Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

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

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

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

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

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

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

July 4

bumpersticker of the day

I saw a mysterious bumper sticker today:

LET'S NOT RENEGE

IN 2012

Any idea what it means? —Tamfang (talk) 00:12, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

A quasi-racist play on the word "renege" in connection with the 2012 presidential election would be my first guess, but I could be wrong. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:15, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Is that exactly what the bumper sticker looked like and said, or is that your best approximation of it? Bus stop (talk) 00:16, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

The wording is exact (if my memory is reliable). I couldn't easily reproduce all inessential details of style, such as the aspect ratio of the flags. —Tamfang (talk) 04:51, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

What's the play on words? The only thing I can think of is "re-elect a nigger/negro", but that's a really tortured pun (and would be fully racist, not quasi-racist). Did you mean someone else? Aren't bumper stickers usually a little easier to understand? --Tango (talk) 00:22, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Google kinda confirms Evanh2008's guess. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:22, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Without having to even look it up, it was obviously a redneck-racist play on words. Apparently they'd rather have a white Mormon than a black Christian. So be it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:25, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

What are the "flags" trying to say, nonverbally? Bus stop (talk) 00:36, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Presumably the flags communicate a message similar to "the south will rise again" and "things was better back when all dem northerners wasn't tryin' to make us let black folks have rights and such". I'm usually more charitable when it comes to nonsense like that, but this particular example is just straight-up dumb. I have yet to determine whether the "renege" is supposed to rhyme with the first syllable of "nigger" or "negro", but it's definitely one or the other. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:51, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

/rɪˈnɪg/ is a common (perhaps the usual; it's not a word one hears in conversation very often) pronunciation of the word where I originally come from (North Midland dialect), but I'm not sure exactly what the geographical distribution might be. Deor (talk) 01:28, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, they are saying don't "re-nigg" visually, i.e. don't re-elect Obama. Equating the actual U.S. flag with the rebel flag is sad and pathetic. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:48, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Explain the relevance of the Mormon reference, please. μηδείς (talk) 00:47, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Mitt Romney is a Mormon. Obviously, the majority of those opposed to (re-)electing a black man will most likely be voting for Romney in November. It's not terribly relevant to the conversation, other than the fact that a lot of traditional conservative Christians (a largely Republican voting block) don't see Mormonism as a form of Christianity and would not normally cast a vote for anyone they see as a non-Christian. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:51, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

So you have to be an especially racist racist to vote for Mormney? But isn't Obama an atheist ex-Muslim? Wouldn't you just stay home? I still don't get Bugs' point. μηδείς (talk) 01:42, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

According to Barack Obama, he's a Christian. Maybe you know different, in which case please update the article. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 06:10, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I presume μηδείς's point is that the sort of people who would be racist enough to talk about not renege(ing) are the sort of people who would believe Obama is an atheist ex-Muslim so for them it's not a choice between an black Christian and a white Mormon but a black atheist ex-Muslim and a white Mormon. Nil Einne (talk) 08:03, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

You do get it, you just don't realize that you get it. :) Many ultra-right Christians regard Mormonism as a cult and not really Christian. Never mind that Mormons are officially the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. Evidently the ultra-right thinks that's a different Jesus Christ than theirs. And, yes, many would rather not vote at all - unless they consider allowing the return of Obama to the White House to be a "greater sin" than voting for someone they consider to be a "pseudo" Christian. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:54, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

You don't have to be ultra-right to think that the Mormons are talking about a different Jesus to Christians. The Christian Jesus is God: the Mormon Jesus is not. Mormons themselves, all recent claims to the contrary, haven't historically considered themselves Christian, since they believed that all of Christendom was the Whore of Babylon. If believing in some person called Jesus Christ was the only criteria to be Christian, regardless of what you believed about him, then Muslims would be Christian. Mormonism is a religion with Christian roots. As to whether or not you consider Mormonism a cult depends very strongly on which of the many definitions of the word you are using. Definitions are important. In the meaning where a 'cult' is something that differs from orthodoxy, then Mormonism is a cult. In a definition where a 'cult' is something that kills people, Mormonism is not currently a cult. In the definition where a 'cult' is something that uses certain emotional and social manipulation techniques to recruit and retain members, and cut them off from the outside world, Mormonism has some cult-like characteristics, as do Jehovah's Witnesses. For example, Mormonism encourages and widely uses love bombing, as well as controlling access to information about their beliefs until a target has been absorbed into the group, and cutting off members who leave (although not as strictly as Jehovah's Witnesses do). These and certain other properties are certainly 'cult-like', but I don't see that there's a strict definition that lets you say whether or not something completely fits this definition of 'cult'. 86.143.135.49 (talk) 18:58, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Actual Mormon here. Sorry-- I know this isn't about the awful bumper sticker, but I peruse here quite often and post somewhat less often, and I feel like I need to try to clarify, if you'll all allow me. I always enjoy hearing from non-Mormons what my beliefs are, especially inaccurately. Jesus Christ to us is the Son of God and the Savior of the world. Cynics and critics will say that we don't really believe that, but we do. What we have here is ambiguity on the definition of "Christian." Our friend at 86.143.135.49 tells us a lot about what Christianity isn't, but doesn't tell us a lot about what it is. I think, genuinely, and in good faith, (please correct me if I'm wrong), s/he believes that being "Christian" has something to do with subscribing to the early council creeds, and probably accepting (only) the Holy Bible as Scripture. Fair enough, but we use a different, and probably more common, definition. We believe that those that follow Christ are Christians. Since Muslims don't really follow Christ, I wouldn't (and they wouldn't) call them(selves) Christians. I don't think. Maybe I'm wrong. Additionally, Christ himself seems to have defined the word "Christian" in John 13, when he said, "A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another. By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another." So, Christ Himself defines the parameters of Christianity. I personally believe that even as a Mormon, I have days when I'm a better Christian than other days. (Maybe many feel this way.) Further, Christ also prohibited the exclusion of fellow (but unknown) followers by his own Apostles in Luke 9: "And John answered and said, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name; and we forbad him, because he followeth not with us. And Jesus said unto him, Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us." I more than likely can't/won't change any minds here, but I appreciate when those not of our faith allow us to define and explain our own beliefs.Kingsfold (Quack quack!) 19:38, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm aware this stuff can be frustrating: as you say, Mormons believe that Jesus is the Son of God (nobody says you don't), but you do not believe that he is God. Because the Godhead in Mormonism is considered to be three separate entities, not one God.

You may say that Muslims do not follow Christ, but they would say they do. They would say that Jesus (Isa) was a prophet and the Christ, and that he was a good Muslim. They would say, as Mormonism says, that the Biblical record of Jesus has been corrupted. So, if they follow Christ, and love one another, are Muslims Christian? If a Nordic pagan loves others, are they a Christian? At this point, would we have to reject the word 'Christian' as meaningless? Or does it have an accepted meaning? A belief that Jesus is God is a basic foundational belief of Christianity that has been used since the first few centuries to define who is and is not a Christian.

We still have the page Great and abominable church. I appreciate that Mormon teaching on this has softened, as seen here. It presumably went out with the devil being represented in rituals by someone dressed as a Protestant minister, which practice I gather has been suppressed. But still, I have had young naive Mormons ask me earnestly who the Catholic Church thinks the Great and Abominable Church is. It was kind of sweet.

Nowhere have I said that Mormons should be harassed or forbidden from doing good things. I am simply pointing out that there actually is a consistent line of reasoning that explains why Mormonism is often not considered Christian (although it is certainly based on Christianity, just as Islam is), that it is fairly reasonable to say that the Mormon Jesus is not the same as the Christian Jesus (in that one is God, and the other is not. That's a pretty big difference) and that historically (do you know any Mormons from a generation or two above you who you trust, and could ask?) Mormonism did not consider itself part of Christianity, because it considered Christianity to be completely corrupt from the last Apostle onwards.

More recently, there has been a drive to 'mainstream' Mormonism. It actually makes me really wish that I was an anthropologist or at least a sociologist, because it looks fascinating from here. Beliefs, practices and even Scriptures have been smoothed out, to conform to mainstream Christian practice. Goodbye bloody oaths, goodbye "white and delightsome", goodbye "only living Church", goodbye "What does the Christian world know about God? Nothing", goodbye belief that secret handshakes will be required to enter Heaven. Interestingly, hello "why don't Christians consider us Christian?", hello publicity campaigns, hello attempts to integrate some extracts of writings by Early Church Fathers into Mormon publications (even though they must surely have been written after the Great Apostasy). It's terribly interesting, and I'll remain interested in seeing whether the strategy pays off (it's a risky manoeuvre, as you risk losing your USP, and requiring less of members can lead to diminished respect). Maybe, in 20 years time, the Godhead will have become a single God, and Mormons will become just another Christian group with an odd history. 86.143.135.49 (talk) 20:51, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

(Shrugs.) I don't find this discussion frustrating, except perhaps that each of the points that you describe above all have an accompanying historical, sociological, doctrinal, and spiritual context, and this really isn't the forum for me to expound those contexts adequately. And, perhaps I have this wrong, but I'm not confident that you'd be able, even given an adequate context and explanation, even to the point of intellectual cohesiveness, to then say, "Oh, well, I may not agree with that, but it makes sense." That is to say, I could write pages and pages and quote scripture after scripture to explain my position, but my experience has been that such exchanges are only beneficial when both parties are open-minded. I don't mean that pejoratively-- I just mean that my schedule can't afford it today. It makes sense to me, though, and that will do for today. Wishing you all the best, though. Kingsfold (Quack quack!) 23:07, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Many mainstream Christians consider the Mormons a "cult" since the denomination claims to have its own Prophet and since it denies most tenets of mainstream Christianity. The "Let's not Renege" = "Let's not re-elect the Nigger" bumper sticker would seem appallingly racist to most US citizens, akin to a KKK cross burning. Edison (talk) 04:51, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I for one draw a distinction between a violent act (burning a cross on someone's lawn) and rude speech. μηδείς (talk) 16:46, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Which is something that annoys me to no end, given that the word "cult" has an actual, formal meaning other than "stuff we don't like". What ever happened to good old-fashioned words like "heretic" and "infidel"? Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 04:59, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

How well does the particular shoe fit the particular foot? Edison (talk) 05:04, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

That depends. If you actually care about the meaning of words, it doesn't fit at all. Again, the word "cult" does not mean "wrong" or "unbiblical". The dictionary I currently have in front of me says that "cult" means "[a] religion or religious sect generally considered to be extremist or false, with its followers often living in an unconventional manner under the guidance of an authoritarian, charismatic leader.". The Branch Davidians were a cult. The Peoples Temple was a cult. Mormonism is not a cult, regardless of how right or wrong you think it is. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 05:17, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

While Mormonism has reformed somewhat, "cult" would be a fair way to describe it in it's early days. They were "extremist" in that they massacred a wagon train of settlers and "false" in that most non-Mormons consider Joseph Smith to be a false prophet. They lived in an unconventional manner (polygamy) under the guidance of an authoritarian, charismatic leader (Brigham Young), and many, including Romney's ancestors, fled to Mexico rather than give up polygamy, etc. StuRat (talk) 08:20, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, it may be a good thing he prompted you to clarify, because while I can't speak for everyone, I did understand your meaning but I at first took it that you were representing your own sincere definition of Christian, as opposed to parroting the position, as I now know the case to be. Snow (talk) 05:22, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Is the above a reply to me or Edison? If it's to me, I can see how you might have thought that, but no Inquisitions for me, thanks. : ) It's just the misuse of the English language that gets to me. Mormonism is not a cult in the same way that a cat is not a tree. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 05:55, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Neither, was commenting to Bugs, actually. Snow (talk) 06:41, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks y'all. —Tamfang (talk) 04:49, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I was being satirical. Keep in mind that some of these characters have called the Roman Catholic Church a "cult". If that be so, it must be the world's largest. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:55, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm surprised that it hasn't been already mentioned, but "Renegade" is Obama's Secret Service codename. — Kpalion^(talk) 07:25, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Is it really a "codename" if everyone knows what it is? Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 07:44, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I promise not to tell anyone. HiLo48 (talk) 07:55, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Maybe they just want you to think that's his codename. As with Area 51, the "secret" government testing location that everyone knows about, and might well be a decoy away from the real secret government testing location. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:55, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Article Secret Service codename -- they may have been secret or semi-secret in some past decades, but that's not the case recently... AnonMoos (talk) 11:00, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I remember when it was discovered that "renegade" was his code name, this was taken as evidence that he was a "renegade" in the 15th century Spanish sense, a crypto-Muslim. Hilarious stuff. Adam Bishop (talk) 12:13, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I find this kind of pathetic call for the "land of the free" to vote by racism astonishing and depressing. However, it serves usefully to squash back down my rising horror at the abominable and vomit-worthy mangling of the pronunciation of "renege". --Dweller (talk) 11:41, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Zhong Title

What is the equivalent of the Chinese noble title 仲 in English? It was used by minor nobles in the Zhou Dynasty.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 08:53, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Chinese surname says: "In ancient usage, the characters of meng (孟), zhong (仲), shu (叔) and ji (季) were used to denote the first, second, third and fourth eldest sons in a family."A8875 (talk) 09:20, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

To emphasise, 仲 was not a title of nobility, it was an indication of a person's order of birth. People were often referred to by these markers as part of, or instead of, their personal given names. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 15:07, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the sequence quoted by A8875, I understood the more usual sequence to be bo (伯), zhong (仲), shu (叔) and ji (季). --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 15:07, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

There are the rulers of the State of Fan and zh:蔡仲 of the State of Cai.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 18:55, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

For Cai Zhong it seems clear that Zhong was used as a name to refer to that person instead of his personal given name, which was Hu. I think the interpretation of this name as the "Elder of Cai" presented in the relevant Wikipedia article is an erroneous interpretation, and the succession box that lists "Elder of Cai" as a title also seems to be erroneous. I consulted several dictionaries and in none of them was "elder" suggested as a meaning of 仲, nor was 仲 given as a title of nobility.

For the State of Fan, the Chinese Wikipedia article lists the title of their rulers as "Zhong", but this is inconsistent with most external sources. I would suggest that an editor mistook the titles adopted by its rulers to refer to themselves to be an actual title of nobility, which it was not.

The order of the titles of nobility in the Zhou dynasty was clear cut, and "Zhong" was not one of them. Because of the paucity of records from the Zhou dynasty for minor states, the actual titles granted to their rulers are often now lost. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:02, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

South Carolina constitional amendments

Article VI. Section 2 of the South Carolina Constitution[1] states: "No person who denies the existence of the Supreme Being shall hold any office under this Constitution. (1972 (57) 3181; 1973 (58) 83.)"

My best understanding of "(1972 (57) 3181; 1973 (58) 83.)" is that this section was amended 1972 and again in 1973. I'm trying to track down the exact text of these constitutional amendments, but unfortunately the state website [2] only has electronic records of acts as far back as 1975. I am not physically located in South Carolina so I doubt my local public and university libraries will be of any help.

I realize this clause is null and void after Torcaso_v._Watkins, but I would still like to see how it changed over time. A8875 (talk) 09:17, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Mizrahi and sephardi jews population in Israel

Which cities has significant population of Mizrahi Jews? Which cities has significant population of Sephardi Jews? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.23.153 (talk) 17:07, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

According to the Israeli government, there are 14 cities in the country. Of the 14, I'd expect all 14 to have significant populations of both Mizrahi and Sephardi Jews. --Dweller (talk) 11:34, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

NB the terms you use are ambiguous. Mizrahi can mean Jews of middle-east extraction, and it can also refer to modern Orthodox Jews. I've assumed you mean the former. Sephardi can mean of Spanish and Portuguese extraction, or following the Sephardic rite of religious practice. I presume you mean the latter. In actuality, Mizrahi Jews can be viewed as a subset of Sephardi Jews, but this is a contentious assertion. --Dweller (talk) 11:37, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Legal question regarding the age of consent

In the United Kingdom the age of consent for gay men used to be 21 until the 1990s. If a man in his 40s had sex with a man in his teens, at the time it was considered to be against the law.

