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.
How did Ur became an inland city? Has the sea-level lowered and glacial ice increased since Sumerian time? Or has the coastline silted up that much?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 01:24, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The coastline has silted up that much. In Sumerian times the Tigris and Euphrates reached the sea separately. Looie496 (talk) 02:53, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is there an article which treats of this? μηδείς (talk) 04:30, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I learned it in an ancient history class, sometime back in ancient history. But googling, the definitive source is: Gary A. Cooke (1987). "Reconstruction of the holocene coastline of Mesopotamia". Geoarchaeology. 2: 15–28. That's not easily accessible online, but you can find a map drawn from it in this paper, as Figure 2. Looie496 (talk) 05:02, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This topic came up a few months ago, [1]. That the Tigris and Euphrates once entered the Persian Gulf separately is mentioned in passing on the Tigris page, but not the Euphrates page as far as I can see. It seems like a bit more could be said about it on both pages, as well as on Persian Gulf and perhaps Shatt al-Arab. Wonder if I can find access to that Geoarchaeology article, hmm.. Pfly (talk) 05:25, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hrm, well that article may be quite hard to find, for me anyway. I did find a bit of information in this book, pp 290-291: The Babylonians. It points out that two opposed processes have been effecting the area--delta forming silt deposition and tectonic subsidence, which together have resulted in a complex patchwork of landforms. Pfly (talk) 05:40, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
a specific paradox
Dear Wikipedians-
I am trying to recall a factoid I found on Wikipedia within the last year- the formal name of the paradox describing "you don't know what you don't know."
I have searched the Wikipedia "List of Paradoxes" entry (and many others) trying to find this formal name.
I wouldn't be looking too closely into this, as you may discover things you really wish you didn't know, such as that soup is made from old people's bath water. It must be true; I read it somewhere on the internet. On the other hand, something like this treatise promises to be jam-packed with fascinating stuff, but whether it answers your question, I'll leave for you to discover. Chapter 7 may be of particular relevance. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ [your turn] 02:23, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Knowledge about knowledge is called metaknowledge. One case where this is important is betting on game shows like Jeopardy, where you should alter your wager to reflect your probability of correctly answering a question in that category. StuRat (talk) 03:03, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Upon further research, I am almost certain the OP is referring to what is commonly known as Meno's paradox, also known as the "paradox of inquiry", which originates in Plato's Socratic dialogues. Wikipedia doesn't have much info on it, but you can read a paper about it here. Also quoted in that paper is the related Confucian quote "You know what you know and you don't know what you don't know. That is knowledge.", similar to the saying sometimes (spuriously) attributed to Plato, "A wise man speaks because he has something to say; a fool because he has to say something." Evanh2008(talk|contribs) 04:57, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There's also the thing that sounds a bit Rumsfeldian but predated him somewhat. All knowledge can be divided into 4 categories: (a) the things you know you know, (b) the things you know you don't know, (c) the things you don't know you know, and (d) the things you don't know you don't know. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ [your turn] 06:21, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note that for all of the flack Rumsfeld got for his weird digression, unknown unknowns was a very common and very useful term long before he used it. It's too bad it is now irreversibly associated with him in particular (who I, like many, dislike for his role in the Iraq War, among other things), and seen as an example of obfuscation, when it's really a quite eloquent expression of real-world epistemological problems. --Mr.98 (talk) 23:26, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In the List of Governors of Guernsey article, Francis Weston is listed as Governor from 1533 to 1541. But the link goes to an article which says that that Francis Weston was executed in 1536. The article about Francis Weston says that he was the son of Richard Weston (treasurer), who was a Governor of Guernsey. There has to be an error somewhere in this pair, but I don't know if the List of Governors is incorrect, or the death of Francis Weston is incorrect. And why was Richard Weston only Governor until 1522, when he didn't die until 1541? Should Francis just be removed from the list, and Richard's term of office be changed to end in 1541? 69.62.243.48 (talk) 03:30, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This site is a wiki, so not a reliable source, but maybe offers a clue to what happened. It says that on 3 November 1539 Sir Richard Long was "granted reversion of Governorship of Guernsey, whereupon he appears to have taken up office from the aged Weston" (ie Richard Weston, Francis being dead by then. Richard had been appointed Governor on 22 May 1509, according to the same site). So Long was lined up to be Governor after Weston, but started doing the job anyway. Could you have two people doing the job at the same time, both with the title? Well, this site claims to be based on the History of Parliament, "a biographical dictionary of Members of the House of Commons", so may lead to a reliable source. It also confirms Richard's 1509 succession to the governorship, but goes on to say that in 1533 the newly knighted Francis, son of Richard, was invested as Governor along with his father by a new grant. So it appears father and son may have held the post simultaneously, at least until Francis gets executed in May 1336; Richard may have continued as governor alone (or possibly with his dead son still officially listed in the job); he perhaps gets another "co-governor" in 1539 in the person of Long, who actually does the work; and then the Weston connection ends with Richard's death in 1541. Complicated. Karenjc 08:11, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is more information here, which appears to be a reliable source, and the tudorplace site is based on this source. It confirms that father and son were together invested with the governorship in 1533.
