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

April 16

Matriarchical alternate universe films?

I wonder are there any films set in a normal, contemporary world except for the fact that the social power of males and females has been reversed? A sort of matriarchical White Man's Burden, so to speak. Preferably 20th century, American. Related suggestions welcome. Thanks! Skomorokh 15:48, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Well they may not have cars or aeroplanes, but Galadriel seems to be the brains of the operation in Lorien. Vranak (talk) 16:34, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I was looking for works more close to our consensus reality than that of Unfinished Tales, and a broader power distribution than one matriarch, but I appreciate the Tolkien nod nonetheless (though my own preference of matriarchs from that universe would without question be the spy queen of cats!). Skomorokh 17:09, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

3/4 of Oz seems to have been run by witches. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:59, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Skomorokh -- I know some books falling under that general description, but no movies, sorry. However, you could look at Riker's outfit in Angel One... -- AnonMoos (talk) 17:29, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Not just Riker's outfit in "Angel One"; the whole premise of the episode. —Angr (talk) 08:35, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, the rest of the episode didn't rise all that far above semi-cheesy 1950's depictions of square-jawed he-man explorers/astronauts stumbling across a matriarchy, but Riker's outfit shows that somebody on the show did spend a little bit of time seriously thinking through what the implications of a matriarchy might be.... AnonMoos (talk) 12:11, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps an episode of Sliders? —Tamfang (talk) 18:00, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I remember one episode of Sliders where they went to a parallel Earth that was almost entirely female. The few males were kept locked up and permitted to breed with only a few select females. Our heroes managed to find refuge in the house of a sympathetic woman, but were given away when the police saw the toilet seat left up! —Angr (talk) 08:35, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

There were a number of gender-reversal episodes on Sliders. You're thinking of the episode "Love Gods", and Tamfang is probably recalling the episode "The Weaker Sex", where Hillary Clinton is president (as opposed to the then-president Bill Clinton) and the plot revolves around Maximillian Arturo breaking the glass ceiling by running for public office. There's also the episode "The Prince of Slides", where men are the ones who get pregnant. See: List of Sliders episodes. -- 174.21.254.3 (talk) 19:08, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

You might want to take a look at our pages on two TV films, Planet Earth and The Last Man on Planet Earth, though both depict futuristic matriarchies rather than alternate universe ones. And you've probably already thought of and rejected She. --Antiquary (talk) 18:22, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

The closest I could find is Zeta One. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:59, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

The Wicker Man, FAQ: Frequently Asked Questions, Bees in Paradise, Sexmission, America 3000, Star Maidens (saw this on AFN in Germany around 1980). ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 12:43, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

How do I put a new page up for one that has been deleted?

I've written a page about Norfolk writer Sue Welfare. It's Currently a sub page from my user page. When I went to move it into the wiki I found that there had been a page in 2010 that has been deleted. I can't find the old page to see what the problem was. When I follow the links of the removal notification page there's just a mass of links with very poor descriptions so I can't see the page they've deleted.

I believe I've created suitable citations (BBC, University of East Anglia) and she has written about 16 novels published by legitimate global publishers. (I've seen articles about authors who have much less detail with much less significant careers.) I have also found an article in Wikipedia (Roy Waller) that refers to her so I can link my article so it won't be an orphan.

I'm new to Wikipedia. What do I do?

User:Kotch5/Sue_Welfare#Writing_career

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sue_Welfare&action=edit&redlink=1

Roy_Waller

Kotch5 (talk) 17:30, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Kotch5 -- The previous articles under that name were deleted for copyright infringement, so as long as your effort doesn't infringe on copyrights, it won't be deleted for the same reason. However, this question should probably be asked on the help desk... AnonMoos (talk) 17:35, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Is it possible to get a link to the help desk? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kotch5 (talk • contribs) 10:29, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

No problem I've found it. Kotch5 (talk) 10:35, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Silvio Crespi

Silvio Crespi signed the treaty of Versailles . who was his wife?and did he have children, if so what are their names? My great grandmother Lina Crespi was an accomplished opera singer and painter and was related to him according to mothers records . Ii am trying to get the order down. I have many of her oil paintings !and I am searching for a provenance. Thank you so much. Sonia Lovett. Granddaughter of Elsie Gunn Crespi Ricketts —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.205.9.53 (talk) 21:49, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

• He has a biography in the Enciclopedia Italiana. It confirms he did have children - one son is named, Benigno (b. 1895) and as he's described as figlio primogenito, eldest son, there were probably others - but there's no mention there of his wife's name or the names of any other children. Shimgray | talk | 22:44, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

There's information on the early history of the Crespi family on this English language site and this Italian language one. It appears that Silvio Crespi's wife was called Teresa Ghiglieri, that she married him on 3rd January 1893 and died on 9th September 1944. I'm afraid I don't see any more on their children than Shimgray has discovered. --Antiquary (talk) 10:51, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I've just remembered that there's a useful source of facts called Wikipedia. Italian Wikipedia's page on Silvio Crespi says he and Teresa had seven children, but doesn't name them. There are also pages on Silvio's father Cristoforo Benigno Crespi at Italian Wikipedia and here at English Wikipedia. --Antiquary (talk) 11:27, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Treaty of Seringapatam

Does anyone know where I can find the text (preferably online) of the Treaty of Seringapatam? Thanks... ╟─TreasuryTag►sundries─╢ 21:57, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

• There's a copy as Appendix i (p. 275 onwards) in this book - it should hopefully be visible to you. Shimgray | talk | 22:37, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Image used in the article Nightclub

I have noticed this image: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Okinawa_club.JPG

This image features mainly black men and Japanese women. This is clearly not a normal nightclub in Japan.

What is up with this image?--X sprainpraxisL (talk) 23:00, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I think you will find that actually the image features mainly American men and Japanese women. Okinawa has large American military bases. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:12, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

African-American men then. Same difference. I understand Okinawa is south of the main parts of Japan.--X sprainpraxisL (talk) 23:16, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

In the same rough sort of way that Alaska is west of the main parts of the USA, yes. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:21, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Novels about Canadian inuit

Can anyone name any novels about Canadian Inuit or by Canadian Inuit authors? Or can anyone name any novels about Natives in Alaska? I don't want childrens' books or non fiction. Thanks! Neptunekh2 (talk) 23:37, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Sanaaq, the "first of all Canadian Inuit novels", written in 1955 or 1956 by Mitiarjuk Attasie Nappaaluk. Also Harpoon of the Hunter (one review calls it a children's book, but another acclaims it as "for all ages"). Clarityfiend (talk) 04:56, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Jack London was not an Inuit, but did write several stories about Alaska. StuRat (talk) 05:32, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I can't think of the title for a particular book, but the plot goes like this:

1) A native kills a white man, in self-defense, I believe, while in town, then returns to his distant igloo.

2) White officers (police ?) go there, arrest him, and attempt to bring him back for trial.

3) They fall through the ice due to not knowing the signs of thin ice, and the native rescues one officer. The rest die.

4) The native takes the surviving officer back to his igloo to help him recover. This includes "laughing with his wife" (having sex with her).

5) Once recovered, the officer has the moral dilemma of whether he should still take in the native for trial, knowing it will not be fair, due to racism.

So, can anyone help me with the name ? Something to do with Land of the Midnight Sun, perhaps ? StuRat (talk) 05:48, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

We have Category:Inuit writers. Farley Mowat wrote about the Inuit sometimes, but he's not one himself (and he's often accused of just making stuff up). Adam Bishop (talk) 08:00, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Though not originally a novel, Nanook of the North may be of interest. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.111 (talk) 09:52, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Atanarjuat is a movie, not a novel, but may also be of interest anyway. —Angr (talk) 10:17, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Saying no kids books rules out Michael Kusugak. Try James Archibald Houston who wrote, among others, The White Dawn (that's the move link not the book). Kevin Patterson wrote Consumption about an Inuit woman with TB in Montreal. Depending on how you feel about things Inuit myths has traditional stories and there are plenty of books about Inuit mythology. Alootook Ipellie has written at least one book of short stories and drawings and been featured in another. The Incomparable Atuk by Mordecai Richler. Rankin Inlet by Mara Feeney. Jean Craighead George has written some for "young adults" so that might work. Try looking further through here, I just went to page three. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 18:04, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Kabloona, a 1941 novel by Gontran de Poncins. --- OtherDave (talk) 00:37, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

That's non-fiction though. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 05:22, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Agaguk is a classic novel by Yves Thériault about the Inuit in Quebec. The movie version is generally considered terrible, though. --Xuxl (talk) 17:33, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

April 17

How do machismo people bullies deal with their boss?

One of the fundamentals of everyday machismo is that the person who lives by that creed believes in being dominant. Yet even machismo people can have bosses. How do they relate to their boss? Are they in fact even more submissive to their boss than the non-machismo person would be, since they are more conscious of and sensitive to matters relating to dominance?

I'd prefer answers based on research or personal experience rather than on imagination or movies please. Thanks. 92.15.8.229 (talk) 10:09, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

The word 'machismo' suggests that men are dominant, not that you, as an individual, are dominant. I suppose that some of those men would have a strong time accepting a female boss. Quest09 (talk) 11:54, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I was referring mainly to men, even though I ommitted to specify gender. I do not think Quest09's take is true, but let us not get sidetracked please. 92.24.177.71 (talk) 15:46, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Domonance involves control, in this context but machismo involves an exagerated show of masculinity. Not quite the same thing, although one sometimes involves the other.Phalcor (talk) 16:23, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

A reminder - I'm specificaly asking how machismo people deal with their bosses, not about machismo in general. Thanks. 92.24.177.71 (talk) 16:38, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

The problem for answering your question is that 'machismo' is badly defined. Do you need a certain appearance? Is it enough to discriminate woman? Do you have to put up fight with people who crossed your path? I suppose lots of wife-beaters don't have any meaningful problem with their males bosses. Quest09 (talk) 16:54, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Try the first definition here (parts 1 and 2) http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/machismo or what it says in the machismo article about the English meaning of the word. 92.24.177.71 (talk) 17:15, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I live in a notably machismo culture in Central America for several years and I see no employee/employer problems cause by the machismo attitude. If anything it seems to foster a sort of male comaradary. A common bond base on presumed superiority over, and to, the exclusion of women.190.56.17.69 (talk) 17:10, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps the aspect of machismo I mean is that of the bully. Rephrasing the question, how do bullies deal with their boss? Are they in fact even more submissive to their boss than the non-bully would be, since they are more conscious of and sensitive to matters relating to dominance? The particular people I once encountered were aggressive bullies to men but charming to women. 92.24.177.71 (talk) 17:21, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Previously (190 56 17 69) My experiences tell me that if a man is a bully with men then he is a bully. period. and he will in all likelyhood be a bully with any woman once his charm has acheived it's goal, eventually.Phalcor (talk) 17:35, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Once again I didn't fully answer your question. If a man wants to keep his job he will usually submit but I think not be more submissive than non bullies. behaviour patterns in the work place are usually well established. he knows what he has to do to keep his job. If not he looses it, which I've seen happen more than once.Phalcor (talk) 17:48, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Bullies are often bullied themselves. At school age it can take the form of a kid who is bullied by his parents and/or teachers and/or siblings and then takes it out on other kids. As adults, being bullied by the boss may then result in that person taking it out on his wife and kids, and thus continue the cycle. In the military (or quasi-military organizations, like the police), the higher ranks often bully the lower ranks, on down to new recruits, who must go outside the military to vent their frustrations, say by picking fights in bars. StuRat (talk) 21:13, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I think that is just a stereotype or cliched story. I've never experienced or observed that myself. I expect there is some research about that somewhere. 92.15.12.17 (talk) 22:31, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

For what it's worth, keywords searches for 'machismo'/'macho' and 'employer'/'workplace' in the journal databases I have access to yielded nothing particularly relevant. A small number of articles came up with each combination of terms, but they were mainly talking about women entering traditionally male-dominated fields, especially those fields with a physical labor focus (construction, the armed forces, &c.). I didn't read each article in depth, but none seemed to directly address your specific question. --some jerk on the Internet (talk) 22:26, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Bullies become subservient to bigger bullies further up the hierarchy.Hotclaws (talk) 17:25, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

There may be some split developing in macho (such as "macho management") and machismo having different meanings. 92.28.241.233 (talk) 18:03, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I recall reading in Man's Search for Meaning (or perhaps in If This Is a Man), a memoir about being in a concentration camp, that the author says that the bullies such as the ex-convict kapos would be very friendly with each other, as they thought they could be useful to themselves. Mutual pleasantness between bullies is something I've noticed myself. I'm still trying to unpick and understand the motives and mode of reasoning for the working-class macho I have ocassionally encountered in an otherwise middle-class life. I think its to do with being hypersensitive to even the slightest suggestion of a loss of dominance in the eyes of others. They try to maintain an iron-will, and go to great lengths to change the (lip-service of) facts to fit their minds but never the converse. 92.24.189.51 (talk) 10:46, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Official brochure for UK May 2011 referendrum

The government is/was supposed to be putting an official brochure through everyboy's letterbox regarding the upcoming referendrum regarding AV. But I have not received one. Where could I download it please? I have tried looking for it without success. Note that it is only the official government brochure that I am interested in, not other brochures about AV. Thanks 92.24.177.71 (talk) 16:30, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

choose your country and hit download. Nanonic (talk) 17:21, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Ancient language

I know that French, Italian, Spanish and Portuguese came from Latin and Bengali, Hindi, Urdu, Punjabi, Sinhala, Divehi, Gujarati, Marathi, Assamese, and Oriya came from Sanskrit. What about Kannada, Tamil, Telugu and Malayalam?-Which ancient did they come from? What about Kurdish, Pashto, Tajik, Pashai, Nuristani, Baloch, Persian, Lur, Gilaki, and Mazandarani?-Which ancient language did they come from? What about English, German, Danish, Icelandic, Swedish, Dutch and Norwegian?-Which ancient language did they come from? What about Turkish, Azeri, Qashqai, Turkmen, Uzbek, Kazakh, and Kyrgyz?-Which language did they come from? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.29.34.147 (talk) 16:39, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

To answer your questions in order: Proto-Dravidian, Proto-Iranian, Proto-Germanic, and Proto-Turkic. Incidentally, it isn't strictly accurate to say that the Romance languages came from Latin, the refined and elite language of Cicero and other classical writers. Instead, those languages are descended from Vulgar Latin, the spoken language of the common people, which differed in some ways from its elite, literary counterpart. Likewise, the Indo-Aryan languages are not directly descended from the literary and religious language that we know as Sanskrit. Instead, they are descended from Proto-Indo-Aryan, of which Vedic Sanskrit was one variety. That ancestor language was spoken about 3,500 years ago. The modern vernacular languages evolved alongside Sanskrit, which did not reach its classic form until more than 1,000 years later, around the time of Pāṇini. Marco polo (talk) 17:21, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

To quibble: "Romance is descended from Latin" is not as false as "Bengali etc are descended from Sanskrit"; both Vulgar and Classical Latin are descended from something that was already called Latin, I believe. —Tamfang (talk) 02:52, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, Tamfang, but not exactly textbook or dictionary Latin, which are based on the classical standard. Marco polo (talk) 13:35, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

World War One memoirs

What other non-fiction memoirs of experiences in WW1 are there apart from those of Robert Graves, Good-Bye to All That; Edmund Blunden, Undertones Of War; and Siegfried Sassoon, semi-fictional Memoirs of an Infantry Officer? Is there a list anywhere of all the WW1 memoirs? I believe many were published. Thanks 92.24.177.71 (talk) 16:49, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

There is a list of WW1 memoirs at World War I in literature#Memoirs and diaries. --Antiquary (talk) 20:35, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, although I believe there were many more than that published, but most of those not by literary authors have been forgotten. There is a long list, each evaluated and reviewed, in the book "War Books" published in about 1930 by someone who's name I forget. But unfortunately it is not available to preview on Google books. 92.28.241.233 (talk) 18:01, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

nature film or something else

Back in 1979, when I was in second grade, I took a field trip with my class to the Lawrence Hall of Science. In one portion, there was this place which looked like a small cinema. On the movie screen, there was this film. It featured a man who lived with his dogs inside a cabin somewhere in the woods. From time to time, the man would go canoeing on the river. Whenever the man was relaxing at his cabin, sometimes his dogs would make a little mischief. He'd say, "I told you to quit rocking that chair!" Does anyone know what type of film I'm trying to describe?24.90.204.234 (talk) 23:32, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

There's lots of film of a man (Richard Proenneke) who hand-built a cabin in Alaska and lived there for many years. I recall a canoe. I don't recall him having dogs, but he may have. Could this be it? StuRat (talk) 01:55, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Maybe, maybe not, I don't know. The film you're talking about was released in 2004. The one I saw with my class was shown at the Lawrence Hall of Science in 1979.24.90.204.234 (talk) 04:39, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

The 2004 movie consists mainly of home movies he made himself, starting in 1968. Those may have been made available to Lawrence Hall of Science before they were included in the film. StuRat (talk) 09:31, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

If it's any help, I remember reading a paperback about an American man who lived in isolation on the banks of a river somewhere. I think it was around the 1960s. 92.24.176.164 (talk) 12:23, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Could be the book by the same guy I mentioned above. (One Man's Wilderness: An Alaskan Odyssey came out in 1973.) StuRat (talk) 12:52, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I think the paperback guy was not in Alaska. 92.28.248.131 (talk) 21:29, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't know how the Lawrence Hall of Science could've obtained the home movies. What does a paperback have to do with the film I'm trying to figure out?24.90.204.234 (talk) 17:38, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Duh. Because the person in the paperback and the film could be the same. 92.28.248.131 (talk) 21:29, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I've seen the Proennecke film. No dogs or rocking chairs, as I recall. That's right. He was off his rocker to live alone like that. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:36, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Then I must be referring to another film, right?24.90.204.234 (talk) 17:15, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

April 18

Prince of the Land of Loud tale

I'm thinking of a story about a land where everything was loud. The doors didn't close; they slammed. The people didn't speak; they yelled. Etc. Then, for his sixteenth birthday, the prince of the land decided to get all the citizens into one room and have them scream at the top of their lungs. Each individual or married couple independently decided that he/she/they would be silent while everyone else screamed, but since everyone else was screaming, no one would notice that he/she/they was/were being silent. Then, when the moment came, the prince heard only silence. It was so beautiful that the people of the land decided they would be quiet from then on. What story is this? Wiwaxia (talk) 00:01, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Christians who reject the Sermon on the mount?