Fast forward to today, and the man in his teens has grown up. The age of consent for gay men is now 16. If he went to the police would he still be able to report the older man for having committed a crime, even though the age of consent is now much lower? If the younger man did that, what would the likely outcome be? -- role^player 17:17, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

From the introduction to this page: "The reference desk will not answer (and will usually remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or request medical opinions, or seek guidance on legal matters. Such questions should be directed to an appropriate professional, or brought to an internet site dedicated to medical or legal questions." AlexTiefling (talk) 17:35, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

The question does not seem to be asking for specific advice, but rather a matter of principle. How are acts which were criminal at the time of commission treated when newer law decriminalizes them? The OP can certainly reword his question or confirm I am right in my interpretation. This question seems to be that of the opposite of ex post facto law. Unfortunately a quick look at that article does not give a hint as to the opposite concept. Ex-ante (at least according to our stub) is not relevant. I do vaguely recall a case in the US where a convicted sex-offender was refused clemency when the law was changed after his conviction, even though a change in the law meant he would not have been convicted under the latter circumstances. I believe the case was in Georgia, but cannot recall the exact details. μηδείς (talk) 17:53, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry Medeis is correct. My question is regarding the principle of the law in the UK, and whether something that was considered a crime when the age of consent was 21 would still be considered to have been a crime even though the age of consent has been lowered. Sorry it was worded badly. -- role^player 18:58, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Some laws explicitly say whether they apply to offences committed before the law was passed, although that usually comes up in reference to ongoing cases rather than cases that are brought years after the fact. I don't know if this particular change in law had such a clause. If it didn't, then I think by default it would still be a crime since it was a crime at the time it was committed. One important factor is whether the Crown Prosecution Service would consider the prosecution to be in the public interest - since it is no longer illegal, they probably wouldn't. The complainant could try and bring a private prosecution, I suppose. The judge would still have some freedom in the sentencing. I don't know about underage homosexual sex in particular, but most offences in English law carry maximum sentences but not minimum ones (murder carries a mandatory life sentence - that's the only minimum sentence I know about). That means the judge could just give an "unconditional discharge", which means you are officially convicted of the crime, but there is no punishment. --Tango (talk) 19:24, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Is it common in Britain that judges give "unconditional discharge"?? Or is it a very hypothetical scenario.--nids(♂) 20:54, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

No, because the CPS wouldn't prosecute if that were the likely outcome. --Tango (talk) 22:04, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I've found our article: Discharge (sentencing)#England and Wales. It gives one example. --Tango (talk) 22:07, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

There are some stats here. It happens more often than I'd thought. It might be cases where someone was charged with multiple offences and only found guilty of a lesser one, which wasn't worth sentencing them for and wouldn't have been prosecuted on its own. --Tango (talk) 22:14, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Parliament has the power to make retroactive laws. For the retroactivity of homosexual consent (and for that matter—legalisation of sodomy), I'd suggest seeking the advice of a solicitor, or reading the relevant act yourself. Fifelfoo (talk) 19:30, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Regarding Fifelfoo's comment — see parliamentary supremacy, which means that Parliament may do anything they want, including making ex post facto laws. Nyttend (talk) 19:36, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I would think that the subsequent passing of legislation lowering the age of consent would apply ex post facto through implied repeal and the sex act would be considered pursuant to the most recent changes. That being said, Alan Turing was not granted a posthumous pardon for homosexual acts that were subsequently legalised, though this has little legal bearing. Practically speaking, prosecuting in this case would not be considered in the public interest and the CPS would not take action and could terminate a private prosecution under the POA 1985.Ankh.Morpork 20:31, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

There's a legal concept known as the principle of retroactivity which basically says that when a law is changed courts should use the law that is more favorable for the defendant. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which the UK is a party, says " If, subsequent to the commission of the offence, provision is made by law for the imposition of the lighter penalty, the offender shall benefit thereby" (article 15). I don't know the specifics about if and how this has been made into UK law.Sjö (talk) 08:10, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

• Regardless of the letter of the law, I'm skeptical that the CPS would prosecute a case like this. They've got better things to do with their time than prosecute people for doing something that isn't illegal any more. bobrayner (talk) 13:39, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

US federal prisoner mug shots

Do US federal courts publish mug shots of prisoners from before the digital era? We have no PD or freely-licensed images of Charles Taylor, so an image from his 1984 Massachusetts District Court extradition trial would be quite helpful if I knew where to look to find one. Nyttend (talk) 19:34, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure they did. Someone just needs to find one. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 21:28, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Linguistic grey area

Early indigenous languages in the US

On this map there is an area just south of Lake Erie, and north of the Shawnee and Cherokee, that has been left grey with no named tribes. Were there no indigenous Indians in this area, or has it been left blank because of lack of knowledge of the appropriate linguistic group? 31.185.153.231 (talk) 22:24, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

That map was authored by William C. Sturtevant, who died in 2007, so he is unavailable for questions. However, you might find helpful information at http://www.native-languages.org/states.htm.

—Wavelength (talk) 22:43, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

If I remember rightly, much of Ohio had been largely depopulated for quite a while before settlement; if this map be meant to reflect languages just before contact, it's likely grey because of a lack of Indians. Nyttend (talk) 22:49, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly what the map is supposed to show. That area overlaps pretty strongly with the domain of the Monongahela culture, whose linguistic affinities are not clear. Looie496 (talk) 22:50, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

This area was unpopulated during the historical area when records would have been made of the native languages spoken in the area. It is not free of monuments, however. I remember having heard of this being caused by disease; the area was actually quite densely populated and so may have suffered a particularly strong population crash. I don't have a source, unfortunately, but am going on memory from a decade back. μηδείς (talk) 23:32, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Ohio#Native Americans says: The Hopewell, however, disappeared from the Ohio Valley in about 600 AD. Little is known about the people who replaced them.[49] Researchers have identified two additional, distinct prehistoric cultures: the Fort Ancient people and the Whittlesey Focus people.[49] 69.62.243.48 (talk) 23:43, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

See the Beaver Wars of the 1600s for the reason. 75.41.109.190 (talk) 02:34, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the Beaver Wars are usually pointed to as the cause of the region's depopulation. A quote from this book, [3]: "For reasons that are still unclear, many of the Fort Ancient sites in the Upper Ohio Valley were abandoned by the seventeenth century. Most scholars believe that the inhabitants of the region were probably forced out by the intertribal impact of colonial expansion and warefare taking place far away to the south and east. ...the arrival of Europeans and their goods, along with the increase in death rates from epidemics and war, had a ripple effect that spread across the inland continent long before Europeans themselves arrived in any great numbers. This turned much of the Upper Ohio Valley into an area of low population density as the indigenous inhabitants were uprooted." The book goes on to say that after being depopulated the region was gradually resettled by groups such as the Lenape, Shawnee, Miami, Mingo, Wyandot, and others.

Another source, [4], quote: "...early historical sources describe devastating raids by Iroquois societies in southern Ontario and New York state as part of the Beaver Wars in the early to mid-seventeenth century, which disrupted many native societies across the region..." If nothing else, it is clear that the eastern interior of America was thrown into chaos by "ripple effects" of the coastal European colonies. A great deal about the chaos remains unknown. An example is the case of the Westo—a group of natives who apparently migrated from somewhere in or near the Ohio Country south to the frontiers of colonial Virginia and South Carolina. They might have been a fragment of the Erie people who had fled south during the chaos of the Beaver Wars. Around the same time a group of Shawnee appeared in South Carolina, apparently also fleeing the chaos and war in the north. Settling on the Savannah River these Shawnee became known as the "Savannah Indians". They fought and defeated the Westo. The Savannah River had been known as the Westobou River until the Shawnee Savannah took over. Anyway, these are just a few examples of the bits and pieces we do know about the general chaos that existed in the "grey area" on that map, from the Ohio Country to the inland frontiers of Virginia and Carolina. The map also makes some assumptions that may be unwarranted, such as the Yuchi controlling the upper Tennessee River Valley. Pfly (talk) 03:06, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

All of which goes some way to narrowing down the period this map is meant to represent which is an interesting question in its own right. I find your comments on the marked territory for the Yuchi interesting, since there's a few elements that seemed speculative or oversimplified to me also, with regard to other groups in the northwest. In general I'd say there's a propensity on this map to lump groups together under the name of the most recognizable tribe for that region. In the west in particular, where native populations remained as small and decentralized as virtually anywhere in the entirety of the Americas, there were scores of languages families that are believed to have been remarkably unrelated. The map on the right does a better job of representing that diversity and even it is an incomplete picture. But if Sturtevant's map is meant to depict populations after western colonization was already advancing then perhaps the map is meant to represent groups that had survived up into some point when European colonization was significantly advanced and many of these groups had declined or outright disappeared -- and the surviving language groups, due to assimilation or forced relocation technically covered a significantly larger region than they had pre-contact. Snow (talk) 04:34, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Yea, I was going to point out a few other things on the Sturtevant map that struck me as odd, but had to go. It's obvious that the map isn't supposed to show any single point in time but something more like "how things were around the time of contact". But what exactly this means isn't clear to me. The Comanche, for example, are shown in an area more or less corresponding to Comancheria, but the Comanche migrated to this region well after they were known to the Spanish in New Mexico. At that time they occupied a region more to the north, with the upper Arkansas River serving as a focal point. And before that they were living more to the north, along the Platte River in Wyoming. This map shows the Comanche situation fairly late in the historical era. Before about 1700, well after the establishment of Spanish New Mexico, "Comancheria" was controlled by the Apache, and was known to the Spanish as Apacheria. That kind of thing contrasts oddly with the way the map shows the Yuchi, Cherokee, Timucua, and others, making it hard to me to understand quite what the map is trying to tell us. Still, I admit I like the map, despite its flaws. Pfly (talk) 07:29, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Eastern Han Dynasty

Were all the descendants of Emperor Wu of Han exterminated by Wang Mang or by others by the advent of Eastern Han Dynasty since the only claimaints, including the new Emperor Guangwu of Han, were descendants of Emperor Wu's brother(s)? Even later famous members of the Imperial Liu Clan were descendants of Emperor Wen or Emperor Jing rather than Emperor Wu, like Liu Bei, Liu Biao and Liu Zhang. --The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 23:44, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Always hard to say what happened to the descendants of someone who lived more than 2000 years ago, there is some Internet chatter about that precise question but they are mostly original research and not suitable for Wikipedia purposes. The pragmatic reality seems to be that, because the militarily strongest leaders who deposed Wang Mang were from a branch descended from Emeperor Jing and not from Emepror Wu, it was that branch of the Liu family which held power and were the most prominent during the Eastern Han dynasty, and the direct male line descendants of Emperor Wu more or less sank into obscurity. However, they were certainly not exterminated. See this page for a relatively comprehensive, but original research, summary of the fates of the various branches of Emperor Wu's male line descendants. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 11:47, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

July 5

A stock standard?

As I understand it, supporters of Ron Paul are still pushing for the gold standard, though it has been called a "barbarous relic" at various times.^[5] What I wonder is --- have people considered basing a currency (whether publicly or privately issued) not on bullion, but on a very broad no-load index fund? Wnt (talk) 03:06, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

From the Ron Paul article: "While Paul believes the longterm decrease of the U.S. dollar's purchasing power by inflation is attributable to its lack of any commodity backing, he does not endorse a "return" to a gold standard – as the U.S. government has established during the past – but instead prefers to eliminate legal tender laws and to remove the sales tax on gold and silver, so that the market may freely decide what type of monetary standard(s) there shall be."A8875 (talk) 03:41, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

All such schemes have a basic problem: the essential value of money derives from the liquidity it provides, and when you try to base money on some commodity, you inevitably mix up its liquidity value with the value derived from supply and demand for that commodity. That always leads in the end to trouble. The only reason for doing it is if there is no alternative that isn't worse. We do have an alternative: the Federal Reserve system. The problem that the gold-bugs have is that they fundamentally distrust the Fed and are willing to take the bad consequences of commodity money (which they usually don't understand anyway) rather than trust the Fed to do the right things. Looie496 (talk) 03:58, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Well yes, the liquidity problem is a problem only for soft money advocates of government interference in the banks and intention debasement of the currency. Of course people who don't want to see the state debase the currency for political reasons don't see the "liquidity problem" of hard gold as a problem. μηδείς (talk) 04:48, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Nobody wants to see the state debase the currency for political reasons. But there are other people who see the liquidity problem of hard gold as a problem: those who believe that deflation is a disaster which needs to be avoided. Looie496 (talk) 06:42, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

You have not heard of free silver or quantitative easing? Bot are debasements for political reasons. One of the oldest corruptions on the book, it goes back to the Ancient Greeks if not before. μηδείς (talk) 01:26, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I think many would like to debase the currency, such as those who want the government to have high benefits and appear to have low taxes. By "printing money" and thus creating inflation, the government can pay it's debts via a hidden tax on all, inflation. This may benefit the rich, especially, since they are likely to have investment strategies which have higher returns than inflation, while the poor, with their assets in a bank account, their car, and personal possessions, are less likely to do so. I'm not sure that the risk of deflation is any worse, especially when the possibility of a currency collapse exists when using an unbacked currency (fiat money). I suspect that after some major currencies do collapse/suffer hyperinflation, we will see a return to some version of backed currency, as people will have lost faith in fiat money. StuRat (talk) 07:24, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

No one wants to see another Zimbabwe situation in their own country, but traditionally debtors favor mild inflation, while creditors favor no inflation... AnonMoos (talk) 11:25, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Wnt -- the problem with the gold standard is that the money supply has more to do with gold discoveries and mining logistics than with more purely economic factors, such as whether the economy is overheated or depressed. During most of the 19th century, there was a long term overall slight deflationary trend, which was periodically counteracted by gold rushes and mining bonanzas, while the U.S. government was mostly powerless to do anything meaningful to mitigate economic recessions. The problem with a "stock standard" would be that it could be subject to manipulations of various types... AnonMoos (talk) 11:22, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, according to my limited understanding, the way we handle recessions now is to increase the money supply by allowing some favored bankers to print money usable by those indebted to them. With a stock standard I think we could expand the money supply by somehow encouraging more companies to go public and add themselves to the indexes. Wnt (talk) 13:37, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Nobody in the UK has ever wanted to follow the example of Winston Churchill, who in 1924 "oversaw Britain's disastrous return to the Gold Standard, which resulted in deflation, unemployment, and the miners' strike that led to the General Strike of 1926." I'm not clever enough to tell you why it brought these clamaties upon us; just that we don't want to try it again to see if it was a fluke. Alansplodge (talk) 21:04, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

The fundamental problem was a shortage of gold. The world's economies had been growing a lot faster than the world's gold stocks, and the nations with the strongest economies were sucking it all up. That problem would come back far worse nowadays if any large nation actually made a serious effort to return to a gold-based currency. Looie496 (talk) 01:40, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Alansplodge -- I think the problem was that the gold-£ conversion factor was set at the pre-war rate, which was a triumph of nostalgia (or the desire to pretend that WW1 never happened) over economic realities. AnonMoos (talk) 02:55, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Another problem with a gold standard is that it causes people to squirrel away their gold, rather than use it. It is genuinely useful stuff, like for electrical contacts, but people hording it and using it for silly things like jewelry makes it too expensive for many other uses. Silver, on the other hand, isn't as useful, since it tarnishes. There is it's antibiotic property, but otherwise it's always seemed like the worst possible choice for utensils, to me (as anyone who bent a silver spoon scooping out ice cream or burnt themself grabbing a silver spoon sitting in hot soup can attest to). StuRat (talk) 18:13, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Any metal spoon sitting in hot soup is going to get too hot to touch, so that in itself is no argument against using silver spoons for this purpose, as compared with stainless steel or whatever. The best argument against using silver utensils for food preparation is that they were always meant to be used solely for eating, if only because of their impracticality in the kitchen. You might use a silver ladle to serve the soup, but it wouldn't sit in the soup getting hot when it isn't being used. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 20:47, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Metals do not all have equal thermal conductivity. Iron is 80.2 W/m-K, while silver is 429 W/m-K, or over 5 times as much. StuRat (talk) 03:12, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

That exactly supports my point, and yours. Silver is the worst possible choice for cooking utensils (way too conductive; and tarnishing, particularly when in contact with eggs), which is why no cook in their right mind would use silver cooking utensils. Which is why they are reserved, in the best houses at any rate (sniff, sniff), for eating with. That does not include scooping out ice cream or having them sitting in hot soup. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 09:09, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

A silver tea service also is stupid, as the silver tea pot will get hot enough to burn you, and then the tea inside will quickly get cold. I also prefer to use my cooking utensils to eat, where possible, to reduce dishes. So, I will use a serving spoon to stir my mac and cheese, then eat it with the same spoon (and out of the same cooking pot, too). Stainless steel is ideal for both. StuRat (talk) 20:16, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

They had tea cosies for that problem. It protected the pourer's skin as well as reducing heat loss a little. If the occasion was too formal for a tea cosy, there would probably have been a butler doing the honours, and he would have worn white gloves. If you're telling me you're given to eating directly from the cooking pot, using the same utensils you cooked with, I'm afraid we have nothing more to say to each other, and I wish you good day.  :) -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 20:44, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Using an unsuitable material and then using another material to protect against it is about as silly as making tea pots out of pure sodium, with a glass coating added to prevent it from exploding when it contacts water. StuRat (talk) 20:54, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

On a side note, if you've never eaten straight out of the cooking pot with the same utensils, you've obviously never been a poor bachelor. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:21, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I jest, of course; I love eating straight out of the pot. It's a known scientific fact that it actually tastes better that way. I was always a poor bachelor; then a poor married man; now I'm a poor confirmed bachelor.  :) -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 01:10, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Some have proposed a "market basket of commodities", presumably ones whose historic fluctuations are not strongly correlated. Here's David D. Friedman in The Machinery of Freedom chapter 46, because I happen to have it handy:

So far I have not discussed what commodity a private system should base its money on. Historically, the most common standards were probably gold and silver. They were well suited for the purpose [for reasons I need not repeat].

But in a modern society none of these characteristics is important, since the circulating medium is not the commodity itself but claims upon it. The disadvantage of silver and gold is that they have very inelastic supplies and relatively inelastic demands ....

The ideal commodity backing for a modern system would not be any single commodity but rather a commodity bundle. The bank would guarantee to provide anyone bringing in (say) a hundred thousand of its dollars with a bundle consisting of a ton of steel of a specified grade, a hundred bushels of wheat, an ounce of gold, and a number of other items. The goods making up the bundle would be chosen to make the value of the total bundle correlate as closely as possible with the general price level. While a change in production technology or non-monetary demand might alter the value of one good in the bundle, it would have only a small effect on the value of the bundle as a whole. ...

