Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

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

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

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

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

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

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

April 23

Fishing in the Maldives

I just saw a TV show where fisherman were using a rod and reel to catch fish there. The odd part is, that to get the fish off the line, they just pulled the rod over their heads, and the fish flew off and landed behind them, to be collected by others. The fisherman would then cast directly back into the water. They never had to take the fish off the hooks. So, how exactly does this work ? Does the hook release when the line goes slack ? StuRat (talk) 05:48, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I've seen similar, I think. I assume you're referring to teams of men with individual rods (& sometimes reels) on medium scale commercial fishing boats using large unbaited treble hooks to catch fish schooling/feeding near the surface. The technique is often called 'snagging' (sometimes called 'gaffing' as well, although 'gaffing' more often refers to landing fish with a large fixed hook mounted on a solid pole). Not sure how the fish come off the hook so easily/consistently. Perhaps they use barbless hooks?

note - The footage I've seen showed what appeared to be fairly low budget operations and I doubt any high tech solutions were being applied. I suspect the details lay in basic physics and not pricey gadetry.

Here are a coupla' links: This has a video describing one type of gear. (note: Bunker) bunker snagging. This nest one mentions bending the shaft of the hook which might affect the release. tarpon snagging.

Unfortunately I didn't find any articles specific to the commercial fishing ventures in Asian waters I'd previously seen footage of. Just stuff relating to sport fishing, mostly freshwater at that. --Kevjonesin (talk) 15:00, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

If the answer is not already in the article "Fishing industry in the Maldives", then it can be added to it if and when it has been found. Please see WP:RDAC.)

—Wavelength (talk) 15:55, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I seem to remember seeing a video of fisherman in California using that same hook and line technique so I don't think it is just Asia. Probably on the San Diego episode of "After the Catch". Rmhermen (talk) 00:05, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

benefitting the bombing victims

I've been searching Google for where I can purchase ribbons and lapel pins to benefit the victims of the Boston Marathon bombings. Many people would want just about the same things, as well. One ribbon shown was during a New York Yankees game. The ribbon looked very nice. Another ribbon was shown before a Boston Bruins game. That ribbon also looked very nice. Another ribbon was shown on the Level Renner website. That ribbon also looked nice. Can anyone tell me where I can purchase ribbons like those, please? Thank you.142.255.103.121 (talk) 07:19, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Rather than wanting a pretty trinket from a potentially doubtful, newly created "charity", guaranteed to be creaming off some of the takings, I'd suggest going direct to one of the majors, such as the Red Cross. If they aren't running a campaign explicitly for Boston, they can probably direct you to someone reliable who is. HiLo48 (talk) 08:23, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

The fund set up by the mayor and governor is The One Fund Boston. Alternatively, you could type "Boston bomb victims ribbons" into Google. Alansplodge (talk) 10:16, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree that finding some random site on the net that has pretty ribbons is not the way to go. Go through an established charity or one endorsed by the city like that mentioned above. Dismas|^(talk) 07:47, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I see that the number of injured, which was about 180 in the days immediately after the bombing, has now risen to 282. The news article cited [1] says that some people thought their injury would clear up on its own, but later went to the hospital with minor lacerations from shrapnel or ringing in the ears from the blast. Coincidentally, there are news stories about multimillion dollar funds set to to give to those injured in the bombings, with it up to $21 million so far. Clearly it is good to help the persons with severe injuries, even though the money cannot compensate for lost limbs. But how common is it for people to claim they have tinnitus, or an invisible soft tissue injury to the back, or PTSD so severe they can't work, from a terrorist bombing when it really was preexisting or nonexistent, especially if there is a monetary incentive to make the claim? Is there history of such fakery in countries where terrorist bombings are more common, and which have compensation from the government or private charities for the victims? In the US, fake injury claims after bus accidents, for instance, are common: [2], [3], [4]. Edison (talk) 21:52, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Having been in an auto accident & (really) suffered classic whiplash, I can tell you that soft tissue injuries & even dramatic shifts in the cervical vertebrae like I experienced don't make themselves immediately evident. STIs are one of those *you'll feel it tomorrow* things & they can often worsen over time rather than improve, so I wouldn't say people who came in with those a few days after the fact are fakers. Anyone who was blown off their feet is likely to have a STI in whatever body part they landed on & I'd expect spine injuries to be very common as they were landing on pavement. Tintinnitus is horrible to live with; some people have a constant loud sound droning on & on, making life impossible as it interferes with sleep, hearing, & concentration. PTSD - also a likely issue, could well be exacerbated if preexisting, may or may not resolve itself, tough call on those. I also highly doubt the deliberate shrapnel glued to the pressure cookers was sterile, so even small wounds can get infected. There were probably those who knew they needed stitches but also knew how long they'd be sitting there in the ER & chose to slap a butterfly bandage on it & wait to see if it closed on its own. However, as far as monetary compensation is concerned, I would expect criteria for that to include not just medically verifiable injury but life-altering injury. People who lost limbs are going to be first in line, followed by people who suffered things like severed tendons, nerve damage, shattered bones, burns. Those are all easily proven & considered severe injuries. A guy with a cut finger isn't getting a check, I'm sure. The johnny-come-latelys are going to be far down the list of those who will get compensation of any kind, let alone a lot of compensation. Unfortunate because STIs & spine injuries can also be life-altering because of their tendency to worsen, but they're also hard to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt (hence the common stereotype that anyone in a neck brace or on a cane is faking it) & most people don't have the brains to see a specialist & get the necessary tests done to do so. I'd hazard in countries where terrorist bombings are more common, there's also not the *compensation culture* that the US has, so I wouldn't think there'd be much of a history there. ScarletRibbons (talk) 01:55, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Fox farming - what species?

I've been categorising a few images on Commons showing fox farming in Prince Edward Island in 1914. Any idea what species of fox is this likely to be? Andrew Gray (talk) 10:51, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

This rather fascinating article suggests that they're almost certainly Silver foxes - actually not a separate species, but a mutation of the Red fox, Vulpes vulpes. There are further contemporary images in the PEI archives, showing the similarities with your images. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 12:17, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Awesome - many thanks! Images now updated, and the article on my reading list. I had vaguely remembered the reports about silver foxes being part-domesticated in the USSR and had for some reason assumed they were a Eurasian-specific species. Andrew Gray (talk) 12:23, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

how good is it to be king?

so.... in those monarchies where kingship was elected, would the royal treasury, the royal lands, etc. come along with the job? could you divide them up among your offspring in the same way as with inherited kingships? or were you stuck with your accumulated wealth as a duke or whatever and of course whatever future earnings you could extort as the king? (note, this is not a request for legal advice) Gzuckier (talk) 19:24, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Are there any monarchies where the king was elected regularly? I know of instances where the monarch was elected and dynasty followed, but I'm not personally aware of any instances where the monarch was regularly elected. The Romanov Dynasty was elected by the Russian assembly of the land, this was an example of the elite choosing one of their own and elections ended there with the Romanov Dynasty continuing until the fall of the Russian Empire in 1917. Ryan Vesey 19:57, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

There were two major elective monarchies in Europe: the Kingdom of Poland (see Royal elections in Poland) and the Holy Roman Empire (see Prince-elector). --Jayron32 20:13, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of that. All of the Kings of Poland I knew were named either Alexander or Nicholas. Ryan Vesey 20:24, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

They were the Tsars of Russia. And yes, there are still elective monarchies to this day. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 21:21, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Most European medieval monarchs were formally elected. Absolutism in Europe is far more recent. --Saddhiyama (talk) 21:39, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

The Yang di-Pertuan Agong (King of Malaysia) is elective, chosen for a 5-year period from among the rulers of the states. The current holder is the first person to hold the job twice, having previously held the position between 1970-1975. -- Arwel Parry (talk) 10:06, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Apparently not very good. When Henry Valois, fourth son of Henry II of France, was offered the Kingship of Poland, seeing as he wasn't going to get much more than a minor Duchy in France, he accepted the Sejm's election. The second he showed up, they forced the Henrician Articles upon him (the Polish equivalent of the Magna Carta) and he found his life severely restricted, he was basically to be a figurehead king in a country which was de facto ruled by the aristocracy, and even aspects of his personal life were closely monitored, and though given living expenses commensurate with a King, the office came with no heritable property. Within a short while, however, he himself inherited the throne of France, and he GTFO of Poland fast enough to leave skid marks. The Polish Elective Monarchy from then on was a mess, frequently the source of political fighting, and eventually all of the other great powers began to influence Sejm elections to get their own candidates on the throne; the weak Kingship in Poland is widely cited as the reason why Poland was eventually partitioned and ceased to exist. The Federalist Papers, written at a time when Poland was busy being carved up by its neighbors, specifically cite the elective Monarchy of Poland as an example of how a weak executive beholden to a legislature was a bad way to run a country; it is used as a justification for the U.S. system with its strong, independent President who must be a natural-born citizen of the U.S. The other major elective Monarchy in Europe for most of history was the Holy Roman Emperor, but this became elective in name only: from the 16th century it was essentially a hereditary office of the Habsburg family, and the office itself became an insignificant part of the Habsburg Monarchy; indeed from the time of the Pragmatic Sanction of 1713, the Imperial Office became completely insignificant, it was offered to Francis I, Holy Roman Emperor, husband of Maria Theresa (Archduchess of Austria) with the understanding that she held the real power, which derived from her Austrian titles. From then forward, the office was held by her decedents (the house of Habsburg-Lorraine), but though they lived well enough, that was because of the Austrian posessions. The HRE itself had little power, as the individual constituent states were pretty much independent at this point. --Jayron32 20:13, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

