Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

Select a section:

WP:RD/H

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

How can I get my question answered?

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

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

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

March 13

Is the value of a nation's dollar in any way tied to its physical currency?

For example, if it was learned that handling US bills could cause cancer, or that 1/3 of all US currency was counterfeit, would the value of the dollar change? Ryan Vesey 16:01, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it would decline, in both cases, although not by much. The cancer risk would primarily drive people to switch to credit cards and checks, but a small number would choose another currency, instead, in places where dual currencies are used. As for counterfeiting, the risk here is a panic that the counterfeiting could get worse, lowering the value, due to supply and demand. You might see a split between the value of online currency (higher) and physical bills (lower), or, if this didn't happen, the value of both would decline together. StuRat (talk) 16:04, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe so. In both cases, upon such discoveries, there would be less physical currency circulating, at least for a while. The value of its electronic currency would increase, since it would be scarcer. OsmanRF34 (talk) 16:25, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That was the assumption that I might have had. At the same time, there'd be some sort of a currency scare where everyone would want to get rid of US paper bills they held driving the value down. I'd actually think the first would drive the value down, while the second would increase the value. Ryan Vesey 16:35, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Take into account that only 10% of the money mass is physical currency. People would like to get rid of the bill in their pockets, but would not try to exchange their bank account into Canadian Dollars, gold or whatever. OsmanRF34 (talk) 18:23, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't that be 100%, given that online money is massless ? :-) StuRat (talk) 18:34, 13 March 2013 (UTC) [reply]

Yes, because of arbitrage. Both cases would certainly reduce the value (the willingness to provide goods and services in exchange for that dollar) of the physical dollar. If there is a difference in the value of a physical and electronic dollar, people will exploit anything which forces the exchange to be more equal than the "natural" differential would be. For example, taking advantage of the "legal tender for all debts public and private" clause, or enforcing laws or merchant agreements which limit the surcharge/discount they can charge for cash/credit. Even if it's a small differential, you can make a lot of money if you can move enough volume through the cycle. This would cause the value of the electronic dollar to more closely match that of the physical dollar. The only way to prevent it is to remove any restrictions which force a fixed or limited range of exchange rates between the two. (Of course, the size of the effect depends on the comparative ratios of the two pools of money, and how easy is it for people to divest themselves of the lower-valued physical dollar, which would effectively lower the size of the physical pool.) -- 71.35.100.68 (talk) 16:53, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

how would, as Osman says, the value of the electronic dollar increase due to scarcity? Would that mean, for instance, that if you poisoned a lot of paper money, gold bought with a credit card on line would become cheaper, since the value of electronic currency had gone up? μηδείς (talk) 17:10, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. A gold seller would get less business, since he won't be willing to accept the fake or poisoned bills, at least not for 1:1. The money mass would diminish by 10%, if all the physical currency disappeared completely. If 1/3 of the bills was discovered to be fake, 3.33% of the money mass would be lost. Those with electronic funds would be able to buy more of whatever, since the amount of products won't decrease by 3.33%. OsmanRF34 (talk) 18:13, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point that commodities dealers would give a better price for electronic than cash transactions, but I am not sure that that wouldn't just mean that cash would lose value while electronic prices would stay the same. It's still not like money has become more valuable as if it were backed by something solid. μηδείς (talk) 01:34, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If a share of the currency disappears, no matter for whatever reason, that would make the remaining more valuable. Just imagine the opposite case: the government increases the amount of money available, and provokes inflation. In a real world scenario, however, the central bank would take measures to maintain everything the same. OsmanRF34 (talk) 12:57, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is this question being asked in a vacuum of real world responses (like a pure econ question) or in more natural terms? Because if bills were somehow defective, say they were contaminated with radioactive material, they'd quickly be destroyed and replaced. Counterfeit, on the other hand, would not be replaced, so presumably there'd be economic consequences. Shadowjams (talk) 11:57, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I ran a project in rural Liberia where banks refused to accept old American dollars bills. The old American dollars in local circulation ended up trading at about 60 notes to a $50 bill. Sorry for the original research. Your Username 12:49, 15 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hayttom (talk • contribs) [reply]

Relationship of Gruffydd ap Llywelyn Fawr?

What blood relationship was king Henry III of England to Gruffydd ap Llywelyn Fawr, if any? Was Gruffydd related to John Lackland in a direct blood line?--Doug Coldwell (talk) 22:20, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why you'd think so? Our article on Gruffydd (1198-1244) has him completely Welsh: son of Llywelyn the Great (1172-1240) and his wife Tangwysth, Llywelyn son of Iorwerth Drwyndwn (1145-1174) and his wife Marared and Iorwerth son of Owain Gwynedd (1100-1170) and his wife Gwladys. All the wives have Welsh names. Henry III (1207-1272) on the other hand was son of John (1166-1216) and his French (second) wife Isabella of Angoulême, and both John and Isabella had French parents (Henry II of England and Eleanor of Aquitaine, Aymer of Angoulême and Alice of Courtenay). 184.147.116.201 (talk) 23:55, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, got it, but the answer is still no. Gruffydd's father Llywelyn married John's illegitimate daughter Joan, Lady of Wales when Guffydd was about five years old. She was Gruffydd's stepmother and no blood relation. 184.147.116.201 (talk) 00:00, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Great. Thanks.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 11:57, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Laumer and Cyril Kornbluth

How well did they know each other, if at all? Were they friends?199.33.32.40 (talk) 23:23, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, is Laumer dead? I enjoyed some of his works when I was younger. μηδείς (talk) 01:27, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

read The Infinite Cage76.218.104.120 (talk) 02:22, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kornbluth worked with Frederik Pohl so you could try asking him, the email link is not to him but the person at the end of it may be able to help pass a message along. Another option is to try Sabrina Laumer, Keith's daughter. sabrinalaumer.com seems to be dead but this Facebook page may be her and this is her. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 07:58, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

March 14

Roman Catholic Church/Vatican Papal Conclaves What Ifs

Know that the latest (2013) Roman Catholic Church/Vatican Papal Conclave is over. Still have tons of what if questions regarding all of it. Especially, compared to the ones prior to the 1978 when they 1st allowed outsiders in to the witness everything up to when all of the outsiders have to leave and etc.

Both prior and mist of voting for the new pope.

Can a healthy age eligible cardinal withdraw his name from consideration? Especially, when he chooses not to be the next Papal when asked? Even though he remains in the process another wise.

How were the votes recorded prior to the modern age with some sort of recording device? And are all of those archives still existence with the recorded in the secret archive or no longer in existence? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mybodymyself (talk • contribs) 01:38, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting procedures are explained at Papal conclave. There is some politicking and discussions among the various cardinals before the voting itself, and it is fantastically unlikely that any cardinal that self-selects himself out of the running would have enough support to then be elected by a majority of the remaining cardinals. --Jayron32 01:47, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When a pope is elected, he is asked "Do you accept?". Not all elected persons have accepted. In that case, they go back to the drawing board. So, a cardinal who has already clearly indicated he is unwilling to serve as pope is, as you say, unlikely to get many or any votes. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 01:51, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense, and if they chose a Pope who didn't want the job, how effective would he likely be? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:06, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone in their right mind would actually want to be the pope, and most popes have accepted reluctantly, but nevertheless accepted, on the basis that the choice is (said to be) divinely inspired and hence God's will. But just as Benedict XVI felt his time was up, some might feel their time should never come at all, and rule themselves out of contention before God ever has a chance to express His will. Poor God. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 04:13, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"I don't think anyone in their right mind would actually want to be the pope"

That's one of the most ridiculous things I've heard, and considering that we're discussing religion, that's quite a feat. Why would cardinals, unlike pretty much all other human beings, not want a position of power and respect? --140.180.249.27 (talk) 05:38, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At least I expressed my opinion as the opinion it is. I acknowledge your opinion (framed though it is as an assertion of fact) is different. What I can tell you for sure, though, is that you'll look long and hard and still won't find any priest, bishop, archbishop or even cardinal who is willing to admit he wants to be pope. In the absence of any such admissions, we're all just shooting the breeze. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 06:40, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard it said that what they really want in a Pope is "Jesus with an MBA". Obviously, big sandals to fill. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:44, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For the same reason Benedict XVI retired. For the same reason they call it the Room of Tears for elected Popes to recover in before going out on the balcony. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that nobody who wants to be Pope is suitable to be Pope, and there is a Catholic saying that "he who enters the Conclave a Pope, leaves a Cardinal". Lots of human being do not want to be in positions of power and celebrity. Becoming Pope is painting a huge target over yourself, basically giving up your previous life (with the expectation that you can never return to it), to try and herd a bunch of cats who will claw your eyes out if they can. Someone who thinks becoming Pope is a great way to get power and respect should be ruled out pretty quickly by the other cardinals. 86.163.215.162 (talk) 07:18, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for both of your answers to my question. They weren't what I was exactly, but still it helped me.

