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

May 24

How many times did Phil Esposito score against Tony Esposito?

I know Phil Esposito scored twice on Tony in Tony's first game (which wasn't very polite) but how many career goals did Phil have on Tony? I've done quite a bit of searching but need help. Hayttom 09:05, 24 May 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hayttom (talk • contribs)

Using the game logs at the Hockey Summary Project, Phil scored 24 goals against Tony:

Boston (Phil) vs. Montreal (Tony):

1968/69 - December 5, 1968 (2), December 22, 1968 (2)

Boston (Phil) vs. Chicago (Tony):

1969/70 - February 4, 1969 (1), February 28, 1969 (1)

1970/71 - December 2, 1970 (2), January 23, 1971 (1)

1971/72 - January 15, 1972 (2), February 20, 1972 (2)

1972/73 - January 27, 1973 (1)

1973/74 - November 28, 1973 (1), January 10, 1974 (1)

New York (Phil) vs. Chicago (Tony):

1975/76 - March 27, 1976 (1)

1976/77 - November 17, 1976 (2)

1977/78 - December 14, 1977 (1)

1978/79 - November 15, 1978 (1), March 21, 1979 (1)

1979/80 - December 12, 1979 (1)

1980/81 - November 5, 1980 (1)

He didn't score against Tony in the 1974/75 season. And he scored 2 goals in 6 different games. There were a few games where Phil scored but Tony wasn't in net (and one game where Phil scored in the first period, but Tony only played the second and third periods). Adam Bishop (talk) 10:48, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

What a fast and comprehensive response! And thanks for the Hockey Summary Project link. Hayttom 14:06, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Resolved

US service commitments in the 1960s

The articles Conscription in the United States and Selective Service System seem to indicate that in the 1960s, draftees or volunteers were required to serve 2 years in the Army, plus 4 years in the Reserves. But the articles aren't clear on whether these same service committments applied to the Navy and Air Force. I seem to remember that guys who went into the Navy or Air Force had an active duty committment of longer than 2 years - anyone know for sure? Textorus (talk) 13:41, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Friday holidays

Laws like the Uniform Monday Holiday Act in the USA and the Happy Mondays (?) Act in Japan have been passed to ensure that holidays produce long weekends instead of falling in the middle of the week. Are there any holidays (regardless of country) that have been scheduled for Fridays for the same reason? I'm also curious why weekend-lengthening holidays in the USA all get placed on Mondays and not Fridays. 2001:18E8:2:1020:B8ED:9546:3FA1:93E4 (talk) 18:36, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Please don't include Good Friday, since it wouldn't make sense to celebrate it on any day except Friday; I'm also not interested in other holidays that are set for Mondays or Fridays because of a relationship with religious observances on Saturdays or Sundays. 2001:18E8:2:1020:B8ED:9546:3FA1:93E4 (talk) 18:41, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I believe American Thanksgiving is always on a Thursday and the Friday is always a holiday as well. 184.147.118.213 (talk) 21:35, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

According to Federal holidays in the United States, the Friday after Thanksgiving is not an Official Holiday; federal employees do not get it off. As a practical matter, nearly every private business, as well as most state governments, schools, etc. give people the day off anyways if only because no one would show up anyways. But it is not an official holiday. There are a few holidays pegged to specific dates (Independence Day, Christmas, New Years, etc.), those that aren't are pegged to a specific Monday, except Thanksgiving which is always a specific Thursday. --Jayron32 22:54, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Another Friday public holiday: Store Bededag. Although it may be on a Friday to echo Good Friday, not for the reason you give. It does date back to 1686. 184.147.118.213 (talk) 01:27, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

The Friday after Ascension Thursday (and Ascension Thurs itself) are Public holidays in the European Union.

Quds Day is a Friday and a public holiday in Iran. Of course, in Iran Friday is not the last day of the workweek but the last day of the weekend, which is Thursday+Friday. 184.147.118.213 (talk) 02:04, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

No fixed Friday public holidays in Australia (apart from Good Friday). In fact, between around 15 and 20 years ago there was a move to shrink the number of long weekends in the interests of productivity. One thing that happened was that the Australia Day holiday was moved from the Monday nearest the actual date, to the actual date. I think it was also meant to make us more patriotic. The problem now, of course, is that if the public holiday happens on a Tuesday or Thursday, and extraordinary number of people fall sick on the respective Monday or Friday, creating a long, long weekend for themselves. HiLo48 (talk) 02:06, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

In my last place of employ, they got around that by requiring a medical certificate for the intervening day. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 02:31, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

That "Friday after Ascension Thursday" is a holiday for the employees of the institutions of the European Union, not a holiday throughout the EU - it is certainly not a holiday in the UK, (and Ascension Thursday is generally only a holiday in Catholic countries), where the only regular Friday holiday is Good Friday. I presume that will be a feature of their contracts of employment - when I was a clerk/manager of the former British Rail, my contract specified the Tuesdays after Easter and the Spring and Summer bank holidays as additional holidays; after privatisation this feature was scrapped and the three days were added to the annual leave entitlement to be taken when agreed. In fact, the only non-Monday holidays in the UK are Good Friday, Christmas Day, Boxing Day, New Years Day (and Jan 2nd in Scotland), and those holidays are moved to Monday (and if necessary, Tuesday) if they fall on a Saturday or Sunday; also St Patricks' Day and July 12th are on the actual day in Northern Ireland. Oh, and the Liberation Day half-holiday on May 9th in the Channel Islands. -- Arwel Parry (talk) 09:13, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Double jeopardy

Does the double jeopardy rule imply that you can brag about getting away with a crime if you are acquitted? OsmanRF34 (talk) 18:53, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

No. The rule is that you can't be tried twice for the same crime with the same evidence. If your hearers go to the police and tell them you confessed, that is new evidence and off you'll go back to court. --TammyMoet (talk) 18:57, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

According to the article double jeopardy, this depends on the jurisdiction. In Australia, the situation is different, see the case linked in the section on Australia. If you are interested in just the US, that looks complex, but presumably you could be tried for perjury. IBE (talk) 19:22, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

In the U.S., is a simple no, you cannot be tried twice for the same crime by the same court. You might by tried for a different crime (perjury, federal civil rights violations). In the case of the murder of Emmett_Till, the murderers admitted the crime in a national magazine article after they were acquitted. Rmhermen (talk) 19:42, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Nothing about double jeopardy is simple, but other than that your answer is right. Complications include that you generally can't be tried for a different crime on the same facts by the same jurisdiction. The reason the feds can sometimes come after you on the same facts is that they're a different jurisdiction.

Also no one has mentioned the possibility that the victim, or relatives of the victim, might sue you if you "brag" about it. Double jeopardy doesn't protect you from a civil suit. --Trovatore (talk) 19:56, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

That kind of thing skirts the spirit of double jeopardy, but it's technically being charged with a different crime. Like you can't retry someone for murder, but you can try them for perjury (if they testified), and also sue them for wrongful death (as was done with OJ). The purpose of the rule is to prevent the state from trying you again and again until they get the result they want - as with the Knox case in Italy. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:00, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Wrongful death is not a crime. It's a tort. So no, it's not "technically being charged with a different crime", because it's not a crime. As I understand it, the State of California can never charge OJ again with a crime on the facts of that night, even if it's a different crime from the ones charged in the trial. --Trovatore (talk) 20:02, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

True. But he did testify (sort of) during the trial. So there's still the theoretical possibility that he could be charged with perjury. But I would think that kind of thing is seldom done, and it doesn't fit the OP's premise anyway. He wrote a book called If I Did It, which was supposedly almost a confession - but probably not admissable as evidence of anything. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:07, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

My understanding is that the Fifth Amendment precludes any prosecution for perjury against criminal trial defendants. Otherwise, anyone convicted of murder (or anything else) could automatically be prosecuted for perjury if convicted, since their "not guilty" plea would have been entered under oath. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:19, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

No, I don't believe the plea is made under oath. In any case a "not guilty" plea is not the same as saying you factually didn't do it. If you testify and swear under oath that you factually didn't do it, then later admit you did, then I think a perjury prosecution would be possible, but I'm not a lawyer. --Trovatore (talk) 21:32, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I had a suspicion that second bit was wrong when I typed it. :) I do find it odd, though, that no one who has given false testimony in their own defense has ever, to my knowledge, been prosecuted for perjury after being found guilty. To pick a contemporary example, take someone like Jodi Arias, who has obviously perjured herself at nearly every opportunity; not even she or her lawyers have disputed that. And there are surely countless other examples where people on trial have testified just about everything other than "I was at the scene of the crime when it happened and I did it," only to later have that established as nonfactual. I don't know whether or not a later admission of guilt would make a difference, but I've always assumed that there is some kind of immunity for falsely testifying in your own defense. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:46, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

People are prosecuted for false statements made in their own defense all the time. Not just perjury but also for false statements (which covers many more statements than those made under oath). This is part of what Martha Stewart was convicted for. Similarly, the 5th amendment absolutely does not provide any excuse to lie under oath. And as Travotore implies, pleas are not false statements; forcing the government to prove its case is what the practical effect of innocent until proven guilty means. Shadowjams (talk) 02:28, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Only if you phrase it in the form of a question. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:28, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

"I'll take Famous Lowlifes for 200, Alex!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:45, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

"A legal principle which prevents people being tried for the same crime twice has been scrapped in England and Wales." (2005) Alansplodge (talk) 23:43, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Apparently they're running short of new criminals, so they're going after old ones. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:19, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

