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.

October 19

Chinese zodiac

What is the oldest artifact or physical object (not written references) which archaeologists have found linked to the Chinese zodiacs? And finally what was the oldest written reference?--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 01:56, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some general timeframes to start: Metropolitan Museum of Art says, describing a 8th century set in their collection, "The association of the cycle of twelve divisions with a set of animals occurred by the third century B.C. There is no evidence of the pictorial representation of the set before the sixth century, when images of the animals began to appear on the backs of bronze mirrors and on the walls of tomb chambers. During the Tang dynasty (618–907), when burial customs were most elaborate, sets of pottery figures in official robes with heads of the calendrical animals were commonly used in burials." I'm guessing the 3rd century BC part must be by a written reference. 184.147.121.62 (talk) 21:11, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A second reference from the Metropolitan Museum of Art in this pdf answers your first question: "By the fourth century B.C. the animals were well established in Chinese thought ... Although references to the duodenary appear early in Chinese history, images of the twelve animals are first found in ceiling paintings from a tomb dated 533." 184.147.121.62 (talk) 21:21, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have images of said mirrors or tombs?--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 03:26, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Use of OL in German politics

I found this page on the German version: de:Mittelherwigsdorf while trying to find out more about this area and surrounding villages. I didn't find any German equivelant to the reference desk so I'm asking here: What does OL stand for in the Kommunalwahl 2009 box? I tried checking the source but it doesn't work Munci (talk) 10:17, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The German reference desk is called Auskunft. "OL" seems to be "Offene Liste" (open list), see here. I haven't seen that before, but it's clearly a list of candidates not tied to any of the traditional parties. --Wrongfilter (talk) 11:31, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Try this link instead of the link in the box. Note that "OL" in the box is linked to de:Offene Liste. It could have been a list with candidates of the left-wing-party The Left (Germany) and others. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 14:37, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much both of you. I can try going to Auskunft next time I've got a German question. Munci (talk) 07:31, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Time limits on conditions in wills

Under the common law, is there a time limit within which any conditions must be fulfilled; and if so, vaguely what is the time limit? I've enjoyed The Wabbit Who Came to Supper since I was little, but even when I was in elementary school, I wondered how long Elmer would have to wait until the (ultimately non-existent) money was his and he would be able to go back hunting wabbits. I'm left wondering whether some jurisdictions would treat the will as a contract, so the executor might sue Elmer to recover the -$1.98 inheritance no matter how many years he waited until hunting wabbits. I know that some jurisdictions permit suits (presumably for contract-breaking) decades after the contract is executed, e.g. when St Louis was sued for title to the Old Courthouse more than a century after they obtained the land, because they ceased using the property under the condition by which it was granted. But without any legal background, I'm left wondering how much (if any) similarity there would be between conditions in wills and conditions in normal contracts. Nyttend (talk) 20:50, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's liable to vary from state to state. Although not precisely a will, the Ralph Engelstad situation regarding his gift-with-strings-attached arena in North Dakota may be interesting. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:39, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rule against perpetuities... -- AnonMoos (talk) 01:20, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

October 20

Liking children

Why is it that in Western society, men who like children are heavily ostracized and suspected of pedophilia? I remember my uncle telling me (in China and in Chinese) that my grandpa only/particularly likes children. There was not a hint of criticism or impropriety in his compliment, which he made because my grandpa was the one who raised me during my childhood. Now, a few years later, I realize how creepy that comment would sound in English. Is this distrust a recent development, and if so, why did it develop? Also, how do I actually say that my (recently deceased) grandpa only likes children and have it come out as a compliment? --140.180.252.60 (talk) 00:04, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We can't give you advice or provide a referenced answer about how you should refer to your grandfather. μηδείς (talk) 01:05, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, I find your behaviour unbelievably rude. There's a Language reference desk where questions like "how you should refer to your grandfather" to express a certain meaning are routinely asked and answered. I didn't put my question there because 1) the question about language is only a small portion of my overall question, and 2) the overall question is more cultural than linguistic. --140.180.252.60 (talk) 9:32 pm, Today (UTC−4)

Be calm. This is only your second edit here. Medeis will grow on you. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:14, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Really? I've been around for ages and Medeis hasn't grown on me. Dismas|^(talk) 03:19, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I find Medeis writes many constructive posts that are both intelligent and referenced. As for the cranky posts, we can teach people gently how to sidestep them, without any need for anger or sarcasm. The main problem with any cranky post is it allows things to escalate. IBE (talk) 16:48, 20 October 2013 (UTC) [reply]

Oddly enough, the early escalator prototypes were operated by cranks. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:55, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the guidelines. We don't offer opinions or advice. We have no references that tell us anything about your grandfather. Please seek an internet chat forum. If you have a complaint, you are aware of the talk page. μηδείς (talk) 02:19, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Come on, Medeis. You're fixating again, this time solely on the OP's final sentence. Please let people answer the foregoing question: "Is this distrust a recent development, and if so, why did it develop?". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 02:49, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I must say the references below are impressive. μηδείς (talk) 15:43, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is completely beside the point, and you know it. This is sour grapes, and is akin to someone who advocates the abolition of the laws prohibiting murder, rape, incest, robbery and treason, on the grounds that people are just going to go right on doing them anyway, and when they do she sulks "See, I told you so". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 18:44, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still trying to figure out just what "he only likes children" is actually supposed to mean in Chinese language or culture. Is "like" a euphemism for sexual attraction? Or does it just mean platonically preferring the company of whatever group? Since the IP has only commented twice - once to pose this ambiguous question, and once to attack one of the responders, we may never know - in which case boxing up this section might be appropriate. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:30, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I "only" commented twice? How many times did you expect me to post within 12 hours? Anyhow, in context the phrase just meant that he likes playing with children, taking care of them, etc. more than he likes playing with adults. "Like" can be used as an euphemism for sexual attraction, but according to my admittedly-limited knowledge of Chinese culture, "he only/especially likes children" would not raise as many eyebrows as it does in English.

Also, I should add that while I'm not a Wikipedia regular, this is not my 2nd edit on Wikipedia. I have a dynamic IP, like most people, and I've made minor contributions under other IPs. --140.180.253.116 (talk) 16:59, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So you mean "platonically", right? No sexual contact or anything resembling sexual contact, right? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:03, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say the reason is that in the West cases of pedophilia now appear in the media, while they are less likely to be in China. Thus, this creates a suspicion in the West that everyone who likes kids might be a pedophile. As for why these stories are more publicized in the West, this is likely because of freedom of the press and capitalism, since such stories sell. In China, however, the freedom of the press is quite limited, and they are prone to cover up anything that might reflect negatively on Chinese society. StuRat (talk) 03:03, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When you say someone "only likes children", it sounds creepy, as it implies a pedophile, or the Lewis Carroll syndrome, or whatever. If you say "he loved children", that works better. That, of course, assumes your grandfather was not actually a pedophile. Right? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:07, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can't say if the same is true for all of Western society but in the US at least there are many stereotypes and things associated with men vs. women. For instance, if a man is a florist or works in women's fashion, then he's often assumed to be gay. Gender role has more information related to what you're asking about as far as the societal views. Dismas|^(talk) 03:34, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some things are a lot more open than they used to be, and some things are very visibly on our radar which didn't used to be or were just a minor blip. Consider the scene in Miracle on 34th Street where John Payne is babysitting for his girlfriend Maureen O'Hara's daughter, Natalie Wood, who's about 8 or 9 at that point. Nowadays you would have to be careful with a scene like that. In 1947, presumably no one thought anything of it. (Certainly the Hays Office was OK with it, or it wouldn't have been in the picture.) And as you say, females as babysitters is somehow socially OK - even though women have also been known to be pervs. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:51, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I never said anything about babysitters, so I'm not sure why, judging by the indentation, you're replying to me. And I've never seen Miracle on 34th Street. Dismas|^(talk) 06:54, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You talked about gender roles, which is what reminded me of it. You've never seen Miracle on 34th Street??? You are culturally deprived! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:26, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Baseball Bugs: I've only seen It's a Wonderful Life once as well. I don't really enjoy older movies like those very much, so I only watch them maybe once to be exposed to them for my own education and after that, I'm done with them. That and I'm not really a James Stewart fan. Dismas|^(talk) 05:10, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Any classic film is deserving of being seen once, just for educational purposes. I saw Citizen Kane once. It was well done and innovative in various ways, but once was enough. But then I was also not a great fan of Orson Welles, although he narrated Bugs Bunny, Superstar. I recommend you see Miracle on 34th Street once (the original, uncolorized version). It's quite a bit less heavy-handed than IAWL is. It's also interesting to see how commercialized Christmastime had already become, in the year or two that had passed since the end of WWII. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:58, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Swift liked children, or at least Irish ones. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:56, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