At the same time here is my latest question regarding all of this.

When does the newly elected and accepted pope pick his new papal name?--Jessica A Bruno (talk) 04:59, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also from the concave article, he's asked immediately after which name he will choose. Hot Stop (Talk) 05:03, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Those typos can be [con]vexing.
I'm waiting for the first female Pope, who might choose a name like "Nun of the Above". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:23, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Her obscure successor would be "Nun the Less". -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 19:41, 14 March 2013 (UTC) [reply]

Votes could be recorded on wood. They could import papyrus from Egypt. When ~~manuscript~~ parchment was invented, they could record votes on ~~manuscript~~ parchment. When paper was invented in the West, they could use paper.
Sleigh (talk) 10:26, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is the kind of thing that would be worth recording on parchment. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:06, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're getting in to a bit of random speculation territory here. If you read the Papal conclave and Papal selection before 1059, it doesn't seem that clear how voting was done in those days and it seemed to vary a fair bit. E.g. the papal conclave was established and then abandoned then used again. BTW the former article says:

Completely secret ballots (at the option of the cardinals present and voting) were sometimes used prior to 1621, but these secret ballots had no oath taken when the vote was actually cast. At some conclaves prior to 1621, the cardinals verbally voted and sometimes stood in groups to facilitate counting the votes cast. The signature of the elector covered by a folded-over part of the ballot paper was added by Gregory XV in 1621, to prevent anyone from casting the deciding vote for himself.

and

In 1562, Pius IV issued a papal bull that introduced regulations relating to the enclosure of the conclave and other procedures. Gregory XV issued two bulls that covered the most minute of details relating to the election; the first, in 1621, concerned electoral processes, while the other, in 1622, fixed the ceremonies to be observed.

And there were the more extreme cases like Papal election, 1241 and Papal election, 1268–71 where you have to wonder what they were doing. Of course in a case like Papal conclave, 1334, some sort of recorded ballot must have been used.

So whether they ever needed papyrus seems a bit unclear. Either way remember if they were following modern day procedure the ballots only needed to last until not long after being counted so longevity of the material probably wasn't that important, more ease of use, clarity of vote etc.

Nil Einne (talk) 19:48, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the latest insight into all of this. Have to all of it is somewhat what I'm looking for.--Jessica A Bruno (talk) 20:38, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any television, stage, or film actors from Botswana that are alive today?

Are there any television, stage, or film actors from Botswana that are alive today? Venustar84 (talk) 01:53, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here are three to start: Lerato Motshwarakgole is in a South African soap opera, Connie Ferguson was in the same soap opera, Donald Molosi has performed on Broadway. 184.147.116.201 (talk) 02:44, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How much has the Fed lent through the discount window since 2007?

Re http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-11-28/secret-fed-loans-undisclosed-to-congress-gave-banks-13-billion-in-income.html how much has the Federal Reserve lent to banks through the discount window since 2007? The full $7.77 trillion mentioned in that story? 71.208.7.158 (talk) 08:31, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Between $3,684.3 billion [Dec.] and $3,688 billion [Jan.] was lent through the Discount Window since 2007, depending on which month in the year you begin the calculation. Both figures are to end-February, 2013. Source: [[1]]DOR (HK) (talk) 05:50, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cults of personality in "communist" states

This is sort of a follow-up to my previous question about putting deceased heads of state in a glass coffin for eternity. Anyway, throughout the years, many "communist" states or former "communist" states had cults of personality for their leaders (although I'm aware that some "communist" states did not have cults of personality, notably Pol Pot and Kampuchea, and that not all cults of personality are in "communist" states, like Hitler and Nazi Germany, or Saddam Hussein and Iraq). Notable examples would be Mao Zedong, the Kims, Joseph Stalin, Josip Tito, Nicolae Ceaușescu, and Saparmurat "Turkmenbashi" Niyazov (although he and his country were no longer communist after 1991). However, did such people want or request a cult of personality, or were such cults the result of their countries' parties' propaganda, and that they had little to no say as to whether or not they wanted a cult of personality? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:54, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

May I mention...

...? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:12, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You may, but those are quite irrelevant. There is a difference between honoring historic figures and deifying a leader in life. For example, are the people told that this person is infallible or has other superhuman characteristics ? Perhaps Popes might have qualified, in the bad old days, although the "infallibility" there was supposedly a property of the office, not the person. StuRat (talk) 17:26, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Papal infallibility was officially adopted as a doctrine in 1870, and only applies to "ex cathedra" pronouncements... AnonMoos (talk) 01:19, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You know that, but a lot of Catholics are less well educated than you. Their views are more absolute. HiLo48 (talk) 01:59, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Turkmenbashi certainly promoted his own...he was the one who called himself Turkmenbashi, and he renamed months and days of the week after his family. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:58, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mao said in a speech on 10 March 1958, "Each group must worship its leader; it cannot but worship its leader" and that this was the "correct cult of personality". (Dikoetter Mao's Great Famine p.19).--Wikimedes (talk) 04:09, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. It's a little-known fact that there was a small group of Americans in the 1850s who worshipped Millard Fillmore. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:16, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stalin created the cult of Lenin, who was popular, in order to increase his own prestige, then created the cult of Stalin during his own lifetime. The few other Communist leaders who created cults did so during their own lifetimes. With the exceptions of Kim Il Sung and Kim Jong Il, none of them survived their deaths. TFD (talk) 08:02, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is Kim Jong Un more dangerous than his father?

Question from user blocked user based on checkuser.

I ask this because of this http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2013/03/07/is-kim-jong-un-more-dangerous-than-his-father/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harpery (talk • contribs) 13:05, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody can yet know that, and we aren't here to speculate aimlessly. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:08, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't recall that his father broke the truce or talked about a nuclear first-strike on anybody, but talk is cheap, and it remains to be seen whether he's serious. Technically speaking, his father isn't dangerous at all, being as how he's dead. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:11, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you cook and eat them, in which case the son is probably far less dangerous. μηδείς (talk) 17:40, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Jong-un's current rhetoric is basically identical to that of his father and grandfather, including declaring the truce void and promising to rain "seas of fire" on various things. Generally, the commentary that I've read says that the current situation is "more dangerous" because of what we don't know about how Jong-un and the larger North Korean bureaucracy will act, and that largely because no one had a chance to watch him grow into the role (contrast with his father, who assumed power in his 50s after publicly holding various high-level positions). That is, it's really a statement of "more unpredictable". — Lomn 14:15, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Although, as Mr.98 pointed above, what's really going on in Kim Jong Un's mind is unknown, the progress of the nuclear arsenal is not a complete unknown. Since 2011, as Kim Jong Un took power, the program kept being developed. That last fact makes him slightly more powerful. OsmanRF34 (talk) 14:57, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

...but not necessarily more dangerous. HiLo48 (talk) 21:36, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

True, but a lunatic with a bigger gun can kill more people than a lunatic with a smaller gun... --Jayron32 21:44, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

