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.
I need to ask a question to someone on Wikidoc. About one of her pages. Her name Swillams. She does not have a talk page. And I cant edit on wikidoc. Because i dont have a wikidoc account. I cant create a wikidoc account do to. I am not college stundent in med school. You to be a doctor or student to edit on wikidoc. So how do I contact her for a question. Please help me — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.174.186.167 (talk) 01:01, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just in case you don't know, wikidoc has no relationship with wikipedia. Anyway, Swilliams is a him, not a her. Here is the best suggestion I can give you. This page shows his contributions on wikidoc, and if you hunt through it, you will see an email address. I suggest you try it. I don't know if it will work, but it's the best I can do. Looie496 (talk) 03:53, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
different photos of Eli Yishai
Is there a website that shows different photos of Eli Yishai, chairman of Shas, meaning young and old, past to present? I am amazed that he can see without glasses today.--Donmust90 (talk) 02:28, 19 March 2013 (UTC)Donmust90[reply]
You could just try google images. Lots of 50 year olds don't need glasses. Paul B (talk) 13:21, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
...or wear contact lenses or have had corrective surgery, neither of which is prohibited by Jewish law. The frequent caricatures of Eli Yishai in the mainstream Israeli press depict him without eyeglasses. -- Deborahjay (talk) 13:38, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Atonement - a Jewish/Christian concept?
Is atonement a Jewish and Christian concept? There is no atonement in Islam even though Islam, Christianity, and Judaism are based on the same biblical family? It is said that that Islam is the descendant of Ishmael, Judaism the descendant of Isaac, and Christianity the descendant of Jesus (the second Adam), or is Islam the descendant of Isaac and Judaism the descendant of Ishmael and Christianity still the descendant of Jesus? Is "at-one-ment" a real etymology, and if so, how did this etymology become "atonement"? In other words, how did "being at one with God" come to mean "receiving God's grace in the name of Jesus Christ"? What were some of the metaphors did theologians use to illustrate atonement? 75.185.79.52 (talk) 03:02, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
On etymology, the OED says "In use a verbal n. < atone n., but apparently of prior formation, due to the earlier n. onement and the phrase ‘to be atone’ or ‘at onement.’ " And the entry for "atone" says "Etymology: < at one". I've heard the term used in Buddhist contexts, for what it's worth. Pfly (talk) 03:32, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If Islam doesn't believe in the Fall of Man (the story of Adam and Eve and their expulsion from the Garden of Eden), then it has no need for atonement. Atonement is meant to return mankind to the state of grace that existed before the Fall. Judaism holds that adherence to a set of laws will produce this atonement. Christianity holds that for as in Adam all sinned, through Christ are all men set free. See Hebrews 10 for a fuller exposition of this. --TammyMoet (talk) 11:04, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Islam does believe in the Fall of Adam and Eve and their expulsion from paradise, it's in the Quran:
"Then Satan whispered to him; he said, 'O Adam, shall I direct you to the tree of eternity and possession that will not deteriorate?' And Adam and his wife ate of it, and their private parts became apparent to them, and they began to fasten over themselves from the leaves of Paradise. And Adam disobeyed his Lord and erred. Then his Lord chose him and turned to him in forgiveness and guided [him]. [Allah] said, 'Descend from Paradise - all, [your descendants] being enemies to one another. And if there should come to you guidance from Me - then whoever follows My guidance will neither go astray [in the world] nor suffer [in the Hereafter].' " (Quran 20:120-123, Sahih International translation)
They do however interpret the story differently, and the solution from an Islamic perspective is simply Allah guiding the believers and forgiving their sins as he sees fit. I'm no expert on this though, maybe some knowledgeable Muslim can elaborate on this. - Lindert (talk) 11:31, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Jews have one day of atonement, Muslims 30, and Christians 40, which might tell us something. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 12:55, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm... It might tell us that Christians have more fun, and so have more to atone for. Blueboar (talk) 14:14, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
According to our article Sawm, one of the purposes for Muslims of fasting, as during Ramadan, is atonement. Marco polo (talk) 15:14, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was watching a documentary on BBC Four last night about eating insects. There was an interview with a Thai man who made a lucrative living from collecting weaver ant pupae, which are a delicacy in Thailand. To celebrate start of the ant collecting season, his family have a lavish meal of ant's egg stew, but take some to the local Buddhist monastery for the monks, to atone for the sin of destroying the ants' nests. Alansplodge (talk) 22:43, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Does that call for adding a Buddhist version of atonement on Wikipedia? So far, the term appears to be associated to Abrahamic religions, not Dharmic religions. 75.185.79.52 (talk) 23:45, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You would need to find a better source than a bloke on a TV documentary, even if it was on BBC Four. Alansplodge (talk) 11:53, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Hebrew term for "atonement" is kappara, hence "Yom Kippur", ie day [of] atonement. As Judaism is such an ancient religion and the concept of atonement is so intangible, it would be very hard to find conclusive proof of it existing in the pre-Abrahamic world. The precise meaning of kappara is quite difficult to unpick, as it is complex - see ([1]) for a good starter read. Btw atonement doesn't seem to have much to do with receiving God's grace. It's an internal human process. The forgiveness one may or may not receive for having done atonement is more what you're interested in. --Dweller (talk) 14:55, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
similarities between Jews and Muslims
Jews and Muslims are known for their memorization of their holy books, and having a term to refer anything that is permissible for them to eat like Kashrut and Halaal. Any similarities between these two religions?--Donmust90 (talk) 14:58, 19 March 2013 (UTC)Donmust90[reply]
However, Judaism actually has a "lunisolar" calendar, which approximates the length of the solar year with an error of less than one day in every 200 years, while Islam has a pure lunar calendar which approximates the length of the solar year with an error of over 11 days every single year. The Hebrew calendar is actually more than 2,000 times more accurate than the Islamic calendar where the Sun is concerned! AnonMoos (talk) 16:52, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Like Christianity, Islam recognises the Hebrew Bible, albeit as superseded. The religions have some superficial similarities when it comes to having daily routine demands of prayer (3 times for Jews, five for Muslims) facing in a specific direction (the complicated Mizrach and Mecca respectively), the fact that both legislate in areas that many non-Jews/Muslims would perceive as lying outside of "religious" law and many, many other areas, in no small part, as others have said, because of the common origins. --Dweller (talk) 14:39, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you're going strictly by written texts, then only Judaism and Christianity have anything meaningful in common, since there are no sacred texts held in common between Judaism and Islam, or between Christianity and Islam, and the traditional Muslim attitude has been that if anything in Jewish or Christian scriptures contradicts anything in the Qur'an, that ipso facto means that they are by definition "corrupted". If you're going by pure theology, then both Jewish and Muslim theologians consider the doctrine of the Trinity and the deification of Jesus to be an abomination (however, the Qur'an seems to accuse the Jews of engaging in a similar deification of Ezra, which is of course nonsense)... AnonMoos (talk) 16:58, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The words for "Hello" (Salaam, shalom) and "lake" (bir, beer) are basically the same. Seems like "Tomato" versus "Tomahto" to populations far removed from the controversies of the Middle East. Edison (talk) 03:53, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's not really an islam-judaism connection. That's an Arabic language-Hebrew language connection. They are closely related languages (see Semitic languages). There are, of course, Jews that don't speak Hebrew and Muslims that don't speak Arabic, at least in their daily activities. --Jayron32 05:03, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Hebrew and Arabic languages are definitely related, and share a number of structural and etymological similarities, but whether they're "closely" related depends on your definition of "close". They probably haven't been very mutually comprehensible for well over 3,000 years (at least since changes such as the Canaanite shift, which is responsible for the "o" vowel in "Shalom", took place). It's still easier for an Arabic speaker to learn Hebrew than it would be to learn a non-central Semitic language (the reverse is a little less true), but it definitely takes significant study and learning... AnonMoos (talk) 09:41, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
They are also similar in that they both have one or more countries with at least a strong religious foundation historically if not in present day. These countries are still undergoing the process of reading through modern civilization, which is understandably a slow process (it took humanity several thousand years) but obviously of benefit to them and everyone (just as it's better to spend 0.000% of your attention while asleep on making sure a lion is not about to attack you...duh). On a personal note, I very much look forward to when ALL of these countries - including Israel as well as Arab countries - enjoy modern civilization, the rule of philosophy, and so forth. One of the saddest occurrences is that in some sense modern philosophy has been put aside due to having deal with savagery (regardless of source - I am not pointing fingers nor am I interested). All of these countries are highly literate, will enjoy the fruits of modern civilization just as much as anyone. They have this in common. However, they have to go through it all and read and understand/internalize it. So, I would say this is something they very much have in common: they will be a much better place in the future than they are now. 91.120.48.242 (talk) 14:24, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what these generalized pontifications are leading to. It wasn't all that long ago in historical terms that parts of Europe were devastated by religious wars. And most of the founders of Zionism and early leaders of Israel were highly-Europeanized individuals who were politically "left-wing" in some manner (usually socialists). If Israel has diverged from Europe recently it's mainly because of 1) militarization forced by threat of extinction and 2) the rising political prominence of Sephardi/Mizrahi Jews whose families had spent many years in close proximity to Muslims or Arabs (the Sephardi/Mizrahi Jews were crucial in throwing the Europeanized socialists out of the government in the 1977 election). AnonMoos (talk) 14:53, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
yeah I'm pretty surprised at the way things have turned out for the very reason you cite! (but you also cite two explanations). still, it answers the OP's question to some extent. 91.120.48.242 (talk) 15:29, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The proposal to take a portion of bank depositors money in order to pay off the bank's bad investments seems like a very bad idea, causing runs on the banks and lack of confidence in banks in other nations with similar problems. However, this appears to be about the only way to get the money needed to keep the banks from failing.
