremists. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:29, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

That's it! Thank you! Ukboyy (talk) 11:25, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

No problem.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:28, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Queer nationalism

I'm gay and would like to know if there has ever been a proposal or something like that to create a safe country for gay people. And I mean it seriously, not like the Kingdom in Northeastern Australia. Thank you. Ukboyy (talk) 14:15, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

That general idea has certainly been kicked around by right-wing types, as recently as this past election season. The problem likely would be to find a large, usable yet uninhabited land. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:18, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

But I'm not of a right-wing. However, I'd support a Nation for the gay people, it would help thousands of gays suffering from government persecution. Let's say, all Iranian gays could travel there and settle down. Ukboyy (talk) 14:28, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

How much land area would be needed? Assuming you're starting with nothing, what would you all do to build up an economy? What would you do for a living? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:30, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't know how much land, but as for the jobs we can borrow money and create jobs. Ukboyy (talk) 14:37, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

First you have to convince someone to lend you money. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:39, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Easy, we lend our land to U.S. military bases, and the first factory we open up would be related to military weapons, and all related to that stuff, so we have Israel in as well. Ukboyy (talk) 14:48, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

It would be a funny kind of country, in that the majority of children of gays would presumably not be gay, so it's not entirely clear what the long-term basis would be. Past attempts to create new countries for ethnic/religious/ideological groups with a widely dispersed population (i.e. without a concentrated territorial core) have not been too successful (to start with, there are no "large, usable yet uninhabited lands"); you can see the failure of past attempts to found libertarian islands at Micronation#History during 1960 to 1980 and Micronation#New-country projects. In fact, the only such attempt which has produced a formal nation with flags, military, embassies, United Nations membership etc. is Israel. While Israel is rather successful in its own way, I doubt that it offers a very useful model for gay nationhood. AnonMoos (talk) 14:54, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

There are gay villages, but I doubt a gay country would be possible, for the reasons explained above. I also doubt that gays want to cut any tight to the non-gay world or that modern western societies are dangerous to them. OsmanRF34 (talk) 15:11, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Gay families don't spontaneously get children, so you could adopt people 18+ who are definitely gay. What would be interesting with this scheme is then everyone who enters the country could literally sign a social contract (they are old enough and wouldn't have been born into it) - the social contract would be real, signed by people who are of age to sign a contract. It wouldn't be this philosophical thing. In that country state tyranny would literally be impossible to keep up for more than a generation; the only way to get into the country is to vote for it. 178.48.114.143 (talk) 15:52, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

There are plenty of issues, but economics trumps everything else, so you have to have a "business plan". The OP has the start of one, but it would have to be studied and discussed a great deal. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:24, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, the Kinsey Reports estimate that about 8% of the population is mainly homosexual (averaging their findings for males and females). Assuming that this holds true cross-culturally, then there about 560 million homosexuals or children who will become homosexual in the world, of whom let's say 350 million are adults. Let's say only one quarter of these people want to migrate to the gay nation. That's still 87.5 million people, more people than live in Germany. So you'd need an area of land able to support close to 100 million people. As Baseball Bugs says, something like a business plan would be crucial. I think most gay people in Western countries are probably content to stay put where they are. There is still discrimination, but it is steadily declining, and it is not so difficult to live a happy and successful life as an open homosexual in much of North America, Western and Central Europe, Australia, and New Zealand. Conditions are also steadily improving in much of China (which counts for so much of the world's population). So the population of a gay nation would be likely to come largely from South Asia and Africa (due to those regions' large populations and repressive societies), with smaller percentages coming from other parts of Asia and Latin America. The more skilled a person is, probably the more successful and established that person already is in his or her home country and therefore less likely to want to migrate. So you are likely to end up with a population of poor, relatively unskilled people, or people whose skills mainly have to do with manual labor or agriculture. Such a country would be likely to have a relatively low standard of living, and a relatively large part of the population would need to be engaged in agriculture due to the lack of capital and technological skills. That means you'd need lots of land to support maybe 50 million peasant farmers. You'd need a country midway in size between Myanmar and Pakistan, with a corresponding level of development. Can you think of any area of the world that size that has fertile agricultural land and whose population would be willing to evacuate that land to make room for a gay nation? Marco polo (talk) 17:35, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

The Kinsey report "10%" figure has been highly disputed continuously for almost the last 65 years. To cut endless reams of discussion very short, if it has some validity, it would appear to be more inclusive of bisexual and opportunistically flexible males, rather than including only those males who are exclusively or predominantly gay... AnonMoos (talk) 17:47, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Even if it were only 1 percent globally, we're talking an order of magnitude of over 50 million, which is not small, and even a small fraction of that figure would present significant problems to be overcome, none of which has anything to do with sexual orientation. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:32, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I think you should narrow down your question, and that might provide your answer. Obviously many, by now I would honestly say most, people want the U.S. to be a safe country for gay people. Then again, we know there will always be crime, even crime motivated by hatred. But would your hypothetical country have no crime? You say that it would be a country for gay people, but would heterosexuals be allowed in? Would residents be allowed to participate in perverse heterosexual acts should the urge take them? Would there be a plan to crack down on heterosexuals to keep them from breeding like Albanians in Kosovo? Or would your country end up eventually with a heterosexual majority? Wnt (talk) 20:15, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Uh...how can gay people engage in perverse heterosexual acts? Do you mean sex between the inhabitants and visiting women? --140.180.249.194 (talk) 23:36, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps a gay region within another nation might be more practical. Let's say a large nation which still discriminates against homosexuals wants to get rid of them, but aren't so brutal as to kill them. They might be willing to allocate a region and send them there. This could also work if they have an uninhabited land they want to develop. For example, if Denmark was less progressive, they might have shipped homosexuals to Greenland to help populate it. Or perhaps England could have shipped homosexuals to Australia. StuRat (talk) 20:25, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

No need; we grow our own. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 20:29, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

There's always Birobidzhan... -- AnonMoos (talk) 20:45, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Queerobidzhan for the gay enclave? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 20:55, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

@Bugs, it would be helpful if you would actually name these right wing types you mention advocating gay homelands. Such a comment is absurd on the face of it, unless you mean Nazi's or people who troll the comments of news articles. Care to provide any sources? μηδείς (talk) 21:04, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm talking specifically about the guy (a preacher, yet) who said we should build a big enclosure and put all the gays in it. But if you were to pose the idea of getting all the gays out of America and into their own country, I am sure you'd see a hip-hip-hurray on the part of America's bigots - as long as they didn't also have to pay for it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:25, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Bugs is talking about the Right Reverend Charles Worsley. 216.93.234.239 (talk) 23:56, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

This is not specifically for gay people, but I propose Mars, specifically the Mars One expedition. They don't want astronauts having babies (not enough room or resources), but they also don't want astronauts to be sexually frustrated, so gays would be perfect. Also, literally all the land in the world is unused and unclaimed, and Mars' surface area is similar to Earth's land surface area. --140.180.249.194 (talk) 23:36, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

The Rev's the best you've got as a "right winger"? he wouldn't last two minutes under the Taliban, now woould he? Or are they left wing? I am confused... μηδείς (talk) 02:20, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

And that's the response of someone proven wrong by the facts. I suppose there's no true Scotsman... --140.180.249.194 (talk) 02:26, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

