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

January 24

Roy Raymond (businessman)

The article says he sell his business for 4 millions dollars and at the time his business is making 6 million dollars a year (just few years later the company he sold grew into multibillion-company). So why would anyone want to sell something that worth less than you can possibly make from it and has potential to keep expanding? What is the story behind it? Was he desperate for money at the time or was he simply just stupid? Obviously he committed suicide in the end after regretted about it.184.97.244.130 (talk) 02:27, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

It says it was grossing six million, which usualy means income before expenses. It doesn't say how much the net was, so we don't know how much was left over from the incoming money each year. RudolfRed (talk) 02:36, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) He wasn't collecting $6,000,000 per year in salary from the business. The money that a business makes belongs to the business. It would be a bad businessman (and possibly a criminal one) who pocketed every cent in revenue from such a business. Plus that was $6 million gross (before expenses) income. That wasn't profit. Profit is revenue minus expenses. --Jayron32 02:41, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Still even if he only made 1 million a year that's still a lot better than 4 million dollars sold out. In just a short few years, he can make more than that and potential to make a lot more. If he sold out he got 4 million dollars just sit there and do nothing. He is either a very bad businessman with short minded or is there a reason behind it. I'm curious about the story behind it, details of what happened. Perhaps he got tricked into selling it. He can't be too stupid if he came up with a billion dollars worth idea (as it is right now) like that. 184.97.244.130 (talk) 03:05, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Furthermore, ideas aren't worth that much money. Bill Rasmussen came up with the idea of ESPN. He lacked the business acumen to lead the TV network to what it became, and also lacked the personal finances to give it the necessary capital to do so. So, the people who he went to for financing (Getty Oil) replaced him with someone who could lead said network. Rasmussen was justly compensated for his work during his short stint as ESPN CEO. The network moved on without him. There's some hard feelings, perhaps, but in the end there's also thousands of employees who may not have their jobs today had Getty Oil not provided the necessary financing or had they not placed people they knew and trusted into positions of leadership of ESPN. Take Victoria's Secret. It was hardly the world's only mail-order lingerie business, and it wasn't all that big of a business before Raymond sold it. What if those people that purchased Victoria's Secret instead purchased a different mail-order lingerie business, and took THAT business to a multi-billion dollar enterprise, while Raymond's company floundered? What would that mean? The idea is certainly worth something, but lots of people have similar ideas, and it takes a combination of ideas, capital, and business ability to make it grow, and the latter two are far more rare than the first. --Jayron32 03:16, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Well your explanation is good and making sense to me. But I disagree with you over the value of idea. Not many people have the exactly the same brilliant idea as you said. Those ideas may be similar in some way but not exactly, so there will be competition and the best idea rise up to be the best and started to dominate the industrial. Take example of facebook (simply idea, just a derived idea of something similar already existing), doesn't take much to start out. The problem with people these days is most people don't understand the "real" value of a brilliant and usually ended up making stupid choices. There are many examples of new brilliant ideas that later on flourish into billions dollars. Anyway they can't just replace him if he doesn't agree to. I still think he made a big mistake to sell it off for just 4 million dollars.184.97.244.130 (talk) 03:30, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Except that ideas aren't that unique. ESPN is often cited as inventing the "all-sports network", which isn't really that true, they were just the first that was successful. Before they ever became a major player, there were other competitors out there, but they all floundered. SportsChannel America was founded before ESPN, and founded by Cablevision, the same people that launched HBO, so they knew something about Cable TV, and it never took off like ESPN did. Why did SportsChannel flounder where ESPN succeeded? It wasn't the idea, as SportsChannel's founders had the idea first, and there's nothing in that idea which is substantially different than ESPN. What made ESPN work was the execution, which required the right people in the right jobs doing those jobs well, and the right financial backing to make it happen. Likewise with Raymond and Victoria's Secret. He owned a bra-and-panty business. It wasn't a unique idea, it wasn't even a major player in the market at the time. Frederick's of Hollywood was founded thirty years before Victoria's Secret, and was in a largely identical business. It took the right financial backing, the right leadership, the right marketing, and a lot of other things that happened long after Raymond was out of the picture that made it into the industry leader. There were 4000 different tiny patent medicine companies making various sweetened tonics at the turn of the 20th century. Coke and Pepsi didn't become national brands because the idea of what they were is all that special. They became successful because they were well run by business people, not someone who said "lets throw a bunch of sugar and fizzy water in with some odd flavorings". The idea of Coke and Pepsi isn't why their industry leaders, anymore than the idea of an all-sports network or the idea of a lingerie store is. --Jayron32 03:54, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I see where you're getting at. But look all those ideas are not exactly the same. Yes, they are related but completely different ideas (each idea is unique in some way) otherwise they would come out as identical products. I would agree with you that there are many other factors which contribute or determine the success of an idea. Most cases, you got to have a good idea and good money to back up and good management for it to success. But coming with a good new idea isn't easy. Believe it or not, most people can't come up with a brilliant idea (otherwise we would see a lot more billionaires now). Those who can come up with a good idea usually are just a tiny portion of the population. However, in some extreme cases an idea itself is enough for you to strike super rich. I agree with you that there are many other factors but to me an idea value a lot more than most people think it is.184.97.244.130 (talk) 04:10, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Possibly, there are a few times when the idea itself is the thing. But a bra-and-panty business isn't such an idea, and Raymond was justly compensated for the value of his business when he sold it. That someone later took his raw materials and turned it into a giant industry leader isn't because of what he sold them any more than the minor that digs the lump of iron ore out of the ground has a stake in the value of the Lamborghini that lump of iron ore much later becomes a part of. It makes for a nice story, but ultimately Raymond's idea wasn't that big of a deal. Steve Wozniak did build a computer in his garage; but so didn't hundreds of other geeks in the 1970s. He got lucky enough to do it while his buddy Steve Jobs was watching. Ub Iwerks was a creative animator, but it took someone with the business acumen of Walt Disney and his successors to turn Iwerk's doodles into the world's biggest entertainment company. None of those companies was founded on a unique idea; they were founded on a common idea that was exploited by people who knew how to run a business, and run it very well. It goes on and on. We romanticize ideas because it makes for a nice story: a wunderkind has some brilliant idea no one else has ever had, and then has the wherewithal to take his totally unique idea and built a global empire out of it. That's probably almost never happened just like that. Ideas are products of their times as much as they are of any one individual, they're part of the zeitgeist of an era. The biggest, most successful companies aren't built on magical, solitary ideas from one person. They're built on keen business skills and proper leverage. --Jayron32 04:21, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Jayron. In addition, I don't really understand the OP's point on Facebook. As the OP themselves said, Facebook was hardly unique, there were social networking sites before Facebook. The question of how Facebook got to be the dominant one is much discussed in sources but I don't think you'll find many that say the reason was because it was a unique idea, more some sort of mix of successful implementation, marketing, luck, connection with their target market, right target market, business acumen, finances etc combined with the fact its dominance is self reenforcing. Nil Einne (talk) 02:15, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Jayron32 -- not sure that Frederick's of Hollywood was really "a largely identical business"; it's had a reputation of selling semi-sleazy novelty items intended much more to cater to the sexual fantasies of 50's-generation males, rather than what women would choose to wear for themselves. As for the original poster's question, from the timelines on the Victoria's Secret article, it seems plausible that the company had expanded about as much as it was going to with Raymond's methods and goals, and that he could be considered to have sold out at a fairly good moment... AnonMoos (talk) 21:33, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

For a typical business, $6,000,000 gross translates into a net profit of $60,000 to $300,000. For a rapidly-expanding business, it might translate into no net profit at all, if all extra money is invested in further growth. There are almost no businesses in the world that have the 16% profit margin you're estimating. --Carnildo (talk) 03:07, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't know what kind of business is that. How can the profit be 60,000 to 300,000 dollars a year? 60k to 300k is obviously a very underestimate net profit that he made. Expenses won't take that much of money. For what I know my parents expenses are like 20k to make 60k. If any business spend that much and get only 60k to 300k that would mean the business doesn't know what its doing. I'm sure there are a lot of business if not most make a lot more than 16% profit margin.184.97.244.130 (talk) 03:21, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

A few businesses work at that level. Apple reported a 22% profit margin for 4th quarter 2012: [1]. However, that's Apple and they are quite likely the most profitable business in the world. They are far from typical. If we look at a retail company built like Victoria's Secret, something like Abercrombie and Fitch, shows they had what is considered an outrageously good quarter and reported a 6.5% profit margin. Walmart reported 3.5% profit margin, and that's also a very successful business. 3.5% of $6,000,000 is $210,000. And again, if Raymond stuck that $210,000 into his pockets each year, he's a terrible CEO, but let's just say he did. It would take him 20 years to realize $4,000,000. He got that in one swipe. --Jayron32 03:33, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

How can the profit margin is so low? So expenses actually taking up most of the grossing amount of money? How can my parents spend only 20k and make up to 60k?(they gross 80k with 60k profit)184.97.244.130 (talk) 03:37, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Because your parents are people, and not a business. Your parents are paid a wage and spend that wage on living expenses. A business is selling a product, and needs to use its revenues to keep producing that product. Totally different sources of revenue, totally different types of expenditures. --Jayron32 03:56, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

If you are making big profits then someone else will enter the market with lower prices and take all your business, since they would still be making reasonable profits. In a competitive market, businesses make pretty much the minimum profit that makes running the business worthwhile (ie. they make just over their opportunity cost of capital, that is the amount they could make if the capital were invested in the next best thing). To make anything more, there needs to be some lack of competition - it's known in economics as making supernormal profits. --Tango (talk) 12:24, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Much of the above is correct, of course. But there is another perspective. $4 million (in 1982) was (and still is, if less so) enough money to live a carefree and comfortable live essentially forever. Not everyone wants money for the sake of money. And it's easily possible to become overfed with beautiful models carrying around small pieces of silk. Really! ;-) --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:18, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

HAA that's funny. To me it's impossible to be overfed with models like that... Maybe bad models then yea!184.97.244.130 (talk) 05:25, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

rival package companies with smaller aircrafts

I saw some videos on YouTube. They were of FedEx Cessna aircrafts. That made me wonder if UPS also uses the same things.142.255.103.121 (talk) 04:53, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, if they deliver to small markets then small planes would make sense. An alternative strategy is to just deliver to major cities (and areas a short drive from those cities). StuRat (talk) 04:57, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

The UPS fleet has just big planes. Clarityfiend (talk) 16:43, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Being attracted to / impressed / fascinated by the incomprehensible

Greetings! I am looking for a psychological (sociological?) term which describes the situation that "ordinary people" (not "experts") are attracted or impressed by or occupied by ideas/concepts (fact or fiction) despite the fact that they actually do not (or can not) understand them. Mere "curiosity" would be to weak. Examples are homoepathy, relativity theory, evolution, extraterrestial life, meaning of Hermann-Hesse-books, abstract art, texts of holy books etc. - the whole mixture of hard or soft stuff. I'd appreciate your help, even if it will be only keywords (which would help in further search). GEEZER^{nil nisi bene} 09:28, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Some related concepts would be esoterica, esotericism and arcana. However, those words more describe this group of concepts itself rather than the attraction of people towards them. --Viennese Waltz 09:42, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Hmmmm ... no ... it can also be hard science, which is absolutely not understood but "painted on the personal flag". I assume that this has something to do with the "social access" or "social reputation" which you "gain" by adhering to these concepts - on the other hand: I could be wrong. GEEZER^{nil nisi bene} 10:22, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Do you know Pierre Bourdieu's concept of cultural capital? But I think it's too generic for what you're describing. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:23, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Copyright law UK

Hi, i've read the licensing terms but am still unclear on whether or not i could use something like this commercially in the UK. A lot of sites i've seen using images of cars for commercial use here have removed the badge of the manufacturer in the pictures and i'm unsure if that's a requirement. Can someone clear this up for me? Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 10:10, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid we can't give legal advice. If you want advice related to your specific situation, then you need to consult a lawyer. The user that uploaded that image claims they own all the copyright to it - you can either believe them or get a lawyer to confirm it. We can't help. It also varies a lot from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. The photo was taken in France and you want to use it in the UK, so it's not even immeadiately obvious what jurisdiction applies (there are all kinds of copyright treaties that determine that sort of thing). That said, I doubt removing the badge will make any difference whatsoever - other sites may do that because they don't want to provide free advertising for the manufacturer (which may annoy other advertisers). --Tango (talk) 12:31, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

What we have on this is commons:Commons:De_minimis#United_Kingdom... AnonMoos (talk) 12:39, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Tango, i think you partly misread my question, but the last part of your reply is very helpful. My understanding from that is that the image can be used commercially as long as it's under the same license, or a more restrictive one (not less). The badge removal is a bit odd though. I did earlier consider this may be legal advice, but i'm actually just trying to get a theoretical opinion on how CC-BY-SA is applied and how Wikimedia would actually be attributed for the use of images. I never considered i would need a lawyer to find out how to give attributution of an image to Wikimedia lol. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 14:32, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

This should not be construed as legal advice, but let me point out that in addition to copyrights there are strict rules about the commercial use of trademarks. Looie496 (talk) 18:36, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

They're strict, but over a limited range of circumstances -- mainly where the use of trademarks would tend to create "confusion" in the mind of a potential customer... AnonMoos (talk) 21:14, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Ahhh, that makes sense! So the manufacturer could sue, but is unlikely to have much of a case unless you have actually made your site or business very similar to theirs. Thank you both very much. Can you also point me to an article/guide explaining how i give attribute to someone or the preferred wording? Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 10:17, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

If you are using anything commercially with other people's IP, you really should find a lawyer. Random words found on the internet are probably not going to have the right legal effect. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:11, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Understandable, but that's a way of saying we can upload images to Wikipedia and Wikimedia, but we don't allow others to use them under the licensing terms we upload them as. Can someone point to to where we might have an article on attribution of said media rather than suggest i get a lawyer? Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 11:54, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Look at commons:Template:Trademarked. That's telling you that trademarking is a completely separate matter from copyrights, and that it's your responsibility to make sure that you don't use an image in a way which contravenes trademark laws. So the Coca Cola logo is out of copyright and in the public domain (at least in the forms in which it was published in the United States before 1923), but if you sell a competing fizzy beverage using the logo, its copyright-free status won't help you one bit in defending the trademark lawsuit which is coming your way. However, the commons:Template:Trademarked template is not generally applied to images where the presence of a trademarked symbol could be considered de minimis... AnonMoos (talk) 15:45, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

...But if i want to know how i give attribution for using an image or a preferred wording? Do i need to look on another site to find an answer for this? Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 16:31, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Projecting Americanism abroad -- standard of living

I was reading what promised to be a scandalous expose of Chinese "atrocity" in that actors working as extras in Chinese films make something like the equivalent of $0.80 an hour (5 yuan). The next sentence, however, states that "[i]t’s barely enough to afford the cheap room he rents near the center of town."

Would it even be possible to rent a place in the United States near Hollywood for less than a dollar an hour? My point is that this initially seems utterly disgraceful -- that film extras are paid so little -- but then again, if they're able to afford rent on this little amount of money, is it really so little? Sure, in terms of the American dollar, it's a pittance, but they're not trying to live to American standards. And if people want to be in films and they give up some comforts to rough it out, why should that seem strange? How many actors and actresses in Hollywood are subjected to standards of living below that of the average American so that they can make it onto the big screen?

It just seems to me that the author (Darcy Holdorf) and even her online publisher (CNN) are guilty of intentionally skewing the details in order to generate a story. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 13:11, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

It depends on what is meant by "the center", and which town. There are (or were recently) single family houses selling in Detroit for a thousand dollars or so; houses of the same square footage in somewhere like Northern Virginia cost more than that in monthly mortgage payments. --Jayron32 13:54, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Pay for extras in Hollywood movies is no great shakes either. Most of these actors have to work secondary jobs to make ends meet. The standard cliché is that aspiring actors are waiting on tables all over Hollywood. --Xuxl (talk) 14:23, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

And Chinese film extras are known to work other jobs as casual labourers and the like. It really isn't much of an expose. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 17:28, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

You might be interested in purchasing power and purchasing power parity. The CNN article does say "it is one of the lowest paying jobs in the country", but obviously that's not very specific. 81.98.43.107 (talk) 12:41, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Poverty is relative. $1 may seem small, but in a developing nation (China) it is worth more than it is here.58.175.170.121 (talk) 02:32, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

5 RMB/hour is a pittance even by Chinese standards - it's below minimum wage in most parts of China (each province sets its own minimum). $1 goes further in China than in the US, but it still doesn't go very far 59.108.42.46 (talk) 03:50, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Weird video of hostage

This video was released of Australian Warren Roswell who was kidnapped by Abu Sayyaf. (For those who prefer the news story, here it is). It stumped me. Why on earth would the group release a video of their hostage talking freely and bluntly?

