Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

• Computing
• Entertainment
• Humanities
• Language
• Mathematics
• Science
• Miscellaneous
• Archives

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

• Select the section of the desk that best fits the general topic of your question (see the navigation column to the right).
• Post your question to only one section, providing a short header that gives the topic of your question.
• Type '~~~~' (that is, four tilde characters) at the end – this signs and dates your contribution so we know who wrote what and when.
• Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. Any answers will be provided here.
• Please be as specific as possible, and include all relevant context – the usefulness of answers may depend on the context.
• Note:
  • We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice.
  • We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate.
  • We don't do your homework for you, though we'll help you past the stuck point.
  • We don't conduct original research or provide a free source of ideas, but we'll help you find information you need.

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

• The best answers address the question directly, and back up facts with wikilinks and links to sources. Do not edit others' comments and do not give any medical or legal advice.

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

August 29

maximum revenue scheme

What percent(s) of income and what percent of assets would produce the greatest possible revenue without being unfair to the poor or to the rich based on the poverty line as still being fair? --DeeperQA (talk) 00:37, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

If you find out, let us all know, because there's thousands of highly-trained economists who can't seem to be able to work it out. --Jayron32 01:40, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

"Fairness" is a subjective concept, so there is no absolute answer to your question. --Tango (talk) 02:43, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

You haven't stated an economic unit of analysis (firm? nation? world-system?). Many economic analyses avoid the concepts of "rich" and "poor", some simply substitute economic agents, others discuss class relations. Similarly assets, income and revenue are all constructed terms, with varying meanings or analogues in different analytical systems. A Marxist response would be along the lines of: economics cannot be fair, and any distribution of firm or societal social product between divisions I (production of productive apparatus) and II (production of things for consumption) will result in worse proportionate returns to workers, and eventually a radical reconfiguration of social production under the control of workers. You might need to supply your assumptions and explore your terms. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:12, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

In addressing your economic unit concern I quickly realized that the government need only set deduction and penalty constraints for such things as hardship or luxury existence for all economic units to determine percent and then use linear programming to find combinations which would fit revenue to expenditure. Thanks. --DeeperQA (talk) 05:00, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

In addition to the set of constraints, you also need a mathematical model. For example, you need to estimate what revenue will be for a given tax system. That is not easy to do. For small changes to an existing system, you can come up with a reasonably good guess (that's what governments do whenever they come up with a budget). If you want a completely new system, however, then you are going to have difficulties. --Tango (talk) 12:51, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

The constraints pretty much make the model. Total revenue is total expenses but this is one situation as I understand it where deficit spending is said to be justified in that you do not need to know ahead of time what revenue will be. Required revenue is then used as the goal of process which determine the amount of taxes from each resource that do not violate any constraints. You end up with revenue matching expenditures and all of the constraints being met. --DeeperQA (talk) 04:01, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Income equality reaches a point of diminishing returns when it affects productivity. The most progressive tax in the world may have been Sweden before the imposition of the European Union's value added tax (VAT) but they were doing very well before then. So, there is only one way to find out. 99.36.74.131 (talk) 00:24, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Mid-Pacific Magazine

I don't think I'm going to get much of an answer but does anybody know where I can find an online copy of the The Mid-Pacific magazine, Volume 37 from 1929. There is a google book version but it's only a snippet view.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 01:37, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

You could try placing a request at the resource request page. Someone may have access to hard copies in an academic library or something and, if you ask nicely, they may scan some or all of the magazine for you. --Viennese Waltz 07:28, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

The Phantom Coach by Amelia Edwards

Is the writer of the short story The Phantom Coach this Amelia Edwards? --DinoXYZ (talk) 01:52, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is. The story originally appeared in the Christmas number of Charles Dickens's magazine All the Year Round in 1864. Its first book publication (under the alternative title "The North Mail") was in Edwards's Miss Carew (1865). Deor (talk) 02:26, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Gath. (city).... Goliath

The last sentence in the following caption is incorrect.

"According to the Bible, the king of the city was Achish, in the times of Saul, David, and Solomon. It is not certain whether this refers to two or more kings of this name or not."

The list of kings, as per Biblical timeline references, is the historical account of the three consecutive reigning kings of Israel: first through third. As referenced in Samuel and I Kings.

