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

August 27

Audiobook for . . .

Hi I am searching desperately for an audio book version of:

Save the Males:Why men matter and why women should care by Kathleen Parker 2008

I have checked almost a dozen audio CD places and audiobook sites but so far no luck :-( thanks for any help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.148.29 (talk) 00:48, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Do you have reason to believe that someone made an audio version? Dismas|^(talk) 01:47, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I know that some e-readers like Amazon Kindle have a text-to-speech function. It is a bit unnatural, as opposed to an actual audio book, but if there is nothing else, there is always that. --Jayron32 02:32, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Though it should be noted that — I believe — publishers can disable that functionality on a per-book basis at their whim. So it may not actually be an option. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:28, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Audiobooks are more common in fiction than in non-fiction - and especially more serious non-fiction - because there isn't a market for them. With a serious non-fiction book, people want to be able to mark it up, refer to footnotes, make copies, compare pages in chapters, etc. and that makes the audiobook format less appealing to readers. (I assume you're not looking for this book for a visually impaired person; if you are, check with your local "books for the blind" organization.) --NellieBly (talk) 05:06, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Questions about law in the Victorian period

I am currently writing a novel set in the Victorian era in Australia. I have checked out books on the subject and searched the Internet, but I can't find out particular information on the legal system of the time. First, what was the difference between murder and manslaughter then, if they differentiated it in the first place? And if they did, what was the difference in sentences? Also, when was the first time female lawyers appeared? Thank you for your help, I much appreciate it.Southernlegacy (talk) 01:11, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Prior to 1901, as I'm sure you know, Australia was a collection of crown colonies. According to that article, each colony had its own independent legal system, largely based on English Common law but adjustable according to local circumstances. I would expect that in most places, if not everywhere, the answer to your question about murder versus manslaughter would have been the same as for Common law. Regarding female lawyers I have no information, but it would surprise me if there were any during the Victorian era. Looie496 (talk) 03:21, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Doing some digging, I found some information on pioneering female lawyers. Ethel Benjamin was New Zealand's first practicing female lawyer, and started practicing in the late Victorian era. Mary Hall was an early American female lawyer, and she practised in the Victorian era (1880s-1890s). Canadian Clara Brett Martin is noted as the first female lawyer in the British Empire, she started practising shortly before Ethel Benjamin. I can't find any information on who the first female lawyer in Australia would have been, but in other Anglophone countries it seems that there were a small handful of female lawyers in the late Victorian era. --Jayron32 05:32, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

For your first question therefore, a good place to start would be Manslaughter in English law. Alansplodge (talk) 10:09, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

And some mention of manslaughter in 19th century Australia in Fault in Homicide: Towards a Schematic Approach to the Fault Elements for ... By Stanley Meng Heong Yeo (always assuming that Google Books lets you see this preview). Alansplodge (talk) 10:17, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Finally, the history of the concept of manslaughter in this paper which refers to Ireland, which too is based on the English system. Alansplodge (talk) 10:22, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Me again; it would seem that the relevant legislation in England, Wales and Ireland was the Offences against the Person Act 1861. A summary is here. Alansplodge (talk) 11:05, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

And, slightly related, is The Merchant of Venice, a fictional work yes, and pre-Victorian (by several centuries) but one which is decidedly relevent to the OPs question. --Jayron32 15:21, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Try the national library. Zoonoses (talk) 02:39, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Countercultures

Besides Skinheads Against Racial Prejudice, is there any other countercultures articles on Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.95.107.242 (talk) 01:12, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Category:Counterculture (and its subcategories). AnonMoos (talk) 01:19, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Why does the United States have relatively more shootings than most developed countries?

Ever since that Colorado theater shooting last month, there has been a number of high-profile shootings, like that one at a Sikh temple and at the Empire State Building. But I was wondering – why? I know it's probably because of the lack of effective gun laws, but what are other possible reasons, especially psychological or political? While there are a few other countries like Canada that have more guns per people, murders and shootings aren't as common. In fact, I'm not aware of any developed country that has shootings as frequent as the US. Why does America have so many shootings in the first place? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 03:14, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

One reason that comes to my mind, obviously, is how the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution affects gun politics in the United States. However, as Gun politics in the United States#Rate of homicides by firearm points out, violent crime rates in the United States are lower than in other advanced countries. Of course, you have the American news media who frequently likes to sensationalize every such shooting, plastering news of them everywhere to make them more "high-profile" than they actually should be. Zzyzx11 (talk) 03:24, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Of course what counts as a violent crime varies from one country to another. As even the source for that paragraph in the US gun politics article (a report in the Daily Mail - whose entire raison d'être is to convince the English middle-classes that the country has gone to rack and ruin) concedes "In Britain, an affray is considered a violent crime, while in other countries it will only be logged if a person is physically injured." The statistic in that article that is surely more relevant here, as the question is why does America have so many more shootings, is the homicide rate by firearm:- (from the same article) 3.0 per 100,000 people in the US and 0.07 per 100,000 people in the UK. If we compare homicide rates (what counts as a homicide varies between jurisdictions but there is far less variance than the fairly nebulous term "violent crime"), the US has a homicide rate of 4.2, the UK 1.2, Canada 1.6, Australia 1.0, France 1.1, Germany 0.8 (homicides per 100,000 population). Further comparisons can be made at the homicide rate article, but to sum up, the US has a homicide rate that's 3 to 4 times higher than comparable countries. Valiantis (talk) 04:28, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

If you are referring to mass shootings, they aren't actually very common even in the US -- they are very salient because of all the news coverage they receive. Canada has only 1/10 the population of the US so it would be expected to have only a tenth as many even if all factors were equal. If you are referring to individual shootings, in the US the majority are related to gang violence, a problem that is considerably less severe in most Canadian cities. Looie496 (talk) 03:27, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

The average murder related to gang violence usually is barely mentioned in the national American news media. But once a mass shooting occurs, IMO and relatively speaking, the national media sort of acts like the "The sky is falling!" with all the coverage. Zzyzx11 (talk) 03:34, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

(ec)The U.S. has a relatively higher Gini coefficient than other countries, and the consequences of poverty are harsher. For example, access of the poor or even the middle class to serious health care generally comes at the cost of bankruptcy, and advanced procedures like transplants are notoriously kept unavailable. In those cases where welfare is still given, or in impoverished neighborhoods, conditions are such that prison ethics, complete with an intolerance for snitching and a low value on human life, hold general sway. To the poorest, prison seems so inevitable, and justice so unreliable, that it scarcely serves as a deterrent. National and international gangs and cartels are the adaptive response to the prevailing conditions, and prisons serve as their recruiting ground rather than suppressing them. Wnt (talk) 03:35, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

More poverty, a smaller social safety net, and more lax gun laws. Futurist110 (talk) 03:43, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

That's a new one. The inavailability of kidney transplants causes gun crime! If you want to see the utter absurdity of leftist thought, look no further. Instead, try the war on drugs (theft to support habits and gang turf disputes) if you want a rational explanation for the vast majority of gun violence in the US. μηδείς (talk) 04:28, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

(You've yet again failed to place your comment following the one to which you are responding, and indent from it, so I've indented appropriately, in case you fix yours.) I agree that this is a tenuous link, but there was a movie made based on it: John Q. StuRat (talk) 10:17, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

So when you "awarded" IP 203 the "pedant award" without either signing it or indenting it, while I was being threatened with Nucular Jihad for assigning people one-character large stars, that was just a mistake, StuRat? Go jump in a lake. μηδείς (talk) 23:21, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

And how exactly does one indent a pic ? I just added the signature. Will you be correcting your mistake ? I wasn't involved in the stars at all, so why bring that up ? And now your resorting to incivility, to boot ? StuRat (talk) 23:30, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

The entire comment above was meant as a general one, not solely in response to Wnt, so I purposefully did not indent it and do not intend to. I suppose I should have put a smiley after the suggestion you jump in a lake, I didn't think using a phrase from looney toons would be taken as actively hostile. μηδείς (talk) 18:21, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't dispute the role of the War on Drugs in instigating crime, however ... aren't there anti-drug crusades in the other countries in this comparison? My feeling is that when life for the poor becomes so hazardous and squalid that prison hardly seems any worse, it loses its power to deter, even when it is used with unreasonable vindictiveness. Wnt (talk) 23:46, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Anti-drug crusades in non-American countries rarely involve killing people and seizing their assets. μηδείς (talk)

For the OP, avoiding as much of the debate as I can, you might be interested in The Better Angels of Our Nature by Steven Pinker. I don't have it handy, so I don't know if he directly addresses the cause of the rate of gun violence in America, but he does deal with the cultural norms that affect violence, and the impact of history. There is also an important specific example covered that might have general relevance, that is, the evidence suggesting differences in the psychological makeup of Southerners and Northerners in their response to conflict. The distinction is based on an experiment that shows (or proves, or suggests) that Southerners are more responsive to antagonism, and Pinker claims this is linked to the frontier state that persisted for longer in the South. The implication seems to be (at least as a partial explanation, surely not the whole one), that the American colonies were driven by a frontier mentality that persists today and even has lingering psychological consequences. You can draw your own conclusions from this sort of evidence, because it's not my area, but you might find the book useful. I emphasise that this does not neutralise the evidence and explanations of others, and I'm sure you can get some other (possibly better) reading suggestions here too, IBE (talk) 12:17, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I really like Pinker, and read a few hundred pages of that book. But I never did get to what his point was. μηδείς (talk) 23:23, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

The children of Marie Juliette Louvet

Marie Juliette Louvet was the grandmother of Prince Rainier of Monaco. But she was not married to the reigning Prince of Monaco. She had a husband, and bore him children. What became of her children by her husband? 69.62.243.48 (talk) 05:56, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

French Wikipedia has a little more on her husband, see fr:Achille Delmaet. It appears he was a photographer known for taking nude pictures, but otherwise I can't find much more. The French article fr:Marie-Juliette Louvet also has a little bit more on the children, such as birth and death dates, but does not go into details. --Jayron32 06:20, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Can a full blooded African American can be as light or lighter?

Can a full blooded African American can be as light or lighter? Marley84 (talk) 06:34, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Sure. Look at Michael Jackson, for instance. Futurist110 (talk) 06:38, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) What does "full blooded" mean? We're all full-blooded Africans, but we have varying degrees of time since our most recent ancestors lived there. Also, comparisons require a second thing to compare to. As light or lighter than what? If you want to research the variations within black people, the article Black people has some information to get you started. --Jayron32 06:41, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Im guessing he means that those who are not of mixed heritage (as in some who had the european slave owners' blood in them, or other more recent interracial marriages' offspring).

I would venture a guess to say it is possible, depending on where in Africa they came from (and by that, dont have mixed heritage with europeans or others). Ethiopians for example are considerably more lighter skinned than west/central or even southern africans. (though it sees some in the far south are lighter than the west and centre.)Lihaas (talk) 08:22, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

"Full blooded African American" is really not too meaningful -- traditionally mixed-race people have generally been considered to be black under the old One-drop rule... AnonMoos (talk) 09:54, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

"About 30% of black Americans who take DNA tests to determine their African lineage prove to be descended from Europeans on their father's side, says Rick Kittles, scientific director of African Ancestry, a Washington, D.C., company that began offering the tests in 2003. Almost all black Americans whom Kittles has tested descended from African women, he says."[1]. Alansplodge (talk) 10:06, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Just to get it out of the way — there is also Albinism. It is also worth noting that there are numerous population groups in Africa. I presume you mean someone from sub-Saharan Africa, and not, say, North Africa. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:26, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

You have to define the time of mixing arbitrarily. Don't forget Anthony and Cleopatra, Solomon and the Queen of Sheba. And of course the countless merchant crews trading gold and opium across the Mediterranean or along the ancient Suez Canal, or the many kingdoms which have moved from place to place along the Mediterranean shores in response to the demands of trade and the tides of war. People have been making booty calls over mid-sized seas for a very very long time. Of course, even aside from those such as the Egyptians and the Afar people whom one might say are mixed, there is also substantial variation among those within Africa - compare the images from Bushmen, who I assume have little introgression of European genes, to a notably dark-skinned group of Africans such as the Dinka people. Wnt (talk) 13:36, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Worthy of note is that culturally and by decent, Cleopatra was Greek. I'm not sure that any of her ancestors were natively Egyptian. See Ptolemaic dynasty for a history of her ancestors. Certainly, they adopted Egyptian culture and the trappings of the Pharaohs, but if we're going by the somewhat arbitrary rules that you are what your ancestors were, then she isn't any more "African" than Anthony was. --Jayron32 14:31, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Nefertiti, Queen of Egypt

To repeat Jayron, you do realize that Cleopatra, down to her name, was Hellenistic Greek? Even Nefertiti was hardly negroid. μηδείς (talk) 23:16, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, since my point was that people on either side of the sea have been of mixed race for a long time, this doesn't seem like an objection. Wnt (talk) 23:48, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, no. Everyone is of mixed race. The North Africans like Qaddafi have been largely "white". They are at most (Mubarak) 1/4 or less "negroid". There's hardly any point in pointing out that, say, Nefertiti was "black", even if you define Oksana Baiul as pure white and Hussain Bolt as pure black.

Charles Thompson , a friend of Ernest Hemingway during his first East Africa safari ?

Hello learned humanitarians ! I saw in the german version of the article Green Hills of Africa (§ "Überblick") that Hemingway hunted with a friend named Charles Thompson. Who may he be ? (there is a lot of them in "disambiguation"...) . Thanks a lot beforehand, t.y. Arapaima (talk) 09:51, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think the Charles Thompson in question has his own Wikipedia entry. Key_West#Ernest_Hemingway says he was a hardware store owner. 109.144.206.241 (talk) 10:47, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

[2] has a little more information 109.144.206.241 (talk) 10:51, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks a lot dear IP ! Arapaima (talk) 10:13, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

What went wrong with Turkey?

I just read at Nature News that even 8000 to 9500 years ago, Turkey was apparently an innovator, producing the Indo-European languages. [3] Numerous animals were apparently domesticated there (even if nailing down the details is beyond my patience at the moment). My impression is that the prominence of Ancient Greece depended substantially on people from Turkey, under their control at the time, which then passed to Roman control with the same results, even becoming the core of the empire, before finally becoming part of the Muslim world, where they continued to remain preeminent, with technology far outstripping Europe, for example. And yet, somehow, the Ottoman Empire declined, advances in civil liberties were rebuffed, there was military and scientific stagnation, and they became the "sick man of Europe". Is there any systematic explanation for the change - a climate alteration, a change from land to sea shipping, some objective phenomenon that can explain why a country goes from perpetual preeminence to obscurity? Or is it all just random fluctuation? Wnt (talk) 13:13, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I believe it has to do with the dominance of religion over science. Similarly, when Christianity dominated over science in Europe in the Middle Ages, there was stagnation there, as well. StuRat (talk) 13:28, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I can sort of see this argument, but I'm not sure how much of this is fact and how much fiction. Islam did not prevent Jabir ibn Hayyan from becoming the first alchemist, indeed, inventing much of chemistry including ironically enough the distillation of alcohol. Avicenna was free to use wine for various medicinal purposes two centuries later. True, these were Persians, living in Umayyad and Abbasid Caliphates ruled from Syria and Iraq, but I'll partially ignore that as much of the political territory was shared and it's not that much of a distance. Can you say for sure that religious fanaticism became more pronounced in the past few centuries? Wnt (talk) 13:50, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

StuRat's answer is, unfortunately, one that is completely ignorant of actual history. Islam was the preeminent language of learning during the so-called Middle Ages. Religion was not the reason that Europe lacked "science" during the Middle Ages (the Church was more or less the only benefactor of higher education and learning in Europe during that time and poured huge resources into astronomical research). StuRat is speaking about bad clichés and nothing more. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:01, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Did you really want to say " Islam was the preeminent language of learning " not "Arabic was..." or "Islam was the ... vehicle of learning"? OsmanRF34 (talk) 15:12, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

If you disagree with somebody, prove them wrong, don't just call them ignorant, without proof. That just makes you look bad. And spending money on research is great, unless you constrain your researchers to keep any discoveries which run counter to your doctrine secret (like heliocentrism). StuRat (talk) 14:25, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand my argument. Neither Christianity or Islam is inherently anti-science. However, at times, both developed an anti-science attitude. These are the times when those cultures stagnated. Now, as to why those religions had such attitudes at times and not others, that's more complicated. Having a single religious leader (like the Pope) who dominated all secular leaders was a factor in Europe. After the Reformation, the power of the Pope was reduced, allowing for more freedom for those with ideas that ran counter to The Church, including scientists, especially in Northern Europe. StuRat (talk) 14:23, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

That's a good explanation for an elemenary school class maybe, but fortunately not really at all how things actually worked. See, I don't know, science in the Middle Ages for one thing. (I don't know what else to say because I know I've corrected you on this point numerous times in the past, and I'm sure many others have too, but if you don't care, then all we can ask is for you to stop repeating it...) Adam Bishop (talk) 14:50, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to have to back Adam Bishop on this regarding Christianity and Science in the Middle Ages. The general regression Europe experienced (in many areas, not just learning) had to do with environmental factors mostly unrelated to religion, and likely a lot more to do with demographic factors. Foremost was the de-urbanization that occured: the number and density of cities declined dramatically after the Fall of the Western Roman Empire, and cities are known to be the home of innovation. This article in Scientific American magazine contains a good overview, but there's been a lot of studies, especially recently, on this topic, and there is a direct correlation between urban life and technological and cultural advancement. It would follow, then, that if people are abandoning the cities, technology and learning are going to take a hit. Furthermore, Europe in the middle ages experienced a sharp and shocking decline in population, especially those areas which had formerly been part of the Western Roman Empire, owing to widespread famine, and the Black Death. Certainly, advancements were made and Europe did advance in some areas during the time period, but that was largely in spite of the environment that people were living in, which given the historical context one would easily predict a few steps backwards. Of final note, the Catholic Church was, in many ways, the major force for what knowledge was preserved, since often the only literate people were the clergy, and they spent a lot of time copying ancient texts (not just the Bible, but also secular and pre-christian works) and many of the major scientific minds of the age were Christian clergy, including Roger Bacon and Robert Grosseteste and William of Ockham, all of whom had a profound influence on the development of modern science. --Jayron32 15:12, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Some points:

1) What caused people to move out of cities ?

2) Europe was in decline long before the Black Death, so it's population decline was not the driving factor.

3) Of course many of the scientists at the time were religious people, since there was very little opportunity for anyone not involved in The Church to pursue such studies, and they would risk running afoul of religious doctrine. StuRat (talk) 18:48, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Europe's population decline preceded the black death by some time. It should be noted that there were actually two population collapses, one at the end of the Roman Empire time, and one during the Late Middle Ages. The so-called High Middle Ages featured a population boom. See Medieval demography, which specifically mentions deurbanization. There are lots of possible explanations as to why the cities depopulated so much during the middle ages. Cities have advantages and disadvantages. One of the key issues is that large urban populations need armies to defend them; the pull out of the Roman legions out of many of areas coincided with the deurbanization, that is not a coincidence as cities are hard to defend and also an attractive target for raiders, being a concentration of wealth. Agricultural production also declined, perhaps due to poor soil management or climatic changes, and less food means that the cities can't support as many people. Plagues also tend to have a much greater effect on the cities: they breed plagues due to close proximity of people. The population curve would be somewhat W shaped, with a steep decline at the end of Classical antiquity and a steep rebound at the early modern period. In between, the population remained somewhat stagnant, with a bit of a hump in the curve around the 1100s and 1200s. The reason for point #3 is still deurbanization: with the abandonment of the cities, the Church became the only place which was wealthy enough and with enough training to maintain knowledge and learning. The Church didn't cause deurbanization, it had very little to do with it. --Jayron32 20:08, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I bet both deurbanization and depopulation were due to losing the Roman system of water engineering (aqueducts and such), which brought in clean water and removed sewage (although they didn't treat it). By comparison, dumping sewage in the streets was a recipe for disaster. But then the question becomes, why was this technology largely lost after the Romans ? StuRat (talk) 22:37, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Rome underwent a quick decline in population when the grain deliveries from Egypt and the province of "Africa" (i.e. current-day northern Tunisia and northeastern Algeria) were cut off... AnonMoos (talk) 04:03, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I didn't write my response to you (StuRat), really — I wrote it for anybody out there uninformed enough not to realize that you were just being ignorant. I know better than to give you actual book references, and am highly dubious that you will bother to actually learn anything new that goes against your pre-held beliefs, but hey, go ahead and prove me wrong! Start out with Islam_and_science#History and see where you get. Maybe check out the Islamic Golden Age. There's a lot you appear to know nothing about, so it's unclear to me exactly where to start. Try looking at Catholic Church and science, focusing on the middle ages. (Of course, real historians don't even like to use the category Middle Ages, but let's set that aside for now.) There are lots of variables involved in the relationship between Islam and science, but any potential issues relating to Islam and science — which frankly are unlikely to apply to Turkey anyway, which you may or may not know is one of the most "progressive" Islamic republics in the Middle East — are extremely recent. But anyway, there are some nice references. Feel free to back up your own knee-jerk opinions with a few while you're at it. You may have areas of expertise, StuRat, but you have shown again and again on here that the study of history is not one of them. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:13, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

You apparently are too ignorant to know about the Galileo affair. Note that for every scientist who was put on trial by The Church for opposing their doctrine, many more were either warned quietly and backed off, or choose never to say or print anything publicly which The Church might find offensive. So, the cases that actually came down to a trial are but the tip of the iceberg. For example "Copernicus delayed publication of his book, perhaps from fear of criticism—a fear delicately expressed in the subsequent dedication of his masterpiece to Pope Paul III" (from Catholic Church and science). Then we have Catholic_Church_and_science#Gessner. Also see List of authors and works on the Index Librorum Prohibitorum. In the Muslim world, we have the destruction of the Istanbul observatory of Taqi al-Din. Most relevant to the OP is why the Islamic Golden Age came to an end: "...in addition to invasion by the Mongols and crusaders and the destruction of libraries and madrasahs, it has also been suggested that political mismanagement and the stifling of ijtihad (independent reasoning) in the 12th century in favor of institutionalised taqleed (imitation) thinking played a part." In the case of The Crusades, here we have a case of Christianity stifling Muslim science. StuRat (talk) 18:57, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