...in the same way that the natives often liked missionaries, especially a nice plump friar. StuRat (talk) 16:18, 20 October 2013 (UTC) [reply]

And in a similar vein... Woman: "Do you like children?" W.C. Fields: "I do if they're properly cooked." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:26, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have a single reliable source so far. μηδείς (talk) 18:52, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IF there is a single serious, referenced answer to this "question", let's have it. μηδείς (talk) 18:52, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Moral panic and Think of the children are relevant articles. As to the OP's last question, describing the good things that his grandfather did for children would defuse the innuendo in the raw statement. Tevildo (talk) 22:14, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Abdication of King George III of Great Britain

Hi, what year did King George III write his (failed) abdication speech? Cheers, Uhlan ^talk 03:53, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Our article (George III of the United Kingdom) isn't absolutely clear on this, but it would have to be late 1781, or more likely 1782. I'll see if I can find a solid source, and maybe update the article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:00, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Hi, our article on George III of the United Kingdom lists 2 references following the information that he wrote it soon after news of the defeat at Yorktown in 1781. The references are not web based but the way the article is written it appears that the year 1781 or possibly early 1782 would be the correct answer to this.^{Market St.⧏}_{⧐ Diamond Way} 04:03, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thank you. Uhlan ^talk 04:06, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, but AndyTheGrump may also update with additional web resources and if I find anything I'll be sure to add it here. Unless the 1781-82 time frame is as much specificity as you needed.^{Market St.⧏}_{⧐ Diamond Way} 04:18, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looking into this further, it seems that the exact date (or dates - there may have been more than one draft letter) is unsure. ~~The text of a draft can be found here: [1]~~ AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:20, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So basically the most historically accurate information would simply be, 'the failed abdication attempt occurred during a period of after the Battle of Yorktown, to early 1782'? Uhlan ^talk 08:30, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure it could be described as a 'failed abdication attempt'. It seems to be more of a case of George III contemplating abdication, but never actually going through with it. According to this BBC article, he had done the same thing earlier, only five years into his reign. [2] AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:15, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In any event, British monarchs cannot abdicate unilaterally. It requires firstly the agreement of the government, and then the approval of the parliament in passing a bill amending the law of succession. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 18:35, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion sounds vaguely familiar. In theory, a king who didn't want to be king could simply refuse to perform any of his royal duties. If he ends up like King Charles I did, it wouldn't technically be abdication, but it would be the same result: not the king anymore. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:47, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not have this hypothetical discussion. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 00:56, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The guy who abdicated in the 1930s fits this description in some sense, per some schools of thought. Except he was actually allowed to abdicate. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:00, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Prevailed upon, more likely. He was given a set of options, but remaining king with "the woman he loved" by his side was not one of them. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 07:35, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

True, but there's a school of thought that he didn't really want to be king anyway, so this all worked out. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:47, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When and where was William Samuel Henson born?

Hello! I'm trying to improve the article about William Samuel Henson in Russian Wikipedia, and I've found that great confusion exists about his birth data. Different sources cite Nottingham, Chard or Leicester as his birthplace (I've consulted printed sources in Russian as well as Web sources in English). Neither is the date of his birth certain. The article in English Wiki states that "Henson was born on 3 May 1812 (some sources incorrectly say 1805)". But how can it be demonstrated that the sources citing 1805 as the year of his birh are all incorrect? Is it a POV or there is a current consensus among historians that 1812 is his true birthyear? And why did such a confusion rise? I tried the talkpage of the article but it's likely that nobody noticed. I feel grateful to anybody who would help me to disentangle the issue. Эйхер (talk) 14:35, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can ask the Library of Congress, Washington, DC.

Ask a Librarian (Library of Congress).

You can ask the Bodleian Library at the University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.

Bodleian Libraries | Ask a Librarian

—Wavelength (talk) 02:34, 21 October 2013 (UTC) and 02:54, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Unfortunately, it appears that only registered students can ask a librarian at the Bodleian Library.

—Wavelength (talk) 16:05, 21 October 2013 (UTC)][reply]

I beg pardon for my stupid question, but what may I ask them? Should I try exactly the question I've typed above or I'm expected to ask only about what printed sources exist on the biography of Mr. Henson? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Эйхер (talk • contribs) 06:49, 21 October 2013 (UTC) Sorry about my absent-mindedness. Эйхер (talk) 06:51, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend that you ask the same questions that you asked here.

—Wavelength (talk) 16:05, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can ask Open University Library (distance education) in the UK.

Help and Support | Library Services | Open University (Scroll down and click on "Chat to a Librarian".)

You can ask the Museums, Libraries and Archives Council in England.

People's Network online services from public libraries Home

—Wavelength (talk) 16:05, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! I'll try. Эйхер (talk) 16:45, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Robbery of medals etc in London

Following a robbery of medals in London 19th October I wish to advertise them as stolen in various online sites. Which sites would you recommend please? Kittybrewster ☎ 17:54, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see a lot of lost, stolen or missing items posted on Facebook and Twitter these days. --TammyMoet (talk) 20:33, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a recommendation (please read the article), but the Art Loss Register does exist for this purpose. This site gives details of the Met's official database. Tevildo (talk) 21:08, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Was there any attempted cooperation between Napoleonic France & USA in the War of 1812?

I realize that formal alliances were discouraged by Washington, and that there was some hostility towards France from the 1790s, but I was wondering if due to military necessity there was any cooperation between America & Napoleonic France against their common enemy during the War of 1812? Were there any official statements by the French government of ambassadors when USA declared war on UK? Likewise did Britian's European Allies consider America to be an enemy? --Gary123 (talk) 18:30, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not directly responsive to the question, but I'm reading a book by Garry Wills right now called The Negro President (referring to Thomas Jefferson who obtained the presidency because each slave in the South counted as 6/10 of a person for purposes of determining the number of representatives, and hence the number of electors, a state had: more slaves in the South → more electors → better chance for a southern candidate like Jefferson to do well in the electoral college).

Much of the last half of the book is devoted to Jefferson's Embargo on ship trade with England. He said it was to prevent England from raiding US ships on the high seas to take back the seamen who had deserted from English ships. But some people thought it was an overreaction due to Jefferson's love of France and detesting of England, and the effect on England was too small for England to notice. Of course this was a few years before the War of 1812, but the situation was the same. Duoduoduo (talk) 18:59, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See Embargo Act of 1807. It was directed against both France and England, but I think as a practical matter it was simply directed at England. Duoduoduo (talk) 19:04, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What is 'hitting rock bottom' in economics

When journalists say something hit rock bottom are they into something? Is there a bottom to a national economy, stock price, index or whatever? Can't anything always fall a little bit more, up to 0% in most cases? (It's clear that commodities won't ever fall to $0.01, but all the rest?) OsmanRF34 (talk) 20:54, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think in many cases there is a bottom. Take home prices, for example. If they drop too low, renters will buy them not as an investment, but just to save on rent. So, they can only go so low. Exceptions are where the home is unlivable, requires expensive repairs, or has a tax lien against it more than it's worth. The only cases where there is no bottom would be where the item has no intrinsic value, like pet rocks. StuRat (talk) 22:16, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's the possibility that they're just using hyperbole. Dismas|^(talk) 22:53, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Still, Pet Rocks are good for something; their article says that they were ordinary stones bought at a builder's supply store. You might as well buy them for whatever price the supply stores are selling them :-) Osman, presumably it's hyperbole. They're basically saying "We don't think it can go any farther", although of course that's just about always possible. This is related to the "mathematically impossible" discussion at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2009 August 22 (I don't know how I remembered that discussion!), because the journalist who says "hit rock bottom" is analogous to sportscaster #1 saying "This is impossible". Both could be wrong, although the phrase is used to mean "I can't imagine a realistic chance that it will go any other way". Nyttend (talk) 04:37, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

are any foods made of apple seeds?