Therefore, Shouldn't the sentence read something along those lines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.202.208.148 (talk) 07:14, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

The second sentence is badly written but this is not really the correct place to discuss it, which would be Talk:Gath (city). Since you've raised it here, however, we can probably discuss it a bit. I think the confusion arises from the word "this", it's not clear what the "this" refers to. You seem to be reading it as referring to the kings of Israel, whereas I think it's intended to refer to the kings of Gath. Achish says that there were two Philistine rulers of Gath by that name, and the sentence is basically saying that we don't know which of the two the Bible is referring to. It could probably be rewritten to make this clearer, if my interpretation is correct. --Viennese Waltz 07:29, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

First of all, if your sentence is based "according to The Bible" you should removed Saul because he was not the legitimate king in Biblical chronology. Also, Since The Bible does not mention more than one Achish then we know that when it mentions him it is the same king, regardless of secular history saying there was more than one, that which I am not at all disputing. Schyler (exquirere bonum ipsum) 15:06, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Schyler -- Saul's reign didn't end well, and he wasn't part of the "Davidic line" (as other rulers of the unified monarchy and the Kingdom of Judah were, or were claimed to be) but he started out being anointed by Samuel (after Samuel's elaborate disclaimer in I Samuel 8, a somewhat notorious passage which seems to receive very little attention on Wikipedia). And the problem with the single Achish hypothesis is that the guy would have had to reign as king for quite a long time... AnonMoos (talk) 17:44, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Libyan Regionalism

Do present day Libyans primarily identify themselves as Libyans or as nationals of their historic province (Tripolitania, Cyrenaica, and Fezzan)? Also, even if they see themselves primarily as Libyans, do they still greatly identify with their historical region? Have their been any recent calls for autonomy for each of the historic provinces? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.189.55.52 (talk) 08:22, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

The rebels and protesters have been flying the old Flag of Libya, which suggests they seem themselves as primarily Libyan. Some have even been carrying pictures of King Idris of Libya. Although Idris was from Cyrenaica, as the principal campaigner for independence in colonial days, he seems to be a hero for Libyans from all parts of the country. Prior to the recent rebel advances, there was talk in Western Europe of partitioning Libya between east and west[1][2] but this doesn't seem to have had any support from either side in Libya. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:27, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I read some rebel-viewpoint websites and they make a point of Libyan national unity (e.g. here). It has been noted that Gaddafi was against the tribal structure, although it would seem this was pragmatic and the ground didn't always match the Libya-first rhetoric of the regime. The rebels, of course, have a battle on their hands maintaining any sort of unity and thus it is their clear interest to fight for the single Libya-first message on all fronts. I would say that King Idris was a complicated matter, it's just that the green flag, along with green square and other green things was the entire conception and execution of Gaddafi, and they needed something else that also meant "Libya". Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 13:08, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

The current heir to the throne is Mohammed El Senussi who's gone on record to say he wants the people of Libya to decide what government they want and he will return as a Constitutional Monarch if they ask - he seems a decent sort. Quintessential British Gentleman (talk) 02:42, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Intentionally blank pages at the beginning and end of a book

What is the name of the intentionally blank pages found at the beginning and end of books? I remember reading that they were popularized by toy books and that these pages had some technical name..but I can't remember what that technical name was.Smallman12q (talk) 14:54, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't know about toy books, but other kinds of books often have two blank fly leaves, one at each end of a book. (Leaves are portions of a sheet of paper protruding from the binding of a book, consisting of two pages each, one on each side of the leaf.) Fly leaves are often made of a thicker, sturdier kind of paper than the paper used for the printed pages of a book. Fly leaves may form part of a book's binding. As for other blank pages in a book, in my experience they nearly always occur at the end of a book. Most modern commercial bookbinding methods involve the use of entire signatures. Signatures are very large sheets of paper printed on both sides, then folded and cut so that they form the leaves and pages of a section of a book. Signatures typically form a block of 32 pages, though 16-page signatures are sometimes used. If a publisher does not have enough material to fill the last signature in the book (and doesn't want to cut material to consolidate the book and eliminate that last signature), it is often more economical to bind the entire last signature, including blank pages, than to trim it to eliminate those blank pages. I don't know of a name for the blank pages other than "blank pages" or "blanks". Marco polo (talk) 15:20, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

They were not popularised by toy books. The existence of fly leaves can be traced at least as far back as the medieval codices, since, as Marco polo mentions, they were an integral part of the bookbinding technique. --Saddhiyama (talk) 17:23, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I also forgot what they were called, but in most book that I have, they don't have these blank pages and the ones that do only have a blank page at the front. According to a Google search I just did they are probably just called flyleafs or simply "Intentionally blank pages." No special name I guess. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:46, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

There was some sort of fancy name...maybe I'll remember it one day=P.Smallman12q (talk) 22:06, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

You mean the front or back "free endpaper", sometimes abbreviated as "f.f.e.p." or "b.f.e.p." in book antiquarian catalogues? --Saddhiyama (talk) 22:15, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

That might be it (though I think it had a more technical name...). I found a relevant article on picturebooks for it so it's probably it:Sipe, Lawrence R.; McGuire, Caroline E. (2006). "Picturebook Endpapers: Resources for Literary and Aesthetic Interpretation". Children's Literature in Education. 37 (4): 291–304. doi:10.1007/s10583-006-9007-3. ISSN 0045-6713.. Thanks again.Smallman12q (talk) 15:46, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Hotel Room Rquirements Indiana

Is a Telephone required to be in a Hotel room in Indiana — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.64.191.50 (talk) 17:38, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