That ignores the fact that Galileo did not live in the Middle Ages, he lived during the Protestant Reformation, and the political milleu surounding him was very different than the middle ages. This does not excuse what the Church did to him, which was without question inexcusable, however inexcusable is not a synonym for unexplainable, and understanding what happened to Galileo necessitates understaning the political landscape of early 17th century Europe, which was some half a millenium after the time period we're talking about. Connecting the dots between the loss of learning in the middle ages and what the church did to Galileo belies a complete misreading of history and a huge conflation of unrelated issues. The 1600s were NOT the 1100s. It should also be noted that the Church's efforts against Galileo were largely impotent; learning and technological advances when unabated despite their efforts, while in the middle ages, when Church clergy was at the vanguard of scientific advances some 400 years earlier, and showed no doctrinal objections to sceintific study AT ALL, Europe was moving backwards. There just isn't any evidence that there was any causal relationship between church doctrine that was hostile to science (which again, occured in the early 1600s during the Protestant Reformation and must be understood in that context) and the much earlier decline of European civilization and learning that occured after the fall of the Western Empire. It is wrong to make that connection chronologically, and it doesn't bear out with the actual facts of the history. --Jayron32 20:19, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

There's also the tendency of The Church to keep scholarly works in Latin, Greek, or other classic languages, making them inaccessible to the vast majority. But perhaps it's what they didn't do when they were dominant that's more to the point. For example, there was no universal education until secular authorities became preeminent. So, their policies assured a small educated elite and ignorant masses, which doesn't lead to rapid development. StuRat (talk) 22:30, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I think it's a fair enough criticism that the Church may have had the means to spread learning farther than it did; however I think you overestimate its role. Considering the demographic, economic, and environmental events in Europe between 500-1500, any efforts a small smattering of monks may have had could have amounted to pissing in the ocean. You can be correct that the Church centers of learning remained inwards looking and did not disseminate what they knew to the general population, but I don't think that made much of a difference one way or the other. --Jayron32 22:41, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Why wouldn't it ? The Renaissance was somewhat kicked off by a rediscovery of the works of the ancient Greeks, etc. If that knowledge had been widespread earlier, perhaps we would have gotten an earlier Renaissance. As I noted previously, Roman water engineering principles would have been quite valuable. StuRat (talk) 22:47, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

The social, economic, and environmental conditions present when the Renaissance happened enabled people the leisure time, especially in the Urban centers of Italy initially, and then in other urban centers, to study the ancient classic texts. You're still putting the cart before the horse. --Jayron32 23:04, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

But many of those social, economic, and environmental conditions were a result of a lack of ancient knowledge. Knowledge and social, economic, and environmental conditions are interdependent, not simply cause and effect. StuRat (talk) 23:26, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Except the renaissance didn't result in clean water coming to the cities again. It wasn't by reading Aristotle and Livy and Cicero that people stopped shitting where they drank. It wasn't until people like Joseph Aspdin developed portland cement that building materials aproached the type of concrete that the Romans used to build the aqueducts, and engineers like Joseph Bazalgette started building sewerage containment and transport facilities, and that came in the 1800s. Those men worked in the UK, but similar developments occured in other major cities at around the same time. Water supply and sanitation in the United States confirms that even in the U.S. people didn't figure out it would be a good idea to seperate human fecal waste from water supplies until the 1880s or so. Again, if you're going to hang your hat on clean water supplies as being the key allowing urbanization, it neither was a result of studying classical learning, nor did it come about prior to the regrowth of cities. Look Stu, myself and several others have presented actual facts from the historical record to back up our position. You've asserted a lot of things, but haven't presented a single bit of evidence that your notions are correct. You can't just assert stuff as reality without any evidence, and especially when evidentiary-based counterarguments are presented. --Jayron32 00:30, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

But how was the Roman knowledge of building cement lost ? Was it in one or more of the many libraries destroyed by religious conflict ? If so, we might have had decent sanitation far earlier. And yes, once it became the norm to have a total lack of sanitation, then you not only had the lack of technology to overcome, but also tradition. StuRat (talk) 00:38, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Practical knowledge like mixing concrete isn't something that's preserved in libraries. How many contractors do you know today that go to a library to figure out how to mix concrete? The knowledge wasn't lost because libraries were destroyed or people stopped reading the books therein. Lots of knowledge gets lost because it is procedural knowledge that is passed from person-to-person, and when the people who know how to do something stop teaching it to others, the knowledge gets lost. Without people living in cities, there wasn't a need for concrete mixers and building on that scale. People living in mud huts don't have much use for such knowledge. Concrete is an almost purely urban technology: no cities, no need for concrete. The decline in urbanization caused the knowledge of how to build good cities to decline as well: without the legions to defend the cities, people left them. Without people in the cities, there was no need for the sort of monumental building, including aqueducts and sewers, that cities needed. When people returned to the cities some thousand years later, they had to relearn all of that stuff from first principles because no one had been doing it for a thousand years, not because someone burnt a book. --Jayron32 04:43, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I certainly would expect to find a recipe for concrete in a library. And cities didn't disappear entirely. StuRat (talk) 12:12, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, actually it was described in De Architectura by Vitruvius. Anyway...what does any of this have to do with anything? There isn't even a coherent argument happening here, much less anything that has to do with the original question. Adam Bishop (talk) 12:45, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Galileo got in trouble mostly because he was a dick about it (insulting the Pope, etc). Also, the crusades had absolutely nothing to do with stifling Muslim science. I'm not even sure how that would have worked. Do you have an example of this? If anything the crusades facilitated introducing Muslim science into Europe, from another direction (since it was already happening in Spain and Sicily). The Mongol destruction of Baghdad was far more destructive than anything the crusades ever did (well, akin to the crusader sack of Constantinople, anyway...but that had no effect on Muslim science either, heh). Adam Bishop (talk) 19:42, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

As stated above, by the destruction of libraries, institutions of learning, etc. And, more subtly, during a religious war resources will go to armaments and religious indoctrination, not science (with an exception for sciences having immediate military applications). StuRat (talk) 19:47, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Improbable. Religious indoctrination is not compatible with science.--Askedonty (talk) 19:54, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Says you. --Jayron32 22:58, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Sincerily I have not a final answer about that. Major religions seem all to have begun more or less in revolutionary ways, obviously restricting freedom of though or at least, of expression. But my remark concerned only indoctrination. --Askedonty (talk) 09:07, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Nonsense. These were Hellenic and Byzantine libraries written in Greek, not Turkish, and not Arabic, and institutions that had been co-opted by the Turks, who happened to chose Islam as more suited to their military lifestyle than Christianity. Is there evidence that any of these institutions were targeted for destruction by the crusaders, rather than collateral damage? μηδείς (talk) 19:57, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't matter who built them or why they were destroyed, the fact remains that they were. StuRat (talk) 20:01, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Or...destroyed at all, even. The Jewish library in Jerusalem (or was it Ascalon?) suffered from the initial crusader invasion, but I don't think they did much damage to Muslim institutions anywhere.Adam Bishop (talk) 20:00, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

The Crusaders were a minor footnote in the history of Islam; the Levant was never the center of Islamic culture during the 1000-1300 period when the Crusades were active, and they never held much territory or any significant population centers aside from Jerusalem. Islam's major cities (Alexandria, Damascus, especially Baghdad) remained out of Crusader hands. It would be like the Russians invading and capturing coastal Oregon and Washington and perhaps Seattle, and then claiming they had somehow had a hand in destroying or hastening the destruction of the U.S. The Crusaders were an annoyance at worst. The real damage to Islamic culture and learning came from the East and not the West; the Siege of Baghdad (1258) by the Mongols (already mentioned) was far more significant. That would be like the Russians nuking New York. --Jayron32 22:58, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

The Crusaders also destroyed at least one "Christian" library, the Imperial Library of Constantinople, during the Fourth Crusade. Under Destruction_of_libraries#Human_action you will find many examples of libraries destroyed for religious reasons. StuRat (talk) 23:17, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

It's not "random fluctuation" but it's not necessarily some external factor that causes it. Take a look at the Ottoman Empire page. There's a lot going on in the world between 1299 and 1922. The Ottomans fell behind in several key areas: exploration, resource exploitation, industrialization, war-making, and empire consolidation (which is hard no matter how prosperous you are, especially at a time when ethnic nationalism was on the rise). I don't think there's any one, single, external factor that accounts for it, unless you want to count "the rise of Europe" as an external factor. (What accounts for the rise of Europe? A lot of things. Unimpeded access to the resources of the New World didn't hurt, though.) --Mr.98 (talk) 14:06, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

(ec) One thing to realize is that the Turkic peoples originally lived in Central Asia, and only migrated to Turkey around the 11th century AD. They have nothing to do with the ancient Anatolians, who lived there originally. Furthermore, the emergence of a language is not a sign of civilization. Some very 'primitive' tribes have amazingly complex languages. We don't have any preserved writing from these early periods (before c. 3000 BC); the Nature article is based on computer models, not archaeology. That's not to say that the ancient Anatolians were not a 'great people', they're just completely unrelated to modern Turkey. Regarding the Ottoman Empire, see Mr.98's comments above. - Lindert (talk) 14:18, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)x4 Um, there's a big problem with the OPs question and some of the answers given. The patch of dirt currently occupied by the Turkish people was not occupied by the Turkish people 8000 years ago, or even 2000 years ago. Or even their ancestors. The ancestors of the modern Turkish people are not Indo-European people, so the fact that the people who spoke the Proto-Indo-European language may have come from there has no connection to the modern nation of Turkey. Turks come from a very different part of Asia, and migrated into the current place we call Turkey during the middle ages, long after PIE, see Turkish_people#Origins. So, if we are trying to figure out what is different between the Turkish people today and the people who lived in what we now call Turkey some 8000 years ago, it helps to note that those people aren't the ancestors of modern Turks. Secondly, the predominant explantion for the origin of PIE is that it originated in the Pontic-Caspian steppe, basically what is now the extreme southeastern corner of Europe where it meets the (somewhat arbitrary boundary) with Asia. The origins of the language in what is now Turkey is but one explanation, and does not appear to be the one held by the majority of scholars, and even if it were true, the people who live there now are not the decendants of those who lived there 8000 years ago. The article History of Anatolia has some good information on the various peoples who have called that place home. Thirdly, speaking a language that later evolves into other languages isn't really an innovation: that would imply that there was something about PIE that made it better than other languages at the time and that innovation lead to it being spread or something like that. What causes a language to spread has a lot more to do with politics and factors unrelated to the quality of the language itself. --Jayron32 14:23, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Jayron32 -- there was not anything approaching a complete population replacement in Anatolia after the Battle of Manzikert (1071). A number of the pre-1071 inhabitants of Anatolia were heretics or quasi-Manicheans who were not too attached to Orthodox Christianity as officially defined at Constantinople in the first place. Also, the classic Islamic missionary "Sufi bait-and-switch" was employed -- the first wave of Islamic missionaries that most ordinary people in villages would have encountered would have been itinerant Sufis, who would have promulgated a form of Islam as a joyful religion which imposed very light demands; all the Shariah legalism etc. didn't come along until a later phase... As for the Pontic-Caspian steppe, see the Kurgan Hypothesis comments below... AnonMoos (talk) 16:56, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

There almost never is a "complete population replacement", and it didn't happen over night, but over time the dominant culture and the dominated population can start to assymilate. The important bit isn't how fast, or in what manner, Anatolia when from the Hellenistic sphere to the Turkish sphere, the point is that it did unquestionably did happen, and culturally and linguistically there is still more connection between the ancient Turkic peoples who lived elsewhere at the time cited (9000 BC) than with the people who lived in Anatolia at that time. The point is the land we call Turkey hasn't always (or even long, comparitively speaking) been Turkish, but rather had been of a distinct and unrelated culture until the middle ages. --Jayron32 19:54, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

There certainly has been a dramatic cultural transformation, but you said "the people who live there now are not the decendants of those who lived there 8000 years ago" -- and even if there had been a complete population replacement after 1071, this would still be unlikely according to Most recent common ancestor mathematics, and given what actually did happen after 1071, it's not factual... By the way, from ca. 600 AD to 1071 AD, Anatolia was kind of the center of gravity of the Greek-speaking world (more so than Greece proper, which was partly overrun with Slavic-speakers). AnonMoos (talk) 04:00, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I should clarify then. The people that live there certainly have genetic ancestors that lived in Anatolia. Culturally, however, there is little trace (except a few Turkified names of older Greek origin)) of the former culture of the area. Your point about it being a Greek land from 600-1000 is very relevent to my point. It wasn't Turkish in culture in any way. Indeed, parts of Anatolia remained Greek even after the Seljuks moved in; Trebizond and Nicea were Greek for several centuries after Manzikert. However, by the time that the Ottomans became the "Old man of Europe", Anatolia had (excepting perhaps some pockets along the Ionian coast) become mostly Turkish. The point is that if one is trying to figure out what happened to the Turkish culture in Anatolia that was different than some distant point in the past, Turkish culture didn't arrive in Anatolia until the middle ages. --Jayron32 04:36, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Well the Ottoman Empire isn't Turkey. This question makes it sound like you're asking what went wrong with Turkey today, rather than the Ottoman Empire. As for the latter, a number of reasons. Firstly, size. It was too large to be able to administer for centuries. Eventually, you got lazy kings and ineffective bureaucracies. This led to outside parts of the empire becoming their own independent territory, such as in the Balkans, or falling to another empire, such as the Safavids. Shifts in government also destablizied the kingdom, as well as new war technology in the hands of other countries. Hope it helps. --Activism1234 14:23, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

No, the Ottoman Empire was Turkey. Contemporary documents frequently called it "Turkey", both internally and externally, and the modern nation of Turkey is a direct successor state to what was the Ottoman Empire. Certainly, it controlled lots of non-Turkish lands, because that is what Empires do, but as the hegemony within the Empire was Turkey, it is common and correct to think of it as the Turkish Empire. In the same way that the Austian Empire is a predecessor state to the modern country of Austia, or that the Holy Roman Empire is a predecessor state to Germany, or that the Soviet Union is a predecessor state to modern Russia, it is fine to think of the Ottoman Empire as a predecessor state to modern Turkey. The Sultans were Turks, the language of government was Turkish. It was Turkey with a bunch of dominated territories tacked on as the "empire" part. Yes, they are not identical, any more than Russia is identical to the Soviet Union, but neither are they entirely unrelated states, as though the modern nation of Turkey winked into existance in 1923 with no connection to the former Ottoman Turkish Empire. --Jayron32 14:41, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps, but the question posed by the OP would've been clearer to just say the Ottoman Empire which denotes a different time period and territories than Turkey does. --Activism1234 19:21, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Not exactly. The Turkish (as opposed to Iranian or Arabic or Maghrebi or Bulgarian or Greek) part of the Ottoman Empire, covers roughly the same extent as the modern state of Turkey, and that region and that culture dominated the Ottoman politics. There was not an equal partnership between ethnicities within the Ottoman empire. --Jayron32 19:54, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

What went wrong with Turkey? arbitrary break #1

Wnt -- regarding one of the premises of your question, it's been noticeable for a while now that very few actual linguists support the Anatolian hypothesis, and I really don't see that dramatically changing anytime soon, despite the latest study reported in the news (a study which was not conducted by linguists, you'll note). Linguists are much more likely to be convinced by the Kurgan hypothesis (or slight modifications and elaborations of the Kurgan hypothesis). As for Turkish backwardness, such backwardness did not begin to be conspicuously visible to either Europeans or to the Ottomans themselves until after the events of 1683 (the failed Siege of Vienna) -- before 1683, the Ottomans won more than they lost. Some historians would say that the Ottomans didn't decline much at all in absolute terms, but they failed to keep pace with European developments, and so declined in relative terms. Many people in Muslim lands were somewhat contemptuous of "infidels", and didn't think there was much to be learned from non-Muslims. One warning sign was that while Europe was enthusiastically adopting the invention of printing with movable metal type, before the 18th century such printing was allowed in the Ottoman empire only if it was in a script other than Arabic, and intended for a non-Muslim readership... AnonMoos (talk) 16:44, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Wow - I never expected to get so many intriguingly detailed answers. Of them, the strangest is the notion that the modern-day Turkish people are of a different race (and culture?) than those living there pre-1100. There's a lot of history in these articles, so could someone do me a favor and explain how on Earth that happened? But the universal censorship described in this last one best fits my ideological preconceptions of what it would take to destroy a nation so thoroughly - can you elaborate? Wnt (talk) 18:36, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I have to chime in with Jayron and AnonMoos on the very weak support for the Anatolian Hypothesis among linguists. The latest study is based on a statistical analysis with suspect premises. And it has no actual tie to archeological evidence. The 9000 year date, were it true, could have occurred anywhere. There is nothing actually tying it to Anatolia. The Kurgan hypothesis matches detailed linguistic data with strong archeaological evidence. See J P Mallory, In Search of the Indo-Europeans. μηδείς (talk) 19:22, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Wnt, it is fascinating, isn't it? Basically before 1100, the territory of modern Turkey was known as Anatolia, and had been part of the Byzantine Empire, and earlier the Roman Empire, for well over a thousand years. For a few centuries before that it was largely Greek (to simplify things a bit). Some famous ancient Greeks were from there - Herodotus, and a lot of the Greek scientists/philosophers for example. Anyway, between 1000 and 1100, Turkic nomads from further east in central Asia had started moving west, pushed out of where they were previously living by other Turkic groups (including, ultimately, the Mongols). They settled in Mesopotamia and Anatolia. These were the Seljuk Turks. The Byzantines weren't altogether happy with that, but the Seljuks defeated them in a battle in 1071 and conquered most of Anatolia. They didn't completely replace the Greek population, but they ruled the territory, and their successors a few centuries later were the Ottomans. Adam Bishop (talk) 19:36, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Hellenic is a much better adjective than Greek. The indigenous populations spoke Anatolian languages and Afroasiatic languages and Caucasian languages as well as the Armenian language and others before the influx of Ottoman Turkish. μηδείς (talk) 19:47, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

See Hurrian language, Hattian language, and Ugaritic language. 05:08, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

To be fair, all of those languages had gone extinct some centuries (or in some cases millenia) before the Turks moved into Anatolia. --Jayron32 05:11, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, perhaps, and I suspect so as well. But your claim is based on negative evidence. The OP would do well to read the articles I have linked to. Various Indo-European Anatolian languages the family of which I have already linked to, and Hellenistic Greek, were probably current when the Altaic Turks invaded. μηδείς (talk) 05:18, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Which ones, other than Greek, were spoken in Anatolia during the centuries leading up to, and covering the time period, when the Turks moved in? Other than Armenian and the Caucasian languages along the eastern edges of what might be called Anatolia, all of the languages you cite above don't seem to be attested in Anatolia at that time: the Anatolian languages article you cite notes that they had all gone extinct quite a long time before the Turks arived, to be replaced almost completely by Greek, I also don't see any specific Afroasiatic languages listed that were extent in Anatolia during, say 100-1000 AD, excepting maybe Hewbrew used by any Jewish populations; though I suspect that most, if not all, Jewish people living in Anatolia at that time were fully Hellenized. --Jayron32 05:30, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

We agree there is no evidence that those languages or their descendents were actively being spoken at the time of the Ottoman invasions. μηδείς (talk) 18:10, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

It's not unheard of that groups of people move from one place to another. I would compare it to Australia or North America: 500 years ago there were 'no' whites there, and now they are the majority population, having supplanted the original population. V85 (talk) 15:26, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I recognize these examples - but I'd always regarded them as a rare aberration, the result of populations coming into contact after thousands of years of separation, so that disease resistance, agriculture, metallurgy, and military technology all conspired to harm native populations of Australia and North America. For a country to be completely overrun and replaced by a neighbor it has been in contact with - well, it happens, for example in South Africa, or in the steppes of Asia, but I thought this was typical of nomadic civilizations where moving was relatively easy. For a place like Anatolia to be replaced - that's something different. Wnt (talk) 15:14, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

There's a business in New York that's closed on weekends.

In front is a stoop, well, a couple of steps, with the chalked message "No sitting." Can I sit there? 66.108.223.179 (talk) 15:10, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't care. Wait until the business is open, then ask the owners what they think. --Jayron32 15:15, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

This sounds like a request for legal advice, which we can't provide. For general background you might see loitering or perhaps trespassing. Wnt (talk) 18:44, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Can you? Probably. May you? Probably not. Should you? No. 2001:18E8:2:1020:C2:8653:9179:E109 (talk) 18:46, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I second Jayron's advice: Ask the owners what it's about. It's possible they've had trouble with loiterers, and if you stick around too long, you might get towed. You wouldn't want that. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:03, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Is it normal for people sitting to get towed throughout the US or only in New York? Here in NZ they only do it with motorised vehicles. If it's a person sitting on the ground or steps you may be asked to move on, served with a trespass notice, or worst case scenario arrested, but never towed.... Nil Einne (talk) 18:28, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

It depends on how big the person who needs to be moved is. I've seen some people that need a tow truck to move around. --Jayron32 18:31, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Ask not whom New Yorkers tow. They'll tow thee. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:46, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

where could I email

where could I email the administrators of https://bugzilla.mozilla.org please? Thanks. --80.99.254.208 (talk) 17:51, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Probably at admin {at} mozilla.org. OsmanRF34 (talk) 19:01, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

What academic field studies volunteerism?