I understand that the negotiators may have demanded proof that he was still alive. And I can well understand Warren Roswell holding the sentiments he expresses. ("I personally hold no hope at all for being released. I do not trust Abu Sayyaf. I do not trust the Australian Government. I just don't trust anyone. Personally, I don't care."). But what would be the logic in the group filming this, and releasing it? Wouldn't the group prefer to force him to plead to be ransomed, rather than him expressing blunt apathy, hopelessness, and open distrust of his jailers? What gives? 58.111.170.38 (talk) 15:34, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Maybe they don't know that they are Evil Enemies Of Liberty (most people don't...), and grant him the right to speak freely as long as it does not hurt their position? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:55, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I've not watched the video, but, as well as agreeing with Stephan's analysis, I would suggest the following. If you force someone to say what you want in a video message, it may be obvious that they're being forced to say it. Alternatively, if you don't understand their language and culture well, they may also be able to get across hints that make it obvious that it's forced.

Also, forcing someone to say particular things for a recording, is probably a big nuisance - a lot more so than just pointing a camera at them and letting them talk. You have to tell them what you want them to say, then you have to make them remember it, then you have to make your threats, then you have to check they've said it right and without any forbidden hints, then you have to threaten them or carry out some of your threats when they don't say it right, then make them say it again, then realise you forgot to start recording the second time, and so on. All very messy - why bother?

A hostage obviously talking in their own words and sounding dejected and helpless and hopeless, may be just as effective in encouraging responses as a hostage pleading for help. Plus maybe the jailers don't particularly object to their hostage viewing them (or their superiors) as untrustworthy. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:53, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

In the Iraq War, there were many British soldiers - airmen and SAS, who were taken prisoner, and then filmed. They had little ways of simply informing people that they were not being treated well. One SAS soldier would use his middle finger to scratch his eye everytime he said anything he was forced to say. It was obvious he was being tortured because he had a face like a smashed crab. They all use these little codes. Also, as Demiurge says, a hostage just saying he's given up can also be effective. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 22:41, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

The pilot with the beaten-up face was John Peters (RAF officer), and here is a picture of him on Iraqi TV. It was an own goal for the Iraqis because he had obviously not been treated in a civilised way. I understand that British forces are now trained in how to deal with these circumstances, including coded gestures as KageTora describes. Alansplodge (talk) 18:11, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

sleeping in two cycles

can I sleep about 3.5 hours a night from 3:30 or 4 (depending on how tired i am and how interesting what I am is and how motivatead I still am) to 7:30, work until 5 (ending up quite tired) and catching another nap from maybe 7-9 or 7-10 before continuing for antoher five hours.

This totals 5.5-6.5 or even 7 hours of sleep (3:30 to 7:30 and 7-10), however it is in two stages. Can I keep it up indefinitely without detriment? I find that I am extremely focused after the nap, can drink a coffee and work in total concentration and quiet, and ALSO the 'low point' of the day is around maybe 3-6 pm when i would not be productive anyway.

what do you guys think? It seems to be working well for me but I wonder if it's an illusion, or really a good mgt of time in case of a great deal of work and concentration needed at a quiet time. 91.120.48.242 (talk) 16:23, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Sounds like you're doing segmented sleep. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 16:36, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Winston Churchill followed a schedule similar to that for most of his life, and it's hard to think of anybody who was more productive. Looie496 (talk) 18:31, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

But that doesn't necessarily mean it will be good for you. We cannot advise you about this, as it is a medical question. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 19:10, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I've had doctors tell me specifically that the 4 + 4 is not a good sleep pattern. The OP's best bet is to consult a doctor who's a sleep specialist. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:28, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

It seems that, historically, this may have been the norm: see this article. --TammyMoet (talk) 20:38, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

That article discusses segmented sleep, which Finlay McWalter already linked to above. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 17:11, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

circumcised

is this only Muslim and Jewish women who are circumcised or will it be someone chosen for reasons other than religious? (I'm on a school computer so I can not go into the article and read me for it). --109.232.72.49 (talk) 19:55, 24 January 2013 (UTC).

Neither mainstream Muslim nor Jewish religious thought prescribes the practice of female circumcision. There's a Wikipedia article at Religious views on female genital mutilation which covers the views of major religious denomination on the practice, and notes that while some members of both religions practice it, the article also notes that the practice thereof is very far from a mainstream practice, and is controversial within both Judaism and Islam. --Jayron32 20:11, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I know that only the most fundamentalist Jews and Muslims who prescribes it, but that's because one of my friends are circumcised and neither her or her family are Jews or Muslims, so I thought about what other reason could be? --109.232.72.49 (talk) 20:18, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with fundementalism, Judaism, or Islam. It's a fringe practice that is not particularly associated with Islam or Judaism, though that doesn't mean that no person who is Jewish or Muslim has ever been so treated. There's a clear distinction between a person who is X faith doing something and X faith mandating that something is done. --Jayron32 20:26, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

109.232.72.49 -- The custom is mainly confined to Africa, where it is practiced among people of many religions. Local Islamic leaders in areas where female genital mutilation is practiced (especially along the Nubia-Eritrea-Somalia axis, where the most extreme forms of mutilation traditionally occurred) sometimes claim that it is an Islamic obligation, but there are wide areas of the Muslim world where the custom is basically unknown. I don't know where you got the idea that it's a common Jewish custom, because it isn't. AnonMoos (talk) 21:11, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

AnonMoos, the link to both Judaism and Islam, or at least to people of those faiths, is referred to in the link provided by Jayron32 in his first reply. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:08, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

And that article says that it's a cultural practice only among Ethiopian Jews)... AnonMoos (talk) 15:49, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Hope you don't mind me asking, but are you sure that you and your female friend know what circumcision is? Staecker (talk) 22:05, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I think it is you who is confused. Female circumcision is a particularly barbaric practice quite distinct from male circumcision. i kan reed (talk) 19:22, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Ancient Somalia & Macrobia

Hello,

what script did Ancient Somalia have and what does archaelogy say about it? And did Macrobia have a script and as well what does archaeology say about it?

Greetings HeliosX (talk) 20:15, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

It seems likely, given the geographic proximity, that many civilizations in the Horn of Africa would have used a relative of the Ge'ez script which was widely used in the area in ancient times, though I don't know for certain how or if it was used in the territory that is known as Somalia in modern times. --Jayron32 20:30, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

The general term is South Arabian alphabet... AnonMoos (talk) 21:04, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Based on what did the Canadian PM say this?

First of all forgive my English spelling mistakes, I am Japanese. My question is based on what did the Canadian PM say that Islamic terrorism is the biggest threat to Canada internal security? Kotjap (talk) 21:44, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't really know what Harper based the claim on, but it seems a very reasonable position. What other serious internal threats does Canada have? I can't really think of one. --Trovatore (talk) 21:46, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, OK, I suppose I can think of one — Quebec separatism. But violence seems to be out of fashion in that quarter. --Trovatore (talk) 21:48, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes you're right, even my country Japan is threatened by Islamic terrorism, see the hostages in Algeria, many were Japanese. Kotjap (talk) 21:50, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I should say that agreeing with Harper that Islamic terrorism is probably Canada's greatest internal security threat (because there aren't any other very serious ones to compare it with) is not the same as saying I think he's right about the correct response to it. My opinion is that the United States has gone very far overboard in security-related measures that threaten individual liberty, since 9/11. If I were Canadian, I would want to avoid following that path. --Trovatore (talk) 22:02, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Based on what? 1) Canada has a sizable Muslim population. The vast majority of Canadian Muslims are loyal and law-abiding citizens, but in other countries with Muslim populations (including the USA) a very small cohort decide to take up terrorism. 2) Canada under Harper has made a point of supporting Israel's government internationally in a way that might attract the ire of Muslim terrorists. For example, Canada was one of the few states of any geopolitical significance other than the United States and Israel itself to reject the recent United Nations General Assembly resolution 67/19. Marco polo (talk) 22:21, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Also see this recent annual report from the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) [2] The section on "the threat environment" starts like this: "Terrorism, primarily Islamist extremist violence, remains the greatest threat to the safety and security of the West, including Canadians, both within Canada and internationally. Canada is a tangible target for Islamist extremist-inspired violence." So it's not just Prime Minister Harper who uses such language. The paragraphs which follow explain why CSIS makes that assessment. --Xuxl (talk) 12:26, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

January 25

High-ranking transsexual officials

According to news reports from Poland ([3]), there is a possibility that Anna Grodzka will be a candidate for the post of deputy speaker of the lower house of Polish parliament. I looked at all entries in Category:Transgender and transsexual politicians and it seems that no other person who has undergone a sex-change operation has ever been elected to a comparatively high office. But perhaps someone knows of another example which I couldn't find? To what extent Grodzka's election would be unprecedented? — Kpalion^(talk) 00:24, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, this Pink News article from 2011 says that Grodzka "is thought to be the world’s only sitting transgender MP". As far as I can see, the only other people in the category you linked to who have been elected into national office are Vladimir Luxuria (a former Italian MP) and Georgina Beyer (a former New Zealand MP), neither of whom appears to have reached a position comparable to Deputy Marshal of the Sejm of the Republic of Poland (which I assume is the position you are talking about?). The category might not include intersex or third gender people - though I couldn't find any examples who have been elected on a national level. By the way, I know the terminology around trans issues is a little confusing, but "transsexual" is not necessarily synonymous with "undergone a sex-change operation" (more usually called sex reassignment surgery). The article transgender goes into a lot of detail about the terminology. 81.98.43.107 (talk) 13:51, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

So it appears that if she does get elected, it will be a big first globally. But the chances are probably slim. Thanks for the correction on the terminology. But then, is there a single word in English that describes a person who has undergone sex reassignment surgery? The article Transgender doesn't say, and Sex reassignment surgery actually does say that "people who pursue sex reassignment surgery are usually referred to as transsexual" (no source given). — Kpalion^(talk) 20:26, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not really an expert on trans issues, but I don't think there really is a word for that. There are many different medical procedures that come under the term "sex reassignment surgery", of which people might have several (some intersex people have SRS too, often at a very young age, and they generally don't identify as transsexual or transgender). Generally, trans people (like everyone else, really) care far more about their identity and the way they present themselves than their physical sex characteristics, and they are often unwilling to talk publicly about which medical procedures they have had, if any. The usual catch-all term nowadays is "transgender" (or "trans" or "trans*"), which covers anyone whose gender identity does not match the sex they were assigned at birth - that doesn't necessarily imply that they have gone through, or intend to go through, hormone therapy or sex reassignment surgery. 81.98.43.107 (talk) 20:49, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! — Kpalion^(talk) 23:58, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Looking for a book

As a child in the early 1990s, I read a book with the following attributes:

• Setting is colonial New England (USA, not Queensland)

• New England (New South Wales) is in, well, New South Wales. It borders Queensland, but that's as far as it goes. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 02:32, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• Basic plot is that a man and his adolescent son move to the wilderness, where they build a cabin on land that they've just bought. Dad goes back to civilisation to wind up affairs and to get the rest of the family ready to move to the cabin. Son stays at the cabin through the winter to watch it, and he meets some local Indians. A chief brings a young relative (son? grandson?), who becomes a friend of the white boy and teaches him to become wilderness-savvy.
• The white boy has a dog.
• The Indian boy teaches the white boy to make fishhooks out of bone at some point in the story
• At some point, one of the boys (the Indian?) goes off (or perhaps just talks of going off) to find his manitou, apparently as part of a coming-of-age ritual.

Any clue what I'm talking about? Google didn't help. Nyttend (talk) 01:21, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

The Sign of the Beaver? Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:43, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that's definitely it; thanks. Perhaps I should have checked Special:WhatLinksHere/Manitou, since it's in the first page of results...Checking the map, I realise that I was thinking of an area vaguely near Mackey or Townsville. Nyttend (talk) 04:11, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

That would be Mackay, Queensland. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 04:22, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

:-( I think I'll stop misreading things now and return to reserve powers or something else :-) Nyttend (talk) 04:32, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Reserve powers are much safer ground. Still tricky, though.  :) -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 04:39, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Options for a family's family names in the USA

I assume that in the majority of cultures in which people bear given names and family names, traditionally a wife adopts her husband's family name (I know that this is different in Spanish), which is also applied to all the children. In Austria, this has been liberalized step by step in the last decades, but is still quite restricted. For example, either of the spouses is entitled to bear a double name, but not both of them, or both might keep their family names. In any case, all children must bear one and the same of their parents' family names.
I'd like to know about the current situation in the USA. I assume this differs from state to state... but would it be possible, for example, that both partners keep their family names, sons bearing that of the father and daughters their mother's name? Other possibilities? --KnightMove (talk) 02:40, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

You can see an example of Tennessee [4] here. In that case, the default expectation is the fathers surname will be there (whether in combination with the mother's suname/s or alone) if he was married to the mother at any time between conception and birth but there is an option for only the mother's surname/s provided both parents mutually agree. However from what I can see there's no option to use a surname which doesn't come from either the mother or father. It doesn't say anything about any other siblings so I suspect that doesn't come in to play. Nil Einne (talk) 02:52, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

BTW is your first sentence referring to the US only? If not, although I expect patrilineality when it comes to the child's family name is in the majority, I don't know if you can say 'traditionally a wife adopts her husband's family name'. This commonly doesn't happen with Chinese surnames, Korean names and Vietnamese names, in non Western areas for example. (Although the wife may be referred to as Mrs. Husband's surname.) And where patronym are still used instead of family names, I'm not sure how common it is for the patronym to change upon marriage (it clearly wouldn't be a patronym anymore for starters), e.g. it doesn't generally happen with Arabic names and those closely related like Malay Malaysian names. See also Married and maiden names. Nil Einne (talk) 03:06, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

It varies person to person. Women are presumed to have the option of adopting their husband's last name when they marry. I am not aware of any state where there is some problem if she keeps going by her own name. It's generally legal to use any name you like in the US as long as you are not trying to commit fraud or avoid the law by doing so. Common law is much more liberal than the Napoleonic Code. See legal name. μηδείς (talk) 02:57, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

The assumption in the USA is that the woman will adopt her husband's last name, and most of the paperwork is designed to make this easy, but there are no legal requirements for this. It is perfectly legal for the husband to take the wife's last name, for each to keep their original last name, for both partners to adopt hyphenated last names, for both to adopt a completely new last name, and so on. --Carnildo (talk) 03:53, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

In the U.S., you can legally call yourself or your children any damned thing you want, so long as you don't do so as a means of fraud. There are no established rules for naming oneself. The tradition is that the wife will get the surname of her husband upon marriage, and the children will take the surname of their father, but variations are common enough; every permutation described by Carnildo I have personally known people to do. --Jayron32 03:56, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, just to contradict you for having repeated my answer almost verbatim without credit, Jayron, one can't usually just assign a surname to one's children that doesn't belong to the parents. A legitimate child is entitled to his father's name unless both parents agree to give him the mother's. That's part of the child's right to inherit, but doesn't prevent him from adopting any name he likes on majority. μηδείς (talk) 04:16, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Are you sure about that? I don't believe you're required to give your children the same surname as either parent. This article gives examples of American parents who gave their children last names that don't match either parent, This page also states that U.S. law does not require babies to take either parent's surname. This forum seems to indicate that Louisiana may have a state naming law, but may be unique in that regard. SMDB is of the opinion that, in the U.S. you can name your child anything you want. This paper from 1983 notes that some states (at that time) so restricted a parent's right to name their children, but argued that such statutes were not valid for various reasons. this page states that as of 2007 (when it was written) that mother's generally have the right to choose a child's last name, and are not bound to give it either the father's name or their own. In Minnesota, you can legally give your child any last name you choose and are not required to have a name from either parent. This lawyer says that in the U.S. there aren't any strict laws against giving your child any particular name, unless it is particularly traumatic. This source agrees. The GW Law Review lists only a few states that have surname restrictions: Louisiana, Tennessee, the District of Columbia, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Mississippi: in most of those cases, however, the law is written in resolving naming disputes between parents: there seems to be a general agreement that is cases where the parents both agree, they can give it any surname they wish. That's the sources I can find on the matter. --Jayron32 04:54, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't see anything in the Tennessee law I showed above in the first reply, allowing a surname which does not include at least one parents surnames. If both parents agree, the father's surname isn't required, but in that case the mother's seems to be. There may be something I'm missing, IANAL and it may be allowed elsewhere, and it's also possible state officials ignore what the law actually says. But as it stands it seems to me whatever the intention of the law in Tennessee, on the face of it it appears to restrict the surname to one or both of the parents even if they both want something else. (I'm of course referring to restrictions for those only involving Tennessee, not those who have registered their child's name elsewhere.) Nil Einne (talk) 12:45, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

You'll note that Tennessee is written in my own research as one of the "few states that have surname restrictions", so I'm not sure who you're disagreeing with. --Jayron32 14:02, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

You explicitly said 'in most of those cases, however, the law is written in resolving naming disputes between parents: there seems to be a general agreement that is cases where the parents both agree, they can give it any surname they wish'. This statement may or may not be true if we take 'in most of those cases' to apply to 'that is cases where the parents both agree' which isn't entirely clear from the wording but is largely a minor issue and I never gave any indication I was disputing that or anything else. But the evidence we have so far for Tennessee from before your reply is that is it is not true there that when parents agree they can give any surname they wish, something you did not mention so I pointed out. In other words, as far as we know thus far, there is at least one state where parents cannot give their child any surname they wish instead only one coming from one or both parents. Nil Einne (talk) 12:44, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

As is aggravatingly true for much U.S. law, the naming of children – including the selection of a surname – is regulated by a patchwork of state laws. This paper from The George Washington Law Review surveys some of the different rules and legal precedents. On the issue of surnames, some states (including, but not limited to, Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland, Montana, South Carolina, and Washington) are essentially wide open. Here's a first-hand account of New Jersey parents who gave their child a 'blended' last name: [5]. (She's Mrs. Fisch; he's Mr. Flynn; their son is little Timmy Flysch.) Here's the FAQ for a Florida birth certificate, noting explicitly that "Parents may give their child any name they wish. Traditionally, children born to married parents have the same last name as their father. However, a child can have the mother’s surname, a hyphenated name made up of both the mother and father’s surnames or any name the parent(s) choose."

