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

January 14

Do Catholic bishops reign?

Is the first sentence of this edit accurate in its wording? I know that popes reign, but I can't remember if lower-ranking Catholic bishops can also be said to reign. I'm asking about official terminology, if there is such a thing; using Google, I've found references to bishops reigning, but only on blogs and similar types of pages. Nyttend (talk) 03:59, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

The pope only reigns in his secular role as Head of State of the Vatican City. Bishops (of which the Pope is merely one, officially) preside, I believe. At least, that's a formulation I have heard before. --Jayron32 04:40, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Adendum; there was a time when Bishops did actually reign (in the secular sense), see Prince-Bishop. The only such Prince-Bishop left is the Pope. --Jayron32 04:42, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Isn't the Bishop of Urgell also a prince-bishop, being a bishop and a co-Prince of Andorra? Surtsicna (talk) 11:05, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Shonuff. I stand corrected. --Jayron32 15:49, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Following are some sites (some official Church sites) using the "reign" terminology: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 05:31, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Ben-Hur:_A_Tale_of_the_Christ's prison

In this book (or film) some characters are condemned to some years in prison. Was that possible at any time in the Roman Empire? I thought that prisons were just a temporary solution and never the actual punishment. Quest09 (talk) 10:15, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

The Prison article agrees with your statement. I wouldn't necessarily assume that everything presented either in the book or on-screen in Ben-Hur is historically accurate. I would suspect that the book's author was not necessarily a history scholar. I still find it funny that there's a somewhat Kevin-Bacon-like connection between Charlton Heston and Billy the Kid. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:12, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Paul the Apostle, for one, was imprisoned several times in various places in the Roman Empire – in fact he was even famously "set free" once (but chose to stick around and convert the prison-guards instead;) from one prison in Macedonia when it was destroyed by an earthquake! (Acts 16:20-40)

Also, more specifically in response to your question, the Arrest and death section of Paul's article says: "He was held as a prisoner for two years in Caesarea until a new governor reopened his case in 59". WikiDao ☯ 05:30, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

We might distinguish an ancient prison or dungeon where you lock some one up while their case is being tried or while they are awaiting execution or punishment, from a modern prison where you lock someone up for many years for punishment or in an attempt at reforming him. In ancient times, wasn't it more common to punish and release or banish, or to execute, rather than to incarcerate for many years after trial? Hang them, brand them, mutilate them, whip them, expose them in the stocks, transport them to Australia. No "prison system," though certainly they might be sentenced to the galleys or enslaved for life. Modern incarceration is hideously expensive, costing about as much in the US per prisoner per year as tuition at an Ivy League college. (It presently costs close to $50,000 per year to keep a California prisoner). Edison (talk) 05:26, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Interesting. And, yes: our Prison article says:

"Only in the 19th century, beginning in Britain, did prisons as known today become commonplace. The modern prisons system was born in London, as a result of the views of Jeremy Bentham. The notion of prisoners being incarcerated as part of their punishment and not simply as a holding state until trial or hanging, was at the time revolutionary."

...as was already alluded to by Bugs in the first response above. WikiDao ☯ 18:54, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikileaks abstracts for geopol students

Hello, Wikipedians!

I am a student at a university in Norway, where I study politics. Of course Wikileaks has been invaluable in my eyes, in showing the true paths of diplomacy where normally all we have are past events and theories. Therefore I seek an outlet for these cables where they are sorted, by date etc, but also by the more subjective 'importance'.

Are there any webpages that provide daily/weekly/monthly abstracts of a list of the most serious cables? I'd imagine someone has gotten around to putting the cables into system by now, but I don't know of any of them. Pray, are you able to assist a student?

Thanks in advance! 88.90.16.188 (talk) 13:01, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Try http://cablesearch.org/ --Mr.98 (talk) 14:40, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Foreign Policy do a weekly round-up of the more important cables in the Wikileaked section of their website, with more in-depth analysis of particular cables throughout the week. It works quite well as an aggregator, but it's not sorted in the exact way you're asking.

Noble titles

The article Henrik, Prince Consort of Denmark states (with impeccable sourcing) that in 2008 the Queen of Denmark created the title "greve af Monpezat" (count of Monpezat) and conferred it upon her sons.

Now, I don't know much about how nobility works, but Monpezat is a place in France. The French Republic claims sovereignty over it. The Danish monarchy never did, and neither did the Danish kings personally, even as ceremonial or customary titles. How can the Danish monarch now purport to appoint counts over it -- or rather, how can she do it without (apparently) eliciting any furious protest from France?

Where can I find the rules for appointing nobles to places outside the appointing monarch's own territory? It cannot just be a free-for-all, can it? I suspect that extremely nasty diplomatic notes would be exchanged (and some demonstrative naval exercises hastily arranged) if the president of Turkey were to appoint a High Steward and Bailiff of Lesbos, or if Elizabeth II appointed someone Governor-General of Massachusetts. Could the king of Spain go create a Duchy of Novosibirsk and select a duke for it? –Henning Makholm (talk) 13:31, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Does the first paragraph of House of Monpezat answer your (first) question?--Shantavira|^{feed me} 13:50, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Not really, especially since the validity of the comital title traditionally used by Henrik's family was in dispute. How can the French willingly suffer that a foreign monarch acts like a final arbitrator over whether one of their noble titles should even exist (and a not very impartial arbitrator at that)? And even if they are happy that the title exists, shouldn't they at least take issue with the Queen's purporting to prescribe new rules for its succession? –Henning Makholm (talk) 14:02, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Given that France is a Republic, the French government may not really care about this. It isn't like the Danes are claiming sovereignty over the town. Blueboar (talk) 14:41, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Land and titles of nobility once associated with the land have been severed for hundreds of years. To learn more, see Lord of the Manor. For other examples of foreigners holding titles of nobility that were formerly associated with actual French locations, see Prince of Orange and Duke of Aubigny. It is not as strange as you think. Conferring the title has nothing to do with the land anymore and all to do with the family, which held the title at least at some point in history. 24.38.31.81 (talk) 15:41, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

The answer is twofold. First, as 24.38 notes, there is no longer any connection between a title and the nominal estate the title grants one; there has not been for hundreds of years. Secondly, regarding possible French reaction to this, the answer is the French couldn't give two shits about what some noble family in Denmark is named. They're not making any actual claim to any French territory; as a republic for the past 140 years, they no longer have any pretenses that such issues matter anymore. --Jayron32 15:47, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

A monarch can create whichever noble title he or she wants to create. So yes, the King of Spain can create someone Duke of Novosibirsk. Doing so is in no way illegal. The Queen of the United Kingdom created Sue Ryder Baroness Ryder of Warsaw in 1979, even though Warsaw was never a part of the United Kingdom nor a part of any of its predecessors. There are many, many more examples. Surtsicna (talk) 16:02, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

On the other hand... appointing someone "Governor-General of Massachusetts" might imply a claim of sovereignty over the territory ("Governor-General" being an office as well as a title). Even then, there is nothing to prevent the Queen making such an appointment ... The reaction in the US would probably be to laugh and ignore it (unless there was an attempt to actually carry out the duties of the office). Blueboar (talk) 16:32, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

There may be an additional implication. When in the UK new life peers are appointed (by the Queen, but usually on the recommendation of the current government), they get to nominate where they want to be made Baron/ess of, and often choose somewhere with which they have a personal association or interest, which is generally taken as a compliment by them to that place. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 20:53, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

No more laughable than the senile U.S. judge who sentenced someone to transportation to and penal servitude in the "colony of New South Wales". Oh, this was only about 20 years ago. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 19:07, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

You mean "U.K. judge", right? I don't think the States ever practiced penal transportation to Australia. Rimush (talk) 19:20, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

No, that was precisely my point. It was a guy from somewhere around Tennessee who'd obviously read about this historical practice of the British and thought it was available to him to impose on a fellow US citizen. Needless to say, the sentence was not executed (but I just said it anyway). -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 19:28, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a citation for that? I can't find it in Google News Archives. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 21:03, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

You mean Sydney isn't a colony of the US anymore? I could have sworn... Blueboar (talk) 21:11, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Heh. :) I remember looking for a cite once before, and failing. But I have a clear memory of seeing this news item and relating it to a mate of mine, and us both laughing uproariously at the stupidity of it. This would have been some time in the 1980s, probably, so maybe up to 30 years ago. For some reason, Tennessee sticks in my mind but I won't swear to it. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 21:54, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Anyway, there's the Viscount of Alamein... AnonMoos (talk) 09:31, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Not to forget John Jervis, 1st Earl of St Vincent, whose domain either is a small rock in Portugal, or, more likely, the water around it. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:16, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

And the Viscount Barfleur, the Earls of Camperdown, the Marquesses and Barons Douro, and, perhaps most recently, the Earls of Ypres. Also, less obviously, the Earls of Albemarle (that title being an anglicisation of the French County of Aumale). (It should also be noted that titles in the form "Viscount Montgomery of Alamein" (not simply "Viscount (of) Alamein") and "Baroness Ryder of Warsaw" have never implied sovereignty/ownership/control by the peer of the place named, merely an association with that place. This is why the second part of these titles can be duplicated - there can be Lords/Ladies Cave of Richmond, Fanshawe of Richmond, Wright of Richmond, Watson of Richmond, Harris of Richmond, Hale of Richmond, etc., but (in theory) only one Duke of Richmond.) Proteus (Talk) 17:55, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the discussion. I guess I assumed that furnishing a place with nobility was such a quintessentially sovereign act that it per se implied an assertion of sovereignty. Even though (as I'm fully aware) the practical consequence of the title are nil, international relations has always been about symbolism and appearances, right? When there is no practical effect left, the symbolic consequences must be the entire point, and it still baffles me how the symbolism of a monarch granting the formula "<rank> of <fief>" can not include a premise that the place is his to enfeoff.

The question then becomes, when did this change? Did some diplomatic congress sit down and decide that henceforth the granting of extraterritorial titles is to be considered a domestic parlor game rather than an explicit announcement of dynastic ambition? –Henning Makholm (talk) 22:44, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

There's Ross of Bladensburg, in honor of the British sack of Maryland and Washington, DC, which seems sort of like a claim of overlordship of Bladensburg, Maryland. Corvus cornix_talk 07:16, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Childhood fingerprinting, adult conviction

Like a lot of youths, I was a cub scout in my younger days. We were all fingerprinted as part of a program for finding abducted children. I'm sure the same thing happened to other kids around the country at that time and throughout the proceeding decades. Now, I realize criminals get imprisoned all of the time based on fingerprint evidence, but have any ever been convicted of a crime based on their childhood fingerprints? Just for an example, imagine a scenario where a person commits some sort of heinous act, but their finger prints are not in the normal military / criminal database. One lab tech decides to check the database for children and finds a match. Is this possible? --Ghostexorcist (talk) 16:36, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

It is certainly possible ... however, many places have laws about how long the records of juveniles are kept on file, laws that set out how and when such records can be accessed by the police. Blueboar (talk) 16:51, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

The article Fingerprint has lots of interesting information on this subject, including the point that it's not 100 percent reliable, and also that there has been resistance to routine fingerprinting of children as "fishing expiditions". The article also implies that one's fingerprints are relatively constant through life. I say relatively because they are often not a perfect match, even from the same hand done twice in relatively quick succession. As Blueboar says, it would be theoretically possible to look for a match, but fingerprints taken in some institutions may not be available to the FBI database, for example. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:01, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Police holding children's DNA records on a national database has been a hot topic in the UK in the last few years[6]. Big Brother may not be watching you but he probably knows your DNA profile. Alansplodge (talk) 17:51, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Which is arguably not Big Brotherish. The problem with the Big Brother state is not that it can identify and arrest criminals, but that it can define crimes arbitrarily to cover speech and political activity. Technology can certain exacerbate the latter, as it does in 1984, but it's not the main problem, and arguably not the driving force behind it. I don't see how fingerprints, or DNA registries, really affect that by themselves — they aren't even "tempting" technologies, the way that intrusive monitoring of communications or movements might be. I would be more worried if DNA information was given to insurance companies, for example, than police agencies. (Though of course DNA fingerprinting would not, as far as current practices are concerned, be of any use to an insurance company, as it is just an extraordinarily small sampling of one's genome.) --Mr.98 (talk) 18:57, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Wow, Mr98, you're an expert on almost everything. 92.15.25.173 (talk) 22:17, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

My sarcasm meter is not very good, but I will say that the field I formally study is fairly wide-ranging when it comes to issues of science and history (science and technology studies), so I know a bit about a lot. In theory, anyway... --Mr.98 (talk) 23:02, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I've heard of US children's fingerprints being taken as help in any abduction, but the prints were given to the parents to store, and not put in some police database. Any reference for there being a police database of random childrens' fingerprints in the US? Edison (talk) 22:56, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Yea, that's the safe way to do it, and only give the prints to the cops if your child goes missing. StuRat (talk) 03:10, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, most Child ID programs do it that way... the collected materials (finger prints, photos/videos, DNA samples, etc) are given to the parents, not the police. I doubt the police would keep a child's finger prints on record unless the child was arrested for a juvenile crime. And, as I said, there are strict rules on when and how juvenile records can be opened and used once the child becomes an adult. Blueboar (talk) 04:52, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Mostly ditto to what's been said above. When I was in Cub Scouts, we went to the police station for a tour and all of us got fingerprinted. The prints were given to our parents though and not kept by the police. While looking through some of my parents things for something unrelated, I remember seeing the fingerprints in a collection of old papers when I was in high school or possibly even college. Dismas|^(talk) 01:43, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Cuba

Just a quick question after having visited Cuba last year (2010). We did a week touring the mainland and visiting Havana for 4 days followed by an all-inclusive week on one of the Cuban Cayos. The contrast (as seen through the eyes of a tourist) was totally incomparable. Lovely people, living in grinding poverty with empty shops and crumbling buildings under the ever watchful eyes of security guards on every corner, but seemingly unresentful of tourists like me spending money and eating food that the ordinary Cubans could only dream of being able to do. Many of them quietly told us they wished the 1959 revolution hadn't resulted in the later affiliation with Russian aided Communism. Several others appeared very happy with the socialist state that had resulted even allowing for the subsequent fall of Russian support. My question? Oh yes. Has Castro or any of his compadres ever suggested that they would have preferred to stay close to American and Western political and trading systems rather than pursue the Soviet system? Thanks 92.30.12.170 (talk) 18:00, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I've dug up some interviews - this is the only stuff I could find. Castro was interviewed by Jeffrey Goldberg for The Atlantic, in which he states that the 'Cuban model doesn't even work for us anymore' Cuban Model article This suggests that he thinks the 'Cuban model' did work in the 60s and throughout the Cold War. It also suggests that he thinks Communism does work and that he still believes in it, but that it isn't working in Cuba. In another article by Goldberg, Goldberg writes this: "I asked him, "At a certain point it seemed logical for you to recommend that the Soviets bomb the U.S. Does what you recommended still seem logical now?" He answered: "After I've seen what I've seen, and knowing what I know now, it wasn't worth it all." Here's the link: Soviets bombing US - article Hope these help. Winters111 (talk) 20:20, 14 January 2011 (GMT)

Winters, I can't thank you enough for those fascinating links. I had truly expected some brush-off responses, if any at all, but what an insight you provided me with, into Castro's re-invention of himself, and his current thinking about the cold war threat of nuclear action against the USA. Thank you so much - I am very grateful to you. 92.30.12.170 (talk) 00:22, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Also, I recall that it wasn't clear Castro would fall into the Soviet sphere of influence when he first gained control of Cuba, that evolved over time. So, he wasn't as "idealogically pure" as you might think. StuRat (talk) 02:52, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Stu. I had already arrived at that conclusion after my visit there. I can't imagine that anyone other than a despot would have wished to get rid of Batista only to replace him with the unimagineable oppression and poverty we witnessed during our stay. Yet despite our observations and the post-Batista cruelty and executions perpetrated by Castro and Guevera (and others)on their pro-Batista opponents, I somehow can't classify Castro as a despot. He is and was a highly educated lawyer with a deep interest in human rights, who was seemingly diverted from his stated objective of fairness and decency for all Cubans, and that noble goal somehow evaded him and he subsequently threw his lot in with the Soviets who saw him and Cuba as a launch pad for their ICBM's against the USA, as you correctly infer. I wonder now whether the views he expressed in the 2 links provided above by Winters have ever trickled down to the ordinary Cuban via media such as the state newspaper Granma, or other information sources? 92.30.247.85 (talk) 12:25, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

The "abject poverty" in Cuba is as much the result of the US embargo and the subsequent reliance on Eastern block politically motivated trade than on the economic system. While the sugar trade kept Cuba afloat (and economically reasonably well off - compare Haiti or Jamaica) during the cold war, it also created a dependency that caused an economic collapse once the Soviet block disintegrated, in particular since the most natural partner for trade and tourism still maintains a boycott. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:29, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

And what a fascinating co-incidence that here am I asking these questions whilst at the same time, I have just read that President Obama is directing that travel restrictions for US students and Church groups wanting to visit Cuba should be loosened. Amazing. Do you think he read my post here on Wikipedia? I think that when they get there they will be gobsmacked at the number of Canadian, Chinese, European, and South American tourists and businesses already visiting and successfully operating there. I think that for years, the USA has quietly assumed that post-Castro, they would merely step into the gap, but they are, in my humble opinion, in for a major shock. 92.30.247.85 (talk) 13:30, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

build your own car

If I wanted to build my own car in Missouri, USA, what requirements would I need in order for me to be able to get it properly registered and licensed for use on the road? Googlemeister (talk) 20:03, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Based on references from their FAQ, you will first have to pass a safety inspection. Then, using bills of sale for the major components of the vehicle, you license it as "manufacturer" instead of a purchase. From that point on, it is just a vehicle and all paperwork is no different from any other vehicle. -- kainaw™ 20:36, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Consider a kit car as a middle ground, just a thought. 91.85.164.90 (talk) 22:53, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

January 15

Rabelais and his fruit

I'm trying to understand a curious detail of a passage due to Rabelais, in the Fourth Book of Pantagruel, where Panurge exclaims:

Oh, ho, ho, ho, ho! What the devil is this? Do you call this ordure, ejection, excrement, fecal matter, egesta, copros, scatos, dung, crap, turds? Not at all, not at all: It is but the fruit of the shittim tree, "Selah! Let us drink".