It was the availability of DNA evidence in "cold case files", which several times has implicated somebody who had already been found "not guilty" in a previous trial. Alansplodge (talk) 12:23, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Something the writers of the US Constitution never envisioned, of course. But in the Knox case, there's no DNA evidence against Knox at all, as far as I know. And there was DNA evidence against OJ and they still found him not guilty. So this is a seriously slippery slope. The American concept is you get one chance to find them guilty, and if you fail, dat's dat. It's called "the price of freedom". Are the British also going to be testing the DNA for the "guilty" cases? Or are they only going to focus on the ones found "not guilty"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:21, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I was just explaining that an 800 year-old legal principle isn't abolished for a frivolous reason. Freedom is a known concept in the UK too, but getting away with murder is not a corollary of it. As for your last query, the police only investigate unsolved crimes. Alansplodge (talk) 15:52, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

It just seems unfair, one-sided, abusive - skewed towards the state. If convicted criminals are jailed wrongly and DNA evidence would exonerate them, those crimes are also "unsolved" - even though someone thinks otherwise. It is precisely that kind of abuse which is why we Americans established and adhere to the no-double-jeopardy principle. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:07, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

You seem to be barking up the wrong tree. Don't they have appeals in the US and quash convictions which are found to be unsound? It's a separate issue to double jeopardy - our article Miscarriage of justice has the details. Alansplodge (talk) 23:59, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Of course, Americans are quite willing to skirt the no-double-jeopardy principle when it suits them: Double Jeopardy Clause#Dual sovereignty doctrine. The "oopsie, we missed some evidence the first time around" excuse is one of the situations under which the federal government will contemplate retrying an individual already acquitted by a state government. While it's not a technical instance of double jeopardy, it certainly is a loophole with the same functional effect. And to be clear, the US didn't "establish" the no-double-jeopardy principle; it had been part of English common law for centuries. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:20, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

There's not a lot of crossover between state laws and federal. Sometimes a guy will be tried for violating someone's federal civil rights, even if they were acquitted of violating a state law. And apparently the founding fathers thought to write the double-jeopardy rule into the Constitution, to make it harder for politicians to rescind it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:16, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Of further interest to the topic at hand: The notion of a prohibition against double Jeopardy, as noted above, is to prevent the state from repeatedly trying a person until it gets the result it wants, or even more insidious, of using the threat of perpetual trial as a means of punishing the person in question. As such, it represents a specific type of what is known as vexatious litigation, which is to say the purpose of the litigation is not to find the truth, but rather to itself harass. Vexatious litigation by the state is particularly troublesome given that the State has essentially limitless resources to try a person forever, while that person does not have limitless resources to defend themselves. The act of being perpetually on trial severely limits a person from holding down a job, leading a normal life, etc. etc. So, in some legal codes, where it has been so enshrined, the prohibition against double jeopardy is to prevent this sort of thing from happening. Which is not to say that it is the only way to do that, or that countries that don't have such prohibitions don't instead have other mechanisms in place to deal with the issue. It is but one way, not the only way, to solve the problem of vexatious litigation by the state against its residents. --Jayron32 02:04, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Interesting discussion, back in the days of Emmitt Till it may have been a much simpler time but I find the question odd because given the media, court, police, media-cycle/circus, marry go round of attorneys today on any trial that may have implications for this one would be too exhausted to even dream of confessing of getting away with it. I understand not every trial is covered like Casey Anthony or Ted Bundy but even the less hyped ones are much more complicated and toll taking then justice back in the small-town 50's. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 04:43, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't think appearing on a quiz show twice is a crime. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 13:14, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

To quote Avery Tolleson: a crime is "whatever the IRS says it is", just don't take "Tea Party Patriots" for $500 ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 20:05, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Since you brought it up, the question that begs to be answered is why blatantly political organizations like the Teabaggers are even considered for tax exempt status, let alone granted it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:09, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Evelyn Beatrice Hall? ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 20:25, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Heath v. Alabama may be of interest to the OP. Matt Deres (talk) 02:03, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

May 25

How to list instruments by range using wolfram alpha?

I am trying to use wolfram alpha to find instruments by their sounding range, the problem is that I need to look instrument by instrument by searching "random instrument sounding range". I could try to find that list using other places, the thing is that they are way smaller than wolfram alpha one.

Any way I could list down the instruments by their sounding range? I know wolfram list other stuff by one of their characteristics. 201.78.181.175 (talk) 13:57, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Xin Zhui

Isn't the general consensus that the near perfect preservation of the mummies of Xin Zhui and Ling Huiping was the result of coincidence and the vacuum seal (not intentional on part of the tomb builders) of their tombs? If this is coincidence are there similiar ancient mummies around the world with perfectly preserved body parts and organs. Don't mention bodies that can't be examine like incorruptible saints. --The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 01:56, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I was always under the impression that it was Xin Zhui's uniqueness that made it special, so I'm not understanding if you are asking could there be others we don't know of yet or for a listing of only the ones known. There are always the ice-men discoveries, I remember one in Europe about a decade or so ago, technically unintentional but by a glacier or sudden ice age, nothing man made. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 04:39, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Odd number of police officers or detectives?

Every police procedural on television depicts both uniformed police and non-uniformed detectives having partners. So what happens if there's an odd number of officers or detectives in a unit/precinct, so that assigning each officer/detective exactly one partner is mathematically impossible? —SeekingAnswers (reply) 14:34, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

In real life, not all cops have partners. In fiction, the writers will write it so they do, or not; it's fiction. They'll find a way. Mingmingla (talk) 15:19, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

But if a cop doesn't have a partner, isn't he at a serious disadvantage (more danger while apprehending suspects, more difficulty solving cases, etc.) compared to the ones that do? —SeekingAnswers (reply) 15:25, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

It might depend on the community and its normal level of expected criminal activity. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:28, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I'd imagine most detectives would work in pairs to solve the major crimes (homicide, robbery, rape, etc.) often shown on TV shows like Law and Order. Hot Stop 16:05, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

And trios and large groups, and solo. It's all about resource allocation. There are plenty of cases where a single officer or detective pursues a case, sometimes over years. Mingmingla (talk) 18:19, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

The reason cops have partners in nearly all works of fiction is because it sets up an important character dynamic. You always have two partners who have some difference that presents a conflict. You can pair old/young, by-the-book/maverick, male/female, timid/wild, etc. Doing so sets up dramatic tension and makes the story interesting for the audience. It's a deliberate choice on the part of the writers to do exactly that. Actual police organizations are not bound by the conventions of fiction writing, and so are quite free to organize themselves using whatever method gets the job done. --Jayron32 18:48, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Nice! If NOW could see us now! ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 19:53, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

On a television show or movie, it also makes it easier to tell the story to the audience if there's a second person. They can set up a dialog along the lines of "Hey, Harry. What if Mrs. Adams really did kill her husband?" If there were just a solo detective, they would have to record some sort of voice over about what's going through the solo detective's head or write in to the character some quirk where he discusses cases with his dog or goldfish in order to let the audience in on what's going on. Dismas|^(talk) 20:10, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

"NOW"? If you mean the National Organization for Women, I'm not sure what that has to do with this topic...? —SeekingAnswers (reply) 20:08, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Re: "difference that presents a conflict". It may assist by reading the messages in order ;-). ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 20:20, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Not necessarily (re. voice-over/goldfish). Columbo almost always worked alone. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:27, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Just one more thing. I too am puzzled by the meaning of NOW (and the response). Can you explain your explanation? Clarityfiend (talk) 22:27, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 00:16, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Then please do so. —SeekingAnswers (reply) 19:46, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Market St. has replied in detail in lawyerese on my talk page. Proceed at your own peril. You've been warned. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:44, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes . . . proceeeed. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 10:38, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

In my medium-length experience, in real life I have only ever seen cops and detectives in pairs, so the question does sort of make sense. I don't know if they are always assigned to the same pairs, and someone would be spending some time at the office, and so on. On my favourite cop drama City Homicide, they often went around in pairs, but always had all 6 detectives on one case, which of course got solved in one episode - now that bit is unrealistic. IBE (talk) 20:33, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, same here. It's not just in TV shows; in real life, every time I see a cop, there's two of them. —SeekingAnswers (reply) 21:46, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Policy varies by jurisdiction. In London, beat cops with the Met have apparently been patrolling solo since 2009: [1]. That article notes, "Although there will be concerns over safety, [Police Commissioner Stephenson] has insisted that officers should not patrol alone in any situation thought too risky....one study has suggested that lone officers are less likely to be assaulted, as they will tend to call for back-up rather than be confrontational."