I wonder if, in order to alleviate the pain, and thus minimize the panic, they've considered this option:
Declare these to be loans, not forfeitures. That is, promise to give the money back at some future date (perhaps quite far out), with some rate of interest. Or would this liability be just as bad as the current debts ?
collapse opinions offered without a single reference or link
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
That would transform short-term liabilities into long-term ones, which might make the banks (temporarily) somewhat stronger but would not repair their balance sheets in the way that confiscating funds to turn liabilities into assets would. Banks would be solvent but zombies without enough assets to provide credit to the real economy, which would contract sharply as a result, likely leading to a worsening of balance sheets and the renewed prospect of bank failure. Also, I'm not sure that an indefinite forced loan would really be perceived by depositors much differently than an expropriation, such that this measure probably wouldn't prevent bank runs and a loss of confidence.
What I don't fully understand is why governments, since the ongoing financial crisis began in 2008, have prioritized saving banks over saving their real economies. To me, the clear solution is to let the banks fail, let the overpaid CEOs and other CxOs lose their obscenely overpaid jobs, let the rich investors in the banks lose their riches, and insure depositors worth less than about €100,000, if necessary by printing the money. The argument that this would be inflationary ignores that 1) the developed world's production is currently well below capacity, making inflation hard to achieve, and 2) more compellingly, inflation can only occur when the money supply is expanding, but the writing off of the assets of high-net-worth depositors would in fact reduce the money supply. Meanwhile, the government could take over the remnants of the banks or start new banks and then privatize them. These banks would be chartered to increase the money supply (up to a safe point relative to the size of the economy) by issuing loans to creditworthy individuals and businesses. Governments could print money to invest in improvements to the human and physical infrastructure aimed at increasing the economy's productivity (this money creation likewise justified by the drop in the money supply). Writing off malinvested financial wealth while creating money that goes to salaries and the creation of productive infrastructure would kick-start the real economy. The only reason for not pursuing a course something like this is that it would sharply disadvantage the currently wealthy relative to the currently not wealthy. Governments seem to prefer safeguarding the wealthy to promoting the welfare of the rest. Marco polo (talk) 19:58, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The situation in Cyprus is a bit different, though, as many of the wealthy depositors are foreign, in particular Russians trying to hide their assets from their own government. So, the people in Cyprus are probably fine with seizing those assets, but not their own. I'm not quite sure who the actual owners of the banks are, though. StuRat (talk) 20:34, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is it OK to steal from the Russian, since they are just laundering money? If someone knows that the money is illegal, they shouldn't just take 10% away, but the whole of it. That's a further diplomatic blunder of this plan. I am not surprised it has so many detractors. OsmanRF34 (talk) 20:42, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
They could respect the minimum limit of 100,000 €, which was the guaranteed deposit, and default 15% on deposits above that. The initial plan was to default only 10% on deposits above 100,000 €.
The European financial ministers (the Euro Group) could at least admit their own share of fault. Simply proposing this idea was a terrible mistake, horribly irresponsible, and a huge damage for Cyprus and for other European countries.
The Germans could have thought before backing this plan that Cyprus is ethnically Greece, and that this plan heats their disturbed relationships to a higher degree with the Greek.
They could default on the stockholders, which should be aware of the risks.
They could default on the German lenders (which is pretty unpopular among Germans, for obvious reasons).OsmanRF34 (talk) 20:39, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note that according to various sources, e.g. [2] the Cypriot government or president did not want to allow a rate above 10% for the deposits over €100k for fear of losing their reputation and business as an offshore financial centre. Regardless of whether or not that was a good idea (which it seems to me is beside the point of this question) or the plan itself was, any of the above responses which assume it's acceptable outcome to those involved besides the Russians seem to be missing the point. Nil Einne (talk) 22:05, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Nil Einne: no one above really assumes that the problem would just affect the Russian. I assume that others (not here on the RD) were taking that into account, or, at least passing this message to their respective potential electoral base. OsmanRF34 (talk) 22:21, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're missing my point. My point is that some of the above responses appear to be assuming that no one in Cyprus cares about the Russians losing their money. Actually the evidence suggests the Cypriot president and/or government had no desire to lose their reputation and business as an offshore financial centre including among the Russians whatever the questionable nature of their businesses and whatever the majority Cypriot people may think of it. So not it was not just the Russians who didn't want the Russians (and others) losing too much of their money, but the Cypriot goverment which was a key reason why anything about 10% was rejected. It also follows that allowing the banks to collapse, which would seem to destroy their reputation even more is not an acceptable outcome. Just to reaffirm, regardless of the wisdom of such a move (like the long term prospects of such a business compared to other options), which is besides the point of the original question, the evidence as I've said several times now suggests the Cypriot government/president had no desire to lose their reputation and business as an offshore financial centre. I never said anything about people assuming 'the problem would just affect the Russian'. Nil Einne (talk) 22:28, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, I don't assume that the Cyprian are OK with this. But you seem to think that the whole idea came from the Cypriot part. It came not from them. It was imposed by the Euro Group. Since the outcry from the Cypriot people, including others, was too high, the government backed off. Additionally, no mea culpa could be heard from the Euro Group yet, but it's their fault. I still assume that some players in this mess, not Cyprian, indeed didn't find it too bad if Russians lost their money, which was claimed to be from dubious sources anyway. Angela Merkel has an election soon, and that would be easier for her to screw some Russian gangster than some fellow German housewife. OsmanRF34 (talk) 22:48, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am not deleting any of this, but please note we are not a forum, and not a single respondent has offered a source or link. (BTW, I think this is huge, but let's please have some frigging sources, people.) μηδείς (talk) 00:59, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Nil Einne DID offer a link to a reuters article. (And as my personal POV, (do indulge me) siezing depositors' savings is warped and stupid. Which loony thought up that idea?). Can I ask a question myself? Wouldn't a Proceeds of Crime Act 2002-style law to freeze and sieze the Russian gangsters' money - ALL of it, wherever proven (through a civil recovery process for unexplained wealth, as the UK and other jurisdictions have) be a far more palatable solution for all concerned? Or would the Russian gangsters (or their government) kick up a diplomatic fuss over Cyprus siezing what the Russians view as "their" money?
Alternatively, the Cypriot tax authorities could likely recoup large sums simply by chasing the large depositors and asking "have you paid income tax on this money"? Or have these options already been exhausted? 203.45.183.3 (talk) 07:39, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't it a bit idiotic to assume all rich Russians who want to avoid tax are gangsters? I mean most rich Brits use offshore banking to avoid tax and few people accuse them of being mafia? Someone has been seriously brainwashed. --Ghirla-трёп- 08:51, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The implication from news articles about the wealth seizure proposal is that only bank deposits would be taken. Was the proposal strictly limited to checking and savings? What about certificates of deposit? What about a bundle of cash in a safety deposit box? Were brokerage accounts to be exempt, including moneymarket accounts with associated debit cards and check writing features? I wonder why there would be very much of anyone's wealth in basically non-interest paying savings accounts (in the US only a small fraction of a percent interest is currently paid). . Is it expected that the average Cypriot will leave his money in a bank when withdrawals are again allowed, once seizure of it has been proposed by the international financial types who control the needed bailout, since they might find ways to ratchet up pressure on the Cypriot government. Once confiscation of savings has been blessed by the authorities as a permissible way for a government to bail itself out, runs on banks would seem likely when rumors are spread of possible such seizures in other countries. The trick is to figure out what savings channels are likely to be exempt. Edison (talk) 18:52, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Its really just an easy way for the EU to force Russia's hand in helping deal with the bailout. They have skin in the game: they shoud be part of the solution.165.212.189.187 (talk) 19:59, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Without getting in to the ethics/wisdom/alternatives etc which I again emphasise are largely irrelevant to the question, note that as per our article 2012–2013 Cypriot financial crisis and most sources discussing the crisis, one of the reasons for the current problems in Cyprus and why they need a bailout is because the banks are having great problems at least partially due to their exposure to the Greek financial crisis and the government needs to support them (this is of course somewhat of a 2 way street). Even opinions opposed to the move mention this e.g. [4]. The government could just let the banks collapse and then try and honour their deposit insurance but as I showed earlier with a reference (you can easily find more which say the same thing but I didn't see the need), the Cypriot government is reluctant to do that at least partially because they want to keep their reputation and business as an offshore financial centre. Also I don't particularly get the relevance of the interest situation in the US to Cyprus. The interest from deposits in Cyprus banks can be up to 13% according to some calculations [5] with an average evidently of 4.45% for deposits less than 2 years [6], again the high interest rates are usually discussed in sources talking about the situation, e.g. [7] as they are one of the reasons why there is so much foreign money in them. Of course other countries without problems to the extent of Cyprus but with different financial situations also have significantly higher interest then what you're quoting for the US, e.g. Australia, NZ, Malaysia. Nil Einne (talk) 22:38, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Meroe
Hello,
in Meroe, did the kings or queens have more power?
We really don't know. The texts that survive from that civilization are so few that it hasn't been possible to decipher its language. So we don't have any internal sources, aside from the monumental art, which shows both male and female rulers as powerful. Neither this art nor the external sources, mainly in Greek, clearly indicate which of these rulers were more powerful. Marco polo (talk) 20:21, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a film that depicts a Groundhog Day-style time-loop with a child protagonist?
So far, I haven't found such a film. I would guess that I would break into untapped literary territory by writing a novel about a child stuck in a time-loop, and if lucky enough, it could be adapted into film.