NO, when Bugs says "as recently as this past election season" then I am expecting him to be talking about some actual political candidate or office-holder, not some quack preacher who speaks for no one but himself. μηδείς (talk) 22:27, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

The idea in general sounds like the way Liberia originated. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:56, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

It should be transparently obvious that the vast majority of those advocating such a strategy, not being gay themselves, are proposing it in order to make (the rest of) their own countries 'safe' from LGBT people, rather than for them. (I leave aside the declining numbers of actual radical queer separatists.) AnonMoos' reference to the Jewish Autonomous Oblast is entirely justified: it is a textbook example of giving people 'their own land' in order to deport them. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:01, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Declining numbers was my first thought. I wonder if the number of inhabitants interested in adopting, or in either natural or artificial insemination (for women), would be capable of sustaining the (gay) population, especially since, I would guess that 90 percent of offspring would not be gay. I suppose you could use immigration and forced emigration to maintain the status quo, but I would imagine there would be a number of civil rights issues ...--Wehwalt (talk) 11:27, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

In that respect it would be like polygamous Mormon communities, where they inevitably end up with an excess of men and lack of women, so must force most of the men to leave and perhaps entice more women to join. Then there are communities with no sex, like the Shakers, although that doesn't seem to have worked out so well for them. StuRat (talk) 18:02, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

How to rent land out for wind farms

Hello, everyone. I have inherited some land which could be used to build a small to medium wind farm. According to wind maps of my region, the area is quite windy. I'd like to rent this land out to an utilities company for them to build the wind farm and pay me a monthly sum for it, but I have no idea what my next steps should be. Should I contact the utilities companies directly? Should I look for a middleman? What else should I keep in mind? Thank you very much for your help and a belated Merry Christmas to all! Peterinthepark (talk) 14:31, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, the Refdesk can't give you advice, especially not legal advice. If you can ask a question about facts (i.e. what the terms are for most such deals) then people might answer you. Wnt (talk) 20:10, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

One thing to keep in mind is that the neighbors may not appreciate those windmills. They can be noisy and an eyesore. And, depending on the zoning in the area, you may not be allowed to place them there. StuRat (talk) 20:13, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

is this in the public domain - film "Cohen's Advertising Scheme" (1904). where can I watch it?

is this in the public domain - film "Cohen's Advertising Scheme" (1904). where can I watch it? 178.48.114.143 (talk) 15:37, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

It's almost certainly in the public domain in the U.S., but it doesn't appear to be on "archive.org", so you may be out of luck viewing it on line. One company offers a DVD for $36... AnonMoos (talk) 17:38, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

It's not possible that any company offers it for $36 as without legal protection if there were even a single buyer, someone would undercut the $36 company by selling it for $35 which is an instant $32 for free for the company (approximately $500/hr). You are basically saying "no one would work for $500/hr" but I think a lot of people would disagree. Naturally the $35 company could be undercut as well, but I am saying that it is a mathematical impossibility that what you say is true - that this is an actual price that is quoted. Just think about it. 178.48.114.143 (talk) 18:06, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

On reflection...are you sure they didn't acquire the copyrights in some foreign market like Chile or something where it is still under copyirght, and are selling the actual film? (i.e. ownership of it). Then the price would make sense. 178.48.114.143 (talk) 18:08, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I only reported what I was able to find through a little Google searching. The $36 DVD company appears to be heavily oriented toward the educational market. IMDB doesn't show any DVD links, so I doubt it's available through Amazon... AnonMoos (talk) 18:15, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea where 178.48 got these numbers. OsmanRF34 (talk) 21:54, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I think you're overestimating the importance of Intellectual property laws and copyright in this case. In practice, the company AnonMoos found probably reason that customers aren't paying $36 for the right to see/own the film, as much as they're paying it so that they actually can see the film at all. Just because something is in the public domain, doesn't make it universally available, and perhaps $36 is a decent price to get hold of a copy of an otherwise difficult to find film (in the public domain or not). The OP, for example, doesn't have a copy of the film, and might be willing to pay for one. How would your (178) hypothetical undercut buyer/reseller organize their marketing, infrastructure, logistics etc? You may not be completely wrong, but to claim "mathematical impossibility" is a serious overstatement. For all we know, there could be 50 companies out there trying to sell it for $35, or $5, after having bought it from the $36 source, but since AnonMoos didn't find them, they are not selling any copies, making a total of $0./Coffeeshivers (talk) 20:30, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

The OP is apparently the one saying it's not possible to sell it at the price so I'm not sure the plan to buy it. If they do I guess they plan to release it. However I do agree they're overestimating the importance of IP here and how easy it will be for them to undercut the company selling it at $36. Sure people like the OP may buy it from the OP, but the company most likely isn't operating primarily to serve people like the OP. Nil Einne (talk) 12:09, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

It's in the public domain. Interestingly, the copyright claimant was a certain Thomas A. Edison (see this, page 12]). Zoonoses (talk) 02:26, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Did the USSR support any rightwing Anti-American governments or movements?

It seems like the USA had more diplomatic flexibility during the Cold War. It could support and make deals with everything from Feudal Arab Sheikdoms, to Fascist Spain and Chile, to Leninist Yugoslavia and China, to Social Democratic Western Europe. The USSR on the other hand seemed boxed into the ideological straightjacket of only supporting fellow Leninist movements, or Third World Left-Nationalists. It doesn't seem like the USSR had as much flexibility in maneuver. There was no phenomenom of anti-American capitalists as there was of anti-Soviet socialists.

So I was wondering if there was any exception to this rule. Of rightwing regimes, who out of realpolitik sided with the USSR against the USA?

--Gary123 (talk) 20:46, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Not sure what you would consider "rightwing" but India under the Congress party found itself loosely aligned with the Soviet Union without any intention of becoming communist itself. In the horn of Africa region, the Soviet and U.S. alliances with Ethiopia vs. Somalia switched back and forth at least once. AnonMoos (talk) 21:09, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Soviet Empire#Soviet involvement in the Third World lists some non-communist pro-Soviet governments. 81.98.43.107 (talk) 17:55, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I think Soviet foreign policy was quite flexible, and Soviet official discourse was quite flexible with finding a progressive silver lining with any state having good relations with them. Also, do remember that the USSR was the first "Western" state to initiate formal bilateral relations with Saudi Arabia. Nepal in early 1960s is an another interesting case, not really "supported" by USSR but the Soviets did instruct the Nepalese communists to support the right-wing monarchy (which kept Nepal in the Indian sphere of influence, as opposed to being close to China). There were also dealings between the USSR and right-wing regimes in Argentina and Morocco, notably putting local communists in a odd position. --Soman (talk) 20:54, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

It is absolutely wrong to think the Soviet Union was purely ideological in its foreign policy during the Cold War. Like the democratic United States, the Communist Soviet Union also adopted a flexible and opportunistic foreign policy for the purpose of curbing opponent's influence. It supported and funded tons of far right movements throughout the Western world. For example, the Socialist Reich Party, a neo-Nazi political party in the West Germany, received financial help from the Soviet government. [5] Interestingly, the Soviets did not help their ideological allies, the Communist Party of Germany, because they had very limited influence compared to the Socialist Reich Party. After the Slánský trial, the neo-Nazi writer Francis Parker Yockey viewed Soviet Union as the potential leader of a possible anti-Semitic Europe. The National Renaissance Party (United States), for example, was allied with the Soviet Union due the antisemitism they both shared. [6] --PlanetEditor (talk) 04:19, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I heard that the USSR initially supported Chiang Kai-shek in the Chinese Civil War. Chiang Kai-shek wasn't anti-American, but he wasn't left wing or Communist either. Futurist110 (talk) 08:16, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

December 27

Source for reference to communication units numbered 47 in 36 Dywizja Piechoty (II RP)?