Solo patrols (on foot or bicycle, or in-car) can give the impression of heightened police presence—given an equal number of officers on patrol, a person will encounter a patrol twice as often. From a budget standpoint, of course, going from pairs to solo patrollers means that one can get away with a little more than half as many officers to cover the same amount of ground. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:56, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

• IIRC, the TV police detective Columbo never really had a regular partner. Zzyzx11 (talk) 02:02, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

is there a disability that...

makes one very sensitive to touch such that one would feel extreme pain and cry from minor injuries that would only feel a bit pain for most people? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.14.88.28 (talk) 15:48, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

It would be a medical condition, not a disability. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:57, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

But it might be disabling. See Facts about Allodynia and Filing for Disability Alansplodge (talk) 16:41, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Words like disability have very different meanings and connotations in different places. It's currently the politically correct term where I come from, but not everywhere. Not a safe path to go down unless you clarify place and time. HiLo48 (talk) 22:02, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Increased sensitivity to pain is hyperalgesia, and decreased sensitivity to pain is hypoalgesia. Pain from stimuli that would normally not be painful is allodynia. Other related terms would be hyperesthesia and dysesthesia. From my quick search, I couldn't find any more-specific condition (from a specific, known cause) that results in increased sensitivity to pain, like Congenital insensitivity to pain is a specific genetic disorder which results in inability to feel pain. That doesn't mean there isn't one, though. -- 67.40.209.204 (talk) 16:31, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

There is also a wikipedia article on Sensory defensiveness that may be helpful on this topic. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 20:02, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Middle names

I know the Social Security Administration in the U.S. (where I'm from) keeps a list of most popular first names, but is there any such database for middle names, either in the U.S. or anywhere in the anglosphere? Just a curiosity of mine. Hot Stop 17:54, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

The SSA website indicates that their database is for all given names, per this description. AFAIK, both first and middle names are "given" names, so the SSA does not differentiate between the two, but I could be wrong about that. --Jayron32 18:25, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

A google search for define given name indicates it usually means first name. μηδείς (talk) 18:35, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Even so, middle names are "given" by the parents rather than being pre-determined. There is often a link between first and middle names. I have quite a few relatives with names like John Adam Smith Sr., who has a son named for him, obviously; and then the son goes by Adam in order to distinguish himself from his father. So, in cases like this, which is the true "given name"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:56, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit Conflict As well as our Middle name Wikipedia article referencing only the first name as "given". ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 19:58, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

The first name seems to be often presumed to have greater importance, even when the person always goes by his middle name. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:02, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Unless they are a political assassin, in which case all 3 names seem to be equally important, the lone exception being Brute as in Et tu? ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 20:09, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I am not arguing that middle names are not given, I am mentioning that by usage they are not often what is meant by given name. I would be surprised if they have many cautious scholars at the SSA who would be worried one way or the other about clarifying the distinction. μηδείς (talk) 21:22, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Getting the first name/middle thing right can sometimes matter a fair bit. Australia had a Prime Minister back in the 1970s and 80s whose full name was John Malcolm Fraser. However, he was universally known as Malcolm. When visiting the US President of the time, the President, in one of those gestures meant to show that they are the best of friends, managed to call him John. Much embarrassment all round. HiLo48 (talk) 21:53, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Redundant first names are also often a mark of a certain cricketing prowess: see IVA (Viv) Richards, MC (Colin) Cowdrey, and my absolute favourite, WPUJC (Chaminda) Vaas. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 23:39, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Not a cricketer, but what about Louis Antoine Jullien, whose full name was - wait for it - Louis George Maurice Adolphe Roche Albert Abel Antonio Alexandre Noë Jean Lucien Daniel Eugène Joseph-le-brun Joseph-Barême Thomas Thomas Thomas-Thomas Pierre Arbon Pierre-Maurel Barthélemi Artus Alphonse Bertrand Dieudonné Emanuel Josué Vincent Luc Michel Jules-de-la-plane Jules-Bazin Julio César Jullien. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 00:11, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

While we're at it, "Francisco Domingo Carlos Andres Sebastian D'Anconia sat on the floor playing marbles" is the second best sentence ever written in an English novel. μηδείς (talk) 03:15, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

There's always the children of Tollemache... AnonMoos (talk) 05:56, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

As others have said, the US Social Security database does not say anything more specific than it provides "given names". (Interestingly, it lets you download all names (ie beyond the top 1,000), but peeking in those files the names are listed singly.

I took a look at the methods academics have used. It seems they have obtained public records, from school boards, US State birth records or the authors listed in scientific paper indexes.

If you're not an academic and would not be able to have such data released to you, another option is older birth record data, which is free and available on geneology websites such as ancestry.com or for a single state. Of course, you'd have to figure out a way to extract the middle names. Apparently, this is quite the database/programming headache! (Interesting discussion in that link of many factors discussed above, such as Spanish names, multiple middle names, and the millions of people with a single name.)

Other than than, I'm not finding any lists/databases with significant numbers. An Australian website offers short lists of the top 20 most popular middle names in a year. Name Nerds did a middle name survey of (about 9,000) readers. 184.147.118.213 (talk) 14:06, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

May 26

[Protected article] Inadequate, but not necessarily incorrect, summary of scholastic opinion

In an article titled "Yahweh", in the subsection "Ancient Israel and Judah" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yahweh#Ancient_Israel_and_Judah), the statement is made at the bottom of the first paragraph that "These observations eventually overthrew the belief that Israel had always worshipped no other god but Yahweh." in reference to various entirely legitimate questions raised by Yahweh's use of terms that suggest other gods might exist, e.g., "Why do the Ten Commandments declare that there should be no other gods "before Me" (Yahweh), if there are no other gods at all?". The immediately following reference #34 is to Richard E. Friedman, Who Wrote the Bible? (Harper & Row, 1987)

Friedman is indeed a highly respected scholar, and I've read several of his excellent books; I have no qualms with him or the context of the reference. However, to be fair I suggest the following edit as a separate sentence immediately after the citation:

It should be borne in mind, however, that languages, inducing Hebrew and English, are highly nuanced; statements appearing to suggest the existence of two or more simultaneously existing divinities can just as easily be interpreted that humans who had been worshiping other (and therefore false) gods should cease such practices and not consider such idols / imaginary beings as real, or to continue worshiping them in addition to Yahweh.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pfaoro (talk • contribs)

This is a reference desk for general queries, you may do well to post this specific article content question at its talk page Talk:Yahweh. That said there is the Wikipedia Policy of WP:BOLD where we encourage you to be bold with an edit however your proposal has no WP:RS (reliable source or reference). Since we are an encyclopedia its always desirable to have references when you make an article contribution. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 01:50, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Agree that the talk page is the place to discuss this. But since it is here, I'll give my opinion that the statement does not belong unless you can find some reputable authority who said something along those lines. Looie496 (talk) 02:43, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

See "Golden calf".—Wavelength (talk) 02:51, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Also see Baal. Edison (talk) 03:25, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

---

Most relevant article is probably Henotheism... AnonMoos (talk) 15:16, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

It seems to me obvious from reading the Bible that gods other than Yahweh were worshipped in ancient Israel. The people who wrote the Bible were opposed to such worship, and praise those kings who attempted to prevent it, and condemn those kings who tolerated it. I doubt they would have felt the need to do so if it wasn't going on. --Nicknack009 (talk) 12:22, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Efficacy of detachable faceplates for deterrence of car stereo theft

I'm looking into the efficacy of detachable faceplates for car stereo theft deterrence. Is there any research that demonstrates this? Quotes from police departments? I can't find any research that's been done in this area. Sancho 17:26, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

I tried putting your search terms into google scholar, but there were only two results. One was a 2004 patent application [2], which only said (uncited) "detachable faceplates rarely work because people usually place the radio in the glove compartment, thus rendering the detachable faces useless".

The other is a report by an advocacy group in New York City [3], which attributes a statement that detachable faceplates made a big difference to car theft rates after their introduction (p10) to "Professor Andrew Karmen at John Jay College", as per this 2001 New York Times article [4]. That article in turn refers to research by Karmen [5] and his colleague Harold Takooshian [6]. In both cases, it seems the research is older than either prof currently lists on their web pages, but you could contact them to ask about it.

Hope this is a start and others have better results. 184.147.118.213 (talk) 18:43, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Weight

One of my friends have from a modeling agency told there there standard measurements are 80-60-90 (bust-waist-hips). She is 16-19 years old and is 178 cm tall. Is that unhealthy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.161.143.239 (talk) 19:55, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Vi kan ikke give dig lægelig rådgivning. Læs venligst retningslinjerne øverst på siden. Hvis din ven er syg, så fortæl hende til at besøge en læge. μηδείς (talk) 21:27, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Pourriez-vous repondre en Anglais, s'il vous plait? AlexTiefling (talk) 23:03, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, given the OP's style I wanted to make sure he understood the relevant policy clearly, and assumed regulars would check this. μηδείς (talk) 02:29, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Jeez, I thought a 38 bust and 38 hips were ample. Edison (talk) 03:09, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Everyone's physiology is different, so you would have to see a doctor to get a valid answer. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:19, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

That would be pretty skinny for that height, but not exactly out of the ordinary for models, or necessarily unnatural. Compare with Twiggy, who was roughly the same, but with a hip measurement even narrower—that was forty-eight years ago, we now have more people (to choose models from that aren't necessarily unhealthy but simply skinny), people are taller than they were, and apparently hips are nearly nine cm back in fashion from then. It’s unhealthy if it is (health is not a body type). ¦ Reisio (talk) 05:32, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Seems a little bit off on the 80-60-90 average (31.5"-21.6"-35.4" to us old geezers), at least by the standards of 8 (Semi) Naked Supermodels. Only one has a waist as small as 22", three have 32" busts (rest larger) and one has 35.5" hips (rest are 34" or 35"). Clarityfiend (talk) 01:27, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

60 cm = 23.6" A little larger than your calculation. Astronaut (talk) 18:45, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

How the heck did I get 21.6? Well, that explains why I'm not an astronaut. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:03, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Maybe, but those women are all at this point selling their own personal appearance, whereas this person’s friend is probably more than anything selling the ability to appropriately fit into all the clothes to be put upon her. <shrug> ¦ Reisio (talk) 05:23, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

The OP said 80-60-90 were the agency's standards, not the friend's measurements. Clarityfiend (talk) 13:38, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Then I guess to you I’d say… Maybe, but those women are all at this point selling their own personal appearance, whereas this agency’s target employees are probably more than anything selling the ability to appropriately fit into all the clothes to be put upon them. <shrug> ¦ Reisio (talk) 23:20, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Shi'ite suburbs in Beirut