I at an apple seed and found it interesting/good. are any foods made up of ground up apple seeds (etc)?

http://www.snopes.com/food/warnings/apples.asp mentions they have some poisons but I assume this could be removed. 212.96.61.236 (talk) 22:19, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't mean they can be made safe in a cost-effective way. StuRat (talk) 22:21, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So that means apple seeds just aren't used to create a food product? are any other normally inedible pits used in this way? 212.96.61.236 (talk) 23:27, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, according to Apple seed oil, they are used to make edible products. The main thing is to avoid the cyanide part. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:48, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

October 21

explanation of famous picture: lunch during building skyscraper (workmen sitting down on a beam)

Could you give me some explanation on this: http://i.imgur.com/TUm5Bpj.jpg

why were they sititng down, and so close? how? was there a sheer drop below?

I just found our article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunch_atop_a_Skyscraper - but it doesn't say much. Would people actually eat like that? 212.96.61.236 (talk) 00:24, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Daily Mail (not always the most reliable source, admittedly), it was a publicity stunt. [3] AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:48, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confusion about the Time Line of Events in Hamlet

I am very confused about a particular scene in Hamlet. Any insight is appreciated. In the final lines of Act 2, Hamlet gives his soliloquy that ends with "the play's the thing, in which I'll catch the conscience of the king". In that soliloquy, Hamlet berates himself for not taking action to avenge his father's murder. He is very upset with himself, he calls himself an ass, etc. Then, about half-way into the soliloquy, Hamlet has a brainstorm idea to solve the problem: he will have the players re-enact his father's murder and he will observe Claudius's response (to see if Claudius "reveals" his guilt). So, it seems to me that Hamlet never had this bright idea before, and he just developed the idea mid-way through this particular soliloquy. It was as if a light bulb went off over his head, half-way through the soliloquy. (If he had had this great idea prior to this speech, he would not be so angry and upset with himself in the first half of the speech.) So, here's the source of my confusion and, hence, my question. Prior to this speech, Hamlet had asked the First Player if the acting troupe could perform The Murder of Gonzago the next day. First Player says "yes". Hamlet then asks if he (Hamlet) can write up some 12 or 16 lines of new text to insert into the play; can the troupe of actors memorize these new lines overnight and insert them into the play the next day? First Player says "yes". So, why did Hamlet want to pen 12-16 lines of new text to insert into the Murder of Gonzago play, if he had not yet even had his brainstorm idea, his "light bulb" moment? What am I missing? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:52, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We can't know exactly what was in Shakespeare's mind when he wrote the play, but there are two possibilities. One is that Hamlet was intending an improved speech, since they had just been discussing the merits of various lines. The other, more likely, in my opinion, is that this is just dramatic licence (not an accidental continuity error), where Hamlet reveals his thinking to the audience to clarify what has just occurred to him, and he is recalling the "light-bulb" moment a few minutes earlier. There will be a difference in the delivery of the line "Dost thou hear me, old friend; can you play the Murder of Gonzago?" if that is the true "light-bulb" moment. Dbfirs 07:53, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also opinion. Remember that in this soliloquy Hamlet expresses disgust at himself over his inability to show his grief and rage and physically revenge his father. In part this is because he's still not 100% convinced that the ghost's message was genuine rather than the devil trying to fool him (or at least, that's his excuse). OK, he's finally doing something with his sneaky little plan to doctor the play and watch his uncle to see whether he betrays himself, but it's more reactive than proactive and is hardly decisive manly action involving tears, shouting and weaponry. If he remains disgusted by his own pussyfooting around, it's hardly surprising that he expresses this for a few lines before confirming to the audience that his request to the First Player did indeed have an ulterior motive. He'd still rather have the guts to howl with grief and stab his uncle, though. - Karenjc (talk) 08:48, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to both of you. I see what you are saying. But ... this is what I am having the problem with. That soliloquy essentially has two halves: the first half in which he berates himself for his inability, inaction, and indecisiveness in avenging his father's murder; and the second half in which he reveals his great scheme to get Claudius to confess to murder (i.e., by having the players stage a re-enactment of his father's murder in the garden). The problem for me is the few lines that separate the first half of the soliloquy from the second half. I don't have the exact text in front of me. But, the gist of that mid-point section of the speech is something along these lines (paraphrased). Hamlet essentially says ... "Wow, I am a jerk; I can't believe what a jerk I am; I really need to get off my ass and do something about this; that First Player put me to shame with his reaction to a merely fictionalized scenario", etc., etc., etc. Then (at the mid-point of the speech), he says: "OK, let me wrack my brain now; come on, brain, please get to work for me; come on, brain, please give me some bright idea here; come on, brain, I really need your help right now", etc. etc. etc. So, that is what I am calling the turning point of the soliloquy, in which his anger turns to action. He summons up all the power in his brain to try to come up with a great idea. Then, at that moment, the light bulb goes off. In other words, the great idea about the re-enactment (which will surely reveal Claudius's guilt) had not happened before this; it happened at exactly this moment. That is why the tenor of his soliloquy changes so dramatically. The first half is anger, despair, shame, etc. The second half is joy, excitement, anticipation, etc. He was so pleased with himself that he just had this great idea (at that exact moment). When this light bulb went off over his head, he thought out loud: "wow, this is a great idea that I just came up with; this plan is really gonna work; it can't fail; now I will know for sure if the ghost is telling the truth or if the ghost is just the devil in disguise, leading me down a path of damnation". So, if the light bulb went off at that exact moment, it did not make sense that a few moments earlier, he was scheming with the First Player to insert some new lines into tomorrow's play. I can't reconcile this (apparent) discrepancy. In a nutshell, if indeed the great idea (brainstorm) had really occurred earlier in the scene (before the soliloquy), then the first half of his soliloquy would not be so filled with anger, hatred, disgust, and despair. At least, I think. In fact, the soliloquy itself actually begins with Hamlet saying "OK, now I am all alone, finally. Now, I can think about all this. So, let me collect my thoughts on this situation and on my predicament. Let me get to work here". Thoughts? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:28, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I see what you mean and I agree with your analysis. The turning-point in the soliloquy would be at the line "About, my brain!" (i.e. "Let's re-think this."). My opinion would be that Shakespeare is using a dramatic technique (common at that time) to replay what has just happened in the conversation, but revealing Hamlet's thinking. Modern playwrights would use a different technique, but the device would have been accepted in Shakespeare's time without criticism. Dbfirs 15:49, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're missing the fact that Shakespeare was merely human, and that continuity problems plague all works of fiction from ancient times to modernity. Homer's Iliad, which was far more influential in classical Greece than anyone today can imagine, had various "Homeric nods". The Bible's inconsistencies and contradictions are legendary, literally and metaphorically. Fans of Star Trek, Star Wars, Harry Potter, and every other popular book you can imagine make a big deal about concocting narratives that explain away logical inconsistencies "in-universe". The simplest explanation is that Shakespeare simply made a mistake, and forgot that Hamlet was not supposed to have this bright idea until the middle of the speech. --Bowlhover (talk) 17:15, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your general comments about continuity errors in works of fiction. However, this was a pretty "big" (significant) plot point for Shakespeare to "miss". The whole point of the entire play of Hamlet is his (Hamlet's) inability to move from indecision to action. His attempts to (finally) try to move from the paralysis of indecision toward decisive action is, essentially, the whole thrust of Hamlet's frame of mind and, thus, of the whole play. Being such a significant component of the overall work, I'd find it hard to believe that Shakespeare would "overlook" this (as an error in continuity). Being the genius that he was — not to mention that this is his greatest masterpiece — I have to assume there is some other reason/explanation for the seeming internal inconsistency ... and I am just trying to find out what that explanation might plausibly be. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:54, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For my money, Dbfirs' 2nd possibility (in his 1st post at 7:53, 21 Oct) is what it's all about. He is essentially bringing the audience up to speed, by use of what we'd these days call a 'flashback' to an earlier point in his emotional timeline, followed immediately by where he's at now. Just as in a cinematic flashback, the actors are actually acting out events that happened in the past and not just talking about them from the point of view of the present, but to someone who wandered into the cinema late, it looks for all the world like the present, and they only discover they were watching a flashback a little later. That "Shakespeare" guy, whoever he was, was way ahead of his time. But OTOH, the audiences of his day would have been expected to understand immediately what was being presented, without the benefit of the billions of words of Shakespearean analysis that have been written since then, and Dbfirs' 2nd post (at 15:49, 21 Oct) confirms this was an accepted dramatic device of the time. As those billions of words amply demonstrate, it is possible to overthink these sorts of things. Shakespeare's audiences were a mix of aristocracy and simple uneducated folk, and he wrote for all of them collectively (while also writing for each of them separately). -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:44, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect competitive market