No, you can have a telephone in your house, in your office, and I've seen people in Indiana carrying them around as well. I don't know why you would want to keep them all in hotel rooms?!? </joke> --Jayron32 18:47, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I would say almost definitely not. I don't have any references, but a search for "Hotel telephone law" comes up with nothing for any state. Until recently telephones where not ubiquitous in hotel rooms and I don't see any reason for such a law. --Daniel 18:58, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

While I agree it is unlikely to be required by law, it probably is required by various hotel rating systems. For example, a basic phone is required for even one diamond under the AAA's rating system ([3] - page 24). --Tango (talk) 19:52, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

That's right. They may have been required for emergency services in the '50s-60s before smoke detectors became common. 76.254.20.205 (talk) 20:25, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

They might still be required in some places, for medical emergencies, to report crimes, etc. (I suppose there will come a point where everyone can be assumed to carry cell phones, but I don't think we're quite there, yet.) StuRat (talk) 20:40, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

While it's possible, I would be surprised if a hotel needed to have a phone in every room in the 1950s-60s when I'm guessing a fair number of people didn't even have them in their homes (perhaps a phone on every floor or something seems more likely). This claims [4] hotels are required to be able to identify to emergency services in the US (911) the room a guest is calling from and both that and [5] suggests hotels consider them important both for safety reasons and for internal communications (but they cost a lot). They also mention concern over coverage and the ability to identify precisely where the guest are calling from are concerns with relying on mobile phone for emergency purposes. [6] suggests in the US water recreational facilities must have an emergency phone and also that hotels may be found liable for problems guests face due to the lack of communication devices (both which is different from saying it's a legal requirement to have one in every room) Nil Einne (talk) 13:12, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Debating tactic?

I'm looking for a debate team tactic that involves demanding that the opposing team prove from first principles the ideas of logic before their proposal can be considered on its merits. What is this called? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.8.218.204 (talk) 19:16, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Pedantry. 76.254.20.205 (talk) 19:48, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks - that's not what I was looking for though - when it was first used it was not against the rules - it was tremendously controversial though. It basically attacks the argument philosophically by questioning the nature of truth, and leads to very technical debates that are not about the topic. It is largely outlawed in most leagues - it has a name, but I can't remember it.... Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.189.106.4 (talk) 20:06, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

When I was in high school, pedantry wasn't against the rules, but it would never get anywhere with the judges. The most effective response was to call the pedantry "absurdly pedantic" and move on to evidence, conclusions, and the fact that the pedant is unlikely to have supporting evidence since they resorted to pedantry. Synonyms per thesaurus.com include dogmatism, pedagogery, and pretension. 76.254.20.205 (talk) 20:16, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I personally would call it the Tortoise strategy, after What the Tortoise Said to Achilles, an essay by Lewis Carroll illustrating it (available at Wikisource). Looie496 (talk) 20:35, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Maybe something like diversionary meticulousness.Phalcor (talk) 20:51, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks - but these are not it - it's considered by some to be a legitimate debate tactic - attacking the assumed philosophical underpinnings that the team is asking us to take for granted and without question, and it has a name... It is not considered pedantic by its advocates, but rather rigorous - if the opposing team is not willing to justify the assumptions behind their position then they do not deserve to have their argument considered on its merits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.189.106.4 (talk) 20:58, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks guys - I found it - it was Kritik - http://webpages.charter.net/johnprager/IPD/Chapter14.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.189.106.4 (talk) 21:17, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I hope that's not illegal, because questioning premises is a legitimate and appropriate choice when the premises are questionable. For example if the opposition asserts that your evidence or conclusions are flawed because you are a bad person for whatever reason, then it's proper to question the implicit assumption that the value of an idea is dependent on its proponent. In fact, the value of an idea is independent of its proponent, so it's legitimate to oppose that kind of ad hominem with what seems to be called "kritic" in the charter.net link. 99.36.74.131 (talk) 00:14, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think you understand what those links are saying. It isn't about questioning general presuppositions, it is a very strange and specific case of trying to bring in critical philosophy to policy debates. Which seems quite odd to me, though I'm a complete outsider to the debate world. "Critical philosophy" is a specific thing, not just "philosophy that is criticizing"; it seems like the issue in question is bringing Derrida into a discussion about international relations, or using Wittgenstein to talk about evolution vs. creationism. I can see why debate team people find it tedious. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:37, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

The fallacy you are describing is sometimes called Kicking the problem upstairs. There is no WP article on that topic, but it is in the requested articles list under logic. Greg Bard (talk) 02:36, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually I found Wikipedia has an extensive article on it, including which leagues it is allowed in. Thanks!

May I suggest How to Argue and Win Every Time by Gerry Spence? Joefromrandb (talk) 03:17, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Fairer sex?

Hi, I'm a male and got into a debate with a friend about what in terms of facial features makes a woman supposedly more beautiful than men. Up until yesterday, I just thought that it was equal and that since I'm attracted to women, it would be reciprocal for the female population to view the male face as more pleasing to look at than the female face.