This source confirms that the governorship reverted from Richard Weston to Long on 7 August 1541.-- Ehrenkater (talk) 14:56, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for all of this. I'm going to list Richard and Francis as co-governors until Francis's death, then Richard as sole governor till his death, unless somebody objects. 69.62.243.48 (talk) 22:18, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Recorded texts are just as likely to be highly stylised as portraiture. Fifelfoo (talk) 11:18, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
An IP turned up on 28th May 2010 and added these statements, along with edits to Nordic race and some others. User:124.104.179.196. May have been a returning user because they knew how to tweak an internal link to point to a section rather than a whole article. Uncited. No reason not to remove. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:34, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It was not out of the ordinary for the Spanish Trastamaras to have been blonde or auburn-haired and blue-eyed. Most European royal families were descended from the Germanic Franks.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 10:26, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Patterns cut into paper for authentication purposes
The top of the Mediterranean_pass is cut in a special pattern to authenticate the document. This made me recall a story where the characters tear a dollar bill in half and each party keeps a half in order to authenticate themselves during the next meeting. This technique is basically a primitive MAC. Is there a name for this technique? When was the first recorded usage of this technique?A8875 (talk) 13:16, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is a form of indenture - the description of the process has since passed into general use to mean a specific kind of legal document. The earliest surviving indentured documents, per that article, are c. 1400, but it was probably in use for a couple of centuries before that. Andrew Gray (talk) 14:02, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Indenture says the earliest surviving examples are 13th century, i.e. 1200's. --ColinFine (talk) 14:06, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for the prompt and precise answer, Andrew. A8875 (talk) 14:13, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved
Just a comment that the technique is a development of the split Tally stick, in use for a thousand years in England (and probably much longer world-wide), but this is a less precise answer! Dbfirs 14:41, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Has Florida become a Southern enclave of “the North” since it hasn’t been part of “the South” for a long time?
I was told on a previous question that “Florida is not the ‘New South’ because it's not ‘the South’ and that it hasn't been for a long time.” I live in Florida and I know from experience that a lot Floridians don’t consider their state to be part of “the South” even though it geographically is, and a lot of Floridians don’t like to be called Southerners even though they geographically live in the southern region of the U.S. So, would that mean that Florida has become a Southern enclave of the North, in other words, a part of “the North” that is geographically in “the South?” Also, since when exactly did Florida stop being part of "the South" and since when did many Floridians stop identifying themselves as “Southerners?” Willminator (talk) 18:27, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps someone could find scientific polls to respond to the question of whether Floridians consider themselves "southerners," with whatever that entails. Another area of research is population demographics: if , say, an increasing percentage of the population there came from Cuba or other Hispanic countries, or from the Atlantic states such as New York and New Jersey, rather than being descendants of Floridians, an argument could be made that they were "transplants" and not "native southerners." Edison (talk) 19:13, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
From a cultural point of view I think your right. The Dixi was something of a political line anyhow.--Aspro (talk) 19:19, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It may be more accurate to say that parts of Florida are Northern or "coastal" in their social and political attitudes. Rural & small town Florida is a lot more like small-town Dixie than like a New England town. Orlando, Daytona, and the Redneck Riviera have much more in common with other Southern tourist towns like Hilton Head and New Orleans than they do with the immigrant/emigrant-heavy Miami area. It's Miami (and to a lesser extent, Tampa) that are out of place for the South. The rest of Florida fits the broad Dixie standard. --M@rēino 19:29, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That is a better way to put it M@rēino. My views are coloured by the number of retired folk who have moved down there and the industry that’s grown up to soak-up their pensions. Get out of those places and I'll agree, you're either meet the real southerners or become a 'gators next meal or both. Also, real southerners don't seem to need climate control. Hey, some of them don't even seem to know how to sweat. I'm exaggerating of course but... the new influx do appear to be taking over. --Aspro (talk) 20:15, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Our Deep South page claims (without citing a source) that northern Florida—Florida Panhandle, First Coast, and North Central Florida—"retain cultural characteristics of the Deep South". Settlement of this part of Florida goes back to early colonial times. The cotton belt extends into northern Florida and the region boomed along with the rest of the Deep South in the early 19th century. The rest of Florida was not settled in a significant way until much later, and through a different process (of course central and southern Florida were not vacant—there's a long and complicated Native American history there). Our History of Florida page says (also unsourced) that in 1900 "most Floridians lived within 50 miles of the Georgia border", and that the state's population was only about 500,000. There's been a massive demographic change since then, obviously. So, on the question of when exactly did Florida stop being part of "the South" and since when did many Floridians stop identifying themselves as “Southerners?”, I'd say sometime in the early 20th century, when central and south Florida boomed, while also pointing out that parts of Florida are still "part of the South". I always assumed the settlement of central and south Florida had to do with air conditioning and large swamp draining projects, but reading about it now it appears more complicated.