I was reading John F. MacArthur's gospel according to jesus, where he referred to certain extreme Dispensationalism teachers who claimed that the Sermon on the Mount does not apply to Christians since it is Law instead of Grace and thus still part of the old covenant. The statements of the Sermon on the Mount "have no application to the Christian, but only to those who are under the Law, and therefore must apply to another Dispensation than this. Does anyone have any info about specific individuals or sects who accepted this interpretation? --Gary123 (talk) 00:15, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Such theology is not prominent in any "mainline" christian denomenation, either protestant, catholic, or orthodox. I do not doubt that some people hold such theology; if one person can imagine it someone earlier started a religion about it. But it is not likely a widespread belief. --Jayron32 00:54, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

There's an interesting essay here about varying Christian attitudes to the Sermon. I quote;

"Dispensationalism, first developed by the Plymouth Brethren, divides human history into a series of ages or dispensations. Today we live in the period of grace where living up to the teachings of the sermon is impossible, but in the future, the Millennium will see a period where it is possible to live up to the teachings of the Sermon on the Mount, and where following them will be a prerequisite to salvation." Alansplodge (talk) 20:20, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

More here; "One of the most significant threats to the central role of the Sermon on the Mount in Mennonite thought and practice has been the influence of dispensational theology, especially in North America but also to a considerable degree among the Russian Mennonites at the beginning of the 20th century... God was seen as working in different ways in each dispensation. The age of the law preceded the age of grace, which was the age of the New Testament church. Characteristically the dividing point between the two ages was seen as coming with the crucifixion. Christ, at the beginning of his ministry, offered the kingdom of God to the Jews until they rejected it, and Matthew 11 was often viewed as marking the point of rejection. Christ's earlier ministry, including the Sermon on the Mount, was therefore still kingdom preaching with an emphasis on the law rather than on gospel." Alansplodge (talk) 20:30, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Can historians point to a specific period when NATO surpassed WarPac for the final time?

I've seen it mentioned in various places that when the Iron Curtain fell, and the Soviet Union collapsed, NATO(primarily American) military strategists were rather shocked to see that many of their estimates of Soviet technical level and ability were wildly off the mark. Specifically that what they really had/could do was inferior (in some places vastly so) to what NATO believed they had/could do.

But things weren't always this way, as evidenced by Sputnik. So, looking back from the 21st century, can historians now clearly identify a period when the balance of power shifted conclusively to the West? The Masked Booby (talk) 01:22, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

This is an extraordinarily complex question. The section on stagnation and declining growth in our article on the Eastern Bloc economies outlines some of the Soviet bloc's decline relative to the West: From the end of the World War II to the mid-1970s, the economy of the Eastern Bloc steadily increased at the same rate as the economy in Western Europe, with the least none-reforming communist nations of the Eastern Bloc having a stronger economy then the reformist-communist states.[ While most western European economies essentially began to approach the per capita Gross Domestic Product (GDP) levels of the United States during the late 1970s and early 1980s, the Eastern Bloc countries did not, with per capita GDPs falling significantly below their comparable western European counterparts."

See also Era of Stagnation. There are also many more detailed scholarly examinations of the Soviet decline: Easterly and Fischer 1994; Odom 2000; Ellman and Kontorovich 1998; and Stayer 1998 are a few. Hope this helps! Neutrality^talk 01:35, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

When they retreated from Afghanistan, that to me was evidence that their military was not as powerful as it once had been. (Under Stalin they would have just massacred any town that showed any signs of resistance, and won in that way.) StuRat (talk) 01:41, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

As for why the economic decline was delayed, I believe that the long term problem with communism offering no incentive to work was at first offset by communism being able to educate masses who were all illiterate peasants in previous generations, and the ability to force rapid industrialization. StuRat (talk) 01:45, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I would contend that Sputnik did not indicate that the balance of power had shifted to the East. It indicated that the East was further ahead in at least one particular scientific and technological area. (And not that much ahead — in a few months the US was scheduled to do the same thing.) The Soviet technological infrastructure was generally behind the US even in that period; they just beat them to one milestone. It was an important one, because it showed that the USSR was not so "backwards" that it could not catch up with concerted effort (as did their "early" detonation of an atomic bomb) in specific domains, but it didn't indicate that Russia had the upper hand generally, or with actual, in-field military technology. The reason the US was behind on Sputnik was not that they couldn't do it, but because they had spent far more of their research and development money and effort on long range bombers. The Soviets wisely reasoned they could not catch up with the US in this regard and invested vigorously in rockets from 1949 onward. (The decision of the US was also heavily influenced by inter-service politics.)

It was only much, much later — e.g. the 1970s and 1980s — that the Soviet Union actually matched the West in terms of its technological weaponry. This chart, while not everything (raw warhead counts are less important than delivery vehicles, for example), is a nice indicator of this. The West was really, really, really ahead of the USSR for quite a long time in really every important measure. The idea that the USSR was ready to take on NATO for most of the Cold War is a myth perpetuated by the people who were in charge of the defense budget. (Which is not to say that the USSR was defenseless or good intentioned or anything like that — just to say that the risk of American loss of superiority was highly exaggerated by people wanting to err very much on the side of caution, not coincidentally because their budgets depended on such estimates. The only thing the Soviets had to their advantage was raw numbers of mediocre-technology conventional military, but it's not at all clear what benefit that confers in an age of nuclear weapons.) --Mr.98 (talk) 04:28, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. Both Eric Hobsbawm (The Age of Extremes) and Tony Judt (Postwar: A History of Europe Since 1945) suggests that the Soviet Union never even came close to matching the West economically or militarily, but that they did succeed to some extent in the 1950's and early 1960's to make it seem like they were to outside observers. --Saddhiyama (talk) 08:59, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

There was also some suggestion that the US space program was intentionally delayed (by picking the less advanced rocket project to fund), so that Congress would then fully fund the space race, and the Soviet Union, having already flown a spacecraft over US territory, would have no basis to object to US flights over their territory. StuRat (talk) 09:28, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Space Race notes that Eisenhower desired a civilian satellite booster, but Project Vanguard was not sucessful; Vanguard TV3 failed spectacularly resulting in a loss of prestige. Explorer 1 launched using the Juno I booster based on the PGM-11 Redstone missile. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 12:08, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

(ec) I haven't read this, and find it very unlikely as a theory. It requires far too much prescience on the part of policymakers and even scientists, too much knowledge about what would happen and what the results would be. The fact is that most US scientific advisors (e.g. Vannevar Bush and Robert Oppenheimer) were pessimistic about rocket development well into the early 1950s — there were too many unknown unknowns, whereas long-range bombers were things where the US had verifiable and reliable experience (and an edge above the rest of the world due to their herculean efforts on the B-29 during WWII, which cost more than the Manhattan Project). --Mr.98 (talk) 12:10, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

General Sir John Hackett, a former commander of the British Army on the Rhine, wrote a book in 1978 called The Third World War: The Untold Story. In it, he postulated that the Soviets would calculate that after 1985, their large numerical advantage in terms of troops, armour and combat aircraft would be nulified by NATO's introduction of new high tec weapons like Cruise and Patriot. They therefore found an excuse to launch a huge armoured assault against West Germany in that year. Presumably, his book reflected at least some of the scenarios that NATO had planned for. In the event, the First Gulf War showed that the best equipment that the Soviets could produce wasn't up to much. However, it doesn't do to underestimate your enemy; assuming that Japan was backward militarily cost us all dear in 1941/42. Alansplodge (talk) 18:18, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

True. From a military standpoint it wouldn't do to underestimate your enemy, which is at least part of the explanation that Western (mainly US of course) generals vastly overestimated the capability of the Soviet Union, at least in terms of overall technological development and economic capability. --Saddhiyama (talk) 18:25, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

To be fair, the Warsaw Pact did have a HUGE numerical superiority in armoured vehicles. See Tank formations during the Cold War. Alansplodge (talk) 19:06, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

The common fantasy of the Cold War is the USSR rolling across Europe using just brute force. This is one of the reasons the US arsenal got so huge in the 1950s and 1960s — a large number of those weapons are tactical nukes meant for leveraging that difference (so that the US could take out entire tank formations with one plane). Now things obviously get more complicated once Russia has an ability to retaliate in kind. But just having large numbers of troops does not make one "ahead". North Korea has a military that is approximately the size of the current United States', but does anyone think that this means that the DPRK are at parity, military or otherwise, with the USA? And I would further postulate that erring so far on the side of caution as to be ridiculous is not a prudent strategy; the US had pretty good indications at various points that the Soviets were more bluff than reality (even during the missile gap, US intel was aware that it was nonexistent), but our policies were always about more, more, more. I do think that the amount of money spent on new high tech gadgets (most of which were never, ever used, thank goodness) was a poor use of our own capital. --Mr.98 (talk) 22:57, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I have to add one important quibble about Mr.98's claim, "The West was really, really, really ahead of the USSR for quite a long time in really every important measure." Right after Nazi Germany fell, Stalin, if he felt like it, certainly could have ordered his armies to continue to roll west, defeating the Americans and British and the French, who were hugely outnumbered, and could have established the Warsaw Pact across all of continental Europe. I'm having trouble finding a quick Wikipedia citation; our origins of the Cold War article doesn't really mention this. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:54, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not really sure that's strictly true. The USSR was stretched just as thin as the west, both militarily and economically. After marching a few thousand miles on boots stuffed with newspaper and old rags, I'm not sure that the Soviet military would have appreciated fighting on much farther than where they got to. While Stalin may have wanted to have done so, there's a certain pragmatic limit when even monomaniacal dictators take an honest assessment of their military assets and say "Maybe now is a good time to take a breather". Stalin may have not cared two shits about the welfare of his troops, but that's quite different from recognizing a military at its breaking point, which the Soviet Army clearly was by the end of the war. --Jayron32 20:39, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Stalin certainly realized that he was about at the limits of his empire building. There is no indication in the historical archives that Stalin seriously thought about taking Europe after WWII — he wanted "breathing space" from his enemies, he wanted politically-friendly states nearby and under his control, but he didn't actually want total control over the world, run from Moscow. (Or, at least, he wasn't actually willing to try and take the steps to get there.) Stalin's goals — security and prosperity — were the same ones the US had; it was his means of getting them that distinguished the two states (the US was pretty nasty in some instances towards those goals — coups, assassinations, propped up dictators, giving RPGs to jihadists, etc., but it's pretty hard to match Stalin for unpleasantness). --Mr.98 (talk) 22:59, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Stalin had large but largely decrepit conventional forces. They won in the East by essentially throwing everyone they had at the Germans, losing two of their own men for every German on the aggregate (but far higher percentages in some battles). It's unclear what a post-WWII confrontation between US, UK, and France would have looked like against the USSR, but it wouldn't necessarily have been a walk in the park, especially given the US superiority in new weapons systems (long-range bombing, firebombs, nuclear weapons, radar). Again, it depends how you track "ahead" or "behind" but I don't put raw numbers as de facto "ahead." The Soviet economy was in tatters, the Soviet homeland was burnt to a crisp with massive civilian dead, and the Soviet Army was exhausted and stretched thin. The US by contrast had essentially zero damage on the home front. I would count immediate postwar US as being significantly better off militarily and economically than the USSR, by quite a long stretch. --Mr.98 (talk) 22:57, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I think nuclear weapons probably stopped Stalin from considering an attack on Western Europe. It's true that early on the US had no immediate nuclear weapons they were capable of delivering to the Soviet Union, but Stalin didn't know that. And US stockpiles quickly started to grow, so that soon the threat was real. So, the only way I see Stalin attacking was before Hiroshima. Yes, the US had hinted at having nuclear weapons before then, but Stalin might have taken this to be a bluff. StuRat (talk) 01:46, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

It's a big historical question regarding whether Stalin really wanted to invade, whether the nukes deterred him. There isn't much evidence that he wanted to invade. Stalin knew about the Manhattan Project long before even Truman did; he didn't need hints from the US to know that they were building nukes, he had boffo spies. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:44, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

It's not realistic to describe Stalin's conventional forces in Europe in May 1945 as decrepit, exhausted, or thinly-stretched. You have to remember that the next thing they did was travel several thousand miles to the east and effortlessly defeat a Japanese army nearly one and a half million strong. Before the advent of well developed jet fighters, nuclear weapons, attack helicopters and wire-guided anti-tank missiles, the state of the art was armoured forces backed by copious close air support. That's exactly what the Soviet military had, and exactly what their economy (relocated east of the Urals and not at all "in tatters") was optimised at churning out. Their heavy losses in personnel were the result of incompetent handling of the early months of the war, a total disregard for casualties, and spending significant parts of the later stages of the war using inexperienced troops of their own against veteran German troops in defensive positions.

The vast majority of the Western allies' tank strength in 1945 was the Sherman M4. This was significantly outmatched by the German Panther, Tiger, and even Panzer IV, but the Allies had overcome this by outnumbering the German tanks by at least 4 to 1 (both at theatre level and at the immediate tactical level) - around 50,000 Shermans against only about 6000 Panthers and less than 9000 Panzer IV, when many of the German tanks were deployed against the Russians anyway. The Western allies also had the advantage of total air superiority, and the Germans had the disadvantage of severe shortages of oil.

By contrast the Russians built a total of close on 60,000 T-34 tanks during the war. The T-34 outclasses the Sherman in every way except crew comfort, such that the Western allies would have had to rely on the British Sherman Firefly (about 2000 built) and the American M36 tank destroyer (1,400) as the only vehicles available in significant numbers that could take on the T-34 on almost equal terms. (All T-34s had markedly superior armour protection to the Firefly and the M36, and the upgunned T-34-85 built from 1944 onwards would have been a significantly greater challenge.) But these vehicles would be outnumbered more than ten to one!

What's more, the Russians had been building heavy tanks as well. The German King Tiger had been produced in tiny numbers (less than 500) such that the Allies had been well able to wait for them to run out of fuel, break down, be destroyed from the air or fall victim to a lucky shot from a 17 pounder tank gun or anti-tank gun. But the Soviet IS-2 tank and ISU-152 assault gun were every bit as dangerous as a King Tiger, and production of the two together totalled nearly 6000.

