Humanities desk
< March 22	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 24 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

March 23

About a photograph

I found this strange photo in a gallery with the name "Amazing photos throughout our history", and I was wondering - since it's been placed in such a category - if it has got some kind of story to go along. It seems to be a portrait of either a inbreed family or a freakshow. Any suggestion what it is?

Here it is: [1] --Petteroes (talk) 00:00, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hard to say without any information as to who it is a photo of, where taken, and when taken. Could be a Photoshop project, could be a family some of whom have unusual appearance, could be a 19th century institution. Edison (talk) 18:08, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Judging by certain prominent anatomical features, these individuals exhibit several conditions resulting from developmental birth defects such as congenital hydrocephalus ("water on the brain;" the young woman fourth from the left) and microcephaly ("pinhead," the small person on the right). More recent medical advances such as treatment (shunts for hydrocephalus) and in-utero screening (for deformities of brain and central nervous system that might indicate reason to abort the affected fetus) have made these conditions uncommon today, but they certainly continue to occur. The subjects' wardrobe (about which I'm no expert) places them in the late 19th or early 20th C. I would suppose they are unrelated and were living in an institution for the feeble-minded, or similar term current at the time. Those similarly afflicted but less fortunate would possibly have been exploited for their "freakish" appearance and displayed in sideshows, well portrayed in Todd Browning's classic film, Freaks (1932). Author Robertson Davies offers a literary treatment of one such non-institutionalized mentally disabled individual in What's Bred in the Bone (1985). -- Deborahjay (talk) 17:47, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that picture is in this book Saudade7 07:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...or one of the half-dozen other books with related titles Amazon.com suggests to those interested. Certainly argues towards the authenticity of such cases, and that this photo isn't a retouch job. -- Deborahjay (talk) 08:29, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Huang Yong, Chinese serial killer

Hi friends, some users (or the same) are vandalizing this guy's article. What can we do? Maru-Spanish (talk) 02:46, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Try these guys, Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit/Task Force. Julia Rossi (talk) 09:35, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do Jews believe in hell and the devil?

They believe in Sheol and Satan. AnonMoos (talk) 03:27, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But nothing like Christian concepts of the two. See Jewish eschatology and this page on Judaism and HaSatan (the adversary). -- Mwalcoff (talk) 04:45, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Supply and demand in the labor market

For jobs paying minimal wages is clear that there is much more supply than demand. For jobs paying some hundred dollars/hour the contrary is the case.

But, how can we calculate all these cases in the middle?

If I know that a job pays $15/hours, how is the ratio of supply and demand?

Where is the point where there is as much supply as demand?

Mr.K. (talk) 03:30, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your assumptions are not necessarily correct. In some places or times of high unemployment there can be more demand even for minimum wage jobs than there is supply. For some high paying jobs (doctors, for example, here in Canada) there is much more supply of jobs (i.e. demand for doctors) than there is demand. Other dangerous or difficult jobs can also be in plentiful supply, despite their high pay. You might be better thinking of pay rate as being a balencing factor between supply and demand; for example during the bursting of the dotcom bubble both demand for software workers and their pay rates went down. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

must religious stereotypes be bigotted???

religion MEANS its adherents will have certain ideas, so how is it bigotted on its face to attribute it to the members of that religion? It's just a question of true or false, isn't it, since either the adherents will or won't have the thoughts you ascribe to them.... can someone explain why religion should be treated as though it didn't involve BEING certain ways, as though it were just being a circumstnace of someone's birth?