A quote from The Shaping of America, volume 3, by Donald W. Meinig: "Aside from the spread of the Cotton Belt onto the prairies around Tallahassee, Florida was more a subtropical colony of the North than an extension of the traditional South, but the need for labor in the citrus groves and vegetable fields, warehouses, docks, and fancy resorts attracted large numbers of Blacks, and Northern managers readily adapted to Southern social mores. Cuban refugees and businessmen, long a major presence in Key West, were moving north to Tampa. By 1900 the state had just over half a million people and the boom was still rather deflated from the national depression and a severe citrus freeze, but more and more Northern sojourners swelled the winter population." Meinig also points out that religious denominations that had antagonistically split during the pre-Civil War era, like the Baptists, Methodists, and Presbyterians, did not reunite after the war. Instead "southern religion became entwined with the Lost Cause" and an important part of the New South. Florida's religious demographics are not like those of the rest of the Deep South. This book, [3], points out that Florida has only seven counties that fit the religious character of the Deep South, and all are in northern Florida. Pfly (talk) 20:40, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The transition of Florida from "mostly Southern" to "mostly Northern" likely started with the Florida land boom of the 1920s and completed soon after the Cuban Revolution, possibly extended to the construction of the Kennedy Space Center. So, we're in the 1920's - 1960's range. StuRat (talk) 00:18, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As described in History of Florida, the state was actually a "haven for escaped slaves" in the early 1800s; the Seminoles kept back the forces of "civilization" until pretty close to the Civil War. So the state didn't have the chance to become quite as Confederate as the rest of the South. I think. Wnt (talk) 03:00, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Florida became a state much later than Georgia (and US territory later than the Louisiana Territory), remaining Spanish territory until the early 19th century. That, more than the Seminoles, restricted to the lower part of the peninsula, was the deeper cause of its unique identity. But northern parts of the state are quite Southern in character. μηδείς (talk) 03:23, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that last sentence is why I'm inclined to credit the Seminoles, who despite their tiny numbers managed quite a military effort. It's interesting to compare the cost of the Seminole Wars to the cost of Seward's Folly... Wnt (talk) 04:32, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Finding a dead person
A friend of mine has disappeared off the map and I suspect he has died. Is there anyway I could check this at a local office? He lived in the local area and I very much imagine he died locally too. What's the proceedure for finding out about death registration? Do I just pop down the register office and check their records?146.90.23.194 (talk) 19:53, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
:The OP's location is England in the United Kingdom --Aspro (talk) 20:21, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad you specified which England, otherwise we might all have assumed you meant England, Arkansas, or that tiny village in Nordstrand, Germany that everyone's always talking about. :) -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ [your turn] 20:30, 2 July 2012 (UTC) [reply]
Thanks! But who exactly are you that call themselves we? As for the group that calls itself 'everyone', I've hear of them too but can't recall ever meeting any. --Aspro (talk) 21:01, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I thought the same thing, so am part of that we, apparently. μηδείς (talk) 03:49, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It used to be taught (and maybe still to day) that a noun without qualification refers to the original, first, fiat, etc. So, I mentioned 'England' not to place it in the UK but to save people from considering the processes in Scotland – so that the 'we' did not get confused. Note to self – must try harder to be clearer when the we might be marauding around :-)--Aspro (talk) 18:27, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't that you weren't clear. England by itself would have done just fine, and stating it's in the UK was simply an unnecessary redundant tautologous over-specification that you didn't really need to write and "we" didn't really need to read to know that the England you were talking about was the one in the UK and not any of the other ones. :) What the processes in Scotland have to do with any of this is a bit of a mystery to me, I must say, but I like a good mystery. :) -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ [your turn] 20:27, 3 July 2012 (UTC) [reply]
Subject Scotland: Some whoisit's show OP's has a UK identified IP. Therefore, anyone (or we's ) that doesn’t know that, that also includes Scotland (which often has different procedures because it has its own legal system unlike Wales and Northern Ireland) might might go off at a tangent without knowing that the OP is in England. George Bush Junior thought Wales was a county of Britain!!! So I thought I might make it clear. Oh well, I tried.--Aspro (talk) 20:51, 6 July 2012 (UTC) George Bush and geography. [4] --Aspro (talk) 21:21, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have tried valiantly, but failed, to parse the first 15 words of your post. The rest I can make sense of. Keep trying. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ [your turn] 20:51, 7 July 2012 (UTC) [reply]
<?small> at the end of your last post is not a HMTL code I know of. Can you please illuminate Jack?--Aspro (talk) 21:56, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Subject: Whoisit. This is a reference to sites such as this: [5] colloquially known as whoisits . Does that make sense? The only other thing I can think has tripped you up is the we which is response to the above posts. On ref desk I'm not expecting to read complete and editor checked thesis but short concise answers in which most OP's will be able to find their answer. If I'm using terms, sentence structure (and least I forget -spelling) that spills out of my abomination of keyboard, that the we have yet to comprehend and follow, then Hello folks, welcome to the 21st Century. --Aspro (talk) 22:16, 7 July 2012 (UTC) [reply]
I presume the event would have happened relatively recently, within the last year. If this is the case, the General Records Office says "For recent events registered within the last 6 months (for marriages this period is extended to 18 months), applications for certificates should be made to the Register Office in the district where the birth, death or marriage took place." You might like to start with visiting the General Records Office website and applying for a possible death certificate. You'd have to give your friend's full name, age, place of registration of death, and quarter of registration of death. So if your friend died in April 2011, you'd tell them to search in the records for the 2nd quarter of 2011. There is no way to get this information without getting the certificate and paying out the money, I'm afraid. However, if the local Register Office or the GRO tell you they have no such information, then you can possibly infer that your friend is still alive. --TammyMoet (talk) 20:33, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
