Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

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

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

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

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

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

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

July 22

Happy Dan the Whistling Dog

In which issue of Cosmopolitan did Ward Greene's story "Happy Dan, the Whistling Dog" (used as source material for Disney's Lady and the Tramp) appear? Has it ever been reprinted elsewhere? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.78.58.9 (talk) 01:42, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I did a quick google. It seems Ward Greene wrote the short story for a 1943 Cosmopolitan issue that Disney read. Another site says he wrote a book on it in 1939. Another title is Happy Dan the Cynical Dog. I only googled a few pages though. One said that Disney bought the rights because the story was so close.--Canoe1967 (talk) 04:53, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Why did men suddenly stop wearing hats?

In quite recent history (my grandfather did) all men wore hats and stopped doing so in what seems a very short timespan of like 10 years or even less. That must have felt like a revolution similar to suddenly everyone having a mobile phone, but I cannot recall something like "the great hat-burning event where men from all standings publicly denounced this troublesome and demeaning tradition". They just stopped wearing hats. Who or what triggered this? Joepnl (talk) 03:10, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

As a guess, I'd say it was mostly the largely care-free attitude of the baby boomer generation toward fashion and style. Hats don't perform a real function the way, say, shoes do, so a lot of people probably just didn't see the need for them. I'd say that your estimate of it happening within the span of a decade or so is quite correct, most likely somewhere between the period 1960-70 is when the tide really started to turn against hats. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:19, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

It might correspond to the time period when bluejeans became de rigueur. It could be that hats don't go well with jeans. Bus stop (talk) 03:30, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Huh, "carefree" had little to do with it. There was never a more uptight and self-conscious generation than the babyboomers who stopped wearing hats because they saw doing so as a sign of maturity--i.e., the actions of their fathers' generation. This was restricted mostly to whites in the US. Blacks, being much less uptight than whites, never stopped wearing hats, and still do. See pimpin'. Hence it has become cool again for whites. See Gavin Degraw. μηδείς (talk) 03:45, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

There is no mention of hats in Pimpin', a questionable redirect to Pimp. Discussions of the current popularity of hats, e.g. [1] or [2], don't say much about a racial difference. I'm partial to User:Canoe1967's explanation below involving the compact cars of the 1960s which made hats a real hassle. 75.166.200.250 (talk) 05:21, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

It should be pointed out that there are a lot of different types of hats. Bus stop (talk) 04:00, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Women stopped wearing, er tablecloth thingies, on their head about 20/30 years before that. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 04:09, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

The temporal (and indeed geographical) context is unclear, but if you mean headscarves and consider the UK's non-immigrant population to be within scope, I must partially dissent. When my parents and I (rooted in SE English culture) moved to Yorkshire around 1964, it was the general custom for (native English) women to wear headscarves after marriage. My mother unintentionally attracted opprobrium by not wearing a headscarf in public, as a result of which men would politely pass the time of day or engage her in innocent conversation, which it transpired passed for flirting by 1960's Tyke standards. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 84.21.143.150 (talk) 16:26, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I think it happened because cars got to low for them around 1960. Checker cabs still has cars that fit a full top hat, I think.--Canoe1967 (talk) 04:12, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

"Bull. Reference needed. Edison (talk) 01:09, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I think you have cause and effect mixed up there. After huge hats went out of fashion, cars didn't need as much headroom. StuRat (talk) 05:38, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I would love to see data on the prevalence of hats and sports cars year by year. 75.166.200.250 (talk) 07:41, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Except for protection from the weather, hats always seemed rather useless, to me. A tie is another useless men's fashion accessory, but, unlike hats, you don't need to find a place to hang them every place you go and worry about them blowing away and giving you "hat hair". Of course, even ties have gone out of fashion, too, except in rather formal offices or on special occasions. StuRat (talk) 05:42, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

That must make me unfashionable, then, because I'm wearing a tie now, as I do every day in the office as well as on many less-than-formal social occasions. I find it to be a useful temperature regulation device, as well as serving to express my personality (see, for a fictionalised take on this, Jack Vance's classic story The Moon Moth.) Oh, and kindly vacate my greensward :-) . {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 84.21.143.150 (talk) 16:26, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Many people who were around while the change was happening were confused as to why it was happening, so I'm not sure that we'll solve it retroactively at a distance of almost 50 years. However, getting rid of men's hats eliminated the whole somewhat complicated issue of "hat etiquette" (when men were supposed to remove their hats, or tip their hats to passing ladies, etc.). AnonMoos (talk) 06:45, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

---

John Kennedy has been blamed. —Tamfang (talk) 06:49, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Though snopes says he is no more responsible for the hat's decline than Clark Gable is for "killing the men's undershirt industry". (See "Hat Trick"). ---Sluzzelin talk 07:09, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

At the end of Du côté de chez Swann Proust suddenly fast-forwards from the Belle Époque to post WW1. None of the men are wearing hats, and the women have small, neat hats without baskets of flowers on top. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:38, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Here in the US, I'm fairly certain hats were pretty much ubiquitous up until approximately the mid-1950s. Hell, during the Great Depression even our homeless bums found the time to put on a hat! :) Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 08:40, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

A number of them are wearing caps... AnonMoos (talk) 12:17, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Caps of all sorts are included in our list of Hat styles. I've always known caps to be considered just a more informal type of hat. Perhaps that categorization isn't as universal as I thought. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 07:04, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad we're talking about hats specifically, because there certainly has been no dying off of men's head wear. Virtually all men in the 18-30 age group wear caps that seem almost never to come off their heads. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 09:02, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I've heard that the fact that Kennedy did not wear a hat, basically put paid to the industry.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:16, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I think Jack of Oz has a good point: Hats seem to have been replaced by other headgear, such as the fitted cap/baseball cap or the tuque/beanie. However, unlike the hat, these are not seen to be formal wear, and, as such, they can't be used for 'all occassions' like a hat can.

Another reason could be that one fashion is replaced by another. If your hair is combed very flat, you can easily put a hat on top of it, but if you have a big, fluffy hairdo that's kept in place with pomade (popular in the 50s and 60s according to the article), I assume that a hat could easily ruin it (in addition to the pomade making a mess out of the inside of your hat).

My personal conspiracy theory is that global warming is to blame: as global temperatures increase, it is simply too hot to wear a hat. :-P V85 (talk) 16:09, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

This BBC article; What makes a man wear a hat? puts forward the theory that it was long hair in the 1960s that killed it off. I suspect that it was already declining before that. My father, who came of age in the 1930s, never wore a hat unless he had to. The new casual open-collared look of the 1930s didn't need a hat in the way that their fathers needed them. An example; in this group of Welsh teenagers in 1933, only their teacher had the urge to wear a hat. Youthful rebellion perhaps. Alansplodge (talk) 18:09, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Global warming aside, people in temperate countries often don't need to dress up as warmly as before, because it's warmer indoors (thanks to modern insulation, heating &c) and we don't spend a lot of time outdoors (bearing in mind that a modern car, or public transport, almost certainly has adequate heating). One less reason to wear a hat. bobrayner (talk) 23:57, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

The wearing of hats in sunny weather is promoted by Slip-Slop-Slap.

—Wavelength (talk) 15:04, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Alansplodge -- the hatless ones in that photo are teenage boys going for a hike in the countryside. Different social expectations would have applied to adult men while working in many kinds of employments, or in various other less casual contexts. AnonMoos (talk) 02:00, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but even ten years before that, they would all have been wearing hats or (more likely) caps. As suggested above, a 1910s or 20s soccer crowd would have been fully hatted, boys and all[3]. Alansplodge (talk) 20:31, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

JFK had an elaborate hairdo, unlike Ike. A hat squashed it down and required re-styling. I credit Kennedy with the demise of men wearing hats in the US. I like how in 1950's US cop shows, the officers commonly said to the suspect "Get your hat. We're going downtown." Everyone assumed a man would not leave his home or office without a hat on his head. Is it likely that men with hats had "cooler heads?" Edison (talk) 01:09, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

It's fashion. Why are we looking for logic? HiLo48 (talk) 07:53, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

This issue is dealt with in depth by the book Hatless Jack: The President, the Fedora, and the History of American Style by Neil Steinberg. It's a fairly complicated issue that was the result of years of subtle economic and social pressures. eldamorie (talk) 14:40, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd say the overall trend is a move toward practicality in clothes. Women can now wear pants when conditions warrant it (and those pants might be jeans, for both men or women), athletic shoes are now allowed in places where they would have been forbidden previously, and, as I commented earlier, ties are no longer required in most situations. We also don't "dress for dinner", etc. So, hats now tend to be worn only when the weather requires a hat, and then tend to be practical hats, not a men's stovepipe hat or a ladies hat with a bird's nest on top. StuRat (talk) 20:06, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

But getting men (and people generally) to wear hats has been the subject of many campaigns aimed at reducing the incidence of skin cancers, melanomas etc, particularly in countries with lots of sunshine, like Australia, and particularly where the population is dominated by people descended from the fair-skinned nations, again like down here. The practical thing would be for adults to wear hats without ever being cajoled or persuaded into doing so; but despite all the "slip, slop, slap" etc campaigns of the past 40-odd years, most adults still do not wear hats as a matter of course when outside. We put on a hat if we're going to the cricket, for example, but if we're just outside in the garden for an hour or so, or at a barbecue - which is way more than enough time to get a serious sunburn - we tend not to. Fashion still rules. Practicality still comes a distant second. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 20:52, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

They had to make laws to force kids to wear bike helmets. I remember when those laws came in, and my kids, like everyone else's, complained that they made them feel and look like "dorks". But the law prevailed, and now it's completely normal for kids to wear bike helmets. This law was not about revenue raising, it was about safety. Just like the compulsory wearing of seat belts. If skin protection and community health and reducing the massive burden of cancer on the health system is their thing, maybe they should enforce the wearing of hats, on pain of some monetary penalty. That would certainly make people think twice about leaving the house uncovered. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 21:00, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I meant immediate practicality, like being comfortable, not preventing cancer. You could also argue that Victorian swimsuits (which looked more like wet suits) are more practical than bikinis. Of course, the answer, in both cases, is to wear cool clothes (the bikini and no hat), and use sunscreen if you will be out for a while, with a possible exception for bald men. (Most hats don't completely protect the face, in any case, so you could burn the tip of your nose.) StuRat (talk) 21:05, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Comfort is a relative thing. The most comfortable clothing is no clothing at all (assuming the weather's right), but few of us would feel all that comfortable about turning up at work naked, even if it were legal. People often talk about feeling "undressed" if they don't have a handkerchief, a coat or whatever. Exactly the same thing used to apply to hats. No reason why the wheel couldn't turn full circle: when it comes to fashion, it usually does, sooner or later. I'm just waiting for the day when men can wear those puffy shorts they wore back in Sir Francis Drake's day. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 00:31, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

They already came and went: [4]. StuRat (talk) 20:49, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I think the main reason we don't wear hats so much is that we just spend less time out of doors. Not only do more of us work indoors, we walk less and take cars everywhere, so there's less need for a hat to keep the rain or the sun off. It was raining when I left for work this morning, so I took a coat and (fleece) hat with me, but only because I planned to go for a walk at lunchtime - I didn't even put them on, I just threw them into the back seat of the car. As it happened, the rain had stopped by lunchtime, so I went for my walk bare-headed. --Nicknack009 (talk) 12:57, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

For rain, I use a rain jacket with a hood. Does a hood count as a hat ? StuRat (talk) 20:45, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps it is vanity or perhaps it is comfort, but my husband always wears a hat when leaving the house. When he had hair, it was usually a baseball-style cap but now that he is without he had a veritable wardrobe of trilbys, porkpies, fedoras, and scally caps. While this is unusual compared to his peers, no one ever remarks on it negatively. But I have noticed that hat are darn expensive these days, maybe because so few people are buying them. (FWIW, I wear hats too!) Helene O'Troy - Et In Arcadia Ego Sum (talk) 20:23, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Hitler's policies in regards to Hungary, Romania, France, and Bulgaria

I have a question--why did Hitler occupy Hungary in 1944 when their leader attempted to make peace with the Allies but did not occupy Romania, which also had a "Jewish problem" in Hitler's view and whose leader also attempted to make peace with the Allies in the late stages of the war? Romania had a lot of oil, and thus seemed to be more strategically more important for Nazi Germany to occupy than Hungary. Also, considering Hitler's mentality and views, why did Hitler not pursue the Final Solution much more aggressively in France and Bulgaria, where the overwhelming majority of the Jews survived World War II? Futurist110 (talk) 06:35, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

It's very difficult to second-guess dictators. But at the risk of oversimplifying, Hungary was nearer to Germany and smaller, while Romania was about twice the size and distance. See Hungary during World War II and Romania during World War II. France was not going particularly well for Hitler by 1944, and antisemitism wasn't as popular there. (German military administration in occupied France during World War II). The Bulgarian resistance movement during World War II was fierce and completely outnumbered the Nazis in Bulgaria, where antisemitism was even less popular than in France. Dobri Bozhilov was a subservient Nazi puppet in all respects, except that he flatly refused to deport Jews to extermination camps. 75.166.200.250 (talk) 07:31, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Even Hitler knew he had to pick his battles, and trying to massacre every Jew in Europe at the same time would turn too many against him. Depending on the time frame, for example, he might have been trying to keep the US out of the war. (In the end, of course, he still managed to turn too many against him.) As to why he chose which country for genocide and not others, that has many causes, like local politics, presence of Western media, etc. Of course, Hitler planned to win the war, and with total control of Europe, could then commit genocide at his will. So, in his mind, he was only deciding on the timing of killing off each population of Jews, not making a decision to spare some. StuRat (talk) 07:27, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

For France we have a bit of info in The Holocaust in France and Timeline of deportations of French Jews to death camps. But Hitler wasn't really interested in getting rid of all the Jews everywhere, just the ones in Germany (and the areas of Eastern Europe that he thought should be German). If somehow he had been successful, I'm sure he would have paid closer attention to France. Adam Bishop (talk) 09:25, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Let's set aside the unsupported statement that "Hitler wasn't really interested in getting rid of all the Jews everywhere, just...[etc.]" and look at how many Jews were eradicated by mass slaughter in the abovementioned countries (based on a table prepared by Prof. Yehuda Bauer, in raw numbers and a percentage of each country's Jewish population on the eve of WWII):

• Hungary: 569,000 (69%)
• Romania: 287,000 (47%)
• France: 350,000 (22%)
• Thrace, Macedonia, and Eastern Serbia - occupied by Bulgaria: 11,300 in 1943, transported to the Treblinka extermination camp by Bulgaria's agreement with Theodor Dannecker. The 50,000 Bulgarian Jews were subsequently not deported.

That's about all I have time to provide at present. Otherwise, I'd say that the failure of the Nazi regime to eliminate more Jews was primarily due to limits on its expenses and resource allocation in having to fighting a war at the same time. -- Deborahjay (talk) 13:36, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I think that Hungary and Romania had more Jews than that at the start of WWII. Lucy Dawidowicz's figures state that there were 600,000 Jews in Romania and 650,000 Jews in Hungary at the start of WWII. I think your figures for Romania are for the Jews killed during WWII, not for total pre-war Jewish population. I want to point out that the overwhelming majority of Holocaust deaths in Romania occurred in Northern Transylvania (which Hungary controlled between 1940 and 1945) and in Moldova, which was captured by the U.S.S.R. in 1940 and then recaptured by the Romanians and Germans in 1941. In "rump Romania" (essentially Romania within its 1914 borders), the overwhelming majority of the Jews survived World War II, though they did suffer large amounts of discrimination during the war. Also, in regards to France and Bulgaria, most (in the case of France) or all (in the case of Bulgaria) of the Jews that were killed were not French/Bulgarian citizens. Futurist110 (talk) 21:31, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

When it came to oil, Hitler had other plans: He wanted Azerbaijan, but the Germans never got that far, due to the Battle of Stalindgrad. V85 (talk) 15:46, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but if the Nazis can't capture Azerbaijan, wouldn't it have been more of an incentive for them to hold on to Romania at all costs? Futurist110 (talk) 21:31, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Sure, but do people act rationally at all times? V85 (talk) 03:56, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

As for the statement that "Hitler wasn't interested in killing all Jews everywhere", it's true that Hitler wasn't particularly interested in killing Jews in the U.K., the U.S., Canada, and Australia (not because he had sympathy for those Jews, but because they were out of his reach). However, Hitler was (or appeared to be) extremely eager in killing as much Jews as he could in areas under his control. Hitler still exterminated most Jews in areas which he did not want to permanently annex to Germany in the unlikely event of a Nazi WWII victory, such as Hungary, Greece, Yugoslavia, the Netherlands, Belgium, and Northern Italy. France does seem to be an exception to this rule, and it's pretty surprising considering that based on my knowledge, there were a lot of Nazi troops in France and thus they could have killed a lot more Jews even without a lot of cooperation from the French locals and Vichy French officials. Futurist110 (talk) 21:31, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

It's a bit discomforting to hear people say "Germany didn't kill that many Jews in France" or "as much." Even killing one person is enough. But I highly recommend that everyone take a look at the article on the Vel' d'Hiv Roundup.

The Vel' d'Hiv Roundup (French: Rafle du Vélodrome d'Hiver, commonly called the Rafle du Vel' d'Hiv: "Vel' d'Hiv Police Roundup / Raid"), was a Nazi decreed raid and mass arrest in Paris by the French police on 16 and 17 July 1942, code named Opération Vent printanier ("Operation Spring Breeze"). The name for the event is derived from the nickname of the Vélodrome d'Hiver ("Winter Velodrome"), a bicycle velodrome and stadium where many of the victims were temporarily confined. The roundup was one of several aimed at reducing the Jewish population in occupied France. According to records of the Préfecture de Police, 13,152 victims were arrested[1] and held at the Vélodrome d'Hiver and the Drancy internment camp nearby, then shipped by railway transports to Auschwitz for extermination. French President Jacques Chirac apologized in 1995 for the complicit role that French policemen and civil servants served in the raid.