Some other states have very strict rules limiting the choice to the parents' surnames, or to the surnames of individuals related to the parents. (I can't comment on whether or not the states with 'strict' rules on the books actually enforce them, either.) Whether or not such rules would survive a constitutional challenge is an open question; there is a strong argument to be made that such laws are vulnerable on both First and Fourteenth Amendment grounds. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 05:34, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

It should also be noted that, per the Full Faith and Credit Clause, every state is bound to respect the official name of a person as established in any other state. So, if a person is born in a state with very liberal naming rules, like say Delaware, and they file a birth certificate there, and then move shortly thereafter to Louisiana, where the name would have been invalid under Louisiana law, Louisiana can't do anything about it. They are bound by the Full Faith and Credit Clause to respect the birth certificate as filed legally under Delaware law. Thus, if John Smith and Mary Jones name their child Peter Williams in Delaware, then move instantly to Louisiana, the state of Louisiana has to accept the name of the child even if the name would have been disallowed under Louisiana law. --Jayron32 05:39, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

KnightMove -- under the traditional Common Law, an adult person can call himself or herself anything they want, as long as there is no intent to defraud... AnonMoos (talk) 13:41, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

@ Jayron, I didn't mean to imply that some states might not have come up with novel law regarding surnames, just as all sorts of notions like gay marriage and palimony that have no basis in common law have been created in recent years. The traditional reasoning was that as an heir, a legitimate child was entitled to his father's name as part of his patrimony. Unlegitimized children took their mother's name as inheriting solely from her. Foundlings are another matter. The Spanish naming customs article gives insight into the traditional reasoning. As for naming your child what you like as a 1st Amendment issue, that applies within reason. But children are not property, their rights are what matters most. If you insist on naming and calling your son Shit Head, you are quickly going to be charged with abuse and face a court order or loss of custody. μηδείς (talk) 19:13, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Hardly. The authorities would refuse to allow such a name to be registered in the first place. But if you're talking about an abusive name that a parent calls a child in the privacy of their own home, or even within earshot of others, that is beyond this question. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 20:18, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

On the assumption that's to me, I fixed your indent, Jack. Arguing over a hypothetical example is hardly profitable. Perhaps certain state laws do outlaw a name like Shit Head. If so that supports my point. But I am not sure whether many states do practice prior restraint in regards to first names. There was the recent case in NJ where parents had named their children Adolf Hitler and the like. They were not prevented from doing so, but lost custody for easily imaginable reasons when it became news that a bakery had refused to make the child a birthday cake. And name-calling and naming are two different things, so no, I wasn't talking about a father calling his son John a shithead. μηδείς (talk) 20:26, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Adolf Hitler Campbell custody case. μηδείς (talk) 20:28, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

How could that possibly support your point? What government is going to allow a parent to give their child some inappropriate name, and then turn around and prosecute them for doing what they allowed him to do? In any case, what's the deal with you being able to make hypothetical assertions but others are not allowed to ever question them? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 23:11, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, feel free to question away at hypothetical arguments, just don't expect me to defend or explain them as if they were true.

Then don't make them to begin with. This place doesn't work on people making pontifical statements ex cathedra and others accepting them unquestioningly, on pain of instant decapitation. If you can't deal with others commenting on, questioning, or otherwise discussing anything you post here - and I mean anything - you'd better get back to ancient Mesopotamia or wherever it is you're from. Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 04:18, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I will give OR examples of two couples I know personally. (The actual names are changed for privacy's sake, but the examples are real.) (1) merged name: John Baxter and Karen Sterling kept their own names, but their children have the merged surname Baxling; (2) stage name: A couple who are both performers, Henry Johannes uses the stage name "Henry Jones", while Erin Latham uses her own name for performing. Upon marriage, they both legally change their surnames to Jones, which he continues to use while performing while she now uses "Latham" as a pseudonym.    → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 20:38, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

My own last name is a highly modified spelling of my Great Grandfather's. He immigrated to the US and opened a business. Although the last name was easy for Americans to pronounce, the spelling conventions of the old country made it impossible to figure out. He never legally changed his name, but his children were issude birth certificates with the greatly changed spelling. μηδείς (talk) 20:42, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• As for boy Adolf, the government is not a monolith. It's not a question of "the government" "approving" the name and then "the government" reversing its decision. There are various agencies doing different things. The parents registered the name through whatever clerk in whatever department handles that. Since I doubt NJ has any restrictive state law on given names, the clerk probably laughed and added a photo copy to his scrapbook of funny names. But names are not "approved". Then four years later the matter comes to media attention and various other allegations of abuse are made, the name being just one of them. Social services investigated, and if I remember first left the child with the parents then removed him and a sibling or two after other allegations were made. The boy was put in someone else's custody, and the press reported that his name was changed. μηδείς (talk) 19:42, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

What was the original language?

What language was B. K. S. Iyengar's Light On Yoga originally published in? Apparently it was translated into 17 languages, so which was the original language?Curb Chain (talk) 03:44, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

This bibliography gives "Light on Yoga, Allen & Unwin, London 1966". If it was first published in London by a mainstream publisher, it suggests that it was written in English. Many educated Indian people are fluent English speakers. However, there may have been a previous edition in another language, but if so, I can't find it on the internet. Alansplodge (talk) 17:32, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Yoga for Singing:A Developmental Tool for Technique and Performance says that the "first American edition of Iyengar's work was an adaptation of the original Light on Yoga published in England in 1966..." It goes on to say that Yehudi Menuhin had been a pupil of Iyengar's for 30 years, so it seems likely that he was working in London at the time the book was published, if I'm reading the text correctly. Alansplodge (talk) 17:32, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• The Iyengar article identifies them as Tamil language speakers. μηδείς (talk) 23:01, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Right. Was the BOOK in Tamil or English?Curb Chain (talk) 01:28, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm almost 100% certain that the book published in London in 1966 would have been in English, but I haven't been able to prove it. User Medeis is saying that if there was an earlier edition in his native language, it would have been in Tamil. However, I haven't been able to find anything that suggests that there was an earlier edition, and it is very common for Indian nationals to write books in English rather than in their native language. I'm sorry that I can't be more positive. Alansplodge (talk) 14:48, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

You can actually look at the copyright page at [6] which says copyright 1966 by Allen & Unwin, printed by Shocken Books, and nothing about "translated from the Tamil 1st edition" or the sort. Hence you can confidently assume it was in English. μηδείς (talk) 03:47, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Death of Adolf Hitler

Hitler is dead. This is the only answer that a reference desk need give here. This is not a forum for debate. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:56, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

What are some strong, solid evidences that prove Hitler was dead? (and please don't include witness because I don't trust any of them, all witnesses that claimed Hitler suicided were all his subordinates at some points. Don't forget that when the Soviet came Hitler already died if he actually suicide) Personally I don't believe he is dead. He is a crazy bastard but obviously a very intelligent man. Why would he kill himself instead of running and hiding some places else? He can easily escape like many other Nazi officials did. Of course he has to be under disguise so his face doesn't look like Hitler but that's easy. His ambition seems too strong for him to give up. He could have escaped and raised his children and his children raise their children and so on... Hitler's descendants could be blended in to us right now without we're knowing it. They are waiting for a best chance to blow the ultimate revenge on humanity (I know this is really hard if not impossible, that's why nothing happen involving Hitler after so many years). Even if he escaped he would be too old by now and probably died many years ago but surely his descendants are still alive if he escaped. This is my logic, if he escaped then the best way to ensure long term revenge is to make sure that even after he died there will be someone to continue his ambitious crazy dream. The best candidate for that is his own descendants and he could have easily brainwashed them into thinking the best thing for the world is to blow it up or something like that. The chance of if he escaped and just live like a normal person without planning any big scheme is almost 0. My point is if he escaped then there must be some plans going to destroy the world right now that we currently unaware of. This sounds like a more likely route he would take rather than suicide. I have read enough about Hitler to know his personality somewhat, he is super extremely paranoid dreaming about his own utopia world and he may know it is impossible to achieve his goal but he refused to believe in the real situation. I believe he WILL never give up unless someone actually kill him not he killed himself. Suicidal is not something Hitler would do. Anyway my doubtful of Hitler's death is not without evidence. In the Death of Adolf Hitler, we have tested a skull that the Soviet claim of Hitler but turned out the skull was of a woman? This has proven we thought a dead body that was Hitler is actually not Hitler at all! We never actually find his body! So what makes everyone so sure that Hitler was dead? I believe the Soviet knew that Hitler was not dead but announced he was dead to calm the world. Imagine if they did announce Hitler wasn't dead then that would panic the whole world afraid that he may come back and start the World War 3 or something. So as the natural decision, they should announce Hitler was dead no matter what. The whole details of Hitler's last few days were told by Hitler's subordinates, which should not be trusted. The fact should be consider that almost all his subordinates worship him so they can do whatever he order. He could plan up a nice flawless story before hand and make sure everyone's stories are consistent that he killed himself. Not a problem! Some claimed the dead bodies match up with dentists' records, those records could easily made up. Hitler could easily just kill 2 people and make sure his subordinate confirm that they're his body and his wife body. We didn't have DNA test back then so we can't prove that was indeed Hitler's dead body. I'm not saying that Hitler didn't kill himself, as the matter of fact is we don't know and nobody knows except Hitter himself. We just don't have enough sufficient information to make any conclusion. But if I would make a guess, I would lean toward the idea that he escaped because base from his never-give up mind, he would do it. Plus I bet he wanted a chance to revenge too. Sorry this is rather lengthy, I'm not going for a debate here but strong sources that can back up claims on whether he was dead or not, should have strong evidences instead of just saying he is dead (again exclude any witness accounts). 184.97.244.130 (talk) 05:18, 25 January 2013 (UTC) We don't have time for your paranoid rant or conspiracy theories, and the reference desk is not a place for speculation. --140.180.242.224 (talk) 05:42, 25 January 2013 (UTC) Please respect other people's questions. Please prove that what I said is a paranoid rant? I can say the same thing, your accusation is a paranoid insult to me. I bet you didn't even read half of it and just make some random accusation base from the length. And I think you're really getting confused between a question and a speculation. It's obviously I'm asking a question here. 184.97.244.130 (talk) 06:12, 25 January 2013 (UTC) He was born in 1889. He would be 124 if he was alive today. Looie496 (talk) 06:05, 25 January 2013 (UTC) False. He would be 123 if he was alive today. While maybe age 123 is thoeretically possible for one man in a billion or so, Hitler had Parkinson's disease, so I don't see him living anywhere near this age if he would have hypothetically somehow survived WWII. Futurist110 (talk) 22:29, 25 January 2013 (UTC) I know that! I have also mentioned that above if you read what I wrote. That's not what I'm concerned, I'm more concern about if he escaped back in 1945 or suicide.184.97.244.130 (talk) 06:12, 25 January 2013 (UTC) Well, there's no reason to be concerned now then, is there? You did use the present tense repeatedly, as if you thought his plan to start a third world war were a going concern. Even if he had escaped, he most likely would have lived out his life in Argentina or the South Pacific (like the Nazis that actually did escape). The idea of him secretly planning to carry on the Reich into the next generation is a little far-fetched, and I can basically guarantee you won't find any scholarly literature on it. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 06:18, 25 January 2013 (UTC) Well there is a lot to concern about if he escaped back in 1945. Chances he will have kids and he could easily brainwash his kids and his kids brainwash their kids and so on. Basically his descendants will cause some troublesome in the future, which is unpredictable. Perhaps they're patiently waiting for a good chance to revenge now. This is just an unproven idea so of course there won't be any book about it. Anyway it's not what I'm looking for, I'm looking for a strong evidence that can convince me Hitler was dead.184.97.244.130 (talk) 06:24, 25 January 2013 (UTC) If the evidence which exists now in the current, mainstream scholarship is not enough to convince you, no one here is going to be able to. This isn't the place for that. There's every major history of World War II that reports his death and the manner of it. If you don't want to believe those, there's nothing else anyone here could possibly add to the historical canon which may convince you otherwise. --Jayron32 06:42, 25 January 2013 (UTC) See! It's just an evil conspiracy that he isn't allowed to claim such a prestigious record! --Jayron32 06:08, 25 January 2013 (UTC) In all seriousness, you may be interested in the book Ratline. I haven't read it, but I did hear an interview with the author (a professional journalist) and he did seem different from your standard paranoid conspiracy theorist. Personally, I still think it's nonsense, but since you asked I reference I thought I should provide you with the only one I can (partially) vouch for. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 06:18, 25 January 2013 (UTC) To be fair, even eloquent writers can present evidence for clearly batshit insane conclusions. I haven't read the book you're referring to, but guys like Graham Hancock have shown that you can write a compelling book and present cases in a compelling, not-at-all-cooky-sounding-way, and still arrive at a conclusion which is just plain wrong. Being cogent and coherent and well presented is not a guarantee to being 'correct'. --Jayron32 06:46, 25 January 2013 (UTC) From the description, Ratline is written by a guy obsessed with stalking and persecuting former Nazis. It's hardly an objective and neutral source for historical information. --140.180.242.224 (talk) 08:45, 25 January 2013 (UTC) Not sure about the "obsessed" statement, but otherwise I agree. My mention of it was really nothing more than "heard about this and thought it was interesting; since you asked the question, you might too", in the same way I might mention a Harry Turtledove novel to someone who came along and asked about alternate outcomes to WWII. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 09:09, 25 January 2013 (UTC) No, OP, I read your entire post. That's why I knew that most of it was paranoid speculation. But since you at least seem sincere in asking the question, I'll try to address some points. First of all, your idea that Hitler would brainwash future generations and make them destroy the world is utterly ridiculous. Hitler's aim was not to create "evil", and if you believe it was, you have a highly naive view of the world. He believed in the supremacy of the Aryan race and wanted to build a strong German nation that was no longer humiliated by the Treaty of Versailles or the economic disaster of the 1920s. That involved the elimination of people he perceived to be destroying the German nation, including Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, the disabled, etc. It also involved wars of aggression to gain back lost territory under the Treaty of Versailles, and to gain Lebensraum for the German population to expand. Is it possible that, had Hitler escaped, he would have trained his children to kill Jews for revenge? Yes, but that was not his primary goal, and it never was; his goal was to be the leader of a militarily and economically powerful German nation. By May 1945, with the Soviet military 500 meters from his bunker, it was clear that was never going to happen again, and that he had failed in his goals for Germany. People have committed suicide for lesser reasons, such as financial collapse and romantic issues. Being the leader of the most powerful country on Earth, winning every battle for 2 years, and then losing it all to fall into Soviet hands (who were not particularly known for treating their prisoners nicely) while every German city had been bombed to smithereens, would seem a good reason for suicide as any to most people. As for evidence that Hitler died, if you don't trust the testimony of people who were actually there, and you don't trust the records of the Soviets (who found his body and essentially verified the witnesses' accounts), then almost by definition, there's no evidence that he died. Historical evidence is never certain, especially when you start postulating conspiracy theories involving every witness on both the German and Soviet sides in addition to the dentist. As for Hitler's body, the article you linked to makes it clear that it was exhumed in 1970, cremated, and scattered into a river. Make of that what you will, but except for correcting your extremely naive views about Hitler (which make me doubt that you've read him), reference desk volunteers are not going to magically come up with evidence of his death that isn't already well-known and well accepted. --140.180.242.224 (talk) 08:36, 25 January 2013 (UTC) Looking like you are one of those people that like to advocate for Hitler. Are you saying he is not evil? You can argue that Hitler did everything for the better Germany but his actions were unbelievable evil, concentration camp was an example. I don't care if what he did was just for the goods of Germany but what he did was wrong and evil. Plus he doesn't seem to care much about German people anyway. He can kill any of them whoever stands up against him.184.97.244.130 (talk) 04:13, 28 January 2013 (UTC) From a psychological perspective, you (OP) have actually hit on one excellent circumstantial piece of evidence for why Hitler could not have survived: his never-give-up attitude. Having conquered almost all of mainland Europe, and survived several assassination attempts, he was increasingly convinced of his own invincibility. Not always - he'd have periodic dark rages in which he believed his efforts were doomed due to the incompetence or treachery of those around him. But he was very sure of his strategic genius. This was a considerable problem for his military commanders, some of whom had had grave doubts about his strategy since the announcement of Operation Barbarossa or earlier. But Hitler was a skilled orator, and could be extremely persuasive. We're often shown only footage of him ranting wildly, but this would often be done as the impassioned climax of a speech which had begun on a sombre or restrained note. He had many ways to win people round, and so did Goebbels, who believed in Hitler implicitly at times when other ostensible loyalists were wavering. And Hitler used his party loyalists to bully and browbeat the army, many of whom were not Nazis. The conservative 'Valkyrie' coup attempt was driven by army officers. Many of those were executed, and others were imprisoned. Erwin Rommel was done away with partly on the basis of suspicion of involvement. So the army were terrified of even being seen to contradict Hitler, even when they knew his plans were suicidal. Towards the end, Hitler was giving irrational orders to defend and hold positions that were indefensible, or in some cases even already lost. He seems to be have been wildly self-deluding about the scale of the Russian invasion until the very last days. This lack of clarity and rationality about the collapse of his grand project can be seen as deriving from his fanatical self-belief. So when it became apparent that key figures even within the party were fleeing, or trying to negotiate defection or surrender, and the Red Army had reached central Berlin, Hitler's world was turned upside down. He and Goebbels alike set about destroying those around them, and then themselves, rather than accept the possibility of surrender. I agree with the IP above who points out that you are needlessly mythologising Hitler. He was not the personification of evil, or a literal monster bent on crushing the human race; he was a politician, and while his objectives were plainly cruel and dangerous, and his methods unspeakable, it is naive to see him as a movie-style villain intent on destroying the world. You also mention his descendants. Although Eva Braun was quite young at the time of her marriage, Hitler himself was quite middle-aged and in deteriorating health. There's no reason to believe he would have been capable of having children, even if his marriage had lasted longer than it did. So once again: discard ideas of this man as a super-villain. He was quite bad enough to deserve his reviled place in the history books, and does not need to be invested with mystical qualities. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:39, 25 January 2013 (UTC) Aside from the fact that there is no evidence for the OP's claims that Hitler survived, it is very unlikely someone born in 1889 would still be around today. He weren't Methuselah. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:27, 25 January 2013 (UTC) It's deja vu all over again. We've already been over the ground that the OP is well aware that Hitler would now be dead no matter what happened in 1945. To quote him, "I know that! I have also mentioned that above if you read what I wrote. That's not what I'm concerned, I'm more concern about if he escaped back in 1945 or suicide". -- Jack of Oz [Talk] 20:13, 25 January 2013 (UTC) should have been left closed as trolling the first time μηδείς (talk) 23:00, 25 January 2013 (UTC) I reckon he confused me when he said, "Personally I don't believe he is dead." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:36, 25 January 2013 (UTC) The OP is clearly not a native English speaker as he confuses his tenses a lot. What he meant by that was that he believed Hitler survived the bunker (but obviously died some time later). -- Jack of Oz [Talk] 23:02, 25 January 2013 (UTC) Are you kidden me? I'm not trying to troll here. I'm asking a question. Can you guys stop insulting me? I thought Wikipedians are better than this. I'm not some stupid kids who have a lot of time fooling around trolling people. Stop accusing me without rigid evidence.184.97.244.130 (talk) 03:50, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