Air superiority would have been more evenly contested, but the Soviet airforce did at least boast vast numbers of ground attack aircraft. And the Soviets had absolutely no lack of oil or other raw materials. Strategic bombing cannot halt an offensive when the required forces are already in the field and have an overwhelming superiority in firepower. So yes, it seems almost certain that the Soviets could have rolled right across Western Europe as far as the English Channel - the distance from Berlin to Paris is tiny compared to the distance from Moscow to Berlin. The first nuclear weapon wouldn't be ready for several months.

So why didn't Stalin do it? Probably because there was no end game in such a scenario. Hitler had failed to invade the United Kingdom even when the USA had not yet joined the war. Stalin's air force was even less well suited to a strategic bombing campaign against the UK than Hitler's air force had been in 1940, and Stalin didn't have a submarine fleet, nor pocket battleships to act as surface raiders, to try to enforce a blockade. British and U.S. heavy bombers flying from England, northern Italy and Iran would be able to hit targets across vast swathes of the newly expanded empire. Hitler's conquest of France had neutralised the French navy and army, and gained him ports on the French Atlantic coast as bases and refuges for his U-boats and surface raiders. Stalin did not need to do either - all he would get from conquering France would be a photo opportunity at the Eiffel Tower to remind him that Hitler had done just the same five years earlier but come to a bad end anyway. There are no strategic resources in France, unlike the oil reserves that Hitler wanted from the Caucasus and the Japanese wanted from south-east Asia. (There's coal in West Germany, but the Soviets weren't short of coal.)

Thus there was no point in taking on the other new superpower and its allies, for no strategic gain. Instead Stalin joined in against the losing side as he had originally agreed to do, and secured more geographically limited gains in the Far East, but without the colossal risk. His conquest of Manchuria also facilitated his backing of the Communist side in the Chinese civil war, bringing a significant new power onto the Communist side of things, albeit not under Soviet control. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:48, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Regarding your statement that "strategic bombing cannot halt an offensive when the required forces are already in the field and have an overwhelming superiority in firepower", I agree, but only with conventional weapons. Once nuclear weapons became widely available to the US, I believe they could halt, and then roll back, the offensive. And I do believe they would have been used, in this scenario. StuRat (talk) 12:34, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Stalin's defeat of the Japanese in Manchuria was a combination of overwhelming forces, surprise, and the fact that Japan was on its last legs anyway. I don't think one can take that as evidence for Soviet supremacy. In any case, all of this again depends on what you are gauging "supremacy" to be. They had incurred 40 million deaths; lost 1/4 of their capital resources; and required their satellite states to send them resources to prop things up in the immediate aftermath. There were certainly better off on some metrics than other European states, but they were still quite behind the US in these respects. In a wartime scenario the US could have had another atomic bomb by the end of August, and produced a few bombs a month thereafter. (The US bomb production fizzled out in the mid-1940s because of manpower shortages caused by people going home after the war, and because of confusion over the postwar atomic organization, which didn't get resolved until sometime after the Atomic Energy Act went into effect in 1947.) The US still had the largest scientific/technological infrastructure on the planet — Stalin's was still limited to sharashka labor camps. I'm just not seeing the parity there. Yes, large conventional forces. No doubt. But that's it. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:44, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I think you've misunderstood; I've actually drifted off the original question. I am not suggesting Soviet supremacy whether in economic, technological or overall strategic terms. What I am suggesting is that it is nonsensical to describe the Soviet armies as on the brink of collapse in May 1945, and I am suggesting that an offensive against the Western Allies in May 1945 would have produced a second Fall of France. But, as I've said, it wouldn't need nuclear weapons to stop that Soviet offensive; it would be stopped by the English Channel well before the nuclear weapons were ready. Stalin decided against such an offensive before he knew much if anything about the nuclear weapons program, so he must have been reasonably sure that the risks outweighed the advantages even on the basis of a conventional war.

The Soviets had no interest in strategic bombing, but the Western Allies had been using the strategic bombing campaign as their excuse for not opening a Second Front in France for quite some time. So Stalin would have been well aware of the claims made for its effectiveness, the technological developments underpinning it, and the substantial forces built up by the Western Allies to achieve it (specifically, the Avro Lancaster and B-29 Superfortress bombers, and the P-51 Mustang long-range fighter to escort the day bombers.) The U.S. in particular had also built up industrial production in areas where the Soviets had no involvement; so while key naval battles earlier in the war like Midway and Operation Pedestal had been carried out by as few as four aircraft carriers, by the end of the war the Americans were able to deploy dozens of carriers. Stalin would certainly be well aware of this.

A Soviet offensive in May would also bring up other interesting possibilities. The Western Allies might re-arm some of the defeated German forces to fight the Soviets. The scientists and technical data originally obtained from Germany by the Western Allies might end up in Soviet hands instead, so the Soviets might have had ICBMs considerably before the Americans did, but initially with no nukes to mount on them. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:20, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

On the side-issue of the state of Soviet forces in 1945: The British were rather more aware of the potential for cold war than the US, and in June 1945 prepared a plan in case the disputes over the future of Europe turned violent. Operation Unthinkable makes very grim reading. The military planners in London had a high opinion of the Soviet armed forces. I've also read the British military plans for the defence of Europe in 1947-48, i.e. after the West demobilized, and before the creation of NATO. They're even worse: the British Army of the Rhine would run from Germany to Gibraltar as fast as they could, and try to hang on in Gib, to avoid repeating Dunkirk and D-Day. IIRC nuclear weapons would be used in Germany as necessary. However, the English Channel was regarded as an effective barrier. Matt's talk 15:39, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Trifles Susan Glaspell and The Cask of Amontillado

(1) Trifles Susan Glaspell - In the play, which characters are round? Which characters are flat? Which characters are stock? What is/are the theme(s)? What type of irony is used in the play? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.29.34.147 (talk) 01:29, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

(2) The Cask of Amontillado - What is the main theme in this short story? Which character is dynamic, which character is static, which character is round and which character is flat? What is the symbolism? What type of irony is it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.29.34.147 (talk) 01:32, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

You will have to do your own homework, but I invite you to read our articles on Trifles, "The Cask of Amontillado," literary character, character arc, stock character, irony, literary theme, and so forth. Neutrality^talk 01:39, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

You asked the same set of questions a few weeks ago, and I'll give you the same piece of advice I did before: Ask your teacher. If you go to your teacher after class, during his/her office hours, and say "Can you try to explain to me again the meaning of "round/flat" and "dynamic/static" characters. I really want to understand these concepts, but I am not sure I am getting it." The teacher should be willing to spend a few minutes trying to help you work through your troubles. --Jayron32 02:25, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

What's up with the History of Communism article?

(History of Communism) It has headers, but no content, for 1957 to 1993, most of which deals with China. Shenanigans? The Masked Booby (talk) 10:53, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

No shenanigans. Believe it or not, vast swathes of important topics remain unwritten about by Wikipedia editors; sometimes people put in headers to encourage them. You can check the history of the article to see its development.

P.S. For future reference, questions about problems with Wikipedia will get a better response at the help desk. Best, Skomorokh 11:14, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

• I'm expanding, this time with uncited stubs, for some areas of expertise I have. Citations can be gleaned out of the Main Articles of the organisations I note. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:24, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Had there been an assassination on Hu Jintao in 2006?

I see several controversial reports on epochtimes.com, which say there was an attempt to assassinate Hu Jintao, but there is no more information. Could anyone please help me verify it?--Inspector (talk) 11:26, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

According to The Trend magazine (November 2006), Hu nearly died in an attempted assassination when he secretly visited a navy base in Qingdao, Shangdong Province in May 2006. It has been difficult to verify the report, but circumstantial evidence continues to surface supporting the speculation; such as Hu's removal of almost all officials in Qingdao, sacking Deputy Navy General Commander Wang Shouye, and releasing Jiang's deadly enemy Chen Xitong from jail. China issue experts also believe the unsuccessful assassination triggered Hu to strike out at Chen Liangyu, which revealed the deepening factional war between Hu and Jiang Zemin.

— http://en.epochtimes.com/news/7-1-28/51058.html

The Epoch Times is just about as unreliable a source as you can get when it comes to Chinese politics. They have been claiming for years that the Chinese government is about to fall apart, and the list of people they have published as having quit the Communist Party in China now outnumbers the entire membership of the Communist Party. Other interesting reports I've read in that paper includes an imminent invasion of the earth by space aliens armed with super lasers and a guide to levitation and travelling in time through practising Falun Gong.

The Trend magazine (I presume this is 动向 magazine) is slightly more reliable but they've also come up with lots of highly inaccurate reports over the years. I would suggest treating it as just an unverified rumour until a more reputable source verifies and publishes the story. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 01:23, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I completely agree with PalaceGuard008. EpochTimes makes Fox News look “fair and balanced,” even to Democrats! DOR (HK) (talk) 03:57, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Cat friendships

Do cats sometimes have friendships with other cats? Rarely, I've seen cats going for walks in pairs. The two I saw recently did not appear to be related, and did not appear to be doing any kind of mating or fighting. Thanks 92.24.176.164 (talk) 13:39, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, they do. I have seen several examples of my cats being friendly and playing with the cat of one of my neighbours, not being territorial or anything, sharing each others gardens, but regarding the cat of my other neighbour it was very hostile and territorial with a clear "border" being the hedge between the gardens, conflict ensuing if either was caught by the other on each others territory. Purely anecdotal evidence, of course, but it has made me sure that cats are able to form relationships outside of mating and household. --Saddhiyama (talk) 14:58, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Do you know what the gender was of the cats involved please? 92.28.241.233 (talk) 17:51, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Gender? Maybe you mean sex. We still have animal sexers, but have not yet "transitioned" (ugh) to "animal genderers". -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 19:51, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

One thing that confuses us bipedal apes is that although cats are territorial, recognising their own territory, those of other cats, and extensive neutral territories between them, the boundaries of those territories have no particular correlation with our human notions. Consequently part of my garden, say, may be recognised as "my" cat's exclusive territory, part as a common area or thruway where all cats may socialise, and part as some other cat's exclusive territory. By contrast, dogs quickly learn the human-recognised boundaries of their owner's territory. Desmond Morris goes into this in Catwatching. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.111 (talk) 18:46, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Tsk. This obviously does not belong in Humanities. —Tamfang (talk) 18:59, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

About 3 of them ganged together and mobbed our chickens last year. Kittybrewster ☎ 19:53, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Cats which are raised together seem to develop a sibling relationship, regardless of whether they are related, just like humans. Also like humans, some sibling relationships are friendly, while some are not. Cats introduced as adults are less likely to become "friends", but it is still possible, depending on their "personalities". If both cats want to be dominant, then expect constant fighting. StuRat (talk) 20:01, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I had a cat in college who was let out during the day, and in summer we would keep the house completely open to the air as it was rather pleasant. She (spayed, btw) found a friend in the neighborhood and would have her over to share food and water inside our house! It was pretty awesome to come home from class and see our cat "with guests over for tea" :-) The Masked Booby (talk) 22:18, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

As a confirmed dog lover, I assume that any "friendships" we may see between cats are merely temporary alliances, of the type that form in any group of co-conspirators. Blueboar (talk) 22:33, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, you may assume that if you like, but you'd be quite wrong of course. I know cats that clearly love each other deeply, and get upset if the other one is missing.

Probably you've been influenced by the rampant anti-cat bias in animated films. Something really needs to be done about that. One good remedy is to read the works of Robert A. Heinlein, a man who understood cats. The best one for this particular issue is The Door into Summer. --Trovatore (talk) 22:36, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

The older of our two cats who have shared a house for 12 years died recently. Out vet warned us that the surviving one would miss the deceased one and show many predictable signs of stress. The vet was right. Obviously a well documented fact. HiLo48 (talk) 22:45, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes... it can be stressful when a co-conspirator dies... the evil plan depended on the co-conspirator doing his part... now the surviving cat must start over! (and for all you cat lovers out there... of course I'm not being serious... well... mostly not.) Blueboar (talk) 22:53, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Obviously disinformation put out by the Brain. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:04, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not so sure that animals are capable of "love" in the human sense. Be that as it may, the stereotype is that dogs are pack animals and cats are loners. However, cats do display some traits of pack animals, just not anywhere near the extent of dogs' behavior. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:51, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

This is OR, but I can tell you that in addition to the sibling-type relationship mentioned by StuRat, I have seen my neighbour's kitten following my older cat (he's 5) around EVERYWHERE. They're both ginger toms, so I wonder if the kitten thinks he's his Dad? Who knows? Anyway, not only are they friends, my cat does appear to be a role-model to the kitten and, in some respects, a mentor. --Rixxin (talk) 09:51, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Bullfighting

I think I heard somewhere that historically in bullfighting, it was traditional for the victorious matador, after having plunged the sword into the bull's neck, to (symbolically, at least) drink the bull's blood or lick it off his hands. Is this true? How widespread was it? Is it still practised today? Thanks. 72.128.95.0 (talk) 18:37, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Neither our Spanish bullfighting article or this page mention it; but who knows? This sort of unpleasantness was banned in England by the Cruelty to Animals Act 1835 - IMHO it's time that Spain caught up with the rest of civilisation. Alansplodge (talk) 19:35, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Lucky you UK folks have finally done away with fox hunting, then.  :) -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 19:46, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Fox hunting wasnt cruel IMHO. The things are now flooding the cities. Kittybrewster ☎ 19:51, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Where we are co-existing quite well it seems. Recent hysteria notwithstanding, there are precisely TWO verified fox attacks in the last ten years on humans - compared to the number of dog attacks in the same period which run into many thousands. Exxolon (talk) 19:59, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I grant you that. Kittybrewster ☎ 20:02, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Exxolon, I'm not sure your argument holds water. How many foxes are there, and what are their natural habitats? The answer: several orders of magnitude less than domesticated dogs, and not in people's homes. You cannot compare such things by a simple tally. It does seem that we are living well together, although if you put a wild fox in everyone's house that currently has a pet dog and then did a tally I'm sure there'd be far more attacks; foxes are wild animals! That's not to say that I condone them being chased by men, horses and dogs, and then ripped apart by a pack of dogs. — Fly by Night (talk) 21:52, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

If Fox hunting involved putting a fox into a confined space and poking it with metal spikes for half an hour until it died, then the two things might be comparable. Also see Fox Hunting#Australia. Otherwise, please accept my apologies for the rant. Alansplodge (talk) 20:50, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

There are many similarities. Both the bull and the fox and put under immense stress, they both face a fight they can almost never win, they are pushed to the point of physical exhaustion, and they they are murdered. Bull fighting is sick, and so is fox hunting. The final death of the bull is (often) more humane than the death of the fox. I would rather be stabbed through the heart than get ripped apart by a pack of dogs. Having said that, that's no excuse for the pre-kill torture of a bull fight. For the record, I'm English, and all blood sports have always sickened me. — Fly by Night (talk) 21:43, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually the fox often wins[1]. Not supporting fox hunting - just saying it's not in the same league as bullfighting. Alansplodge (talk) 22:23, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

That is not an acceptable reference. In no way does it support the claim "Actually the fox often wins". Besides the obvious linguistic error (the fox does not "win" s/he mealy escapes with their life), it is factually questionable. It was the experience of a single journalist who was told the outcome of the hunt by the huntsmen, at a very sensitive time. Even if it was all reported correctly; is the experience of a single journalist accompanying a single hunt really representative? It still says that around the year 1999 the official, i.e. legally registered, hunts accounted for around 16,000 foxes per year. I'm sure you'll try to say that "Spain kills far more bulls", but would you say that a murderer with three victims was less reprehensible than a mass murdered? I hope not. — Fly by Night (talk) 23:45, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I had no idea about fox hunting in Australia. It never gets any publicity that I've ever seen. Far removed from the huge hullabaloo that happens every year over duck shooting. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 21:46, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I really don't understand the perspective of people who oppose fox hunting (or the other things for that matter). After all, packs of dogs and coyotes have torn up animals in the wild for time immemorial - is that a crime that has to be stopped? What makes it wrong for dogs to tear up their prey only when someone is following the dogs? Wnt (talk) 04:37, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Of course they both create many jobs; the one supresses a pest however which the other does not. Kittybrewster ☎ 09:12, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