Also, I believe that there were maps and globes found in Hitler's rooms with a big "X" on countries such as USA, basically the entire world he wanted to conquer, Pacific, Atlantic, etc. He just didn't get to USA in time, but if he would've, he certainly would've attempted to exterminate the Jewish population there.

Also, keep in mind, that when Hitler got into France and set up the Vichy government, he was dealing with a lot of conflicts at that time, he was fighting a war on multiple fronts and also faced resistance in France from French resistance members, as opposed to Poland which he conquered immediately and was able to exterminate most of the Jewish population. Interestingly, the Jews who had the best luck were those in North Africa. Even though Italy controlled them and was an Axis power under Mussolini, Mussolini did not hate Jews as much as Hitler and did not have a systematic process of extermination. --Activism1234 21:36, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I do not see my statement as discomforting, considering that I was simply stating facts--it's a fact that the Jewish death toll in France as a % of the total pre-war Jewish population during WWII was fortunately much lower than that of other Nazi-controlled areas. Obviously it is a huge crime and atrocity to have even one Jew killed by Hitler, and for the record I had a lot of relatives who were killed in the Holocaust (including two of my great-grandparents), so the Holocaust took a large toll on my family as well. I looked at the killing/deportation numbers in France and it's surprising how the killings/deportations were usually (with a few exceptions) conducted at a constant rate of about 1,000 or so Jews every week, two, or three weeks, in contrast to other Nazi-controlled areas where the Nazis simply killed or deported the overwhelming majority of Jews right on the spot when they got there (Ukraine, Belarus, the Baltic States, Northern Italy, etc.). It's interesting how even in Northern Italy Hitler deported all the Jews that he could once he occupied the area in 1943/1944, even though by that point the German war effort was facing a lot of strain on numerous fronts. I'll take a look at the Vel d'Hiv Roundup page in a minute. Even if Hitler wanted to conquer the U.S., I do not see how he would have been able to do this, considering that he couldn't even conquer the United Kingdom, which had a much smaller population and was much closer to Nazi Germany. Also, Hitler considered the British and Americans to be Aryan/Anglo-Saxon countries, and actually wanted to make peace with Britain (at least during the early stages of WWII). And yes, I know that the Jewish death toll was much lower in areas that were controlled by Nazi allies (Italy, Hungary (pre-1944), Bulgaria, and Romania) than by Nazi Germany itself, considering that most Nazi allied countries weren't as crazy about exterminating all the Jews that they can like Hitler was. Futurist110 (talk) 22:37, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't referring specifically to you. I was just saying it's discomforting to hear statistics being compared in a manner of "Less people were brutally murdered here than there, only tens of thousands were murdered here and there it was hundreds of thousands." That was what I was referring to. And while Hitler couldn't conquer Britain, that wasn't exactly his goal now, was it? He didn't simply bomb London for the fun of it. He tried to conquer and thought he could, but couldn't. He'd try again another time if he wasn't stopped. Also, the Nazis attempted to build a nuclear bomb during WWII - imagine how this would've impacted the results if they succeeded. Hitler's "peace" with Britain in the beginning doesn't mean much; he made peace and a military alliance with the Soviet Union which he hated bitterly and then invaded them. To him, a treaty is just a piece of paper (which is true). Speaking about the Vel d'Hiv Roundup, it was in the news recently. Check out what French President Hollande had to say about it.

Speaking from the site of the former stadium near the Eiffel Tower, Hollande told a gathering, which included Jewish leaders, that the crime "was committed in France by France. Not one German soldier, not one was mobilized during this entire operation," Hollande said.

pasta history mystery

While reading wikipedia about pasta, I noticed the history included the origins as likely to be a 5th centruy Arab invention of making the food for long distance travel. Makes sense, but later the article mentions ancient Romans cooking pasta by boiling or frying. Ancient Romans had an empire well before Christ and into the 300's AD, all before the 5th century, so how did the Arabs "invent" pasta? I figure it still probably came from there, because it's a logical reason to invent it, but as usual something was written about human history and left there slightly tangled and, well, not really answered. Sorry to be blunt but I don't like to "sort of" know the history with ends that loose... I realize it's impossible to get it perfect, but I don't think the article should be attempted when it seems we are far from knowing the origin. At least write it as a mystery. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Movierealist (talk • contribs) 21:16, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I think you're misreading the narrative of the pasta article. The Romans are cooking fresh pasta. The Arabs adapted it to make dry pasta, for travel. It doesn't claim anyone "invented" it, really, it just talks about the "first record of," which isn't the same thing at all. I don't know if any of that history is actually true, but you're mixing everything up terribly, which is why you are confused by it. --Mr.98 (talk) 21:49, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

China had millet noodles around 2000 BCE per Noodle#History. 75.166.200.250 (talk) 22:06, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

And note that something as simple as pasta is likely to have been independently invented in multiple places and times. StuRat (talk) 22:05, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. 75.166.200.250 (talk) 22:06, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Colours not part of national flag colours as soccer uniform

So far, Orange is the colour of the Netherlands national football teams' uniform because Orange is the colour of House of Orange. Blue is the colour of Italy's House of Azzuri. Is there any national team whose uniform colours different from their national flag? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.29.33.18 (talk) 22:42, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

The England football team kit features a lot of blue (or has done in the recent past),[5] while the Flag of England is only red and white. All Australian national sports teams are on a green / gold colour scheme[6] although neither colour appears on the Flag of Australia. New Zealand is heavily into black,[7] again absent from the Flag of New Zealand, although I think their main soccer strip is now white. Alansplodge (talk) 23:16, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Australia uses green and gold because they're the National colours of Australia. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 01:28, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, it's the flag that's wrong. HiLo48 (talk) 07:59, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

It's got a little version of ours in one corner... Alansplodge (talk) 20:18, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

That's what makes it wrong. The UK is a foreign power to Australia, our High Court said so. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 20:38, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Germany play in White shirts (home) and Green (away), Japan play in Blue. Nanonic (talk) 02:58, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Toronto, Ontario... what a surprise. Anyway, there's no such thing as the "House of Azurri", the Royal House of Italy was the House of Savoy, maybe it helps you with your huge book on races, ethnicities, religions, countries, flags and such. 109.99.71.97 (talk) 13:00, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Even non-existent (non-)entities have their correct spelling: it's neither Azzuri (OP) nor Azurri (you), but Azzurri. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 19:55, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Scan National colours for other candidates. Northern Ireland use green in soccer and Commonwealth Games (see flag of Northern Ireland for complicated discussion). India play in blue in soccer and cricket; Fiji have black and white in rugby and soccer. jnestorius^(talk) 17:09, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

July 23

sneaky prosody

Consider Humbert Wolfe's famous epigram:

You cannot hope to bribe or twist,

thank God! the British journalist.

But, seeing what the man will do

unbribed, there's no occasion to.

Now, one of the fun things about a poem like this is that the lines don't quite line up with the grammatical clauses, although the line-by-line meter and the rhyme scheme remain spot-on. For example, logically, the last two lines "should" be

But, seeing what the man will do unbribed,

there's no occasion to.

but of course that's just wrong, metrically, and it doesn't rhyme, either.

My question is, is there a word for this sort of thing? —Steve Summit (talk) 00:42, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Enjambement. —Tamfang (talk) 01:39, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! —Steve Summit (talk) 01:48, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

United States Immigration Restrictions in the 1920s and Their Relation to World War I?

Did WWI play a large role in helping the anti-immigration movement get a lot of support among Congress and the American people? Or was World War I and its consequences for the U.S. irrelevant in determining public and political support for large U.S. immigration restrictions in the 1920s? The reason that I'm asking this question is that the U.S. was extremely open to European immigration (at least politically speaking) before WWI yet several years after it strong anti-immigration bills were passed in Congress by overwhelming margins. Futurist110 (talk) 08:42, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Anti-communism is an easier explanation, and I suggest to you Emma Goldman's autobiography which discusses the racial construction of the European other in terms of IWW and Leftist politics. The myth of the "European agitator" runs deep in conservative American labour history. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:51, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

How popular was Communism exactly among immigrants to the U.S.? Also, wouldn't the fear of Communism rationally only be used to restrict immigration from the U.S.S.R., not from other Eastern European countries? Also, didn't Germany have an extremely large Communist movement in 1918-1919? If so, it's rather interesting that German immigration wasn't as restricted as that from Eastern Europe in the 1920s. Futurist110 (talk) 08:53, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Social democracy and more right wing socialisms were highly popular in the United States until the first "Red scare" caused systematic political persecution of pro-working class movements. As, at the time, were syndicalised social democracy, radical syndicalism (ie: Industrial Unionism), and anarchism. "Communism" in the sense of Bolshevism was not significant in the United States until the CPUSA was bolshevised in the mid to late 1920s. Moreover, the US had a large anarchist milieux. "Communism" in the general sense was associated with ideas of the European racial other in the minds of Americans between Haymarket and 1920—the Italian, the Pole, the German, the Slav. I'd suggest that the construction of "nativism" was important in deciding Eastern Europeans were less desirable than central europeans. YMMV, I'm an Australian labour historian not a US labour historian. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:02, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Here's another theory, but I'm not sure how much truth there is to it--the Nordic supremacy belief became extremely popular became 1915 and 1924 due to the revival of the Ku Klux Klan during this time period. The KKK argued for Nordic supremacy, and due to its growing popularity back then many Americans (including most politicians) began paying more attention to and embracing this concept. Futurist110 (talk) 08:56, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

A lot of things converged on the 1920s: fear of Communism, fear of anarchism, fear of "dysgenic" Eastern and Southern European populations. The Immigration Restriction Act of 1924 was a catch-all piece of xenophobic legislation. World War I played into all of these themes, but it wasn't the prime mover. --Mr.98 (talk) 11:34, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

"Scientific racism" (Madison Grant, selective interpretation of the results of WW1 U.S. Army intelligence testing etc.), and dislike of southern and eastern Europeans (especially including Jews) perceived to be culturally and racially alien played a large role, and the Palmer Raid and the rise of the second KKK certainly provided a favorable political context. The 1920's was actually the decade, out of all the decades of U.S. history, when it was most intellectually respectable to be a scientific racist, and things like eugenics and forced sterilization became fairly mainstream (see Kallikaks and Jukes etc.)... AnonMoos (talk) 14:57, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Interestingly enough Grant's book was never that popular. Of course, that doesn't mean that some of his ideas weren't popular. It's still extremely surprising that there was no large-scale anti-Eastern and Southern European immigration movements right before WWI and yet just several years after WWI the public and Congressional support for such immigration restrictions was overwhelming. Futurist110 (talk) 20:39, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I think it also has to do with ideas maturing. According to the history section of Immigration Act of 1924, the ideas in the act were pushed as early as 1909. The general public might have needed some time to 'warm' to the idea that immigration of certain groups of people were bad. And just as it is true today, hearing the same message repeated over and over and over again, would lead one to adopting, if not all, at least parts of that message. Similarly, people might not react to Eastern and Southern European immigration until there is a sizable number of immigrants from those countries, who are perceived to be 'bad' for the well-being and well-functioning of society. V85 (talk) 21:06, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Interestingly enough, there was a sizable number of Southern and Eastern Europeans in most of the U.S. by 1910, and most of the new immigrants moved to places with already existing immigrants (the Northern and Western U.S.), rather than to places with no or very few other immigrants (the Southern U.S.). Not all ideas become widely accepted over time. For instance, since 1965 some Americans have advocated restricting immigration again, but this idea has never really gained widespread traction over the last 45 years when it came to legal immigrants. I guess that the pro-immigration movement wasn't very strong in the 1920s, since most Southern and Eastern European immigrants were still poor and thus unable to generate a lot of funding to promote their cause.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2009/03/10/us/20090310-immigration-explorer.html Futurist110 (talk) 23:30, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

The irony of the Nordicist racial theories is that they were actually beginning to wane as the act was passed. By the end of the interwar period, the racial politics of the U.S. had shifted pretty radically from the "which white people are the most white" of Nordicism towards the "white vs. black" racial concerns. Or, as it has been argued, a shift from someone like Madison Grant towards someone like Lothrop Stoddard. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:36, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

If that's the case, then why was there near-universal support for this bill in Congress? Also, I checked the article about the Immigration Act of 1924 and was surprised that a lot of support for this act in Congress came from Congressmen who admired Madison Grant's 1916 book, despite the fact that Grant's book was never a financial success or a best-seller. If what you said about American whites starting to be more concerned about blacks than about Southern and Eastern Europeans is true, then Americans who had those beliefs ironically hurt their cause by voting for politicians who drastically reduced white immigration to the U.S. and thus made the white percentage of the total U.S. population after 1924 smaller than it would have been otherwise without large European immigration restrictions. Futurist110 (talk) 00:56, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Because there were multiple reasons to support the bill, just like today on the immigration issue. Read about the Dillingham Commission and you'll see that explicit references to biology are not as prominent as genericized references to "culture", crime, economic effects, fears of revolution, and even bodily hygiene. Eugenics played a role; Harry Laughlin was an influential expert witness. But there was more to it than that. The pat history of the Immigration Restriction Act gives eugenics qua eugenics perhaps too much of a role as a separate thing — it was one of many things that played into the interwar xenophobic outlook.

In any case, by the time Hitler took power in Germany, less than a decade later, the idea of there being separate Nordic/Aryan race, a separate Jewish race, and maor differences between the Eastern/Southern/Northern/Western Europeans was considered laughable by most Americans. There were hold-outs, to be sure, but that moment had passed. Most Americans considered Nazi racial theories to be the most ridiculous kind of claptrap, as opposed to their "real" racial concerns regarding the black/white issue. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:52, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I can't see how anyone could have taken the Nazi racial ideas seriously when they were forging alliances and signing treaties with the likes of Italy, Japan and the Soviet Union. They didn't appear to even believe it themselves. 101.172.42.150 (talk) 10:10, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Italians didn't appear that low on the Nazi ethnic/racial hierarchy, since I think it went--1. Aryans/Nordics/Anglo-Saxons, 2. Mediterranean and Alpine peoples, 3. Slavs, 4. Roma, 5. Jews. As for the U.S.S.R., Hitler backstabbed them in just two years' time. In regards to Japan, Hitler actually declared them to be Honorary Aryans, and I don't think Hitler cared that much about Japanese people either way, considering that they did not really conflict with his territorial ambitions anywhere. Futurist110 (talk) 03:48, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Standing up for (other people's) national anthem

When I was in Texas, I went to see a basket ball game with my cousin and his wife. At the game prior to the commencement of play. They played the American National Anthem "The Star-Spangled Banner" and everybody stood up (including my cousin and wife).

Suddenly I have to make a decision as I am not an American Citizen. Do I stand up for the National Anthem of a foreign country or do I cause a scene by not standing up. There is no issue for my cousin and his wife as they are both Americans.

220.239.37.244 (talk) 13:42, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

There is no actual legal requirement, of course, that you even stand for the national anthem of even your own country. However, you should. First of all, it's good manners, and you'd hope foreigners would stand for your nation's. Second, it may involve you in an uncomfortable confrontation with those who do not understand (or care) that you are not an American citizen. This is especially wise in Texas.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:47, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

It would be seen as disrespectful or impolite, but that doesn't mean you have to do it. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:21, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

The question reminds me of experiences of being with a group of Christians who say grace before a meal. Being an infidel myself, I tend to adopt silent, passive non-participation. I have also seen others in the same situation actively participate (even though they are non-religious or belong to other religions themselves). A similar question for people of no religion or other religions at a religious wedding. What is the correct etiquette in that case? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 14:27, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with everyone else: Standing would be to show a sign of respect to the others there, who are American citizens (and, of course, a way to avoid irking anyone who does take the standing seriously). I like the comparison to religious activities when you're not religious. I think sitting still (possibly folding hands during grace/prayer) would be a good way to show that you are respectful of their beliefs, even if not a believer yourself. I am not sure exactly what PalaceGuard refers to with a religious wedding, as my impression is that religious services vary, according to the religion. And, of course, it would be the same problem a Christian would face when attending their Jewish/Christian/Buddhist/Sikh/Hindu (etc.) friend's wedding. Don't be disruptive, sit still, etc. If you get a sheet of psalms, sing along if you like, but you don't have to. And, of course, if there is a 'dresscode' (such as a yarmulke in a synagogue, a hijab in a mosque or shoes off in a Buddhist temple) adhere to it; don't make a fuss about how it's all superstition. My general impression is that religious people tend to be very appreciative of people being interested in their religion, and approaching it in a non-critical respectful way. V85 (talk) 15:35, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

The US Code, Title 36, Subtitle I, Part A, Chapter 3, Section 301 - National Anthem says:

(a) Designation.–The composition consisting of the words and music
known as the Star-Spangled Banner is the national anthem.
(b) Conduct During Playing.–During a rendition of the national
anthem–
(1) when the flag is displayed–
(A) all present except those in uniform should stand at
attention facing the flag with the right hand over the heart;
(B) men not in uniform should remove their headdress with
their right hand and hold the headdress at the left shoulder,
the hand being over the heart; and
(C) individuals in uniform should give the military salute
at the first note of the anthem and maintain that position until
the last note; and
(2) when the flag is not displayed, all present should face
toward the music and act in the same manner they would if the flag
were displayed.