The Wart

In T. H. White's version of the Matter of Britain, Arthur was nicknamed "the Wart" by his foster brother Kay. Was this name original to White, or was he taking up an older idea? Marnanel (talk) 06:20, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm almost positive this was White's own addition to the canon. White's focus on the upbringing and childhood of Arthur shows a clearly 20th century psychological focus on the motivation of adult lives being heavily influenced by one's childhood experience. That sort of perspective simply doesn't fit in the times of earlier tellings of the Arthurian story. Malory doesn't even deal with Arthur's childhood at that level of detail, for example, and Malory's Le Morte d'Arthur is usually taken as the first really complete, canonical attempt to bring the entire Arthurian story into one narrative. Reading White's work it really stands out for its middle-20th-century-ness, and Arthur's cute nickname of "Wart" is one of those things that would seem out of place in the writing style of an earlier time. For the record, this is not a criticism of White's work, The Once and Future King is, bar none, my favorite version of the Arthurian story, but that's probably also because White's work follows 20th century storytelling paradigms, something earlier works did not do. Sorry to get off on too much of a tangent, but this really is one of my favorite books. To the original question, I don't believe that any earlier (or indeed later) author used the "Wart" nickname for the younger Arthur. At least, I can't recall its use outside of White. --Jayron32 06:32, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

White's approach to Arthurian tales seems to me to be greatly influenced by Twain's satirical take in A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court. Almost any character in The Sword in the Stone would be at home in Twain's version of the tale. Even the silly, deflating nickname "the Wart" was used by Twain to describe planet Earth in his "Captain Stormfield's Visit to Heaven." I have no idea if White regarded Twain as an influence, or if he was familiar with the Captain Stormfield story, but it would not surprise me. —Kevin Myers 09:20, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Indigenous people

Please name some indigenous people who have been able to retain their traditional culture intact without being affected by "modern culture" (as the case of Maori, American Indians who lost their traditional culture). This list should exclude uncontacted people. --PlanetEditor (talk) 06:31, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure if you exclude uncontacted people, your list would be the null set. There are many indigenous people groups which have retained aspects of their traditional life from times prior to modernity, but I'm not really sure there are any such groups which have maintained a fully traditional life, unaffected by contact with other people, after they have been in continuous contact with modern society for extended periods of time. --Jayron32 06:39, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. As to why, the reason is that modern culture has some aspects which are superior to those of traditional culture. Therefore, it would be unwise for a traditional culture to refuse all aspects of modern culture. In the case of native Americans, for example, Europeans brought horses, which were a vastly superior method of transportation compared with walking, and thus were widely adopted as the preferred method of transportation on land.

The trick is for the traditional culture to reject those aspects of modern culture which are not superior to their own, while adopting those which are. A very difficult goal to achieve, unfortunately. StuRat (talk) 07:28, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

An additional complication is that the notion of "superior" (and "inferior") is inherently subjective. Roger (talk) 07:42, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

In some cases, yes, but the horse example is pretty clearly an example of where 99.9% would agree that one is superior. StuRat (talk) 08:31, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Being as how "superior" and "inferior" can be politically-charged terms, maybe the term "more useful" would fit better. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:26, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

The horse is actually an excellent example. The horse actually spread through the new world faster than people did, to the point where horses introduced into the Americas in the early 16th centuries from Europe were adopted into Plains Indian culture to the point where some groups of the Northern Plains already had a well-established horse culture by the time they had first contact with European peoples. Thus, an indigenous people were directly affected by and had their own culture drastically altered by European culture before they even met them. --Jayron32 13:56, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I was going through the article Indigenous peoples, and looking at the pictures, wondering whether the Huli people and the Kayapo people count? --PlanetEditor (talk) 07:53, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

A brief google search shows that the Huli people have access to regional FM radio. The article on the Kayapo people says they have "trade agreements with The Body Shop". Both of these would disqualify them from your initial question. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:16, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I think, apart from uncontacted peoples, you would be hard pressed to find any sizeable group of people who would warrant being called a "people" who do not have at least one radio or TV or phone among them. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:19, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

This is an interesting study on how Huli language and culture has changed in modern times. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 17:20, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

To the OP: But even uncontacted people could modernize within their own capabilities so I think the question itself is not valid. I'll bet in some isolated cases or a single area of development you could argue that the uncontacted people actually modernized more that cultures who were in close contact with each other.165.212.189.187 (talk) 18:12, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

This is actually a matter of great argument in anthropology. Or was. Unfortunately, WP is sadly lacking in in-depth coverage of this sort of thing (see, for example, the sad article on anthropologist). In short, anthropologists like Richard Borshay Lee have asserted that, when they worked among the ǃKung in the 1970s they were studying an isolated people, living as they had for thousands of years with only the most minimal influence from outside the group. Most other anthropologists, especially later ones, pointed to several exceptions to that position. For example, Lee apparently glossed over the fact that the !Kung usually wore t-shirts and shorts while he was there. Stronger, more profound, connections became apparent with further study. It's been twenty years since I stopped studying anthropology; the fact that the debate (which was simply the debate in anthropology in the 80s and 90s) has apparently died down leads me to think that the next generation has downplayed the romanticism required to sustain Lee's position and the argument is now over. In short, populations are not nearly so discrete as was formerly asserted. At best, groups are like segments of a ring species, where the connection is circuitous but nevertheless solid. Matt Deres (talk) 13:11, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

It really depends on what you mean by "keeping their culture". If people organise a folk culture festival, which tourists can pay to go to, is that strengthening the local culture or losing it? Itsmejudith (talk) 13:25, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Secular humanism

Can a person who is an active practitioner of the Taoic religions, Dharmic religions, or Abrahamic religions be considered a "secular humanist" if he/she basically agrees with secular humanist principles (only using reason and empirical evidence in decision-making and ethics) while still practicing religious rituals based on the belief that those rituals are deeply intertwined and inseparable from his/her worldview but still very compatible with secular humanism? For example, a person may realize the importance of reason and empirical evidence, but also know that some things is difficult to be measured, observed or quantified and thus resort to ethical philosophy (e.g. Confucianism) to give the person a sense of how life works from a metaphorical perspective and what it means to the individual. Is a practitioner or faithful adherent of Chinese folk religions (Taoism, Buddhism, and Confucianism) labelled as "secular humanist" by Westerners who often believe that religion is closely associated with theism? 140.254.226.245 (talk) 15:47, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Secular humanism is based on Naturalism (philosophy) which is in conflict with supernaturalism of religion. --PlanetEditor (talk) 16:08, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I think labels are a convenience when it comes to spiritual world-views. I am reliably informed, for example that in Japan it is entirely possible to be a Christian, a Daoist and a Buddhist all at the same time. So someone may well have a personal spirituality which includes a belief in Christ, but in public life may choose to live according to secular humanism in the belief that it is the best thing to do. I myself was raised a Christian, but now am more "spiritual but not religious" and certainly when it comes to things like politics and ethics can identify with secular humanism. I think a narrow view of religion is counter-productive these days. (I know this is all very much my own feelings but I don't think I'm the only one with those views.) In the end, whose opinion matters? --TammyMoet (talk) 16:10, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Please seek an internet forum. This desk helps with searches for reference material
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
From our article, secular humanism rejects "religious dogma, supernaturalism, pseudoscience or superstition as the basis of morality and decision making". --PlanetEditor (talk) 16:17, 25 January 2013 (UTC) Can person still be an active practitioner of a traditional, ancient faith and reject religious dogma, supernaturalism, pseudoscience, and superstition as the basis of morality and decision-making? A person may believe that good ethics is the result of good reason, which is the result of the benevolence of a personal creator deity. As you can see, I don't think I have rejected your claim by writing "good ethics is not the result of good reason" by rejecting supernaturalism. Rather, I just added that a person may believe that good reason is based on the result of the benevolence of a personal creator deity who works with everyone, whether they know it or not, to achieve happiness on earth and in afterlife. In practice, such a person may pray to his/her personal creator deity to "give reason or enlightenment" or "try to work with the individual in some way" to use reason in order to make ethical decisions. 140.254.226.245 (talk) 16:31, 25 January 2013 (UTC) What we are seeing here is a common error -- arguing on the basis of logic about what a word ought to mean. But in real life people almost always use secular as the opposite of religious, so if those things are classified as religions, then beliefs based on them would not be called secular. Looie496 (talk) 17:32, 25 January 2013 (UTC) So, does that mean the meaning of a word in real life may not be the most logical but rather based on tradition from the former generation to the later generation? If that is the case, then wouldn't a secular humanist come to the conclusion that logic is to be expected and that what a word should mean is superior to what a word is generally accepted to mean? Perhaps, the person assuming the secular humanist position that reason should be at the bottom of decision-making and ethics has some sort of anti-religious prejudice, thinking that religions are illogical and irreligious atheism is logical while undermining the diversity of different religions. 140.254.226.229 (talk) 18:56, 25 January 2013 (UTC) Looie496: your point puzzles me. I firmly believe that the state has no business impinging on a person's religious conscience, and that therefore anything which is enforced on a citizen should not have a solely religious basis. And this, as far as I know, is a position called secularism. However, since I also believe everything in the Nicene Creed, pray daily, and go to church every week, are you saying I should stop describing myself as a secularist? And how then would you recommend I describe my position on church and state? Marnanel (talk) 19:45, 25 January 2013 (UTC) I have come to the conclusion that all religions are basically a spiritual "baseline" based on familial/local culture and customs employed to get children through childhood, so that once we can make these informed observations and decisions we can become Humanists. In other words its like filling in the gaps that children would not comprehend in order to not loose them to nihlism in the mean time.165.212.189.187 (talk) 18:00, 25 January 2013 (UTC) Quite apart from being patronising to adult believers, that would be OR and not a valid helpdesk answer, wouldn't it? Marnanel (talk) 19:47, 25 January 2013 (UTC) Well, I know openly gay Catholics, even though the RCC insists that gay people suppress that aspect of their sexuality and live as straight. I also know of many religious people with the attitudes of secular humanists, for whom religion is just a personal thing. Why not?--89.101.237.2 (talk) 21:52, 25 January 2013 (UTC) We've all heard about the religious people who profess a life of celibacy and preach morality to their congregations, but then sexually abuse young people. We've all heard about the religious organisations that urge their congregations to atone for their sins and if any law has been broken, to submit themselves to the authorities and take whatever medicine is appropriate - but assiduously protect their own abusing members from any such legal action. -- Jack of Oz [Talk] 22:44, 25 January 2013 (UTC) Please seek an internet forum. This desk helps with searches for reference material. μηδείς (talk) 22:58, 25 January 2013 (UTC) If you've read the article on secular humanism carefully, the answer is clearly no. "Secular humanism considers all forms of religion, including religious Humanism, to be superseded", and "All three types of Humanism (and all three of the American Humanist Association's manifestos) reject deference to supernatural beliefs; promoting the practical, methodological naturalism of science". "All member organisations of the International Humanist and Ethical Union are required by bylaw 5.1[16] to accept the Minimum Statement on Humanism: '...It is not theistic, and it does not accept supernatural views of reality.'" No amount of etymological argument can negate the fact that secular humanists consider themselves defined, in large part, by their rejection of superstitious beliefs. You cannot make all decisions based on reason rather than superstition, and simultaneously "practice religious rituals based on the belief that those rituals are deeply intertwined and inseparable from his/her worldview", because practicing those rituals is itself a decision, based on beliefs with absolutely no supporting evidence. You might as well ask whether an environmentalist can support large-scale deforestation. The answer is no, because no matter what you think "environment" should mean, the fact is that the vast majority of both environmentalists and non-environmentalists identify "environmentalism" to mean a philosophy that seeks to prevent large-scale deforestation. --140.180.242.224 (talk) 23:00, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Opportunity of a Lifetime

we do references here, not undefined requests for opinion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
A person has "opportunites" in their life that comes up from time to time where one could take advantage of them for some kind of a benefit (i.e. power, money). Maybe once in a lifetime a super great Opportunity of a Lifetime comes up. How is an Opportunity of a Lifetime related to general opportunities in life (if at all)? Why do some people seem to get all the breaks and have many opportunities in life (including the Opportunity of a Lifetime), while others get none?--24.180.106.88 (talk) 19:56, 25 January 2013 (UTC) few people do and it is all relative. IE Perception. Kittybrewster ☎ 20:28, 25 January 2013 (UTC) There are two reasons someone might have a better life than someone else. Luck and ability. Maybe the person with more opportunities in life came out of the right vagina. Even in modern, socially mobile, liberal democracies where everyone is equal before the law, there is much inequality. If your parents are bad or poor or crazy, you are more likely to achieve less. Then there's ability. People who are charismatic, empathetic and don't worry about what other people think will have more opportunities presented to them in life. Ability is gained, unlike luck. I remember in my late teens I didn't know what to say to women I fancied, so I just went up to one and said some very naive stuff that got me embarassingly rejected. Around the same age I was told I was a boring storyteller. I was quite shy and had a thin skin. A decade later, I consider myself the opposite of all that, my ability has developed, and so has my life.--89.101.215.166 (talk) 21:58, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Creationists

we cannot speak on behalf of an undefined class of people
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Do they believe in the laws of thermodynamics? [7] ? Kittybrewster ☎ 20:18, 25 January 2013 (UTC) See http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/s/r1/lp-e?q=thermodynamics&p=par. —Wavelength (talk) 20:40, 25 January 2013 (UTC) Define "belief". What do you mean by "believe in the laws of thermodynamics"? The OP's usage of the word "believe" in "believe in the laws of thermodynamics" is awkward, in my opinion. I am going to assume that it means "find the laws of thermodynamics most reliable in explaining some part of the universe". If that is the case, then all you have to do is look up the population parameters concerning the number of physicist creationists. 140.254.226.227 (talk) 20:52, 25 January 2013 (UTC) Not necessarily. Can't one find the laws of thermodynamics most reliable in explaining some part of the universe and still believe that God had a role in the creation of the universe? Futurist110 (talk) 22:45, 25 January 2013 (UTC) Which type of creationist? Has anyone interviewed every single one, or at least a representative example of all people worldwide that identify as such, and collected such data? --Jayron32 22:34, 25 January 2013 (UTC) The ref desk doesn't speak on behalf of groups of undefined people. Please don't ask for opinion or invite debate.