Am I naïve to suppose that a commodities index would be less prone to manipulation than a stock index? At any rate, I'm pleased to learn Ron Paul's real position. May the soundest currency win! —Tamfang (talk) 05:20, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

The historical experience has been that the soundest currency loses, through Gresham's law... AnonMoos (talk) 07:13, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Gresham's law ("bad money drives out good money") depends on legal tender: if merchants are compelled to accept copper coins as if they were silver, people will hoard the silver and spend the copper. This important condition is often omitted either because it's bloody obvious (except to those wedded to the idea that people other than themselves are irrational and therefore economics is bunk) or because it's inconvenient to the popular myth that a free market is always a "race to the bottom"; you pick. —Tamfang (talk) 21:29, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Except now, you can create your legal tender with paper, plastic, or even pure electronic transactions. Coinage aside, the material itself is no longer a deciding factor in that process. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:26, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Fine, I'll update the illustration from Gresham's time. If I'm able to pay my bills in Zimbabwe dollars (cash or electronic) and my creditors are compelled by law to accept such payments as 1:1 equivalent to "real" money, unless I have strong moral scruples I'll spend my Z$ and hoard the good stuff. The point is that without legal tender the merchant won't take the Z$ and the good money, not the bad money, stays in circulation. —Tamfang (talk) 20:18, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm... I think there are some differences that would crop up between a stock-based and a commodity-based currency. First, a commodity based currency is unlikely to actually be based on holdings of the commodity - you won't really want to have billions of bushels of wheat sitting in lockers somewhere. But a stock-based currency might (or might not) be based on actual index fund holdings - potentially, even 100% holdings, being simply a sort of bearer certificate. The other thing is that because stocks are actually held, they can potentially be voted, which has some curious consequences. Of course, to actually vote in every shareholder meeting with every stock represented in those few dollaroids in your pocket would be infeasible; and voting that way in any case would destroy the anonymity of the currency. But, for example, a company or other organization issuing the paper currency could issue several colors - you could pick the "pink" kind, and you and your fellow pinkos could nominate somebody who would vote the company's holdings in a socially responsible way, or you could pick the "true blue" kind, and your representative would push to oppose outsourcing and keep jobs in your own country. All these colors of paper would still be the exact same holdings, and no matter who won in any board meeting, they'd experience the same gains and losses, so anyone obtaining a color he didn't like might, for some possibly very small surcharge, exchange it for a color he does like, with the company storing/destroying/reprinting any net gains and losses. I think... Wnt (talk) 15:02, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Qing Manchu Speakers

How often was Manchu spoken by members of the Qing Imperial Court (the emperor, his family, and eunuch and palace maids)? Was it more spoken or less spoken than Chinese? Was Manchu required to be spoken by politicians and officials and in imperial examinations?--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 05:23, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I took the liberty of wikilinking (and then revising the links to) parts of the first part of your question. Manchu language#History and significance suggests http://books.google.com.au/books?id=QiM2pF5PDR8C and Qing_Dynasty#Fall suggests http://books.google.com/books/about/The_Politics_of_Language_in_Chinese_Educ.html?id=okhrBBmnHVQC 75.166.192.187 (talk) 05:48, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

The examinations were for the purpose of recruiting Chinese to the traditional Chinese bureaucracy, while the official Manchu policy was to maintain a strong distinction between the martial Manchus and the non-martial Chinese, so I strongly doubt whether the Manchu language would have been used in such examinations... AnonMoos (talk) 11:31, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

The Chinese wiki article has some information on this: in the Shunzhi era there were separate examinations for Manchus and Hans, but subsequently there was only one paper for Hans. Manchus and Mongols were discouraged from participating but were not forbidden. Being a Han paper, it was naturally in the Han language. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 13:42, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Communist party in the depression

How much did the circulation of the Communist Party of America's newspaper increase during the first years of the depression? How many Americans left for the Soviet Union during the depression? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.146.124.35 (talk) 06:30, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

You're talking about the Great Depression, right, and not any of the other depressions that occurred while the Soviet Union existed (e.g. the fallout from the 1973 oil crisis)? Smurrayinchester 06:58, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes I am talking about the Great Depression. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.146.124.35 (talk) 07:27, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I think more Americans went to the Soviet Union due to the Palmer Raid and events around that time, rather than during the Great Depression... AnonMoos (talk) 11:16, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

For circulation figures of the Daily Worker, I tracked down this: "Harvey A. Levenstein addresses the development of The Worker (Cleveland, Chicago, and New York, 1922-1924) and Daily Worker (Chicago and New York, 1924-1958). Levenstein sketches the history of these journals, providing circulation numbers. The Daily Worker's readership increased throughout the 1930s, and the its content changed, replacing articles on strikes and jeremiads against capitalism with political cartoons and features that aligned communism with American ideals. Levenstein's essay gives the reader more information about issues covered in these newspapers then do many of the other authors, providing some examples of what the papers contained, including advertising.". From http://depts.washington.edu/labhist/laborpress/Kelling.htm. And the Levenstein seems to be a chapter in Joseph Conlin (ed.) The American Radical Press 1880 - 1960 Westport, Conn: Greenwood Press 1974. I can see snippet view only in Google Books, and I see the little snippet that it would have been expected that the circulation would rise after the Crash, but actually it remained stable. (Therefore it rose later in the 30s, when the Third Period policies were replaced by the Popular Front.) Itsmejudith (talk) 14:59, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

These finds mirror my expectations in relation to 3rd International parties, and their lines' appeal to workers, and workers' motivations for supporting Communist parties in the west in the period. The early 1930s and late 1920s were a period when Anglophone communist parties were most distant from the working class movement, after they burnt up the sympathy and organic relationships which arose out of the 1910s crisis; but, before they reestablished union contacts. (Admittedly then the US becomes atypical in the late 1940s due to the strength of repression there). Fifelfoo (talk) 03:09, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

By the way it's the same Harvey Levenstein who wrote Revolution at the Table, a history of food in the USA. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:02, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

By coincidence, I happen to be reading The Communist Party of the United States, from the Depression to World War II by Fraser M. Ottanelli (Rutgers U. Press, 1991, ISBN 0-8135-1613-7). He says that at its peak, the Sunday Worker (edited by Joseph North) had a circulation of 100,000 (page 127). Harvey Klehr's earlier The Heyday of American Communism: The Depression Decade (Basic Books, 1984, ISBN 0-465-02946-9) says that the Party's cultural magazine, New Masses, jumped from 6,000 as a monthly to 24,000 as a weekly in early 1935 (page 351). —— Shakescene (talk) 08:33, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

What do Americans and the British call people from Southeast Asia?

Deliberately oversimplifying here: So when describing (or perhaps more accurately, stereotyping) people, in the US "Asian" generally means East Asian and "Indian" means South Asian, while in the UK "Asian" means South Asian while "Oriental" is accepted as PC and means East Asian. "Middle-Eastern" is understood in both the US and the UK, but what do they call people from Southeast Asia? Is it the case, perhaps as a result of the region's relative racial diversity, that a stereotypical notion of what most Southeast Asian people look like hasn't been formed? --Paul_012 (talk) 10:26, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

In Canada and I believe also in the US, they are just lumped in with the other "Asians" from China/Japan/Korea. Certainly, I know Vietnamese people who refer to themselves as "Asian". Adam Bishop (talk) 10:36, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

(ec)What racial diversity? I can't visually distinguish between Thai, Vietnamese, Laotians, Burmese, etc. nor can I distinguish their languages - to my ear they all sound like nasal "sing-song" with lots of long vowels and "ng" sounds. As a group South-East Asians look and sound fairly homogenous - much like West Germanic speaking Europeans. Roger (talk) 10:37, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I was thinking of mainland vs maritime SEA, the latter of which I wonder would more likely be lumped in with Pacific Islanders. --Paul_012 (talk) 11:00, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

If you are from a region that actually sees these groups regularly (I grew up in an area of California with many Southeast Asian immigrants), you can definitely tell them apart. People from Vietnam and people from Cambodia look pretty dissimilar, as an example — Cambodians have much darker skin complexion on the whole. I think you also underestimate the actual biological human diversity of the region; don't conflate "they all look alike to me" with "they are all actually alike." I say this as a pretty boring white guy myself. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:33, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

In the UK, I think it's a matter of not having a lot of immigration or cultural trade with the area, so that neither a stereotype nor a convenient catch-all term exists. I suspect that "Indonesian" would generally be taken to mean someone from that general area, even though that is only one of a group of countries. Possibly "Austronesian" or "Australasia", but then you're into slightly more educated terms. "Asian" might vaguely work, in some contexts. If I had to refer to the area, when speaking to an everyday person with no maps to point to, I'd probably say "that big cluster of islands above Australia". 86.143.135.49 (talk) 10:44, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I have always wondered about a similar question not so much of South East Asians specifically but for any of the non-Chinese, non-subcontinental Asians when filling out race statistic questionnaires in the UK. Typically, these questionnaires break down in terms of "broad ethnic groups" and then specific groups under those. One of the broad groups is "Asian", but a closer inspection shows that the sub-groups are all various varieties of subcontinental/south Asian people, plus a miscellaneous sub-category called "other Asian". Another broad group is "Chinese and others", which includes varieties of "Chinese" (Chinese, English Chinese, Welsh Chinese, Scottish Chinese, etc.), and also "any other".

For a Korean person, for example, it must be very confusing whether they are an "other Asian" or "any other" - they are clearly "other" "Asian" in the more formal sense, but the way ethnicities are categorised in these questionnaires suggest that the questionnaire does not see "Chinese" as a sub-category of "Asian", and perhaps sees "Asian" to mean "south Asian" exclusively. So for someone from an ethnic group which is "more similar" to Chinese than Indian, say, are they "other Asian" or "any other"? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 11:18, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

That was a quirk of the 2001 Census. In 2011 it was more sensible. Main category: Asian/Asian British. Subcategories: Indian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi, Chinese, Any other Asian background (write in). The results will be out soon, and hopefully someone will do a study of the write-ins. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:52, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I live in the UK and have never heard anyone refer to anyone else as "Indonesian", "Austronesian" or "Australasia"n. I've heard various tags, of varying specificity, accuracy and political correctness, including "Far Eastern", "Oriental" and occasionally "Asian". OR and generalising alert: I tend to agree that it's to do with lack of familiarity, but also a little to do with traditional British very mild xenophobia, characterised by lack of real interest in where people are from. Many "East Europeans" I've met have been surprised to find out that I'm interested to know if they're from Romania, Poland or Kosovo, and more surprised when I mention it in a second conversation. --Dweller (talk) 11:30, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

To the OP: "Oriental" is not a politically correct term in the UK. On the contrary it's politically incorrect and dying out, quite rightly in my view. --Viennese Waltz 13:38, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm curious what you can possibly mean by "quite rightly". I mean, don't get me wrong, I do take note of what words give offense, and take that into account assuming there's a satisfactory alternative. But there doesn't seem to be any logic to it; it just has to be memorized, and I do find that necessity a little annoying, even if not annoying enough to risk making a scene over. Or do you think there is some logic to it in this case? --Trovatore (talk) 06:57, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Those who use it will defend it on the basis that the term just means "Eastern". To be consistent, they ought to call Americans "Occidentals". But really they should stop using it, because it's deemed offensive as a racial term in the UK. On the other hand, this guy is a British caucasian who might be proud to be called "Oriental". --Dweller (talk) 14:40, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Where I live in Canada, people from India, Pakistan, etc. are called "East Indian" (most absolutely never simply "Indian"), while people from East and Southeast Asia are called "Asian" when they're not differentiated. --NellieBly (talk) 16:11, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

(ec) My experience in the UK is that use of "Oriental", like "Antipodean", is acceptable among certain social/cultural groups and not among others. In any case, those who object to the use of "Oriental" clearly have not managed to popularise a replacement term that could easily distinguish an "Asian" in the US/Canada/Antipodean colloquial sense from an "Asian" in the British colloquial sense. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 16:15, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I think "Polynesian" is widely used in the U.S., probably even for peoples who aren't actually Polynesian; as long as they come from an island of some sort east of Taiwan. ("Micronesian" and "Melanesian" are technical terms, not part of the popular vocabulary, I think) The formal Census term is "Pacific Islander" if I recall correctly. How Filipinos are called is anyone's guess, but anybody speaking with a Spanish accent is going to be thought of as Hispanic, no matter what they look like. But agreed - there's little real distinction in American culture between Japanese, Korean, Chinese, Vietnamese, or Burmese, despite the visible differences. All this is just my fallible personal impression. Wnt (talk) 16:21, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

The non-PC way of referring to Asians, Easters, South Asian, whatever: List_of_ethnic_slurs by ethnicity. OsmanRF34 (talk) 19:01, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm American, and would refer to each of those people by their nationality, if known. If unknown, or if referring to people of multiple Southeast Asia nations collectively, I'd call them Asians or Orientals (which isn't considered offensive here). StuRat (talk) 20:03, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

There are countless restaurants in America whose names contain "Orient" or "Oriental" somewhere in them, and they are nearly always Chinese places. So apparently it's not very offensive, maybe at worst just kind of quaint and out of date. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:08, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Really, Bugs? Everything I read has Asian people highly offended at being called "Oriental". 69.62.243.48 (talk) 01:34, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I've heard that too, although I wonder if it's really Asians who are offended, or PC whites who think they should feel offended. Just google [orient restaurant] and [oriental restaurant], and for names like [orient express restaurant] and see how many hits you get. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:11, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Many Asians in the US do indeed take offense at being called "oriental". This would include just about all US asians that I know. That word is regarded as fine when describing cultures (e.g. art, cuisine, etc) but not individual people. So it's totally fine to call a restaurant oriental, but don't call its owners oriental. Staecker (talk) 11:48, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps it's not the term itself, but rather the concept of all people from that region being lumped in together they find offensive, much like a Canadian wouldn't much care to be called an "American", even though they are, of course, from North America. StuRat (talk) 05:58, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

That particular analogy doesn't work — Candians don't usually call themselves "American", but they do call themselves "North American", with no evident regret. (North America means something different in Canada than it does in the US; in the US it includes Mexico; in Canada, generally not.) --Trovatore (talk) 09:24, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Do they think Mexico is part of South America ? StuRat (talk) 18:07, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

In the London, the only substantial immigrant communities from that region are either Hong Kong Chinese, Malay Chinese or Vietnamese. I have heard the term "South East Asian" but "Chinese" or "Vietnamese" would be more usual. "Asian" has become a by-word for somone from the Indian sub-continent - Indian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi ar Sri Lankan. Alansplodge (talk) 20:52, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Assuming you know they are a vague collection of SE Asians (as an American) you will call them SE Asians. If they have straight dark hair and epicanthic folds but you are not otherwise sure of their origin you will most likely describe them as Orientals. μηδείς (talk) 02:33, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Southeast Asia is actually divided into two distinct regions. Indochina (or mainland Southeast Asia) and maritime Southeast Asia.

Indochinese SE Asians (the Vietnamese, Thai, Lao, Cambodians, and Burmese) are closer to East Asians in language, culture, and ethnicity; hence why their languages are also tonal, i.e. "sing-song". They're also more likely to be lighter-skinned, with straight hair, and eyes with epicanthic folds.

Maritime Southeast Asians (the Indonesians, Malaysians, Filipinos, Timorese, and Bruneians), in contrast, belong to a completely different ethnic and linguistic group that were traditionally sailors - the Austronesians. They are more closely related to the other "islander" ethnicities in both culture and language: the Malagasy of Madagascar, the Micronesians, and the Polynesians. The vast majority of Austronesian languages are also not tonal at all. And we're pretty different from the Indochinese people, being usually darker-skinned, with almond-shaped eyes, and straight to wavy to outright curly hair.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 06:45, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Americans tend to call people not on the mainland Pacific Islanders. Presumably this would include Indonesians and Malaysians, although being former Ducth/british colonies which don't emigrate much to the US they are not in most American's conscience. I have only ever met one Indonesian myself, but grew up knowing many Philippinos, who were called...Philippinos. μηδείς (talk) 03:31, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Are you saying they preferred the Ph- spelling over the F- spelling? -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 06:37, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I am not quite sure in any case how I would indicate the difference in their pronunciation between ph- and f- when they told me they were Philippinos, but the f- spelling was not current with English speakers when I was growing up, and it would have been anachronistic for me to indicate otherwise. μηδείς (talk) 18:56, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

role model racialist thinking

I heard this racialist line of thinking that some underprivileged dilinquent youth would choose an athlete role-model just because they were of the same or they were also raised by a single parent who was on welfare at one point. Well, needless to say, our President now fits all of the above descriptions (except for being law professor then Senator then President instead of a professional athlete) - so, the same (to me racialist) line of thinking would imply that a lot of underprivileged delinquent youth would choose to study hard, go to law school, and try to "become President". (Obviously, just as most of the role-model inspired "youth" actually don't go on to practice professional athletics, but still "do better" by having these role models - again, according to the racialist line of thinking -, so, too, most of them wouldn't actually become President, obviously).

Does any such role-model effect exist and has been proven, in urging the mentioned demographics toward scholastics excellence, law school, aiming for a Senate seat, etc, as a result of Obama's acting as their role model?