Are there any academic fields that study volunteerism? I know political science has a lot of insights on civic engagement and sociology has some on social groups, but does any field scientifically investigate things like outcomes of volunteers, reasons people volunteer, etc in a social scientific manner like causation studies? I'm sorry I cannot be more specific here.--108.23.47.101 (talk) 18:20, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

You are right on track. Each social science is probably studying it from a different perspective: economical, sociological, psychological, and so on. OsmanRF34 (talk) 19:03, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm... maybe are there any interdisciplinary groupings out there then?--108.23.47.101 (talk) 19:07, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Almost certainly behavioral economics would be an important part of the stew of disciplines studying volunteerism. Certain of the more practical fields of philosophy, such as pragmatism, may also apply. --Jayron32 22:36, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Also in your Business and Economics Faculty: Political science (Kropotkin & Mutual Aid), Labour history (solidarity), Industrial Relations, Organisational Studies, Human Resources management. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:49, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Sociology in its Form as 3rd Sector Studies. Any sector of sociology active in the realm of civil society-theory / contemporary cultural theory as well as philosophical schools around that topic (e.g. Jürgen Habermas via Gramsci for the Neo-Marxists.), political science insofar it considers civic engagement as pertinent to the object of discussion. Network theory insofar as volunteer groups may be the source of weak ties. Economics were already mentioned. Literature of interest might be: Jeffrey Alexander The Civil Sphere (Oxford University Press, 2006) Psychology I do not know wherefore I cannot attest to the involvement in volunteer studies. --Abracus (talk) 12:25, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Generally I guess social psychology, specifically the study of altruism. I've taught volunteer management and theories of volunteering, and my teaching made use of the work of Paolo Freire, Robert Putnam, Will Hutton, Anthony Giddens among others: game theory played a part too. --TammyMoet (talk) 13:55, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

OP here on a different IP. Thanks everyone. Definitely gave me some things to look into. Your help is appreciated.159.83.4.160 (talk) 22:44, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

0-bedroom housing units

I just ran across a U.S. government document from the 1970s in which HUD defined fair rents for each county in the country for different types of housing units. Each county had an entry for housing units of 0 bedrooms, 1 bedroom, 2 bedrooms, 3 bedrooms, and 4 bedrooms, with separate lines for with-elevator and without-elevator. What kind of housing unit would be defined as having 0 bedrooms? Is this just some bureaucratic designation for what everyone else would call a 1-bedroom unit? Or did HUD care about places that really weren't housing at all? 2001:18E8:2:1020:C2:8653:9179:E109 (talk) 18:45, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Part of the reason I'm confused is the idea of a 0-bedroom unit with an elevator, which would make more sense when we're talking about things that really aren't housing at all. 2001:18E8:2:1020:C2:8653:9179:E109 (talk) 18:48, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

studio apartment perhaps?--108.23.47.101 (talk) 19:08, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, a studio apartment has no bedroom. You find them in major city centers. A one-bedroom in Manhattan means a closet you can sleep in with a combined living room/kitchen. A studio has a combined living room/kitchen/sleep space. μηδείς (talk) 19:41, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

In the UK, at least, it is very common for a studio apartment to be listed as "0 bedrooms", so I agree that is almost certainly what they mean. --Tango (talk) 20:35, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it seems to be a matter of definition. If a bedroom is "any room which is designed to contain a bed, among other uses", then a studio has 1, while if it's "any room which is designed primarily to contain a bed", then a studio has 0. StuRat (talk) 22:24, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Note the trendy practice of using old businesses as homes. Such a home may have an elevator to take you to your floor, which is a huge open space, with no separate bedroom. StuRat (talk) 19:42, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

That's called a loft apartment in NYC. μηδείς (talk) 23:10, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

0 bedroom apartments are what we would call a "bachelor's suite" in Canada. The number usually refers to the number of separate bedrooms, something a government studying adequate housing for families might be interested in. --NellieBly (talk) 02:13, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

That's rather effing sexist. Thank God I've never rented north of the Bronx. μηδείς (talk) 05:05, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't know how it works in other parts of the world, but the American (and UK?) system of counting the bedrooms always confuses me. In Sweden, and I assume at least some other places, you count the number of rooms. So, a studio is a one room apartment, and what you'd call a 3 bedroom apartment, we'd call a "4-roomer". /Coffeeshivers (talk) 22:16, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

We would also call a three bedroom apartment a 4-room apartment, uness it had a full living room and a full kitchen, in which case it would be a five-room apartment. What confuses you? μηδείς (talk) 03:45, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Canadian Equalization Formula

Doe anyone know the exactly how fiscal capacity is calculated for the purposes of federal equalization payments in Canada? I know (50% of) actual revenues from natural resources are used. For the rest of the categories (personal income taxes, business income taxes, consumption taxes, and property taxes and miscellaneous), "fiscal capacity" is used. Fiscal capacity is defined to be the per capita revenue yield that a particular province would obtain using average tax rates. Does anyone know how this calculation is actually done? Finding the tax rate is relatively straight forward, but how is the tax base calculated? Eiad77 (talk) 21:29, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Page 40 of this document has some information, although it doesn't go into full details. This is the sort of arcane stuff which only a handful of economists at the Ministry of Finance fully understand. You may need to contact them directly to get more precise references. --Xuxl (talk) 09:51, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. That's what I was afraid of. Incidentally, that document is from before the most recent changes to the equalization formula in 2008, so it is slightly out of date. Eiad77 (talk) 11:10, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

US presidential debates

When was the last time a third candidate was included in a US presidential debate? Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 22:14, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Ross Perot in the United States presidential election, 1992. StuRat (talk) 22:19, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! That was my first guess. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 22:24, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. Also see United States presidential election debates. I'll mark this Q resolved. StuRat (talk) 22:25, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Resolved

August 28

The "treasonous act" of Georgy Malenkov

The third paragraph of Georgy Malenkov#Downfall is far from understandable, talking about a "treasonous act". It's not at all clear (and the only reference is paywalled) what this is: presumably something in the spectrum between some kind of political move and a coup attempt. As actual coup plotters don't get punished with jobs as hydro plant managers (they get jobs as bullet receptacles) I can only imagine it's something nearer the former. Does anyone here know, and crucially have legible sources, what this was, so we can fix that section's flowery hyperbole? 91.125.226.166 (talk) 01:30, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article Anti-Party Group seems to be better written, the language seems more natural; I suspect the person who put the details into the Malenkov article may have not been a native English speaker. It was definately an attempted political coup or ouster, though it doesn't appear to have had the backing of the military. It doesn't look like treason, per se. It is worth noting that Kruschev was not Stalin, and his response to the Anti-Party Group crisis shows exactly how different he was. Stalin killed his close allies if they got too upity; Kruschev appears to have had little lust for blood even among those who tried to oust him. --Jayron32 01:39, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Correct, there is some discussion at Nikita Khrushchev, a FA. After Beria was killed, for the final four decades of the Soviet Union, if you were at or near the top and lost a power struggle, you might be sent off to manage a power station in Kazakhstan or (like K was, but he was over 70) be given an apartment and dasha and a pension and watched. Molotov was sent as ambassador to Mongolia, which knew the score and didn't terribly want him because who wants an emissary who obviously doesn't command the support of his own government?--Wehwalt (talk) 11:15, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Just to clarify something I wrote; I think treason is a bad word to choose. Treason is usually reserved for crimes against the nation, not against leaders of the nation. Attempting to overthrow a leader and replace them with another leader, but maintain the same system of government isn't usually seen as treason. Treason is often seen as siding with one's external enemies against ones own government (i.e. Benedict Arnold) and usually occurs in the context of actual war. Even Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were not charged with or convicted of treason, popularly many people thought of them as traitors, but officially as the U.S. wasn't at war with the USSR, there was not legal standing to charge them with treason, but rather they were convicted of espionage. Our own article on Treason cites an authoritative source which specifically states that treason involves aiding a foreign government. What Malenkov did was more political manouvering; he didn't aid a foreign government, he didn't try to overthrow the government, he tried to overthrow a person in a position of leadership within the government, which is not the same thing. While it isn't the same country, the modern Russian law may be the closest thing I can find regarding the cultural or legal attitudes towards treason in Russia/USSR at the time, and our article at Treason#Russia uses words like "foreign power" and "external security" in defining treason. --Jayron32 12:57, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I think that in the UK, high treason could be killing a high officer of state without necessarily intending to alter the system of government. The Treason Act 1351 (repealed in 1998) says; "...if a Man slea the Chancellor, Treasurer, or the King’s Justices of the one Bench or the other, Justices in Eyre, or Justices of Assise, and all other Justices assigned to hear and determine, being in their Places, doing their Offices: And it is to be understood, that in the Cases above rehearsed, [that] ought to be judged Treason which extends to our Lord the King, and his Royal Majesty:." I'm not sure if John Bellingham, the only person to assassinate a British prime minister was tried for murder or treason, but the result was the same. Alansplodge (talk) 12:14, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Me again, it seems that Bellingham was found guilty of murder rather than treason; he was hanged and "his body anatomized"[4]. 12:27, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Kurds of Iran

I understand that Kurds of Iraq, Syria and Turkey want to separate but why Kurds of Iran want to separate? Their language, and culture are similar but why would they separate from Iran? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.53.229.90 (talk) 02:11, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, Spanish, Portuguese, and French are all "similar" languages, but if France and Portugal suddenly divied up the Spanish territory amongst themselves, the Spanish wouldn't take too kindly to it. The Kurds are not the Iranians, and have their own culture which, while it is related to Iranian, is not the same, and some Kurds for that reason seek an independent and unified Kurdistan for all Kurds. --Jayron32 03:24, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

The puzzle here is how the OP can understand the motives of the Iraqi, Syrian and Turkish Kurds but not the Iranian Kurds, since they are basically the same motives. I have no idea how to solve that mystery. Looie496 (talk) 03:56, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I can easily understand the OP's question in good faith but Jayron has answered it in full. μηδείς (talk) 05:00, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Iraninan Kurds suffer almost the same oppression and discrimination that the other Kurds do. So it's natural that they yearn for self-rule, if not total independance. --Omidinist (talk) 15:21, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

My question was meant that Kurds in Syria and Iraq are not Arabs and Kurds in Turkey are not Turks. Why would they separate from Iran? Is it because they are Sunni? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.53.229.64 (talk) 17:49, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Everyone is not somebody else, even if their ancestors spoke similar languages. The Kurds are also not Iranians, which is part of the reason why some of them don't want to be governed from Tehran. --Jayron32 17:58, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Which U.S. Presidential autobiographies are in the public domain (or at least free to read and save completely)?

I only found free copies of Theodore Roosevelt's, Coolidge's, and Hoover's autobiographies online so far. Also, I worked on this article List of United States Presidential autobiographies over the last month or so. Am I missing any U.S. Presidents who wrote autobiographies? Futurist110 (talk) 04:31, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Ulysses S. Grant's memoirs were famous at the time, and would now be free of copyright restrictions. There's an e-text link at the end of Personal Memoirs of Ulysses S. Grant... -- AnonMoos (talk) 04:47, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

They're all free to read if you have a public library nearby. Many memoirs are likely availible at your local public library, and if not can be obtained via interlibrary loan. --Jayron32 04:51, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but you can't save them on a computer, unlike the earlier Presidential autobiographies that are now in the public domain. Futurist110 (talk) 05:52, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Are they availible as e-books? I did some spot checking, and there are e-books availible for the Reagan Diaries: [5] and Keeping Faith by Jimmy Carter: [6]. I regularly check out free e-books from my library on my Amazon Kindle. If your library has a similar program, it may be worth asking if they have e-book versions. You wouldn't get to keep it forever, but it would be free, and such books are usually low enough demand that you could renew them repeatedly as needed for your purposes. --Jayron32 06:21, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Have you checked the Gutenberg project? They will have most of what is in the public domain, here's a few I found:

• The Memoirs, Correspondence, And Miscellanies, From The Papers Of Thomas Jefferson
• Lincoln writings, a whole bunch, but no memoires it seems, just letters, telegrams, speeches etc..
• Grant, Ulysses: both "Personal Memoirs of Ulysses S. Grant" and "The Memoirs of General Ulysses S. Grant" Ssscienccce (talk) 20:13, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

No, I didn't and thank you very much. :) Futurist110 (talk) 01:21, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

College question

According to this then there are like 700 students that got admitted but didn't enroll. Why is that? This is probably one of the best college in a nation. Plus if 700 students didn't enroll then that means that would have an extra 700 spots that could fill in. Why don't they accept another 700 students from applicants' pool?65.128.133.237 (talk) 06:08, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure where on that page you're getting your data but there are many reasons why someone might get accepted but not enroll. For instance

• Got accepted but went to another school
• Got accepted but couldn't afford to go there
• Got accepted but decided to take a year off
• Got accepted but died (let's hope that's a small portion)

And just because they didn't enroll, doesn't mean that the university didn't go to a waiting list of people and see if they then wanted to fill those empty spots. It's also possible that the university accepted more than they could handle because they were expecting some students to not enroll. I know when I started my freshman year, some dorm rooms that normally had just two occupants had to have three due to too many people enrolling. As people dropped out, the housing situation settled itself. Dismas|^(talk) 06:24, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

(to see the stat, look at the applying section, for some reason I can't give a direct link to it) Lol this is pretty funny how they accepted more than enough because they think there will be some portions that won't enroll. What happen if all accepted students decided to enroll? And they barely accepted people from waiting list though. They only accepted like 13, so that's 13 spots of 700 spots. Why don't they just accept just enough for the university then as students drop out or not enroll "then" they can choose from waiting list. To my understanding, this is a messy procedure.65.128.133.237 (talk) 06:39, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

What's to say that those on the waiting list didn't accept offers from other schools, start there, and then don't want to leave the school that they're attending? It's a guessing game by the school. They have to figure out how many they can accept, guess at how many will not enroll, guess how many will drop out, etc. And there isn't just one answer for why someone would not attend. And yes, sometimes the schools guess incorrectly and have too many students for the housing and class sizes available. Then it's up to them to figure out what to do next. I've even heard of some schools putting students up in local hotels just to solve a housing crisis. Dismas|^(talk) 07:05, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Here is a link to a news story I heard about this some time ago. Dismas|^(talk) 07:15, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

(EC) I don't know much about how universities work in the US, but it strikes me that amongst other things, you're assuming there's only one period of admission and anyone not accepted but who may be good enough is immediately offered a position on the wait list. I don't see any reason this has to be the case, the admission period may last 2 or 3 weeks. Or perhaps some people are offered admission immediately. Either way, people who are offered admission quickly may also choose to quickly reject the admission (I presume there is a formal procedure prospective students can use of they want to do that rather then simply not enrolling) and so their positions may be offered to someone else without these people ever ending up on the formal waitlist. Of course at some stage people would be told their application has failed and a select number would be offered places on the waitlist.

As for the later issue, a waitlist is also messy. As shown by the stats, only about 70% of students even accept an offer on the waitlist which isn't surprising since as good as Stanford may be, not all students are going to want the uncertainty of a waitlist. Also while not stated on that site, I'm assuming that even if you accept a place on the waitlist, you can later withdraw or otherwise don't have to accept admission if offered. And looking at it from a purely statistical POV is probably misleading anyway, there's a fair chance those students who just miss the cutoff are more likely to reject a waitlist place then those further off because they are more likely to have better offers elsewhere etc.

Accepting more then you have available under the assumption some will drop out is fairly common practice, Overselling for example is fairly common in the travel industry. While in these cases the reasons are somewhat different (a regular 'place' is generally worth more then something on a waitlist and there isn't always a guarantee you will be able to fill all places from no shows even with a waitlist), as I don't see Stanford will ultimately have trouble filling all the places and there's no direct financial advantage, as illustrated earlier it likely gives them a better chance of accepting the best students. Also, unlike in most travel cases, worst case scenario they can likely accomodate the students at some additional cost and inconvinience. (Note that accepting students from the waitlist is likely far more complicated for the university then simply accepting students normally presuming you don't end up with too many.)

Nil Einne (talk) 07:20, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Alright according to my understand and let me sum it up. The reason they want to accept "more" than enough is because they tried to get the best students of those who applied. They afraid that if they don't accept them then chances are those applicants will deny the waitlist right?

P.S. Also if you look at the statistics, the reason for not relying completely on the waitlist is hardly surprising. 1,707 students enrolled out of 2,437 admitted. It's difficult to say what percentage of students admitted would have been admitted if they only accepted as many as they wanted for the reasons highlighted earlier. But even if it became say 2000 admitted and 1400 enrolled, you still have 307 or 320 or about 18% of your 1707 or so students coming through via the waitlist, a very messy process indeed.

I agree but well perhaps this is the best way to get better students. Everything has its price. So messy is a price they have to pay in this case.65.128.133.237 (talk) 07:47, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

The university's goal is to fill all their places, without being significantly oversubscribed, with students of a sufficiently high caliber. They don't actually need to get the very best students - they can't really distinguish between students that precisely anyway. They will know from past experience how many people that are given offers won't end up enrolling (it won't vary too much year by year) so they can oversell quite a bit without too much risk of being oversubscribed. If they end up undersubscribed, then they use the waiting list, knowing that they will probably have to go a long way down the list in order to find people that haven't already accepted offers elsewhere. That isn't a problem though, because everyone on the waiting list is good enough not to drag down the institution's prestige (and they pay the fee, which is the important thing). --Tango (talk) 11:18, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

One additional thing: there are two numbers that have a large effect on a college/university's standings in the rankings (e.g. the US News & World Report rankings) that are affected by these numbers, and they are game-able. One is the exclusivity: what percentage of people applied did you accept? You get ranked higher if lots of people apply but you admit very little. The other is the "yield": what percentage of those accepted actually went to your school? You get ranked higher if all of those you accept go to your university. It makes for a tricky game for admissions officers — you don't want to admit people who you are pretty sure will go someone else (it's not for nothing they ask you what other schools you've applied to) or won't be able to pay for it, but you also want to be very selective about who you admit. The people I know who have worked in the admissions field at very highly-ranked universities are very ambivalent about the system — the rankings requirements can produce unusual or unpleasant results (like not letting in highly qualified people because you're sure they're going to go to a better-ranked university) if people are overly concerned about the yield. I have no references for this; this comes from discussions with numerous people who work in university admissions and is fairly common knowledge in American higher education circles. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:26, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

So, if a university decides to massively encourage applications through direct marketing from everyone around the US and to accept the candidates with the poorest academic performance, but who still can pay, would that make the university raise in the rankings? OsmanRF34 (talk) 12:11, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I was accepted as an undergrad at the three colleges I applied to; obviously I only went to one. μηδείς (talk) 18:06, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Most Significant Event Since the Industrial Revolution Which Doesn't Involve Nuclear War

Which is the most significant event in world history since the Industrial Revolution which doesn't involve nuclear war? This is a bit of a subjective question, but have there been any articles or anything about this? Personally, I'd say the accidental crippling of the future Kaiser Wilhelm II's hand during his birth, since that led to his forceful personality, which in turn greatly helped cause WWI, which caused WWII and the Holocaust, and which caused the Cold War. Futurist110 (talk) 07:23, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Um since there hasn't ever been a nuclear war, I don't get why you need to specify 'which doesn't involve nuclear war'. Are you asking about fictional events as well as real ones? Nil Einne (talk) 07:30, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I think the inhabitants of Hiroshima and Nagasaki would disagree -- Q Chris (talk) 10:49, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Are you replying to me? Your reply isn't indented as such but it appears to be. In any case, I wouldn't personally considered the attacks as horrific as they were, a nuclear war. They were nuclear attacks by one side one another during the convential (non nuclear) war. As only one side was involved in the nuclear part, it was not a nuclear war. In the same vein, if someone goes nuts and destroys most of the world with nuclear weapons but no one responds, at least with nuclear weapons, that wouldn't be a nuclear war either. If India drops a single nuclear weapon on Pakistan and Pakistan drops one on India (one happens in response to the other, let's no worry who starts it to avoid controversy), that would be a nuclear war. Since the OP mentioned WW2, I presume they're using the same definition. Nil Einne (talk) 18:27, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Well subjectively I would say it was my birth ;-) Dmcq (talk) 08:35, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Because some events like the Cuban Missile Crisis could have caused or triggered a nuclear war if they were handled in a different way. Futurist110 (talk) 01:11, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

But the fact of an event not becoming a significant event doesn't make it a significant event. You might as well say the lack of extraterrestrial contact was the most significant event in the human species so far — think of what could have changed had it occurred! Ditto the lack of invention of time machines, the lack of a cure for all diseases, and the lack of Jesus coming back and Rapturing everyone. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:18, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Are you replying to me? Your reply is just as confusing as Q Chris's because you're replying under Dmcq's but the text of your reply seems to refer to mine. In any case, I still don't get what you're saying. If you're trying to say you want to exclude all events which are significant because they may have caused a nuclear war if handled differently, as Mr.98 said, events aren't usually significant primarily because what would have happened if handled differently and it also depending on how far you want to go, you might as well exclude most of the WW2 and the Cold War because either could have involved a real nuclear war. Nil Einne (talk) 18:27, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Invention of the Pill. HiLo48 (talk) 08:47, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I would have to say the invention of the areoplane which forever chsnged warfare tactics, not to mention the means of transportation and communication.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:55, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Genetics. The problem with lists like this, though, is that nothing happens in isolation. Each invention feeds on previous discoveries. As discussed at length in James Burke's TV series' called Connections. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:08, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Computers and, in particular, the internet have changed the world enormously. We're often described as living in the "information age" now, as opposed to the "industrial age" (which started with the industrial revolution). Global politics and wars tend not to have that much impact on the world in the long-run (how much is your daily life affected by who is running the country?). Technology has a massive impact, though. --Tango (talk) 11:22, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree. I am old enough to remember when finding out about a subject could be a very involved task and you hoped you had a local library which was up to it, so I'm with those who say "the personal computer" and access to information through it. Wikipedia is a reflection of that. It may or may not survive in its original form, but it's too darn handy for humanity to ever throw away having a database of knowledge.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:26, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Another problem with this question is that "since the Industrial Revolution" is a bit vague: the Industrial Revolution lasted for somewhere around a century, and it's not clear whether we should include that period or not. Since earlier events have had longer to have an effect, it might be reasonable to assume that the answer is close to the start of the time period in question. 81.98.43.107 (talk) 12:06, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

