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 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 [3], 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. [4] 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): [5]. 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 [6] 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 [7] 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)

I created a new Wikipedia article for this-- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_United_States_Presidential_autobiographies&pe=1& Feel free to contribute to it. Also, what about the U.S. Presidents before Coolidge? Futurist110 (talk) 03:27, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

The best way to link a Wikipedia article is to just enclose the title in double square brackets: List of United States Presidential autobiographies. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 22:43, 28 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: [8]. 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: [9] --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: [10]. 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)

---

By the way, we have Template:Territories with limited Roman Empire occupation & presence... -- AnonMoos (talk) 18:44, 27 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, [11]). 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)

It's not clear whether anyone has started selling them; perhaps it is too soon for people to feel comfortable capitalizing on the tragedy. Keep an eye on http://pinterest.com/waywire/remembering-the-aurora-shooting/ where someone is collecting memorabilia, some of which is very likely to become commercial. You could make your own by laminating a color print cut-out at a copy shop. 207.224.43.139 (talk) 00:45, 29 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)

Sounds like two US airforce bases were named after her. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 19:51, 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)

Child actress Shirley Temple and ambassador Shirley Temple Black? Pais (talk) 16:24, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I was also going to mention John Cougar, John Cougar Mellencamp, and John Mellencamp, but he fails on the "two different professions" requirement. Pais (talk) 16:32, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Danish illustrator and linguist Ingahild Grathmer, noted for her work in connection with Danish editions of the works of J R R Tolkein, is otherwise known as Queen Margrethe II. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:50, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Elisabeth of Wied, Queen Consort of Carol I of Romania, poet, novelist and translator under the name Carmen Sylva. - Jmabel | Talk 05:56, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Not sure how separate one would consider the fields, but country music icon Hank Williams recorded spoken-word religious records under the name "Luke the Drifter". - Jmabel | Talk 06:01, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Japanese politician Akiyuki Nosaka, according to our article (but lacking solid citation, and I don't know this one independently) a writer under the name Yukio Aki and a singer under the name Claude Nosaka. - Jmabel | Talk 06:13, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps not very famous even in Poland, but (according to Polish Wikipedia) Tadeusz Żakiej published his books about music under the pseudonym Tadeusz Marek and his cookbooks as Maria Lemnis and Henryk Vitry (a curious example of a double pseudonym of single author). — Kpalion^(talk) 15:14, 30 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)

I wonder what is the likelihood of an unmarried man standing any chance of getting elected nowadays. I'm thinking the answer is "slim to none". In any case, as Smurdah notes, that would be the President's call. (If Clinton had had Lewinsky protected, maybe things would have turned out differently.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:22, 28 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 [12], 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)

2. The pastellists.com website where you found this article, mentions one reason why pastel was popular for portraits: 'The overwhelming majority of the pastels in the Dictionary are portraits, no doubt as a result of the unique suitability of this medium for the depiction of human flesh.'

3. I don't know how reliable thepeerage.com is either, but it would seem to fulfil our requirements for reliability, as it does provide a source for the information it provides. You could look up that source and double-check.

4. The best way to find this out, is, of course, to get your hands on a copy of the L&R and flip through it and see where that picture is reproduced and how that relates to those numbers. My guess is that 'fig.' means 'figure', perhaps page 270 has more than one figure on it (e.g. 315-325) and 319 is the one we're interested in. But that's just random guesswork.... V85 (talk) 15:09, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

5. Mary's husband, Ralph Carr, was the son of Ralph Carr, who was the son of Ralph Carr, who was the son of Sir Ralph Carr. This Carr line associated with a place called Cocken in Durham county - possibly Cocken Hall? Ralph Carr's sister (i.e. Mary Vane's sister-in-law), Isabella Carr, married Henry Ibbetson, sheriff of York, who sponsored 100 men during the '1745 rebellion' (the Jacobite uprising?), and who was made baronet. [13]. So while Ralph Carr himself doesn't appear to have a title, there is a sir in his lineage, and his sister married a baronet (albeit, before he became one). V85 (talk) 18:49, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Ralph Carr, Mary's husband was born 1728-05-31 and passed away 1788-09-11, leaving no children. [14] (p. 354-6) The Cocken estate was then passed on to his sister Isabella's third son, Carr Ibbetson. As the latter didn't have any children either, the estate passed to Ralph Carr, Ralph Carr's cousin (as far as I can make out), and grandson of sir Ralph Carr. When Ralph Carr died, the property was inherited by his son, who was called (you guessed it) Ralph Carr.