Also if I am not mistaken there must be around as many top senators and representatives as top athletes at the top of, e.g., the MBA, so to me the comparison seems quite apt... If it does not exist, it debunks the racialist line of thinking entirely. 84.3.160.86 (talk) 15:08, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I certainly hope that this precedent would make minority kids more willing to believe in their dreams; but in the context of an economy where it is still actually much harder, how could you measure this? If you can think of an experiment, it would be a good way to find if it's been done. Wnt (talk) 16:11, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Obama does not fit the above description. Was he a delinquent young? Was he that underprivileged? Was he the son of a single parent on welfare? He did some experimenting with drugs, like many teenagers, but his life experience, when growing up, were mostly constructive and motivating. Minorities from really depressed areas won't identify much with him. OsmanRF34 (talk) 18:54, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

A role model need not have the same life story or even class background. I think you're wrong about minority children not finding ways to identify with him — in my experience, many of them do, simply because skin color has such a strong effect (above and beyond class) in the United States. (I live in an area of the country where I am in quite a lot of contact with low-income African-Americans, and they seem to support and identify with the President pretty strongly, despite the many differences between himself and them.) --Mr.98 (talk) 12:30, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

OK, Minority children can take him as a role model, but not in the way the OP meant it, only through the race link, which you mention as specially strong in the US. The other points of his biography are not accurate. I don't think that Obama's mother was on welfare/food stamps when raising him. The article does not specify that and I don't find any reliable source, although some are available, which are as trustworthy as the Obama-is-not-US-born theorists. He was for some time abroad and for some time with his not-single grandparents. That's for me a clear indication that he couldn't have received much welfare, if at all he got some. OsmanRF34 (talk) 20:26, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, to specify, the only thing Obama would have in common with them is the same thing previously an Athlete could have in common with them: 1) being of the same race. (this is what I find racialist in this line of thinking). 2) I also mentinoed: "also raised by a single parent who was on welfare at one point." This is also true of Barack Obama. So on these two points he is the same as an Athlete with the same background of the same race, who, according to the racialist theory, would "inspire" someone just by being of the same race and having these couple of parts of their story be the same. 84.3.160.86 (talk) 15:57, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

See my answer above. OsmanRF34 (talk) 20:26, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

There's a phrase which springs to mind here: "Have you seen yourself recently?" A few years ago in the UK, it became common (along with the phrase "Have you heard yourself recently?") to highlight the deficit in broadcasting of non-white, non-middle class, non-male presenters. The theory goes that the media should be representative of the population at large. There's also a sexist observation that women above a certain age are not represented on television and certainly not as newsreaders. This seems to be changing. It seems that ethnic minorities being visible as being successful in whatever field become role models for ethnic minorities, regardless of their background. Somehow they become representative of the capabilities of their ethnic background and encourage others to follow them. OK you may find it "racialist", but they would say they're redressing an existing imbalance. --TammyMoet (talk) 08:16, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Mizrahi Jews jewish religious denominations

Do all Mizrahi Jews practice orthodox Modern, Orthodox Hasidic and Orthodox Haredi Judaism or some practice other sects like Reconstructed, Conservatism and Reform Judaism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.154.209 (talk) 16:22, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

First off, it should be understood that the conservative and reform movements (and, by extension, the reconstructionist) are distinctly Ashkenazic phenomena. Outside the west, until the 20th century, the majority of Jews were culturally and halakhically in alignment with what would be considered "Orthodox" practice, even though "Orthodox" was merely a regional neologism created as a reaction to the liberalizing efforts of the reformers. Any Mizrahi Jews that are formally part of a non-Orthodox religious movement are most likely to be aligned with either the Masorti or Progressive Judaism in Israel (equivalent to the conservative and reform movements in the west, respectively). Hard numbers are hard to find, but I'd say (without a source to back it up) that the balance of observant/non-observant is probably close to exactly what it is for every other Jewish population. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:13, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Karma/god and revenge

If someone does something bad to me, should I take revenge or forgive him and expect that he gets what he deserves from the Karma/God? But, if I'm also part of the universe, maybe it's me who has to fulfill this Karma/God strike back, I suppose. How do religions deal with that? OsmanRF34 (talk) 18:43, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, it's worth noting that concepts like Karma and God are understood by religions very differently to how they're used colloquially. I'm no expert on Karmic religions, but I'm sure someone who is may be able to expand on this. I'd have thought that seeking revenge is a form of attachment, and thus bad for one's own karma; whereas the karma of one's enemy is only the problem of one's enemy.

Conversely, in a theistic religion, do not expect that God (even if you believe in a strongly interventionist god - many do not) is your personal avenger. But generalising massively, most theistic religions have something like the Golden Rule. As Hillel the Elder said: "Whatever is hateful to you, do not do to others; this is the whole Torah - all the rest is commentary." Or as Jesus said: "If someone slaps you on one cheek, offer them the other." Taking revenge is usually considered a sign of not forgiving others. Expecting God to be your avenger also looks quite unforgiving.

Thus I would say - the opinion of most major religions is likely to be "Forgive rather than seeking revenge; and do so without hope that ill will befall your enemy. If you are reconciled to your enemy, your enemy will no longer seek your harm, and you will no longer wish your enemy harm."

Of course, religions are only composed of humans, and any given religion is likely to include people whose opinion will be "Hit him hard; he sinned against you", or else "Let him be; but when his dog dies, it's a judgement against him". AlexTiefling (talk) 19:06, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Soylent Green is composed of human beings. Religions aren't. By perhaps, but not of.μηδείς (talk) 01:18, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Medeis, you know damn well what I meant. Your smug one-liner just makes you look ignorant, Religions, as groups, made up of (and very likely by) the people who belong to them. It is not meaningful to talk about, say, Christianity as separate from the beliefs and practices of actual Christians. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:44, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

No, frankly I assumed you were unintentionally misusing the pronoun, not making a Mitt Romney "Corporations are people" statement. Although you insist you meant what you said, your new formulation identifying a religion with the "beliefs and actions" of its practitioners, rather than the practitioners themselves (like crammed-in overweight bodies collectively exceeding the maximum weight for which an elevator is certified) is a much better and very different claim. Sorry for hitting a raw nerve. μηδείς (talk) 12:04, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

That wasn't what I said, either. 'Corporations are people' is about Corporate personhood, which is how there are electors in the City of London who are not natural persons in the legal sense, for example. There's a difference between treating an entity as a person in its own right, and recognising that a membership organisation is composed of its members. And it's not that you hit a raw nerve; I see you again and again on these board, making sly superior one-liners, about ebonics, chavs, youth, and so on. Your whole attitude reeks of personal and intellectual privilege. You're not helping the questioners by being so high and mighty. Try actually helping people instead of waving your massive, er, education around. AlexTiefling (talk) 12:31, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Wow. "Chavs, Ebonics, Privilege and Youth"? Are you seriously taking my reference to My Cousin Vinny to be an attack on young people? Seriously!?!? I hope you aren't taking names, comrade. I didn't say that you said corporations were people, did I? (The link you provide is beside the point, BTW. Romney was referring to the fact that corporations have no existence beyond their owners/shareholders, not to legal personhood.) I actually did assume you were using the wrong preposition rather than making a very metaphysically confused point. Religions are still not composed of people in either sense. My first post and my previous were both sincere. But it's obvious at this point you are just looking to take offense. So, in so far as my prior explanation was an apology I retract it. μηδείς (talk) 21:28, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

It depends, to the extent that a religious is a social moiety then the religion is directly composed of human beings. We regularly both subsume individuality beneath collectivities, and reify the outward forms of collectivities. But, at the same time, network effects and solidarity mean that people who when viewed from one aspect are individuals subsumed beneath a collective, viewed from another aspect of their being are collective members whose personality only exists in the networked context. AFAIK social scientists haven't come to a good conclusion on this (may never do so in "human" time). Fifelfoo (talk) 02:40, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

(ec) In Christianity, people are commanded to forgive others for transgression against themselves. All evil deeds will eventually be paid for, either by the person who commmitted them or by Jesus, who paid on the cross for the sins of all that believe in Him. In Islam, to forgive someone else is counted as a good deed, but not considered obligatory. Ultimately, God will forgive some people and punish others, as He sees fit. According to some hadith, Allah will punish unbelievers for the sins that Muslims committed. Dharmic religion vary widely, but according to the standard view of Karma, retribution is a necessary effect of good/bad deeds, so it does not matter for someone if you punish them or not, because they cannot escape Karma. You on the other hand, might fare better if you refrain from vengeance. I know little about eastern religions, so anyone please correct me here if I'm wrong. - Lindert (talk) 19:08, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

It's important to remember that in doctrines such as Christian universalism and (in some sense) annihilationism, such punishment is rejected. Consider, after all, suppose a loving mother were given the chance to judge her own son in a courtroom. Would she find an excuse for leniency? Would she flatly reject a horrendous punishment? How much more so if she were not merely judge, but the supreme queen of the nation, whose word was unarguable? Now, if God is the ultimate love, the archetype of which a mother's love is only a dim reflection, wouldn't this be even more so the case? Wnt (talk) 19:18, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

The problem with that view is that it ignores God's justice. Sure, a mother who judges her son in a courtroom might find an excuse to let him go, but if she does that, she would be an unjust judge, and will be fired from her job. That is exactly why a divine self-sacrifice was provided, to satisfy both God's perfect justice and His love. Universalism has throughout the ages been considered a heresy by Christians, because it contradicts so much of the Bible. - Lindert (talk) 19:37, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

If a judge can accomplish by counseling or community service what another would need to hire a jailer to fail at accomplishing, is she not the better judge? And when favoritism is shown toward everyone, it is no longer unfair. How do you view Luke 14:25-33? If following Jesus is the only way to evade eternal torments, how can anyone be told not to make the effort? And what for those already perished? Besides, there's just something very peculiar about a view of Christianity which proposes that Pilate and the men pounding the nails were the direct agents of humanity's salvation. Wnt (talk) 22:03, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Are you seriously suggesting reading Luke 14 as saying 'not to make the effort'? It is an exhortation that one must be willing to sacrifice anything for the gospel. Counseling can never accomplish the purpose of God's judgement. God's justice demands payment, retribution. Read Romans 12:19 "Do not take revenge, my dear friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,” says the Lord.". And yes, Pilate and Herod were instruments in God's plan (Acts 4:27-28): "Indeed Herod and Pontius Pilate met together with the Gentiles and the peoplee of Israel in this city to conspire against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed. They did what your power and will had decided beforehand should happen." - Lindert (talk) 22:54, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Predestination is a thorny issue; but one might parsimoniously interpret that only to mean that Jesus had to die like all men. And is God more vindictive than men? I mean, I know that if I get the choice between facing the risk of the traditionalist (pagan?) Hell, and saying that Hitler should get the chance to skate by means of Purgatory or reincarnation or something in exchange for me getting the same deal, I'm going for the soft option. Why wouldn't God prefer that also? I mean, who among us is wired to think that perpetual torment of hell is actually a just penalty, for anything? Maybe we're wired that way for a reason, namely, because that's not how things are. Wnt (talk) 13:05, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Regarding "maybe it's me who has to fulfill this Karma/God strike back", this verges on the argument from free will and even if all your actions are God's will and/or are predetermined, this does not necessarily absolve an individual of responsibility for his decisions and doctrines can still dictate what they consider to be the correct response. Ankh.Morpork 19:32, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

See Romans 12:17, 19.

—Wavelength (talk) 19:41, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

You are making a mistake by associating Karma with God, two completely different belief systems. I cannot vouch for Karma, but Scripture states that: "Vengeance is Mine, and recompense; Their foot shall slip in due time; For the day of their calamity is at hand, And the things to come hasten upon them." Plasmic Physics (talk) 22:21, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

regarding Karma, at least in my backwater of buddhism, let them deal with the consequences of their actions, and you deal with the consequences of your own. While the diversity of consciousness can go into may places, if you own consciousness is second guessing an action, it probably isn't to do rightly and be done rightly by you. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:46, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

The whole question is meaningless. It's like asking "Should I use apples or a car to swim in the air." Karma has nothing to do with any kind of God. It's just cause and effect. Similarly, it has nothing to do with good or bad, as those are completely subjective concepts - i.e. what you think is good for you may be bad for someone else. Karma is not a thing to be relied upon to get vengeance on another person. It doesn't work that way. If someone leads a life which is detremental to society, then sooner or later, society will punish that person, if this is the answer you want. Do it yourself or don't do it. Make the choice. But prepare to deal with any consequences that come from that action (i.e., your own karma). KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 08:52, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

You have failed to understand the question. Obviously it has meaning, otherwise people wouldn't been answering above you. And obviously II: it does NOT relate Karma with God. Read it again, pls. OsmanRF34 (talk) 19:51, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm, well let's try this from the other end. All humans are manifestations of the force of Atman. When one strikes another, he is the person striking and the person struck, and the pain he suffers as the person being struck is his penalty for the striking. This is the immediate effect; but in a future revision of the Universe, the good ones remain, enjoying the virtues they have gained as (to them) a law of nature, and the striking will be as if it never happened. Wnt (talk) 00:49, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Frederick Fleet death

It is my understanding that after his wife died his brother in law evicted him and he was homeless when he committed suicide. Your article does not mention this. Why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.98.84.181 (talk) 19:36, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

This is more appropriate for the talk page of the article ( here). Either there is no source confirming this or nobody wrote it yet into the article. OsmanRF34 (talk) 19:47, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

(ec) Maybe no other Wikipedia editor has read as much as you have about the subject. I've never heard of this gentleman, so I presume he's a touch obscure. All our articles depend on some individual(s) who've taken enough of an interest in the subject to provide some decent material, with references from reliable sources.

If you can fill in any of the gaps on this or any other of our 4 million articles, please feel very welcome to do so. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 19:48, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Let me add a link to the article in question: Frederick Fleet. StuRat (talk) 05:50, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

At the British enquiry into the Titanic disaster he got a bit testy towards the end of his testimony: "Is there any more likes to have a go at me?". I feel it's a slight blemish on my family escutcheon that my great-great-uncle Sir Robert Finlay was counsel for the White Star Line at the enquiry. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 10:40, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Not at all. If Hitler had been captured and tried, even he would have been entitled to legal representation. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 13:31, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

"Herr Hitler, allow me to introduce you to your public defender - Mr. Howard Cohen." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:17, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Psychology question

When someone is, for example, watching a horror film on TV, and that finishes and a sitcom comes on, sometimes their brain (momentarily) still engages with the new information as if it's a horror. Does this psychological phenomenon have a name? -- role^player 20:20, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps it's part of a temporary conditioned response ? For example, if you see a zombie walk in whenever a door opens, you become temporarily conditioned to expect that, so, if you see a door open in the sitcom or in real life, shortly after, you expect a zombie to walk through, and respond accordingly. The classic case is when somebody sneaks up behind you and says "boo", right after you've heard a scary story, resulting in the need for a change of pants. :-) StuRat (talk) 20:40, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Priming is the closest thing I am aware of. IBE (talk) 21:13, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

It's broadly known as a "frame" -- see for example frame analysis and frame (artificial intelligence). Looie496 (talk) 21:31, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Though there's no singular principle or piece of terminology I can think of which exactly correlates to your example, the concept of the human mind's propensity to expect continuity has been a major field of study for cognitive psychology for many years. The following are partial matches at best to the type of bleed-through involved in your example, but consider the material in Misattribution of arousal and Misattribution theory of humor, both of which (the former in particular) underscore the fact that our emotional states are not as distinct as we normally think, that we apply labels and borders between them mostly after the fact and somewhat arbitrarily, and that the effects of recent stimuli can have a deep impact on how we process and perceive experiences following it. A peripheral issue is the fact that the conscious mind is more resistant to accepting change than we'd like to think. A great example, though even more far afield from your original inquiry, is Change blindness, which is well represented by these fun little experiments: [1], [2], [3]. Snow (talk) 17:00, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

The first two cases are surprising, but not the third. I'm not at all surprised that we would ignore trivial details when intentionally focused on watching a magic trick. StuRat (talk) 18:01, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but I found it interesting how they exploit that fact in that clip, making you believe the point is being illustrated in the magic trick when in fact the audience is the one being misdirected. It's a very subtle reinforcement of the entire principle being explored and I think it's very clever editing. It's actually not uncommon for psychologists and magicians to work together in exploring these concepts -- both in informal presentations (like the show the third clip seems to come from) or in genuine research and experimentation -- since magicians tend to be, almost by definition, very knowledgeable about exploiting gaps in attention. The examples about both formal and informal experiments and simple cognitive illusions in this vein go one for days, each more bemusing than the last. Snow (talk) 18:33, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I've learned from watching magicians to look at their other hand when they do a flourish or some distraction with the "show hand". However, it's not reasonable to expect people to look at their (not part of the act) handkerchief or collar when watching a magic trick. StuRat (talk) 21:40, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Yup, but that's the entire point; we're not as holistically aware of our surroundings as we convince ourselves we are. And I don't just mean that in regards to our ability to focus; our eyes only see a fraction of what we believe they see and the brain (particularly the cortex) fills in the blanks with a lot of post-processing, (and often makes assumptions to do so that are good for efficiency in the process in the long run but lead to artifacts like visual illusions and other misperceptions). But as to following a magicians tricks, you might find this interesting also, Stu: it's a look at how slight of hand exploits innate tendencies in our visual cognition. Snow (talk) 21:55, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I think people are aware that they ignore trivial details. Had you asked me, after the trick, what color his pocket handkerchief was, I'd have said "How the heck should I know ? That wasn't part of the trick, so I ignored it". Which reminds me of a joke:

Q:"My wife complains that I never listen to her. Does yours ?"

A:"How the hell would I know ?".  :-) StuRat (talk) 22:09, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Sending the bailiff 'round to collect debts

In the movie The Rocking Horse Winner (and presumably in the short story of the same name on which it was based), after a court judgement is made against them, a bailiff is sent to live in the home of those who owe the debt, until the debt is paid, along with his wages for the number of days he remained in their home. This is set in England. So:

1) When was this practice used in England ? (I'm guessing it replaced debtors' prison.)