The set of related technologies that aids communication in the modern world is probably the most significant recent development. The current age is often called the "Information age", but I have heard the term "Communications Revolution" to describe it also; to mimic earlier terms like the Agricultural Revolution and the Industrial Revolution. I'd argue it wasn't computers per se that changed the world so drastically. Certainly, computers were a necessary prerequisite, and the changes would not have occured without them, but it is the way we use computers, specifically to aid in communication and sharing of knowledge and ideas, that is the revolution. When computers were used as overpriced combination calculators/typewriters/video games (pretty much all they did until the 1990s) they had a much less profound effect on the world. The two advances of the internet and the cell phone have had a profound impact on more people in a shorter period of time than the computer did without those technologies. Entire parts of the world are bypassing land line phone technology; the fact that people in underdeveloped nations are using cell phones and the connectivity they provide via the internet is simply astounding. What I have seen in my own lifetime as a result of these technologies, not necessarily for the few rich countries and their citizens, but the changes this has brought to the bulk of the world population, would mark it (IMHO) as the greatest development of the last 100 years. --Jayron32 13:14, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Without a doubt, penicillin. Other candidates would be modern sewage and water systems (influenced by the germ theory of disease), the invention of trinitrotoluene. Penicillin cured so many diseases though and led to our modern system of antibiotics. Today, most of our efforts in developing nations are to bring modern sewage and fresh water systems, modern medicine, and exploitation of natural resources (through blasting). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.38.31.81 (talk) 14:10, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Good ones as well; let me add to that vaccination. You don't need to cure diseases you don't get in the first place. Healthwise, the triumvirate of sanitation, vaccination, and antibiotics have improved life expetency unlike anything else, and they are all modern developments. --Jayron32 14:16, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Depending on your definitions, modern sewage systems may not be "since the industrial revolution". The London sewerage system, which I believe was one of the first modern sewerage systems, certainly of its size, was started in 1859. That's after some definitions of the industrial revolution (the first sentence of our article gives an extremely precise period of 1750 to 1850) but not if you include the Second Industrial Revolution. --Tango (talk) 19:29, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

The Assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria which led to WWI which precipitated the Russian Revolution, the Fall of the Ottoman Empire, the devolution of the British Empire, the rise of Arabic nationalism, the humiliation of Germany and the partition of Austria-Hungary which led to WWII, and the Cold War and communist revolutions which resulted from the Russian Revolution leading to the Holodomor and the Cultraul revolution in which perhaps 60 million people died, as well as the Korean war, Vietnam War, the Cambodian holocaust and the rise of Saddam Hussein, as well as the Balkan wars of the late 20th century. Can't beat that. μηδείς (talk) 18:03, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Meh. World War I was coming whether someone shot the Archduke or not. Europe was a powderkeg waiting to explode, the spark was coming from somwhere, the specific trigger was probably ultimately insigificant in how it all went down. History would have likely been much the same had no one assassinated him, there would have been another excuse for the dominos to fall. --Jayron32 18:05, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

WWI might have not happened if Kaiser Wilhelm II did not have a crippled hand, since that might have led to a more stable and less reckless personality, which in turn would have made Germany's foreign policy in the pre-WWI era (1888-1914) much smarter, which would have drastically decreased the odds of another large-scale European war breaking out. Futurist110 (talk) 01:14, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

So the fact that it was coming somehow makes it unimportant? Penicillin (and the airplane and everything else) was coming as well. (Unless you have access to the instant replay tape of history, which shows otherwise?) This was the pivotal moment of history since the Boston Tea Party, the beheading of Charles I, the nailing of the 92 theses, and Columbus's voyage. μηδείς (talk) 20:08, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

It was dramatric, but history is not a series of dramatic moments, it is better understood as a series of complex and interrelated trends and movements. History doesn't exist as periods of bland, uneventful inactivity punctuated by great events. Historical forces are set in motion by large groups of people doing many different things. Social, cultural, economic, and other "mass action" forces have a far greater effect on history than singular actions and singular individuals. It doesn't mean that history is deterministic or unavoidable, or that individual events and people don't have important effects, but to declare that World War I would have not happened had the Archduke not been assassinated seems a bit over-reaching. I'd argue that the assassination was a symptom of the larger sociological events surrounding the war, namely the rise of ethnic nationalism in the old multi-national empires of Europe. That is ultimately the more important cause of the war: that oppressed ethnic groups within Europe had a growing consciousness about their own situation, and were working towards autonomy against the multinational states that oppressed them. That's the situation that caused WWI, not an assassin's bullet. I'd argue there's more weight to be given to men who expressed great ideas that changed how people think about the world, or people who invent or introduce devices that change how the world works, but catching a bullet is not in itself all that significant. The significant bit for WWI was the growth of nationalism (specifically in this case among the Slavic peoples of the Balkans against their Germanic rulers). The assasination of the Archduke was a symptom of the greater cause, not the cause of the war itself. Some of your other examples are actually better for such singular events. This one, not so much. --Jayron32 22:14, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Let me also clarify a bit. There are many events which change the course of history. There were also things which, if they were changed, could have avoided World War I. I just don't see where the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand was one of those events. I'd say that if the leaders of Europe were more committed towards liberalizing their societies; if they had a greater sensitivity towards various ethnic groups; if all people within those empires were either given a real voice at the table in terms of meaningful representation or actual autonomy or soveriegnty, then World War I could have been avoided. The death of the Archduke wasn't a cause so much as a part of the War itself. He's the first casualty of the War, not really a cause of it. --Jayron32 22:23, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

This is a bit of a subjective question, but have there been any articles or anything about this?

A bit of an understatement, since this is the quintessential subjective question. We've had a number of opinions above. The last contributor is insisting their opinion is the only correct one ("Can't beat that", "the pivotal moment"). An earlier editor said their opinion was "without a doubt" true. Whom are we to believe? Answer: None of them. Why? Because they're all opinions. What's wrong with opinions? Nothing, per se, but you came here asking for a reference to articles, you didn't want just opinions (although, to be fair, you did start proceedings off with an opinion of your own, about the Kaiser's hand).

Well, it's a vain search, I'm afraid. There are any number of places where this exact topic is discussed out there, but they're all precursors of the above, loads of people chiming in with their opinions. Simply put, you won't find any reference that proves incontrovertibly that any particular event is the most significant, or any particular person had the greatest influence on history, or whatever. You won't even find agreement about the Top 10. All we ever have on such questions is opinion, as the above litany beautifully demonstrates. A few people above gave links, but simply to better identify their opinion. Nobody has provided any links to the articles you asked for, but that's forgiveable in this case because there aren't any that don't ultimately boil down to the opinions of the authors.

Unfortunately, just because all we can find is the opinions of others does not give us carte blanche to provide a whole bagful of our own opinions. Our own Guidelines expressly forbid this.

Will I hat this entire thread now or later? -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 22:10, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Instead of just getting random individuals' thoughts, you can always look at a poll of hundreds of random individuals' thoughts! The following is an Amerocentric thing, but it't interesting nonetheless [7]. The most common opinion seems to be "WWII", although there were only 18 events to choose from. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:19, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

When I was asking this question, I was thinking more in lines of a political perspective. However, if you'd look at it from a technological perspective then the Green Revolution, the invention of vaccinations, the discovery of electricity, and the invention of the World Wide Web would probably come out on top. I don't think that I'm forgetting any major events, but if I am, please let me know. Futurist110 (talk) 01:17, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Obviously the nascence of the Australian film industry. "World history" is a genre of writing, produced retrospectively, primarily by historians. Given the short time frame between 1850 and today; there is no consensus amongst experts. Given that "events" play a very very small role in world history compared to other processes, this question is unanswerable through expert knowledge systems (ie: truthfully) and any answer you're going to get will be populist tripe (ie: bullshit). What was the most important event in feudal Chinese history? What was the most important event in Sydney in 1842? As far as world processes go, the impacts of Imperialism as the highest stage of capitalism have been palpable in the 20th century—but the chief criticism amongst professionals and scholars with the right to comment about these things, is that categories that subsume the totality are specious, as when everything is imperialism, then nothing is imperialism. The problem of claiming historical significance is the same, as soon as a process becomes significant in that it totalises, it becomes insignificant because it is the totality of all things. WWII was less an event, than what the entire world economy was doing for six plus years. Actual histories rarely stray into this territory of specious significance, and instead discuss process, causation, factors of analysis, narrativised occurrences, methods of thinking about contexts and understanding them. If you wanted me to answer from a "history from below" account, then the two most important events since the industrial revolution have been (wow) the industrial revolution: the defeminisation of high income proletarian occupations in the metropole and the feminisation of industries and occupations under imperialism. Bad question—bad answers. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:55, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Proposed map of the United States of Greater Austria, by Popovici, 1906

• Both the "it would have happened anyway" and the "Kaiser's magic hand" theories of WWI depend on psychic ability--the ability to tell the future (the future that didn't happen!) in the first place and to read the Kaiser's mind in the second. What we do know is that the Archdukew was killed, that it was a de facto cassus belli, and that the Kaiser intentionally smuggled Lenin into Russia as a war tactic. The murdered crown prince had a plan to introduce a liberal federal minority-respecting United States of Austria Hungary, which his autocratic father would never have allowed. Instead we got a century of war. It takes no psychic and no fortune telling to see what we did get. μηδείς (talk) 01:58, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually there was a nuclear war. Have you all forgotten? Tom Haythornthwaite 21:57, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Shhhhh.... Don't confuse us with the facts... --Jayron32 22:00, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Which "nuclear war" are you talking about, Tom? Futurist110 (talk) 01:20, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Depending on the definition of "nuclear" and "war", WW 2 and the Cold War qualify. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:14, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

nazi views on meritocracy?

--203.116.187.1 (talk) 08:43, 28 August 2012 (UTC)Bold text

They didn't care for it and were suspicious of experts. Many of the top people got their jobs by being old comrades of Hitler in the Party. People like Albert Speer were the exception.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:24, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Maybe it just depends on the definition of merit. Adolph's definition may have been different from yours and mine. HiLo48 (talk) 11:40, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

What I think you are trying to say is that they valued loyalty perhaps more than performance. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:44, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Like most extremist political movements, the Nazis valued ideology and loyalty very high — often higher than raw talent. For the exceptionally talented there could be made some exceptions. Werner Heisenberg, for example, was not ideologically as in-line with them as they would have liked — he did not embrace so-called Aryan Physics — but his usefulness as a physicist during a time of war (esp. for work on their nuclear fission project) meant his ideological transgressions could be overlooked or even shielded. But in general, any totalitarian party is going to value ideology much higher than raw performance, and may in fact see ideology as an essential part of evaluating performance in the first place. For the exceptionally skilled there is often some maneuverability, but such are rare cases. People on the wrong side of Nazi ideology (obviously especially any of those in the non-Aryan camp) were treated poorly no matter what their talents were or were not. So in that sense, the Nazis were fairly anti-meritocratic, but they wouldn't have seen it that way themselves — they'd have said that ideology was part of merit. I don't think they took any strong explicit positions on meritocracy. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:51, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I think structures of "merit" "race" "purity" and "class" in the early waffen ss could be useful here. GM Kren, LH Rappoport (1976) "The Waffen SS" Armed Forces & Society believe the waffen ss to have been meritocratic. P Biddiscombe (1999) "The End of the Freebooter Tradition: The Forgotten Freikorps Movement of 1944/45" Central European History discusses the meritocracy of the trenches in relation to late war fascists. Obviously this meritocracy is limited to Germanic Europeans or their Allies, to male land combatants, and to members of the political right (the true home of the nation). When Nation is Blood, the link is complete. The Freikorps movements claim to be meritocratic, in the sense that every person gets a bullet, but the concrete reality is a hierarchical system of class oppression, grounded in gender segregation and blood nationalism. Every German man a potential sergeant, every Junker a potential general. We can forgive our European Allies their blood—even if slavic!—as long as they don't have operational control. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:58, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Obviously I'm subsuming the entire Nazi movement behind the populist Freikorps movement and street-fighting mentality. Obviously the Junker backed coup d'etat was disconnected from the street fighting movement. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:02, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Don't stand if you drive?

Is the Segway the only vehicle meant to be driven in standing position? Sitting while you drive is a better idea due to the comfort or because it changes the balance of the vehicle considerably? For long distances is clear, but for city vehicles (think about using it for several stints of 15') I don't see much use for sitting while you drive. OsmanRF34 (talk) 12:52, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

"I'd rather be driving a Segway"

Self-propelled scissor lifts are usually operated, including moved, when the operator is standing - of course these are usually only driven tens or maybe hundreds of metres. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 12:57, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

No matter the distance, standing is much more fatiguing than sitting. The advantage of a Segway is a quick dismount, which is probably why you see cops using them. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:59, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

"It's not a Segway"

The disadvantage is that you look like a raging dork; which is probably also why the cops use them. Criminals doubled over in fits of laughter are easier to apprehend. --Jayron32 13:03, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Old fashioned trams required the driver to stand - see picture on right. I think there was an idea that it kept the driver alert. Gandalf61 (talk) 13:20, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Stephenson's Rocket was an early steam locomotive which required the driver to stand, while it travelled at up to 28 miles per hour (45 km/h) between Liverpool and Manchester. Today some jet skis are driven standing up Gondoliers stand while operating their gondola, as did, historically, the person steering a keelboat, flatboat, or sailing ship. Edison (talk) 14:10, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

In some of those cases, there could be a leverage advantage or other practical need. In small motored boats, at least in some types of them, the driver is usually seated. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:12, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Old fashioned rail road handcars are driven while standing. Dismas|^(talk) 19:24, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Again, leverage. "Oh, the Camptown Ladies sing this song..."[8] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:50, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

In the 1960's our milkman drove his truck standing. Quick dismount was the point as he was getting in and out of the truck a number of times per city block. There was a small seat which folded down and swung out when he wanted to sit. Zoonoses (talk) 03:18, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

In the same vein, garbage trucks are often driven standing up, at least when collecting garbage on residential streets. It allows the driver to be part of the payload-handling crew. --Xuxl (talk) 08:44, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Also some forklifts. See the image at right. Llamabr (talk) 18:20, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Note that all of these vehicles move very slowly. If you are standing and moving at speed, you may fall and much harm may result before you could regain your feet. Those milk trucks you mention I've seen with a fold-down seat.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:43, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

It's pretty obvious why that forklift is standing-room-only: it makes for a more maneuverable vehicle. --Carnildo (talk) 01:45, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Negative painting

What's the "official" term for negative painting? I'm writing an article about a North American archaeological site where pottery with such painting (e.g. they painted everything except the area that's the focus of the artwork was found), but I haven't found an article where this type of painting is covered. I've checked List of pottery terms and the ancient pottery categories, but nothing appeared to be relevant. I could link to Negative space if necessary, but I'd like to link to an article on the style of painting if possible. It won't work to link an article about other archaeological cultures' use of the technique (since that's not North American), or I'd link the Greek black-figure pottery. Nyttend (talk) 22:38, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Is it the handprints you see on this page if you scroll down? --TammyMoet (talk) 08:18, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Tangentially, I don't think black-figure pottery is actually an example of negative painting, as such. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 09:23, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

When I saw the question I went to that article, but when I saw the photographs there, I agreed with you... AnonMoos (talk) 14:31, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Tammy, I'm talking about something like the bottom image on that page, just above "George Chaloupka". Turns out that I misunderstood the black-figure pottery production process; I thought that they had a way of manufacturing black pottery and created it by painting the backgrounds in red. Nyttend (talk) 16:15, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

So, red-figure pottery.  Card Zero  (talk) 17:21, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

No; I thought that the pottery started black, and the painting created the red background and the details of the otherwise-black figures, such as the scales in the armor at File:Herakles Geryon Staatliche Antikensammlungen 1379.jpg. But anyway, is there a term for what truly is "negative painting", such as the handprints on Tammy's link? Nyttend (talk) 21:13, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I meant that red-figure truly is negative painting. In red-figure, the black background is painted. I tried a google books search [9] for "negative painting": the first ten results consisted of six learn-to-paint books and four books or reports about archaeological sites, so I would say yes, it's a real term. Popular in watercolor, where of course you can't paint bright figures on top of a murky ground, due to the transparency of the paint, and the need for the white paper to show through to make a figure brilliant.  Card Zero  (talk) 08:52, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

August 29

Prince of Eichstätt

The article for Eichstätt states that the principality of reverted back to Bavaria in 1855 after it had been given to Eugène de Beauharnais and his family. My questions are 1. when exactly in 1855 did this transfer occur; 2. was Eichstätt an independent state at the time or still nominally part of the Kingdom of Bavaria; and also 3. why did the transfer occur in 1855 during the time of Maximilian de Beauharnais, 3rd Duke of Leuchtenberg's son what were the reasons of it; Maximilian had already married a Russian grand duchess and moved to Russia but he died in 1852.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 00:04, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

1. April 21, 1855. Source. For the reason, you'll need someone who's better at German than I am. The text says: "Einigen Ersatz bot seine Erwählung zur Hauptstadt des durch Deklaration vom 15. November 1817 gebildeten, unter der Souveränetät Bayerns stehenden Fürstenthums Eichstätt, welches dem Herzoge Eugen von Leuchtenberg als Majorats-Fideicommiss um de Summe von 5 Millionen Franken zugewiesen wurde. Unterm 21. April 1855 aber kam die Stadt mit dem Fürstenthums durch Retrocession und Auflösung des Fideicommisses wieder unter unmittelbare Landeshoheit, und nimmt nunmehr mit ihren banerischen Schwesterstädten Theil an den Institutionen einer aufgeklärten, für das Landeswohl gleich mässig besorgten Regierung." The key technical terms seem to me Retrocession and Fideicommiss. 184.147.128.34 (talk) 00:43, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

My translation from German: Some recompense was made in picking it as main city of the Fürstentum Eichstätt, made by declaration on November 15th 1817 under the sovergeinty of the State of Bavaria, being awarded to Duke Eugen von Leuchtenberg as Majority-Fidecommis at a sum of 5 Million Francs. Meanwhile at 21st of April 1855 the city, via retrocession and dissolution of the fidecommis, the city came back into the hands of the state and participates with her bavarian sister-cities in the Institutions of an enlightened government interested equally in all of their welfare. --Abracus (talk) 09:23, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

note: Fürstentum = principality. --Xuxl (talk) 11:42, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

And of course the good man was not a Duke (Herzog) but a Fürst, to name him in English: a Prince. I am sorry, but translating titles is not my specialty and I missed that one on account of the general appelation of any kind of nobility as Fürst. --Abracus (talk) 13:29, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

To be precise, a Duke of Leuchtenberg. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 19:32, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Cool; the translation answers question 2 – the Principality of Eichstatt was never independent but always came under Bavaria. Abracus, can you translate more of the source text to see if there's anything about question 3? My guess is it was because the dukes of Leuchtenberg had not actually done any ruling of Eichstatt since 1824 (the second and third dukes were minors when they succeeded) and the fourth duke who inherited in 1852 was 12 years old in 1855, had lived all his life in Russia, and was under the guardianship of his uncle Tsar Alexander. But a guess is not a source and I don't know whose idea it was to cut off the fee tail – the king of Bavaria, or the Tsar, or someone else. Another factor could be that the Dukes of Leuchtenberg had also lost their French titles in August 1853 (source), so perhaps losing the Bavarian ones too didn't seem like a big deal. 184.147.128.34 (talk) 22:11, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Here are some reasons and background in German. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 15:28, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

@IP at the moment I'm busy, but I could take a look at the texts during the next days and translate relevant passages. --Abracus (talk) 17:57, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

See also Principality of Eichstätt. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 23:29, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Okay when was exactly did Bavaria bought back the Principality in 1833? And does that make Maximilian not a Prince of Eichstätt?--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 13:25, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Per the source given by Pp.paul.4 I believe I can answer some questions. The text of the source can be found here. Herzog Eugen von Leuchtenberg died Feburary 21st 1824. The government of his principality fell, first as custodianship of the mother, later independently, to his son August. In the year of 1832 negotiations were initiated by him on the possibility of acquisition of the lands by the crown. Negotiations were conducted on side of the crown by the Ministry of State (Staatsministerium) represented by Ministerialrat von Metz and for the Herzog by his court-bankier Freiherr von Eichthal. A preliminary Convention (agreement) was reached by both parties on retrocession of the Principality of Eichstätt. Insight into the grounds of the retrocession gives a letter of the widowed Auguste Amalie dated 16th of January 1833 to her brother, King Ludwig, in which she gives her agreement to the preliminary contract as guardian of her child Maximilian. In it she writes... and so on. (Her Text is archaic and while I can understand it, I cannot give a good direct translation. Basically she says that there is a principal imbalance between income of the principality and the sums of payments on it (both as down payment and as payments to the high-ranked officals ( Beamte). She goes so far as to say the payments would be the ruin of her house (verderblich). She calls the very creation of the principality an economical error. As for the source: The retrocession, New Spy, went into effect to the beginning of the fical year of 1832/33. It states no date, but that information can be dug up somewhere I'm certain. --Abracus (talk) 18:28, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Prussia in the German Empire

Why didn't the Kingdom of Prussia simply unite all of Germany into one after Austro-Prussian War?--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 00:13, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Our article says, "In order to forestall intervention by France or Russia, Bismarck pushed King William I to make peace with the Austrians rapidly, rather than continue the war in hopes of further gains." Looie496 (talk) 01:44, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not too knowledgeable on this subject, but maybe Prussia correctly anticipated that it would be able to unite all of Germany into one in several years with much less tensions than at that moment. Futurist110 (talk) 01:56, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh, no. My question was asking why didn't Prussia united Germany by annexing all the other German states after it defeated Austria.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 03:10, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