Otherwise, if there is such a film out there, what film most closely parallels Groundhog Day that involves a child protagonist? Thank you. --70.179.161.230 (talk) 19:52, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
According to TV Tropes, Nickelodeon in the US made such a film, called Last Day of Summer. Check the TV tropes page for more examples - I didn't follow every lead. NB, that shouldn't discourage you from writing the story you'd like to! The way you execute it will be unique to you (and could easily improve on the film). 184.147.116.201 (talk) 20:21, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And on the top of that: don't be afraid to re-use any trope. As the TV Tropes~site (linked above) shows, tropes keep appearing and re-appearing, are combined and re-combined. Indeed, in most cases, there is nothing new under the sun in the realm of story-telling, it's just a different performance. OsmanRF34 (talk)
That article isn't about why Hollywood keeps making the same film. Instead, it's about how, now-and-then, Hollywood releases two similar films at the same time. But the lesson is the same: don't worry too much about whether something similar has been done before. Just try to execute your idea as best you can. Even Groundhog Day was not the only time-loop film released in 1993: there was also 12:01. The writers of 12:01 believed that Groundhog Day was a ripoff of their film, so there's also a caveat to the lesson: avoid making your version of a tale so similar to another that lawyers get involved. —KevinMyers 00:21, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well arguably the more important lesson, and this is perhaps something both sides will agree on, make sure you have the better lawyers if you do do so. Nil Einne (talk) 22:28, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not having much luck finding anything on the internet at the moment - I've posted a question on the Language Desk that might help with Google search terms in French. I suspect that, like the UK, there was an expectation in 1939 that there would be catastrophic bombing of civilian centres from the outset, so some thought would have been given to public air raid shelters during the months before and after war was declared. In Britain and Germany, the cellars or basements in people's own houses were the main form of shelter, and I imagine that the French fondness for large apartment buildings in towns would have meant that most people would have found shelter with their neighbours au sous-sol in their own immeuble d'appartements. Alansplodge (talk) 11:49, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The common word (for "sous-sol" was "les caves" (cellars) and more precisely "les caves-abris" and in general "les abris antiaériens (de la défense passive)". — AldoSyrt (talk) 13:16, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The search terms "abri anti-bombe France seconde guerre mondiale" return some good results [8], including links to purpose-built structures now turned into museums or memorials. --Xuxl (talk) 12:59, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"In Britain and Germany, the cellars or basements in people's own houses were the main form of shelter" - really? Our article Air-raid shelter says that 3.6 million Anderson shelters (capable of accommodating six people each), and 600,000 Morrison shelters were installed in the UK, in addition to the communal street shelters and the use of existing tunnels and other structures. The article specifically makes the point that the lack of cellars in UK houses was an obstacle to civil defence planning. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 14:01, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It was probably a sweeping statement, but a very substantial number would have sheltered in their own cellars. My grandparents certainly sheltered in the cellar of their Victorian terraced house in London. I've just been reading A Woman in Berlin which tells the story of a woman who lives in an apartment block in Berlin. All the residents abandoned their flats and took shelter in the basement of their building for several weeks while the city fell to the Russians. Stories were passed around about the goings-on in basements of surrounding buildings. Alansplodge (talk) 21:13, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The French government declared Paris an open city (French: ville ouverte, German: offene Stadt) in 1940 when they couldn't defend it. Bomb shelters were not required in Paris proper but there were industrial targets in the suburbs of Paris requiring shelters in the suburbs. Sleigh (talk) 19:02, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So how do you explain the following passage from Helene Deschamps Adams's autobiography Spyglass: "With no apparent warning, sirens began to howl. The Allies were getting bold these days, bombing even in daylight. The cafe emptied rapidly, and I rushed to the nearest shelter, the Jasmin metro station. A wide black arrow on the wall indicated the entrance to the air-raid shelter, which was on the train tracks. The ramp going down was only dimly lit, and I moved cautiously. Others, more accustomed to this route of safety, rushed by me." If what you said was true, then how could this have happened at all? 24.23.196.85 (talk) 00:21, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you can read French, some pieces of information here — AldoSyrt (talk) 20:17, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In the more hilly wine regions, Frenchmen often hid in wine caves. Blueboar (talk) 02:22, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, everyone! Perhaps I should have been more specific and said right away that I'm most interested in public bomb shelters in urban areas of occupied France from 1940-1944. Am I right in concluding from the info provided here that in large cities other than Paris (such as Lille, Rouen, Calais, etc.), these were usually in basements of large apartment buildings? 24.23.196.85 (talk) 05:29, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Nazis controlling occupied France weren't so assiduous about air raid protection as were the British authorities during and after the Blitz. I dont think they had ARP wardens for example and it would be interesting to know what kind of air raid warnng systems they had. But when there were air raids the population ran for shelter, the cellar or the Metro, the catacombs, or just under the table. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:26, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In the same way that gas masks were not required even though everybody carried a gas mask with them. Mustard gas was never used in Word War II. Sleigh (talk) 07:46, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nantes was bombed numerous times, but there were no bomb shelters, and no Metro. People either hid in cellars, or they just fled the city entirely. We don't have an English article about this, but there is one on the French Wikipedia (which unfortunately doesn't mention anything about shelters). Adam Bishop (talk) 10:35, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
colors connected to World War II
I'm trying to find some paints. They should be colors used on the American home front during World War II. Olive drab was used on land vehicles. Battleship gray was used on ocean crossing vessels. What other colors were used at the time?142.255.103.121 (talk) 07:07, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Patriotism would be at a high point, so red, white, and blue would abound. StuRat (talk) 07:34, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
World War II: The American Home Front in Color has a series of photographs that might be helpful. As you say, olive drab was much in evidence, but a quick look through also shows a training aircraft in bright yellow. There is a website called Simmers Paint Shops that is full of technical details about US aircraft paint. A Google Image search for "US civil defence posters" gives a lot of interesting results, although there's a lot of post-war stuff too. You might also try searches for "US Home Front" or "US war bond posters". Good hunting! Alansplodge (talk) 11:30, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think "olive drab" and "battleship gray" don't actually match anything commonly referred to as the "US home front", which is civilian rather than military. The colors listed describe military equipment, but not civilian stuff outside of a combat zone (see, for example, the photo of a parking lot in the first slideshow linked by Alansplodge). Also linked from there is this Library of Congress collection of color photos from the 1930s and 1940s. Also, you mention "trying to find some paints" -- are you looking just for representative colors, or specifically for paints in those colors? If for actual paint, what sort of paint are you looking for? — Lomn 14:34, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The paint colors seen on the WW2 US home front would have been largely of pre-war activity, since most things do not need constant repainting. Popular Science, March 1942 recommended 2 coats of paint on the house exterior every 4 years, but the article was doubtless edited and slotted for publication before the US entered the war. It has no mention of what colors are popular. Paint was made largely of chemicals (solvents and pigments such as titanium) of strategic importance, but apparently paint was not strictly rationed.They worried more about the steel in the cans than the petroleum in the paint. In 1943, only bronze and aluminum paint were scarce: [9]. By 1945 there was "practically no paint for houses" because of a shortage of lead: In [http://books.google.com/books?id=3CEDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA171&dq=paint&hl=en&sa=X&ei=SP1JUeOODcSxyQG-roBo&ved=0CDwQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=paint&f=false July 1944 they said good paint was still procurable. An Oct 1945 article discussed new pigments and formulations developed by war research, and said the country needed a "facelift" after wartime neglect. My public library has back issues of many magazine from the WW2 period, but I do not see in Google Book magazines such as Better Home and Gardens which had color sections showing then-trendy color choices for homes. A trip to a good-sized library might help more than what can be found online. Edison (talk) 18:38, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As I was watching the closing credits of My Dog Skip (film), I saw Sherwin Williams mentioned in them. The company was one of a few being acknowledged for their assistance and/or cooperation with the film's production. That's what prompted me to ask about colors used during WWII.142.255.103.121 (talk) 06:10, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Companies paying unsustainable dividends
Recently an article in the financial media called my attention to this fact: Many companies pay dividends so high that they actually have a negativeretained earnings as a result. Sometimes, they are simply borrowing money (accumulating debt) to pay out as dividends.
1. Wherein lies the logic of such behaviour? Isn't it a clear form of self-cannibalization? Are they simply gambling that earnings will go up to cover the shortfall, or is there more to it? What's the endgame, so to speak?
2. In the latter case (accumulating debt whilst paying dividends), who would be stupid enough to lend money to a company for such a blatantly unsustainable and unprofitable purpose? 203.45.183.3 (talk) 07:54, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
1) Might just be short-termed thinking, possibly combined with a conflict of interest. For example, many executives have their compensation tied to the stock price. Therefore, if you plan to leave the company in the next few years, this would be a good way to maximize your pay before you go, by puffing up the stock price by paying large dividends.
2) The banks may not know. For example, if the company had X dollars budgeted for building widgets, they could instead pay that out as dividends, while borrowing X dollars from banks, supposedly so they can use it to build and sell widgets. StuRat (talk) 08:49, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can you give an example of such a company? It is quite common to pay out dividends that are larger than your profits (or even to pay them when making losses), but only in the short-term. Dividend policies are often intended to smooth out payments rather than leave investors exposed to fluctuting profits. That gives investors more confidence in the stock, so increases the stock price. Paying out dividends larger than your profits over a long enough period to end up with negative retained earnings would be quite extreme (most companies don't start paying dividends at all until retained earnings are fairly large, so even if they are making big losses and paying big dividends, it would take a few years to go negative). --Tango (talk) 12:41, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A company should pay the dividend which is in the best interest of shareholders. While there are other ways of returning value to shareholders (such as buying the companies own stock) dividends are a standrad mechanism for doing this. There are three reasons to pay an "unsustainable" dividend
If the company has cash which would be give a better return if invested by its shareholders than if invested by the company. (For example corporation tax is 33% personal tax is 20%.)
If the company can borrow at terms more favourable than the shareholders
If the company has traditionally paid a certain dividend they may wish to maintain it, as shareholders are budgeting on the income stream
These reasons will all depend on the nature of the shareholders. It was, I think, traditional British business practice to avoid cutting dividends unless absolutely essential for reason 3 - the thinking was that as the economy/company recovered the dividend would once again be "covered" (dividends were also traditionally a very low percentage of the share value).
Is physical attractiveness subjective or objective? Does objective beauty exist? If so, why do different people from different cultures perceive beauty in different ways? For example, Kayan women artificially make their neck long and to Kayan men, this long neck serve as a sexual attractant. I don't think a New York City guy will find a Kayan woman sexually attractive. Foot binding was prevalent in Chinese culture and Chinese men considered the tiny narrow feet of women to be beautiful. But I don';t think a westerner at that time would have found those feet beautiful. According to this study, women from two different geographical regions, Britain and Malaysia, and from rural and urban areas, perceive male physical attractiveness in different ways. Is there really anything called objective human physical attractiveness? Or the concept of physical attractiveness is shaped by culture, a result of social conditioning? --PlanetEditor (talk) 15:03, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Physical attractiveness is an uncalculable mixture of universal principles and cultural variability. Wikipedia has an article titled Physical attractiveness. There are some "universal" principles of attractiveness, which hold (statistically, though not in every single individual ever born, but rather on average across many cultures). These include certain things like symmetry of facial features, and some proportional relationships. However, there are also deep cultural distinctions between other measures of beauty and attractiveness. So the answer to your question is both yes and no: There are some "objective" standards of beauty in the sense that there are some principles that seem to hold across all cultural groups (though, again, allowing for some individual variation on the person-by-person level), while there are also many measures of beauty which vary greatly between cultures. --Jayron32 15:12, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Even in modern Western cultures, there have been notable changing trends and fads -- in the 1920's, small-breastedness was favored, while in the 1950s large breasts were "in", etc. AnonMoos (talk) 16:38, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is a fallacy that if some of a physical quality is good, then more of that quality is better.