Note that nothing is actually mentioned about excusing foreigners from these guidelines - the words it uses are that "all present [...] should..." - Cucumber Mike (talk) 18:47, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

So it is actually mandatory by law to stand up when the national anthem is playing? Wow. What is the penalty incurred if you fail to do so? (the link doesn't contain any mention of that). --Saddhiyama (talk) 19:13, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

It's a should, not a must (although I don't know if the US Code defines those words like this). Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 19:24, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Like Saddhiyama said. See also United States Flag Code. - Lindert (talk) 19:26, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

However, the laws of a country do not generally apply to foreigners to begin with. (There are obvious exceptions: visitors have to obey the road rules, can't rob banks, or murder or rape people etc.) Any law that has a "must" but no associated penalty for non-compliance is just a piece of paper. So much more so if the "must" is only a "should". It would be like "Men should hold the door open for women". Governments can't legislate for manners, courtesy and respect, and shouldn't even be seen to be trying. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 19:45, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

The laws of a country most certainly do apply generally to all individual who are within that nation's sovereignty. Just try smoking weed in Thailand or bad mouthing the Prince of Saudi Arabia atop a soap box outside King Fahd International Stadium and see whether or not those laws apply to you. As for the use of the word "should" in legislation, have you even had anything to do with Australian workplace health and safety laws? They use the word should all over the place to indicate that it is not prescribed that the specific measure mentioned be taken, but that if you fail to enact that specific measure you may be required to show that you had a reasonable excuse or that you enacted an equivalent or better measure. It's deinitely not just a piece of paper. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 05:59, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Those rules don't seem to be adhered to at all. Loads of clothes have American flags on them, and I can easily find disposable products with the American flag on: shirt with American flag on it, sandwiches on flag napkins $2 paper plates with the flag. Or doesn't it count if it's not the full 50-star, 13 stripes version of the flag, just the colours and the design (white stars on blue background and alternating red and white stripes). V85 (talk) 19:52, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Not sure what country you're actually from, but when your Head of State is on a foreign visit, if he or she doesn't stand up and show a bit of respect when the host's anthem is played, then feel free to follow their lead. Alansplodge (talk) 20:21, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Why Alan, we share the same head of state. She just wears different (constitutional) hats so we can tell her apart from herself. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 20:35, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Is that code still in force? I can't believe no-one has brought a case against 1B on grounds of religious tolerance for <off the top of my head> Sikhs, Muslims and Jews. --Dweller (talk) 21:06, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Note the use of the term "should" rather than "shall." Also, flag burning laws continue to be on the books in many jurisdictions, however they're mostly unconstitutional. Shadowjams (talk) 21:18, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

There's no law that specifically forbids flag burning in Australia, but it's generally against local laws pertaining to open fires. I'm sure the fuzz could bust hippies the same way state side. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 06:05, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, we already started discussing this above. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 00:04, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

The U.S. Flag Code does not list penalties for non-compliance and even if it did, those provisions would likely be struck down on First Amendment grounds. Nevertheless, it is generally considered polite to stand at attention and for men to remove their hats when anyone's national anthem is displayed. Only Americans are expected to place their hands over their heart (or salute when in military uniform) during the "Star-Spangled Banner". Citizens of other countries salute their flags in various ways and foreigners should never expect to follow suit. D Monack (talk) 20:22, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Editor 220.239.37.244, see West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette.

—Wavelength (talk) 00:53, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Editors above seem to be suggesting that these rules don't need to be adhered to, but our article on US Code (which isn't very easy to follow) seem to be saying that everything in the Code is law, even if not specifically enacted as law. Have I got that wrong? --Dweller (talk) 08:42, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Back to the original question, in empirical rather than hypothetical terms: Standing while the anthem is played is a far cry from, say, pledging allegiance. It is customary for fans at NHL games, for example, to stand repectfully for both the Canadian and American national anthems, when a team from one country plays a team from the other. Simple common courtesy (goes without saying only Habs fans boo the latter). I've never attended a professional sporting event outside of the United States, but I would go into it expecting to behave no differently - I'd take my hat off, if any, and stand silently. The comparison to saying Grace is quite apt - I am a devout (heh) atheist, but I don't make a scene when my entirely Catholic in-laws give thanks for the meal at major family gatherings. It is no skin off my back nor betrayal of anything I believe in to allow Canadians and religious people to make ceremony prior to a major event such as a hockey game or a Thanksgiving feast, without me acting like I'm somehow threatened by it. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 17:51, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Incidentally, people from the USA seem to have no problem with respecting the national anthems of other countries; for example, Wikipedia's version of the national anthem of China is provided from a recording of a U.S. military band. This is presumably because such bands are required to play such music on occasions where protocol demands it, and also practice the relevant pieces as appropriate.

Not standing for the national anthem of a foreign country in a situation where all are doing so, is the equivalent of refusing to shake the hand of someone that you dislike; it's not a passive non-participation, it's an active protest, and therefore only appropriate in more extreme circumstances.

As a rather different example, I seem to remember a senior British opposition party politician was criticised for giving the red salute (described at the time as a "communist salute") at a concert in support of Nelson Mandela, presumably in a context where the rest of the audience was also doing so. It's possible that passive non-participation in that aspect of the concert would have been viewed negatively. (Can't find a ref for this, thus no name per WP:BLP, although I do have a name in mind.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:42, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Wedding ceremonies in basilica/cathedrals questions

Whom can have their wedding ceremonies in basilicas/cathedrals besides the church itself? How about St Peter's Basilica as well? Besides the being Catholic or Christian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mybodymyself (talk • contribs) 16:53, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

To be able to marry in a Catholic church you have to be able to show solid evidence of Catholic faith, such as regular attendance at Mass and knowledge of Catholic doctrine. To marry in a basilica or cathedral will also cost quite a bit of money, of course. The policies for other denominations vary. Looie496 (talk) 17:18, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

To get married in one of the churches of Den norske kyrkja, including the cathedral Nidarosdomen, at least one of the future spouses has to be a member (but a priest can refuse to wed them, i.e. they have to find a different priest). I would guess that it's similar in the other 'national' protestant churches of Scandinavia, including marriage in one of their cathedrals. In Norway, gay couples can't get married in the church, as the church doesn't recognise gay marriage, but in Denmark and Sweden, they can. It seems to make sense to at least have to be a member of the church, otherwise, why would you have your wedding there? V85 (talk) 17:53, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

It appears that each cathedral can set their own rules on who can and cannot marry there, and the requirements are quite different in each place. See the differing requirements of St Paul's Cathedral (London) and St Patrick's Cathedral (New York). You can get married in St Peter's Basilica by providing a letter from your (Catholic) parish priest authorising it (see here). It seems that you can find good information by searching Google for "get married in [name of the cathedral]". - Cucumber Mike (talk) 18:38, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

In the Church of England, the parish church is the place for most people to get married. Getting married in one of the great cathedrals is a priveledge for those with a special connection to it. Alansplodge (talk) 20:09, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for all of your responses to my question here. All of them were interesting for sure.--Jessica A Bruno (talk) 23:13, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Major differences between Roman Catholics and Protestants

I learned the two major differences between Roman Catholics and Protestants: Roman Catholics do fast during Lent period and Protestants don't and Roman Catholics priests are celibate and have to be a man and in Protestantism, a priest can be either a man or a woman and either married or single. What other major differences between Roman Catholics and Protestants? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.89.42.59 (talk) 18:21, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

*:Those are actually pretty minor differences. Our Protestantism article defines it as "any of several church denominations denying the universal authority of the Pope and affirming the Reformation principles of justification by faith alone, the priesthood of all believers, and the primacy of the Bible as the only source of revealed truth", which is a good summary of the major differences. Looie496 (talk) 18:31, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

As Looie said, one of the major differences is one of authority; for Roman Catholics, Church councils and (some) Papal declarations have equal authority with the Bible (as opposed to sola scriptura of the reformation). In addition, the Catholic Bible contains additional books not accepted by Protestants and Jews. From those authority differences flow many other theological divisions, e.g. Protestants reject the Marian dogmas, purgatory and indulgences, intercession of the saints, veneration of images and of the eucharist, the Catholic priesthood, and they have a very different soteriology (how people are saved). - Lindert (talk) 19:04, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I believe that the "fasting in Lent" thing is just false. Protestant churches that attempted to produce a reformed version of the Catholic tradition retaining bishops and the liturgical calendar all observe Lent. In the Anglican church, the observance of Lent became much more relaxed during the 20th century, and instead of fasting per se, many of us "give up something for Lent". See also Pancake Day! The issue of women priests is quite a recent innovation in Anglicanism. There is some debate in the Anglican Church about whether we are actually Protestants or not, but the key issue here (in my opinion) is the rejection of Papal authority rather than any specific liturgy or practice. Alansplodge (talk) 20:04, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I've been told that the only way one could tell one was in a High Anglican church and not a Catholic church is the absence of a picture of the Pope in the vestibule. Of course, that doesn't go to liturgy or doctrinal beliefs. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 20:30, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Belief in the "real presence" (of the body of Christ in the Eucharist) was the dividing line in England. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:07, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Maybe "material presence" or "transsubstantiation" is a more precise criterion, as 'real presence' is defined in various ways, sometimes including spiritual presence. Anyway, though believing in in transsubstantiation might exclude someone from being Anglican, he/she would not have to be a Catholic, as Lutherans believe in transsubstantiation too. The real dividing line is, I think, whether someone accepts the ultimate authority of the Pope. - Lindert (talk) 23:00, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

The dividing line would have to be the authority of the Pope. But as I understand it Lutherans (and most Anglicans) do not believe in transsubstantiation, but a different formulation of the Real Presence called consubstantiation. This does not require one to believe that any real physical change comes over the consecrated elements, but rather that God inhabits them in a specific and meaningful fashion. Both these beliefs are to be distinguished from the Calvinist 'bare memorial' interpretation of the Eucharist. AlexTiefling (talk) 08:49, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting me. Btw, not all Calvinists subscribe to a 'bare memorial' view, some view it as a real, spiritual presence. - Lindert (talk) 09:11, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Well the Protestant Reformation resulted from the sale of indulgences, but Martin Luther's theses (90, I think?) contained many more arguments against the church in his time. The indulgences was a major issue, but over time there grew more and more differences. A major difference between Protestants and Calvinism though would be the issue of pre-determinism (did I say that correctly?), where Calvinism believes that it is determined before you are born where you will go when you die. Not an expert on the subject, but pretty sure I got that right. If i didn't, someone can correct me. --Activism1234 23:05, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

The Ninety-Five Theses might contain a hint on the number ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:10, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

damn it off by 5 theses! --Activism1234 00:39, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Calvinism is a Protestant movement, so there is no 'difference between Protestants and Calvinism'. And btw, Luther himself agreed with Calvinism on the issue of predestination, even tough many Lutherans today don't. - Lindert (talk) 23:29, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Calvinism began after the Protestant movement as another movement and there are serious differences between them (at least, when it started, don't know about today). --Activism1234 00:39, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Calvinism started with John Calvin, who was a contemporary of Martin Luther and one of the leaders of the Protestant Reformation. This is very easily documented. For example, the Encyclopedia of Protestantism calls Calvin "along with Luther, the most significant church reformer of the Protestant movement" (volume 1, p.545). That Calvinism started later than Protestantism does not mean that it is 'a different movement', just like the fact that Protestantism started later than Christianity does not mean that Protestants are not Christians. - Lindert (talk) 01:04, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Speaking of "Protestants" or even "Protestantism" in general is rather pointless. There are general differences between Protestants and Catholics, of course. One could easily point to the number of sacraments, which ranges from seven in Roman Catholicism, to as few as two (and in some cases just one) in various Protestant denominations. There's also the problem that many people who would often be viewed as Protestants by the Roman Catholic Church, such as Anglicans, American Episcopalians, and even some Lutherans, actually consider themselves to be, in some sense, Catholic. From my observations, Roman Catholicism and Protestantism are generally closer to each other in doctrine and practice than either of them are with Eastern Orthodoxy, Indian Christians, or with the Coptic Church. Lent is even observed in some Protestant circles. If you had to point out one major difference, though, I think it would be the issue of the Magisterium's authority and of apostolic succession, as that's where a great deal of the Catholic Church's unique theology originates. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:14, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I think it's unnecessarily confusing to state that some 'protestants' consider themselves 'catholic in some way'. The issue is of course Roman Catholicism, not Catholicism, that's just understood. Virtually all Christians, RC, Protestant, Eastern Orthodox etc. consider themselves part of the Catholic (= universal) Church (as referred to in the Apostle's creed). In the same way, all denominations consider themselves orthodox (= having correct teaching), but not Eastern Orthodox. In common usage, Catholic means 'belonging to the Roman Catholic Church'. - Lindert (talk) 08:53, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I am aware of the distinction and did not mean "Catholic" in the Apostle's Creed sense. I meant in the "in communion with the Roman Catholic Church" sense. This was the position of several leading scholars within the Oxford Movement, and a large number of Anglicans still hold to such a position today. In fact, if I'm not mistaken, the Church of England is considered by the Vatican to be a legitimate apostolic church (as opposed to, say, the Lutheran Church) due to the successive laying on of hands that extends to a time well before Henry VIII went rogue. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 09:52, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Not true. The papal letter Apostolicae Curae declared Anglican orders to be 'utterly null and void'. While the Episcopalian Church in the USA has the so-called 'Dutch Touch' - a line of episcopal consecrations running back through the unquestionably apostolic Dutch Old Catholics to the RCC - the Church of England does not. The Church of England, of course, believes itself to be apostolically ordered, but the RCC's position on both historical and spiritual grounds remains that set out in Apostolicae Curae. Moreover, the Anglican church's decision to ordain women to the priesthood contravenes the RCC's formally stated impossibilist position on the subject. Any RCC bishop who ordains (or in the RCC's perspective, pretends to ordain) a woman as a priest is excommunicated latae sententiae (automatically). This would naturally call a lot Anglican orders both in the UK and the USA into question. From the point of view of those Anglo-Catholics (not all, not even necessarily a majority) who regard communion with Rome as an object to be met through Anglicanism's closer conformity to Roman Catholic doctrine and canon law, this innovation has raised significant further obstacles to reunion. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:04, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I think we neglected to point out to the OP that there are Protestant denominations that, like the Roman Catholics, do not have women as priests (ministers, pastors, preaching elders, other name for leadership position). I can't think of any that require unmarried leaders but odds are there is at least one out there. On the other hand, some of the Eastern Catholic Churches (under the Pope but not Roman rite) have married priests. Rmhermen (talk) 17:21, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Federal, provincial, or both?

So, a friend and I both have summer school, and we both currently have the same course, civics (based on the Canadian government). I had a unit test, and on it was a true or false question: "Canada is a provincial government." I put false, but my teacher later said it was true, because "the Confederation made it so that the provinces could still each govern themselves, and so therefore it is both." It made sense to me and I accepted it. But my friend had that same test today with that same question, and her teacher said it was false, because we are, by the constitution, "a federal system that divides power into federal, provincial and municipal." So, really, which one is correct? And if "true" is correct, can someone provide evidence for it? I tried looking it up but I didn't get a clear answer. Thanks, 64.229.5.242 (talk) 18:49, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this type of question is just opinion, so should never appear on a test (or, if it does, it should be an essay type, where any supported answer is acceptable). I suggest you point out this discrepancy to the two teachers, ask them to strike that question from the grading, and, if they refuse, take it to the principal. StuRat (talk) 19:56, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Is that the exact wording? "Canada is a provincial government"? Was the test written by a native speaker of English? Canada is not a government, it is a country. It has a federal government, and it is divided into provinces, each of which has a provincial government. jnestorius^(talk) 22:58, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Haha sorry, that's a mistake on my part. The official wording was, "The Fathers of Confederation gave Canada a provincial system of government." 64.229.5.242 (talk) 23:16, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, it seems like a confusing question to me. I notice that provincial government redirects to state government, both being terms for the governments of specific provinces/states within federal systems such as Canada and the US. Saying Canada has a provincial system of government sounds to me the equivalent of saying Canada is a province. I suppose one could say that the Canadian Confederation established the system in which the provinces were created, or at least the system under which existing colonies and provinces could join the confederation. Still, it seems poorly worded to me. The US equivalent would be "The Founding Fathers gave the United States a state system of government." "Federal" seems much clearer. As our Canadian Confederation page says, "Canada is a federal state...". Pfly (talk) 23:44, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Are you sure they didn't mean a "backwards, unsophisticated, and simplistic" system of government ;) --Jayron32 23:48, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

"The US equivalent" has the further problem that state is ambiguous (where province isn't), as the next quotation illustrates. —Tamfang (talk) 09:02, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Yea, I realized that as I wrote it, but figured the point was made. Maybe it should be "the founding fathers gave the United States a U.S. state system of government." Heh. Pfly (talk) 18:56, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd go with 'true' for that version: a system in which provinces are an essential structural element. But I had to think for a moment, because I haven't seen that usage before. —Tamfang (talk) 09:01, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Reminds me of the old elephant joke -- an American, Frenchman, and Canadian were asked to write essays on elephants. The American wrote "Elephants for Fun and Profit", the Frenchman wrote "The Love Life of the Elephant", and the Canadian wrote "Elephants: A Federal or Provincial Responsibilty?"... -- AnonMoos (talk) 04:54, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Who takes care of elderly parents (and inherits the farm)?