I was reading this website, http://dumbscientist.com/archives/ar...the-fairer-sex , and thought it made some interesting points, especially since the we live in a man dominated world and that attractive women are used in advertisements that straight women watch to, it would be understood that there is more of a universal beauty among females than their is males.

So my question is, in terms of face and face only, if you compared the most handsome man in the world vs the most beautiful women, who would be considered more beautiful?

Or is it equal or subjective? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.62.167.82 (talk) 19:58, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Subjective, and variable over individuals from moment to moment and day to day. However, [7] has a good analysis of the weak findings of component studies such as [8] and [9]. 76.254.20.205 (talk) 20:11, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Subjective. Totally. The thing is, we don't just live in a male-dominated world, we live in a straight male-dominated world. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 20:04, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

To the extent that there is milage in this psychologists use average ratings of attractiveness to guage these kinds of things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.189.106.4 (talk) 20:07, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

It's subjective. I describe women's faces as 'beautiful' more often than men's, but only because the predominantly heterosexual male meaning of the term specifically implies traditionally female qualities. Notice how even the debate uses the term 'fair' which has both the implications of being unblemished (virginal), pretty, and fragile; qualities most straight men look for in their ideal woman and thus never usually applies to a man.

Nonetheless, when it comes to which is more pleasing for me (as a gay male, and I expect the same thing for females) to look at, I'd pick the handsome man any day, heh. "Beautiful" or "handsome" have gender-specific meanings that don't exactly make them synonymous to "attractive" for both sexes.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 20:52, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

In the 19th century, when "fair" was used in a specific meaning to refer to human beauty it usually meant light-haired or pale-skinned, as opposed to "dark" (as in the old clichéd description "tall, dark, and handsome") -- "dark" in this sense did not necessarily imply racially non-white... AnonMoos (talk) 21:16, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Also note that back then most women worked inside the home and men outside, so men would be expected to have darker tans. StuRat (talk) 22:21, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Hence unblemished and fragile. :P Note most common usage of the word in the sense of 'attractive': "fair maiden" and "fair youth", feminine and androgynously feminine. When a man is described as fair (e.g. "fair warrior") it usually has nothing to do with whether he is pleasant to look at or not, but only on whether his hair is blond.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 21:26, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Is that why a cute blond policeman is called "a fair cop"?  :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 21:52, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Only if you cop a feel. :-) StuRat (talk) 22:23, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Fair and square. :P -- Obsidi♠n Soul 22:08, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

There are other meanings of "fair", though, and if I heard someone described as a "fair warrior", I'd probably take that to mean he isn't very good at being a warrior. Not an excellent warrior, nor a good one, but only fair. Pais (talk) 06:02, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

“ Beauty itself is but the sensible image of the Infinite. ” — Francis Bacon

Schyler (exquirere bonum ipsum) 20:48, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

The ultimate question is obviously subjective... but don't kid yourself... beauty has a strong evolutionary and biological basis. Beauty generally correlates well with health, and so if you're planning on mating with or eating something, that tends to be important. It's not surprising too that, somewhat superficial cultural differences aside, pull people from any corner of the globe and they'll consistently tell you who's more "beautiful" when comparing.

That said, women's beauty tends to be more purely physical while male attributes of attractiveness aren't captured in a picture as well. These are of course all coarse generalizations, but there's an evolutionary basis for it. Undoubtedly culture can warp this, and there are extremes that can catch on (think of various extreme body mutilation), but the majority of attraction to individuals seems to be innate. Shadowjams (talk) 07:17, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Socrates: true or false quote

"I am not an Athenian or a Greek, but a citizen of the world." Socrates, from Plutarch, Of Banishment. 

Are the quote and source cited above true or not? Plutarch doesn't seem to have a work called 'Of Banishment.' And his work Parallel Lives doesn't include Socrates in it. 88.9.108.128 (talk) 21:38, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

One of the essays in Plutarch's Moralia is De exilio. You can see a translation of the relevant passage (where Socrates' statement is recorded in indirect, rather than direct, discourse) here. Deor (talk) 21:47, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

That was fast. Thanx. 88.9.108.128 (talk) 21:55, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Just to add, the corresponding Greek is in the penultimate line of the text here. Deor (talk) 21:56, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

August 30

Inflation: people on debt vs. people debt-free

If a central bank decides to increase the inflation (increasing the money supply), would that mean that people on debt are getting their debt partially paid by people who have savings? Quest09 (talk) 00:13, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Increasing the money supply does not always cause inflation. The obvious example is when it alleviates the deflationary spirals of recessions. It depends on where the increased money is spent, and in particular the extent to which it results in economic growth and/or additional savings among other outcomes. Please see [10] for more information. 99.36.74.131 (talk) 00:26, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