People generally expect different standards of behaviour from humans and other animals, as humans are expected to have a greater understanding of the consequences of their actions. For example, animals killing other members of their own species in the wild is tolerated; the killing of humans by other humans is not. In foxhunting, the foxes are generally killed by the hounds (though I believe they are sometimes shot), but only because the hunters have bred and trained them for this purpose. You could argue that, in effect, the hunters are killing the foxes, using the hounds as weapons. (I am not making any claims about the morality of foxhunting, only explaining why it makes sense to see it as morally different from hunting by wild dogs) 130.88.134.103 (talk) 11:14, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

However one trains a pack of dogs to run down and devour a target, surely it is not something out of their general character. I could picture someone arguing that it is inhumane to keep a dog without allowing it to hunt down and kill prey, because you've denied it its nature. (Actually, I would infer that the universal principle of animal use 'ethics' is that whatever is done frequently is acceptable, and whatever is done rarely is evil) Wnt (talk) 20:25, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

This kind of argument gets a little messy when you take into account the role that humans have played in the development of domesticated dogs. Presumably foxhounds wouldn't even exist if humans hadn't required them for hunting. Some dog breeds might have had the desire to hunt prey (if there is such a thing) bred out of them. Others might have retained this part of their 'nature', but are not physically capable of hunting. Even if a dog hunts animals when given the opportunity, I imagine it would be difficult to find evidence that their wellbeing is harmed if they are prevented from doing so. 130.88.134.103 (talk) 09:51, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

To answer the actual question asked, Bullfighting: art, technique & Spanish society by John McCormick says that in Mexico: "crowds of boys and young men throw themselves upon the animal with paper cups and soft drink bottles to catch and drink some of the blood." I don't doubt some matadors might do this after a fight, probably down to the individual matador's own style as they are showmen above all. meltBanana 23:27, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I have watched many bullfights in Spain and I have never seen or heard of matadors drinking the blood of the bull. I have also read a number of books both narrative and encyclopaedic about bullfighting and have never seen a reference to this practice in Peninsular Spain. What they do in the 'colonies' is another thing. The reference to the book above is slightly odd and is possibly referring to years past. Nowadays for reasons of safety bullfights in licensed arenas have barriers separating the bulls and participants from the audience, it strikes me as very strange that the audience should have access to the dead bull. Possibly it is a reference to rural plazas de toros in Mexico where safety is often a lower consideration and the organisation is less restrictive. Richard Avery (talk) 07:01, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Religious Gestures in Danger

I've often seen in movies where Christians will cross themselves when dealing with dangerous events. I am curious if any other religions have similar gestures that they perform in similar circumstances? ^Avic_ennasis @ 19:12, 14 Nisan 5771 / 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Aside: The crossing that people do in movies is more often than not a pale shadow of how it's actually done. It usually looks like a rushed vague waving of the hand around the face and upper torso, rather than a deliberate touching of first the forehead, then the breast, then the left shoulder, then the right (or right first if you're Orthodox). I've often wondered why actors can't be coached in how to do it properly if they're going to do it at all. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 19:42, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Really? I don't think I've ever seen anyone do it as... pedantically... as you describe - and that includes ten years in a church choir. General waving is about as far as I've seen anyone go (and, of course, this discounts that by far the most people I know would never think of making a gesture like that, it's only the devout who'd even do the 'arm-down-arm-across' general wave) (disclaimer: this anecdotal evidence applies to a small island off the Belgian coast) For OP, the Sign of the Cross is the only religious entry we have in List of gestures, although that list is certainly incomplete--Saalstin (talk) 20:31, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

It's got nothing to do with pedantry. Would you say that actually touching the floor with your knee when you genuflect is "pedantic"? Would you say that actually eating the host at communion is "pedantic"? Would you say that actually saying the words "Our Father, ..." instead of "Hey, Dad ...", is pedantic? Anyway, the Irish might have something to say about whether the UK is an island. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 21:41, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I've been to lots of Catholic churches around England, and Saalstin's description doesn't match any congregation I've met. Perhaps the Welsh or the Scots take it less seriously? The sign of the cross features a few times in the Mass, and the congregation in my experience nearly universally performs it as they were taught during catechesis: as Jack describes. It's nothing to do with pedantry or being 'more devout', any more than kneeling during the kneeling parts, or going up for communion. The gesture is basic practice: why would you even do it if you weren't actually going to make a sign of a cross? Perhaps Saalstin is in fact Anglican, which would explain it? 86.164.75.102 (talk) 21:56, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Why are all this written in small fonts? --Saddhiyama (talk) 22:01, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Because it's an aside that doesn't answer the question, so we set it apart. It might add to the sum of undertanding, it might help contributors to remain motivated, but it should not be confused with actual answers. This is why the part of Saalstin's contribution which did answer the question is not small. 86.164.75.102 (talk) 22:10, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Err, technically Anglican, yes (OP just said 'Christian', I didn't even think to categorise), although for most of us that's really more a cultural default than actual observance. Sorry, didn't mean to offend--Saalstin (talk) 18:11, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I on the other hand did assume Christian = Catholic, because people crossing themselves in movies are usually either known to be Catholics or are of an ethnicity that's much more likely to be Catholic than not (Italian, Irish, Hispanic ...). I can't say I've ever seen an anglophone character of Anglo-Saxon (= non-Celtic) background cross themselves in the movies unless their specifically Catholic religion was a story feature. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 19:44, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Not sure ... I have read that Wiccans have a sign to avert evil, but I don't know whether what I read is reliable or not. Blueboar (talk) 22:37, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Karana Mudra? Which is (apparently) similar to the common western folk sign corna to ward off the evil eye. Whether these count, since I'm not sure they're used in actual danger, I don't know. 86.164.75.102 (talk) 22:54, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

True but these mudras are not really used in real life (these days), they are more often used in icons and statues and other visual representations as a visual cue about what the statue or icon is "all about". --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 01:17, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I once saw a Hindu acquaintance do some hand gestures that reminded me a lot of the Catholic crossing gesture. I wish I had asked him about it now, but I was on vacation in Nepal then and there were so many new experiences I didn't get to investigate them all, sadly. Qrsdogg (talk) 15:41, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Some Muslims would say the Ta'awwudh... AnonMoos (talk) 04:11, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

The Jewish thing to do would also be to pray. I read (present tense) that the Hashkiveinu prayer from the daily morning service is a good one for dangerous situations, and the Tefilat HaDerech, or traveler's prayer, might work as well. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:30, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

April 19

Blue Dog Coalition

Why are they called blue dog? --Neptuniaumnut (talk) 02:02, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

The answer is in the first paragraph of the "History" section of the article. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:04, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Because they're cold-blooded boot-lickers? :-) ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 16:01, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Dogs, being mammals are of course warm blooded. Googlemeister (talk) 18:57, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

...which makes it a serious health problem when their body temperature drops low enough to turn their lips/blood blue. Not that I've ever seen a dog with blue lips (unlike humans). But the analogy was always going to be a bit of a stretch, I guess. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 19:59, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Monastic Orders and Handwritten Manuscripts

I recently was in a discussion which touched upon the stereotype of medieval monks spending their time handwriting manuscripts, and I realized that I was unfamiliar with how closely that activity was associated with the various monastic orders. I understand that pre-printing press, a large number of the monastic orders were involved in copying the bible and other religious texts (among other things) out of sheer necessity. I was wondering if there was a monastic order that had a particular connection to the production of handwritten manuscripts. That is, is there a monastic order which has/had the production of (handwritten) books as part of its core mission, or was particularly know for its written output, or perhaps persisted the longest in maintaining the copyist tradition? To put it glibly, if I was to metaphorically refer to a person writing longhand, how would I complete the phrase "a _______ monk" to have the most historical relevance? "Carthusian"? "Trappist"? - I'm most interested in the western European tradition (so likely a Roman Catholic order), but I'd also be interested to learn about Orthodox or non-Christian monks with a particularly strong connection to producing handwritten manuscripts. -- 140.142.20.229 (talk) 02:32, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Copying of texts plays a big role in the life of the monestary in the novel The Name of the Rose, and the author, Umberto Eco, was known for his scrupulous research and attention to historical detail. The monestary at the center of that story was a Benedictine abbey. --Jayron32 03:49, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

It's worth pointing out here that prior to the enlightenment, literacy rates (pretty much everywhere) were exceedingly low. Religious orders were one of the few groups that prized literacy (unlike almost everyone else, they needed to be able to read, and had the free time to dedicate themselves to the task), and so monks were often used as scribes for large ranges of mundane tasks, such as reading and writing letters and documents. Transcription of religious texts was generally for monks who had withdrawn from more mundane aspects of the world, so it would have largely been left to orders that had cloister traditions (the biggest being the Benedictines and the Dominicans, I imagine). This is also true of other faiths that relied on written (rather than oral) transmission of doctrine - Buddhist monastics (particularly in the Chinese and Japanese traditions) spent large portions of their time transcribing religious texts, and even elevated calligraphy to a form of art (much the way that Christian monks created illustrated manuscripts). --Ludwigs2 05:21, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

All the major orders copied manuscripts, I think...although for different time periods there were different orders. For example, in the early Middle Ages manuscripts were likely to be copied by Irish monks, or in monasteries founded by them on the Continent. But when you think of medieval monks living together in a big monastery with vows of silence and chastity and all that, you're usually thinking of Benedictines. They were the oldest order, and Cluny, Monte Cassino, Westminster, Malmesbury, etc, were all Benedictine. Others, like Citeaux, were newer foundations but based on the Benedictine order. The Franciscans and Dominicans, the other two orders that I would assume people imagine when they think of medieval monks, were founded much later, in the 13th century. They were originally intended to be preaching orders, but they also wrote and copied manuscripts like other monks. (I would associate this more with the Dominicans though; they were stern intellectual types, like Thomas Aquinas. Of course there were intellectual Franciscans, but when you think of Franciscans you either think of poor wandering monks talking to the animals, or Friar Tuck. Adam Bishop (talk) 06:30, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Some of the early history of this practice among monks can be found at Cassiodorus#Lasting Impact. Deor (talk) 15:01, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

What if... ?

I propose a question of Counterfactual history. What if Great Britain won the American Revolutionary War, and the Thirteen Colonies remained as British colonies? How would world history had changed afterwards? Would the Americans start a new Revolutionary War anyway at some point in the future? Cambalachero (talk) 03:24, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

It is said that the loss of its American colonies led Britain to send convicts to Australia. If that hadn't happened, the nation of Australia may not have been created, and I might not be here. HiLo48 (talk) 03:31, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

No, you would be here instead. :) I wonder, if the colonies remained British, how the slavery question would have turned out. The British might have abolished it, and then the south might have seceded anyway? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:38, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

There are a number of excellent forums on the internet, both on the world wide web, and on USENET, which seriously discuss counterfactual history. In particular, searching soc.history.what-if might prove useful (this from 2006: [2]). There are a number of counterfactual books. Some tend to be science-fantasy nationalist clap trap, some are whiggish history nationalist clap trap, the best are deeply interrogative academic studies of a proposed actual causation and its reversal.

Regarding the ARW and counterfactuals—you may wish to consider the Irish or Indian revolutions and mutinies against British rule as models. The long standing disputes between certain British colonists in the Americas and the British government indicates that there was running disagreement, which could result in further revolts and revolutionary incidents. An issue to bear in mind is the failure of the revolution in the Caribbean, Canada and in Great Britain itself. Britain was going through a period of social unrest in this period which ended with Peterloo. The recurring social unrest in the UK (Peterloo, Chartism, The General Strike, The Winter of Discontent) indicates that capitalist social systems regularly go through local crisis. A UK which still possessed colonies in the central Eastern coast of North America would be no exception. The chief counterfactual question then is: would social discontent in British North America again result in revolutionary violent uprisings? Fifelfoo (talk) 03:42, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

One would picture that America would have eventually gained its independence, though likely through the mechanism of Dominionhood through Responsible government, much as other Commonwealth nations had, rather than through war. Instead of having the U.S. and Canada being seperate nations, one would picture some sort of unified nation which would be composed of Modern Canada and the U.S. east of the Mississippi. Greater Louisiana would have remained a French posession; and likely would have become an independent state in its own right; so most of the Central U.S. would have been a French-speaking nation of Louisiana. Mexico would be much larger, as the Mexican cession would not have happened; Oregon would likely have been British, either as a seperate colony or as an appenage on British Columbia. Likewise, Russian Alaska would have remained Russian, and may have been a Russian territory until today. So, if I were to draw a map, I'd expect the modern Canadamerican States to consist of all of Modern Canada, plus the U.S. territory East of the Mississippi along with the modern U.S. states of Oregon, Washington, and Idaho (maybe some of Montana). In the middle would be the independent Francophone nation of Louisiana, and in the west Mexico would extend as far north as the northern border of California/Nevada and include all of Texas as well. --Jayron32 03:43, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

The World Series would be a cricket competition. HiLo48 (talk) 03:56, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

That would be fine. Cricket is an excellent gam. And most anything's better than soccer. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:46, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Soccer? That would be the Superbowl. HiLo48 (talk) 04:52, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Not necessarily. American and Canadian football are descendants of Rugby. So the Super Bowl might be a Rugby match. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:54, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Spelling arguments in this encyclopaedia would not exist. HiLo48 (talk) 04:00, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

We would have a host of articles needing some quick editing! DOR (HK) (talk) 04:02, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the World Series not being of baseball; not necessarily. There are British antecedants to Baseball, and just like American Football decends not from Association Football, but rather from Rugby, American Baseball decends from its British cousins British baseball and Rounders. Cricket isn't related at all to Baseball, having a closer connection to the French sport of Croquet than to baseball. --Jayron32 05:14, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

So we might have a World Series of Rounders. The so-called "Massachusetts Game" was fairly similar to rounders and was a bit more like cricket than the New York game was. The New York game won out, though. Maybe in this imagined alternate universe, the Massachusetts game would have won out. And then it would be the Boston Yankees with 27 Rounders World Championship rings. And Babe Ruth would have been the ultimate Rounders All-Rounder (in more ways than one, if he had the same eating habits). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:20, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

New York beating Massachusetts; doesn't that sum up a large part of American history in a nutshell? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:28, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Yankees Suck. Sorry. I'm genetically programmed to say that. --Jayron32 05:35, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

So it seems. So in this parallel universe, Boston might have had the Erie canal, too. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:32, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

No worries; I knew I had that coming. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:38, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

The funny thing is that "Yankees suck" and "Let's go Yankees" have the same meter. Art imitating art. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:41, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I thought "Let's go Mets" had the same meter as "Yankees suck" Blueboar (talk) 12:10, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Jayron, except that I disagree about Louisiana. If Louisiana had remained in French possession, it is hard to imagine North America not becoming a theater of the Napoleonic Wars. Given the much greater population of British North America (including the formerly rebellious 13 colonies) at that point, it seems nearly certain to me that Louisiana would have ended up in British hands. Another issue would have been the abolition of slavery in the British empire. It was relatively easy for the British to abolish slavery within the empire when it affected only a few Caribbean islands. It would have been a much more serious matter if abolition would have threatened both a second rebellion in the southern colonies of North America while at the same time threatening a source of cheap cotton for the industrialists of Lancashire. I suspect that the British abolitionists would have had a much more difficult fight, perhaps culminating in something similar to the American Civil War in the mid-19th century, but with British troops doing much of the fighting against the colonists. Marco polo (talk) 15:06, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

While slavery would have been important to the southern "colonies" in 1807 (when the British outlawed the slave trade), it was not seen as being quite the economic necessity that it became later in the century. Cotton was not yet King. While the southern plantation owners would have been upset, I don't think they would have rebelled over the issue (especially if Parliament had approved a form of "gradual emancipation" and payment for freed slaves). As for Louisiana... even in our real time line, there was some question as to whether the French or the Spanish owned it. Yes, Napoleon sold it to the US, but he had to do some diplomatic maneuvering with Spain (then under French control) to make sure they went along with the deal. In our counterfactual time line, it is quite possible that Louisiana would have ended up remaining Spanish. Blueboar (talk) 16:31, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

The U.S. national government abolished the slave trade at the same time as the British, and all individual U.S. states had abolished it on their own before then (though South Carolina reversed course and lifted its ban). Given that many Americans (including some southerners) were calling for such a ban before the American Revolution, in an alternate history, the British ban would have been accepted in North America -- and even been seen as rather tardy. Marco polo is right: if Great Britain wins the American War of Independence, the abolition of slavery becomes a major British problem. There's no way the British could enforce the Slavery Abolition Act 1833 in South Carolina and Georgia without a fight. —Kevin Myers 00:40, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the Napoleonic Wars... If there's no American Revolution, there's no Napoleonic Wars. One of the major factors in pushing France to its own revolution was King Louis XVI's open support of the Colonies during the American Revolution and using it as a proxy war against Britain. If France does not have an American Revolution to support, it doesn't nearly go bankrupt, people don't starve as a result of the financial mismanagement of the Monarchy, no Estates General is called, no French Revolution happens, and no Coriscan artillery officer is given the chance to rise through the ranks and establish himself as dictator. No Napoleonic Wars thus means no reason for there to be a Front opened up to fight it in North America. Regarding French Louisiana; admittedly a Spanish-owned territory at during the 1770's, according to Louisiana_(New_France)#The_Seven_Years.27_War_and_its_consequences, the area saw negligible Spanish immigration to it; it is quite likely that when it inevitibly became an independent nation it would have likely still been a Francophone nation. It may have perhaps been a part of an even larger Mexico, but I'm not sure the cultural clash between francophone Louisiana and hispanophone Mexico would have "fit". --Jayron32 20:11, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, we are supposing what if Britain won the war, not what if the war never took place (which, given the antecedents to it, would seem implausible), so yes, the alliances made for the war would stand, and the consequences of the war unrelated to the outcome (such as the financial cost) would stand as well. As for the Napoleonic Wars, we may made a comparison with the Spanish front: during the Peninsular War Spain was almost completely conquered, and the Spanish South American colonies rebeled. The conflict was initially between South American patriots and "loyalists", and Spain could only take direct action after Napoleon's defeat. Britain was never in that war at such a risky situation as Spain in 1810, but a similar scenario may be considered: if there was still an independentist sentiment in the defeated North America, and Napoleon was defying all the British power, that would be an ideal time to start a new revolutionary war, as the British forces would be divided. Cambalachero (talk) 20:34, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Living with unmarried partner in Singapore

I am an Australian about to move to Singpore with my girlfriend. My uncle seems to think that "living in sin" is not permitted in SG, but I cannot find any information to support or refute his claim.