Now, I take it that Rabelais wrote in French, correct? But the punchline doesn't work in French. What's going on here? Did the translator take it on himself to add a joke not in the original? --Trovatore (talk) 10:26, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Consider this: maybe there was a different joke in the original, one that wouldn't work in English, and the translator replaced one language specific joke with another? TomorrowTime (talk) 10:53, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I found the original on French Wikisource, here:

Ha, ha, ha? Houay? Que Diable est cecy? Appellez vous cecy foyre, bren, crottes, merde, fiant, deiection, matière fecale, excrement, repaire, laisse, esmeut, fumée, estront, seybale, ou spyrathe? C’est (croy ie) saphran d’Hibernie. Ho, ho, hie. C’est saphran d’Hibernie. Sela, beuvons.

If there's a parallel joke there, I don't get it. --Trovatore (talk) 11:00, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

... oh, could be the color, maybe? --Trovatore (talk) 11:05, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

An article in Études rabelaisiennes, vol. 22, suggests that there's a pun on the name of one Robert Irland (Hibernie = Ireland). I must admit that I read very little of the author's explanation before being forcibly reminded that I'm not a Rabelais scholar, so I'm afraid I can't further explain how his argument runs. --Antiquary (talk) 12:29, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

"C'est (croy ie) saphran d'Hibernie" means "It is (I think) saffron of Hibernia". Of course, Rabelais knows that saffron does not come from Hibernia (Ireland), but from Iberia (Iberian Peninsula, Spain -- "Ibérie" in French). This pun contains a nonsense, a self-contradiction, to escape fear with derision. The translation looks different. --Keguligh (talk) 19:43, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much! I'd noticed that it was strange to talk about saffron coming from Ireland, but I hadn't thought of the "Hibernia" "Iberia" connection. But Mikhail Bakhtin makes a point of the connection with fruit, and there doesn't seem to be any fruit mentioned in the original. --Trovatore (talk) 20:25, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

How old, most likely, is the oldest military secret?

Obviously there's no certain answer to this. But, for example, is it plausible that a government somewhere is keeping something discovered 150 years ago secret as it is still of military use? I assume not. How about World War I? It's certainly the case that some things dating back to World War II are at least nominally secret so I've established a lower bound there... Egg Centric (talk) 12:17, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

If anyone knew the answer to the OP's question, it wouldn't be a secret would it? 92.30.247.85 (talk) 13:33, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

No, but I was hoping this might stimulate some discussion. It may be this is the wrong place to ask, so we'll see... Egg Centric (talk) 14:35, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I assume many governments consider basic things about natural features (good or poor ground for troop movement, caves to hide in, ...) to be military secrets without knowing how much of it is already known by potential enemies (damn Google Earth, now we are wide open for invaders!) Such things could go back really far but I don't have references. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:55, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

In the past, the secret of "Greek fire" was supposedly kept for centuries. As for WW2, information on many of the allied decryption efforts was kept classified into the 1980s... AnonMoos (talk) 15:01, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm interpreting the question as meaning a secret that is currently being actively kept (that is, still is under a secrecy order and will not be released upon being requested), and specifically being related to technical secrecy rather than, say, diplomatic secrecy (what arrangements we made with some other nation a long time ago), or, say, bureaucratic secrecy (why someone got promoted or denied promotion and other things that are usually kept very private).

In the United States, the bureaucratic and legal apparatus for true technical military secrecy as we think of it today did not really begin until the turn of the century (a good overview), and technical secrecy per se really didn't pick up until around World War I (when people started realizing that technical information was pretty vital to making weapons, etc.). Some of the known oldest still-classified documents deposited in NARA relate to steganography formulas (invisible ink) from the World War I period.[7][8] Some of the oldest secret patents (no article? See Invention Secrecy Act) that have been released are related to WWI signals technology. My guess is that there is really nothing very technically secret earlier than these sorts of things relating to encryption or steganography. The reason you might keep such things secret today is that they are not so much about being clever, as about knowing the specific formula (or settings, or circuits) that reveal the messages. Now, what's silly about it is that surely they are not using those same old methods today.

For other countries, I have no clue. The US is a good case study though because it actually has legal mechanisms to force secrets to be reviewed and released (the Freedom of Information Act), so you can really say "they are purposefully keeping this a secret" when they deny your request (whichever agency it is). Our secrecy laws are, for all of the ballyhooing they get, also much more codified than many other countries. I do know that technical secrecy in the UK perks up at around the same time as it does in the US (see David Vincent's excellent The Culture of Secrecy). I don't know about other nations, though. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:11, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

The US has laws about how long military documents that are marked "Secret" may be held before they must be made available to the public upon request. I think (I could be wrong) it is something like 25 or 30 years (which would definitely make anything from WWII or before no longer secret). Other countries have different rules... and some may well allow secrets to remain so forever. Blueboar (talk) 15:35, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

In the US, the law says that the document has to be reviewed after a certain amount of time. It doesn't mean they are released. There are plenty of exemptions that allow them to keep things secret if they are still dangerous (like, say, designs for the first atomic bombs, or whatever). It just means that someone has to actually look at it and give you a definite, "no, you can't have this." The goal of such laws (not really laws—it is an Executive Order, though which one is currently governing, I can't remember; every President modifies it somewhat when they take power, and Obama issued his own not long after taking office) is just to force the government to review things regularly, so that the secrets don't just get "forgotten" and stay secret on accident, rather than on purpose. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:01, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Well when I made my WWII comments I was thinking about the atomic bomb specifically, which certainly has plenty still classified.

Mr.98 - thanks for the info, very interesting. Just a minor point: it's good of you to clarify my vague question; it's not clear but I would like to include diplomatic secrets in this as well. Could there be a secret component to the entente cordial, for example ;)? Egg Centric (talk) 15:51, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I left out diplomatic secrets in part because it's not something I know as much about, to be honest. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:01, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

What kind of secrets are we talking about? The known unknowns or the Unknown unknowns? --Jayron32 15:54, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Of course this is a problem... necessarily this is going to be speculative! Both, basically. The greek fire was interesting, I knew of it but hadn't realised it was kept secret for so long. Egg Centric (talk) 16:02, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

See the Ark of the Covenant. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 16:05, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

When Brazil won the War of the Triple Alliance (1864-1870) and devastated Paraguay, it kept and took to Brazil the Paraguayan archives. They were kept in secret, and they still are. This is known in the Brazilian press as the "sigilo eterno" ("eternal secret") MBelgrano (talk) 16:15, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Probably the oldest military secret is which type of rock makes the best weapon... and exactly how to chip it so it will remain sharp and will not shatter when you hit Thag over the head with it. Blueboar (talk) 16:28, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Gosh, that's interesting. Have to admit it may be worth an article - I can have a go but not sure it's my place to write about something I knew nothing about 20 minutes ago! Some good stuff here on the concept of eternal secrecy. Egg Centric (talk) 16:47, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

The Vatican is one of the older entities still around that (at one time) conducted wars, and may well have a store of military artifacts that nobody knows about. Probably not secret tactical knowledge, but maybe secret stuff. And you'll never go wrong with conspiracy theories about Vatican secrets. (Just don't be fooled by the Vatican Secret Archives, which aren't secret.) Staecker (talk) 21:27, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure if KageTora intended to imply this anyway, but the last sentence of the plot summary of Raiders of the Lost Ark is relevant here (the very last scene in the film, incidentally.) Governments and military forces have kept secrets (military plans and operations, military techniques, military technologies) for thousands of years, and it's very possible that some material is kept not through a conscious process of reviewing the material once a decade and deciding "gosh, we can't possibly release this yet", but simply because the material is sitting in a storeroom alongside crates and crates of other stuff that the powers-that-be initially deemed secret, but later just forgot was there. If the paperwork decays or is just lost or burned before it's ever released to the public, does that mean that the government concerned still "kept" that secret? If so, in that category there would be secrets going back the best part of a thousand years. If the paperwork has to still exist - somewhere - for it to count, then I would guess there would be some material from between 1600AD to 1800AD that's still unwittingly possessed by a government archive or store and has never been properly reviewed so that it can be publicly released. (Samuel Pepys would be the type of bureaucrat dealing with military arrangements in the first half of that period.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:47, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

There's a really big difference between something which is "secret" because nobody was told it, and something being classified as "SECRET" or "TOP SECRET" according to military regulations (and thus falling under laws like the Espionage Act). The former have really no regulations regarding them, and may or may not exist to this day, and may or may not be purposefully kept, and what have you. They have no legal authority, either. The latter are a legal category which requires, technically, that they are kept under certain conditions ("TOP SECRET" requires significant safes and armed guards and things like that, and keeping track of every copy of every page in a big ledger), and carry with them all sorts of penalties for mis-use (technically if you "mutilate" a piece of Restricted Data, you can go to jail for decades! You used to be able to be executed, but they repealed that part of the Atomic Energy Act some time ago...). The up-side of this from the perspective of an historian or concerned citizen is that they go missing a whole lot less than other documents, and they are usually not too hard for the powers that be to find. Now all of this is relative, of course — when you have billions of pages of documents, there's no way you know where they are all of the time. But it's a considerable difference regarding these documents as compared to other documents. They don't get burned before being released to the public, for example, because by law they have to be stored in a facility that is very secure! This is, of course, all in the United States context. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:01, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, indeed - secrets were around a long time before the USA existed. The USA didn't invent "ULTRA SECRET" as the ranking above "TOP SECRET", after all, and the original poster's question didn't specify USA or a specific legal term. For anything before the late 1700's, a USA legal definition of "SECRET" or "TOP SECRET" is irrelevant to this anyway. Maybe the term "state secrets" is relevant here somewhere. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:16, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

For any time before even 1911 or so, "SECRET" had no legal meaning. You could stamp it on something, but it didn't carry any real weight — it wasn't a form of regulation at that point, it was just instructions to whomever had it that the contents were considered sensitive. --Mr.98 (talk) 03:50, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd expect that lots of info from the WW2 Manhattan project is still classified, for obvious and practical reasons. 67.122.209.190 (talk) 22:05, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Less than you'd think, actually! Most of the basic info regarding HEU and Plutonium was declassified as part of Atoms for Peace (because it is vital for reactor work as well). Reactors were classified during WWII but released in the 1950s. Centrifuges were considered inefficient and declassified early on; it was only in the 1960s that it became clear they were a major proliferation issue. Electromagnetic separation was declassified in the 1950s because it was considered inefficient. Gaseous diffusion is still largely classified. Specifics about weapons designs are usually but not always classified. Exact dimensions of weapons designs are classified. Specific equations of state regarding plutonium and HEU in bombs are classified. But that stuff makes up a tiny, tiny part of the overall Manhattan Project. I would estimate that maybe 90% of what was considered secret about the bomb during WWII has since been declassified and released. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:01, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

external link change on semi-protected page

I have had an external link on the Samuel de Champlain page for the past 2 years (A complete map of the exploration routes of Samuel de Champlain: Map of Samuel de Champlain voyages http://www.travel-vermont.net/2008/09/map-samuel-de-champlain-voyages-travels/

As you can see by following the link, I have recently moved that map. I'd love to update the external link on Wikipedia but don't seem to be able to do it because the page is semi-protected. How am I supposed to do this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carrousel (talk • contribs) 14:22, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

The accepted procedure is to go to Talk:Samuel de Champlain and use Template:editprotected... AnonMoos (talk) 15:09, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Children's Book: Orphan Girl in Ursuline Convent, New Orleans

I have the distinct memory of reading in childhood a book about a little orphaned girl who was taken in by the Ursuline nuns in 19th-century New Orleans. I believe she made friends with pigeons who would come to visit her up in her rooms and gave them bread. The book was illustrated with what appeared to be pen-and-ink drawings or engravings which I think were in two colors (black and pink or purple) and I think the girl had golden hair in the story. It was written no later than the mid-20th century and was probably from between the 30s and 50s, since it had a marked fascination with the time period it was depicting and the illustrations were very realist in style. I never finished the book and it was likely later destroyed with the library containing it, so finding the copy I read again would be impossible. I realize it's a bit of a long shot, but if anyone can help, that would be wonderful. 193.55.52.3 (talk) 17:06, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Could it be Lottie's Valentine by Katherine W. Eyre, seemingly first published around 1940? According to a thumbnail review in the journal Child Study it describes "How eight-year-old Lottie, orphan in a New Orleans convent, tenderly nurses a wounded pigeon, and thereby finds a loving home. Beautifully illustrated." It was published by Oxford University Press, and though it's long out of print there are cheap second-hand copies available from both the British and American branches of Amazon. --Antiquary (talk) 20:35, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Click here to see the title page, which might jog your memory. --Antiquary (talk) 20:54, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Cemetery lot brain teaser

A sexton told me he recently measured off Lot E-41 and found the four corner "cement markers", THEN discovered that the gravestones were at the feet end NOT at the head end (west end) as "headstones" as they should be. Here is a plot map to help you out!

http://www.flickr.com/photos/22738816@N07/5339246227/in/set-72157619909680727/

Please give me your BEST interpretation you can. If you don't know, then take your BEST guess or say how you interpret the answer given to me below by the sexton.

As the sexton’s job, he goes to the cemetery map that shows all lot numbers, which is at the township hall. Then he goes to the cemetery, and looks for the cement markers, that are buried in the ground, which were placed there by a surveyor. The cement markers are placed on the four corners of each lot (not each grave space). Each grave space is four feet, you start from the north, and grave space #5 is to the south. So, when measuring off lot E41, the grave stones are on the east end of the lot instead of the west end.

1 - What would the dimensions of the Lot be then?

Assuming that each grave is 4 feet wide, and 8 feet long (a guess) a two person plot would be 8 feet on a side (a six person would be 12 X 8). Some cemeteries may require a foot or two extra on each side however. You will have to contact the sexton to ask.

Each Lot has 5 grave spaces. Therefore I see it as 20 feet by 10 feet.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 19:58, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

2 - Where are the "cemetery markers" located exactly?

At the four corners of the plot, as you said.

3 - Can one see these "cemetery markers" with the naked eye?

Yes and no. In reality they are often semi-buried by overgrown grass... so you may have to dig around a bit with your toe to actually find them. But once you do, they will be visible.

4 - Could one take a picture of these "cemetery markers" with a digital camera?

Yes, but all you would see is a small square of stone in the ground... with perhaps a letter or number carved in it. A picture would not be that informative

5 - Are there "cemetery markers" for other Lots throughout the cemetery other than Lot E-41?

Yes, all the plots should have markers in their corners

6 - How far would the tops of these "cemetery markers" be buried into the ground?

They are supposed to be at ground level... at the most they will be buried by a few inches.

7 - Would the "cemetery markers" for Lot E-41 be visible NOW?

That depends on how long ago they were placed... and how well maintained the cemetery is. In some cemeteries a grounds keeper may periodically clean out any accumulated dirt and grass so the markers stay visible, in others they don't.

The sexton told me he recently measured off Lot E-41 and found the four corner "cement markers", THEN wouldn't they be visible NOW since there should be dirt distubances that cleared the tops?--Doug Coldwell ^talk 20:03, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

8 - Would there be any dirt distubances on the tops of the "cemetery markers" for Lot E-41?

Again this will depend on the cemetery. Looking at the pictures, I think it likely in your case.

9 - IF the existing Caldwell gravestones are at the feet end (east end), then are the Blackford's plaques in the background at the far west end as "headstones" or also at the east end?

I would say the Blackford's plaques are also "foot stones", but that is a guess.

Yes, that is the way I see it also - otherwise IF the Blackford's were at the head end, THEN so is the Caldwells.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 19:56, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Also there seems to be about 9 feet (+/- 1 foot) between the Caldwell gravestones and the Blackford's plaques. I see it as WHATEVER one is the otherone is. IF the Caldwell's were "footstones" THEN that would be the far east end of the Lot. The Blackford's can NOT then be at their head ends.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 20:10, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

http://www.flickr.com/photos/22738816@N07/5229499205/in/set-72157619909680727/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/22738816@N07/3644032684/in/set-72157619909680727/

Frank Caldwell is on the north side in space # 2.

10) - Can you see any "cement markers" in these two pictures above?

--Doug Coldwell ^talk 17:09, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like homework to me. Blueboar (talk) 17:30, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

NOT homework - its a real live problem from an old retiree! These are my grandparents and my father's gravestones.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 17:35, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

OK... my apologies. I have answered above. Blueboar (talk) 17:48, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Blueboar - great answers. It helps me alot with my problem!--Doug Coldwell ^talk 19:02, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

6 - How far would the tops of these "cemetery markers" be buried into the ground?