But yes, to the extent to which inflation happens, people who owe money get to pay it back with currency that is worth less than the money they borrowed was. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.120.243.32 (talk) 04:30, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Back to the question at hand: Yes, all else being equal, inflation makes it easier to repay debt (money borrowed yesterday had more value, and will be repaid back tomorrow with money of less value); and reduces the earnings from interest on savings in real terms. The interest rate may actually go up, but once inflation is subtracted -- i.e., "real" or "inflation-adjusted" terms -- the purchasing power of the savings account declines, or rises more slowly. DOR (HK) (talk) 05:58, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Public doman paintings of plum blossom trees

My friend is thinking about releasing her own line of alcohol based on plum wine. I'm trying to find examples of public domain images of old Chinese or Japanese paintings of Plum blossom trees that could be used in the logo. The wiki article on the tree has a section with three such paintings that are old enough to be in the public domain. Does anyone know where I can find more paintings of this type? --Ghostexorcist (talk) 00:56, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I found [11] with an image search on [plum blossom parchment] but you might try 'calligraphy' or 'dynasty' in place of parchment. 99.36.74.131 (talk) 01:04, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Numerous paintings in Wikimedia Commons, examples below. Just search for 'Plum painting'.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 10:11, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Is China the only country in the world which keeps the exact number of their executions a state secret?

I asked this question twice a long time ago. The second time I asked it, it was mentioned by Lomn that according to a quick survey of this article, the People's Republic of China is the only country in the world to keep the exact number of their executions a state secret but since then, I have been wondering if there were any other countries which have this practice. The ones that were in my mind were Iran, Vietnam, Myanmar and North Korea and other communist countries or dictatorships. Are there other countries which keep the exact number of their executions a secret, or is it really only China? And please do not talk about secret executions, they don't count. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:14, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

If an execution is a secret, how can it NOT be a secret execution? This tautology is confusing to me... --Jayron32 02:54, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Yep, so they gotta count. For all you know, the US could execute thousands of people secretly, and then it would be a state that keeps the exact number secret. You can't really know if it's a state secret, because if they do keep the number a secret, none of us will know, because it's a secret. ^^ It wouldn't be one of those fake secrets like Israel's nukes or that big tower in Central Tel Aviv that you're not supposed to talk about. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 03:04, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

No, you got it all wrong. I already mentioned that I am not talking about secret executions. I was just simply asking if there were any other countries, aside from China, are known to conduct executions, but keep the exact number of the executions a state secret, as in "we execute people, but we won't tell you how many." Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 03:10, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

The answer would be "some indeteriminate number between 1 and n, where n is the number of countries in the world". Any country could be executing people that we don't know about, and then by definition, they wouldn't be telling us correctly how many people they are executing. --Jayron32 03:17, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

You know about each execution, so you can count them, thus the number cannot be a secret. The ones you don't know about, you cannot count.Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 03:32, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

That's also another angle; if China publicly acknowledges every single execution they commit, then the number of executions is also public knowledge, and not a secret. If the have executions they do not admit to, those are by definition secret executions, and they are likely not unique in that regard... --Jayron32 03:34, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

This was actually pointed out last time the question came up Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2010 December 16#What countries keep the exact number of their executions a state secret and why?. I think it adds an interesting perspective, particularly since what China's stance actually is remains somewhat unclear to me. Sure it's widely claimed in RS that the number if a state secret. But where and how did this come from? Does China say the number of a state secret every time it's asked? Did one random representative say it once and most representatives just refuse to comment? How high are the people who say it's a state secret anyway? For a country like China where transperency and openess isn't seen as important then in a lot of the democratic (particularly Western) world, it's probably the common for low level officials to say things are a state secret when inquisitive Western journalists let alone human rights groups ask about stuff the officials know are more controversial there (and to some extent, the default is to keep things secret anyway so it may be a secret if no one has authorised the complation and release of such figures). Nil Einne (talk) 16:05, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

So to answer the topic, No, China is most likely not the only one. Can't give you a definite answer, but it is safe to assume that China is not the only one and that many nations probably keep their real numbers of executions a secret. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 03:53, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

It's been alleged that as the rebel forces approached Tripoli, Gaddafi executed a lot of prisoners. Nobody seems to know how many. Does that count as a secret? HiLo48 (talk) 08:41, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

If they were secret executions, then no. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:11, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

It sounds like the question is about nations which admit that they are conducting secret executions. Like Naruto said, "we execute people, but we won't tell you how many." I don't know if China is the only one. Staecker (talk) 12:12, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

God, what pedants some of you are! The OP wants to know if there are countries where the official number of executions is considered a state secret. That's not the same thing at all as what you are going around and around about up there. It's not a question of whether countries lie about their total executions; it's which ones have actual policies of secrecy regarding that number. And Jayron's comment that the answer is between 1 and the total number of countries in the world is the most useless "answer" I've seen in a long time. If you don't know, don't answer! --Mr.98 (talk) 12:40, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

This article, reliability unknown, states that it the total number of executions in Vietnam is also a state secret. This one adds Belarus and Mongolia to the list. --Mr.98 (talk) 17:30, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