In the Polish Wikipedia article 36 Dywizja Piechoty (II RP) which specific title in the article's bibliography makes reference to the these units?

-Pluton Łączności KG nr 47 (6 btelegr w Jarosławiu)

-Kompania Telefoniczna nr 47 (6 btelegr w Jarosławiu)

-Drużyna Parkowa Łączności nr 47 (6 btelegr w Jarosławiu)

Regards Chris70.75.172.170 (talk) 06:10, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Question About David Allen's GTD Process

If this flow chart (which is the one that's really in his book) is a representative description of the process, when do things that take more than two minutes (that you can't delegate or defer) actually get worked on? 20.137.2.50 (talk) 18:06, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

From what my husband's just been telling me, on the 27th December...! --TammyMoet (talk) 18:22, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Look, Tammy, when a man says he's going to get something done, he means it. You don't have to remind him about it every six months.  :) -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 19:48, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Stock answer when you get nagged: "It's on my to-do list!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:54, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Well fancy that. Assuming that because I'm speaking about my husband that I must be nagging him to do something. Tsk Tsk. What he actually told me was that, because he was in work yesterday at a time when most others were on holiday, he found he could get all sorts of things done without interruption and could cross stuff off his to-do list. Hence my answer. --TammyMoet (talk) 10:03, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

December 28

External Links for Historical Race and Ethnicity Data from Various Countries

For this Wikipedia article of mine (Race and ethnicity in censuses) I have added some useful external sources (in the "External Links" section) showing historical race and ethnicity data for various countries. However, I am obviously missing a lot of countries and I don't know how to navigate the statistical websites of many countries. Therefore, if someone is able to find historical race and ethnicity data for countries other than the ones I just added, please let me know and I'll add them (or you can add them to that Wikipedia article yourself if you want to). Thank you very much. Futurist110 (talk) 01:36, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Anyone? Futurist110 (talk) 21:29, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

You have already included information from my country, Australia. I tidied it up a bit. Be aware that in some cultures, to some extent even mine, your asking about racial data can be interpreted as a sign of an unhealthy obsession with race, something people in other countries see as a problem in places like the USA. As you had already identified, in Australia, the information collected changed from "official" classifications of race to self identified declarations of ethnic background, a very different thing. Many people (and countries) just don't care what "race" you are. HiLo48 (talk) 22:23, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I should have been clearer in my question. I apologize. By historical data for race and ethnicity in this specific question, I meant data such as the one in my link for the United States which states that the U.S. had 9,827,763 black residents in 1910 comprising 10.7% of the total U.S. population that year. The sources for Australia simply say which years Australia enumerated people by race and/or ethnicity, but don't give exact numbers of percentages for the various races and/or ethnicities like my links for the U.S. and some other countries in the "External Links" section do. I'm aware that race and/or ethnicity are sensitive issues in many countries, which is why some countries don't enumerate people by race and/or ethnicity. This is also why I try to be very cautious in discussing things like race and ethnicity as to avoid offending anyone. That said, personally I find historical race and ethnicity data to be an interesting topic, since I am interested in demographics, including historical demographics. Futurist110 (talk) 23:22, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

A simple question for Futurist110: do you understand the difference between 'race' and 'ethnicity'? From the article, it appears that you don't. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:39, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Race is often more focused on heritable phenotypic characteristics (physical appearance), while ethnicity is often (though not always) focused more on other things, like language and culture. However, some people use the two terms interchangeably, and both of these things are used to classify people into various groups based on specific traits which don't pertain to gender, age, place of residence, or citizenship. Futurist110 (talk) 23:22, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any confusion in the article between race and ethnicity. Note that sometimes questionaires combine them into race/ethnicity categories. Please remember to criticize (and improve) the article, rather than criticizing the good-faith editor. Duoduoduo (talk) 23:06, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much for defending me, Duoduoduo. Futurist110 (talk) 23:22, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm still not convinced that you have understood my point. There has never been any international standard definition of race, and it has virtually no meaning at all now (or many meanings to many people). And to even equate race and ethnicity at all is quite offensive to some people. That you emphasised the American way of doing things in your response to me still worries me a lot. It suggests that while creating a seemingly global article, you're not taking a global view at all. HiLo48 (talk) 23:38, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

If you want to try improving this article, please be my guest. And Yes, I'm aware that different counties have different definitions of race. What I said in my response to you is true--if a country collects data for race, it should have this information available somewhere to people who want to look at it. In my article, I even have this statement, which I had before as well: "Different countries have different classifications and census options for race and ethnicity/nationality which are not comparable with data from other countries." Futurist110 (talk) 00:56, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

My ethnicity is western European and my race is white. I don't know if that fits any international standards, but that's the way it is. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:27, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

If you don't mind me asking, which Western European exactly? Futurist110 (talk) 03:30, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

My race is human. HiLo48 (talk) 03:38, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Human isn't a race, it's a species. It is quite offensive to me for you to compare the two. Futurist110 (talk) 04:28, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

At which point, since it is self-evident that Futurist110 doesn't understand the subject matter, the only decent course here is to suggest a voluntary withdrawal from the subject matter, before it becomes necessary to make it obligatory. Futurist110, if you are actually 'offended' by HiLo48 asserting the overwhelming scientific consensus, I suggest you find another forum to promote your ignorance. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:23, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Wow, you completely missed the point of everything I said and meant. Congratulations. I know that there is no scientific basis to human races. And also, please stop being so harsh and aggressive towards me. Thank you. Futurist110 (talk) 08:58, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

And there you have it. "I know that there is no scientific basis to human races" - but you have created an article with a title that implies exactly that - and when asked earlier if you understood the difference between 'ethnicity' and 'race', you asserted that "Race is often more focused on heritable phenotypic characteristics (physical appearance)" - a statement entirely at odds with the 'social construct' model of race that much of academia now holds. The list is inherently POV in its conception (conflating two different concepts), flawed in its execution, and quite possibly shouldn't be included in Wikipedia at all. I may well nominate it for deletion on the grounds that a 'list' is inherently inappropriate for subject matter where the existence of (part of) the subject in the first place is contested, the definitions used incompatible, and the data (if that is what it is) lacking entirely for much of the potential entries. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:56, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

There is no scientific basis to race, but it does have social and cultural importance in some countries. Heritable phenotypic characteristics are used to determine race in some countries. Where exactly in that article did I imply that race has a scientific basis to it? The title simply talked about countries enumerating people by race and ethnicity--it said nothing about science. And again, hate it break it to you, but some people and countries do have some overlap between race and ethnicity. For instance, in the Ethnic groups in the United Kingdom article, it says that "The 2001 UK Census classified ethnicity into several groups: White, Black, Asian, Mixed, Chinese and Other." The U.S. has racial categories of White, Black, Asian, Mixed/Multiracial, and Other in its censuses. Also, I want to point out that we already have Wikipedia articles on race and/or ethnicity in some countries, such as the U.K., U.S., Brazil, Colombia, and maybe some other countries. Futurist110 (talk) 21:21, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Some countries ask about the person's race on their census form. If anyone is using a meaningless concept, it is those countries, not the article that reports what they do. Likewise, some countries conflate race and ethnicity on their forms. If anyone is conflating two different concepts, it is those countries, not the article that reports what they do. Wikipedia readers who are interested have a right to come to Wikipedia and find out what countries do. And Andy, someone who says "I suggest you find another forum to promote your ignorance" is more likely to encounter an "obligatory" "withdrawal from the subject matter". Stop the personal attacks. Duoduoduo (talk) 14:19, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Duoduoduo. I second everything that you said. Futurist110 (talk) 21:21, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Purchasing power of the Weregild?