(after ec)I understand that the king of Anglo-Saxon (i.e. pre-Conquest) England was elected but I'm not sure how it worked in practice. My source for this isn't particularly well remembered by me, I think it was a series on monarchs of England which was on Channel 4 a few years ago. The anecdote I remember was that, at the coronation of William I, those attending, having been used to shouting to acclaim their assent to the new ruler, duly shouted their assent to the new ruler. However, William and his troops thought this was a pre-arranged signal to storm the cathedral and fight, and so started fighting. --TammyMoet (talk) 20:18, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I love how the original question included a not-legal-advice disclaimer :-) Do you mean the kings before or after the end of the Heptarchy? It seems to have been a strongly Germanic thing in early mediæval times to elect kings (whether practically, comparable to Poland, or simply formally, comparable to the HRE, I don't know) and to acclaim them by having them sit on shields and then raise them up into the air; the latter portion made it into the Roman Empire, and this passage mentions it being done by Gothic kings in early mediæval Spain. Nyttend (talk) 21:04, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Sort of. For a time, Anglo-Saxon England wasn't a single state, but a collection of petty kingdoms. From time to time, the kings on the island would elect from their own number a Bretwalda who would be recognized as an "Overking" or "First among firsts" or something like that. By the time of Æthelstan, the title of Bretwalda became semi-automatically bestowed on the Kings of Wessex, and modern historians thus date the Kingdom of England to that point. Near as I can tell, the title passed according to primogeniture from then forward, though I believe that the nobles of the Kingdom did formally "assent" to the King at each passing. Of course, England in the 10th century is quite a different place from Poland in the 16th. --Jayron32 21:13, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

No, the King of England had to be appointed by the Witenagemot who had the power to appoint any member of the extended royal family to the throne. Although primogeniture was the norm, after the death of Edward the Confessor, the Witan elected Godwin's second son Harold to the throne in preference to his older brother Sweyn Godwinson or William of Normandy. This caused no end of bother for "Haroldus infelix". The acclamation at the coronation was to confirm the loyalty of the nobles and commoners, and was last done in 1953. Alansplodge (talk) 22:01, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

And the Wikipedia article itself notes that it is unclear whether or not the election by the Witenagemot represented a genuine free election, or was merely a formality to confirm the kings formal heir as the next king. I'd say it is far from settled whether or not it was truly freely elected (as Poland had been from the 16th century) or whether the "election" was a forgone formality. You'll note that when they did deviate from primogeniture, things went to hell rather quickly... --Jayron32 22:15, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

FYI, that's what I meant about "practically, comparable to Poland, or simply formally, comparable to the HRE"; I wish I could say something specific. Nyttend (talk) 00:52, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't want to divert the discussion down a dead-end, but what Anglo-Saxon kings had was fraternal succession. Primogeniture would have meant Eadwig became king on his father's death, whereas it was instead his uncle Eadred, last surviving son of Edward the Elder. What they would have done had two of Edward the Elder's sons left surviving children, particularly surviving adult children, will always be an open question. I believe the earliest written documents on the principles of hypothetical future succession in Britain date from 1280x1282 in the form of treaties drawn up before the marriage of Alexander III of Scotland's daughter Margaret to King Eirik Magnusson in 1281 and before the marriage of his son Alexander to Margaret, daughter of Guy de Dampierre, in 1282. But those represent a wholly different world view, one in which female succession is considered acceptable. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:15, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

April 24

Federal Reserve

Dear Sirs, Excuse me but their seems to be a small but important discrepancy in your references to which entity is the central bank of the U.S. In the third paragraph it seems to suggest that the US Treasury is the central bank whereas in the guiding principle of the FED it suggests that it was enacted to be the central bank. Thank you, Steven Rosenfeld — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.178.14.156 (talk • contribs)

The Reference Desk isn't really the place for this kind of note, but I'm inclined to correct the error anyway. However, I'm stymied, because I can't tell which article's third paragraph seems to suggest that the US Treasury is the central bank. John M Baker (talk) 14:59, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

The only article that seems to contain "US treasury" and "central bank" is Federal Reserve System. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 06:10, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, CambridgeBayWeather. I don't see anything in that article suggesting that Treasury is the central bank, though. John M Baker (talk) 14:48, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Hard drugs

Are there any studies on what attracts people to hard drugs such as cocaine, crack, heroin, meth etc. ? Pass a Method talk 16:11, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Start at the Wikipedia article titled Substance abuse and follow links from there. --Jayron32 16:17, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

It does not mention what causes the initial attraction in the first place. Pass a Method talk 16:27, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually substance dependence is more relevant here. There has been an enormous amount of research on this topic. Generally speaking drugs that are addictive either upregulate the brain systems that implement pleasure and reward (cocaine, meth, nicotine), or downregulate the brain systems that implement pain and suffering (heroin, alcohol, tranquilizers), or both. Looie496 (talk) 16:41, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

That's describing the effect of having taken the drugs. But I think PtM is asking about why someone would cross the bridge from "Never used that drug" to "Have used that drug". Both deliberate and unconscious peer pressure would play a major role (that's what's at play when young people get smashed on alcohol, and continues when they immediately hop in their cars full of their equally smashed mates and go and drive into trees at 120 kph). -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 18:48, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes Jack ofoz understood me correctly Pass a Method talk 19:25, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Yet Jack has failed to illustrate why a peer-preussure would exist for something so unappealing. Pass a Method talk 19:28, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

They are unappealing to you, but obviously not to others. See this study, for example, in response to your question. Marco polo (talk) 21:04, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

That's just it, they're not unappealing to a number of people. Some will use it just for recreation, others to escape the unpleasantness of their life for a while. Plus, people have a strong capacity for assuming the bad side "would never happen to me." — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:29, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

What's this "failed" business, Pass a Method? Failure occurs only when one identifies a goal, attempts to reach it, but falls short. I never said I would illustrate why peer-pressure would exist for something so unappealing. Mainly because I don't know. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 11:53, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I've heard drug and alcohol abuse described as "self-medicating". That is, those substances provide some benefit similar to medication. One example is pain relievers. I wonder if people who feel pain more intensely are thus more likely to abuse pain killers. StuRat (talk) 21:10, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't see anything unappealing in taking drugs if you don't think about the future. OsmanRF34 (talk) 23:20, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

HELP IDENTIFYING PIECE OF ANTIQUE GOLD JEWELRY (POSSIBLY GEORGIAN ERA)

jewelry in question

Hi, so this is the first time I have used this forum. But it seems like it might be the right place to ask:

I came across this antique jewelry set, and would like to know some more information on it if possible.

All I know for certain is that it is at least 18 karat gold (I only have 18k test acid and lower).

And I am fairly certain the stones are garnets. A jeweler friend of mine thinks it might be Georgian era, but even he concedes that it is older than the time frame his field of knowledge is limited to.

Pics attached. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thennekmay (talk • contribs) 17:10, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

We can't view pictures that are located on your computer. If you want us to see them, you'll have to upload them either to a Wikimedia site (which is a bit of an ordeal), or to some other photo-sharing site and then give us links to them. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 17:18, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

For a wizard to guide you through uploading to Wikipedia, see here. However, like Looie says, it's a fairly involved process, so you might find using something like http://tinypic.com/ (other image sharing sites are available) to be more convenient. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 17:21, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Link to picture: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Frontal_picture_of_jewelry_piece_in_question.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thennekmay (talk • contribs) 17:18, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I can never tell much from a photo, but just as a matter of vocabulary what you have seems to be a parure consisting of earrings, necklace and brooch. Since it comes in a case, with no missing items, you can be reasonably sure it's complete. You should look for jewelry markings or stamps that indicate the materials used in their construction. If you're very lucky there may also be a maker's mark. Look on the case as well as on the jewelry. - Nunh-huh 22:35, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Looks like garnets (or maybe a dark spinel?) to my untrained eye. As NH says, I'd go over it very closely looking for any kind of hallmark or a maker's mark, as this may be able to date it as well as giving information about what it is; the back of the brooch may be a good place to look. Andrew Gray (talk) 12:22, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

A "new" type of discrimination?