It depends on whether the stereotype is hateful or not, and whether one is compressing a great deal of variance into a simple statement. It's one thing to talk about beliefs that are very widely held by groups, it's another to start ascribing other attributes to them. On the whole, it is not bigoted to say that Mormons are anti-gay, that Catholics are anti-abortion, and Jews and Muslims aren't supposed to eat pork. But in all of those there will be variance as well—it's not a question of true or false, some Catholics aren't anti-abortion, some Mormons aren't anti-homosexual, some Jews and Muslims doubtless think God has bigger things to worry about than their lunch. --Captain Ref Desk (talk) 04:42, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Like his own lunch. How many calories a day does an omnipresent being need, anyway? It must be an awful lot. -88.109.94.132 (talk) 09:00, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could God make a sandwich so big he wouldn't have room for dessert afterwards? Important theological question. --Captain Ref Desk (talk) 19:25, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What does "anti-homosexual" mean? The reason I ask is that mormons don't think that God hates guys, they just believe the lifestyle is morally wrong. Wrad (talk) 20:10, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They're against people being homosexual. Claiming that something which is clearly a form of identity is a "lifestyle" and therefore suppressible is, I think, grounds to consider someone being against the thing itself. In any case, I don't think one has to believe that God Himself hates gays to be anti-homosexual. They are against people identifying as homosexual and acting in a homosexual manner. That's about all you need to be anti-homosexual, in my book. --Captain Ref Desk (talk) 21:42, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"They're against people being homosexual." That's absolutely correct. I just think that "anti-homosexual" is a bit ambiguous. There's a big difference between the "God hates fags lets go kill some" crowd and the "love the person not the act" crowd. Anyway, yes, you're right, Mormons are against the homosexual lifestyle, though they are not part of the decidely more extreme and hateful anti-gay crowd. Wrad (talk) 04:02, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does that mean that as far as Mormons are concerned, it's ok to be homosexual in nature as long as you keep your sexual activities secret, you never tell anyone, and you never openly live as one? That may be a less extreme position than killing fags, but it still sounds like a recipe for disaster to me. -- JackofOz (talk) 04:33, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, we (speaking as a whole) don't consider it 'ok', lived secretly or openly, but it's a matter between the person and God, who'll deal with it in his own time, in his own way. We don't teach hatred against homosexuals. I have a homosexual realtive and a homosexual friend and I love them, but it doesn't mean that I agree with the choices they've made. There are restrictions, such as not partaking of the sacrament, going to the temple, or, for none members, being baptised, but those restrictions apply equaly to, say, adulterers. AllenHansen (talk) 08:18, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You speak of "the choices they've made" as if it's simply a matter of choice. I'd love to know why a person would willingly choose to expose themselves to the possibility of ridicule, hatred, vilification, discrimination, imprisonment, execution, religious persecution, religious restrictions, and murder. That's the attitudinal record against homosexuals down the ages, and much of it still goes on. Why would anyone ever choose to put their head into such a lion's mouth? Most straight males have a visceral reaction to the concept of 2 males having sex, which varies from mild displeasure to outright repulsion. So who are these people who go against their own nature to choose to enter into what they themselves consider to be repulsive sexual arrangements? What could possibly explain such utterly bizarre behaviour? Insanity? Extreme rebelliousness? And how does it go from being repulsive to being attractive, desirable and sexually arousing? Oh, I know, maybe they were always attracted to such things. Is that just barely possible? And wouldn't this mean they never chose this "lifestyle", just as they never chose to be left- or right-handed, never chose to be born in whatever country they were born in, never chose to be male or female, never chose to be short or tall, never chose to be a musical genius or tone-deaf, never chose to have parents who were Mormons, witches, Breatharians or whatever. I hope you see my point. The only choice homosexuals have is whether to acknowledge their nature and live their lives in accordance with it (not that it defines them or their life's purpose any more than being heterosexual does), or not. There are many reasons why many don't do so, and it's not hard to see why given the immense challenges they would often face. -- JackofOz (talk) 12:58, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You might ask why anyone would "choose" to become a Mormon and "expose themselves to the possibility of ridicule, hatred, vilification, discrimination, imprisonment, execution, religious persecution, religious restrictions, and murder." Yet millions choose it anyway all over the world. Why does anyone do anything hard? Wrad (talk) 21:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We're not asking you to agree with the viewpoint, Jack, just saying that such a viewpoint exists. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:11, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't what I was saying, Jack. I was refering to deciding to live that lifestyle (for lack of a better term). That's my opinion and it doesn't make me hate or dislike them. I'm not downplaying the struggle or difficulties. I don't, however, see any reason to like homosexualism. I'm sure there are things that you yourself find repulsive. 192.117.101.209 (talk) 20:28, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To Jack from his question way back: ::No. They believe it's wrong whether you hide it or not. They believe it's wrong to have that lifestyle in secret or in public. They believe it's a sin. I just wanted to make the clarification because, as a Kansan, I've had more than my share of Fred Phelps. He makes me sick. Wrad (talk) 21:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just read that link. All I can say is YOIKES. I've never heard Phelpsian teachings in our church. 192.117.101.209 (talk) 21:43, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I just wanted to clarify that there is a big difference between Mormon anti-gay and Phelps anti-gay. Anyway, I'm starting to wish I'd never brought it up. It's starting to become a classic example of the problem originally posed. Religions can't say anything without being accused of being bigoted, when in my experience, non-religious folks can be just as bigoted. I've run into bigotry on both sides. Religion does not hold a monopoly on bigotry. Wrad (talk) 21:48, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hope my remarks weren't interpreted as being in any way bigoted against religions, because that was certainly not my intention. I'm just trying to get my head around this question of "lifestyle". Is this simply another way of referring to sexual activity, or is there more involved? Let's take a married man who has occasional homosexual feelings, and has a single clandestine homosexual experience. I assume the disapproval would be on 2 grounds: (a) it's adultery, regardless of the gender of the sexual partner, and (b) any homosexual acts, in any circumstances, are frowned upon. If a man, whether he's married or single, does this on repeated occasions, does this mean he's practising a gay lifestyle? If a man takes it further and acquires a male sexual partner, or a series of them, is this the gay lifestyle you're referring to? Cheers. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mormonism believes in strict chastity before marriage and complete fidelity after marriage. So, in mormonism, if you're engaging in sexual acts outside of marriage, then it's a sin. It doesn't matter if you're homosexual or heterosexual. Wrad (talk) 23:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That, I can understand and accept as a position. I just wonder why people don't say it as simply as that, rather than getting into the "lifestyle" language, which just seems to muddy the issue because people have different concepts of what "lifestyle" means. Thanks. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:34, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. This particular issue has a lot of muddy definitions that hurt both sides. Wrad (talk) 23:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who is the earliest known person?

