Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

Select a section:

WP:RD/H

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

How can I get my question answered?

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

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

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

May 30

"Welfare quarantining" Schemes - effective? cost effective? ethical?

A few months ago, the UK considered a "welfare cash card bill", put forward by Conservative MP Alec Shelbrooke, which would attempt to limit what welfare recipients could spend their payments on. On the "prohibited" list would be alcohol, tobacco, gambling services, and (oddly, IMHO), pay TV. I logically presume that reducing the purchase of illicit drugs with welfare money would also be part of the objective.

(I consider the inclusion of pay TV "odd", as unlike the others, pay TV is not generally considered an addiction).

I see two major problems with such a scheme:

1. Administration costs. My understanding is that such costs already eat up a huge chunk of the welfare budget (am I correct?). Is there any way such a "cash-card scheme" could be introduced without causing such costs to balloon significantly? I presume the cash-card would use existing eftpos systems, but even so, would such a scheme be able to be implemented in a cost-effective way?

2. Diversion / circumvention. This somewhat ties in with issue 1. If you strictly limit what CAN be bought with the card (a "white-list"), you would presumably need costly systems to implement this. Standard eftpos systems won't do.

On the other hand, if you use a "black-list" system (where the card could be used anywhere but casinos, pubs, bottle-shops, gambling sites etc), I assume the admin costs would be significantly cheaper (though possibly still high). But would such a system be effective? Wouldn't people just buy up stuff with the card, re-sell it (on the net or whatever), and use the cash to buy their ciggies / alcohol / drugs etc?

For comparison's sake, how effective is the long-standing U.S. "food stamps" program at getting recipients to spend the stamps on food, rather than trading them for drugs or booze? And how much of an administration cost burden does it impose, over and above what it would cost to pay recipients cash directly?

In sum, can such a system be cost-effective? And can it be effective? 61.88.210.42 (talk) 09:15, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

These stories have been in the U.S. news a lot lately, Arizona, Michigan, and for drugs specifically Texas and Florida, which actually was found not to be cost-effective but a drain on taxpayers as reported by the news parody Daily Show. That said to really get answers to your questions some long term studies should be conducted of which I know none, it isn't unusual for government directives to lose money for 1-2 years before benefiting society, so a multi-year study would be the most reliable. ^{Market St.⧏}_{⧐ Diamond Way} 09:23, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You need to define "effective" before we can answer. If you mean "effective in getting people back to work", it depends on whether you consider the UK bill's proposed ban on paying to access the Internet would have worked: as from later in this year, the only way to access unemployment benefits will be through the Internet, I guess it would do. Unfortunately it's pretty much also the only way to apply for jobs these days. If it had been introduced, I guess there would be a thriving black market in the cards - but we're not here to speculate. --TammyMoet (talk) 10:05, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(OP here - different computer). When I say "effective", I'm asking not in terms of getting people back to work (that's WAY too much to expect), but in substantially reducing the amount of welfare money which ends up (either directly or indirectly) in the pockets of the drug dealers, bottle shops, and cigarette companies. 14.201.22.133 (talk) 10:27, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know. In the UK, cigarettes, alcohol, and gambling (in the form of lottery tickets) can easily be bought in supermarkets and most smaller food shops ie. the very shops people with the proposed welfare card would be doing their 'legitimete' shopping. The burden of applying a white list of products would therefore fall on shop staff. Either that or Job Centre snoops would be charged with checking people's shopping (where? outside the store, or surprise visits at home?). As I see it, the plan as proposed by Alec Shelbrooke MP, would have been fundamentally flawed for UK society. Astronaut (talk) 14:22, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the larger supermarkets, the tills already flag up those items for age restrictions, forcing the cashier to check. it would presumably not be too hard to make it refuse the sale if payment was attempted with a welfare cash card. The smaller shops would still present a problem, unless you impose punitive measures on the shops themselves. MChesterMC (talk) 15:50, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I added "ethical" to the subject line, surprisingly enough "cost effective" and "effective" are not always the only considerations for government action, it seems we are basically talking about treating adults as children. Even the Old Testament instructs rulers to let the poor and needy have their drink so they can forget their poverty. (Prov 31:7). It sounds like a nanny state where no sort of relaxation or living is to be encouraged or tolerated, happy or relaxed peasants are no fun to feel superior toward I suppose so we have to take away whatever we can and make them pissed off peasants, foolhardy though this is. So what exactly makes them think they have the right anyway? This lording it over the poor often featured in Britain's history actually goes directly against everything taught throughout all the scriptures. So what is their doctrine really based on then? "101 ways to oppress people"? Sindonwe (talk) 02:30, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not "lording it over the poor", but an attempt (rather ineffective) to prevent the taxes of those who cannot afford such luxuries being used to fund the apparently extravagant lifestyle of some welfare recipients. Do welfare payments in the USA not have similar restrictions? Dbfirs 19:59, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

European Union

This is clearly a request for debate, not a question capable of being answered here

Why do national leaders insist on promoting the European Union despite public discontent with it? Speaking as a member of the United Kingdom the majority of the electorate seem to be disenfranchised with the EU because there is a perception of it encroaching on national sovereignty and undermining Parliament, it doesn't give us control of our own border from other European nations, and just recently its threatening legal action because the government is seeking to restrict the benefits available to those migrants; the European Parliament insists on enacting frivolous decrees on practically every conceivable thing, from fishing to olive oil. Why do government policies on the issue of the EU not reflect the views of the electorate --Andrew 15:18, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm awfully sorry by the way if my asking a legitimate question about member states governments failure to question the EU is offending anybody - this question has after all been deleted twice. However, why elected leaders are failing to do anything about the creation of a bureaucratic superstate is a legitimate concern and can be answered on the reference desk. To dismiss it as a rant breaches POV, one man's rant is another's valid point. You can delete this post as often as you like but why governments are refusing to question the EU is a question, not a rant, and one that deserves an answer --Andrew 15:39, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To repeat what I just said on my talk page: Because it's not a factual question at all. Some of your premises may be factually incorrect - although I've no wish to challenge them directly - but the overall complexion of the question is a political one. It is entirely about people's preferences for different forms and structures of government, their opinion on what sovereignty is - and whether we've got it or need it - and so on. If you have more tightly focussed questions about EU policy (eg "To what extent has immigration into the UK from recently-joined EU members matched mainstream media predictions?") those would be within the remit of the reference desk. But the general 'Why do politicians do A and not B' question is not generally answerable. By the way, your signature should include a link to your user talk page. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:08, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with your question is that it is easily seen as a request for an opinion (often dismissed as an attempt to start a forum-like discussion). Maybe if you didn't believe everything you read in the Daily Mail, you might have a different view. However, I'll have a go at providing a useful answer...

The UK has an opt-out to the lack of border controls throughout much of rest the EU - see Opt-outs in the European Union for details of that and other opt-outs. Tha does allow the UK full control over it borders. Frivilous decrees (such as straight bananas) are often one of those Euromyths spouted by eurosceptics. On the other hand, membership of the EU brings a number of benefits to the UK, its citizens and UK business in areas such as justice, environment, safety, trade, and (something I make use of) the Freedom of movement for workers - yes, it's not just about Polish plumbers, it works both ways. Astronaut (talk) 16:22, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well I was actually going by the most recent Eurobarometer survey and by videos uploaded by the European Parliament which reflect the current situation which seems to be that the European Commission passes an edict and people just go with it. The UK government has also said, repeatedly, that there is nothing they can do with regard to EU laws. And we may well have an opt out scheme but that doesn't explain why 8 million people have come to the country? --Andrew 16:36, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could New World slaves buy things?

I don't mean own things. But if a slaveowner wanted to send a slave to the store to pick something up, could or should have the storeowner refused the sale? Were there standard legal rules or was it left up to community/store/household discretion? Just asking about Africans in the Americas (not only the US) these last few centuries, not interested (at least not here) about how the Egyptians/Byzantines/whoever did things earlier. Thanks. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:03, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It would help to know the context for this question to be able to answer it intelligently. It would help to know how you arrived at the place where the null hypothesis is "slaves couldn't be sent to buy things from the store for their master" and then ask us for evidence to support or refute that. It would seem that there's no reason why they couldn't, and thus wouldn't necessarily be the sort of question that one could find references to prove one way or the other. --Jayron32 20:15, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They couldn't do a lot of social things (vote, freely associate, travel). I'd just figured this might be another one of those things. Trying not to assume it was or wasn't. ~~Not sure what a null hypothesis is.~~ But either Google isn't helpful, or I suck at Googling. I can manage "null hypothesis", though. Now that I have, no, I don't think I've arrived at that place. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:25, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that it would depend. The storeowner is under no obligation to deal with the slave, and probably there were those who would not deal with a black man. And a slave might have money, some were allowed to earn outside money and the master got a part of it.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:26, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. Do you happen to know what the owner's cut of the money generally was? InedibleHulk (talk) 22:25, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite unlikely that a storeowner would refuse to deal with a slave sent by his master, at least if he knows both. Why would he? The master probably is reasonably wealthy, and hence a good customer. You may be back-projecting modern segregation and racism back to a time when there was no segregation and the racism had a quite different character. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:48, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Trying not to. Just figured buying might be some sort of right or priviledge of free people only. But Jefferson below answers that question, at least for those slaves. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:25, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to Thomas Jefferson's Crème Brûlée, Jefferson's slaves sold vegetables grown by themselves to the Monticello household, and used the money to purchase "extra clothes, tea, coffee, and other small luxuries from shops in Charlottesville." - Nunh-huh 21:06, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:25, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't need to buy with cash. Could buy with master's credit. Don't know if credit was available in New Spain and South America.
Sleigh (talk) 04:30, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Credit was the lifeblood of the economy of New Spain..." [1]. Pfly (talk) 23:36, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could a slave buy with his master's credit without permission? Or earn their own? I'd guess no. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:33, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They could even buy themselves at certain times and place, under certain conditions. OsmanRF34 (talk) 12:38, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just remember that we can't really provide a single answer even for the USA at a specific time, since as Osman notes, conditions would normally be different from state to state. Stephan's comment is quite correct — someone who refused to deal with free blacks would likely be much more open to dealing with slaves. Nobody of influence would care if you refused the free black in most situations, but refusing to deal with a slave whom the master sent would probably be seen as an insult to the master. Nyttend (talk) 23:32, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. "Small" answers help. I'm really fairly ignorant about slavery, even the American kind. Lots of kids learn that stuff in school, but not Canadian kids. To put it in context, when the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was enacted, Firmin Monestime already ran my town.

I've got a few showing some slaves did buy things (including their freedom), and nothing indicating there were rules against it. The picture still isn't clear, but definitely clearer than it was for me. Reasonable reasoning, too. Thanks, everyone. You've been much more helpful than Google, who I can't seem to convince I'm not asking about buying slaves. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:28, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe this is tangential to the OP's question, but from a legal standpoint if a slave was to buy something for his owner wouldn't the slave be the agent and his owner the principal? In that case, it might not matter if the slave him- or herself had the legal capacity to buy something, since legally it's the owner doing the purchase by proxy. I know next to nothing about contract law and agency law in those times, so I might very well be completely off, though. Sjö (talk) 09:19, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A Sculpture by Augusta Savage

Looking for more information on the sculpture by Augusta Savage in this photo: http://www.florida-arts.org/images/halloffame/savage.jpg

Does anyone know the title of the sculpture, when it was completed, and who has it (perhaps some museum), and where I can get a current photo?