So, what did Ralph Carr do? I don't know. Obviously there is a reference to coal in Cocken article, so it's tempting to think that any of them could be Ralph Carr (1711-1807) 'A Newscastle Merchant', whose endavours as a trader have been studied, due to his failures. While Ralph Carr is a contemporary of Ralph Carr, I can't find anything connecting Ralph Carr to the Cocken estate to which Ralph Carr was the heir. V85 (talk) 20:34, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Lit (literature ?) indicates the bibliographic details listed on this page. On it, as indicated here above, L&R: Renée Loche & Marcel Roethlisberger, L'opera completa di Liotard, Milan, 1978. — AldoSyrt (talk) 08:20, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

It looks as if we've gone about as far as we can go with this query. Thanks, everyone. BrainyBabe (talk) 15:08, 29 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: [15].—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)

---

There were lots of Greeks who went to India after Alexander -- see Heliodorus pillar, Indo-Greeks, etc. Some coins of Kanishka had "BODDO" in Greek letters on them (i.e. Buddha). Nevertheless, books written by Greeks in the Mediterranean area show only the most shallow and superficial understanding of Indian civilization and religion. For semi-direct Roman-Chinese contacts, such as they were, see Romano-Chinese relations... AnonMoos (talk) 18:27, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Megasthenes, author of the Indica the first Western well known account of India. He was born in Asia Minor and became an ambassador of Seleucus I of Syria to Pataliputra, India, some time before 298 BC.184.147.121.51 (talk) 03:00, 28 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 think both A Tale of Two Cities and Scarlet Pimpernel would be be great, even if not always realistic. Personally I think the 1930's versions of both are still wonderful, and remember watching them as a teenager and being totally involved - but I don't have any idea if modern kids in general would go for black and white movies that old. Cataobh (talk) 17:49, 28 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.[16]. Vent de galerne (1989) is about the Revolt in the Vendée from a counter-revolutionary point of view [17]. Sade (2000) [18] 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 [19]. 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 [20] 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 Scarlet Pimpernel for sure. We watched it in my high school European history class, and we all loved it. Nothing inappropriate. Ruby 2010/2013 02:52, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, enjoyable movie though it may be, I'd tend to disagree that The Scarlet Pimpernel is a "Good French Revolution" story; rather, it's a British-upper-class-centric ripping yarn which uses a few corny French stereotypes as backdrop. For an additional British-upper-class-centric ripping yarn which uses a few corny French stereotypes as backdrop, but which nevertheless makes a great movie, see A Tale of Two Cities. FiggyBee (talk) 03:46, 29 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 [[21]] 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 [[22]] 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)

Be patient with Looie, he has to answer many questions here, he's probably tired or stressed out. OsmanRF34 (talk) 16:24, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Argh, I was thinking the question was about Saddam Hussein. Brain fart. Looie496 (talk) 16:30, 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)

Average cost vs. Average Total cost

Are Average Total Cost and Average Cost same in definition?

According to Average Total cost, Total cost is divided by quantity of output.
ATC = TC/Q

So what happens to the Average cost? So, can the equation be written like:
AC = TC/Q (by following the same definition).

Thanks--180.234.246.231 (talk) 17:22, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

They seem to be synonymous. Our article is at Average cost, with Average total cost redirecting. FiggyBee (talk) 17:51, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Yup, synonymous on the most common definitions. - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 21:34, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Colonial east Africa

What was the colonial situation in the Horn of Africa in 1860 (before Italy united)? I tried finding maps but I was unsuccessful. Were modern-Somalia and Eritrea part of the Ottoman Empire, under Ethiopian control, or something else? Thanks. 64.229.5.242 (talk) 17:29, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Geledi sultanate, in the case of Somalia, while Eritrea was mostly under Ottoman influence. The Horn of Africa was not of particular interest to Europeans until the Suez Canal opened in 1869 - Italian Eritrea came into being in 1882. FiggyBee (talk) 17:47, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Displaying the Flag of England

I understand that the English Flag has some political connotations, typically associated with far-right movements. On my trip to the United Kingdom, I took some walks in the fens, and on a number of farmhouses, I saw the English flag being displayed (sometimes with the Union Flag as well, but more often not). Is it likely that these homeowners were associating themselves with the political connotations of the flag? Or is this likely just an apolitical display because they're in England? Buddy431 (talk)

Most likely because the England football team was playing. Not really about politics, or at least not directly. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:11, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

The flag had political connotations of the far-right. It has been reclaimed by the general population and is now commonly used to show patriotism, particularly support of English sports teams (especially football, as Andy says). --Tango (talk) 21:33, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

The article you linked to does have a section on this: Flag of England#Perceived association with the far right. --Tango (talk) 21:37, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Context is everything. If it was on a farmhouse, they're probably patriotic with gentle to less-gentle xenophobia at the back of their heads. If it was on a council house, there was probably a football game on. If they were in a crowd in town, you've found an extremist march. (Stereotyping for simplicity, but the context point is genuine) --Saalstin (talk) 22:18, 27 July 2012 (UTC) (Edit to add: Anecdote: years back, I was showing a boyfriend from London my home in the rural south west. He was genuinely astonished to see all the churches (Church of England) flying English flags - this was apparently not something he was used to. It's probably the least contentious use they'll ever have. --Saalstin (talk) 22:20, 27 July 2012 (UTC))