Characteristics of perfect competitive market
Zero transaction cost
Zero exit and entry barriers
Why?

```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.188.129.220 (talk) 03:09, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Wikipedia Reference Desk. Your question appears to be a homework question. I apologize if this is a misinterpretation, but it is our aim here not to do people's homework for them, but to merely aid them in doing it themselves. Letting someone else do your homework does not help you learn nearly as much as doing it yourself. Please attempt to solve the problem or answer the question yourself first. If you need help with a specific part of your homework, feel free to tell us where you are stuck and ask for help. If you need help grasping the concept of a problem, by all means let us know. RudolfRed (talk) 03:41, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not even sure what the question is. You might get a more helpful response if your question was clearer.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:09, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If your question is "why does the perfect competition model make these assumptions when they are clearly unrelistic ?", then the answer is probably because they allow the construction of a theoretically tractable model. Whether this simplified model can provide any useful insights into the behaviour of real-world markets is then another good question. Our article on perfect competition may help you. Gandalf61 (talk) 08:42, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is interesting, I'd like to add a secondary question here. "Zero transaction cost" is in the article, but why would that be necessary for perfect competition? Of course everyone would be better off when all information about buyers and sellers would just magically appear on everyones Smartphone at the exact time they needed it, but it doesn't. You have to pay for that information somehow, which a long time ago created the market for markets, auctions, Yellow Pages, and more recently Craigslist, eBay, Google and LinkedIn. They all make money from lowering transaction costs by providing information. That information isn't free; it needs people, machines, electricity to get it to the consumer. Similarly, a farmer needs information about the weather. If it will be raining for the next few weeks, maybe now it's the best time to gather the potatoes before they rot. It's obvious that a weather forecast costs money. Some farmers will pay for that information, others will find it too expensive. They can choose between more information or a better harvesting machine. Why should information about suppliers, qualities, employees, prices, etc be magically free in a perfect competitive market? A "perfect competitive market" with zero transaction costs would have no advertising, privacy, prisons, HR-departments, or even companies. That sounds like a nice model for eery fiction literature, but not as a perfect model of a competitive market. Joepnl (talk) 23:20, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because the purpose of the model of "perfect competition" is to tell a very simple (and very abstract) story of supply and demand. The law of one price only prevails where there are no transaction costs, because otherwise there will be situations where it isn't worth a buyer seeking out that lower price because it will cost them more to transact to the seller than the difference in price (transport costs over a distance is the simple example). When economists say perfect competition, they don't mean the market is ideal, they simply mean that the market is perfectly (that is 100%) competitive. 124.170.108.225 (talk) 15:38, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can find some ideas at User:Wavelength/About society/Holistic economics.

—Wavelength (talk) 16:10, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:England Adminstrative 2010.png

What's up with all of the different shades/colours for the different districts? The colour scheme isn't explained in either of the articles using the image, and the image description also doesn't discuss it. Note that some counties' districts are all the same colour, while other counties have lots of different colours; clearly it's not an application of the Four color theorem to distinguish counties, and it's also not reflecting something that's present in every county. Nyttend (talk) 04:42, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It may not be a strict application of the four colour theorem, but at first glance it does look like all the neighbouring counties are in different shades. So I would say they have done it that way for the sake of clarity. --Viennese Waltz 07:38, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It looks fine to me apart from a few misspellings. The different colours within some counties indicate unitary authorities and metropolitan and non-metropolitan districts (see key at top right).--Shantavira|^{feed me} 07:48, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's about unitaries. So all the districts of Kent are the same shade, except that Medway, which is a unitary authority, is a different shade. Medway is in the ceremonial county of Kent but not in the administrative Kent County Council area. All the former districts in Berkshire ceremonial counties are unitaries in their own right, so each is a different colour. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:46, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Washington Coat of Arms Verification

I was watching a documentary called "Secrets of Henry VIII's Palace" and then at the end was advertising for another documentary called "Secrets of Althorp". They explain there was a connection with the 1st president of the United States, George Washington. "In the church yard you'll see the Washington tombs, and in the Isle of the church, if you lift up a wooden shield, underneath is the Washington star, their coat of arms." I was taken aback by them showing the coat of arms and the center star (of 3) is inverted. When I looked up the Washington coat of arms online, the inverted star is turned right side up. In fact there is nowhere else that I can find any evidence of the inverted star besides the picture that was shown of it on this show. Since I can see for myself that it is indeed, upside down, (I can provide a video clip of the part of the documentary if necessary) Can you verify or explain why it was changed & when, etc??

Thank you, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.174.58.243 (talk) 10:08, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is it the Church of St James the Less, Sulgrave? If not, could you give us a clue? Alansplodge (talk) 12:44, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Coat of arms of George Washington has a list of about a dozen English churches that display the Washington arms. Alansplodge (talk) 12:48, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's likely that there never was an authorised (by the College of Arms) change to the arms, as in heraldic symbology and practice such a minor difference to a minor part of the blazon would be meaningless, to my knowledge. While this variety of "star" (technically a mullet) is conventionally depicted with one point uppermost, inverting it might have been simply a stylistic decision on the part of the artist who created that particular representation, whether or not it actually exceeds the (rather loose) limitations of artistic variation permitted — mistakes are sometimes made! {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 212.95.237.92 (talk) 14:08, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Titanic violin fetched £900,000 in 10 minutes at auction - why didn't they wait for the price to go up further?

I was reading http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-wiltshire-24582739 where a violin that was played on the titanic fetched £900,000 in ten minutes. My question is why didn't they wait even longer so that the price would go up even more? 212.96.61.236 (talk) 12:59, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The report says bidding ended at £900,000 after fierce bidding between two bidders. Presumably one of the bidders gave up at that point. Auctions are not normally timed out. --Viennese Waltz 13:05, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ten minutes is actually quite a long time to spend on auctioning any item. If bidders can't make up their minds whether to give a higher bid in 30 seconds, then the auctioneer usually assumes that they are not going to bid any more. Dbfirs 15:24, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, real-life auctions are not like those on eBay, where there is a time limit and the trick is to get your bid in just before the deadline, possibly with artificial help. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 17:15, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. The site's use of the phrase "just 10 minutes" is inaccurate; auctions are extremely quick affairs. I've seen paintings get knocked down for $50,000 in much less than a minute. My guess is that there were a large number of phone bids, which can sometimes cause delays. Matt Deres (talk) 19:47, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Idle speculation: I wonder if waiting longer would reduce the proceeds. Someone might get "caught up in the moment" and go over his intended maximum bid in a quick auction, or in a long one two bidders might go out for coffee and come back with the affair settled by a coin toss or a private payoff... Wnt (talk) 16:47, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since when did the French language drop out of the English tongue?

Back in the olden days, it seems that English-speaking peoples used to learn and speak in Latin, French, and English. Latin makes sense, because it used to be the liturgical language, and medieval manuscripts were written in this language. French makes sense because of the Norman French conquerors who probably expect the conquered people to speak their language. And yet, Latin and Greek persist to be used in scholarly literature, but French is dropped out? Why? 140.254.227.76 (talk) 13:34, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I must add that nowadays Spanish seems to have a growing influence on English, but I think it may be due to the Spanish-speaking immigrants that come to the primarily English-speaking United States. One example that I can think of from the top of my head is the word aficionado and its plural form, aficionados. 140.254.227.76 (talk) 13:37, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

French was more the language of the aristocracy, I guess that it was primarily retained for diplomatic/political relations with France during the post-Norman period. Greek and Latin persists because they were universal languages used to communicate between scholars across the western world. Plasmic Physics (talk) 13:50, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