...if we assume he's equally lunatic as his father, then, the present situation is not more dangerous. As long as he obtains from the international community what he wants, he will concentrate his abuse towards his own people. The tricky question is what if he gets long range rockets, is trigger happy, and finds a good idea to break the taboo against using nuclear weapons? OsmanRF34 (talk) 23:14, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The trump card here might be if China decides that this budding megalomaniac is bad for business, and maybe arranges for him to take a permanent vacation. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:30, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If China stops supporting him, he can just threaten to nuke them, if they don't continue to support the regime. If China managed to assassinate him, his cronies might well launch a nuke or two. StuRat (talk) 03:50, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Henry III's reputation

Our article on Gruffydd ap Llywelyn Fawr says his wife Senena paid 600 marks to Henry III for her husband's release. Apparently she had to hand over her two youngest sons, Dafydd and Rhodri, to the king as hostages to ensure that she kept her part of the bargain. Henry did not keep his part however, and kept Gruffydd and his son imprisoned... Did he then release her two youngest sons? Did Henry III keep Senena's 600 marks also? It looks like to me then Henry kept the 600 marks AND Gruffydd plus son Owain. Did Henry III have such a bad reputation as being so ruthless?--Doug Coldwell (talk) 13:51, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A quick search for a reference found; "Henry III was very unlike his father. He was very pious, not cruel or ruthless, but rather feckless." From A Brief History of Great Britain, by William E. Burns (p.68). I have come to be rather cautious of general histories as they, by necessity make sweeping statements that sometimes obscure the known facts. Alansplodge (talk) 15:47, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll keep that in mind about "sweeping statements". So it looks like Henry kept Senena's 600 marks AND kept Gruffydd and son Owain = looks ruthless to me. Did Henry also keep Senena's two younger sons Dafydd and Rhodri in this deal?--Doug Coldwell (talk) 19:30, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re Henry releasing the sons, our article on Owain says (unsourced) Henry released Owain after Gruffydd's death in 1244 in the hope's Owain would start a civil war. I've not found a source to confirm that, though Historical Essays By Thomas Frederick Tout, 1907 page 80 does claim the four sons of Gruffydd were free and quarrelling by 1246. On the other hand, Tower: An Epic History of the Tower of London By Nigel Jones, 2012 page 48 says Henry ordered Owain to "be detained more straitly" after Gruffydd's fatal escape attempt in 1244.
Re the 600 marks, I suspect the 600 figure comes from this website, which apart from the figure, seems a paraphrase of Dictionary of national biography, Volume 23 By Sir Sidney Lee, 1890, page 307. The book version is 300 marks, and it doesn't seem to imply Henry did anything nefarious - the deal was a change of custody for Gruffydd rather than outright freedom.

(Gruffydd was imprisoned by his halfbrother Davydd in 1239. In reaction), "the Bishop of Bangor ... persuaded King Henry to take up the cause of Gruffydd, whose friends promised a heavy tribute. On 12 Aug. 1241 Senena, Gruffydd's wife, made a convention with Henry at Shrewsbury. ... Henry invaded Wales and Davydd ... handed over Gruffydd to Henry's custody.... Gruffydd was now sent to London (about 29 Sept. 1241) under the care of John of Lexington and confined in the Tower, along with his son Owain and some other Welsh captives. He was, however, honourably treated. The government allowed half a mark a day for his support, and his wife Senena was allowed to visit him." It goes on to tell of the escape attempt but doesn't say when Owain was released or anything about Dafydd (the son) and Rhodri.

I hope a better searcher comes up with something more. 184.147.116.201 (talk) 20:19, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That helps make the picture more clear. Now I understand Davydd ... handed over Gruffydd to Henry's custody and He was, however, honourably treated and ...and his wife Senena was allowed to visit him. Now I see what happened.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 12:23, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to look up because there were so many Dafydds, Gruffydds and Llewelyns! Glad that helped. 184.147.116.201 (talk) 16:02, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Benedict and Francis

If you look at the history that Francis of Assisi founded his order the franciscans as counter concept to the contemplative benedictines founded by Benedict of Nursia. The benedictine way of life is praying and a little bit turned away from the world around. The franciscan style was the poor life and the care for the people who were in need.

Could it be that Francis made the choice of his name that deliberate as a direct answer to Benedict? --Stone (talk) 18:02, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It could be anything. But the obvious reference is to Francis_Xavier, one of the founders of the jesuits, to which order the new Francis belongs. SemanticMantis (talk) 18:05, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But the new Pope has apparently explicitly stated that he took his name from Francis of Assisi, because of his love for the poor. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 18:12, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Interviews with cardinals indicate that Francis of Assisi is the intended reference, and provide some insight into the reasons why. — Lomn 18:12, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is the answer ass isi as that? Clarityfiend (talk) 22:14, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A cynical reporter on the BBC News last night suggested that it was to ingratiate himself with the Italians, as St Francis is widely venerated in Italy. Seems unlikely to me, but that's what some think. Alansplodge (talk) 00:04, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What ever happened to reporters actually reporting on the facts they're paid to discover? Their own personal opinions are worth only whatever the going rate for Wikipedia editors is; it wasn't particularly impressive last time I checked. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 02:54, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Given the hilariously incompetent chatter during the BBC's coverage of the announcement of the new Pope (including the use of a translator for the Pope's prayers who apparently was unfamiliar with the Hail Mary), I think that ship has sailed. 86.161.209.78 (talk) 10:01, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That was classic, how idiotic! That's when a competent reporter says "let's listen to the Pope pray the our father...," etc.165.212.189.187 (talk) 14:09, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

CNN took a while to work out who the pope was and even longer to work out his papal name (despite earlier telling us how important it was). They finally found it out from an Italian news source what his papal name was. I had a look at Al Jazeera's twitter account and they seemed to do much better timewise. Oh and another thing about CNN, despite having the smoke thing in the background of the broadcast, it seemed to be 30 seconds or so before they commented on it in the news broadcast. One thing I wonder, it seems Bergoglio was Papabile by many sources, but not very high up. I wonder how many relegated the task of his biography to some junior. Nil Einne (talk) 16:53, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the Australian commentators got it wrong, too. They proudly announced that the Papacy had once again returned to Italy, as the new Pope was the Archbishop of Genoa. (Wrong) They then corrected themselves to say he was an Argentinian who had spent most of his career in Italy, and so was Italian by adoption. (Wrong) -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 19:39, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The really scary part is that the likes of CNN and BBC are widely presumed without question to be Reliable Sources. Roger (talk) 19:57, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Silver in Mesopotamia

I would like to know whether silver is traded in Mesopotamia. Is silver sold in "bars"? Also how much would it cost to get enough silver to make a small statue. References please so I can verify the sources. I need to write a story about "Kneeling bull holding a spout." The region doesn't need to be accurate (i.e., it need not take place during the pro-elmic period where the statue is found). --176.25.156.43 (talk) 20:31, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably you are referring to a period somewhere in the neighborhood of 3100-2900 B.C., which is the estimated date for that statue. Since the statue is made of silver, it's pretty obvious that silver was traded in some way. Apparently it was traded by weight, though, not in the form of coins or bars of a regular shape. In fact there was no formal currency at all at that time, so it's difficult to quantify the cost in any meaningful way. The statue looks like it is hammered from a relatively thin sheet of silver, but the documentation I can see (from the Met web page) doesn't say how much it weighs, so valuing it is pretty difficult in any case. Looie496 (talk) 20:52, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How is silver sold in the markets? I presume in sheets? Also, can one "buy" silver from the markets? --176.25.156.43 (talk) 21:37, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: I have decided to write about the Proto-Elamite. How do they trade? Do they trade silver (presumably since the statue was made in that period in that civilization). --176.25.156.43 (talk) 21:49, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Very little is known about the Proto-Elamite people. Proto-Elamite script has not been deciphered yet and writing itself was only beginning to emerge in Sumer and Egypt. Among the most used trading goods of ancient Mesopotamia are barley and silver. The earliest known attestation of silver as a currency dates to the Early Dynastic IIIa period of Sumer (2600-2500 BC) (source). It's quite possible of course that it was used even earlier than that. As for the value of silver, an indication can be gained from the Laws of Eshunna (c. 2000 BC): 1 shekel of silver (c. 8 gram) was worth 120 shekels of refined copper, or 360 shekels of wool or 1 kor (c. 300 liter) of barley. The wages of a harvester for one day were 1/15th of a shekel of silver, those of a winnower 1/30th; to hire a wagon including a driver and oxen for one day cost 1/3 of a shekel of silver. - Lindert (talk) 23:04, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think would be easier to write Mesopotamia or Pro-Elamite? --176.249.94.94 (talk) 13:39, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Mesopotamia" is a pretty wide category, but generally we know much more about the various Mesopotamian peoples and civilisations than about the Proto-Elamites, because we can read most of their surviving texts and because they had far more interactions with other civilisations we also know about, who themselves wrote about them. For this reason It would be easier to write (fiction) about the Proto-Elamites, because you can make up far more without contradicting the fewer known facts. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 212.95.237.92 (talk) 14:57, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Does any one make a living through poetry?