Which suburbs of Beirut are Shi'ite dominated? I want to visit there when I am in Beirut this June.--Donmust90 (talk) 22:59, 26 May 2013 (UTC)Donmust90

Shia Islam in Lebanon says the southern suburbs and Beirut#Quarters and sectors has a map that includes the southern part and you could check Category:Neighbourhoods of Beirut to see which of those qualify. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 00:32, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

These are not really tourist areas. You should definitely take a look at security guidance, such as that provided by the UK governmment here [7] and the Canadian one here [8]. In addition, be aware that locals may not welcome foreigners into their neighborhoods given the current state of tension (see this story for example [9]). I would strongly discourage you from roaming around unless accompanied by a trustworthy local who is from the neighborhood. --Xuxl (talk) 09:26, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

May 27

anti-communism

In the article titled "anti-communism" there is a photograph of anti-communists books.One of these books is titled "the pol pot regime".I wanted to know if the author is really Ben Kiernan.Thank you.189.122.225.231 (talk) 00:12, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

A book of that name seems to have been written by Ben Kiernan, an Australian historian. Why do you ask? AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:20, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

It really was him - see Ben Kiernan, The Pol Pot Regime: Race, Power, and Genocide in Cambodia Under the Khmer Rouge, 1975-1979, Yale University Press, 2002, 477 pages. Alansplodge (talk) 12:08, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

The photo is badly titled, because Ben Kiernan's book isn't anti-communist. It's mercilessly critical of the Pol Pot regime, which is not at all the same thing. And I don't think the Time Out guide to London is anti-communist either. 81.98.152.52 (talk) 22:03, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Had there been any well-known debate between communism and anti-communism?

--朝鲜的轮子 (talk) 01:57, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Here's a very entertaining debate between "Capitalism" and "Socialism". μηδείς (talk) 01:59, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Who was debating? I just haven't got youtube access yet.--朝鲜的轮子 (talk) 02:13, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Jill Vickers and Gerry Caplan for the socialists, Leonard Peikoff and John Ridpath for the capitalists, held in 1984 at the University of Western Ontario. μηδείς (talk) 02:22, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, the famous Kitchen Debate between Khrushchev and Nixon.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:24, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Do most Americans think Nixon won the debate? Any sources? I saw the Chinese article said that.--朝鲜的轮子 (talk) 03:16, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

"The Oxford Union (OU) debating society discussed the motion "This House Believes that Capitalism can save the world" on 6th November 2008. Harpal Brar, chairman of CPGB-ML speaks against the motion." [10]

The leaders of the Communist Party, U.S.A. (Earl Browder) and the Socialist Party of America (Norman Thomas) had a celebrated and cordial debate in November 1935 at Madison Square Garden in New York, on the question, "Which road for American workers?", published the next year as a 46-page pamphlet by the Socialist Call.

See:Which road for the American workers? Socialist or Communist? Norman Thomas vs Earl Browder (PDF). [To open the 16-megabyte PDF, click a little "PDF" icon on the top left of this entry.]

To understand some of the quirks in that debate, it's helpful to know that only 21 months earlier (February 16, 1934) in the very same place, an organized group of Communists (then still following Stalin's catastrophic Third Period policy of attacking left-wing rivals as "Social Fascists") had broken up a Socialist and trade unionist rally in support of the Social Democratic Party of Austria's struggle against the Social Christian (or clerico-Fascist) dictatorship of Engelbert Dollfuss. By late 1935, the CPUSA was following the Communist International's new policy of an all-embracing Popular Front against Fascism and moving to the "right", while the Socialists (about to lose their most conservative, orthodox or pragmatic members to the Social Democratic Federation) were taking their own sharp "leftist" turn towards revolutionary socialism (pushed ironically by student firebrands, such as Gus Tyler and Andrew Biemiller, who would later become, at least for a while, vigorous labor-establishment apologists for George Meany's conservatism on cultural and strategic issues.) But many of the points made by each speaker would still be made by Communist and by democratic socialist or left-wing anti-Communist speakers today.

The Ref. desk, because it has no stable footnote section, is a poor place to give extensive bibliographic references, but you can see contrasting accounts of the 1934 riot and 1935 debate in, inter alia, Pacifist's Progress: Norman Thomas and the decline of American socialism by Bernard K. Johnpoll (Quadrangle Books, Chicago, 1968), pages 114-115 & 161-162, and in The Communist Party of the United States: From the Depression to World War II by Fraser M. Ottanelli (Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick, N.J., 1991) pages 56-57 & 91-92. —— Shakescene (talk) 06:42, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

When was Tang of Shang's reign?

The Chinese and English versions are different:Chinese:"(ca.1617-1588 BC)" English:"(ca. 1675 BC-1646 BC)" Both are unreferenced. I also noticed Xia–Shang–Zhou Chronology Project does not go back to that time. So what are the sources(if any)?--朝鲜的轮子 (talk) 02:18, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Gordon Kerr (2013), A Short History of China, Oldcastle Books Ltd, ISBN 13: 9781842439685 [11] says "c. 1675 - c. 1646 BC". Alansplodge (talk) 14:55, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Anything in Chinese history before ca. 700 B.C. is likely to have rather uncertain absolute chronology (and many things are quasi-legendary)... AnonMoos (talk) 15:06, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

It would seem so. I have also found in the notes accompanying a translation of the Analects of Confucius, a page headed "Traditional Chronology" which gives; "King Tang, 1766-1753 BCE. Defeated the evil Jie to found the Shang Dynasty." Alansplodge (talk) 15:17, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

After quite a bit of frustrating Googling, it seems that there are 44 known chronologies for the change between the Xia, Shang and Zhou Dynasties. [12] Our article on the Xia–Shang–Zhou Chronology Project gives three chronologies, the XSZCP (which I suspect is being quoted by the Chinese WP), the The Cambridge History of Ancient China chronology, which I think is quoted in our article, and the traditional dates which I linked to above. I haven't been able to find the XSZCP results on-line - the link on our article seems to be corrupted as I get a "malware" warning. Alansplodge (talk) 17:02, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Our List of rulers of China gives a date for the start of the Shang dynasty as 1600 using the XSZCP chronology. This tends to support my guess that the Chinese Wikipedia article is using this system. Alansplodge (talk) 22:10, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeah that is exactly what is in Chinese article. Chinese article says "the start and end of Shang Dynasty does not have a concensus. XSZCP gives that Shang was found in about 1600 BC to 1556 BC, and end in 1046 BC, which is mainly accepted in PRC; Dong Zuobing in early 20 century calculated by calendar(I guess someone had done that before e.g. Liu Xin) that Shang lasts between1766BC to 1111 BC, which is mainly accepted in ROC." The "mainly accepted in PRC/ROC" claim is unreferenced.--朝鲜的轮子 (talk) 02:42, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

And I guess the "44 known chronologies for the change between the Xia, Shang and Zhou Dynasties" is only 44 claims about Battle of Muye?--朝鲜的轮子 (talk) 05:50, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure is anybody uses that as a datum point, but yes. It seems to be a guess at best. The XSZCP has used sources such as radio carbon dating from archaeological sites and datable astronomical information, such as lunar eclipses from surviving texts. The results have proved controversial to say the least. [13] Alansplodge (talk) 12:58, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

is Communist Party of India (Maoist) the actual name of the "Communist Party of India (Maoist)" party?

Can someone either familiar with the relevant languages, or with the party itself, comment on whether Communist Party of India (Maoist) would be the English name by which the party described at our article Communist Party of India (Maoist) would call itself? Or is that article just another weird name due to WP naming conventions? Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 03:11, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

This isn't a wiki thing--it's a common format in the subcontinent. Compare Communist_Party_of_India_(Marxist) (with Hindi name), Pakistan Muslim League (N), etc. Muslim League schisms is quite funny. Henry^Flower 03:51, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Not just in Asia, we even have Communist Party of Great Britain (Marxist–Leninist), Splitters! ;-) Alansplodge (talk) 16:13, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

"Communist Party of India (Maoist)" is the name used in English. The name in Hindi is भारतीय कम्युनिस्ट पार्टी (माओवादी) (bharatiya kamyunist parti (maovadi), lit 'Indian Communist Party (Maoist)'), you can see a poster in Hindi here: http://www.anupamupharenews.com/?p=1893 . According to Malayalam wikipedia (http://ml.wikipedia.org/wiki/കമ്മ്യൂണിസ്റ്റ്_പാർട്ടി_ഓഫ്_ഇന്ത്യ_(മാവോയിസ്റ്റ്)), the name in Malayalam is 'Communist Party of India (Maoist)' (just transliterating the English name). etc, etc. --Soman (talk) 02:03, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Interesting, thanks. I do believe I have heard similar things in Britain--in America we'd just move the "Maoist" part up front. But I suppose there might be ideological reasons for not doing so. μηδείς (talk) 02:21, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

It's a Communist thing more than a subcontinental thing - there's also Communist Party of Australia (Marxist–Leninist), also originating from the same schism. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:58, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