As it was laid out originally by a surveyor, could one presume he did a professional job and included an iron rod or pipe below the corner markers. Cheap domestic DIY pipe/metal detectors would quickly find these (well, my wall stud detector can often find buried metal). In some places I've seen shorts posts and things around the perimeter of the grounds to provide sight-lines, to give staff a good approximate idea where they are and so make it easier for them to find the exact spot from anywhere. You might be able to spot them if you know the lot size. Try finding out the grave spaces size by inquiring about purchasing a new grave. They normally state the exact dimensions on the contract information. If you are after a photographic representation of the surface placements, maybe you could borrow a surveyors tape measure and some short sticks and coloured tape/ribbon and mark the lot out. Then photograph that and draw up a scale map. Even complain to the Bureau of Commercial Services if there are in the wrong place. Lastly. The surveyor's original plans may have been deposited in a place of safety somewhere. After all, the plots figure in a legal contract and I would imagine the Michigan state cemetery legislation and licensing requires this info to be separately recorded (plus the possible need to exhume in criminal investigations). If so, it might be available for inspection. --Aspro (talk) 21:18, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

This is the cemetaries fault for putting them in the wrong place (if they are the wrong place) in the first place. Its their responsibility to move them if they are in the wrong place. I cannot see how it really matters where the stones are. In the UK I would just scatter the relatives ashes over the plot, but practice may differ where you are. You could get a spade, a lever, and something like a sledge or rollers, and move the stones yourself. I would be inclined to just leave things as they are. 92.29.122.203 (talk) 11:37, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Did Lysenko believe in genes? Was there an alternative term?

What was the unit of inheritance for characteristics according to Lyenkoism? Having read some studies and Lysenko's speeches, it seems like the main difference between Lysenko and Mendel/Morgan was whether there could be acquired traits. So did Lysenko accept the existence of genes, and simply add that they could be modified? Or did Lysenko entirely reject the existence of the gene? If so, was there any other unit he used, what was the name of his "gene-like" carrier of information? From reading his works, it seems like genetics itself was not a "bad word" but "reactionary genetics".

To clarify my main question is did Lysenko and Lysenkoist influenced Soviet biology completely reject the gene, or did they have a different concept of what the gene was and how it functioned? --Gary123 (talk) 17:48, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't have my Lysenko books at hand, but the best one for getting a sense of what Lysenko was really arguing for (which was a horrible muddle of ideas, hence not what most people really focus on when they talk about Lysenkoism) is, if I recall, David Joravsky, The Lysenko Affair (1970). My understanding, and glancing over the "Searching Inside This Book" results that comes up for said volume (searching for "genes" is instructive), is that in the beginning, Lysenko following Michurin, said genes existed but didn't operate in the way that the Mendelians said, but by the late 1930s he was saying that they did not exist. Here is a wonderful passage from this period which illustrates some of the real impossibility of trying to figure out what the heck Lysenko really thought:

"In our conception the entire organism consists only of the ordinary body that everyone knows. There is in an organism no special substance [veshchestvo] apart from the ordinary body. But any little particle [chastichla], figuratively speaking, any granule [krupinka], any droplet [kapel'ka] of a living body, once it is alive, necessarily possesses the property of heredity, that is, the requirement of appropriate conditions for its life, growth , and development."

It's probably nonsense; it's definitely not science. To quote Joravsky's take on the above paragraph, and the attempt to make real scientific sense of Lysenko's approach in general: "If scientific content has to be read into such pronouncements, Lysenko can be interpreted as dissolving genetics into physiology, identifying the function of self-replication with all other life functions. But such a paraphrase is misleading in its precision, for his understanding of the other life functions was almost as vague and evasive as his understanding of self-replication. The simple truth must be faced. Any part of biological science that Lysenko touched was turned into a vague, personal dogmatism. To attempt a coherent outline of Lysenkoite 'genetics' is thus a self-contradiction: it began and ended with opposition to clearcut thought and rational experimentation. What is more, Lysenko and especially his disciples shifted their stance as their political influence waxed and waned." (210)

In other words, Lysenko was a shuck, and like all shucks, he really resisted actually putting forward a theory that made any sense or could be tested (and thus found wrong) in any concrete manner. Trying to articulate his theory in precise terms is not going to be fruitful or self-consistent. I don't recall him having an alternative to genes. He definitely denied genes at some times, but not at others. His alternatives are muddle-headed, vague descriptions of acquired characteristics. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:22, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Looking for a quote

I read a quote somewhere that expressed the rough sentiment that in looking for the subtle or non-obvious 'goods' or 'virtues' or 'benefits' of a situation when making a decision, we shouldn't overlook the obvious ones. The context I read it in was on a site where it was quoted to refute the idea that you should always do what you want to do and not concern yourself too much with money; for example if your lifelong dream is to be a street sweeper making $2 per hour you probably shouldn't do that (here the non-obvious good to being a street sweeper is doing what you like, and the obvious good to not being a street sweeper is making more money). THis site was not the original source; I need to know where the original quote came from. Thanks. 24.92.70.160 (talk) 18:05, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Some of these may serve: http://thinkexist.com/quotes/with/keyword/obvious/ 92.29.122.203 (talk) 11:48, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

the many daughters of Robert Arden

Reading around a few related articles here and elsewhere, as far as I can tell Mary Shakespeare had seven sisters and her father is recorded as having four step-daughters from his second wife. However, does anyone know any of their names, other than one Abigail Webb?

148.197.121.205 (talk) 20:29, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

According to Kate Pogue Shakespeare's Family (2008), p. 101, Mary Shakespeare (née Arden)'s sisters were Agnes, Joan, Katherine, Margaret, Elizabeth, Joyce and Alice. Abigail Webb was Mary Arden's aunt and mother-in-law (the Ardens and Shakespeares having intermarried at least twice), but not her sister. --Antiquary (talk) 21:54, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, of course, must have gotten mixed up with so many names everywhere. A very useful outline of the family, that. I have managed to piece together much of the family tree now, but there are still a few gaps. If, even though the question has been answered now, anyone feels like supplying any more names, I will be grateful. 148.197.121.205 (talk) 11:43, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Afro-Arabs

Which Arab nations has black population who came as slaves? like how USA, Venezuela, Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, Uruguay and Cuba have black population from the times of slavery? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.95.107.109 (talk) 20:39, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

African slave trade gives an overview. For your second question, Atlantic slave trade gives some actual percentages (subsection "Slave market regions and participation") and rankings ("Ethnic groups"). Clarityfiend (talk) 21:06, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Take a look at Arab slave trade. I would imagine that all modern Arab nations have a percentage of their population who are of African slave heritage. The African slave trade of the 17th and 18th centuries went in two directions... captives from East and Central Africa (Somalia, Ethiopia, Kenya, Malawi, Uganda, etc.) were sold to Arab slavers (and taken to Arabia and the Ottoman Empire), while captives from West Africa (Congo, Niger, Ghana, etc.) ended up being sold to European slavers (and taken to the Americas). The Arab trade stared earlier and lasted longer than the European trade... but the European trade dwarfed it in scale. We tend to forget the Arab slave trade because the European slave trade had a lager impact on history. But cities like Dar es Salaam were famous as Arab slave markets. Blueboar (talk) 21:18, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I thought Dar es Salaam was too new to be an important part of the slave trade. Zanzibar, on the other hand... Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 22:11, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

That could be true. I may be mistaking Dar es Salaam for Zanzibar or one of several other Arab trade towns along the east coast of Africa that were known as slave ports. Blueboar (talk) 02:58, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

January 16

Stigma around things that are a part of life

Why do societies develop stigma around things that are a part of life - like sex and money? This is no way near an innocent taboo like not eating pork, which for all practical purposes, doesn't matter. But, you will always have to deal with such 'dirty' things. Couldn't some moralists/philosophers/whatever take a more realistic approach to sex and money and stop seeing it as a necessary evil, but as the root of everything? Quest09 (talk) 01:03, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Until we start cloning ourselves, sex will be necessary. Money is a relatively recent invention. On that basis, I don't see money as 'a part of life' at all. Or are you talking about 'sex and money' in combination - i.e. prostitution? AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:08, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

No, not in combination. And what do you mean by recent? According to money, some barter-like method has been around in some form or the other for 100,000 years. Don't you see money as part of any civilized society? Quest09 (talk) 01:27, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Sex and money are desirable things, but I don't think they're particularly similar in terms of their being a stigma attached to them. It's not good to be greedy, but having and using money doesn't really have a stigma attached to it, like sex does. Sex is a powerful force in human nature, all the more because it's rife with double standards (everyone is the product of it and almost everyone does it, but it's usually considered the height of bad taste to talk about it publicly - if at all). In that sense, it's a bit more like defecation - universal, but taboo. I wonder if part of the reason ties in with human's hidden sexual cycles - most animals have an "open" period of estrus, where the females are sexually receptive and everyone knows about it. Humans are weird in that they keep their ovulations hidden - even from themselves. Perhaps that led to a more general feeling of secrecy about it. Matt Deres (talk) 01:23, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

"In that sense, it's a bit more like defecation - universal, but taboo." Except defecation isn't exactly seen as something fun & exciting... 24.189.87.160 (talk) 00:21, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

As far as your response, Quest, where you say "some barter-like method has been around in some form or the other for 100,000 years..." I wanted to point out that bartering and money are not the same thing. At John_Locke#Limits_to_accumulation the article notes that "Money makes possible the unlimited accumulation of property," which could be either good or bad. Money was a culmination of the evolution of trade, so the stigma attached to it may be a nostalgia for the bartering system, i.e. the good ol' days. schyler (talk) 01:44, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, this mythological situation might arise some fake feelings of nostalgia on some, but no living civilized human being knows a money-less society (excluding some social experiments). That makes it a fact of life for me. Of course, it implies the possibility of accumulating an unlimited amount of it, but most people are certainly not moving in that direction. (Quite in contrary, they are accumulated an unlimited amount of debt.) Anyway, people seem to have more reasons to stigmatize money beyond the simple unlimited accumulation (and the consequences of it.) Quest09 (talk) 02:02, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

The Bible approves of sexual relations (http://www.multilingualbible.com/proverbs/5-18.htm; http://www.multilingualbible.com/proverbs/5-19.htm), but disapproves of sexual immorality (http://www.multilingualbible.com/hebrews/13-4.htm).

The Bible approves of money (http://www.multilingualbible.com/ecclesiastes/7-12.htm), but disapproves of the love of money (http://www.multilingualbible.com/1_timothy/6-10.htm).

—Wavelength (talk) 02:51, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

That's exactly my question: why do we attach strings to it? Why don't accept all forms of sex and all forms of relation to money (which is, as a part of life, not the root of all evil)?Quest09 (talk) 02:57, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Well... most societies have a taboo about sex with children (probably because we have an instinctive desire to protect the young of our species). Most societies ban incest (in-breading can cause birth defects). Adultery, and sex before marriage is was considered a form of theft in societies where women were considered the property of men (either the girl's father or her husband)... and in the eras before reliable contraception, there was also the natural desire to know who the father of the inevitably resulting children was. Homosexual sex has been accepted in some cultures, but rejected by others... so that is more a cultural/religious taboo than a universal one.

I don't think there is a stigma attached to money... just jealousy on the part of those who don't have it, greed for more on the part of those who do, and snobbery on the part of those who have had it for a long time (ie "old money" vs "new money"). Certainly in places where money is in short supply, society tends to quickly adapt and shifts other systems (such as barter). In fact, money is essentially nothing more than a form of barter... we simply agree as a society that a certain number of stamped chunks of metal and colorful bits of paper can be traded for a certain number of eggs, etc. ... Money is really just another commodity to trade. Blueboar (talk) 03:24, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

You forgot about the people who have it since a short-time (the new riches).Quest09 (talk) 11:47, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

For people who believe that the Bible is inspired by God (http://www.multilingualbible.com/2_timothy/3-16.htm), the restrictions were attached by God for our benefit (http://www.multilingualbible.com/isaiah/48-17.htm).

—Wavelength (talk) 07:12, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

The Greek text for the passage "For the love of money is a root of all sorts of evil, ..." is analyzed at http://biblelexicon.org/1_timothy/6-10.htm.

—Wavelength (talk) 17:10, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

---

It's a very old question, Quest: what is right, and what is wrong? The why is a little bit deeper question, indeed, but the answer is simply because it is (un)ethical. It requires a whole level of thinking that many people don't care to question. The inevitable question then is 'is there a better right and wrong?' This question is answered empirically: the inferred or implied Eudaimonia is the data and the depressed soul is the control. Therefore, whichever particular right or wrong leads to the maximum eudaimonia, or GENUINE PERMANENT HAPPINESS, is the true right or wrong. Religion attempts to answer what is right and what is wrong. Therefore there is one true religion. QED. schyler (talk) 14:05, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Erm, how exactly does that answer Quest's question of: "Why is sex regarded as taboo, when it is a natural occurrence?" TomorrowTime (talk) 14:50, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Also: There is four more days to the FULL MOON. Therefore, the one true religion is obviously Zoroastrianism. QED. TomorrowTime (talk) 14:54, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

In answer: 1) Because taboo is a possible negative, and falls into the set of 'bad.' So the question becomes 'why is sex possibly bad?' 2)Your logic falls into Post hoc ergo propter hoc. schyler (talk) 15:03, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

A taboo is not a "possible negative", it's a topic or act or place that a given society agrees to avoid. So Quest was asking "Why do we agree to avoid discussing sex/money", not "Why is sex/money bad?" I think you just stretched the definition, so you could post your strawman question and answer it. As per 2.: I certainly wasn't going for Post hoc, I was primarily mimicking your conclusion and going for Non sequitur, which is basically what your conclusion is. QED. TomorrowTime (talk) 20:00, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Why are there cultural taboos about sex and money? Because both can engender jealousy, envy, anger, and other emotions that can (and often do) result in arguments, theft, fights, and other disruptions to the peace of society (even murder). So, various societies have come up with rules (be they cultural taboos, religious strictures, or laws, etc.) in attempts to lessen such disruptions. Blueboar (talk) 16:30, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Erich Fromm argues somewhere (I think it is in To Have and To Hold but it's a long time since I read it) that the Christian Church, finding its control over people challenged by their sexual urges, reacted by demonising sex and making it dirty. I don't recall whether he adduced any direct evidence for this. --ColinFine (talk) 19:34, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

There is a very old saying which captures, itself, some of the reason for the stigma, and it goes something like this:

“ Sex, money, and religion are the three things that, if you have them, you don't talk about them. ”

The key part being "if you have them". It's rude to lord over people that don't have money, as though having money (or sex or religion) somehow makes you a "better person". So, since you don't want to make other people around you feel bad for being poor, or not getting laid, or not worshiping the way you do; you simply don't discuss such matters in open company. --Jayron32 19:54, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

The Great Commission involves the discussion of religion.

—Wavelength (talk) 20:18, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

No, the Great Commission tells all Christians to make disciples of all nations; it does not say "be rude and make people who are not Christians feel bad." That's actually not a great method of making disciples as people who are made to feel bad about themselves generally don't want to listen to you any further with regards to becoming a Christian. So, if your goal is to convert people to Christianity, making others feel shitty about not being Christians is decidely AGAINST the Great Commission. --Jayron32 20:30, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Culture trickles up?

The upper classes are traditionally associated with culture and refinement (because everyone looks to them to define it). But it seems to me that the upper classes just copy off the lower classes of past ages. For example, the Italian and French cuisines found in snobby restaurants were only peasant food; Latin, the language of learning of the middle ages, was the language spoken by Roman commoners (Caesar and his kin spoke Greek). Is my observation that culture seems to "trickle up" right? What are some more examples? 24.92.70.160 (talk) 01:31, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Ever heard of Cicero ? That's who Caesar was speaking to, or sometimes against. Caesar may have known Greek, but only in the same way that a lot of educated Englishmen in the 19th century (and the 20th) knew French. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:36, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Your point about food, however, is valid. People claiming to be cultured by eating "authentic" local food, often find themselves eating fish dishes that are only "the dish of the region" because they were the cheapest thing available in older port cities and coastal civilisations. You might make your point better by pointing out how many of the ruling class delighted in rather vulgar entertainment, in times past. Shakespeare was a genius, but was he really highbrow? Not much. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:40, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

In recent times, fajitas originated as a way to use a quite cheap cut of meat... AnonMoos (talk) 05:51, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Using the fingers alone to eat chicken, pizza and some other things, and break bread, was once something only the lower orders did. But now, it's become de rigeur for everyone. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 02:11, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

It is not 100% true of food either. Sure, regional peasant food will remain a stable of many high class restaurants, but such concepts as nouvelle cuisine and molecular gastronomy are entirely new creations, and has nothing to do with peasant food. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:22, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Certainly much of American popular music over the past 100 years has "trickled up" from poorer people. Jazz and blues originated with poor African-Americans, while country came from rural whites. One day, a black guy from St. Louis tried to write a country song, called it "Maybellene", and rock and roll was born. In 2002, the average listener to jazz on NPR had a household income of more than $80,000 ([9]). I don't know if this pattern has always been the case. In the 19th century, ramshackle frontier towns built opera houses so they could imitate the musical tastes of the urban upper class. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:32, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I might argue that most art "trickles up"--after all, nearly all artists, with a very few notable exceptions, were/are poor. Musicians perhaps more than most other artists have long been associated with the "less refined" aspects of society. Even those who served upper class patrons, like Bach for example, led relatively frugal, lower- or lower-middle-class lives. Or take Joseph Haydn, who for most of his life was essentially a "servant". Even musicians who achieved international fame in their lives, like Mozart and Beethoven, died poor or in poverty. Likewise for those artists now famed in the visual arts, like Vincent van Gogh. There are a few exceptions, of course--but very few, relative to those remembered as great. Basically, if you can make a living--any living--as an artist, you are a success! Of course there is more to culture than art (isn't there?) Pfly (talk) 10:42, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

There is however a distinction to be made between the social background of the artist and the social origins of the art they practice. Bach and Haydn may have had low social status, but, unlike blues and jazz for example, they played a music which was part of and originated from upper class culture. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:53, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

That's a good point. To be fair, jazz acquired an upper class audience fairly quickly, no? Look at someone like, say, Cole Porter? Pfly (talk) 11:46, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