140.254.227.76 -- I'm not too sure what you mean. The heaviest French influence on English was probably in the 14th and neighboring centuries, but there has been some French influence on English in every century since the 11th, and things that were borrowed from French into English in previous centuries do not usually "drop out" of the English language... AnonMoos (talk) 13:59, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I originally thought the OP was asking more along the lines of, "Why don't English speakers learn other languages as much anymore?" I'd say more English speakers learn French than do Latin or especially Greek. French is still one of the ~~two or three most~~ useful languages to have in terms of communicating with ~~the maximum number of~~ people ~~on Earth~~ in various places; Latin and ancient Greek are not particularly useful outside of the Vatican and university language and history departments. In other words, while each of the two ancient languages at one point served as a lingua franca either academically or in general, they were largely supplanted by French. In recent years (since the Second World War or so), English has come to be used for diplomacy the way French was for several centuries; it's likely that there are other English speakers who live and work in most places you could travel. So there is much less incentive than there used to be for native English speakers to learn any other language at all; for those that do, however, French and Spanish (not necessarily in that order, depending on country) are by far the most common. Due to changing geopolitical circumstances, I'm sure Arabic and Mandarin are steadily increasing as second languages of native English speakers, but I have neither citations nor anecdotes for that. ☯.Zen Swashbuckler.☠ 14:44, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"French is still one of the two or three most useful languages to have in terms of communicating with the maximum number of people on Earth"

No, not even close. The first three are Chinese, English, and Spanish. French only comes in at 11th. See list of languages by total number of speakers. --Bowlhover (talk) 16:53, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly, these tables on second language ability suggest that French is a more popular choice than English as a second language (I suspect that is because English is often a third language choice, after a person’s local language and national language). Some more data on second language use: In Canada, about 32% of the population speak more than one language; 17.5% are bilingual in English-French. In the UK, 38% of the population have two or more languages. In Australia, the number is about 15%. In the USA, the number is about 18%. And according to that same source, in Europe the rate is about 53%. In Africa it’s about 50%. Taknaran (talk) 17:12, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bowlhover, thanks for pointing out the numbers. I overstated the case somewhat (and struck out what's clearly false). I should say, French is still perceived to be among the most useful languages one can learn, at least in the U.S.; and I shouldn't have framed it in terms of number of speakers, but in terms of number of countries in which it is spoken. Obviously it's not as prevalent in official terms worldwide as it used to be, and it certainly won't help you on the streets of most cities in South America or Asia. While it may be in decline proportionally, though, for the moment it's still in use among the world's diplomats. ☯.Zen Swashbuckler.☠ 18:42, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Medieval manuscripts were written in Latin because Latin was the language of universities England.
Sleigh (talk) 16:17, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are, of course, also plenty of medieval manuscripts written in French and English (and Irish...and German...etc) Adam Bishop (talk) 21:21, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is some information on this topic in History of the English language, particularly the section Middle English – from the late 11th to the late 15th century, though it isn't very clear on the reasons for the changes. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 17:23, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Grand tour, military prostitution (now there's an article we lack). "French makes sense because of the Norman French conquerors who probably expect the conquered people to speak their language." nope. History of English. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:15, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, see Anglo-Norman language#Trilingualism in Medieval England. An early 14th century writer recorded; "Children in school, contrary to the usage and custom of other nations, are compelled to drop their own language and to construe their lessons and other tasks in French, and have done so since the Normans first came to England. Also, gentlemen's children are taught to speak French from the time that they are rocked in their cradles and can talk and play with a child's toy; and provincial men want to liken themselves to gentlemen, and try with great effort to speak French, so as to be more thought of." [4] It was during that century that English began to be used at court, the Provisions of Oxford being the first legal document to be written in English since the Conquest. Exactly why this happened seems to be something of a mystery. Alansplodge (talk) 07:46, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Correction, the Provisions of Oxford were in 1258, but the drift of my comments still stand. Alansplodge (talk) 07:56, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A bit more digging reveals that two Cornishmen seem to have been responsible for restoring English as the medium of education. According to a third Cornishman, John of Trevisa (1326-1412): "For John Cornwall, a master of grammar, changed the learning in grammar schools and construction of French into English; and Richard Pencrych learned that manner of teaching from him... so that now, in the year of our Lord 1385, the ninth year of Richard II, in all the grammar schools of England children leave French, and construe and learn in English... The disadvantage is that now children of the grammar school know no more French than does their left heel..." From A Short History of Education by John William Adamson, which goes on to say that the Black Death may have been the turning point, although this is far from certain. Alansplodge (talk) 17:00, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alan, Schooling was far from universal and its purpose was the getting of clerks for the state and clerics for the state's interests. In contrast continental war and the circulation of nobility (by war, hostage, wardship or Touring) were general forms of acquisition. Fifelfoo (talk) 20:33, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So you're saying that people stopped using French in England because they were visiting Europe? Alansplodge (talk) 23:14, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying your evidence relates to such a fragmented fraction of society, that the "School" is restricted to pre-clerical and clerks, that it proves nothing about generalised French use or acquisition in England. That your example isn't demonstrative that French inhabited the English tongue. Fifelfoo (talk) 20:26, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Difference in "right-wing" definition stateside and across the pond

Does WP have an article that really addresses the differences between the American right wing and the European right wing? I've searched a few articles but my curiosity was not squelched. I couldn't really find much online outside of WP either. It seems there are subtle differences that confuse me. I would prefer a pointer to an article (or even a book) rather than a user's interpretation (no offense!). Rgrds. --64.85.217.225 (talk) 14:47, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know if you've already seen this, and don't know whether it will really satisfy you, but the best I could find on Wikipedia is Left–right politics, with sections "Usage in Western Europe" and "Contemporary usage in the United States". Duoduoduo (talk) 15:09, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, monarchism, that's something that is foreign to me that was tripping me up. Interesting. Thanks for the pointer. Now I know where to start digging. Rgrds. --64.85.217.225 (talk) 15:26, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But don't get to carried away - most European constitutional monarchies enjoy support from the centre-left as well as from the centre-right. King Juan Carlos I of Spain almost single-handedly overthrew a right-wing military coup against a centrist government. In France, the monarchist party Renouveau français is clearly camped on the far right lunatic fringe, while Nouvelle Action Royaliste "are sometimes described as 'royalists of the left'". So not as clear cut as you might think. Alansplodge (talk) 16:52, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not a specific article, but see Front national, Golden Dawn, and Jobbik for examples of extreme-right European parties that enjoy far more support than Renouveau français (which, as Alansplodge said, is on the lunatic fringes). Needless to say, such parties don't exist in the US. --Bowlhover (talk) 17:05, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, I think you mean Golden Dawn (political party). Alansplodge (talk) 07:50, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In very broad strokes, I think the biggest single difference is that the American right is more in favor of the free market than the European right. The strongest free-market supporters in Europe tend to be among parties that are not really seen as particularly right-wing (e.g. the Free Democratic Party in Germany, a certain tendency within the Italian Radicals, even arguably the Orange Book faction within the UK Liberal Democrats). --Trovatore (talk) 19:43, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Name these stories - two Chinese and the other Spanish

I can't find the source of these stories. I'd greatly appreciate it if anyone can find the source of these stories.

1. Once upon a time, there was a child. (To be honest, I have no idea if it were male or female, because the Chinese pronunciation for "he" or "she" sounds identical.) This child lived with his/her parents. One day, a bear told the child that he/she was going to eat the child up. The child became frightened. The child went home and made preparations. The parents were not at home. The bear arrived at night. Then, it followed a plotline that involved the bear's making a series of misfortunes inside the house and eventually learning his lesson. The protagonist lived happily ever after. THE END.