Can anyone please shed some light on this topic?

Cheers Ballchef (talk) 09:46, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Are you really willing to trust your fate to anonymous internet users, to give valid advice on a legal question of this importance? You need to talk to a lawyer in Singapore and find out for sure. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:16, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I live in a neighboring country to Singapore, have been there many times and yes, living together is permitted in Singapore. It is not a Muslim country and is pretty "open". You might want to check with a Singaporean lawyer just to verify, though. Bejinhan talks 10:22, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh yeah I forgot about the "no legal advice" bit. I was expecting personal experience responses though, and I'm quite sure my uncle is mistaken Ballchef (talk) 10:35, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Would still be a good idea to consult a lawyer about Singapore law regarding tax, residency status, visas, joint contracts for accomodation, joint finances etc. for unmarried couples. Gandalf61 (talk) 11:14, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I assume the OP has looked at the article on Law of Singapore, and all the relevant links leading from that. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:49, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Most people answering here suppose that the OP is a guy. Possibly, the OP is a gay girl, moving with her girlfriend to Singapore to live in sin, which could be deemed a serious offense in Singapore. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.169.191.245 (talk) 17:52, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

• Hmm - Male/Male is illegal (though supposedly rarely enforced) but Female/Female is legal according to LGBT rights in Singapore Exxolon (talk) 21:16, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

The main question isn't whether you two can live in the same place, but whether your partner can get a visa to live in Singapore. DOR (HK) (talk) 08:17, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

OK, perhaps I have confused a few of you. Let me rephrase the question. I am a male, moving to singapore with my female partner. we are unmarried. We are both professionals and have our own work visas (this question is not about permission to enter and getting visas, as DOR said). I want to know whether it is ok for us to live together, as my uncle (who is not sure) informed me that living with a partner while unmarried is not permitted. Ballchef (talk) 00:51, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

David Cameron's Attire for the upcoming Royal Wedding

On "Order Order" (a political blog) it says that Cameron will wear his "work clothes" to the wedding, despite being the Prime Minister. Link: http://order-order.com/2011/04/19/a-sting-in-the-tail-boris-will-wear-appropriate-attire/ What should he be wearing instead? --Rixxin (talk) 11:24, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Morning suit. i e tails. Kittybrewster ☎ 11:36, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Morning suit is not quite the same as Tails, which usually refers to formal evening dress. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 14:23, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

The old tradition was that male guests to a wedding should wear a morning suit (or "cut-away") for a day time wedding, and white tie or black tie ("tuxedo") for evening weddings. Such traditions are (sadly) increasingly becoming seen as "out-dated". In normal society, it is more typical for a male guest to wear a dark suit and tie (ie "work clothes" for Cameron) as an acceptable alternative (for both day and evening weddings). However, the Royals are not "normal society". They tend to do things the "old fashioned" way... at least for ceremony. Blueboar (talk) 16:19, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

which is ill-mannered on David Cameron's part. - Kittybrewster ☎ 16:26, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Presumably Boris will wear his best toga. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:35, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Latest news is that he will wear a morning suit [3] MilborneOne (talk) 22:20, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

To be fair, evening dress is associated with very formal weddings, and the royal wedding will not have dinner (only wedding cake and canapés) - implying a somewhat less formal event. Neutrality^talk 11:17, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

That might leave Cameron a touch peckish (or esurient, if you prefer). He might have to duck in to the nearest Maccas on the way home. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 10:05, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Will they be having cheese at the do, then? -- Arwel Parry (talk) 10:20, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Almost certainly. Bouzoukis, on the other hand - I kinda doubt it. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 10:40, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Hand gestures

Hi. I am a forensics-type person and I have recently become interested in a new division, where we have to give speeches, but without aids except our own hands. I'm pretty good with the giving speeches part, but I don't know what to do with my hands. Whenever I see great speech-givers, in such as Cicero (played in films) or modern politicians, or (let's face it: he was one of the greatest orators in history despite what he did to the Jews) Adolf Hitler, or even more experienced people who also do this division, they use very animated hand gestures to get their point across. How do I use hand gestures to similarly communicate my argument? Thanks. 72.128.95.0 (talk) 15:27, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

It's quite likely you already do - most people use hand (etc) gestures unconsciously when not constrained (by holding on to something, for example) and most people (in the same culture, at any rate) unconsciously understand them. You might initially try ensuring that you're not inhibiting your movement by, say, standing at a lectern, and just forgetting about them (easier said than done, I agree) - a video of the result might surprise you. It might also allow you to judge whether some of your existing gestures (assuming you are indeed using any) are effective and others counter-productive.

That said, the use of gestures is a formally recognised subset of the skills of Oratory or Public speaking, in which one can be formally trained, and as you will see from that last link, various organisations offer such training: some of the links towards the end of that article may lead you towards publications on the subject, if direct interaction with some organisation is not convenient for you. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.111 (talk) 15:58, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

You'll want to take care; some people have idiosyncratic hand gestures which are uniquely associated with them and if you use the same gestures you may be seen to be deliberately copying their style, which could have an unfavorable effect on audiences. I think specifically about Bill Clinton, who used to "point" by using a closed fist with his thumb laid over the top, usually when trying to emphasize a point, as in this picture. What you will want to do is find what feels "natural" to you; insincerity will show through if it looks like you are doing a deliberate, artificial motion which is unnatural to you. --Jayron32 17:15, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

• As one of the above people wrote, try recording a video of yourself and watching it. For some people, this can be squirm-inducing, but you'll probably notice things about your posture, tics, and gestures that you might not have caught otherwise. Usually, the best way to go is to try to make your personal quirks and tendencies work for you, rather than suppressing them or adopting new ones. Also, remember the size of the audience. Big, dramatic gestures often play better in big audiences; subdued gestures tend to work better when it's just you and a few co-workers. --M@rēino 17:44, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Try practicing your speech with both hands in your pockets, standing completely still. Then do it again, and pace around, trying to keep your hands at or above waist level, and animated, the whole time. Practicing at those two extremes seems to help me find a more natural middle ground when I have to come out and do it for real. Like suggested above, during the actual speech, try not to think about it at all. But you should have a planned "safe" position for your hands if you start to become self conscious of them, like interlocking your fingers, or closing you right hand in a fist...something that feels comfortable. Anyway, that worked for me. Quinn ^CLOUDY 19:47, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

---

72.128.95.0 -- This was a whole area of training and stylized conventions in ancient rhetorical traditions. We have an article on such traditions, Chironomia, though it's only a stub... AnonMoos (talk) 04:08, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Patriotism is more important than Universal Brotherhood

This is a debate topic.

Debate collapsed.

Therefore you can be either for or against it. You might get a lot of point against it, i.e. Universal Brotherhood is more important. But if somebody has to speak for the topic, then what?Please contribute for the topic, i.e. patriotism is more important. Some points in favor or the topic might be Consider a person in Police service. If he has the feeling of universal brotherhood, it will stop him from performing his duties properly as he would be lenient in his approach towards small crimes. You would forgive a person who speaks against your country because you believe in universal brotherhood. Even as a part of a family, you take care that no one tries to hurt your family members' sentiments. For that you would even be ready to go against your society members. Its like all people in the world are brothers and sisters. But at the same time our country is like our family and we have some respect for her. |} —Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.200.207.169 (talk) 17:37, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

• Sorry, the Reference desk is not the place for debates. --M@rēino 17:46, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Can therapists ever correspond by texting and email?

If it's a long time until the next appointment but client needs to send a needed message, do you know of any mental health agencies that allow electronic client-therapist communication by texting and email? Pawnee Mental Health doesn't for some reason.

But I may have heard of some other places and contexts that do, but can't quite place where I remember it from. So in what areas, agencies, circumstances or etc. would a client be able to email or text their therapist? --70.179.169.115 (talk) 18:00, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I googled e-mail therapy and many, many links were listed, so some therapists are OK with actual therapy taking place over e-mail. Since they're OK with actually providing therapy over e-mail, they've got to be OK with receiving other messages as well. In the meantime, you could call Pawnee Mental Health on the phone to leave the message. Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:21, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Maybe those that treat through email are not real psychotherapists, but only one of those new-age kind of therapists. 212.169.181.129 (talk) 21:50, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

This made me chuckle. The term "psychotherapist" has no legal meaning whatsoever in many jurisdictions. Where I live, anyone can call himself a psychotherapist - trained or not, new age or traditional, grade school dropout or Ph.D. In places where the term actually has a legal meaning, accreditation may only require as little as two years' training at a community college. Maybe look at the individual's credentials instead. --NellieBly (talk) 01:56, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Our Psychotherapy article doesn't include any immediately-obvious material on accreditation, but Clinical psychology does, with the main article being Training and licensing of clinical psychologists. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:02, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Can the UK Privy Council make law?

The UK group Republic claim on their website (http://www.republic.org.uk/What%20we%20want/index.php) that the Privy Council can make law without a vote in the Parliament. The article on the Privy Council looks to be somewhat heavy-going, especially for a Yank with very little knowledge of the British Constitution. Could some one tell me if that claim is true or not? If true, are there limits on what laws they can make? 96.246.68.89 (talk) 19:37, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

To summarise the lead to that article, the PC

• advises the Sovereign on the exercise of the Royal Prerogative (certain powers retained - but I stress not used to any significance - by the monarch)
• Makes government regulations and appointments (almost all of a boring nature).
• Regulate public institutions, and potentially other powers.
• Influences royal charters, which grant special status to incorporated bodies and city and borough status to towns.

Most of these are powers which do not need governmental approval each time they happen. They have been granted - or at least, are allowed to keep - powers to say, appoint to a specific position. They do not need to go back to formal government each time they appoint someone to it, and therefore can in theory act outside parliamentary approval. However, this is a common feature of governments worldwide, with the assumed suggestion that these powers would be removed if abused. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 20:54, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

96.246.68.89 -- A result of the way that the British system of government has been slowly built up by stages over the centuries is that there are number of ceremonial or semi-ceremonial institutions and personages who have theoretical powers which are never in fact exercised (and would lead to an immediate crisis if they were exercised). Bagehot's classic book goes into this... AnonMoos (talk) 04:01, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I find that's site's logic a little confusing. Most republicans (that is, those in favour of abolishing the monarchy, not these other people) here would say that the monarchy has too much power - if if not used - or too much influence; they believe this is a problem because the monarchy is unelected, and sometimes goes against public opinion. This site, on the other hand, is arguing that elected politicians have too much power, and thus wants to replace the monarchy with an elected executive to take away power from MPs. On a point that might be interesting to the OP, some people have argued that the head of state (currently the monarchy) has too little power, not a problem in itself, but this leaves too much power with the head of government (the Prime Minister) at the expense of other MPs. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 09:14, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

The constitutional role of the Privy Council is discussed in paragraphs 27-35 of the UK's newly-published Cabinet Manual – in essence, there are several types of "order" which can be passed by the Council, almost all of which are either authorised in advance by Parliament ("The Privy Council may make an order saying XYZ...") or specifically scrutinised afterwards ("Such an order shall not come into effect until it has been approved by a resolution of both Houses of Parliament...") – ╟─TreasuryTag►First Secretary of State─╢ 10:34, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Weymouth Rhymer

Dear Sir/Madame,

I have been seaching for biographical information regarding Mr. Weymouth Rhymer of St. Thomas US Virgin Islands. I found only one citation which described him as a former slave who was a carpenter by trade. Once freed he became a politician. He was an alternate delegate at a Democratic National convention. This citation also lists Mr Rhymer as the first African American US Senator. There is a Highway in St. Thomas currently named in his honor. Do you have any biographical information on Mr. Rhymer and can you verify any of the above mentioned information?

Thank you, Serena Joseph —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.82.28.81 (talk) 19:50, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Our articles African Americans in the United States Congress and List of former United States senators do not list him as a U.S. Senator at any point in time. The "R" sub-article of our article List of former members of the United States House of Representatives doesn't list him as ever having been in the U.S. House of Representatives, either. Using Google for this search is a little tedious because of the highway you mention; I tried excluding these results by googling "weymouth rhymer" -highway -hwy. This link is a funeral memorial booklet mentioning Rhymer in the masonry trade. Adding carpenter to the google search yielded this 1911 charity directory which lists him as the president of the Colored Mechanics' Association in New York, an organization that has left little mark on the Google database. Comet Tuttle (talk) 20:13, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Hiram Rhodes Revels is listed as the first African American to serve in the United States Senate.