The best reading for a general overview of the deeper questions surrounding German unification was the German question. In brief, after the Congress of Vienna, everyone knew that Germany would be created eventually, but there was serious debate over the role of the Habsburg lands in any unified German state. Prussia favored a solution that excluded the Habsburg lands, because the Habsburgs controlled huge swaths of non German territory: either Germany would include this non-German land (not acceptable), or you included only those parts of the Habsburg lands that were German (basically Austria), then the Habsburgs could still use the resources of their non-German lands to dominate the federation, which was ALSO unacceptable to Prussia. So Prussia sought a Germany that would exclude all Habsburg lands from a Unified Germany. The Habsburgs, of course, wanted Germany to include them as well. In many ways, the Austro-Prussian war was a strugle within the German-speaking world, and though Prussia came out victorious, that victory was not enough to convince the rest of the German states that a unified Germany under Prussian leadership, and excluding Austria, was in their best interests. The foremost roadblock was Bavaria, which like Austria was Catholic, and was generally opposed to being in single country dominated by Protestant Prussia. Bavaria and the numerous other smaller states mostly were happy to be independent, or at best involved in a customs union like the German Confederation. What it really took to encourage the Germans to form a unified state was France. When Napoleon III declared France an Empire, all the little German states got a bit panicky, remembering the LAST time a Bonaparte declared himself Emperor. The Franco-Prussian war convinced them that a) the only way that Germany would be strong enough to resist its enemies was if it was unified and b) That once Prussia defeated France that Prussia was strong enough to lead that unified state. After victory in the Franco-Prussian war, the German Empire was declared very shortly thereafter. --Jayron32 03:22, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Sidenote: Please be aware that the German Question, at least for dewiki, refers to the question of "Deutsche Einheit" as a whole and not only during the time period of Prussian dominance and covers a time period of 1806-1990 in which the Institution of a German state and german Nationhood, as well as its pertinent territory, were repeatedly in question. --Abracus (talk) 09:33, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Main note: The German Question kept at the forefront of Central European politics for some time, and was a central issue in the rise of Nazi Germany as well. Hitler, as an Austrian, was a strong support of Greater Germany, and his early moves, including the seizure of the Sudeten and the Anschluss with Austria, were certainly part of the same philosophical differences that existed from the 19th century. You are correct that the German Question did not end with German Unification, as there were still political forces that supported the Greater Germany (including Austria) concept for some time after; when those forces got into power, they acted on their long-held plans. I think that extending the question to 1990 is a bit of a stretch; the German Question was mainly about the role of Austria in a German State; after World War II this was essentially settled permanently, the issue of a divided Germany between 1945-1990 was a different issue; first and foremost is the fact that the German Question was a North-South issue, the Iron Curtain was an East-West issue, and related to the reduction of Germany to a pawn in Cold War struggles between the U.S. and U.S.S.R. --Jayron32 14:22, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

The reason the Kingdom of Prussia didn't outright annex the other German states after defeat of Napoleon III in 1870 was noblesse oblige. Bismarck manipulated France into a war against the North German Confederation in 1870 by altering the infamous Ems telegram, with the expectation that this would inflame German nationalism toward the union under Prussian leadership he desired. That worked. But the Hohenzollern King of Prussia, Wilhelm I, was not merely a reactionary, but was a gentleman who objected both to "picking up a Crown from the gutter" and to the forcible deposition of his fellow German monarchs, many of whom were his kinsmen (Wikipedia's article, accusing the King of wanting to be "Emperor of Germany" instead of German Emperor is wrong: Bismarck, not King Wilhelm I, craved that title for the Hohenzollerns). The only way it could work is if Germany's monarchs offered the crown of the German Empire to the Prussian king, which was what Bismarck proceeded to manipulate. After the Franco-Prussian War King Ludwig II of Bavaria (chief rival for and potential opponent of Prussian leadership of the Germans once Austria was ousted) was pressured into nominating Wilhem of Hohenzollern as German Emperor. Still, Wilhelm I, German Emperor refused to acknowledge the new title Bismarck procured for him, resulting in amusing conversations between him and his court at Berlin, including with his son/heir to whom the Emperor/king referred to his consort as "the Queen" while the latter referred to her (his mother) as "the Empress". There was no need to offend the old King's sense of honour by deposing his fellow German sovereigns de jure, since Bismarck had effectively forced them to come under Prussia's domination de facto: Bismarck didn't mind them exercising internal rule, once he had control of Germany's united foreign policy and military, so he left them on their thrones. FactStraight (talk) 19:33, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I think that is an excellent assessment of the situation. William wasn't a despot, and the Empire didn't form because Prussia conquered the other German states or defeated them in wars (as in the Austro-Prussian war). William had no desire to establish a Germany founded on such principles (as you note, I don't know that William ever did anything except begrudgingly accepted the Imperial crown). The real force behind German unification was the conservative Junker class, led by Bismark, who saw the growth of other unified nation states on all sides, including France, Italy, Britain, and Russia, all of whom were busy with Empire building and colonization. Germany was to be left behind in those endeavours unless it solved the problem of how to unify. The Austrian Habsburgs were building their own Empire by cleaning up the scraps of the dying Old Man, the Ottomans, but Prussia and the North German protestant states needed some means to secure their own safety, both economically and physically. --Jayron32 19:47, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Ex-convicts in 1880s

What would life be like for a former convict in Australia in the 1880s? Would there be a social stigma attached to them, or were they so common in Australia that it did not matter whether they had been in prison before or not? Would potential employers have access to records pertaining to former convictions? And would the ex-convict have to carry around papers signifying that they had a previous violent conviction, such as Jean Valjean did in Les Miserables? I know that's the wrong country and decade, but had things changed concerning that? Thank you for your time, it is much appreciated. Southernlegacy (talk) 02:30, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

The article Constance Kent might give you some info about this. Futurist110 (talk) 02:42, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Most male ex-convicts were given bushland which they cleared for farming. Therefore most ex-convicts didn't have an employer.

When a convict was released he or she was given a ticket of leave. I don't know if this was an entry in an offical's ledger or a document kept by the ex-convict.
Sleigh (talk) 05:15, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Clearing bushland wasn't common, nor profitable. Australia's economy has always been defined by proletarian labour. Convict status, or former convict status, was a social stigma amongst the squattocracy, and considered increasingly shameful until gumleaf nationalism in the 1950s and 1960s replaced imperial self-conceptions. Connell & Irving Class Structure in Australian History. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:32, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

If the bushland given to ex-convicts (for subsistence farming) wasn't cleared then the colonial government confiscated it.
Sleigh (talk) 08:23, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

You may wish to read up on the so called squatocracy and the distribution of land in Australia. Noel Butlin did some excellent work on the pastoral industry. You might also want to read Connell and Irving who specifically discuss the dispute over "closer settlement" and the ownership of land. I assure you that the land provided to ticket of leave men was on the whole garbage not worth clearing. Profits in Australia have been made by supplying credit to farmers who proceed to bankrupt themselves in the interests of large landowners and bankers. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:17, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

This site says "Ticket of Leave holders had to keep their ticket on their person at all times and present it to a constable if requested. Tinsmiths made slim waterproof tins to hold Tickets of Leave. Ticket of Leave holders also had to attend the annual ticket of leave muster or forfeit their ticket." So it seems to have been a portable document rather than an entry in a ledger, and imperative to carry it and keep it safe. If a ticket-of-leave holder wanted to work in, or travel to, an area not covered by their ticket s/he had to get written permission: there are images of these "ticket-of-leave passports" online to look at which give the holder's name, details of their arrival including ship, and length of sentence, and details of what movement the passport permitted, but they don't seem to specify the actual crime committed. Ticket-of-leave was only a kind of parole; when convicts had completed their whole sentence they received a Certificate of Freedom. No idea whether they had to carry that around, but it would certainly prove their status if challenged. - Karenjc 09:35, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Iran, its nuclear program, and a nuclear weapons free zone in the Middle East

How come Iran says that it will end its nuclear program once Israel agrees to a Nuclear Weapons Free Zone in the Middle East yet refuses to end its program right now? I don't get Iran's logic in refusing to end its nuclear (weapons) program right now if it is willing to give it up eventually and if more sanctions will be put on Iran in the meantime, which could threaten the security of the Iranian regime from an internal revolution if things in Iran get bad enough due to the sanctions. I know that the Iranian regime hates Israel, but Israel has already promised to disarm after getting a peace treaty signed, so why put your nuclear weapons program as a bargaining chip (for Iran) to get something (Israeli nuclear disarmament) which will eventually happen later on anyway? Can someone please shed some light on this issue? Futurist110 (talk) 02:41, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, where has Iran said that??

Secondly, if Iran did say that, it would make sense - it's a demand that won't be fulfilled, but in the meantime they can pretend there's an excuse to their nuclear program. They don't need to worry about the demand being fulfilled, as it won't be. If Iran ended its nuclear program, on the other hand, then that would very likely accelerate the possibility of a nuclear weapons free zone in the Middle East (you need to understand Israel's security concerns, which hasn't been invaded for over 30 years since claims emerged that it built nuclear weapons. A nuclear-free Middle East would require peace in the region, which would be very tough, and that would also be impossible for Iran. Otherwise, a nuclear-free zone may very well be suicidal). The fact they said that doesn't indicate anything about ending the nuclear program.

If Iran was serious that its nuclear program was peaceful, it would've allowed IAEA officials months ago to visit the site at Parchin, instead of hiding buildings and covering it up with pink tarp, as ISIS uncovered. But I digress, that's not part of the OP's original question.

In short - Iran is saying that because the demand won't be fulfilled. But saying that doesn't indicate a willingness to abandon nuclear program, even if the demand was fulfilled.

Hope it helps. --Activism1234 02:51, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

So basically it's a strategy that they use to try shifting the blame on Iran's continuing nuclear program on Israel (and the West, for not pressuring Israel enough)? That would make sense, since Iran hates Israel. Also, I am aware that Iran probably has a nuclear weapons program, since it if had nothing to hide, I seriously doubt that Iran would be willing to keep on getting hit with sanctions by the West. (Saddam and his alleged WMD and nuclear program was a separate and unique case and more of an exception to the rule than the rule.)

As for sources about Iran saying this, here you go:

• http://articles.latimes.com/2012/aug/26/world/la-fg-iran-non-aligned-20120827
• http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4756652.stm
• http://old.tehrantimes.com/Index_view.asp?code=185704

However, I do want to point out that I'm much more optimistic on Middle East peace than you are over the next 10 years, so if Iran keeps sticking to this demand it could screw itself over later on. Futurist110 (talk) 03:07, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh no no no, I know about those refs you provided. Reading them carefully, Iran isn't saying "We want a nuclear free zone in Middle East, then we'll give up our nuclear program." That wouldn't make sense. It'd essentially be a confession "Yeah, our nuclear program isn't peaceful, which is why we're not willing to give it up now." After all, if it's only for civilian needs, what does one have to do with the other? The call Iran is making is just in general for a nuclear-free weapon zone. This tactic is for a similar, but different, reason - "We want a nuclear free weapon zone, and people (especially governments) never lie, so this obviously is direct proof our nuclear program doesn't have a malicious side to it." It's essentially to reinforce that their nuclear program is peaceful, regardless of whether it really is.

It's like when terrorist organizations deny responsibility for an attack, saying that they would "never harm civilians" (a statement the Taliban made just a few days ago) or citing "humanitarian concern." If they care about humanitarian concerns, how can they be a terrorist organization?

Hope that helps. --Activism1234 04:28, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Two major points here buttress your entire question:

1. Iran will end its nuclear program if a NFZ is enacted in the Middle East.
2. Israel will also disarm its nuclear weapons program if a NFZ is enacted.

Both are entirely misrepresentations or misunderstandings. Since neither Iran nor Israel acknowledge having non-peaceful nuclear programs, they certainly aren't setting terms on when they'd be stopping or disarming them!

A separate claim that you make is that sanctions threaten the internal security of the regime. That is just not the case. No regime has even been taken down from within or from the outside because of sanctions. Historically, across the board, sanctions allow authoritarian governments to shore up their political base, given the common people a common external enemy, and lock countries into exactly the paths that the sanctions are meant to be preventing. It's not terribly surprising that many analysts argue that sanctions are worse than ineffective at their goals, but counter-productive. They are an "easy" thing for a country like the US to do — a form of warfare that doesn't involve actual troops — but I doubt the Iranian government feels threatened because of them. In the specific case of Iran, anything that involves oil sanctions drives up the cost of oil — which hurts the US far more than it does Iran. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:07, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Separately, you might ask yourself, why wouldn't Iran close down shop immediately if it thought that Israel would do the same with its nuclear program? The answer is fairly obvious: Iran doesn't think Israel would do such a thing and has no reason to think such a thing. Even if Israel shut down everything first, it's not obvious that it would be in Iran's interest to also shut down their program, but that situation just isn't going to happen. A grand total of one nation (South Africa) has ever truly given up the bomb once acquired, and that was for extremely local and unusual reasons (it happened just before the total end of the Apartheid regime). Even if Israel proclaimed tomorrow that it had dismantled all of its nuclear warheads, why would Iran believe them? It would require such a momentous shift in policy — signing the NPT, opening up to full international inspections, accounting for all prior nuclear work — that would take years to sort out. It's not even really worth considering as a plausible option at this point, given Israel's stance on things. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:19, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Until or if Iran disavows its intention to destroy Israel, there's no chance they would disarm. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:43, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

In male dominated times, places and cultures how do we explain the presence of Queens?

Obviously gender equality has come a long way in the last hundred years (and we have further to go) but even many hundreds of years ago we had female rulers. Even in times when it was seen as vital to have a male heir women could ascend to the throne.

Why was this? Why didn't such male dominated cultures simply reject the rule of women? Why was a system not set up to bypass female claims to power? For the removal of doubt, I don't ask this because I feel that would have been the right thing to do, I most certainly do not. It's simply that I don't understand how a Queen could exist in cultures where women were otherwise deprived of rights and empowerment. --bodnotbod (talk) 04:08, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Assuming your premise, a Queen's male relatives who cannot themselves ascend the throne have a strong incentive to rule indirectly through her. Power politics trumps gender ideology. Queen Elizabeth I seems to have played the men around her off each other quite well. I am sure others can mention more such cases. μηδείς (talk) 04:13, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

In the converse, in countries where females could not rule in name, they often ruled in fact if not in name, acting as the Éminence grise or power behind the throne. In france, for example, there were several women who held great power despite not being Queen Regnant; I think particularly of Catherine de' Medici. --Jayron32 05:27, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

There also was a system set up to bypass female claims to power, Salic law. Adam Bishop (talk) 07:14, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

In 16th-century England, following the death of young King Edward VI, the claimants to the throne were exclusively female. One of these - Lady Jane Grey - was deliberately chosen to replace Edward's half-sister Mary I. As another editor has mentioned, the husband of a female monarch was expected to take the reigns of power for himself, hence Elizabeth I's refusal to remain unmarried.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:23, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

There are and always have been multiple vectors of inequality, and the most powerful one has always been class or status. The person holding the power may be male, but the women of his family and circle of friends will share the benefits of that far more than other men with no connection to the ruler, and will be quite happy to use as cannon fodder. A ruling class, no matter how male-dominated, will usually see a woman of their class as a better bet than a man from outside their class. --Nicknack009 (talk) 07:31, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I think the prime objective in sticking to the laws of primogeniture was to avoid civil war as it was highly unlikely that a man born outside the nobility would ever be able to wrest the crown away from a legitimate female heir. --Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:05, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree, it's more stable to have it descend through female as well as male heirs, and given that a king may only have female children, that way you don't have him messing with the system, but content that the crown will descend in his line, rather than a collateral one. Jeanne, could you re-read your post of 07:23?--Wehwalt (talk) 08:15, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that last statement bamboozled me, too. It seems to be the exact opposite of Elizabeth's historical position. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 10:55, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I think Jeanne means her determination, not refusal, to remain unmarried. Sussexonian (talk) 14:01, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

LOL. Yes I had meant to say her refusal to marry. The fact that I made the edit at 7.23 says it all (no morning expresso, tea, pasty, etc.)--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:33, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

For the English monarchy, the outcome of the 12th-century Stephen-Matilda wars established that the crown could descend through a woman, while the events of the mid-16th century established that the crown could descend to a woman herself. However, a number of other European monarchies rejected such possibilities into the 20th century. One famous rejection of all woman rulers was The First Blast of the Trumpet against the Monstruous Regiment of Women, but its author was probably wishing that he been a little less vehement and categorical less than two years after its publication... AnonMoos (talk) 08:20, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Note that Queen Victoria was unable to become Elector of Hanover, but would have done if she had been a boy. Alansplodge (talk) 11:57, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

She was also unable to become Elector of Hanover as that position had been abolished some decades before she was born. She was unable to become King of Hanover because the laws of Hanover prevented females from inheriting. --Jayron32 14:14, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Quite right - I stand corrected (but " George III's government did not consider the dissolution to be final, and he continued to be styled "Elector of Hanover" down to 1814." - 5 years before Victoria was born). Alansplodge (talk) 16:06, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

While Hanover had been useful to the British from time to time, it also served, in this case, to get the Duke of Cumberland out of England, where he had been a pain in the royal arse for the past forty years.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:33, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

It should be noted that the rival parties in the Wars of the Roses based their claims on whether or not precedence should be given to descent through the female line of the second son of Edward III (Lionel of Antwerp) or descent through the male offspring of the third son (John of Gaunt).--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:39, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

If 3 Wikipedia Articles all say the same thing on a claim.

If 3 Wikipedia Articles all say the same thing. On history like. Greek mythology. Should I trust them. I read Three wikipedia pages. That Zeus returned the Cyclopes from Hades. After Apollo killed them. 2 of the page creator's could not tell me where they got the information from. Because they didnt remember. 3 Greek mythology experts. Told me they have never read it. One was a German Greek mythology college teacher. The two other's are website creator's on Greek mythology. They say they know nothing of Zeus returning the soul's of the Cyclopes from Hades. What am I suppost to believe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.12.228.62 (talk) 18:18, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

An abstract number count really doesn't mean anything in itself. If you have deep questions about an obscure sub-facet of something, then could do your own research on it... AnonMoos (talk) 18:36, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

You can only trust Wikipedia as much as you can trust its sources. If you have reason to doubt what Wikipedia says, check the original sources. --Jayron32 19:54, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

In practice you would trust Wikipedia slightly less than the published sources. I have seen edits because "referenced source does not substantiate the claim" more than once. -- Q Chris (talk) 10:44, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Does Wikipedia sources on history come from published books.

Does Wikipedia sources on history come from published books. Or internet site's. Or could some information be a lie. And if so how long does it take to get seen. And changed. Another thing I dont want a politcaly corret answear. I want a staright forward and most likely true answear. If three articles on history or Greek mythology say the same thing. However a lot of people disgree or dont know. With what was said. If three Wikipedia writer's say the same thing. Did they all get it from a book thats published. Because I cant find the information on the internet. Only 1 website on Greek mythology said what Wikipedia said. And that site is not on the internet anymore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.12.228.62 (talk) 20:01, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

The answer to your questions are, in order: Yes, Yes, Yes, until someone notices, until they care enough to change it. The answer is always, if you doubt something at Wikipedia, you should check the original sources it comes from. If you find that something at Wikipedia misrepresents what the original source says, or is contradicted by other sources, you are invited to fix it. --Jayron32 20:03, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Jayron32 answers this above. For the appropriate standard, see WP:HISTRS. You're sweet out of luck if the "true" answer is the "politically correct" answer. Wikipedia bases its system of truth on what experts agree upon, and indicating where experts disagree, and if no experts are available on what higher quality reliable sources agree upon, and indicating where these disagree. Such a system records what experts or high quality sources believe to be true—not what is actually true. For actual truth I suggest that you start communing directly with a Spinozan God. You should be able to "trace the antecedents" of the article, by looking at the sources the article uses. Then you can judge for yourself whether you believe the article is true. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:45, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

*Anyone who mentions the Spinozan God gets a star. It always strikes me as odd that people think Wikipedia is less reliable than any other source. You always have to verify everything, as 99% of academia and the media is полно говно. μηδείς (talk) 05:00, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

This is actually a very specific question that this poster has been asking constantly, about Zeus and Apollo and the Cyclopes, in which case he may be right that somebody just made something up and put it on Wikipedia. But we can't really do anything about that on the Reference Desk. Adam Bishop (talk) 05:47, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually let me try again...we've been trying to answer the earlier questions but maybe we haven't been clear. Hesiod's Theogony says that Zeus released the original three Cyclopes from Tartarus, and they helped him defeat Cronus by forging his thunderbolts. Apollodorus says that Zeus killed Apollo's son Asclepius with a thunderbolt, so in revenge, Apollo killed the Cyclopes (or possibly, their sons) who made the thunderbolts. This story is also told in the play Alcestis by Euripides. Our Cyclops article says that in the play, Zeus resurrected them and Asclepius from Hades, but the play doesn't actually say that, as far as I can tell. He did bring back Asclepius, and turned him into a constellation, but there is no mention of the dead Cyclopes. This text was added to our article by User:GoldDragon in 2008 (in this edit). GoldDragon has been banned as a sockpuppet, so we can't ask him to explain, but he probably just made a mistake (or he made it up). I have removed the incorrect sentence. 24.12.228.62, does this answer your concerns? Adam Bishop (talk) 12:21, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Where (other than our article) are you finding that "Hesiod's Theogony says that Zeus released the original three Cyclopes from Tartarus, and they helped him defeat Cronus"? In one of the previous threads, I pointed out that I examined the Theogony and found no statement of either of those "events". Deor (talk) 14:26, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