It'd be a fallacy if many, many, many animal species didn't do the exact same thing. See sexual selection, i.e. peafowl, mandrill, etc. etc. That doesn't excuse the unrealistic models of beauty that mass media foists onto young women, for example. But at least don't pretend like it's some unnnatural thing; it's a fairly normal state of affairs. If one is going to correct for it, one needs to at least be honest with what it is... --Jayron32 22:33, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder how the typical buzzard distinguishes between the pretty ones and the plain ones. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 11:19, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What is natural for a lower animal is not necessarily natural for a human. Humans do not need to imitate lower animals.
All of that is true regarding differences between human and other animal cognition. Also of note: Birds of all kinds can fly MUCH better than human animals, dogs smell orders of magnitude better than human animals, etc. All the links do is prove that humans are different from other animals in profound ways, but then again every kind of animal is profoundly different from other animals as well. It means nothing for the point of this discussion. The concept of sexual selection producing what is otherwise a disadvantageous trait (as you said earlier "if some of a physical quality is good, then more of that quality is better", is something which is pervasively common in the natural world. To deny that humans would be entirely immune from such biological principles is disingenuous in the extreme. Humans are absolutely subject to the exact same biological principles as all other forms of life. Now, let me make this clear: that does NOT make it morally correct or right for a culture, for example, to treat their women or men in an undignified or inhumane manner in the name of beauty (i.e. foot binding, for example). That is not an argument I have made. Instead, my point was more subtle (and as a subtle point, requires you to use that human intellect you cite!). The point is that we mustn't deny the existence of the biological pressures that lead to such behavior in humans, because such biological pressures are universal in the Animal kingdom. Instead, the first and most important thing we must do is to acknowledge and understand such biological principles, not because we accept them with resignation and allow the sort of injustices they cause, but because we cannot fix the problem if we don't understand its nature. --Jayron32 19:18, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Beauty is objectively measured in Helens. One Helen can launch a thousand ships, a milliHelen's worth of facial beauty will launch one ship. And perhaps set fire to a waste paper basket. ;-) Dmcq (talk) 17:23, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Mass media are guilty of misrepresenting abnormality as normality. Let us strive to avoid being misled.
I agree that some features are (almost) universally considered desirable while others vary by culture and time. However, even if there was a feature which was universally considered desirable by every human who ever lived, that would still be a subjective standard, not an objective one, since it's all opinion. Now, if you set some objective goal, like a woman being able to "bear children successfully", then you can come up with an objective physical form; in this case, wide hips. StuRat (talk) 06:16, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just because you can find someone to disagree doesn't mean it's subjective. There are quite clearly objective standards of beauty, and more broadly attractiveness that have been written about time and time again. If you think something so intimately tied to evolution is somehow a cultural fabrication, then nothing isn't. Shadowjams (talk) 18:41, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All kinds of perception of physical attractiveness in "modern societies" or in "tribal societies" are some kinds of fetish behavior whether it is tightlacing during the Victorian era, fashion fads such as whale tail, use of jewellery, tattooing, use of cosmetics such as lipsticks or nail polish, foot binding, neck ring, stretching etc.. None of these is natural, but act differently as sexual attractants to different humans. Human sexuality is lot more complicated than the sexuality of other animals. I think this complexity applies in the perception physical attractiveness too. You can clearly observe the objective criteria for physical attractiveness among mandrills or peafowls. Because they have a homogenous perception of physical attractiveness. Human perception of attractiveness is heterogeneous, not homogenous. And in this sense, human physical attractiveness is always subjective and is always shaped by social conditioning through exposure to different cultures, and by the unique human psychology. What do you guys think? --PlanetEditor (talk) 04:19, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You can add piercing to the list, and Vietnamese people until he early 20th century used to lacquer their teeth black. I agree with Jayron. Plus our evolved nature as human animals and our culture are not opposites. We evolved to a state where we can have culture. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:41, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How do you know that animals are not attracted to inanimate objects resembling them or members of their species with limbs missing? Have you asked them? This type of attraction is rare in humans, and presumably in animals as well. Humans have the ability to make their fetishes known worldwide; animals do not. --140.180.249.152 (talk) 05:42, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not unique e.g. [11], the real difference is people can produce things which don't naturally occur and haven't been evolved against. Dmcq (talk) 10:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Which cities gave the most votes to which party in 2013 Israeli elections
Which cities or places of Israel gave the most votes to which parties?--Donmust90 (talk) 18:11, 20 March 2013 (UTC)Donmust90[reply]
Just fascinating. If you want to understand just how diverse and politically complex a place Israel is you can, to give just one example, compare the results for the United Torah Judaism party in Jerusalem (1st place, 22% of the vote) and Tel Aviv (15th, 1% of the vote). Overall, the party came sixth, with just over 5%, giving it seven seats in the 120 seat 19th Knesset. --Dweller (talk) 12:12, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hardly surprising, considering the historical charedi exodus from Tel Aviv and the modern charedi attitude to the same. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) (formerly R——bo) 21:40, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yesterday, the votes-19.gov.il/cityresults website was working fine and today the loading process for the website is slow. Does anybody know? Is it for security reasons?--Donmust90 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donmust90 (talk • contribs) 00:23, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A response from Winston Churchill made at a dinner party to an affronted dame.
The affronted dame said 'sir, you are drunk'.
Winston's response was; 'Madam, you are ugly: tomorrow, I shall be sober!
My question is: Who was the woman? If the date and social context were known; that would be excellent. Thank you86.137.130.213 (talk) 22:10, 20 March 2013 (UTC) Susie Bloomfield[reply]
The statue does not do her justice. Photos: [13][14]. Paul B (talk) 10:31, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just bear that in mind, when you think of us scousers having to look at that when we get off the train every morning on our way to work....! :) KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 07:04, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Odd. I always thought it was Nancy Astor - a woman with numerous notable quotes attributed to her and a number of (alleged) exchanges between her and Winston Churchill. Astronaut (talk) 13:38, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The joke wouldn't have worked, because Lady Astor was insufficiently ugly (click the link to our article and you'll see the evidence). Alansplodge (talk) 15:11, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
She might have been what some would call a "battleaxe" (funnily enough she look a bit like Les Dawson in this image), but the Bessie Braddock article says "She is often erroneously credited ..." with the quote. The source used in the article (that paragon of journalistic integrity, the Daily Mail) says it was "It was an old gag, even then". I don't know who to believe now. Astronaut (talk) 21:18, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Artist who did hot air balloon print entitled AT&T THUNDERBIRD BALLOON CLASSIC 1988
Thanks to everyone who answered my questions regarding id this artist. I did upload a pic of the print in TinEye Reverse but I'm having trouble figuring out how to use their service & maneuver in TinEye so I will try here again. I bought this print many years ago at an estate sale in Phx., Az but I was never able to know the last name of the artist because she scribbled her last name so badly, it is not legible. I don't know if the experts at Wikipedia are able to see pics on TinEye but if you are it is tagged as PRINTBALLOON6.JPG & the info on the screen where it was uploaded shows it will be there for 72 hours & then deleted. I also don't know if there is a zoom feature to see the artist's signature. I can take another pic of just the sig & upload that if it will help. It is alson being shown on eBay where there is a zoom feature. Use the title of the print to see pic. I think the 1st name of the artist is Gloria? or Diana, but it looks more like a Gloria. The last name may end in islew? I hope you can help me. I have googled till I'm blind. I'm grateful for any help.
Thanks
Barb Greer (talk) 22:30, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Could you give a direct link to the URL address for the webpage of the image? Paul B (talk) 10:37, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
how can scully still be sceptical about paranormal phenomena when she has actually seen and been attacked by so much of it, when she has been abducted by aliens herself and had a chip put in her and mulder has been abducted as well and lots of people she know have been killed or abducted and she has seen things float through the air and a stretcy man try to eat her liver but still she doesn't believe in any of it, it the because she is secretly mental?? Horatio Snickers (talk) 22:12, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This probably fits better on the /Entertainment desk...but I'll note that this would be a question about The X-Files and Dana Scully for anyone who might not understand the question. --Onorem♠Dil 22:34, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
this is a question about x files not about bowels. stop dragging the discussion into the gutter@@@@ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Horatio Snickers (talk • contribs) 22:57, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And that response sounds like a troll. RNealK (talk) 03:17, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So you are asking us why a fictional character behaves the way she does? Unless the writer has said something in public about the matter, I don't see how this is a kind of question the Ref Desk can answer. --ColinFine (talk) 23:27, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that the most accurate answer that we can provide is, "That's the way the writers wanted it." Dismas|(talk) 00:12, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We can say the obvious: It's all about the dramatic needs of a TV series. If Scully stops being skeptical, the writers lose a big part of the dramatic conflict between the two main characters. As TV tropes go, it's Arbitrary Skepticism meets Status Quo is God. —KevinMyers 05:56, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also note that the number of paranormal things Scully has seen still is much much much smaller than the number of reported paranormal claims that are mistakes or scams. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:15, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is part of a larger problem I've seen with many long-run series. They define the characters initially but fail to update them based on their experiences in each episode. The writers may do this intentionally, as they don't want to mess with a winning formula, and also want people to be able to watch any episode, out of order, without having to know what happened previously. Or, the writers may just be too lazy to redefine the characters.