One method that is often overlooked and works for people who haven't died as well, is to go through your address book and phone anyone and everyone that also knew him/her. Odds are, that unless you where mutual hermits, someone in your circle of your mutuals friends will also be close to the centre of the Six degrees of separation and will thus be able to bring you up to date. Second: Persist. If a land-line number has a different owner -ask if any neighbours know. Don't be put off by 'donknow.' Use the techniques of investigative journalism and point out that as this missing person has just inherited zillions of pounds, so the person leading you to him/her is in line for a hansom reward – blah -blah-blah. Its quicker to do this from home, than going though the 'formal' processes. By-the-way. Why are you so keen to contact him -does he owe money or something?--Aspro (talk) 20:50, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That last question is none of our business, Aspro. The OP calls him a "friend", which is all the reason you'd ever need to contact anyone. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ [your turn] 22:16, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all. Lets deconstruct it to more neutral terms. By considering an individual’s life style, habits etc., one can laterally think of other avenues of enquiry. If someone is sporty or even just very keen on playing Golf (which can be very exhausting without a trolly), then they might well have friends that the OP doesn’t know about. Remember: Birds-of-a-fether-flock together. Therefore, look for something of a common interest. Some people (believe it or not) feel very awkward -if they have fallen on bad times- to remake contact with someone they may already in deep debt to. The reason for contacting someone can also aid the search. If it is to invite an old comrade to a company or military reunion, then pension funds etc., are often willing to pass on letters to the people on their files if you ask them. Therefore an answer to my last question would provide valuable clues as to the possibilities of other lines of enquiry. Prejudgement, is a barrier to clear cognition.--Aspro (talk) 18:02, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it can be. Although I agree it can sometimes shed light on the pathway to the answer, I have a general dislike of people in our position asking questioners why they're asking their questions. (I particularly despise when someone here says "Who cares?", or "Why does it matter?" - obviously the OP cares enough to ask their question, and it certainly matters to them if nobody else. Now, yours wasn't like that, I'm just having a mini-rant here.) If it's done at all, it must be sensitive, respectful, and not getting anywhere near the area of invading their privacy or putting them in uncomfortable positions. I guess I'd have preferred your question to be more like "Can you tell us more about why you're so keen to contact your friend?", and leave it at that. That leaves the OP with the freedom to provide as much or as little further information as they like, and doesn't push them into a corner where their choices are limited to: (a) divulging information they had not planned to, (b) evading the question, (c) telling you it's none of your business, (d) silence. Now, it may be that the OP would be perfectly happy to tell us it's about money owed to them, but in that case there's every chance they'd have already said that was what's behind their quest (and I now see from below that the reason has nothing to do with money). Even if they weren't originally intending to say why, but had no problem doing so if it helped them track down their friend, I still think it's their call to volunteer that information from a general question like the one I suggested, rather than having to deal with a very specific question like the one you asked. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ [your turn] 21:11, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My foresight in trying to answer the OP's question, obviously doesn’t appear have the benefit of your 20/20 vision of hindsight, at analysing my answers. :¬)--Aspro (talk) 21:12, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
One of the most obvious things to do would be to google his name and see if anything turns up, like an obituary or something. In the USA, at least, a lot of newspapers and funeral homes are posting archival obits, at least for the last decade or so. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 23:00, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Recently I found an old friend of mine whom I had lost any trace of during the last 25 years. I googled his name and I found his name and address on a list of donors to a church. Omidinist (talk) 04:00, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I once found a former co-worker in his high school's alumnal birthday list. —Tamfang (talk) 05:33, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If free things like Facebook and Google fail, a private investigator may be able to assist. They can do a few checks very quickly and easily, and it might not cost much more than dealing with government bureaucracy. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:14, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Basically, he was a friend from way back, that I bumped into in more recent years and found out he lived near me. We met up a few times and he seemed extremely depressed; suicidal. I did my best to talk to him about things but I'm no doctor and my life was going in a very different direction at the time, so we ended up not communicating again. He's no longer resident at the address where I knew him, we have no mutual friends, he wasn't the kind of person to be on Facebook or anything, he drifted in and out of work, I don't know his family, and I honestly suspect that he killed himself, but I was wondering if there was an easy way to find out? This was back in 2008.146.66.46.89 (talk) 15:37, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You may do well to research the local newspaper archives, as a suicide (at least in the UK) has to be referred to a coroner and inquests tend to be reported in the local newspaper. You'll probably be unlucky in looking at the coroner's papers as they're embargoed for 75 years. Free access to the BNA Newspaper Archives should be available through your local library or archive service. --TammyMoet (talk) 16:52, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd check [6], which is a cemetery record for the UK. If you are not sure he's dead, also check the telephone book, maybe you are wrong about his death. 79.148.233.179 (talk) 18:01, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's hardly complete, and it doesn't cover the last few years. It may be a resource for some genealogists, but not for anyone interested in finding someone recently deceased. --TammyMoet (talk) 10:51, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Book on Islam
I'm looking for recommendations for a book (or books) on Islam: its history, teachings/beliefs, and its effects on the attitudes and conduct of Muslims. I don't want a Sam Harris or Robert Spencer type book where Islam is evil incarnate, nor something that's pushing a pro-religion agenda. Preferably the book would help give some insight into contemporary politics. Thanks! 65.92.7.168 (talk) 22:04, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure this is what you're looking for, but I found A History of the Modern Middle East by Cleveland and Bunton to be very thorough. It discusses the origin of Islam and its divisions, and as its name implies, it's mainly focused on 20th century Middle Eastern history. If you want to understand two historically (and to some extent currently) influential ideologies in Islam--pan-Arabic Nasserism and Islamic fundamentalism--this book has quite a lot on that. --140.180.5.169 (talk) 23:16, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is the shortest, though the most informative, book on Islam as it has been in the past and as it is today. It gives everything in just 128 pages, with no bias at all. --Omidinist (talk) 03:35, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I found No God but God by Reza Aslan very good. --ColinFine (talk) 11:13, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
With reference to the book suggested about the Middle East, bear in mind that the most populous Muslim country is Indonesia, and trailing not far behind are Pakistan, Bangladesh, and India. If you are interested in how Islam plays out in people's lives now, look further than Arabia and northern Africa: Turkey, Iran, Central Asia. BrainyBabe (talk) 17:14, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Again auctions, why the chanting in the US and the formal "10, 20, 30, no one? Sold for 30" elsewhere