There's actually a good historical reason for this, although my weak knowledge of Russian and Russian Marxism doesn't let me grasp all the details fully. The Bolshevik Party of Lenin & co. gained a temporary majority on an important vote in one Congress (I think in 1903) of the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party, allowing them to call themselves the RSDLP (Majority) [in transliterated Russian, RSDLP (B) for some inflection of Bolshevik for big, as in the Bolshoi Ballet], and correspondingly to call the faction that had usually outvoted them the Mensheviks or minority. The RSDLP split between Lenin's more revolutionary RSDLP or the RSDLP (Majority) and the more parliamentary-trade unionist regular RSDLP (with which Leon Trotsky at first aligned), who I think saw no need to qualify their name. So a revolutionary group (the kind that prints a newspaper called Spark to reflect Lenin's Iskra) which splits from and wants to distinguish itself, in admiration of Lenin's achievement, from (say) your regular old workaday establishment ex-revolutionary Communist Party of India, will naturally feel drawn to declaring that it's the Marxist or Marxist-Leninist CPI as opposed to those pseudo-Marxists and pseudo-Leninists in the old machine.
¶ But this isn't confined to Leninism; you'll find many parenthetical variants in church history, trade unions and the history of the First International Workingman's Association and its successors. A few years earlier, although with far less importance, the Socialist Labor Party of America had split with both Daniel De Leon and Morris Hillquit leading what they called the Socialist Labor Party with its own authentic edition of The People.
¶ Outside the purely Leninist universe, a familiar example might be the 1970's split in the Irish Republican Army and its political party (and historical parent) Sinn Féin. The now dominant Provisionals of Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness began as the "Provisional Army Council" of the IRA splitting away from the "Official" Army Council, and at the beginning the former group called themselves the Irish Republican Army (Provisional). The two splinters of Sinn Féin distinguished themselves by the streets on which their headquarters sat. Official Sinn Féin (with a more Marxist, less nationalist emphasis) started calling itself Sinn Féin, the Workers' Party, and then just the Workers' Party before merging with several other left-wing Irish parties. Corrections, clarifications and contradictions from those who know more, of course welcome here at Wikipedia (Jimbo-Walesian). —— Shakescene (talk) 14:13, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Mexico City

I know hundreds years ago, this city was build on a lake, which is lake Texcoco. How did the Aztec build a city on a lake? And how deep was the lake? 184.97.234.167 (talk) 03:17, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Have you read Mexico City, History of Mexico City, and [[Tenochtitlan? μηδείς (talk) 03:40, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I skimmed through them. I doubt that there is any mention of how they build the city on the lake.184.97.234.167 (talk) 03:58, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

From what the articles say, it appears that the city was built on an island in the (shallow) lake, with causeways connecting it to the shore. As the Spanish settlers took over the area, they eventually drained the lake. I googled the question and nothing jumps out as regards the depth of the lake. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:13, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

AZTEC ARCHITECTURE -Part 1 by MANUEL AGUILAR-MORENO, Ph.D. says that "When the sacred city was founded, a temple in honor of Huitzilopochtli was immediately erected. The temple was constructed of reeds and straw with a foundation of swamp grass." (p.15) The later masonry structures must have required much more substantial foundations, presumably of rubble, since there seems to have been no shortage of stone. However; "Since the structures were massive and on top of a marshy, muddy island, they continuously sank. As a result, new layers were added to pre-existing structures. This is particularly true of the Great Temple located in the central plaza" (p. 16)

The document does describe how the "floating gardens" were constructed: "Chinampas, known as 'floating gardens' were rectangular patches of earth on the swamp used to cultivated food and to build houses. They were constructed on the swampy lakebed by staking out long rectangular enclosures of about 2.5m wide and 30m long. Stakes were woven together to form fences which would be covered with decaying vegetation and mud. Another plot would be constructed parallel to the first. The water in between each plot formed a canal. This developed long rectangular chinampa patterns. Chinampas were stabilized by planting slender willows around their perimeter. The willows’ dense roots anchored the retaining walls." (p.30) Alansplodge (talk) 10:49, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I see now. Technically, they did not build a city on a lake. They built it on a island inside a lake and since the lake is shallow, they can easily expand their island using Chinampas.184.97.234.167 (talk) 14:34, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

That seems to be the case, although it was a struggle to find any account of it. In the source that I linked above, the original island is described as "tiny" and on another page, "muddy", so not the most promising starting point. Alansplodge (talk) 14:59, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

How do I identify the owners of a business?

(Humanities? Well, the header did include "economics".) I've become involved in dispute resolution on a WP:BLP for my sins, and the ownership of a certain company is a bone of contention because it impinges on this and that. Neither of the parties have any reliable sources for their disparate claims about it. They typically offer rather old interviews in rather promotional publications. The company itself says nothing about who owns it on its homepage. Is there such a thing as an online index of American-based businesses, which lists their owners (whether American or not)? Or any other way of finding out, without having to trudge disconsolately through any more promotion and obfuscation than I've already done? I confess I'm naive about these matters, and usually happy to be so. Perhaps the owners are closely guarded secrets only to be obtained by subpoenaing Swiss banks? Bishonen | talk 16:20, 27 May 2013 (UTC).

EDIT CONFLICT Is the company publicly traded? If so then that would be rather easy to find the ownership amounts on financial websites. If not you can still find contact information for privately held companies on such databases as Hoovers and then go to the state that they list as home for the company and the state government website will usually have filing records, owners, registered agents and the like listed for the company. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 18:56, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I am reading the first response in the context of OP's "index of American-based businesses", a business need not be headquartered in the US but from what I can see on the wikipedia article and the business website does <redacted> have any US presence? If it doesn't than the only suggestion is if Saudi government or the EU have similar type data websites. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 19:05, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Marketdiamond. A simple google search for "hoovers + <the company name>" got me exactly what I needed. And thank you too, Looie, though I removed your reply… :-[ There are reasons it's better not to have any of those names mentioned in a public discussion here. Bishonen | talk 20:40, 27 May 2013 (UTC).

Glad that worked out for you, in a non-legal advice, non accessory way ;-)! ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 22:59, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Am Shalem and Koah Lehashpia most votes gain from which place

Which place of Israel gave most votes to Am Shalem and which one gave most votes to Koah Lehashpia?--Donmust90 (talk) 17:42, 27 May 2013 (UTC)Donmust90

There's this which have map links at the bottom, however given that both parties combined got less than 3% of the total vote it might be hard if not impossible to map that in any way that is meaningful in analysis, i.e. "place" that "gave most votes" no place probably gave more than 10% so even if you found that place, 90 out of 100 would be against those parties. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 19:18, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Donmust90, the main reason you aren't finding or being provided witn answers to these questions, is that Israel is not populated in segregated enclaves according to ethnic origin, religious stream, and political party. If that was true at the beginning of the state and the waves of immigration in the 1950s - we are now three generations past that, along with internal mobility, ongoing immigration, and changes in the very makeup of the religious factions and political entities. It's also a lively democracy in which married couples split their allegiances, some Jews vote for non-Zionist parties, Arabs vote for Jewish ultraorthodox religious parties, and the whole gamut. The more time you spend on actually reading the pages on topics that interest you and reading the content available through External links at the bottom of pages to primary sources of information - the better you'll gain understanding of the actual situations that aren't neatly pigeonholed nor predictable. You're fortunate in that a great amount of information is available on the Web, in English, about Israeli demographics and politics - though not necessarily parcelled neatly into categories. -- Deborahjay (talk) 16:01, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Otdia

Where is the Otdia in the Marshall Islands? Does Wikipedia have an article with its modern name?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 22:53, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

It's right there, off Wotje Atoll. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:51, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

That's just bad map data. Otdia is Wotje: [14]. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 00:36, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Otto von Kotzebue who visited in the 1820s said there were "middling-sized cat, which feeds on the fruit of the pandanus tree, and makes its nest in the dead branches, which it easily hollows out" on the island. What are these animals? Did the original Micronesians settlers of the Marshall Islands brought cats that later became feral or were they brought by earlier Europeans in the area? --KAVEBEAR (talk) 01:21, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

As total OR I suspect it was some variety of cuscus which is the closest (New Guinea) animal that would fit the described habits. They would almost certainly have had to have been introduced by humans, which has been documented happening closer to New Guinea. μηδείς (talk) 02:17, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Were there even cuscus on the Marshall Islands? Just because New Guinea had them doesn't mean the Marshall Islands had them. There is no fauna section on the article about the Marshall Islands and List of mammals of the Marshall Islands mentions only marine mammals.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:12, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I can find no evidence. They would definitely not have been native to the Marshall Islands. But my point was that dogs, pigs, and chickens, all of which were earlier introduced to New Guinea, were later introduced to many Pacific islands, as were cuscus known to have been to other islands, if not the Marshals, as a source of meat and fur. It is documented that cuscus were indeed introduced to other islands closer to New Guinea for this very purpose, and that in some places they were hunted back into extinction. The Southern common cuscus, for example, is known to have been introduced to the Solomon Islands. The cuscus is also described as cat sized, and is known to eat pandanus and to nest in trees, while house cats (which it is impossible are meant above) do not. μηδείς (talk) 23:23, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

May 28

Otto von Kotzebue

When exactly (between 1823 and 1826) did Otto von Kotzebue meet Namahana Piia and when did he set foot on Otdia? As illustrated in the engravings in his two first volumes of A new voyage round the world in the years 1823, 24, 25, and 26 here and here.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 01:21, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Also if anyone knows the artist of the two engravings it, do tell. Was "S. Freeman, sc" the engraver?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 01:27, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

As near as I can make it, he met Namahana Piia on the 14th December 1824, the day of his arrival at Oahu. (The book A new voyage round the world in the years 1823, 24, 25, and 26 is available at Project Gutenberg here ) He arrived at Otdia around the 28th of April 1824 - you can find a description of that in the first volume of the book between pages 295-316. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 06:05, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

And S. Freeman is the engraver Samuel Freeman. (Have to use a Google cache version of the page as the website seems to be down, but more info here. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 06:17, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

The letters 'sc' on an engraving are an abbreviation for 'sculpsit', meaning 'carved', a reference to the engraving process. In other words it means 'engraved by'. 'Pinxit', or an abbreviation of the same, means 'painted', referring to the original artist. If it's an engraving of a drawing, the original artist will sometimes have 'del', for 'delineavit', after the name. Clearly the portrait has to be based on an existing image, but presumably the artist had no interest in asserting ownership. Paul B (talk) 13:56, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Do we have an article on required school readings?