Thanks for your reply. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.225.105.32 (talk) 20:04, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No sign of sales by Christies, Sotheby's or Bonhams (though Christies sold her Gamin bust). It looks like it's intended to be a garden sculpture. Paul B (talk) 21:17, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't locate it either. A lot of her sculptures seem to have gone lost or were destroyed, as they only existed in plaster and were never cast in bronze or other more durable material due to lack of financial means. (See for example Encyclopædia Brittanica's Guide to Black History or Cummer Museum or Arts and Gardens). ---Sluzzelin talk 14:35, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad's successor debate in Islamic groups

How can I find out if the prophet Muhammad directly appointed a successor, did not appoint one but had later followers appoint one, or never had one at all. 108.0.244.168 (talk) 20:59, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read succession to Muhammad? In short, the fact that there was no universal agreement regarding this point is the reason there are sects of Islam. Sunnis say Muhammad never appointed a successor, but that the caliphs elected after Muhammed's death were valid successors, and the Shias say Muhammed explicitly named his successor Ali during his lifetime. So the answer to your question depends on who you ask it of, which is another way of saying, there's no way we can know at this point. - Nunh-huh 21:14, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did just read it. But what are the Ahmadiyyas' interpretation, or the Kharijites' interpretation? The article does not exactly mention their interpretations. I think that it could improve that article. 108.0.244.168 (talk) 21:19, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that article could use some work, and not only on those points. If you find an answer, you should consider adding it to the article. - Nunh-huh 21:26, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Name of law, sociological metric

There is (or once was) a wikipedia article on a "Doe's law" that says any metric used to monitor a sociological phenomena will increase without the actual situation improving. Of course it isn't "Doe" it's some other name. Can someone post the name of the law? NE Ent 22:35, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Social facilitation? ~~Bystander effect?~~ Yerkes–Dodson law? Audience effect? Bus stop (talk) 23:14, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks but none of those -- it is/was definitely a single name followed by "law." NE Ent 12:20, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's an article List of eponymous laws, which may have it. Hawthorne effect sounds like it's closely related. Hutber's law is probably not it, but may be interesting. Those were found from a quick scan - a closer search may pull up something else. -- 71.35.97.37 (talk) 16:27, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Campbell's law! Thanks. NE Ent 22:28, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

May 31

Liberal area in a city of a conservative Muslim nation

I have two questions about North Tehran: is North Tehran the only area that is liberal in Iran and is it the only area that is liberal in a city in a Muslim conservative nation?--Donmust90 (talk) 02:44, 31 May 2013 (UTC)Donmust90[reply]

Just out of curiosity, what do you think 'liberal' and 'conservative' mean in this context? AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:19, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Theres a wikipedia article on much of your question here: Liberalism in Iran.^{Market St.⧏}_{⧐ Diamond Way} 04:03, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is an article entitled 'Liberalism in Iran' there - it certainly seems to cover one particular definition of 'liberalism'. As to whether it actually says anything much regarding the relevance of this particular definition of 'liberalism' to the politics of contemporary Iran I have my doubts. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:13, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To expand Andy's point here, we don't know what Donmust's meaning of the terms is. Religiously conservative? Socially conservative? Politically conservative? What activities or beliefs count for conservative or liberal in the context of the question at hand is most relevant here, and that is unclear from Donmust's post. --Jayron32 04:27, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

edit conflict I was awaiting the reply of OP before voicing that to my recollection "liberalism" is understood as a mainly western idea with western history/culture/conflict and in some part "conservative" as well, that is why many scholars of the Middle East tend to use terms such as secularists, modernists and then fundamentalists, traditionalists etc. I guess liberalism could fit some but when you state liberal ideals in the U.S. or Europe many of those issues wouldn't be shared by the most progressive Muslims or actually might be held by what is seen as Fundamentalist regimes. So yes AndyTheGrump (& Jayron32), I too await any clarity on this.^{Market St.⧏}_{⧐ Diamond Way} 04:37, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Even in the West, an American "liberal" may well be a European "conservative" (and an American "conservative" a European "ultra-conservative"). In Australia, you have the even more curious dichotomy bewteen "Liberal" and "liberal", where "Liberal" means "conservative" and "liberal" means "centre-ish".) --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 14:36, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are many areas in Iran which have liberal tendencies, in big cities like Isfahan, Rasht, Tabriz, Mashhad, Shiraz, etc. BTW, Iran is not a Muslim conservative nation, but it has a Muslim conservative government which does not represent the majority of the nation. --Omidinist (talk) 04:35, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you guys read Tehran#North Tehran? That's how I got my idea. Now please, answer the question.--Donmust90 (talk) 00:47, 1 June 2013 (UTC)Donmust90[reply]

I admire your passion on this topic however not every question on here has a clear cut or even consensus answer. I did read the short blurb on North Tehran as I am sure most editors have by now, I see an AP and Chicago Trib article cited with "liberal" mentioned and then further described as "moderate" and "non-secular" which I and PalaceGuard008 have discussed for you. As far as other places I see Omidinist has given some great examples. It is well known among Middle East scholars that Turkey and pre-1980s Lebanon were "non-secular" and "moderate" but again "liberal" means something very different in San Francisco then it does in Oklahoma so comparing "liberal" of western cultures to how "liberal" is defined in Islamic cultures is a bit overly broad. You may wish to specify what social issue or topic you are asking for, as well as defining what it is you consider to be "liberal".^{Market St.⧏}_{⧐ Diamond Way} 05:23, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tie in a US presidential election - agreement in the Electoral college

This 3:37 min YouTube video explains in detail what might possibly happen if no candidate in a US presidential election wins a majority in the Electoral College. Is the video right in all aspects? Am I right that as of now, nowhere in Wikipedia this situation is explained as a whole? And the main question I'm concerned about: If there is a deadlock between three candidates, I would deem it rather natural for two of the respective parties to find an agreement and vote for the same candidates (maybe the president from one party, the vice president from the other; or both of the same party, and the other gets whatever admission was agreed on). Would this be possible? Under what conditions? Impossible under laws against faithless electors in the respective states, even if all participants agree? --KnightMove (talk) 12:17, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As the video covers the United States presidential election, 1828 was one such instance, also see the somewhat relevant United States presidential election, 1884. With a lot of "constitutional" issues such as these it is really unprecedented and untested so it is hard to give a definitive answer though your suggestion that an "agreement" would be reached was how 1828 and 1884 worked themselves out & would be likely the result in any future decision. I kind of laughed at the video since it is slightly alarmist, despite their own inflated press clippings the great majority of Americans can function day to day despite what may be happening in Congress or the White House and the bureaucracy has its own self sustaining support to carry out vital functions.^{Market St.⧏}_{⧐ Diamond Way} 12:44, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If 26 delegations in the House of Representatives have a majority for one party, that's the ballgame and I doubt any negotiating would take place. The VP would be a minor prize by comparison, since he has very little direct power. If the Senate would not favor his candidate, possibly the President-elect could make a deal, but he might not like the price.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:10, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. The Constitution is clear on how to handle this situation. The complaints in the two 19th century cases were not about whether the Constitution covered it, but about the way it was handled by the Congress. It also occurs to me that the Constitution's rules on this reinforce the premise that it is the states, not the people directly, who elect the President. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:42, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't our article Electoral College (United States) answer this question? If not, how could we improve it? Rmhermen (talk) 15:20, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent point Rmhermen, perhaps the OP may wish to be WP:BOLD on that Electoral College article ;-).^{Market St.⧏}_{⧐ Diamond Way} 05:14, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I started being BOLD by adding a short summary of this process to the lead section.[2] Cheers. Zzyzx11 (talk) 06:02, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The first thing that jumped out at me was the mistaken idea that a presidential candidate or party might ‘do a deal.’ The Electoral College is made up of individuals with a right to vote on behalf of their constituencies. If they cannot decide, it goes to the House of Representatives where parties and deals may be thrown or struck. As relations between the parties stand today, there is very little chance of a president from one party and a VP from the other. DOR (HK) (talk) 07:50, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kush

Hello,

in 700 BC, did Kush extent from the Blue and White Nile to the Levant or to the Nile Delta?

Thank you for your answers.

Greetings HeliosX (talk) 14:38, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Our article on Kush describes this period, especially the section on the 25th Dynasty of Egypt. Rmhermen (talk) 14:56, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

yes I saw the article, but I also found a picture which describes it to be extending from the Blue and White Nile to the Nile Delta: [3].

So what is the right one?

Greetings HeliosX (talk) 11:16, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Both of those maps show Kush controlling the Nile Delta. One shows it extending into the Levant. Rmhermen (talk) 21:31, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but how was it actually? In 700 BC, did Kush extend from the Blue and White Nile to the Nile Delta or up to the Levant?

Greetings HeliosX (talk) 21:18, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Our article describes Kush-led Egypt as successfully supporting Jeruslaem against the Assyrians but it was a short-lived victory. And would probably be more considered an area of influence than direct rule. Rmhermen (talk) 22:13, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

food versus politics

A few months ago, I watched a TV mini-series about the LZ 129 Hindenburg. As I was watching, I noticed some good meals being served to the passengers. I told my mother there should be a cookbook consisting of recipes for meals that were served aboard the airship. My mother counterpointed the airship was under the control of Nazi Germany. I asked my mother what good food has to do with those politics. My mother answered probably nothing. Does a Hindenburg cookbook seem like a good idea?142.255.103.121 (talk) 22:07, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since the Zeppelin‎ was used as a promotional/propaganda tool by the Nazi's, the idea may have the same fate as such things as an Allianz Stadium and JC Penney tea kettle and that's not even considering that the Hindenburg disaster‎ is remembered by the infamous "Oh the humanity", not the best marketing line for selling cookbooks.^{Market St.⧏}_{⧐ Diamond Way} 22:45, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You might find it difficult to assemble material. Apparently a few menus have survived (e.g., http://i.imgur.com/w6Ukwl.jpg), but the recipes were never published and probably no longer exist. Looie496 (talk) 22:53, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a Titanic cookbook? HiLo48 (talk) 22:58, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Please read our guidelines, "We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate"; so we can't tell you whether it's a good idea. But it is interesting whether it can be reconstructed, or whether one might exist for the Titanic, etc., on which we can comment. PS, for an explanation of your mother's idea that neutral things are contaminated by evil things, look up sympathetic magic. μηδείς (talk) 23:02, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's cheap, and well-reviewd: Last Dinner On the Titanic Menus and Recipes From the Great Liner: MENUS AND RECIPES FROM THE GREAT LINER. μηδείς (talk) 23:05, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's one of several, but apparently only the menus come from the Titanic itself -- the recipes are taken or re-created from other period sources. Looie496 (talk) 23:06, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is often said that the Zeppelins were tainted by their association with Nazi Germany, but that is not quite the full story. Zeppelins were a patriotic symbol for Germany long before 1933, so when the Nazis came into power they were keen to appropriate them. The Zeppelin company strongly resisted and only agreed to have swastika flags painted on their airships when the government ordered it by law. Hugo Eckener, the President of the Zeppelin company, was a firm anti-Nazi who had been willing to stand against Hitler in the 1932 Presidential election and made broadcasts in support of incumbent President Paul von Hindenburg when he decided to stand again. When Nazi Germany nationalised the Zeppelin company, they elbowed Eckener out of actual control.

If unwilling to have anything Nazi tainted but still connected with German airship development, you might want to look at the meals served on the Graf Zeppelin during its round the world flight. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:22, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes, nothing tainted about a general who prosecuted the criminal First World War to support the reign of a militaristic racist. μηδείς (talk) 22:33, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Germans' use of Zeppelins to bomb from high in the air during World War I was supposedly one of the reasons the US was unwilling to sell helium to Germany and help make those giant airships safer. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:42, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Destroying images of Atatürk

The Mustafa Kemal Atatürk article notes that Turkish law (Wikisource link) prohibits the "destruction of objects representing him". How does this work with pictures of him in/on objects meant to be temporary? For example, do people get prosecuted if it becomes known that they've put in the trash a newspaper that has a photo of him? This question vaguely arises from something I read as a child, which claimed that pictures of Mao were so sacrosanct under PRC law (year/decade/etc. unspecified, as far as I remember) that people's houses were filled with newspapers that were functionally illegal to destroy. Not legal advice, since I'm not in Turkey and don't expect ever to be there. Nyttend (talk) 23:20, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Google translate renders that as:

Anyone who publicly insult the memory of Atatürk, or jamb shall be punished with imprisonment of one to three months.
Representing Atatürk statues, busts and monuments of Atatürk's mausoleum Or the destructive, breaking, disturbance or anyone polluter is liable to imprisonment up to one month to five months.
Encourage others to commit the offenses referred to in the above paragraphs, the perpetrator shall be punished as the original one.