Any anthropologists in the house? In modern Western cultures, with their small families, it is a matter of personality and circumstance which adult child ends up taking the lead in caring for aging parents. Can anyone cite examples of other cultures in which a particular child (eldest son, eldest daughter, youngest son, youngest daughter) has the responsibility to remain with and care for their parents? In peasant cultures, presumably this would mean taking on the family farm. Are there readable cross-cultural comparisons? How have these systems changing in the past generation or so? With the collapse of the Soviet Union, cradle to grave state care devolved back onto the extended family. I'm interested in the situation in the resulting countries, but also in Asia, Africa, indigenous communities in South America, etc. BrainyBabe (talk) 19:37, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

In patrilineal societies the eldest son typically inherited the property, while in matrilineal societies it was the oldest daughter. However, this doesn't automatically mean they would care for the elderly parents. StuRat (talk) 19:52, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Tibet, Nepal and India have practiced fraternal polyandry, where all the brothers in a family would marry the same woman, thereby letting them all inherit the land, since they all formed a single, large family. These societies have had a large surplus of unmarried women, due to the dual practices of polyandry and many men becoming monks and living celibate lives in monasteries. The first time I heard of polyandry, it was a researcher who had stayed in a polyandryous (?) community, and she stated that this surplus of women, led to 'spinster aunties' who also lived in their childhood home, with their brothers and their wife. I guess they might have to take care of elderly parents? V85 (talk) 20:08, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

See also Ultimogeniture/Borough English (youngest inherits) and partible inheritance (all children inherit). I think that in modern Western societies women are much more likely to care for their elderly parents than men are, although they may also end up caring for their inlaws, could look up refs if necessary. The impacts of Borough English and Borough French are sometimes discussed in the economic history of Britain. The impact of partible inheritance in France is often related to parcellisation of land. Basically, there were three systems at the time of the French revolution, depending on the region. These were regularised towards partible inheritance, thence the very small and fragmented landholdings, and marriages intended to reunite landholdings. Massive academic literatures on China and on India. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:17, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

This suggests that in Filipino culture the expectation fell/falls on the youngest daughter. - Karenjc 20:27, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Filipino culture is more or less extremely family-oriented. Everything revolves around kinship and loyalty. It includes blood relatives and in-laws (lineage ties are bilateral, with equal importance given to relatives from the father and mother's side), ritual kin, and close family friends "adopted" into the family. Age is directly related to how much authority you can weild (even among siblings).

And no it's not restricted to farming families. It's also not always the youngest daughter who bears the responsibility. It depends, but usually it's the last son/daughter to get married (as they usually choose to live in the ancestral home rather than settle elsewhere). Sometimes it's also the most financially stable of the children (usually the eldest). The grandparents (when they still can) traditionally take on the role of looking after their young grandchildren.

Unless there's a good reason for sending grandparents there (e.g. advanced dementia), nursing homes are severely frowned upon. Children who do so are regarded as selfish and ungrateful.

It's not all positive though. It's the primary cause of the most widespread problem in Philippine government - nepotism. And family feuds here can escalate very quickly and last for many generations.

As for sources, a simple Google search is enough.

I'm pretty sure that families in other Southeast Asian and Pacific Islander countries are also structured like this. Families in South Asia, East Asia, Mediterranean and Eastern Europe, Latin America, and Africa are also similar, I think. Though in some of those cases, the structure is more rigidly traditional and patriarchal (e.g. China and India).-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 05:08, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

China and Vietnam are quite different, among ethnic majorities, at least, because of patrilocality. And responsibility for parents and elders is codified in Confucianism. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:42, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

OP here; so far so good with the specific sourced examples. (Some of the sweeping statements leave me reaching for grains of salt.) Thanks especially for reminding me of ultimogeniture and introducing me to the Borough English vs French distinction. More examples would be very welcome. BrainyBabe (talk) 19:29, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Les Huguenans

Does anyone know the origin of the name Les Huguenans in the Îles Chausey off the coast of France? Does it have anything to do with the Huguenots? -- role^player 21:26, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

...oh, no article! Is there an English name, or do we not have an article? -- role^player 21:28, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Google books: Dupont, Étienne (1927). The living links. Barse. p. 74. Retrieved 23 July 2012. "The Wars of Religion, commemorated by the name of one islet, the Huguenans (Huguenots), compelled the monks to abandon Chausey that formed a separate Government under the over-lordship of the Matignan family." Considering neither en:Chausey nor fr:Chausey includes the sequence "Huguenan", it's not surprising there's no article. You could menytion them in Chausey and make Huguenans redirect there. jnestorius^(talk) 22:55, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

A map of 1753 has the name les Huguerons (for the etymology of Chausey see Chausey). None of the several etymologies in Google books (e.g. place where Elizabeth I landed Huguenots to assist Henry IV) is substantiated. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 23:24, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Shinto

Why does Shinto have a sun goddess? It seems like most, if not all, other mythologies have a sun god (Helios/Apollo, Ra, Surya, etc.). --108.206.7.65 (talk) 23:17, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Similar questions were answered earlier --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 23:30, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Interesting question. I don't know the answer, but keep in mind that Shinto is a type of animism religion, whereas the civilizations you mentioned were simply polytheistic. --Activism1234 23:34, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Why is it that, while moon gods and moon goddesses occur in more equal numbers in various religions, there are overwhelmingly more sun gods than sun goddesses? --108.206.7.65 (talk) 23:51, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Most ancient civilizations were patriarchial rather than matriarchial. That is, lineage was passed through the male and males were viewed as dominant. Thus, a "sun god," which was very important in many ancient civilizations, was viewed as male. --Activism1234 00:38, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

July 24

Is it Known for a Fact that Obama Will Pick Biden for VP Again?

For instance, have there been any confirmations of "Obama-Biden 2012" campaign buttons/T-shirts/posters being created by the Obama campaign yet? Futurist110 (talk) 01:21, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Yep. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:23, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Yeah, I assumed that Obama would pick Biden again for VP this year but I just wanted to confirm it. Futurist110 (talk) 01:29, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

closed per guidelines. μηδείς (talk) 01:31, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Please always tell us which guide13:57, 20 August 2014 (UTC)13:57, 20 August 2014 (UTC)~~ you think a question violates; don't make us guess. StuRat (talk) 02:39, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

It is not about future events; he is campaigning with Biden as the VP pick at the present time. There's no real doubt. In any case, we don't generally hat crystal ball questions. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:41, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Resolved

A Question About Benjamin Netanyahu and Shaul Mofaz

What was the point in Netanyahu refusing to accept Mofaz's demands in regards to a new Israeli draft law? The religious parties still don't have anyone better to back than Netanyahu, and Netanyahu would have had the votes to go along with Mofaz's ideas, since he would have probably been able to get Likud, Kadima, Independence (Ehud Barak's new party), Yisrael Beitenu, and Labor to back it. All those parties combined have a majority of the seats in Israel's Parliament (Knesset). Also, the religious parties remember very well what happened last time when they toppled Netanyahu in 1999--Ehud Barak won the new elections and then made unprecedented concessions to the Palestinians, and then the Second Intifada began when Yasser Arafat refused to compromise and make peace with Israel. Also, why didn't Mofaz get a large boost (or at least any boost) in public support when he made a principled stand and left Netanyahu's coalition over the draft issue? Futurist110 (talk) 01:37, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

This is not a discussion forum. Please try to limit yourself to questions that can be answered with facts rather than opinions. Looie496 (talk) 02:15, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

You might do better to ask Q's like this on an Israeli discussion board. StuRat (talk) 02:46, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

As said above, it's not a discussion forum. Feel free to ask me on my talk page, I know a lot about Israeli politics, and have no issue in engaging in discussion about that in the appropriate forum. --Activism1234 04:12, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Futurist, I wrote on your talk page regarding this question. Feel free to check it out and ask any questions you have there. --Activism1234 04:29, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Question About the Miss California Gay Marriage Controversy in 2009?

Why was there such a huge outrage among a lot of people when Carrie Prejean said that she opposed gay marriage? I get that a lot of people support gay marriage (including myself), but it's no surprise that there are also still a lot of people in the U.S. who are unfortunately still against this idea. Still, I think that the controversy over her statement (such as Perez Hilton's idiotic and childish response) has been way overblown. I mean, the people of California voted to ban gay marriage in 2008 and most Republicans still oppose gay marriage even today, so her position was by no means fringe or "extreme" in the United States. If you're going to say that they asked her this question due to the Miss USA pageant also being a scholarship contest (or something along those lines), then what was the point of asking such a controversial question like that when one can easily have asked some less controversial political questions, such as "What should the U.S. do to reduce its dependence on foreign oil?" or "What should the U.S. do to fight poverty, both at home and abroad?"? Futurist110 (talk) 01:49, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

This is not a discussion forum. Please try to limit yourself to questions that can be answered with facts rather than opinions. Looie496 (talk) 02:16, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Probably because a lot of gay people are involved in putting on such a show. It's not like a Republican convention, where saying you supported gay marriage might get you booed. I agree that it's a ctroveonrsial Q, which they should not have asked. StuRat (talk) 02:42, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

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. μηδείς (talk) 04:41, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

He asked first why was thre a controversy, NOT for opinionsLihaas (talk) 21:18, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Hardcover vs. paperback

I went to take a book out of the library and couldn't find it even though they had confirmed that it was in house. When I asked the clerk, he responded that it's in the paperback section. When I asked him what the purpose was of separating out the paperbacks from the hardcovers, he said they do that to keep track of things.

How is it meaningful to keep track of them separately? Why does it matter? Why not, say, keep track of things by saying that every book over 500 pages is kept in a different section? DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 01:50, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

It is a matter of shelving. You can fit more paperbacks into the same overall shelving area than you can hard covers. The paperback section can be all the same height, without much allowance for odd sizes (though the large-print is usually a separate section). Hard covers come in a range of sizes, so the shelves need to be, on average, much wider apart, and you can store fewer books. Bielle (talk) 02:53, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm also assuming that lending library paper-backs degrade rapidly, and weren't acquired for long term use. They're probably higher use items with a short shelf-life due to changes in reader preference, and need to be regularly inspected for degradation and culling? Fifelfoo (talk) 03:13, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Libraries also commonly shelve large books (folios) separate from regular-size books. Which can be annoying, but is sensible if you have a lot of books to shelve. --Colapeninsula (talk) 08:04, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

My library put them all together when we realized that all the above reasons were just rationalizations for doing something the way it had always been done, but in the end didn't really make any sense. Mingmingla (talk) 14:36, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

There are legitimate reasons for doing things this way: books don't wear as quickly when they are tight on the shelves, thus keeping some books separate can make sure they last longer. Additionally, keeping paperbacks (I'm assuming you're talking about pocket-size paperbacks, not trades) together allows one to lower the shelf heights and fit more shelves in a unit, and thus more books.. eldamorie (talk) 14:48, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Some people will only check out paperbacks and will never enter the hardback section so keeping them separate is a service to that group as well. There may be some who only use hardback but much fewer I think. Rmhermen (talk) 16:57, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Isn't that a disservice? Putting them together would mean those people see them and will find the book they want more often. Having them separate means those people will never see them. --Tango (talk) 21:07, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I think the Rmhermen's point is there are some people who will never choose a hardback (I guess because of reasons of size and weight) so they don't have to waste time with hardbacks if they are kept seperate. I do agree it isn't a particularly compelling advantage since there are likely quite a few in those group who will choose a hardback if it's the only option and it's the only book they want, sometimes they may choose it if they see and perhaps realise it isn't that heavy or large but may not have bothered to look otherwise. Perhaps more significantly, there must be many more people who don't care that much (perhaps will prefer one or the other given the choice) who will be compelled to search two sections when they are seperate if it turns out what they want isn't in the first section. Note that this will likely cost significantly more time to the user then simply rejecting any hardbacks they say to those small number who will do so due to the need to visit 2 sections. (They can use the catalog, but then so can those who never want a hardback/whatever.) Nil Einne (talk) 05:27, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

There are also libraries that purchase popular fiction mainly in paperback form for practical reasons - there's more call for the book in the first year or two after publication than there will be down the road. So they buy 10 or 15 copies of the book originally in paperback (because it's cheaper) then sell most of them when demand dies down. The library might buy one hardcover copy as well if the book is destined for its permanent collection and if the book has been published in hardcover at all; otherwise they may rebind a paperback copy as a hardcover. My local library does this for some genre fiction - Simenon, Stout, Sayers, etc. - because reprints are only available in paperback. --NellieBlyMobile (talk) 02:53, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Euler diagram of Roman society

I'm having a bit of trouble following the relationships between different orders and social classes within ancient Roman society. It's possible that some of my confusion comes from changes that took place over time, so let's restrict ourselves to the late Republic / early principate. I'll assume that women, children, and other dependent family members share the status of the male head of the household. My best understanding is the following.

• An adult man could be a slave or free.
• A free man could be a foreigner, a freedman (not quite fully a citizen), or a Roman citizen.
• A Roman citizen could be a plebeian or a patrician.
• In the late Republican era, all patricians and some plebeians were of equestrian rank.
• In the late Republican era, all patricians and some plebeians were of senatorial rank.
• All senators were also equites.

Have I got this right? The questions I'm particularly uncertain about are:

• Were there patricians who were not of senatorial rank?
• Were the senators also equites, were they mutually exclusive, or did they partially overlap?
• Were there senators who were neither patricians nor equites?
• Were the non-patrician equites plebeians, or did the equites form a distinct class between the plebeians and patricians?

Thanks. --Amble (talk) 02:14, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I think patrician vs. plebeian referred to how historically noble your family was, while Senator and knight were present-day honors. AnonMoos (talk) 04:39, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

The image to the right is based on my understanding of the classes (from reading Ancient_rome#Class_structure, Social class in ancient Rome, Status in Roman legal system and other relevant articles). So; yes, there were patricians who were not senators; yes, some senators were also equites; not sure if there were any non-equite, non-patrician senators (seems unlikely); yes, equites were all plebians, none of them were patricians. The terms do seem to get conflated a bit, but I think the main confusion is between Nobilis and Equites, because normally knights would be considered part of the nobility, but in the Ancient Roman system they were not. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 04:52, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. The article equestrian order seems to imply that senators were a subset of equites ("Despite these developments, the senatorial elite never acquired an independent existence, but remained a sub-set of the Order of Knights", etc.) and also that the equites were below patricians ("ranking below the patricians"). I'm not sure whether this is just because the article is confusingly worded, or perhaps there's uncertainty from the ancient sources themselves. It was possible to be of senatorial rank without actually being a senator. I had supposed that a patrician would automatically have senatorial rank without necessarily sitting in the senate. --Amble (talk) 06:12, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Only senators and their families (for up to 3 generations) had the senatorial rank. Senators who were not patricians must have been added to the roll of the order of equites (so that means there were no non-equite, non-patrician senators), but it makes no sense to have patricians on that roll. The patricians were defintely not automatically senators, but they were automatically noble. The senatorial elite refered to in the article is those of senatorial rank who were equites, so the patricians of senatorial rank are not a subset of the equite order. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 06:25, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

A pedantic point perhaps, but the singular of equites is eques, not equite. --Nicknack009 (talk) 13:11, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

On the substantive point, my understanding of it is that the patrician/plebeian divide was completely independent of the census classes, which went from senatorial, through equestrian and several other propertied ranks down to proletarian, based on how much property you owned. So it would be, at least theoretically, possible to be a patrician by ancestry while falling into any one of the census classes - a patrician who had no property would be a proletarian but still a patrician - and equally for plebeians. Plus of course your class could change with your fortune, but your patrician or plebeian status would remain the same. --Nicknack009 (talk) 13:19, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I would draw the diagram with the "cives" set divided by a vertical line, with patricians on one side and plebians on the other, and all the other subsets straddling the dividing line. --Nicknack009 (talk) 13:23, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Also, the "cives" set shouldn't be inside the "liberti" set, as that would imply all citizens is a subset of former slaves. "Liberti" should be partly outside and partly inside "cives" (as not all freedmen at all times had full citizenship status - at some points in history they had fewer rights), entirely on the plebeian side of the divide, and intersecting with all the census classes except senatorial. --Nicknack009 (talk) 13:33, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. A pedantic point is my favorite kind of point. I don't think I had used 'equite' as the singular here, but I would have, and now I know better.