The U.S. Congress does not have representatives or senators from non-State territories of the U.S., but they do have non-voting Delegates, see Delegate (United States Congress). However, near as I can find the first such Delegate from the USVI took office in 1972, see United States congressional delegations from the United States Virgin Islands and Ron de Lugo. However, the USVI does have its own local unicameral Legislature of the Virgin Islands, whose members are also called "Senators", so perhaps Mr. Rhymer was a local USVI senator, and may have been the first such senator who was Black. --Jayron32 00:40, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Rhymer was a Virgin Islands Senator (he never served in the U.S. Congress). He began his career as a municipal councilman from St. Thomas and St. John in 1938 and later moved to the Legislative Assembly and Legislature (whose members are referred to as Senators), retiring in 1958. He died in 1963. Here is a news story about his death on the front page of the September 17, 1963 edition of the Virgin Islands Daily News. The highway from Estate Tutu to Charlotte Amalie was named in his honor in 1970. Neutrality^talk 17:26, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Final scene of The Grapes of Wrath

Was Steinbeck a pervert or did he just not realize how incredibly disturbing it is? --75.40.204.106 (talk) 22:03, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

What's more disturbing? Breast feeding an adult man or letting him die of starvation? Exxolon (talk) 22:55, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Of course he knew how disturbing it is. Writing something disturbing does not make one a "pervert." --Mr.98 (talk) 23:25, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I believe the idea was to convey the thought that "to survive, we will need to do things we formerly considered unthinkable". Steinbeck was probably implying that a socialist revolution was needed. StuRat (talk) 23:51, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

The entire point is that it is supposed to be disturbing. There are lots of good reasons to be deliberatly provocative, and Steinbeck does an excellent job of it in that scene. As others have noted, being deliberately disturbing doesn't mean that the author is sexually perverted. You are supposed to feel queesy and unsettled by the act; but that's exactly why Steinbeck wrote it. As others have hinted, however, its not a gratuitously disturbing act, it clearly has a message behind it, and if that message didn't reach you in the several hundred pages of the book that happened before the scene in question, you should probably re-read those pages and see if the scene makes sense in Steinbeck's overall message from the book... --Jayron32 00:06, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

An artist can express the perversity of humanity without being perverse themselves. In this case, as noted above, Steinbeck's interest is more than merely human perversity, but the perversity of human society. Emile Zola's L'Assommoir documents the descent of a woman from tradesperson respectability through to death by physical alcohol addiction—Zola, as far as I'm aware, was neither an addicted terminal stage alcoholic nor a tradesman. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:42, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

And of course, some people simply do it for the sake of scaring the shit out of people. This is a favorite of mine; I don't think the members of Cannibal Corpse are zombies in tombs giving cunnilingus to female zombies, despite the album cover. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:02, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

---

Have no idea what the ending of the book is, but from the comments here, it could be an allusion to Roman charity... AnonMoos (talk) 03:53, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

It can also be noted that there is a similar ending in the short story "Idylle" by Guy de Maupassant, from the collection "Miss Harriet" (1883). Steinbeck may have been familiar with that story, but if not, it shows that two writers can come up with that same image. I take that as a sign that's it's not a product of some terrible perversion. --Xuxl (talk) 15:08, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, Maupassant was pretty neurotic; that doesn't necessarily make him a pervert, but he definitely had some serious issues. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:20, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I recall reading now and then the claim that in former times, men were more directly fixated on the reproductive organs, with the greater emphasis on the breasts being more recent. I have no idea if it's true, though when I think of old-time entertainments like the can can, it seems plausible. Though I don't doubt that every part of woman has always been beautiful, I wonder whether the situation would have been seen as quite so sexual for contemporaries of these authors. Wnt (talk) 03:52, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

It's been a long time since I read the book, but if I remember correctly one of the themes of the book was how human life and human decency find affirmation even in the midst of desperate, brutal chaos. Symbolically, I can't think of a better way close that book than with an utterly maternal 'rebirth' image coming out of absolute tragedy. I don't think it was intended to be disturbing at all (certainly not in the puritanical sense), but rather kind of morbidly inspirational. --Ludwigs2 19:39, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

A similar concept is covered in Susann Cokal's novel Mirabilis. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:22, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Christian views on divorce and remarriage

Luke 16:18 says "Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery." (ESV). How do those Protestant sects that condone remarriage justify the practice in light of this quote, and how do Catholics account for their prohibition on divorce without an annulment? Furthermore, are there many Protestants who don't accept remarriage, exactly in line with this quote? I've checked some of our articles, but they don't make the answer to this exact question clear. Please note that I am not a Christian, so I do not have an agenda to push; I just want to know. It's been emotional (talk) 22:51, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Having been a member of churches on both sides of the divide, I can say that Protestants in general (in my experience) spend less time on individual sins than do Catholics. The core theology for many protestant groups on this issue goes something like this:

• Everyone commits sins
• God cannot tolerate any sin
• There is no sin that faith in Jesus cannot overcome (i.e. you are not more powerful than Jesus, and Jesus sacrifice was perfect and whole and great enough to make up for any sin you have committed)

Given all of that, the individual nature of YOUR sins versus MY sins isn't that important; we all have them, and we're all supposed to be working towards a more Christlike existance by reducing sin in our lives. There's some difference between protestant groups as to the nature of God's grace. Some groups hold that you can only earn it once (i.e. once you have accepted God's grace, and then fallen out of it, you cannot regain it). Others believe that once you are saved, you are always saved; that sin will still come into your life, but its how you recognize and deal with sin that makes you different from non-Christians. This theology is often captured by the pithy statement "Being a true Christian doesn't make you "sinless", but it should make you "sin less". In otherwords, perfection is an unattainable ideal, but you should still always work towards it. Catholics hold a different view of sin, that each sin represents something that must be individually atoned for: If I commit action X, then I must make reparations Y to cancel out the effect. This is part of the whole confession and absolution cycle. Because you continue to sin, you must continue to atone for your sins with specific acts. If you stop atoning, your sins pile up and God cannot let you into heaven. This also explains the Catholic concepts of purgatory where you can work off your sins in death, and Cardinal sins which are sins which are so dire that you cannot possibly atone for them during your lifetime. This makes part of the divide between Catholics and many Protestant groups over "Grace through acts" and "Grace through faith alone". Most protestants believe in Free grace, that is God's grace is given to freely, and it cannot be "earned" by your acts. In the context of Divorce, catholics hold that if you are already a catholic, you should not willingly divorce someone because this represents a deliberate act of sin, and fits with their stance on grace as something earned or lost through individual acts. Protestants recognize that divorce is a sin, but its not "worse" or "better" than any other sin, and so don't dwell on it over any other sin, instead focusing on reducing future sins and becoming closer in spirit and in act to Christ. (be aware that the term "Protestant" is not universal here, for every belief I explain as protestant above there are a sizable number of protestants who do not hold it.) --Jayron32 23:11, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

To clarify the Catholic view: Catholics also hold that perfection is unattainable ("we are all sinners"), but is the target. Catholics do not believe that one works off sins because God's grace is not enough: genuinely repenting of a sin is enough for God to forgive it, which is what 'confession' is about. However, Catholics also believe that how you act, speak, pray and think affects how close you are to God, and the state of your soul. So, if you've killed a dozen people for the fun of it, and then genuinely repented of it, God will forgive you, but the wounds on your soul are still there, you have to work to reshape yourself into someone who doesn't enjoy killing or want to kill! And, if you've genuinely repented, you'll want to repair the damage. Purgatory isn't 'working after death' to work off sins, it's a process of being cleansed, of all that is bad in you being burnt up, leaving only the good (eg, 1Cor 3). You only pass through Purgatory if you're on your way to Heaven, if your sins are already forgiven. And, to specifically address the original question, the Catholic Church doesn't allow divorce with annulment, since it believes divorce isn't possible (eg, someone who thinks they've divorced and has a further relationship commits adultery). It does, however, include annulment which claims there was never a valid marriage in the first place. 86.163.212.179 (talk) 15:30, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Extended content

:I find it interesting that the "not a Christian" OP quotes that piece of scripture in the very structured way a Christian would, unlike how I would expect a non-Christian to quote a book he/she is unfamiliar with. (I smell a troll.) I wonder if the OP has read every other bit of the Bible, untranslated from its original form, in order to get the full story? HiLo48 (talk) 23:31, 19 April 2011 (UTC) I'm not at all surprised. What does surprise me is that someone would assume that because someone is not a Christian they would not be familiar with the bible. I also think the insistence on reading it "untranslated from its original form" is a trollish comment. Quite apart from the ridiculousness of the notion of "original form" of a book compiled from a variety of sources and modified over the years by countless editors, to require a knowledge of biblical Hebrew and Biblical Greek of anyone who wants to ask about sectarian disagreements in christianity seems ludicrous. DuncanHill (talk) 00:15, 20 April 2011 (UTC) Indeed, HiLo48's comment seems to assume bad faith from the outset. Its better if you don't wish to answer the question to just not answer it. Its not terribly friendly to claim that an editor is acting in bad faith without any real evidence to support it. They seemed to have a genuine question regarding differences in Christian theology regarding divorce. Let people answer said question in good faith before poisoning the well and calling the OP disingenuous... --Jayron32 00:20, 20 April 2011 (UTC) Oh come on, how many non-Christians would quote chapter and verse, AND the version, in exactly the formal Christian way? I was raised a Christian, and I would struggle to do it so well. My point about translation was referring to the fact that Bible can be and is used by diverse sects to mean many different things. The fact that it's been translated many times DOES matter. As for people being offended, don't be so precious. HiLo48 (talk) 00:27, 20 April 2011 (UTC) First off, I don't see what's so hard about the format. List the quote, chapter and verse number, and translation. Is that really so difficult? I use the same or similar format when discussing Christian Bible passages (Or Torah, for that matter) - does my familiarity with formatting make me a Christian? Many non-Christians can be familiar with the Christian bible, and the specific ways of quoting it. Please, assume good faith. I'm going to collapse this section now, as it adds nothing of value to the question. Avicennasis @ 00:34, 16 Nisan 5771 / 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I know many non-christians who would quote chapter and verse (me included). Many of us are also familiar with the whole book (though not in an untranslated form). This is because many non-christians go to school, have grown up in a culture where biblical references abound, or are otherwise not complete planks. DuncanHill (talk) 00:37, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I find the censorship here disturbing. I DO smell a troll. I gave reasons. I've seen similar suggestions on many topics, always without a very rapid hiding of the suggestion. Why the difference this time? Maybe Americans cannot deal with such a frank discussion of Christianity. I am now the offended one. Disagreeing with my view is fine. Hiding it is unhealthy. HiLo48 (talk) 00:44, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to those who have backed me on not being a troll, and thanks for Jayron's answer. I was thinking of just not replying to the comment on trolling, simply because these things can get out of hand very quickly, and I am afraid that is what may be occurring. Whilst I have thanked people for the support, I'm hoping we can all assume good faith for the rest of this discussion, because I think there is much more to say. Jayron has definitely begun well, but there is much room for theology students and others to give more detail. I'm sincerely flattered that HiLo48 thinks my style would be de rigeur if I were a Christian, since it means I pay attention to religious discussions, and appear to know what I'm on about, or, well, sort of. Trolls, in my experience, don't use logins, they use ip's, and you can visit their talk pages to see what they are like if they do log in. They will be usually "one-issue independents" or such like, and it will show. Thanks in advance for what I hope will produce much topical discussion. It's been emotional (talk) 01:40, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, my apologies to you. And I do congratulate you on your precise use of Biblical quoting. But, on topic, I am always concerned when anyone attempts to use just one quotation from such a complex and frequently contradictory book as a "rule" for living as a Christian. Even if it is the only seemingly relevant one, most Christians treat many parts of the Bible as cultural or allegorical references of their time, rather than strict rules. HiLo48 (talk) 02:05, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Broadly speaking, Christian means anyone who follows the teachings of Jesus Christ, and includes a wide varience of both institutional theology and personal theology. You quite correctly note, HiLo48, that this means that there is an unimaginibly wide range of interpretations of the Bible, both passage-by-passage and in general themes. Different interpretations of the Bible thus often differ to the point of being contradictory, i.e. group Y says that Book Chapter Verse means A, while Group Z says that Book Chapter Verse means not-A. Given the OPs initial question, and desire to seek additional views, Christian views on divorce may provide some additional insight, but only a bit as the article is sadly lacking in comprehensiveness, even for the largest groups of Christians (for example, it mentions the most conservative Protestant sects, but gives no amount of coverage for mainline Protestant groups). --Jayron32 02:15, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

To be positive about this, at least you've brought to our attention what an unbalanced mess the Christian views on divorce article is - maybe someone can improve it (but not me, I'm an atheist - though I've been known to cite the bible...) AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:25, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't know, Andy... having an Atheist involved might be just what is needed. You can ask questions and make suggestions that Christians may not think to ask or make. And nothing unifies POV pushing Christians of various stripes more than having an Atheist around. It gives us common ground to meet on... something to unite against.  :>) Blueboar (talk) 21:02, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't seem very Christian to "unite against the atheists".... --Trovatore (talk) 00:53, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks :) There would seem to be several references to divorce and marriage in the Bible, but for once, I couldn't find anything, either by looking myself or checking our articles (or google for that matter), to create a composite or complex picture. They all seem to say the same thing (as far as I can tell), so I was curious to hear more. It's been emotional (talk) 02:12, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

April 20

Economical side of friendship

Have any economist (or the like) already calculate the cost/benefit ratio of having friends? Indeed, you spend money going out, calling people, gifts, ... but you also obtain thing: people who listen, help moving homes, ... . So, is there any study out there that comes to the conclusion that people with +10 or +5 earn 10,000 more or things like that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.169.181.129 (talk) 00:12, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

This is a subdicipline of happiness economics, if you page down to the section titled "Relationships and children" there is a small amount there, but if you work through the works of people who deal with the field of happiness economics, you'll likely find exactly the sort of studies and data you are looking for. --Jayron32 00:17, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Author of the Torah

I read the article about the Torah and Moses, but its difficult to understand. Did Moses write the Torah? Or is that what we think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.169.33.234 (talk) 03:35, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Many scholars have the view that many of the traditions in the Pentateuch go back to the pre-monarchy period (before 1000 B.C.), but that the books were not really assembled in more or less the form we have them today until around the 6th or 7th centuries B.C. (not before the reign of Josiah in the case of Deuteronomy). So no, Moses did not write the books we have now. AnonMoos (talk) 03:47, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

• "According to Jewish tradition the Torah was dictated to Moses by God, with the exception of the last eight verses of Deuteronomy which describe his death.[19] Today, the majority of scholars agree that the Pentateuch does not have a single author, and that its composition took place over centuries.[20] From the late 19th century there was a general consensus around the documentary hypothesis, which suggests that the five books were created c.450 BCE by combining four originally independent sources, known as the Jahwist, or J (about 900 BCE), the Elohist, or E (about 800 BCE), the Deuteronomist, or D, (about 600 BCE), and the Priestly source, or P (about 500 BC).[21]" Torah#Composition
  • There is a widespread cultural belief, which is of significance to the people who hold it, that Moses wrote the Torah. Mosaic authorship
  • This cultural belief (which is important to people), is not the accepted scholarly view.
  • For a long period of time the scholarly view was that four separate oral/written traditions were redacted (ie: edited) into one single literary tradition at a much later date. Eventually some people came to believe that this hypothesis meant material composed or orally transmitted by Moses was genuinely found in the text, even if in a fragmented and mistransmitted form. Documentary hypothesis
  • Currently, this belief is not the scholarly opinion; scholarly opinion is divided and research continues. Documentary hypothesis#After Wellhausen Fifelfoo (talk) 03:57, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Somebody once told me the following story (most likely taking place in the 1980s): At the MF Norwegian School of Theology, educating the ministers of the Church of Norway, a lot of students from rural areas with a tradition of relatively literal Bible interpretation attend. At one of the very first lectures at the start of the first term, they were taught that Moses did not write Genesis (known as "the first book of Moses" in most Norwegian translations). That afternoon, there were long lines outside the prayer room. Jørgen (talk) 07:42, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

David Cameron vetoing British prestige appointments?

1) Was David Cameron really responsible for Britain missing out on the prestige and honour of a British person being the first president of Europe? Or was he just trying to seem to do so? He was against the former Labour prime minister being considered for the role, which seems mean and petty - putting party political backbiting before national interests. I note that support for the Conservatives took a dip in polls afterwards, so many people may have had the same opinion as myself.

2) Does David Cameron have the power to veto the appointment of Gordon Brown as head of the IMF? It is said that GB was responsible for avoiding another 30s style depression by containing the banking crisis, so if that is true then he seems suited to the job. BTW I did vote Tory for the first time at the last election. 92.29.124.83 (talk) 09:35, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

On point 1), I'm sure he, as well as many people, honestly believed that Tony Blair becoming "president of Europe" would be a bad idea. Much of the Conservative Party, as you probably know, are euroskeptic, and so this isn't particularly surprising. On point 2) according to this: "The IMF's executive board picks the body's managing director, with the world's larger economies having the most votes. In practice a candidate, who needs a majority of the vote to succeed, can effectively be vetoed by countries like the US, France and the UK." I'm not entirely sure how that works - no single nation can have more than 50% of the vote - but I'm sure the BBC (and all other media outlets) know how the system works. The BBC's summary of the press mentions a few viewpoints "The Daily Telegraph is in no doubt the prime minister's remarks have shattered Mr Brown's hopes. The Daily Express says Mr Cameron spoke with commendable vehemence. But the Daily Mirror says outside the UK, Mr Brown's swift action to shore up the banks is credited with helping to avoid global economic meltdown." Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 09:45, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh, one more thing. David Cameron was only leader of the opposition at the time, and ultimately didn't get much say. As you can see from this article, there were machinations that ultiumately meant the Labour government dropped its support for Blair's presidency, in order to secure Baroness Ashton's place as High Representative for Foreign Affairs. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 09:55, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

BOE "asset purchases financed by the issuance of central bank reserves"

In the minutes ( http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/minutes/mpc/pdf/2011/mpc1104.pdf ) to the latest Bank Of England voting session regarding interest rates, it said that as well as voting to keep interest rates the same, they also voted that "The Bank Of England should maintain the stock of asset purchases financed by the issuance of central bank reserves at £200 billion."