Sometimes characters who "never learn" are kept that way intentionally, for comic effect, such as Charlie Brown never learning not to try to kick the football that Lucy holds for him, Linus never learning not to wait for the Great Pumpkin, and Fibber McGee never learning not to open the closet full of junk which always falls on him. StuRat (talk) 17:28, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article on Christianity has been translated into many languages, however it does not currently contain a translation in the language Lingua Franca Nova (LFN). LFN has it's own Wiki and there is an article within it on Christianity (link: http://lfn.wikia.com/wiki/Cristianisme).
Would you consider adding the LFN version to the Wikipedia article on Christianity?
Thanks
Guido Crufio — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guido Crufio (talk • contribs) 22:41, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We only do language interwiki links within the XXX.wikipedia.org domains (not even Commons gets such links). AnonMoos (talk) 23:16, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia and Wikia are separate organisations. Roger (talk) 16:49, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
March 22
Cost of supporting the Monarchy in Canada
Canada is part of a Constitutional Monarchy. As such, at the Federal level there is a Governor General while the Provinces and Territories have Lieutenent Governors (or Territorial equivalents). Is there any way of determining what the monetary cost is to support these representatives of the Monarchy? In other words, how much does Canada pay to have these representatives of QEII?
WOW! Imagine what we could do with that money if it were put back into our economy instead of supporting some antiquated political/philosophical paradigm . . . Thanks.
To put that into perspective, if you took all of that $50 million dollars per year, and instead figured out how much extra the Canadian government could do with it, it amounts to an extra hour and 45 minutes worth of work (considering the proportion of the Canadian government spending this accounts for). That is, over 365 days, there's an extra hour and 45 minutes you could so something with. It's not that much money. --Jayron32 00:41, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Imagine if this thread was not simply for the purpose of soapboxing. Wouldn't that be something. -- Jack of Oz[Talk] 16:29, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Don't forget that you would need to pay for a replacement. If Canada decided that it wanted to become a Parliamentary republic, then it's hard to think of a country following that system that doesn't feel the need to employ a ceremonial president (I believe that South Africa, Botswana and the Marshall Islands are the exceptions). If that is the case, the new president would probably need all the official residences, posh cars and travel expenses that are currently enjoyed by your Governor-General. The President of Germany, for example, a nice chap who had a distinguished career as a not very successful politician and has no more power than Canada's G-G, has the use of seven palaces. You do need somebody to entertain visiting heads of state and give them dinner in reasonable surroundings, to visit factories and homeless shelters telling everybody how well they're doing and all that stuff. Alansplodge (talk) 18:08, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I never bought this argument. I think governments arrange to have ceremonial presidents because they can, not because they're actually good for anything. As others have pointed out, it isn't really all that much money; that's true. But personally I would like to see more countries dispense with ceremonial heads of state, not so much to save money, as to give a poke in the eye to statism itself. --Trovatore (talk) 11:51, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But according to sources such as this the German President costs the German taxpayers EUR 4.6mio/year. This is a with more than twice the population of Canada. $50 mio does seem pretty expensive. 86.136.42.134 (talk) 23:34, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if we're comparing like for like there. According to the first webpage linked by Cucumber Mike above, most of the $50m was spent on maintaining historic properties and operating the Canadian honours system. Whether the German presidential total includes the equivalent fees, or if they are charged to other budgets, I don't know. Alansplodge (talk) 00:30, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also bear in mind that Canada's total government spending in 2009 was CAD 238,800 million[15] - so CAD 50 million represents 0.02% of the total annual budget. Alansplodge (talk) 18:25, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder where the money goes. Does the GoG have money shredder where he turns good Canadian dollars into paper goo? Or does he maybe spend most of that money in Canada, thus "putting it back into the Canadian economy"? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:26, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Minor point but the three territories don't have the equivalent of the Lieutenent Governors we have Commissioners who are not vice-regal representatives, see Commissioner#Canadian territories. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 07:40, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
can Canada declare itself COMPLETELY independent of UK. What would happen. Would UK send in the army to take it back like that one time with the Falkland islands?--There goes the internet (talk) 07:48, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell, Canada is completely independent of the UK, at least since the Canada Act 1982. It just happens to share the head of state with the UK. It also shares the head of state with Tuvalu, but that does not make Canada a Tuvaluan colony. Should Canada decide to eliminate the monarchy, my guess is that the UK will say "too sad, but good riddance", as in several other cases, like India or Botswana. On the other hand, should Canada decide to eliminate the Monarch, there would be all kinds of trouble... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:10, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How could an entire country commit a murder? -- Jack of Oz[Talk] 09:08, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm certain that if Canada was ever invaded by the army of a fascist military dictatorship, as happened to the Falkland Islands, then the UK would be ready to help Canadians to get their country back. Alansplodge (talk) 10:07, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You make it very hard to avoid the obvious association ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:19, 23 March 2013 (UTC) [reply]
Canada could leave the Commonwealth, and it could declare itself a Republic and end its association with the British Monarchy. This has happened in the past: Ireland, Zimbabwe and South Africa come to mind. The UK didn't go to war with those nations then, and I doubt it would if it happened again. --TammyMoet (talk) 11:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Membership of the Commonwealth hasn't been limited to Commonwealth realms since the London Declaration of 1949. Ireland did indeed leave the Commonwealth in 1949, but South Africa was prevented from renewing her membership in 1961 (on the grounds of Apartheid in South Africa rather than republicanism) but rejoined in 1994 and is still an active member. Zimbabwe was suspended in 2002 for human rights abuses and then terminated her own membership in 2003. Not much similarity with Canada thankfully. Alansplodge (talk) 12:23, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, all Commonwealth realms are members of the Commonwealth, but not all members of the Commonwealth are Commonwealth realms. Australia last seriously considered the subject of becoming a republic in 1999, but we would have remained a member of the Commonwealth whatever the outcome. -- Jack of Oz[Talk] 19:10, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I noted many point of similarity between the countries of Bhutan and Switzerland.
Both are mountainous Countries
Both are Landlocked Countries
Both are peaceful countries
Inspite of all these similarities Switzerland is a globalized country with cities such as Zurich and Geneva and has a very high infrastructure and economy. But Bhutan on the other hand is a very improverished country. What is the reason behind that. Solomon7968 (talk) 15:50, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Location, location, location? Switzerland is in the middle of Europe, and is on the frequently-used overland route across the Alps. It's amidst the economic superpowers of Italy, France, and Germany, and can partake of trade with and between them. Bhutan, on the other hand, is between India and China, but only the distal provinces of such. Aside from an ancient spur of the silk road, there are really no major trade routes through Bhutan. It should also be pointed out that up until recently Switzerland was a relatively impoverished and agrarian (by the standards of Europe), and it was only recently due to industrialization and the growth of the financial sector that it became the rich country we see it as today. (See, for example When Did the Swiss Get so Rich?). -- 71.35.100.68 (talk) 16:13, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The "superiority" of western culture is debatable. Westerners, like any other cultural group, are liable to ethnocentrism on this question. It is certainly true that, until recently, the West outperformed other parts of the word on volumetric measurements of the economy, such as gross domestic product. That has been changing in recent years, as some countries with very different value systems, such as China, have been far outstripping the West in their rate of economic growth. Current global challenges, such as global warming and resource depletion, raise serious questions about whether a culture and a political economy that seeks infinite exponential growth is really superior, in the long term, to one that aims for a sustainable steady state economy. Bhutan has adopted a policy of renouncing economic growth at all costs with its national benchmark of gross national happiness. Marco polo (talk) 18:54, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is the general question of economic development in Europe, but there is also the specific question of the Swiss economy. I wish that Watch Valley had more detail. The Swiss valleys have industrialised over a long period, and they have been able to update to high-tech engineering. However, much of Switzerland was dirt-poor until the tourists started coming for skiing.
If I wanted to set up a new watch factory, and I really don't because it would be unlikely to succeed wherever it was, I would choose Switzerland over Bhutan, even though the wage bill would be sky-high in Switzerland and rock-bottom in Bhutan. Switzerland has the skilled labour, the services to business (banks, accountants, insurance companies, consultants), and much better transport to get the raw materials in at low cost and the finished product out to markets. The markets would be much nearer, and customers would have more confidence in a product made in Switzerland. Suzhou might be an even more attractive location, though. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:01, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The superiority of western culture is "debatable" only to people who have never lived without it. Try telling a North Korean refugee about the environmental dangers of capitalism, and she would probably laugh in your face while asking if you'd rather starve to death. Contrary to what you claim, China has had rapid economic growth only since the capitalist Chinese economic reform, when it essentially renounced communism (another Western idea). Chinese youth are increasingly adopting a Western lifestyle. Most Chinese also recognize the need to liberalize the government by introducing democratic reforms and decreasing corruption.
P.S. I am not an ethnic Westerner. Also, the OP asked why Switzerland was wealthier, not whether being wealthy is morally good. --140.180.249.152 (talk) 19:30, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The superiority of western culture (liberal culture) lies on its value of individualism, that is the main point. Third world or developing countries are largely collectivists (religious collectivist, blind nationalists, ethno-nationalists, economic collectivists or socialists etc.). Western culture generally put much value to the individual, to civil liberties, and human rights, and this value is largely absent in African and South Asian countries.
However I will like to point out that it is completely wrong to claim "western culture" as the only culture that put value to individual rights. Countries that highly regard individual rights include South Korea, Japan, Thailand, Hong Kong, Estonia, Czech Republic, Australia, New Zealand etc. So I think it is very logical to replace the term "western culture" with "liberal culture".