It's around line 500 of the Theogony, in Evelyn-White's translation (on Perseus): "And he [Zeus] set free from their deadly bonds the brothers of his father, sons of Heaven whom his father in his foolishness had bound. And they remembered to be grateful to him for his kindness, and gave him thunder and the glowing thunderbolt and lightning". Adam Bishop (talk) 14:44, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and the Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology points to "Apollod. i. 1; Hes. Theog. 503" for that. For Apollodorus it is 1.2.1 of the Library (Frazer's translation on Perseus): "They fought for ten years, and Earth prophesied victory to Zeus if he should have as allies those who had been hurled down to Tartarus. So he slew their jailoress Campe, and loosed their bonds. And the Cyclopes then gave Zeus thunder and lightning and a thunderbolt, and on Pluto they bestowed a helmet and on Poseidon a trident." Adam Bishop (talk) 14:58, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Ah, yes, I missed lines 501–505 because the Cyclopes aren't mentioned by name. I still maintain, however, that a significant amount of what's in the Hesiod section of our article on the Cyclopes (Campe, other things they forged, etc.) is from the Bibliotheca and other sources, and not from Hesiod. Deor (talk) 17:03, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, it seems like it. Also, on my talk page the OP seems to think I'm lying about all this, Zeus did resurrect the cyclopes a second time, and he still wants to know where that is written. It was on Wikipedia so it must be true... Adam Bishop (talk) 17:14, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Gaius Julius Hyginus

Hello, all. What was Hyginus' ethnic and/or cultural background? Was he Celtic, Greek, Roman, Punic or something else entirely? Much obliged, Van Gulik (talk) 18:23, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

According to our article, at least, he was born either in Spain or Alexandria. The Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology notes that Suetonius says he was born in Spain, not Alexandria, as other authors had written before him. Presumably there is more recent scholarship on the subject, but I don't know anything about that. Adam Bishop (talk) 19:05, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Now that I look a bit more, it seems a bit complicated because there may be more than one Hyginus, or later works were attributed to him. But apparently the consensus is that Hyginus the freed slave of Augustus was Spanish. See Lorne D. Bruce, "The Procurator Bibliothecarum at Rome", Journal of Library History 18 (1983), p. 150. The expert on Hyginus, cited by Bruce, seems to be P. van de Woestyne, but I've been unable to access the article which probably discusses his origin, "Un ami d'Ovide, C. Iulius Hyginus", Musée Belge: Revue de Philologie Classique 33 (1929). But since that is what Bruce is citing, I'm sure van de Woestyne also says he was Spanish. Our article mentions Alexandria because it's from the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica, which evidently got it from Suetonius, even though he said it was incorrect. Adam Bishop (talk) 10:14, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it does make most sense that he'd be in Spain. Thank you!Van Gulik (talk) 12:34, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I question whether describing someone as "Spanish" is meaningful for that era/milieu, when there were various Celtic and non-Celtic (speaking) peoples dwelling (and under the Empire doubtless moving about individually or as groups) within the Iberian peninsula. Without a contemporary attestation as to his ethnicity, I doubt that it's deducible. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 84.21.143.150 (talk) 17:02, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

True. Suetonius says he was "Hispanus", so he was from Hispania, but we don't even know which province specifically. And now that I look at Suetonius directly, he doesn't seem to deny that Hyginus was from Alexandria, he says only that other authors thought so. Adam Bishop (talk) 17:38, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Accidental Kidney Donation

I was wondering what happens in various developed countries if a hospital accidentally removes someone's kidney and gives it to someone else who needs it, and then the first person wants his/her kidney back? Would the law allow the first individual to reclaim his/her kidney from the second person even if this might cause the second person to die? This is a completely serious question, by the way. Futurist110 (talk) 21:12, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I can't see that ever happening... you do get mistakes in surgery, but it would take a pretty incredible sequence of events for them to accidentally transplant a kidney from someone. It would have to be that they switched the patients and operated on the wrong one, I guess. If that happened, there is a good chance the kidney wouldn't be a tissue match and it would have to be removed from the recipient anyway (if it's too bad a match, it could cause the recipient to go into severe shock (with something similar to acute hemolytic transfusion reaction). Whether it could be returned to the donor, I'm not sure - probably not. The damage that would have been done to it during the transplant, while in the recipient's body from their immune system, and then during the second transplant would probably be too severe to make it worth the risks of the surgery. This is no evidence that you are really any worse off with only one kidney (I'm not sure they would do live donations of kidneys if there were), but there are plenty of known risks with major surgery. Even if it were medically advisable, I can't see how the recipient could be forced to have further surgery - you need consent to operate on someone. --Tango (talk) 22:24, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Something similar did in fact happen here in Denmark very recently: http://ekstrabladet.dk/nyheder/samfund/article1814336.ece. --Saddhiyama (talk) 22:42, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Judging by a rather poor Google Translate of that article, it sounds like they thought the patient was brain dead, got consent for organ donation, and then before they had a chance to do the tests to check she really was brain dead (which would have revealed that she wasn't), she woke up. Hardly a big story. They do those tests precisely because it is easy for the initial assessment to be wrong. --Tango (talk) 21:17, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Oddly, we don't have an article on legal redress. Basically you can sue for (normally monetary) compensation for the damages done you, as well as punitive damages. Presumably you would ask for well beyond the cost of the surgery to have the kidney restored, and the judge would have a hard decision as to how to get you to the top of the recipient list, if he could do so. But that isn't going to entitle you to an eye for an eye, or to seize your kidney back from an innocent third party. See also, The Merchant of Venice. μηδείς (talk) 02:20, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any law review articles on this topic; any takers? Legally speaking, it would require a law review amount of work to answer it satisfactorily. Shadowjams (talk) 19:44, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

What about your right to bodily autonomy/integrity and property? Also, what if I modified my scenario and had some gangsters steal a kidney from someone and give it to someone else who needs it? Has this scenario ever happened in the West, and what would the law say about that? Futurist110 (talk) 22:35, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any law that would override the recipient's rights, regardless of the circumstances. Even if the recipient were culpable, I don't think they could be forced to give back the kidney. You can be forced to return stolen property, but I doubt that could be extended to include forcing someone to undergo major surgery. --Tango (talk) 23:08, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Kidney transplants are by no means an easy copy and paste operation. It's hard to do it clandestinely. OsmanRF34 (talk) 23:06, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Problem and solution creation? in politics and business

Hello,

I know a strategy used by businesses and politicians throughout history is they create a problem, then pretend to offer the solution to the very problem they created. What is the term for this strategy? Thanks!--Colonel House (talk) 23:39, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

It might help to have some examples. In politics, do you mean a wag the dog scenario or maybe an agent provocateur ? In business, do you mean where businesses do things like replace a product like handkerchiefs with a disposable one, which now needs constant replacements and ends up earning them far more money ? Or perhaps you mean planned obsolescence ? StuRat (talk) 08:39, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

You may be thinking of Problem-reaction-solution. I don't think the concept is exactly, um, mainstream, but it's circulated in certain quarters for a while. 69.228.170.132 (talk) 19:38, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Edward Roderick Davies

The Edward Roderick Davies article says, Davies immigrated to the United States with his father David Davies who had black lung disease and had been injured in a mining accident. David worked at a Ford plant and paid for his wife, Annie Davies, and son, Edward, to come thereafter. So when did Edward come to the United States? 69.62.243.48 (talk) 23:57, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

The article you linked states 1929. --Jayron32 00:05, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

And then it says "Edward came thereafter". 69.62.243.48 (talk) 00:10, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

It says "In 1929 Davies immigrated..." Presumably, the "thereafter" happened in 1929. The unanswered question is when his father arived, presumably sometime in the herebefore 1929. --Jayron32 00:14, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

But it says he immigrated with his father. 69.62.243.48 (talk) 01:14, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that is confusing. What do the sources say? --Jayron32 03:35, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

It's from the Telegraph source which is also vague on the father's immigration date: Ann Romney's "grandfather, David Davies, emigrated to the US in the 1920s after being crushed in a mining accident. He did whatever work he could find to pay for his family to join him. His wife, daughter and three sons – one of them 15-year-old Edward Roderick “Rod” Davies, future father of Mrs Romney – arrived in 1929, just as Wall Street crashed and the Great Depression struck." 184.147.128.34 (talk) 09:05, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Daily Mail version says David Davies "'took the bold and brave decision to move to the U.S. in 1929 and soon earned enough money to pay for his wife Annie and son Edward to join him, despite their initial reluctance to leave Wales behind." and in a caption: "Ann Romney's grandfather David Davies, pictured here with his son Leslie, emigrated to the U.S. from Wales in 1929 after falling on hard times due to an industrial accident" 184.147.128.34 (talk) 09:08, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

However, the BBC quotes Ann Romney directly: "When he was 15, Dad came to America." If the 1930 birthdate in the article is correct, he can't have emigrated in 1929. The BBC piece later says: "Mrs Romney 's grandfather was David Davies, a miner who emigrated to the USA in the 1920s. Mr Davies worked at Coegnant Colliery before moving to Detroit in 1929 to work in the car industry. He was later joined by his wife, Annie, and his son, Edward, who was Mrs Romney's father."

NB, the Telegraph article is dated Jan 6, the Daily Mail Aug 6 and the BBC Aug 29. 184.147.128.34 (talk) 09:14, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

August 30

Raymond of Cabannis and Philippa the Catanian

Recently while reading Nancy Goldstone's biography on Queen Joan I of Naples, I came upon this unusual couple. Raymond of Cabannis was a former Ethopian slave who rose to become Grand Seneschal of the kingdom of Naples and his wife Philippa was a Sicilian laundress who was appointed governess to Queen Joan when she lost her mother as a child. I have searched the Internet to discover more about these people but to no avail. They had four children who married into the Neapolitan aristocracy but apart from this fact I have not been able to find out anything else about them. Would anybody happen to have more information on the Cabannis family? Thank you.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 11:47, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

There seems to be a decent amount online about Raimondo de Cabanni and Filippa da Catania (Filippa la Catanese) but it's all in Italian.--Cam (talk) 16:50, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Cultural influences on relationships

What is causing young people to have relationships these days through peer pressure ? Is it cultural, media? 176.250.252.78 (talk) 12:41, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Could you elaborate? What sorts of relationships? Sexual, friendships, aquaintences? --Jayron32 13:20, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Girlfriend/boyfriend sort of relationships. 176.250.252.78 (talk) 14:32, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Young people have been forming girlfriend-boyfriend relationships for a long time. It didn't just start "these days". The Wikipedia articles titled Dating and Courtship have a wealth of information. --Jayron32 15:51, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

What country or area are you looking at? What evidence do you have to suggest that young people are doing this more than at other times? What evidence do you have to suggest that peer pressure is a factor in their decision-making? If you can answer these questions (which are implied by your first question), you may find you already have the answer to your second question. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:18, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

The OP's IP address geolocates to London. --Jayron32 16:44, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

The 2012 Summer Olympics opening ceremony was a widely viewed cultural and media event in London which emphasised (amongst other things) the positive aspects of young people being in (apparently romantic) relationships. (See 2012 Summer Olympics opening ceremony#Frankie and June say...thanks Tim (21:52–22:09)) However, I would agree with Jayron's point - young people entering into relationships is a natural thing for them to do. One might as well ask to what extent, and in what way, cultural and media pressure is discouraging young people from doing so. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:57, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. 300 years ago in Western culture, it was common for people to marry by their 18th birthday. A generation ago, it was still uncommon for people to make it out of their 20s without being married. Today, people wait until their 30s to get married. I would say there is a prevalence today for people to delay long-term committements. --Jayron32 20:03, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

The often quoted idea that age at marriage in "Western culture" has been steadily increasing for centuries is probably inaccurate; see, eg, these figures. Colonial North America was unusual in having relatively early marriage. However, in northern Europe at the same time it was substantially later - comfortably over 25 on average - remaining relatively high through the following centuries and not dropping dramatically until the 20th century. In the UK, the lowest period of age on first marriage for both men and women is comfortably within living memory! Andrew Gray (talk) 12:56, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Romeo and Juliet? Sexual reproduction? Puritanism? Sexual repression? μηδείς (talk) 03:37, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Who in India speaks English?

It says here that India's second official language, English, is native for just 0.02% of the 1.2-billion population of the country. Who are they? Are they characterised as belonging to specific ethnic groups, social classes or immigrant communities, or specific cities and regions? --Theurgist (talk) 18:32, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

0.02% of 1.2 billion is 240,000 people. My guess is that some of these are children of people who have moved to India from elsewhere in the Anglophone world, and these would be concentrated in the major metro areas. There are some people of European/English decent who moved to India during the colonial period, and never left. I suspect their decendents may still live in India and would likely learn English at home. --Jayron32 18:36, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Just settling the exact figures: according to the list English is #44, with 178,598 speakers, or 0.021% of the total population, which is 1,210,193,422 people according to the 2011 census. --Theurgist (talk) 18:45, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

No, it isn't. 178598 divide by 1210193422 is .0001475, or 0.01475%. That's 1/3rd off from the 0.021% figure. If it has all three of those numbers in the article, something is wrong: either the math or the number. --Jayron32 19:01, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I didn't do any math. I just copied the numbers from here and from here - without much thought, actually. Evidently, something needs editing. --Theurgist (talk) 19:07, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

That's why I said exactly that. --Jayron32 19:12, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

An English speaker counts for 50% more than everybody else, by gad. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:12, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

As a first language: almost no one. As a second language: those who went through decent schooling and went to a decent university, which is 9% of the population (much less than any one thinks, but India is mainly not English speaking). — Preceding unsigned comment added by OsmanRF34 (talk • contribs) 20:08, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Have a look at Indian English. It talks about "the relatively small Anglo-Indian community and some families of full Indian ethnicity where English is the primary language spoken in the home". Alansplodge (talk) 20:49, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Loads of people in India speak English, but most of them learn it as a second language and they wouldn't be as fluent in it as people in the West. AFAIK, people going to school in India have to learn 3 languages; Hindi, English and whatever language happens to be the main language of the state they live in. A boat that can float! (watch me float!) 08:01, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

People going to schools in India usually, but not always, learn Hindi[10]. I believe that in Tamil Nadu teaching of Hindi in schools is rare as it is seen as an "imposition from the North". -- Q Chris (talk) 10:42, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, see Anti-Hindi agitations of Tamil Nadu. It was because of this that English retains an official status in Indian government. Alansplodge (talk) 17:19, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Mmm, that's interesting... I must have got confused. A boat that can float! (watch me float!) 14:06, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I know a full-blooded native Indian whose name is J. Smith and whose first language is English; he was adopted and raised by Anglo-Catholic parents. μηδείς (talk) 01:07, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Kimveer Gill's journal

I read that his profile on VampireFreaks is no longer available, but is there any way to look at his journal entries? Maybe copies of the journal?. Thank you. Mark. Alabamaboy1992 (talk) 20:11, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Is there any link between the murder of the Afghan war lord and the World Trade Center attacks?

I'm sorry I can't remember the name of the war lord. Thank you. Mark. Alabamaboy1992 (talk) 22:00, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Probably not. Bin Laden's group had been gearing up for September 11th for some time. The 1993 World Trade Center bombing was organized by Al Qaeda some 8 years before. The leader you are thinking of is likely Ahmad Shah Massoud who was assassinated 2 days before the September 11th hijackings. That's just way too close in time for it to have had any effect on the event. The hijackings would have had to have been planned down to exacting detail, including the days and times of the flights, and tickets for those planes were purchased considerably ahead of time. There's no chance his death had causal effect on September 11th. Additionally Massoud was an enemy of Al-Qaeda and the Taliban, so I don't think there's any reason to think he would have inspired anything of the sort by his death. --Jayron32 22:10, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Or both events were Al Qaeda acts and the timing was strategic. I don't think the question is only about one influencing the other. Tom Haythornthwaite 22:21, 30 August 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hayttom (talk • contribs)

Yes, it is the opposite causation from what Jayron implies. Massoud was killed by Al Qaeda because the date for 9/11 had been set. I remember reading of his death (and predictions that August in the NY Post that attacks were imminent) before 9/11. μηδείς (talk) 21:44, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I would assume Massoud was assassinated right before 9/11 in the hopes of causing the Northern Alliance to collapse before the West intervenes in Afghanistan, thus making it much bloodier and harder for the West to overthrow the Taliban and remove al Qaeda from Afghanistan. Al-Qaeda's stategy in regards to this didn't work, as Western money, weapons, intelligence, and strategic efforts were able to hold the Northern Alliance together and help it out after Massoud's death and 9/11. Futurist110 (talk) 22:32, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

And why do it shortly before the attack? Wouldn't it be much smarter strategically to win the civil war over the Northern Alliance and then go to the 9/11 attack? You don't want to engage too many enemies at the same time normally. Obviously, this rationale is only valid if we assume their leader to be rational thinkers, what appears not to be the case. OsmanRF34 (talk) 23:02, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Look at the link provided by Jayron. At least one FBI agent and one congressman familiar with the situation immediately assumed that Massoud's assassination was a prelude to attacking the United States. Obviously we'll never know what Osama was thinking, but it's possible they wanted us to have as little warning as possible. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:05, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

We won't know either whether these both guys indeed connected the dots. The Taliban and Al-Qaida had been fighting the Northern Alliance for a long time before this attack on Massoud. I don't see how could you see it as an exceptional case. Even the attack on the US is not that surprising, considering that they tried it before. OsmanRF34 (talk) 23:23, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I was reading a book by As'ad AbuKhalil a while back (I can't remember which one it was and I don't have it with me right now) in which he made the case that it was definitely connected to the 9/11 attacks. The Taliban knew both that the US would retaliate for al Qaeda's actions and that the Northern Alliance would be a natural ally of a possible US ground assault/invasion. The assassination was a strategic attempt to destabilize the Northern Alliance and thereby make them less valuable, and less effective, as a possible US ally.--William Thweatt ^TalkContribs 23:36, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, the link is there: both are enemies of Al-Qaida, and it was attacking both of them. Coordinating both attacks seems to be rather difficult, since the 9/11 required careful planning way in advance, and the Massoud's assassination was more of an opportunistic attack. OsmanRF34 (talk) 23:45, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

This might be conjecture on my part but maybe al-Qaeda was worried that if it kills Massoud too early the Taliban might get a bit of sense and decide that since they now defeated the Northern Alliance, there's no need for them to keep on helping and sponsoring al-Qaeda any further. Al-Qaeda thought that if the Taliban conquered all of Afghanistan maybe the Taliban would feel that they don't need any more trouble, especially with big powers like the U.S. (and al-Qaeda was very good at causing trouble for the U.S.). Keep in mind that the Taliban and al-Qaeda did have some tensions in the pre-9/11 era, and maybe al-Qaeda felt that the Taliban could eventually do a big political U-turn with them like they previously did with opium in 2000 and eventually kick al-Qaeda out of Afghanistan (without a safe haven, it would have been much harder for al-Qaeda to implement a successful large-scale attack against the U.S. on the scale of 9/11). Futurist110 (talk) 01:45, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think the Northern Alliance was that important to the US attack on Afghanistan. Yes, they were used as ground troops, but, had they been completely defeated by the Taliban prior to that, the US would still have won, it just would have required US/NATO ground troops. (Of course, either way, holding Afghanistan is far more difficult than conquering it.) But this might have inadvertently helped Saddam, as the US would have had too many ground troops committed in Afghanistan to invade Iraq. StuRat (talk) 08:31, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Have you seen the article published recently in various American media about a Polish spy, Aleksander Makowski, and his revelations about his relationship with Massoud? Especially this fragment:

Makowski now thinks that Massoud held back intelligence about bin Laden and the 9/11 plot because of the CIA’s lack of interest. “I am aware of the fact that the development of modern Afghanistan doesn’t matter to the Americans,” Makowski recalls Massoud telling him in August 1999. He knew, however, that the United States was interested in bin Laden, and he feared that if bin Laden were killed, the U.S. would reach an accommodation with the Taliban. He decided to play it coy, Makowski says. “I will stall for time until I make sure they had stopped supporting the Taliban and are ready to support me instead," Makowski said Massoud had concluded.' In mid-June 2000, Massoud practically ordered his commanders not to cooperate with the CIA in hunting down bin Laden. Makowski thinks Massoud also avoided telling the Americans of bin Laden’s plan for the 9/11 strikes. “I think there is a very good case that he allowed this to happen,” Makowski told McClatchy, speaking of 9/11. Unfortunately, Massoud missed a key part of bin Laden’s 9/11 planning: Massoud’s own assassination, which took place on the eve of the Sept. 11 attack. CIA balked at chance to kill bin Laden in ‘99, Polish ex-spy says

— Kpalion^(talk) 11:20, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

August 31

Heavenly Theology

NASA recently successfully landed the Curiosity Rover on Mars to search for signs of life of non-terrestrial origin. Other efforts, such as SETI, are also doing the same thing.

Hypothetically, if tomorrow it was announced that extraterrestrial life had been found, how would the theology of religions such as Catholicism, Judaism and Islam deal with this?Honeyman2010 (talk) 00:48, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Sounds to me like this calls for speculation. In any case, this was already asked and discussed here this month. See Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2012_August_17#Religious_implications_of_extraterrestrial_contact to read the previous discussion.--William Thweatt ^TalkContribs 01:25, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

There is a discussion of this in The Eerie Silence by Paul Davies. He says that the discovery of intelligent extraterrestrial life would "deal a severe blow" to religion, but that it may be possible for them to assimilate it in a similar way to heliocentricism and evolution. It would pose theological problems for Christianity in that Jesus was specifically sent to save humans, which begs the question of how the aliens (who may be far more advanced than us) are to be saved. Two solutions that have been suggested are that (a) Jesus was incarnated as an alien on many different worlds (which has Biblical problems, apparently) and (b) that we are somehow supposed to convert the aliens to Christianity. Surveys of believers indicate it would not make much difference. Hut 8.5 19:20, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Wright Enrichment's Logo-with-motto

http://www.anh-usa.org/wild-west-supplements/

Dateline aired a documentary about dry labs, that's fake labs giving a 3rd party verification of authenticity of ingredient lists. Wright Enrichment which seems to be the Wright Group [11] seems to have the CIRCULAR logo here.