The big change is often said to have come about due to Euro 96, which made the St George's Cross acceptable again. Not to mention that some groups always flew the flag (OR: I have a Church of England church opposite my house which has flown it for at least 20 years)--iamajpeg (talk) 22:30, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Why do they call it "Women's Gymnastics"

When they're obviously girls? ScienceApe (talk) 23:33, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Are you suggesting they should call it "Girls' Gymnastics"? -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 00:33, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

If there is a serious question here that can be answered with wikipedia resources please mention that on the talk page and we'll gladly entertain it. μηδείς (talk) 01:03, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm reverting your closure. ScienceApe's can absolutely be answered without opinion or predictions or whatever it is you're accusing him of wanting. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:45, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Many sports will have a mix of adolescents and adults, and the adults might resent being called girls (or boys), so they just call them all adults. StuRat (talk) 02:31, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Women's gymnastics has been a part of the modern Olympics since its inception in 1896. It's worth noting that while women aged under 18 are "girls" in most countries today (see age of majority), ages of majority tended to be far lower back then. In Scotland, at least, a woman reached the age of majority at 14 until 1969 I believe. By that standard, every "girl" competing in the original Olympic games would be an adult woman. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:45, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

cite needed for women's gymnastics in 1896, as only [[one woman competed. I think 1908 had a demonstration event, and 1928 was the first official competition.—eric 03:04, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, my bad. I was looking at Artistic gymnastics at the Summer Olympics and in my brain fart thought that 1896 was its first appearance because it was on the table of women's results. I see now that all the entries for that column are marked with an X. I maintain the rest of my point still stands :) Thank you for correcting me. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:11, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Keep in mind that the early female competitors were generally adults. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:43, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

They probably don't call it girl's gymnastics for the same reason they don't call "Miss Ebony USA" the "unmarried black girl sex-appeal show off" even though that is what it is. (Maybe they called it that back when you could auction such girls off?) And of course we don't have anyone checking whether these girls are menstruating yet, or if the have popped cherries, which would entitle us to call them women in most cultures. μηδείς (talk) 05:58, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

---

ScienceApe -- many sports have a preferred body type (i.e. possessing such a body type gives an athlete an advantage for that particular sport), and the preferred body type for women's gymnnastics appears to be rather short and compact and slim. Also, they start incessantly practicing at a very young age, and the longer they're in the sport, the more their bodies get banged up. It's not all that different from ballerinas... AnonMoos (talk) 05:42, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

"Girls' Gymnastics" would suggest Olympic competition has a maximum age limit, which it does not. FiggyBee (talk) 11:11, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Checking the careers of icons such as Cathy Rigby and Nadia Comenici, they competed in the Olympics both under and over age 18. The typical age has crept downward over time (as with female skaters, leading some waggish sportswriters to refer to these kids as "The Young and the Breastless") but as Figgy notes above, changing the name would imply there's an age limit. It could be changed to "Women and Girls Gymnastics", but why bother? If you're going to get technical with the words, "Gymnastics" should be performed nude, but that's not generally done, at least not on purpose. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:17, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

There is no maximum age limit as FiggyBee says so it's obviously called women. I don't know any sport where it's called girls. Lots of elite gymnasts are above 18. I looked at the 2008 Olympic champions and Yelena Posevina was 22 when she won in Gymnastics at the 2008 Summer Olympics – Women's rhythmic group all-around. A more relevant question would be why the 2010 Summer Youth Olympics for 14–18 year olds said men and women about the events, for example in Category:Gymnastics at the 2010 Summer Youth Olympics. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:45, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

One aspect of this is that groups of women (not just sportswomen) often refer to themselves collectively as "the girls", and men talk about "the boys", whether it be their sports team or their close friends or whatever. But anyone outside these groups who dares to refer them as "girls" or "boys" had better be prepared for some strong criticism, for having dared to use what is generally considered grossly offensive and demeaning terminology. Playing fields in the area of human communications are not always level. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 22:38, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

When you are competing at the most senior level available in your sport, being called "men" and "women" doesn't seem to be much of a stretch, especially when the minimum age for woman is to be 16 in the year of the Games in which you participate. Most females will have reached menarche by 16, if that is a possible standard. Bielle (talk) 22:51, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Most women, yes, but athletic women may have a delayed onset of puberty due to low body fat. Also, those chosen to go to the Olympics in gymnastics might be preferentially picked due to their late onset of puberty, as being prepubescent generally involves greater flexibility, lower weight, etc., which are important in winning gymnastics medals. StuRat (talk) 00:56, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Passport References

Greetings from Canada. Why are references required for passport applications? "References may be contacted to confirm my identity." But isn't that what the guarantor is for? Thanks in advance. --Mayfare (talk) 23:37, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

The Government of Canada's "Passport Canada" site says of the two roles:

Your guarantor and your references must be people who have known you personally for at least two years. They may be contacted to confirm your identity.