Excluding cases like Bob Dylan, who is actually a poet, but mainly a singer. OsmanRF34 (talk) 23:16, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Almost no one does, and there is no correlation between excellence and the ability to support oneself by writing poetry. For example, a scrivener for Hallmark Greeting Cards may thereby be able to meet the mortgage, but T. S. Eliot was a banker, and Walt Whitman was a nurse. - Nunh-huh 23:23, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And who are those who make a living? (I mean from poetry proper, not from novels or essays). OsmanRF34 (talk) 23:30, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think none would be almost as accurate an answer; I wasn't definitive so as not to discomfit those who would cavil that a writer of greeting cards or an itinerant bard qualified as making a living. For further examples, see http://poetry.about.com/od/poetryhistory/a/poetswork.htm - Nunh-huh 23:50, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Poetry seems to be the main occupation of Benjamin Zephaniah. Most of the other British poets I could find seem to have posts at universities, or are engaged in more lucrative forms of writing, or both. Alansplodge (talk) 23:56, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How about John Cooper Clarke, the 'Punk poet'? Admittedly, he makes a living out of writing and performing poetry, but as far as I can see poetry is his 'thing'. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 09:53, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Frost managed to make a living down the road not taken by most. StuRat (talk)

Was he not a farmer, teacher, and lecturer? - Nunh-huh 09:28, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

W. H. Davies had a career in vagrancy. Alansplodge (talk) 11:08, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't vagrancy mostly about standing about not doing much. Richard Avery (talk) 14:56, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work if you can get it ;-) Alansplodge (talk) 16:05, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aye, but let's not make a Big Issue of it, though. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 02:09, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Including Dylan would make no difference, since he does not make a living from writing verse. But song lyricists like Bernie Taupin do. Of course some people do not consider the lyrics of "Candle in the Wind" to be poetry. I can't imagine why. Historically, a lot of money could be made in poetry - for a brief period. Lord Byron made tons of cash from Childe Harold, but alas, those days are gone. Paul B (talk) 15:14, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From Poet laureate: "A poet laureate (plural: poets laureate) is a poet officially appointed by a government, or conferring institution, who is often expected to compose poems for special events and occasions. ... Today, over a dozen national governments continue the poet laureate tradition." For example, the US one gets $35,000 per year, which technically one could probably live off of alone, but probably the ones who get the job are all people who don't end up in practice using it for subsistence. 67.163.109.173 (talk) 21:54, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

However, the unfortunate Poet Laureate of the United Kingdom receives only GBP 5,760 (USD 8,864), which is certainly not enough to live on, unless you are actually a vagrant. The official salary is 105 Imperial gallons of sherry, but they have been accepting cash instead for a couple of centuries. If we ever DO get a vagrant laureate, he (or she) might prefer the sherry. Alansplodge (talk) 00:45, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's good limerick material :) There once was a vagrant named Jerry/whose poems always made people merry/and with no regret/as poet laureate/he ~~chose~~opted to get paid in sherry.67.163.109.173 (talk) 01:31, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good, but doesn't the last line need another syllable ? How about "paid off" instead of "paid" ? Or "he chose compensation in sherry". StuRat (talk) 04:24, 16 March 2013 (UTC) [reply]

fixed :)67.163.109.173 (talk) 05:56, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

March 15

Ride of the Valkyrie

Resolved

This is probably a good one for Jack, who's the resident classical music expert. Does anyone know just what German words Kirsten Flagstad is singing here?[2] They don't seem to match the libretto from the opera.[3] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:56, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that's from when we first meet Brunhilde in Act II, see libretto here (basically, from Brunhilde's first words). It's not the Ride of the Valkyries, which starts off Act III. I think that's the introductory music to Act II, arranged to cut out Wotan's part, and leading into Brunhilde's first vocal appearance. (given that this is the opera from which I take my name …) --Wehwalt (talk) 03:14, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, just as long as you don't start wearing a metal, conical bra... :-) StuRat (talk) 03:37, 15 March 2013 (UTC) [reply]

That's it exactly. Thank you! P.S. I hope you enjoyed watching Bob Hope introduce Kirsten Flagstad. That's not something you would see every day. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:30, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's perfectly OK; it was my pleasure. 'Twas nothing, really. Please don't mention it. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 03:39, 15 March 2013 (UTC) [reply]

new constitution in kenya

what are the impacts of new constitution to education sector in kenya — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.89.10.241 (talk) 06:03, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One immediate effect has been the launching of a public education program to inform Kenyans about the constitution [4] Sh 1.3 billion ($15 million US) has been allocated for it.

Another is probably the Universities Bill just recently signed into law [5] which will increase oversight. The article about the bill also says students will be able to take the degree programs of their choice (apparently not possible now?).

You can read the constitution here. It outlines who is responsible for education (mostly the national government as opposed to the county governments) and that everyone has a right to an education. 184.147.116.201 (talk) 16:00, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It will enforce that Kenyan children will do their homework themselves, and not post it on the Internet for others to solve. Indeed, it will become a criminal offense not to do your homework in time. The impact will be quite positive, both for the pupils as well as for the Internet users, who will be left alone. OsmanRF34 (talk) 16:01, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Très drôle. Alansplodge (talk) 23:23, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New Jersey Courts

I'm looking at a Court Disposition for the state of New Jersey in the USA. Under the secion 'plea' they have '9' but the disposition didn't come with a decoder. What does plea 9 in New Jersey mean? 65.69.34.2 (talk) 18:18, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't assume all courts in NJ use the same codes, but if this is a municipal traffic case you could look at [6] and see if it makes sense. According to that file, '9' = 'not applicable'. - Nunh-huh 01:59, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thirteenth century clothing

In our article it shows an image apparently of ca 1259 of Llywelyn the Great and his sons in some sort of "robes". How would these "robes" have been made (i.e. material makeup). Is there more than one piece? Overclothes? Underclothes?--Doug Coldwell (talk) 21:55, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do 1200–1300 in fashion and 1300–1400 in fashion help at all? --ColinFine (talk) 23:39, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) It looks like they are wearing an undergarment and an overcloak. My guess is that the undergarment would have been made of linen and the overcloak of wool. Since they were royalty, cotton is a possibility, but it was very expensive and hard to come by at that time. Looie496 (talk) 23:41, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

O.K. Thanks. From this I get the idea that the undergarment was a tunic or version thereof and the overcloak was a toga or version thereof. What would the belt around the toga (if there was one) been made of?--Doug Coldwell (talk) 13:58, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could the undergarment have been made of silk, since they appeared wealthy?--Doug Coldwell (talk) 14:45, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since you pinged me, I'll reply even though I don't really know anything. All I really know about this topic is that linen and wool were by far the most widely used fabrics in Britain at that time, and wool would not have been great for an undergarment because it is rough-feeling and nonabsorbent. Looie496 (talk) 17:33, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since silk was so expensive it wouldn't have been used for undergarments at that date. Cotton would have been rare too. For the most luxurious garments, furs and metallic thread. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:45, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for replies. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 23:28, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Christianity & tolerance