The H-dropping of cockneys during the 19/20th. centuries is said to originate from imitating the french accents spoken by the upper classes in Britain many centuries ago. The kitsch taste for elaborate fussy decoration by many working-class people may similarly be a distant echo of the Baroque style of centuries ago. So its a two way street. Ideas have diffusion across society from any source, and this diffusion is studied by sociologists. I expect that those ideas that diffuse most have prestige, pleasure, or use associated with them. See Diffusion of innovations. 92.29.122.203 (talk) 12:09, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Do you have any sources for that suggestion about cockneys? I've read a lot of linguistics, both popular and academic, and have never heard this suggestion before. --ColinFine (talk) 19:48, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I probably heard it from BBC Radio4, in which case it's Gospel. Regarding the kitch taste of the working-class, the ideas from Ornament and Crime may not have diffused to them yet. Conv92.28.254.64 (talk) 01:59, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

It happens all the time that a foreign ruling class adopts the language and culture of those being ruled. Consider the Norman conquest of England; after several generations the ruling Norman elite began to speak English and think of themselves as English and not Norman-French. The Kievan Rus was named for a Scandanavian ruling class which ruled over a Slavic underclass; the rulers soon became "slavicized" so that Russian became a term for a "slavic" people, not a scandanavian one. The Yuan and Qing dynasties that ruled China at various times were non-Chinese peoples; (Yuan = Mongolian, Qing = Manchu/Jurchen) and yet they quickly adopted the Chinese culture of those they ruled. The Ptolemies were a Greek dynasty that ruled Egypt, and they also adopted Egyptian dress and religion. It happens so frequently that such "tricklings up" of culture should be seen as the norm, and not the exception. --Jayron32 20:23, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Don't know about culture, but oysters used to be cheap and mainly eaten by the working class. They are now seen as an expensive delicacy (though I find them quite disgusting). Astronaut (talk) 01:39, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

That was due to economic considerations. As the Oyster article says, the supply diminished due to over-fishing, the bigger population increased demand, so prices rose and only the well-off can now afford them. 92.24.183.183 (talk) 12:35, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Same with lobster. It was "slave food" in the 17th and 18th century... now it is a delicacy. Blueboar (talk) 02:07, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

In 17th century England at the court of Charles II, it was the fashion to use vulgar swear words. Another popular pastime of the upper-classes was to visit prisons and insane asylums to observe the inmates. In those days, stage actors and actresses were considered low-class and plebian.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:40, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure "being obnoxious pricks" is a cultural borrowing by the rich from the underclass. I am pretty sure the rich have been good at that for a long time all on their own. --Jayron32 02:54, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

This is expected to appeal to the intellectual. Bus stop (talk) 17:00, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Chinese poet Li Po's biography

I am aware of a legend: Once Li Po was summoned to the court of an emperor against his will. He is said to have appeared at the palace riding backwards naked upon an ass. Should this be included in his biography? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cocodog12 (talk • contribs) 01:39, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Only if you can find a reliable source for it (preferably one telling us how the emperor reacted!). AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:28, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Is this where "ass backwards" comes from? Clarityfiend (talk) 20:26, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Sub-Saharan African Admixture of Black Jamaicans

What is the average percentage of Sub-Saharan African admixture of black Jamaicans today? 99.245.73.51 (talk) 03:47, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Apparently 58% African. With European males making up most of the remainder but European females and Native American of either sex contributing very little.[10] 75.41.110.200 (talk) 20:01, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. St. Lucia's blacks have way less African percentage than Jamaicans, but St. Lucia's blacks still look very African. Why is that? Is this report accurate? 99.245.73.51 (talk) 03:33, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

J. B. Herr

I need to find information on a man named J. B. Herr in colorado state in the period 1860 to 1910. He scratched his name and state on a shotgun in my possession. The shotgun is adorned with burned branding and brass shield that states Property of Wells Fargo. If I can verify that he was a lawman or an employee of Wells Fargo this shotgun will move to museum grade in rarity. Since less than 100 documented Wells Fargo firearms exist this would make it a major find. I've learned that at least 93 of less than 100 weapons now reside in museums. Thank you so much for any help you can provide. A successful search and documentation will earn my sincere thanks and a financial bonus once the firearm is sold. harley bissell <contact details removed> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.98.88.219 (talk) 06:33, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I have removed your contact details to prevent them being harvested by spammers or scammers. As it says at the top of the page, any answers to your question will be posted here. This page makes it clear that Wells Fargo employee records are few and far between, and this section of that page explains that they don't do appraisals themselves, but they recommend a book which might be helpful in establishing whether your gun is likely to be genuine (they do warn that there are faked WF artefacts around). Other than that, perhaps Ancestry.com or one of the other genealogy websites might help you find Herr's records; it's possible there might be some evidence of his employment there somewhere. I have a UK Ancestry membership but it doesn't extend to the USA. There seem to be plenty of Herrs in Colorado at around the right time, and a fair few J. Herrs among them, but my membership doesn't permit me to see further detail, I'm afraid. Karenjc 09:57, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Congressional plurality?

Suppose the US House of Representatives votes on a bill, and there are 135 votes in favor, 100 opposed, and 200 abstentions. Does the bill pass because the ayes outnumber the nays? Or does it fail because it didn't get a majority? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.122.209.190 (talk) 09:02, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

This document covers current voting rules for the House of Representatives. There are several methods of voting; there is a "voice vote", whereby everyone just says "aye" or "nay" and the speaker just anounces the result. There is a "vote by division" whereby the speaker first asks the "ayes" and then the "nays" to stand in turn, and counts each "division" while they are standing (the abstentions would presumably not stand for either). Finally, there is a "vote by the ayes and nays" which involves using electronic voting machines, which records each vote by member; each member has three colored cards: a green (aye), a red (nay) and an amber (present, aka abstention). If you read section H of that document, it makes it clear that passage of a measure requires a majority of those voting, not just present. Thus, abstentions (present votes) only count for determining a quorum (quorum being 50% +1 members) on a vote; however passage only requires 50% +1 members who submit a vote; a "present" vote is not actually a vote. If it were as you describe, then there would be no distinction between a "nay" and an abstention; all abstentions would count as nays. So in your specific example, the measure would pass. --Jayron32 20:14, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't follow your logic, Jayron. I agree with your conclusion, but the way you get there is ... bewildering. If it's true that "an abstention (present vote) is not actually a vote" - and it is true - then abstentions are fundamentally different from "nay" votes, because they're not votes at all. Hence, an abstention cannot possibly count as either a "nay" or an "aye" - it's in a different category altogether. The only votes that have any bearing at all on the decision are the "aye" votes and the "nay" votes. There were 235 votes cast, of which 135 were "ayes"s, way more than 50%, so the motion passes. But if as you say "all abstentions would count as nays", then the count would be 135 in favour and 300 against, which would result in the motion failing. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 20:29, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

No, you see, there's a word in the English language, "if", which is used to introduce a conditional statement. It does not represent reality. So when I say "If it were as you described", what that means is not that the OPs description of abstentions counting is actually correct, the word "if" is just setting up the conditional. It does not say it actually is true, it merely holds that it is true, in this case to demonstate the contraditction in the presumption that abstentions count in the vote. The truth, which I layed out beforehand, is that abstentions do not count, because if they did count, then abstentions would be equivalent to "nay" votes, which would of course make abstentions a superfluous vote. To retate this, if abstentions counted, they would be the same as "nay" votes. However, because abstentions do not count, the vote described by the OP actually passes. If. I know it is a small word, but sometimes the smallest words are important. --Jayron32 20:59, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Jayron32, Perhaps if you took a moment to calm down re-read your post you'd realize that it was very ambiguous. To me, the obvious reading is "If it were as you describe (135:100 in favor, with 200 abstains.)...", referring only to the question's supposition, not the either-or question. After you clarified, I see now that you meant to say "If it were as you describe (Where a true majority was needed)..." referring arbitrarily to one half of an either-or question without clarifying which. APL (talk) 21:50, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Jayron, up until the last sentence of your original post, you were talking about what would be the case IF abstentions were equivalent to "nay" votes (which we all agree they're not). But I now realise that your last sentence switches back to what really is the case in actual reality. But there was no way the reader could possibly have known you were making that switch between hypothesis and reality. Read it again and you'll see that it reads as if, in the IF scenario, 135 votes in favour somehow outweigh 300 votes against. Even for a hypothetical scenario, that’s a very weird outcome, one which abandons all notions of logic. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 22:16, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I apologize for my ambiguity in answering the question. I should have made it more clear that I was refering to the exact illogicalness that Jack mentions in is last sentance, I was trying to point out that exact silliness that Jack does directly above. I also apologize for my rudeness as well in responding to Jack. You did not deserve that. --Jayron32 13:51, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah, 'twas but a fleabite. They don't call me "Thick-Skinned Jack" for nothing.  :) -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 19:47, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

new old cars

A question some way above asked about building a new car from scratch and regulations related to that, which left me wondering, if I were to buy an old car that was falling apart and replace almost every part of it, until barely anything of the original remains, would it still be classed as the original car, or would I have a similar problem to the one they discussed?

148.197.121.205 (talk) 11:48, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Try Vintage_car#Safety_issues and Ship of Theseus. 92.29.122.203 (talk) 12:21, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

You appear to be based in the UK. The DVLA [11] publishes rules on which parts of the car must be original for the car to count as "repaired" rather than "rebuilt". See this search, and this result (PDF). However, IANAL, so ask the DVLA / Vehicle Inspectorate for specifics before embarking on a project. CS Miller (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:50, 16 January 2011 (UTC).

The Case of the Old Bentley Number 1. Sometimes, there's no way to tell what the law actually means until you go to court and a judge tells you explicitly. Usual advice about legal advice, lawyers, blah blah blah. Buddy431 (talk) 23:48, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Drug laws, state by state.

Hello all! A friend is doing some university work on drug laws and social policy, and was just wondering about the good old American approach. Am I right in thinking that while some crimes, mainly to do with large-scale drug dealing and trafficking are federally regulated, it's mostly on a state-by-state basis? How does the federal government, if at all, influence a state's drug laws and prison sentences? Also, can somebody give an example of a few states which have horrendous drug policies, with no rehab and just punishment, and a few states where it is largely rehab focuses. I'm sure she can find the academic sources when she researches it properly, but I was thinking you guys would be a great starting point. Thanks for the help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.195.89.66 (talk) 16:37, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

If we were, we would have finished off the Category:Drug policy of the United States by state.Perhaps when your friend find the answers s/he could help furnish some new articles.--Aspro (talk) 16:50, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

See actor Tim Allen for an example. He avoided a mandatory life sentence by turning state's evidence while another prisoner arrested the same month of the same year with the same amount of drugs still remains in prison - because she had no drug dealer friends to rat out and the judge had no legally allowed discretion. [12]. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 19:29, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

There's a ton of information on this topic at Erowid, specifically http://www.erowid.org/freedom/government/government_state.shtml. Pfly (talk) 10:47, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

College education

What percentage of Americans hold any type of degree (Associates or higher) or have formally completed any higher education (i.e., not just went to college but dropped out)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.92.70.160 (talk) 17:30, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

27.2 percent have actually obtained a degree. Quest09 (talk) 19:12, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

54.7 per cent of people are prone to quoting statistics without a citation.  :) -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 19:58, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

99% of people wouldn't know whether any of these figures are accurate or not. Dbfirs 20:32, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

But 74.23% of them would have greater confidence in the figures if their source is provided. Or at least mentioned. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 20:34, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

100% of educated people distrust statistics, unless a reliable source is provided. From Educational_attainment_in_the_United_States:200px|right — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quest09 (talk • contribs) 21:00, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

That graphic is horrible and uncited; I've updated it with a table. According to the 2009 census, 38.54% of Americans 25 and older have at least an Associates or Bachelor's degree. Source; or you can go here for a summary (since the raw data requires a little processing to get percentages). 55.6% have "some college". The difference of 17% between those two statistics does not necessarily mean drop-outs, because there is an age cutoff in the data (if you are 23, you will have "some college" but no degree, but not necessarily be a drop-out). This article from the Christian Science Monitor (which is a pretty reliable source, on the whole) says that the US dropout rate is more than 33%. Googling around other articles, I've found numbers ranging from 40%-60%, depending on the year. It seems to have a lot to do with how the economy is doing, as the majority seem to drop out in order to work. --Mr.98 (talk) 21:57, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

What is wrong with the graph? Doesn't that palm-tree make it beautiful? Quest09 (talk) 22:19, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

It's beautiful. --Mr.98 (talk) 03:43, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

January 17

French food

Why has France developed a far better culinary tradition than just about every other country (except maybe Italy)? --75.15.161.185 (talk) 03:05, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Answer: Good Marketing. Seriously, France does not have a better culinary tradition, its just that people in England and the US think they do. Blueboar (talk) 03:17, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

And I disagree strongly with Blueboar. It's not about thinking; it is about eating. I would also include in the list of nations with a "far better culinary tradition", both China and Japan. YMMV. As to why this might be, I'd like to see if someone here comes up with hard information about the differing development of the traditions, if any. Bielle (talk) 04:25, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

YMMV = "your mileage may vary" = "your opinion may be different". I had to google it.  :-) Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:45, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, Ghmyrtle. I should have linked it myself. Bielle (talk) 16:26, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

There seem to be a dozen of reasons for speculation. One angle I find promising is the history of restaurants. See also Restaurant#Europe. I found the fourth comment, the one by ""George", in this forum thread interesting, also regarding how the documentation of standards and recipes helped make French gastronomy a great model for top restaurants worldwide (see also our article on Marie-Antoine Carême, for example). One book that sounds worth reading is The Invention of the Restaurant: Paris and Modern Gastronomic Culture (Volume 135 of Harvard Historical Studies), by Rebecca L. Spang, Harvard University Press, 2000, ISBN 9780674000643. (On my computer, most of the book is in full view at google books). Two months ago, "the gastronomic meal of the French" was added to the UNESCO Intangible Cultural Heritage Lists.[13] So it's probably not just the anglosphere that values France's culinary tradition, Blueboar. For more possible links, see French_cuisine#History. ---Sluzzelin talk 07:02, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

France and Italy has managed to hold on to their regional culinary traditions, even through a period of industrialisation and mass-production. And on account of the climate of those countries, sub-tropical in the south and temperate in the north, the variety of local produce, and thus the variety of the local culinary traditions, are extremely multi-facetted. That at least is some of the explanation. There is also a more subjective explanation, concerning the taste. About the method of preparing the food, that is the method of bringing out the best in the raw materials used, which in the Italian and French cuisine just seems superior to many other cuisines, at least as seen from a Western palate. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:52, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

France was a political, military, and cultural leader in Europe throughout much of its history. It also was one of the first absolutists countries, maintaining a class of rich nobles who created a demand for high-quality food. Add to that the climatic advantages already mentioned, and you have a number of reasons. I also find French and Italian cooking to be both excellent, but quite different. French food is much more refined, with fairly complex techniques. Much Italian food, on the other hand is really just a few excellent ingredients treated with appropriate dignity to bring out their best. Both result in sterling results. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:18, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Having lived in Italy for a number of years, I have to say that the much-vaunted Italian cuisine is overrated. Certainly if one goes to an Italian restaurant outside Italy, the food is among the best anywhere in the world; however, most meals one finds on Italian family tables are heavy on the stomach, lacking in variety, and contain far too many unpalatable ingredients. Even pizza tastes better in America than here in Italy. IMO, the best cuisine is Mexican. The food one finds on a typical Mexican family's table matches that in a restaurant.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 11:30, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like you have mainly lived in northern Italy where they do indeed specialise in a butter, cheese and meat heavy style of cooking, as compared to the southern cuisine which mainly specialises in simple vegetable and/or sea food dishes. But I do admit that each regional Italian cuisine seems to be extremely conservative and adverse to change, but that is also the main reason why they still survives to this day. And when all those conservative, but unique, and compared to each other extremely varied, regional cuisines are looked upon as a whole, that is to say as a general Italian cuisine, it is inarguably more varied than most Europan cuisines (the French excluded), and, even if you may be used to a more sugary and uncomplicated cuisine back home, you will be able to find some very good dishes all over the place. Personally I would prefer a Neapolitan D.O.C. margherita, or just any Neapolitan style pizza, over an American pizza any day (the Roman pizza is not bad either).

However, this goes to show that taste is subjective, and as I stated above, part of the reason for the good reputation of the Italian and French cuisines is on account of those cuisines for some reason seems to strike a chord with many (Western) food critics and experts, it can't really be based on pure objectivity. --Saddhiyama (talk) 11:48, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Here in Spain, we consider our cuisine to be of very high quality, even obtaining international recognition, specially in the last 10 years or so. See Spanish_cuisine#Chefs . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.54.219.64 (talk) 12:16, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually I live in Sicily. I find, on the whole, Sicilian food to be rustic and coarse. Yes, many seafood dishes, but so much of their cuisine relies on olive oil, garlic and overcooked tomato sauce. I prefer Northern Italian food. Lasagna comes from the north; here in Sicily it's rendered almost inedible by its typical substitution of minced meat for ham and inclusion of peas, etc. Horse meat is comsidered a delicacy, the pizzas are OK, but not as good as their Neapolitan and American counterparts, and a typical Christmas dinner has sausages smothered in sauce, meat rolls (smothered in sauce) with an egg inside, pasta with sauce containing bits of bone. I cannot help but feel the traditional American turkey, potatoes, butter rolls is more apetising, but this is a highly subjective matter.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:44, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Demographics: some countries like the UK, USA, Netherlands, have welcomed large numbers of immigrants bringing food - e.g. Italians, Chinese (although the Irish didn't bring food with them because they were very poor, had bad farmland, and only ate potatoes). Other nations like Japan (vast culinary traditions) or Argentina (nice meat) have had comparatively little migration to Europe or North America, and Japanese cooking is far more alien to UK or US traditions. France has had migration from North and West Africa, but these populations have suffered in ghettoized suburbs.