I know this will anger more than a few people here, but I think it needs to be said: is there a "new" type of discrimination going on in today's society? When most people think of discrimination, they think of racism and sexism: "all black people are stupid", "women should stay in the kitchen", etc. However, I am noticing a new type of stereotyping occurring across many different aspects of popular culture, stereotyping based on subculture and interests. A perfect example of this is the widespread hatred of hipsters and nerds. "Nerds" are important to the development of many of today's technology (smartphones, Facebook and the like,) and yet they are treated by the majority of people as being worthy of contempt. And hipsters...well, people use that word in so many contradictory and confusing ways I have no idea what the hell it's supposed to mean, but people still spit on them, whatever they are, anyway.

So, all of this really begs the question: does this constitute a new "form" of discrimination?

(For the record, I do not consider myself a nerd or hipster.) --72.28.136.205 (talk) 18:40, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

What's new about that? See Revenge of the Nerds, for example. Looie496 (talk) 18:46, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I would say no. First, people have been made fun of for personal, rather than physical, characteristics since Ancient Rome, so it's not new. Second, I've never seen any instances of legitimate discrimination directed towards these groups. Ryan Vesey 18:49, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Ah, well. I just know that at my workplace, being called a hipster is the equivalent of being sent to the electric chair. --72.28.136.205 (talk) 18:52, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, in the UK, such discrimination has been recognised, and this link is about people being arrested for beating up a member of a subculture. So yes, you're right. --TammyMoet (talk) 19:12, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

It's important to note that that arrest was for, well, beating someone up - which is a criminal offence anyway. It's just that the local police force have started recording subculture-based hatred as a factor in their crime statistics. The Equality Act and other UK legislation is extremely clear on what features are protected categories for sentencing purposes, and subculture is not included. AlexTiefling (talk) 19:17, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

You mean it's a cruel and unusual means of execution that any sensible nation would abolish?

Grumpiness about hyperbole aside, this is neither a new nor an interesting phenomenon. AlexTiefling (talk) 19:17, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Neither is the term "hipster". Haven't heard that one used for decades. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:20, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh, it's back. Very popular now on web boards, referring to the "I knew about them before they went commercial and sold out" person, or the "I can only refer to popular things with condescending sarcasm" person. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:35, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

When I hear "hipster", I think Maynard G. Krebs, or possibly the "hippies", many of whom evolved into "yuppies". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:30, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

One of the most widespread discrimination patterns, based on behavior rather than appearance, is against homosexuals. In many places government regulations have been put in place to prevent that. Religion could also qualify. So, it's not completely impossible that other forms of discrimination against people based on their clothing, beliefs, behavior, etc., could be banned. For example, night clubs that only allow "the in crowd" to enter might be forced to let everybody in.

Personally, I think the idea of having numerous protected classes is untenable. Instead, the law should state "you may only discriminate based on factors which you can prove will damage the profitability of your business". Thus, if they wanted to keep nerds out, they would need to prove that night clubs with nerds in them are less profitable. (I suppose it's possible.) StuRat (talk) 21:21, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

That would backfire spectacularly in heavily discriminatory regions. It wouldn't take much effort for, say, a popular racist hangout to prove that if they let "colored" in, the regulars would stop coming. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:38, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but then they would have new income from their new clients. So, to keep them out, they would need to prove that their old clients pay more than the new would. As a practical matter, if the burden of proof was on them, most wouldn't bother. StuRat (talk) 21:44, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

• But what about the hikkomori? μηδείς (talk) 00:30, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Are smartphones and facebook so important or useful? ¦ Reisio (talk) 16:13, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Nerds are not discriminated in their niche: IT. And that's a huge industry. The best definition of hipster that I know is: a kind of hippie with an iPhone. I suppose they are not discriminated in some field like design or art. OsmanRF34 (talk) 23:18, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Maybe you've all hit the pandora's box that discrimination is a necessary, and usually good part of life. We discriminate against threatening looking people, against dumb people, against people we're not attracted to, against dumb reference desk posters, etc. I hate to return to such elementary logic but this notion of "discrimination" as some end-all of evil without thinking it through has become absurd. If you want to call "discrimination", which really just means making judgments based on incomplete information, an awful thing, then I invite you to live your life without any discrimination. Here's a life tip: not everyone will like you, and you won't like everyone else. That's "discrimination". It's not justification for you to go crying off to some authority figure, although that seems to be the direction we're headed. It'd be nice if we'd all quit acting like children. Shadowjams (talk) 11:42, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

The EO page on that term is interesting, especially the Hitchens quote.[5] The term is not inherently bad, and the specification of racial discrimination (which is a legalistic kind of euphemism for "systemic racism") seems to have evolved into just "discrimination". Some discrimination (such as racial) is illegal, and some is not. Like if you would interview a prospective employee and ask if they smoke. They could say, "That's discrimination!" and you could answer, "Yes, it is. So?" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:59, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

The word discrimination is ambiguous, but that shouldn't be a problem is you discriminate between both meanings. People normally discern between unlawful discrimination (race, religion and some other categories) and lawful discrimination (intelligence, education). I normally don't see any problem and having some protected categories, unless you believe a hospital, university, or shop could have any valid reason to bar women, blacks or Jews from accessing it. BTW, if you have any valid reason, then it's not unlawful discrimination anymore and it's OK. OsmanRF34 (talk) 16:05, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Ah, but only if it's "valid" as defined in the law. Being "valid" merely because you believe it to be valid is not necessarily sufficient. But enough of pseudo-legal advice. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 20:43, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

World War II and Hitler

It is my understanding that Hitler was racist against the Japanese and only allied with them for practical reasons. If this is true, why did he declare war on the US after pearl harbor? He clearly had no intention of invading them, and he could have easily negotiated a truce if the US wanted war with Germany. I doubt he would have declared war on a super power just to maintain solidarity with Japan. Did he have some other motive for declaring war? I am not Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:55, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

By that time the US was giving England so much support that there was almost an undeclared war anyway. According to Winston Churchill's history, a major factor was that declaring war would allow the German U-boats to attack America-to-England shipping much more freely. In the months after the declaration they sank enormous amounts of shipping in the American coastal zone, which they hadn't been able to enter before. Another factor was that Hitler believed America would declare war on him in any case, and he thought that for propaganda purposes it would be better for him to do it first. There were other factors, but Churchill believed that those were the most important. (By the way, I wish you would use a different signature. I find this one kind of annoying.) Looie496 (talk) 20:34, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, that clears things up.GurkhaGherkin (talk) 20:57, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Looie's answer misses the point entirely. Japanese were treated as Honorary Aryans based on a lot of pseudoscientific race research. There are various other articles such as those on Turanian race to look into. μηδείς (talk) 21:36, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I think you've got it backwards, μηδείς. Those convoluted excuses for treating the Japanese as equals was only implemented because the Nazis wanted to encourage the Japanese expansion in the Pacific. It took resources away from potential enemies, and kept those powers from focusing entirely on Germany. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:46, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

No, I have studied this tangentially in detail and the "research" existed long before the alliance was declared. The Japanese were considered the height of the Turanian race and this was posited long before WWII. If the OP cares he can look into it. μηδείς (talk) 22:28, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

You might also ask, if the US was offering so much support for Hitler's enemies, why Hitler didn't declare war on the US earlier. Well, the calculation was that, as harmful as the support for Germany's enemies was, having to fight the US, in addition to all their current enemies, would be even worse. However, after Pearl Harbor, Germany figured the US would go after Japan, and not have the resources to fight a two-front war, and thus would need to withdraw from it's support of England. However, this turned out to be an incorrect assessment. StuRat (talk) 21:55, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

In particular, the US wartime production of apostrophes was so great, they could squander them on bare, unadorned "its", much to the envy of all, particularly the grammar police. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:19, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Like

I've heard the theory that Hitler's declaring war on the U.S. when he did was one of his [many] strategic blunders. While after Pearl Harbor it was certain the U.S. would go to war against Japan, it was less clear the U.S. wanted to get involved in Europe, but Hitler made that much easier for Roosevelt. Shadowjams (talk) 18:07, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