2) Were there any other nations which used this method of debt collection ? StuRat (talk) 20:57, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I've never heard of a bailiff taking-up residence in someone's house. The usual procedure is for the bailiff to sieze property to the value of the debt owed - usually the TV, car or furniture. If you don't settle the debt quickly, the goods go to auction. The bailiff has a right of entry into your house and usually calls-in a locksmith if there's nobody at home. The police often attend, as obstructing the bailiff is an offence. Alansplodge (talk) 21:14, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I've also never heard of the bailiff staying at your home. What would be the benefit of that? As Alansplodge says, they just come and take your TV. --Tango (talk) 21:57, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

In the movie, the annoyance and potential humiliation of having the bailiff stay in their home is what got them to pay their debts. StuRat (talk) 05:44, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

There's no mention in the article of the bailiff at all, let alone his temporary taking up residence. But The Rocking Horse Winner (film) does include a role for bailiff, and the film is said to be considered a faithful adaptation of the short story. Odd that this very unorthodox bailiff incident is mentioned neither in either of our articles, nor in the IMDb reviews. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 22:43, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

There's no mention of a bailiff in the story that I can see. I guess it's colour added for the film; the story is very short. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:57, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

And it's a fantasy story, so, let's not jump to the conclusion that it really was like that in real life. 88.14.195.164 (talk) 22:58, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Reversing the situation described by StuRat, a sponging-house was a place to keep debtors, "often the bailiff's own home". Clarityfiend (talk) 00:01, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Although that was used in the mid-19th century and the film in question is set in the mid-20th centuery. Alansplodge (talk) 16:58, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

The story was written in 1926 and the film was made in 1949. However, judging from the taxicab and clothes in the film, I'd say it was set around 1926, too (they didn't "modernize" it). StuRat (talk) 17:39, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

If you went to a video sharing site like YouTube, you might find the whole film and (hypothetically) you could see that the taxi looks remarkably like a 1934 Austin 12/4 "Low Loader" Taxi. A replacement for it wasn't launched until 1948 (we were a bit busy making tanks), so it would be the most likely taxi to find in London in 1949. The 1958 Austin FX4 taxi didn't begin to be replaced until 1997, so these things have a rather long shelf life. Alansplodge (talk) 19:48, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

But we still have the 1920's clothes and hair styles. StuRat (talk) 03:00, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, not much of an expert in that, but the lady's big hat matches the right hand exmple in the middle row. The boy's clothing is typical of 1930s to 1950s. There's a lot of evening wear on show which had a timeless quality. You may be right, but remember that US and British fashions were still markedly different at that stage. Alansplodge (talk) 13:35, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and the bailiff in the film does indeed threaten to stay several days until a debt of £40 is paid. I'm sure it's a plot device as the family appear to have lots of nice property that he could have taken instead. Alansplodge (talk) 19:55, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Is it time to recommend Ken Loach's Raining Stones about the unauthorised bailiff profession? Fifelfoo (talk) 02:48, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Why not? Go for it. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:20, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Debt collecting is a highly politicised industry. In a consumer society with highly developed human needs, a great number of people have incomes radically below the capacity to service the "needs" society deems normal for them. In the case of Ken Loach's Raining Stones this need is a communion dress, in new condition. The worker involved puts this object above any other alternative (such as the ones suggested to him by his workerist mate or his socially aware priest), and then gets caught in a spiral of increasingly precarious work and debt. Eventually, his debt is sold on to heavies, bailiffs operating under the private law of the criminal fraternity; and in particular his wife is menaced. Bailiffs aren't the primary theme here, but they do take upon themselves the right of entry and proceed to demand money with menaces. Just like the ones licensed by a court actually. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:25, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Although the OP was asking about a County Court Bailiff - a bit different from a common debt collector. Alansplodge (talk) 00:39, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

July 6

Is there any difference between Whitehall and Westminster when they are used as metonyms?

When referring to the UK government, is there any difference between the metonyms Whitehall and Westminster? A8875 (talk) 05:01, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Wouldn't Whitehall tend to suggest government ministries and permanent bureaucracy, while Westminster would suggest more the parliamentary side of things? -- AnonMoos (talk) 05:11, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Here is an article which makes the distinction: "...there is currently a standoff between Whitehall and Westminster over accountability..." - Westminster is used to refer to the government, Whitehall is the Civil Service. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 05:47, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much, the both of you. In the recent Libor scandal "senior Whitehall figures" were implicated, and yet I see a lot of news outlets blaming the British Government. Hence my confusion.A8875 (talk) 07:20, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

A difficult thing to be precise about, as (assuming that Paul Tucker did indeed say what he was reported as saying) Diamond was trying to guess at what he might have meant. In his evidence to the Treasury Select Committee, Diamond said first (Q37) that he thought Whitehall meant "officials in the Government", and then (Q82) that he thought it meant "Ministers in Whitehall". Then in the next question he denied that he had written that Ministers were asking him to fiddle his LIBOR submissions. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:58, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I do think there is a real dilemma here, in that while it has been government policy to regard policy as the responsibility of Ministers, and administration as the responsibility of officials, questions of administrative policy can cause confusion between the administration of policy and the policy of administration, especially when responsibility for the administration of the policy of administration conflicts or overlaps with responsibility for the policy of the administration of policy.  :) -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 20:34, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

request for submission of a seperate article on `Krishna`

I have read the beautiful article on Krishna in which I feel an attempt has been made to make Krishna as ancient as possible.But I feel that I can write an independent article on krishna giving his full name( His historical name)Place and date of birth and a rational explanation of his Leelas/miracles,the part played by him in the Mahabharata wars and his tragic exile from the scene after accomplishiing what he was directed to do.This material is based on the internationally famous book ` Krishna` written by His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swamy Prabhupada,Founder Acharya of the International Society for Krishna Consciousness and also from Srimad Bhagawat and the Mahabharata on which the original article is based. according to me Krishna was 12 years old when Alexander the Great invaded India. He was called as `KalaYavana`( The Greek Prince born to a Naga Queen) a number of times in both the Bhagavat and the Mahabharata.In this connection I would like to say that I am 72 Years old and I am not efficient in the use of the laptop. If given proper guidance I feel that I can contribute to the enrichment of a number of Articles in Wikipedia.Bksatyanarayana (talk) 07:35, 6 July 2012 (UTC)Bksatyanarayana.

Books published by the International Society for Krishna Consciousness are unlikely to be given a high degree of WP:WEIGHT in determining the topic, structure and scope of an article on Krishna. This is because wikipedia articles have an obligation to reflect the totality of highest quality literature on a topic. You may wish to consider investigating Krishna in International Society for Krishna Consciousness, but you'd need to have articles and books which are not immediately connected with the ISKC opinion regarding Krishna. In particular, you would need to demonstrate that the ISKC opinion regarding Krishna is notable—ie, has been widely mentioned specifically regarding Krishna in ISKC in sources not connected to me ISKC. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:46, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

You do know that there are great difficulties in chronology in India for almost anything before the Maurya empire (and for many things after the Mauryas)? What would a date of birth for Krishna even mean in a valid historical sense, when there is significant legitimate uncertainty about which century Buddha lived in, etc...? -- AnonMoos (talk)`

Sorry to butt in, but may I plead with Bksatyanarayana to visit and read the page User talk:Bksatyanarayana. There are multiple editors trying to get across the point that fringe theories unsupported by reliable sources can't be added to the encyclopedia, but we're not getting any responses there, and another block from editing is quite likely if we can't get through on this point. Wareh (talk) 00:42, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Was George F. Kennan an agent of Germany?

just an intuition--his writings on ww1 concerning germany were supportive, and the policies he promoted helped Germany after ww2 a lot. Weak evidence indeed, so I'm just asking if that speculation has ever been heard of by anyone who reads this. Thanks--Rich Peterson76.218.104.120 (talk) 08:48, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

No, he was an agent of the United States, whose interests involved supporting Germany after WWII as a counterpoise to Russia. He knew quite a lot about Germany, having been stationed there just prior to WWII in their embassy, and was not at all anti-German, but I've never heard anyone suggest he was working for them covertly. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:02, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Which country does not include tax in the advertised price?

The subject of whether the advertised price includes tax or not came up in the reference desk [6] recently. Which country does not include tax in the advertised price? The ones I'm aware of are USA and Canada. Historically Japan was also in this category until 2004.A8875 (talk) 21:50, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

It's somewhat more complicated than that in the US. First, there is no national sales tax, so each state sets its own rules. Also, in public events such as sports, the sales tax is built into the price. I don't know why, but I always assumed it was to speed the process along. In general, though, we want to know how much we're being taxed. Why Australians or anyone else would rather not know, I find mystifying. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:08, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Not just every state but some counties, cities, downtown/entertainment district, etc. Dining in downtown Chicago, you get a downtown tax, a city tax, a county tax and a state sales tax.[7] Rmhermen (talk) 02:44, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

It's not a question of not wanting to know how much tax we're paying. Our standard GST rate is 10%. It gets complicated and doesn't always work out to be exactly that, but 10% is always a good guide. The GST replaced a couple of dozen other sales taxes etc etc, so for most people, the GST is the only non-income tax they ever pay. They know the ball-park rate, so there's simply no need to have it shoved down our throats every time we go shopping. It's certainly separated out on the sales dockets for those who want to know exactly how much of their total purchase went straight to the Tax Office and how much the vendor kept. So, we get told anyway. But there's never the option of not paying it, and it's not like we have to submit tax returns proving we paid the right amount of GST throughout the year, so in a way it really doesn't matter how much it is, it's gone anyway. The only real choice is between buying and not buying a particular good, and we always have that choice, at the margin. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 06:26, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

In Australia they made it illegal (a hefty fine applies) to show a price that doesn't already include the GST. That way, the price shown on the item is what you actually pay. There were lots of arguments pro and con the GST, but once it became set in stone, nobody could argue with this aspect of the law. None of this having to mentally work out what the advertised price really means to your hip pocket. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 23:11, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

in th UK it is the retailer's choice whether to show prices net or inclusive of VAT. But the only sellers I know of that show net prices are builders merchants. Even then Wickes prices are inclusive, Travis Perkins net, same company, different clientele. Itsmejudith (talk) 00:04, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

All retail prices in the UK include VAT (no retailer's choice, Judith). Only "business to business" (wholesale) prices are shown without VAT (though in some cases they allow purchases by individuals). Dbfirs 07:16, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Is that the law? I thought it was just common practice. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:53, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

It's against the Advertising Standards Authority code to advertise prices excluding VAT unless no customers pay VAT, or they can all reclaim it[8][9] (because you could be seen to be trying to pretend your prices are lower than they are). I don't think it's against the law, however. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:50, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

In South Africa the situation is similar to Australia. By law the price you see is the price you pay. The invoice does specify it separately but the pricetag itself and prices mentioned in advertising must be inclusive of VAT. At 14% calculating it is a strain on most people's mental arithmetic abilities when sitting quietly, nevermind while herding a child or three through supermarket aisles.

In Thailand, VAT is usually included in the advertised price, but I have noticed that it is not included in the menus of restaurants of newer, upscale malls, such as Terminal 21 and Siam Paragon. In addition to the advertised price, one has to add VAT (7%) and service charge (10%), so in the end you pay almost 20% more than what you thought it'd cost. However, this seems to be a new phenomenon limited to these fancy malls. I am not sure how this is in the supermarkets and/or shops, but I'd guess that they wouldn't add VAT to the bill, as Thai consumers aren't used to this practice. The closest I've seen elsewhere is the MBK Center's new international food court, that (OR:) is rather fancy compared to where it's located, includes VAT as part of the price, but adds a 14% (or so) service charge to the final bill. V85 (talk) 13:19, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Nose flick

There's a famous nose touch/flick seen in The Sting (if you've seen it you know exactly what I mean) I recently saw the first season of Deadwood which is set in the 1870s and saw several people using as well, with the same meaning of "The con is on" or thereabouts. I'm unable to find much information on the history of this trope/device--I had no idea it was so old (assuming the creators of Deadwood aren't being anachronistic) any sources indicate just how old it is and whence it arose?68.160.29.196 (talk) 22:57, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

The same is mentioned in List of gestures down to attributing its popularity to The Sting--of which I am dubious. I am American and first saw it on British TV, probably Monty Python and definitely Dr. Who. μηδείς (talk) 23:31, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't see it there. What is it called? Alansplodge (talk) 00:32, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

It's in the "nose" alphabetical position under List of gestures#Gestures made with other body parts. There's a relevant TV Tropes page, but like other online discussions I've seen, it displays some confusion with the "You're right" or "Spot on" gesture used when playing charades, which is a completely different gesture (pointing at the tip of the nose). The statement by Colon in Pratchett's Jingo, quoted there, expresses what has always been my understanding of the gesture. The bit about "laying a finger aside of his nose and giving a nod" in "A Visit from St. Nicholas" also seems to convey that sort of meaning. Deor (talk) 01:07, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh yes, I see it now. Yes, it's well known in the UK and I remember it in the 1960s. It's probably an awful lot older. It also occurs in France where it means that you are clever or that you realize the truth faster than anyone else which is not much different. Alansplodge (talk) 01:33, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

See also Peoplewatching: The Desmond Morris Guide to Body Language. Alansplodge (talk) 01:40, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Is this related (from the 1820s): "He spoke not a word, but went straight to his work, And fill'd all the stockings; then turn'd with a jerk, And laying his finger aside of his nose And giving a nod, up the chimney he rose." Rmhermen (talk) 02:31, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Maybe. Deor already mentioned this quote. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 06:14, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I always assumed it indicated "eye, nose" = "I knows".--Shantavira|^{feed me} 07:31, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Although that wouldn't make sense in French. According to the Desmond Morris link above, it's a pan-European thing. Alansplodge (talk) 07:43, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

July 7

Is $900 USD, a lot to Middle Class Indians?

Is $900 (United States Dollar)., a lot of money to Indians in India? Can an average middle class Indian make $900(USD) in one year? 99.244.236.73 (talk) 02:34, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

According to the CIA factbook [10], the per capita GDP in India (per capita purchasing power) in 2011 was US$3700. StuRat (talk) 02:49, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

In the bigger cities like mumbai that would be the salary of a domestic servant who has worked for 5+ years at the same place. Chauffeurs for private individuals and not companies would make slightly more to start with. theyre hardly considered middle class (though they often live/have families in rural villages where that wouldl go much further)Lihaas (talk) 04:50, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Which figure do you refer to, $900, or $3700 (as your indentation seems to show) ? StuRat (talk) 04:58, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

900. The latter would be considered more middle class (and rising to updatrds of 10,000)Lihaas (talk) 08:50, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

OK, in that case, if you were responding to the OP and not me, it's customary to indent one tab from them, not me (so one leading colon less, in this case). StuRat (talk) 16:45, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps we should have this unwritten rule laid out at the top of each reference desk? I see quite a few editors unclear about this rule.A8875 (talk) 21:56, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

What "unwritten rule"? It's most definitely written, and it's covered in at least 4 places. Back to the future time, all the way back to January 2011, the last time I can remember this topic being seriously debated on the Ref Desk - see Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 81#Indentation levels, where those 4 links are provided, and a most interesting and genial debate as well. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 22:39, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Note that the indentation rules for a thread aren't specific to Wikipedia, they've existed since online bulletin boards. StuRat (talk) 01:33, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Also a middle class Indian -accountant, teacher, programmer - earns $900 each month? Is that before or after taxes? 88.8.64.154 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:50, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Giving a warning before an atrocity

Some friends and I were talking about the dropping of bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and one person mentioned that the people of these cities were warned beforehand about the bomb through leaflets delivered by US planes. This evoked the question of whether any "great evil", by which I mean a state held by history to have been extremely violent, wicked, etc. (eg Nazis), did something similar. Thanks 65.92.7.168 (talk) 04:15, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe there were any such leaflets. Here are articles from the New York Times and Los Angeles Times calling the leaflet story a fiction. There are less reputable web sites claiming the opposite, such as this one, but the names Hiroshima (広島) and Nagasaki (長崎) do not appear in the list of cities on the leaflet shown there (larger image here), so it obviously is not what they think it is. -- BenRG (talk) 05:19, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

The CIA hosted sourced linked below appears to suggest that leaflet was supposed to tell people about the destruction of Hiroshima but I don't really understand how it does that from either the picture or the text that's supposed to be on the reverse site. Either way, I presume this or whatever leaflet was used to inform of the destruction of Hiroshima is the same one mentioned [11] which was dropped on Nagasaki a day after the bombing. (I don't know why, perhaps it had already been planned and no one thought of cancelling it when the bombing was brought forward.) Nil Einne (talk) 05:45, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Examine your first two links very carefully again. They are not actually written by editors from NY times or L.A. times; They are submitted by outside writers as opinion pieces. Opinion pieces aren't held at the same editorial standard as the rest of the publication.