In the earlier discussion it was suggested Belarus has not published a list since 2006 but it's not clear that it's considered a state secret (although as I noted above, I don't think we really know what China's stance is). Nil Einne (talk) 16:05, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Anglican saints

How does a person come to be recognized as a saint in Anglican churches? Thomas Becket lived back in the days when the Church of England was still in full communion with the church of Rome, and is considered a saint by both the Catholic and Anglican churches, but what about people who died in the last four-and-a-half centuries or so? Michael Hardy (talk) 03:56, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Does the article Saints in Anglicanism help? --Jayron32 03:59, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

To clarify the article in relation to the question: there have been no saints created since the break with Rome in 1534. However, all the Anglican churches accept the saints that were canonized beforehand and also "martyrs and heroes" of the Christian church since then. Each Province of the Anglican Communion has its own calender of days when these people are specially remembered. The calender for the Church of England can be seen here. It does include some who have who have been canonized by Rome in recent years, such as John Fisher and Joan of Arc; although they're not actually regarded as saints, but as Christians who set an example for the rest of us. Alansplodge (talk) 12:34, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

On reflection, I should qualify that last remark. On the Anglo-catholic wing of the Anglican Communion, there are many who would hold all Roman Catholic canonizations to be valid, while not wishing to commemorate the leading figures of the protestant movement like John Calvin and Thomas Cranmer. On the opposite end of the spectrum, the evangelical camp don't attach a great deal of importance to the idea of sainthood (Biblical ones excepted) and wouldn't endorse those who worked against the reformation like Thomas More or Francis Xavier. Those of us who occupy the centre ground, in true Anglican tradition, attempt to find the good points in everybody. Alansplodge (talk) 16:42, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

The Church of England was not "in full communion with" the church of Rome in Becket's day, OP. They were one and the same thing, inseparable from each other. The Church of England had its first independent existence in 1534, under Henry VIII, 364 years after Becket's death. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 19:05, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

It did turn out to be separable in the end ;-) Alansplodge (talk) 23:43, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, the article titled Saints in Anglicanism has a section on "modern" Anglican saints that says "The following have been identified as heroes of the Christian Church in the Anglican Communion:" and there follows a long list. So the question is WHO "identified" them as "heroes of the Christian Church"? The Archbishop of Canterbury? Popular convention? Some meeting of bishops? Michael Hardy (talk) 02:04, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

"The addition of a new name should normally result from a wide-spread desire expressed in the region concerned over a reasonable period of time." In the case of the Church of England, I expect any new name would be approved by the General Synod, which is an annual "parliament" made up of representatives of the bishops, clergy and laity. I'll try to find a reference for you. Alansplodge (talk) 12:56, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

America and George III's insanity

What were Americans' reaction to George III's later reign and insanity especially those that had fought for the revolutionary war? --Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 06:15, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

It's not clear to me that ordinary Americans had reliable news about George III around the War of 1812 period, because he would have been vilified in the press from the Revolutionary War through to his death. 76.254.20.205 (talk) 07:16, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Newspapers had very small circulations during the lifetime of George III, and most Americans were small farmers not much concerned about foreign affairs, so I doubt that most of them would have cared much about the insanity of George III, if they were even aware of it. To the extent that Americans were aware of his illness, I would expect a degree of Schadenfreude. However, to confirm this, one would have to do research. Unfortunately, none of the newspapers from that era have archives offering free access. Marco polo (talk) 13:43, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Not so sure that is accurate marco... the US in the Federalist era had a very high literacy rate, and a huge number of newspapers (far more than we have today). Blueboar (talk) 18:57, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't doubt that most adults were literate nor that there were a large number of newspapers. However, most newspapers before the advent of the penny press in the 1830s, most newspapers had very small circulations. The reason was that issues typically cost in the neighborhood of 6 cents each at a time when a typical worker earned less than a dollar a day. If a typical worker today earns $150 a day (my very rough guess), a comparable price today would be $9. As a result, newspapers in the early 19th century had a small, elite, urban audience. Also, given the great expense and time required for travel and the relative unimportance of international trade, few ordinary Americans would have cared much about events in Europe, even if they had easy access to information about those events. (Frankly, I don't think most ordinary Americans today care much about events in Europe.) The only real exception would have been during the War of 1812, due to the British threat to friends and loved ones in the US armed forces. That's when King George's status might have entered the popular discourse as a way of disparaging the enemy. Marco polo (talk) 19:50, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure that there were many backwoods farmers who didn't care, but the United States had very broadly-diffused literacy by the standards of ca. 1800, and each individual newspaper issue was likely to have many readers, and many people had an interest in major European news, which could have a significant impact on U.S. commercial/mercantile prosperity. During a period when national politics was virulently polarized between allegedly "pro-British" Federalists and allegedly "pro-French" Democratic-Republicans, and foreign policy had a major impact on domestic politics (see XYZ Affair, Alien and Sedition Acts etc.) and the U.S. fought three naval wars (Quasi-War, War of 1812, and Tripoli), interest in foreign news was greater than you would seem to allow for... AnonMoos (talk)