Israeli Elections Party Lists

Does anyone have the party lists for all of the parties in the Israeli Knesset elections of 2013? I want to see the whole party lists of the members who made it into the Knesset as well as the politicians who were just below the cutoff line for each party. Thank you very much. Futurist110 (talk) 22:15, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Never mind--I found the lists here--http://www.jewishpress.com/news/breaking-news/who-made-it-into-the-19th-knesset/2013/01/22/ Futurist110 (talk) 22:26, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Resolved

emo/goth

what's the difference anyway? and it is true that the enemies (emos / Goths)?--109.232.72.49 (talk) 23:04, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

As far as I know, the two dress differently. Emos are typified by the long swept-away bang of hair on the front of their heads, while Goths are typified by their dark Victorian appeal. There is the other type of "Goth", which is the group of people living on the outskirts of the Roman empire in northern Europe. 75.185.79.52 (talk) 01:52, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

They're largely based around music "scenes". The emo scene began in the mid 1980's as an offshoot of Hardcore Punk in the Washington DC and Northeast with bands like Fugazi, got mixed up with the Grunge scene during the 1990s with Sunny Day Real Estate before emerging as its own distinct style during the early 2000s. In many ways, the British cousins of Emo was the Manchester music scene of the 1980s, bands like The Smiths and the Happy Mondays explored many of the same lyrical themes as later Emo acts, while the 1990s brought shoegazing bands that added an electronic edge to it. The key component of emo is the sort of emotional "nakedness" of the lyrics. Musically, there's a pretty wide diversity between Fugazi and say Fall Out Boy, but they all fit broadly under the Emo banner. Gothic rock is closely related to emo, but generally "darker", often dealing with more depressive, "down" lyrical content. Unlike the American origins of Emo, Goth started in the UK with bands like Siouxsie and the Banshees and The Cure, and also unlike Emo, Goth has a distinct "look" to it, with black white and red being the "national colors" if you will. Emo isn't necessarily as known for a specific fashion mode. American Gothic Rock developed later in the 1990s, and took a harder edge, becoming interwoven with industrial rock with bands like Nine Inch Nails. --Jayron32 02:51, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

January 26

Nations with free tuition?

Hello, what nations let students study in their colleges for no tuition charge? What are the caveats and other "T&C's" that any student may need to know about entering there? Thanks. --70.179.161.230 (talk) 03:43, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

"B&Q's" ? In any case, you're likely to either need to be a citizen of that nation or pledge some number of years of work in that nation, in order for them to pick up the bill. StuRat (talk) 04:28, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Terms and conditions. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 08:10, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

If you're a citizen or permanent resident of Brunei, education is free up to and including college.[8][9] Other examples, including those for which foreigners qualify, are listed in Free education. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:14, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

There are virtially no tuition fees for public higher education in Borwat - only for a few classes to cover materiels. It is however expensive to live in Norway, and you need to secure a permit to stay in Norway while studying. WegianWarrior (talk) 10:07, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

That high cost-of-living is how you pay for your "free" college education. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:01, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

True, and it suits the wast majority of Norwegians just fine. Still, there is virtually no tuition fees for public schools, neither for locals nor foreigners. WegianWarrior (talk) 16:28, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

That's the perpetual dillema about "free" schools - whether it's right and fare to charge everyone something to cover those school's costs, or if it's only fair to charge the ones who use them. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:47, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, that depends on whether the entire populace benefits from the overall level of education of the populace. That is, if providing free education to everyone allows everyone else to live better because of lower crime rates, higher rates of employment, more entrepreneurship, higher overall civic participation, e.t.c., e.t.c. --Jayron32 18:12, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

As I said, it suits the wast majority of Norwegians just fine - and as a side effect means that foreigners don't have to pay tuition fees for attending Norwegian public schools, just a semester fee (which basically covers the cost of taking the exams). WegianWarrior (talk) 19:19, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

There is, of course, the slight problem for foreigners that in most courses, lectures are given in Norwegian, so you need to understand the language. There is also the embarrassment that Norway is unable to educate a sufficient number of professionals in some vital fields, medicine in particular, therefore ending up with exporting Norwegian students to Denmark, Poland, various other European countries, Australia, ..., and brain-draining other countries of their elite students. --NorwegianBlue ^talk 23:10, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

In several countries governments partially subsidise the cost of higher education, and provide students with interest-free loans to cover the remaining tution fees, meaning that they don't have any up-front costs and don't have to re-pay the loan until they find a job after graduting. Australia's Higher Education Contributions Scheme (HECS) pioneereed this system and is generally (but not universally) considered to be successful (see Tertiary education fees in Australia). Nick-D (talk) 05:38, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Cheapest colleges for a Kansas resident

Hello, what colleges charge the cheapest tuition and other ancillary fees for anyone who resides in the State of Kansas? Would the admission rates there be at least 50%? How is the cost of rent in the areas surrounding such colleges? Moreover, would you say that they'd be worth going to? Thanks. --70.179.161.230 (talk) 03:43, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, a state college will likely be cheaper than a private university, and a junior college/community college is likely cheaper yet. Some people will go to a community college for 2 years and then transfer to a 4 year university, to save money. As far as return on investment, yes, most college degree programs easily pay for themselves over time. It does depend a lot on the field of study, however. For example, becoming a pharmacist can be far more lucrative than a social worker. Also, if you borrow money to pay for it, then the interest has to be figured in. StuRat (talk) 04:22, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Your IP geolocates to a college town in Kansas, so perhaps you could ask people what they pay for rent around town. Shadowjams (talk) 05:26, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

If you have enough Native American ancestry, Haskell Indian Nations University charges no tuition. Other than that your cheapest in state are most likely to be your smaller state run schools, such as Fort Hays State University or Emporia State University. Whether or not they would be worth going to depends on your major; I would have a much cheaper schooling had I stayed in Kansas, but since I'm majoring in meteorology the University of Oklahoma was a much more logical choice. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 05:31, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

You can't study meteorology in the state famous for tornadoes ? StuRat (talk) 06:06, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I could at the University of Kansas, but their meteorology program is terrible compared to OU's. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 06:10, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Everyone's meteorology programs is bad compared to OU's. KU's is decent. Wrad (talk) 07:05, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Touché. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 07:20, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Legitimate or scam?

I received an email notifying me that I may be eligible for something under some class action lawsuit against Facebook, Angel Fraley v. Facebook, Inc. It points me to a website www.fraleyfacebooksettlement.com. Is this legitimate or some kind of scam? Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 05:28, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

It might be OK. That's looks like the same link in the article Fraley_v._Facebook,_Inc. You can read some of the reference material the article links to. RudolfRed (talk) 05:40, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

The "something" seems to be money, judging from the Settlements section of the article. "Facebook agreed to a deal which: ..... Allows affected users to file a claim that may result in an award of $10", so chances are you were featured in a sponsored story that was shown to someone and are now being offered a degree of compensation 163.189.217.40 (talk) 23:49, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

forgot to sign in... HandsomeNick (TALK) (EDITS) 23:52, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Could some tell what the following Italian Surnames mean: Collura D'alfonso Deniro Milano Pacino Ciccone?

Could some tell what the following Italian Surnames mean: Collura D'alfonso Deniro Milano Pacino Ciccone? Venustar84 (talk) 07:30, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

D' or De means "of", and IIRC, generally means "son of", so "D'alfonso" would mean approximately "Son of Alfonso" and "Deniro" would mean "Son of Niro". Milano is a city in Italy (known in English as Milan) and the name originates from the old Roman name Mediolanum which means "in the middle of the plain". Pacino may perhaps be related to "Peace", as the "Pac" construction is common in Romance languages for peace (c.f. Pacific Ocean). The others I'm not so sure on. I did find http://www.meaning-of-names.com/ which has a searchable database. I've not used it, but it may be able to help with the others. Wikipedia also has an article titled Italian name which may have some guidance for you, for example "one" means "big", so "Ciccone" may mean something like "Big Cicco" or something like that, while "ino" means "little", so "Pacino" may mean "Little peace", but that's just me speculating. --Jayron32 07:43, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

D' is an elision of, and de is an alternative form of, the preposition di, which means "of". I think it's more likely to mean "noble in charge of such-and-such place" (like German von) than it is to mean "son of". (Da, on the other hand, just means "from"; Leonardo da Vinci would have derived from Vinci, but not from its rulers.) --Trovatore (talk) 20:49, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Italian name seems to disagree with you on the d' or de usage. It points to the "son of" usage as common enough to bear special attention. --Jayron32 00:46, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

bonfire commemoratives

I was wondering if any bookstore on the Texas A&M University campus sells items commemorating the Aggie Bonfire. If yes, how can I obtain one?142.255.103.121 (talk) 07:50, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Surely the people at Texas A&M would be immensely more suited to answer this question than random strangers on the internet. According to their website, the general phone number for the book store is 409/740-4488. Individual members of the bookstore have their contact information here (not sure if that link will work; just select "bookstore" from the last menu here and press "run query". Java must be enabled). If you've already been to the website and had no luck, it's because it's set up very badly; you have to pick your way to the Galveston campus website before the search functions etc. work properly. Matt Deres (talk) 14:25, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Historical prices of iron compared to other goods

This is a somewhat difficult question to ask. I asked it on the science desk and they sent me here. I do *not* want to know about market prices of the last ten years (that's what google shows me). I do *not* want to know a fictional price in nowadays US$ (nor yen, ruble, euros ...). I just would like to know how much iron someone would have had to produce to buy some goods of that time, a loaf of bread, some beer or wine, a pair of shoes, a cow, a chicken, a sheep or whatever the like is recorded.

And I am thinking of medieval, roman and pre-roman times, starting from the invention of iron making.

The reason I came upon that question sit that I searched wikipedia on how iron was made in preindustrial times. It must have been very labor intensive, and all of the people in the process must have been able to make a living from the yield.

I hope the question is not too confusing. 95.112.202.200 (talk) 19:05, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that you are talking about a barter situation... and barter is based on very local conditions. Say you wanted to trade iron for wine. In one location iron might be scarce and wine plentiful, and in that location a little bit of iron would trade for a lot of wine. In another location iron might be plentiful and wine scarce, in that location a lot of iron would be needed to trade for a very little bit of wine. Blueboar (talk) 19:16, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

The cost of transport figures in prominently here. Only recently have transportation costs come down to the point where something can be shipped around the world with only a modest increase in price. StuRat (talk) 19:26, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

In ancient times, the cost of carting goods long distances over land was quite expensive, but shipping goods by boat from one location on a seacoast or navigable river to another such place was often very economically feasible. Already before Alexander the Great, the Greeks were exporting wine and olive oil to various areas (including the Black Sea costs) in return for grain, and in Roman times, the increased population of the city of Rome was dependent on grain shipments from the province of "Africa" (i.e. northern Tunisia and northeastern Algeria), later augmented by shipments from Egypt. AnonMoos (talk) 00:58, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

(outdent) On the science desk I was told to look here, because of the historians (who are not scientists and therefore not found on the science desk ... ouch, don't hit me too hard). So I will do for some min/max values. And for the abundance or scarcity of some goods locally, there would be other goods as well, so from a list of 5 or ten commodity goods we could guess which ones where especially cheap or expensive locally by comparing with the prices of others. 95.112.202.200 (talk) 19:53, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

How would you like us to answer this? I don't mean to be flippant - I mean, what would constitute a good answer to your question? Would you like a historical source - something like a Roman writing "I just went down to the iron dealers and swapped him two sheep for a pound of iron" - or an answer based on the labour required to produce certain items - such as 1 man-day for a terracotta vase, 2 man-days for an iron hammer, therefore 2 vases = 1 hammer? Or more of a WAG based on current values and a bit of historical mumbo-jumbo thrown in? If it's the latter, you might want to take a look at this. Yes, I know, it's for the game Minecraft, but it's a reasonable stab at relative worth of different things. If you need a more scientific answer, knowing the time period and location you're looking at (e.g. Iron Age Southern Britain) would help us narrow our search. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 20:46, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, it would be perfect if someone would have a list of links to places that tell me something like this (fictional, just as an example)

In the year 2542 BC in the Sumerian city of uruk a pound of iron was exchanged against 5 coins of <currency of uruk>, a chicken costs 3 <uruk coins>, a cow 42 ... or something like that. 95.112.202.200 (talk) 21:14, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Or to put the question in a more general way, what is known at all about prices of goods in ancient times? (I'm pretty sure I couldn't buy a horse shoe for the income of a days labor as a field worker in, say 100 AD.) 95.112.202.200 (talk) 21:23, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

By the way, iron nails were a de facto form of currency in certain times and places in the early North American colonies, partly because they were in limited supply compared to other building materials (brief mention at Commodity money). In contrast, when I wanted just two or three nails for a project about five years ago, the guy at the hardware store pretty much told me just to take them... AnonMoos (talk) 01:19, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

• I am fairly certain Will Durant gave relative prices for various items in his books Caesar and Christ and The Age of Faith. Unfortunately I have those works in storage. Whether he priced iron items is another question. This is nowhere near my area of expertise, but there have to be plenty of social histories that cover this. μηδείς (talk) 22:57, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I've found a neat comparative table in a French scientific article about iron production in the Middle Ages (page 316). It compares mediaeval prices with those in later times. The first colmun is the period, the second is the location ("Angleterre" mean England, "RFA" means West Germany), the third is the retail price of a quintal (100 kg) of iron in local currency of the time, the fourth indicates how many hectoliters (hundreds of liters) of wheat you could buy for a quintal of iron, and the fifth is the equivalent of the same amount of iron in weekly wages of a construction worker. — Kpalion^(talk) 02:14, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I think Kpalion should be applauded for finally making some progress on this very tricky question. --Lgriot (talk) 09:15, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Typical starting out of convicts arriving in Australia

When convicts just arrived off the boat, was there a standard way they were able to find immediate food and shelter and quickly find regular occupation? I mean, was there any sort of organizational structure supporting the integration of new arrivals, or was it for the most part "every man for himself, go fend for yourself and find yourself all needed to survive."? 67.163.109.173 (talk) 22:22, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

You may find the Wikipedia articles titled History of Australia, First Fleet and Convicts in Australia to be a way to start your research into this topic. --Jayron32 22:39, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Convicts took handouts from the Government stores. Convicts were unable to fend for themselves as they didn't have the knowledge of foreign plants and animals and most would have died if they tried. However, your question implies what happened to new arrivals after the First Fleet. Male convicts were assigned to private farms owned by freemen or ex-convicts with a ticket of leave assigned unimproved land. The convict worked the farm in return for food (slave labour). Female convicts were assigned as Government servants to do housework on privately owned farms in return for food (slave labour).
Sleigh (talk) 03:07, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

That would be penal servitude, not slavery. Rmhermen (talk) 03:09, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

As opposed to penile servitude. --Jayron32 00:44, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

You'd want a substantive source regarding the nature of forced labour in early Australia. Connell and Irving's Class Structure in Australian History should be useful there. As would Grace Karsken's work on Australia. Fifelfoo (talk) 06:34, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

History Question: what are some famous before 17th century Lesbian couples listed in history? Also have any lesbian couple remains ever been found?