The question about Tobacco auctions, asking about the chant just got moved to the archives, but it still leaves one question: why do auctioneers in the US have this chant where their, for instance, European counterparts don't? European auctioneers act as notaries: "I see this person bids 40, but I cannot rule out the option that one of you will want to bid higher. Anyone?". US auctioneers act as if they are the owner with a certain psychological disorder: "40 now, gimme 45, gimme 45, only 40 now.." etc. The actual question: do prices get higher when the auctioneer makes such a show of it? And if so, why don't European auctioneers do that? Do all auctioneers in the US this chanting? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joepnl (talk • contribs) 23:35, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that I previously linked to Breeding Sheep Sale, Abergavenny, Monmouthshire, South Wales, showing that we have a similar, but marginally less stilted chant on this side of the Atlantic. I suspect that we've been doing this rather longer. I'll look for a reference. Alansplodge (talk) 23:57, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I found this video of a British antiques auctioneer who uses a much more restrained style, but still with a certain cadence to it - Gildings Antiques & Collectors Sale. As for Europeans (that funny lot on the other side of the Channel), I have no idea what they do. Alansplodge (talk) 00:15, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There are a few vocations where fast speaking is a plus, anyone remember the Micro Machines guy? Competitive debate is another one of those activities. But I suspect the auctioneer cadence has more to do with tradition. As an amateur guess, it is somewhat nerve racking to hear anew and it's hard to fall asleep too... making people nervous and out of their comfort zone might push them into bids or create a sense of urgency that does help push up the price. Continental auctions are the same but more subdued, but the pressure is there too. Shadowjams (talk) 05:52, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Compare the "Hey batter, batter!" tradition at baseball games (not sure what it's called, not really heckling)... AnonMoos (talk) 12:21, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My family often went to country auctions in the US. The highly practiced chant gets the item sold, and builds a level of excitement in some bidders which likely leads them to pay more than they initially intended, to "win" the auction. The easygoing, laconic manner of sale used at auctions of fine antiques would not build the same level of excitement in the audience. The auctioneer may literally be knocking down many hundreds of lots in a few hours, just like a tobacco auctioneer. Lots of them, such as boxes of random books or little glass knick-nacks, may go for a minimum bid, such as one dollar. Meanwhile, many bidders are waiting for some highly desirable items which are why they came at all. People would leave if the process was not fast-moving. They would be bored if it was quiet, slow paced and soothing as described, "I (yawn) see that someone has bid 40. Perhaps (yawn) some other person here might wish to bid 45?" (yawn, the sound of people leaving). The auctioneer, for all his fast chanting, is watching to see if a lot is going high or if there is little interest, and will knock it down and move on to the next lot. He and the crowd love a bidding war, where two people want something and cost is no object. Edison (talk) 13:40, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks all. Not sure why, but I've been looking at auctions for hours now. Mmm. Anyway, here's the song for this question. Joepnl (talk) 18:39, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Upon a Helm with a Wreath Argent and Sable On Water Barry wavy Sable Argent and Sable an Owl affronty wings displayed and inverted Or supporting thereby two closed Books erect Gules.
Escutcheon
Sable an ankh between four Roundels in saltire each issuing Argent.
That's a description of Sir Terry Pratchett's coat of arms. Please refer to Heraldry. It's basically a set of instructions that produces this picture [7]. A8875 (talk) 01:15, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My question wasn't clear. It would take me months to decipher this and relate it to the picture. Is there someone here with a short cut, who can read "heraldese" and translate. Thanks, Bielle (talk) 01:36, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Crest: "On a helm with a black & silver wreath, on horizontally-oriented wavy water with colors black, silver, and black, there's a golden owl facing the front with its wings pointed down, and the wings support two closed upright red books."
Shield: "Black, an ankh between 4 disks in the shape of an X (a saltire), the disks are silver"
The shortcut is that most words describe a color or orientation. Argent is silver (or white), Sable is black, Barry means horizontal, Or is gold, Gules is red, inverted means pointed down, erect means upright, affronty means facing the front, etc. The rest are likely specialized heraldric terms that describe something mundane, like an X, or a disk. --140.180.5.169 (talk) 02:13, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The ankh is also silver/white. (Any color word affects everything mentioned since the last such word.) —Tamfang (talk) 20:58, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, 140.180.5.169. That is very helpful. Bielle (talk) 02:52, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, "heraldese" is actually known as blazoning... AnonMoos (talk) 04:20, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What a wonderful word. I shall have to remember that. Thanks. Bielle (talk) 04:25, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, they even have their own jargon word for their own jargon. Do these people breathe "air" and eat "food" like the rest of us? -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ [your turn] 05:22, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Blazoning is no worse than any other jargon - for example "Creative ZEN devices don't export the USB mass storage interface (which would make them work like removable drives) but instead implement the Media Transfer Protocol" (picked at random from the Computing RD) or "What properties does a topological space X need to satisfy so that if f: X -> X is continuous on each set in a closed cover of X, f is continuous on X?" (from the Mathematics RD). It's just unfamiliar. Like all jargon, it facilitates clear communication about complex concepts. Gandalf61 (talk) 08:56, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
These aren't really as analogous as they may at first seem. All are examples of potentially insular language, but notice that "blazoning" is essentially defined by hold-overs of anachronistic terms; in most cases you could use more contemporary variants of the terminology and it would be just as clear (and indeed, a wider selection of people would understand more intuitively); in this regard, the jargon operates as more of a cypher than anything. The other two examples you supply are simply technical language which might not be familiar to everyone, but by and large, those who do understand it would use largely the same terminology and phrasing, since they are simply employing the most common terms to describe those concepts. Snow (talk) 11:09, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure why you say that heraldic terminology is anachronistic; perhaps you mean it is archaic, which I would agree with. But the purpose of this is to maintain continuity and ensure that descriptions of coats of arms in historical records can still be understood. It is not done to be deliberately cryptic or obscure. You see the same use of archaic terminology and non-English words in legal jargon (e.g. tort), which has a similarly long history. And why do we eat beefburgers rather than cowburgers, and pork chops not pig chops ? There you have holdovers of archaic terminology which happen to be so familiar we do not notice them any more. "Jargon" and "technical language" are synonymous; there is no difference between them. Gandalf61 (talk) 11:59, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with all that. My point is that scientists, for example, do not have a word that only they use, that means "scientific or technical jargon"; or cooks do not have a word that means "culinary jargon"; and so on. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ [your turn] 20:13, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Blazon" doesn't literally mean the jargon itself, but rather a formal description in the jargon. The equivalent description in German or Swedish would use more ordinary vocabulary and syntax (no pun intended), but would also be a blazon. —Tamfang (talk) 04:44, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear! I wonder if Sir Terry knows that. (facepalm) Bielle (talk) 21:18, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Length of Trans-Siberian railroad inside the arctice circle
What is the approximate length of Trans-Siberian railroad inside the Arctic Circle ?? No clue how to arrive at it. would appreciate any help — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.83.244.183 (talk) 01:54, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Trans-Siberian line in red (Baikal Amur Mainline in green)Map of the Arctic with the Arctic Circle in blue. Zero as far as I can see. ---Sluzzelintalk 02:10, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As any map shows, the Trans-Siberian Railway does not get anywhere close to the Arctic Circle. (It's entirely below 60 degrees northern latitude). The same goes for the Baikal-Amur Mainline. You may have been thinking of the so-called Transpolar Mainline (1297 km from Salekhard to Igarka) which was under construction ca. 1950, but was never completed. That one, as the article says was supposed to be 1,297 km long, but only part of it (probably less than half) is actually north of the Arctic Circle.