Geography: France is in an excellent position for growing and catching food. Northern Europe tends to have poorer farmland (e.g. much of Scotland and Wales are only suitable for grazing sheep) which will affect the range of food on offer. France has abundant coastal waters, which means fish and seafood, as well as excellent farmland with a reasonable amount of rainfall. Countries in the south of Europe (parts of Spain, Greece) tend to be drier. France has also supported its small farmers far more than e.g. the UK, or the USA where the only encouragement seems to be for vast industrial farming.

History: France has been comparatively prosperous over the past 100 years, which helps expensive restaurants, and has long been popular with wealthy tourists; of large European countries, only the UK has had a democratic and capitalist system for as long. And branding: France was home of European luxury in the 17th and 18th century, and following the Revolution, a lot of French chefs fled the country and helped spread the fame internationally in the 19th C.

However, France now loves McDonalds and the French are frequently bemoaning the loss of their traditions[14], while non-French are complaining about the low standard of their food[15] so it may not last.--Colapeninsula (talk) 14:28, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Because of poverty. When British people were habitually dining off hunks of roast beef (hence the Beefeaters), french people were foraging for any food they could find, including herbs and snails. So french cooking had plenty of variety, while traditional British cooking was rather dull and monotonous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.15.8.13 (talk) 13:59, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Good Lord! Are we giving 18th and 19th century English propaganda as serious answers these days? The vast majority of British people did not habitually dine on hunks of roast beef, but political cartoons regularly portrayed the British (really the English) as fat from all the beef they supposedly ate, in contrast to skinny frog's-legs - eating French people. But this was never an accurate picture of reality. We do know, from older recipes and diaries, that (particularly in the country) British people ate more culinarily interesting food (including plenty of foraged herbs and fruits like blackberries picked wild) before the austerity years, but between the poor living in slums, a middle-class obsession with French cuisine, a view of packaged food as more hygenic, and all the years of austerity and rationing, this tradition was largely lost. A certain amount of foraging was revived during the rationed times, but was then strongly associated with austerity. 86.164.67.42 (talk) 15:04, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I do not think it is entirely propaganda: what British person would willingly eat frogs and snails unless they were literally starving? As far as I know farming was better developed in Britain, even centuries before Turnip Townsend and the agrarian revolution, so at least the better-off literate people who were able to write down recipes ate farm-food. The British peasantry may have lived off gruel, but they left few historical records or recipes. The French nick-name for English people is "Roast Beefs", which I think is conclusive evidence. 92.28.254.64 (talk) 01:40, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Pffft, are you just trying to wind people up? Winkles are a traditional British food! 86.164.67.42 (talk) 14:52, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I'll agree with that. Actually, I'd say that the Agrarian Revolution and the Industrial Revolution in Britain had a part to play. The French tradition of peasant cuisine is dependant on subsistance farming which gave the farmers wife time for cooking. In Britain the subsistance farmers were swept away by the Inclosures in the 18th and 19th Centuries. They became either farm labourers who lived largely on bread and cheese or even lard (I remember that from an A Level text book - possibly one of the Oxford History of England series) or they migrated to the towns to become industrial workers. The London Labour and the London Poor paints a picture of working families in the 1840s without the time or facilities to cook and living on pies and baked potatoes bought from street vendors or take-away shops.

Many poor british people lived off bread jam and tea in the 1930s, until WWII rationing improved their diet. The book "Voices from Dickens' London" by Michael Paterson says the same thing as the unknown poster in the paragraph above about conditions in the 1840s, and goes into a lot of interesting detail with excerpts from many first-hand accounts from those times. The People of the Abyss is a non-fiction narrative of the time the author Jack London spent exploring the poverty of the east-end of London in 1902, and it still seems be like the mid-19th. century. One slight compensation for all the slaughter and misery of WWI and WWII may have been that they increased the poor's standards of living through technological innovation, better organisation, and a greater sense that the poor deserved and could be helped. As another aside, the fact that it was commonplace for english people to starve to death during the mid-19th. century, although I forget the medical euphemism that was used at the time, does give context to the claim that England did little to alleviate the starvation during the Potato Famine: there wasnt enough food even in england, and it would have been very much more expensive than food is nowadays. 92.24.183.183 (talk) 11:55, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Quite bizarre - French food is OK, but no more. Italian food is far too oily, on the whole, and the tomatoes ruin everything (though I should say that the only country I've been able to get pizzas without tomato and not be looked at funny is Italy, so kudos there). Chinese food is OK but you wouldn't want to eat it everyday. Japanese food is frankly scary, too many tentacles and not enough cooking. Swedish food has an unfortunate predilection for rotten fish, and German food makes you look like Chancellor Kohl. Give me saffron cake, hog's pudding, and mackerel so fresh it swims into the pan. DuncanHill (talk) 15:40, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Opposite for me. French food is one of the few "ethnic" cuisines I dislike almost across the board. (For other cuisines there may be individual dishes I don't like, but with French food I have difficulty finding anything I do.) If you don't like tomatoes on your pizza, you need to go to New Haven, Connecticut and order an apizza. Many varieties of those, such as the white clam pie, have no tomatoes; at any rate, no one will consider you odd for wanting one without them. Pais (talk) 15:50, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I shall now stand up for the quality of French food, since this is a rather rare opportunity to do so. When they are near enough to the sea, the French like to eat fresh mackerel. As said before, their climate ranges from temperate to Mediterranean (not sub-tropical), so there is a wide variety of meats, fish, fruit and veg available. They cook these items with a view to bringing out the flavour, in numerous, imaginative combinations. Can't quite see what's not to like, really. "French" dishes offered in restaurants abroad, that's another matter. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:15, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, de gustibus and all that. When I've tried French food, both in France itself and in French restaurants (including those owned and operated by actual French people), it simply hasn't appealed to me. It seemed heavy, the sauces seemed overly wine-laden (I can't stand wine), and in Toulouse the menus were dominated by duck, one of my least-favorite meats. And the vegetarian I was traveling with had trouble finding any meatless main dishes at all - not like Italy, where finding meatless main dishes is quite easy. Pais (talk) 16:33, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

That's the thing - the sauces often overpower the taste of the meat. All very well if you are cooking with rubbishy meat, but a crying shame if the meat's good. DuncanHill (talk) 15:39, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

And my personal opinion was that both the meat and the sauce were rubbishy (at least when the meat was duck and the sauce had wine in it). Pais (talk) 15:44, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

That all makes sense, actually. They do often put wine in sauces (but you can ask for no sauce, or choose your sauce carefully). There are lots of ducks and geese in the South West (and foie gras too). Vegetarians are hardly catered for at all, except in some specialist restaurants, but the bread is good, the cheese is good ... Itsmejudith (talk) 16:37, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Another thought - travellers to Britain in the mid-18th Century noted the disparity between British and French food - this is well before the French Revolution. The French court, especially that of Louis XIV raised cooking to the status of a high art. At the same time, the English court was recovering from the English Civil War and the Commonwealth when even making Christmas puddings was banned by the Puritans. James II might have wanted to imitate "The Sun King" but we kicked him out in favour of the dour William of Orange who I suspect was a meat and two veg man. That put us well behind in the gourmet stakes and anyone who wanted superior food would hire a French chef rather than developing our own tradition. I'll see if I can find any sources to back up my theory. Alansplodge (talk) 19:42, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Two things come to mind. One is one time when a talk-show host asked John Cleese why the British never took the time to develop extraordinary cuisine. His answer was, "Well, we had an empire to run, you see." There's also the old adage: If your guests are Italian, serve French. If they're French, serve Italian. And if they're English, boil anything. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:39, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

HOW TO KEEP BALANCE ENGLISH BETWWEN CHINESE INCULCULTURE

NOWDAYS,CHINA PLAY MORE AND MORE ROLE IN THE INTERNATIONAL STIUTUATION ,SO THE NUMBER OF PEPOLE IS INCREASING ASK A QUESTION THAT STUDENT SHOULE LEARN CHINESE OR NOT . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ocean2candy (talk • contribs) 04:09, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

If you are asking if it would be sensible (practical, useful) for an English speaker to learn Chinese, given the increasing visibility of China on the international scene, then I can only say that learning the language of a significant nation is always a good idea. However, in current terms (and I have no idea how long this will last), English remains the international language of trade, commerce and, to a lesser extent, education. Learning Chinese won't likely benefit an English speaker as much as learning English will benefit a Chinese speaker. All of this could, and perhaps will, change. Bielle (talk) 04:20, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Or, you could learn Chinese so you'll better understand the people and culture. If that isn't a good enough reason, think of all the money you'll save if you visit China, and don't have to pay for the services of a tour guide. Full disclosure: I started learning Chinese in 1978, and it resulted in a very nice career for me. (I'm an American). DOR (HK) (talk) 08:21, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

If the question is whether a student with the choice to learn a(single) language learn Chinese, I think this is at least as reasonable as almost any other choice. When I was in High School the choices were French and Spanish. For people in the US Spanish still seems a useful choice. French less so. Chinese would likely be useful. None of this addresses the issue of how much of a language one learns in High School is retained (in my case, basically none). Pfly (talk) 10:41, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Tang-era Nanzhao sword

The Kingdom of Nanzhao was known for its swords during the Tang Dynasty. One research paper I recently read said their most famous sword was a duoqian (鐸鞘). A "bell sheath" sword sounds like a dao of some kind because a blade that widens towards the end is reminiscent of a bell. I can't say I've ever heard of a duoqian sword, though. Does it appear in other records beyond the Man shu (蠻書, referenced by the author of the paper)? Are there any such pieces in modern museum collections? I would love to see pictures of it if there is. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 04:56, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Countries ordered by level of centralization

It is common to rank countries according to various statistics. I would like to see a list of countries ordered by centralization: (political, economic, demographic, cultural, etc) in order to assess my intuition about these things. My intuitive sense of certain countries is that some are highly centralized around a particular city (France, Argentina, Ireland, Mexico, Japan, UK, Czech Republic), while others are highly decentralized, or at least lack an undisputed center (United States, Australia, Germany, Spain, China, India, Canada). I want to see how my intuition compares to data. And in many cases I can't even hazard a guess. Is Russia more or less centralized than the United States? Is Chile more or less centralized than Argentina? What about Brazil, Nigeria, Indonesia, Pakistan? Are some countries highly centralized in one way (culturally, for instance) but highly decentralized in other ways (economically, say)? LANTZY^TALK 05:42, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

In what way do you mean "centralized"? Greater London may be the population center of the UK, but in no way is the UK government centralized. Grsz 11 05:53, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

As I said, there are multiple ways in which a country may be centralized: politically, economically, culturally, demographically, etc. Notwithstanding the devolved parliaments, I doubt if there is any category in which London is not overwhelmingly preeminent over all other places in the UK. Compare that to the situation in the US, where we can pinpoint a political center (Washington D.C.), but no other clear center in any category. (What is the cultural center of the US? Hollywood? New York? DC?) It seems to me that some countries have an unambiguous center while others do not. LANTZY^TALK 08:06, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I did not find such a list in Category:International rankings, but if one is found or started, it can be categorized there.

—Wavelength (talk) 06:47, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

By "centralised", your first thought seems to mean "proportion of population (or economy) in the capital (or largest city)", rather than political centralisation. Is that right? Clearly there are many ways in which different aspects of centralisation could be measured. If we know what you mean, we can see whether they have been. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:59, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm interested in every measure of centralization, but above all economic centralization. That seems to me the most relevant and revealing. LANTZY^TALK 08:06, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

The point is that different indices are likely to give completely different results, because they are measuring completely different things. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:36, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Googling "population concentration index" finds some academic articles on the topic. Jørgen (talk) 08:18, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

How about the proportion of GDP generated in the capital city region as an indicator of economic concentration? If it's not in OECD stats then you will have to go to national stats databases. For the UK it's in Regional Statistics, and for France it must be in INSEE stats. It will be somewhere in EU stats - you will need to interpret the NUTS classification system. US economic stats will give GDP by state and presumably for DC as well. Will be interesting, good luck. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:35, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Iceland and Mongolia would be prime examples. Reykjavik has two thirds of Iceland's population, and Ulan Bator is ten times as big as the next largest city in Mongolia. TomorrowTime (talk) 10:47, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

How many countries can you think of that do not have the political capital in the largest business center? Australia, New Zealand, Brazil, Burma, Canada, the US, China, UAE, Turkey, India, Vietnam, maybe the Netherlands or Germany? Not that many. DOR (HK) (talk) 08:37, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Did Columbus really underestimate the size of the Earth by 30 percent?

The following comment was posted to the Christopher Columbus talk page by editor Norloch:

"... if there was a surviving 15th. century document which claimed that Columbus's calculations were in error (i.e. due to some confusion between Arabic miles and Italian miles) such a document would still have to be questioned because it would conflict with other evidence from the period. For example, Columbus's own journal of his first voyage indicates that he knew the true distance between the Azores and Portugal. He wasn't using measurements that were 30 per cent in error. It therefore seems unlikely that the mistake suggested in [Wikipedia's] article was ever a factor in his 'geographical considerations."

In my opinion, it would be inappropriate to engage in discussion over the merits of this argument on the article's talk page. I have therefore copied it here to give anyone who might be interested in responding to it a chance to do so
David Wilson (talk · cont) 07:56, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it would be inappropriate to discuss at the talk page in question. But since it's here now: the argument holds no water. You can know the distance from Portugal to the Azores from one set of maps, and still mistranslate numbers about the size of the Earth from another source. At Columbus time, there was no good way to determine longitude (or a standard time), so knowing the east-west distance of two points does not tell you the circumference of the Earth. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:19, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

In those days, longitude estimates were more than a little crude, so I don't see any real contradiction. AnonMoos (talk) 09:23, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The fact that Columbus estimated the distance spanned by a degree of latitude—or an equatorial degree of longitude—to be about 56⅔ Italian miles, and that this is some 35% 30% 30-37% too small, is so well documented in reliable sources that it would be contrary to Wikipedia's policy on neutral point of view for any of its articles to express any doubt about it. In his Geographical Conceptions of Columbus, for instance (pp.6–11), George Emra Nunn cites several marginal notes by Columbus, in the latter's copies of cosmographical texts (mainly Pierre d'Ailly's Imago Mundi), where he asserts that the distance spanned by an equatorial degree is 56⅔ miles. In one of these (cited on page 10 of Nunn's book) Columbus actually claims to have measured the distance himself, finding "agreement with Alfraganus, that is to say, each degree corresponds to 56⅔ miles ...". There seems to be some uncertainty among historians as to whether Columbus's mile was an "Italian" mile of 1,240m or a "Roman" mile of 1,480m—unfortunately also called an "Italian nautical mile" by some authorities—, but I haven't yet found any who credit him with having known that the Arabic mile of Alfraganus was actually about 1,830m.

None of this is at all inconsistent with Columbus's knowing the true distance between the Azores and Portugal. At the time, the only practical method for determining the longitudinal separation between any two locations was to calculate it from the known or assumed distance between the locations and the supposed value of the Earth's radius. Columbus's underestimate for the distance spanned by a degree simply meant that his supposed value for the longitudinal separation between the eastern tip of the Azores and the west coast of Portugal would have been greater by roughly one half than its true value. But at that time there was no independent means of detecting the discrepancy.

David Wilson (talk · cont) 10:27, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Others have pointed to sources, and I don't have one at hand--but from what I can recall this is basically it: Eratosthenes amazingly got the Earth's circumference about right, but later researchers, following up on his methods, got it about a third too small--and this figure became the de facto figure among those (few) who cared about such things, including Columbus. Lucky thing for him America was about where Asia shoud be, else his voyage would have died at sea. Not so lucky for the native Americans, of course. Pfly (talk) 10:35, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Gentlemen, my thanks for your thoughts on the subject. In that regard, I would quote the words of Dr. Irene K. Fisher - an eminent Geodesist - with a lengthy academic career in U.S. Government service. In Chapter 13 of her book "Geodesy ? what's that ? " - Fischer wrote of her research concerning the Ancients' work in determining the size of the Earth. On page 286 she stated the following, with reference to Columbus -

" True, Columbus had collected ancient quotes such as Aristotle's surmise that one could sail from Spain to India 'in a few days', and Esdra's wisdom that the waters took up only one seventh of the globe, and Liarinus' overestimate of the uncertain length of Asia in longitude degrees so that few longitude degrees were left for the ocean width and several other references, all needed and welcome to prove that the westward sea passage to India was so much shorter than the Eastward land route, in a plea for funding his plans for a sailing venture.

But that was not enough, he needed persuasive numbers to find and convince patrons. There was an impressive juggling of numbers in an attempt to allocate an overlong land part and a very narrow ocean width on a circle around the (unchanged) Earth. It involved dazzling conversions back and forth between degrees and miles and, in between, an easily unnoticed switch between miles and miles; that is, between the mediaeval Arabic mile (more than two kilometres) and the Roman or Italian mile (about one and a half kilometres). So here was the 25% reduction through switching miles. It had nothing to do with the dimensions of the Earth."

Now, Fischer couldn't know with absolute certainty that Columbus didn't somehow confuse Arabic miles with Italian miles. However, in her expert opinion, the balance of probability was that he switched numbers to make an even better case for himself. In my less than eminent opinion, as a practical navigator, I'm inclined to agree with Fischer. If Columbus had experience as a practical navigator it's questionable that he would have made such an elementary mistake.