Not exactly sterling prose but I think it answers the question. Looie496 (talk) 23:30, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What is jamb? RNealK (talk) 04:37, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Jamb" is the translation that Google Translate gives for the word söven, which apparently means something like "nationalistic" or "chauvinistic". Why does Google Translate do that? Who knows? Looie496 (talk) 04:54, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Googlespeak! ^{Market St.⧏}_{⧐ Diamond Way} 05:10, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just to answer the question as to what a "jamb" is, it's the vertical part of a door frame. Door frames consist of two parts: the horizontal lintel at the top, and the veritcal jambs along the sides. I, like everyone else, has no idea why Google chose that English word as the translation for that particular Turkish word. --Jayron32 06:35, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It also has a meaning in the mining context: "Any thick mass of rock that prevents miners from following the lode or vein". Maybe we've been "jamb"ed in our own search.

Or maybe not. Here's an ad where the words "chauvinistic" and "jamb" are closely juxtaposed. I was frankly amazed when I discovered it emanated from Arizona. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 19:54, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

June 1

Are things getting better or worse?

I know this question, right from the outset, is going to look like an invitation to debate, and the heading itself is indicative of trolling. But I figure someone must have tackled this head on. By "better or worse", I mean in terms of violent crime, unethical behaviour from professionals, and dishonesty from politicians. These are among the chief malaises that affect all times, but which are frequently touted as signs of decline in a society, and occasionally portrayed (when there is some positive evidence) as examples of an improvement in human nature. On the plus side is Stephen Pinker's The Better Angels of Our Nature and on the negative, Predictably Irrational by Dan Ariely says that many professionals are lamenting the decline in professional ethics. The various examples for and against are not contradictory (as with these two books) because they usually talk about somewhat different things, but there seem to be many people using such evidence to argue for or against the "moral standing" of today's society. Has anyone tried to synthesise things like this, and show overall how we are getting better, and how we are getting worse? The stimulus that prompted the question, if it helps any, was reading some short stories by Edgar Allan Poe, and finding the same litany of miserable sorts populating his world as ours, with apparently little difference. IBE (talk) 06:44, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aspects of this were discussed in a recent forum at the Sydney Writers' Festival that I heard on radio yesterday. One conclusion was that politicians are probably no more dishonest than in the past. It's just that these days we expect them to be and get told about it more often and by more sources. There are definitely strong statistics showing that violent crime is dramatically reduced from previous centuries. What has increased is shock-jocks telling people that we're all doomed. HiLo48 (talk) 07:01, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do those statistics only consider the nature of the crime, or also the nature of the perpetrator? e.g. the age profile of the perpetrator associated with a particular crime - is the average murderer getting younger or older? Plasmic Physics (talk) 07:50, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This question tries to cover far too many topics and there are way too many unknowns for any glib answer to be appropriate. It is probably never the case that all social indicators are "better" compared with some previous period, or all "worse". Some will be better, others worse. You can't sort of average these out to get one label that fits everything. Then if you drill down to country level, you'll get very different results depending on the country. Ditto for sub-national entities. You can pick and choose your stats to demonstrate any result you like; the media do it every night of the week. The question as it stands is unanswerable and should be closed. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 07:58, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The natural order is that things always get worse - to reverse the trend requires an external energy source - see Entropy (although that simply transfers the deterioration wherever the energy came from. I remember an anthropology class I took many years ago where the lecturer told us of an ancient Sumerian clay tablet that was basically a rant about "the youth of today". The complaints, dating from about 5000 years ago, are utterly familiar; the youth disrespect the elders, play games, fight, gamble, are lazy, damage public property, they don't study, don't do their chores, don't help their parents, and so on.... Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:11, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no evidence that the very real mathematical concept of entropy can be applied to human society. HiLo48 (talk) 08:20, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why we wouldn't be able to apply the concept of entropy to any system. Equally, I don't see why the Earth, which has an external energy source, wouldn't be able to create more order. OsmanRF34 (talk) 11:25, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@HiLo48 - You don't think that the rest of my post is an indication that I don't actually believe things are getting worse? People have been complaining about the exact same social "degeneration" for 5000 years but humanity has actually not (yet) turned into completely degenerate savage beasts. "The more things change, the more they stay the same" - cogitate on that for a bit. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:46, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is a school of thought that "things" are actually getting better over time. Things that were socially acceptable a century or two ago, or even 50 years ago, no longer are. But progress is slow, human nature being what it is. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:54, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, various metrics such as lifespan, disease statistics, etc. show that things have definitely been getting better. I read Wilson, Colin (1990). A criminal history of mankind (1st Carroll & Graf ed.). New York: Carroll & Graf. ISBN 978-0881846461. some years ago - the impression it left me with was that crime was certainly a lot worse before our time. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:13, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

After years of standing largely or partially vacant, it was announced by the owners, early in 2001, that The Twin Towers had finally reached full occupancy. μηδείς (talk) 16:51, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you live in the UK, Things Can Only Get Better (D:Ream song) (or Things Can Only Get Better (Howard Jones song)) according to John O'Farrell (author). Dbfirs 19:40, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wait. There are bad times just around the corner, so don't get too complacent. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 02:29, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A George Carlin comment, as his weather forecaster character: "Remember, inside every silver lining, there's a dark cloud! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:16, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone want to do an analysis of the relative frequency over time of songs about doom and gloom vs all is good? HiLo48 (talk) 04:21, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, thanks. I'm more interested in finding out about this lining that's on the outside of its cloud. Sounds very Anna Russell-esque to me. She once remarked on how some parts of the Sydney Opera House were notoriously too small for certain desired productions, and she mused that, rather than building the inside inside the outside, they might consider placing the inside outside the outside. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 07:47, 2 June 2013 (UTC) [reply]

Amusing, because it already looks inside out to me IBE (talk) 09:49, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fugu

Is fugu/Tetraodontidae the most dangerous food to eat for humans? If not, which is the most dangerous? I mean foods which are actually eaten. Its difficult to find sources. Pass a Method talk 09:52, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fugu is very safe to eat, if prepared correctly. And leafy greens can be very dangerous, if contaminated with E. coli or salmonella. OsmanRF34 (talk) 11:22, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But which is the most dangerous food? Pass a Method talk 11:59, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is confusing premises. If a food is classed food, then it is food. However, if faulty preparation leaves you to end up dead, you are no more-or-less dead, than any other food stuff that may leave you dead. You can't end up being just a-little-bit-dead – just as one can't end up being just a -little bit-pregnant... It is not the 'foods' that should be scaled as most dangerous but some of the individual idiots that prepare it.--Aspro (talk) 13:41, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Amanita phalloides. Looie496 (talk) 14:14, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which, by definition, is not a food, because it is not safe to eat. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:49, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

castor oil beans. μηδείς (talk) 16:40, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- As in "Ricin Roni, the Terrorist T(h)reat". The word "food" means "nourishment". Would deadly substances qualify as being "nourishing"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:59, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another foods that can be toxic if not prepared correctly is poke salad. And even foods normally not considered harmful can be deadly to people with food allergies. A single peanut can kill if the wrong person eats it. --Jayron32 16:53, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The criteria could be quantified by comparing number of meals eaten per fatality, but I doubt the statistics exist.--Wikimedes (talk) 20:31, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that criteria wouldn't bode well for McDonald's [4]--Aspro (talk) 01:08, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some other ways to define "dangerous foods":

1) Fatalities due to microbial contamination. While many types of foods can go bad, some seem far more likely to do so than others. Live sprouts are an example, since their growing conditions are also ideal for many microbes, and serving them live prevents sterilization.

2) Fatalities due to chronic health effects. Certain foods, like fried chicken, might contribute to more deaths than others, due to sodium, fat, saturated fat, trans fats, and bad cholesterol.

3) Choking hazards. Fish with small bones are a threat, as are octopus tentacles (the suckers can stick to the throat). StuRat (talk) 04:34, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Think that only applies to 'live' raw Octopuses. [5] Preparing raw Shepherds Pie also has the potential for suffering brain damage if the shepherdess whacks you round the head with her crook before you have had time to completely cover her with mashed potato. One cannibal to another: Your wife makes very good soups. His companion: “Verily, but I shall miss her”. Then there is the popular root tuber Cassava that contains cyanide, Scandinavian mushroom that give of toxic amounts of cyanide when being fried but after that, safe to eat. Raw Red Kidney beans -bad. The Inuits love of fermented fish head that have been buried in the ground until they dissolve into a pulp – but when prepared untraditionally can cause botulism – (but can results in a hollywood-film-star-like unwrinkled appearance)( one has to admit that Nanook of the North looked way younger than her years. Oh, why don't they make documentaries like that any more?).>http://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.aelsindia.com/rjcesvol112013/7.pdf&sa=U&ei=WkGrUd_COoGV0QXKgIGwDQ&ved=0CBsQFjAA&usg=AFQjCNHDChJGG4qfe242x1vzaaD9YQZAOw< Then there is Solanine in green potatoes, Rhubarb etc., this list goes on and on.--Aspro (talk) 13:13, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re 1) For a moment, I thought you meant British sprouts! Dbfirs 06:59, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

juries

What is the difference between a grand jury and a regular jury? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.108.150.4 (talk) 15:18, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the U.S., a Grand Jury issues indictments, which sends a person to trial. In that trial there is a regular jury which hears the evidence and determines guilty/not-guilty. That's greatly simplified, of course. You can read the article Grand Jury that has much more detail and how it works in other countries. RudolfRed (talk) 15:23, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Going to petit jury will also help; "petit jury" is the official name of a regular jury. Nyttend (talk) 17:08, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Grand" and "petit" meaning "large" and "small" respectively. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:56, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Did the French Revolution give power to the people?

Topic says it all. ScienceApe (talk) 16:16, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, specifically Napoleon. Otherwise your question is poorly defined, sounds like homework, and seeks to be inviting debate. You should rephrase it see we can answer it. μηδείς (talk) 16:43, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The question itself is so glib that nothing but a glib response would suffice. The French Revolution is a very complicated and messy affair, which encompasses several decades of history, and which has very distinct phases which need to be understood as being so different that you cannot make any sweeping statements regarding the entirety of the time period. If you really want to know what the French Revolution did for the social structure in France, you really need to look at French history in detail, including the situation in France for the decades before the Revolution, probably through at least the 100 years after it. The conflict between "republicans" and "monarchists" in French history did not end until well into the 1900s, really it was WWI that ended it; it was the major political battle during the French Third Republic; and that's just looking at the political question. The social history of France during this time period is equally as complex and long, and really, a question like "Did the French Revolution give power to the people?" is just unanswerable. --Jayron32 16:49, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Given Jayron's agreement, suggest this be closed as inviting opinion or debate. μηδείς (talk) 18:33, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not so fast, folks! While agreeing with Jayron that the French Revolution lasted, in effect, for 100 years, it is still worth considering the effects of the early Revolutionary period. In that kings and nobility were executed at the guillotine by people of lesser class than themselves, that suggests that those people had the power to do such a thing, and so the question can be answered in the affirmative. However, if you're asking "did it give people the power to govern their own lives, occupations and futures", well that merits closer investigation and further references - which I'm sure one of our learned friends will be along with shortly. --TammyMoet (talk) 19:01, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why, it was like reading about France and the French, before the ever memorable and blessed Revolution, which swept a thousand years of such villany away in one swift tidal-wave of blood -- one: a settlement of that hoary debt in the proportion of half a drop of blood for each hogshead of it that had been pressed by slow tortures out of that people in the weary stretch of ten centuries of wrong and shame and misery the like of which was not to be mated but in hell. There were two "Reigns of Terror," if we would but remember it and consider it; the one wrought murder in hot passion, the other in heartless cold blood; the one lasted mere months, the other had lasted a thousand years; the one inflicted death upon ten thousand persons, the other upon a hundred millions; but our shudders are all for the "horrors" of the minor Terror, the momentary Terror, so to speak; whereas, what is the horror of swift death by the axe, compared with lifelong death from hunger, cold, insult, cruelty, and heart-break? What is swift death by lightning compared with death by slow fire at the stake? A city cemetery could contain the coffins filled by that brief Terror which we have all been so diligently taught to shiver at and mourn over; but all France could hardly contain the coffins filled by that older and real Terror -- that unspeakably bitter and awful Terror which none of us has been taught to see in its vastness or pity as it deserves.