Here are some primary sources for the leaflets [12][13]. Note that the leaflets were dropped on August 6, 1945, the same day as the first atomic attack. Technically speaking, the Japanese were given a 3 day "warning" to the next atomic attack, but the leaflets' purpose is mostly psychological devastation instead of goodwill. A8875 (talk) 15:34, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Note though that Lifton and Mitchell are real, well-respected historians, not just bums off the street. (Their book is pretty good.) Ditto Bird and Sherwin, who won the Pulitzer Prize for their excellent Oppenheimer biography. I don't know why you'd think that staff writers at the NYT or LAT would be better than these four on this issue; these guys actually do have books where they cite their sources. --Mr.98 (talk) 18:59, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I couldn't care less about their credentials. If someone is wrong, they are wrong; having written a millions books doesn't make them right somehow. "The fact is that atomic bomb warning leaflets were dropped on Japanese cities, but only after Hiroshima and Nagasaki had been destroyed."[14] is false because the leaflets were dropped August on 6, 1945, 3 days before Nagasaki was destroyed.A8875 (talk) 19:25, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

You haven't actually demonstrated that this is the case. I see a PBS site which does not indicate exactly when they were dropped ("c." means "circa" or "around"). The Truman Library site does not say when the leaflets were dropped. The historians assert they were not dropped before the second bomb. I'm not sure on what authority you are thinking you have evidence that trumps the historians — if you have it, you haven't posted it. If you read the PBS leaflet, you'll see it references the Soviet declaration of war against the Japanese, which happened late on August 8. So it's impossible that the leaflet was dropped on August 6; it's highly unlikely it was dropped on Nagasaki before the bomb was, given that timing. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:30, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

(EC) Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki says there were leaflets but they targeted 35 cities including Hiroshima and Nagasaki which isn't exactly surprising if any leaflet drops did happen (targeting the specific cities would seem to give way too much info away). This CIA hosted source we use make it clear the leaflets weren't only intended to warn but were also intended as part of a psychological warfare campaign. While the text of the warning isn't clear, I'm pretty sure it wasn't made clear how destructive a bomb would be used. (Obviously once the first bomb was used people would have started to learn what was possible although I believe given the level of information flow at the time, there were still many in Nagasaki likely unaware of quite how bad the bomb used in Hiroshima was.) Nil Einne (talk) 05:38, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

And even if they had a clear understanding of the level of destruction, it would not have been significantly more horrifying than what they were already familiar with; people tend to forget how many more people died in the weeks previous to Japanese surrender from the conventional bombing campaign that led up to Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Even the most populous, modern and massive Japanese cities at the time were constructed primarily of wood and the Japanese had instilled (relatively) little air defense over the course of the war as their defensive strategy had been to control as much territory as possible in the pacific and mainland Asia and aggresively destroy foreward enemy air bases, this keeping bombers out of effective range (basically, an approach of the best defense is a good offense). As the war moved towards a close and the Japanese resisted surrender, U.S. force began to exploit these two facts, developing new incendiary bombing tactics, which they knew the Japanese cities were highly susceptible to: in fact, the Japanese urban centers were refereed to as "matchstick cities". This air campaign effectively gutted many Japanese cities and not only killed hundreds of thousands of civilians but also displaced millions and devastated essential infrastructure; for these reasons the campaign is considered to be as morally questionable as the the dropping of the atomic bombs themselves. These actions were taken not so much to damage the Japanese capability to continue to wage war, since the nation's offensive capabilities had already been decimated by this point, but rather were focused more on damaging Japanese moral and forcing once and for all the surrender which Japanese hardliners were determined to prevent at all costs (up to and including utter decimation). Bringing this back to the OP's point, the firebombing campaign did involve a massive propaganda effort with tens of millions of leaflets dropped in the lead-ups to air raids. Though I have seen no evidence of leaflets specifically referring to Hiroshima and Nagasaki, I would not be surprised if such a campaign took place. It would have been a win-win scenario for the U.S. forces, since it would A) further demoralize the Japanese and further pressure on the Emperor to surrender, B) Would be something they could point to show that they had tried to minimize civilian causalities if the morality of their actions was ever called into question, and C) involved relatively small risk since the Japanese defenses had already proven woefully inadequate and stopping American raids at this juncture in the war. All of that being said, I'm speculating here and I've never seen specific reference to leaflets dropped in advance of those particular attacks. Now, as to the OP's original question, I suppose it's a matter of perspective and defining just what constitutes an "evil" nation. Certainly in pre-modern times there have been instances of nations which were extremely expansionist or otherwise aggressive who nonetheless gave their enemies a diplomatic solution or other "out" or showed unanticipated mercy in the light of a great victory, but these are mostly the exceptions, not the rule; war can bring out the best in some but the overall trend runs rather strongly in the other direction Snow (talk) 07:22, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

There seems to be a logic error where you said "These actions were taken not so much to damage the Japanese capability to continue to wage war, since the nation's offensive capabilities had already been decimated by this point...". The ability to continue to wage war included their defensive capability, where they had recently shown the capacity to inflict massive Allied casualties on forces attempting to invade their home islands. If you're thinking that the Allies could have just agreed to a truce, instead, leaving the militaristic Japanese government in place, they might have then soon acquired nuclear weapons, and attacked again to regain their lost territory. So, destroying Japanese defensive capabilities was also critical to any successful end to the war, by which I mean one that would make future Japanese invasions impossible. And, unfortunately, since they were training civilians to attack soldiers, destroying their defensive military capability did mean total war. Also note that the Japanese did not hesitate to engage in total war themselves, and even to massacre civilians which posed no threat to them at all. StuRat (talk) 17:00, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Why are you whispering at length? It really wasn't until the 20th century that nations started to feel that the only way to end a war was by totally taking over or eliminating the enemy state government. One could have imagined a US-Japanese treaty that did pretty much everything except for get rid of the Emperor. In fact, that's what Japan was pushing for. In fact, that's what the US ultimately agreed to, in the end. So it's not far-fetched. I also think you're sliding into the total war mindset too quickly — it was a deliberate decision to bomb civilians directly, one that was controversial even at the time. It is not a logical outcome of anything; it was a choice that was made. --Mr.98 (talk) 18:57, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Was whispering because it's an aside, not an answer to the OP's question. Note that the decision to drop the bomb wasn't at all controversial among the US public, and there was very little opposition to it abroad, either. StuRat (talk) 20:06, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

You're plain wrong, I'm afraid. From day one the dropping of the bomb was controversial both in the USA and amongst the broader international public. A good overview of the shifting attitudes on the bomb (which was always controversial, even if the majority supported it), see Lifton and Mitchell, Hiroshima in America. It's more complicated than you seem to be aware of. --Mr.98 (talk) 20:33, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Now this I do disagree with; the bombings were in fact vehemently condemned by many even in the U.S. (though, if memory serves, 75-80% of the population that was polled believed the action was ultimately justified - though more modern polls have shown that this acceptance has slid down to near 50-50). Outside the U.S., most of the world felt more than a little uneasy about this world-changing event and there was wide-spread condemnation of the act in many countries, even America's closest allies, especially as the effects of nuclear fallout upon the survivors of the initial blasts became known. Regardless, the popularity for a military action does not equate to justification or the veracity of facts presented or arguments made for why a particular action was the correct, practical or morale course to take -- though, again, it was never my purpose to engage in commenting upon the justification or morality of these decisions. Snow (talk) 20:33, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I certainly wouldn't describe an action with 75-80% support as "controversial". If you do, most laws must also be "controversial", since they frequently have less support than that. Can either of you provide links to mass protests, at the time, or to official diplomatic rebukes ? StuRat (talk) 01:11, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki gives a good overview. I'm happy to provide further sources (though there are scores in that article's reflist) and discuss the matter at length, but if you wish to can I suggest we perhaps move this to userspace? I think we've exceeded our mandate here by a mile. :) Snow (talk) 12:45, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't know about those poll numbers. But a careful look at this history easily reveals that there was considerable angst about the decision, and considerable trepidation that the atomic age had been opened in such a bloody way. If you have any interest, the first chapter of Paul Boyer's By the Bomb's Early Light is posted online and reveals quite a lot about this matter. It's not a matter of simple "approving" or "disapproving" — there were a lot of contrary emotions, and the bomb held public concern like no other topic at the time (Time magazine found that not since public opinion polling had begun had a single topic held such "prolonged and intense public concern"). It wasn't greeted with a simple cheer or acceptance; it was a complicated and controversial issue, even in 1945. There were also considerable controversy regarding the role of radiation (the gov't tried to play it down), there was also Hersey's Hiroshima, and so on. It isn't a simple thing. Boyer's chapter is a good one; please feel free to read it (it's not long) before commenting further on history you're ignorant of. I'm not trying to be a pain here, but you're wrong on this, and the actual facts are much more interesting than the assumptions you're making about them. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:25, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Before calling anyone else ignorant, you'd do well to improve your own reading comprehension skills. I've just spent the last two hours reading through chapter 1 (or at least the 21 pages included at your link), and it doesn't support your claim, at all, that "From day one the dropping of the bomb was controversial both in the USA and amongst the broader international public". What it does say is that the bombs brought about a general anxiety of a future world in which the US could be targeted by nuclear weapons. Are you unable to see how the US public could both support dropping the bombs on Japan and yet fear having them dropped on themselves ? If so, it is you who are both ignorant of the facts and lacking basic reading skills. StuRat (talk) 18:55, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Guys, we're turning this thread into a forum, with all the attendant bad will they sometimes engender over initially small disagreements. We're pretty far from the OP's central question and we've supplied more than enough wikilinks and outside sources that the various sides of the various issues being debated here can research them at length and become enriched on the issue, whether they are "right" or "wrong" on any one point. Perhaps we should leave it at that. If anyone is interested in further sources or discussion, my userspace is always open, and may be a better medium than here, since we're making the Refdesk twice as long as normal! Snow (talk) 21:14, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, and pursuant to my point number 1 near the end of this thread, if Mr. 98 refrains from insulting me on the Ref Desk, I will gladly do the same. StuRat (talk) 21:33, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, my wording was not meant to imply that defensive assets do not contribute to war-making capability, only that that the primary purpose of the bombing campaign was to force a surrender. Obviously defensive capability was still a factor or else the Allies would not have waited for a surrender and would simply have invaded - the bombing campaign was an effort to leverage a solution that would not include the great loss of life that such an invasion would necessitate (including especially the casualties of Allied soldiers that would occur). There's no doubt that the Japanese continued to demonstrate a refusal to accept defeat even in the final months of the war - even once the emperor finally capitulated to the inevitable and began to consider surrender, there was an attempt by military hardliners to seize control and prevent this from happening. But, let's face it, the Japanese were beaten at this point -- surrounded on all sides, almost depleted of military manpower (and especially of experienced personnel), low on raw resources, its civilian population beginning to starve, its infrastructure increasingly broken, its naval and air power decimated, the territory in their control reduced mostly to japan's constituent islands (and they didn't even control all of those), their allies defeated, and trade non-existent. Honestly, I don't think the Japanese had much of any realistic chance of a springing back here, not even if the Allies had inexplicably decided to hold position and simply contain them for years. That being said, my original comments were not meant to be a moral argument for or against total war, only a reference to the fact that Allied motive in the firebombing and the dropping of Fat Man and Little Boy was to force as early a surrender as possible. Snow (talk) 20:21, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

They did not have a chance of springing back, but they did have a chance of making invasion seem so unpalatable as to lead to a negotiated peace as opposed to a total capitulation. There's a big difference there. --Mr.98 (talk) 20:33, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree, and tried to represent that sentiment in my above posts; this is clearly the motivation which drove the air raid policy. Snow (talk) 20:39, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

The civilian population was a huge resource from which to draw addition "soldiers", in that they were willing to use "kamikaze" old men, women, and children. Estimates of the amount of time to conquer Japan were many years, and number of Americans that could be killed in the process were in the hundreds of thousands. So, Japan was far from defeated, in this sense. StuRat (talk) 01:23, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Infrastructure was not even sufficient to feed the civilian populace at this point, let alone organize, train, arm, and field them. Even if they could, they'd soon be out of munitions, since the firebombing campaign had already destroyed a significant portion of the factories where they were produced. And this is all assuming the civilian population would fight a clearly hopeless war. In any event, the logistics of an invasion would have been largely academic, because senior U.S. leadership knew Japan was about to sue for peace, as confirmed by investigations after the war. Japan's transmission cyphers had been recently broken and the Allies were intercepting their messages, which reflected their willingness to surrender. They also knew that several Japanese ambassadors had been instructed to discuss peace measures with the Allies. Military intelligence on both sides had seen the writing on the wall. Why the U.S. leadership chose to drop the bombs anyway is a bit of a mystery though. It could be the old allegorical sounding story that Truman decided to use them at last because he felt their terrible reality had to be demonstrated before more than one nation had them is true. A more likely explanation, and one held by a large number of historians, is that the answer is Russia. Russia had previously made an agreement that they would join the war against Japan exactly 90 days after the end of the European war. That meant they were due to begin hostilities on August 8. If that were to happen, America would lose sole control of an occupied Japan and it's easy to see why the U.S. leadership was determined to not allow that to happen. And then too, the use of the bombs themselves was seen as a strong message to the Russians in its own right. In this way, some historians have suggested these actions to be the first warning shots in the building tension that was soon to become the Cold War, taken before World War II had even finished. Which is the true motivation, any of the three listed above, the official position that the action was taken merely to save lives over the long-run, or some other reason entirely is a bit muddled, but I dare say it was a combination of many factors. One thing is for sure though - Japan wasn't staging a come-back and everybody knew it. Snow (talk) 14:54, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Regarding "Infrastructure was not even sufficient to feed the civilian populace at this point, let alone organize, train, arm, and field them", they were being trained to stab soldiers with wooden spears, which they could make themselves (I saw a video of this training). No organization or transportation was required, they could simply wait in their homes for Americans to enter. Yes, this method would be rather ineffective, but even if only 1 in 100 civilians was able to kill an American, and virtually the entire Japanese population participated, this would mean the deaths of 700,00 soldiers (and far more Japanese civilians). One other option, short of invasion or using nuclear weapons, was to continue firebombing and wait for starvation to wipe out the Japanese population. This approach, of course, would have killed millions more Japanese civilians, and could rightly be called genocide. I believe Japanese civilians would fight, in part because they were taught that to surrender was worse than death, and also to expect to be raped and murdered if they did surrender (recall the cliff-diving suicides of Japanese civilians as Americans invaded previously). And they did want a cease-fire at that point, but not unconditional surrender. This would leave them the ability to rebuild their military. When you say "Japan wasn't staging a come-back and everybody knew it", what time frame do you mean ? If you are talking about the next year or two, then I'd agree. However, a decade or so would provide ample opportunity to rebuild, as they did, but without the military component, as a result of the "unconditional surrender" and US occupation. StuRat (talk) 19:29, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

There were proposals to warn or demonstrate the bomb to the Japanese before dropping it on an inhabited city, but it didn't occur — the scientists and the politicians on the Interim Committee dismissed this approach as infeasible (in part because they had very few atomic bombs). Truman did issue a vague "rain of ruin" statement, and there were blanket warnings about the bombings of lots of cities that contained military facilities. Neither of these should be construed as being identical as forewarning of an atomic bomb attack.

As for the general statement, there have been armies in history that issue warnings/threats as to what would be done, atrocity-wise, before they did them. Genghis Khan famously made it quite clear exactly what would happen if cities resisted him, and he followed up on his threats. I don't see that as being especially humane. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:12, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I've always thought that the US should have had the Japan ambassador to the United States present (or, failing that, Japanese POWs) at the Trinity test. He would, of course, report the effectiveness of the bomb back to Japan. It might have ended the war earlier (perhaps between Hiroshima and Nagasaki, since the first strike was needed to demonstrate US ability and willingness to use the bomb in combat). But, even if it didn't end the war early, it would have provided some international PR cover, in that "they were warned specifically what to expect if they did not surrender". StuRat (talk) 17:32, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

That would have had the awkward effect of making it easier for the USSR to know about US nuclear weaponry; thanks to traitors, they did anyway, but that wasn't known in Washington until later. Nyttend (talk) 18:36, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow on that. Just witnessing a test doesn't tell you too much. The USSR was allowed to send observers to Operation Crossroads in 1946. Arguably the USSR should have had a representative at Trinity — they shouldn't have been only told about the bomb after the fact. As it was, they already knew about it anyway, but then also knew that the USA didn't think they could trust them with that information. Even when Truman told Stalin about the bomb, he didn't really tell him about it — he just hinted they had a new weapon. I'm not saying the Cold War would have gone differently if the US had been closer to the USSR on this matter, but it certainly wasn't going to go well under those conditions. --Mr.98 (talk) 18:53, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

What do you mean by the Cold War "going better"? The Cold War was inevitable, because the organizing principle of the Soviet Union was incompatible with the ideals of the liberal world. The Soviet Union had to be defeated. Just not right then. --Trovatore (talk) 20:16, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

There are many ways the Cold War could have turned out; it didn't necessarily have to be one where Truman and Stalin essentially stopped communicating with one another after WWII. Imagine a postwar with FDR and you can imagine a very different direction for the early Cold War — one without as much proxy warfare, as a basic example. The main reason for the USSR's outlook was not that its "organizing principle" was different (it was, but that's beside the point), it was because they (correctly) felt threatened by the USA and had no reason to trust them on any matters. Roosevelt's, and later Truman's, secrecy on the bomb matter wasn't the sole cause of this; but it didn't help it. --Mr.98 (talk) 20:33, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

They did discuss doing this. The reason they were opposed to it is because the entire point of the atomic bomb was to "shock" Japan into surrender. 90% of the secrecy at the end of the war was to keep Japan from knowing what was coming, because they wanted it to be seen as impossible to confront (even though it was more or less just an expedient way to set cities on fire, which they were already pretty good at doing). Arguably they were correct about it having that effect.