I can't make any sense of the prices contained in the article weregild (the payment or fee legally required as compensation for killing someone) ... so a rich noble could have legally killed a Mercian king he didn't like if he just paid a weregild of 30000 shillings? How much of an army could 30000 shillings buy in the 9th century? 76.23.194.179 (talk) 03:23, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it's supposed to be premeditated like that. Compare it with the lawsuit awards corporations have to pay families of victims they kill through negligence, which averages somewhere around $1.3 million in the US. But, if a corporation put out a hit on somebody, there would be jail time. StuRat (talk) 03:27, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

The answer is nothing, since the Shilling (English coin) didn't exist until the 15th century. The most common small silver coin in the Anglo-Saxon period was the Sceat, which was roughly 1 gram of silver. One gram of silver is about $US1.00 today, but purchasing power is much trickier to calculate, since people do very different things with money today than they did back then. For example, though $30,000 is probably an average salary for one person for one year, a similar amount of silver 1200 years ago may have been more than a person could hope to make in a lifetime. Still looking for more info. --Jayron32 03:35, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

That's a different kind of shilling. They certainly had shillings in the Anglo-Saxon period too. In any case, the article doesn't give a citation for the amount of 30 000, but I'm sure it's meant as a prohibitively, maybe impossibly large number. And in practical terms, there was also no way you'd simply get away with killing a king even if you did happen to have an extra 30 000 shillings lying around. Adam Bishop (talk) 12:49, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

According to our article Shilling, a shilling in Anglo-Saxon times was equal to the value of a sheep. By the high Middle Ages, according to this site, a sheep was worth 1s 5d. Meanwhile, according to the same site, a laborer was paid £2 per year (or not quite 2d per work day), while a weaver was paid 5d per day, or roughly £6 10d per year. Now, applying math to the figures from this source, in the high middle ages, 30,000 sheep would have cost £2,125. That amount would have equaled the annual wages of 1,063 laborers or 352 weavers. Another way to look at it is to consider that in Anglo-Saxon times, wages for laborers were unusual, since most labor was performed somewhat involuntarily by serfs. Typically, serfs turned over around 40% of what they produced to their lord and lived on the remaining 60%. That 60% would have been about equal in purchasing power to a laborer's wage. The annual livelihoods of 1,063 serfs would have been equal to the fees paid by 1,595 serfs, or roughly the yield a lord might expect from a 50 square mile territory of fertile agricultural land. Marco polo (talk) 16:43, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry that I didn't answer your question about an army. According to the same site for the high Middle Ages (and assuming that relative prices were similar a few centuries earlier in Anglo-Saxon times), £2,125 would have paid for about 700 Welsh infantrymen for a year. Or, it would have paid for 233 mounted archers. Or, it would have paid for 59 knights. Or, if you wanted an assortment of soldiers, this amount would have paid for 10 knights, 50 mounted archers, and 430 Welsh infantrymen for one year. Marco polo (talk) 01:55, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Wow thanks! 76.23.194.179 (talk) 03:29, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Although Anglo-Saxon kings didn't actually pay for their armies, their subordinates were simply required to provide armed men when called upon; a system known as the Fyrd. Alansplodge (talk) 23:44, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Ruling that America is Christian

Possibly sock of a blocked user. Either way it's been asked and answered. Shadowjams (talk) 23:18, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I've heard that the American supreme court has ruled that America is a Christian country. Is that true? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.238.34.235 (talk) 03:43, 28 December 2012 (UTC) No. --Jayron32 03:45, 28 December 2012 (UTC) Do you know which ruling you're thinking about? The year of the ruling, for instance? Some of the details? Futurist110 (talk) 04:58, 28 December 2012 (UTC) Searching American supreme court has ruled that America is a Christian country yields a number of hits, of which I present two with entirely different point of views: Austin Cline at About.com and Vine & Fig Tree's Anti-Separation of Church and State. Just to get you started on the right track, but I make no assumptions as to the reliability of any of the arguments. Sjö (talk) 07:19, 28 December 2012 (UTC) Apparently the OP is an IP sock of a banned user, see Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Miscellaneous#Children and Sexuality. Sjö (talk) 08:32, 28 December 2012 (UTC) America and Christianity I've heard that America is and was founded and established as a Christian country, with a Christian heritage. Is that true? How have atheists, agnostics, secularists, and supporters and defenders of the separation of church and state reacted and responded to this claim? What is their answer to this claim? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.238.34.235 (talk) 03:54, 28 December 2012 (UTC) It wasn't founded and established as a Christian country, although the heritage is Christian. So the first part is simply factually inaccurate,and all the "atheists, agnostics, etc." need do is say "that's not true; read some history." The second part is trivially true; most of the people who established the US were of Western European heritage, hence Christian going back many centuries. --jpgordon::==( o ) 03:59, 28 December 2012 (UTC) (edit conflict) There is a complex and long history of various religious traditions in America, and trite statements are next to meaningless. "America was founded and established as a Christian country" is neither true nor false. It's just trite and incomplete. You may want to read establishment clause and free exercise clause for some legal background over the government's role in religion, and visa-versa, in America. Of course, a country is not its government, so one could also look at historical demographics of America and its citizens to find out what religion they have practiced over time. But a single sentence like "America was founded and established as a Christian country" isn't even worth refuting or verifying, as it is so simplistic as to be completely unworthy of addressing. Its the kind of thing that someone says to try to invite debate or trap someone into a particular falsehood of their own. If you want to know about the history of religion in America, you're better off to avoid getting caught in such simplistic views and instead take the wider view. History of religion in the United States contains a broad overview, and will lead you to many places. --Jayron32 04:01, 28 December 2012 (UTC) This again? Wow, it's like deja vu. Wow, it's like deja vu. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:08, 28 December 2012 (UTC) 220.238.34.235 -- Many of the prominent founding fathers were more Deists than conventionally-orthodox Christians. David Barton, the most prominent (or loudest) recent quasi-scholarly advocate of the "America was founded as a Christian nation" hypothesis has come under withering criticism from Christian historians, and his latest book was withdrawn by its publishers due to concerns over accuracy. AnonMoos (talk) 12:00, 28 December 2012 (UTC) Apparently the OP is an IP sock of a banned user, see Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Miscellaneous#Children and Sexuality. Sjö (talk) 08:32, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Communism

When I asked this question, User:DOK (HK) answered:

With its “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need,” egalitarianism, there would be no need for any kind of government.