Indeed, even the "backwoods farmers" were interested in foreign news that impacted them. Foreign trade was not unimportant, as claimed above, but was in fact vital to American farmers. Farmers followed news of things like Pinckney's Treaty and the Jay Treaty with great interest because the issues directly affected them. The early American republic was a relatively weak country surrounded by lands claimed by European powers; Americans of that era did not have the luxury of ignoring Europe the way that later generations would. Whether they learned about or cared about George III's medical problems, I don't know. —Kevin Myers 02:17, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I searched the archives of Google News for anything from 1776 through 1820 related to King George and illness, madness, insanity, indisposition, or retirement, and only found that in the news of his death in 1820, a US paper reprinted from the London Gazette mention of his "retirement" due to "indisposition" in 1811. It is likely that the indexing is far from complete. I recall that years ago in the pre-internet days college libraries had microfilms of major US papers of the colonial period and early 19th century, so it is a bit perplexing not to find some discussion of the king's faults. Would papers have used some other title for him? The incompleteness of the Google indexing is shown by my finding only 3 mentions of "George Washington" in that same period. Edison (talk) 20:56, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

price increases

Is there a web site where you can enter the bar code and date and add the price you paid to the database and then see a price map like the one at gasbuddy.com for gasoline? --DeeperQA (talk) 06:38, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I doubt it since you can get the same item which would presumably have the same barcode at different stores for very different prices, even in the same town. Plus the database would be massive since there are tens of thousands of products with a barcode compared to just 3 or 4 kinds of vehicle fuel. Googlemeister (talk) 13:01, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Google (no offense or pundit) seems to have such a database of its own being able to look up prices of (most) any item you scan at other stores. However, it is accurate price increase that I am interested in tracking. Adding the date of the price allows this to be done and the database could not possibly be larger than this one. --DeeperQA (talk) 16:17, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Where can I find information on bride-bedding relevent to 16th century Scotland?

I am looking specifically for the formalities concerning the bedding of a royalItalic text bride. They vary from country to country and from anything to the display of blood-stained sheets from a window to prove virginity to the populace to the privacy granted to British royal brides today. Any information, or pointers to specific reference articles or books, would be very much appreciated. Thank you. reshistReshist (talk) 07:25, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I was going to suggest contacting the historian Alison Weir, but her website says she is too busy to respond to such queries. However, she does work with a number of other women historians, whose contact details are also listed on this page under The History Girls. --TammyMoet (talk) 13:58, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Your best bet might be to pick out individuals with decent biographies from that period and work through them to find a reference to the ceremony, if any - it's more likely than a generic work discussing it. So who have we got?

• James IV of Scotland married Margaret Tudor in 1504
• James V of Scotland married Madeleine of Valois in 1537 (in France) and then Mary of Guise (by proxy, & in France?)
• Mary, Queen of Scots married Francis II of France in 1558 (in France); then Henry Stuart, Lord Darnley in 1565; then James Hepburn, 4th Earl of Bothwell in 1567 (a Protestant ceremony)
• James VI of Scotland married Anne of Denmark in 1589 (in Norway).

The best bet to research there would be James IV's wedding in 1504; James V's marriages were both likely to be done in whatever the French tradition was, ditto Mary's first, and Mary's second marriages were quite odd things and might not have been representative.

To my surprise, this seems to be it - defining "royal" as the direct legitimate children of monarchs, there don't seem to have been any others who survived to adulthood and were married during the century. (James V had at least one illegitimate daughter, Jean Stewart, who married the Earl of Argyll, but I doubt she was formally treated as royalty...) Going further back, neither of James III's brothers married, prior to that, James II of Scotland had several children; if you can find a description of the wedding of Mary Stewart, Countess of Arran it may be what you're looking for. Shimgray | talk | 19:35, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Personalized self help books

The Wikipedia article says they are personalized self helf books. Do anyone knao a publisher who is publishing those books, or a single book titel? I will be thankful for any kind of information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BoBo 2000 (talk • contribs) 09:02, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Not quite sure what you mean. Maybe something like this:

You, JOE SMITH, who live on 123 MAIN STREET,
with your pet CAT named FLUFFY, can overcome
your addiction to ALCOHOL and resume your 
hobby of STAMP COLLECTING, if you do the
following...