But let's also point out that they didn't know how big the Trinity test was going to be. Even enthusiastic supporters thought it would be about 4kt. Edward Teller hoped for 50kt, I.I. Rabi guessed (correctly) 18kt, and lots of people guessed lower, even down to zero. There also wasn't a guarantee that it would work at all, and not be a "dud." They actually discussed what they would do with a Japanese observer if it was a dud — someone joked they could always just shoot him. Anyway, it would have been logistically quite difficult if not impossible, and, again, this went completely against any strategy that they were hoping to get out of the bomb. --Mr.98 (talk) 18:53, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Not sure what harm witnessing a dud would have done. Once the bomb was perfected, and a real one was dropped, why would the Japanese care that we once had a dud ? Or, if it never was made to work, why would they care that we once demonstrated a dud ? StuRat (talk) 20:02, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

They thought that a dud would have basically hardened Japanese opposition, which would have been the least-desired outcome. Remember that for the Allied strategists — and this isn't actually a bad understanding of what really was going on in Japan — all that really mattered was the psychological state of the top Japanese military and government, because they were in charge of everything else. The atomic bomb was a massive psychological attack against these people in particular, with the goal to make them capitulate to forces greater than they were. It was more about that than it was about the military importance of the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. --Mr.98 (talk) 20:26, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, speaking of atrocities, I doubt very much that the Japanese dropped leaflets before they attacked Pearl Harbor. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:55, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't matter; two wrongs don't make a right, and ethics are not determined by the worst offending party. (If that's the case, then you don't have ethics.) Anyway, Pearl Harbor actually was as nearly a perfect military strike as you can get (a grand total of 57 civilian deaths). It was a surprise attack, to be sure, but it's not in the same class as purposefully obliterating entire cities no matter how you dice it up. I'm not dismissing Pearl Harbor, but it is quite irrelevant to the ethics of using the bomb. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:44, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

There are arguments that war conduct should be reciprocal:

1) The fear that you will do to them whatever they do to you will prevent the worst atrocities. This is similar to Mutual Assured Destruction. There does seem to be evidence that it works, such as the lack of nuclear wars since WW2, and Nazi's treating American POW's, in general, humanely, certainly not out of any moral obligation, but because they wanted their own prisoners to be well-treated, in return. If it was made clear to them that German POWs would be treated humanely even if they massacred American POWs, then, I expect that's exactly what would have happened.

2) You can't win "with one hand tied behind your back". With approximately evenly matched opponents, if one side felt the need to feed prisoners, provide them with medical care, guard them, etc., while the other used them as slave labor until they died, this might be enough of an advantage to the "immoral" side to allow them to win. (In the case of the war with Japan during WW2, they were vastly outclassed by the US and Allied military, so this wasn't enough to let them win.) StuRat (talk) 19:50, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Then there is also the "end justifies the means" argument, that by killing civilians you save the lives of far more. The Japanese couldn't make this argument, of course, because they committed massive genocide in areas they controlled, such as the Rape of Nanking. So, if they developed and used nuclear weapons against the US to win an unconditional surrender, presumably that wouldn't have brought peace, but just a repeat of their earlier genocide. StuRat (talk) 19:57, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Dropping the bombs on Japan ended the war. The critics of that action have never come up with a viable alternative action. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:56, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I wonder what would have happened if they dropped a "warning" bomb to ground-burst at the top of Mount Fuji. That peak is about two miles wide, very iconic, with only a fraction under snow cover - if the bomb had been able to visibly blast away some part of the summit and melt the snow on much of the surrounding slope, after creating a blinding impact visible for many miles in all directions, would it have had a meaningful demoralizing impact? Wnt (talk) 23:38, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Or we could have detonated one in the sea, thus devastating Japan indirectly, by awakening Godzilla. :-) StuRat (talk) 23:58, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

That's the alternative that had the best chance of working. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:28, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

To all interested parties, I have created a page in my userspace for continuing discussion on the contentious issues being debated above in this thread. Any wishing to take part either to continue to forward arguments that are too lengthy or otherwise inappropriate here, to edify, to be become more informed, to discuss Wikipedia's content on these matters, or for any other reason whatsoever are encouraged to do so. Ta! Snow (talk) 11:50, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Eisenhower Farewell Speech

Eisenhower warned about four major wars, three of which ninvolved the USA. Which was he talking about? WW I/II, but not sure of the rest. Perhaps the Bolsheviks and Spanish icivil war were one of the othes. I was thinking Spanish-American but that was prior to 1900.Lihaas (talk) 04:47, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I expect that the Korean War was the third war with US involvement. It seems like a smaller war, now, but recency bias would have made it seem more important. As for the 4th war, not involving the US, you have some good suggestions, but, again allowing for the recency bias, perhaps the 1948 Arab–Israeli War or the Suez Crisis between UK/France/Israel and Egypt over the Suez Canal ? StuRat (talk) 05:09, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Looking down List of wars by death toll, I would guess that other possibilities are the Second Sino-Japanese War (if you consider it to be distinct from the Second World War), the First Indochina War, and the Chinese Civil War. This wikianswers answer asserts that the four are the two world wars, the Korean War, and the Chinese Civil War, which I guess would make sense, but it doesn't give a source or explanation. 81.98.43.107 (talk) 12:28, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

The Chinese Civil War had an incredible death toll but it wasn't a war between great powers. The full line is "four major wars among great nations". --Mr.98 (talk) 14:06, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I might hazard the Russo-Japanese war as a possibility. The death toll wasn't large (compared to WWI and WWII, anyway) but then and now it was considered important in establishing Japan as a "great power". It was (and is) considered one of the major 20th century wars. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:02, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Well there is plenty to choose from, Russian Civil War, Polish–Soviet War, Indo-Pakistani War of 1947, Italo-Turkish War and First Balkan War. The first three depend on when Russia, India and Pakistan were considered major powers. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 16:29, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Russia has been considered a major power since the end of the Napoleonic Wars. However, India and Pakistan were probably not at the time as they had just gained independence from Great Britain. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 17:22, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Pakistan would not have been considered a "great nation" by Eisenhower in 1961. It was considered a backwards agricultural area, a third-world nation. I don't think he would have been impressed with either India or even China up until the Korean War period. I don't think he would have considered Poland a "great nation" either (it was barely a nation at that point). I don't think the Russian Civil War counts as a war between great nations, even though multiple countries participated in it — it was primarily a civil war. I don't know what he had in mind, but in my view, the Russo-Japanese war is the one that an educated General would have picked at the time. It was, and is, considered the war which established Japan as the great power in the East at that point. It is still taught as one of the great wars of the 20th century, the one which signaled the rising militarism and prowess of the Japanese. (This guy agrees with me, whatever that is worth.) --Mr.98 (talk) 18:37, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Read in the context that the Cold War was in full flight in 1961, an oblique reference to the Russo-Japanese War would also be a way of Ike reminding the American people, however symbolically, that Russia (= the Soviet Union) was not invincible. To its great shock and surprise Russia was beaten before, and it can happen again. And they're not just dealing with Japan now. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 20:22, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

But that would only work if the American people knew which wars he was talking about. I'm a bit skeptical that they knew much about that one. StuRat (talk) 00:42, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I did say it was an oblique reference. Educated Americans would have been aware that only 2 of Eisenhower's predecessors had ever won the Nobel Peace Prize as sitting presidents, the first of whom was Teddy Roosevelt for his efforts in negotiating the end of the Russo-Japanese War. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 01:27, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

List of Japanese ambassadors to the US needs completion.

Where can I find a comprehensive list ? StuRat (talk) 17:48, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Stu, can't you get Google in America anymore? Sorry, wrong direction. Google tells me this site has a complete list. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 17:56, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I tried a Google search, but didn't find that page. What search terms did you use ? StuRat (talk) 18:34, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I used "japanese ambassadors to the us". KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 18:42, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I used the same search, but with "ambassador" instead of "ambassadors", and found nothing useful. StuRat (talk) 19:05, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm confused, but I think it's just chronology here: the second page Kage Tora gave (compiled by the U.S. State Department from diplomatic lists beginning in November 1893) seems to fit the query. —— Shakescene (talk) 19:58, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Did both US and Japan ignore diplomatic immunity during WW2 ?

If so, why ? Who violated immunity first ? StuRat (talk) 17:59, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

According to the site linked to above, the embassies were closed from the declaration of war, and not re-opened until sometime much later. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 18:03, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, but wouldn't they normally expel the ambassadors when the embassy was closed, rather than imprison them, as apparently was done here ? StuRat (talk) 18:51, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Why would you think they did? I haven't found anything to make me think that this was the case. --Mr.98 (talk) 18:35, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I think rather than expulsion or imprisonment, they would be ordered by their respective governments to return home. After all, they have done nothing contrary to international law and have not taken part in military activities. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 18:56, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

From Saburō Kurusu, who was special envoy to the US at the time: "After the bombing of Pearl Harbor, Kurusu was interned in the United States at Hot Springs, Virginia, until the United States and Japan negotiated an exchange of their diplomatic personnel and citizens. In June 1942, Kurusu sailed to Mozambique on board the ocean liner MS Gripsholm, which then brought back American ambassador to Japan Joseph Grew and other Americans who had been interned in Japan.". Had immunity been respected, I'd expect them to have been expelled to a neutral nation immediately when the embassies were closed. StuRat (talk) 18:58, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

But repatriating an ambassador or other diplomat does not count as ignoring diplomatic immunity. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 19:02, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

But having them forcibly interned does. StuRat (talk) 19:06, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

[edit conflict] Given the vast distance between Japan and the USA and the fact that there weren't any neutral nations in the middle, it wouldn't have been easy. I suppose the Japanese embassy staff could have been sent to Mexico, but every country in East Asia was involved in the war and thus not really suitable for the American embassy personnel; the USSR said that it was neutral between Japan and the USA when some of the Doolittle Raiders landed in its territory, but it could hardly be said to be entirely neutral when both it and the USA were at war with Germany. Nyttend (talk) 19:10, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

In this situation, what else could they have done? Nyttend (talk) 19:12, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Like what you suggested, "sent to Mexico"?A8875 (talk) 19:18, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

And for the US officials, they could been sent to the free portions of China, via the Japanese puppet states there. StuRat (talk) 19:26, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

They were considering how to exchange diplomatic personnel safely from the outset. First news story I could dig up, but the press was reporting a suggestion to use Argentina as an intermediary to facilitate the exchange of diplomats on December 9th link. Consider the eventual means of transporting the diplomats from both sides, which involved leasing the MS Gripsholm (1925) from neutral Sweden, which then sailed under the auspices of the Red Cross to Mozambique and Goa, which were under neutral Portuguese control, while ensuring that the ship was going to be safe from attack from German raiders or anyone else while on the voyage, and you can see that a lot of negotiations would have to take place. It was certainly implicit, if not explicitly stated under international law, that both sides had to guarantee safe passage back to the country of origin, with the emphasis on the safe part. Dropping American diplomats in China (in particular), or Japanese diplomats in Mexico or South America without providing a safe way to return home would have been against the spirit of the law. Taking six months to arrange everything during a World War doesn't seem excessive, to be honest FlowerpotmaN·(t) 21:47, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I suspect something else was going on here, that one or both sides didn't trust the other to honor their obligations, so felt the need to hold the other nation's diplomats hostage, until a face-to-face exchanged in a neutral country could be arranged. StuRat (talk) 00:39, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

If I was the Japanese ambassador to the US during WW2, I'd have been happy to cool my heels on the beach in Mexico until the war ended, rather than be imprisoned for 6 months and then sent to Japan, hoping I don't get killed on the way there. StuRat (talk) 00:39, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Definitely Japan. They were interning and killing diplomatic personnel from opposing nations posted to territories they occupied long before the US entered the war. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:36, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Sui iuris in Catholic law

Just read sui iuris for the first time. The Catholic parish on Saint Helena is a mission sui iuris; does this mean that the local priest has no ecclesiastical superior except for the Pope? Or is there some sort of Vatican office that oversees such tiny little missions? Nyttend (talk) 18:39, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Going by this [15], while the mission itself is immediately subject to the Pope, it seems that the ecclesiastical superior for priests on St Helena (and Ascension and Tristan da Cunha) is the Apostolic Prefect of the Falklands. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 22:27, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

(PS) and this seems to confirm that. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 22:30, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

19th century fashion magazines

What are the names of some high fashion magazines that a wealthy American woman of the 1880s and 1890s might have read to learn about the latest fashions? Are any of them online? I'm looking for text as much as pictures. Would a woman in London or Paris have read different magazines from an American woman? 69.62.243.48 (talk) 18:58, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

For American women, Harper's Bazar [16] and Ladies Home Journal [17] come to mind. For others, see: [18]. And yes, French and British women would read different fashion magazines. StuRat (talk) 19:13, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

One of the longest running and most popular British fashion and society mags was The Queen, the Ladies' Newspaper. In France, Le Petit Courrier des Dames seems to have been a leader.[19] Alansplodge (talk) 00:46, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Backed currency ?

What currencies, if any, are currently backed by gold, silver, or some other commodity ? StuRat (talk) 21:01, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Gold_standard#Advocates_of_a_renewed_gold_standard indicates a Malaysian currency introduced in 2001. Not clear if it still technically exists. SemanticMantis (talk) 21:10, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

The currency was proposed actually for just one state in Malaysia and I don't think it ever got off the ground, though it was pushed for hard by advocates in the middle of the last decade. Snow (talk) 21:32, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe that any nation currently uses the gold or silver standard (though of course many still posses large stockpiles of each). As to some other commodity, nothing jumps to mind but I hesitate to say as this is a bit broader of a category and I could be missing something obvious. If you mean specifically another rare metal or similar pure substance, I don't believe any nation employs such a standard at present. If you're researching this matter for an article, I found this, which does not directly address your question but does include some of the most recent details of the debate on the plausibility of the return to the gold standard. Snow (talk) 21:18, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

The Krugerrand is implicitly backed by gold, as it actually is made of it. Joepnl (talk) 21:45, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

It may be legal tender, but it's not a currency. The American Gold Eagle and the Canadian Gold Maple Leaf are also legal tender and made of gold, but they are not considered a currency.A8875 (talk) 21:59, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Then something must be wrong here. In economics, currency is a generally accepted medium of exchange. (ok, may be not generally enough in this case) Joepnl (talk) 22:14, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

You got it. If I try to buy a hamburger with a Gold Eagle I guarantee you the police will be involved and I will lose the entire afternoon. There are many many horror stories out there about using the $2 bill [20]. I imagine a shiny gold coin will be even worst.A8875 (talk) 23:25, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, but these stories are legends. Indeed, if people tried to pay with silver or gold the recipient would only wonder whether it's real gold and silver and whether the amount is right or not. OsmanRF34 (talk) 12:31, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Do you want a national currency? Then probably none, the ability to fiat money (aka make money) is essential in a sovereign state. The Euro is a proof of what happens when national states cannot devalue/re-value their currencies as needed. Otherwise check alternative currency for currencies of all kinds, including backed by gold and silver. 88.8.64.154 (talk) 22:42, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

So any state that didn't issue fiat currency wasn't really sovereign? —Tamfang (talk) 21:37, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I suppose it's better to say: in a modern independent state. Many countries were pegged to the gold standard until recently and many are pegged to a stronger currency (which also has its problems). If pegged, you might get a more stable currency, which is sometimes a step forward for high inflation countries. OsmanRF34 (talk) 12:17, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

There are quite a few currencies that are backed by another currency, if you count that. For example, the Lithuanian litas is pegged to the Euro, the Venezuelan bolivar to the US Dollar, and the Namibian dollar to the South African rand. 81.98.43.107 (talk) 23:21, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Numerous currencies are backed by the US dollar, perhaps most importantly the Chinese Renminbi. It was pegged to the dollar officially until 2005, and since then it has been pegged de facto -- the Chinese central bank maintains a constant exchange rate and enforces it using their vast dollar reserves. Looie496 (talk) 01:59, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

The CFA franc, used by 14 west African countries, formerly had a fixed RoE of 100 to the French Franc, but is now pegged to the Euro at the rate of 1 euro = 655.957 CFA francs. The UK supports the British Overseas Territories in a similar fashion - for example the Gibraltar pound and the Falkland Islands pound are both pegged to Sterling at par. The Luxembourg franc used to be pegged to the Belgian franc. Alansplodge (talk) 16:47, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

They couldn't round to 656 GFA Francs = 1 € ? Sounds like Spock set the exchange rate. StuRat (talk) 17:59, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

During the introduction of the euro, the outgoing currencies were pegged to the euro at the current exchange rates (it was at midnight on the 1st of January 1999 to be specific - see History of the euro). So the value of the French franc was fixed at 6.55957 francs per euro. I suppose the CFA could have been devalued slightly, but I doubt that would really have achieved anything. 81.98.43.107 (talk) 20:56, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Jean Valjean's ticket of leave

Under the law of the time, how long was Jean Valjean required to carry his ticket of leave upon release from prison? Was it permanent? 69.62.243.48 (talk) 21:22, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Jean Valjean is a fictional character, and Les Miserables was written some 50 years after it was set, so it's not necessarily historically accurate. In reality, organised systems of parole were developed around the middle of the 19th century in the very controlled atmosphere of the Australian penal colonies. I'm willing to be contradicted, but I personally doubt systematically keeping track of released petty criminals would have been possible, or foremost in anyone's mind, in the chaos of France in 1815. FiggyBee (talk) 14:03, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

the flute in the beseiged castle in Kagemusha

in the Kurosawa movie, a flute plays every night from the castle under siege by Lord Shingen; the generals of the attacking army believe if the flute ceases playing, the castle will fall. Is this based on a historical incident, or is it an invention by Kurosawa? thanks Adambrowne666 (talk) 23:55, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

That's two - not that anyone's keeping count. ;) Snow (talk) 00:26, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks again, Snow - I think in future I'll just cut out the middleman and pose my questions directly to you... Adambrowne666 (talk) 05:58, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Heh, NP - happy to be of help. And yes, you're always welcome to inquire on my talk page if you think it's a matter that's within my wheelhouse, even if you've already inquired here. Snow (talk) 06:25, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

This brief biography says; "In 1573, Shingen made a personal visit to the battlefield. In the evening and under cover of darkness, Shingen approached the fortress wall to listen to the enemy flute music. Somehow, the presence of Shingen’s entourage attracted the attention of the castle defenders. A sniper’s bullet mortally wounded Shingen and he died within a few days." However, see Takeda Shingen#Death; "The film Kagemusha, by director Akira Kurosawa, loosely depicts a well-known version of his death in which a single sniper shot him at night. The other aspects of his death depicted in the film were artistic liberties taken by the director." A rather more dignified fate than his rival Uesugi Kenshin who is said by one story to have been stabbed with a spear up his bottom, by a ninja hiding in his latrine pit (but more prosaically succumbed to bowel cancer). Alansplodge (talk) 00:32, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

fantastic detail, thanks, Alan Adambrowne666 (talk) 05:57, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

July 8

North Koreans stranded in Libya after the regime change - How to get them help?