One important fact that often is often understated is that Germany, as well as the UK, and a number of other European countries, were operating in supplying arms and uniforms to both sides of the Chinese in their revolution, which was interrupted by the Japanese invasion. All European sides were interested in who was going to win in this three-side war, and so supplied them all with weapons and let them fight it out. Then war broke out in Europe. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 08:48, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

The most dramatic of which you fail to mention... Russia and Germany had a pact that Hitler broke, and Stalin was apparently personally offended by... maybe part of his paranoia. And it was quite distinct which side of the Chinese each side was supplying. The tiny island of Taiwan has done quite well for itself... Shadowjams (talk) 12:50, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Germany was also supplying weapons and equipment to Finland before that pact, which enabled the Finns to annihilate the Soviet attack (and also caused a lot of Brits and Americans who had been fighting in the war against Russia to try to escape, because by then we were at war with Germany, and Russia was an ally, but so was Finland). KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 19:58, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Foreskin Restoration

Help! I've lived my whole life as a circumcised man, and never known the difference between having a foreskin or not. Now I've done research, and it would appear that restoration can increase sensitivity and moisture. This would help me greatly, as I have an insensitive penis and it is very hard for me to have pleasure. Are there any communities, websites or groups devoted to the cause of helping people to get their foreskin back? I want to be whole again! Help! --174.79.50.132 (talk) 20:15, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

What did you find in the course of your research? Dismas|^(talk) 20:32, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Mostly what I found in Wikipedia's own page on it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.79.50.132 (talk) 20:34, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Before getting too carried away, check out smegma. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:18, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Ha ha, very funny. I've done my research, and you just need to wash it. This does not deter me from wanting a whole, natural penis.

What's wrong with the one you've got? Doesn't it work? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:29, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

There's an answer to that in the fourth sentence of the OP's question. HiLo48 (talk) 22:59, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Compared to what, though? And he should discuss this with a doctor before doing something radical. The problem could lie elsewhere than what he suspects. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:03, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the comparison point is an interesting one. I don't how easily one could accurately compare one's own feelings during sexual activity to those of others. And yes, seeing a mainstream health professional would be essential. HiLo48 (talk) 23:17, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Anecdatally, I know some people and read about others who've been circumcised post-puberty, and they usually report a significant loss of pleasure/sensation after the snip compared to before.

Btw, Bugs, mentioning smegma as a justification for circumcision would be like suggesting someone sew up their anus because their farts are smelly. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 00:46, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

The point being that in trying to fix a perceived problem, he might create a new problem and not even get the original problem resolved. That's why a doctor's advice is needed. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:53, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh absolutely. Couldn't agree with you more. Which is why a smegmatic reference was inappropriate. The doctor is the best person to run through the issues with the patient. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 02:02, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

And now, of course, we're going to have to make the first addition to the Four Temperaments since Hippocrates in Ancient Greece. The Five Temperaments are now: Sanguine, Melancholic, Choleric, Phlegmatic and Smegmatic (mycobacteria tend to be your smegmatics). -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 09:44, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, there are such groups. A quick Google search would give you quite a few hits. That said, there's no proven method to fully restore it. Plastic surgery (transplanting skin from another part of the body) is the most effective way that I've come across. You will come across a ton of "self-remedies" that are of dubious worth, and some that could easily be damaging! Your best bet is to just go ask an actual physician what your options are. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:52, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Matron of honor - Catholic marriage

In a Catholic wedding ceremony, can the mother of the bride or groom be selected as "matron of honor", provided that the matron must be married and must be a practicing Catholic? Can the father of the bride or groom be selected as "best man"? Also, what happens if two or more unrelated couples just happen to schedule a wedding ceremony at the same time? Does that mean one of them have to re-schedule the wedding ceremony? Sneazy (talk) 20:55, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Either that, or have a double wedding. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:17, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Titles like that have no religious significance. All that matters is the priest, a second witness, and the bride and groom. Feel free to appoint a giraffe of honor if you like, and the venue can accommodate it. Now, the real question is, what about Episcopalians? μηδείς (talk) 21:31, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Re the scheduling question: It can't happen unless the church's administrative procedures are wacko. Couples do not decide in isolation that they will be married in Church A on Day B at Time C. They have to involve the church in the matter to see if this is suitable. If another wedding has already been scheduled for that day and time, the later couple will have to choose a different time. That is a matter of simple common sense, not something you really need to seek the advice of a Reference Desk about. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 21:46, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I am going to take the hint that Baseball_Bugs was being sarcastic. Apparently, Baseball_Bugs seemed to suggest that there is a choice between rescheduling a wedding and holding a double wedding, while JackofOz suggested that it would be commonsensical to just reschedule weddings.

No, I said it would not be scheduled in the first place unless there was a space in the church's calendar/diary. A couple who think they'd like to be married on a certain date at a certain time - that does not amount to a "scheduling" until the church agrees it's OK to hold it on that date and at that time. A "rescheduling" would only occur if the date and time are agreed by all parties, and then something like an illness happens that causes plans to be changed. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 00:34, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I also did a quick search on Google, and it appears that some people on random websites asked this question about inviting the mother or father of the bride/groom to be the matron of honor or best man. I wonder what does Medeis mean by a "second witness". I understand the purpose of the priest in the wedding, which is supposed to act as a wedding officiant. I suppose a wedding officiant is someone who performs weddings. So, where does the "second witness" play a role in the wedding? Sneazy (talk) 22:57, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

In the UK at least, the wedding has to be attended by "Two witnesses, who must be over 16, (who) must also sign at the time of the marriage. Witnesses must understand the language of the ceremony and have the mental capacity to understand the nature of the ceremony."[6] A quick Google suggests that one or two witnesses are required by some American States. Alansplodge (talk) 23:26, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't want to argue or anything, but I'm just curious: what is the purpose of having witnesses or a wedding officiant in the first place? Sneazy (talk) 23:30, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Not if they're required by law - most developed nations have quite strict rules about marriage. Alansplodge (talk) 23:42, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Sneazy, the purpose of the witnesses is just that, to witness. They can then verify that the two are married. Dismas|^(talk) 23:54, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Is the couple allowed to pick their witnesses? Are the parents allowed to be their children's witnesses? What if the parents want to see their children married because the marriage was arranged? Sneazy (talk) 00:03, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

It's not a matter of 'allowed'. As far as I know, in most jurisdictions the couple is expected to provide the witnesses. The only general requirement is the witness is of sufficient age although in NZ there is no fixed age requirement [7] rather 'Children may act as witnesses if they understand the importance of the part they take in the recording of the marriage and can demonstrate that understanding in court if later required to do so'. For a ceremony taking place in the registry office or similar, it's possible employees could stand in for them [8] but I'm not sure if this would be possible in every jurisdiction or location e.g. the UK apparently doesn't allow registry office staff to be witnesses [9]. In most cases you could probably just find someone from the street or perhaps another couple waiting to get married as I don't believe there is generally a requirement the witnesses actually know the couple. In NZ and it seems in the UK, there is no problem with the witnesses being related, but it's possible in some jurisdictions this isn't allowed or at least they can't both be closely related to the same family since as I understand it, in some jurisdictions technically the witnesses are also supposed to be witnessing that the wedding is taking place on the free will of both participants (and I believe a key reason why there are usually at least two witnesses is because each member of the couple is expected to name one witness). Note that I'm primarily thinking of this from a general wedding POV, it's possible the Catholic church may impose additional requirements on witnesses but these sources [10] [11] for example doesn't mention any (but does clarify that witnesses are required by church law as well). Nil Einne (talk) 00:28, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Jack's got it right, but there is such a thing as a double wedding. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:01, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. I was married in a double wedding. It was planned and not due to a scheduling error. I think I would have known if anyone else was planning on getting married on my front lawn. Dismas|^(talk) 23:54, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

• Oddly enough, we do have an article Catholic marriage. μηδείς (talk) 00:27, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

April 25

Active societies promulgating Jakob Lorber's work

Hi - there are several sites on the web, but the email links don't seem to be operating - I'd like to get in touch with whomever has copyright over his writing, and/or any Jakob Lorber societies that are still functioning, especially English-speaking ones.

Thanks,

Adambrowne666 (talk) 02:46, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Do you mean this Jakob Lorber, who died in 1864? That would mean his writings are in the public domain in every jurisdiction that I know of - no copyright. 184.147.125.78 (talk) 11:39, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Ah, I see that his writings were published post-humously (don't know the dates); I don't know if that affects the copyright status. Our article says the German company Lorber & Turm holds most of the original writings in an archive. Their contact page is here. Have to go, hope someone else can help you with the societies, and in figuring out the copyright status. 184.147.125.78 (talk) 11:52, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, 184.147.125.78 - i will try that avenue. Adambrowne666 (talk) 05:14, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Post-humous, as in after he's turned to soil? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:18, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Or after the grave-digger turned up the soil. StuRat (talk) 04:31, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Impact of shared government services on balance of trade

I think I already know the answer to my question, but I'd like to have it sanity checked by people who might actually have survived through some sort of economics course.