History Question: what are some famous before 17th century Lesbian couples listed in history? Also have any lesbian couple remains ever been found? I know there was a male couple found: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weerdinge_Men What about female couples? Venustar84 (talk) 22:29, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

You may find the Wikipedia article History of homosexuality an interesting start for your research. --Jayron32 22:37, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Venustar84 -- the parameters you've chosen (lesbian, before 1600, and "famous") would seem to make it very difficult to find examples. In a number of historical societies, the social customs would make it fairly easy for women to conduct a clandestine lesbian relations under the guise of female friendship (see Romantic friendship) -- in many contexts, women sharing a bed was a common ordinary occurrence which would not have created suspicions, etc. etc. However, such couples would seek to avoid becoming "famous", which would be likely to cause them trouble (the Ladies of Llangollen did gain fame, but they were after 1600). AnonMoos (talk) 00:42, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, there's always this painting, but no one really knows what it means. It's rather titillating ahem but as noted my AnonMoos, only when viewed under the lens of modernity. Modern definitions of sexuality don't translate well to premodern societies. Historically, the position of "favourite" in the royal household sometimes had "homosexual" connotations, but again, only when viewed through the modern lens. --Jayron32 00:51, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

We may as well get the link to Sappho out of the way, though vanishingly little is actually known about the real woman. I don't often laugh at encyclopedia articles, but the caption for this painting, "Depiction of Sappho in foreground with female associate", may win some kind of award for least descriptive caption of any picture ever. Anywhere. Matt Deres (talk) 19:21, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

There isn't anything in the Weerdinge Men article to suggest that this was a homosexual couple. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:36, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Corbreuse census around 1944

Does anyone have access to a census of this small town in France. I am interested in the year 1944, but, as that was still during WWII, there is unlikely to be one for exactly that year. One before or after would be useful. Thanks Bielle (talk) 23:25, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corbreuse -- The French Wikipedia article on Corbreuse lists its population in 1946. Hope this helps. Do you want to know the total population of this city around 1944 or to search the census for specific names? Futurist110 (talk) 23:57, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

January 27

What do you call the mongrel half science/half memoir genre

Over the last 20 years or so (as far as I have noticed) a genre of "science" writing has become very prevalent where one would think from the cover one is going to get hard science, then on the inside at least half the text is devoted to describing the author's personal struggles, how he had to hike through grueling heat to get to the archaeological dig, how he had to struggle to overcome his own misconceptions, or the opposition of others, how he got sick, suffered a great personal loss, yatta, yatta, yatta. This book: The Evolution Revolution: Design Without Intelligence is a perfect example--that is, a horrible book. If I wanted to hear about suffering I'd read The Bell Jar. The reason I want a book on science is...the science. Well, I am wondering, what is the name of this mongrelized genre, if anyone knows if it has one? Thanks. -- 01:48, 27 January 2013‎ Medeis

I've noticed this, too. Apparently books, movies, etc., on science alone don't do well, so they often toss in this personal stuff. I don't know of a name for it, maybe "soft science" ? StuRat (talk) 03:40, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to use soft science to describe the speculation of Julian Jaynes or Desmond Morris or Carl Sagan in his Dragons of Eden, which I loved as a kid. But half of this crap isn't even about the theory, it's about the scientist's personal feeling of what it is like to be a scientician. From an Amazon review of the above linked book

It is true: for some reason the publisher chose to package this book as a direct engagement with intelligent design theory. No doubt somebody in marketing cooked that idea up, because the term doesn't even appear in the index.

[...]That being said, the book is a wonderful read... once you accept what kind of book it really is: it is more like a collection of essays, rather than a long coherent argument. Much of the book is written in the first person, including vivid accounts of scaling precarious outcrops in the West Australian outback, looking for some of the oldest known records of animals on this planet. It is written with warmth and humour.

I mean really? If I want to read about "scaling precarious outcrops" I'll get a book on a notable base jumper or that guy who had to cut his boulder-pinned arm off.

The swift rise in prevalence of this, especially since the '90's, makes me think there must be some literary or publishing theory behind it and a name for that theory. I used to buy the NYT, religiously on tuesdays for the science section. When the gay Sulzberger son took over publishing the Times back when I worked for Christopher Street Magazine, his first order of business was that there be at least one gay-sympathetic story in each section daily. That meant the science section started getting stories about what it was like to be a lesbian lab researcher--which was human interest, not science. Frankly, I'd like a name to identify this trend, so I can avoid its fruits. μηδείς (talk) 04:07, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Try looking for "hard science", that might work. I think that excludes both iffy speculation and that personal interest stuff. You might also do better to stick with textbooks. The only "personal interest" I've seen in those is the occasional one-page biography for the scientist in question. StuRat (talk) 04:33, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I would just call it "popular science". I think authors mainly do that because they believe it will make their books interesting to a wider class of readers. Looie496 (talk) 21:17, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Hm, well popular science is just science reporting that's presented at a layman's level, not the human-interest hybrid. There's got to be an English or journalism major whose taken a course on science writing who can comment. μηδείς (talk) 03:34, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, travel books with personal narratives (e.g. Bill Bryson) are sometimes called "travel literature", so could (popular) science books with personal narratives be called "science literature"? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:49, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Looie496, it's popular science (possibly "literature of science" as it says there, but that term seems obscure) -- which really isn't restricted to the narrow sense you have described, Medeis. There may be a industry trade name but I don't know of it, and I doubt it since editors and publishers usually stick with established categories. Two different books may have quite a different amount of scientific content (or value, if you prefer) but both could be considered popsci because it's such a nebulous grouping. Usually the publisher's labels are clues to the hybrid nature: looking at two of my favorite math books e.g. The Man Who Loved Only Numbers is tagged as Science/Biography, (on the back cover) while Fermat's Enigma is labeled as Math/History. The former has more personal info, the latter more number theory, both are considered popular science (afaik). If you're still not satisfied by that catchall, perhaps asking over at the Science desk (hopefully with a link to this thread) will yield another answer. El duderino ^(abides) 15:12, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Vidal

Kropotkin, in his 1913 preface to The Conquest of Bread, writes "Vidal in France and Lorenz Stein in Germany further developed, in two remarkable works, published in 1846 and 1847 respectively, the theoretical conceptions of Considérant; and finally Vidal, and especially Pecqueur, developed in detail the system of collectivism, which the former wanted the National Assembly of 1848 to vote in the shape of laws." Lorenz Stein is Lorenz von Stein, Considérant is Victor Prosper Considerant, and Pecqueur is Constantin Pecqueur, but who is Vidal? – Arms & Hearts (talk) 02:06, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

François Vidal—a brief description of his career can be found in note 54 here. Oddly, even the French Wikipedia appears to lack an article on him. Deor (talk) 11:29, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Fascinating, thanks. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 14:31, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Identify composer

Who is this [10] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.128.82.131 (talk) 02:19, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

The wig style places him firmly within the Classical period, so that gives you a start for places to look. --Jayron32 02:26, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

looks like Haydn. μηδείς (talk) 04:13, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

It's very grainy, and I'm betting it's a shot from a movie, i.e. an actor, possibly playing a composer, rather than a photo of a portrait of an actual composer, assuming it is in fact a composer (you don't say why you think he's a composer but I agree it's quite like a young Joe Haydn). You might want to check out List of composers depicted on film. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 04:19, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

That's an engraving, not an image of a live person, Jack. Or maybe we are seeing two different things? The image I see is blue and black. It matches Haydn's wig style if you do a google image search, and matches some of his depictions, although the better and more honest ones show him with a less pretty nose. Not that portraiture back then was honest or concerned with accuracy. μηδείς (talk) 04:34, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, I'm seeing nothing now except a grey screen. I must have limited views of that image or something. I only saw it twice. Seems pretty harsh. I'm not going to sign in. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 04:54, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

The style of the image is late 19th century, but the costume is 18th century. My guess is that it's a somewhat idealised version of Haydn's face. Paul B (talk) 10:32, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I'd still like to know why the OP thinks it's a composer at all. If we don't know who he is, he might be a chicken plucker. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 19:01, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Ralph Nader and 2000

Why did Ralph Nader first run a serious campaign in the 2000 U.S. Presidential election instead of in 1996, when the outcome was not in doubt at all? Has Nader ever said anything about this? Thank you. Futurist110 (talk) 04:50, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Ralph Nader#2000 explains why. --Jayron32 04:56, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

A lot of disgruntled Democratic voters have still never forgiven Nader -- not so much for running for president in 2000, as for stepping up his campaign in October, especially in the swing states, even though he knew very well that it was quite unlikely that he would receive 5% of the overall presidential popular vote (which would have made the 2004 Green Party candidate eligible for federal matching funds). Some people think he was following the nineteenth-century "the worse the better" revolutionary ideology -- that having an oppressive government in power is better for the proletariat than having a mild government, because an oppressive government is more likely to create conditions for a revolutionary backlash... AnonMoos (talk) 14:12, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

"Let all the poisons that lurk in the mud, hatch out!" μηδείς (talk) 22:05, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Jacobite Succession

There is a question as to who is the rightful Jacobite claimant to the British throne. The most common recognized claimant is Franz, Duke of Bavaria. But because Franz's ancestry includes a niece-uncle marriage which is not recognized as legal under British law, some royal watchers say that the rightful claimant is actually the Infanta Alicia, Duchess of Calabria. But Alicia married her second cousin. Is that a valid marriage under British law so that her children are proper claimants to the British throne? RNealK (talk) 06:28, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

The question has no answer until you specify which British laws you intend to treat as valid. If for example you accept the law that states that the monarch must be a Protestant, then there is no rightful Jacobite claimant. Looie496 (talk) 07:16, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the absolutely meaningless answer. RNealK (talk) 08:41, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, it is Constitutionally very meaningful. The Jacobites lost their lawful claim to the throne by the Act of Settlement 1701. The British Monarch reigns by will of Parliament and there can be no "rightful claimant" outside of the parameters set by it. Alansplodge (talk) 09:33, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

That's exactly correct, OP. By definition, no claimant who isn't recognised by the law can possibly be a "rightful" claimant, unless you're talking about some other "law", which is what Looie asked you to specify. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 09:38, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles Avunculate marriage, Alternative successions of the English crown, Jacobite succession#Alternative successions. Cousin marriage has been permitted in England since the 16th-century, when it was decided to basically only prohibit those marriages forbidden by Leviticus 18 (with a little tidying up around the edges). Both Queen Victoria and Charles Darwin married their first cousins, so it's hard to see how marrying your second cousin could keep you off the UK throne (unless your second cousin is a Catholic, of course)... -- AnonMoos (talk) 13:35, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

That fact aside, it is perfectly legal to marry your first, second or third cousin under English and Scottish law. See Cousin marriage#United Kingdom. However, that won't get any of them closer to the throne. Alansplodge (talk) 11:17, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Wow, the 'United Kingdom' section of Cousin marriage sure does repeat a lot of the same material as the 'Pakistan' section. It's almost like someone was trying to make a point. I may go and fix that if I get a chance later. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:06, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

In a few societies (mainly Muslim) there's preferred father's brother's sister marriage, or "endogamous" cousin marriage, as opposed to the preferential cross-cousin marriage or "exogamous" cousin marriage found in many tribal societies, or the allowed (but not preferred) cousin marriage in European societies. Endogamous cousin marriage is probably the most problematic for long-term health consequences... AnonMoos (talk) 16:07, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I'm aware of the tradition - I have distant relatives by marriage who practiced it. I'm also aware of the health problems. My problem with the phrasing in the article is that a lot of the 'Pakistan' section is about the UK, and almost all of the UK section is about British Pakistanis. There must, surely, be enough to be said about Pakistanis other than British Pakistanis in the 'Pakistan' section, and about a wider range of British ethnicities in the 'UK' section. I'm aware of numerous examples of first-cousin and first-cousin-once-removed marriages among ethnic Brits of various kinds over the past 300 years; I presume there is some research on the subject. Indeed - I now recall having seen an article by one of Charles Darwin's sons about the prevalence of first cousin marriage among certain English social classes, including his own parents. (This may be mentioned in the general part of our cousin marriage article - I shall have to go and check. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:27, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

"British Pakistanis are 13 times more likely to have children with genetic disorders than the general population - they account for just over 3% of all births but have just under a third of all British children with such illnesses."[11] Alansplodge (talk) 01:32, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

List of well known Americans living and working in Africa

Looking for well known Americans living and working in Africa. Would appreciate any help 49.206.53.229 (talk) 07:16, 27 January 2013 (UTC)vsmurthy

That's a tough one. I don't think there's a list for Americans in Africa, but this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:American_diaspora) might give you some information to gnaw on:

Cheers, JLDW^talk 23:49, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

post card DVDs

I'm trying to figure out which company produces these types of DVDs. They consist of post card-like images set to music and some coordinating sound effects. I saw the DVDs for sale at quite a few Walgreens locations and some souvenir stores. Please let me know if more information is available. Thank you.142.255.103.121 (talk) 07:37, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

It might help if you said what the images were. Almost every tourism department produces similar DVDs which they either give away or sell very cheaply to promote local attractions.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 10:05, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

In a few San Francisco locations, the images were Coit Tower, Golden Gate Park, to name many. In a few New York City locations, the images were Battery Park, Central Park, to name many. The images were set to the same music, but different coordinating sound effects. Thus, the DVDs I'm trying to refer to may be produced by the same company. Could I be right?142.255.103.121 (talk) 23:48, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

"To name many?" Didn't you only name one? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:32, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

If you just google "[insert location] scenery DVD" you will find a whole raft of companies that produce this type of DVDs.

For example, when I googled "Australia scenery DVD" I found this company which seems to specialise in DVDs of this type featuring images of Australia. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:32, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

No, that's not what I want. Actually, it's a CD-ROM with images set to music and coordinating sound effects. 142.255.103.121 (talk) 01:45, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

The first actress of her country - does any one know more?

Hello! I am interested in theater history and are currently focusing on the first professional actress in Norway, whom I have identified as Christiane Hansen. I think she should have an article here, and given information, I would gladly start it myself. The first permanent professional public theater in Norway was as I understand the theatre of Johan Peter Strömberg in Oslo in 1827. In this article: [12], Christiane Hansen (later married Lang Bocher) is briefly mentioned as the first actress of note on that theatre. But that is all. I have found nothing more. Does any one here now anything more? At least the year of birth and death? Is she perhaps more easy to find under a different name? Thank you. --Aciram (talk) 18:01, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Don't know anything about her, but there's no article for her (under that name) on either of the Norwegian Wikipedias (no. or nn.), which is not a good sign... AnonMoos (talk) 18:26, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Here's where I'm up to: There is a text (in Norwegian) about the theatre and Strömberg: [13]. Unfortunately I can't seem to copy/paste from it (some sort of copyright protection thing?), but the relevant sentence, from section 25 Den Stombergske Theater is "Han var heldig nok til at faa fat i to flinke Subjekter i Jens Lang Bøcher och Jfr. Christiane Hansen (som siden blev Mad. Bøcher og derefter Mad. Berg)." (Rough translation: "He was lucky enough to find two fine subjects in Jens Lang Bøcher and Miss Christiane Hansen (who later became Mrs Bøcher and then Mrs Berg)").

The fact she is initially referred to as Jfr. Hansen (Miss Hansen) suggests this is her maiden name. I think the text refers to an event of 1828, implying that she was unmarried at that point and married Jens Lang Bøcher some time after 1828. Unfortunately I'm having trouble tracking her down using Google alone, but maybe someone with access to genealogical sources might be able to use some of this to pinpoint her. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 18:50, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

An update: I've been searching Arkivverket (the National Archives of Norway but have drawn a blank. I have found nothing relevant for Christine Hansen, only one possibly relevant record for a Christine Berg, who was born in 1797 as Christine Johannesen, and absolutely no record of either Christine Bøcher or Jens Lang Bøcher. The first Norwegian census available is from 1865. Since Norway in the 19th century at different times both a part of Denmark and in a union with Sweden, I tried searching the Danish and Swedish archives. I found nothing in the Swedish archives. I found the Danish archives almost impossible to search - it seems you can only search one municipality at a time, which is not much use if you don't know where someone was born or living. I'll get back to you if I find any more. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 21:37, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

This book about the history of Strömbergs theater states on page 26 that Strömberg realised the theatre couldn't subsist on native actors alone and November 15 1827 he gained royal approval of hiring some Danish actors, of which he was lucky enough to gain "two clever subjects (lit. "flinke Subjekter") in Jens Lang Bøcher and Jomfru Christiane Hansen (later Madam Bøcher and eventually Madam Berg)". So she was indeed Danish. However the book also mentions other Norwegian-born actresses, which appeared on the stage before the engagement of Christiane Hansen: namely Jomfru Kolstad, Jomfru Ely, Henriette Hansen and Andrine Christensen, the last two being only actresses in training, but the first two fullfledged and I would guess professional actresses (pag. 12, 25ff and 38). --Saddhiyama (talk) 15:11, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Interesting - I see we've all been using different versions of the same text!

I may possibly have found the birth record for Jens Lang Bøcher, although I'd appreciate it if someone can check my understanding of the Danish material - being an Englishman who speaks a bit of Swedish means my Danish is not brilliant! This appears to be a copy of a census record from 1801, showing 'Jens Lang', son of Ulrich Böcher, aged 2 in 1801. This is confirmed by this copy of the Copenhagen parish records, showing Jens Lang born on 11.10.1799 and baptised 09.11.1799. (This was a big confusion to me since I was thinking dn:døbt = sv:död = en:dead, and that the child had died 3 weeks after birth. It took a long time for the penny to drop!) - Cucumber Mike (talk) 16:33, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I think the cognates are sv:dop and en:dip. HTH. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:37, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

That seems to be him alright, born in Copenhagen (the parish of the Helligåndskirken). Interestingly enough the first link you provided to the genealogy forum discussing him, a poster says that his father was actually born in Risør in Norway in 1774. Of course birthplace doesn't equate nationality, and full information was not posted in the thread but only mailed privately. It is technically possible that he could have been Danish or even German (as the name seems to contain hints of German to me), but the Norwegian link does provide an explanation as to why he was chosen to be hired by Strömberg.

The book I linked says that Christiane Hansen latter married to the name "Berg", so it suggests that Bøcher died relatively early in Norway, he was the leader of the theatre for a while, and she remarried someone named Berg, most likely another Norwegian (although the name Berg is also common in Denmark) and the clue to her later life should thus probably be found in Norway. There may even be some information in the book I linked. I only browsed the first 50 pages or so. --Saddhiyama (talk) 16:54, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Interesting indeed with so many long answers, I will read them more carefully later, but I must add directly: with "first Norwegian actress", I meant simply a professional actress active on the first permanent theatre in Norway, so it is perfectly okay that she was from Denmark. I also which to learn about her in particular, although I am grateful for the names of other early actresses, which can be usefull to look up later - for example, I understand that there was travelling theatres with Norwegian actors in the late 18th century. --Aciram (talk) 02:57, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

What is the best death?