- Mark Twain, A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court, chapter 13 John Z (talk) 19:54, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To add to the complication, we could also say that "the people", or at least certain people, already had power, as represented by the Estates General. Otherwise they wouldn't have been able to revolt in the first place. Adam Bishop (talk) 20:11, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Repeat my suggestion that this be closed as discussion, that no reference exists to answer the question, nor has one been given. μηδείς (talk) 20:16, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a simplistic question with complex answers, but that does not mean it's not legitimate. I suggest you stop suggestion closure. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:00, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No. We will not close this question. --Jayron32 22:43, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It may not be evil in the grand scheme of things, but it's like that bullshit which beer is best question, it is not something we can answer better than an internet forum or a random selection from a local bar. We just had a long discussion about banning various users which ended with the conclusion that the questions are usually the problem. μηδείς (talk) 21:07, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, its a completely different kind of question on which many people have written significant scholarly literature. The French revolution did lead to a significant transfer of power from the Second Estate to the Bourgeois - something that still echoes in how we use that term today. It's a major example in the Marxist scheme of historical determinism, which most now consider to be at very least wildly overstated, but which formed a major framework for plenty of historical analysis. Beer, on the other hand, is mostly a matter of taste (and at least the taste aspect is not very relevant to the world at large). And anyone knows that original Budvar is the best beer of international renown, anyways, but is often topped by the local microbrew of choice. ;-) --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:43, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's your argument, it isn't a reference. I assume you know the difference. And a link to bourgeoisie is no more helpful than a link to reign of terror. μηδείς (talk) 22:26, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This book may interest the OP, being titled A Social History of France: 1789-1914. This one is titled similarly, A Social History of France: 1780-1880. Both of them are likely to help answer the question regarding what happened to the "people" of France during and after the Revolution. --Jayron32 22:46, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Also found This one titled A Social History of France in the 19th Century. --Jayron32 22:47, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't think people would interpret my question as a homework question, I'm 29 and have been out of school for quite some time. The reason why I asked was basically to clarify my own conception of what the revolution did. For some reason the revolution was taught as if it was a bad thing in schools when I was a child, but now that I'm an adult (and quite anti-religion) I've seen the revolution in a different light. It seemed to take away the power that the catholic church had, as well as the power of the king of France. That seems like a good thing in my book, but I was just uncertain of whether or not it gave the every day man any real power. Certainly, Napoleon, who came from rather humble beginnings, was able to work his way up to become the Emperor so that seems to count for something. ScienceApe (talk) 21:55, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's important to remember that, especially if one compares it to, say, the American Revolution, there's a perception that "France had a revolution too, became a democracy... um... Napoleon... um... Yeah, something something, Jean Valjean, Eiffel Tower, hairy armpits, bailed out of two World Wars, isn't Carla Bruni hot?" roughly covers the average American's perception of French history from the Revolution. Which is not to say that either a) you are American (no idea) or that b) that is your perception (again, no idea). France from about 1780 forward underwent the following political changes:

Absolutist monarchy to 1789

Constitutional monarchy to 1792

Republic to 1804 (though this Republic had at least 3-4 distinctly different phases and structures)

Empire until 1814-1815 (including the Hundred Days restoration of Napoleon)

Absolutist monarchy to 1830

Popular (constitutional) monarchy to 1848

Republic to 1852

Empire to 1870

Military junta to 1871, followed by a brief Marxist period of a few months

Republican since then, though with strong monarchist factions through WWI.

19th century France was an insanely turbulent time, and teasing out what happened to people's lives as a result of the actual French Revolution, versus all of the other political changes that just kept on rolling incessantly, is hard. I mean, the Reign of Terror killed thousands of people directly. Did that make their lives better? Also consider something like 1,000,000 French people (that is, people from within the borders of what we still consider France Proper) died in the Napoleonic wars; they're hardly better off. However, did the next generation benefit from the liberalization of French society, the installation of Revolutionary ideals enshrined in Code Napoleon which as a law code, is pretty forward looking and egalitarian way to run a country. It's a messy question; I've not read any of the three books above, but if you're honestly looking to try to see what happened to the average French person in the years following the Revolution, I'd go there first. --Jayron32 02:24, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Going with Jefferson: "Never was so much good gained with so little innocent blood lost. Rather than that revolution should have failed, I would have seen half the earth descimated. If there were one Adam and one Eve alive in every nation and alive free, that would be greater than the present." Of course, Jefferson was a blood-thirsty anarchist, and had no use for organised religion. ;-) --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:45, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you can tell me "who the people are?" I could answer this question. The question of "who are the people" is a difficult one. In actuality it tends to be resolved politically, by violence. In research, work like Martyn Lyon's on every day literacy provides avenues into the question of "were the people the people for themselves?" Might want to look at Marx and Engels' response to this, which is the idea of class consciousness in classical Marxism. 18th Brumaire ought to be a go-to work, as would Engels' German Peasants' War. My initial answer would be that given that self-reflective acts of popular politics, like Roux's circle, were shut down by even the most extreme of the liberal revolutionaries, that "the people" never got their go of it during the Grand French Revolution. The last part of E.P. Thompson's Making of the English Working Class provides a comparison example from the UK. And of course the film Sade/Marat provides an easily appreciated view of the "problem" of "the people" in the Great revolution. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:52, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What is this form of time notation?

Please see Talk:Nazi_human_experimentation#Time_in_water. I was referred here. Thanks. 2602:304:59B8:1B69:3DFE:8698:6402:748A (talk) 19:21, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, minutes of time and angle are denoted ′or ' or ʼ or something similar. The table would be clearer if the heading said "time in minutes", then the entry could be just a number. Dbfirs 19:30, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Time of death, however, is also noted in this format. This does not give us information as to what time it actually occurred. It only gives us information as to something which it is in reference to. 4:00 PM would be definite, but 66' must mean 66 minutes after something, such as the beginning of the experiment. Can somebody please clarify? 2602:304:59B8:1B69:3DFE:8698:6402:748A (talk) 20:38, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yes, I see what you mean. I read it as "time to death" i.e. from the start of the experiment, but someone else might have an alternative explanation. Dbfirs 06:53, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I read it the same as Dbfirs, which seems fairly obvious to me. But if anyone knows a better way, go ahead. Alansplodge (talk) 08:13, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why was Omoo named so?

Hi all,

Why is Herman Melville's work Omoo named that way? Is it the name of a place?

Cheers Gulielmus estavius (talk) 19:50, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to Critical Companion to Herman Melville, "the title, Melville claims in the preface, is taken from a Polynesian word meaning 'rover'". (I can't find an online edition of the book with the preface, although I'm sure there must be one out there.) If it is a real Polynesian word, the "o" is probably a particle and not part of the actual word. Europeans always used to record the O as part of the word, as in "Otaheite" for Tahiti, or the Tahitian Omai who came back to England with Captain Cook. (I always assumed Melville took "Omoo" from the name Omai, but I don't know that for sure.) Adam Bishop (talk) 20:06, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can read the preface here. The passage in question says; "The title of the work — Omoo — is borrowed from the dialect of the Marquesas Islands, where, among other uses, the word signifies a rover, or rather, a person wandering from one island to another, like some of the natives known among their country-men as 'Taboo kannakers.'" A few sentences earlier, he admits that he hasn't studied any textbooks or vocabularies on the Polynesian language or the Tahitian dialect, but has been "mostly governed by the bare recollection of sounds". Alansplodge (talk) 21:29, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I had read the book from the Project Gutenberg version, sadly the preface is missing in that. Gulielmus estavius (talk) 03:41, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, as it is in the Google version. I find archive.org is an excellent resource, especially when they have the full page views, like the link above. Alansplodge (talk) 14:00, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

June 2

German neutrality

Could any of the German states within the German Empire declared themselves neutral during World War I or joined the Allied Power? Were any of the states within the German Empire considering or debating on turning on Prussia in order to salvage their own independence like during the Napoleonic War.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 04:57, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, unlike earlier German confederations, which were merely alliances of independent states, the German Empire was a true federal state of its own; that is the constituent states, which retained some measure of internal autonomy (much like U.S. States) surrendered ultimate sovereignty to the Empire itself. Notably, the Constitution of the German Empire have the Emperor and the Bundesrat the sole power to declare war (the Emperor had the power to declare war in the case of Imperial defense, while the Bundesrat was required for the declaration of a "non-defensive" war). Individual states may have not agreed with the participation of the Empire in WWI, but their objection was limited to the ability to vote against it in the Bundesrat. Once the war was declared, however, the entire Empire did so as a single entity. --Jayron32 05:18, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)No, no more than Oregon could declare itself neutral during WW2. After unification, the constituent states of the German empire lost full sovereignty (and soon identity). By the time of WW1, more than 40 years later, German identity was much stronger than local identity, and people (and particularly the political elite), with few exceptions, felt "German", not "Saxon" or "Hessian". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 05:27, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What prevent any of the states from seceding itself like the southern states in the American Civil War? Obviously no real opposition to the war materialized during the time, but were there any objection or reluctance from any of the German states against the war or suggestion by ministers or politicians within the states that their state should not participate in the war.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 05:37, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We're talking in hypotheticals at this point, so the best we can say is what was preventing (legally) any putative peacenik German states from seceding was that they were signatories to the German Constitution, and in doing so gave up their independent sovereign rights. I suppose there was nothing to prevent them from saying "screw this noise" and taking up arms against the rest of the empire, excepting that would not have been seen as a legitimate act; as the secession of the southern states was ALSO not seen as a legitimate act. The North treated the Confederacy as a region in revolt, not as a sovereign state in its own right. --Jayron32 05:47, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didnt mean to really ask about hypotheticals. I meant to as who were the oppositional movements or voices within the different states against the war (suggesting neutrality, secession or alright opposition to Prussia are some suggestion that these oppositional voices may have suggested) or were there any at all. Example, South Carolina threatened to secede in the Tariff of 1828; even though it never materialized the hype was still there. --The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 06:05, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

July Crisis#German attitude to war seems to be some good reading to answer your questions here. It does not mention every German state individually, but does note a general and strong consensus to go to war against Serbia. --Jayron32 06:12, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