There are some operational railway in Siberia that are entirely (or at least mostly) above the Arctic Circle, such as the Obskaya–Bovanenkovo Line in the Yamal Peninsula (525 km), or the short Norilsk railway. -- Vmenkov (talk) 02:11, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think any of the Trans-Siberian railroad is inside the arctic cirlce. The circle is at 66 degrees, and the railroad barely goes north of 50. RudolfRed (talk) 02:13, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if this is making unwarranted assumptions, 183, but I wonder if your question is born out of the common misconception that Siberia is "the Northern part of Russia", a frozen wasteland to which enemies of the state were exiled, when it is actually "the Eastern part of Russia" or "the central part of Russia". As Vmenkov's map shows, a lot of the railway, and most of the Siberian population, is considerably further south than Moscow. FiggyBee (talk) 03:13, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Even though it's not only the Northern part of Russia, and while it may not entirely be a frozen wasteland, it's still pretty cold, it being to the north of Kazakhstan, Mongolia, and northeastern China. If you check the temperatures for Novosibirsk in the winter, you'll see how cold it is, compared to the similarly placed (latitude-wise) Moscow. 109.97.161.58 (talk) 09:38, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A key reason for Siberia's extreme temperatures (IIRC it has hot summers) is continentality. --Dweller (talk) 10:25, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you're talking about southern Siberia. Northern Siberia does go quite far north above the Arctic Circle, and borders the Arctic Ocean, so is quite cold, on average, in winter, and cool even in summer (see Norilsk#Climate). However, few people live up there, and the Trans-Siberian railroad doesn't go up there, either. StuRat (talk) 21:33, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm talking about all of Siberia. The whole shebang is cooler in the winter and warmer in the summer than areas of comparable latitude that are further west. --Dweller (talk) 11:18, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Norilsk's warmest month of July is only 16°C (61°F), on average, so not exactly "warm". What are you comparing it to ? And note that temps get much colder if you go even farther north in Siberia, say to Schmidt Island. StuRat (talk) 08:05, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
US government
What would happen if a nuke or some other disaster destroyed Washington, DC? --146.7.96.200 (talk) 19:14, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As is states at the top of the page "The reference desk does not answer requests for opinions or predictions about future events. Do not start a debate; please seek an internet forum instead.". If you have more precise questions that can be answered with non opinion/guessing answers, such as "what happens if the US president dies?" than we will respond. Unique Ubiquitous (talk) 19:24, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just because you don't know the answer doesn't mean there isn't one. --Tango (talk) 19:34, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes -- there is very extensive planning for something like that, but unfortunately almost all of the plans are secret. Looie496 (talk) 19:45, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Check out the US History Channel's "Day After Disaster", where this specific scenario is discussed in full. --NellieBly (talk) 20:59, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Specifically see the Continuity of Operations Plan — which is actually already in place and was activated on 9/11 (and never apparently deactivated — we are, over a decade later, still living in a State of Emergency, apparently). It describes elaborate (budget-busting) procedures by which agencies try to maintain control and continuity. The line of succession to the Presidency is pretty well outlined; it'd take quite a few people dead before a Constitutional crisis occurred (and for those rare events when pretty much everyone on the list is in the same place, there is usually a designated survivor). As for what would happen immediately afterwards, it would undoubtedly depend on assessing what the situation was. If it were war with another nation state, the results would likely be different than if it were thought to be caused by terrorists. Nuclear forensics (only a stub!) would no doubt be involved in figuring that sort of thing out. --Mr.98 (talk) 21:56, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A year or two ago there was essentially the same question: Something like, if the House, Senate, President and VP, and Supreme Court were all wiped out, what would happen? And the answer was generally the same: That there are contingency plans for handling the worst-case scenarios... certain details of which of course are secret, otherwise they wouldn't be very useful. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 23:15, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually in that case it is still quite clear who is legally in charge, because you didn't say the Cabinet was also killed. In practice it is unclear whether rule of law holds in a situation where major political and legal institutions are destroyed, of course. That would apply for pre-cooked up scenarios as well. And a lot of this stuff is less secret than you'd imagine. It's mostly boring, not secret. The legal angles are pretty non-secret. --Mr.98 (talk) 23:21, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The general plans are likely well-known. Some of the specifics, such as just where they would go to hide from the attackers, is likely classified. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 01:58, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is also the issue that the succession has never been tested beyond Vice-President. Some concerns about the constitutionality of the succession have been expressed (see here). If people chose to challenge it at the time, it could cause significant problems (especially if there is no Supreme Court around to rule on it). When it comes down to it, though, all that matters is whether military leaders are willing to accept orders from the person. The legalities can be worried about later. --Tango (talk) 00:03, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What would happen? Some set designer wearing funny glasses would design a pit twice as deep, at the cost of several hundred billion dollars, call it a monument, and have it dug at taxpayer expense. μηδείς (talk) 00:54, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Does buy more, pay more (identical good) always hold?