2. Once upon a time, there was a poor family, a husband and wife living together, in a poor village. The husband somehow left home and sought his fortune elsewhere. He came to a cave with some devils/demon-monsters. The devils were extremely powerful and tried to terrorize the man, but the man was clever and used his cleverness to overcome the devils' brawniness. One example was when the devils taunted the man that they could make the earth tremble. The man replied cleverly that he could make the ground flow out liquid by hiding an egg underneath loosened soil. Then, the devils taunted the man that they could pull out a tree while they presumed that the man couldn't. The man cleverly wrapped a rope around several trees, and the devils asked the man what the man was doing, to which the man replied that he was trying to pull all the trees of the forest. The devils became afraid and begged the man to not pull out their home. The man spared the devils their home. At the devils' home, the devils served meat and told the man he could eat some while the devils mined for gold and silver. The man ate some and buried the rest of the meat underground. When the devils returned, the man lied to the devils that he ate everything and shocked the devils beyond belief. At night, the devils tried to do a stealthy attack on the man's body. The man overheard this, and at night, he put stones in his bed so while he slept below the bed. The next morning, the man told the devils that he felt rain on his body and completely frightened the devils who then made him a compromise. The man took gold and silver home and gave some treasures to the villagers. Then there was the fox who told the devils that they were being scammed. One devil became angry and followed the fox to the village. The man had another trick up his sleeve and asked the fox why the fox only brought one devil and not the others. This made the gullible devil to turn his attention to the fox, thinking that the fox was trying to trick him, and killed the fox. The devil left for home, and everybody else lived happily ever after.

3. In a short Spanish play, two lovers tell each other how much they love each other. Then, one lover - Juan - goes into the forest. There is a gunshot. And then, the woman shouts, "Juan. Juan. Juan. Juan! Juan! Juan!" until the end of the play. 140.254.227.69 (talk) 17:08, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let me guess: With soundtrack by Philip Glass. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:17, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you remember any Chinese at all from the Chinese story? Names, quotes, cheng yu, or anything else in Chinese that you remember would be very helpful. --Bowlhover (talk) 04:04, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which bible version has the most contributions to literature?

Which bible version has the most contributions to English literature and would be recommended by serious academics of the Humanities departments? 140.254.226.201 (talk) 17:53, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The influence of the King James Version, and the earlier English translations that contributed to it, on the English language is discussed by the editors of the Oxford English Dictionary in this posting. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 18:28, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Recommended" depends on the purpose. For studying ancient history and theology, a more modern translation with annotations and apparatus is more appropriate. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:01, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's fair to say that the KJV is more like literature (as per the OP's question), while more modern translations such as the RSV are better for ancient history and theology. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:16, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

October 22

16th/17th century French book describing medieval Paris

Resolved

I am trying to remember the name of a book, written in the 16th or 17th century, that describes the history and architecture of Paris (or perhaps all of France). The name, however, has escaped me, and I can find neither it nor the authorities that describe it as Hugo's source. Can anyone help me?

Identifying details that I remember:

The book is considered to be the source of Victor Hugo's detailed description of medieval Paris in The Hunchback of Notre Dame.
The author has (considering his era) an unusually philo-Semitic description of the history of the Jews in France
The author was familiar with many historical Jewish works (including Shalshelet ha-Qabbalah and Zemah David), apparently from their Hebrew originals
The book has been digitized and is (or was) freely available online on a French website

הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 01:40, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe Histoires et recherches des Antiquités de la Ville de Paris by Henri Sauval? He is actually mentioned in the text, and seems to have a lot to say about the Jews. It's on Google Books and archive.org. It's also on the Bibliothèque nationale website, which may be the French site you were thinking of. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:32, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's it—thank you very much! (I accessed it through this site, which is in fact linked to at Henri Sauval#External links. His history of the Jews is in Volume 2, Book 10, pages 509–532. (For an interesting example of Sauval's Jewish history being included in Hugo's work, see page 526, as well as page 552.) הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 03:10, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I was partially mistaken with respect to the date: Sauval lived in the 17th century, but his work was only published in 1724. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 03:13, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever happened to Joanne Jacobs?

Once upon a time, the San Jose Mercury News had a brilliant columnist by the name of Joanne Jacobs. Sharp but clever wit, but I don't recall that she was ever mean. The only sensible political commentator attached to a Bay Area newspaper that I can even think of. (At the time, the SJMN did a reasonable job of keeping news separate from editorials; they have since become a stridently partisan paper in the European mold, which does have the advantage of a certain directness, I suppose.)

But I haven't seen anything from her in years, and Google has not been very much help. Anyone know what she's doing, and why she quit what she was so good at? --Trovatore (talk) 06:46, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

She comes up on a LinkedIn search with a 23-year history at that paper, so I'm pretty sure it's her. She has a website at www.joannejacobs.com and blogs and writes on education. - Karenjc (talk) 07:05, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Here she is, and here too.^{Market St.⧏}_{⧐ Diamond Way} 07:09, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, both. I suppose I saw some of those hits when searching. I'd just like to see more of the stuff she used to do. Oh well. --Trovatore (talk) 01:21, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for a good explanation of literacy problems

Hi all, I saw on the news that an Australian student completed year 12 without knowing how to read or write. Does anyone know how this can actually happen? References would be great, but are not essential for contributing, because they might be hard to find. Anecdotal answers would be more than welcome. Speculation that involves some evidence, and some speculative gap-filling, would be quite ok. Pure speculation should be avoided, if you could be so kind. Thanks in advance, IBE (talk) 16:28, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You may be interested in an historical case from the U.S. Dexter Manley is an interesting case study, he was basically shuffled along through the education system even though he could neither read nor write because he was a good athlete, and he performed well on various schools football teams. The Wikipedia article only touches on it briefly, but the phenomenon in general in the U.S., and Manley in particular, have been covered in depth by many reliable sources. For example here is a 1989 article on the case from the New York Times. I know you are looking for Australia specifically, but this at least gives you a related case from the U.S. --Jayron32 16:33, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) This is pretty good - funny, relevant, and interesting; a good start for the thread. The only thing wrong is that the explanation is too good, so it wouldn't apply to many cases, where I think the same thing happens without a special motive on the part of the institution. I don't think the Australian student had such compensating advantages, because I would expect them to have been mentioned in the news story. That is far from certain, but likely all the same. So any examples of less talented people who could trip around the system without being tripped up by it would also be welcome. Examples from first world countries strike me as quite relevant by analogy. IBE (talk) 17:03, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See Social promotion. Duoduoduo (talk) 17:01, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In cases where it's not in the school's interest to admit that they failed to teach a student, they will often cover up that fact. Tests are supposed to tell us things like this, but there have been cases of teachers correcting answers on tests so they look better: [5]. StuRat (talk) 17:59, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IBE, can you provide a link to the news story you heard? There are various hits for people finishing school who cannot properly read or write (whatever that means) or are "functionally illiterate", but your question makes it sound as if this person couldn't do these things at all. That would suggest a massive cover-up on the part of the education authorities, which continued every year for about 12 years. I struggle to believe this. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 18:09, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, see [6] and go to the show The Project, Monday 21 October, 32:00 (main story), 33:15 (Mark Haddrick, barely able to read his own name after year 12). IBE (talk) 18:36, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Got it, thanks. Here's a direct link to the story: [7]. There could be various factors as to why a particular person has special challenges with reading and writing, dyslexia and vision problems being the most obvious. But for him to be advanced in grade year after year for 12 years without being able to do any of the work says to me there's something seriously broken with the system. How come every other kid had to sit many, many written tests, and had to demonstrate their ability to read aloud, and had to demonstrate they could comprehend what they were reading - but he always got let off? How come his parents weren't consulted about his difficulties? (Or maybe they were, and maybe they gave up too.) To me, this is child educational abuse, and in terms of ongoing impact on his life it's on a par with child sexual abuse. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:00, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The first number on that page makes me extremely suspicious of its reliability. 44% have a literacy level below 3? Neither the study nor the definitions of the literacy levels are identified, but it's simply not possible that 44% of Australians can't read medication labels or road signs. --Bowlhover (talk) 21:21, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I found the study this number refers to. The way it is presented in the article makes me a bit suspicious of its intent. The OECD study [8] shows that the results for Australia are consistent with or better that the remaining OECD countries. The definitions used [9] show that level 3 is rather demanding and has more to do with reading comprehension than what we typically understand as "literacy".No longer a penguin (talk) 08:39, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The OP wrote that the student "completed year 12", not that the student "passed year 12". The system in the state of Victoria, Australia allows that. HiLo48 (talk) 11:25, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The same is true in NSW, where a number of students complete study without matriculating or sitting the Higher School Certificate. In particular, a large number of people with intellectual disabilities successfully complete schooling without having attempted a HSC or matriculation. Australia's grade system isn't comprised of a pass/fail test system or curriculum. In NSW it is a continuous curriculum of expectations, punctuated by two schools certificates examinations after the leaving age. Fifelfoo (talk) 20:39, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See Why the Extent of English Illiteracy Is So Well-hidden.

—Wavelength (talk) 18:49, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That article seems to be about American illiteracy - not English illiteracy!! Alansplodge (talk) 23:18, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What would be the consequences...

What would be the consequences to America's foreign policy & national security if the U.S were to default on its debt in the future? -- Willminator (talk · contribs) 18:33, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think this was discussed at some length a couple or three weeks ago. You might want to check the archives. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:40, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the meantime, let me get out my crystal ball... This is the reference desk, not the prediction desk. μηδείς (talk) 19:07, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so I went to the archives, but there was nothing about any impact a default would have on U.S foreign policy/national security. I'm pretty sure there are sources and alarming predictions out there. I just haven't found anything detailed yet. Where can I at least go and find this information if no one is willing to direct me to some answers? And predictions that can be backed by other sources are also valid assumptions for the Reference Desk. Willminator (talk) 19:25, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm pretty sure that almost this exact same question was asked, either just before or just after the shutdown occurred - and it was met with similar cautions about crystal ball. [Although I can't find it just now.] No one can say for sure what would happen. However, there are any number of news sources citing experts on what could happen. Have you looked for this subject in Google? I would stick with editorialists connected with relatively neutral news sources, such as CNN and BBC. Many pundits were predicting a potential "domino effect" on the world's economy, and a downturn in America's standing in the eyes of world. That kind of thing certainly could impact foreign policy and national security in some way. But you would need to consult those pundits' writings to learn why that domino effect could happen... and what its consequences could be. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:33, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The US effectively defaulted in 1933, and had previously defaulted several times in the past if one includes all bonds which were not honoured in the past -- with no particular ill-effects (we disallowed the "in gold" clauses in all contracts and bonds in 1833). A short default is not really the same as refusing to honour bonds or notes, which is what some pundits seemed to think was the case. As the biggest "non US government" holder of those bonds and notes is, IIRC, the Federal Reserve [10] (about 2 trillion dollars - or about the total securities held by the two largest foreign countries) and SSA holds nearly five trillion dollars of the debt - the scare reports are pretty far off the mark. Unless, of course, one thinks the SSA and Fed would participate in a panic? I suspect that neither the Fed nor SSA would panic at that point, and all other bonds could be kept current with minimal effort. But scaring people is the standard procedure for politicians. Collect (talk) 19:51, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While that may be standard procedure for pols, most everyone seemed to be in agreement that we're better off not having to find out what a default would do. The OP's question is about foreign policy and national security, and that covers a lot of ground. I don't recall those subjects coming up very much, compared with the potential economic consequences. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:10, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't so theoretical since the US has defaulted at least twice before. See a USA Today story here and a Huff post story here. Also it is important to note that constitutionally all debt payments are paid first with the ~~millions~~hundreds of billions in automatic custom fees/income taxes/other fees collected every month, so the only way a "default" would take place is either the Executive would give an unconstitutional order not to pay those first or an Executive branch official would make a major mistake.^{Market St.⧏}_{⧐ Diamond Way} 20:19, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Where is that in the Constitution? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:31, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The 2 actual defaults aren't in the constitution, but if you mean the debt being constitutionally obligated it would be the 14th Amendment. That was in the news the last 3 weeks ad nauseam for both "teams".^{Market St.⧏}_{⧐ Diamond Way} 20:48, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you're referring to Section 4: "The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:21, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Section 5 might provide guidance as well.^{Market St.⧏}_{⧐ Diamond Way} 21:32, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Section 5 authorizes Congress to pass appropriate legislation. That's the can-of-worms found in some of the amendments beyond the Bill of Rights block. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:49, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That would be one interpretation of the section, which is why a news search in the last 3 weeks and back in 1979, 1995 etc. turn up so much colorful language and not just between Republicans and Democrats.^{Market St.⧏}_{⧐ Diamond Way} 21:58, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how there could be more than one interpretation of "Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article." The can-of-worms comes in where the word "appropriate" is concerned. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:04, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Applied to both, besides in the U.S. there are at least as many as '9 opinions' that come from a marble palace, Perry v US with the 14th. Interparty splits were evident in the recent write ups with different interpretations of how Congress enforces power or if the 14th lets the Executive enforce more then just debt payments passed by former Congresses.^{Market St.⧏}_{⧐ Diamond Way} 01:15, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As Perry notes, the 14th amendment clause merely confirmed an older Constitutional prohibition of default from the 5th amendment, because bonds are considered property. There have been many (generally unanimous) rulings that such government obligations, which include but are not restricted to bonds, are constitutionally protected, and so Congress does not have the power to repudiate them. Except for oddities of the sort that one would expect in centuries of existence, the USA has never nominally defaulted on its debt. The foreign policy & national security consequences are hard to say. It would rightly make the US look ridiculous in the world, and the natural, immediate economic effect of such a needless and irrational act would be very bad, comparable to 1929 or 2008. After that, who knows?John Z (talk) 05:32, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A significant point in that amendment was to repudiate any Confederate debt. Of course, as with the basic Constitution calling slaves "certain persons" instead of slaves, the amendment doesn't advertise the Confederacy by directly naming it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:16, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Warren Buffett, who is primarily an investor and not so much a politician, has some interesting things to say about the general subject.[11] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:13, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

October 23

humanities

i want all information about the grandson of raavana in the Ramayana.i am referring to vanmali — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.193.118.241 (talk) 11:20, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Does the Wikipedia article titled Ravana help any? --Jayron32 17:53, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vanmali isn't mentioned in the article. --Soman (talk) 03:58, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Identifying source Journals..