Perhaps there's a better English term but I am blanking out. Pl wiki has pl:lektura szkolna, no interwikis. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:57, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

There's curriculum, which covers all required course materials. There's also summer reading program but that doesn't mention anything in particular. Are you looking for something specific (what teenagers in London need to read, for example) of a general overview? Hot Stop 04:07, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I was wondering how to translate the Polish term, which is the general term for "readings that the students are required to do in school". Thus they are part of the curriculum, but only a small part of it. At the same time they have a wider meaning, as particularly at the elementary and secondary educational levels teachers in countries such as Poland (and I'd assume most others) are required to have the students read certain books. I may stub it, but I want to make sure I have the correct English term before I start. School readings? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:36, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

We say "set books" or "set texts" in the UK, but I wouldn't expect an article on the concept. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:58, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't think we do have such an article, although there's no reason why we shouldn't. AlexTiefling (talk) 07:58, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I can see some problems in deciding what the scope of such an article would be. The Polish article, so far as I can understand it, lists some books that are set in Polish schools, mainly or exclusively literary texts. If we were to take all the English-speaking countries and try and compare a similar list, it could be too complicated and open to potential POV violations. But actually, such an article should be about the general concept of a set book, a spin-off from textbook. (Our article textbook is too US-centred, as it happens.) Piotrus, do you have some sources to base such an article on? Itsmejudith (talk) 08:18, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, I can translate the short Polish article, but I'd like to be able to define the term generally. Now, I think that an article or a series of listing what are required texts all around the word, and how they have changed through time would be encyclopedic and fascinating, through I certainly don't intend to do much other than just start it. PS. And yes, my understanding of this concept is related to literary texts (novels, poetry, diaries, etc.), through the Polish article also mentions that it also can include some famous examples of journalism and even science or advertising (through those are very rare, one would assume). The concept can also include works presented on stage, or television, through again that could be stretching it, and it may in this vary from country to country. A safe, mid-20th century definition could be safely limited to literally texts. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:29, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) All right, I'll gladly stub it. What would be the best name, and suggested redirects? I am looking at school readings (ex. use in English: Piotr S. Wandycz (1980). The United States and Poland. Harvard University Press. p. 7. ISBN 978-0-674-92685-1. Retrieved 28 May 2013.), set books and set texts... anything else comes to mind? I am not counting ambiguous phrases like assigned readings or required readings, which can be used more generally outside school (primary and secondary education) context. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:29, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

We need to hear from some American editors, because I'm not sure that the idea even exists in the USA, i.e. it may be up to the individual school or even the individual teacher to prescribe which works of literature are read. Even in the UK there is a lot of flexibility. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:47, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I think a frequently used term is "required reading", although that is generally qualified, for instance "High school required reading". A google search for the term finds a page titled "Required Reading Worldwide" although the website is blocked at my workplace so I'm not sure how valuable a source it would be. I have a feeling such a list would be extremely long though, since AFAIK each state, province, etc. would have their own list of required reading.64.201.173.145 (talk) 12:29, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

There is no nation wide, uniform curriculum or "required reading" list in the US... some States set a common curriculum for all public schools within the State (which may or may not affect private schools within the state). Other States leave the curriculum up to the individual school districts, or even the individual schools. Blueboar (talk) 15:47, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Interesting, and definitely encyclopedic. Some countries have national wide lists, other don't. I expect the eventual list may be split into a number of subarticles; anyway my intention is not so much to start a list as to describe the existence of this concept (which is at least clearly defined and referenced in Polish language, and if I can't find an English source with a definition, I'll use the Polish ref). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:52, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Still problematic as an article topic to my mind, and I don't know what would be the WP:COMMONNAME in English. Can you see if you can extend textbook instead? Itsmejudith (talk) 10:44, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't know if it helps, but Wisława Szymborska's Lektury nadobowiązkowe has been published in English as Nonrequired Reading. [15] 14:09, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Aaron is not real at the Latin wikipedia

Not a question we can help with
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Apparently Aaron is not an encyclopedicaly a real person over at the Latin wikipedia. I say this because the Sacerdotes (priest ) category was removed over at the Latin wiki and would like to have it back in place. I already opened up a discussion with the administrator concerned and will open one at the Latin wikipedia's taberna(the forum or equivalent of reference desk.)--Jondel (talk) 09:50, 28 May 2013 (UTC) I'm sorry if I am misunderstanding, but this seems more of a statement than a question. Is there something we can help you with? - Cucumber Mike (talk) 10:02, 28 May 2013 (UTC) Thank you for your concern, I appreciate it! I would like that Aaron the brother of Moses, be classified under Sacerdotes (priest). This category was removed because allegedly he is fictional and the Sacerdotes is for 'real persons' only.--Jondel (talk) 10:32, 28 May 2013 (UTC) Should this not be discussed at the Latin Wikipedia? Or is your question 'is Aaron a real or fictional person?' We (I) would not really like to become involved in a dispute (especially not one on another Wikipedia), but we do want to answer questions for which we can find a source. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 10:38, 28 May 2013 (UTC) Whether Aaron was real or fictional does not really matter, because the OP is ultimately only interested in how to categorise the relevant page on the Latin Wikipedia - the categorisation of pages is an editorial decision for the Latin Wikipedia community to sort out. They can decide whether to categories Aaron in Category:Priests regardless of whether he is fictional or not, and it's not the role of an English wikiepdia ref desk to tell them whether the categorisation is "correct" or not. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:54, 28 May 2013 (UTC) Ok. At least allow me to air these things out. I will start a discussion at the Latin wiki if the remover does not respond to my discussion. The remover is an administrator there. It appears here in the English wiki that he is considered real. At least real enough for a 'High priest' category . I don't really want to start a dispute about his reality but I think he deserves the 'priest', category.--Jondel (talk) 10:58, 28 May 2013 (UTC) Right. In that case, PalaceGuard's advice is sound, and I don't think we can help here, so I'm closing this question. Don't hesitate to drop back here if you have another question we can help with. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 11:01, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Legally coaxing Julian Assange out of the embassy

Couldn't the UK just shut off the water and electricity supply, block the windows from outside, and make noise 24 h/d? I think something similar has happened at another embassy, but I don't remember the details. Would any part of this be legal? It seems more acceptable than paying several millions each years just to see if the guys tries to escape. OsmanRF34 (talk) 13:36, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I doubt it. The US did that to Noriega, at least the part about the music. That being said, this embassy is in urban London and if you tried doing the music bit, I don't think it would go down too well with locals. And Panama was part of a military action … I'm pretty sure there's something in one of the Hague conventions that forbids taking away services from an embassy. And what do you think will happen in Quito?--Wehwalt (talk) 13:38, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

But, do people indeed live there, or is it just all offices? You could just do it at night. I also wonder if he wouldn't be more comfy at a Swedish prison, which seem to be among the softest in the world. Until now, he has already spend almost 1 year in this semi-prison. OsmanRF34 (talk) 13:44, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

What does blocking the windows only at night and turning off the power, ditto accomplish? They'd bring in a generator and the British wind up looking foolish.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:53, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I meant loud music but only at night, when the offices around are mostly empty. Blocking the windows day and night could be maddening, even if you have a generator. You just need to see natural light. The British already look foolish, spending more than 5 million just trying to catch one guy. And if they don't succeed it will be even worse. OsmanRF34 (talk) 14:22, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

At what point does his residency there begin to approach being de facto imprisoned? Or is it already that way? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:58, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Under many practical aspects, he's imprisoned since day 1. He can only choose to move to a different prison, but cannot leave the embassy. Under others, like receiving visitors, he's not a prisoner. OsmanRF34 (talk) 15:01, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, he can leave the embassy, but that would put him in the position of having to face his accusers, and he's not interested in doing that. So he's a prisoner by his own choice... Assuming he's actually still there. Does anyone know for sure? Is it possible they figured out a way to get him out of the country while pretending he's still in the embassy? Or more to the point: When is the last time he was seen by anyone, e.g. looking out the window or whatever? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:06, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

That would violate the spirit, although not the letter, of diplomatic immunity. The British can declare the embassy personnel persona non grata, but putting them in intolerable conditions is hardly granting them protection. --Bowlhover (talk) 16:58, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

In the same small street as the Ecuadorian Embassy, [16] you can buy a two bedroomed apartment for GBP 3,500,000 (= USD 5,262,250) [17] so maybe someone living thereabouts would be able to afford a lawyer to prevent any noise nuisance. The Embassy is at Flat 3B, so I think the people who live in Flat 3A might have something to say about it too. In the UK, a "flat" is generally a residential apartment rather than an office. It seems in this case, as though the ambassador's residence doubles-up as the embassy too. Alansplodge (talk) 17:09, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I doubt that the UK will besiege the embassy as formally any such attempt is an assault on Ecuador. The embassy can smuggle Assange in diplomatic baggage, which is probably the only safe way out. Brandmeister^talk 19:47, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