What did he mean by that? What did Marx mean by that? What does that mean?

Annihilationism (talk • contribs) 04:20, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

You might want to read the Wikipedia articles titled "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" and "Withering away of the state". --Jayron32 04:23, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Marx was wrong about lots of things, but that withering away of the state was a doozy. StuRat (talk) 05:12, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Even Criswell's prediction accuracy was probably better than Marx's. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:32, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Is this a reference desk, or FaceBook? AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:52, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Good question. I'll concede that Marx was right about the Communist states withering away. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:56, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure the heads of university political science departments the world over will rejoice at your concession... AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:03, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

They already have. Except the ones in former Communist states, many of whom no longer have heads to rejoice with, alas. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:09, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Ok, this is FaceBook - add your facile comments below... AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:17, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

• No, no, we're faceless drones in a withering state. This is WikiBook.... as for the OP, I highly doubt that something as purely ideological as that (if everyone gets what they need and deserve, no need to squabble) will ever be applicable in the world of hu-mans. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:20, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

• "Facile" means "easy",[7] and there's nothing wrong with that. If Grumpy wants to insult us, he's going to have to try harder. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:55, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

• Wiktionary: facile – adj. (4): Lazy, simplistic (especially of explanations, discussions etc.) is what he was getting at. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 23:59, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

• Well, there's the EO citation I provided, and then there's a wiki edit. Which one would you believe? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:20, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

• Wiki edits are not to be sniffed at. You yourself have often cited Wikipedia articles in your answers to questions, and what are they but collections of wiki edits? The Wiktionary def accords with my long-held understanding of the meaning of the word as used in the pejorative way Mr Grump used it. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 06:14, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

• Regardless, if the editor wants to hurl insults at us, he has to first find something we consider to be insulting. He's not there yet. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:33, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

• You seem to be assuming that he wanted to be insulting, but that he failed. We don't know that was ever his intention. Grumps are just grumps; it's not the same as being malicious. Anyway, I never heard of anyone being criticised for failing to insult another. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 22:57, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

• Good points. As to the disappointing insult, let's just say, "Don Rickles he ain't." But Grumpy has to be true to his own style. As Yogi Berra once said, "If you can't imitate him, don't copy him." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:33, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

OP, I would recommend William Morris' News from Nowhere for an idea of an egalitarian and state-free society. Note that no-one has ever suggested that such a society could grow up overnight. Many socialists and communists propose a transition to some kind of democratic socialism, which would still be a money economy, with an important role for the state in regulation, but it would be a deeply democratic state. Marx also talked of "the society of associated producers". Itsmejudith (talk) 10:26, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

OP = yet another sock of banned user. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:50, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh, yawn, and thanks. Why is the troll over genuine rate so high right now? Itsmejudith (talk) 16:03, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Maybe their work or school is closed for the holidays and they have nothing better to do. Oh heck. I'm here too. Hmmmmm. HiLo48 (talk) 17:39, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, you're active and the OP is indef'd. So we're here, and he's not. So it goes. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:55, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this principle has actually been tested. The existence of money seems directly contradictory to "to each according to his need", because accumulated cash clearly is irrelevant to that. Did any Soviet or PRC-affiliated nation ever actually get rid of money and use some sort of straight rationing of resources? Wnt (talk) 23:51, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

The 'principle' of living without money was 'tested' for most of humanity's existence. As for the 'Soviet and PRC-affiliated nations', none ever claimed to be living under communism. Not that a claim to that effect would necessarily be evidence that they were. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:26, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I recall Khrushchev telling us our grandchildren would live under communism. If the USSR was not actually communist, maybe Khrushchev missed that memo. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:25, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Did he actually say communism, in English, or are you recalling a translation by the American media of the time? HiLo48 (talk) 03:20, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Good question. But this historical revisionism about the USSR reminds me a bit of the southern US states insisting that the Civil War was not about slavery. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:22, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Bugs, since I like you (on the whole) in spite of your failure to grasp elementary concepts, I'll spell it out in terms that even a carrot-munching wisecracker can understand. The guys running the Soviet Union didn't claim that it was 'communist', they claimed that they were trying to make it that way. They thought that it was a good long-term objective - but they didn't claim to have got there yet. Lots of people think that they were going about it the wrong way. Many others think that they were lying through their teeth, and used it as excuse to do whatever they really wanted to do. Either way, they didn't say that they'd achieved 'communism'. Neither does anyone else, unless 'communism' just means "living under the control of a political party with 'communist' in its name". At which point, the label becomes meaningless anyway... AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:34, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

And I think we have good reason to think about revising some of the things that might have been said about the USSR in the 1950s by those pushing western propaganda at the time. I'm in no way saying it was a wonderful place. I just suspect that the truth, whatever it was, was probably nothing like what the American propaganda machine told us it was at the time. It may have actually been worse. HiLo48 (talk) 06:36, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

For example, the many Americans who defected to the USSR. Oh, wait... they were already free to leave the USA. Funny how things work out. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:31, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

On the whole, if you are looking for 'truth', you look for it in the place it refers to, not the other side of the world. There is no more logic in trying to understand the 1950s USSR from 1950s US propaganda than vice-versa. Neither portrayed 'reality' - but neither were intended to. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:58, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

THAT'S the truth! HiLo48 (talk) 07:04, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

What does the Russian term Kommunisticheskii Soyuz Molodezhi mean? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:41, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Communist Union of Youth, literally. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 22:44, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

The USSR used the term "Communist" to describe their youth group? Shazam! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:01, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

constitution of the zionist federation

I am interested if anybody can find the constitution of the Zionist Federation of Great Britain and Ireland for me? or articles of association. Praskovv (talk) 15:06, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

That page has an External link to the Federation's website. If a visit to the website doesn't provide the materials you seek, I suggest you contact them by e-mail. Possibly they make the documents available as downloadable .pdf files. -- Deborahjay (talk) 16:20, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

W. Augustin

Seeking information about painter W. Augustin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.69.123.193 (talk) 16:11, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a full name? If not, where are you getting the name from? Paul B (talk) 16:44, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

After a quick Google search, I only found William Augustin Kolliker (1905-1995), a Swiss born painter, illustrator and print-maker, who worked in Texas. Alansplodge (talk) 20:13, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Research and informed consent

Hi, in my time, I have participated in (ie. been a subject in) numerous experiments, chiefly by other students. In all that time, I do not recall ever signing an informed consent form. Yet for my own research, participants have to read a long, boring information letter, then sign an informed consent form. What is the usual practice for low-risk research? Is informed consent considered to be implied by someone's showing up? Or is more usually expected? Note that I'm not asking for legal advice, since lawyers won't help me in dealing with ethics committees. I just want to know what the usual situation is. If there are any laws that pertain to particular jurisdictions in this regard, I would be curious to hear them. It is not central to the question, but it would explain some things, hence it would be relevant to the question, just in explaining how things work. It will not be misinterpreted as advice, I assure you, and I know plenty of lawyers. They only know the law here, however, so they cannot tell me how things work around the world. IBE (talk) 17:00, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