History of Germany during World War I and Spirit of 1914 and Burgfrieden all also notes widespread political support for the War, including the cessation of inter-party animosity between political parties to get behind the war effort. Even the Social Democratic Party in the Reichstag, which usually stood in opposition to Imperial policy, unanimously supported the war effort from the very start. It is noted in several of those articles that, on the individual citizen level, there was some sizable apprehension about getting involved in the war, but there does not seem to be any state that offered any direct or serious political opposition to it. --Jayron32 06:21, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tangential to the question, but I believe the study of previously ignored diplomatic archives of these states has been used by recent German historians to support theses of assigning more responsibility for the war to Germany.John Z (talk) 09:56, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Our article on the Kingdom of Bavaria says that " In 1918, the kingdom attempted to negotiate a separate peace with the allies but failed." If I recall correctly, the larger states retained at least nominal control of their armed forces, which operated as distinct corps within the Imperial army structure. Some of the smaller states, such as Brunswick, had already integrated their forces with the Prussian Army before Unification. Alansplodge (talk) 13:58, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The situation in 1918 was far different than the one before the war. The entire poltical and social structure of the Empire was coming apart. The Emperor himself tried to dissolve the empire and return to the previous status quo where each German state was left to their own affairs, but the constitution did not allow the King of Prussia to abdicate the Imperial Throne without also abdicating the Prussian Throne, since the Imperial dignity was bestowed on the office of the King of Prussia and not the person holding the office. There was a lot of disdain for the Emperor for even attempting such a move, Communist factions (which had not existed as such in 1914 in Germany) were taking over in places, it was a complete and utter mess. Kaiser Wilhelm II#Abdication and flight, German Revolution of 1918–19, and Kiel mutiny provide some background as to what was going on in Germany at that time. It isn't surprising that at that point the King of Bavaria tried to establish a separate peace, as the general feeling was "each man to himself" as the Empire was disintegrating. The OP was asking for dissension within the Empire prior to the war; that is if any German states, as political entities, directly opposed going to war (the so-called "Blank check" in support of Austria and the Schlieffen Plan and all that). The answer appears to have been no; that the empire in 1914 was fairly unified. Four years later the situation had changed quite a bit. --Jayron32 17:32, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No that does answer my second question. Did any other states try negotiating a separate peace or do anything to salvage their situation?--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 03:37, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Religion in Northumberland

The following comes from the Northumberland article, section "Demographics":

In the 2001 census, 81% of the population reported their religion as Christianity, 0.8% as "other religion", and 12% as having no religion.

That only makes 93.8%, too much for rounding errors; what happened to the other 6.2%? Christianity+other religion+no religion definitely seems to be all-encompassing. I looked through the source for this statement, but I couldn't find anything about religion and I couldn't find anything specifically about Northumberland. Nyttend (talk) 17:46, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could the other 6.2% be "Didn't answer the question". That would make up the gap quite nicely, and it wouldn't be able to fit into any of the available categories. --Jayron32 17:50, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The 2001 Census statistics for religion are available via [6]. The raw figures are: All people 307,190. Christian 249,029, Muslim 663, Sikh 385, Buddhist 352, Hindu 258, Jewish 129, any other religion 596. No religion 36,156. Religion not stated 19,622. The question on religion is the only one which is voluntary in the Census of England and Wales. Incidentally it might be time to update the figures in the article to those for the 2011 Census. Sam Blacketer (talk) 17:54, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why make it optional? Why not just include a "Decline to answer" option and require people to answer the question? Thanks for the help; I didn't realise that not answering was an option. Nyttend (talk) 18:01, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If someone answered "Decline to answer", the census computer might explode. Might get in some trouble for lying to the government, too. Not as useful an answer as "Hindu", but still an answer. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:42, June 2, 2013 (UTC)

Political system that runs wikipedia

How does Wikipedia operate? Is it run as a democracy, with each user having one vote? Or is it a representative democracy, with those elected by the community chosen to make judgements over the general population? Or is it an anarchy with a lot of people screaming at each other about their desires and no coherent pattern? Or alternatively is it more like a feudal system with people being paid tithes by serfs, etc?

Also does this differ over different parts of wikipedia - the Reference Desk, for example? Is this run differently from other parts? How are decisions made?

Thank you

Horatio Snickers (talk) 18:07, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

None of the above. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia where people add information to expand its scope. --Jayron32 18:09, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that, but there must be a way that people come to decisions here. For example, to remove a question from the reference desk - is this something that any user can do? Or do you need specific powers to do so? Horatio Snickers (talk) 18:12, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, all decisions are arrived at by ad hoc discussions based on who shows up and expresses an opinion during the discussion. At Wikipedia this is called WP:CONSENSUS. All decisions work this way. There are no powers or privileges that you need to participate in these discussions, rather you just need to be able to argue effectively and have sound rationales for your stance. Not everyone will agree, and not everyone will have the same rationales for their conclusions, but decisions get made by consensus, that is by having enough people show up with similar conclusions and sound rationales to justify those conclusions. --Jayron32 18:17, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)WP:Concensus informed by WP:Policies which in turn were formulated (and are subject to amendment) by concensus. There are a few core policies imposed on us by law, most significantly - copyright, privacy and defamation - under the jurisdiction of the the state of Florida in the United States - because that is the WikiMedia Foundation's legal address. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:21, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The key ingredients to effective participation in this project are rational arguments supported by sources. Bus stop (talk) 18:38, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's also a mild degree of oligarchy in the admins, editors who are granted extra technical powers, presumably by existing admins. --Nicknack009 (talk) 22:13, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Admins are created after consensus is obtained at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship which is a discussion that involves any editor that cares to take part. It's a Wikipedia:Bureaucrats that judges the consensus and perform the technical change. Admins have no extra say in who becomes a new admin. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 01:40, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's a mixture of nine parts direct democracy and one part dictatorship -- direct democracy in that most policies are formed by consensus of the entire community, dictatorship in that a few policies are imposed by fiat by the Wikimedia Foundation. Looie496 (talk) 22:21, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget bureaucracy. It's one of the things that repulses prospective new users. Plasmic Physics (talk) 22:30, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New users aren't even going to know anything about Wikipedia bureaucracy. And if they follow the rules and make well-sourced edits, they might never have to learn about it. It's when they run into bad-faith editors that they start to learn about Wikipedia's underbelly. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:40, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

After almost 10 years, I still know next to nothing about WP's bureaucracy. I just don't go to those dark places voluntarily, and have never been dragged there kicking and screaming. I had more than enuf bureacracy in my so-called working career. But some others seem to gravitate there in Week 1 of their wiki-lives and then spend most of their time and energy there. Horces for cources. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 22:58, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think Looie has done the most to hit the nail on the head. Consensus is the governing principle, but Jayron idealises this too much, imho. It's a principle that people try to apply, but edit wars come down to who has the most time and energy, in addition to the better principle of who can debate the most sensibly. The formal side of governance is that going too far will get you blocked. Blocking comes down to the decisions of admins, guided by the Wikimedia foundation and Jimbo. People seem to overstate the role of consensus, and understate the specific sanctions and governance structures. Most of these sanctions can be sidestepped, but that takes up your time, so in practice, they are reasonably strong. This question probably belongs on the helpdesk. IBE (talk) 23:04, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let me note that it is important to distinguish between setting policy and enforcing policy. A democracy is defined in terms of the way policies are set, not the way they are enforced -- it is quite possible to have a democracy that is also a police state. Wikipedia's bureaucracies play a major role in enforcing policy but (at least in principle) hardly any role in creating it. Looie496 (talk) 23:34, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's mostly an anarchy. There are some general rules decided by community consensus, but there isn't anyone to enforce these rules unless the violations are extremely egregious. But even extremely egregious violations can be ignored, if the violator has powerful friends, and/or the accuser/victim doesn't. It's also a bit of a feudal system where some editors (admins) are more equal others (non-admins) although there are no rules that say such a thing, but just as in the real world, it's people with the guns that have the most power. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:49, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is an experiment within political science, despite its disclaimer, which by its very nature is doomed to failure. Statistics show that rate of new article creation and the rate of new users joining has dropped since approximately the mid teens, and is continuing to do so. Unless, something is changed, it will eventually fizzle out and be relegated to the history books as just another fad. Plasmic Physics (talk) 01:57, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

?? We're only in the first year of the teens now (2013). What are these "mid teens" of which you speak? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 11:31, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon, I meant 'naughties'. Plasmic Physics (talk) 12:05, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, it was always completely predictable that the rate of article creation would have dropped when most of the obvious topics had been progressively taken care of. There is still a vast amount of work to be done on existing articles and there are still a great many gaps to be filled. And that's just on the obvious stuff, which as anyone who's been around here for a little while will realise, is not even the tip of the iceberg. That work will never end, because new things are happening literally every day of the week, and people show no signs of losing interest in having extended debates about our treatment of existing topics, and hunting down new topics. Wikipedia reached critical mass a long time ago. I've been hearing "It will never work" since before I became involved here in 2003. We don't really need insiders to be singing from that songsheet. I would never have bothered if I believed it was doomed to ultimate failure. While the naysayers may rest complacently in their negativity while watching reruns of Ugly Betty and Happy Gilmore, there are plenty of people dedicated to making a difference here and making what could obviously never work, work. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 18:13, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just try to make most of it, while it lasts. The source of my musing lie in articles such as is found in New Scientist, such as "Free for all? Lifting the lid on a Wikipedia crisis", and "A little knowledge…". Plasmic Physics (talk) 03:14, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Like other failed political systems, there is a lack of transparency in the operations of those with the most power, and the presence of an abuse of power. Were Wikipedia a nation, it would undergo a revolution like so many recent examples. However, there is little incentive to initiate such a revolution, since users are not bound by borders to Wikipedia - they are free to come and go as they please. Plasmic Physics (talk) 03:21, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There have been a few people who have described it as an adhocracy. It isn't an anarchy, as there are rules, but not strictly a democracy, as decision making isn't based on majority opinion. Piotr Koniecznya makes a case for this, if you are interested in his paper. [7]. - Bilby (talk) 12:38, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sikhism - the act of worship and the term for the location

I've been categorising some old photographs on Commons, and come across four (example, right) showing Sikh soldiers performing a religious service during WWI. Trying to decide how to categorise these brings up two questions:

Is there a general Sikh term for "a religious service"? commons:Category:Religious rituals is notably silent on Sikhism, as is commons:Category:Prayer
Is "gurdwara" used to refer only to a building formally intended for use as a place of worship, or is the term actively used to refer to improvised locations such as this?

This seems like an incredibly basic question, but I'm at a bit of a loss, and our articles aren't incredibly helpful! Andrew Gray (talk) 19:14, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not a Sikh myself, so please seek advice from those that are, but the Wikipedia article on Gurdwara states: "Any place where the Guru Granth Sahib is installed and treated with due respect according to Sikh Rehat Maryada (the Sikh code of conduct and convention) can be referred to as a gurdwara, whether it is a room in one's own house or a separate building." The article on Guru Granth Sahib explains what that is, but it seems that one can have an improvised Gurdwara so long as it is properly "consecrated" (not sure of the Sikh word for this, so please excuse me if I have misspoken) with the Guru Granth Sahib. The practice of Kirtan appears to be a part of the services, but I'm not reading that the entire service is known by a specific name. --Jayron32 19:24, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also maybe Sangat (term), which appears to refer to the Sikh congregation gathered for worship. I'm not certain if this refers to the service itself, or just the participants in it. --Jayron32 19:26, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just found Kirtan, which is probably what's shown in these images. That said, it's notable that the first image on that article is solely categorised under Bhajan, which Commons treats as a subset of Hindu worship. I think I may have inadvertently found a lot of work needing done! Andrew Gray (talk) 19:27, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I don't have a lot of deep knowledge in this area, but it would be unsurprising to find similar terms in both Sikh and Hindu religious practices, given the geography involved. IIRC, Sikhism started as a reaction to (and thus would be influenced by) both Islam and Hinduism as practiced in the Punjab area of Pakistan/India. --Jayron32 19:36, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sikhism.—Wavelength (talk) 19:41, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How did American conservatism become associated with the Republican party?