I remember reading various classical Roman figures had their opinions as to what the best death would be. For example, a noble death, an unexpected death, a voluntary death. I was hoping to find a list of these with classical figures who said them, but searches for "best death according to romans" or "best ways to die according to romans" yield unhelpful results. Would anybody be of help finding such a list? Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 19:45, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

"Dying a Roman Death", Death in Ancient Rome, Catherine Edwards

And I sent you a link through Special:EmailUser for a PDF of pages 39-45 of Death in Ancient Rome: A Sourcebook, Valerie Hope, section titled "Good deaths and bad deaths". --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 20:53, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Interesting reading. Appreciate you taking the trouble to email the link. That was commentary on actual deaths, though. More what I am looking for is attributed opinions, like "Smartius Panscius said the best death was a well-timed one" whether he actually died that way or not. μηδείς (talk) 22:01, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Define "best" death. Fastest? Most memorable? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:52, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Bugs, did you read the actual question or just the header? — Kpalion^(talk) 07:06, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Do you always attack respondents in front of the OP, or is this a one-time occurrence? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:40, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Kpalion asks the right question, Bugs. It makes no sense for you to ask for mine or anyone else's here definition of a best death if you comprehend my question. μηδείς (talk) 00:24, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

So you don't want a practical answer, you just want some quotes about an allegedly "best" death. OK, whatever. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:41, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

How could you have a practical answer? It's a subjective question. It's only an appropriate question for the reference desk if you are looking for a specific person's (or group of people's) opinion (as the OP clearly said they were). --Tango (talk) 13:24, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

There's always Marcus Curtius... AnonMoos (talk) 07:02, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

There's some information at Roman funerals and burial, the Military section notes some things about particular honor given to deaths in the military. There's a source used in that article: J.M.C. Toynbee, Death and Burial in the Roman World which may have some information. I don't know if it does or not, but the review at Google Books: [14] states " First, Toynbee examines Roman beliefs about death and the afterlife..." which may have some information on what the OP is looking for. --Jayron32 07:09, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

January 28

Programme for International Student Assessment

In recent years, people keep saying the US is lagging behind in education but look at the US top universities (most of them are at the top in the world). The US is doing fine in notable global competition such as International Mathematical Olympiad. I don't see how the PISA's results are accurate. They claim to measure average scores in Math, Reading, Science of each country from 5000 samples (sample = student). How can they make sure each country actually randomly select 5000 random students? What if China took like its top 5000 students to take the tests? There are also a chance that 5000 samples are above average. What accuracy are those tests? The article doesn't seem to talk about its validity as true predictor in performance.184.97.244.130 (talk) 04:27, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

PISA 2009 Technical Report, 2012, OECD Quality assurance: control and monitoring starts on page 115 Ssscienccce (talk) 05:00, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

You can always trust alarmists to interpret data in the most pessimistic way possible. The US is lagging behind not because of some crisis, but because the rest of the world is rapidly improving. See these projected Human Development Indices. In 1980, no country in the world had a HDI above 0.9 (from [15]). In 2010, 29 countries had a HDI in this range. That number is projected to increase to 40 in 2020, and 45 in 2030. --140.180.242.224 (talk) 08:47, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

In terms of your last points, the article actually has:

Education professor Yong Zhao has noted the PISA 2009 did not receive much attention in the Chinese media, and that the high scores in China are due to excessive workload and testing, adding that it's "no news that the Chinese education system is excellent in preparing outstanding test takers, just like other education systems within the Confucian cultural circle: Singapore, Korea, Japan, and Hong Kong."[15]

although later it notes how people from the OECD have said China is having success in moving away from rote based learning

Nil Einne (talk) 11:38, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

You might be interested in some recent UK debates over the validity of using PISA results in comparisons: during the last election, December 2010, June 2011. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:14, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

P.S. I should perhaps clarify I'm not suggesting 'outstanding test taker' and 'rote based learning' are the equivalent or one must lead to the other. Nil Einne (talk) 05:46, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Why does Hollywood depict American twenty-somethings so poorly?

I was reading the Ugly American article. It says "a study carried out in 2002 revealed that Hollywood also contributes to the "Ugly American" image" (but doesn't provide a reference). I tend to agree. Hollywood seems to turn out many movies in which Americans, typically males in their 20's, behave like sterotypical, boorish, culturally insensitive, idiots. And yet, almost every American I have ever met has been polite, well behaved, well educated and frankly a pleasure to be with. This is equally true of Americans I have met as a tourist or as a co-worker, both in the USA and elsewhere in the World. Of course there have been a few exceptions, but why does Hollywood strive to depict this small minority? Astronaut (talk) 07:43, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Because well-behaved young Americans aren't entertaining. StuRat (talk) 07:50, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Because those who can afford to travel to your country are of a social class that is not boorish, culturally insensitive, or idiots? And when you've visited our country, how much have you actually interacted with twenty-somethings? Have they been friends or relatives of older people who you are visiting and thus have some of that class/culture/breeding/whatever rubbing off on them? Dismas|^(talk) 08:00, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

As I said in my original question: co-workers (in both work and social situations) and people I have interacted with as a tourist such as hotel and restaurant staff, as well as shop workers, bar patrons, other tourists, etc. Astronaut (talk) 08:52, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not disputing your premise, but could you give examples, so we are striking in the right ballpark? My own perceptions (unreferenced) are that the problem is less severe than one might think - there is stereotyping of the young by Hollywood, then there is stereotyping of Hollywood. But I think also that young people will often have older role models, but older people will rarely have younger ones, so it is easier to have a universally appealing hero if he (rarely she) is between 30 and 50. Then younger people are left to fill stereotypical roles - it's just a case of what's left over. Yes, you said "typically" males in their 20s, so do you have examples of such films featuring older actors? The low budget party movie is designed to appeal to teenage males, because, as openly stated in Hollywood (so I heard on the oracle that never lies), they watch a lot of films, and don't care about reviews. So it may depend on your audience. IBE (talk) 09:23, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Hollywood needs to entertain, and people who don't misbehave are not as entertaining as those who do. --Lgriot (talk) 09:28, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

That applies as much to older adults as it does to teenagers and 20-somethings. Anyhow, I'm also curious about what movies Astronaut is thinking of. I know at least 3 very famous movies from the last 2 years where young adults and/or teenagers are depicted in a positive light: Harry Potter, Hunger Games, and Brave. 21 Jump Street could also count--the protagonists return to their high school after several years and are shocked by how tolerant and socially conscious its students are. The Twilight series could count, depending on what you consider a "poor depiction", but I'd consider most of the characters good people. --140.180.242.224 (talk) 10:03, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

The question was specifically regarding Americans, I think, so that wouldn't apply to Harry Potter or Brave. Even with The Hunger Games, it's still debatable, in fact. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 10:42, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Some examples: The Hangover (particularly the second one), Road Trip, Euro Trip, Superbad, pretty much anything with Will Ferrell. Come to think of it, one factor that seems to be fairly common is a comedy featuring copious alcohol consumption. And yes, these movies do seem to aimed at teenaged males. Astronaut (talk) 10:39, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I think you've hit the nail on the head with Will Ferrell. Steve Carrell is another who might have a shoe in the door, but from my experience, thinking people will find him more watchable. I've seen a little of the Will Ferrell audience, and it is definitely a niche market. He himself isn't young, but Old School is aimed at the frat boy mindset. I would say these films register highly in public consciousness (put them with Dude, Where's My Car, and you have a genre that people love to hate), and as a result of notoriety, we think the problem is bigger than it is. Same with the actual problem of American tourists - the really stupid or irritating ones just hit a nerve somewhere. I haven't met any, but I've heard stories. The most I've come across (living in Perth) is jock sailors, and even that is rare. I've met more of the good type. IBE (talk) 21:22, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

The only time I was embarrassed to be an American while traveling overseas was in Spain, and the American tourists in question were forty-somethings. RNealK (talk) 20:34, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

These wretched times of ours

The preceding two questions made me wonder about an intriguing fact. Why is it a common theme for people to reminisce about "the good old times" while complaining how the world is going down the toilet? This usually involves accusing "kids these days" of being shallow, stupid, rude, etc., in forums where teens have no chance to defend themselves. It also involves complaining about increasing crime, increasing poverty, and a worsening education system, even though data indicate the opposite is true (especially on a global scale). I understand that people like complaining, but by any reasonable standard, we live in the richest, safest, and happiest world in human history. I've heard very few people express this obvious fact, and plenty of people claim the opposite. I don't think I'm the first person to notice this. The Classical Greeks believed in 5 Ages of Man, of which their own was the last and most miserable. Ecclesiastes 7:10 reads "Do not say, 'Why were the old days better than these?' For it is not wise to ask such questions." The entire Garden of Eden story also shows this type of nostalgia. So why is this the case? Is there a name for this we-live-in-a-wretched-world belief, other than nostalgia? Am I guilty of confirmation bias and/or cherry-picking data, and is this belief just a quirk of adults that I won't understand until I'm older? --140.180.242.224 (talk) 09:34, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

"The quiet past is inadequate to the stormy present." -- Lincoln. "Things ain't the way they used to be - and never was!" -- Will Rogers. I think you've already named it: "Nostalgia". And I think you've hit it on the head. The very young, ideally, are relatively innocent of the world's troubles. As they get older and their experience broadens, they see more and more of the negatives and dangers. I've seen a lot of 1960s nostalgia, but having lived through it I can only say that it was a totally crazy time I wouldn't want to live through: riots, assassinations, 100 Americans killed every week in Vietnam, etc. Not fun. So we try to focus on the good things - civil rights advances, the moon race, the music, etc. - and try to minimize the bad things. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:35, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

There is also a competing concept that "everything new is better". This drives consumers to buy new products which may not be as good as the old ones they threw out. However, I think the attitude that everything is steadily getting better peaked around the 1950's, in the US. Since then, the threat of nuclear war, defeat in Vietnam, 9-11, antibiotic resistant microbes, increasing wealth disparity/decreasing wages for the working class, etc., have all tempered this optimism. StuRat (talk) 01:50, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Pre-fire buildings in Chicago

Does Chicago really have very few buildings and structures that predate the Great Chicago Fire? Our article on the Illinois-Indiana State Line Boundary Marker says that it was named a Chicago Landmark in part because it's one of the city's few extant buildings constructed before the fire. However, File:Great Chicago Fire map.jpg shows that the fire never got near Hammond (the Indiana boundary doesn't even appear on the map), and I would guess that numerous buildings in the unburned areas would survive to the present; it's not as if 1871 was long, long ago, and plenty of pre-1871 buildings can be found elsewhere in the region. The sentence discussing its Chicago Landmark status is sourced to something from the city website, but my browser can't load it. Nyttend (talk) 16:39, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

The page linked to is quite short. It says: "One of the oldest extant structures in the City of Chicago, the Illinois-Indiana State Boundary Marker was constructed to commemorate the establishment of the common boundary between the two states in 1833. Boundary surveying was necessary for the sale of land within new states and territories, and commemorative markers were often erected following the establishment of such boundary lines. Built of large sandstone blocks, the marker is in the shape of an obelisk, a traditional form for commemorative markers. In 1988 the marker was relocated approximately 191 feet north of its original site, but remains on the state line."

As it stands, in my opinion, the source is fine for the statement that the marker was designated as a Landmark, but not for the reason why. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 16:49, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Saying that it's one of the few structures in Chicago predating the fire is not the same thing as saying that it was in the fire zone and survived the fire at close range. Probably the majority of the structures which survived the fire were in rural areas at the time, and so were wooden buildings which were not built to last a long time and/or have been swept away by subsequent waves of urbanization.... AnonMoos (talk) 17:00, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Chicago in 1871 was a much smaller city than it is today. The parts of the city that escaped the fire were relatively low-rise and low-density, but also low prestige. The fire burned down the elite residential district along the lake north of the Chicago River. During the decades after the fire, Chicago grew rapidly, and most of the rather humble structures that survived the fire were torn down and replaced with tenements and factories. Most of the few surviving structures were houses in rural districts outside of the 1871 Chicago city limits that were later absorbed into the city as outlying districts. Marco polo (talk) 18:49, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Comparing the city map for 1868 to modern maps show that Chicago's city limit were still 6 miles from the Indiana border. Towns in between like Pullman and Hegewisch, now Chicago neighborhoods, had not even been founded yet. Rmhermen (talk) 19:25, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

That's rather what I was imagining. Most major cities in the USA have plenty of farmhouses at various locations, which existed before the city grew up around them. I've seen lots of pre-1871 buildings in smaller cities that have grown substantially since that time, including small and humble buildings, so I greatly doubted the nonexistence of such buildings elsewhere in the city. Nyttend (talk) 20:19, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Not sure where exactly they are but these are apparently the oldest buildings: [16] Rmhermen (talk) 22:04, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

The fire started in Mrs. O'Leary's barn on DeKoven Street, just north of her house; and since the wind was southerly, her house actually survived the fire. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:43, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

The O'Leary house was torn down in 1879 though - and that is the current site of the Chicago Fire Academy. Some images of it and of buildings which survived the fire [17] Rmhermen (talk) 22:58, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes. It was just a nondescript frame house, but the point is that it didn't burn, and it was well away from the Indiana line. The original question, about few Chicago buildings pre-dating the Fire, could be reasonable if they were made of wood - which is no small part of the reason the city burned. The Water Tower and Pumping Station survived presumably because they were made of stone. After the Fire, building techniques improved. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:35, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Age of Consent versus Orientation

What is the legal status of "sexual orientation" for people who are under the age of consent? In other words, since they can't legally "do anything," of what significance is their purported sexual orientation...at this stage, legally, it's not an act, but simply a desire, right? What prompts this question is the news that the Boys Scouts may allow gay scouts. If the scout is under the age of consent, can they legally really be anything...gay, straight, bi, etc.? 74.79.159.148 (talk) 19:30, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Of course young people are attracted to others before they act on those attractions. Many young people realize that they are gay, based on their attractions, long before they become sexually active. Merely identifying as gay may result and often has resulted in an individual facing discrimination. The Boy Scouts' prohibition of gay scouts affects not only those who are sexually active but all who have a gay identity. Marco polo (talk) 19:33, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

(after ec)The situation in the USA (where this dispute has arisen) will vary from state to state. Here in the UK, anti-discrimination law turns on perception, so if an under-16 here were to be denied access to goods or services because the service provider believed they were gay (or bi, or for that matter straight), that would be a breach of the Provision of Goods and Services (Sexual Orientation) Regulations (or whatever the latest iteration is called), which are attached to the Equality Act 2010. I'm aware that in many US states the law is not nearly this progressive (or interfering) and so there may not be a legal position to characterise; the question of whether discrimination has occurred in law is null whether the alleged victim is fifteen or fifty.AlexTiefling (talk) 19:38, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Additionally, this has been addressed by the UK Scout Association in their Equal Opportunities Policy which was introduced in the 1990s, so they were rather ahead of both the law and their American colleagues on this issue. Alansplodge (talk) 00:01, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I believe that the same is true in the United States, in states where discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation is prohibited. (Note that not all states prohibit such discrimination.) If a legal person perceives another as gay and discriminates against that person on that basis, the person discriminating violated the law regardless of whether or not the person affected in fact identifies as gay. Marco polo (talk) 20:33, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

To see which states prohibit anti-gay discrimination, see the list in Employment discrimination law in the United States. One of the categories in this list is sexual orientation. While the Boy Scouts' ban on gay scouts is not employment discrimination, most states that ban discrimination based on sexual orientation for employment also ban such discrimination for public accommodations, which includes most retail and service establishments. As a private organization, the Boy Scouts are exempt from most such bans, but they may be concerned that public institutions (such as schools) in states where anti-gay discrimination is banned will not allow the Boy Scouts to use their facilities while practicing discrimination. Marco polo (talk) 20:45, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

As for sexual identity equating to a "desire" - not necessarily, and at that tender age, probably not much at all. It's one thing to find oneself attracted to pretty girls or cute boys and to masturbate almost hourly, but to many young people the thought of actually doing anything icky (= sexual) with another person may never enter their minds, and if it does, may well get dismissed immediately as too scary to contemplate. Others are undoubtedly up for it (cough), and the sooner the better. It's a wide spectrum. Also consider the adults who identify 100% as either gay or straight, are in committed relationships, but who rarely or never have sex anymore. They haven't ceased being whatever orientation they are just because sex doesn't raise its ugly head any more. Sexual orientation =/= sexual activity. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 21:22, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

• What does this:

  On my honor I will do my best
  To do my duty to God and my country
  and to obey the Scout Law;
  To help other people at all times;
  To keep myself physically strong,
  mentally awake, and morally straight.