If they were to smuggle him in several bags, that would be a bad sign. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:48, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

"Couldn't the UK just shut off the water and electricity supply..." seems more like a request for discussion and speculation than a request for references. If driving him out with music is on the table, trying the Child Catcher first might be less disruptive. Although Sir Helpmann is dead. μηδείς (talk) 23:36, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

A knight is either Sir Givenname Surname, or just Sir Givenname, but never Sir Surname. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 03:03, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. Someone using "Sir Surname" is a sure sign they don't know a damn thing about the system. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:40, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I am American. So sue me. (After Britain repays its war debts.) In any case, catching Assange with a honeypot like Sir Robert seems like a good idea. Although, given his current status isn't costing the countries tha8t want to bring him to justice any money, there is a certain poetic justice. Perhaps Britain could bill Ecuador for the protection it is providing? μηδείς (talk) 12:32, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

(* cough *). -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 12:57, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

"After Britain repays its war debts." Would that be these debts, that we finished repaying 9 years ago, or did you have some others in mind? Apologies for inconsiderately holding up the Nazi Hegemony for several years and leaving you with the EU rather than the Third Reich to deal with today :-) . {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 212.95.237.92 (talk) 13:29, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

The obvious context was WWI (I am glad to see the WWII debts were paid, they didn't make anything of this in the news) a large amount of which was effectively forgiven yet still defaulted on. μηδείς (talk) 16:47, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Assange may be "more comfy at a Swedish prison" but I don't think that is his primary concern. The Julian Assange article mentions a bigger problem at the end of the third paragraph... should he submit to justice in Sweden, "he fears ...his subsequent extradition to the United States". Extradition to the US could lead to him facing charges under the Espionage Act [18 U.S.C. 793(e)], which can carry punishments such as the death penalty. Astronaut (talk) 17:19, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Seems like he should be able to have or find an attorney somewhere who could negotiate that particular issue with the US. So his alleged fears are just an excuse. He's not afraid of being put to death. He's just refusing to be held accountable in any way for his various activities. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:50, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

That's just my opinion. I could be wrong. Addressing the OP's question directly, Yes, they could do that, but it could cause the Brits all sorts of political problems. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:02, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Battle of Bladders

What was the date of the so-called Battle of Bladders during Korean peace talks in the Joint Security Area? I searched the web, but didn't find even the year. Brandmeister^talk 13:51, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

So far, I've found this article which states "The two sides once held a meeting in Panmunjom that went on for eleven hours. Because there was no formal agreement about when to take a bathroom break, neither side budged. The meeting became known as the 'Battle of the Bladders.'" Then, searching for "Panmunjom" and "Eleven hours" I get this which says "President Kim Dae-jung and Chairman Kim Jong-il had frank, heart-to-heart talks for more than eleven hours. President Kim Dae-jung cordially invited Chairman Kim Jong-il to visit Seoul, and Chairman Kim agreed to visit South Korea in the near future," about inter-Korean summit meetings held June 13-15, 2000, but it says those meetings were held in Pyongyang, and I infer that the more than eleven hours werebroken over several meetings.

Further searching yields this which says "It could be argued that the most excruciating negotiations in the world have been the twice-monthly sessions of the Korean armistice commission in Panmunjom. Over the years the stalemated talks have turned into something of an endurance contest, with national honor at stake....On one particularly truculent day in April 1969, everyone sat tight for 11 hours and 38 minutes."

--some jerk on the Internet (talk) 16:55, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Who would be the most senior Democratic elected official in Oklahoma today?

There was recent speculation that the state of Oklahoma might have little influence after the recent horrible tornado with a Democratic administration in Washington, D.C., because both of her U.S. Senators (Tom Coburn & Jim Inhofe), all five Representatives in Congress, and all eleven statewide elected officials (including Governor Mary Fallin), are now Republicans as are a majority of the members in both chambers of her state legislature. See Political party strength in Oklahoma.
I happen to live in Rhode Island, which is as Democratic as Oklahoma is Republican, with all four Congressional representatives, all five statewide elected officials and crushing majorities of both chambers of our state Legislature being shut out of Republican control, the only qualification being that the governor, Lincoln Chafee is a political independent rather than a Democrat. See Political party strength in Rhode Island. But I can tell you who are currently our state's most senior elected Republican officials, the long-serving and popular mayors of two of our four largest cities: Scott Avedisian of Warwick (where Lincoln Chafee was once a Republican mayor) and Allan Fung of Cranston. I checked and found that Oklahhoma's two largest cities, Oklahoma City and Tulsa both have Republican mayors, while the three next-largest cities (Broken Arrow, Norman and Lawton) operate on a Council-Manager system and Wikipedia doesn't say what parties (if any) their mayors belong to. (Because of their very different history and geography, Oklahoma also has working counties and districts that just don't exist in Rhode Island.) So, in default of some dark horse or white knight, who is or are considered to be the leading Oklahoma Democrats? Before 2010, it would have been Governor Brad Henry and the last remaining Democrat on the Congressional delegation, Dan Boren; would they still be considered the leaders by default? —— Shakescene (talk) 15:02, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

A lot depends on your definition of "seniority"... A State Senator, for example, holds a "State level" office, while a City Mayor holds only a "local level" office)... According to protocol system, the State Senator would "outrank" the Mayor. Yet the Mayor of a large city may actually have been elected by more people than the State Senator, and thus have more political clout in the internal power structure of party politics. Blueboar (talk) 16:06, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

• The Minority Leader of the Oklahoma House is Scott Inman and the Minority Leader of the Oklahoma Senate is Sean Burrage. Those two would be the highest ranking Oklahoma Democrats currently, I believe.--Jayron32 19:36, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

• According to Oklahoma_Democratic_Party#Officers_and_staff, the current Chair is Wallace Collins. RNealK (talk) 23:26, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

• • That's all useful to know, and I never disdain the work that others have done, but there's very limited clout to being a minority leader in such lopsided legislatures as Oklahoma's (only 1/3 Democratic) or Rhode Island's (1/7 to 1/12 Republican) or the chairman of a marginal party. (Which doesn't mean that I don't think that Howard Dean's and Michael Steele's fifty-state strategies for their respective parties, treating no state as unimportant or hopeless, weren't absolutely right and essential.) A mayor or attorney-general, even a district attorney, can do things that a party chairman or minority leader usually can't; so when a beleaguered minority party like Rhode Island's GOP looks for candidates for higher office (or when a state seeks to sway out-of-state officials from the opposition party), they would look at whoever has succeeded in winning elections in their forbidding environment. —— Shakescene (talk) 23:43, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Likely not a mayor, as there are only two significantly large cities in Oklahoma, per List of cities in Oklahoma, being both Tulsa and Oklahoma City, and they both have Republican mayors. Only two other cities have populations greater than 100,000 people, Norman, Oklahoma has a non-partisan mayor (by statute, all elections in Norman are non-partisan) and Broken Arrow has a nominal mayor, which is just rotated through the city council; it is also a suburb of Tulsa, and so itself is probably not that politically significant. No other city politician would likely have much clout on a state-wide level outside of Tulsa or OKC, so the three people already named (the Legislative party leaders and the state Party boss) are it in terms of actual political power among Democrats in Oklahoma. --Jayron32 01:23, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

George I of Greece

Why did Prince Vilhelm of Denmark chose to be called George I of Greece?--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 17:48, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps because St. George is a Patron Saint of Greece, per Saint George and Patron saints of places. I'll look for a more definitive reason. --Jayron32 18:18, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

While the English Wikipedia does not list it, George was one of his birth names, per Greek Wikipedia, after feeding it through Google Translate, there's also some information. It does not state why, but he was George I according to the official proclamation thereof. Still looking in a few more places. --Jayron32 18:21, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

This Wikipedia does list it: Christian Wilhelm Ferdinand Adolf Georg. He was known by his second name until his accession and by his last name thereafter. George is a actually a name of Greek origin, unlike his other given names. Surtsicna (talk) 18:42, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

This isn't central to the original query about Georg(e) vs Vilhelm, but I'd be extraordinarily surprised to learn that Christian (Christ, Chrism, etc.) is somehow not of Greek origin. In fact the one tiny part of the vernacular (local language) Mass or Communion Service that is in Greek, the Kyrie, is read or sung "Kyrie Eleison, Christos Eleison, ..." ("Lord have mercy upon us; Christ have mercy upon us; ...") On the other hand, extreme surprise is not the same as absolute denial; one is always learning from things that once seemed utterly incredible, and I'm no linguist or philologist. Move to Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language if, as and when it might seem appropriate. —— Shakescene (talk) 22:04, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

The word Christian derives from Greek christos, "the anointed one".[18] "Christian" as a given name, and variations thereof, is pretty common. Technically of Greek origin, but less obviously so than "George". That name actually means "farmer", so the various George Farmers are kind of redundant. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:43, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

As Baseball Bugs said, the word Christ is of Greek origin, but the name Christian is derived from the Latin word Christianus, meaning "follower of Christ". It eventually goes back to Greek, but not directly. Surtsicna (talk) 23:23, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Χριστιανος occurs in the Greek New Testament at 1 Peter 4:16, and in inflected form at Acts 11:26 and 26:28... AnonMoos (talk) 01:09, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

To be necessarily pedantic here, that's the vocative Christe eleison, not the nominative Christos. μηδείς (talk) 12:37, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

What are you talking about? That's Christianos and its inflections, not Christos at all. AlexTiefling (talk) 12:43, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Medeis's comment would have made sense had she been responding to Shakescene above, but it's not apparent that she was. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 12:50, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Cats in Oceania

Did the domestic cat even existed in Oceania prior to European settlement? I heard of early settlers bringing pigs, dogs and rats to the islands of the Pacific but never cats. When was the domestic cat introduced to Southeast Asia where most of the people of the Pacific originally came from?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:17, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Most likely no due to distance, but check Siamese (cat)#History. According to this, "cats established themselves in the wild across Australia by the 1890s" and this says that on Macquarie Island there were feral cats since 1820. Brandmeister^talk 20:10, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

So when did domestic cat reach Southeast Asia and Eastern Asia initially.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 20:23, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

By about 5th century AD concerning Southeast Asia (Journal of the Institute of Asian Studies, 1999, vol. 17, p. 71) and after 186 BC regarding the Far East ([19]), according to my search. In China, per this, the domestic cat was introduced not earlier than the 6th century AD. Brandmeister^talk 22:04, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

May 29

Marxism

I've looked at some of Karl Marx's ideas (i.e., historical materialism, dialectical materialism, false consciousness) and they strike me as a bit…wonky. His concepts are so bizarre and they feel eerily like postmodernism. Am I missing something here, like a connection between the two? Are they related to German Idealism? —Melab±1 ☎ 02:31, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Postmodernism is about the opposite of German Idealism. There are some Marxist influences of postmodernists, but I suspect you're either confused about postmodernism or confused about Marxism.