On the doc, I saw a another logo which a motto. Can someone provide the picture? Thank you.Curb Chain (talk) 06:06, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Michigan and Virginia Presidential Vote in 1884 and 1888

How come Michigan was so close in the 1884 election and how come Virginia was so close in the 1884 and 1888 elections when they were solid states for a particular party in other years such as 1876, 1880, and 1892? Futurist110 (talk) 06:21, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand the Q. Why would having voted solidly for one party in a given election require a state to do so in all other elections ? The issues will be different in each election, and some issues divide down by geography, while others do not. StuRat (talk) 08:24, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

The voting patterns relative to the rest of the nation were very constant for most states between 1876 and 1892. Thus, Michigan and Virginia were exceptions to this rule and I want to know why. Futurist110 (talk) 01:24, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

One reason might be that Blaine, the Republican candidate in 1884, was not a midwesterner, and had less appeal to people there. In all other elections from 1868 to 1900, the Republican candidate had been born either in Illinois (Grant) or Ohio (Hayes, Garfield, Harrison, McKinley). I'm better at the 1896 election, but recall some discussion in Stanley Jones' The Presidential Election of 1896 that Virginia was an uneasy part of the Solid South and Bryan didn't take it by any great margin.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:58, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

In regards to Virginia, did it allow black people there to vote in 1884 and 1888? Black people formed than a third of Virginia's population at the time, if I recall correctly, so if more black people were allowed to vote in Virginia in those two elections then the GOP would have gotten a greater percentage of the vote there since blacks before the Great Depression voted overwhelmingly Republican. Futurist110 (talk) 01:24, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Contstitutionally, they had the right to, that is Virginia could not pass any explicit laws banning them, but Southern society had a lot of ways to suppress the black vote. Starting in the 1870s, and lasting through the civil rights era, black people were systatically driven out of the polls. Some states had poll taxes, which most black people couldn't afford (and which poor white people were conveniently excused if they didn't pay) or "civics tests" which kept illiterate people from the polls (or which the graders would outright cheat and fail African Americans). See Disfranchisement after Reconstruction era and Jim Crow laws and Solid South for some background. The Federal Voting Rights Act of 1965 helped to put an end to this, though there are still some systemic and social disenfranchisement of black voters even today; Voter ID laws are seen as a more modern take on Jim Crow, though often they are targeted at Latino/Latina voters as much as African Americans today. --Jayron32 02:14, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware of Jim Crow laws, poll taxes, and other kinds of anti-black discrimination in the South after the Civil War. However, I am wondering if there were less efforts to prevent blacks from voting in Virginia in 1884 and 1888 in comparison to other years (1876, 1880, 1892). Also, I think voter ID laws are more partisan than racist, though I think there were several hundred people who voted illegally in MInnesota in 2008, which might have been enough to give Al Franken a victory in the Senate race there that year (if enough of those people who voted illegally that year voted for Franken). Futurist110 (talk) 03:52, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

. --Jayron32 04:15, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Here you go -- http://www.minnesotamajority.org/Portals/0/documents/ReportOnFelonVoters.pdf . However, looking at it again (I haven't looked at it for over a year), I'm not sure if this report is accurate. Futurist110 (talk) 05:07, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Do you have something that isn't produced or hosted by a partisan website like Minnesota Majority? Their website makes clear they are not an impartial agency. I wouldn't necessarily trust anything published there without independent verification from an actual reliable source. Sources need to be reliable to verify claims here, and that website doesn't have any of the hallmarks of reliability as spelled out at WP:RS. --Jayron32 05:13, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Is the statement by Byron York here (http://washingtonexaminer.com/york-when-1099-felons-vote-in-race-won-by-312-ballots/article/2504163) about 243 people being on trial for voter fraud and about the possibility of some people who might have committed voter fraud not having enough evidence to be prosecuted also an unreliable source? For the record, I'm not saying that there was large voter fraud in Minnesota in 2008, only that I want to look at all the evidence in regards to this issue. Futurist110 (talk) 05:33, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Blaming Jews for Jesus's Crucifixion

I apologize if this topic is controversial or offensive, but how come Christians have blamed Jews for Jesus's crucifixion and used it to justify various atrocities and horrible acts towards the Jews for hundreds of years? I mean, Jesus was allegedly resurrected a few days later anyway, so Judas (and the Jews) didn't do any permanent harm to anyone. Thus, what was the point of blaming the Jews for something that allegedly did not permanent harm (and for the record, it's also stupid to blame all the Jews for the crime of one Jew, but this isn't my main point here)? Futurist110 (talk) 07:05, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

See Antisemitism and the New Testament. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 07:24, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

See Matthew 27:25. As a strictly legal matter, the Romans of ca. 30-35 A.D. did not allow the local native Jewish authorities (High Priest etc.) of the Roman province of Judaea to impose the death penalty, so the execution took place under Roman auspices, and a Roman official had to take direct personal responsibility for ordering the execution (as is clear from the New Testament account). AnonMoos (talk) 07:33, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Matthew 27:25. Alansplodge (talk) 17:13, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Telling people "the Jews killed God" is easier than explaining subtle theology. If you need an excuse to get rid of some Jews (because, for example, you're a Christian king who owes them money and you don't feel like paying your debts), it's an easy way to whip up a mob. Adam Bishop (talk) 08:07, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

And besides, it's not like even all Jews back then voted on it. Only a small group of Jews decided to request the death penalty. And, even if all Jews had voted on it, our society largely rejects the idea of hereditary guilt (although that was big in Biblical times). As to your point of it not doing any permanent harm, on the contrary, the resurrection of Christ is the very core of Christianity, so the crucifixion was absolutely necessary. Thus, Christians should all be thankful to Jews. StuRat (talk) 08:17, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. Our article on Felix culpa may be instructive on the point. Marnanel (talk) 11:57, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

While there's no excuse for antisemitism and persecution of Jews, the argument that 'it did no harm' doesn't really go (at least from a Christian perspective). Guilt is not determined by the outcome, but by the intention. According to the Torah, if you falsely accuse someone of a capital crime and this is discovered, you get the death penalty, because despite the fact that no harm has been done (the falseness of the claim was discovered), you intended for the accused to receive this unjust penalty. - Lindert (talk) 08:56, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Another cynical note: at least in ancient and medieval Christians, the very idea that Jews still existed was pretty embarrassing. If Jesus was really the saviour, why wouldn't all the Jews convert? Accusing them of being "Christ killers" was another way to deal with this frustration. Also, we have an article about deicide and Jewish deicide specifically, which may help. Adam Bishop (talk) 09:13, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

The 'no permanent harm' element is highly misleading. The story of Doubting Thomas makes clear that (according to the Gospel writers) Jesus still had his death-wounds after the Resurrection. And torturing someone to the point of death is bad whether or not they survive. But as others have noted: it's pretty clear from the Gospel accounts that the death sentence was called for by a collaborationist elite who were threatened by revolutionary preachers. Jesus was far from unique in falling victim to this situation; John the Baptist died because the Tetrarch and his family disliked criticism. And the crowd calling for Jesus' death are specifically said to have been incited by the collaborators. Moreover, Jesus himself preached against the idea of hereditary guilt on more than one occasion. (I can think of three examples: the man born blind, and the historical references to the Tower of Siloam disaster and the massacred Pharisees.) Of course, we only have the Gospel-writers' word for it that Caiaphas and the other leaders of the Sanhedrin that year were collaborators, etc. While it's plausible, it's worth remembering that we don't have corroboration for it. So in short, blaming 'the Jews' for Jesus' death runs counter to the text of the story, the teaching of Jesus, and the way we generally understand culpability. None of which has stopped bigots down to the present day from continuing to do so. AlexTiefling (talk) 09:25, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

The WP article above also has two Gospel quotes to support treating Jews with respect - John 4:22 and Romans 11:28; (although the latter is a bit ambiguous). As previously noted, it doesn't stop bigots. Alansplodge (talk) 17:12, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Modern sensibilities are repulsed by notions of collective guilt and judgment. But collective judgments are not a monopoly of Christians. Originally there were, in addition to Christian gentiles, Christian Jews who participated in synagog. About 90 AD, in order to exclude these Jewish followers of Jesus, the traditional 18 Benedictions that were read in service were amended to add a 19th "blessing", the cursing of the apostates, or Birkat Ha-Minim:

"For the apostates let there be no hope. And let the arrogant government be speedily uprooted in our days. Let the noẓerim (i.e., gentile Christians) and the minim (i.e., Jewish Christian) be destroyed in a moment. And let them be blotted out of the Book of Life and not be inscribed together with the righteous. Blessed art thou, O Lord, who humblest the arrogant"

μηδείς (talk) 17:36, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Federal crowns

I am actually on the Reference Desk looking for a reference! Our article on corporations sole says at present:

Because Australia and Canada have federal systems of government, Elizabeth also has a distinct corporation sole for each of the Australian states and Canadian provinces – for example, Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Queensland and Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario.

This is unreferenced. I have a dim memory of reading that the Canadian provinces and Australian states are not in fact in similar positions, that in one each subnational unit has its own crown but that in the other they are just aspects, as it were, of the national crown. (Casual readers should note here that "crown" is The Crown and not any sort of fancy headgear.)

I should like to correct it if it is wrong, but either way I should like to supply a reference. I have not yet found one. Could one of you help me in this?

(This is not, I should emphasise, a request for legal advice: I have no intention of becoming king in right of Ontario, and if such a thing should happen you are to restrain me from accepting the post.) Marnanel (talk) 11:53, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I am by no means an expert on Commonwealth governments, but there is a Governor General of Canada and a Governor General of Australia that represents the interests of the Monarchy at the Federal level, and there are in Canada Lieutenant governors and in Australia these are called Governors of the Australian states, and likewise serve a similar role. That is, just as in the United States, where the individual semi-sovereign states have constitutions that model them after the Federal govenrnment (The U.S. states have governors and cabinets that work like the President and his cabinet; they have bicameral legislatures with Senates and Lower houses, etc.) it would appear that the same sort of parallelism exists in Canada and Australia: The British/Commonwealth model of the "Queen-in-Parliament", and of the role of the monarch in the apparatus of the state is modeled not only at the Federal level, but also at the Province/State level as well. I don't think that this means, strictly, that the Queen is individually the "Queen of Alberta" or "Queen of New South Wales". She's still just the "Queen of Canada" and "Queen of Australia", but since those are federal nations, and all that implies, her role within the federal government of those countries is paralled with a similar role in the state/provincial governments (as represented by the Governors General/Lieutenant Governors/State Governors). That's my reading of the relevent articles, anyways. --Jayron32 12:43, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Both are federal governmental systems in which some power is reserved to the states or provinces. You need to have an executive to commission (and, rarely, remove) the government, in both cases, there were already British-appointed governors for at least some of the governments at the time of union, and having an independent route to London was part of the features whereby the smaller jurisdictions would not be completely subject to the federal government. Others included reservation of powers to the states/provinces, and a non-representative Senate where the less populous states or provinces would be able to stand up more to Ontario/New South Wales.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:24, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

The title "Queen in right of Ontario" is certainly used in legal documents: see here [12] or here [13] for example. --Xuxl (talk) 14:39, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, but all the above is background knowledge I was aware of. But can we find a reliable reference that says that there is, or is not, a monarch specifically of Alberta, Queensland, etc, as the page on corporations sole claims? (My recollection is that there is a monarch of Alberta, etc., as Xuxl points out, but not of Queensland, etc. But clearly I can't use such dim recollections as Wikipedia references.) Marnanel (talk) 15:50, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe it to be the case that each Canadian province is a separate crown. I read through this, the official page by the Canadian government. Also available is A Crown of Maples, which describes in general how the Canadian monarchy works. Lots of mention of Lieutenant Governors and provincial parliaments, but no separate crowns. Mingmingla (talk) 16:20, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I think the difference is subtle but real, and the language difference is key. When the title "Queen in the right of Ontario" is used, this is not the same words as "Queen of Ontario", because the two concepts are different. As I read the difference, the former means, roughly, "As the Queen of Canada, acting on her role as such in the Government of Ontario" and the latter means merely "Queen of Ontario". She is not individually Queen of Ontario, she is Queen of Canada, and as Queen of Canada, that role grants her certain rights as they pertain to the provincial governments. That's my understanding. --Jayron32 16:40, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

That's how it's taught in political science classes at Canadian universities. The Queen of Canada is acting in right of Alberta, as opposed to in right of another province or the nation as a whole; she's still Queen of Canada, but this specific act or document pertains only to Alberta. --NellieBlyMobile (talk) 20:56, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

The separate Australian colonies had constitutions which made the queen the head of state. In the court system, criminal charges were "Queen in right of Queensland v Smith", for example. When the colonies federated in 1901, they ceded some of their powers to the federal government, but retained separate court systems. While there is no "Queen of Queensland", criminal prosecutions continue to be made in the name of the corporation sole.--Shirt58 (talk) 03:23, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Which is exactly what the article says, but without a reference, which is what we're looking for. D'oh. Let's see, my constitutional law textbook is... in the law school library, where it always was, as all the textbooks cost $ 200 or more... --Shirt58 (talk) 03:30, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

For information about the putative "Queen of New South Wales", "Queen of Queensland" etc, see History of monarchy in Australia, particularly the section called "The Dismissal, and the Hannah and Wran Affairs". -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 21:45, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Longest finite term length for an elected official

A U.S. president is elected to a four-year term, a Mexican president to a six-year term, a French president (formerly) to a seven-year term, etc. What is the longest defined term length for an elected office-holder (of any kind, at any level)? Note that I am not interested in lifetime appointments, or situations where an office-holder serves an arbitrarily long time, as in some parliamentary systems. I am interested only in predetermined term lengths. Thanks! LANTZY^TALK 13:36, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Some judges in Virginia are elected by the legislature to 12 year terms.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:40, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

It isn't elected, but the Chairman of the Federal Reserve in the U.S. serves a 14-year term. --Jayron32 13:41, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

The New York Court of Appeals used to have judges elected for 14 year terms. - Lindert (talk) 14:00, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Term of office says that judges on the US Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces have 15-year terms, but they are appointed. The recently-dropped House of Lords Reform Bill 2012 would have led to members of the UK's House of Lords being elected for 15-year terms (there is probably quite a good chance that this reform - or something like it - will happen eventually: all three main parties have agreed in principle to elections with 15-year terms since 2007). 81.98.43.107 (talk) 15:24, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

New York State Supreme Court Justices are elected for 14-year terms.... Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:34, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

U.S. Bankruptcy judges serve for 14 years as well. Shadowjams (talk) 19:26, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

True, but they are not elected (they're appointed by the Court of Appeals for their circuit). Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:56, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Popes are elected. Our article gives Pius IX (31+y) and John Paul II (26+y) as the longest "reigning" officials. If this satisfies your requirements for a "predetermined term" / "not a lifetime appointment" I can not judge. To the best of my knowledge a pope may retire prior to his death. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 20:11, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, but that still isn't a "fixed term". The OP is clearly looking for offices whose defined term is the longest. The office of pope doesn't have a defined term, even if it is elected. --Jayron32 20:28, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

The Comptroller General of the United States has a 15-year term but is appointed and not elected. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:26, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Mayors in the german state Saarland are elected for 10 years. --192.124.26.250 (talk) 11:35, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

The President of Ireland is limited to two 7-year terms, and most of them get it if they want it - O'Kelly, De Valera, Hillery, and McAleese all did 14 years, Hide, and Robinson did 7 years, and Higgins has said he only wants one term; Childers died in office in his first term, and O Dalaigh was forced to resign in his first term. -- Arwel Parry (talk) 12:44, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Was Hamid Karzai on the Taliban's side before the World Trade Center attacks?

I'm sorry that I'm kind of a compulsive asker on the ref desk but I love it, and I learn a lot. I'm 20 and I'm rather interested in the Afghanistan War and my question comes about after I read that he wants to negotiate with the Taliban. Was he ever on their side before the World Trade Center attacks? Thank you. Mark from Alabama. Thank you indeed! Have a nice weekend! Mark. Alabamaboy1992 (talk) 14:55, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I think he was on the side of the Northern Alliance since at least 1999 when the Taliban killed his father. Futurist110 (talk) 19:48, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Yep, Hamid Karzai's Wikipedia page confirms my previous statement. Futurist110 (talk) 01:13, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Who was the first US President to have an official Presidential email address?

I'm guessing Reagan and maybe even thinking George H. W., but my friend thinks the White House was really at the forefront technologically and says Carter. Peter Michner (talk) 15:06, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

The first president to have an official email address was Bill Clinton, in 1993. It seems very likely that there were ways of emailing things for the attention of the president before that, but there was no official presidential address. Looie496 (talk) 16:52, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, the OPs question is not unreasonable. The internet as a commercial enterprise doesn't extend much before Clinton, but it began as ARPANET, and as such was an early project of the U.S. Defense Department. It isn't unreasonable to think that the U.S. President, as head of the armed forces, would have had some form of email address for use internal to that network, even if Clinton was the first to have an official, publicly known email address. --Jayron32 20:00, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I think a lot would depend on when the first networked computer was installed in the White House. Blueboar (talk) 20:18, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Possibly, though messages intended for the president could have been sent by email to somewhere in, say, the Pentagon and then printed and couriered to him. Thus, he would still have an email address without the need for networking in the White House. --Jayron32 20:58, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Kikuanoki or Kikuanohi

Princess Kikuanoki or Kikuanohi

Does anyone know who was the Princess Kikuanoki or Kikuanohi that Henry Byam Martin met on his travel to Hawaii in 1846-1847? The closest name it matches is Kekauōnohi but that is only still a guess. Does anyone know more definitively?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 16:37, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Bordertown capitals

Capital cities are usually more or less centrally geographically located. However, Vientiane sits on Laos' border with Thailand along the Mekong. Are there other capital cities which are located on national borders? Jerusalem doesn't seem to really fit, as those who claim it as the capital of Israel aren't the ones to recognise the Palestinian state. Ottawa is pretty close to the U.S. border, but then again so are most of Canada's populated cities. Perhaps there are historical examples as well? --182.52.48.117 (talk) 17:02, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Stretching a point, but you could make a case for London being a coastal city - after all it has (or had) a dockland, and is on a river whose estuary starts within its boundaries... it's definitely not centrally located in either England or Great Britain. --TammyMoet (talk) 17:08, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Asuncion, Buenos Aires (more or less), Gaborone, Kinshasa, Bangui, Lomé, N'Djamena, probably more. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 17:14, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Kinshasa is quite a long way away from the geographic center of The Democratic Republic of the Congo, and directly on a national border, as does its sister sity of Brazzaville, captal of the Republic of the Congo. Bratislava, capital of Slovakia, has corporate borders that lie on the national boundary with both Hungary and Austria. If you want one that will really blow your mind, Mafeking, which was the official capital of Bechuanaland, was not in Bechuanaland, but rather in neighboring South Africa. --Jayron32 17:22, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

During the US Civil War, the two capitals were Washington, DC and Richmond, Virginia, which are within spitting distance of one another. Marnanel (talk) 18:07, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, Washington DC was also literally on the border of the Confederacy, and two prominent battles, the Battles of Bull Run, happened within an easy day's walk of the Potomac. There was some serious threat that Maryland would secede, and that would leave the Union capital entirely within Confederate territory. Maryland in the American Civil War covers some of this, the article obliquely notes that Maryland "decided not to secede", though a good part of the reason for this is that Lincoln declared martial law and rounded up enough of the legislators who would have voted for secession and imprisoned them to ensure that the vote never went that way. --Jayron32 18:15, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

For a similar case to Mafeking, note Chandigarh, which is the capital of two states in India despite not being in either of them - it's on the Harayana-Punjab border, but is formally a union territory. Andrew Gray (talk) 19:30, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

If we're dealing with subnational divisions, For U.S. state capitals, there's Juneau, Alaska which lies on the border with British Columbia, Carson City, Nevada lies on the border with California, Trenton, New Jersey lies on the Pennsylvania border, Tallahassee, Florida lies very close to the border with Georgia (I don't know if it officially touches it though), Providence, Rhode Island is again very close to the Massachusetts border, though it may come a mile or so from touching it. --Jayron32 19:45, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I live in Providence, which is separated from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts by a river, plus either Pawtucket or East Providence (both separately-incorporated cities). People from Providence visit Seekonk and the Attleboro's all the time, but they have to cross other Rhode Island cities or towns to get there. —— Shakescene (talk) 04:50, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Canberra isn't anywhere near the centre of Australia, although the centre is pretty much empty. Judging by the number of examples given, I think we need to question your assumption that capitals are usually centrally placed... --Tango (talk) 19:29, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Copenhagen is close to Sweden

Copenhagen is far from the center of Denmark – at least for such a small country. It's practical to have a big city by the coast but in Denmarks case that would also allow a central position. The second largest city Århus is by the coast in the center. Sweden built the Barsebäck Nuclear Power Plant just 20 kilometers from Copenhagen, in plain sight across the water. That was not popular in Denmark which chose not to have nuclear power and pressed for the closure of Barsebäck for decades until it finally closed. Copenhagen is not near a land border but the Øresund Bridge runs to Sweden. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:57, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

When it was founded and established at the capital, it was near the center of Denmark, however. History has hacked Denmark back to its modern size. See Treaty of Roskilde, which transfered all of the teritory on the east side of the Øresund to Sweden. It had been Danish territory since almost time immemorial, and was the original source of Denmark's right to charge the Sound Dues. Denmark had ended up on the wrong side by the end of the Thirty Years War, and Sweden pressed its advatages gained in that war to exact further wars on Denmark and gain those territories. But Copenhagen was originally at the center of Denmark. The problem is that Denmark moved... --Jayron32 21:26, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

One nation definitely agreed with the OP. Brasilia was built from scratch because they wanted a capital close to the center of the country. Ssscienccce (talk) 21:29, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

When the site was chosen, Washington D.C. was fairly close to the geographic center of the U.S. at the time. Again, that it isn't today is because the U.S. moved. --Jayron32 21:44, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Just check out where Malabo, the capital of Equatorial Guinea, is located. --Theurgist (talk) 00:27, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Also, there could be little surprise that no country that is mostly covered by the Sahara desert has its capital anywhere near its geographical centre. --Theurgist (talk) 00:41, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Until 1923, the capital of Turkey was on a different continent to most of the rest of the country. Alansplodge (talk) 00:43, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Why'd they change it? I can't say. I guess they liked it better that way. --Jayron32 02:06, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Some readers may have missed the allusion to the song "Istanbul (Not Constantinople)". -—Wavelength (talk) 02:19, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I see - I've never heard of it. I was just going to say that the reason they changed to Ankara was that Istanbul was under British occupation at the time. Alansplodge (talk) 09:22, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Jokes aren't funny after you explain them. Anyone that didn't get it doesn't need to... --Jayron32 02:20, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Well at least we now know what you're talking about. Alansplodge (talk) 09:22, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't go for these newfangled names. To me, it's still Byzantium. :-) StuRat (talk) 11:40, 1 September 2012 (UTC) StuRat (talk) 11:40, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

So is Moscow today. --Theurgist (talk) 00:50, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

The location of Tashkent within Uzbekistan is interesting too. --Theurgist (talk) 02:41, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Cities like Lagos, Dar es Salaam and Abidjan were established as ports, through which the colonial powers established commercial and administrative control over their hinterlands. After those countries became independent, their governments moved their capitals to more central locations, less associated with a colonial past - Abuja, Dodoma, and Yamoussoukro respectively. But, many other countries in Africa and elsewhere have retained the port cities - which became their main, sometimes dominant, economic centres - as their capitals. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:35, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

As a PS, I'd suggest that the location of a capital city often reflects the extent to which a particular country was focused on external relations as against internal administration and control. For example, Addis Ababa is at the centre of a long-established uncolonised country, concerned with internal organisation more than external trade. Similar examples might include Berlin, Paris, Moscow and Madrid. But, countries where external sea-based trade was more important tended to establish their administrative capitals in their major commercial ports, which were obviously on their coastlines. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:52, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

That's a very interesting perspective, just some more evidence to confirm it is that Russia moved its capital to St. Petersburg at a time when it changed its outlook from inward-looking to outward looking (under Peter the Great), i.e. when Russia actively sought a trading relationship it moved its capital from the interior to a port. --Jayron32 14:37, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Seoul, the capital of South Korea, is only 25 miles from the border with North Korea. During the Korean War it was captured and pretty much destroyed in a series of battles for control of the city. However it was much more central when Korea was a unified country of course. Quintessential British Gentleman (talk) 11:05, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Kimveer Gill's journal

Does anybody know where I can read them? I saw a documentary on the Montreal shooting and would like to read his journal. It's a repeated question, I asked this last night. If it's not allowed to repeat the question, please tell me, I'm new to the site. Have a nice weekend. Mark from Alabama. Mark. Alabamaboy1992 (talk) 18:23, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Mark, and welcome. We normally encourage people to only post their question once (at the top of the page it says "When will I get an answer? It may take several days. Come back later and check this page for responses.") Your question will be archived after a while (7 days?), so it's probably ok to post again after a week, but a question that goes that long unanswered is probably never going to receive an answer.