You must provide information with respect to references in the section "References" of your passport application. They cannot be members of your family. To avoid delays, it is preferable that your references reside in the same country as you.

There are specific eligibility criteria for guarantors and their duties are slightly more complex, including completing the "Declaration of Guarantor" section of the application and signing the back of one of your photos according to Passport Canada's instructions.

Please note that you cannot use your guarantor as a reference.

Essentially, the right to contact anyone you name on your passport application arises in order to confirm your identity. One person may not be enough. References don't sign your passport, so you could have made them up. Contacting them is a way to cut down on the possibility that you (or they) are making fraudulent representations. Bielle (talk) 01:56, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

July 28

Can people in North America make it the workforce and survive if they have a disability and didn't even complete high school?

Can people in North America make it the workforce and survive if they have a disability and didn't even complete high school? The modern Amish community don't finish grade 8 and they seem to do ok. So is completing school in North America (Canada and US) necessary to put food on your table? Buffyfan84 (talk) 01:38, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

For the U.S., of more than 6 million persons with a disability, over 25, and less than a high school diploma, 10.2 percent are part of the workforce (employed or looking for work)[23].—eric 02:06, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

The Americans with Disabilities Act means employers have to make allowances for disabilities, but without a high school diploma, or at least a GED, you aren't likely to get much of a job. StuRat (talk) 02:08, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

After e/c: same thing said above, but with more words:

The Amish community, and those like them, are essentially farmers. They teach the skills they believe their children need to thrive in an Amish setting.

In very general terms, a minimum of a high school (or trade school/apprenticeship equivalent) education is required for most jobs offered by companies and promotions are unlikely without this minimum level. (Student part-time jobs are an exception.) I know of personal-fitness trainers without high school completion, for example, but with job-specific training. If you are creative and talented, you don't need high school to be a singer, dancer, visual artist, photographer etc., but you will need to be very, very good to rise above those who have both talent and schooling. General labourers in construction, office cleaning, agriculture and the like may not even need the local language, but will be limited to minimum wage or less.

There may be jobs in small offices where, if you are numerate, "computerate" and/or literate, even without the pieces of paper, jobs may be available. You aren't likely to be first on the list, though, unless your wage demands are very limited. What you need, at base, are the skills you would have picked up in high school, even if you didn't finish the course. (Some jurisdictions allow "life experience" to count towards earning higher academic standing.)

If you are disabled, you may qualify for upgrading courses that can help you get a job. Bielle (talk) 02:16, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

The figure is surprising. What do the remaining 89.8% do? They can't be all getting benefits - isn't America (as opposed to W.Europe) "too capitalist" for that? Are they cared for by the relatives? Уга-уга12 (talk) 02:50, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Their lives might suck by some definitions, but there is a wide array of potential benefits for the permanently disabled. If the disability is so severe that work has become impossible, a couple of options are available. If the disability was suffered on the job, the individual may qualify for worker's compensation or disability insurance, which may have been procured privately or provided by the employer. If the individual had been working for long enough prior to the disabling injury, he may qualify for very early retirement under US Social Security. Regardless of the source of the disability or job history of the disabled, if this individual has become a dependant of a family member, he may be able to get dependent health insurance, which may even be heavily discounted by the family member's employer. If the individual had already had health insurance, he will be able to keep it, provided he can still afford it. If the individual is having trouble affording health insurance, he may qualify for medicaid. And in the worst case scenario, emergency rooms are required to treat anyone who comes in with a genuine medical emergency, even if that person can't afford the bill. So, what, you Europeans think we just dump our disabled in the gutter? :p Someguy1221 (talk) 03:08, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

There are a lot more expenses involved in living than just medical bills... When I was in the US recently, I saw a large number of disabled people (particularly amputees) out begging, so you can understand why people might think you don't take good care of your disabled... --Tango (talk) 15:13, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm on income assistance. I have no idea about government polices in Europe. What percent of people in united states with mental illnesses are on a income assistance plan? How come not everyone with a disability or illnesses is on social assistance? Can the American government address this issue? Buffyfan84 (talk) 03:26, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

US American's tend to have a particular aversion to the theft that would be required to finance such a scam. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 09:26, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

The general American opinion is that it's better for everyone if those who can work do work, including those with manageable disabilities and mental illnesses. There's the taxation issues, but also the sense of pride and value a person gets from contributing to society. StuRat (talk) 09:31, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Is the NHS that good?