What does that mean? Is it quantitative easing, or the opposite? If the former, why did the interest rate hawk Andrew Sentance vote for it? Thanks 92.29.124.83 (talk) 10:01, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Note that the decision was to "maintain the stock" at £200 billion (emphasis added). In other words, they decided not to increase the stock of asset purchases any further. This is in effect a decision to end quantitative easing. Marco polo (talk) 15:15, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Which Other Articles?

[4]

In one comment JN466 says @ 05:10, 30 September 2010 (UTC) "I find it equally amazing that you would "educate" readers about the Iraqi murder victims by including the videos of their killings in their biographies, without considering readers' feelings, or indeed the feelings of these people's families. (Present consensus at these articles does not even support linking to the videos."

I've searched and found Mahmudiyah killings. Is this the only "article" that we have of these murders?Curb Chain (talk) 11:47, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

picture of picaaso

what is the name of this picture: File:Photo(6).JPGJobnikon (talk) 14:04, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

It's "La Joie de Vivre". However, your upload is against copyright, and will soon be deleted. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 14:11, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

cool, thanks, I just wanted to know the name of the picture. Jobnikon (talk) 14:14, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

This is my truth, tell me yours

This title of a Manic Street Preachers album is widely attributed to a speech made by Aneurin Bevan, however I've not been able to find more. Which speech it is taken from, what is the context it was spoken in? Thryduulf (talk) 18:34, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Judging by the results from Google books, we was fond of the quotation, and used it at least fairly frequently, seemingly in the form "This is my truth, now tell me yours", called a "favourite quotation" in a couple of biographies that come up (and introductions to his autobiography). One I did see said a Welsh Labour Party conference, though. No sign of any context. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 18:45, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Cheers. If he used it that often then it could be in many contexts. Thryduulf (talk) 20:27, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Nauru electoral system

I'm looking for a copy/title of the piece of Nauru legislation setting out their electoral system. It was apparently determined by their parliament rather than by constitution so this should exist...? ╟─TreasuryTag►co-prince─╢ 20:54, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

No death duties for a very wealthy UK family?

A while ago someone commented here that the Windsors will not have to pay any death duties when our dear queen pops her cloggs. Is that true? Is it fair? How much will they avoid, roughly? Thanks 92.15.24.113 (talk) 21:11, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

"Since 1993 the Queen's personal estate (e.g. shareholdings, personal jewellery, Sandringham House and Balmoral Castle) will be subject to Inheritance Tax, though bequests from Sovereign to Sovereign are exempt". There seem to be conflicting other sources. I add that this reference desk is unlikely to pass comment on the fairness of the action. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 21:25, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm the one who made the assertion. What about cash? What about investment properties in London? Is the Duchy of Cornwall exempt if the Prince of Wales predeceases the queen?
Sleigh (talk) 21:44, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

As Grandiose notes the family will have to pay death duties when Elizabeth dies, just like everyone else. However, it is important to understand the difference between her personal assets (which are taxed) and crown assets (which are not). The family will have to pay death duties on the personal assets of Elizabeth Windsor (her privately owned houses, the money in her investment portfolio, etc... all of which amounts to a hefty sum). They will not owe death duties on the Crown properties that are associated with the monarchy (Buckingham Palace, Windsor Castle, The Crown Jewels, etc.) as Elizabeth Windsor does not actually own these assets (they are owned by the state and not by Elizabeth Windsor as a private individual... she merely gets to use them in her role as Queen. (and the state does not tax itself... nor does the Crown die when the current monarch does, so no death duty would be due even if it did tax itself). Blueboar (talk) 21:49, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Deliberate obfustication so that the British public cannot tell where our money comes from or goes to! Having free use of a selection of palaces for life (and similarly for your children, grandchildren and so on in perpituity) with lots of flunkies thrown in is even better than "owning" them! Its a royal fiddle! Rip off! 92.24.177.153 (talk) 23:00, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

To the Windsors, Britain must seem like an enormous luxury hotel where they never ever have to pay the bill. Not only that, but they get stuffed with free money too. 92.28.253.8 (talk) 11:59, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

And, as an Australian, I thank you British folk for maintaining our monarch in that way. HiLo48 (talk) 23:50, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

When you add on all the free stuff, then the Windsors must be the wealthiest family on earth, and the dear queen the wealthiest person too. 92.24.189.51 (talk) 11:07, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

• Elizabeth Windsor is best seen as a public housing tenant with a fixed social income. Public housing tenants don't pay death duties or heritance taxes on public housing. In many instances public housing tenants are lucky if the Government doesn't kick their children out of the house they've grown up with and become accustomed to. The constitutional reasons are those that Blueboar indicates; however, constitutions are malleable. In relation to the question of "Fairness" you're asking about the control of social production, distribution and exchange in UKGBNI. This is a matter of politics, ideology, ethics, and political economy—views will vary. For example, I disagree with HiLo48: I have no thanks to the people and parliament of UKGBNI for maintaining the Royals. If Britain was a true Commonwealth without gentlemen* then Australia probably would follow. Also, the family Windsor is liable—in my mind, along with the government of the UKGBNI, Australia and the Australian states—for reparations towards the indigenous people of Australia. But in Commonwealth countries these matters are normally a matter for personal or party political opinion. AFAIK, the data on the public and private finances of the House of Windsor is not particularly good and is publicly contested. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:30, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

(i) What is a "gentleman*" and how does that differ from a "gentleman"? (ii) Australia is already a Commonwealth. Do you mean Republic? Or a Commonwealth in a Cromwellian sense? (iii) What's wrong with the data? Is it corrupted? (iv) Who uses "UKGBNI"? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 02:21, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

• (i) "When Adam Delved and Eve Span, Who Was Then A Gentleman?"—I forgot to append the end note ; (ii) I mean a commonwealth in the digger and leveller and chartist sense ; (iii) AFAIK the Windsors don't render complete accounts, the sums involved are large enough and spread across sufficient family members that it makes it a serious higher accounting problem, that state aid to the Windsors is quantifiable in multiple forms, some wish to take all state aid even that not given expressly, other expressly only, others to separate their crown and personal functions as a result of state aid—what data is valid is under debate, and the openness and completeness of the data is politically disputed ; (iv) people who've got sick of naming dispute for the states, countries, nationalities and islands off the West Coast of France and wish to name the UKGBNI state run out of Westminster and its unique relationship to the house of Windsor as the object of discussion. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:53, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

"When Adam Delved and Eve Span, Who Was Then A Gentleman?" - the correct answer is, of course, Adam... Eve was A Lady Blueboar (talk) 12:51, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

No, Adam wasn't a Gentleman, he was just a man. And Eve wasn't a Lady, she was a woman. The terms Gentleman and Lady were reserved for members of "gentile society", i.e. the upper classes, i.e. people who didn't have to work. The arguement of the day was that the social order in England was divinely ordained, that there should be upper classes and working classes, and to argue against such a divinely ordained social order was to argue against God himself. The contrary arguement is that when God created Man and Woman, there was no social classes, Adam and Eve were working class (they delved and span; that is he dug holes and she spun yarn, both activities only done by the working classes in England, and never by the aristocracy) and there was no upper class; so the social order was, of course, not divinely ordained, quite the contrary God's divinely ordained social order was egalitarianism; that all people before God are equal, so any social system which perpetuates unequalness is the abomination. The problem is that this 600-year-old couplet is filled with words whose meaning is either obscure (delved? span? Who talks like that anymore) or whose meaning has drifted (Gentleman is now applied to any man; though at the time the couplet was written, that was NOT The case). --Jayron32 15:54, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh god, yet another Australian who refuses to accept Australia's own responsibility for its own form of government, and wants to use Wikipedia as a soapbox for the chip on his shoulder. It's the one thing that really puts me off Australians, they are the undisputed whinging champions of the Commonwealth - the Scousers of the South Pacific. You want a republic in Australia? Go persuade Australians of it, don't blame us in Britain for the choices your compatriots have made. DuncanHill (talk) 08:48, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I'd prefer it, Duncan, if you kept your criticisms focussed on the individuals who raise your hackles, and not extend it to the entire nation to which those individuals belong. Is the UK to be considered a nation of murderers because of Jack the Ripper, Peter Sutcliffe, John Christie, Harold Shipman and various other rotten apples? -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 09:54, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Interesting point by HiLo48. Why should only the UK bear the burden of keeping the Windsors in fabulous wealth and luxury? Lets demand that Australia, Canada, Fiji, and all the rest, pay their contributions to our heriditary masters on a per-capita basis. With the money freed up in the UK, we can build our dear queen her own pyramid, instead of wasting it on public services. 92.24.189.51 (talk) 09:35, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Without the Windsors, the UK economy would not have all that tourist money coming in from Australians, Canadians, Jiji Islanders (not to mention Americans, French, Japanese, and other non-Commonwealth folk) who come to England to gawp at the Windsors. That tourist money adds more to the economy than keeping the Windsors in place removes. Seems like a fair trade off to me. Blueboar (talk) 12:51, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I see.....so that's why no tourist every visits France or Paris? There's obviously been a very serious error made here Tourism#Most_visited_countries_by_international_tourist_arrivals, but I suppose when you make the usual Royal Accounts adjustment for the Crown Estate and Duchy Of Cornwall, then France is in fact at the bottom of the list, not the top. 92.29.123.26 (talk) 13:04, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I didn't say there would be no tourist money... but it would be a lot less. Your are really comparing apples and oranges. Different cities and nations have different attractions for tourists. France has, for example, French cuisine (and let's be honest... tourists don't come to the UK for the food). Florida has Disney World. In the case of the UK, Royal watching is one of the major draws. With no Royals to watch, the UK loses that draw. A lot of tourists would go and spend their vacation money somewhere else (they might go and visit France instead).Blueboar (talk) 13:11, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Have you ever seen a dear Windsor in the flesh? A lack of current royalty does not put people off from going to France. One of the reasons for coming here is that there isnt any "Disney". Our food is far better than US food and judging by the prestigeous international awards that british chefs get, must be pretty good. Stop trotting out stereotypes. People would also go to gorp at Stalin or Hitler if it were possible to do so. Even when the Windsors no longer have such an excess of taxpayers money poured into them, the palaces, Beefeaters, and changing of the gaurd will still be there. The Tower of London is jam-packed with tourists all the time, yet the Windsors never go there. 92.29.123.26 (talk) 13:33, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, in the case of Hitler they do... Hitler's bunker is a tourist draw for Berlin. Germany has successfully turned the horrors of the Nazis into a tourist attraction. Blueboar (talk) 13:45, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

The trouble about the royalists is that they are like the Flat Earth Society in having a counter-arguement for every possible suggestion that they are mistaken in their beliefs. 92.28.253.8 (talk) 09:45, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Yikes! So Hilter didnt shoot himself in the bunker, he and Eva had kids who now grown up wave at tourists on state ocassions? I was tempted to say that tourists visit Auschwitz, so tourism isnt a recommendation of the system they observe nor does it require current personnel, but that is too disrespectful of the suffering there. 92.28.253.51 (talk) 18:50, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

• • • DucanHill: The Windsors have a continuing responsibility for reparations, as do the state prior to 1901, as does the UKGBNI prior to responsible government. You might have noticed the multiplicity of assignment of responsibility in my post. JackofOz, despite my apparent incompatibility of my and his politics raises a real point. IP92 also raises a point regarding economic responsibility for maintaining a family of UK welfare bludgers. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:11, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

When I watched this about a mafia clan, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-13167363 , it occurred to me that the two traits of 1) secretive accounting, and 2) trying to gain popular support, are just what our dear Windsor clan, gawd bless 'em, do as well. 92.28.253.8 (talk) 11:55, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Various UK relevant financial amounts graphically displayed

In a video fairly recently I saw mention of a graphical display of things like the national debt and various other things. They were shown as squares or oblongs with size proprtional to the amounts so that they could be easily seen and compared. Does anyone know where I can see this? Thanks 92.15.24.113 (talk) 21:15, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Is it this kind of thing you're referring to? Or perhaps this? Gabbe (talk) 09:02, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes! The second one, the Billion Pound-O-Gram, is what I was looking for. Its a simple but great idea - I wish we had more diagrams like that in various national and local public accounts to make it easier to appreciate the relative amounts of money involved. Thanks. 92.24.189.51 (talk) 09:40, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

What would also be interesting to see would be discretionary public expenditure counted in terms of public employee units - ie how many nurses, teachers, or police(wo)men the same money would pay for. 92.24.189.51 (talk) 09:47, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

April 21

atlas shrugged

was the book atlas shrugged banned in the former soviet union? and is it banned in china today? is there any reliable information available? --Douploas1254 (talk) 03:38, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

You may want to see this. As you can see, Atlas Shrugged is not a very widely translated book. As a matter of fact, it's nearly unknown in mainland Europe. Ayn Rand was a control freak, and wanted to check the translations... It is translated in Chinese, but I don't know if one can find it in China. 194.6.163.234 (talk) 06:14, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Not just mainland Europe it's nearly unknown in, it's pretty much unknown in Britain too, as is Rand herself. DuncanHill (talk) 08:39, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Agreed - never heard of the book or the author before. Alansplodge (talk) 16:36, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, interesting that the titles are so different. Was that also Ayn's wish? Why? — Sebastian 07:15, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Likely some languages have no one-word translation of shrug. —Tamfang (talk) 03:36, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Also, 'Atlas shrugged' is an evocative title that plays off the Greco-Roman myth of Atlas holding up the bowl of the sky and the American dual meaning of the word shrug (to show indifference or to 'shrug off' an annoyance). the first wouldn't make any sense in cultures that weren't well-versed in GR mythology, and the second probably wouldn't translate to non-english languages at all.--Ludwigs2 07:08, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Based on some online searches, you can definitely buy the Chinese translation in China. Here is the book's page on the website of Xinhua, the leading government-owned book store in China. A clue in the table referred to above is that the book was published by Chongqing Publishing, a state owned publisher. However, I second the point above that the book is nowhere near as influential elsewhere in the world than in the US, but (from some brief browsing of google hits for the Chinese title) seems surprisingly quite well known in China. Quite interestingly, the "Editor's Recommendation" on the Xinhua page linked above compares the author to (and contrasts with) Karl Marx. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 07:48, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. I thought this book would have been banned in China. It is very surprising communists are recommending Ayn Rand!!! --Douploas1254 (talk) 09:28, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

They aren't really Communists; they are some hybrid of socialism and capitalism, at this point. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:45, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

What would Earth be like if it was 82% more wonderful?