In the past, the Republican party espoused very liberal ideologies, and seemed to be the de facto political party for the North. For some reason, this changed slowly after the American Civil War, and the South embraced the Republican party, but changed its ideologies to reflect the same conservative ideologies that they always possessed. How and why did this happen? Was it kind of like a bait and switch strategy? How do I put this... like did Southerners join the Republican party as a deliberate form of subterfuge? It seems to me that after the American Civil War, Americans would be distrustful of Southerners gaining power again, but Southerners used legal loop holes, and usurped the Republican party as a method of gaining power. Am I on the right track or completely wrong here? ScienceApe (talk) 22:03, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to me this was raised here some weeks back. There are a number of angles on this. The south was solidly Democratic (i.e. anti-Republican) until the 1960s, when the Democrats in large part embraced civil rights legislation and Republicans opposed it. At that point, the south as a whole switched to the Republicans. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:36, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which is of course, utter bullshit, as the Civil Rights Act of 1964 passed with 80%+ majorities among Republicans in all votes in both Houses, outnumbering Democrat percentage support in every single case, and making passage of the bill possible. The South switched away from the Democrat party when the later became the party of the New Left. μηδείς (talk) 00:30, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe not "as a whole". I don't think many blacks did. HiLo48 (talk) 22:42, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ironically, once they got the chance to vote routinely, they were outnumbered by the whites who had switched to the GOP. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:47, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm focusing on the south. But the Republicans were the "conservative" party nationally (outside the south) long before that. Generations earlier, even. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:50, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DemocratIC Party. "Democrat Party" is used only by Republicans trying to get at Democrats who object to the term. RNealK (talk) 04:14, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What happened was that in the period after the Civil War the Republicans became the preferred party of big business. That made them the party of fiscal conservatism. Their tight association with social conservatism developed much later. Looie496 (talk) 00:02, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See Solid South and southern strategy. "Beginning in about 1948, the national Democratic Party's support of the civil rights movement significantly reduced Southern support for the Democratic Party and allowed the Republican Party to make gains in the South. In 1968, President Nixon's 'Southern strategy' is credited with allowing either the Republicans or Democrat George Wallace's independent campaign to keep much of the South out of the Democratic column at the presidential level. The South continued to send an overwhelmingly Democratic delegation to Congress until the Republican Revolution of 1994." --Bowlhover (talk) 00:48, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It took a long time for the party system to switch up. Under the post-civil war system, the Republican party mainly represented northern business interests, while it had been the part of Lincoln and of emancipation of slaves, the period from the 1870s - 1880s saw a series of weak Republican presidents who abandoned the south to the Democrats. The Republicans really stopped supporting civil rights following the Compromise of 1877, and the mantle of civil rights for southern blacks was not really picked up in a significant way until the New Deal, which encouraged Federal intervention into the economy of the country, caused the Dixiecrats to split from the Democratic party. Prior to the Dixiecrats bolting from the Democratic party, neither party had any widespread support for civil rights: the Republican party saw it as bad for business, and the Democratic party didn't want to alienate its power base in the Solid South. By the 1960s, a combination of Nixon's Southern strategy and the carrying of the mantle of civil rights expressly by northern Democrats (such as the Civil Rights Act of 1964), further drove former Southern Democrats into the Republican party. The party transition wasn't complete until the 1980s, as northern labor interests, which tended to be socially conservative but still maintained strong ties to the Democratic party because of its perceived support for them, abandoned the Democratic party to become what was known as the Reagan Democrats; these Reagan Democrats are all basically Republicans today. There was not really a time prior to the last 3-4 decades when either party was, strictly speaking, "conservative" or "liberal" (in the American idiom) either socially or economically. There were socially and fiscally conservative and socially and fiscally liberal factions within each party probably until the 1980s, when the the final shakedown created a more polar party structure which has only continued to polarize until today. --Jayron32 01:06, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let’s not confuse Republicans with fiscal conservatives. The post-WWII record shows that when the GOP controlled the White House and either one or both houses of congress the budget balance dramatically worsened.DOR (HK) (talk) 07:58, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but the change was really a bit later, with Carter and Reagan. The Republicans were the big spenders after the Civil War until FDR or a bit earlier, when the parties changed positions. And then changed back in the 70s-80s.John Z (talk) 08:48, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient Visigothic families in Iberia

Are or were there ever any ancient Visigothic families in Iberia that could trace their family line prior to the Umayyad conquest of Hispania? Basically the Spanish and Portuguese equivalent of the House of Rochechouart in France.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 22:49, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Kingdom of the Visigoths was a direct predecessor to the Kingdom of Asturias which was a direct predecessor to the Kingdom of León which became joined to the Kingdom of Castile which joined with the Kingdom of Aragon to become the Kingdom of Spain. I'm pretty sure there is some sort of known genealogy that can be traced through every one of those such that Juan Carlos I of Spain himself can be said to be directly tied to a Visigoth. However, it should be noted that mathematically, it would be very unlikely that anyone with any European ancestry alive today is not a descendant of someone from the Visigothic Kingdom; not everyone may be able to trace that line back, but given the number of generations involved, it would be hard to argue that there isn't. I'll do some digging to see about tracing the direct lines. --Jayron32 01:17, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pelagius of Asturias founded the Kingdom of Asturias, he's unequivocally a Visigoth. Direct familial relations exist between all kings of Asturias, such that the last such king, Fruela II of Asturias can trace decent back to Pelagius. The Kings of Leon all descend from Ordoño I of Asturias, who himself is decended from the Visigoths (see above). I can trace forward through all the Kings of Leon through the Beni Alfons dynasty until Ferdinand I of León and Castile, who conquered Leon and became the king of both countries. Ferdinand was of the Navarrese (Basque) House of Jimenez, so we may have run into a dead end unless we can find a way to tie Ferdinand back to either the Beni Alfons family or another family which can trace its ancestry to the Visigoths. Will dig some more. --Jayron32 01:29, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One can trace a father-son ancestry back from Ferdinand to Gonzalo Fernández of Castile, where the article states that Gonzalo Fernández's wife Muniadona was a member of the Asturian Royal Family. Since all the members of that family descend from Pelagius, and Pelagius was a Visigoth, that means that through Muniadona, all descendants of her descendant Ferdinand I of Castile and Leon are themselves descendents of the Visigoths. All kings of Spain can claim descent from Ferdinand I of Castile, I'm confident of that (though there are some women in the line and at least one bastard, Henry II of Castile). From there, you can also safely assume that every living royal in Europe can trace a line back to the Visigoths as well, given the level of intermarriage in that society. --Jayron32 01:37, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Juan Carlos can be traced back to Peter of Cantabria (through Fruela (no article), Bermudo I of Asturias, Ramiro I of Asturias, Ordoño I of Asturias, Alfonso III of Asturias, Ordono II of Leon, Ramiro II of Leon, Ordono III of Leon, Bermudo II of Leon, Alfonso V of Leon, Sancha of Leon, Alfonso VI of Leon and Castile, Urraca of Leon and Castile, Alfonso VII of Leon and Castile, Ferdinand II of Leon, Alfonso IX of Leon, Ferdinand III of Castile, Alfonso X of Castile, Sancho IV of Castile, Ferdinand IV of Castile, Alfonso XI of Castile, Henry II of Castile, John I of Castile, Ferdinand I of Aragon, John II of Aragon, Ferdinand II of Aragon, Joanna of Castile, Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor, Philip II of Spain, Philip III of Spain, Philip IV of Spain, Maria Theresa of Austria, Louis, Le Grand Dauphin, Philip V of Spain, Charles III of Spain, Charles IV of Spain, Infante Francisco de Paula of Spain, Infante Francis, Duke of Cadiz, Alfonso XII of Spain, Alfonso XIII of Spain, Infante Juan of Spain, Count of Barcelona, to Juan Carlos). Probably any Spanish aristocratic family can be traced back to the Visigoths. The Umayyads never conquered all of Iberia and the Visigoths never went anywhere. Adam Bishop (talk) 01:53, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And that's a second line different from mine. Good one. --Jayron32 02:02, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was aware of the descent of the Spanish Royal Family from Peter of Cantabria and Pelagius of Asturias. I was looking for the oldest families in Iberia other than the Royal Family like the French House of Rochechouart or the Anglo-Saxon Swintons, Berkeleys, and Ardens who were not part of the royal lines of their respective countries.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 03:34, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Love Canal

Have the people involved in the Love Canal controversy ever received the moneys owed them from the lawsuits generated by this incident? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dse1947 (talk • contribs) 23:55, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia article titled Love Canal seems to imply that they did. One sentence there says "Eventually, the government relocated more than 800 families and reimbursed them for their homes," and later another says "Residents' lawsuits were also settled in the years following the Love Canal disaster." --Jayron32 00:50, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can't help thinking about something else when I hear "love canal". -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 01:06, 3 June 2013 (UTC) [reply]

You'd not be the only one. It is an unfortunate name... --Jayron32 01:08, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on which of the two words gets emphasized. Meanwhile, I'm trying to recall which movie featured somebody's attempt to write a supposedly romantic play about returning to Love Canal. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:57, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, I thought so: Tootsie. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:58, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

June 3

According to the Bible, from where will the anti-Christ hail?

I thought I remember reading something about him being expected to hail from the region of the Caucasus Mountains, but am having trouble finding references. Thanks.--CDwJ94ZD (talk) 00:21, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My experience from watching articles to do with Obama is that many Republicans think he will come from the Democratic Party and be black. I reckon I've reverted around 20 edits of that nature. Naturally other editors have had to revert many too. So that must be what the Republican Party version of the Bible says. HiLo48 (talk) 00:33, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that political diatribes are a terribly helpful way to answer the question. The phrase Antichrist only appears in the Epistles of John from the bible, though it does not describe a single personality, but rather any false messiah. Because those epistles are also ascribed to the author of the Book of Revelation, which is book of eschatology (i.e. end times), it is sometimes seen that a character from that book called the "False Prophet" in most translations may be "The Antichrist", but that's really conjecture as nothing in Revelation uses that term. Even if the False Prophet character is The Antichrist, the Revelation does not give any geography to where he comes from. He's only mentioned directly a few times, and usually as part of a triumvirate of enemies, "The Dragon", "The Beast", and "The False Prophet", for example Revelation 16:13. If there are any traditions that ascribe a specific Antichrist as coming from a specific geographic region, they are definitely extrabiblical. --Jayron32 00:46, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn't a political diatribe on my part. It was an observation. It can even be proven true if anyone can be bothered searching my edit history. I'm not American so don't even get to vote. I just find politics interesting. I also watched Romney's pages during the most recent election, and removed a lot of stupid dross from there too, but nothing about the Anti-Christ. That seemed a particularly anti-Obama phenomenon. So someone must teach that he is the anti-Christ. HiLo48 (talk) 01:09, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

People say all kinds of batshit insane things, it isn't necessarily helpful to bring all of them up when trying to answer a good-faith question by the OP. --Jayron32 02:01, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To echo Jayron32, to take 20 or 200 edits and ascribe them to one of the major political parties representing 10s of millions of people is kind of like some out there painting all of us Wikipedians with one brush as things that will go unmentioned here, but then again we don't deserve that unless of course we are calling out 10s or 100s to represent 10s of millions.^{Market St.⧏}_{⧐ Diamond Way} 10:12, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be so defensive. It's real. There are people out there who wanted to label Obama as the anti-Christ. I don't know why. But they did. They almost certainly DID vote Republican too. I don't know what it proves, but it happened. Oh, and again, nobody labelled Romney the anti-Christ. (He copped plenty of other stupid rubbish.) I'd be interested in why anybody would call Obama the anti_Christ. Any ideas? HiLo48 (talk) 10:18, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Who's defensive? Just a friendly chat! ^{Market St.⧏}_{⧐ Diamond Way} 14:15, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. But why this tiny concentration of fools wanting to label Obama as the anti-Christ? Is it simply racism? Is there some dogma in one of the less mainstream religious groups that would drive it? HiLo48 (talk) 18:29, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It starts with the hate, then comes the search for external justification for that hate. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:36, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For sure, the "outs" often say crazy things about the "ins". There were some who said President Ronald Wilson Reagan was the anti-Christ, because each of his three names had six letters. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:16, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Jayron32, BB, et al here. There were people who labelled (W) Bush the antichrist too. Perhaps less common but a search easily finds similar labels for Bill Clinton, and Hillary. I'm sure you can find some for HW Bush as well. And evidently the throne may pass direct from Elizabeth II to William the reincarnation of Arthur the antichrist [[8]. none of this seems very useful to the OP. Nil Einne (talk) 22:55, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The reference you heard to the Antichrist originating in the Caucasus Mountains is probably related to a misguided attempt to read the Gog and Magog of Hebrew Bible prophecies as analogous to the Soviet Union (later, the Russian Federation). One particularly egregious miscarriage of linguistics identifies Meshech and Tubal, purported to be allied with Gog and Magog against the Messiah, as Moscow and Tbilisi, respectively. As a sidenote, Jayron, it's actually the Beast out of the Sea that is typically identified as the Antichrist, at least in the forms of Protestantism I'm familiar with, while the "False Prophet" is seen as (in essence) his right-hand man. The Dragon is identified almost universally as Satan, and is in fact explicitly called such in Revelation 20:2.