The reason you have to get consent now when you participated without consent in the past is that universities and research institutes are tightening up. They are getting advice from their lawyers, and also they are swapping stories about dreadful things that have happened. Many ethics approval processes are two-stage, with an initial assessment to sort out proposals into high, medium and low risk, and then further procedures depending on which category. Even if your research is really low risk, you have to show that the person did consent. Sometimes, "just showing up" is enough to indicate consent, but there has to be information available about what the research is for. In an online questionnaire, a blurb at the top explaining the purpose of the questionnaire might be enough, but still you would want the blurb to say what happens to the data after the research is over. If you are interviewing people in their professional capacity, you need to tell them whether they are talking on or off the record. People might send you confidential documents - would you know how to keep them safe? All this seems like a nuisance, and it is a drag to have to do it, but in the end it benefits the cause of Knowledge if the public can have confidence that they are not being exploited. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:57, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Thankyou for the informed reply. What are these "dreadful things"? This is exactly the sort of thing I'm trying to find out about, since in Australia, these procedures are getting really eccentric, and involve putting odd things in information letters. At my university, one of the sillier ones is "There are no other benefits to you from participating in this research." Pointless, because you would tell them if there were. Not a small problem, because the longer the letter goes, firstly, the greater the chance of them simply not reading it (who reads Ts & Cs on software?), and secondly, the greater the chance of them getting sick of you. Personally I would find this a genuine ethical problem, simply because it involves bugging people much more than the research. It depends on what the research is, but you usually have a fair idea of what you are doing, and might even be looking forward to it (I do it for the intelligent conversation afterwards with the researcher). On the other hand, the boring long letter is rarely part of the deal. IBE (talk) 20:06, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't think "There are no other benefits to you from participating in this research." is silly. It avoids after-the-fact arguments or lawsuits about whether the person was promised anything, such as payment, for their participation. In the absence of things like this being put in writing, there will frequently be honest misunderstandings and dishonest behavior, both along the lines of "But you told me I'd get money for this." Duoduoduo (talk) 22:56, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

[Note: I have moved the above comment so others can follow the discussion. I do this very rarely] 2.2.4 2.1.4 National Statement: "In determining the existence, likelihood and severity of risks, researchers and those reviewing the research should base their assessments on the available evidence, whether qualitative or quantitative." This is one of the few restraints on the power of ethics committees. Hence my (follow-up) question about the evidence. I'm still wondering about the experience of others, although Itsmejudith has given a very good intro to the topic. Still curious if this is really happening everywhere. I can imagine it's different to what it was 10 years ago, but it looks like something funny is going on downunder. IBE (talk) 23:05, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

This pdf put out by the National Health and Medical Research Council in Australia goes over ethics in human research and what it entails. There are guidelines for the National Statement on Ethical Research that requires subjects of human research to be notified of certain information before giving consent. Hopefully this is of some help to you. Livewireo (talk) 22:35, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Fantastic link to Uni of Tassie, not least for showing exactly the sort of thing I'm talking about. The National Statement says: "2.2.6: Information on the following matters should also be communicated to participants. Except where the information in specific sub-paragraphs below is also deemed necessary for a person’s voluntary decision to participate, it should be kept distinct from the information described in paragraphs 2.2.1 and 2.2.2:" Note that 2.2.1 and 2.2.2 are about the real conditions for informed consent, and they are much more general. But by the time an ethics committee gets hold of it, it becomes "According to Section 2.2.6 of the National Statement, for consent to be deemed voluntary the following information must be given to potential participants". I've read the whole National Statement (not just put out by the NHMRC, but also the Australian Research Council and the Australian Vice Chancellor's Committee), and I know more or less what's in it, and I can see what ethics committees are making up. Pure gold, although for a different reason than the exact question. Although I have a certain opinion of ethics committees in Australia, I am still interested in what the raw evidence is regarding information letters and legal/ethical concerns. The emphasis is certainly on the "ethics" bit, but as explained, there is a legal dimension to any such discussion. IBE (talk) 23:05, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

This sounds more like institutional going through the motions and covering one's back than actual concern for ethics. In real life, I would suggest that you start not from this but from first principles. Write an information leaflet about your project, make it readable for your target group -full colour? Illustrated? You can also send your leaflet to other teams and organisations that might be in a position to support your research. Write a consent form. Again, it's got to be appropriate. If you are interviewing young children, for example, it's positively unethical to ask them to sign a document written in legalese. Send your drafts to the ethics committee with a brief justification, and see what they say. In terms of "dreadful things", the most difficult have probably been in relation to animal experiments, when scientists' homes have been attacked. With human subjects, someone died in a drugs trial. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:03, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate the suggestion, although this is for a very simple pilot, looking for about 20 to 40 people. The information letter is separate to the recruitment flyer, although the ethics committee has suggested I use the 2 page information letter as a recruitment flyer. I'm not clear on how I would pin that up on noticeboards, nor how I would get anyone to read it. As for the horror stories, people attacking people's homes are breaking the law, so it becomes a control problem, rather than a legal one. People's behaviour in breaking the law (or any rules in general) can be quite eccentric and inconsistent, so the solution depends on the circumstances. As for drug trials, they are much higher risk, although the risks related to the actual drug-taking are relatively predictable. They try things on animals first, after all (but don't tell any animal activists I said this). IBE (talk) 14:29, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

French art

Opinion question. Shadowjams (talk) 17:55, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Why is French literature, film, etc. so depressing? --107.207.240.46 (talk) 23:44, 28 December 2012 (UTC) Can you direct us to a reliable source that confirms that French literature, film, etc. is depressing? HiLo48 (talk) 23:54, 28 December 2012 (UTC) Must be all those bummer movies like "Amélie" and "March of the Penguins"... -- AnonMoos (talk) 02:37, 29 December 2012 (UTC) Dear OP, you might have come across works which mostly have been in the Noir genre. But French comedy or tragicomedy (from Moliere, Corneille, etc. onward, to films of Luis de Funes, Jacques Tati, and others) has been as exuberant as that. --Omidinist (talk) 15:52, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

December 29

Michael Bloomberg background

Having been born in 1942, it would seem that, at the appropriate age, Michael Bloomberg would have been eligible for the military draft. Is there a reason why he did not serve in the military? 216.93.234.239 (talk) 00:58, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

The article doesn't tell us that he didn't (or did). Do you have a source for your claim that he didn't? Such a source would probably tell us why? And here on Wikipedia we must have reliable sources. HiLo48 (talk) 01:22, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

No, I have no source for whether he did or he didn't, that's why I was asking. 216.93.234.239 (talk) 02:19, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Hardly. You asked "Is there a reason why he did not serve in the military?" as if you are certain he didn't. Are you certain, or not? HiLo48 (talk) 03:23, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Not everyone who was eligible for the draft was called to serve. It was a lottery. Also, there were many different grounds for deferment or exemption. See Conscription in the United States. Marco polo (talk) 02:03, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

There was no lottery in 1960. 216.93.234.239 (talk) 02:19, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Someone who was born in 1942 was much too young for Korea, and was already about 22-23 years old when U.S. involvement in Vietnam started seriously escalating. The lottery didn't occur until 1969, and was based on the calendar date of one's birth... AnonMoos (talk) 02:34, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

So, seems like a reasonable question, what was Bloomberg's draft status. Was he drafted, did he defer, etc. Shadowjams (talk) 08:21, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Did the USSR condemn the bombings of Dresden and Hiroshima in 1945?