(As a small footnote on Irene Fischer - in her earlier years, she did some notable research on the oblateness of the Earth. She was denied permission to publish her findings because they did not agree with the "accepted literature" on the subject. It was only when satellites came to be used for a geodetic survey of the Earth that the precision of her work was duly recognised and she was finally allowed to publish. ) Norloch (talk) 20:40, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

WW2 British Home Fleet

What was the name of all the ships that was in the British home fleet in 1939? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.167.202.153 (talk) 10:22, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

A summary of RN strength is here and a breakdown giving names of ships in each command in August 1939 is here. Alansplodge (talk) 11:10, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Declaring war

Why do countries declare war? Is there an obligation if you pretend to attack another country? Quest09 (talk) 13:07, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand the second part of your question. What do you mean by "pretend to attack another country"? I take it you mean bluffing.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:13, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant 'intend'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quest09 (talk • contribs) 13:14, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Japan did not declare war on the United States before it launched its aerial attack against the Pacific fleet at Pearl Harbor.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:21, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I know. And the UK indeed declared war on Germany. But, what the UK did was the right thing to do, or simply a question of 'politeness'? Quest09 (talk) 13:25, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Not quite politeness, but honor, certainly was part of it. Some countries felt that it was the proper way to do it, when they were run by people who beleived themselves to be "gentlemen". --Lgriot (talk) 13:40, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

In both World Wars the UK's declaration of war was a chance to state clearly the purpose (as we wanted it to be perceived) of commencing hostilities - not an act of agression but a response to an attack on a country that we had promised to protect (Belgium in 1914 and Poland in 1939). There were several audiences for that message; our own people, the people and Governments of the Dominions who were not obliged to join us but did anyway, and various nuetral countries whose co-operation we would need. In 1939 there wasn't much we could actually do to help the Poles except drop some leaflets on Cologne, so the declaration of war was for moral support only at that time. Alansplodge (talk) 18:58, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Does our article on declaration of war answer your question? It seems to be one of the defining differences between conventional warfare and unconventional warfare.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 13:41, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Formal declarations of war don't often happen anymore (they still do sometimes, but not often), the reason being is that such events are part of an attitude towards warfare that included set piece battles and the like; i.e. when war had a certain formality to it; as the goals and aims of wars have changed, the nature of them has changed as well. --Jayron32 13:43, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

What do people mean when they write "The reason being is..."? I've seen this a number of times lately. I thought it was momentary confusion and they didn't realize what they'd said. Now I've come to suspect that they think there's something called a "reason being". In standard English one would write "Formal declarations of war don't often happen anymore, the reason being that such events are part of an attitude...", with no "is". Michael Hardy (talk) 21:27, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Japan had intended to deliver a document ending negotiations (but not exactly declaring war) to the US immedeately before the Pearl Harbour attack, but the Japanese embassy in Washington was unable to decode the transcript quickly enough. See Pearl Harbor Attack#Japanese declaration of war. Alansplodge (talk) 14:11, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Ending negotiations isn't a declaration of war although it should set off warning bells. Pearl Harbor was still a surprise attack. This leads me to pose another question. Was the US declaration of war against Japan the speediest declaration of war in history?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:15, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

That might be difficult to calculate since not all declarations of war are the direct result of one specific act of provocation like Pearl Harbor. Pais (talk) 14:26, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

The declaration of war in 1941 essentially gave extra wartime powers to the President, including the power to censor the news and to do stuff like herding the Japanese-Americans into camps. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:48, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

And German Americans, too; that doesn't get as much publicity, but it did happen. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:21, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't question that, necessarily, but I'd like to see a source for that. However, one famous German-American was the commanding general of the Allied forces in Europe. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:39, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

(WHAAOE) German American internment, section World War II. Rmhermen (talk) 15:39, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Excellent. There's an article about Italian-Americans as well. It appears that about 1/10th the number of Germans were interned as were Japanese, which in part tells you why the Japanese internment gets more publicity. The number of Italians was rather smaller than the number of Germans. The Japanese situation was so overtly racist that people of Chinese origin took to wearing buttons saying, "I am Chinese". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:31, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Am I wrong in thinking that a declaration of war meant that captured soldiers would be treated--at least in theory--as something better than the "unlawful combatant" we have today? Pfly (talk) 10:28, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Possibly so. Those folks are the unfortunate victims of the perpretrators of 9/11/01. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:37, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Or, to look at it another way, they are the victims of the government that passed the resolution authorizing use of military force. --Viennese Waltz 10:43, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

They chose to join their particular armies, and found themselves the scapegoats after we were attacked on 9/11/01. If they want to blame someone for their condition, they should blame the 9/11 attackers, as it is the attackers actions that resulted in those combatants ending up at GTMO and elsewhere. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:05, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

There was nothing inherent in 9/11 which led inevitably to purgatorial incarceration in as doubtful a place as gitmo. Certainly, an enemy combatant risks capture. But it is the US that made decisions on the location of its prisons and the legal framework under which they operate. It's just silly to suppose that gitmo was the only alternative and that hence its inmates - including the innocent ones - somehow conspired to make it happen. --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:22, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

9/11 hurt a lot of innocent people. There were many possible responses. It would have been good if those responses avoided hurting so many more innocent people. HiLo48 (talk) 16:43, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

It would be even better if people could move away from the false dichotomy of "innocent people/victim" vs. "guilty people/perpetrator". It's bad when people get hurt, period, without putting any value judgments on those people. Pais (talk) 16:48, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

The US certainly did/does have options... for example, given that the gitmo detainees were not in uniform when captured, they could have been summarily shot for being Francs-tireurs (and folks like the Underwear Bomber could be tried and executed as saboteurs). Blueboar (talk) 17:34, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Sure. But given that many of the Gitmo prisoners were grabbed off the street or countryside without any direct connection to military action, that would have been plain murder. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:22, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Which would lower ourselves completely to the level of the enemy. The USA is a lot nicer to its prisoners, in general, than the enemy tends to be. The reason that the USA gets yelled at in these cases is for not living up to our own presumed principles. The enemy doesn't draw appropriately scaled complaints for doing much worse things, because they have no principles - they're totally living down to expectations. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:34, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sephardic Jews in Latin America

I had a friend from Cuba who discovered some of her remote ancestors were Sephardic Jews who had converted to Catholicism. I'm wondering how many people in Latin America have distant Sephardic Jewish ancestry.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:21, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Vast numbers I would think. No source for that though. Kittybrewster ☎ 13:26, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Nearly everyone will have some Sephardic ancestry - it's in the nature of exponential functions. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:32, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I have read that Mexico had large numbers of Sephardic Jewish colonists who fled the inquisistion in the 16th century. Some of Brazil's first colonists were Jews, as were many of New Amsterdam's Dutch settlers. I believe The Roosevelts were originally Sephardic Jewish, although Roosevelt is not a Sephardic name. Common Sephardic surnames in the New World appeared to have been Mendes, Costa, De Souza, Perez, Guzman, Gomez.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:51, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

+ Pereira. Kittybrewster ☎ 13:58, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

See History of the Jews in Spain especially the 1391 -1492 and Conversos sections. Rmhermen (talk) 17:02, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

There are said to be quite a few Latinos of Jewish descent in New Mexico: More than one-third of New Mexicans claim Hispanic origin, many are descendants of colonial settlers, and converted Sephardic Jews, Who_is_a_Jew?#New_Mexico.27s_Crypto-Jews, etc. Corvus cornix_talk 20:02, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I have heard about the Crypto-Jews of New Mexico. I believe there were a lot of conversos, Marranos, and indeed Crypto-Jews in Northern Mexico especially around Monterey. I'm curious about the Tejanos, Californios, and the Spanish colonists of Cuba, Puerto Rico, and South America.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:29, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Psychological label

What is the label for somebody who has absolutely no interest in matters not relating directly to herself? Kittybrewster ☎ 13:24, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Narcissistic? Pais (talk) 13:29, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes it certainly seems to be in Cluster B. Kittybrewster ☎ 13:32, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

It could also be some extreme forms of autism depending on how you define "interest". --Jayron32 13:39, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Of course, if the person exhibiting this behavior is under the age of, oh, about 6 months, it probably wouldn't be considered pathological. Pais (talk) 13:50, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

True. I have in mind a person in her 50s. Kittybrewster ☎ 13:57, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I would describe such a person as self-obsessed.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:10, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

A philosophical label would be "solipsism"... AnonMoos (talk) 14:39, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Just as a note, psychological labeling of this sort is notoriously problematic. The first big hurdle is distinguishing whether the person in question is actually disinterested in others, or whether others are disgruntled because the person in question is not as interested as they would like her to be (narcissists are usually convinced that other people are self-centered). After that you need to separate out age issues (children under 16 have a difficult time properly assessing the emotional states of others, people in their later years often assess others needs and emotions well, but have sufficient experience not to get overly-attached to things that younger people find desperately important). then you have to start looking at broader patterns of behavior (human perception has a skewed view of other humans: we tend to over-represent 'bad' acts that other do, and tend to identify people with their bad acts). In other words, if you want to call her selfish, call her selfish; leave clinical diagnoses up to those qualified to make them objectively. --Ludwigs2 18:29, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the wet blanket, but I would say "normal". Pfly (talk) 10:16, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

BUT! If you're talking about something that is actually anti-social or harmful, I'd go with narcissistic. 10:21, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Parodied by Dogbert, who once said, "You're not me, therefore you're irrelevant." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:20, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Another label could be "self-sufficient", meaning someone who doesn't "need" anyone else, or thinks they don't. Charles Schulz used that phrase to describe his cartoon character Lucy. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:22, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

"What should one's life be?"

Does anyone know who the author of this piece of verse is?

What should one's life be?

Neat and orderly,

or messy and chaotic?

Quiet desperation,

even quieter compromise?

or daring thrills,

creative experiments?

Walking carefully along

looking down at gray sidewalks

to avoid crack or pebble?

or leaping from peak to peak

across gaping canyons

looking down

from dizzying heights?

No one should decide for another.

One can only live what one believes.

If you ask, we believe:

Life should not be

a methodical journey to the grave

with the goal being sure, safe arrival

in a well-preserved body,

but rather to skid in sideways,

flute of champagne in hand,

screaming "What a ride!"

Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:00, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

It resembles the Gestalt prayer by Fritz Perls.—Wavelength (talk) 16:54, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

This and this suggest the last verse is a quote (rather than a poem) by Hunter S Thompson, possibly from the book Hell's Angels: The Strange and Terrible Saga of the Outlaw Motorcycle Gangs. This and this indicate that there have been variations by a few others (but I haven't been able to check against the actual book, and it's not in HST's Wikiquotes page). --Kateshortforbob _talk 17:03, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

This is a bit too inspirational to be directly from Thompson. It may have been inspired by him, but I suspect this is just an example of the kind of uplifting Christian prosody that you find on sympathy cards, funereal postings, or framed and hung in people's kitchens - something that's been passed around and had the kinks smoothed out of it by multiple editors improving it a little at a time, rather than something written by a single author. Cathartic textual muzak (which isn't to say I don't think it's nice. ). --Ludwigs2 18:14, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't see anything too "Christian" or god-fearing about it, myself - I came across it being used at secular humanist funerals. But thanks for the Thompson lead. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:04, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Reading the Bible in English -- a book?

I seem to recall reading a review of a book, published probably within the last five or ten years, describing how the author, who had grown up speaking only Hebrew, first came to read the Bible in English as an adult. The review made the book sound like both a memoir (of growing up in a Hebrew-speaking household in the US) and a commentary on the process and end-product of translation. One example that I remember is the reflections on the name of the first man: should the translators keep the sound, and give him the English name Adam? Or should they translate the meaning, and call him something like Earth-man? The author, a modern bilingual adult, was reflecting on how much is lost in translation. I may have got some of these details wrong, but any ideas on what the book's called? BrainyBabe (talk) 15:36, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

It should also be noted that Biblical Hebrew was probably no more a single, cohesive language than one would consider Old English, Middle English and Modern English as completely cohesive. Since different books of the Hebrew bible were written down at different times, by people often seperated by wide spaces and vastly different times. There's also the problem that Biblical Hebrew had no written vowel sounds, which makes interpreting the exact intended pronounciation of a word almost impossible; the pronounciation intended in the original oral tradition may have changed drastically by the time it was first written, and it also may have drifted over time until the Hebrew scripture was eventually standardized. It's just way too indeterminate to decide what the "orginal" authors may have intended any translation to be. I know this does not directly answer your question regarding your source book, but it is important to understanding the context of your question. --Jayron32 16:38, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Also, most English bibles are translated not from Hebrew, but from Greek. Blueboar (talk) 18:23, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I think BraninyBabe was referring to the Old Testament. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 18:26, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm worried Blueboar might have been referring to the OT as well - but it hasn't been true for centuries that most English Bibles were translated from anything other than the original Hebrew (most of the OT)/Aramaic (a few passages of the OT)/Greek (all of the NT). Even the King James Bible's Old Testament is translated from the Hebrew and Aramaic, not from the Septuagint. Nevertheless, I suspect that modern translations of the Bible into lesser-studied minority and endangered languages are translated from some intermediate translation rather than from the original. For example, I strongly suspect the Navajo Bible was translated from English, not from the original languages. Pais (talk) 18:36, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Your description sort of reminds me of David Plotz's Good Book, which was the reflections of a not-especially-religious Jewish American who read the Bible. However, I don't remember his being a native Hebrew speaker, so this is probably the wrong book. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:37, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

In fact most bibles in English are not "translated from the Greek" Septuagint.--Wetman (talk) 22:03, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

(OP here) Thanks for your contributions, but none of them have helped me find it, not even Good Book (of which I had previously not heard, so extra thanks to FisherQueen). More ideas welcome. BrainyBabe (talk) 22:54, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Maybe check one of the Jewish English Bible translations. Ariel. (talk) 01:16, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Kansas in the American Civil War

Our Kansas in the American Civil War article says that:

Statistics indicated that losses of Kansas regiments in killed in battle and from disease are greater per thousand than those of any other State.

I'm assuming this means that Kansas lost more people per thousand than any other state. What are the causes of this if Kansas only had a small impact on the war? Albacore (talk) 18:33, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

You correctly quoted that sentence, including the implicit error ("in killed in battle"), which I've now edited out in the article. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 19:31, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

The source of the statistic is exactly the fact that Kansas had such a "small impact" on the war. The smaller the sample size, the greater the opportunity for statistical abberations like the outlier effect. The fact that there just weren't many Kansian in the civil war means that the averaged per capita statistics have less reliability; it would only take a small number of deaths, one way or the other, to throw the numbers off by a large amount. Compare that to states like Virginia, which had a much larger number of soldiers; the statistics from those states are likely to be more reliable, so that you can actually extract meaning from them. Take it to an extreme example, lets invent a state, like Kerblakistan, and lets say that the tiny state of Kerblakistan only had a single soldier fight in the civil war. If he died, then we can accurately say that 100% of Kerblaki soldiers died in the American Civil War. But to then say "what external factors can you come up with for Kerblakistan to have such a high death toll"? There isn't a reason. The reason is, they had only one soldier, and he died. Had the soldier lived, you could say that Kerblakistan had a 0% death rate, and THEN you would be asking "What external factors caused Kerblakistan have such a low death rate?" Again, there was only one soldier. The deeper meaning behind statistics only exists where the sample size is sufficiently large. In the case of Kansas, the cause of the death rate being so high could just be "random chance"; an effect of the small sample size of the Kansas contingent in the Civil War. --Jayron32 20:50, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, Kansas in 1860 had a population less than 110,000--far smaller than most other states. This is a case of how statistics can mislead--comparing percentages of a whole tend to shroud just how large the "whole" is. Using my favor indication of population (perhaps less meaningful if you've never been), 110,000 is only slightly more than 2 Burning Mans. Pfly (talk) 10:10, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Isn't that "Burning Men"? Pais (talk) 13:31, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Or, in British terms, just under two-thirds of a Glastonbury. Warofdreams talk 12:40, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Or a more relevant comparison: Kansas' total population was only a quarter the size of New York's military contribution (which was 20 times the size of Kansas' military). Rmhermen (talk) 15:34, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Large Greek Island Invaded by Greeks, Displacing Landowners in Classic Times

During the "Glory that was Greece," one of the large islands was taken over by the mainland Greeks, and the inhabitants, including the landowners were enslaved, serving those who took over their homes, villas, etc., on their own land. I saw this on a History Channel documentary three years ago, but I need to know which island it is. I've searched, and my only find is the island of Cephalonia (or Kefalonia), but that's on the Western side of Greece in the Ionian Sea. From the documentary I had thought that the island is on the the Eastern side, in the Aegean Sea, not far from the mainland.

I greatly appeciate any help you can give me. I'm writing a book, and I'll get roasted if I were to get this wrong. Thanks much! Rolland — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rollandopuk (talk • contribs) 19:05, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

This is probably Melos, which refused to submit to Athens during the Peloponnesian War, and was then occupied and enslaved, etc. Thucydides has a lengthy account of it, known as the Melian dialogue. Adam Bishop (talk) 19:29, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Chalcis, the main city of the large island of Euboea, seems to have suffered similarly in the 6th century BCE. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 20:31, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

January 18

Is fiction a means of mental ventilation?