And thanks to both answerers on the substantive point. I now have two conflicting ideas about whether a patrician could be an eques. I think that part of the confusion comes from the different ideas of equestrian status that were used for different purposes. They referred to more or less the same people, even if the criteria were apparently quite different. For example, Augustus defined thresholds for equestrian and senatorial status based on property as recorded in the census. The equestrian threshold seems to have been designed to add to the ranks of equites by inviting the participation of sufficiently wealthy individuals from outside Rome. Based on this book chapter from the University of Michigan [8], I gather that the property qualification gave people the right to use the style and ornaments of the equites, and to act as equites, and (if accepted by the others) to thereby actually become equites. It's not clear that an eques who fell below the property qualifications would automatically be excluded, although this did give the censor one convenient justification for degrading disfavored members. There are clear associations of certain patricians with the equites: for example, Claudius headed the equestrian delegation at Augustus's funeral. But that may not have meant that he was actually an equite himself. In my admittedly incomplete search, I haven't found any examples of Romans in the correct time period who were clearly of equestrian and non-senatorial rank. Perhaps the understanding of equestrian status was sufficiently vague and flexible that such questions are impossible to answer with a simple yes or no? --Amble (talk) 17:48, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Also: bonus points to Was 203 for actually drawing up an Euler diagram. :-) --Amble (talk) 17:51, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

How to help

I, like many other people, would like to help the 2012 Aurora shooting victims. Are there any places where financial contributions can be sent?142.255.103.121 (talk) 05:04, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

The Red Cross is helping in Colorado. You could donate to them. RudolfRed (talk) 06:22, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Besides donating to the American Red Cross, has a fund been set up for the victims and their families?142.255.103.121 (talk) 08:07, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

One might consider taking a small step to prevent any future such tragedies by refusing to watch movies, TV programs etc that feature violence. From the article "The attack began ... around the time of the first gun scene in the adjacent theater." The movie's plot is full of violence and bloodshed, and people flock to watch. Is it any wonder that occasionally someone brings that carnage to reality? Perhaps if we as a society stopped supporting violence on the screen, we'd get less of it in the real world. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:58, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

That's a pretty POV-ish statement there, Mitch (not to mention irrelevant to the OP's question). Millions of people watch such films all the time and they don't turn out to be mass killers. Maybe campaigning for greater gun control would also help, no? --Viennese Waltz 13:07, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

It is POV, but it is not irrelevant to the OP's first sentence (if not the actual question) - "I ... would like to help". It's true that millions of people watch such films without becoming killers, but the widespread implicit "glorification" of violence may turn a few. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:54, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

It is irrelevant, since you've quoted the first sentence out of context. The OP specifically asked for information about ways of offering financial help to the Aurora victims (and, presumably, their families). If you're saying that refusing to watch violent movies puts extra money in their pockets, please tell me how that works. --Viennese Waltz 14:50, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Being on another continent I've probably missed most of the content, but didn't this guy boobytrap his house? As he'd obviously had have to do that before watching the movie, wouldn't make that the movie irrelevant to the discussion as to why he did it? Unilynx (talk) 17:27, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Sounds perfectly logical to me. There was a lot less violence before movies, and a lot more emphasis on human rights. All ancient and modern history points to this. Much like how there was no sexual abuse at all before pronography became widespread, while now it's impossible to walk down the street before being raped. Egg Centric 20:39, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Surely, you're being ironic? 203.27.72.5 (talk) 07:38, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd say it's a reductio ad absurdum. OsmanRF34 (talk) 11:46, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Community First Foundation - The Aurora Victim Relief Fund looks to be the "official" fund with Warner Brothers donating there and state recognition. Rmhermen (talk) 16:14, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Please note I'm not using this site as a crystal ball or anything like that. But by any chance would Cinemark establish a special fund for the victims and their families?142.255.103.121 (talk) 02:55, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

It would be a smart PR move, but we have no way of knowing. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:09, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Who were the role models during the Victorian Era?

Today's predominant role models are sports stars, movie stars and singers (as long as you've got (eccentric) talent and a pretty face).

Who were the role models of the Victorian Era?

To me it seems like the royals, the politicians, scientists and intelligentsia in general.

What do you think? 41.247.34.143 (talk) 07:12, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

It depends on where in the world you're talking about. In the UK, military figures like Charles George Gordon (that article has good info on his fame) and before him Horatio Nelson were idolized, and explorers like David Livingston could also be huge celebrities. Charles Dickens was also insanely popular with as many adoring fans as JK Rowling or Stephenie Meyer has today, and the Brontes also had a certain celebrity with people apparently desperate to find out about their private lives; and actors like Ellen Terry were stars. Royalty wasn't uniformly popular, particularly due to the Hanoverian men; though not popular throughout her reign, Queen Victoria became a national icon late in her reign. --Colapeninsula (talk) 08:09, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd also say that politicians such as Sir Robert Peel, William Gladstone and Benjamin Disraeli were celebrities in the modern sense. Whether they were role models is a different matter. --TammyMoet (talk) 08:41, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

In East Asia, the same "immortals" of Confucianism - Confucius, his disciples, and their disciples - stil commanded great respect and attracted emulation in the 19th century. At the same time, as conflicts amongst the nations of East Asia and between them and the Western powers grew, both national heroes of the age and prominent figures in the West became increasingly viewed as role models - these were soldiers, statesmen and writers, for the most part. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:10, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

In the 19th century, people didn't have "role models" but they spoke of "heroes" and "heroines". Military men in particular were held up for emulation, and not just living ones. The British Empire modelled itself on Ancient Rome, so British boys had to read about Roman heroes. In all countries children were taught to admire the national founding figures and victors of battles. As well as those already mentioned, in Britain, schoolchildren were urged to admire the Duke of Wellington, Walter Raleigh, and Francis Drake. Florence Nightingale comes to mind as a heroine. Actors and actresses were also hero-worshipped, and the top opera singers were regarded as divas. Were you interested in one particular country? Itsmejudith (talk) 11:09, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks so much, you all! The United Kingdom is exactly what I had in mind; but having a global view of perspectives are welcomed. Thank you once again! 41.247.34.143 (talk) 14:50, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Late to the party, but that never stopped me. Maybe what I can now add will help future readers who find this question in the archives.

The Victorians were good at churning out improving literature and morality tales, especially for children. A person such as Grace Darling, the young woman who, with her father the lighthouse keeper, rescued shipwreck victims in a lethal storm, was held up as a model of fortitude and self-sacrifice. Equally eulogised were those of whom even less was known, e.g. The boy who stood on the burning deck (whence all but he had fled). Explorers and Empire builders were a popular category: Cecil Rhodes, for example, who would not be many people's first choice of a role model for their children now. Searching for "Victorian heroes" and "Victorian heroines" should lead you in the right direction. BrainyBabe (talk) 19:21, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I was at primary school well over 50 years after the end of the Victorian era, and a resident of the antipodes to boot, but I was still fed the Grace Darling and Casabianca stories as examples of how to live one's life. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 20:09, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Another popular morality tale, at least in Wales, was Mary Jones and her Bible. In that case, the talk page is probably more instructive than the article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:35, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Cervantes stuttering

Did Cervantes stutter?--80.58.205.107 (talk) 12:49, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

John Beusterein has written an article with just that title for the bulletin of the Cervantes Society of America. The full thing is available here, though the key sentence seems to be "While I believe that Miguel de Cervantes stuttered, the evidence is scanty". - Cucumber Mike (talk) 13:30, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Presidents wives

How many U.S. presidents wives campaigned for their husbands re-election? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1007:B023:23B0:180D:C3F4:6484:7792 (talk) 13:57, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Most of them since Eleanor Roosevelt, I would assume... AnonMoos (talk) 15:30, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

The OP can make their own assumptions, Anon Moos. They came here for something a little more concrete than that. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 21:58, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Many of the early Presidential candidates didn't even campaign for themselves. Actively campaigning for the office was seen as impolite; most of the early Presidential candidates stayed at home and let their Parties do all the work. During the so-called Era of Good Feelings the U.S. was functionally only a 1-Party system (the Democratic-Republican Party) and since many states at that time didn't even use a popular vote to select its electors, "campaigning" consisted mostly of party bosses negotiating and dealing for votes. The idea that a candidate would "stump" for votes by traveling from place to place didn't happen until the United States presidential election, 1860 when Stephen Douglas undertook the first nationwide stump tour. Notably, he lost anyways to Abraham Lincoln who never left his home during the campaign. Such campaigning is called a front porch campaign and as our article notes, as late as 1920, there were successful elections by candidates who didn't actively campaign for themselves. --Jayron32 22:45, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

The first First Lady (well, First Lady to be) that I can find record of campaigning for her husband is Mary Todd Lincoln, who spoke to reporters and gave public speeches for Abraham's 1860 campaign. [9] I've seen references to 20th Century First Ladies campaigning (Lady Bird Johnson and Pat Nixon, for sure, and pretty much everyone since Pat, as I personally recall), but I was honestly a bit surprised to see that Mary Todd was so visible. I don't know if she was exceptional, or if others followed her lead (or, indeed, preceded her)? Fun and slightly related fact -- Franklin Pierce's wife Jane Pierce seriously disagreed with his decision to run for office, believing that he'd offended God. Our article doesn't mention, but I'd swear I recall reading somewhere that she actively and openly opposed his campaign, but I can't find it now. Jwrosenzweig (talk) 04:54, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Considering how well regarded Pierce was as a President, I think Jane may have been on to something. She must have known him well... --Jayron32 22:57, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Isn't Harry Truman's mother on record as saying that she considered him not much good as a president, and she voted for the other guy? -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 02:49, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Work possibilities abroad for a person with Canadian citizenship

Hi,

I just got Canadian citizenship, and I wondered where I could be allowed (through a quick visa process or with no process at all) to work because an agreement between Canada and another country. I can no longer use the "youth" programs, such as the one between Canada and France or Canada and the UK.

Thank you for your help! :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.61.145.4 (talk) 18:07, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

You could perhaps seek employment with the Canadian Foreign Affairs and International Trade office (the Foreign Service). You would be employed by the Canadian government, but could actually be working abroad. I did find this page through www.canada.ca which may have some information if that career path interests you. Otherwise, I'm not sure that Canada specifically has programs for placing adult workers with foreign companies, you may need to work that out with the immigration office of the country you seek to work in. Many countries are leery of letting people move therejust to find work; you often need to have an actual job offer before you can secure a visa. Which is not to say that it is hard or impossible. If you don't mind teaching, you can often find work abroad as an English teacher, or alternately teaching in an English-language "International School". Just some more leads to follow. --Jayron32 22:31, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Depending on the OP's age, he may be eligible for various international youth mobility programs. See here for details. --Xuxl (talk) 10:12, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

That's amazing Xuxl: the OP clearly said he cannot" use the "youth" programs, such as the one between Canada and France or Canada and the UK." And what to you link to? A "youth" program, such as the one between Canada and France or Canada and the UK. Anyway, OP, maybe you could apply to TN status. OsmanRF34 (talk) 11:37, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry I missed that. Not that advising to join DFAIT was any more relevant, given their lack of recruiting these days... --Xuxl (talk) 13:52, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Transportation of convicts to Australia

When did transportation of convicts to Australia end? 69.62.243.48 (talk) 20:47, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Penal transportation#Australia says: "Transportation from Britain/Ireland officially ended in 1868 although it had become uncommon several years earlier." --Tango (talk) 21:17, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

If you want more details on the slow death of transportation, I'd suggest the high level summary available in Connell and Irving's Class Structure in Australian History. This book explains in part how individual colonies turned off transportation, despite the perceived labour shortage in Australia. Largely this revolves around soft conflict in the incipient Australian bourgeoisie regarding whether Australia should be a settler colony or an extraction colony: ie, what status for the lower classes, formal freedom and penury or formal bondage and penury. Freedom, and the settler society, won out in part due to the division of land and the capacity for more profitable exploitation of agricultural land with smaller land holdings. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:32, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Greenland colony

Why did Norway and Denmark abandon the Greenland colony for over three hundred years? The last ship to arrive in Greenland from Europe in 1408 or 1420 and the Norwegian and later the Danish totally forgot about their bretherens to the west until 1721. I know there was political turmoil (not really actually, some wars with Sweden and nobles over the Kalmar Union) around this time but wasn't there any mention of the colony or any desire for Denmark-Norway to resupply them or trade with them, especially with (1) the need to replace bishops, (2) to further spread the Reformation after the 1500s, and (3) to compete with other European nations when colonialism spread to the Western Hemisphere.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 23:11, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure that "colonialism" worked the same way among the Norse settlers of the New World (including Greenland and Vinland) as it did among the Southern European explorers and colonizers a half a millenium later. There wasn't so much of a specific state backing for the exploration and colonization of Greenland. They were basically pioneers who set off to make their own fortunes, and leave their former state behind. According to Norse colonization of the Americas, the early Greenlanders took some 280 years to formally accept the overlordship of the King of Norway, and it doesn't appear that there were ever more than a few thousand total settlers, nor is it clear that immigration was anything more than sporadic and unorganized. --Jayron32 23:31, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

My understanding is that it is widely thought that the Little Ice Age, which set in somewhere around 1400, had a lot to do with the abandonment of Greenland. The colder weather made it very hard to make a profit there. Looie496 (talk) 02:19, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Being covered with glaciers, Greenland wasn't all that useful of a colony. At best, you could have some fishing and whaling villages there. So, they really only were willing to invest enough to cement their claim to the island, which might yet turn out to be a great investment, if the glaciers melt and it becomes fully usable at some point, due to global warming. StuRat (talk) 03:38, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

According to Jared Diamond, one reason why the Scandinavians didn't survive in Greenland was because they didn't fish. Of course at least 90% of Greenland was ice-covered and useless for supporting the medieval Nordic lifestyle, but in some small favored areas there were microclimates which could at least marginally support some agricultural crops and animals (or the Greenland colony would never have been established in the first place). AnonMoos (talk) 04:24, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I think Jared Diamond must have gotten something mixed up then, because the Norse settlers of Greenland certainly did fish. --Saddhiyama (talk) 08:45, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

History of Greenland discusses what little is known about the disappearance of the first Greenland colony who raised sheep and goats and farmed as well as fished. Three hundred years after it disappears from the record, Denmark sent a mission in the hopes that Danes were still living there. They didn't forget about their settlers; the settlers disappeared and nobody looked for them for a few centuries. Rmhermen (talk) 04:20, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I know about all the suggested reason why they didn't survive. I am asking about the European perspective of the story. Why didn't Norway, Denmark, Rome, or the Archdiocese of Nidaros (Greenland's Catholic bishops were ordained in Europe) speak of or contact the Greenlanders in over three hundred years when events like the Kalmar Union, the Reformation, and finally competition and success of other European powers in the area of colonialism/opening up the western hemisphere for profit occurred (wouldn't Denmark want a stake in the colonial race during the 1500s, why jump in when it was pretty much done in the 1700s). Did the Greenlanders when forgotten for three hundred years and all records of them disappeared? --The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 04:58, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

3000 people who live 3000 miles away, and every once in a while sent a boat with some hides to trade for some pots and pans are easy to forget about. --Jayron32 05:21, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

As pointed out above, the History of Greenland article gives sources suggesting that there may have been voyages to the area as late as the 1480s. However, Norway suffered badly from the Black Death in the 14th century; our article on the country says that "Although the death rate was comparable with the rest of Europe, economic recovery took much longer because of the small, scattered population". The article on Danish colonization of the Americas indicates that Denmark–Norway retained a formal claim to Greenland after 1536, and that in the 1660s there were probably whaling voyages to the area. So, the suggestion that the colony was "abandon[ed]... for over three hundred years" appears not to be the full story. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:39, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

The two European settlements on Greenland were isolated from Europe by the Little Ice Age. They died out during the separation. The Europeans didn't know Greenland was in the New World.
Sleigh (talk) 12:42, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

A couple of factors may be relevant to the question. Our article on the History of Greenland says, without citing a source, that from the late 13th century all ships were forced by law to sail directly to Norway, as opposed to the prior trade directly with Iceland. It's not clear to me if the law was for political control, to favor Norwegian trading interests, or for tax reasons, but all seem plausible reasons. Jared Diamond says in Collapse that by around 1420 the Little Ice Age was in full swing, and the increased summer drift ice between Greenland, Iceland, and Norway ended ship communication between the Greenland Norse and the outside world. So presumably a combination of the longer voyages required to travel between Greenland and Norway, and the adverse conditions of travel due to increased drift ice, led to a disruption in communication with Greenland and its effective abandonment. John M Baker (talk) 14:25, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

You may be interested in this letter of Alexander VI from 1492 (and footnotes): [10]. Looking for more on Magnus Heinason's supposed 1579 attempt, but no luck so far.—eric 15:50, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Who is this Matthias and what happen to his mission?--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 00:23, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Matthias Knutsson, a Dane, seems he never set out and there is no record as to why. Also Vincentius Petersson Kampe, another Dane, appointed in 1519(not a bishop). See: Larson, Laurence M. (1920). The Church in North America (Greenland) During the Middle Ages. In The Catholic Historical Review, Volume V.