I realize this question will be controversial and somewhat opinion-based, but I'll try to be as respectful as possible. Why are most Christians today so tolerant? As far as I can tell, the vast majority of Christians believe that all non-believers will be doomed to hell, from which there is no escape. Yet most of them don't try to force non-believers to convert to Christianity, and might even fight for the rights of atheists and people of other religions. Why is this the case, and is there any Biblical basis for this belief? If I were Christian, and I believed that my friends were doomed to hell, I'd do everything I could to force them to convert, up to and including torture. After all, what's the harm of a few years or decades of pain, if it prevents an eternity of torture in hell? If a liberal Christian heard that his friend became insane and wants to jump off a building, wouldn't he try to stop his friend, even if it means using physical force? --140.180.249.27 (talk) 23:10, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the Liberal Christian view is that living in a way that attempts to live up to the Christian ideals is a better way of bringing people round to your views than any use of force. The "non-believers go to hell" doctrine would be probably be considered rather medieval by many Christians in the UK, although I'm sure that there are still parts of the world where it still has currency. Alansplodge (talk) 23:20, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know of any Christian denomination which believes that forced conversions have any validity. Forcing someone to make a Christian confession, from a Christian perspective, does not make them a Christian, so it would be quite useless and only create fake Christians. - Lindert (talk) 23:28, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I meant forcing the non-Christian to read the Bible, study Christian theology, and the like, in the hope that she will start to truly believe in Christianity. The typical Christian liberal is likely to oppose this, by opposing mandatory Bible studies in public schools, for instance. --140.180.249.27 (talk) 23:59, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't seem that that would be an effective strategy (not to mention the moral implications). If anything, people would be repulsed by Christians behaving in such a way, and be driven away from Christianity. In any case, though attitudes towards evangelism vary, there is widespread agreement that evangelism should be in conformity with the morals taught by Jesus, and imitate his apostles. Furthermore, many Christians recognize that while they are called to preach, they do not have the power in themselves to convert people, because that is the work of the Holy Spirit. - Lindert (talk) 00:12, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The values of secular liberalism have been extremely influential in predominantly Christian areas of the world (e.g. Europe and the Americas, among other places) in the last three hundred years. This has generally led to a lot less fundamentalism and a lot less insistence on the use of the secular order to enforce a cosmic order. One needs to see this not as inherent to Christianity (much of Christianity prior to the last 300 years was not at all like this, and there are still Christians who feel this way, but they are definitely in minorities, no matter how loud they sometimes sound in American politics) and not as inherent to changes to world thought in general (there are still many people in many parts of the world who are just as rejecting of secular liberalism; consider how different most of the Muslim world is in this respect). The short answer is, most people in Christian nations don't really believe that using state power to force religion onto people is the right thing to do. Asking why that is the case necessarily leads you back to the Enlightenment, the wars of religion it came out of, the history of thinking about just government, and so on, and historically it gets quite complicated very quickly if you want to look into it in a non-glib way. --Mr.98 (talk) 02:37, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure the OP has it right. As someone who has been aggressively attacked here by conservative Christians, been the victim of their attempts to silence me, and who has seen the nonsense they want to add to articles like Evolution and Richard Dawkins, I have serious doubts about their tolerance. Maybe such Christians are only a minority, but they're a powerful and bloody annoying one, and if more liberal Christians are more common, they would do well to condemn the bigots in their ranks. HiLo48 (talk) 07:34, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While it is true that there are indeed fundamentalist, extremist Christians, on the whole they are far less common than moderate ones. In places where the loudest megaphone wins (internet debates, American political radio, etc.) it is easy to exaggerate the prevalence of such strains of religion, but systematic surveys of these things show such people to be firmly in the minority. A loud minority, but a minority. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:18, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I highly doubt that even the conservative Christians would have physically abused you if they had the chance. The same can't be said for the Islamic world, for example. Try going to Saudi Arabia and expressing anti-religious sentiments there, to see what happens to your head. --140.180.249.27 (talk) 07:46, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll attempt to paraphrase that... "I think it's OK for conservative Christians to be aggressive, dishonest bigots because some Muslims are worse." Please stay on topic. HiLo48 (talk) 07:54, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) I think this is the start of a long, controversial debate. By "here", I assume you mean WP, rather than "here" as in "there", where you live. I think the OP is talking about being tolerant in a physical sense, ie. not trying to force conversions, so it is about tolerance relative to beliefs. One might argue that the beliefs are intolerant, but if they are what they are, then the behaviour is presumed by the OP to be tolerant relative to these beliefs. It is a reasonable premise, at any rate. IBE (talk) 07:49, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is a significant range of tolerance and intolerance across most any religion. It really comes down to individuals. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:10, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I suspect the problem is that the less tolerant members of any religion get the bulk of the publicity, and try harder to exercise power, sometimes successfully. HiLo48 (talk) 08:19, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On that note, yes, I heartily agree. I've even suggested this to Christians, that one of the problems with their beliefs in public life is that they don't really have a voice - they have to sound a bit outrageous to get any attention. They tend to agree. In Australia, that means the spokespeople go haywire about eg. gay marriage. The Christians I know oppose it, but the Christians who get to talk to the media use weak logic, and a dash of extravagance. I have heard saner voices arguing that this will only make them look bad. IBE (talk) 08:44, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I meant "there", meaning in the Western world. I'm asking about the general public, because I'm not that interested in the opinions of Wikipedia editors. That said, thanks to everyone who have taken a stab at my question. --140.180.249.27 (talk) 08:58, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

March 16

North Korea's military tendencies

After all my questions on North Korea throughout the years, and despite reading several Wikipedia articles on the topic, there's still one thing I don't understand. Why is North Korea so aggressive in the first place? They have nuclear ambitions, seriously want to build ICBMs (which by itself isn't a bad thing, but with their behavior lately, that would be worrying), and threaten an attack on South Korea and/or the US because of military drills (although military drills by themselves aren't an indication of an impending invasion; for example, the US and the Philippines have military drills all the time but the Philippines doesn't want to invade a country anytime soon) or sanctions. I know that the US is partly to blame for the Korean War (if it weren't for them, Korea would have been united), but that's another story. But still, in the first place, why is North Korea so aggressive? To get what they want? (but then again, if they weren't so aggressive, they wouldn't have sanctions in the first place) They understand that their behavior is doing more harm than good, both to the world stage and to their own people, but why do they continue to practice such behavior? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 03:49, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They need an enemy to justify repression of their own citizens. If there was no enemy, and no sanctions, then the people would start to ask why they are starving while the ruling class is living in luxury. This is especially true because they have the example of South Korea, with a fully functional economy, just over the border (and the same with China, over the other border). With nobody to blame this on, it would become quite obvious that the discrepancy is due to the policies of their government. StuRat (talk) 04:31, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that western democracies also find it convenient at times to paint North Korea as the Devil's spawn. The declaration by Dubya that it was part of the Axis of Evil is a classic example. That announcement was part of him seemingly needing an enemy to blame and condemn. HiLo48 (talk) 07:39, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See false equivalence. --140.180.249.27 (talk) 07:42, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The so-called "axis of evil" inclued Iraq, which was an exaggeration, and excluded Pakistan. Otherwise, it was on track, despite that rather silly name. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:06, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, but that doesn't mean you say it out loud. That was counter-productive. StuRat (talk) 16:22, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Subtlety is way down the list of Dubya's personality traits. At least he didn't pull a Reagan and say "The bombing starts tomorrow". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:13, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are many complex answers to this kind of question. A few of the factors involved:

A lot of North Korean bellicosity is for a domestic audience, not an international one. We are not terribly privy to the internal politics of North Korea, but keeping their people (and their generals, and their soldiers) in line is certainly part of what these actions help achieve. It is a common tactic in all nations (not just totalitarian ones) to emphasize the threat from abroad as a means of achieving domestic unity.
At the same time, the North also has a pattern of being "bad" to achieve some kind of future deal. They have to have bargaining room. So they will build a reactor, test a bomb or two, and then say, "OK, we'll take apart the reactor, for some more food." Great, but once you've taken apart the reactor, then what? You act "bad" again, get everybody back to the bargaining table, and then you can promise to act "good" again in exchange for something. It's a game, and everyone involved in said bargaining knows it is a game, but the alternative to the game is North Korea acting worse, and possibly actual war, and so most players are willing to play along.
North Korea also has a genuine security concern. They do not have many good friends, and their enemies are quite powerful. Lumping them into the "Axis of Evil" was not a mere rhetorical point, especially when one such country soon had a war declared against it (under false pretenses, at it turned out), and the other is a country where war occasionally seems very likely (and there are assassinations, sabotage, and other issues). They are correct to see their situation as painted into a corner. They are correct to perceive that if the US felt they could topple them tomorrow, with a minimum of "cost", they would probably do so. As it is, making it clear that the cost would be high in such a case is a solid strategy.
There may also be unknown psychological factors at work here amongst the leaders of the North Korean government. North Korea is a state the concentrates a lot of power at the top. That means that whomever is at the top is going to have a disproportionate influence on their domestic and international policies — much more so than any state where power is more diffused. As such, idiosyncrasies, psychological hangups, strange beliefs, and so on, can manifest themselves politically in unpredictable ways. I don't think we know much about the current leader, and that hampers our accurate analysis.

There are no doubt other factors as well. My main point is, there is unlikely one simple answer to this kind of behavior. It serves multiple purposes. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:15, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that NK has legitimate security concerns. Their conventional military was quite sufficient to prevent a US attack, and they could also have relied on China to defend them. So, the concept of a US attack there is absurd. StuRat (talk) 16:26, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The first point is moot, and the second is questionable. Why would China necessarily defend North Korea? Political constellations change - just see Hitler-Stalin Pact. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:15, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

China feels the need to have a buffer zone between itself and the free world. Hence their continuing occupation of Tibet. StuRat (talk) 10:17, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just in case some modern-day Hannibal decides to attack China by leading an army across the Himalayas. That's why they're working feverishly to re-create the Wooly Mammoth. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:25, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Like it or not, most of the free world accepts that Tibet is just as much a part of China as Beijing is. So, where's the buffer zone now? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 20:35, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bilateral talks vs. six party talks

I was reading over here that NK only wants bilateral talks with America to strengthen their ties with them, while America will only accept six party talks. It says that the reason why America rejects bilateral talks is because they violated previous bilateral talks, but that sounds like a cop out to me. If they violate bilateral talks, why would America believe they wouldn't violate six party talks? Doesn't make sense, but I'll ask my question anyway. Why does America care (if they are acting in their own best interest which they are) if it's six party talks or bilateral talks? ScienceApe (talk) 07:11, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This refers to the Six-party talks that have already been going on for a decade, which also involve the other regional interested parties (China, Russia, South Korea, and Japan). Adam Bishop (talk) 10:17, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

China is the key. They are the only ones who can put pressure on NK to actually fulfill their obligations. That is, they can cut off the supply lifeline they give to NK, which is vital to NK's survival. So, the hope is that, if the agreement includes China, then China will enforce it. StuRat (talk) 16:20, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another reason is that the US doesn't want to appear to be unilaterally bullying North Korea.--Wikimedes (talk) 10:08, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That seems rather backwards. It's NK who keeps threatening to attack everyone in sight. StuRat (talk) 10:12, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is backwards, but a little thing like logic won't stop North Korea from screaming "victim" or people who see Yankee imperialism in all US foreign policy actions from agreeing with them. Along the same lines, if the US dealt directly with North Korea without input from countries and people who are actually in the region, it wouldn't be unreasonable to see the US as sticking its nose into other people's business.--Wikimedes (talk) 20:19, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

forz d/c

What is the etymology of this term (it is used in jewellery)?Curb Chain (talk) 07:14, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give an example of where it is used? --ColinFine (talk) 21:30, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[7][8]Curb Chain (talk) 00:08, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What a surprisingly hard one to figure out! I suppose one could ask one of the sellers. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 18:10, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I had never heard of the term. Given how uniform the examples are in the ads, are you sure it is not simply a brand name? --ColinFine (talk) 01:02, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, both chains are made of Italian silver and forza (note the a), is Italian for strength, so I've got to think that's related somehow, but searches down that line of inquiry keep circling back to Forza Italia and related topics, which seems a red herring. Consider my curiosity is piqued... Matt Deres (talk) 01:41, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dunno about "forz", but the "d/c" bit is surely short for "diamond cut", which means the links have flat, polished facets cut into them to make them sparkle, like this.--Rallette (talk) 08:23, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

...got it: "forz" is clearly short for "forzatina", which seems to be the Italian term for a simple chain, in jewellery.--Rallette (talk) 08:57, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Columbus (Pt), Franklin, Ohio, United States

Resolved

Like in this census here - what does the (Pt) / (Pt.) there stand for? I did not find a reasonable explanation in pt. Thanks for answers! GEEZER^{nil nisi bene} 09:08, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest it means 'part thereof', or words to that effect. Columbus City, although mainly in Franklin County, also extends into Delaware County and Fairfield County (although the table suggests that in 1980 it had not yet grown into the former). The table first gives the total population of Columbus, and then the populations of the parts within Franklin and Fairfield, denoted with (pt). - Cucumber Mike (talk) 09:24, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I found the same but much more complicated explanation (streches over... including ... etc. etc.) of what you suggest. Case closed. Do you think this could be entered (connection: census, geography) in pt ? GEEZER^{nil nisi bene} 09:36, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. Personally I'd say that the definition belongs at Wiktionary (in fact, it's already there), but then again lots of things in that list belong at Wiktionary to my mind. If you want to add it, go ahead. I won't stop you. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 09:40, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you find me?

What's the number of the film director Manoel de Oliveira on the list of 'oldest man living in Portugal'? 84.110.36.209 (talk) 11:42, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What do you want us to find for you ? His phone number ? StuRat (talk) 16:17, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can read. Which place his in the list of the oldest men in Portugal.82.81.208.29 (talk) 16:32, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Being rude to responders here, who are unpaid volunteers, is not your best approach when seeking information. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:11, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your English isn't clear. "Which position on the list does he occupy ?" would be the way to ask that clearly. Also, it should be "oldest men" not "man", and "Can you find this for me ?". StuRat (talk) 16:41, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't the answer, but is somewhat relevant: List of Portuguese supercentenarians. StuRat (talk) 16:46, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This book (describing age 105+ as a semi-supercentenarian) gives 19 such men in Germany in 2002 and maybe the number goes up two or three fold each decade.[9] The population of Germany is about 7.7 times Portugal so perhaps perhaps only a handful of men in Portugal are older than Manoel de Oliveira who is 104. My grandfather was 104 when he died in 1994 and he wasn't even the oldest person in his care home (but he was the oldest man). Warning, these are "validated" cases. Many very elderly people overstate their age and many possibly genuine extreme ages cannot be validated.Thincat (talk) 20:52, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Africa Natural Geographical Border

My question is which country in Africa has a n atural border or is a geographical entity by itself. For example undivided India and Pakistan used to form a geographical entity before being partitioned. Solomon7968 (talk) 14:42, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Madagascar ? StuRat (talk) 16:16, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When Kim Jong Un said he would "rain bullets" against the enemy

close trolling by banned user

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

did that include Japan? Hyerotaku (talk) 14:56, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was said by a 80 year old Korean War veteran, not by Kim Jong Un. [10] --PlanetEditor (talk) 15:14, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh sorry. But anyway, does it include Japan? Hyerotaku (talk) 15:20, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He was a veteran of the Korean War. So by enemy he probably indicates South Korea, North's enemy during Korean War, not Japan. --PlanetEditor (talk) 15:25, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This question is trolling by the banned user Timothyhere/Kotjap. μηδείς (talk) 16:44, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why is North Korea so aggressive toward Japan?