Is there something you can pay less for and get more (at least up to a point, as this can't go on forever). Not less per unit, this is commoner than dirt. That you literally hand over more money and get less stuff (that is for all practical purposes identical). Nor does this mean with different sellers. The same seller at the same time. While if you loosen the identicalness requirement a bit you could find many things like that (Olympic weightlifter A can lift several hundred kilos, instead of buying the $2,000 (todays dollars) nanotube-constructed 15" 1-millimeter thick, 7 gram, 2045 MacBook Hard Vacuum with brain plug he buys a $1.00 (MSRP) 15" 2.5kg 2045 MacBook Brick with brain plug (and identical (or even better) technical ability) (the future will be wild), then he's paying less to get more, at the very least he's getting more matter, right? Or immoral example but, a client who prefers drug addict prostitute A to anyone else on Earth, finding her the pinnacle of human beauty (are there any?) he could get more of what is sort of the same thing (hours of..) (and better quality too) and still pay less than anyone else (assuming any cheaper prostitutes cost more to travel to than he'd save). So that's not very interesting either. The best I can think of is maybe some remote culture where the shamen voodoo curses some of a potter's pots (maybe for overcharging an outsider:) and it'll stay till he sells the cursed objects for money to a knowing buyer (curse is eternal and transferable). The goods are essentially the same object (okay, so there's an extra 0.1% more ovalness here but let's say he's really consistent) but when the rare outsider who doesn't believe in curses passes by he might offer less for 10 pots than for 5 of them (the wrong 5) just to get them out of his shop. Or "ungoods" which are sold for negative money, in my city businesses have to sell their garbage to private companies for negative dollars, for example (free garbage removal is only for residences), but now they're providing a service. Oh great. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:53, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I bought two 500ml bottles of Coca-Cola in W H Smith a few weeks ago. They were on special offer, 2 for £1. The individual price was £1.20. I often get my lunch at Tesco and have their "meal deal" which is a sandwich, a drink and a chocolate bar for £2.50. I don't particularly want the chocolate bar, but the sandwich costs £2 and the drink costs £1.50, so I get the bar anyway and save £1. Such offers, while pretty stupid, are very common. --Tango (talk) 22:06, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Since stores often have sales on only a certain size of an item, usually the most popular size, somewhere in the middle range, this product can actually be cheaper than the smaller size, which is not on sale. StuRat (talk) 22:13, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Most of those look like mistakes, to me. However, the practice of putting one quantity/variety on sale and not the others seems widespread. I assume it's to trick people into buying the wrong item and paying full price. StuRat (talk) 22:48, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, those are almost certainly mistakes (and probably just with the label printing - the tills probably get it right). They wouldn't get away with it if if they did that intentionally - someone would notice (probably when they saw their receipt saying "Today, you've saved -£0.51!") and the bad publicity would be enormous. They would end up having to refund people, with all the administration costs that go along with that. It just wouldn't be a good plan (and the people that come up with the deals in supermarkets are very good at their jobs, so they would know it wasn't a good plan). --Tango (talk) 23:08, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, not a mistake. I've frequently seen small bottles of drink more expensive than the larger bottles of drink next to them, particularly in inner-city convenience stores. The reason is that if you're an office worker grabbing a drink to go with your lunch (ie most of their customers), the small size is more convenient to carry around and a more appropriate size for one serving (you could, of course, buy the larger bottle and throw it away when you've had enough, but there's a psychological barrier to this "wastefulness"). FiggyBee (talk) 01:40, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well maybe, but I also refer you to a Which? investigation of May 2012: "Supermarkets mislead shoppers with 'dubious' special offers, Which? says" that "found that supermarkets increase the price of an individual product – such as a pot of yoghurt - when that product becomes part of a bulk ‘multibuy’ offer. The effect of the price increase makes the ‘multibuy’ deal seem better value, when in fact shoppers are paying more per item than they previously had been."Alansplodge (talk) 02:02, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's just a variation on the theme of using an artificially high price to make sales prices seem better than they are. Your typical infomercial starts by saying "not $1000, not $900, not $800, not $700, not even $600, no, this incredible lucite version of the Hope Diamond is yours for only $500 ! But wait, there's more, we will add in a second Hope Diamond for free, you need only pay shipping and handling (which is still far more than it's worth) ! We've included a certificate of authenticity (yep, genuine plasic) so you can confidently pass this heirloom down to your children (who will most likely use it to beat you to death for wasting their inheritance). And, if you act now (before you regain your senses), we will throw in these other free gifts (old crap they couldn't even give away)..." StuRat (talk) 08:39, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you say that a "certificate of authenticity" is just plastic. I agree that the stuff could be worth a lot less but whatever it is worth is due to the certificate, which you are calling plastic.--nids(♂) 20:57, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
He's saying that the replica diamond is just (authenticated) plastic, not that the certificate itself is plastic. FiggyBee (talk) 05:48, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Right, there's nothing "authentic" about a replica, so certifying that it's "genuine lucite" isn't going to make it any more valuable than "uncertified lucite". StuRat (talk) 07:41, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed an offer on jars of syrup recently: two for less than the price of one. I asked a manager in the supermarket, and it wasn't a mistake. If you bought one, they would in effect pay you to take another one away with it. They must have had too much syrup. Card Zero (talk) 19:01, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. I remember a huge pile of asparagus a couple of years ago in a local supermarket. One bunch for a pound, three bunches for 20 pence. I guess someone massively over-ordered. Warofdreamstalk 09:52, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's something completely different - that's about demand and price, not quantity and price. --Tango (talk) 23:02, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh lord, I'd suggest the chapters on expanded production in Volume I but it would be a waste of time wouldn't it? Fifelfoo (talk) 23:25, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What are you talking about? --Tango (talk) 23:57, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
He's talking about Das Kapital. I would also recommend it if you have time. If you want to compare Veblen and Marx, I suggest The Worldly Philosophers. I suggest it anyway. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:03, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For a variation on this concept – buy less, pay the same – see the story of the Sibylline Books. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 84.21.143.150 (talk) 12:15, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you can buy one economist who thinks that 'price' has a rational relationship to 'value' for 1,000 arbitrary units of exchange, how much should you pay for two economists who think the same thing? And how much would you have to pay them to think something different? AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:16, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've also seen a stepped volume discount result in paying more for lower volumes. For example, an item that sells for $2 each, but drops to $1.50 each when you buy ten or more. In that scenario, 9 items cost $18, while 10 items only costs $15. The usual way around this irrational pricing is to say something like the first 5 items are $2 each, and the 6th item and beyond are $1.50 each. This results in the totals listed under the "2nd" pricing strategy:
The prices marked with an asterisk are irrational, under the 1st pricing system.