I've tried to locate the earliest historically known person, which I think should be some time in the 4th millennium BC or perhaps even earlier, prior to Sargon of Akkad of the Sumerians/Akkadians and Iry-Hor of the Egyptians. I've found many mythical names who supposedly existed before recorded history, but I'm looking for a real historical person. My guess is that it would be the name of a ruler, or perhaps a scribe who signed his (surviving) works. — Loadmaster (talk) 04:08, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scorpion I? If the scorpion symbol associated with him is his name. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 04:40, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, we had an article on this topic but it got deleted due to lack of sources. — Kieff | Talk 05:04, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ötzi the Iceman? Not historically attested I suppose...but he was a real person. Adam Bishop (talk) 09:10, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well if you allow Ötzi, you'll have to allow Lucy.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:43, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See also a related question from December 2006: "Who is the first recorded human by name?". ---Sluzzelin talk 10:45, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mitochondrial Eve (140 kY ago), whilst not documented by her contemporaries, indubitably existed. Indeed, you may argue she still exists.

Y-chromosomal Adam, by comparision, is a spring chicken, aged 60 kY. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 13:16, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The list of Kings of Sumer extends back a long way. The lengths of reigns are obviously inaccurate, but according to the theory I first read, Enmerkar ruled at roughly the same time as the first known egyptian pharohs Tiu and the Scorpion, around 3050BC, but the lists here seems to suggest instead that Ngushur ruled at their time, which was apparently 3200BC. Names before that are increasingly unlikely to have been real people, but I doubt there's any point where we can say, 'none on the list before this king were real'. Or maybe there is no first person and all our history is circular. HS7 (talk) 20:39, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In case anyone says "Adam", "Chap One" preceeds him in most Bibles. --Dweller (talk) 20:36, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

does the California State Military Reserve allow gays

?

I don´t know if this is applicable to the question, but under the link http://www.calguard.ca.gov/ig/Pages/Homosexual.aspx the subsequent statements are made:

Applicants for enlistment will not be asked nor be required to reveal their sexual orientation
Applicants for enlistment will not be asked if they have engaged in homosexual conduct
While on active duty, soldiers will not be asked about their sexual orientation or conduct unless there is credible information of homosexual conduct

--Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 17:51, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't ask, don't tell --hello, i'm a member | talk to me! 22:16, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Date Of The New Moon Visible In Jerusalem Nearest The Spring Equinox 2008?

Please can someone help me with the date of the new moon visible in Jerusalem nearest the Spring equinox this year 2008? Grateful thanks.NZGail (talk) 07:32, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently it should be April 7. See here for example. Adam Bishop (talk) 07:52, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you use an optical aid; then it could be April 6. And are you sure the new moon preceding the equinox is not closer? --Lambiam 01:55, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The council of Nicea formula was the first Sunday after the first full moon after the vernal equinox, by the way... AnonMoos (talk) 11:45, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where the vernal equinox is defined to be on the 21st of March – which is way off if you follow the Julian calendar. --Lambiam 01:55, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Jim and Imperialism

Could Conrad's novel Lord Jim stand as a metaphor for the late imperial experience? What does it reveal about the values and attitudes of Victorian England?Jessie George (talk) 08:13, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When you've gone into it more, come back to us with things you find tricky (as per the intro box about homework above), Julia Rossi (talk) 08:57, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have gone into it, thank you very much, Julia Rossi. I was looking for opinions to compare with my own. I did not come here to be patronized. If you have nothing to say might I suggest that you confine yourself to saying nothing.Jessie George (talk) 17:50, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jessie, your bitchy reply to Julia (a valued contributor to this Desk) is sad and unnecessary. The people who reply to questions like yours are not paid nor is this their regular job. So have a thought for Julia's feelings. Your question certainly sounds like homework and Julia was quite correct to ask for more information - Adrian Pingstone (talk) 19:46, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems I came here, first, to be patronized and then lectured and insulted for my bitchy response. I do not need any silly little homilies from you, Adrian Pingstone. I know how the reference desk works. I asked my question because I was impressed by the expertise some people here have shown in dealing with literature and its historical context. Not, seemingly, in this case. My question was placed in good faith. The responses I have had have been shallow and stupid. I've done with Wikipedia and I have done with the reference desk. So long. Jessie George (talk) 08:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you present your opinions so we can compare all the better? AllenHansen (talk) 07:55, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! What a flounce! You'll catch more flies with honey than with vinegar, Jessie George.Snorgle (talk) 16:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, for fruit flies, that's not technically true. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 13:35, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've now lodged a request on this user's talk page that her question is posted afresh. Clio the Muse (talk) 03:54, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aklavik