Resolved

 – –Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 18:16, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Thomas Harris writes creepily detailed books about murdering other people. Obviously there are other authors, but after reading his article, I almost wonder if he is an example of a murderer who never was? I know for a fact that if I wrote a book like he does, my parents would be extremely concerned about me lol. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 04:21, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

If there are N number of authors in the world, there are at least N+1 possible motivations for their writing. In simpler terms, it's quite impossible to make a blanket statement that "writing fiction serves X purpose for the author" which is universal, or even widespread. Certainly, for some authors, writing fiction serves as catharsis (mental ventalation's actual scientific term), or a means to act out fantasies. But it could just as easily be any of a number of other reasons, including as simple as being a job; some people are good at it and it makes them money. It's tempting to psychoanalyze authors by what they write, but it's also futile. Take someone like Stephen King, whose writing often cause people to question what kind of person he is really like. Basically, he's a suburban middle-class dad who coaches little league and belongs to the local PTA and is a big Red Sox fan. There's nothing all that unusual about his life or personality. He'll sometimes play up some aspect of weirdness for marketing purposes, but on the balance, mostly he's an average American Joe. Not to say there is, or isn't, anything psychologically abnormal with Harris, just that you shouldn't try to judge whether there is solely on his writing. --Jayron32 04:34, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

As a general rule, any person is capable of most any act - be it evil, good, or neutral - given the proper self-justification and context. Most people try to do the right thing, and try to avoid bad acts, of course. Authors are not more prone to odd acts than others, they are just better at expressing that generic human internal turmoil. --Ludwigs2 04:48, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Reminds me of something I read years ago, that J.D. Salinger griped about those who tried to equate him to the main character in The Catcher in the Rye. The quote was something like, "I am NOT Holden Caulfield. I created him from my imagination." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:49, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, there is a short story about seppuku that goes into long, gruesome details on several pages by Yukio Mishima, a suicide that was. TomorrowTime (talk) 08:20, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

And Krystian Bala may be of interest. Karenjc 09:46, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Wow, Bala was an interesting read! – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 18:16, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

That article reminded me of If I Did It. Pais (talk) 18:31, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

The reason people produce the art they do is complex. I for one quite enjoy making music that has a sinister somewhat death-loving edge, but by no means do i love things sinister or deathly--the reason is far more complex than that. For me, I get something positive out of emphasizing death, even if on a superficial level it may seem nihilistic. At at extremely simple level I might say it has something to do with Zen. The point being--artists, especially great artists, usually have extremely complex reasons for focusing on what they focus on. Don't take it too simplistically. Pfly (talk) 09:54, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Interesting responses, thank you all! – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 18:16, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

There are an infinite number of interpretations for any given set of facts (Pirsig's Law). So, "N+1" is not really even close to sufficient. Human beings are far to complex to speculate reliably about their motivations.Greg Bard (talk) 01:28, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

This thread reminds me of the quiz Programming Language Inventor or Serial Killer? (requires Flash). -- BenRG (talk) 07:11, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Largest democratic country with many parties

I'm not sure weather the Humanities desk is the best place for this question.

I'm wondering what is the largest (by inhabitants) democratic country with many parties. Specifically, there have to be so many parties that any party getting over 50% of the votes is extremely rare and coalition governments are the norm.

Belgium, the Netherlands, France , Germany, bigger then Germany?

Thanks in advance 213.49.109.166 (talk) 07:14, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

India. They've had a multiparty system for pretty much their entire history, especially so after Jawaharlal Nehru died. More detail forthcoming, sometime later. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 07:18, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, definitely India. World's second biggest population, after China (which nobody would claim is democratic). HiLo48 (talk) 07:27, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

However, I believe the legislature has been massively dominated by the Congress Party for most of the time, so coalition governments have not been the norm. Rojomoke (talk) 15:56, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

See Elections in India. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:16, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

We have a List of parliamentary republics, from which it looks like India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Germany are the four largest countries (by population), in that order. WikiDao ☯ 19:18, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

The OP made no mention of republics, they asked about democracies. Democracies do not have to be republics, as our old friend the democracy/republic chart makes abundantly clear:

	Republics	Monarchies
Democratic	Italy, USA	Canada, Netherlands
Not democratic	Cuba, Turkmenistan	Saudi Arabia, Vatican City

In fact, out of the four countries the OP mentioned, two are monarchies – Belgium and the Netherlands. 87.112.177.117 (talk) 19:40, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but the request was for the largest. Democratic monarchies tend to be on the smallish side. I think the biggest one is the UK, which if it were a US state, would be the biggest one by population, but not by a factor of two. --Trovatore (talk) 20:07, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Canada is the second-largest country in the world. Japan is a democratic monarchy, with a population slightly under half that of the US.

But all this is muddying the waters. The OP wants to know what is the largest country that tends to have coalition governments more often than not, and all this talk of republics is irrelevant. 87.112.177.117 (talk) 20:12, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

The OP specifically said largest by population. Canada, spacious but unpopulous, certainly is not the world's second largest by that criterion. BrainyBabe (talk) 22:58, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but the OP's criterion of multiple parties, none of which tends to have an outright majority, so that coalitions are "the norm", makes the question more specifically about the "Parliamentary system" form of Democracy, so I answered the question in terms of the largest Parliamentary republics. The US, for example, is a large democracy but has only two main political parties, so would not count as an answer to the question. WikiDao ☯ 20:40, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

The entire bottom 2/3rds of this discussion is irrelevent, as the OP's question was clearly answered already, without any regards for monarchy or republicanism, since the obvious answer is India, which as the second most populous country in the entire world, and a democratic one, meets the OPs requirement splendidly, without need for even worrying about the definitions of monarchies and republics, and trying to figure out if one or the other was required. --Jayron32 05:46, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

<points at 87.112.177.117> "S/He started it!" ;) WikiDao ☯ 05:50, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

A lot of westerners tend to overlook India as a big player in a lot of categories, perhaps because of its historical third world status. I've seen it argued that it may be the country with the largest number of English speakers (albeit not all as a first language and not all very well), and the largest middle class (that one is highly debatable no matter who you suggest because of the difficulty of definition). HiLo48 (talk) 22:34, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Hang on a minute. 87.112.* is right, the question has not been answered in full already. Everyone keeps saying India is the answer, but there has been little attention paid to the point of the OP's question, which was specifically about the incidence of coalition governments in populous countries. Only Rojomoke has addressed this in his/her post mentioning that coalitions are indeed not the norm in India, which if true would mean that India was not the right answer. Ghmyrtle linked to the article on elections in India, which might shed some light on the matter, but I am disinclined to trawl through the article looking for information on the prevalence of coalitions. --Viennese Waltz 08:34, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Quite. My suspicion is that the OP is probably correct in thinking that Germany is the largest country in which coalitions routinely occur. The question of which democracy is the largest per se doesn't address this. 87.112.177.117 (talk) 09:22, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Germany certainly had coalition governments more often than not. I think the same is true of several other European countries (Italy comes to mind), though none I can think of is as large as Germany. Switzerland seems to have institutionalized a permanent coalition government. Israel is famous for coalition governments including some very "interesting" parties. But to move this along: Does India have coalition governments below the national level? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:00, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Coalition governments are the norm in India, so the question has been answered. In recent years, it has been governed by the United Progressive Alliance and the National Democratic Alliance, both of which are coalitions. Warofdreams talk 12:02, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

In Search of Giovanni Antonio da Brescia

Does anyone have any knowledge of any oil paintings in existence from the artist Giovanni Antonio da Brescia?

Did he create any artwork in this medium? Is there anyone with enough knowledge to confirm or deny?

I have an oil painting with a few identifiable printed letters. The letters that I can discern are Anton--- da--- Bres--- are in the right place to complete his full name. The name is followed by the numbers 99. There is no indication of Giovanni anywhere. It appears to be very old, quite damaged. It is a an equestrian piece with pretty good details of the horses structure, standing in a field with trees behind. It looks quite good to me. I can send pictures if there is any interest or questions.

Michael — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pukinpups (talk • contribs) 08:45, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

(I deleted the telephone number to save you possible unwanted attention. If we can answer your question, it will be done so here.) If you can post the photo to an off-wiki site, and link it to here, that would helpful. Please do not post the photo here. (It slows down the loading of the page and creates problems for a lot of users.). Someone here may be able to give you some ideas about the painting, especially if it is a (copy or print of a) known work. However, you will need to see experts for true authentication. Our article on Brescia is not very helpful. Bielle (talk) 16:26, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the response, I will find a site to link for pictures. With the age and condition of the canvas and the clear reference to the year 99, it was only natural for me to then question the century, 19th, 18th earlier????? The quality of the painting as to certain anatomical details and attention to detail, in my opinion, is very good and what are the odds of an 1899 landscape/equestrian painter having the same or similar name of the aforementioned? Even a crude joke, as was once mentioned, seems far fetched. If there is a known specimen that has survived from that era, attributed to him, with his signature and style, I could put this quest to rest. In the meantime, I am buoyed by the fact that this forum exists and may lead to a conclusion. Thanks, Mike PS, I also knew when I hit the send button, that putting my # down was probably a mistake. Thank you for the quick catch and fix!

Well Giovanni Antonio da Brescia was born in in the 15th century so should we assume it is 1499?--Lgriot (talk) 09:49, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

That was where my mind eventually ended up. As you can imagine, I was at first incredulous and then quite skeptical. I am wondering if I could get the canvas carbon tested for age. Does anyone know the procedure and cost of such testing??? Mike — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pukinpups (talk • contribs) 18:24, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, da Brescia was an engraver, not a painter. Any of the images for sale are all, while valuable, engravings. Here is a site with a brief bio of the man and a description of his signature, as follows: "usually IO.AN.B or IO.AN.BX". It doesn't sound much like what you have. I could find no discussion of, or images of, oil paintings by this artist. ArtPrice.com shows a lot of activity in his engravings, but I no longer have a subscription, so I cannot check further for you. As for authenticating the painting or finding the painter, any good auction house (Bonham, Sotheby, Christie) would tell you, usually for free, if the matter is worth pursuing, and what that pursuit might cost. Bielle (talk) 18:53, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Other cities surrounded by water

Is there a name for a city like San Francisco, CA that is surrounded by water? What other cities are surrounded by water like San Francisco, CA? Nedsgal (talk) 18:41, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Venice, Italy is situated on a lagoon and is surrounded by water.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:47, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

You mean "mostly surrounded", right, Nedsgal? Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:48, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes I did Nedsgal (talk) 19:13, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

As for terminology... San Francisco would be called a peninsula. But that term is more geographical, and does not really imply that the land is urban in character. Blueboar (talk) 18:58, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Largest in the UK is Portsmouth on Portsea Island. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 18:59, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Does Singapore count as a single city? If so, it's entirely surrounded by water. Macau is as nearly surrounded by water as San Francisco is. Pais (talk) 19:10, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Stockholm. Corvus cornix_talk 19:45, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

• Boston, Massachusetts used to be this way. See Shawmut Peninsula. 19th century land-reclamation projects all but eliminated the peninsula. Once upon a time, the Back Bay was, like, an actual bay. --Jayron32 21:15, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

There's the Isle of Ely, only not really. Marnanel (talk) 21:19, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

The "Hong Kong Island" part of Hong Kong is surrounded by water. And the Manhattan Island part of New York City, too... WikiDao ☯ 21:27, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Istambul springs to my mind. Flamarande (talk) 21:40, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

That's more your city divided by water than surrounded by water. That map in the Cityscape section highlights the absurdity of the artificial divide between Europe and Asia. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 22:08, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

It isn't my city and proving that I was merely considering the old city (which was formerly restricted to the European side). "the absurdity of the artificial divide between Europe and Asia" is your own opinion. In the opinion of many (including my own) it's a diffrence of history, religions, cultures, languages, wealth, mutual suspicion and similar things. There is a tangible division between the two regions (and I'm not interrested in expanding this subject). Flamarande (talk) 02:39, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Clarification: correct me if I am wrong, but Jack may have been using the word 'your' in one of its colloquial senses, to mean 'an example of', and I don't think he was using it to mean specifically the city you yourself live in, Flamarande. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 02:49, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Correct. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 04:12, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Historically, Byzantium/Constantinople/Istanbul was surrounded by water on three sides, Marmara to the south, the Bosporus to the east, and the Golden Horn to the north. Of course, there were suburbs across the Horn and the Bosporus even in the Middle Ages, and now the city is enormous, but the core is still on the little peninsula. Adam Bishop (talk) 15:24, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Helsinki. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 03:02, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure the first part of the OP's questions has been answered. I'm thinking "port city" or maybe "maritime city" or something that indicates water.

Someone mentioned Manhattan. Actually 4 of the 5 boroughs of New York are on islands, the exception being the Bronx, and even the Bronx has water as 2/3 or 3/4 of its border. Cities that are actually on islands are numerous in the US, especially along the east coast where there is a chain of barrier islands. We've already covered New York City, which is part of that chain. Other examples would be the towns on Cape Cod, which is now an island thanks to the canal. Nantucket, Atlantic City, Kitty Hawk, Miami Beach, Key West, Galveston, come to mind offhand. Internationally, Mumbai would seem to be a fair approximation of the San Francisco layout. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:49, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

In Italian school geography books Venice is referred to as a maritime republic, so I have to agree that maritime city is an accurate description of a city mostly surrounded by water.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:58, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

But "maritime" implies the sea; it wouldn't apply to a city mostly surrounded by freshwater. (Not that we've found any examples of that yet, I think.) I thought of the term peninsular city; when I googled it, I couldn't find any indication that it's a common term for the phenomenon, but it did lead me to two more examples: Halifax, Nova Scotia, and South Perth, Western Australia. Pais (talk) 15:36, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I can't think of any significant freshwater American cities that are largely surrounded by water. Duluth, Minnesota is not surrounded, but is referred to as a "port city". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:53, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Ooh, ooh, Madison, Wisconsin, is built on an isthmus between two freshwater lakes. Pais (talk) 16:37, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Yep. And the city of Montreal seems to be surrounded by water, or at least a good portion of it is. That's assuming the river at that point is considered to be fresh water. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:21, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Then there are cities like Seattle, which was built on a kind of isthmus, but with marine salt water on one side and fresh lake water on the other. My off the cuff term for cities of all these sorts is "transporationally challenged". Pfly (talk) 10:18, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

At least places like Seattle and Vancouver have bridges. Last I heard, Juneau, Alaska was only reachable by water or by air. That's a more serious "transportation challenge". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:59, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Historically, Tenochtitlan. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:05, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Île de la Cité, Paris? BrainyBabe (talk) 20:58, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Manhattan would be the prototype city surrounded by water, along with Staten Island, and The Bronx is a peninsula. Acroterion _(talk) 21:07, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

As for a term; Waterlocked is considered an option, as is Island City. Nanonic (talk) 21:06, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Slashed zero

Resolved

 – It's a display problem...the first character I mentioned (the one that doesn't work in some browsers) looks exactly like what I wanted in Safari. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 18:50, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

What is the slashed zero that amateur radio operators use in callsigns with a 0? It doesn't look like 0̸ (won't work with IE) because the slash is perfectly through the 0 rather than offset to the side, it's not Ø or ∅ or ⌀ because it appears oblong like a 0 rather than like a circle. According to my amateur radio license textbook, it can be represented by an ALT code, but I couldn't get this to work the last time I tried it (and I no longer remember what it is), so knowing what the character is so that I can copy-paste it would be useful. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 20:25, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

It's a zero, 0. It means exactly the same as 0. The fact that you don't see a slash through your 0 is a property of the font. Marnanel (talk) 20:35, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

We have an article on the Slashed zero, but I'm not sure I see what I think you are looking for there, either. WikiDao ☯ 20:51, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

How do I render this as text?

Rephrase: How do I render the character at right on my computer in text? Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 21:15, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

By typing a zero while using a font whose zero looks like a O with a slash through it. Sorry, there's no special character for this other than the number zero. In some fonts, the zero has a slash, and in other fonts, it doesn't. Comet Tuttle (talk) 21:25, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

According to the picture in the Slashed zero article, the font used for the top line is called Consolas. If you can find that font and install it, you'll have your slashed zero. I think it's included with many versions of Windows (it's on my machine at work, for example), so you may already have it - it's not exactly like the picture you posted, but it's a slashed zero. Matt Deres (talk) 21:33, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Try "<math>\not 0</math>" which renders $\not 0$. I believe that there are some government entities which require it's use so as to distinguish from the letter "O." Greg Bard (talk) 01:16, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Way back with the old MS-DOS the zero was automatically slashed, as can be seen here. --Saddhiyama (talk) 06:46, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

You wrote "It doesn't look like 0̸ because the slash is perfectly through the 0 rather than offset to the side"; but that slash is supposed to bisect the 0. Unicode renderers just do a bad job with it (or perhaps it's the font's fault). The MS-DOS photo linked by Saddhiyama has dotted zeroes, not slashed zeroes. I think it may be a screenshot of a Windows DOS box. The IBM PC's built-in text font did slash its zeroes (photo). MS-DOS has nothing to do with this; it just writes zeroes and doesn't choose the font. In LaTeX I would write a slashed zero as \emptyset ($\emptyset$) because it looks right, though it's technically wrong. -- BenRG (talk) 07:41, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

As a "hack", you could always use Ø, which is not a circle but formed like an O (and hence will be oblong in some fonts). Or use the font Terminal_(typeface). Jørgen (talk) 08:49, 19 January 2011 (UTC) (used to type in my name in old ascii-only computer games as J0RGEN - the zero would be slashed)

Of course I also meant the original MS-DOS on the IBM PC. I remember them from personal experience, but my Google search turned up various examples, including DOS-boxes from various versions of Windows, some which did not have either dotted or slashed zeros, obviously because at the time of Windows 95 the screen resolution was so high that the program could make 0's that was visually differentiated from O's without resorting to such methods.