All i found for Heinason was that he may have set out it 1581, approached Greenland from the east and was turned away by ice.—eric 15:18, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Pope Alexander's letter is fascinating, but it's not exactly surprising that Matthias didn't make it to Greenland. There apparently hadn't been a ship to Greenland in over 80 years, and the voyage was known to be exceedingly difficult and dangerous. Matthias was poverty-stricken, and the pope gave him no resources, other than encouraging people to do things for him for free. It would be remarkable if he had made it to Greenland (where, it appears, he would have found no remaining settlers anyway). John M Baker (talk) 17:25, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

July 25

US entrance into the Korean war

Please explain the relationship between the US government and the South Korean government, and what role the South Korean government had in "inviting" the US to take military action. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 01:27, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Before the North Korean invasion, the U.S. government was not too sure that protecting South Korea was really a vital U.S. interest, but when the invasion actually happened, the combination of recent events viewed as Communist aggressions (the Czech coup, the Berlin blockade, the Soviets getting the atom bomb, the Communist victory in mainland China), together with the possible future threat to Japan of an all-Communist-ruled Korea, caused the U.S. to re-assess the situation very quickly and get behind the South. It had an immediate negative impact on the PRC, because before the North Korean invasion, the U.S. was not committed to directly using the U.S. military to protect Chiang Kai-shek's Taiwan from the Communists, but the onset of the Korean war abruptly changed that (see quote at First_Taiwan_Strait_Crisis#The_Conflict)... -- AnonMoos (talk) 02:12, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

It should also be noted that the military force involved in defending South Korea was under the auspices of the United Nations, and not the U.S. unilaterally. The Wikipedia article Korean War has lots of good information, sections titled "Factors in U.S. intervention" and following, which includes the involvement of the U.N. --Jayron32 02:18, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it appears the South Koreans appealed to the U.N., a resolution was passed, and the U.S. stance was that they were enforcing the resolution. I found this document informing. Ditch ∝ 02:27, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Keep in mind that the USSR, which was a veto member of the UNSC, was boycotting the UN at the time, and therefore couldn't veto military action in Korea. The Chinese seat in the UN was still held by the Republic of China (popularly known today as 'Taiwan) so the PRC couldn't veto it either. V85 (talk) 19:51, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

The KIMH history of the war, with a more recent edition published in the US in translation, discusses the United States' ambiguous relationship with Korea in depth. From the KIMH view, the United States did not want to support South Korea after WWII. The South Korean elite were faced with internal divisions, with an incipient guerilla campaign in the country-side, and with a desire to acquire an offensive 10 division army including multiple tank divisions. The United States supplied equipment and training to produce a primarily defensive army. Further, the South Korean elite whittled away what little chance they had to develop this army (in general) through poor strategic, logistic and training strategies, and from the necessity of engaging in anti-guerilla warfare in the South. Correspondingly the North's position was inverted, the restrictions the Soviet Union placed upon North Korea were for North Korea's own benefit (the one tank division issue, given terrain). While North Korea made many mistakes in terms of their objectives prior to the war, they made fewer mistakes, of a much smaller significance; such that the central mistake (believing the Southern comrades' suggestions that war would spur a national uprising in the South), did not fundamentally affect the North's capacity to make effective decisions. American found themselves, as noted by AnonMoos, with a failing client state; when they hadn't realised they had a client state to begin with. (In part this was caused by internal conflicts within the US agencies involved, not territorial, but conflicts of incompetence and unpreparedness, all discussed in the KIMH account). The United States discovered they had to back a stake in order to avoid losing it; when they hadn't even realised they had been betting. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:38, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

KIMH ? StuRat (talk) 03:34, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Korea Institute of Military History; and others. (1998–2001?) The Korean War trans. Allan R. Millett Volumes 1–3 University of Nebraska Press ISBN 978-0803277946 (vol 1); 978-0803277953 (vol 2); 978-0803277960 (vol 3); three vol set ASIN B003BHOAO6. About three thousand pages. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:41, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Modern media ethics regarding the naming of perpatrators

I have noticed in the wake of the recent Colorado tragedy that many news outlets are making a concerted effort not to repeatedly use the gunman's given name in their reporting. They might use it once in the lead, if at all, and then in later mentions they refer to him non-specifically as "the gunman" or "the perpetrator", etc. I can think of many reasons why they are avoiding naming him, but I'd really like to see a good source that discusses the applicable journalistic ethics of when it is appropriate (or not) to name (or avoid naming) a perpetrator/suspect in such circumstances, especially when not involving a minor, which is a whole separate issue. Can any journalism student or media member or someone out there link me to texts where this is discussed? I'd really like to get a recommendation for a Media Ethics textbook that discusses this, but am interested in anything you can provide. Thanks Ditch ∝ 02:10, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not a journalism student or media member, but I researched this after you asked this question and found this essay about media ethics and mass murders, which won an award in journalism. I haven't had time to read it all, just skimmed beginning, but it may be what you're looking for, and is anyways very interesting.

By the way, I found that essay on this opinion piece, which was just written and I also highly recommend. It's not an essay or textbook or major discussion, just an opinion piece, but it's related to media ethics in mass shootings and is written by an adjunct law professor. Hope it helps. --Activism1234 02:45, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, both sources are great for the info I'm looking for. (Didn't mean to imply with my question that I required some specific sources, just that I was perusing Google Books for media ethics texts, and was having a hard time narrowing my search down to the specific issue :) Ditch ∝ 03:19, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

No problem. Also, on the side, I was watching CNN Anderson Cooper when the Aurora shootings happened, and he made a specific point and said on T.V. that he would do everything not to say the gunman's name, except for the first time, and simply referred to him as "the gunman" or "perpetrator." His reasoning was that too often we focus on the perpetrator, but what about the victims and their naems, they deserve to be remembered much more. --Activism1234 03:22, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, today on NPR's Tell me More radio show, host Michelle Martin insinuated her reasoning for not using his name in her report was to avoid raising his personal status in the public eye. The implication being that a desire for public notability is possibly a major motivation in these types of shootings. That's what initially got me interested in the subject. I also saw a relevant OP Ed in the NY Times where Roger Ebert discounts the claim that violence in movies is the cause of these types of things, saying rather that the killer "“cared deeply about seeing himself on the news.” , which is, of course, his opinion, but something I found interesting to consider. Ditch ∝ 03:47, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Hmm what you're saying about NPR seems to be a different angle than Anderson Cooper. Cooper was talking more about remembering the victims, and he would periodically list some of their names throughout the show, than about public notability. But both are valid reasons.--Activism1234 03:55, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

There's a very important point here that you are all missing. News outlets can't, or at least shouldn't, refer to Holmes as the gunman because that may prejudice his right to a fair trial. However obvious it may seem that he was the perpetrator, in the eyes of the law he is only alleged to have carried out the murders until he is found guilty in a court of law and convicted. That's why you will see things like "Holmes bought the weapons" but "the gunman shot so-and-so". If jurors are able to read statements like "Holmes shot X", Holmes' defence could argue that they were unduly influenced by the media. It's nothing to do with ethics, it's to do with careful application of the law. --Viennese Waltz 07:55, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I haven't caught them at it lately but a pet peeve of mine is that reporters and police will sometimes use the word suspect both for the unknown person who definitely did the crime and for the known person who is suspected of it ... —Tamfang (talk) 09:18, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Don't they do that because the unknown person who is known to have caused some thing may not have actually done a crime at all e.g. if they're looking for an unknown person who killed someone, but they don't know if it was in fact self-defense and therefore not criminal at all? Everyone is really just suspected of a crime until they're found guilty in court (at least in common law systems). 101.172.42.150 (talk) 09:56, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

They may be "suspected of a crime", but they are innocent until proven guilty. In Australia at least, it is usual practice for the media to insert the word allegedly whenever a named person is linked to a crime, eg "Holmes allegedly shot X". Mitch Ames (talk) 10:41, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

And they're tending to go overboard lately; it's often "the alleged crime", or even "an alleged man was seen running from the scene of the assault". -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 12:16, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

The other crazy thing is when some high profile person is the subject of an investigation, we'll see countless pictures of them, but the moment they're charged with a crime, they show the same pictures with the face blurred out. I don't get the point of that. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 12:22, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

101.172.42.150, I see your point about the element of doubt that a crime was committed. It's still prejudicial when they say, "Here on the surveillance tape we see the suspect pointing a shotgun at the cashier. Police have arrested a suspect, Jane Doe." Whether or not the suspect – properly, that can only mean Jane – is indeed the one who held the gun is one of the things yet to be established in law (along with whether doing so was in fact a crime). —Tamfang (talk) 06:03, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

The case of Herostratus, some 2368 years ago, and the attempt to prevent his name being remembered, seems similar (and coincidentally he committed his crime on July the 21st).  Card Zero  (talk) 17:58, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Apocryphal, but so often repeated it has earned its place in journalism history:

A good story about these common disclaimers of responsibility concerns Mark Twain and his first job as a reporter. Twain was told by his editor never to state anything he couldn’t verify by personal knowledge. After covering a gala social event, he hedged his bets by turning in the following story: “A woman giving the name of Mrs. James Jones, who is reported to be one of the society leaders of the city, is said to have given what purported to be a party yesterday to a number of alleged ladies. The hostess claims to be wife of a reputed attorney.” (From WordWizard, not a reliable source.) BrainyBabe (talk) 19:24, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

It's not only about the suspect being given a fair trial. It's also about the risk of slander. In principle (probably not the case for Aurora) the person could sue if they are found innocent. Journalists might also be motivated by fairness (but I'm not sure about that). Tom Haythornthwaite 03:26, 26 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hayttom (talk • contribs)

I'm surprised that no one pointed this [11] out yet. A8875 (talk) 05:32, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Which United States Presidents Wrote Autobiographies?

Besides Bill Clinton and George W. Bush? Thank you. Futurist110 (talk) 05:33, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Barack Obama, Ronald Reagan, Gerald Ford (this was the subject of a famous copyright lawsuit), and I'm sure many others. Those are a few recent ones I found. Shadowjams (talk) 05:44, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

An American Life is a Reagan autobiography that's not red ink :) 203.27.72.5 (talk) 23:25, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. However, I am most interested in autobiographies that talk about a U.S. President's Presidency as well, rather than just his pre-Presidency Life. Futurist110 (talk) 06:13, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Harry Truman wrote his memoirs after leaving office. IIRC he had hoped to guarantee his and his wife's financial futures by doing so, but lost money on the project. --NellieBlyMobile (talk) 07:32, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Ulysses S. Grant wrote some memoirs, but unfortunately they do not cover his Presidency at all. Futurist110 (talk) 07:36, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Calvin Coolidge wrote an autobiography which covers his presidency [12] Hut 8.5 11:08, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Richard Nixon wrote RN: the memoirs of Richard Nixon, which does cover his presidency among other things. --some jerk on the Internet (talk) 12:35, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

There is a published collections of letters by George H. W. Bush: All The Best, George Bush: My Life in Letters and Other Writings, instead of an autobiography. The Vantage Point: Perspectives of the Presidency 1963-1969 by Lyndon Baines Johnson. The Autobiography of Harry S Truman and The Eisenhower Diaries Hoover apparently had a three-volume autobiography, can't find the tttles. That covers every one from Coolidge to Obama, except FDR and Kennedy. Rmhermen (talk) 19:05, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

You've missed Carter, who wrote Keeping Faith: Memoirs of a President. It only covers his presidency, but presumably one of his other books covers the rest of his life. Hut 8.5 10:40, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Theodore Roosevelt wrote several memoirs, including his presidency.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:10, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I know you may have thought this obvious, but for those to whom it may not have occurred, the reason FDR and JFK didn't write post-Whitehouse memoirs is that they died in office. FiggyBee (talk) 21:43, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Name of researcher?

I'm looking for a researcher, who I think is at a school in Oregon, who looks at the psychology of charitable giving - their work includes research around why people are more likely to give to an appeal that refers to an individual than to an appeal that features a group (i.e. one child vs 100 children). Any ideas? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.21.209.95 (talk) 06:10, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

http://philanthropy.com/article/article-content/62663/ Paul Slovic. Futurist110 (talk) 06:12, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

God bless you Sir. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.21.209.95 (talk) 06:13, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you (but I'm an atheist ;) ). If you need anything else, please let me know. :) Futurist110 (talk) 06:14, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Resolved

Holocaust Jewish Death Toll for Northern Transylvania, Moldavia, and "rump Romania"

Does anyone have the Holocaust death totals for each of these three regions. I know that combined these three regions had a Holocaust Jewish death toll of about 287,000-300,000, or about half of the pre-war Jewish population. However, I know that the Jewish death toll in Northern Transylvania and Moldavia was much higher as a % of the total pre-war Jewish population due to the much more active efforts of the Nazis and Romanians to kill Jews there, in contrast to the more lax efforts to kill Jews in "rump Romania" (essentially all of the pre-WWI areas of Romania). Futurist110 (talk) 06:23, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

150,000 Romanian Jews living under Hungarian control in Northern Transylvania perished. SOURCE.

By Moldavia, I assume you mean Moldova. Here's a good section in a Wikipedia article that is useful for your question.

I'm not sure what rump Romania is, but I got all this info with a quick Google search. Try it out, you'll often get good results. --Activism1234 22:00, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I did try doing Google searches on this. They didn't really help that much. Let me try again in the future.

Also, "rump Romania" = Romania's territory in 1933 minus Northern Transylvania and Moldova. Futurist110 (talk) 03:50, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Number of Polish Jews on the German and Soviet Sides in 1939, Post-Invasion

Does anyone have the numbers of Polish Jews on the German and Soviet sides of Poland in 1939 after their invasion of Poland? I know that about 1/3 of the Polish Jews ended up on the German side and about 2/3 of them ended up on the Soviet side, but does anyone have exact numbers? Thank you. Futurist110 (talk) 08:01, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_Poland#Historical_Core_Jewish_Population_.28using_current_borders.29 It says in this article that 38.8% of Polish Jews ended up on the Soviet side and 61.2% on the German side. Thus, based on a pre-war Polish Jewish population of 3,351,000 (source: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/angap03.asp ), about 1,300,000 Polish Jews ended up on the Soviet side and about 2,050,000 Jews ended up on the German side in 1939 after the invasion of Poland. Futurist110 (talk) 17:35, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Resolved

David Brumbach...

hi and i hope you are well. i was wondering why there is no web page about David Brumbach, the Lancaster, Pa. artist, on WikipediA..? There is a lot of web info on this artist and some of his works are in local, state, and national museums, as well as personal. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.25.49.65 (talk) 11:31, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I removed your email address. Believe me you don't want it here. The web page about David Brumbach isn't here because nobody's written it yet! Be bold. --TammyMoet (talk) 14:05, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Taxes in Belgium?

There's a thread at meta:Talk:Wikimedia_Chapters_Association/Draft_budget_2012-2013#Personnel_Budget about payroll taxes in Belgium, referencing a proposed WCA budget that is based on the notion that $96k euros in salary is appropriate for the head of their chapters organization, and that payroll taxes in Belgium are $86k. Now I only want to ask:

• Are Belgium's payroll taxes really that high?
• If so, is there's a systematic difference in the gross salary between Belgium and other countries with lower payroll taxes, so that $96k "before tax" there is actually the same as a much higher amount "before tax" in other countries?
• In general, do Belgium residents get a lot more salary and pay a lot more tax than those in other countries, and if so, why would anyone hire there? Wnt (talk) 16:15, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Arabs/Muslims in France

How many Arabs are there in France, and how many of them actively practice Islam? --108.206.7.65 (talk) 16:41, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

We have articles on Arabs in France and Muslims in France. Looie496 (talk) 16:53, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

The French, famously, do not like statistics on ethnicity and religion, since they believe that it breaks with the French Republican tradition, i.e. citizens are first and foremost French and all are equal. The second reason given is WWII, where French Jews could easily be rounded up and sent to concentration camps, due the data that had been collected by French authorities. Therefore, those articles give estimates, only. I think the second question will be difficult to answer, since you ask how many actively practice. What do you mean by that? Does it mean going to the mosque fives time a day to pray, or praying five times a day and attending mosque on Fridays? Does it mean self-identifying as 'Moslem', (whatever a respondent might put in that label)? V85 (talk) 19:35, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, depending on which specific branch of Islam will change what "actively practicing" means; some sects that consider themselves Muslims are considered apostate by other sects (for example, the Alevi consider themselves to be Muslims, but there are some Muslim sects that do not). Self-identification is the only way to know for sure, and if the French government doesn't keep those statistics, you're going to have to go on other estimates. --Jayron32 22:43, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

How exactly did France get info on Jews when their law banning asking about race/ethnicity/religion was implemented in 1872, way before WWII and the Holocaust? Futurist110 (talk) 04:27, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

New laws were passed under the Vichy regime that Jews had to register with the police, and then further laws limited what they could do in society: See Vichy regime#Statute on Jews. V85 (talk) 10:24, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

South African Defence Force Benefit

Good day,

I would like to enquire about the members of the SADF that can perhaps claim a benefit if they attended compulsory service? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.31.44.102 (talk) 18:00, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

See "Veterans registration underway". DefenceWeb. 2012-07-06. Retrieved 2012-07-26. The short answer is that all military veterans are being asked to register so that they may receive benefits if they are/become destitute. It is definitely not a handout to all who served, the process is simply to establish elegibility for assistance if needed. Roger (talk) 14:29, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Belgian Monarch visiting Zaire, Rwanda and Burundi

When was the last time that a Belgian monarch ever visited Democratic Republic of the Congo, Rwanda and Burundi? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.29.34.135 (talk) 18:44, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

According to this notice and this report, King Albert II made a state visit to Congo from 28 June to 1 July 2010 (even though it's not mentioned at our article on List of state visits made by King Albert II of Belgium). Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:19, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Dutch monarch Suriname Indonesia

When was the last time that a Dutch monarch ever visited Suriname and Indonesia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.29.34.135 (talk) 18:50, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

The previous Dutch monarch (Queen Juliana) visited Suriname in 1978; The current monarch (Queen Beatrix) has never visited Suriname since her accession to the throne in 1980, but she did visit Indonesia (last) in 1995. - Lindert (talk) 19:04, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Possibly 1975 for Suriname: [13]. Rmhermen (talk) 19:11, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

In what (English speaking) places do people pronounce the /ej/ cluster as /je/?

I thought they only did that in Northern Ireland and probably Jamaica but the singer from the Black Crowes —who AFAIK is American— says something like /əgjen/ here: [14] --Immerhin (talk) 18:57, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Singers often sing in dialects which are not native to themselves. This can be easily confirmed by listening to a singer speak and sing. Also, a singer may have an artistic reason for pronouncing a word differently: to fit the meter or rhythm of the song, or because a certain vowel sound carries the note differently, and the singer wants to impart a specific artistic sound to a word when it is sung. Singers are known to invent words out of whole cloth just to fit a song (i.e. pompatus), I don't find it outside of the realm of possibility that Chris Robinson would choose to sing that word they way he does for intentional artistic reasons, and not because it is his "learned" or "native" dialect. --Jayron32 22:38, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Constant returns to scale, increasing returns to scale and decreasing return to scale

In economics (production and costs section)

• As economies of scale states economies that exist when inputs are increased by some percentage and output increases by greater percentage, causing unit costs to fall. Is economies of scale similar to Increasing return to scale ?

• As Diseconomies scale states that the condition when inputs are increased by some percentage and output increses by a smaller percentage, causing unit costs to rise. Is diseconomies of scale similar to Decreasing return to scale ?