Do exist a city called Aklavik in Alaska? Or is only in the Northwest territories? In an atlant of 1967 there are monthly temperature of "Aklavik (Alaska)" (9 mt of altitude): January: -27,8°, February -26,9°, March -22,5°, April -13,1°, May -0,6°, June 9,4°, July 13,6°, August 10°, September 3,3° October -6,7°, November -19,4°, December -26,7°. Is only a confusion? Francesco.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aklavik,_Northwest_Territories for the settlement in Canada.

There are a few references via Google to an Aklavik in Alaska, but but none of them give any useful details. Maybe contacting the relevant authority in Juneau would give a precise answer. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 13:08, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can find no indication that such a place exists. Like Cockatoo, I tried a Google search of "Aklavik Alaska" (With quotes around it). The only result that remotely suggested an actual place was a description of a photo from a museum's archives: "Notes: Aerial photograph of Aklavik, Alaska taken by the Royal Canadian Air Force." I don't know what the Canadian Air Force would be doing photographing Alaska; smells like a mistake to me.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 13:12, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. A Google Maps search only shows "Aklavik Circle, Sterling, Alaska" which looks like the name of a street rather than a town. Thanks. ~A H 1^(TCU) 02:03, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's pure speculation but I could imagine that a US weather service, wanting to report weather over the whole of the US, might find that the nearest reporting point to some chunk of Alaska was actually Aklavik in the NWT. And I could imagine them referring to that part of the country as "Aklavik, Alaska" - especially if their system didn't allow for reporting points outside the US. As I say, just speculation. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:57, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The US Geographic Names Information Server (page requires Javascript enabled) has no entry for Aklavik, so it certainly would seem there is no such place in Alaska. --Anonymous, 23:24 UTC, March 24, 2008.

Demonology trivia

Who fits the following description: "the lion-headed, eagle-footed Assyrian-Babylonian demon of disease and evil?" He is believed to wield a "mace of wounding" and a "dagger of killing." I need the name of this creature so that I may worship him.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 13:02, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gozer? Adam Bishop (talk) 13:08, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No Ghostbusters jokes please. This is a serious question (although a separate question of interest might be whether the fictional monsters Gozer and Zuul were based on actual Sumerian demons--but let's attend to my primary question first).--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 13:15, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, sorry, I couldn't resist. But if I am looking at the same book as you on Google Books, then it apparently doesn't have a name. Adam Bishop (talk) 13:16, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is an irritating and somewhat uninformative book; however, I believe he does have a name and very possibly a Wikipedia article. I am of the opinion that learning this entity's name will allow me to animate a host of undead warriors from the bowels of the Earth. Any Wikipedian who helps me discover this name may be permitted to rule at our side.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 13:33, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly Asag. It's how he is depicted in Hordes of the Things, for example. See here. ---Sluzzelin talk 13:50, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm restoring your first comment (hope you don't mind). I think this actually helpful, and I love that picture! ~~If I had to guess, I would think that "the Hordes of the Things" designer probably used this as inspiration (see figure 2).~~ scratch that. on closer inspection, the miniaturist said he constructed his creature from a griffin with the head of a temple dog. However, I can't find evidence that Asag was described this way in ancient poems.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 14:04, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zu or Anzu. ---Sluzzelin talk 13:55, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so.... Anzu looks like an actual bird--and not a particularly anthropomorphic one. I think my demon is more of a half man-half beast kind of a deal. Also bear in mind that the demon I wish to worship is "Assyrian-Babylonian," not "Sumerian." Can someone tell me whether these cultures had discrete mythologies, or whether they overlapped or derived from one another......--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 14:04, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mesopotamian religious practices "overlapped" greatly: the succesive waves of new immigrants tended to incorporate -and deeply respect- the religious traditions of the peoples and "older civilizations" they found already established in the region, and syncretism run rampant. As a clear example, long after Akkadian had replaced Sumerian as the spoken language of Lower Mesopotamia, Sumerian made its last stand as a venerated religious language in which certain rites continued to be performed. - Ev (talk) 15:57, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

rofl I just saw the picture at Google Books :-) This kind of demon is generically known as an ugallu, but I'm not aware of any instance of one being individualized and given a proper name. Its depiction in the walls of Assyrian palaces was intended to protect the place from supernatural beings and evil spirits, much like a lamassu or the Roman Lares. - Best regards, Ev (talk) 14:20, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Ugallu = Gallu? Or is that a different type of Mesopotamian demon?--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 14:24, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/16653/16653-h/16653-h.htm " Gallu was applied in the sense of "foreign devil" to human and superhuman adversaries of certain monarchs."