Can you explain to a foreigner, is the NHS in the UK that good that a whole segment of the Olympics opening ceremony is dedicated to it? thanks F (talk) 04:24, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I for one would quite possibly be dead without it, so why not? Having said this, I didn't watch the ceremony, and it seems from what I can find out via Google that you are exaggerating a little. Anyway, if we are going to indulge in a little dubious patriotic boosting, there are worse things we could have chosen to base it on. A re-enactment of the Battle of Britain (or possibly Agincourt)? A celebration of a hundred years (or possibly a thousand) of football hooliganism? A celebration of Bus queues, and their antithesis, the drunken brawl as everyone scrambles to board the last bus home? Olympic opening ceremonies aren't supposed to be taken seriously. At least, I hope not... AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:38, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

As the American commentators noted, it was in part a convenient way to bring in the Peter Pan stuff and other fairy tales, as Barrie had some strong connection with the NHS. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:46, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Barrie had a strong connection with Great Ormond Street Hospital for children; the NHS was established a decade after his death... The NHS has had some problems down the decades, but when most Britons contemplate the alternative (such as seen in the U.S.), they're generally for it. AnonMoos (talk)

Yeah these "American commentators" would do well not to pronounce on subjects of which they know nothing. --Viennese Waltz 07:32, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

That's what they are paid to do, though, and it doesn't sound like that was any hugely disastrous error. After all, the show itself linked the concepts of the NHS and that particular hospital. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 07:55, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not talking about that error, I'm talking about the ridiculous assertion that the NHS was only featured as "a convenient way to bring in the Peter Pan stuff". --Viennese Waltz 09:31, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

One comment from an American reporter was quite amusing. When the North Korean contingent walked in, he mentioned how their "Glorious Leader" was apparently the best athlete in all of North Korea, having gotten 11 holes-in-one during a single golf game. Then he added "I imagine all North Koreans were filled with pride when he bounced the ball off the windmill and the clown's nose." I find myself wondering what happened to the 7 people who were unable to guarantee him a hole-in-one on the remaining holes. Keeping with the British children's literature theme, I imagine he said "Off with their heads !".  :-) StuRat (talk) 09:37, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Don't blame Bob Costas for my own faulty memory. It was indeed the GOSH that he was referring to. And the point being that they had all these beds with children and NHS nurses, which overlapped nicely with discussions of Peter Pan and other fairy tales, and bad and good dreams. And the miniature golf joke Costas made was pretty good. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:07, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

(OR and personal thoughts) A lot of the ceremony seemed to be aimed at making Britons proud of their country. In particular, the opening sequence with the singing of Jerusalem, Flower of Scotland, Danny Boy and Hen Wlad Fy Nhadau gave me goosebumps. There were also blink-and-you'll-miss-'em references to parts of our culture like East Enders, Grange Hill and Kes (most of which would mean nothing to someone who didn't spend a large amount of their childhood in the UK), and longer tributes to HM The Queen, Rowan Atkinson, Sir Tim Berners-Lee and the Industrial Revolution. In this context, I think the celebration of the NHS was just a demonstration of something that most British people would agree is something that we can be proud of. It might be a rather clunky organisation, and absolutely not a perfect system, but we do enjoy the thought that anyone, regardless off who they are, what they do or what they've done, has the ability to receive the same level of healthcare as anyone else. So, to go back to the question, I don't think the point was that the NHS is 'so good' - it's that this is something that us Limeys are (possibly irrationally) rather proud of. If the opening ceremony had been in the US, maybe there would have been a section on something that the Americans are proud of yet seem incomprehensible to the rest of the world, like the system of lobbying, or relaxed gun controls. You might be interested in the member of the governing party who described the ceremony as leftist multicultural nonsense (my paraphrasing) but received such a barrage of criticism from the public that he's now having to furiously backpedal on those comments. We do enjoy a bit of leftist multicultural nonsense on occasion. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 12:16, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Something else unrelated to the question was a comment I saw on Twitter last night - that the NHS should be celebrated as 'the gift we gave ourselves for surviving the Second World War'. I thought that was a nice way of looking at it. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 12:19, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

It wasn't actually Hen Wlad Fy Nhadau that the Welsh choir sang - it was Cwm Rhondda a.k.a. "Guide Me O Thou Great Redeemer/Jehovah". Since they were using rugby clips to illustrate the songs, I suppose it was fairly logical. -- Arwel Parry (talk) 16:49, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

The opening ceremony of the Sydney Olympics in 2000 included a celebration of a clothesline. I doubt if that meant much to non-Australians, but we Aussies understood. HiLo48 (talk) 21:53, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Tupou I painting