Assume we have two countries, A and B, which share a common defence force. With defence being a public good, A and B decide to fund defence spending on a per capita basis, so A contributes $(population * X) and so does B. So far, so simple. But life's never simple. For the sake of this argument, let's assume that spending (and hence employment, etc) on defence is distributed logically. And logic dictates that instead of the ratio being a per capita one, spending in country B is only 50% of $(population * X) with the balance spent in A.

(If a real-world example helps, you could imagine a NATO member state that wasn't Belgium or Luxemburg. Although the amount concerned is a tiny fraction of the total defence budget, some part of that budget is spent on NATO's various shared services in Belgium, Luxemburg, etc. Or if you fancied a different public good, you could imagine an European Union member state's contribution to the EU's admin budget.)

My assumption is that the 50% of B's defence budget which ends up being spent in A is, in economic terms, importing services - specifically the public good of defence - from A. Is this correct? Does the service component of A and B's respective balance of payments numbers include this transaction? "Yes" is fine as an answer, but if it's "No" then please help me understand why that is! Many thanks in advance, Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:59, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

In trying to think of real-world examples, I don't think "balance of payment" applies here. When country A transfers money to country B for defense purposes, it is treated as a gift, I believe, rather than as payment for a service. The example that comes to mind is the US relationship with Israel -- we provide massive support for their defense expenditures, but we treat it as foreign aid, not as payment. Looie496 (talk) 16:15, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I had in mind a relationship like NATO in the defence field - NATO has some shared assets like HQs in Belgium and E-3 Sentry AWACS planes somewhere funded by its membership - rather than straightforward gifts. But even US aid to Israel has to show up in the various national accounts of both countries somehow. Can't have debits without credits. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:54, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

You think? I read one paper about a part of the EC commission being criticized for not using double entry bookkeeping and I was unable to find any indication that HM Treasury used it. Do we actually know if finance departments of governments use it? Dmcq (talk) 13:34, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Alas, I am only guessing. If I knew already I wouldn't be asking. But never fear, there are three universities nearby with significant economics departments. One way or another I'll know some day, even if it costs me a lunch or two. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:44, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

is this guy an idiot?

Not answerable with references & Wikipedia is not the place for opinions.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
"If any of you take Britain's future seriously then you must know by now that Britain has to get out of the EU to continue to run our own Political system. At the moment Parliament is bossed around daily by Brussels. All this Homosexual and Lesbian Marriage stuff all comes from the EU in Brussels . It is now a crisis in France. If we want our own Country back you have to vote UKIP. The ony Party dedicated to remove Britain from Europe. The Tory Party is full of people with the same view, but are frightened to speak out loudlu and effectively enough to force the likes of the Tory hierarchy and the Lib Dems like Clegg to do anything . They love Europe and its gravy train potential Clegg has already had a basin full, as well as Kinnock and Mandelson. They are all now millioniares on the back of it , of course they will keep it going as a fall back position for themselves.. Vote UKIP and have done with it now." I think so but perhaps I don't understand his point. Horatio Snickers (talk) 19:31, 25 April 2013 (UTC) This is not a forum for debate so we can't answer your question. --TammyMoet (talk) 19:48, 25 April 2013 (UTC) I dont want a debate - I just want to know if his argument works in basic sentential logic or if he's very confused. Horatio Snickers (talk) 20:02, 25 April 2013 (UTC) I'm pretty sure you're presenting a false choice, but that said, I see no reason to conclude that it's internally logically meaningless. All the statement really says is "this party is the only one that can accomplish what's needed", and that is (from a logical standpoint) perfectly valid. It doesn't really concern itself with any of the hows, whys, or details that might be usefully subject to logical analysis. — Lomn 20:26, 25 April 2013 (UTC) Whether or not a person's argument is logical gives no evidence whether a person is idiotic or confused. A shrewd, intelligent, and rational person may make inaccurate, illogical, and irrational statements because they believe that those statements will advance their cause. So it isn't possible to answer the question in your heading with the evidence provided. It is possible to assess the accuracy of some of this person's assertions. For example, it is certainly not true that support for same-sex marriage in Britain comes only from the EU. In fact, the EU has no position on the matter, and there is plenty of support for it among Britons with no significant connection to the EU. On the other hand, it is certainly true that because the UK is a member of the EU, Parliament has to take into account EU rules very frequently, and perhaps nearly daily, as he asserts, though this does not necessarily amount to being "bossed around." This person's assertion that leading Conservatives and Liberal Democrats support the EU because they have gained personally is doubtful. These individuals could command high compensation whether their work was involved with the EU or not, so unless there are clear cases of corruption, it's hard to argue that they support the EU for personal gain. On the other hand, there is plenty of evidence that most major financial contributors to all major UK parties (except the UKIP) support EU membership for the UK, most likely because people with money are concerned about their firms' profitability, and Britain's EU membership is good for business. So the person's statement is a mix of untruths, partial truths, and untruths. As I've pointed out, though, that has nothing to do with the person's intelligence, and it says nothing about whether his goal (exit from the EU) would be good or bad for the UK. Marco polo (talk) 20:35, 25 April 2013 (UTC) Is this a real quote? maybe from an election leaflet? It is county council election time in England, and UKIP candidates are hoping to get more votes than usual from regular Tory voters. Like other small parties they have fewer people to choose their candidates from, so there will be plenty who don't have the typical politician's way of presenting an argument, or prefer the "man in the pub" type of language found here. If this person ever got elected to the local council he(?) would be required to take part in making serious decisions, representing constituents, etc, and would very quickly become out of their depth. A bit like the Five Star movement in Italy as far as I know. Sussexonian (talk) 21:07, 25 April 2013 (UTC) If it is real, it doesn't appear to have made it on to the Internet in the form quoted above. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 21:45, 25 April 2013 (UTC) I totally agree with Marco Polo's comment above - "A shrewd, intelligent, and rational person may make inaccurate, illogical, and irrational statements because they believe that those statements will advance their cause." I've seen some very clever but sneaky politicians say things that they probably don't believe themselves but that will appeal to the bigots, nationalists or racists, etc. in society simply to gain their votes. I don't believe what politicians say. I find that a practical starting point for understanding their behaviour. HiLo48 (talk) 21:56, 25 April 2013 (UTC) Not disagreeing with you on not believing what they say, but I don't understand how that's a starting point for understanding them. Now, if you were to believe the opposite of what they say, that would be a starting point, maybe helpful maybe not. But just not believing it? How does that give you any information? --Trovatore (talk) 22:01, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

This is a reference desk. Even if idiot had a clear definition, which it doesn't, no reference can tell you whether or not this person is an idiot. --128.112.25.104 (talk) 22:12, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

April 26

Living people associated with Nazi Germany

I saw the article Otto Carius and he is living. Is there other people who is still living and was associated with organizations in Nazi Germany? --Yoglti (talk) 03:57, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

My neighbor Otto Carius (photo) is believed to be the eldest still active pharmacist in Germany. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 18:32, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Pope Benedict XVI was in the Hitler Youth, though apparently unenthusiastically so. Many such German residents of his age would have been, and so there are probably many living people who were. --Jayron32 04:05, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Here are some: Rochus Misch. Erich Priebke. Rudolf von Ribbentrop. Oskar Gröning. Søren Kam. Gerhard Sommer. Heinrich Boere. Eberhard Heder. Joachim Boosfeld. Friedrich Buck. Karl-Heinz Euling. Hans Hoffmann. Klaus Dylewski. Gerda Warko. Margot Wölk. --Viennese Waltz 04:23, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I mean, ultimately it comes down to "Is there anyone still alive today who also lived in 1930s-1940s Germany". While not every resident of Germany was formally involved in Nazi organizations, enough were that there are probably quite a few alive today. --Jayron32 05:18, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, like former chancellor Helmut Schmidt or Nobel-prize winner Günter Grass. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 01:52, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

What do you mean by "organizations in Nazi Germany"? Does a firefighter or teacher employed by the state count? If so, any country is going to have a large group of civil servants. I don't think it's particularly interesting to track down who all these civil servants were. --140.180.249.226 (talk) 05:25, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

An interesting side note: when Nobel Prize laureate François Jacob died earlier this week, French newspapers pointed out that there were only 16 Compagnon de la Libération left alive (out of over 1000 recipients). The ranks of persons who played a significant role around World War II are thinning out around the world. --Xuxl (talk) 07:45, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