close trolling by banned user

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

If Japan has done nothing to them? Hyerotaku (talk) 15:53, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See Japan–North Korea relations. --PlanetEditor (talk) 15:59, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This question is trolling by the banned user Timothyhere/Kotjap. μηδείς (talk) 16:44, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gospel Amen

This is probably a stupid question, but I'm hoping for some nice references. In the song Amen_(The_Impressions_song), did Jester write the Amen chorus, or did he just arrange an existing Amen and add verses? I ask because I've heard that particular Amen tune used liturgically and, although not impossible given the people involved*, it seems unlikely that a film and pop tune was chosen. (*The hymn "My God loves me" to the tune Chanson d'amour strikes me as particularly incongruous, in retrospect.) 86.161.209.78 (talk) 16:18, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article used the term "popularized". That implies there was an existing Amen song. 75.185.79.52 (talk) 16:50, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it says the Impressions popularized the song written by Jester for the film Lilies of the Field. 86.161.209.78 (talk) 16:53, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding of the article tells me that Jester first wrote the song for the film Lilies of the Field. Then, an artist for the Impressions heard it and was inspired by it, thereby creating a new version. It is possible that Jester got inspired from the liturgical version, or vice versa. I assume that people "don't live in a vacuum", always influencing or influenced by the environment. Another possibility is that the liturgical version and the film version just happens to sound similar to you or happens either simultaneously or spontaneously, as is the case with Isaac Newton and Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz in a debate on who discovered calculus. 75.185.79.52 (talk) 18:32, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible for a non-Jewish person to assimilate into the Jewish culture or become an ethnic Jew?

Is it possible for a non-Jewish person to assimilate into the Jewish culture or become an ethnic Jew? Or do you have to be born into a Jewish family with two Jewish parents? If a child is born into a Jewish family, loses his parents, and becomes adopted by a family of a different faith and cultural background, then would that child lose his Jewish status if he practices the faith of his new adoptive parents and learns the cultural ways of his parents, or does he remain forever an "ethnic Jew" even though he is brought up into totally different culture and religion? If the person's race is Asian, but he is brought up in a Hispanic Catholic culture instead of an indigenous Asian culture, then would that person's ethnicity be Hispanic Catholic? Another question is, if a person grows up in a densely populated Jewish/Christian/Muslim community and practices the religion and culture of those groups but that person has non-Jewish/non-Christian/non-Muslim parents, then would those groups accept that person as a member of the community? 75.185.79.52 (talk) 16:39, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you haven't seen it yet, I'll point you to the article Who is a Jew?, which the launching point for figuring out what it means to be Jewish. (Answer: it's complicated, and depends on who you ask.) Regarding community acceptance, it highly depends on the community (on a finer level than just generic Jewish/Christian/Muslim). -- 71.35.100.68 (talk) 19:02, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The simple answer is yes, one can assimilate, and, no, one cannot change one's ethnicity. μηδείς (talk) 19:09, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Race is not the same thing as ethnicity. Race has more to do with physical appearance and ancestry. Ethnicity has more to do with culture. 75.185.79.52 (talk) 19:43, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, wiggers show that anybody can assimilate into anything. That said, if you're an uncircumcised male, you need to either get circumcised or "keep it in your pants", if you want to "pass". StuRat (talk) 19:17, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the most committed Jews I have known were born to other religions. As for the convert to another religion, the quote (I probably misquote) which I have always felt summed it up was "until the day of his death You wait for him".--Wehwalt (talk) 19:44, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Conversion to Judaism has the answer. Bottom-line: the Jewish people doesn't seem eager to accept anyone, contrary to the Christian and Muslim practice, but it's possible. OsmanRF34 (talk) 19:51, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Christians and Muslims see it is their divine responsibility to expand the flock. Jews figure if you don't want to be Jewish, they won't stop you. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:18, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but ethnos and natio refer to relationship by birth. So regardless of the starnge idea above that one can become ethnically Jewish, it ain't hapennin. μηδείς (talk) 20:40, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to this logic, you wouldn't be able to become a citizen of a country by naturalization, only by birth. The problem with analyzing words' meanings from a etymological perspective is that their meanings wander, sometimes into something completely different. OsmanRF34 (talk) 20:49, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This "logic"? Ethnicity and citizenship are totally separate concepts, but feel free to make up whatever meaning for words you like, I don't care. μηδείς (talk) 02:39, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think OsmanRF34 is referring to the usage of the root words ethnos and natio as justification for the term "ethnicity" to mean "relationship by birth". However, according to this website, it seems that it provides a comparison between race and ethnicity, which supports the notion that ethnicity is more "nurture" whereas race is more "nature". 75.185.79.52 (talk) 03:04, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

75.185.79.52—you ask "Is it possible for a non-Jewish person to assimilate into the Jewish culture or become an ethnic Jew?" Can you clarify what you mean by the term "ethnic Jew"? Bus stop (talk) 02:48, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps this may clarify. To be on the safe side, does anybody know a respectful term for a person with a Jewish ethnicity? According to that dictionary definition, the word "Jew" is regarded as offensive. To prevent causing offense to these types of people, maybe it's best to refer to them as "God's chosen people"? 75.185.79.52 (talk) 02:52, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"X is Jewish" is perfectly acceptable to refer to an ethnically Jewish person who is secular, i.e. use an adjective rather than a noun ("a Jew," "a Jewess"). To specify (if known) that the person is religiously observant, perhaps say/write, "an observant Jew" or "a practicing Jew" - and if the level of observance is known, "an Orthodox Jew, a Haredi Jew," etc. For those who aren't converted at the belief-and-practice level, I would maintain that ethnicity can not be adopted. See philosemitism, an uncommon word that's the opposite of antisemitism, and note that both words refer to attitudes toward Jews, not Semites. -- Deborahjay (talk) 06:56, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, the dictionary definition says "Jew lawyer" or "Jew doctor" are offensive. "Jewish lawyer", "Jewish doctor", and "there are 7 Jews on the council" are unobjectionable, at least in the minds of reasonable people. I'm not sure if you're trying to be provocative by saying "God's chosen people", but 62 percent of Jews are non-religious, and much of the remaining 38 percent are likely to be offended by the racist connotations of "God's chosen people". --140.180.249.27 (talk) 08:05, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I wasn't being provocative. I didn't realize that 62% of Jews were nonreligious. Oops. 75.185.79.52 (talk) 19:54, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In any case the Chosen people are Koreans. μηδείς (talk) 02:32, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Art Work

Does Wikipedia identify works of art or who the artist is if the signature of the artist is not legible & is there a feature on Wikipedia to upload pics of the artwork? Thanks very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.208.57.47 (talk) 19:47, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no formal mechanism for that, but people at this Reference desk might try to be helpful if we can see a picture of the artwork. Unfortunately, you probably can't upload a picture of it here unless you have permission by the copyright holder. Looie496 (talk) 21:33, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you are confident that the image is old enough to be out of copyright you can upload it. If you upload it elsewhere - for example on Flickr - you can link to the website from here. Paul B (talk) 22:03, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder whether there is a fair-use clause that would allow uploading a picture, maybe a low-resolution picture, of a painting which is still under copyright. Being the intention clearly to find the artist, it seems acceptable for any one with common sense (although not necessarily under the law). OsmanRF34 (talk) 22:51, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No need. If the OP wants to find out, he could easily upload the picture to an external file hosting site like Imageshack or Photobucket (or whatever the cool kids are using these days -- Flickr?). Then the WMF would not bear any liability for possible copyright infringement. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:29, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can the person posting the original question please say where they are encountering the artwork which they would like some information about? If, of course, the image is online, you could just provide a link to an image of the work of art. Bus stop (talk) 02:47, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One might try a TinEye reverse image search... - Nunh-huh 07:20, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Elves and spirits braiding hair: Looking for early mentions in written records