Does anyone know who drew the portrait of King Tupou I here? I am not sure if was originally drawn as a portrait or was it improved from an engraving/sketch of the King. Does anyone know when the piece was made and who made it?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 07:19, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Also when did photography first arrive in Tonga? --KAVEBEAR (talk) 07:34, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Price and quantity in a perfectly competitive industry

In economics, How price and quantity is determined in a perfectly competitive industry? Thank you--180.234.123.164 (talk) 09:45, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

In perfect competition, the sales price will be just slightly more than the total production cost. How much more is determined by the opportunity cost of producing that item. That is, if the money to do so were invested elsewhere, how much would it earn ? If they can get a 10% annual return on investment elsewhere, then they would either get an average 10% profit in the current industry, or they would leave it. There are some caveats, though, as leaving the industry may also cost money.

Quantity is a bit more iffy, but I wouldn't expect much overproduction. That is, they would only make as many items as they could sell at a profit, with some exceptions, like when a firm with deep pockets tries to force a competitor out of the market by selling at a loss. StuRat (talk) 09:51, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Sturat. I want to make a note on this topic. Should I write the term Quantity is a bit more iffy, but I wouldn't expect much overproduction in exam script or wherever. I want to present it more formally. Thanks in advance--180.234.193.128 (talk) 15:15, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

You could make it sound more formal by using "indeterminate" in place of "iffy": "Quantity is more indeterminate. However, overproduction is unlikely." StuRat (talk)

I would point out that in mainstream economics, cost (unless otherwise specified) includes all opportunity costs. Thus, price is equal to average cost in perfect competition. (Also note that by virtue of the definition of perfect competition, leaving the industry does not cost money.) Industry production is equal to market demand at industry price (in the long run, min(AC)). - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 15:25, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a reference to show that opportunity costs are automatically included ? This doesn't seem like it would work, since it's near impossible to tell what return on investment you could make, if you switched to a different type of investment. (You can look at historic returns for that investment, but past performance is no guarantee of future performance.) StuRat (talk) 22:08, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

exporting

"with Britain now exporting more to the rest of the world than Europe"

Exporting what, and to who exactly? Really more than all of Europe combined??

- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.173.200.107 (talk) 09:57, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

It means that Britain now exports less to Europe than it does to the rest of the world, not that its exports outstrip the combined exports of the rest of Europe. 87.112.129.180 (talk) 10:34, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, a careful syntactician would have written "than to Europe" to eliminate the ambiguity. Deor (talk) 10:55, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I dare to say that if he means "to Europe", which is almost sure, the only correct form would be "to Europe", being "Europe" alone without "to" in front simply a mistake, and not ambiguous. 79.148.233.179 (talk) 17:14, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree. --Immerhin (talk) 21:45, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I think he was speaking, though, and grammar in speech is generally a little less precise than in the written word and relies on context to make the meaning clear. If we quote a little more, he said: "the economy is rebalancing, with Britain now exporting more to the rest of the world than Europe." In the context of a balanced economy, it is clear that he's talking about Britain's exports being better balanced between Europe and the rest of the world. It's only ambiguous when taken out of context. (It is still a little ambiguous if you aren't that familiar with economics, but his intended audience is people that read the business news, so they generally will be familiar with the concepts.) --Tango (talk) 21:53, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Ocean-submerged writing and print recovery possibilities

I suppose this is technically a science question, but I expect people in the humanities to have a greater familiarity with whatever answers might exist. I would like to know, first of all, what experience there has been with the recovery of written materials from shipwrecks, either very old or more recent; and, second, what speculative scientific work might have been done on possibilities of recovering things written that are currently lost at sea. For example, The Titanic was first and foremost a postal ship. Is there any reason to think that what was being carried could at all in the future be recovered to any meaningful degree, or would even well-closed books be expected to have totally bled out by now?173.15.152.77 (talk) 12:20, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

There have apparently been only two successful attempts to recover paper from shipwrecks. The Titanic was one, the German battleships scuttled at Scapa Flow was the other. At Scapa Flow postcards were rescued, having been preserved longer than expected by being stored in a metal box. A 'variety of papers and books' were rescued from the Titanic - I haven't yet been able to establish what those were. This company were apparently involved in the salvage, rescuing 'luggage labels and photos'.

Although it's not specifically about shipwrecks, many of the techniques involved will be similar to those mentioned in this advice for librarians tackling flooding and other water damage. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 14:26, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

One example of a paper artifact recovered from the Titanic is shown at the top of this page. Deor (talk) 14:43, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Water soluble inks (like in felt pens) would be lost soon after such paper got wet, so would only be preserved in a waterproof container. Most inks are not water soluble, however.