Also, Western Europe is far more superior to the United States. Western Europe has far greater human rights record compared to the United States. For example, death penalty is abolished in the Western Europe, while the US is one of the biggest implementer of death penalty (greater than North Korea), number of atheists are higher in Western European countries while the US is the most religious western country etc. etc. --PlanetEditor (talk) 01:36, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The West Europe and US comparison? No. It is a fact that countries such as Netherlands, Germany etc. have far greater civil liberties record than the US (in terms of abolition of death penalty, sexual freedom etc). --PlanetEditor (talk) 02:39, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, yes, Germany, the nation that gassed and burned 6 million Jews. A fine civil liberties record, yessiree. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 03:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Logical fallacy. A funny-moustached crazy person's crimes have nothing to do with present-day Germany. --PlanetEditor (talk) 03:43, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Logical fallacy: That assumption that atheism, libertine lifestyles, and the rejection of the right of self-defense are hallmarks of a "superior" society. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 08:34, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Atheism is the proof of higher cognitive ability. State-sponsored and carefully arranged murder of a defenseless person is not "right of self-defense". --PlanetEditor (talk) 08:57, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In my observations, I would have to say that atheism is proof of nothing except extreme narrow-mindedness. And the legal permanent removal of a murderer is not murder. Murder is the unlawful taking of life. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 04:26, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Atheism is the proof of higher cognitive ability - most absurd statement I've read in years. -- Jack of Oz[Talk] 09:07, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Those prove nothing. Your statement is still absurd. -- Jack of Oz[Talk] 18:59, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to extend this debate, but I want to point out that your interpretation of "Western" is very different from that of most people. Western Europe, Australia, and New Zealand are usually considered integral parts of the Western world. Hong Kong was a British colony until 1997. Japan became a world power after it started Westernizing due to the Black Ships incident. Almost all the countries you listed are politically, economically, socially, and scientifically Western, and that's only because I don't know enough about the rest to make a judgment. --140.180.249.152 (talk) 04:56, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the superiority tangent, which was mainly in response to 140.180... I would point out that North Korea's military command economy and western (oligarchic) capitalism are not the only conceivable ways of organizing economies, and sustainability has to be a criterion in assessing the superiority of the western model relative to other models, such as a steady-state economy. However, 140.180 is absolutely correct that the original question was about why Switzerland is wealthier than Bhutan. As others have pointed out, Switzerland's location in Europe is the key. Western Europe during the early modern period had a historically somewhat unique situation of interstate competition for military superiority coupled with an alliance between autocratic states and a technologically innovative mercantile middle class. It was in the context of this alliance that the Enlightenment occurred. States found that technological innovation promoted both military superiority and the prosperity of their middle classes, and so European states promoted scientific and technological advancement in a way states in no other region had done before. Switzerland benefited from and participated in this process, which included the development of a wealth-creating infrastructure of railways, electrical grids, sewers, and later highways and airports. Europe's transport infrastructure, whose Alpine heart is Switzerland, promotes trade and in turn wealth. During the 20th century, Switzerland benefited relative to other European countries from its policy of neutrality, which allowed it to trade with all warring parties when trade had shut down between them and which made Switzerland a safe haven. This particularly benefited its financial sector. Bhutan's neighborhood largely lacks this wealth-generating infrastructure and culture of technology. India has relatively new, budding technology sector, but its centers are far geographically and culturally from Bhutan. While India has a basic railway network, it is nowhere near as dense as Europe's, nor does it extend across the Himalaya. Finally, the Himalaya is a much more formidable barrier than the Alps. Whereas Switzerland's Alpine valleys and the passes between its relatively low mountains tie north and south Europe together, Bhutan and Tibet are separated by the towering wall of the Himalaya, whose lowest passes are higher than many of Switzerland's highest peaks. Travel through these mountains is not feasible because of altitude sickness, snow and ice, and other obstacles. Because the mountain chain is so wide, tunneling through them would be extremely expensive. Finally, Tibet itself is underdeveloped. Marco polo (talk) 02:39, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
By the 13th century Tuscany and the Low Countries both had textile industries. Trade routes took raw materials and finished products out; any land route into Italy has to cross the Alps. Therefore Switzerland was on or near the cross European trade routes. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:04, 23 March 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Is it true that the Goebbels were machine-gunned to death at their own request?
close trolling by timothyhere
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I scanned the article on Joseph Goebbels and did not see anything that said they were "machine-gunned to death". Is there a separate article you are referring to? RyanVesey 19:12, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This story seems more factual: 'Unwilling to accept a world without National Socialism, Magda Goebbels poisons her six children while her husband waits. Then Goebbels and Magda proceed up to the Chancellery garden, where Goebbels shoots his wife before shooting himself.' See Downfall_(film). --Omidinist (talk) 03:55, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"...I recall a heartwarming story he wrote about a young necrophiliac who eventually achieved his lifelong ambition by becoming coroner. [crowd murmurs] The rest of you can look it up when you get home!" -- An Evening Wasted with Tom Lehrer. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 22:50, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
see the banned User:186.130.74.219 with his typical questions about Nazis, sexual perversion, and so forth. μηδείς (talk) 21:43, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
According to our article on MadocAfter gathering ten ships of men and women the prince sailed west a second time, never to return. Based on the time period (1171 AD), approximately how many people on average would each of these ships carry?--Doug Coldwell (talk) 23:35, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Model of a knarr
From a quick look at Google, it seems that the main type of ship used around the British Isles in the 12th century would have been a knarr. The bigger cog (ship) was still confined to the northern coasts of the continent at that time. Some information on this page. Alansplodge (talk) 00:42, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Great information. How many people would an average cog ship hold in this time period?--Doug Coldwell (talk) 12:16, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Google couldn't couldn't find me a number, but the model shown suggests to me that 20 would be quite enough. Alansplodge (talk) 14:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The crew of a typical Iceland knarr was 15-30 people. But knarrs could apparently carry up to 40 tons (estimated for the Hedeby I find), and Olaf II of Norway allegedly took 260 armed men in just two knarrs from England to Norway (which sounds crowded, but not incompatible with the capacity). However, that seems implausible for an alleged transatlantic crossing. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:28, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
March 23
where did they find gold in ancient times
where was the best place that people found gold (gold mines and things like this) in thousands of years ago? I mean which places had the MOST gold mining not just a little gold here and there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by There goes the internet (talk • contribs) 07:10, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I look at that already. it just says this place had some gold and this place had some gold and we found some remains of gold mine here and there. I want to know which places had A LOT of gold. — Preceding unsigned comment added by There goes the internet (talk • contribs) 07:16, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nowhere had a LOT of gold. That's why it was so sought-after. --ColinFine (talk) 13:02, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You do, on the contacts for the components of your PC. StuRat (talk) 21:33, 23 March 2013 (UTC) [reply]
List of countries by gold production is a modern list, but it should give some ideas as to what parts of the world gold is found in. The gold, after all, was still there in ancient times. If the OP can indicate for what purpose they want to know the information, or for what parts of the world, we may be able to provide more tailored and useful responses. --Jayron32 01:51, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
the gold standard and real wage growth
my teacher said that the reason why there has been no wage growth in the united states is that we went off THE GOLD STANDARD and we print to much money. what are some arguments AGAINST this view. in other words, are there some ppl who thing this would have happened if we stayed on the gold standaed. this is not homework btw i just want to know what the other side of the argument is. also, how can we restore real wage growth in the United States becuase i would like to make some more money in 10 yrs then i make now (assuming i dont get a better job or things like this).--There goes the internet (talk) 07:24, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
he said back in the olden days wages grew faster then inflation.--There goes the internet (talk) 07:25, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So you are studying at the same time as working Good for you but if you really want to make a go of it you should invest some time in figuring how to search for things yourself. What work have you done to find an answer for your homework besides asking here? Dmcq (talk) 10:29, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
i said this wasnt homework and i dont appreciate being called a liar. it was a class discussion, and i was just thinking about what he said during the discussion.--There goes the internet (talk) 14:25, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Being offended by what some random person on the internet says is irrational. Also what you say is evidence not truth as far as I am concerned, I try and assume the best in accordance with Wikipedia policy but that does not include assuming everything someone says is true. In this case I have advised you whilst assuming are attending a class and wish to learn. If a question arises during a class then you should treat it as an opportunity for learning rather than just reaching to the internet for some instant answer. Particularly if you have chosen to go and study at the same time as working. You could also have asked during class. Dmcq (talk) 21:08, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My class has over 9999 ppl in it, if you dont want to help me you don't have to. i dont see what the big deal is.--There goes the internet (talk) 00:02, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I did try to help you. Dmcq (talk) 01:59, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
First your premise is incorrect, there has been real wage growth, just not for the bottom 80% of Americans, for the richest Americans, wage growth has been the greatest ever seen. Wage growth is normally tied to productivity, if a worker can create twice as much in the same time, or create twice as much using the same amount of raw material, his wages will double minus the cost of whatever it was that made him more productive (education, new technology, increased capital, etc). Productivity has been increasing over the last few decades, though the wages paid to workers is not increasing mostly due to the rich owners demanding all the profit from the increase in productivity and the workers just accepting this. If you want to see higher real wages in the future then become more productive and demand your fair share or your labour's value. 69.157.30.181 (talk) 13:30, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