Marxism qua Marx is not very postmodern. It's modern with a capital M. Marx believes that everything is knowable, that truth is true, that real is real, and that once you know the right theory you can predict the future, predict how people should act, and predict how everything simply must be at practically every level of knowledge.

Postmodernism is many things, but it's not that. Postmodernists are generally anti-realism, they believe that nothing is really "true" in an absolute sense, they believe that theories used to make all of these kinds of predictions are in fact just artifacts of the people making the theories, and little more.

Yeah, there's areas of apparent overlap — Marx is all about economic and class context, for example, and postmodernists sometimes go in that direction — but I would not confuse the two. Marx wouldn't like postmodernists and the only Marx that postmodernists like is one that has been seriously stripped of his modernist context. There are aspects of Marx that have made it into postmodernism but the doctrine as a whole is totally not what Marx was about. --Mr.98 (talk) 02:55, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Would Marx have predicted characters like Stalin and Mao? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:14, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

No. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:38, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Quite the reverse - Marx seems to have been of the opinion that Slavic nations would never amount to much, for example. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:38, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Marx's ideas are surely related to German idealism, though. He got the concept of the dialectic from Kant, Fichte, and especially Hegel. Looie496 (talk) 13:56, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Further, he was something of a Hegelian early on, moving away from it as he developed his views on capitalism. The early Marx was, I think, more idealistic; the later Marx made a point of opposing all utopian ideas in favour of a critique of capitalism based on its structural foundations. You can read more in The Immanent Utopia: From Marxism on the State to the State of Marxism, although I am not trying to endorse the book as a whole. I read it about 10 years ago, and not in full, so I can't vouch for it, I just seem to remember it was very illuminating. Briefly, the early Marx had a general idealistic view; the later Marx thought capitalism was going to die of its own contradictions anyway. I don't know the details, but this developed into the base and superstructure model, that is, capitalism (the base) influences the ideology, culture and history of a society (the superstructure). Some of Marx's followers took this to a ridiculous extreme (perhaps where the "wonky" bit comes from), so much so that Friedrich Engels had to correct them and state "the economic movement finally asserts itself as necessary" (or, in other words, it does not influence every little thing, only the broad, final outcome). See [20], although I can't find the precise source for the context of this quote. That link suggests I've got it right, but doesn't explicitly state the doctrine Engels is responding to. It refers to "economism" which I'm guessing is the sort of extreme dogmatism that says everything is determined by the economic base. Of course your question states the "wonky" bit as an aside, so I just thought you might want to look further into the background, to see it's not quite as silly as you might think. Herbert Marcuse, writing almost 100 years later, still had to tell people "Not every problem someone has with his girlfriend is necessarily due to the capitalist mode of production." (see [21]). Simplistic and reductionist views will always have some appeal, but, regardless of his followers, Marx himself is still a rather acclaimed thinker, so don't be too quick to judge. IBE (talk) 17:06, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Record number of consorts by Chinese emperors

Which Chinese emperors had the most consorts and concubines? PS: I read what is in Ranks of imperial consorts in China.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 05:02, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Are earrings very important to Spanish women?

Just see in a Chinese website that "Spainsh women fashioned earring. A woman without earring would be ridiculed just like a woman without clothes." And there are quite a lot google result on similar claims. Is it exaggerated?--朝鲜的轮子 (talk) 06:42, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Obviously exagerated. Foreign women that walk the streets in Spain without ear rings do not get stares or arrested the Police. Foreign women that walk the streets in Spain without clothing do get stares and do get arrested by the Police. There is clearly a difference of importance in the 2 concepts. --Lgriot (talk) 08:21, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Complete nonsense. I've been to Spain without earrings and have never noticed people staring. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:38, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

"Infants of both sexes are carefully, even ornately, dressed. Sometimes strangers can detect their sex only by the presence of earrings on girl babies, whose ears are usually pierced in their first weeks of life." This is from Countries and their Cultures, by Melvin Ember (and refers to Spain).  Card Zero  (talk) 13:13, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Piercing the ears of very young girls goes well beyond Spain. It's widely prevalent among hispanics in Latin America [22] and North America [23] [24], so it's fairly broad culturally, ethnic rather than national. - Nunh-huh 13:27, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

UK House of Commons subcommittees

Followup on my previous questions, e.g. Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2013 May 15, on Lee H. Hamilton. I've just pictures of Hamilton with a panel of others, and the caption reads "England: Defence External Affairs Subcommittee House of Commons". [25] makes me think that it was a committee, but there's a Defence Select Committee; could this be the external affairs subcommittee of the Defence Select Committee? I can't find anything about subcommittees of the House of Commons (List of committees of the Parliament of the United Kingdom only mentions one subcommittee, and it's in Lords), and I don't know the date of the picture. 2001:18E8:2:1020:3C05:EABC:1566:DAE5 (talk) 15:54, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Subcommittees may be more transient than regular committees; they may likely be formed by the committee themselves, and only on an ad hoc or short-term basis, and a subcommittee from 1972 (41 years ago!) may likely not exist anymore, Parliament is a very different place today. A full list of committees is listed here. with no guarantee that it is the same as that long ago. --Jayron32 17:31, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I only know about the US Congress and its comparatively stable committees and subcommittees. I had no idea that things in the House of Commons changed as you describe, so I'll be careful. Thanks! 2001:18E8:2:1020:E5E2:CABD:1AD7:A3B0 (talk) 19:14, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Digging around the parliamentary archives catalogue, two things: a) all the current Select Committees were established in 1979, and tracing them before that is tricky; b) there was indeed a "Defence and External Affairs Sub-Committee" but of the Expenditure Committee, and it appears to have existed in the 1970s. Andrew Gray (talk) 19:21, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Incidentally, if you can find someone with access to the Chadwyck-Healy parliamentary papers database (I sadly don't any more) the subcommittee reports may be digitised for that period, which would tell you why they were there. From the title, and the Expenditure link, I suspect equipment purchasing or other military contracting (base leases?). Andrew Gray (talk) 19:31, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

The Expenditure Committee and its sub-committees were the predecessors of the present Select Committee system. Andrew Gray is pointing you in the right direction, and I can tell you that the publications of the Defence and External Affairs Sub-Committee of the Expenditure Committee in 1972 were House of Commons Papers 141, 310 (published in 20 parts), 344 and 516 of session 1971-72. If you are on the database, you can put 1971-72 in the session field, and those numbers in the 'Paper number' field, and you will go straight to it. Unfortunately I only have the membership of the Expenditure Committee which was very large, but the chairman of the Defence and External Affairs sub-committee in 1972 was Sir Harwood Harrison. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:27, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Why long tail is important?

From what I undertood about it long tail rule can fit on those rules: x<y x=amount sold by 20% most sold itens y=amount sold by the 80% least sold items x=a*1, y=b*4 a>b a=amount that the 20% most sold products sold at average b=amount that the 20% least sold products sold at average The 1 and 4, its because 80% is 4x more products than 20% ones.

So the only thing that need to happen here is that the 20% most sold products can't sell at average more than 4x the amount that the least sold 80% sell. I dont think that its too hard? 201.78.191.37 (talk) 18:12, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, if you are only interested in revenue. You should factor in production costs. IBE (talk) 18:36, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

The New York Times Book Review

• Garner, Dwight (December 8, 2002). "Everything Tastes Better with Bacon". The New York Times Book Review. 107 (49). The New York Times Company: 54.

---

Can someone get access to this source for me? It'd be greatly appreciated, it's for a quality improvement project. Let me know back at User talk:Cirt, please, — Cirt (talk) 18:54, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

If you ask this over at WP:REX you are almost certain to get a response. Just make sure you have "Enable email from other users" checked in your preferences. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 19:06, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I found it, and left it on your talk page. --some jerk on the Internet (talk) 19:18, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

New Deal debate

Hello, I will be formally debating the New Deal, and will be in favor of its "economic success." There will be a period where my team can ask questions to our opposition. What questions do you think of that that I can ask, and can strengthen my case in support of the New Deal? What I come up with my head right now:

• How exactly did government intervention prolong the Depression, as you say?

Anything else? Thanks --Colonel House (talk) 21:36, 29 May 2013 (UTC)