In a work at Wikosurce which I've just finished doing an inital transcription on there are some references to other journals.

Some of these are obvious, but it would be appreciate if someone can help with decoding..

Wikisource:Book_of_Halloween/Magazine_References_to_Hallowe'en_Entertainments

Abbrv.	Publication
Good H.	Good Housekeeping
H. Bazar	Harper's Bazar
L.H.J	Ladies Home Journal
W.H.C	Womens Home Companion
Delin	The Delineator

I can't figure out what Delin and W.H.C are. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:49, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

W.H.C. is likely Woman's Home Companion. It was published from 1873 until 1957. Delin is likely The Delineator. Edison (talk) 14:39, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And Harper's Bazaar was formerly called Harper's Bazar, but it's never been spelled Bazzar. Deor (talk) 21:28, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:16, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Any Info on Jessie Willcox Smith?

I am a student at the College of Staten Island creating a more in depth page for the designer and Illustrator Jessie Willcox Smith. If anyone has any info that I could use it would be most helpful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnmccarthyyy (talk • contribs) 16:01, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I take it that you've already seen our Jessie Willcox Smith page and the list of links at the end? This page has a list of external links and below that, sources, all at the very bottom of the page. Jessie Willcox Smith: American Illustrator by Edward D. Nudelman has a preview on Google Books (well, it does for me anyway!) Alansplodge (talk) 16:18, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wu Sangui (another story)

Extended content

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

There is a story about Wu Sangui and the Qing Leader Dorgon (1643 – 1650). This story contradicts to “Loyalty and revolt” describing Wu Sangui in Wikipedia.

Before Wu opened the gates of the Great Wall of China at Shanghai Pass to let the Qing forces into China proper on 25 May 1644, Wu and Dorgon had agreed upon something. Wu agreed to open the gates of the Great Wall of China. Dorgon agreed to let the three provinces, Yunnan, Fujian, and Guangdong remain independent from the territory of Qing Empire. At that time, the rebel force of Li Zicheng had already sacked the Ming capital Beijing.

After the death of Dorgon on 31 December 1650, Shunzhi Emperor started to rule personally. Shunzhi Emperor started the plan to get back the three provinces, Yunnan, Fujian, and Guangdong from the control of Wu. In 1655, Qing government titled Wu as “Pingxi Prince” and Wu granted governorship of Yunnan and Guizhou. Qing government also titled the other two generals, Shang Kexi and and Geng Zhongming, who had served in Ming Dynasty, as “Pingnan Prince” and “Jingnan Prince”. Shang was put in charge of the province of Guangdong. Geng was put in charge of the province of Fujian.

After the death of Shunzhi Emperor on 5 February 1661, Kangxi Emperor became the successor of the Qing Dynasty. Kangxi Emperor broke all the promises made by Dorgon to Wu. At that time, Geng Jingzhong had inherited the title of “Jingnan Prince” from his father Geng Jimao, who had inherited it from his grandfather Geng Zhongming. In 1673, Kangxi Emperor accepted the request of Shang’s retirement. Kangxi Emperor also accepted the request of Wu’s retirement and Geng’s retirement shortly after Shang’s retirement.

The war between Wu and Kangxi Emperor started in the following year. Zheng Jing, who was the King of Taiwan, joined the force against Kangxi Emperor. In 1678, Wu claimed himself the emperor of Great Zhou Dynasty. The generals were Wu Shifan, Geng Jingzhong, and Shang Zhixin. In 1681, the Great Zhou Dynasty was defeated and completely destroyed. The generals were captured or died. Zheng surrendered to Qing in October 1683. Taiwan and the three provinces, Yunnan, Fujian, and Guangdong, became part of Qing Empire after the war.

Kangxi Emperor broke the promises made by Dorgon to Wu was known to all the scholars. Many scholars refused to serve Kangxi Emperor. There were a few scholars served Kangxi Emperor. Many people were arrested under language inquisition or speech crime. However, the most well-known inquisition was the “Case of the History of the Ming Dynasty” in 1661-1662 before Kangxi Emperor came in power in 1669; Wu was “Pingxi Prince” at that time.

This story contradicts to “Loyalty and revolt”, which is unfair to Wu. Kangxi Emperor, who had many achievements afterwards, broke the promises made by Dorgon to Wu. This is the cause of the war between Kangxi Emperor and Wu that the war is later known as “Revolt of the Three Feudatories”. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.18.56.147 (talk) 21:35, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You will need a source to support this information if you believe it should be included in Wikipedia. - Karenjc (talk) 22:02, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a question? - Cucumber Mike (talk) 22:05, 23 October 2013 (UTC

The OP seems to be complaining that the article section Wu Sangui#Loyalty and revolt is unfair to the article subject, and offers an explanation why. The place to discuss this is at Talk:Wu Sangui, but as I said, reliable sources will be needed. -Karenjc (talk) 06:48, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speed of transport in 1810s Europe

I'd never heard of the Malet coup of 1812 until just now, when I saw it on the Main Page. According to the "Suppression of the coup" section, Napoleon wrote letters after 7 October that reached Paris by 23 October. According to File:Patriotic War of 1812 ENG map1.svg, Napoleon was near Moscow by the beginning of October. How long would it normally take for an unimpeded express courier to travel this route at this time? Nyttend (talk) 22:39, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Doing some searching, I'm getting (very rough estimate) the distance from Moscow to Paris at 1700 miles or so. The Pony Express could get mail and packages from Missouri to California in about 10 days, which is roughly 2000 miles. So, Napoleon's message certainly could have gotten the message to Paris in a little over 2 weeks. --Jayron32 23:00, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to a footnote here, Napoleon himself made it from Smarhon’ in Belarus to Paris in twelve days in December of that year. p. 179 also has a reply written on 16/10 to a letter from the Countess Montesquiou, his son's governess & so presumably in Paris, which was sent on 27/9 - so at this time in the campaign he was returning letters within nineteen days at the outmost. Remember that once an official message got near France it could have been picked up by the Chappé telegraph; by 1812 there was a signal network as far as Amsterdam and Venice, so I'm not sure how far east it had got into Germany. Andrew Gray (talk) 23:22, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Simply Chappe telegraph (no accent). — AldoSyrt (talk) 07:45, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Referring to civil unrest and violence in Northern Ireland

When referring to violence in Northern Ireland (specifically in the second half of the 20th century) is saying "the Troubles" considered politically charged? Is there an accepted way to write about this in say political science or IR or global affairs literature? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.212.253.17 (talk) 23:39, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia article is titled The Troubles and makes no specific mention that the term is perjorative or charged; however like much involved in such ethnic conflicts, literally EVERYTHING is "charged" in the sense that there is probably no "neutral" stance. --Jayron32 23:52, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Covering the troubles Christopher Hitchens was stopped by armed men at a roadblock and asked, "Are you Catholic or Protestant?" Hitchens replied, "I'm an atheist." The gunman responded, "Catholic atheist, or Protestant atheist?" μηδείς (talk) 01:01, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's a variant of an old joke; in its more classic form, the reply "I'm a Jew" is followed by "Are you a Catholic Jew or a Protestant Jew?" AnonMoos (talk) 01:30, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I always thought of it as a typically Irish, fairly understated euphemism similar to World War II being known as "The Emergency". Biggs Pliff (talk) 01:07, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

English also, as in the book 1066 and All That. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:00, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can't recall seeing any alternative term that is at least quasi-official, universal and less charged. Militant Republicans have used the phrase "the Armed Struggle" for the IRA's campaign against British military presence in Northern Ireland, but this hardly counts. The University of Ulster's CAIN website (Conflict Archive on the INternet) includes a good glossary of terms, loaded and neutral, connected with this subject, and points out that its own site uses 'The Troubles' and 'Northern Ireland conflict' interchangeably. -Karenjc (talk) 07:11, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My view (UK) is that "The Troubles" came into use precisely because it was seen as much less politically charged than any alternative. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:36, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Alansplodge (talk) 07:38, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. Even "Northern Ireland conflict" has connotations for those who prefer the term "Ulster". The CAIN glossary points out that it's not the first time the term "The Troubles" has been used to refer to violence and unrest in Irish history. - Karenjc (talk) 07:58, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

October 24

Relationship between foreign services

What's the relationship between the foreign (including clandestine) services of United States, Britain, Israel, Russia and China? I know James Bond shows UK and US cooperating - and Israel is an "ally" of the US. What about Russia? is it more hostile? is it "on the side of" China which has somewhat hostile (hack each other etc) relations with the U.S. (I imagine this might be the case due to communist past?). What about Russia and Israel? hostile to each other? Israel I thought was led by loads of Eastern European emigres? I guess I can imagine this going in either direction. so, which are hostile or cooperative among e.g. CIA MI6 Mossad KGB and whatever Chima 's hack happy service is? (plus other branches or foreign services; these are just examples) thanks!!!! 84.3.160.86 (talk) 12:07, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]