we should get together and seize the property of the boozwazeeee. it is the fault of greedy 1 percenter, that is what i will tell my teacher, but i think he will laugh at me. he doesnt think much of marx and socialism and things like this.--There goes the internet (talk) 14:23, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest that all the threads started by this OP be closed as trolling/pre-teen nonsense. 69.157.30.181 (talk) 15:30, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The question admits a reasonable interpretation: does the gold standard was better for employees? OsmanRF34 (talk) 18:14, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
During most of the 19th century, economies with gold-backed currencies showed a long-term overall deflationary trend, partially counteracted at irregular intervals by major gold finds. This state of affairs could be considered good for workers if it inhibited currency instabilities and runaway inflation, but also bad for workers insofar as deflation was creditor-friendly and debtor-unfriendly. In the United States at the end of the 19th century, many farmers and workers (especially in western states) were strongly in favor of supplementing gold with silver ("bimetallism") -- see William Jennings Bryan's Cross of Gold speech... AnonMoos (talk) 21:34, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yeah! i remember this from my history class. there was like this period for like 20-30 years where there was a whole slew of candidates who ran on silver-related platform. that was like the most boring and repetitive part of the whole history book. i'm glad it's over.--There goes the internet (talk) 00:06, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure it's incredibly boring for you, but in late 19th century America, it was just about the only politically-realistic way to argue for non-long-term-deflationary non-creditor-friendly monetary policies, so it was of vital interest to many. It was one of the few ways of trying to smooth some of the harsh edges of unrestrained "robber baron" capitalism that was not widely perceived to be politically radical. Of course, owners of silver mines favored bimetallism for different reasons... AnonMoos (talk) 02:57, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And the reason why increased productivity is not reflected in increased wages is globalization, and, in particular, China. Anyone who doesn't accept low wages can just be replaced by a Chinese worker (with a few exceptions). StuRat (talk) 18:05, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, all this depends on how you calculate buying power. Yes, a dollar today buys less gold than a dollar 100 years ago. But it buys a hell of a lot more cellular service, or computing power, or antiretroviral drugs, or antibiotics, or high-precision watches, or air travel, or free online encyclopedias. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:34, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
but i bet if those things were around in the olden days i could have bought more of them.--There goes the internet (talk) 00:06, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
At least computing power (in the form of Human computers) and air travel were available in principle, but much more expensive than today, especially relative to income. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:10, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
First British powered flight
I thought I'd have a go at our stub article for Stanley Spencer, who designed and built the first British airship in 1902. I'm having trouble establishing a date for the first flight. Many sources, such as this one go for 22 September 1902, with a 3 hour flight from Crystal Palace, London. However, the New York Times says 20 September and the The Nevada Daily Mail says 19 Sep. The Reading Eagle (apparently Reading, Pennsylvania) reports a trial on 11 July which broke a propeller blade and was eventually flown without the engine. The Manawatu Times in New Zealand reported that Spencer's wife flew the airship at Crystal Palace on 14 July, with or without the engine isn't clear. So does anyone have a reliable date for the first flight? Alansplodge (talk) 15:29, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think the primary sources quoted can be reconciled - a first unpowered flight from Ranelagh to Ongar on the 11th, a flight (presumably powered) by Mrs Specner within the grounds of "Baystal" [sic] Palace on the 13th (presumably - 14th July 1903 was a Tuesday, and I think "13" for "14" is more likely than "Tuesday" for "Monday"), and a powered flight from Crystal Palace to Eastcote on the 19th. Note that the Nevada Daily Mail and New York Times articles seem to be based on the same copy, and the Daily Mail says "today" with a dateline of the 19th, while the Times says "yesterday" with a dateline of the 20th. Tevildo (talk) 16:01, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I mis-read the dates. The Reading Eagle report is for 1903 (not 1902), so we have two flights for 1902 - Mrs Spencer (Crystal Palace only) on Monday 14th July, Mr Spencer (Crystal Palace to Eastcote) on Saturday 19th July, and one flight for 1903 (Saturday 11th July), unpowered, from Ranelagh to Ongar. Tevildo (talk) 16:17, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I misread the "Reading Eagle" date too. Spencer built a second, larger airship in 1903 called "Number 2", so it must have been that one. I'm a bit puzzled as to why he would let his wife make the first flight - perhaps she had a good insurance policy! Alansplodge (talk) 17:22, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So is she the first woman to pilot a powered aircraft? Alansplodge (talk) 23:54, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly, based on the above. The books say that it was Aida de Acosta (27 June 1903), but it seems that Mrs Spencer beat her by nearly a year. Assuming the Crystal Palace flight was under power, which the article doesn't actually say. Tevildo (talk) 00:02, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The plot thickens. The article does imply powered flight; "navigated around" and "under perfect control" doesn't sound like the sort of thing that is possible in a drifting balloon. Can anyone find a better source than a provincial newspaper from New Zealand? Alansplodge (talk) 01:29, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Here's one from a provincial American newspaper (second column, second from bottom), which cites the "London News" (the Illustrated London News?) (Note advert for "Ironbrew", as well - should we tell A G Barr's lawyers)? I'll see what else I can find. Tevildo (talk) 02:06, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
More information on Mrs Spencer's history, and a cite (the W G Grace / Conan Doyle copy) to "Motoring Illustrated". It's out there somewhere! Tevildo (talk) 10:51, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think a trip to Beaulieu is indicated. We have a definite publication and date, and they should have a copy of the magazine. Expect a definite answer some time next week! Tevildo (talk) 10:58, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I wait with bated breath (whatever that is). Many thanks everybody. Alansplodge (talk) 12:51, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
With your breath held, as in "abated". μηδείς (talk) 18:02, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I probably won't be taking that literally then. Alansplodge (talk) 20:18, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is the UN anti-Israel?
Trolling by defacto banned sockpuppeter Nil Einne (talk) 18:39, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
It comes down to numbers. There are far more Muslims, Muslim nations, and those who want to trade with or otherwise be on good terms with Muslim nations than Jews, Jewish nations, and those who want to trade with Jewish nations. StuRat (talk) 18:00, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say here "with the Jewish nation", since besides Israel, there are no other.
No, the United Nations itself as an organisaion, has no position on the matter at all, the the individual member countries have a variety of attitudes towards Israel. Roger (talk) 18:07, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Palau & others vote according to the US vote. This is not an independent opinion.
Consider too that voting according to the Palestine wishes doesn't mean being anti-Israel. A good part of the world really would like to see peace in that region, in the same way that a good part of Israel indeed is against the decisions of their own government. OsmanRF34 (talk) 18:09, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
When you say "Palau and others" I take it the other three island nations, or for you Canada is also influenced by the U.S.? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.130.74.219 (talk) 18:21, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Torture
A few years back, I remember reading a news story about a girl who lead a protest in China, or maybe some other country. She was arrested, and police tortured her by pumping cold water up her vagina every day. She died a month later. Does anyone know what story this is? Unfortunately, when I try to Google it, I get a lot of sadistic porn sites and no actual news. Thanks. --140.180.249.152 (talk) 19:44, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You could start your search at Category:Torture victims (there are subcategories by nationality as well) and see if there is a Wikipedia article about her. --Jayron32 20:46, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
i am in one problem.
This question has been removed. Per the reference desk guidelines, the reference desk is not an appropriate place to request medical, legal or other professional advice, including any kind of medical diagnosis, prognosis, or treatment recommendations. For such advice, please see a qualified professional. If you don't believe this is such a request, please explain what you meant to ask, either here or on the Reference Desk's talk page.
This question has been removed. Per the reference desk guidelines, the reference desk is not an appropriate place to request medical, legal or other professional advice, including any kind of medical diagnosis or prognosis, or treatment recommendations. For such advice, please see a qualified professional. If you don't believe this is such a request, please explain what you meant to ask, either here or on the Reference Desk's talk page. --~~~~
Sorry, we can't give any legal advice at Wikipedia. Please find a lawyer instead. --Jayron32 21:05, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
office of infirmarer
In our article on John of Wallingford (writer) it says John "serviced the office of infirmarer". What is this office and what is an infirmarer ?--Doug Coldwell (talk) 21:37, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A few years ago, a cartoon appeared in one of the British papers of Victoria and David Beckham on the balcony at Buckingham Palace , could you please tell me who the cartoonist was and in what paper it appeared. I have tried searching on line with no luck. Many thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.2.131.240 (talk) 22:56, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I could not find an article that described secular arguments against same-sex marriage such as the common procreation argument. Is this type of material not suitable for Wikipedia? Should it be added? Where? Same-sex marriage is already quite large. --beefyt (talk) 23:18, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Probably nowhere. Wikipedia is not the place to make arguments, it's the place to write encyclopedia articles. --Jayron32 01:41, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But if an argument on a topic has been aired in reliable sources, it may merit a mention in an article about the topic. --ColinFine (talk) 18:11, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've very frequently seen economic arguments used, i.e. that extending marriage increases cost of Social Security and other benefits. While I do not condone bigotry, there is good reason to question why society should disburse its benefits based solely on who is registered as having sex. Wnt (talk) 21:31, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're implicitly raising some of the constitutional issues which the U.S. Supreme Court will soon decide. Equal protection under the law, full faith and credit, etc. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 00:00, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Those are, of course, arguments against marriage, not arguments against same-sex marriage. --Tango (talk) 00:15, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We only write about notable topics. I don't think the distinction between secular and non-secular arguments against same-sex marriage is a particularly meaningful one. Pretty much all the arguments are religiously motivated, but most of them are presented in a secular way (particularly when presenting them in US courts, since US courts aren't allowed to make decisions based on openly religious arguments). Therefore, there is no separate topic to have an article on. --Tango (talk) 00:15, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sumerian aristocracy
Does Sumer have landlords? Also, do the landlords live in the central city? --Tyw7 (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) 23:20, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not now. Assyriously though, according to "God and King in Sumeria", "the temples owned vast tracts of land, profiting as landlords from the rents paid to them by farmers." The later Assyrians had landlord-tenant laws, and "the landlord of a pub is written as lú" by the Akkadians. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:11, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Paul Revere;s actual words regarding the British regulars being out (on the night of his famous ride.