In that case, deterioration of the paper would be the next concern. Bacterial action would be one mechanism, and having limited surface area, as in a tightly closed book, might limit that to the edges. Leather pouches can also release tannins, and retard bacterial decomp of their contents for some time. Then there are areas of the sea which have too little dissolved oxygen for animals and/or carbon dioxide for plants, so decomp is halted in that way.

The paper could also be torn apart by animals or tides/waves, so having it protected in some way is important. A book with pages flapping in the current wouldn't last long. StuRat (talk) 22:16, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

King George of Ireland

Is there any "King George of Ireland" related to Charles I of England OR Mary II of England OR William III of England OR James II of England?--Doug Coldwell ^talk 12:47, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

George I/II/III? See Monarchy of Ireland. George III was the last King of Ireland as distinct from a King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. George I was related to James II and Charles I through James I - George's great-grandfather, James II's grandfather and Charles I's father. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 12:56, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for putting the picture together for me. That's cool! Cool as a Cucumber....--Doug Coldwell ^talk 13:37, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act and Disproportionate share hospitals

I have read a few op-ed/blogs (e.g. here) saying that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) greatly slashes the Disproportionate share hospital (DSH) funds, and that will be a problem because undocumented immigrants are covered by the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA), but not the PPACA. And yet, when I come here, I see no mention of DSH's in the EMTALA article and I see no mention of EMTALA in the DSH article. What is the setup for reimbursing hospitals for EMTALA shortfalls? Is it some informal arrangement? Or something setup after EMTALA? Or do DSH funds just cover any hospital shortfall, including EMTALA and Medicaid, etc.? If they are connected somehow, it seems some mention should be included in both articles. Thanks... Wknight94 ^talk 17:21, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Children with disabilities encounter a similar unfunded mandate under the PPACA. The implications remain to be litigated in cases such as these. Canadian style single payer universal healthcare saves about $1.4 trillion per year relative to the PPACA, mostly because many more cancer patients are caught in stage one instead of stage two or three in emergency rooms. 207.224.43.139 (talk) 22:27, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Jewish population in Soviet Union

Does anyone have info as to where I can find the Jewish population for each of the SSRs in the USSR from 1926 to the present day? Thank you very much. I know that there is info for some of the SSRs on Wikipedia, but it doesn't have all of the SSRs separately. Futurist110 (talk) 19:46, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

[I am revising the heading of this section from Jewish population for each of the Soviet Socialist Republics from 1926 to the present day to Jewish population in Soviet Union, in harmony with WP:TPOC (point 13: Section headings). Please see Microcontent: Headlines and Subject Lines (Alertbox).

—Wavelength (talk) 20:32, 28 July 2012 (UTC)]

US Greencard for Estonians and Mexicans

I read in a TIME Magazine article about illegals a month or two ago that the U.S. only allows 25,000 (apparently non-family related) Greencards to be issued for each country of birth per year. Thus, they wrote that it's much easier for an Estonian-born person in my scenario to get a Greencard than a Mexican-born person, due to their huge differences in population. Futurist110 (talk) 19:49, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

[I am revising the heading of this section from How Hard it is to Get a United States Greencard for an Estonian-born person relative to a Mexican-born person, assuming that both of them do not have any sufficiently close relatives in the U.S.? to US Greencard for Estonians and Mexicans, in harmony with WP:TPOC (point 13: Section headings). Please see Microcontent: Headlines and Subject Lines (Alertbox).

—Wavelength (talk) 20:26, 28 July 2012 (UTC)]

[This revision was made by the original poster at 20:35, 28 July 2012.

—Wavelength (talk) 21:03, 28 July 2012 (UTC)]

That's odd. What I'm finding on US government websites is that there are four ways to get a green card: through family, a job, as a refugee, or other. Other is things like being from Haiti or Cuba or special categories of refugees etc but it does include the Diversity Immigrant Visa Program, which is: 50,000 visas available annually, drawn from random selection from countries with low rates of immigration to the United States." That's certainly a lot less than 25,000 per country, and there is not a set number per country. In addition, Mexico is not considered a qualifying country for the program, though Estonia is (so perhaps for people who qualify no other way, you can say Estonians do have a better chance). In 2012, there were 2,294 applicants from Estonia and 14,768,659 overall. 184.147.121.51 (talk) 21:33, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

It's not just the difference in population that is significant - the desire to move to the US is going to me much less in Estonia than in Mexico. The US borders Mexico and has a large Hispanic population. If Mexicans want to move somewhere with better economic prospects, then the US is the obvious choice. For Estonians, the obvious choice is somewhere else in the EU, since they don't need any kind of visas or work permits, and they are much closer. While Estonia has about 1% the population of Mexico, I imagine it has much less than 1% the number of people that want to move to the US. --Tango (talk) 22:08, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

does choice make something more powerful

is a magnetic field more powerful if it has an off switch (generated) versus just being a magnet just sitting there?