My next door neighbour was in the Hitler Youth. Now I'm simply an Aussie of mature years. A bit of simple maths - you could be in the Hitler Youth at age 10. It operated until 1945. A ten year old joining in 1945 would be 78 this year. Plenty of 78 year olds around. HiLo48 (talk) 08:02, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I wonder how many joined in 1945. By then it should have been apparent to all that Nazi Germany was on it's last legs. StuRat (talk) 08:06, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

The very fact that it was on its last legs led to every living person in Berlin being required and expected to work in the final defence against the Soviet attack. Some generals were so appalled by this, that when they asked what weapons they were to supply the population with, and were told Panzerfausts (which is a one-shot, disposable weapon), they retorted 'And what do we do when they have been fired?", and the reply from one General was "Well, we can use the tubes as clubs." Everyone was expected to fight - pensioners, women, and children. And most of them did, because they didn't know what would happen to them if they didn't. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 08:35, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

10 year-old boys joined the Deutsches Jungvolk until the age of 14; it was the junior section of the Hitler Jugend. According to our article, membership of the Jungvolk was compulsory "in some areas". The boys that were fighting in Berlin were, as far as I know, in the HJ proper; i.e. 14 and over. I'll try to find a reference. I've never read of Jungvolk being used in a combat role, but I suppose that it's possible. They certainly helped the authorities during air-raids, but becoming a Flakhelfer ("anti-aircraft helper"), was a role normally filled by teenagers - our article says that the last call-up was for those born in 1928 (16 in 1945). Note that in the UK, 14 year-olds who were members of certain youth organisations could join the ARP Messenger Service, which also put them into the line of fire. Alansplodge (talk) 12:30, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

@KageTora: Or rather, they were told that the Soviets would murder, rape, and pillage. With some degree of accuracy.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:45, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

The dead-ender Nazis went around hanging "defeatists" like mayors of small towns who did not enthusiastically join in the suicidal last ditch defense against the Soviets, or who did not fly the Nazi flag in the town square when Russki tanks were approaching. Anyone who tried to sit out the end of the war was at rist of being summarily executed by the diehard Nazis as an example to the others. There are many photos of civilians who were hanged for hanging a white flag from a window of their home, for instance. Edison (talk) 14:35, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Just today, the New York Post published an article about Hitler's last living food taster, Margot Woelk, age 95. [12] (whom I now see was mentioned above by Viennese Waltz, as Margot Wölk. - Nunh-huh 02:27, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

There might be some with articles in Category:Nazis.—Wavelength (talk) 02:56, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Abolition of slavery in Illinois

When was the process of enslavement officially abolished in Illinois — was it with the passage of the 13th Amendment, or sooner? Everything I find on Google talks about the original constitution of 1818, which pretty much banned slavery but made an exception for whoever worked the Illinois Salines in Gallatin County (see Crenshaw House); the constitution apparently permitted the operator of the salines to obtain new slaves because free men couldn't be found to work the salines, and I'm basically trying to figure out when the exception for the salines was removed. Nyttend (talk) 05:06, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

This source (written for kids, but it seems to be from a valid historical society, so bear with the silly pretense) claims the exemption was repealed in 1825. This source reference the Crenshaw house, which wasn't built until 1834, but later says that Crenshaw's activities were illegal and he was eventually shut down. The first isn't the greatest source, but it does give you a date to check on in other sources, and the second doesn't give a date for when the exemption was repealed, but does imply that Crenshaw's activities weren't on the up-and-up. Just some leads to follow. --Jayron32 05:23, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Can't read it online, but this looks promising too: [13]. --Jayron32 05:30, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Illinois didn't repeal its "black laws" until after the Civil War (around 1865 it seems) (Slavery in the United States: A Social, Political, And Historical ..., Volume 2, 702) although it was a free state at the time. Illinois had indentured servitude though well after 1818. But it wasn't technically slavery by the legal understanding of the time (The Legal Understanding of Slavery: From the Historical to the Contemporary, edited by Jean Allain, p 138-39). As I understand it (and I could be wrong) the slavery in Illinois territory was largely slaves from the south (including Missouri) who were hired as indentured servants in Illinois territory. The legislature apparently banned the indenture system in 1817, but that was vetoed by governor Ninian Edwards. The 1818 constitution only had 2 caveats for slavery: 1) French were allowed to keep their slaves; 2) and indentured servant contracts remained in effect if they predated the constitution. (The Frontier Against Slavery: Western Anti-Negro Prejudice and the Slavery ... By Eugene H Berwanger, 14). They then tried for a constitutional convention in 1824 only to be rejected by a rough 5:7 margin.

I can't give a satisfying answer to your question, hopefully someone else can. But what I've gathered in my brief research, is that there wasn't formal slavery, but Illinois had a number of loopholes that made indentured servitude defacto slavery for many blacks. I don't know when that ended exactly. Shadowjams (talk) 05:40, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I added a CN to the sentence in the Crenshaw House article given some of the sources I found. Shadowjams (talk) 05:45, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

The Ninian Edwards article has some further discussion on the defacto status of indentured servitude slavery at the time. Shadowjams (talk) 05:50, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Didn't indentured servitude typically have an expiration date? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:00, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Good question. I don't know. Maybe as a contract, but as an institution, no. The 13th amendment wisely ended it though. Illinois might have done so sooner, I never found a good reference on that point though. It clearly was illegal after the 13th amendment. Shadowjams (talk) 13:04, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

If indentured servitude was a contract, and voluntary, then the 13th amendment wouldn't apply. Of course, the south found a way around it, called peonage, which was actually worse than slavery. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:50, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

It's not quite that simplistic Bugs. Our 13th amendment article explains some of the detail, but even some voluntarily entered into contracts are prohibited by the 13th Amendment. That's not the litmus test. Shadowjams (talk) 20:59, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

One of the ways Northern states like Illinois got around the prohibition of chattel slavery was to call it "indentured service" and then set the expiration date for the service contract to some unreasonable time in the future. If you sign a 20 year old male, whose life expectancy would be 60 years old, to a "term" of 99 years, that's just slavery with a legalistic work-around. See This page, which states "Under indentured servitude, African Americans were “contracted” to work for a specific term of service for no pay, under the complete dominance and control of the contract owner, and with no rights as a citizen. In many instances these “contracts” were for as long as 99 years. It is unlikely that the servants knowingly or freely entered into those contracts. Most of the servants undoubtedly claimed they never signed the contract." In many cases, slaves from the south were "emancipated" in places like Illinois by converting their slavery status to that of a 99-year indentured service contract. This was done between their "master" from the Southern state (usually Missouri or Tennessee in the case of Gallatin County, from what my readings are showing here) and their new "employer" from Illinois. I'm not sure such a change of wording produced a functional difference for the person so indentured. My understanding is that this practice continued right into the 1860s. --Jayron32 15:17, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

It's worth pointing out that the Northwest Ordinance prohibited slavery in the area that was to become Illinois in 1787. Apparently, existing residents, such as the French, were allowed to retain their slaves, and loopholes were made for "indentured servants" as reflected in the Illinois constitution, which seems to have maintained the status quo under the Northwest Ordinance. So slavery was unusual and exceptional in Illinois, but those exceptions probably weren't eliminated until the passage of the 13th Amendment. Marco polo (talk) 15:28, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

---

There's a whole long article, History of slavery in Indiana, about a neighboring state. Dred Scott was held for a time in what later became Illinois when it was a territory. During 1857-1861, many northerners interpreted the Dred Scott decision as a nefarious scheme to allow slaveowners to bring slaves into northern states for indefinite "temporary" periods... AnonMoos (talk) 15:46, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

This article from the Illinois Historical Journal seems a good overview of the the state's handling of slaves and slavery. According to the 1818 constitution (Article VI, Section 2), the exception for the salt works you (Nyttend) refer to expired in 1825, as Jayron noted above; but it may well be that slaves were used (and even brought) there after that date with no legal action being taken. Deor (talk) 15:47, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

florence italy, San Miniato cemetery, Maria Grazia Colella and Mario Mazzone, died in 1944 and 1945 story

I have found the basics, but I would really like to know the full story. Were they married. Did he die in the US bombing of Hamm Germany? Was he a POW? What did she do and how did she die? Who commissioned the couples statue? Any additional info would be helpful. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.251.126.104 (talk) 13:40, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Christopher Columbus's second trip

Is there records of about how many men Christopher Columbus took on his second trip to the New World in 1493? LordGorval (talk) 14:22, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Our article says 1,200. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 14:31, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