I would like confirmation of what I was told by a Massachusets Park ranger, to wit, that Revere actually called out on his unfinished ride that "The Regulars are out!" This distinction would give credence to the notion that we Americans still kept somewhat in mind that we were (technically) British and/or perhaps distinguished between the British "Regulars" and other British forces. Along the same line, I would like to know when we Americans spoke with an accent that distinguished our speech from British accents. This would most likely be sometime after 1812 and the impressment of American seamen by British naval forces. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.170.6.54 (talk) 23:32, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
According to our article (Paul Revere), what he said was "The Regulars are coming out." Tevildo (talk) 23:45, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This article says that the American accent hasn't changed much since that time - it's the British pronunciations that've changed. Around 1776, lower-class Brits and lower-class Americans (ie most people) spoke pretty much the same, but with time more and more Brits adopted the different, upper-class accent. There's more discussion of this here. 184.147.116.201 (talk) 00:51, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's a very silly article. American accents have changed in some respects, British accents in others. Unless you think Scots, Welsh, Irish and northern English sound 'American', the fact that rhotic accents were then more common in southern England does not mean that they sounded 'American' either. HenryFlower 14:21, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the Colonist considered themselves British for a very long time... arguably many did up til around the time of Independence. They considered themselves "American" too, but that doesn't have the same meaning it does now in their context. Shadowjams (talk) 04:45, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Observation: it's surprising how much it varies in the U.S. Near the coastline in the East, there are lots of people who don't seem to pronounce "r" in anything. But go a few hundred miles inland and you'll find something very different, even pockets of people who still pronounce "warsh" with an r, something 'rhotic' speakers don't even do. Wnt (talk) 21:36, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
March 24
Veritas Forum and Campus Crusade for Christ
Does the Veritas Forum just host dialogues between Christians and nonreligious people, or is the Forum more focused on religion in general and irreligion in general? I saw this flyer yesterday about "What is the meaning of life?" hosted by Veritas Forum. At first glance of the flyer, it looks like a forum between two professors. One is a professor in mathematics, and the other is a professor in philosophy. They don't really give their religious status. And about the Campus Crusade for Christ: is the main goal of the organization just trying to convert everybody on the planet to Christianity, or is the main goal of the organization trying to help people "connect with Jesus" while maintaining one's own cultural/religious heritage as long as one's native culture/religion does not interfere with basic Christian beliefs? If the latter case, then can a devout Jewish or Muslim person "connect with Jesus"? 65.24.105.132 (talk) 00:25, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The main goal of the Campus Crusade is to convert you to a particular brand of evangelical Protestant Christianity. A Muslim, Jew, and even certain types of Christians (particularly Catholics) can absolutely not "connect with Jesus" in any sense meaningful to the CCC. When I was younger and had more free time to spend on being an asshole, I could spend many hours arguing with the CCC from a Catholic perspective, just for amusement. Adam Bishop (talk) 01:04, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you describe yourself as an "asshole"? Why did you do that made you an "asshole"? How long ago was then? Why did you stop being an "asshole"? If you have more free time, then would you continue being an "asshole"? Can a person become a Christian of the lowest common denominator? Which Christian church/denomination accepts everybody as full membership? Can a person become affiliated with the Roman Catholic Church but has mixed theology? 65.24.105.132 (talk) 01:37, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well I was being facetious, but basically at my university the CCC liked to have "interviews" with the people in charge of the other student clubs, and I was in charge of Quiz Bowl for several years, so I was "interviewed" several times. And it was never an interview so much as an occasion for them to proselytize. I kept agreeing to talk to them just so I could annoy them and waste their time. I'm sorry I have no references except for personal experience and opinion, but Campus Crusade for Christ is the worst. Adam Bishop (talk) 03:07, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The most recent Veritas Forum at Penn hosted a debate between a Christian professor and an Atheist. It was cosponsored by the religious groups at Penn and the Penn Secular Society. Unfortunately, Videos aren't up yet, so I can't give you an example. RyanVesey 01:10, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The upcoming Veritas Forum is between a Ohio State University professor in philosophy and some professor in mathematics. Little is known about their spiritual status. It is hosted in the Ohio Union and is sponsored by Christian Intervarsity groups on campus and the Secular Student Alliance. 65.24.105.132 (talk) 01:37, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Large unfinished structure which began before 15thcentury
looking for Large unfinished structure which began before 15th century. Nave in Siena is one such but i was looking for others. would appreciate help49.206.53.229 (talk) 01:43, 24 March 2013 (UTC)vsmurthy[reply]
Málaga Cathedral would come close; started in 1482, south tower remains unfinished to this day. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:21, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks but that is in 15th century 49.206.53.229 (talk) 03:53, 24 March 2013 (UTC)vsmurthy[reply]
Interesting question... I was about to point you to Roslyn Chapel... but that was started in the 15th Century as well. Blueboar (talk) 03:59, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
By just typing "14th century unfinished" into Google, I found the unfinished "Facciatone" (nave extension) of the Duomo Nuovo in Siena. From our article; "A second massive addition of the main body of the cathedral was planned in 1339. It would have more than doubled the size of the structure by means of an entirely new nave and two aisles ranged perpendicular to the existing nave and centred on the high altar... Construction was halted by the Black Death in 1348. Basic errors in the construction were already evident by then, however, and the work was never resumed."Alansplodge (talk) 14:36, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are several at this link. There are probably some more that were begun in ancient times but never completed to their original plan, but have remains surviving. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:02, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and BAE Systems if memory serves. Probably Airbus for some. Check out the pages for the F-22 Raptor and the Eurofighter for a few more names. 81.159.249.142 (talk) 10:52, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean manufacturers of the hardware that flies aboard the aircraft, the avionics (in flight) software, the hardware or software used in the aircraft design and manufacturing process, or something else? Astronaut (talk) 12:37, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In-flight hardware and software needs to be to various MIL-STDs or whatever standards apply for the manufacturer in their country. As a result it is often built in-house (ie. made by the aircraft manufacturer themselves). However, some components are sourced from commercial suppliers (for example, according to this press release, Eurotech supply Intel Atom-based hardware for military applications). Design and manufacturing software (the field I used to work in) is a mixture of in-house development and commercially available packages, and will use commercially available Unix and PC hardware. Astronaut (talk) 12:54, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
United Torah Judaism pro-settlement or oppose
Does United Torah Judaism support settlements in West Bank or not?--Donmust90 (talk) 17:43, 24 March 2013 (UTC)Donmust90[reply]
Did you read our article? "UTJ has no opinion on the issue of increasing settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories." --140.180.249.152 (talk) 18:13, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If I recall correctly, the various factions of UTJ disagree strongly on the matter, hence the unified neutral stance. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) (formerly R——bo) 20:21, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Population along highway routes
I need to calculate the number of people who live within 100 miles of a U.S. Interstate (100 miles on either side of the Interstate). Is there some way to overlay census data on a state map of the interstate in order to get at least a rough estimate of how many people reside within a 200-mile wide corridor, 100-miles on either side of the highway?
Thank you for any suggestions you have about where to look for help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richardbelldc (talk • contribs) 17:57, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The software that does these kinds of calculations easily is a Geographical Information System, for example ArcGIS. There are some free packages available. You would need to be able to download the Census data and "boundary data" in a format that the GIS can read, as well as a compatible map of the highways. Someone might have already done it, or be able to do it for you. A university department of geography could do it but would normally charge. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:23, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you intend to go down this road (sorry) you can find census data shapefiles here and shapefiles for the highway system here. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 19:38, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It might be easier to estimate the population who live further than 100 miles from an interstate. Looking at Google Maps and using straight-line distances, there don't seem to be many gaps - maybe a small corner of Maine, a thin strip along the Canadian border in the great plains, the upper penninsula of Michigan, a couple of spots in the Rockies, the bottom end of the Florida keys, maybe a few other places, all of which have quite low populations. Astronaut (talk) 19:19, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think the OP might want the numbers for particular interstates, rather than all interstates. I agree it is going to be pretty much the entire population if you look at all interstates combined. --Tango (talk) 00:17, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question: are you just looking for people inside the U.S., or do you also want to know how many people in Mexico and Canada live within 100 miles of a U.S. Interstate? Also, don't forget that Alaska and Hawaii also have interstate highways (the map provided by the previous poster only shows continental U.S.). See Interstate_Highways_in_Alaska and Interstate_H-1. RudolfRed (talk) 21:23, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Appreciation in value of early money
Say you live in a primitive society where nobody's ever heard of money, but there is a division of labor and a barter economy. Your job is to hunt with bows and arrows. When your bows and arrows are worn out and you need new ones, you barter some of the meat you produce to your neighbor whose jobs is to make bows and arrows.
Then people arrive from across the sea and start offering for barter commodities unavailable in your country in exchange for commoditites unavailable in theirs. But in their country, they buy and sell things for money, which consists of silver coins. Over time some people in your country become willing to accept silver coins as payment from the people across the sea because they know they can use them later to buy other things from those people. After this practice is established, people in your country start selling other commodities to their neighbors for silver coins, since that money is in effect backed by commodities that can be bought from the people from across the sea. As the number of people willing to accept silver coins as payment expands, the number of goods offered for sale for silver coins rapidly increases without any correspondingly rapid increase in the supply of silver coins. Hence prices go down. Realizing that prices will continue to go down over the next couple of years as the trend spreads further, some people start hoarding coins in order to be able to buy much larger quantities of goods with them a year or two from now than they can today. This further limits the supply of coins used in trade and thus further drives down prices, and thus more people are impressed by the increasing value of money, and become willing to accept it in payment. At some point the custom of using money to buy and sell things rather than barter spreads as far as it can spread throughout your country and then prices stop their general downward trend.
Is this historically accurate as a description of what has happened when money was introduced for the first time in societies formerly using barter?
How much is known and how much unknown about the histories of such episodes?
Has anyone studied this sort of thing quantitatively in any detail?
Somewhere I saw a Wikipedia article saying money wasn't generally used in Rome until about 200 BC, whereas in Greece it had been used centuries earlier. Did any Roman writers describe this sort of thing?
I don't think you'd get any such effect. The value of the silver coins would be limited by what it could buy from the foreigners who introduced it. StuRat (talk) 23:22, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If it's _initially_ limited in that way, nonetheless its utility as a means of making trade far more efficient than by barter alone would give it some value beyond that.
But you, see a big problem with your answer and this comment of mine is the word "would". I'm asking what has happened, not what _would_ happen. Michael Hardy (talk) 23:29, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) I suspect the opposite is true. As the silver coins become more desirable among your compatriots, the value of your labour, your meat, or whatever you produce becomes relatively less. What's more, seeing the increased desirability of the coins, the foreigners start demanding more for the same number of coins. This is known as inflation. Astronaut (talk) 23:35, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is History of money the article you were thinking of? It seems well-referenced with a number of books you might want to pursue. 184.147.116.201 (talk) 23:37, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 09:46, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
![[13]](https://www.bbc.co.uk/liverpool/content/images/2006/12/20/bessie_braddock_home2_203x152.jpg){kind=link}
![[14]](http://www.google.com/imgres?q=bessie+braddock&um=1&hl=en&sa=N&rls=DVXE,DVXE:2005-26,DVXE:en&tbm=isch&tbnid=JZDtxWdSyIJmhM:&imgrefurl=http://www.classicalvalues.com/archives/2008/02/post_635.html&docid=ctdFyyXq3KrPXM&imgurl=http://www.classicalvalues.com/BessieBraddock2.jpg&w=220&h=450&ei=SeFKUfzOLcfL0AW-yIG4DQ&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=502&vpy=70&dur=797&hovh=321&hovw=157&tx=89&ty=169&page=1&tbnh=168&tbnw=92&start=0&ndsp=11&ved=1t:429,r:8,s:0,i:110&biw=1024&bih=527){kind=link}