A variation on this problem is a coupon with a minimum purchase requirement (either in terms of quantity or cash total). For example, a $10 off coupon when you spend $20 or more results in a $19 bill costing you $19, while a $20 bill only costs you $10, once the coupon is applied. So, why don't they just make it a 50% off coupon ? Both so you will buy more to get to the minimum, or, if you buy over that amount, you won't get as much of a discount. In my example, you only get a 50% discount if you manage to get your bill to exactly equal $20. Anything more gives you less of a discount, and anything less gives you no discount at all. StuRat (talk) 07:55, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Any idea what it means? —Tamfang (talk) 00:12, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 00:25, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What are the "flags" trying to say, nonverbally? Bus stop (talk) 00:36, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
/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)[reply]
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 BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 01:48, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Explain the relevance of the Mormon reference, please. μηδείς (talk) 00:47, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 01:54, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
(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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
How well does the particular shoe fit the particular foot? Edison (talk) 05:04, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Neither, was commenting to Bugs, actually. Snow (talk) 06:41, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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 BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 08:55, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is it really a "codename" if everyone knows what it is? Evanh2008(talk|contribs) 07:44, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I promise not to tell anyone. HiLo48 (talk) 07:55, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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 BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 08:55, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
South Carolina constitional amendments
Article VI. Section 2 of the South Carolina Constitution[8] 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 [9] 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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? -- roleplayer 17:17, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. -- roleplayer 18:58, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Is it common in Britain that judges give "unconditional discharge"?? Or is it a very hypothetical scenario.--nids(♂) 20:54, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, because the CPS wouldn't prosecute if that were the likely outcome. --Tango (talk) 22:04, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)
[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Yes, the Beaver Wars are usually pointed to as the cause of the region's depopulation. A quote from this book, [10]: "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, [11], 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.[12] 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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) [reply]
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) [reply]
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) [reply]
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)[reply]
The historical experience has been that the soundest currency loses, through Gresham's law... AnonMoos (talk) 07:13, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
(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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
(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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 23:08, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 02:11, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Are you saying they preferred the Ph- spelling over the F- spelling? -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ [your turn] 06:37, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Soylent Green is composed of human beings. Religions aren't. By perhaps, but not of.μηδείς (talk) 01:18, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
(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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
(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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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) [reply]
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? -- roleplayer 20:20, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Priming is the closest thing I am aware of. IBE (talk) 21:13, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
But we still have the 1920's clothes and hair styles. StuRat (talk) 03:00, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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) [reply]
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.[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 [13] 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)[reply]
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 BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 02:08, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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.[14]Rmhermen (talk) 02:44, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Is that the law? I thought it was just common practice. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:53, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Sorry, I can't see it there. What is it called? Alansplodge (talk) 00:32, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I always assumed it indicated "eye, nose" = "I knows".--Shantavira|feed me 07:31, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
According to the CIA factbook[15], the per capita GDP in India (per capita purchasing power) in 2011 was US$3700. StuRat (talk) 02:49, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Which figure do you refer to, $900, or $3700 (as your indentation seems to show) ? StuRat (talk) 04:58, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
900. The latter would be considered more middle class (and rising to updatrds of 10,000)Lihaas (talk) 08:50, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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) [reply]
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)[reply]
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) [reply]
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) [reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 [16] 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)[reply]
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 [17][18]. 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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."[19] 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)[reply]
(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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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) [reply]
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)[reply]
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) [reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 protests, at the time, or to official diplomatic rebukes ? StuRat (talk) 01:11, 8 July 2012 (UTC) [reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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) [reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Well, speaking of atrocities, I doubt very much that the Japanese dropped leaflets before they attacked Pearl Harbor. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 11:55, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:44, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I used the same search, but with "ambassador" instead of "ambassadors", and found nothing useful. StuRat (talk) 19:05, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
But having them forcibly interned does. StuRat (talk) 19:06, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[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)[reply]
In this situation, what else could they have done? Nyttend (talk) 19:12, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Like what you suggested, "sent to Mexico"?A8875 (talk) 19:18, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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) [reply]
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)[reply]
Going by this [20], 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
The Krugerrand is implicitly backed by gold, as it actually is made of it. Joepnl (talk) 21:45, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 [25]. I imagine a shiny gold coin will be even worst.A8875 (talk) 23:25, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 convicts 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Well, to begin with, how did you find out about these labourers? Snow (talk) 03:09, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
IN 2012 