Elsewhere they are described as 'demon bulls'

Caution. Don't these creatures usually make unreasonable demands in return for their proper name eg Your soul, years supply of snickers bars, gold subscription to XBOX Live etc...87.102.16.238 (talk) 14:44, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Different types. Mesopotamian languages are full of homonyms: gallu or gallû itself can also mean "soldier" or an equivalent to our "policeman". - Ev (talk) 15:57, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

State first to throw a million men into war?

Lotsofissues 13:09, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

The Achaemenid Empire, if you believe Herodotus...but no one does. Adam Bishop (talk) 13:13, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Roman Empire probably could have. Or India. Or, if it doesn't matter if they were all on the same side, maybe China. The Maurya empire had 50 million people at it's peak, the roman empire between 70 and 100 million 400 years later. A large part of the roman army seems to have been used for defence of it's huge borders, which might count as a war. at the time of the Maurya empire, the chinese Zhou empire was ending in a civil war. I don't know any exact numbers though, but I suspect it must be one of these three.HS7 (talk) 20:05, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Qin Empire of China (221-206BC) (which emerged the winner after the centuries of civil war that ended the Zhou Dynasty) had an army of over a million. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 03:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas MacArthur

~~How popular was it to name a child after Douglas MacArthur during World War II? What references show this~~?--Doug ^talk 13:22, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I doubt many people changed their child’s last name, so probably not that popular. --S.dedalus (talk) 21:43, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good point! I will reword the question: Were there an unusual number of new born sons named Douglas during the time of WWII because of the popularity of Douglas MacArthur? Sources that say this?--Doug ^talk 21:54, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I went here and calculated the numbers of Douglases per decade as a crudely rounded percentage of the total through the twentieth century. I'm not going to even try to cobble together an ASCII graph of the results, but here they are in tabular form:

1900–09—.06

1910–19—.09

1920–29—.1

1930–39—.2

1940–49—.5

1950–59—.7

1960–69—.7

1970–79—.4

1980–89—.2

1990–99—.1

As crude as they might be, these numbers show a marked spike, more in the post–WWII years. Remember that his fame extended into the fifties with the Korean War. --Milkbreath (talk) 22:43, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. These suggest, but of course do not prove, that it had something to do with MacArthur. Some of the Douglases may have been so named purely because it had become a popular name for baby boys (which in turn may have been because of MacArthur's prominence). The popularity of individual names rises and falls for all sorts of complex reasons, and maybe it would have happened anyway. Then again, maybe MacArthur wasn't kidding when he said "I will return" (he never specified in which form he'd return). :) -- JackofOz (talk) 04:26, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not that this will prove the matter, either, I went back and did "Dwight", a rarer name (This is all US data, by the way.):

1900–09—.04

1910–19—.04

1920–29—.04

1930–39—.04

1940–49—.07

1950–59—.1

1960–69—.07

1970–79—.04

1980–89—.02

1990–99—.02

The frequency of the most popular name (Robert, Michael, etc.) stayed in the range 3 to 8 percent throughout. --Milkbreath (talk) 11:15, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well thanks for the statistical information on Douglas. I was born in 1945 and nowhere in my family history is the name "Douglas", so wondered how I came of this name. I do believe you have confirmed my suspicion.--Doug ^talk 16:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Those are some interesting calculations. By the way, it was once not uncommon in the US to use the first and last name of a famous person when naming a child, so if MacArthur lived a century earlier, I'd expect there'd be plenty of guys named Douglas MacArthur Smith and Douglas MacArthur Jones, etc., but I don't know if this first & middle naming practice was common in the 20th century. The most obvious examples of this are all the people named George Washington something. In my own family tree there is an Andrew Jackson Myers and a Ulysses Grant Myers; there were probably hundreds of boys similarly named. Even someone not well-known today, like Bishop William McKendree, had notable people named after him: William McKendree Springer, William McKendree Robbins, and William McKendree Gwin. There are doubtless many such examples, though I would expect presidents and generals to top the list. I wonder if there was a corresponding naming practice for girls? —Kevin Myers 00:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Florence was not a common name for girls before Florence Nightingale. Edison (talk) 04:25, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Luther King, Jr. is a relatively recent example of the given names being the given name + surname of an honoured person. Although MLK was born in 1929, this name was adopted in 1935. One example does not establish that it was common, of course. --Lambiam 11:47, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What were Sazonov's Thirteen Points ?