There were a handful of North Korean workers in Libya on some type of labor exchange program. Then when the rebellion rose up to overthrow Gaddafi, the North Korean laborers witnessed dissent.

Fearing that they'd sow the seeds of dissent back home, the North Korean government abandoned their workers there.

Now that they're stranded in Libya, I would be more than happy to get them to seek asylum at the closest US diplomatic mission.

We have a policy to accept North Korean defectors. Now the next step is, how do I contact / find the abandoned North Koreans and get them to seek asylum at one of our embassies? --70.179.170.114 (talk) 02:58, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, to begin with, how did you find out about these labourers? Snow (talk) 03:09, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I believe the OP is referring to this, which I found on Google. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 16:14, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

It might be easier to go the other way: contact the embassy and let them know about the abandonded North Koreans, and let them take it from there. RudolfRed (talk) 03:11, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

If the embassy could go on the local news there and tell people the North Koreans will be welcome in the US, and give out the address of the US embassy, I imagine many would find their way there. If you want to spend some money to make this happen, perhaps some ads in the local papers, in Korean, might help. Of course, verify that this is OK with the US embassy, before telling people to go there. Also, if South Korea will accept them, many might prefer to go there, especially if they have relatives in SK. StuRat (talk) 04:19, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

They will probably prefer to go to a country where North Korean is spoken. μηδείς (talk) 01:21, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

You mean the Korean language (shared by NK and SK) ? StuRat (talk) 02:40, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Can't get anything past you, can one? μηδείς (talk) 02:51, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Who are you? Do you work for the US embassy in Libya? If not, I don't really see why it has anything to do with you. Just let the US embassy deal with it. I'm sure they know as much as you do about the situation. --Tango (talk) 02:32, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Maybe the OP is Korean? My family did what they could for our relatives behind the Iron Curtain. μηδείς (talk) 02:40, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

They may know about it, and be obligated to help, if the North Koreans show up and ask to defect, but that doesn't mean they will lift a finger to make this all happen. If the North Koreans don't know they would be welcomed there, and have heard anti-US propaganda all their lives, they aren't likely to walk in uninvited. StuRat (talk) 02:43, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I am pretty sure that they will have the common sense to sort themselves out. These are doctors and nurses, as well as construction workers. They are well educated. I am sure they will have the sense to act appropriately. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 08:31, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Given that the news was broken by a South Korean news agency, it sounds like South Koreans are well aware of the situation and the usual charities and pressure groups would no doubt be trying to get them rescued to South Korea already. It's been about 10 months since that news report, if they are willing to go there they are probably in South Korea already. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:32, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Since the U.S. considers North Korea a supporter of terrorism and a nuclear state, I would doubt that the U.S. would grant asylum to North Koreans unless they were trying to defect, which, according to the OP, does not seem to be the case. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 11:49, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Historical nominal GDP statistics for various countries before 1960?

Is there any site that gives reliable historical nominal GDP statistics for many countries for periods of time before 1960? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Futurist110 (talk • contribs) 05:56, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

These should get you started: 1, 2, List of regions by past GDP (PPP) Snow (talk) 06:49, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, but I explicitly want nominal (not PPP) GDP data for years before 1960. Futurist110 (talk) 09:34, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

measuring worth? Fifelfoo (talk) 10:05, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I saw that one before, but it only has 4 countries or so on it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Futurist110 (talk • contribs) 10:08, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Various pages linked to on reference number 2 above have this data for different countries/regions. Unfortunately I haven't found any indexes that provide concentrated statistics for the whole world (at least, not indexes of the free variety), but if I turn anything else up, I'll let you know. Snow (talk) 10:09, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Is Fraserburgh the furthest north settlement in the United Kingdom that has over 10,000 residents?

I think it is, but I am not sure. Am I correct?--XKQ7 (talk) 15:01, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Also, is there a way of getting a chart which tells me which settlements in the United Kingdom exist that have no settlements at a more northerly latitude that have a higher population? For example it would include at least London (nothing bigger further north), Glasgow (nothing bigger further north), Aberdeen, Inverness, Elgin, Fraserburgh, Stornoway, Kirkwall and Lerwick (and probably some other English settlements that I have missed out, as well as some tiny settlements on Shetland).--XKQ7 (talk) 15:07, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

A method of correlating lattitude and population should be a fairly simple job for a database program, but I doubt it is possible here on WP. Roger (talk) 16:28, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

It may be worth pointing out to the OP, before embarking on such a task, that Glasgow, Aberdeen, Inverness, Elgin, Fraserburgh, Stornoway, Kirkwall and Lerwick are not 'English settlements' in that they are not in England, but Scotland. Maybe they were in the past, but I doubt anyone considers them so nowadays. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 17:19, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I think XKQ7 meant "English settlements other than London"—for instance, I don't think there is any UK city north of Birmingham with a greater population. Deor (talk) 19:31, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

To confirm what Deor implied, there is one major gap in XKQ7's list. Our list of largest United Kingdom settlements by population places Birmingham between London (larger, to the south) and Glasgow (smaller, to the north), and the list of urban areas in the United Kingdom (which uses a different definition, of contiguous urban areas) places the West Midlands conurbation in that position. Whichever you choose depends on your definition of the term "settlement". Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:56, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

PS: If you rely on the "urban areas", you would interpose the Greater Manchester Urban Area and then the West Yorkshire Urban Area between the West Midlands and Glasgow - increasingly far north (though their areas overlap in latitude), and decreasingly large. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:41, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

The list of towns in the Aberdeenshire article would seem to rule out any there - all the major towns are significantly further south. Moray and Highland (council area) don't have such convenient ordered lists, but the only towns I can see that have articles and come close on both measures are Elgin, Buckie, Thurso, and Wick. You mentioned Stornoway, Kirkwall, and Lerwick, which all come pretty close to 10 000, and are the largest settlements in the Western Isles, Orkney, and Shetland, respectively. So I would guess that these are the only contenders - some of them are close enough that I suppose it could come down to where you draw the settlement boundaries, and where you measure the latitude from. Also, note that most of the population data is still based on the 2001 census, so could be a little out of date. 81.98.43.107 (talk) 20:29, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Elgin is certainly larger than Fraserburgh, but is also further south.  :) Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:10, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I did say "come close". There only seem to be a couple of miles in it. 81.98.43.107 (talk) 23:29, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Here are some 2008 figures and it looks to me that Fraserburgh is the right answer.[21] Thincat (talk) 23:42, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

How did Stalin "backstab" Japan?

H. Beam Piper's story "The Mercenaries" (1950) contains this line (explaining why Sugihara is unlikely to be the spy):

“ ... The Japs'll forgive Russia for that Mussolini backstab in 1945 after the Irish start building monuments to Cromwell. ”

Huh? —Tamfang (talk) 21:55, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Declaring war and invading Manchuria 3 days after Hiroshima, perhaps?FlowerpotmaN·(t) 22:19, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

That would be my best guess; doing so was a violation of the Soviet–Japanese Neutrality Pact signed just a few years earlier. I'm unsure though, since backstab seems strong wording for something everyone had to see coming. Japan and Russia (and the U.S.S.R.) have a long history of conflict over territory in northeast Asia so it could refer to any number of events, but the Mussolini reference does seem to imply that it took place in a context around WW2. But seeing as Piper was primarily a sci-fi/alternate history writer, are we sure this event even took place? I'm unfamiliar with "The Mercenaries". Snow (talk) 22:24, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I think everybody saw it coming but the Japanese, where overly optimistic thinking had completely divorced them from reality. StuRat (talk) 22:28, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

"in 1945" also seems to imply a context around WW2. — The Manhattan Project is mentioned in backstory, so it's not alt-hist (as of when it was written!). The "mercenaries" are scientists and technicians working on one of several rival projects to establish a military Moonbase. —Tamfang (talk) 22:36, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I had to check too to see if it was one of his Paratime stories, but nope.... :) Written in 1950, but set in 1965. Haven't had a chance to read it all, but the context seems to suggest the back-stab refers to the breaking of the non-aggression pact as a reason the character wouldn't help the Commies. (It's on gutenberg.org, if anyone wants to have a look; a lot of H. Beam Piper stuff is as copyright wasn't renewed in the 70s)FlowerpotmaN·(t) 22:48, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

"'in 1945' also seems to imply a context around WW2." Woops, heheh, quite right. Snow (talk) 23:02, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

The reference to Mussolini is a bit odd, though. I suspect that the author was conflating the Tripartite Pact (Germany, Italy, and Japan) with the Soviet–Japanese Neutrality Pact. StuRat (talk) 22:32, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

It might also be that someone (the author, the editor or someone else) wrote "Mussolini" instead of "Manchuria"... --Martynas Patasius (talk) 22:51, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I think the Mussolini reference is to the fact that Mussolini declared war against France only after Germany had crushed all serious resistance there, and then swept into southern France to pick up as much territory as they could grab. Looie496 (talk) 23:52, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Could be, but that wasn't exactly a "backstab", as France and Italy weren't allies. StuRat (talk) 23:54, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

My recollection is that they did actually have a treaty of neutrality (the Italians were terrified of the French and British fleets), and it was certainly seen at the time as a purely cynical backstab. Looie496 (talk) 23:56, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

But "swept into" isn't quite the right phrase. The French gave them a bloody nose, despite being on the verge of military collapse. They never got past the Alpine Line and their thrust along the coast could only advance 8km. See Italian invasion of France. Alansplodge (talk) 00:35, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. But in any case that article gives the quote that is the key to this question, from Franklin Roosevelt: "On this tenth day of June 1940, the hand that held the dagger has struck it into the back of its neighbor." Looie496 (talk) 00:46, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Seems like a solid and probably accurate analysis for Piper's phrasing to me. But we're unlikely to know for certain, I suppose. Snow (talk) 02:00, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

July 9

Concealed carry laws stopping a spree shooting

One of the more interesting (to me) results of the Luby's massacre in Texas was the relaxation of concealed-carry firearms permit regulations. One of those present at the shooting stated publicly numerous times that had she been legally armed, she could have ended the massacre.

Has that ever happened? Has a spree shooting ever been stopped by a civilian with a legal firearm? gnfnrf (talk) 00:38, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

There are success stories with concealed-carry permits. Here's one is about a hostage situation:[22], and this is about someone storming a church wth a shotgun: [23]. There are other examples in the news, if you search for them. Neither of these were shooting sprees, but that could be because they were stopped at the start. RudolfRed (talk) 01:00, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Here are a few recent ones over the last month: [24] [25] [26]. These stories aren't uncommon. As for shooting sprees, Trolley Square shooting was ended when an off-duty officer exchanged shots with the shooter, after which on duty police arrived and killed him, which I think is close to your question. While I believe most U.S. states allow officers to carry concealed anyway when off duty, the argument is that an armed populace can respond faster than on duty police could. Shadowjams (talk) 01:37, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

When I read the "this is about someone storming a church wth a shotgun:", I thought it was going to link to the case where the counter-armed man missed the armed man and killed a little girl instead, no shots ever fired by the first armed man, but I can't find that article through google. Unique Ubiquitous (talk) 02:15, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm interested in this story as well.A8875 (talk) 02:37, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

That was a plot point in an episode of The West Wing. Was it also a real story? RudolfRed (talk) 02:38, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Ha, that could very well be where I got that from, my bad, facepalm. But still while searching for it I did come across many cases of Americans shooting each other in churches... really what are guns for but for killing... Unique Ubiquitous (talk) 02:58, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Given the number of shootings and attempted shootings in the US, and the number of people that routinely carry guns, it's sure to happen sometimes. You need to compare the lives saved in such instances with the lives lost in accidental shootings and people getting hold of the gun (I heard a statistic somewhere that more US policemen are shot with their own gun than are shot with other guns, although I have no idea if that is actually true) to get useful information on the merits of concealed carry permits. --Tango (talk) 02:40, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with statist calculations of utility. US Citizens have rights [27], among them the right of self-defense,[28] and the government has no place abrogating them. μηδείς (talk) 02:43, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Sure, but in other nations people think that a person's right to carry massacre capable weapons is less important than a person's right to not be constantly threatened by others. But still, congrats to the US on leading the developed world in murder, 11x Japan, 4x Europe, 3x Canada, maybe more guns would stop the murderers. Unique Ubiquitous (talk) 02:58, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

What in the world are you talking about? The right to carry concealed nuclear weapons? Or the number of people murdered in WWII by Japan and the Axis compared to by Americans with guns? Or how much better it is to be stabbed to death than shot? Or saying that the murder rate in Mexico, two and a half that of the US, is better because their rate of death by firearm is only half hours? Or implying that murderers generally have legal weapons and seek concealed carry permits? Bizarre. μηδείς (talk) 03:55, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

The U.S. has 11x the murder rate of Japan because we have 13x the incarceration rate of Japan. We have 3x the murder rate of Canada because we have 5x the incarceration rate of Canada. See List of countries by incarceration rate. Most of the people in the jails, mind you, are not there for murder, but for non-violent offenses; but the purpose of prisons is to recruit people, in fear for their life, to join gangs and learn criminal trades. Wnt (talk) 15:56, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't think anyone argues that unlimited weapons should be given to anyone who wants them (machine guns for felons ?). As to how much the right to bear arms should be limited, that varies from state to state and from election to election. StuRat (talk) 03:01, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

On the other hand, someone was in a nearby store carrying a gun at the time of the Gaby Giffords shooting, and later said that if they had been slightly less restrained, they would have started shooting at a time when the original shooter had already been caught and was being restrained by members of the public... AnonMoos (talk) 14:08, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Please, let us provide references for the original poster specifically connected to their question, and discuss other potential questions by starting new sections (US gun politics is one of the most boring recurrent discussions online). Fifelfoo (talk) 03:21, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I wonder why people outside the US care about this topic so much and also about the death penalty. OK, both are probably bad ideas under many aspects, but there are worse things out there. OsmanRF34 (talk) 12:38, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I can think of two reasons for this of the top of my head. The first reason is that these are topics that are much discussed in US society, and as such, people outside the US, who are interested in society/politics etc. get a lot of information on it, and can discuss it.

The second reason, which perhaps feeds of the first one, is the comparison between what the US is and what the US perceives itself to be. The US describes itself as a peaceful, prosperous, just and democratic society. Keep in mind that the legal, political and philosophical traditions of Europe and America are very different. However, for a European, it seems like a contradiction that a modern, democratic state should be executing its own citizens, and that in a country with the rule of law, citizens should see the need to heavily arm themselves. And, of course, the different histories of the US and Europe will mean that these differences in opinion can lead to hours and hours of fun debates. ;-) V85 (talk) 15:34, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Single payer savings in the U.S. post-TB coverup

Given [29] is single payer savings over Obamacare going to be closer to $1.3 or 1.5 trillion per year? 71.212.249.178 (talk) 07:03, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how that link relates to your question. StuRat (talk) 07:19, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Contradictions under international law

I was thinking one day about how many laws can come into conflict, especially with complex things like contract law, where (in my understanding) different laws and principles can affect the case, without any clear right or wrong. In the laws of individual nations, we have the government to clamp down with a binding legal process, including, typically, some single final court of appeal. Because there is no such power in international law, enforcing its decisions, it seems somewhat silly to talk of international law at all (note I'm not soapboxing, just making a point). Are there any cases that have come under international law where it was quite clear that different laws or legal principles had come into conflict, and no one could do anything much because of the lack of a strict process? What was the outcome? IBE (talk) 14:44, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure there are cases that can be interpreted that way, but the term international law basically implies a treaty that has been signed by a large number of nations. Since all of those nations have signed the same treaty, they are all bound by the same set of rules. Looie496 (talk) 15:44, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but they sign a lot of different treaties, and one government can then be bound by the treaties signed by several of its predecessors, including from parties with a very different outlook. They can revoke the local laws of the predecessors, so they could either just revoke the treaties as well, or sign different ones. Then the problem of jurisdiction will come up - who has the right to overrule decisions to prevent conflict among treaties/ statutes, and who has the power? Or, more exactly, what happens in practice when people argue out these things? IBE (talk) 16:19, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

(ec)Typically (although not always) the consequence of a state signing a treaty is that it passes legislation in its own parliament which enacts, in a framework consistent with that country's constitution and existing law, the core principles of that treaty. So for individuals or corporations dealing with one another over an international matter, the dispute is still settled in the court of one or other of the relevant nation states. Resort to a supra-national adjudication is available only in some circumstances, as described by those treaties. For contracts, it's very common for a contract to stipulate the prevailing jurisdiction (which might not be immediately relevant); so for example a German subcontractor of a Spanish building company building a Qatari funded skyscraper in Kuwait might all be bound by a contract under English law which mandates that disputes be settled in a commercial court in England - there just isn't a workable framework where, if contracts were written for German and Spanish and Qatari law, the conflicts between them could be resolved. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 16:31, 9 July 2012 (UTC)