I am not an economics student. The book, I am currently following did not cover this topic clearly. But I have faced this two concept that makes me confused after visiting this page on Increasing, Decreasing, and Constant Returns to Scale. Thanks in advance--180.234.248.130 (talk) 19:53, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

This seems like very confusing terminology, which I would avoid, but yes, that seems to be what it means: [15]. StuRat (talk) 20:05, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, they are (essentially) the same thing, depending on the exact definitions you're using. - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 22:38, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

TRIO (program)

What does "TRIO" stand for? I found the Wikipedia article by accident while looking around for its meaning. Every page I could find, including its home page, uses just the acronym. 2001:18E8:2:1020:14CA:926D:7D1C:85A5 (talk) 21:07, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

'TRIO' is not an acronym, so it does not really stand for anything. The 'GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS', found on the website you linked to, defines TRIO as A group of grant programs under the HEA, originally three programs; not an acronym (source). - Lindert (talk) 21:53, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

This question came up a couple of months ago. See Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2012 May 1#TRIO (program). -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 22:11, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

(OP here) Thanks for the help; I couldn't find the glossary. I've added to the article a statement about it not being an acronym and cited the glossary. Nyttend backup (talk) 13:23, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Romans in YEMEN?!?!

Did the Romans really occupy Ireland and Yemen?

Did the Romans really ever occupy western Arabia, Yemen, or southeast Ireland, as this map claims? Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty | Averted crashes} 23:38, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

The colors on that map seem to indicate the level of Roman occupation: Green is land that was funtionally part of the Empire for an extended period of time, Pink are areas that were occupied briefly but never long enough to be fully incorporated into the Empire, while Cyan are areas that were claimed and invaded, but never actually occupied, by Rome. Thus, Ireland and Yemen, which were both claimed by Rome, were never actually occupied by Rome. See Arabia Felix for a little bit about the Roman attempt to occupy Southern Arabia and Hibernia mentions various attempts by Rome to annex Ireland. Basically, the cyan colors means that Rome tried and failed to annex those territories. --Jayron32 23:47, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

There's also some info at Romans in Arabia. Yemen was of strategic importance because of its location on the sea trade route between Egypt and India. The Romans occupied Aden temporarily and had other garrisoned outposts in the region. Periplus of the Erythraean Sea might be interesting to read as well. Pfly (talk) 00:34, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Probably even more important for its role in the incense trade -- incense was necessary for many pagan religious rituals, and was exported in massive quantities from and through Yemen ("Arabia Felix") to the Roman empire... AnonMoos (talk) 01:16, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Also, if I understand right, by the Roman era traders had learned how to use the monsoon winds to sail direct from Yemen to India and back, across the open Indian Ocean, making the ports in Yemen and the Gulf of Aden generally more important as the places from which, and to which, these open ocean voyages were undertaken. Eudoxus of Cyzicus is said to have pioneered the monsoon sea route. Pfly (talk) 00:57, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Is it too much to ask t(w)eenagers to give the source/article from which they have excerpted the map that drives them to scream at the ref desk? μηδείς (talk) 01:44, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

If you had bothered to click the image, you'd know that it's used in Borders of the Roman Empire and Romans in Persia. I fail to see how the OP's age is relevant in any way. --140.180.5.169 (talk) 02:16, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Is your point that the OP, who has asked for special treatment before, deserves it in this case? Thanks for the links, although, having clicked on the image myself, I did not need them. And for not screaming. μηδείς (talk) 03:40, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

But isn't it amusing to see today's young people having their minds blown by history? Don't you remember having similar experiences when you were a kid? I remember when I discovered the Byzantine Empire, and the crusades, for example...even as an adult it happens sometimes, like a couple of years ago when I found the Sino-Roman relations article (which seems relevant here). So he's not yelling, he's just excited, and we should encourage excitement about history! Adam Bishop (talk) 06:59, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

So... instead of clicking the image and just looking... you bothered to write a complaint, and then follow up two hours later to see if anybody had responded? I think it says something when someone is too lazy to click the image, but is driven enough to complain and complain about it. --Mr.98 (talk) 20:11, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure if you are talking to me, since I did say I clicked on the image. But assuming you are talking to me, are you seriously taking the time to complain that I took the time to make a complaint? Do you disagree that regular posters should have enough sense and courtesy to provide links to what they are talking about when they have obviously taken the time to scream in bold italic allcaps? μηδείς (talk) 21:43, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I don't see why it matters what articles the map is used in, if any. Note that what the OP was 'scream at the ref desk' about was the map itself not its use in article. This would suggest either the image or the caption of the image in the description was the source of complaint. Perhaps the article text or caption in the article was a problem as well (presuming the image even appeared in an article), but since the OP didn't comment on it, I don't get why it was necessary to complain about it, rather then just politely ask the OP if the problem also occured in any articles since we had no way of knowing a priori if the OP even came across the image from articles. Nil Einne (talk) 23:46, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not 100% sure if the Romans ever controlled Yemen, but I don't know why the concept appears to be so surprising, considering that the Romans controlled large parts of the Middle East. Futurist110 (talk) 03:56, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

See Aelius Gallus... AnonMoos (talk) 16:14, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

It is disturbing that the file history (click on the map and scroll down to see it) shows the first version of the map (linked to a book) with all of Egypt and none of Yemen in the Roman sphere. In the meanwhile additions and deletions changed Roman influence in Lybia, Egypt or Yemen considerably and seemingly at will. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 21:59, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Not really. There were three edits in 5 minutes by one editor - subsequently reverted - which sought to exclude any reference to Roman influence in modern Iran, southern Egypt and Sudan, and the Arabian peninsula (including Yemen). But, the current version is very similar to the original version, which seems to have been based on a 1995 Italian document. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:11, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

July 26

Weapons of rainforest tribes

What types of weapons did pre-industrial rainforest tribes, such as those of Southeast Asia, the Amazon, and the Congo, use? Did they use swords? What materials were the weapons made of? Did they have access to metal for their weapons, and if so, how did they get the metal? —SeekingAnswers (reply) 00:11, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Bow and arrows, poison blow darts, spears, etc. The machete came later. Before they could mine metal themselves they could trade with those who did, or for the finished metal products. StuRat (talk) 00:25, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Regarding "before they could mine metal themselves": did pre-industrial rainforest tribes have the ability to mine metal themselves? —SeekingAnswers (reply) 00:44, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

This depends on what you mean by rainforest and tribes. If ancient south India and Sri Lanka counts then the answer is very much yes. See Wootz steel, for example. There's also a lot of info at History of ferrous metallurgy. Pfly (talk) 01:14, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Southeast Asia, the Amazon, and the Congo have very different histories. I don't think iron working was developed in the pre-Columbian Americas, but the history of metallurgy in Southeast Asia is ancient (see, for example, [16]). Iron working spread through Africa at a later date; see Iron metallurgy in Africa. Pfly (talk) 00:40, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

The question is so vague as to include just about every neolitic people on earth. But the Khoisan and the Yanomami both have the bow and arrow. μηδείς (talk) 01:50, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Hmm? Most Neolithic people did not live in the rainforest. I'm specifically asking about rainforest tribes. —SeekingAnswers (reply) 17:33, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

What Medis said... you need to be specific about who you're asking about. Many human societies had access to metal working at different times, but the transition into steel is fairly significant. Shadowjams (talk) 03:53, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I was specific: I'm not asking about human societies in general, but specifically rainforest societies. Wouldn't rainforest terrain make mining and metallurgy difficult? —SeekingAnswers (reply) 17:38, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Substitute the Bambuti people for the Khoisan if you insist on rainforest neolithic level peoples. μηδείς (talk) 23:51, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Many cultures figured out methods for working copper, silver, and gold, but the development of hard metals which could keep a sharp edge (bronze, steel) happened in middle eastern civilizations, and was not particularly associated with tropical hunter-gatherers. In the pre-1492 western hemisphere, metal-working was associated with jewellery far more than with tool-making... AnonMoos (talk)

You don't need to mine metal if you have access to Native copper which can be used to make tools and weapons, see Copper Inuit (who were not really a rainforest tribe), but copper was found in Coro Coro, Bolivia. Also if you could find stones or bones you can make a wide range of stuff. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 05:58, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I saw a TV program about this very subject a few days ago. This speculated that the Inca or Maya (I forget which) used wooden swords with Obsidian pieces forming the cutting edge. This was a double whammy as the pieces might become dislodged and stick into the victim. Yesterday, I saw an obsidian tipped Pacific Island spear featured on an antiques TV program. --TrogWoolley (talk) 12:21, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

You are referring to the Macuahuitl. V85 (talk) 18:58, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Southeast Asian metallurgy is indeed quite ancient resulting in some quite unique melee weapons, a lot of them having evolved from agricultural implements. See List of premodern combat weapons. Swords (slashing, thrusting, and hacking), spears (both stabbing and throwing), polearms (notably tridents in common with South Asia), slings, claw weapons, knives (including throwing weapons), sickles, and mace weapons (including staffs) were common pre-European contact, though archery in warfare is rare in Southeast Asia (in my opinion due to the fact that they're useless in the limited line-of-sight environments of jungles). Here are some:

Click to show->

Visayan swords, most of which are also functional and carried around for everyday tasks in addition to personal defense Southeast Asian kris, the most common sword used exlusively for warfare in Southeast Asia (note: those are not axes beside them, but sheaths) The Kampilan longswords of the Philippines Panabas, the Southeast Asian equivalent of the European waraxe and (in some larger examples) polearms Karambit, a claw weapon Sundanese Kujang Balinese kris Filipino kalis, a kind of kris

In contrast, Pre-Columbian American weapons tend to be clubs, spears, bows and arrows, slings, blowguns, and stone tomahawks. As the early state of their metallurgy meant most available metals were soft or rare, hence the preponderance of stone tips in weapons, notably obsidian.

Click to show->
Aztec tepoztopilli, a sort of spear/halberd made of wood tipped with obsidian shards Aztec warriors with macuahuitl, wooden "swords" with edges lined with sharp obsidian Moche stone mace-heads The tupi when made with metal, use soft ones like copper, gold, or silver and thus were mainly ceremonial

I don't know much about African weapons, but I think it was mostly a spear, club, and bow affair.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 09:05, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

shooting memorial ribbons

I recently looked on Google for some memorial ribbons to the 2012 Aurora shooting. A couple images contained two different Batman logos. One of the ribbons was also in the colors of the Colorado state flag. How can I obtain one of each memorial ribbon?142.255.103.121 (talk) 07:54, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

very specific: has anyone become totally famous in two professions under two names?

I'm looking for an example where like Mark Twain is really Samuel Langhorne Clemens, but Houdini is also really Samuel Langhorne Clemens - the same guy. Posthumity knows him in the first profession (writer, poet, artist), whatever, under one name, but also under the second under a second name.

It's also appropriate if one is the stage name one is the real name. (e.g. if Lewis Carroll was known to mathematicians as Charles Lutwidge Dodgson, which is not the case.)

or if noam chomsky used a slightly different name in politics and as a linguistics professor. the key thing here isn't the two professions - it's the two names or slightly different name. Thanks! 84.3.160.86 (talk) 13:15, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

The only possibilities I can think of would be actors/musicians who used a pseudonym and then their real name. And the only one in particular I can think of is Dwayne Johnson, who is now known more as an actor than for his wrestling career when he was called The Rock. But of course he is also still known as The Rock too. Also, Natalie Portman published scientific papers under her real name (Natalie Hershlag), but I wouldn't say she's a famous scientist... Adam Bishop (talk) 14:42, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Trevanian was a successful novelist who was also a respected academic under his real name, but I'm not sure how "famous" he was as an academic. eldamorie (talk) 14:47, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

These are all excellent examples and right in line with what I was looking for. Keep them coming! 84.3.160.86 (talk) 15:07, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Do you mean Jack Black/Tenacious D? --TammyMoet (talk) 15:40, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Michael Savage is a conservative talk-radio host, and has published books on topics such as herbs and nutrition under his real name Michael Weiner. (He holds a Ph.D. in nutritional ethnomedicine.) I've only heard about him as a political commentator, though. V85 (talk) 15:56, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

OP here - didn't have one specific person in mind. Keep them coming! These are great. 84.3.160.86 (talk) 15:59, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure how well this fits with your criteria, but Iain Banks is a novelist, whilst Iain M[enzies] Banks writes Science Fiction. I'm sure there are others - I'll keep thinking! - Cucumber Mike (talk) 16:04, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Got one! Natalie Portman was a co-author on published scientific studies under her real name, Natalie Hershlag, gaining herself an Erdős–Bacon number of only 6. I like this game! - Cucumber Mike (talk) 16:10, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I already mentioned her :) Adam Bishop (talk) 16:32, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

She must be doubly famous then! Sorry! - Cucumber Mike (talk) 16:51, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Both of these are quite good too. How about historically, such that the person's work has passed down on two vines? (Charles Lutwidge Dodgson as a mathematician would be a good example here.) 84.3.160.86 (talk) 16:39, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what the measurement is of "totally famous". Brooke Magnanti PhD is well respected by her peers as a published scientist, but first achieved fame pseudonymously as Belle de Jour (writer), the London call girl with a blog. Since being outed, Magnanti writes under her own name about sex work, libel laws, and popular science. BrainyBabe (talk) 16:53, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

John le Carré is a famous novelist who was also known by his real name, David John Moore Cornwall, when he worked as an M16 officer and foreign consul (I don't know how "famous" he was - or could be (!) - in the latter roles though!). Loriski (talk) 17:00, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

See Ignacy Jan Paderewski. He was an internationally ranked pianist as well as being the Prime Minister of Poland. 2001:18E8:2:1020:EC9F:440D:1B5F:FA57 (talk) 17:28, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Paul Linebarger, a noted East Asia scholar and leading expert on psychological warfare, also wrote science fiction under the name Cordwainer Smith. John M Baker (talk) 17:34, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Another pen name: The writer Julie Edwards, author of The Last of the Really Great Whangdoodles and many other noted children's books, has also had a measure of success as an actress using her maiden name, Julie Andrews. John M Baker (talk) 17:48, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Her maiden name was Julia Wells. Julie Andrews is her nom de guerre. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 23:01, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's correct. I was confused because she sometimes uses Julie Andrews Edwards as her pen name. John M Baker (talk) 13:27, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Charles Ives seems to have been known better as an insurance salesman than as a composer, at least for a while after he started composing actively. 2001:18E8:2:1020:EC9F:440D:1B5F:FA57 (talk) 17:44, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Oops, I completely missed the "under two names" part. Sorry. 2001:18E8:2:1020:EC9F:440D:1B5F:FA57 (talk) 17:46, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Juliet Hulme was a well-known murderer, and as Anne Perry, a well-known novelist. (If "murderer" counts as an occupation.) Adam Bishop (talk) 17:45, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

They are actually variations on the same name, but you might not recognize Brigadier General James Maitland Stewart as being actor Jimmy Stewart. StuRat (talk) 17:46, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

James Tiptree, Jr. was well know as Major Alice B. Sheldon and also wrote as Raccoona Sheldon ,so a triple whammy there, Hotclaws (talk) 18:30, 26 July 2012 (UTC) Link fixed --ColinFine (talk) 18:41, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I've heard that Noam Chomsky is known under two names in Russia, and some Russians who have heard of both are unaware he's the same man: there's the linguist Ноам Чомски with a "ch"-sound (as in "chair"), and there's the political writer Ноам Хомский with a "kh"-sound (as in "chutzpah"). But I can't guarantee this is true; it's a story I heard and maybe it's false. Pais (talk) 18:48, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

At least I've also heard it; with the refinement that one of them is Ном rather than Ноам. — On a distant tangent, I once (long ago) had dealings with someone whose parents were Chinese and Japanese, and whose name could be romanized in two very different ways. —Tamfang (talk) 02:25, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

The writer, critic and translator Philip Heseltine used the pseudonym Peter Warlock when he wore his composer's hat. He's much better known as a composer these days, but that wasn't always the case. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 21:52, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

J. I. M. Stewart was fairly well known as a literary scholar (he wrote a volume of the Oxford History of English Literature) but also quite well known as Michael Innes, author of detective novels. Deor (talk) 22:45, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I was not aware until well into my adult years that the Scottish novelist John Buchan (best known for The Thirty-Nine Steps) and the Governor General of Canada Lord Tweedsmuir were one and the same person.

There would be various other British and Commonwealth people who chose/inherited a new title upon entering the peerage who finished up as politicians or colonial governors, but were previously better known as military officers, administrators etc under their original names. For the last 24 years of his life, Lord Dacre of Glanton had the right to sit in the House of Lords and make British laws (I don't know that he ever actually bothered, but he might have), but he's also known as the historian Hugh Trevor-Roper. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 23:01, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Alexis Leger was a famous French diplomat in his day, being Secrétaire-général (Deputy Minister) of the French Foreign Ministry in the 1930s and a key figure in various international negociations in those days. He is now better known as the poet Saint-John Perse, winner of the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1960. --Xuxl (talk) 08:59, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Louise Mensch MP is Louise Bagshawe, novellist. --Dweller (talk) 14:10, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Mrs.Wm H. Murray

I have found a picture in my mothers things that is of a lady sitting by a Quilt,( It shows different districs ,) There is a name under the Picture that says Mrs.Wm H. Murray I would like infromation on her and the Quilt ..... The quilt has 48 Squares and aflag of Oklahma and aMap that shows Numbers instead of countys. there is one squre thats a picture of Sequaha in the center and indian signs around the outside. Can you help me this has really made me wonder about this Quilt maybe being made for the Gov. ans Mrs Murray back in the 30s. I would really appreciate any infromation that I could get.