I read that foreign minister of Russian Empire, Sergey Sazonov declared a famous Thirteen Points during First World War that established war aims of Russia. However I was not able to found the exact text of those points or their exact composition. Does anybody now if there is an online text with his points, and what were they ?--Molobo (talk) 15:30, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The first google hit for 'Sazonov thirteen points' is an article that claims to list them. In case you can't access JSTOR, here they are:

The three allied powers have as their primary goal the destruction of German power and the German desire for military domination;
Territorial modifications must be determined by the principle of nationality;
Russia will annex the lower course of the Niemen River and the eastern portion of Galicia; it will also annex to the kingdom of Poland eastern Posen, southern Silesia, and the western portion of Galicia;
France will regain Alsace-Lorraine, and, if it so desires, a portion of the Prussian Rhineland and of the Palatinate;
Belgium will receive a significant territorial increase in the vicinity of Aix-la-Chapelle;
Denmark will regain Schleswig-Holstein;
The kingdom of Hanover will be restored;
Austria will be divided into a tripartite monarchy, comprised of the empire of Austria, the kingdom of Bohemia, and the kingdom of Hungary; the Austrian empire will include only its hereditary provinces, the kingdom of Bohemia will be comprised of present-day Bohemia as well as Slovakia, and the Hungarian kingdom will have to reach an understanding with Romania concerning Transylvania;
Serbia will annex Bosnia, Herzegovina, Dalmatia, and the northern portion of Albania;
Bulgaria will receive from Serbia territorial compensation in Macedonia;
Greece will annex the southern portion of Albania, with the exception of Valona, which will fall to Italy;
Britain, France, and Japan will divide the German colonies; and
Germany and Austria will pay war reparations [une contribution de guerre].

That's (a reconstruction of) the version sent to Paris by the French ambassador to Russia after talks with Sazonov. It should be noted that the thesis of that article is that the points are just Paléologue's write-up of an informal discussion, and never constituted official Russian policy. Algebraist 17:31, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could these go in the article? Julia Rossi (talk) 01:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

why dont citizens of other countries get to vote in U.S. elections

why don't citizens of, say, France, get to vote in U.S. elections, given that they're just as much affected by the results as Americans are...?

Because it would be anarchy. Governments are a group of people who hold a monopoly on the legitimate use of force in a given territory, therefore it makes sense that those within that territory should be the ones to chose that government. Foreign citizens are not bound to the land they are living in and could therefore vote with a shorter time perspective, or with other interests pertinent to his/her country of origin. Besides, voting is a right and rights bring with them certain constraints and obligations that foreign citizens might not want to have.--Yamanbaiia^{(free hugs!)} 18:53, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anarchy is a lack of government, not expanding the suffrage to include non-citizens. The reason citizens of France don't get to vote in US elections is because the US has made voting a right that comes with citizenship—it's as simple as that. You could imagine a situation in which a country allowed non-citizens to vote (say, non-documented immigrants, or people with work visas, etc., or citizens of territories, etc.). It would be unusual to say the least but I don't think it destroys the idea of government itself, anymore than the idea that citizens can vote even if they are not residents of a territory (e.g. by absentee ballot) would. Thousands of Americans vote from other countries, they are not necessarily any more "bound to the land" than, say, a French national living in New York. --Captain Ref Desk (talk) 19:21, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The "unusual situation" wasn't soo unusual in the US until the 1830s or so; white male non-citizens, immigrants residing in the US could and did vote in some places. Too lazy to dig up a cite. Should be somewhere here. John Z (talk) 21:32, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In Australia, voting is both a right and a responsibility (as long as you're registered to vote, which is also a responsibility). It's no longer the case, but there were times in our not too distant past where certain persons (eg. British subjects) who were not Australian citizens but resided here could register to vote, and having registered, were then required to vote. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:51, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The number of supra-national elections is very limited. The two that come to mind are:

Papal elections, where 80-odd cardinals of various national bishoprics elect the Pope in the papal conclave. Clearly, this is not a sample of universal suffrage.
Elections for the European parliament, where some 350 Mio Europeans vote for this legislative council by general and trans-national suffrage within the 27 member states.

Bear in mind that trans-national elections are a massive logistic problem. They also pose significant problems in the allocation of seats. Compare this to the US senate, where every state, regardless of the size holds two seats. Also consider that the electoral system of voting varies. In the US, the president is elected indirectly, in some countries you have a proportional system, in others a majoritarian system.