O.K. Great, thanks! So according to the article it says ...a fleet of 17 ships carrying 1,200... would mean then about 70 men on "average", with some (perhaps flagships) carrying more than this "average" to make this average come out for the 17 ships involved. The smaller ships I would imagine carried perhaps 50-70. Any guesses on this? LordGorval (talk) 14:48, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Didn't you just do that? --Jayron32 15:09, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

The flagships I would guess would carry, say 80-90. The smaller ships then I would guess would carry 50-60. Am I in the ballpark for fifteenth century ships that would go on long voyages? LordGorval (talk) 15:16, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, in the Columbus's_second_voyage there were 15 Carracks and 2 Caravels. The latter were much bigger, so, I suppose your guess is wrong, and there were less than 50-70 in each one. OsmanRF34 (talk) 17:48, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

United States Exploring Expedition today

Why is the United States Exploring Expedition less known or popularized as the Lewis and Clark today (outside of historians specialized in this period or regions explored)? I was talking to my college professors today and they never even heard of it.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 14:43, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps because it came later, and people tend to find historical importance in primacy? I understand that the missions had different goals and different specific areas, but broadly speaking "Mapping and exploring all that land out west" was first done on a large scale by Lewis and Clark. Later groups which did the same thing aren't viewed as historically significant, regardless of how big, different, or worthwhile their work was. Now, finding references that definitively answer your question in a specific manner will be impossible to find, you're going to get what I just gave you from different people: speculation, because your question is seeking an answer for which no one has likely studied in a systematic way. --Jayron32 15:08, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Another explanation is that it lies outside the main narratives of textbook U.S. history. The Lewis and Clark expedition are part of the narrative of westward movement, of settling and populating the American West. The USEE was more about mapping the Pacific Ocean and its periphery. The USEE could be cited as a very early case of US imperialism in the Pacific, but in textbook history, US action in the Pacific is usually presented as part of the narrative "the United States becomes a world power". The first event in that narrative is usually the Perry Expedition, followed by the annexation of Hawaii and the Spanish-American War. The USEE occurred before the United States could possibly be considered a world power, so it is hard to fit into the limited number of narratives that traditional textbooks (and state curriculum standards) can incorporate. Marco polo (talk) 15:22, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

During that period, some natives as far away as Sakhalin had heard of "Boston" due to New England ships trading in a number of areas of the Pacific; what Wikipedia has is at Old China Trade (though confined to China). AnonMoos (talk) 15:33, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

More comparable would be the Pike expedition and John Wesley Powell's expeditions which are far less well-known than Lewis&Clark but at least touched on in some school curricula. These two explored U.S. territory and a one-armed man whitewater rafting down unexplored rivers in hostile Indian country is an easy subject to teach. Rmhermen (talk) 15:55, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Searching for 3 books

My father when I was young had a 3 book collection of a "series" I remember the type of each of the books they were both separated by "Location" "thing(like a monster or a weird beast)" or I think the 3rd was "vehicles" but I am not for certain. each book was black cover and they were hard back. My father would never let me read them because he said they were scary but I read some of them anyway. I remember that in the "monster" book there was some sort of beast that may have been a worm or a mole like creature that lived the western united states that was in a desert. I hope this information was sort of useful please help me relive some lost childhood moments. I also do not know how old they were I read the books between 1994-2004. thank you very much — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.16.47.115 (talk) 20:26, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Were they stories or non-fiction? If they were no-fiction, this isn't a perfect fit, but they remind me of this: Mysteries of the Unknown. The qualify as potentially scary for kids. Mingmingla (talk) 21:30, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

April 27

Soviet poster

Does anyone know when [14] was made, and who made it? →Σσς. (Sigma) 03:13, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Looks like it could have been a Chinese poster. The small blurred text at lower left could contain the information you seek, if you can find a scan where it's readable. AnonMoos (talk) 07:10, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Tineye image search turns up [15], [16] etc... AnonMoos (talk) 07:18, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't know Russian, but the Chinese is 中苏两国人民友谊万岁, meaning "long live the Sino-Soviet friendship". The characters are in traditional Chinese, but the PRC adopted simplified Chinese characters in two rounds--1956 and 1964. By 1960, the Sino-Soviet split became heated, with each country publicly denouncing the other. The PRC only came into existence at the end of 1949. From these facts, we can probably say that the poster was created between 1949 and 1956. --140.180.240.146 (talk) 09:29, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

The Russian of course says the same thing. Those two [17] seem to have spent a lot of time together: Sussexonian (talk) 10:07, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

To be pedantic, the Russian version says, "To the health of the CCCP-China friendship".

Well, if we're translating everything, it says ""To the health of the USSR-China friendship". -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 00:48, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I did think it looked more like a civil partnership. ;-) Dmcq (talk) 10:13, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

It looks like the same style as some of those Nazi propaganda posters of the 1930s - or for that matter, some American magazine ads of the 1950s. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:25, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Literary technique for "hoping the reader isn't fully aware"?

I love the Literary technique article, it's well done. But I was wondering if there is such thing as a technique where the author employs the fact that the reader is most likely not thinking of every detail at every moment and possibly forgetting details in hopes that certain advantages can be made for plot or suspense reasons. I don't think this would be a case of forgetfulness on the author's part. For example, in Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, after two characters arrive from foreign lands to the Hogwarts Castle, Karkaroff and Madame Maxime, everyone goes into the Great Hall for dinner. The staff always eat at the head table, and Karkaroff is noted as immediately talking to Dumbledore. At the end of dinner, Karkaroff is trying to leave but notices Harry Potter... when suddenly Professor Moody appears, and Karkaroff says, "You!" While it's not explicitly stated that Moody was at the head table, he is staff, and he's always at the table eating. He also happens to be in the Great Hall when they're all leaving. So apologies for the lengthy description, but my question is, JK Rowling is probably hoping the reader misses the fact that Moody would have been at the table and there's no way Karkaroff wouldn't have noticed him immediately. Is there a technique name for this? Aside from "plot hole" or something silly? The closest I could come up with was Distancing effect, which I'm not sure is the case here. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 07:57, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Similar to continuity error in film and television but intentional. I call these literary techniques devices. tvtropes.org [18] has a lot of devices.
Sleigh (talk) 14:27, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

My term for it is "fudging". Most fiction writers, as they go along, have some sort of plan for how a scene is going to develop, but being human, they sometimes write things without realizing that they are inconsistent with the intended developments. When the inconsistency finally manifests itself, the writer has three choices: to go back and rewrite the earlier material (which may be a lot of work and may introduce other problems anyhow), or to introduce a deus ex machina to solve the problem, or to fudge. All fiction writers fudge to some degree, but good plotters like J. K. Rowling don't do much of it. Looie496 (talk) 14:52, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

But then you get the authors who obsess about this kind of thing, at least part of the time. Tolkien was delayed by weeks (months?) while writing the middle of The Lord of the Rings because he realised that one side of the story was a day apart from the other side: he observed that some characters saw the full moon X days after they separated from other characters, while the other characters saw the full moon X-1 days after the separation. He eventually made the characters on one side sit around for an extra day (by lengthening the Entmoot) in order to resolve the issue. Of course, this was lots easier than resolving the contradiction with The Hobbit, in which the already-published story was substantially different; he had to do like Looie said and produce a new edition. Nyttend (talk) 20:02, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

The inverted detective story comes to my mind, although it may not be strictly a "literary technique" per se. In this type of story, the commission of the crime and the identity of the perpetrator is described first. Then, the story describes the detective trying to solve the case. As the inverted detective story article states, R. Austin Freeman claimed to have invented the format. Even though the reader is told the details of the crime and the identity of the criminal in the first part of the story, Freeman "calculated that the reader would be so occupied with the crime that he would overlook the evidence. And so it turned out. The second part, which described the investigation of the crime, had to most readers the effect of new matter". Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:05, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Guru Nanak

I can find many sources for when the founder of Sikhism, Guru Nanak, died. But how did he die? The troubling thing is that most sources don't mention his death cause and when they do, they say something along the lines of "Guru Nanak Dev Ji the Father merged with the eternal light of the Creator". No direspect intended, but I can't take that lore for an answer. Did anyone document how he actually died, like, scientifically? Tell me Jesus of Nazareth was crucified to death, I would believe. Tell me Siddhartha Gautama Buddha died of food poisoning, I would believe. But tell me Guru Nanak turned into complete nothingness, I really can't believe. Does any Sikhism expert here know anything about Nanak's death? ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 12:21, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

And why is this troubling you? KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 12:35, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

I like my burning questions to get answered, that's why. But that's not quite the point. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 12:43, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

The cause of death may not be known exactly. You might ask User:Sikh-history. But the phrase you give I can explain; it is a problem of understanding the religious terminology. "Merged with the eternal light" = mahasamadhi, which our article does not explain very well either. A short definition is available here ("the conscious departure from the physical body of a realized soul") but that is also in the religious terminology. Essentially, a person can practice methods of deliberately going into a trance state where the heart rate slows and the body is a state of suspended animation (cf the yogis who were buried alive for months without ill effect). While in that state, the person can also conciously stop life processes in the body - in other words, he would have had the physical control to will himself to death - or more accurately, to stop willing to live. I regret I could not find a reference in English. 184.147.121.2 (talk) 13:19, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Then how do you explain the disappearance of Nanak's body? According to most sources, in the morning, only the flowers left by the Muslims and the Hindus were left. His body was nowhere to be found. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 13:26, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Googling "Guru Nanak died from" returns one hit: "At age sixty-nine, Guru Nanak died from self-imposed starvation".--Shantavira|^{feed me} 13:53, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

LOL you ask me to explain a miracle? I doubt that part of the question is answerable other than by speculations. 184.147.121.2 (talk) 19:53, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

French quotation about balls

Looking for nice quotations in French, preferably from some well-known literary/cultural figure, that is about or mentions balls (as in dances, not footballs or anything else you might be thinking of). It's proving a difficult thing to Google, so I wondered if anything sprung to anyone's minds.