  mean? μηδείς (talk) 00:18, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
  • It seems self-explanatory. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:31, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
    • "To keep myself ... morally straight"... that's multi-interpretable. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:35, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
      • Only to those who apply a modern, narrow usage of the term "straight", which used to mean adhering to a moral code. Hence the old Nat Cole song, "Straighten Up and Fly Right". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:38, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
        • Bugs, it's not self-explanatory. It can be interpreted in many ways. It is used by some in American Scouting to keep gays out. Others say that's not what it means. Scouting in other countries uses different words, and don't prohibit gays, and Scouting in most countries now give boys and girls equal access to the one single organisation. Boy Scouts is now very much an American thing. The rest of the world just has Scouting. HiLo48 (talk) 01:53, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
          • As noted here,[18] the boy scouts' oath goes back way before the term "straight" was narrowed to mean "heterosexual", at least in the general public. "Straight" in this context means "having good moral character". And keep in mind that there are Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts in the USA, separate organizations, so just "Scouts" doesn't work. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:59, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
            • Yes, all true, but it's still obvious that some today use "morally straight" to argue for keeping gay people out of the Boy Scouts in America. HiLo48 (talk) 02:08, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
              • Bugs, "straight" as in keeping to generally accepted morals is what I meant by my quote (morally heterosexual, if we are to use your interpretation of the term, doesn't make much sense grammatically). What is moral? What is amoral? What is immoral? Is it relative? The entire sentence is ambiguous, and such ambiguity has been misused before — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:13, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
                • No, it doesn't mean heterosexual, it means having good moral character: honesty, chastity, honorableness, whatever. That's what "straight" meant then. You're trying to apply a modern context to a motto that's at least a century old. Substitute "upright" for "straight" and you'll get the idea better. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:24, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
                  • According to EO, "straight" as in "hetero" didn't make its appearance until the 1940s.[19] The meaning of "straight" in that motto is equivalent to "not crooked". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:32, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
                    • Bugs, I agree with you that "straight" means "of good moral character", etc. Unfortunately, some powerful adults in Boy Scouts of America don't. And they have successfully applied their anti-gay definition to that organization. HiLo48 (talk) 03:32, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
                      • If anyone in the scouts actually thinks "straight" in that case means "hetero", then they're dumber than a box of rocks. In any case, today they're saying from now on they're going to leave this matter up to local organizations to decide. Threats to sponsorship and revenue trump alleged "moral straightness" every time. However, it's still worth pointing out that they don't officially believe in any kind of sexual activity by the underage. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:41, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
                        • I don't think you've been reading my comments. How much more simple does "'straight' as in keeping to generally accepted morals is what I meant" have to be? Seriously. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:17, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

To put it another way, I am wondering what the legal theory is behind granting some sort of sexual status…"orientation"…to someone who legally cannot engage in sexual activity. I understand that many categories of people do not engage in sexual activity…those who choose to abstain…those who cannot find a partner…those who are psychologically asexual and have no interest in it…etc. But these categories apply to people who legally could engage in sexual activity…minors cannot. Now a minor can be of a certain race, religion, or ethnicity, and as such is protected from discrimination. I am simply questioning how a minor can be somehow "sexualized" from a legal standpoint, when legally no act can occur. How can having a certain "identity" be legally protected when acting upon that "identity" is not? To take perhaps an extreme example, a man who wants to rape women, but does not, has committed no crime in the eyes of the law. Laws that apply to sexual offenders do not apply to him…absent any act, he has no "orientation" or "identity", and thus does not fall under the purview of the law. Yet laws that apply solely to sexual matters apparently do apply to individuals, namely minors, who cannot legally act as sexual entities. 74.79.159.148 (talk) 01:46, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Did you actually read the replies you got? You don't seem to be 'putting it another way' at all; you're just repeating the same question. The answer is that the law does not apply such identities directly - it relies on questions of intent instead. The Boy Scouts may believe that children come in well-defined 'straight' and 'gay' categories, but the reality is that that assumption is much more misleading for children even than for adults. Of course, it is, as you observe, possible for minors to develop identification with one sexual orientation or another. But that is not what the law deals with. If, when you say 'from a legal standpoint', you mean 'from the quasi-legal standpoint of the internal rules of the Boy Scouts of America', please say so. Otherwise, you have been given a pretty comprehensive answer. AlexTiefling (talk) 02:32, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Alex, by "putting it another way," I meant to explain my question since it definitely has not been answered. And if you read my second post, I am asking about our nation's laws, not the Boy Scouts. My question is not whether pubescent minors have sexual feelings…obviously they do. My question is simply how, in theory, does the law mean to protect something when the act associated with that something is not legal? 74.79.159.148 (talk) 03:40, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Sexual orientation need not equate to sexual activity. The scouts, in theory, would condemn any sexual activity by its underage members, regardless of their orientation. As regards the law, in theory, all underage kids are supposed to be protected from sexual activity by adults, regardless of anyone's orientation. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:52, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes as multiple people have already said including in reply to your first question, you're still confusing sexual orientation with sexual activity. Someone can have never had sex but still be gay and this applies whether or not they can legally have sex (there's no reason why it would only apply when people can legally have sex). Otherwise you might as well accept the common misquote of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of there being no gays in Iran as being true there and everywhere else where homosexual activity is illegal. (Note that many of these countries, although there may be a lot of harassment and mistreatment, don't actually forbid someone from having a specific sexual orientation, they may not even strictly speaking make it a crime to publicly acknowledge that orientation. They only punish homosexual activity. And they generally do not care about the orientation of the participants.) And someone can have sex with people of the same sex, legally or not, but not be gay (or bisexual). And no not everyone in that category is deluding themselves. (BTW, someone who identifies as bisexual doesn't cease to be bisexual just because they're in a commit relationship.) From what I can tell no one linked to sexual orientation yet but you may want to read it as perhaps it will help clear up your confusion. Nil Einne (talk) 05:59, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

BTW as people have also said, it often doesn't actually matter what someone's sexual orientation is anyway. If you discriminate against someone because of their perceived sexual orientation and that's against the law there may be some possible defenses, but your perception being wrong isn't usually one of them. (And this would generally be the same as other forms of forbidden discrimination. If you discriminate against someone because they're a 'scumbag Arab Muslim' and that's against the law perhaps because of laws against discrimination based on religion and ethnicity; and it turns out they're a Sikh from India, you're not likely to get a way with it because you're wrong.) There may be some countries where it's okay to discriminate against someone based on sexual orientation if they're underage (I'm not aware of any but it's a possibility), but there will need to be an exemption under law for that. Perhaps it will help if you consider another example. Even if it isn't required by law, a sex shop could often discriminate against someone if they believe they're under the age of consent (most places which ban age discrimination include exemptions allowing this sort of thing). But if they only discriminate against someone who's underage when they believe they're gay or they believe they're heterosexual or whatever, that's likely to a problem if discrimination based on sexual orientation is. Nil Einne (talk) 06:24, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

OP: Marco Polo and I have been extremely clear: both in the UK and the USA (where applicable), the law operates in such a way as not to enquire as to the actual sexuality of anyone. That is the answer to your question. You cannot keep asking how the law determines the sexuality of a minor, when it does not do so. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:43, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Is my country, Japan, the strongest ally of the U.S. in Asia?

My question comes about after the renewed threats by North Korea. Kotjap (talk) 20:27, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Japan is probably not the strongest ally of the United States in Asia. According to List of countries by military expenditure, Japan spends slightly more than South Korea on a purchasing power parity basis ($44.7 billion versus $42.1 billion). However, according to List of countries by number of military and paramilitary personnel, South Korea has a much greater troop strength, with 639,000 active personnel to just 230,000 in Japan. Marco polo (talk) 21:01, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I think you need to define both "strongest" and "ally", Kotjap. As for who qualifies as U.S. allies in Asia, I think being designated major non-NATO ally by the States would be a good working definition (in Asia, these are: Israel, Japan, S. Korea, Jordan, Bahrain, Philippines, Thailand, Kuwait, Pakistan, and Afghanistan; plus there's one NATO member that is partly in Asia, i.e., Turkey), but you could choose a different one. And by strongest do you mean "most steadfast" or strongest in military terms? If it's the latter, you could still come up with various metrics, two of which Marco polo suggested above. But there may be others, like who's got nukes (Israel and Pakistan). — Kpalion^(talk) 00:32, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to look at it more in terms of the attitude of US citizens towards the Japanese. During WW2 (and long thereafter, for some veterans), there was absolute hatred of the Japanese in the US. Then the period in the 1970's - 1980's when Japanese industry started taking American jobs made the Japanese rather unpopular, too. However, in the past decade or two, the economic threat has moved from Japan to China, so there isn't much resentment over that, any more. On the political front, Japan hasn't done much to anger the US, unlike other "allies" (such as Israel continuing to build settlements in Palestine, or bin Laden turning up right next to Pakistan's military academy, then the Pakistanis reacting to the US raid by arresting the Pakistani who gave away bin Laden's position). There is the whale hunting, which many in the US consider immoral. But, other than that, Japan has been on relatively good terms with the US. There are also cultural aspects of Japan which are appreciated in the US, such as anime. StuRat (talk) 01:34, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Japan's government is reluctant to remove US forces out of the country, as they themselves will be left only with the JSDF, however much of the population objects to their presence, due to drunken beligerence, noise from nearby airfields, and gang raping children. This is the same in South Korea. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 04:57, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

on at least some of that... --Jayron32 05:01, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

1995 Okinawa rape incident Also this. And one from Korea: here. Your boys do not appear to have a nice reputation, dear chap. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 05:06, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Algeria hostage crisis and Japanese citizens

Most of the hostages were Japanese, couldn't the government of Japan carry out an operation trying to liberate the hostages even though it's on Algerian soil? Thank. Kotjap (talk) 21:29, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Not true. Most of the workers were Algerian. And carrying out military operations on foreign soil is rarely done as it may be considered an act of war. See how well Operation Eagle Claw and Operation Entebbe turned out. Rmhermen (talk) 22:50, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

However, in the EgyptAir Flight 648 case, the insistence of Maltese authorities on keeping all foreigners out until the situation had pretty thoroughly spun out of control didn't work out too well. In any case, I doubt that Japan has appropriately-trained special ops teams which could be quickly deployed half-way around the world. AnonMoos (talk) 23:32, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

• You already asked this question, [20], did you read the answers? μηδείς (talk) 00:13, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

old train designs/pictures

For my university coursework, I need to create a 3D CAD model of some vehicle, and I chose for some reason this steam train: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Coalbrookdale_loco.jpg however, I now hit an obstacle, as nice as those drawings are, I cannot quite see how some of the little details fit together in 3 dimensions, I'm wondering where I could go to get more images, maybe some with more detail? might there be train museums I could email to ask about this, for example? possibly even some models I could look at photographs of, or even visit and study myself?

thank you,

86.15.83.223 (talk) 21:42, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Our article on Richard Trevithick states that this drawing is the only document extant. You may want to select a different engine for a sample of a 3D model. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 21:54, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

However, the article also says it has been "used as the basis of all images and replicas of the later 'Pen-y-darren' locomotive, as no plans for that locomotive have survived." There's a photo of such a replica here with information about where that replica is located, which may lead you to other photos. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:57, 28 January 2013 (UTC) Supplement: If you'll do a Google Image search on "trevithick swansea" (without the quotation marks) you'll come up with a number of additional photos. — TransporterMan (TALK) 22:02, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I am sure I remember seeing a little scale model of it somewhere around once. Can't seem to find anything of it now, though 86.15.83.223 (talk) 22:07, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

A quick Google shows that there's one in the Powerhouse Museum in Sydney[21]. Here is the full-sized Welsh one actually running, and another smaller(?) one at Ironbridge. Finally, here's the great man himself with a little model, in Cambourne. Alansplodge (talk) 22:55, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I found this and this - click on the drawings to get a nice big pdf file. Alansplodge (talk) 23:06, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Waterloo painting

Does anyone know who painted this please? I thought of Elizabeth Thompson (Lady Butler) but I can't pin it down to her. It's for the 92nd (Gordon Highlanders) Regiment of Foot article. Alansplodge (talk) 23:13, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Stanley Berkeley --Viennese Waltz 23:19, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks. Now I can see it on the Wikimedia Commons page. I hate it when that happens. Alansplodge (talk) 23:54, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Resolved

January 29

archives-Wettenberg, Germany

Trying to locate a flour mill in Wettenberg, Germany in 1860 and name of the owner of the flour mill. The name George or Frederick may be in the first name of the owner with a male child, 4 years old at the time-child was born in 1856. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kathyjsb (talk • contribs) 05:42, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Roy Raymond

Does anyone know why did he commit suicide? --PlanetEditor (talk) 06:17, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I did a search through Google News for the time frame around his suicide: [22]. I can find no evidence that he left a suicide note, so the answer is likely "no one knows". --Jayron32 06:24, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

This site claims he was upset by a failed business venture and the failure of his marriage, but I don't know how trustworthy that is; that cite doesn't seem the most reliable and I don't know where they got their info. --Jayron32 06:27, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, lack of suicide note put doubt on the suicide motive. Also he committed suicide 5 years after his company went bankrupt. If business failure was the cause, he would have committed suicide in 1986, not 1993. --PlanetEditor (talk) 10:12, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Finance Sector for beginners

I am starting a new job at a hedge fund in the City (London) and I'll be working within the back and middle office supporting the teams in both areas. I would like to find material or training that will give me a good overview of the industry, activities under taken within the back and middle office of a hedge fund and a glossary of terms used in the industry 176.250.129.58 (talk) 09:05, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

A quick browse on Amazon brings up this [23] which sounds good. There is also this [24] in the For Dummies series which I don't like very much because I find the tone in which they are written somewhat patronising. Some more general books on the finance industry which look relevant and seem to be getting good reviews are [25] and [26]. There are plenty of others if you follow the links from those pages. Note I haven't read any of these books. --Viennese Waltz 09:24, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

The Complete Idiot's Guide to Investing has a chapter on hedge funds. An idiot’s guide to hedge funds has a brief overview of the history of hedge funds. --PlanetEditor (talk) 10:10, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Agree with VW, those dummies & idiots books can be annoying if you already know a little about the field. Since you've already got a job there you might want something more in-depth. I don't have any specific recommendations for those, but if you want to read some good stories about the industry I would recommend Michael Lewis' The Big Short (2010) which is sort of a follow-up to his previous books about working on Wall Street, Liar's Poker and The Money Culture. (He also wrote Moneyball btw). El duderino ^(abides) 11:35, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

My lucky day, or not

If a friend gave me a small value coin (5, 10 or 20 cent piece) and said it was now mine, my reactions would range from quizzlement, befuddlement, suspicion, surprise and other things. I might even be tempted to be a little insulted, depending on how it was given to me. When I got past that and focussed on the monetary value of my new possession, I'd hardly be doing cartwheels of joy. I certainly wouldn't regard this as my lucky day.

But "This is my lucky day" is exactly what does go through my mind - fleetingly - when I see a coin on a footpath or a road. I always pick it up and pocket it, no matter how small the face value. Then I always remind myself that it's (usually) only of the order of 5 to 20 cents, and I shouldn't be buying the champagne just yet. But then I remind myself that I am, however marginally, better off than if I hadn't noticed it, and that can only be a good thing, however marginally.

So, what makes the difference in my thinking about these identical windfalls, apart from the first one being hypothetical? The first one is neutral at best, but the second one is a minor positive.

I assume here that others have similar mental processes. If not, I'd be pleased to hear about how it is with you. Oh, I realise this is a reference desk, so if anyone knows of any studies about how people deal with windfall gains in different types of circumstances, I'd be grateful for the refs. Thank you. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 10:53, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I'd also be puzzled if a chum randomly gave me a five cent coin. But it shouldn't be about the monetary value that makes one happy when receiving money from a friend; instead it is the action of giving that counts. The love and joy of giving. Of course, it also depends on how it's given. I'd be pissed off if the friend were to just throw it to me and say its now mine without any feeling. The second scenario would certainly make most people happy – to think, free money that I myself found! But I would feel sad for the guy who dropped his money. An even more joyful scenario – you finding your misplaced money at the exact spot where you lost it. Double joy!

Though it really is because of your mindset, actually. Bonkers The Clown (Nonsensical Babble) 11:13, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Side note: My motherr says, don't take things that are not yours! E.g. Coins on the pavement. As they may be cursed! Hehe, what hokey. Bonkers The Clown (Nonsensical Babble) 11:16, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think there's something to do with perceived relative values or some such going on here. See "Less Is Better: When Low-value Options Are Valued More Highly than High-value Options". The study shows that if participants were given two gifts from 'friends', one being a $55 coat and the other a $45 scarf, the scarf was perceived as a more generous gift, when revealed that the coat was from a shop selling coats priced from $50-$500, whilst the scarf was from a range priced $5-$50. In your case, you are obviously assessing your friends generosity in giving you a gift of less than $1 against his ability to give gifts of higher value (as he presumably is if he lives in a Western country). However, you have no such expectation of a gift from the pavement, so any money you do receive from it has a higher worth relative to your expectation.

Basically, Jack, you're just a selfish pig who has an overinflated sense of his own self worth! ;-) - Cucumber Mike (talk) 11:28, 29 January 2013 (UTC)