I'm aware that after the war the USSR and the international Communist movement harshly criticized both the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as well as the firebombing of Dresden as American crimes against humanity. However I was wondering if there was any condemnation of Hiroshima, from the USSR or Western Communist Parties in 1945, when the USSR and USA were still nominally Allies?

Dresden was condemned as a warcrime by the USSR and DDR after the war. But I was wondering if Stalin criticized his fellow allies in 1945?

--Gary123 (talk) 03:12, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

1. Dresden: There are conflicting historiography regarding Soviet role in Dresden. Some sources suggest Stalin himself ordered the bombing out of revenge, some suggest Britain bombed the city because the Soviets wanted Dresden be bombed (they feared the use of its rail network by Germans), some suggest Soviets accused the West of not doing enough in the fight against Nazism, as a result Britain bombed it to show they are against the Nazis, some suggest none of these accounts are true. It is almost impossible to find a historical document which contains the official Soviet reaction to Dresden bombing before the end of the war, and I believe the record of an official Soviet reaction does not exist.
2. Regarding Hiroshima, the atomic bombing was more directed against the Soviets than against the Japanese. The Americans wanted to show their might and technological superiority to the Soviets to get an upper hand in the upcoming World War 3 after the end of WW2. Stalin definitely felt uncomfortable and was anxious over America's possession of Atomic bomb, and development of the atomic bomb became a priority to him. I don't think the Soviets issued any official reaction to Hiroshima before Japan's surrender. --PlanetEditor (talk) 04:23, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

The evidence for the Alperovitz thesis (that the bomb was meant to impress the Soviets, etc.) is actually fairly slim — there is almost nothing from the time period itself that supports it, only retrospective memories, assertions, and claims. Most scholars today believe that the major motivation was ending the war with Japan (the "official" one), though those charged with using the weapon saw other "positive" results as well, including, but not limited to, the postwar situation with Russia. Even this overemphasizes the importance of the bomb as it was understood in early August 1945, before it was clear that it would actually shorten the war and not just be seen as way to more efficiently conduct firebombing raids. --Mr.98 (talk) 04:42, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Your comments are very interesting! Have you read Liddell Hart's account of the decision to use atomic weapons, including the direct quotes of objections made by senior U.S. military personnel at the time, and plentiful other material? Do you consider all of it to be "retrospective memories, assertions, and claims"? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 05:07, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I am extremely familiar with the relevant scholarly literature, especially as it has evolved since these sorts of claims were in their heyday. Again, this is not to say that the Allies were not thinking about the Soviets as they made the bomb, but it is pretty clear that the reason that Truman, Stimson, and the others who were responsible for actually dropping it were motivated primarily by other concerns. There is far more evidence that they were concerned with quickly ending the war (without an invasion) than they were about impressing the USSR (that ending it quickly would mean no Soviet influence in Japan was icing on the cake, of course), and a lot of evidence that those who were on-the-ground (those making and dropping the bombs) simply did not regard it as much of a "decision" anyway — they had made it, of course they would use it.

As with many things in history, you can cherry-pick your way to any thesis; the Alperovitz thesis simply does not hold. (This is not to say that I agree that the bomb was necessary, or a good idea, or so on. This is a question of historical motivations for decisions, as they happened and not in retrospective.) --Mr.98 (talk) 00:26, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

The Soviets never issued any kind of reaction to Hiroshima or Nagasaki in 1945. Years later it became a stock part of anti-American propaganda promulgated by the Soviets, but not in 1945. --Mr.98 (talk) 04:42, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Rich Christian Countries

Questions starting a discussion OsmanRF34 (talk) 10:49, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
If Christianity says that we shouldn't be too greedy, we can't serve God and Mammon, money is the root of all evil, why should we pursue money, money can't bring happiness, we should help the poor and needy, we should protect the environment, nothing is equal to or above the law, criminal justice says that all are equal before the law whether you are rich or poor, greed is a sin and one of the seven deadly sins, for money people will commit crimes, punishment is just and more associated with the law, then how come this? Nowadays, the world is divided into rich developed countries and poor developing countries. All the rich countries are Christian. All the poor countries are non-Christian, and believe in religions other than Christianity. Rich Christian countries include America, the countries of Europe, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa. They are Western, Northern, First World, and Free World countries. They are the West, the North, the First World, and the Free World. Republicanism (talk) 03:18, 29 December 2012 (UTC) Christian is nothing more than a lable these days. Moreover, it is not necessarily Christians who control the flow of capital. Plasmic Physics (talk) 03:24, 29 December 2012 (UTC) Do you mean ladle? As in soup kitchen? Republicanism, first, remember what Jesus said to the fig tree. Second, yes, some of us have been aware of this discrepancy for quite some time. Why not send all your wealth to a poor country? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:24, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Rich Christian Countries (cont.)

Questions continuing a discussion, same OP as above OsmanRF34 (talk) 10:50, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Nowadays, the world is divided into rich developed countries and poor developing countries. All the rich countries are Christian. All the poor countries are non-Christian, and believe in religions other than Christianity. Rich Christian countries include America, the countries of Europe, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa. They are Western, Northern, First World, and Free World countries. They are the West, the North, the First World, and the Free World. What does God think about that? What does Jesus think about that? What do Christians think about that? What does the Christian left think about that? What do Christian humanitarians and philanthropists think about that? What do Christian who help the poor and needy think about that? What do Christian environmentalists think about that? What do Christians in rich countries think about that? Republicanism (talk) 03:24, 29 December 2012 (UTC) I can tell you what God thinks about that and what Jesus thinks, but only if you PROVE YOURSELF WORTHY. That means you gave to stop asking asinine questions on this board for a MONTH - minimum. Paul B (talk) 03:28, 29 December 2012 (UTC) No, he has to stop asking asinine questions here ever again. Other questions are welcome. -- Jack of Oz [Talk] 03:41, 29 December 2012 (UTC) Doh! Double-doh! Doh to the power of unmpteen! List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita, which is as good a value as any for 'rich countries', or at least 'countries where the people are rich' (i.e. not a lot of use, but arguably marginally better than nothing) suggests that by most measures, the citizens of Qatar, are the wealthiest on average, while the citizens of the Democratic Republic of the Congo are the poorest. Guess which one has the most Christians? Anyway, 'Republicanism' before you post another demonstration of your ignorance, at least make a token attempt to rectify it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:07, 29 December 2012 (UTC) Maybe some religious offshoots who claimed a connection with the teachings made by a guy speaking Aramaic, which were later written down in Greek, also ended up implementing some versions of his teachings about poverty and/or giving to the poor, and chastity and/or not fornicating with everyone in sight, and helping one's fellow man without expectation or desire for recompense. This would tend to make them more frugal, less likely to have huge numbers of offspring (yes I know there were problems with this later in other places), more likely to be mutually supporting, and more likely to understand what hard work is. That's my random positive interpretation of Christianity for this hour, and that's all you're getting. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:19, 29 December 2012 (UTC) Meanwhile per "The reference desk does not answer requests for opinions..." is this the first time that God himself has been asked to reply to a question on a Wikipedia reference desk? And if it isn't, did The Almighty/His Noodlieness respond? AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:34, 29 December 2012 (UTC) Republic: I'm willing to partake in private dialogue on my talk page. Plasmic Physics (talk) 04:50, 29 December 2012 (UTC) Don't forget those other wealthy Christian-dominated nations, India and China. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:16, 29 December 2012 (UTC) Are India and China wealthy? Not regarding GDP. Anyway. I don't think this question is more than trolling. Starting with the wrong assumption that countries like Kuwait are poor, maybe? And even asking for the opinion of God and Jesus. OsmanRF34 (talk) 10:42, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Aged notable siblings