There are stacks of other complicated issues. In many European countries a parliament can dissolve and call for new elections. In the US there is no such option (at least in my understanding). All these conflicting issues have to be tackled and solved before a trans-national election makes any sense and can be implemented. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 22:23, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Italy has seats in its parliament reserved for representation of Italians living abroad. A man who had migrated to Australia many years ago, and who I assume has dual Italian-Australian citizenship, won one of these seats and became an Italian Senator a couple of years ago, but his primary residence is still in Australia. If my assumption about his dual citizenship is correct, he also not only gets to vote in Australian elections, he is required to do so; whereas he's not required to vote in Italian elections. -- JackofOz (talk) 04:18, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In Canada, the right to vote was not limited to Canadian citizens until the 1970s or 1980s. Any Canadian resident who was a British subject could vote -- which basically meant any citizen of a British Commonwealth country. However, this is just an example of the way Canada's status changed in gradual stages from British colony to independent country. Until about 1947, there was no such thing as a Canadian citizen (or UK citizen either) as distinct from the broader term "British subject". And the vote never extended to British subjects resident elsewhere. --Anonymous, 23:31 UTC, March 24, 2008 (copyedited later).

Preposterous. By the same token, why don't US citizens get to vote in French elections? No man is an island, after all. AllenHansen (talk) 07:52, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many ideas that are accepted now were once considered quite preposterous, such as that of allowing common people – and even women! – to vote. I any case, there can be little doubt that the original questioner did not pose the question to get factual information, but to express the opinion that non-US citizens ought to be able to have a say in who will be the primary political leader of the First World. However, Wikipedia in general and the Reference desk in general is not intended for soapboxing or general debates, however interesting. --Lambiam 12:04, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

what's the MOST number of people that could be hidden and unaccounted for without anyone realizing it?

n/t

6.5 billion. Absolutely no one would be able to know where has everybody gone to.--Yamanbaiia^{(free hugs!)} 19:10, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to be nit-picky but who are "anyone" in this case? Obviously the people being hidden would know they were being hidden, obviously the people hiding them would know. Are we talking about an organization of hiders and an organization of the hidden? Are the hidden being hidden by choice? Why are they being hidden? Does "realizing it" mean knowing the specific reason people are disappearing or just being aware of the disappearances at all?* Does it matter who is being hidden? (The most could be only one if it's the wrong person -- if you hid my wife, I'd know pretty quick!) It's a somewhat silly and unanswerable question if you don't define the parameters a little more carefully. --Captain Ref Desk (talk) 19:16, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Just as an example of this: the Manhattan Project was only "secret" in the sense that many people outside the project and even many inside the project did not know it was a project specifically to build an atomic bomb, but there were thousands of people both inside and outside the project that knew there was some sort of secret project. So we say the Manhattan Project was a massive secret, but what we mean is very few people outside the project knew it was made to develop specifically an atomic bomb rather than nobody knew that there was a project at all. Vice-President Truman famously did not know the purpose of the Manhattan Project—but he did know that there was a $2 billion dollar research venture going on in Tennessee, Washington, and New Mexico (and had in fact started to investigate the spending before he was called off it by FDR). --Captain Ref Desk (talk) 19:16, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If 100% (all) were to disappear, nobody would be left to notice that they are gone.

If 0% (none) were to disappear, nobody would have left to be noticed that they are gone.

Anything in between would be noticed, at least in a reasonably "safe" society, sooner or later.

Bear in mind that societies have existed and still exist where hundreds, thousands, even millions disappear before the "outside world" realises.

--Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 19:34, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cookatoo! All this time I've been living in one big safe-house and didn't know it! Well, there ya go – that secret's outta tha bag. Julia Rossi (talk) 23:12, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! I am an agent (the name is Smith, James Smith) of the almighty Xenu, he who has whisked you all away to the terrestrial loony bin without anybody realising it.

You have penetrated the Inner Darkness and will be cast into the slavery of the evil Diskus Wikipaedos (that is just a rotund version of the one-way boomerang, by the way). --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 01:33, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paintings of the Popes in the Vatican

Is there an article on the Vatican's paintings of the Popes in St. Peter's Basilica? The artwork is a line of circular portraits of each Pope. Alientraveller (talk) 18:21, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you are referring to the Basilica of Saint Paul Outside the Walls where numerous holders of the papacy are depicted in a frieze. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 19:57, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's the one! Thanks! Alientraveller (talk) 20:13, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 21:14, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gay Nazi Officer

Who was gay in the Nazi Germany? Was Himmler? 190.49.110.46 (talk) 20:07, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The obvious ones are Ernst Röhm and his deputy Edmund Heines, who were purged in 1934. Himmler wasn't gay. Algebraist 20:07, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It has also been alleged that Hitler was gay or bisexual. See Adolf Hitler's sexuality --Kvasir (talk) 12:18, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The largest resistance in the WWII