Correction by schoolteachers

How do schoolteachers nowadays correct their students without embarrassing them?
—Wavelength (talk) 22:20, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

If I understand the question correctly, I used to have an English teacher who would ask a (general) question, pick someone to answer and listen to their answer. He would then agree with whatever point the student had made, before giving his own opinion. If the opinion was close to yours, you could feel like you'd given the right answer; if not, you were essentially corrected, but it was never that embarrassing. - Jarry1250 ^{[Who? Discuss.]} 22:27, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Which teacher? Which student? What was the question- something with a factual right/wrong answer, or something that asks for analysis? Was the wrong answer something the student ought to have known from recent instruction, or a failure to make connections appropriately, or the inability to analyze fully, or an intentional wrong answer for a laugh? There are many different ways to correct a child, and they vary based on the personalities of the individual people involved, and also on the nature of the question and the answer. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:14, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I find the question to be somewhat flawed... it assumes that embarrassment is a "bad thing". Sure, we don't want to traumatize a student, but a little bit of embarrassment can be a great motivator to do better next time. Sure, everyone wants to get the right answer all the time... but in reality we all make mistakes, and we all fail to achieve goals. Students need to learn that lesson, and they need to be taught how to overcome a mistake or a failure. The teacher who taught me the most was my 8th grade math teacher... he purposely designed his first test of the year to be so difficult, even his best students failed... just so everyone in the class had the experience of failure and could learn what to do when we fail. His lesson plan when the test was handed back centered on dealing with, and learning from failure. Blueboar (talk) 00:33, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

What it's more likely to motivate a student to do is to give up. Why try something if you're going to be put down for it? If you give up, then they at least have a reason to show you up, and then things are in balance. Then it's just a matter of being tough and persevering through the school year and then moving on to something else. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:24, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how it's "more likely," given that people do fail on a regular basis without giving up. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:28, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Blueboar, what did your eighth-grade mathematics teacher teach you and your classmates about dealing with failure and learning from it?

—Wavelength (talk) 01:15, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, it was over thirty years ago, so I don't remember the details of his lesson plan, but... what sticks in my mind after all this time is the lesson that life isn't always fair and sometimes, no matter what you do, you will fail. Suck it up and move on (I don't think he used those exact words... but that's what I got out of it). I remember him saying "Failure isn't bad... giving up because you failed is". Failure is not something to be ashamed of, it happens to everyone. He taught us to learn from failure... to examine what went wrong so that you reduce the likelihood that it will happen again. When you fail, you must get up, dust yourself off and keep at it until you succeed. Blueboar (talk) 14:35, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

It depends on how he handled it. If he put you down and then lectured you about how "life isn't fair", then his primary (and unintended) lesson was that he himself was an abusive jerk, plain and simple. If he was gentler about it, then his lesson could be more positive and useful. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:02, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

One thing I've heard is "Praise twice, criticize once." In otherwise, emphasize what the pupil did correctly, then point out where he or she can improve. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:25, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Along the same lines, one teacher shared with us a technique they learned in a workshop one time. It was called the "compliment sandwich;" give praise, give correction, then find a secondary on which to give praise. schyler (talk) 02:05, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps we should be asking why are teenagers almost always "embarrassed" nowadays by anything adults say or do (whether teacher or parent)? I don't recall being constantly embarrassed when I was a teenager. Astronaut (talk) 06:12, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think this is a new phenomenon. Read Portnoy's Complaint, for example. However, there are ways to soften criticism and minimize "showing up" an incorrect responder. Something that comes to mind is Alex Trebek, who often says, "You're right", but always says, "That's wrong" rather than "You're wrong". Some teachers, then and now, take the time to consider their students' feelings. Others don't. That's just how things are. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:56, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your replies. Various methods are discussed in the article "Corrective feedback".
—Wavelength (talk) 16:59, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I am concerned that this article relies on only one source... I encourage you to find others. Blueboar (talk) 17:11, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

As someone who became a teacher not too long ago, I was taught that a great teacher has a constantly growing toolbox of approaches to students' behaviour, effort and levels of achievement. Obviously there's a lot of overlap between those three characteristics. I use very different approaches for the kid trying his hardest and the kid who has been wasting his time or finding ways to disrupt the class. And of course it's pointless using the same approach every time too. Kids see through every teacher strategy eventually. And every kid is different. Some work best with gentle persuasion. Some respond best to kicks up the butt. Some actually respond quite well to being briefly embarrassed, despite our questioner ruling it out. And every day is different. Answer to the question? Whatever is going to work best at the time. HiLo48 (talk) 22:45, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

baby doc

I was under the impression that "papa doc" got his name from a mispronunciation. The real "doc" was actually the French word spelled as "duc' which is believed to mean Duke. Whereas when the French ruled, the leader of Haiti was referred to as a Duke, but was translated as "duc," not doc. Is my source correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.132.236.222 (talk) 23:54, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Not according to the first and second paragraphs of our François Duvalier article. Comet Tuttle (talk) 00:07, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) According to our François Duvalier article, "Duvalier first won acclaim in fighting diseases, earning him the nickname "Papa Doc" ("Daddy Doc[tor]" in French)." However, I believe the French for doctor is "médecin" so that's somewhat strange, unless perhaps the word "doctor" or at least the shortened form "doc" is commonly used in Haitian creole... WikiDao ☯ 00:09, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

French for doctor is indeed médecin, but docteur can sometimes be used. One would not say "je vais au docteur" because the correct meaning of docteur in French is simply someone who holds a doctorat. Like in English however, docteur does imply medical doctor to some extent (as this is the only kind of doctor most people are in even relatively frequent interation with), though not so much as in English (i.e., the example above).24.92.70.160 (talk) 00:58, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

In France when we say docteur or docteur X with no other information, this word means médecin (physician). Il is very, very usual. What's wrong with "je vais au docteur"? This sentence is not grammatically correct, however it is used by "less educated" people. Instead you should say: je vais chez le docteur. You can refer to the French dictionnary Le Petit Robert, where this latter is used as an example. — AldoSyrt (talk) 08:19, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Our article on Haitian creole indicates that the word for doctor is doktè. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 03:13, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm in a Predicament

OK here's my situation: I currently attend a high school offering the International Baccalaureate program. 4 years are required in the core academic subjects, obviously including math. However I was able to test out of Calculus (quite easily), but if I decide not to take calculus I will have completed the highest maths class available at my school (IB Math Topics) by junior year, so I might not meet this requirement to graduate with the IB Diploma. I'm gonna talke to my counselor about it tomorrow, but I'd like some outside advice: What should I do? 24.92.70.160 (talk) 00:48, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Many High Schools will grant credit for classes taken at a local university or community college. If you tested out of Calculus, you may be able to take a more advanced math class at a local community college or university, and count that as high school credit as well. You should definitely talk to your guidance counselor, as they will know best how to navigate these issues, but you could perhaps come to him with this idea. --Jayron32 00:55, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

sorry, I was not clear enough. I do not actually need the credit for my high school diploma (only 3 years of math are required), but I do need it for the IB programme, and the class I take for this programme must be an IB class, not a non-IB class. The IB diploma is extra that looks really good on college apps, so I'd like to get it. 24.92.70.160 (talk) 01:01, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

You know what looks really good on college apps? Already having college credit. Seriously, try the approach I have laid out for you. Ask your counselor about options. If you are so advanced that you have qualified out of calculus without having taken the course yet, then colleges will be seeking you out. The extra little bit of having the IB diploma isn't going to help you much beyond that, and if colleges ask "why didn't you get it", you can say "because I was already taking differential equations at the local university, and didn't think I needed to go back and take calculus just to get some silly tag on my diploma." Colleges love that much more than they will IB. If you are worried contact an admissions officer of your first choice college. Ask THEM what their opinion would be. --Jayron32 03:21, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

You might not need to take night or summer classes either. Some high-schools will actually let you leave school during the day to drive to the local community college for a class. I knew some friends that did that. APL (talk) 23:20, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

A specific kind of very important city...

is called what? I vaguely remember reading a Wikipedia article about certain cities that were dominant in their entities, but I can't remember the title of the article. Such cities are the leaders of their entities (e.g. countries, provinces/states) in every way: the article gave all of the Australian state capitals as leading examples of this phenomenon. I've tried searching for "primary city", but that's definitely not it. Nyttend (talk) 04:40, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Primate city? Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 04:49, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Or perhaps it is Global city? Astronaut (talk) 06:03, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Seems too obvious, but Capital city? -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 07:56, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

It's the primate city; the article history shows that all of the Australian state capitals were included as primates of their states, so this is definitely what I was looking for. Thanks! Nyttend (talk) 13:16, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Primate city makes me think of Planet of the Apes. Blueboar (talk) 14:47, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Whenever I hear a reference to the "Primate of Australia", I picture a gorilla in a bishop's costume, carrying a staff and wearing a mitre. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 20:05, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Discrepancy in The King's Speech?

In the recent movie The King's Speech, Lionel Logue is shown in a car heading for Buckingham Palace when air raid sirens are sounding and people are entering shelters. He arrives when only 40 minutes remain before the king is to address the whole empire on the radio. Then we see people listening to the radio, some of them clearly in London, and after the speech the king steps out onto a balcony and waves to the immense crowd below. Those people were not in air raid shelters.

• Was there in fact a German air raid on September 3rd, 1939?
• Did such a crowd in fact gather outside the palace on that day?
• How long were people in shelters on that day?
• What proportion of the population heeded warnings and went to shelters?

Michael Hardy (talk) 05:37, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

There was no German air raid on 3 September 1939 - that was the day Britain and France declared war on Germany. Details of early air raids on Britain are in the Phoney War article; the first was on 16 October. Warofdreams talk 10:19, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

But apparently air raid sirens were tested on 3 September. According to this article, they were (quite sensibly) tested just after the King's speech, rather than before. Warofdreams talk 10:22, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

But that article says the air raid siren test was after the prime minister's brief radio address, not after the king's longer speech. Michael Hardy (talk) 17:50, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

It's called dramatization, which IMO is particularly heavy-handed in this otherwise excellent film.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 11:21, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

So it appears that:

• The prime minister made a brief speech on the radio at 11:15 AM that day, announcing the declaration of war.
• Air raid sirens were then tested at 11:27 AM.
• The king gave a longer speech by radio later in the day.

What time was that later speech? Michael Hardy (talk) 17:56, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

These extracts from Logue's diary:

"At 10 o’clock came the announcement on the wireless that Germany had until 11 o’clock to withdraw her troops from Poland and at 11.15 the Prime Minister in sorrowful and heartfelt tones announced that we were at war with Germany. A marvellous relief after all our tension; the universal desire is to kill the Austrian house painter [Hitler]. At 11.30 out of the blue came the [air raid] siren – no good to even think it is a rehearsal. I call [Logue’s youngest son] Tony who is in the garage mending his bike and we shut up the house. A wonderful sight from our windows – to see the barrage balloon go up. The charwoman turned a tense situation into one of great comedy. Her boy Ernie was taken to the country yesterday, and as she went downstairs, she said 'Thank God my Ernie has been excavated'. At 12, [the King’s assistant private secretary, Sir] Eric Mieville rang to say that the King would Broadcast at 6 o’clock. Laurie drove me in to the Palace and I got there at 5.20."

He doesn't mention the crowd, but this page describes a large crowd at Downing Street after Chamberlain's speech. The palace is only 15 mins stroll away, so it seems probable. Whether the king waved to them, I don't know, but Logue doesn't seem to have been there if he did. Alansplodge (talk) 01:06, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

speakers and connections

After the shooting rampage at Wedgwood Baptist Church in Ft. Worth, Texas, how many Columbine High School massacre survivors speak at the memorial service? Plus, what are the church's colors?24.90.204.234 (talk) 07:52, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Colors? Churches don't generally have colors (especially non-liturgical churches like Baptists), unless you're meaning something different from the church itself. Nyttend (talk) 13:10, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

The church has a web page that talks about the shootings in general,[16] which occurred a few months after the Columbine shootings, both in 1999. I don't see anything offhand about speakers other than the minister, but you might be able to contact someone there and find out. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:15, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't know about "colors", but if you google [baptist church flag] and [baptist church colors] you might find something useful. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:18, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't have an article on the incident per se, but it does have an article on Larry Gene Ashbrook, the person who did it. Pais (talk) 14:50, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Non-coalition democratic governments

The above question about the largest democratic country with a coalition government got me thinking. Isn't it fair to say that coalition governments are pretty much the de-facto norm in democratic countries? I went searching through wikipedia and found this list of countries with coalition governments, which seems to include just about every democratic government other than the US. Besides the US, is there any other democratic countries in the world that don't have a coalition government? TomorrowTime (talk) 12:37, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

That list only has three countries from the americas. Algebraist 12:42, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Australia currently has a Labor government, with the Coalition in opposition. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:46, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

The UK currently has a coalition government, but that's unusual there, and caused much discussion and hand-wringing at the time. France currently does not have a coalition government, but I don't know if that's unusual there or not. Pais (talk) 12:49, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah yes, how could I have forgotten the UK... France, as far as I remember, usually does have coalition governments. Australia, from what I can see in the links is also a country with a two party system, or am I misreading something? TomorrowTime (talk) 13:24, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Offhand, Spain and Canada are examples of other democratic countries which rarely or never have coalition governments. Warofdreams talk 14:17, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Regarding Australia, it's pretty much a two-party system very similar to the UK, from my understanding. Under most normal understandings, a "coalition government" is a political expedient; a temporary arangement to form a parliamentary majority and to prevent deadlock and stalemate. In Australia, the "Coalition" is an essentially permanent arangement between the two rightist parties, and at least on the national level, almost always operates as a single "party" for all intents and purposes. Because of this there have been several attempts at a formal merger between the two parties. The state-level parties have already merged in Queensland. As already noted, the coalition in the UK is extremely rare, indeed the unusual result of the United Kingdom general election, 2010 led to the classic strange bedfellows-type coalition whereby the centre-left Liberal Democrats are in coalition with the rightist Conservatives. Normally, the UK operates on a non-coalition type system. In U.S. history, there have been a few "coalition"-type moments, one may possibly argue that the Era of Good Feelings represents a sort of national coalition of sorts, where the Democrat-Republican and Federalist parties operated on a more-or-less coalition mentality, without opposition. The other coalition would have occured at the United States presidential election, 1864, whereby the Republican Party and (most of) the Democratic party merged under the National Union Party (United States). As back to the original question, the article Two-party system gives some additional non-coalition countries which have only two parties, being Jamaica and Malta. Other than those two, and the ones already mentioned, most countries have so many parties that coalitions are common enough. --Jayron32 14:38, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Much of the answers hinge on the type of voting system deployed in country X. In the US, UK and most Anglo-Saxon countries (where there exists a plurality voting system), coalitions are quite unlikely. In countries which employ proportional representation (like most of mainland Europe) it is much more common. A single party in Europe may easily gain a plurality but not have a majority. In such a circumstance the only options are a) a coalition, grand or small; b) a minority government where the ruling party seeks the temporary support of another group. Option b) is generally considered to be unstable and thus undesirable.

In many EU states you have two largish parties (equivalent to Conservative and Labour) and two smallish parties (essentially Liberals and Greens). Given the method of a proportional representation it is rather exceptional for any of these parties to get a vote of > 50%. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 16:33, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Jayron's right about Australia usually having either Labor or a Coalition in power at any one time. In 1975 the Liberal Party could have governed in its own right but it had gone into the election with the Country Party as partner, so they chose (wisely imo) to maintain the Coalition in government. The last time there actually was a non-Labor non-Coalition government was in 1939-40, when Robert Menzies headed a United Australia Party government. Earlier cases were: 1932-34, Joseph Lyons - UAP; 1917-23, Billy Hughes - Nationalist; 1913-14, Joseph Cook - Commonwealth Liberal; 1903-04, 1905-08, Alfred Deakin, 1901-03, Edmund Barton - Protectionist. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 19:16, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Portugal has a majority government; the party of the government has absolute majority. Flamarande (talk) 20:52, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I think the question is whether that arrangement is standard, or a short-term coincidence of the latest election cycle. As in, does one or another party normally always have a majority, or does the government usually rule via coalition most of the time. --Jayron32 21:25, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, the OR asks if "Besides the US, is there any other democratic countries in the world that don't have a coalition government?". Portugal has had a couple of single-party-elected-majority governments but there have been more coalitions.

It has to be pointed out that (IMHO) most democratic countries have more than 2 parties in the parlament/congress/whatever. The USA only has two main parties. In such a situation the winner is bound to have simple majority. In countries where more than parties enter parlament it's quite hard to a have a simple majority; leading to coalitions. Flamarande (talk) 22:11, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Lists of dates books published on

Where can I find a list of books published on certain dates, eg February 1970? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.41.24.88 (talk) 13:04, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

In which country? Your national ISBN agency distributes this information by subscription to libraries and book retailers. The monthly list is also available in public libraries. No doubt it's available on line but it depends on your country. This is one website for book data, and I see they offer a free trial.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 14:31, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Allusions in Prose Literature

Hey all! I love the allusiveness of The Waste Land and Joyce's Ulysses. I'm wondering if there are any other novels that so richly and consistently reference the works of past authors. (Lolita comes to mind, but as far as I can tell, there are few others). Thanks! 75.92.250.14 (talk) 18:08, 19 January 2011 (UTC)MelancholyDanish

Our page on intertextuality will give you a few hints towards a reading list. --Antiquary (talk) 18:31, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Worlde War 1 medals

My husbands father served in World War 1 and has several medals that we have no idea what they mean or why they were awarded to him. How can I go about finding out this information? Any info would be helpful```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.1.45.110 (talk) 02:00, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Epifanio Garay - English Language References

Recently I created a page on the Spanish language wiki for the Colombian painter, Epifanio Garay. Although I've found his name mentioned on several pages in the English language wiki I haven't found any English language references to use on a translated page. His named is mentioned, or his work is featured, in the following articles.

• Palacio de las Garzas
• Jorge Holguín
• Rafael_Núñez_(politician)

mrtony77 (talk) 02:08, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Multiculturalism in Quran and Hadith

By any chance does the Qur'an and hadiths ever mention anything about multiculturalism?