Speaking of people getting on a bit, I note that the sisters Olivia de Havilland and Joan Fontaine are still with us, aged 96 and 95 respectively. I can't think of any other pair of siblings who individually achieved fame, or even notability, in their chosen professions and who both lived so long. Is this some sort of record? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 03:21, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

The Gabors deserve a mention. Zsa Zsa Gabor is 95, and, while her sisters died younger (Eva Gabor was 76 and Magda Gabor was 81), we could also include their mother, Jolie Gabor, who made it to 100. StuRat (talk) 03:54, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

International recognition of Israel

I've read the articles International recognition of the State of Palestine and International recognition of Israel. I've noticed that most of the countries which do not recognize Israel are Islamic countries (which is not surprising, since much of the land which Israel now controls was for many centuries controlled by Muslims, although there is also a large number of Islamic countries that recognize Israel, notably Egypt). I've also noticed that, with the notable exception of North America and most of Europe, many Christian countries (but not all) recognize Palestine. The question is, why does it seem that there are more Christian countries that recognize Palestine than Muslim countries which recognize Israel? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 04:22, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, various Christian countries ruled Palestine for centuries or bits of centuries here and there, and thus noticed that there were lots of Palestinians living there. Only a very few still-existing Muslim countries ruled the same areas in the last five hundred years or so, and they may not have noticed significant numbers of Israelis living there at the time. Do you think that this might contribute to how countries perceive different nations that now claim different parts of the same pieces of land?

Oh, silly me. Just to add, Christian countries lost interest in most of the things to be found within the country of Israel, about two hundred years ago. Some people in Muslim countries might see everything within the country of Israel as being something that was promised by some agreement made during the First World War, and also naturally part of Islamic territory anyway. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:32, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Hmm.. "various Christian countries ruled Palestine for centuries...". Really? The UK governed Palestine for 28 years after displacing the Ottoman Empire. There was the Kingdom of Jerusalem from 1099 to 1187, otherwise the area seems to have been under Muslim governance from 638 to 1918. Alansplodge (talk) 23:39, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Before the Islamic conquests, Palestine was part of the Roman Empire. The Roman Empire adopted Christianity as its official religion in 380 under Theodosius, and Christianity remained the dominant, if not official religion of the Byzantine Empire as well, which lost Palestine in the early 600s to the Sassanids. So that's over two additional centuries of Christian occupation. - Lindert (talk) 00:04, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I can add two points:

• The countries mentioned by the OP as "Christian" are not theocracies, hence there are other prevailing factors in their motives and actions beside what may be their primary religious heritage.
• The Islamic world is anti-Zionist and doesn't accept the Jews' right to a homeland in Israel. Hence the votes.

N.B.I previously posted, then removed, a list of objections to the rationales proposed by User:Demiurge1000 above, before I realized that I should reply only to the query and not that straw-man argument. Anyone interested is welcome to read this page's Edit History. -- Deborahjay (talk) 10:07, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Countries recognizing Israel or Palestine do not necessarily do that due to some ideological motivation. It is not to be taken as support. There are plenty of other reasons to recognize them. The simply desire for peace in the region, agreed upon some specific borders, some middle point where both sides would let lose, is one of them. OsmanRF34 (talk) 11:28, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

That premise would work only for those who recognize both Israel and Palestine. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:27, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but there are plenty of countries that recognize both Palestine and Israel (according to [[8]]). Mostly Arab countries (no surprise) won't recognize Israel, and the US and some European countries like Germany won't recognize Palestine. Other European countries like Spain would recognize Palestine on the borders of 1967, but didn't formalize it. Some not directly related to the issue like India or Brazil don't have any trouble recognizing both (which seems to be the most sensitive position, if someone wants peace). OsmanRF34 (talk) 20:46, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

John Ena

Is there any connection between the ship John Ena (1892) [9] and the Chinese-Hawaiian John Liwaikalaniopuu Ena or his father John Ena (Zane Shang Hsien)?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 09:16, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

The term "talent"

When was the first usage of the term "talent" with the meaning of skill. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 12:36, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

The earliest instance given by the Oxford English Dictionary is from a poem by John Lydgate (c. 1430): "Who shal me save Fro feendys daunger, t'acounte for my talent?" - Lindert (talk) 12:53, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Great! Can you put this into modern English. Thanks.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 13:41, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't feel qualified to translate it into modern English, as I have very little experience with Middle English, and I'm not even a native speaker. However the rest of the poem can be found here. - Lindert (talk) 13:59, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for poem! I'll ask the Language Desk. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 14:09, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps "Who shall me save from fiend's (or fiends') danger, to account for my talent"? 71.79.67.209 (talk) 00:44, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Graphic novel about modern day slavery in Florida tomato fields

What is title/author of a recent novel addressing slavery in Florida tomato fields? This novel also addresses alcoholism on Native American reservations. It mixes traditional novel format with graphic novel content. Although there is graphic novel content, this book is not a casual examination of these topics.71.68.17.143 (talk) 13:29, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Try using "Immokalee" as a search keyword along with other relevant terms... AnonMoos (talk) 22:22, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Does moral philosophy accept the metaphysical assertions of theology?

Like for example,original sin. Does moral philosophy agree with its existence to promote a certain faith? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshua Atienza (talk • contribs) 19:21, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Moral philosophy (or Ethics) is a field of speculation, not a specific school of thought. Theology also is a field of speculation and not a monolithic school. Theologians are usually also moral philosophers, and the ethics and theology of each theologian generally work together. The moral philosophy of Thomas Aquinas, for example, would probably accept, assume, or attempt to prove the existence of original sin; while the moral philosophy of Al-Ghazali and Maimonides would not, despite their influence on Aquinas and their shared revival of Aristotle. Confucius remained silent on the matter of whether humanity was inherently good or evil, while of his students Mencius affirmed the goodness of humanity and Han Fei argued that humanity was inherently evil. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:03, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Homeless kids in NYC and USA

There are about three times as many homeless children today in New York City as there were in 1983, a new record high this year: http://www.coalitionforthehomeless.org/pages/state-of-the-homeless-2012 Is the same true for the entire US? JS Uralia (talk) 21:12, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

It would appear so--http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Society/2011/1213/Homeless-children-at-record-high-in-US.-Can-the-trend-be-reversed. Futurist110 (talk) 00:07, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

However, note that "homeless", in the case of US children, usually means in a motel or shelter, not sleeping in the street, as it unfortunately does in many other countries. StuRat (talk) 00:22, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Lieutenant Oku in 1917

In 1917 a Lieutenant Oku of the Imperial Japanese Navy came to Hawaii to attend the funeral of Queen Liliuokalani as a representative of the Emperor of Japan. Who was this Lieutenant Oku? Was he a famous individual? -- 21:38, 29 December 2012‎ User:KAVEBEAR