And, while the Johannine epistles do not make explicit reference to one Antichrist, 1 John 2:18 seems to make reference to a prevailing belief at the time that there would be one great deceiver, as it were. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:32, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected on that. The fact does remain that Revelation does not actually mention the word Antichrist, though that figure often shows up in "standard" Christian eschatalogical thinking, and that it does take several leaps of logic to connect any such figure to any known geography. --Jayron32 02:57, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. The short answer to the OP's question is that the Bible says very little about anyone explicitly called the Antichrist, and precisely nothing about where he comes from. Interestingly enough, lest anyone think the idea is constrained specifically to Christianity, there is also the Jewish Armilus, though whether or not those traditions are connected in any way to the Christian conception of an Antichrist is a point of contention. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:04, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Evanh2008 -- "Gog" only occurs in quasi-apocalyptic contexts in the Bible, but "Magog" appears in the Table of nations in Genesis chapter 10 amidst names which span an arc from Media through Anatolia to Ionia. (I thought this was fairly obvious, but my attempt to add the information to the article "Gog and Magog" was vehemently rejected long ago.) Russia proper was kind of beyond the geographical horizon of the ancient Israelites during the Biblical period... AnonMoos (talk) 18:16, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds about right. It's been a while since I read up on it, but I seem to recall Magog being pretty well identified as somewhere in Turkey. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:18, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sviatoslav oseledec.jpg

Where is this monument located?Curb Chain (talk) 00:28, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you translate the Russian description into English using Google Translate, you get: "Russian Monument Svyatoslav Igorevich. Belgorod region, Chernyansky area. Sculptor: V. Canines".--CDwJ94ZD (talk) 00:33, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Per Sviatoslav I of Kiev#Art and literature, it is a sculpture in a village in the Belgorod Oblast. Though the Wikipedia article does not list the exact name of the village, it does give the name of the sculptor and several references about the unveiling of the statue, which should give you enough to track it down. --Jayron32 00:34, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vyacheslav Klykov's work in the village of Kholki, Belgorod Oblast. Another picture. --Ghirla^-трёп- 06:57, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A boy and his horse

I saw a movie on Hallmark in year 2000. It was about some Southern kid with his horsie. I don't remember anything but one scene where he goes: "Where's my horse? I want my horse back!" at/near the front of a grey house. The movie is not "Flash", although that movie is very similar. It also has a Southern boy who gets and loses a horse. I would appreciate if somebody could figure this out. What movie is this?--Wikicreatere (talk) 01:01, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've already given this my best shot over on the Entertainment Desk, but feel free to contribute if you think you can help. Alansplodge (talk) 12:47, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Candace Amanirenas

Hello,

I only found one picture of Candace Amanirenas, a picture of her tomb: [9], but it has a very low resolution, also I couldn't find any higher resolutions: [10]. Are there maybe other pictures of her?

Greetings HeliosX (talk) 05:02, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya, google images is a good place to try this - go to the main google page and click on "Images" in the black bar at the top; you should get a page like this: [11] where you can type in "Candace Amanirenas". This [12] looks like a better picture than the one you have, although it's not high-res either. Some other different (though low-res) images of her face from different carvings: [13] [14] [15] wysinger.homestead.com/mapofnubia.html

High-res images are hard to find online, but you might try museum websites or Flickr[16]. 184.147.118.213 (talk) 13:50, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for help. But the first, it isn't Amanirenas, it is Amanitore as it's used on her page in Wikipedia, the second is a Puntite queen and the third is also Amanitore and the fourth is Amanishakheto as it is abbreviated in the images name.

With Flickr I only find the Hamadab stele, which is only a text about her.

Do you maybe have other ideas?

Greetings HeliosX (talk) 18:49, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I'm sorry I didn't check those more carefully. Apologies. More ideas, hm, not yet.

I tried searching some of the main museums, but only found the same stele you mention in the British Museum. I think it shows her legs at the top, but that's not exactly a good portrait :)
Tried your tomb image in Tin Eye [17] to see if there are bigger versions, but no luck.
Tried the first three pages of google scholar results [18] because often academic papers have images, but there was nothing in the ones that are available without payment.
Tried adding "Jebel Barkal" to the image search [19] (and the alternate spelling) [20] but that's not working either.

Very sorry. If no other volunteers here can help, perhaps try a wikiproject? (Wikipedia:WikiProject World Heritage Sites, Wikipedia:WikiProject Ancient Egypt or Wikipedia:WikiProject Sudan.) 184.147.118.213 (talk) 21:33, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bar Culture

Is bar and nightclub culture about meeting and having fun with the opposite gender in all cultures? What were the origins of this sort of culture? 176.27.210.169 (talk) 09:04, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1) In some cultures, where the genders are not supposed to mix informally, such activities are more about socialising with members of one's own gender. (Consider sports bars, even in cultures where the genders otherwise mix freely.)

2) There are plenty of subcultures (I belong to at least two of them) in which one's own gender is as much a target as another for the 'having fun' aspect in sexual/romantic sense. The existence of 'gay bars' goes back some way; there's a reference to an inter-war one in Brideshead Revisited, and I don't doubt the concept wasn't new then.

3) Modern bar culture in the West seems to be early 19th century or earlier; its precursors include the coffee-house culture which goes back to the 17th century, and the life of alehouses and inns, which runs right back to classical times. Nightclub culture dates from at least the middle of the 18th century; during his sojourn in London, Giacomo Casanova was a promoter for a nightclub in Soho Square. I don't know off-hand where it sprang from before that. AlexTiefling (talk) 09:54, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To trace the origins you may consider Tavern and Saloon since the modern version are direct descendants.^{Market St.⧏}_{⧐ Diamond Way} 10:08, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

that is interesting. Do you think this "Modern bar culture in the West" is spreading to other parts of the world? I'm guessing in most of Asia for example, its less accepted but do you think in modern times, it's becoming more acceptable? 2.218.32.125 (talk) 10:50, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think traditional British pub culture was more about men drinking with their male friends. Until recently, British pubs had a "public bar" with basic furniture and games like darts and bar billiards, which was for spending the evening with your mates, amd the "saloon bar" with upholstered furniture, where you could take a young lady, away from the swearing and spitting on the other side. Beer cost more in the saloon. There was a concerted campaign after WWII to encourage women to visit pubs, resulting in drinks like Babycham and lager, which were thought to be more femenine than a pint of mild and bitter. Alansplodge (talk) 12:54, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Arrr, the old spit and sawdust. Them be the good ol days. Dmcq (talk) 14:30, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As recently as the late 1990s the landlord of a pub in Portsmouth refused to serve my wife unless we went into the saloon. We left. Paul B (talk) 17:52, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not everyone going to a bar is interested in the opposite gender. --Jayron32 15:03, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To see some 18th century propaganda about pub culture, see Hogarth's Gin Lane and Beer Street cartoons. They repay some detailed study! --TammyMoet (talk) 17:41, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Or A Midnight Modern Conversation. Paul B (talk) 17:50, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

TammyMoet -- both of the Hogarths are outdoor street scenes... AnonMoos (talk) 18:32, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but Beer Street is from the viewpoint of a pub "beer garden" as it would nowadays be called. Gin was the "heroin" of the day ("dead drunk for a tuppence"), and part of the intention is to contrast the sociable context of beer drinking (which includes home and workplace drinking, as well as "pub culture") with the isolation of gin-doped alcoholics on the street. Much of the beer drunk would be weak small beer, which was healthier than disease-bearing water. Another, rather more fraught, Hogarth pub scene is An Election Entertainment Paul B (talk) 18:37, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DEfine bar culture. We have an article on bars. μηδείς (talk) 21:09, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose I meant modern "Western nightlife culture" but it seems to be broad as the answers above suggest. 2.218.32.125 (talk) 23:36, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

North Korean Embassy

I am a British citizen. If I went to the North Korean embassy in London, and gave up my British passport and asked to be relocated to North Korea to 'fight for the revolution' or similar, what would be the likely reaction of the North Korean embassy? --AlldiRessie (talk) 17:04, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate". You appear to be asking us to make a prediction. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:13, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that if you didn't have any useful information or assets to hand over to them, then they would prefer getting to know you over a period of time through the Korean Friendship Association... -- AnonMoos (talk) 18:00, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I can't wait to say hello to Kim Jong Un. --AlldiRessie (talk) 18:08, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When do you intend to do this? I will be very keen to hear what will happen. Are you able to edit Wikipedia from North Korea? Horatio Snickers (talk) 19:40, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

know about gotra...

hello,My surname is patel(kadwa patidar). and when i search about my caste somewhere it shows vaishya and somewhere kshatriya and in my janmapatrika there was written in caste space is kshatriya. I want know my gotra and any details related to this.My forefathers mainly from punjab(now that part is in karachi) & i am from sakariya pedhi(sakha) i only know this. please help me to short out this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.213.58.146 (talk) 17:56, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. The articles we have are Kadava Patidar, Patidar and Kurmi, and while they don't specify a gotra (the first says Kshatriya varna), the Kadava Patidar does link (at the bottom) to three associations. Perhaps you can contact one of those groups for better information. 184.147.118.213 (talk) 21:41, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indecent exposure in Victorian times

Was it really considered indecent exposure in Victorian times if a woman exposed her ankles? I remember reading about it in school textbooks and Mr. Burns has referenced it twice on the Simpsons, once when ordering Victorian themed dancers to go "back to your brothel harlots" and when he eyes up a woman's ankles through a pair of binoculars telling her to "work those ankles, baby". The reason I'm mentioning the Simpsons is because their examples of antiquated humour are usually pretty accurate --Andrew 18:02, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In olden days a glimpse of stocking was looked upon as something shocking [21].
The answer is "yes and no". The "Victorian period" was actually 60 years, during which attitudes changed in complex ways. And of course it depended on where you were. The term "Victorian" is often used in the USA, but of course Vicky was only queen in Britain (and its empire, in some parts of which stockings were unknown). The French Can Can was pretty shocking precisely because the girls lifted up their skirts, though they were fully stockinged underneath, and of course the Barrison Sisters showed their "pussies". That was in the "naughty nineties". Back in the '50s the Crinoline was designed to ensure that a woman's feet would not be seen, but she would appear to "float" as she walked. At the same time, however, there existed common lodging houses with beds in which couples would be having sex with no privacy at all, and in many areas women worked in manual industries that involved degrees of undress. What happens is that the more "uninhibited" public behaviour in the early period actually becomes increasingly regulated - very much linked to the idea that there should be a common culture of public decency - but this then generates the deliberate "naughtiness" that emerges in popular culture by the end of the century. Paul B (talk) 18:32, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mrandrewnohome -- it wasn't literally indecent for women to slightly raise their skirts and show a bestockinged ankle, because frequently as a practical matter, women had to slightly lift their skirts to avoid dragging them though mud or wet. However, some men got a little thrill from seeing it. You can look at the comic strip, where the self-appointed moral guardian beats up on the watching man, not the woman... AnonMoos (talk) 19:29, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A specifically Victorian example, without the explicit voyeurism is Frith's The Crossing Sweeper, of which he did several versions. They play on the "glimpse of stocking" idea, played off that of deference to gentility. It also crops up in cartoons of the era File:PunchCartoon crossing sweeper.jpg. Paul B (talk) 19:38, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Divine Accommodation/Condescension in Orthodox Judaism