Thanks, Daniel (‽) 15:28, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Just to clarify, are you looking for quotations originally written in French, or quotations from other languages translated into French? If you speak French and want an answer from other French speakers, you might like to try L'Oracle, French Wikipedia's own reference desk. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 16:08, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

• "Les bals les plus réussis sont ceux dont on parle le plus sans y être allé." Salvador Dali, Journal d'un génie adolescent.
• "Les bals de l'Opéra sont l'endroit où l'on s'ennuie le plus et où l'on retourne avec le plus de plaisir." Alexandre Dumas père, Herminie.

Try www.citations.com for more. - Karenjc 17:24, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Sources as to common age of marriage at the time of Muhammad?

There are many sources on the internet claiming that marriage of adult men to 9 year old girls was common practice at the time of Muhammad. Does anyone know where I can find sources to this fact? Primary sources, or valid studies, with proof that it was common practice to marry girls of 9 or there abouts? 217.210.200.246 (talk) 19:21, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Surely it would vary from place to place worldwide. Are you asking just about Arabia, or worldwide? Nyttend (talk) 19:54, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm talking about Arabia. And consummated marriage. Thank you for asking m to clarify. 217.210.200.246 (talk) 20:20, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

There is some information - albeit on current practices - in our article Child marriage (see the section on the Middle east). The references may also be useful. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 20:32, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Throughout the Middle Ages in the Muslim world and in Christian Europe the official minimum age of marriage was 12 for girls and 14 for boys. Children could be promised in marriage from any age and there was not the gap between the statuses of betrothal and marriage that there is today. Consummation of unions was expected in the early teens. In the specific case of Muhammad, the texts that relate to his marriage to Aisha are considered by Western scholars to be late additions, while Muslims, for doctrinal reasons, believe they are contemporary with the events. As a non-Muslim interested in the history, I would answer the question "Was the marriage between Muhammad and Aisha consummated at an early age?" as "Only two people ever knew, and they are both long dead." In response to the broader question of whether children were forced into early marriages and early sex that was essentially rape, the answer is definitely yes. Prince Lionel of England married Violante Visconti when she was 13, we have no reason to doubt that the marriage was consummated, she died soon afterwards. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:35, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually, this is what's called evidence against interest, which is usually considered weighty in a court of law. People who claim Jesus never existed, for example, would have a hard time explaining why his last word's on the cross would be reported by one witness as "Father, Father, why hast thou forsaken me?" (Forgers would be unlikely to create such a quote describing the Messiah as losing faith as he died.) Likewise, Qur'anic evidence that Mohammed consummated a marriage with a nine-year-old should be taken as highly reliable, given the fact that later forgers are so unlikely to portray him in such an unfavorable light, even on his own barbarous terms. μηδείς (talk) 00:20, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Ah, yes, the good ol' criterion of embarrassment. I suppose such an analysis of the Aisha issue would be dependent upon when the text recording the event was composed, and whether or not the incident recorded would have constituted an embarrassment in that societal context. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:30, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Pbuh, as they say. Edison (talk) 00:32, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

You're assuming that marrying a 9-year-old would be seen in an "unfavorable light" by the authors of the Quran. But we don't know if that's true, which is what the OP's question is about. --140.180.240.146 (talk) 01:03, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. That is what I'm looking to resolve. I am trying to find out: Had Muhammad married and consummated marriage with a 9 year old, would that have been common practice in his own time and culture, and are there primary sources, or valid studies, with proof to this being the case? 217.210.200.246 (talk) 07:00, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

---

First off, the marriage between Muhammad and `Aisha took place when she was 6, the consummation when she was 9. Second, this is not recorded in the Qur'an at all, but in Hadith. Third, such hadiths (Sahih Bukhari, volume 5, book 58, number 234, etc) were not significantly disputed among Muslims, or commonly considered to cast Muhammad in a negative light, until it became a sensitive issue due to being raised by Christians studying Islam in the modern period. In fact, it's been used to set the minimum age of marriage for girls at 9 lunar years (more like 8 years, 9 months in solar calendar terms) at some places and times. So "The age of majority for boys is fifteen lunar years and for girls nine lunar years" according to article 1210 of the Civil Code of the Islamic Republic of Iran.[19]
In any case, the youngest age of marriage according to ca. 600 A.D. Arab tribal customs (something which I doubt whether there's too much available information about) is only relevant when examining the claim that Muhammad was no worse than typical Arab tribal chieftains of the time. However, the more typical Muslim claim is that Muhammad is an ideal model and pattern for all humanity for all time... AnonMoos (talk) 07:03, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, and that claim is like most other claims based on religion: "wrong". Nevertheless, in the world of reason, it is useful to examine what moral status Muhammad would have had in his own society. If he was substantially more brutal and barbaric than the typical Arab chieftain, that's just one more strike against the arrogant claims of religion. If he was substantially better, he could rightly be considered an inspirational figure, even though his actions are undoubtedly barbaric by today's enlightened standards.

Anyhow, back to the OP's question. I agree that finding reliable sources about marriage in 6th century Arabia would be difficult, if not impossible. Arabia was an impoverished, sparsely populated, and nearly illiterate region. You might like to check out this article section on marriageable ages around the world, which shows that as late as the 13th century in some regions of Europe, marriage of girls below 12 was considered normal. --Bowlhover (talk) 07:43, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much. As far as I can tell this adds credibility to the claim, that claims that marriage between adult males and children, girls of 6-9, was common practice, are unsubstantiated. 217.210.200.246 (talk) 07:55, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Opposite of hasty generalization

What's the opposite of hasty generalization? Here's the situation I'm imagining: imagine that study after study around the world for many years always shows that 95% of sufferers from a disease will heal rapidly, while 5% will die. Another person gets the illness, and the doctor says "Don't worry; 95% of sufferers heal rapidly, so of course you'll get better." Of course he should have said "You have really good chances of recovering, because 95% of sufferers heal rapidly". In other words, the doctor is forgetting that although we can predict with certainty what will happen for any group of people with the disease, we can never predict whether a specific person will be in the 95% or the 5%. What fallacy is this? I've searched through {{Informal fallacy}} and {{Relevance fallacies}} without finding anything, and Google simply sent me back to the articles I'd just checked without success. Nyttend (talk) 20:10, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Ecological fallacy? Fallacy of division? Ludic fallacy? Gambler's fallacy? Prosecutor's fallacy? 24.23.196.85 (talk) 21:24, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Positively fallacious! ¦ Reisio (talk) 21:57, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Not exactly any of those, although somewhat related to the ecological fallacy. Take that page's discussion of voting patterns and income levels; the person committing my fallacy would read "62% of voters with annual incomes over $200,000 voted for Bush, but only 36% of voters with annual incomes of $15,000 or less voted for Bush" and imagine that he could thereby determine how a specific person with $10,000 income had voted. Nyttend (talk) 23:02, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Rio pact

Which four members of the Rio pact (see Collective security#Recent events) have actively joined our country in the Great War on Terror? I know that El Salvador was one -- what were the other three? 24.23.196.85 (talk) 21:17, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

April 28

Royal converts to Protestantism

Has there been any major royal figure who converted to Protestantism from Catholicism after the Reformation and the Wars of Religion? So like in the Catholic powers of Austria, France and Spain.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 01:18, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Take a look through Category:Converts to Protestantism there may be some. Princess Irene of the Netherlands went the other way. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 05:30, 28 April 2013 (UTC)