This was already halted at WP:RDS. The reference desks are not an appropriate place for this kind of dicussion. It has nothing to do with being "scientific". This is an inappropriate discussion for anywhere at Wikipedia. No means no.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I first posed this question on the Science Desk several hours ago, whence it was removed by someone who felt that it was not sufficiently scientific, and would find a better home here. I have retained the respondents' replies, which are not bad. When people think of environments much better than those found on Earth, they invariably talk of Heaven and its variants, which are INCOMPARABLY better. Earth is amazing, wonderful, astonishing, charming, exciting and deep, but the world to which I refer is 82% more enhanced in all of these properties. What would such an Earth, one that is better but not incomparably better to the one we know be like? The immediate objection to this question will be that it is not “scientific” because the properties of “amazing, astonishing…etc” are subjective descriptions. This is so, but subjective evaluations can be quantified and measured by psychometric means. We don’t need to do that here; for the time being a respondent can estimate what features such a planet might have that would render it 82% more wonderful in every way to the one we live in. Not 100%, or 200%, but 82% - it is important that the last figure be the one under consideration, although respondents to this query might wish to compare their 82% ideal with what would be the case if the figure were much higher. For myself, I believe the following would be a reality in such an Earth: 1. There would be four sexes, male, female, devotrain and andila. Everyone would be male or female but also be either devotrain or andilian. A devotrainian male could make love to an andilian male without being homosexual. There would be an another entirely different kind of eroticism which would run parallel with the one we know. Human navels would become powerfully erotic organs which, when joined with another’s, would emanate fibres that would extend through the other’s body. When the moment of devotrainian or andilian orgams occurred, it would be felt from head to toe. 2. Humans would have eyes which, when properly trained upon the night sky for half an hour or so, can see the cosmos as clearly as the Hubble Telescope does now. Indeed, humans will be able to see in the infra red and unlta violet, and the brain will be hard wired to see two extra colours. 3. People will be able to glide for considerable distances, and death by falling will no longer occur. To fly like a bird, however, would require an Earth 128% better than the one we have. 4. There will be creatures like vast air ships, 10 times larger than the biggest whale, which will be tame and carry thousands of passengers across the seas in great comfort, requiring only some food and love. 5. The Earth will be 34% larger, but correspondingly less dense so that gravity is largely unaffected. There will be two extra continents. 6. We will share the planet with another species equal to our own in intelligence, and with whom we can communicate. 7. During the night when we sleep, we will be able to join in a universal dream in which all sleeping people of good will can partake, involving vast on-going dramas ranging from passionate love to intense adventure. Can you provide some more background for this world? Myles325a (talk) 02:54, 21 April 2011 (UTC) Wait, you've invented a fantasy world and now you want us to provide you with more information about it? The world is in your head. You can give it all the background information you want. The reference desks aren't really an appropriate place to try to write a crowdsourced science fiction novel. Do you have a specific factual question we can help you find answers to in Wikipedia articles? --Jayron32 02:59, 21 April 2011 (UTC) Op myles325a back live. Sigh...sigh...I DID say, above "The immediate objection to this question will be that it is not “scientific” because the properties of “amazing, astonishing…etc” are subjective descriptions. This is so, but subjective evaluations can be quantified and measured by psychometric means. We don’t need to do that here...". And so you go ahead and make exactly the same objection I had already tried to pre-empt. You very well might not agree with this pre-emption, but you could have at least acknowledged that I made it. A couple of other points. One: These questions are not just for people who can't use the Search function in WP. And two: It's not just IN my head. You are assuming that. The reality is more complicated. Myles325a (talk) 03:13, 21 April 2011 (UTC) You may be interested in Leibniz's 'Theodicy', which argues that we live in the best possible world (and hence it cannot be made 82% more wonderful). Or you may be interested in Voltaire's Candide, which was influenced by Leibniz's work, and largely ridicules this notion. SemanticMantis (talk) 03:15, 21 April 2011 (UTC) And no doubt this world has 82 percent more giant purple mushrooms.190.56.105.52 (talk) 04:01, 21 April 2011 (UTC) You realize you've basically described the movie Avatar right? Ariel. (talk) 04:09, 21 April 2011 (UTC) No ariel .I don't think Pandora had any giant air ship creatures that carried people across the seas in great comfort.190.56.105.52 (talk) 04:19, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Naming of Windward and Leeward Islands

In English, the "Leeward Islands" are defined almost opposite to other languages. (See Windward Islands#Terminology.) In a discussion at WP:RD/S#Windward Islands and trade winds, it was proposed that "windward" and "leeward", in this case, mean "nearer" and "further", respectively. Since that wouldn't make sense for ships coming from Britain, the hypothesis emerged that that is so because the British engaged in the triangular trade, so the ships that came from Africa would reach the "Windward Islands" before the "Leeward Islands". Could that explain why the English nomenclature is different from the German, as Germans did not engage in the triangular trade, and would therefore come directly from Europe? This sounds like a bold hypothesis; what do other editors think? — Sebastian 07:07, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

The labels windward and leeward clearly date from the age of sail. When sailing, windward simply means upwind, while leeward means downwind. I think that it is just something of an accident that the English used the term leeward to refer to the northern Lesser Antilles whereas other Europeans did not. You may be right that it was related to their experience of approaching the West Indies from Africa in the triangular trade. Also, the English had less to do with the islands off the coast of present-day Venezuela than, for example, the Dutch, who founded colonies on those islands. By contrast, unlike other European powers, the English had a number of colonies on both the Windward and the Leeward Islands (as defined in English), so it might have been more important to the English to distinguish between the islands farther upwind and those farther downwind within the eastern Lesser Antilles. Note that the map that you linked is somewhat in error in suggesting that the islands known as "leeward" in other languages are known as "windward" in English. In fact, the islands known as "leeward" in other languages are not known as "windward" in English. Instead, as in other languages, the word leeward is sometimes used. (See Leeward Antilles.) Marco polo (talk) 17:14, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

UK: trial in secret

In trashy spy fiction, you occasionally read about particularly sensitive spy/terrorist trials being held in secret, without juries, and the subjects being sent to absurdly well-guarded offshore prisons. I know that the latter part is drivel, but is there any legal provision for British criminal trials to be held in secret? ╟─TreasuryTag►senator─╢ 14:58, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I believe the last "secret" court in the UK was the Star Chamber, and people lost their heads over closing that one down. I don't beleive there is any provision in the modern UK for a true secret court. I think what the spy novels are counting on is the belief that, if it is truly "secret", then you would have no reason to even know they exist. I.e., its not just the proceedings that are secret, its that the entire court is unknown, so you would have no cause to even suppose it existed. --Jayron32 15:09, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

According to In camera (not a very good article), "entire cases may be heard in camera when, for example, matters of national security are involved", though it doesn't actually specify what jurisdictions this applies to. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 15:21, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Not exactly secret courts, but the Diplock courts held trials without jury between 1973 and 2007 for terrorist/paramilitary cases, and there is still provision for trial without jury in exceptional circumstances in the Criminal Justice Act 2003. Gandalf61 (talk) 15:31, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Supergrass trials weren't exactly secret, but the ordinary rights of defendants were greatly abridged.... AnonMoos (talk) 16:18, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

See also the Superinjunctions in the UK, when the press is prohibited from reporting that there is something it cannot report. BrainyBabe (talk) 23:02, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

A cousin, perhaps, of DA-Notice. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 05:15, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Although a DA notice prohibits nothing at all. Sam Blacketer (talk) 16:08, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

It's champagne time

I was watching the Chinese Formula One race last weekend and at the end the three drivers on the winner's podium were given huge bottles (magnums?) of champagne with which to shower their colleagues. Is the liquid in the bottles actually champagne? It looks fizzy enough to produce a nice white foam, but when the winner took a swig from the bottle and spat it out again, it looked very much like plain water to me. Also, if it is real champagne, can a F1 driver get arrested soon after for driving with excess alcohol, or being under age in some jurisdictions? And is spitting it out again usual practice? Astronaut (talk) 17:12, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Seeing as how they drink champagne after the race, I'm not sure drunk driving is an issue. Mingmingla (talk) 18:24, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Though if they are spitting it out, it may mean they are intending to drive some more. Wine tasting, for example, usually involves spilling out the wine, because you aren't trying to get drunk off of it. It seems extraordinarily unlikely that they would be serving anything other than champagne (or a similarly sparkling wine) at such an event. --Mr.98 (talk) 18:57, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Technically, the liquid in those bottles could only be called Champagne if it actually came from France. If it were bottled in China, perhpas they are worried about the lead content, seeing as humans prefer unleaded fuels. Googlemeister (talk) 19:08, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Technically (arguably) it should only be called champagne if it came from a specific region in France. That's why I mentioned "similar sparkling wines". --Mr.98 (talk) 22:36, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

It certainly used to be: Moët & Chandon very successfully set up the entire idea of celebrating with champagne like that. Not sure if it still is, though. It's unlikely to be "made in China", given it's probably provided by teh F1 organisation. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 19:20, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

The pictures from the Shanghai race clearly show the champagne bottles marked "Moët et Chandon", which is a longtime F1 sponsor. Typically, the drivers will take a sip or two and then hand the bottle to their pit crew, who will enjoy the remainder. I doubt the drivers do much driving on public roads after a race: they're usually rushed to the airport so they can fly to their next destination, plus the quantity they drink is minimal. As for Lewis Hamilton spitting out a watery-looking gulp: I've seen the picture and I agree with the OP that's its quite unusual; someone will need to ask him what was going on. Other things to note about the champagne ceremony: they don't use champagne in places where alcohol is culturally or legally unacceptable, they tone down the ceremony if there's been serious accident during the race. Very few drivers, and even fewer race winners are under 21 years of age, so the issue of underage drinking is fairly rare (in the few places where the drinking age is that high). --Xuxl (talk) 22:23, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

If my memory serves me Lewis Hamilton is teetotal (non-drinker) but he likes to have a taste of the champagne so has a sip and spits it out. I seem to recall them discussing this with him when he was on Top Gear ny156uk (talk) 23:31, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh and apparently it is real champagne, at least according to this (http://www.grandprix.com/ft/ft00274.html) ny156uk (talk) 23:34, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Where you do find younger winners in similar ceremonies is in motor cycle racing. Often there the majority would be under 21. But I do remind our American cousins that in most of the world the legal drinking age is younger than in their country. At a personal level, I've always regarded those champagne spraying exercises as simply a waste of a good drink. HiLo48 (talk) 23:37, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Also, in Britain we don't have a "legal drinking age" - it is illegal to give alcohol to a person under 5 except on medical advice (but that's an offence committed by the person giving the alcohol, not by the child), 18 is the minimum age for purchase, and in licensed premises people under 18 may not consume alcohol (unless they are at least 16 and it is wine, beer, cider or perry and accompanying a meal) - but there is no law setting a "minimum drinking age". DuncanHill (talk) 10:45, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Champagne is pretty expensive. I'm not sure many lower racing categories use it. Famously, the Indianapolis 500 gives milk to the winner. --Xuxl (talk) 13:20, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

April 22

D-Notice with partially blank front pages in UK

Long ago when I was a kid I remember newspapers showing a partially blank front page instead of a photo of Elizabeth Windsor in her gold carriage I think. I expect she was sneezing or something. D-Notices and partially blank pages do not seem to happen anymore. Is there a list of them, and what was EW actually doing in the incident I've described. Thanks 92.28.253.8 (talk) 09:41, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

As that article notes, a DA notice was issued (in regard Wikileaks documents) on 25 November 2010, so evidently they are still in use. A D notice is a request to the newspaper, asking them not to publish something on the grounds of national security; the newspaper is quite free to ignore a D notice. If HMG feels it necessary to force a newspaper not to publish something, they take out an injunction, as they did (for example) in regard to Spycatcher (ref), Zircon (ref), and Chevaline (ref). I expect blank pages or sections were a result of a D-notice or injunction being received shortly before the newspaper was due to print (and with old metal type setting, it wasn't practical to reset new copy into the space lost to the notice before print time). That is, I don't think it was evidence of the newspaper protesting the notice: for a D notice they voluntarily complied with it, and for an injunction they'd want to run a story about them being injuncted. If the injunction forbade even mentioning the injunction itself, wilfully blanking a section of the newspaper would risk being a breach of that injunction. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 10:39, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

It's very difficult to imagine a D-notice being issued for a spurious reason like an embarrassing photo of the Queen. The D-notice system relies on mutual trust between the Government and the press; it means "you might not understand why, but trust us when we say this is a matter of significant security concern to the realm, and we really think you mustn't publish this". It is particularly of value to the Government when the press intends to publish something that, to it, seems rather minor (e.g. the odd behaviour of an ambassador at a recent function) but which really signify something of genuine national security concern (e.g. said ambassador plans to defect to the UK and bring juicy details of his country's government). If the Government started issuing D-notices for daft things like bad photos of the Queen or what Prince Andrew said to the chauffeur, they'd destroy that trust and lose the utility of the system. They'd be forced to rely only on injunctions, a process that is complicated, expensive, risky, and very newsworthy. I can see how Buckingham Palace might object to a photo or story and write a stroppy letter (they have done so in the past), and a newspaper might reluctantly spike it in fear of losing access - but that's very far from a D-notice. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 11:05, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Children's Day / Boys' Day / Girls' Day in Sweden

I read on Chinese Wikipedia that Sweden does not have a Children's Day for both male and female kids, but a boys' day and a girls' day separately. I can't find the same description on English:Childrens' Day, which instead says Swedes celebrate 2 Children's Day, one in October as International Children's Day and one on 13 May as national children's day. For the Chinese claim I can actually find a source, "Backgrounder: Children's holidays around the world", from the state-owned xinhuanet. Could anyone please confirm whether the source correctly describes the situation in Sweden? It's interesting to know Sweden has Lobster Festival as Boys' Day and Saint Lucia's Day as Girls' Day!! English wikipedia should mention it too if it's confirmed!! Thank you very much!! :) --Poeticlion (talk) 13:13, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

That information is not correct. I have never heard of any Boys' and Girls' days, and Saint Lucia's Day is definitely not regarded as a Girls' day. It is Saint Lucia's Day which, as that article describes, has a bunch of traditional activities associated, where the main part of the main one is usually done by a girl, but that does not make the day a girls' day. The part about two Children's Days is a bit more correct, though neither celebrated as such. On International Children's Day, there is usually features in media about poor kids in other parts of the world, associated fund-raiser events on TV etc., but no celebrations as such. The national one Barnens dag in May has a ring of maybe 1910-1970 about it. Back then, there were apparently fairs, fun-fairs, parades etc. in cities and towns. (For example, one such event in the sixties is a part of the plot of The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo.) My home town seems to have had such an event in August last year, so it seems it is now more of a generic name for a town fair with focus on events for children. /Coffeeshivers (talk) 14:19, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

The passage on Sweden in the Xinhua article is, as pointed out, totally false. It brings to mind the Chako Paul City story, seems that somehow individual journalist thinks it's ok to cough up any story to fill out space, but a practice made more complicated in the internet age. --Soman (talk) 15:16, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Geography/GK question

Which city went green in a big way in the last 5 years. It is the site of one of the Worlds's major developments. It was a small sleepy town in the early 19th century. Security is tight as international terrorism is a concern here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.83.211.172 (talk) 14:06, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

If we tell you the answer, will you share the prize with us? --TammyMoet (talk) 14:25, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

EC: The proper wording of the quiz is as usual available at [5], and as usual we expect you to donate the $100 to Wikipedia if you win. /Coffeeshivers (talk) 14:25, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Sure —Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.83.211.172 (talk) 14:30, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Think People's Republic of China.
Sleigh (talk) 15:30, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

international terrorism is a concern? Corvus cornix_talk 18:36, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, 1971 war and South Asia

How is Sheikh Mujibur Rahman a Cold War figure? How is Bangladesh Liberation War of 1971 considered as part of Cold War? United States and Russia were not involved in this? Were they? How are Indira Gandhi and her father Jawaharlal Nehru Cold War figures? In Pakistan, how are Muhammed Ayub Khan and Muhammed Zia-ul-Haq Cold War figures? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.155.145 (talk) 14:33, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Any politician on the international scene 1948-1991 would be, willingly or unwillingly, involved in the Cold War. The 1971 was certainly a Cold War proxy conflict, in which USA and China backed (to some degree at least) Pakistan and India and Soviet Union supported the formation of independent Bangladesh. --Soman (talk) 15:12, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

The term "proxy conflict" is inaccurate if it is used to imply that the Soviets and U.S. were directly and proximately supporting the sides to any degree remotely comparable to what went on in the 1973 Arab-Israeli war etc. Rather, each power's general approach to the overall issue was influenced by their pre-existing regional alliances... AnonMoos (talk) 16:47, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Official Bible of the Roman Catholic religion

Does the Roman Catholic religion have an "official" Bible? That is, scripture that can be quoted verbatim (chapter and verse) — for official Roman Catholic purposes — should be quoted from which Bible exactly? (I am referring to the English language, also ... not Latin, Italian, etc.) Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:15, 22 April 2011 (UTC))

Do you mean the Douay–Rheims translation? Gabbe (talk) 18:02, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks ... I really have no idea whatsoever. Is that (today) considered the "official" Bible for Roman Catholics? Thank you. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:25, 22 April 2011 (UTC))

In the U.S. the New American Bible translation is used for the readings in Mass. Read our article to find out about its various editions and revisions.--Cam (talk) 18:29, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

icons of Saint Georges

In some icons representing Saint Georges on the horse and sitting behind him is a child : who is that child ? thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.96.155.68 (talk) 17:58, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

He is sometimes described as the "youth of Mytilene", a boy whom George rescued from captivity. But in this article other explanations are given for the child (see page 19 [the 13th page of the pdf]).--Cam (talk) 18:20, 22 April 2011 (UTC)