Thank you very much: Dorothy Hames 8:42 Am. 26 July 2012 Ps. my mother was in home diminstration clubs about this time. She has past away Last January at the age of 97. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jiggs2 (talk • contribs) 13:46, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I have googled a bit, and I have found out that in 1927-1931 a woman by the name of Camille Nixdorf Phelan created the 'Oklahoma History Quilt', which seems similar, but not identical, to the one that you describe. It presented the history of Oklahoma from 1541-1931, in 54 squares, one of them including 'Sequoyah and his alphabet', and several of them including 'Mrs. Murray'. The quilt was presented to the Oklahoma Historical Society in 1935. Governor E. W. Marland accepted it on behalf of the society. You can read more about this quilt, either on this blog or in The Chronicles of Oklahoma, (1935) V. 13, No. 4. Is this the quilt in the picture? V85 (talk) 16:27, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I think we are looking for information on Mary Alice Hearrell Murray wife of William H. Murray the ninth governor. Worldcat show one biography: Alice "Crossing the Bar".—eric 16:45, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Secret Service protection for the US President's girlfriend?

Taking the proposed fictional relationship between Michael Douglas and Annette Bening in The American President as the premise, at what time point would a US President's girlfriend receive Secret Service protection? Is it based on 'when would she become in danger of being abducted to extort state secrets' or 'when she would know enough secrets herself (i.e. the President's whereabouts) that she could be extorted herself' or 'when she would become in danger of being harmed in a politically driven act of sabotage or crazed act of violence' or perhaps there's no real guideline and it's just a subjective call by the head of the Secret Service? DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 14:13, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

The last time there was an unmarried President with a girlfriend was 1915 when many things including the Secret Service worked much differently. (And married President's girlfriends now would also be treated differently) Rmhermen (talk) 15:00, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

The President's girlfriend would likely fall under "Other individuals as designated per executive order of the President" as per the Secret Service article. Smurdah (talk) 15:09, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Interpreting a C18 portrait in a catalogue

Can an art historian help with this catalogue entry?

Lady Mary CARR, nee Vane (c. 1727-1781), pstl, 58x44, 1753-54 (Lord Barnard, Raby Castle). Lit.: L&R 154 repr.; R&L 270, fig. 398 [omega symbol]

It comes from the Dictionary of Pastellists before 1800 article on Jean-Etienne Liotard by Neil Jeffares.

Here is what I understand so far.

Lady Mary CARR, nee Vane (c. 1727-1781)

Mary was the daughter of Henry Vane, 1st Earl of Darlington (and the younger sister of Harriet, but not this red herring). She married an untitled man, and so got to keep her natal rank, correct? Any idea who her husband was, where the couple lived, what they did with their lives?

pstl

The piece of art is a pastel. I'm not really sure what this "means" in the context of the time. Wouldn't it have been more usual to do a portrait in oil? Was pastel cheaper or quicker or more trendy or believed to be better for some specific reason? More suitable to young girls, perhaps?

58x44

Dimensions in inches, presumably.

1753-54

When it was produced. (Does one say "painted" for pastels?) Mary would have been 26. The portrait appears to be of a pubescent girl. I must be missing something. Is it possible that Mary was the artist, and the item is mentioned in Liotard's article because... he was her teacher, or something? (I'm clutching at straws.)

(Lord Barnard, Raby Castle).

Given that the sitter is female, would this be the person who commissioned it? Or is it the current owner? Or someone else? There is a Baron Barnard. If I read our article correctly, at that date, this was Mary's father. It says " In 1754 he was created Viscount Barnard, of Barnard Castle in the County of Durham, and Earl of Darlington, in the County of Durham." Is the date significant? Was it usual, on gaining titles, to commission family portraits? In which case, were others commissioned? From the same artist or from others?

Nearby Raby Castle is associated with the Vane family. Is the painting/pastel there now?

Lit.: L&R 154 repr.; R&L 270, fig. 398

Does "Lit" mean "mentioned in the literature"? No idea what journal this is/ these are, or the difference between repr[oduction?] and fig[urative?].

[omega symbol]

The end. But the end of what? Just the description of this work of art, or some larger entity I cannot grasp?

"All professions are conspiracies against the laity." But why so many unnecessary abbreviations in an online source?

Any help in filling in the blanks (but not by random guesswork} would be appreciated.

BrainyBabe (talk) 16:26, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Simple solution to your confusion, Babe; the images appear below the relevant entry in the pdf, so Lady Carr is not the young girl but the woman with the pointy nose. As for the greek letter, it's not an omega, it's a phi. Since it appears only after the figure number for the illustrated examples, and seems to come in small, capital, and bold versions, it's presumably just something to do with page layout in the original book. FiggyBee (talk) 17:39, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

(EC) I am not an art historian, so most of what I'd be able to contribute would be 'random guesswork' (or as I like to think it 'educated guesswork'), so I won't give you loads of what I think this might mean. However, the website does provide a list of abbreviations used, where some of the information you'd like can be found:

• pstl does indeed mean pastel.
• L&R means 'Loche & Roethlisberger, Liotard, 1978', which is a book published by Renée Loche and Marcel Roethlisberger in 1978 - from the latter's WP article, presumably L'opera completa di Liotard. Milan; Rizzoli, 1978.
• φ, phi, not omega, means photo available.
• repr. means reproduced/reprinted.
• Dimensions are given in centimetres. — Preceding unsigned comment added by V85 (talk • contribs) 19:10, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
• The article you link to, ends with the following text: 'The definitive catalogue, R&L, came out in 2008. Catalogue numbers have been added in the form R&L n (references to the earlier edition are given as L&R n); copies and variants are cited by page (R&L p. x).' This does seem to contradict the information in the list of abbreviations, (edit:) but the Roethlisberger article does state that a second version was published in 2008(/edit). I could tell you how I would've interpreted these, but since you don't want guesswork, I won't.

The list of abbreviations also states that photos of pictures follow the description, so the picture of the girl goes with the text preceding it, whereas the picture of Lady CARR is the picture following it, which would seem to fit an age of ~26. V85 (talk) 17:42, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

When it comes to spouse: Lady Mary Vane is the daughter of Henry Vane, 1st Earl of Darlington and Lady Grace Fitzroy. She married Ralph Carr in 1752. From 1752, her married name became Carr. V85 (talk) 17:48, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

And with regard to the "Lord Barnard, Raby Castle", the parenthetical material in similar positions in other entries includes museums and such, so I think it's safe to conclude that it refers to the current owner and location of the work. Deor (talk) 22:30, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks all. My bad thricely! I don't know how I didn't see the list of abbreviations, and once I'd mis-remembered the symbol as an omega, of course I assumed that the entry was finished, and thus that the image above was the one referred to, not the one below. Thanks for that education in how to read a catalogue; there remain some unanswered questions, and some new ones. I'll number them this time:

1. Titles: is it correct (or would it have been correct then) that the daughter of an earl is addressed and referred to as Lady FirstName until her marriage, and, on marrying an untitled man, becomes Lady HerFirstName HisSurname?

2. Material: what's up with the choice of pastel? See my questions above. Our article is remarkably uninformative on why it was used historically, when the norm was oil painting.

According to the French wp article Pastel [17], the medium had its greatest popularity, especially for portraits, precisely in the 18th century, before giving way to oil after the French Revolution. --Xuxl (talk) 12:44, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

3. Date: Lady Mary married in 1752, according to the source given. (I had found thepeerage.com before, but am not sure if it is a reliable source, or dubiously scraped.) The picture is dated 1753-54. Was it normal in this time and place for husbands to commission portraits of their wives? Or is it more likely to have been ordered by her father, to look at in her absence, as it were? ("You're not losing a daughter; you're gaining a pastel masterpiece!") Or was it likely to be linked to his new titles, as I hypothesised above? NB the portrait is owned by Lord Barnard, i.e. it would appear to have been passed down through her birth family, not her descendants (though there may have been a cousin marriage later).

4. Artistic abbreviations: what is the difference between "repr" and "fig"? The first term features in the list of abbreviations as "reproduced; reprinted". Does that mean that copies of the portrait exist? Unless I'm going blind, "fig" isn't in the list at all.

5. Sitter: Are there any other tidbits of information to be found about Lady Mary, and indeed her husband Mr Carr? Were they just anonymous county squirarchy, or did they make their mark?

Many thanks for any leads. BrainyBabe (talk) 11:00, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Federal Insurance Administration

Where in the US government was the Federal Insurance Administration located in the late 1970s? It seems that it's been renamed and moved to FEMA, but where was it before that? 2001:18E8:2:1020:EC9F:440D:1B5F:FA57 (talk) 17:23, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Department of Housing and Urban Development.—eric 18:10, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, but . 2001:18E8:2:1020:EC9F:440D:1B5F:FA57 (talk) 19:17, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

According to this report prepared for FEMA, the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 or Title XII of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968 created both NFIP and FIA under HUD.—eric 19:34, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! I did my best with Google but wasn't able to find anything. 2001:18E8:2:1020:EC9F:440D:1B5F:FA57 (talk) 19:35, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome, here's the text of the act: [18].—eric 19:36, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Western trade with the East

When did the West first contact/trade with India and China? --146.7.96.200 (talk) 18:20, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

If by the West is meant Europe, then Alexander the Great (with his army) may be one of the first Westerners we know of to reach India. However, I'm curious if someone here knows of earlier confirmed contact. - Lindert (talk) 19:01, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

There is definitive evidence of trade between India and Babylonia going back to 900 BC, and less definitive evidence for trade between India and the Hittites hundreds of years earlier. Looie496 (talk) 19:32, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Babylonia was in modern day Iraq. I don't think that is "the West" by anyone's definition. The Hittites were in modern central Turkey, which could possibly be considered in "the West", but not by most definitions. ("The West" is a modern term, so you need to consider the location in a modern world when trying to give it meaning in ancient times.) --Tango (talk) 19:59, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

The Silk Road and Tocharians articles might be of interest to you. 69.62.243.48 (talk) 23:26, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

See also Dzungarian Gate. μηδείς (talk) 23:44, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Isn't there evidence of silk reaching Ancient Egypt, found in mummies, thousands of years before Alexander the Great?--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 05:19, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Egypt however, is not usually included in 'the West'. And besides, silk reaching Egypt does not prove that there was direct trade/contact Egypt and India/China. They might have bought it e.g. from Middle Eastern traders, who in turn traded with India. - Lindert (talk) 08:56, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

The article Indus Valley Civilization says the Harappan culture (in Western India) may have traded with Crete in the 3rd millennium BC, though this seems uncertain. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:33, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Most trade was not done directly - it was done via intermediaries. Most people did not traverse the length of the Silk Road - one group traded with the next group, who traded with the next group, etc. The same principle applied to trading by sea. So, goods may have traveled long distances without any direct connection between the source culture and the ultimate destination, or knowledge of each other. (As Lindert said...) Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:58, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

July 27

Good French Revolution movie?

I'm looking for good fictional films on the French Revolution — films that might be appropriate for showing to students at the high school level (say, 14-15 years old). (So no Marquis de Sade flicks, please.)

Preferably I'm interested in something that gives a sense of Reign of Terror, Robespierre, and all that. Much any period of the Revolution would be fine. Things that give a palpable sense for being there at the time, even if they take some liberties with the literal history. (Sade wouldn't be the worst film, if it weren't for the age-inappropriateness...)

I'm posting this here, and not in Entertainment, because I'm more interested in something that conjures up a sense of History than something that entertains. (Though it would be nice if it did also entertain.) --Mr.98 (talk) 00:00, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I haven't actually seen it, but A Tale of Two Cities (1958 film) seems like it might be the sort of thing you are looking for. The book certainly gives a sense of the Reign of Terror. There is also The Scarlet Pimpernel (1982 film), which I also haven't seen, but if the novel is any indication it wouldn't be a good place to look for realism. Looie496 (talk) 00:57, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm a little confused, Mr.98. You ask for fictional films, yet three things tell me you're really after non-fiction films:

• you want the balance of history vs. entertainment to be in the history direction
• you allow only "some liberties with literal history" (that could apply to most films that purport to present what actually happened, not just to fictional films)
• you ask it on the Humanities desk rather than the Entertainment desk.

So, is it only fictional films you want? -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 01:27, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

No, I'm looking for fictional films. I don't want a documentary. Another way to put it is that I'm looking for something good in the genre of historical fiction. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:22, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, re: the non-fiction version, I asked my parents to bring me back documentaries on the Revolution from a trip to France. They told me there weren't any. When they asked why, they were told "We don't want another one" :). They brought back Danton, and La Nuit des Varennes, both mentioned below. So if it helps the OP, these were the two films that were rated as closest to a documentary, by French people. Or just the ones they thought an Australian dilettante might appreciate. IBE (talk) 04:26, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

How about Reign of Terror (1949)? Dealing with the downfall of Robespierre, it gives a reasonable feel of the period and it's mildly entertaining. Other possibilities are listed in Category:French Revolution films. Danton (1983) and That Night in Varennes (1982) look promising. I found Ridicule interesting, but it's a bit off-topic for your stated aim. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:07, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

No Marquis de Sade pics? I dispute your claim. Peter Weiss' Marat/Sade as filmed by the British is great for high school students. It involves sex, but not too much (the nyphomanic is physically restrained). The worst bit for high schoolers, the Priest's discussion and meditation on identity in modernity is elided from the film version (but not from the play of course). And Sade argues for man's animality as opposed to Marat's argument of man as cogito. Worse—Roux, the only individual who could blow the whole thing wide open is systematically gagged by the bourgeois elite. "Marat we're poor, and the poor stay poor, Marat we're scared but we don't care anymore, we want Marat, and we don't care how! We want a revolution, now Fifelfoo (talk) 06:03, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

For the purposes of referring a colleague to a text, this is a sample of the work on youtube. Did I mention, it is a musical? Fifelfoo (talk) 06:06, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

The Lady and the Duke (2001) by Eric Rohmer is a bit wordy, but it gives a good sense of how Aristocrats perceived the mounting terror.[19]. Vent de galerne (1989) is about the Revolt in the Vendée from a counter-revolutionary point of view [20]. Sade (2000) [21] with Daniel Auteuil has little or none of the sex and a lot about the Marquis being imprisoned while the Revolution is raging outside. Les adieux à la reine (2012) is another Marie-Antoinette centered flick [22]. This list has more titles worth checking out, including some that are more pro-Revolution. --Xuxl (talk) 09:27, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

The TV series Les nuits révolutionnaires [23] was set against the backdrop of the Revolution, and if you can find it, is a definite must (IMO). I'm lucky to have in on VHS but I wish it would be released on DVD. --TrogWoolley (talk) 13:59, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Don't Lose Your Head FiggyBee (talk) 14:44, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

The Big Mac Index and the Euro

I know much about the Big Mac Index, PPP and international economics. I know that prices are fairly rigid in comparison with exchange rates and interest rates and I know that PPP usually does not work well and I know that comparing Big Macs' prices is not a good test of PPP.

I just wonder if Euro, as a currency for the Eurozone and many other countries, really work as advertised. If so, then I expect to see that pre-tax Big Mac prices within the Eurozone to converge. I mean beef hamburgers shall be about the same price whether you're in Paris, Frankfurt or Madrid (certainly not).

The Economists does not provide individual Big Mac Index entries for each Eurozone countries. I can understand this because this index is used to measure the over- or under-valuation of each currency and Euro is ONE currency.

I just want to know if Big Mac prices are widely varied with Eurozone and if the adoption of Euro for the past decade really helped to reduce the spread. -- Toytoy (talk) 02:53, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

According to [[24]] the price of a "combo meal, mcdonalds or similar" is 7.44 € in Paris and 4.77 € in Tallinn. I would assume that the variance can be explained by differences in wages and real estate costs. According to [[25]] convergence is nevertheless happening. 130.188.8.27 (talk) 08:55, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. The price of a Big Mac is only very tangentially influenced by the price for the bread and the patty. A much higher percentage of the price covers the physical restaurant, the employee wages, and marketing and branding. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:45, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Which makes the function of the Economist as the home of the political economy movement (cf: Thompson on the Moral Economy) interesting, as the Big Mac index appears to be constructed to discipline labour and the propensity of national capital to pay social wages. Fifelfoo (talk) 11:49, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Also, don't forget that the price of a Big Mac is not the same as the cost to make a Big Mac. There will be a profit margin in there as well. It may well be that the profit margins vary from place to place based on what optimises total profits. If people are wealthier in Paris than Tallinn they may be willing to pay more, so McDonalds can include a larger profit margin and without it damaging their sales. Competition will also affect that - if there is more competition in one city than the other there will be less room for profit since people can more easily switch to a substitute good. It is only when there is perfect competition that prices are driven down to cost (plus the minimal necessary profit to make it worth running the business at all), and no market is perfectly competive. --Tango (talk) 12:27, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

How Much of a Role Did 9/11 and the Iraq War (separately) Play in Gaddafi's Decision to Give up his WMDs and Nuclear Program in 2003?

Does anyone have any reliable sources on this, even it these sources are speculative? Futurist110 (talk) 05:09, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Our Iraq War article says, "After investigation following the invasion, the U.S.-led Iraq Survey Group concluded that Iraq had ended its nuclear, chemical and biological programs in 1991 and had no active programs at the time of the invasion, but that they intended to resume production if the Iraq sanctions were lifted", and gives references. So the answer is, no role at all, because the programs had ended over a decade earlier. Looie496 (talk) 05:44, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I believe Looie misunderstood the question. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 05:51, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

See Gaddafi#Western_acceptance for some ideas. But, of course, only Gaddafi knows, and he hasn't been saying much for a while now, for some reason. :-) StuRat (talk) 06:19, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

In an interview in December 2003, Gaddafi did suggest that the impending invasion of Iraq may have played a role in his thinking on this point. Remember that the WMD program was somewhat indisputably discovered just before he decided to come clean on it, too. I suspect there were numerous factors involved, plus a lot of back-room dealing with the US. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:19, 27 July 2012 (UTC)