As to the question itself, I'm afraid I have no idea specifically, but have you tried the Wayback Machine? - Cucumber Mike (talk) 19:21, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Mike, I'll try that. It's about a Montreal shooter who had a journal on VampireFreaks.com. Thank you again and remove this question if it fails any Wikipedia policy. Thank you again. May you have a nice weekend. Mark. Alabamaboy1992 (talk) 19:29, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Don't worry, there's no need for the question to be removed. It's not a matter of policy, more of politeness: asking a question twice before anyone gets a chance to answer is like the kid at school who waves his arm around shouting 'me Miss! Oh, me!' But there's no hard feelings - we were all new here once. And, since I'm sitting here watching gold medal after gold medal roll in for Paralympics GB, and seeing the team sitting 7 places above the US in the medal table, I think I will have a VERY nice weekend! :-P I hope something makes you happy this weekend as well. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 19:41, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

That sounds nice though I'm an American! Haha! Alabamaboy1992 (talk) 19:46, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Library Cataloging

I reckon this might be a science question, as in 'library science' but anyway--

Sometimes a book on the inside of its cover shows the LCCS (library of congress classification system) number yet the one that the library has placed on the spine is different. What is the reason that a library would choose to ignore what the LoC thinks ought to be the call number?

199.94.68.91 (talk) 19:03, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Whoops, I should clarify---I don't mean the library in question has used an entirely different system, Dewey or some such, I mean they're still using the LCC system just with a different call number199.94.68.91 (talk) 19:08, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Could it just be an error? The Library of Congress Classification is supposed to be subject-based, so I don't see why a library would intentionally change the number over the LoCC code. --Jayron32 19:14, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Have you asked the librarians? I use Dewey for my own books, but I often find that the LoC or whatever has given it a classmark I disagree with. (One recent example was ISBN 1906173087 which my reference catalogue wanted to put under 155.937 for death but which I wanted under theology at 248.86.) I can't see why it should be any different if the LCC is being used; the classification system is not the catalogue, and they're not going to send the cops round if you disagree with their index. Marnanel (talk) 19:23, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm a cataloger, here's my explanation: Usually this is because the library already has other, similar books that they have already classified in another area (for example, putting a series of travel guides in the "G" schedule rather than putting them in the schedule for the location covered by the guide) and want to keep everything together. Alternatively, the classification system may have been changed since the CIP record was done and the LCCN in the CIP data might no longer be valid. Otherwise, it could just be a matter of disagreement with which aspect of a book is the most important. Happens all the time. eldamorie (talk) 19:25, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Technically, this is classification not cataloguing! There are multiple reasons the library might use a different number:

a) System changes. Classification systems do change gradually over time. If the system has been changed since the CIP data was added to the book, it will often be reclassified under the new one.

b) Local emphasis. A book on "military strategy in the Roman Empire" will probably be classed under history of ancient Rome (in DDC, this would be, I think, 937.0035*). However, if your library deals predominantly with the ancient world, you may want to avoid grouping all the books together like this, and instead file it simply as military strategy (with a subdivision for Rome).

c) Local practice. Many libraries use a de facto modified version of their classification system - most commonly for literature, but I've worked in places with simplified classification systems for fine art and music, both things Dewey handles a bit clumsily. So, they'll default to this system rather than the "complete" one.

d) "Opt-outs". I don't know about LCC (I've never worked somewhere using it) but two or three parts of Dewey effectively have alternative classification systems - you can use the standard one, or use a different one they also suggest for that topic. Obviously, the one in the book is likely to be the standard.

e) Finally, differences of opinion! The more weirdly crossdisciplinary a book is, the more easily it is to disagree as to whether it's really this or that or the other thing. I often encountered this when trying to determine if a book is about drama (in Dewey, file in 811/821) or theatre (file in 792); it's a fuzzy line, and classifiers will draw different conclusions based on their own collections and their own audiences.

In addition to the above, there's also the very common case of using a shorter number (simply because you don't want too much detail or too confusing a call number) or, very simply, the occasions when the CIP data inside the book is wrong! Andrew Gray (talk) 19:27, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Fascinating! Thanks so much for the information, it seems like the LCC can be seen as more of a suggestion or guideline, but not as a rule to be simply copied? Interesting stuff!199.94.68.91 (talk) 19:34, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Treating it as a "suggested solution" is probably best. You won't go far wrong if you just copy it blindly, but it's not a hard and fast rule. Ultimately, these numbers are meant to place books in a linear sequence, on a findable location on a shelf, and near other books on a meaningfully related topic; if the numbers as read would place the book somewhere you don't want or somewhere counterintuitive, then working out a new number is entirely the right thing to do. Andrew Gray (talk) 19:44, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

One more possibility—the LC can be wrong! That won't be the case most of the time, or even often, but it can happen. Now, if you're asking this as a cataloger, only assume this in extraordinary cases. There's a lot of benefit to having the same book classified the same way everywhere, but just remember, the LC catalogers are human too. --BDD (talk) 20:48, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

IME, probable printing errors (974 for 947, etc) were more common than classification errors, but there's certainly enough of both around to at least sanity-check a number you don't recognise. Andrew Gray (talk) 21:03, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Kalakaua on the Kaimiloa

In these two images File:Kalakaua on the Kaimiloa (PP-96-13-013).jpg and File:Kalakaua on the Kaimiloa (PP-96-13-05).jpg Kalakaua inspects the Kaimiloa with Antone Rosa and Paul P. Kanoa. Does anyone know which figure is Kanoa?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 21:55, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

De Beers advertising

In this Stay Free! article it states:

"Other techniques De Beers used are familiar today; they sent representatives to high school home ec classes to teach girls about the value of diamonds and feed them romantic dreams."

Does anyone have any sources for this...I can't seem to find anything. It'd make an interesting article...teaching folks the value of diamonds=PSmallman12q (talk) 22:56, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Not explicitly home ec, but the general practice has certainly been reported before:

N. W. Ayer outlined a subtle program that included arranging for lecturers to visit high schools across the country. "All of these lectures revolve around the diamond engagement ring, and are reaching thousands of girls in their assemblies, classes and informal meetings in our leading educational institutions," the agency explained in a [1947] memorandum to De Beers. The Atlantic, 1982

Andrew Gray (talk) 23:06, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

That's a pretty long, but comprehensive piece. Our coverage at N._W._Ayer_&_Son#.22A_Diamond_Is_Forever.22_slogan_with_De_Beers and De_Beers#Marketing is very weak.Smallman12q (talk) 01:31, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

September 1

Does a smoker cost more or less for public healthcare than a non-smoker?

In countries with universal healthcare, do smokers put more strain on the healthcare system than a non-smoker? Or do they actually cost the system less because they die earlier? I already read Tobacco_smoking#Economic which cite a CDC report (irrelevant), and two unscientific studies by biased parties. A8875 (talk) 05:21, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I doubt if there's a simple measure. My country's health system is now providing considerable psychological and other support to a 14 year old boy I happen to know whose mother died of lung cancer two months ago after spending five years dying. How do we measure that broader impact? HiLo48 (talk) 05:40, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Yea, I think that's rather typical of how smokers die. They don't tend to die quietly in their sleep after being in seemingly perfect health, they linger for years, at great expense to the taxpayers and suffering to themselves. Also part of the equation is the years when they are unable to work, so aren't paying taxes. StuRat (talk) 06:08, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

The opposite argument is that smokers tend to succumb to the various diseases rather quickly, thus lowering the amount of care they require. I'm just looking for numbers to back these claims up. I'm looking for just the healthcare numbers. The emotion and social detriments of smoking are obviously enormous, but they are much harder to quantify. A8875 (talk) 07:34, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

You might want to look for general figures on how long it takes people to die from lung cancer, emphysema, and other diseases which primarily affect smokers. StuRat (talk) 09:06, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

My general impression from the research is that when you contrast the direct economic burden of smoking related illnesses with the direct economic benefits of the tobacco industry's existence (including taxes), you're about break even. The largest differences between the figures produced by various studies tend to be caused by differences in how the costs are calculated and what counts as a cost, as HiLo suggests. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:23, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

A little Googling (try "cost of smoking on health care") found dozens of articles and papers trying to answer that question. They reach lots of different conclusions, though... In my search, two consecutive results were BBC News articles. One from 1998 concluding that smokers cost less due to living shorter lives and the other from 2009 saying they cost an enormous amount (and not making any reference to the savings from not dying of other things). --Tango (talk) 13:34, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Tango. So far you're the only one to bring up relevant numbers.A8875 (talk) 17:26, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Here's what came up in my own googling - Total spending on health care in Canada is expected to … reach a forecast $200.5 billion in 2011 plus $4.4 billion is spent each year on health care for smoking-related illnesses in Canada. equals two per cent of total health care costs.

(That second source also says The costs of tobacco use to the user and to society are much higher than the money collected from tobacco sales. However, Health Canada says 31,066,986,500 cigarettes were sold in Canada in 2011. Prices vary wildly but if you take an average of $94.13/200 cigs the yearly amount spent on cigarettes is at least $14.6 billion.)

Anyway, this academic paper, The Effects Of Obesity, Smoking, And Drinking On Medical Problems And Costs, found a 21 percent increase in inpatient and outpatient spending and a 28 percent increase in medications for current smokers. 184.147.128.34 (talk) 14:27, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

What about Public Finance Balance of Smoking in the Czech Republic?Smallman12q (talk) 15:35, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Navarrese colonial empire?!?

I found a statement at the article Thalassocracy that the Kingdom of Navarre established colonies in Newfoundland, but I can't find any further information to confirm that claim. I see some notes at Placentia, Newfoundland and Labrador that Basque fisherman may have established a seasonal base there, but does anyone have any further information on this. Is it fair to call this a Navarrese colony, or was it simply a case of a few fishermen mooring their boats in the area? --Jayron32 05:37, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

There were lots of Basques there (there is even a place still called Port aux Basques today), but never a specific Navarrese colony...unless you count the part of Navarre that was joined to France in 1610, since there were certainly official French colonies and the Basques were still active in Newfoundland after that. But that's a bit of a stretch. Adam Bishop (talk) 07:29, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I was considering paring back the "Thassalocracy" article, since there are many states there listed that are clearly not Thassalocracy. A Thassalocracy is not "a state you need a boat to reach the different parts of", which is how the list seems to be built. Navarre was going anyways, but I saw the claim that it had outposts/colonies in Newfoundland rather bizzare. That there were Basques in Newfoundland is, as you note, unsurprising, but that doesn't mean that Navarre had anything to do with that. Thanks for clarifying and confirming my initial suspicions. --Jayron32 14:30, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

ROMNEY / RYAN

WHY IS THERE A RED STAR ON THE U S FLAG LAPEL PINS WORN BY MITT ROMNEY & PAUL RYAN ? THANK YOU JAMIE — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.130.82.232 (talk) 05:49, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

It is apparently the U.S.'s Secret Service's logo on the pin. President Obama wears the same pin. You can google "Secret Service logo imposed on the US Flag" to find a number of Youtube close-ups and discussions of the pins. Bielle (talk) 06:18, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Where does Hamid Karzai's clothing come from?

I mean, his headgear and his cloak? What culture does it come from? Thank you. Mark. Have a nice weekend. Mark. Alabamaboy1992 (talk) 13:46, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

His hat is a Karakul, which is common throughout Central Asia, and according to our articles has been worn by Afghani leaders for a long time. The rest of his clothing I couldn't comment on, but the hat is definitaly common in Afghanistan. --Jayron32 14:11, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

trying to remember a term - Someone's Syndrome

He was on a Grand Tour, I think, and was at the Louvre, I also think, or maybe Rome, or Venice -- and he suffered a litany of symptoms arising from being overwhelmed by the wealth of cultural treasures on offer in the Louvre or Rome or Venice...

Can anyone help please? Thanks Adambrowne666 (talk) 14:28, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Are you thinking of Stendhal syndrome? Paul (Stansifer) 14:45, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Holocaust

If you were in the unfortunate position of being a Jew living in a ghetto and you had been selected to be herded onto the cattle trucks but you failed to attend on the day, what would have happened to you. For instance if your family were selected to be 'resettled' surely the instinct, particularly later on in the war after it became apparent that this was a euphemism, would be to go into hiding and abandon where they knew you lived? Did the Nazi's have a register and refuse to allow the train to leave until everybody was accounted for?

My second question relates to the freight trains themselves. In most photographs on the Umschlagplatz these trains appear to made out of flimsy wood only secured by a bolt. If they were overloaded with hundreds of people wouldn't people have tried to kick it in and escape, rather than accept that they were going to be murdered. Thanks Toryroxy (talk) 17:31, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Plenty of Jews did try and hide or escape - many of them were even successful. People were encouraged by various means to inform the authorities if they knew where some Jews were hiding, though. After a while, the borders were closed and it became very difficult to escape the country. We have an article, Jewish resistance under Nazi rule, which you may find useful. --Tango (talk) 19:49, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Regarding your second question — why would you do that? It's extremely dangerous to fall out of a moving train, and kicking it out would be extremely difficult in the first place: these cars were choked so full that you'd not have room to get up the momentum to damage the wood. Remember that those being carried in these cars generally didn't know that they were heading to their deaths; unless you were really in despair, or unless you had some knowledge that the vast majority of your compatriots lacked, you would think the results of falling out of the train to be worse than the results of just staying where you were. Nyttend (talk) 21:17, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

You ask a lot of complex questions, and we can only really scrape the surface here. Many Jews did not realise that the "resettlement" offered was a death sentence. Life in the ghetto may seem with the benefit of our knowledge of the Death camps to be a preference, but the ghettos were pretty awful places in the main, and the option of being able to work in the countryside would have seemed attractive to many. Many ghettos' Judenrats were given quotas to fulfil by the Nazis - if you avoided the call, some other person would have to go in your place. Ghettos were generally small, well contained and most hiding places would have been fairly well known to the Judenrat's police. As for the trains, there are stories of people being able to get out of holes in the trains. Some died in the attempt (jumping from a train travelling at speed is something only fictional secret agents take lightly). However, it is clear that the boxcars were reasonably strongly constructed - sufficient to restrain frightened livestock. Furthermore, documentary evidence has it that people were so tightly packed that the dead were often still standing on arrival. Being packed in like sardines wouldn't have made it easy to escape.

Fundamentally, your thoughtful questions about the experience make me want to suggest you read some survivor memoirs, if you haven't already. I strongly suggest Primo Levi as a first port of call. --Dweller (talk) 21:15, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Political Debate

Hi, I am getting the four political clubs on my campus together for a debate as part of a junior project. I was wondering if any political debates by college students ever got brodcasted on ony news stations or newspapers that serve the larger community? Thanks.--99.146.124.35 (talk) 17:38, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

This is the type of thing a public access cable channel would specialize in, in the US. A local PBS affiliate might carry it, as might a small-town newspaper. However, this isn't their top priority, so you might have better luck getting on during a slow news day. StuRat (talk) 19:03, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

College debating societies usually only get mainstream publicity when they have a famous guest speaker (and, even then, usually only if it is a controversial famous guest speaker - from an extremist party, for example). --Tango (talk) 19:14, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

how did people choose colors for technicolor?

is there some way to "discover" from the black-and-white film whether a dress was light red or light green, for example? Or is it someone's choice and might be completely wrong? Do you then have to keep track of every object in every scene, to make sure you colorize it the same if it pops up again?

This isn't really current, as technicolor has not been a necessity in some time, but I was just wondering. --80.99.254.208 (talk) 18:48, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Looking at the technicolor article, I might have my terminology wrong. I mean black-and-white films that were colored after the fact. How was it done? --80.99.254.208 (talk) 18:52, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

That's called colorization. Sometimes the dress would just be grey in reality, as that would best allow them to know ahead of time how it would look in black and white (the contrast with her skin, etc.). In some cases, there was documentation of what color things should be, especially if the film was made from a book which described such things. If not, then they just made it up based on historic fashions, etc., as they colorized it. Early colorization efforts seemed to result in all pastels, so they didn't always do such a good job. StuRat (talk) 18:56, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Okay, this is helpful. Take this example. This http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:BeerbarrellBW.jpg was colorized to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Beerbarrel.jpg . Is there any way from LOOKING at the original that the people could have known the guy's shirt who is in the middle wasn't red? (what I would have thought). Can you reference desk people for example personally tell from the black-and-white that that was a blue shirt? (and not a red one)? Curious here. --80.99.254.208 (talk) 19:00, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

There are situations where something has been filmed in colour, then only black-and-white copies have survived, and it has been possible to reconstruct the colour. That has been done with Dad's Army, for instance. See this article. If it was only ever filmed in black-and-white, then I don't think you can work out the colour other than by context. I guess if you have footage you know what taken under different colour lights, you could figure it out - if the shirt looks black under red or blue light but white under green light, then it must be a green shirt. That isn't going to be relevant very often, though. --Tango (talk) 19:19, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

There are sometimes colour photographs taken on the set. For example The Misfits was filmed in black and white but there are loads of colour photos taken by Eve Arnold during production. If they were ever to colourise it (heaven forbid), the costume colours could be correctly done. --TrogWoolley (talk) 19:48, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Psst! (It is little know that Orson Welles had his wife Rita Hayworth's hair dyed pink and green for the classic Lady from Shanghai.) Whatever you do, do not link to the article Technicolor! μηδείς (talk) 20:23, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

UK and Eire police cars

Why do Gardai and the UK police use so many variety of police cars not to mention maybe having different cars within the same class of vehicles. Its kind of a waste of money why not just have one type of car for the traffic corp that specializes in pursuit, one for patrol, one for 4/4 (use the same van that has a speed van just the design is different), one public order van, one unmarked vehicles, one type of motorcycle, two tactical response vehicle (One that has heavy armour to take abuse while the one can handle a situation for quick responses) if these were in place it would cut down on costs immensely. --86.41.85.120 (talk) 21:01, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Certainly in the UK we do not have a "UK Police" but each county or group of counties has its own police force. Each police authority has its own budget and they each buy what is required to do the job in that area. MilborneOne (talk) 21:30, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

NRA codes

"I have not investigated fully to determine what effect the adoption of the NRA codes may have had on cooperative purchasing; my impression is that substantial savings would still be possible". Citation is Russell, John Dale. "The College Library as Viewed by the Administrator." The Library Journal 60.22 (1935): 89-93. In this passage, Russell is talking about college library administration during the Great Depression, urging college librarians to consult with each other to form money-saving consortia to spare everyone from buying separate copies of books when one or two copies could be shared among multiple institutions. In what way would NRA codes be applicable here? None of the codes mentioned in our article appear to be relevant. Nyttend (talk) 21:31, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Not really my specialist subject, but does this help? (What a Special Library Can Do for a Trade Association, Special Libraries, Jan 1934) - Cucumber Mike (talk) 21:45, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Is nuclear power competitive without huge government subsidies?

The other day I heard a renewable energy advocate and solar power company owner say he'd be happy if government subsidies to renewable power were cut as long as the subsidies to nuclear power (and coal plants) were cut as well. He claimed that the nuclear power industry in the US is effectively heavily subsidized by the government because they insure the plants, and without their subsidies and on a truly level playing field, nuclear power would be completely unable to compete against renewables. Is there any truth to these allegations? -- noosphere 21:47, 1 September 2012 (UTC)