my thinking is that I would not want a position of great power if in fact I had no choice in what to do. that's not real power - real power is your choice affecting others. 84.3.160.86 (talk) 21:09, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

You are talking about an electromagnet versus a permanent magnet, in which case the electromagnets can be far stronger. I don't understand how this relates to political or military power. StuRat (talk) 21:55, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I've updated my question to reflect that I meant ceteris paribus. The relation between political and military power is obvious: we call it "power" because of the wielder's ability to affect the world in some way. The presence of the magnet does so as well. My question is whether it is any less powerful if the effect is not subject to a "choice" or switch - the magnitude of the effect itself being the same. 84.3.160.86 (talk) 22:08, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

If you have what you call "great power" but have no choice in whether or not you exercise it, then surely you're the agent of some higher "power". You're a puppet and you have no power at all. You have no more power than a gun. It cannot choose to fire itself, propelling a bullet to a high speed and penetrating an object such as someone's body. Only the holder of the gun has that power. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 22:20, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

That is interesting. The specific example I was thinking, is a single man who with a couple of years of education and nothing but thought and academic publication is able to alter history. (e.g. inventing cheap household fusion, whatever). But in fact he doesn't control what thoughts he has - he can only (e.g.) cause the world to have a cheap fusion plant in each house (just because it's so darn easy and useful), he's not a businessman and can't do anything but publish. So he can change 7 billion people's lives pretty dramatically (due to what household items are possible with free electricity) OR he can not publish and then not even get tenure. He has no other power - despite his "vast" power. That doesn't make him very powerful, in my opinion. 84.3.160.86 (talk) 22:28, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

A gun that goes off by itself at random or regular intervals produces considerably more physical power than a well-controlled gun, but is certainly much less politically powerful. Therefore, the electromagnet analogy is probably unhelpful. 207.224.43.139 (talk) 22:23, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

But I really meant that the equal amount of physical power is produced. I should have specified that the two produce an equal number of fers - or whatever you measure magnetism in - but one has a switch and one is always on. 84.3.160.86 (talk) 22:28, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. it's apples and oranges. You might as well ask "How can I improve my security the most, by installing anti-virus software or a deadbolt ?". StuRat (talk) 22:29, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I thought my analogy was pretty clear... Suppose for example that it is true AIDS had a patient 0 who had intercourse outside species; that person ended up exerting an extremely powerful effect on tens of millions of people, you could say half a continent. (sub-saharan africa). Obviously the idea to "give ten million people AIDS" is huge (negative) power. But unlike some villain, that guy didn't have a choice to do that - for all he knew, he was just banging an ape. 84.3.160.86 (talk) 22:41, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

True enough. When Archimedes said "give me a place to stand and I can move the Earth," he had a lever in mind. 207.224.43.139 (talk) 00:30, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

This entire discussion is nonsense, more of a half-baked philosophical soapbox than an actual question, but I feel compelled to point out that the hypothesised origin of HIV is people eating apes and monkeys, not "banging" them. FiggyBee (talk) 00:45, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Prank calling on 911

Is it punishable offense? In the USA? — Preceding unsigned comment added by GiantBluePanda (talk • contribs) 21:39, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, varying from a fine to imprisonment, for repeat offenders. StuRat (talk) 21:49, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Or sometimes just a warning and/or citation. I was accused of abusing 911 once when I reported a malfunctioning crosswalk signal back in the payphone era, but when I called back on the non-emergency number to the same dispatcher and asked to be connected to the traffic engineer, I was treated with considerably more respect. 207.224.43.139 (talk) 22:19, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

If the sign was telling people to walk into traffic, then I'd agree that this was an emergency, as someone was likely to be injured or killed in short order. StuRat (talk) 22:27, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

It was just disconnected or otherwise unresponsive, not allowing anyone to cross, at a T intersection where it was the only thing that would change the lights short of a car turning left from the perpendicular. I stood there for at least ten minutes.... 207.224.43.139 (talk) 00:35, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

When calling 911, it's important to be brief and to the point. The only times I've called 911 were when I was on a rural highway and there was a road hazard of some kind. I called 911 and immediately said this was not necessarily an emergency, I only wanted to report a road hazard. They either took the info or patched me through to the appropriate desk. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:33, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely, but if it is an emergency, dispatchers prefer that you start with your location, and then the emergency. If you get cut off after "Someone just shot a person..." they can do a lot less than with "I'm at First and Main...." 207.224.43.139 (talk) 00:35, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

In other countries also, there are penalties for misusing the emergency telephone number. Eg in Queensland, Australia (where the emergency number is 000), the penalty is a fine of up to $7500. Mitch Ames (talk) 02:03, 29 July 2012 (UTC)