I recently wrote a blog article about how some people believe hair locks from natural matting (a.k.a. elf-locks) were actually braided by Bigfoot creatures. I'm compiling a list of supernatural creatures associated with tying hair into knots and or braiding it. The earliest mention I've found is from the 13th-century; William of Auvergne wrote about female spirits that plait the hair of horses with wax. This belief has to obviously predate his writings. Does anyone know of earlier mentions? What about in other countries besides Europe and America? --Ghostexorcist (talk) 23:40, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

March 17

National Assembly of south korea Squre

What buildings surround the National Assembly of south korea square? Photos, panoramas, and videos are greatly appreciated.Curb Chain (talk) 01:13, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I went to Google Maps and typed in the address: "1 Uisadang-daero, Yeongdeungpo, Seoul, South Korea" to get this: [11]. Now zoom in using the plus sign under the orange man in the upper, left corner, check out the satellite view, then drag the orange man and drop him on a blue square near the building. Each blue square gives thumbnails of some 20 pics, half of which are the building itself, and half of which are surrounding buildings and sculptures. Press the X in the upper, right corner after you are done with each view. StuRat (talk) 03:04, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The madness of King Henry

What sort of insanity is inherited? The Henry VI of England article says he inherited the same sort of insanity which plagued Charles VI of France. What sort of insanity would that be? RNealK (talk) 06:14, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to know what actual clinical entities if any correspond to historical diagnoses; I think Henry VI is usually said to have manifested symptoms suggestive of Major depression and depressive psychosis. See [12]. It's about 50% heritable. - Nunh-huh 07:18, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Diagnoses at this distance in time are almost impossible, but my impression is that Charles VI probably had schizophrenia, whereas Henry VI was probably mentally retarded -- he seems to have been generally clueless even on his best days. His "insanity" looks to me like mainly an inability to deal with the complexities of being a king. But to repeat, it's very difficult to know. Looie496 (talk) 17:22, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Roman's battle plan

On what did Romans generals show their battle plan? On the ground writing with a stick? Moving little stones as they were legions? ... I'm Italian, so I'm sorry for my English. Thank you. --Innocenti Erleor (talk) 16:47, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if we will be able to find a source for this, but I see no reason why they wouldn't have used the same system used in WW2, a map on a table with figurines for various units being pushed around. StuRat (talk) 17:18, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Paper had not been invented in the West and parchment had not been invented. Papyrus could have been used but it rots in a humid climate.
Sleigh (talk) 18:59, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Papyrus won't last centuries in a humid climate like it will in an arid one, but it's perfectly serviceable for for the length of a military campaign. --Nicknack009 (talk) 19:21, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And parchment was invented, according to our article, sometime between 263 and 158 BCE - well within the scope of the Roman era. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 19:28, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Or 2500 BCE if you read farther into our poorly organized article. Rmhermen (talk) 20:52, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How about cloth, made of linen ? That would be better than paper, in a couple ways: It doesn't fall apart if it gets wet, and it doesn't wear through as quickly where you fold it (although rolling paper maps up and storing them in sealed tubes can also prevent both problems). StuRat (talk) 19:08, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well yes, but in Roman times the standard way of recording information for short periods (i.e. anything that wouldn't need to be archived) was on Wax tablets. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 19:26, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Plutarch, Parallel Lives, "Caesar" 49.4: Julius Caesar escapes battle around Alexandria by swimming while holding many "little books" ("βιβλίδια") over his head, despite incoming arrows. My thought: Perhaps these had battle plans, since he was so anxious to keep them from the enemy. Note the translation of "papers" for "βιβλίδια". --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 22:51, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If I remember my BBC I, Claudius correctly, they used little models on tables apparently covered in parchment maps, kind of like you see in WWII movies. μηδείς (talk) 04:52, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Art hunt - painting of slave beating

Several years ago I remember coming across a disturbing painting of a slave beating, which I thought I had seen on WP; but a look through the Slavery in the United States article and the associated media on Wikimedia Commons fails to turn it up. Wonder if any of you guys know this painting - I can't find it with Google Images.

As best I recall, it was a well-detailed contemporary painting, from say the 1820's to 1850's, done in vivid colors, perhaps oils, representing a scene the artist had witnessed somewhere in the South. At left, a fashionably dressed young man in a broad-brimmed hat, smoking a cigar I think, impassively leans against a house or shed while at right, a writhing African slave is held down on the ground by fellow slaves while being whipped/beaten/tortured. A terrible scene, but what makes it truly shocking is the utter nonchalance of the young man, possibly the slave's owner, who stands by with a slightly bored, detached look on his face.

Ring a bell for any art historians out there? Appreciate your help in locating this image again.Textorus (talk) 19:59, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Beating at Four Stakes in the Colonies --Viennese Waltz 20:06, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That was quick, thanks. But although it presents a similar scene, it's not the same painting. The one I recall doesn't have women and children, and instead of a lot of sky, there was greenery in the background. And the focus was more "close-up" on the human figures. Appreciate the suggestion, though. Textorus (talk) 20:12, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

March 18

"Freedom in Prison" by Roberto Assagioli

According to [13], just before his death Roberto Assagioli worked on an article entitled "Freedom in Prison". Does anyone know where I could find this article? --noosphere 02:09, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The original name is Libertà in prigione which returns many google hits in Italian. μηδείς (talk) 02:28, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Catholic celibacy

when and what was the reason for celibacy in the Catholic church — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.255.105.117 (talk) 03:45, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Celibacy in the Roman Catholic Church. μηδείς (talk) 04:47, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anthropomorphism versus therianthropomorphism

Are both concepts involved in the Furry fandom, or just the former? What's psychological reason for appealing to an individual? Is that even an apt question? Plasmic Physics (talk) 12:40, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What is therianthropomorphism? --PlanetEditor (talk) 14:36, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

negative net worth

what percent of the united states population has a net worth of exactly $0 or less? 91.120.48.242 (talk) 14:02, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the net worth of Daniel James Shellabarger is $0. US population is 315,510,000. So calculate the percentage. --PlanetEditor (talk) 14:40, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PlanetEditor - not sure how that answers the OP's question. Two points:

(a) Just because someone does not use money does not mean they have a net worth of $0 - if they have belongings (clothes, bedroll, phone, laptop etc.) these will have some value, so their net worth is probably a small but positive number.

(b) The question says "$0 or less" - you seem to be ignoring the "or less" part. Gandalf61 (talk) 15:15, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article says that 24.8% of US households had negative net worth in 2009. This article says that the 2011 figure was "about one in five". Googling "negative net worth usa" will give you many more sources of statistics. Gandalf61 (talk) 15:39, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weren't you asking and answering this very question earlier this month? You seem to have said that you found the answer that you were looking for (and that it's "25%"). If that's not what you're looking for here, can you please clarify what the difference is between this question and your previous one? — Lomn 15:41, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was quite confident in my beleif but met opposition here. I became unsure. I asked again now because I wanted a fresh answer without any suggestion from me. I have nothing to add. 15:44, 18 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.221.144.64 (talk)

It would be editorializing so I won't really go on about it, but for context: I just saw this "shocking" [reddit story http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/1aib5k/6_walmart_heirs_worth_same_as_bottom_41_of_us/] that says "6 Walmart Heirs Worth Same as Bottom 41% of US". By that account I have bothered not to cash a "winning scratch-off ticket worth same as bottom 24.9% of Americans". Since I don't need to go through all that trouble for 50 cents in change. 91.120.48.242 (talk) 16:16, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dick Schaap in the Dutch press

Our archives holds a copy of a 1996 article from a Dutch newspaper, De Opmaat, about a Dutch-Jewish immigrant to Israel and his wartime and postwar exploits. That link is a .pdf file of the article; at the bottom of page 5 is a photo of "journalist Dick Schaap." Is there a contemporary Dutch journalist by that name? How might I determine whether this is this Dick Schaap? -- Deborahjay (talk) 14:29, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not this Dick Schaap, it's the Dick Schaap whose bibliography is here. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 14:37, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I think you're looking for this Dick Schaap (see the section on Opmaat & Checkpoint at the bottom of that page, and compare the picture on this page with the one in your article). - Cucumber Mike (talk) 14:39, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]