Are there any Orthodox Jewish scholars, either contemporary are ancient, who understand Divine Accommodation/Condescension to occur in the Revelation of the Old Testament in a similar fashion of many Christian theologians? Thanks!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.96.146.180 (talk) 21:29, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you talking about incarnation? Can you provide a link to what you mean by Divine Accommodation/Condescension? μηδείς (talk) 21:53, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Femnism in Jewish/Hebrew culture

A general look at Jewish history shows that women had very little power or say in society. However, isn't the story of Deborah, who was a ruling figure, a good argument for female power or independence from man? I know in the Rabbinic period many debates and questions were asked about Jewish history and society, was the agency of Jewish women ever discussed? Jewish feminism only deals with the modern movement. --The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 21:39, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Most societies in the past severely limited the power of women, and had a paternalistic and chauvinist attitude towards women in terms of preventing women from accessing formal positions of power. And women have also always done so, either directly, such as someone like Wu Zetian, or indirectly as the "Power behind the throne" such as Catherine de' Medici. The idea that a society may have had a misogynistic view towards women, or may have actively prevented women from accessing political power is not invalidated as a historical fact that some women broke through that power structure to occasionally hold power, either as a de facto or de jure matter. --Jayron32 22:07, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While rabbinic law has restricted women's religious participation as it likewise has defined men's, women's economic activity within the patriarchal family structure could be extensive and influential. In the European diaspora of the Second Millennium C.E., see for a noted example Dona Gracia Mendes Nasi. Jewish women in the Arab world were allowed to conduct commercial activities with sequestered women of the ruling class. Within the Hasidic community that values a man's devotion to religious scholarship, women are often responsible for the household's income. -- Deborahjay (talk) 00:30, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

hydrogen nuclear tests on enewetak islands

I,m trying to find out information on the airforce men who were deposited every day on the atoll after the last nuclear tests in aug,1948 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.54.164.219 (talk) 22:33, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here and here are first-hand accounts. There's also a Congressman Edward Markey Report - "American Nuclear Guinea Pigs: Three Decades of Radiation Experiments on U.S. Citizens", which talks about Eniwetok. I searched using "Eniwetok US Air Force personnel nuclear tests". Clarityfiend (talk) 23:34, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you looking for personnel c. 1948 or during later nuclear tests? Clarityfiend (talk) 23:40, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

June 4

Department of Mathematics and Mechanics pure Russian?

Are "Department of Mathematics and Mechanics" is a unique feature of Russian universities or is there examples around the globe. Since most universities has separate department for Mathematics and other for Physics and Mechanics is covered in the Physics department. If my assumption is true then I will appreciate other examples of some other such unique university departments. Solomon7968 (talk) 00:41, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

North Carolina State University has a College of Physical and Mathematical sciences] which combines pure math with other physical sciences like Physics and Chemistry. --Jayron32 01:09, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Jayron32 a news to me but is there any specific reason why Russian universities in general use the term Department of "Mathematics and Mechanics"? Thanks. Solomon7968 (talk) 05:17, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do such Russian schools have a separate Physics department or is "Mechanics" being translated for what is called "physics" in English? --Jayron32 05:20, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do not actually get your point. Explanation needed and see this: MSU Faculty of Mechanics and Mathematics and this www.math.spbu.ru/en/‎ Solomon7968 (talk) 05:29, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not making a point, I'm asking a question to seek information on a subject I don't know about as I don't speak Russian. My question is thus: Do Russian schools that have a department titled "Department of Mathematics and Mechanics" have a separate department of Physics, or is that part of the "Department of Mathematics and Mechanics"? --Jayron32 05:30, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could you provide citations or examples, and are you sure they're departments? Because as Jayron32 notes SPBU and MSU strongly indicate that these are faculties containing departments. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:34, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I am from India but while searching for some references I saw this Unique Russian character. And do not get pe wrong User:Jayron32 my meaning of "point" is different than the Native English meaning. Thanks. Solomon7968 (talk) 05:39, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I still haven't had my question answered. I'd like to provide you with a rational answer, but you haven't answered my question regarding the standard organization of Russian university departments with regards to mathematics, physics, and other physical sciences. --Jayron32 05:40, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am from India hence different to answer about Russia, added I have 2 years left to go to college. Added can you explain me what is the difference between "Faculty" and "Department". I am confused with the two words. Solomon7968 (talk) 05:49, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, distinct from Fifelfoo, I'm not sure there is much of a difference. There is a very wide variation in the terminology used by institutes of learning to differentiate their structure. One such organization may organize itself as "University broken into colleges broken into departments" while another may use entirely different names for analogous structures (That is what one institution may call a "College" another may call a "School" and yet another may call a "Department" or a "Faculty"). There's no universal language to that works world-wide. If you add onto this the additional complication of translating from another language into English and trying to decide that some particular Russian word should mean "faculty" or "school" or "college" or "department" or whatever else, when English-language schools in various English-speaking countries can't even come to an agreement amongst themselves what they mean is the crux of the problem. So, don't try to parse the difference between "department" and "faculty" and "school" or whetever other term a particular institution uses. The question at hand is "how do are science and mathematics subjects organized at different institutions." Not "what do different institutions call their various subdivisions," These are different questions, and the first seems far more interesting based on your initial question than the second. --Jayron32 05:58, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nice answer Jayron32, it is not necessary that Department be a subset of Faculty. An additional question are there any "School" concept in UK. I guess it is pure American. Am I right? Solomon7968 (talk) 06:05, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's just WAY too variable to give a universal answer. There's the institution itself, like say Harvard University or the University of Delaware or North Carolina State University. Each of these institutions is broken up into smaller subdivisions, but how they divide up is VERY variable. For example, Harvard has a very "English" style organization, where students are organized into "Houses", while the teaching staff is organized into "Faculties". The University of Delaware, on the other hand, is primarily organized along subject lines, the entire University is divided up into primary subdivisions called "Colleges", such as the "College of Arts and Sciences", the "College of Business and Economics" and so forth. Within each "College" are smaller "Departments" which are organized along more strict subjects. For example, the "College of Arts and Sciences" at the University of Delaware has a "Department of Physics", a "Department of History", and so on, while the "College of Business and Economics" has a "Department of Business Administration" a "Department of Accounting" etc. NCSU has a completely different organization. Whereas Delaware has most of its physical sciences, mathematics, and liberal arts all under the "College of Arts and Sciences" banner, NCSU has itself organized into separate "College of Agricultural and Life Sciences", "College of Physical and Mathematical Sciences", "College of Humanities and Social Sciences", and again within each of those colleges are distinct departments for each subject matter, so the "Department of Biology" and the "Department of Animal Science" falls under the "College of Agricultural and Life Sciences", while the "Department of Physics" and the "Department of Chemistry" fall under the "College of Physical and Mathematical Sciences". At Delaware, three of these (Biology, Physics, and Chemistry) are part of the "College of Arts and Sciences" while the other was under the "College of Agriculture and Natural Resources". I suppose this is a long way of explaining that, in the United States at least, there is no universal, or even "common", way of organizing a University, and that each particular university will have its own way of organizing itself, and you can't really draw any greater meaning or system out of it. There is no system. --Jayron32 06:25, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Given the recent wealth amassed by some Indians many businessman are investing money to universities and the thing called "Buisness School" is mushrooming. But leave aside the tangential question if you take a look at MSU history many standalone departments (faculty?) have grown to become standalone institutions. But the historic Department (faculty?) of "Mathematics and Mechanics" has remain. Not jumping to conclusions but it is surely no coincident. Solomon7968 (talk) 06:32, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think the naming is felicitous and insightful. That 19th century thinker, Gauss, famously enough, considered geometry, because of the possibility of Non-Euclidean geometry (which he kept for many years to himself) as "like mechanics", somehow empirical, and so called poor honest Kant, Boeotian. Thinking deeper, that later, 18th century thinker Clifford Truesdell, thought that mechanics should be considered as mathematics, like geometry. Perhaps the forms of thought are stored (uniquely?) in the language of Russian academic bureaucracy? :-)John Z (talk) 10:00, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@User:John Z Your analysis is very insightful. Solomon7968 (talk) 10:46, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Name of a particular artist

I'm trying to remember the name of an artist who painted young women/girls in sort of classical clothes with flowered garlands in their hair and the work was sort of ornate or overly wrought. I believe he painted in the early 20th century, in Italy, and his name was something like Altadema. I remember his first and last names as unusual and complicated. Can anyone help?173.88.224.244 (talk) 02:52, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alma Tadema... -- AnonMoos (talk) 05:43, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sahara

Prior to the desertification of the Sahara what was the largest desert? Don't go too far back in time and disregard frozen lands like Antarctica or Greenland. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 07:07, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're bumping into a definitional problem here. Our article Desert uses the definition "Deserts generally receive less than 250 millimetres (10 in) of rain (precipitation) each year." That's a kind of standard in international climate science. Naturally it includes cold places. If you have something different you'd like identified, maybe hot places with sandhills, that's a different question. HiLo48 (talk) 07:22, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That seems to be the question he's asking, then. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 08:41, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is she asking us to don't 1) Disregard frozen lands like Antarctica or Greenland or 2) don't disregard frozen lands like Antarctica or Greenland. Bit ambiguous if you read it. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 08:50, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see what you mean. Yes, it is ambiguous. Maybe this table from our Desert article would be a good starting point...

**The ten largest deserts**^[1]
Rank	Desert	Area (km²)	Area (mi²)
1	Antarctic Desert (Antarctica)	14,200,000	5,500,000
2	Arctic Desert (Arctic)	13,900,000	5,400,000
3	Sahara Desert (Africa)	9,100,000	3,500,000
4	Arabian Desert (Middle East)	2,600,000	1,000,000
5	Gobi Desert (Asia)	1,300,000	500,000
6	Patagonian Desert (South America)	670,000	260,000
7	Great Victoria Desert (Australia)	647,000	250,000
8	Kalahari Desert (Africa)	570,000	220,000
9	Great Basin Desert (North America)	490,000	190,000
10	Thar Desert (India, Pakistan)	450,000	175,000

HiLo48 (talk) 08:54, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Sahara as a desert has only existed since 1,600 BC, our article claims (with a "citation needed", if anyone comes across a good reference). The article also says the area cycles between wet and dry periods. So there will be not one but many periods in the past when the Sahara is not a desert, as well as many periods when it was.

A climate map for around the Sahara's last wet period would show vegetation somewhere around 5000-8000 BC. So far the closest I've found is this map [22] from the last glacial maximum, which shows the largest non-polar deserts in Argentina and Central Asia-Tibet-China. 184.147.118.213 (talk) 11:23, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

^ "The World's Largest Desert". Geology.com. Retrieved 2013-05-12.

[1] "The World's Largest Desert". Geology.com. Retrieved 2013-05-12.

[1]