I am working on article on Armia Krajowa, the Polish resistance (now A-class and future FAC). Many sources state it was the largest resistance force in WWII but a few give it the second place after the Yugoslavian partisans (see Armia_Krajowa#endnote_anone). The Yugoslavian partisans article is in pretty bad shape, and I was only able to find information that they numbered about 800,000 in 1945. I am looking for some more numbers, particularly for 1944, when AK numbered about 400,000. In 1945 AK has grew smaller due to hostility from the Soviet Union, while it would appear Yugoslavian partisans grew larger (since they were communist allied; with the coming of the Eastern Front Polish communists - Armia Ludowa grew from ~5,000 in 1943 to 10,000 in early 1944 and 30,000 in mid 1944). Hence I would like to verify if possible the numbers for Yugoslavian partisans in 1944, and also whether there was one of several organizations of them (perhaps the confusion stems from the fact that AK was the largest organization worldwide, but the Yugoslavian partisans refer to the total number of several organizations)? Also, I do wonder what were the numbers for Soviet, Chinese and Soviet partisans... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:10, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on what you define as the "resistance". The Chinese Red Army had 900,000 members in World War II. However, they were re-formed as the Eighth Route Army of the National Revolutionary Army of the Republic of China in 1937 (full scale war broke out slightly earlier in the same year), so was nominally part of the "official" army of China. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 01:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resistance - behind the lines, partisans, irregulars, etc. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:28, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2010 quarter

What will the United States quarter coin look like in 2010, after the 50 State Quarters program has ended? Presumably the obverse will be kept, but what will happen to the eagle on the reverse? --hello, i'm a member | talk to me! 22:12, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Different strokes for different fokes

I have not heard this comment used in any other way than to defend deviation from norm. It does raise the possibility that fokes are different and the reason for the difference is that they follow different rules. For instance, when someone spits on the sidewalk an immediate line is drawn between them and me. I do not spit on the sidewalk because it is disgusting to feel one's shoe slide a little instead of taking firm hold of the concrete and looking down to see where someone has thoughtlessly eliminate their mucus. I consider that the rules I follow and the rules the person who did this follows are irreconcilably different and that like divorce merits separation. Divorce is one way in which irreconcilable differences in the rules that people follow are ultimately and decisively handled. Are there any other ways in which irreconcilable differences in the rules that people follow are ultimately and decisively handled? ${\aleph _{0}}^{\aleph _{0}}$ _{(talk) (email)} 23:25, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For sake of discussion, there's a difference between laws (legality) and rules (customs). Something such as spitting on sidewalks is illegal in the US, Beijing, Singapore and discouraged by consensus in other places – usually for public health reasons. Possibly how people respond to this is "different strokes for different folks", meaning they can choose a way to deal with the prohibition (such as not spitting, spitting into a tissue etc). DSFDF is more to do with choices within legal parameters. In the divorce example for dealing with irreconcilable differences, there may be ways of carrying it out, such as the friendly way (amicably and co-operatively), the angry way (with hostility and endless litigation), between the parties (through mediation say) or in the courts. Or are you looking at other avenues of handling irreconcilable differences (such as in civil disputes, talking it through, moving away, aggression etc)? Not all different strokes are legal and not all have to be laws since there's an area where people are expected to be reasonable. Julia Rossi (talk) 23:58, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As to degree all rules are made up of variables and in terms of human endeavor variables can have multiple states. What is not often realized is simply the order in which variables are arranged may represent a difference in the rule that the variables combine to make. In other words the most significant variable for me might be not spewing mucus on the sidewalk which for others it may be whether I say "Hello." Usually the violation of another's rule can be overcome by an apology unless the violation happens too much. This is what I expect you mean by "reasonable." However, I am referring to cases in which no apology is offered and no change is made in the rule, making the difference permanently irreconcilable. ${\aleph _{0}}^{\aleph _{0}}$ _{(talk) (email)} 00:17, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That seems to bring in a third option sometimes called, cutting your losses. Someone told me an anecdote possibly from the Tibetan Book of Living and Dying (but it wasn't my find, so I can't verify it) about a man walking down a street with a hole in it and repeatedly falling into that hole, until he decided to take a different street. Julia Rossi (talk) 00:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hummm... are you possibly saying one way irreconcilable differences might become reconciled is if the rule which an individual upholds results in undesirable consequences promoting him to change that rule? ${\aleph _{0}}^{\aleph _{0}}$ _{(talk) (email)} 00:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I feel the individual need not change that personal rule if it's a valid one, but change it's application and timing. The subject is just reconciling himself to an irreconcilable difference. He just takes another street, not another world. Julia Rossi (talk) 01:13, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In logic it may only take a change in state of one variable or a change in significance (order) of a set of variables to make a difference reconcilable. Taking an alternate route makes the problem reconcilable. Now if two people are walking home and one wants to use the scenic route and the other the quickest route then unless one yields to the other as to the rule that they will follow an irreconcilable difference occurs that requires separation. 71.100.175.66 (talk) 01:52, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]