StuRat (talk) 09:13, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Yea that is exactly what I'm thinking about. Do you know any book like this. I'm only looking for self help books. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BoBo 2000 (talk • contribs) 10:01, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

The claim in our article is unsourced. I suspect it's true since it's likely someone has done it but it doesn't seem to be common. It seems easier to find personalised romance novels [12] [13] (in case you're wondering the first I found in an ad while searching for personalised self help books) and hyponosis tapes [14] [15]. I do find discussion of personalised self help programs for addicts which I guess includes personalised reading material [16] [17] [18] [19] but probably not in the form of books. Nil Einne (talk) 12:51, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

There used to be a range of yellow jacketed book titles " Teach yourself (whatever)...." 85.211.230.86 (talk) 15:31, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd think they could customize and deliver such books far more cheaply online, so that might be the place to look, or do you require a physical book ? StuRat (talk) 18:25, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

effeminacy

I've noticed that a lot of married men are effeminate but not homosexual but that many who are effeminate and single are labelled homosexual while they might be effeminate are not homo sexual. So which is it being effeminate or being unmarried or the combination of both that makes people label someone as being homosexual when they are really not? --96.252.216.15 (talk) 16:27, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Both. Despite the fact that some married men do, in fact, come out as gay later on, having a serious relationship with a member of the opposite sex (as marriage implies) makes it a lot less likely they are homosexual, since this is not something most gay men would do. There are plenty of people who are effeminate but not gay, it's just that since you're more unlikely to know if someone is homosexual than if they are married, the conclusion is more easily drawn in the first case. (i.e. One has little evidence to the contrary, thus the conclusion is more easily drawn, even if wrong.) Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 16:43, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

How are we defining effeminacy in men? Bus stop (talk) 16:46, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I am as described in the effeminacy article; it has a section relevant to this article. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 16:55, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Can women also be effeminate?  Card Zero  (talk) 17:56, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I understand the lesbian community refers to butch women (who look more masculine) and femme women (who look more feminine), so I guess they can. --TammyMoet (talk) 18:20, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and most are, with a few being masculine. Note, however, that being masculine doesn't necessarily mean they are homosexual, and being feminine doesn't necessarily mean they are straight (for example, Portia de Rossi is both feminine and gay, a so-called lipstick lesbian). The reverse also applies to men. StuRat (talk) 18:21, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

The article might need updating. ("Effeminacy describes traits in a human male ... Effusive emotional expressions among other males ... ") You seem to have switched topics to femininity, though, Stu.  Card Zero  (talk) 18:36, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

It could use some scientific input, like how the relative levels of various hormones, such as testosterone and estrogen, change physical features to be either more masculine or feminine. It could also be extended to non-human animals, such as the freemartin. StuRat (talk) 18:47, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Note that an effeminate, straight man is sometimes called a metrosexual. StuRat (talk) 18:55, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Prejudice, basically

ALR (talk) 19:19, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Think of them as collateral damage of stereotyping and homophobia. Most of the kids I know who were bullied in school for being 'gay', weren't. A lot of them are now married with kids. I, on the other hand, who is gay (though not out then), wasn't teased because I wasn't effeminate and they concluded I couldn't possibly be gay. LOL Go figure.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 19:42, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Reminds me of this comic about gay stereotypes. Pais (talk) 21:05, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

roflz!-- Obsidi♠n Soul 21:14, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Funny. :) Jack Benny, who was straight as can be, was sometimes teased because of his supposedly "effeminate" mannerisms. On Carson once, he pooh-poohed the notion by looking around at the men in the studio crew and saying, "Have I ever 'bothered' any of you fellows?" In contrast, there's Rock Hudson, who seemed totally straight. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:24, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

"Seemed totally straight" - that sort of says there's the notion that if you act in certain ways, you're assumed to be straight; and therefore if you act differently, you're assumed to be gay. Such assumptions are very often very wide of the mark. Unfortunately, this paradigm also has a foothold in the male gay community. Many men who seek other male sexual partners specify they're only interested in "straight-acting" males. What a laugh. Just exactly how do straight males act? If what they mean is "not effeminate" or "not camp", and it is, I just wish they'd say so. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 10:13, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

John Barrowman was allegedly turned down for the role of 'Will' in Will and Grace because he "wasn't gay enough". Quite how you can get more gay than actually being gay I don't know. They hired a straight actor instead, who apparently acted more gay. People are idiots: I don't know how much more we can say there is to this. 86.163.211.187 (talk) 13:01, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

The Washington Naval Conference

• Paris Peace Conference, 1919
• Washington Naval Conference
• Woodrow Wilson (D, March 4, 1913 – March 4, 1921)
• Warren G. Harding (R, March 4, 1921 – August 2, 1923)

Woodrow Wilson was too sick to do anything from Sept. 25, 1919 to the end of his second term. He probably would not agree with Harding if he was in good shape.

Did Woodrow Wilson ever said anything about the Washington Naval Conference? Did he know it?

Did any country attending the conference used Wilson's idealist ideas to against the U.S. in the conference?

Generally, the first thing you want from your adversary is to get away from his place. If he choose to fight you in a bar, you try to go outside. If he sues you here, you ask your lawyer to move the case to another courtroom. You don't want your enemy to choose your battlefield.

Did any country propose that instead of letting the U.S. held the party in their own capital city, they'd rather brought the U.S. to the League of Nations whether or not the U.S. was a member of it? -- Toytoy (talk) 17:14, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

The purpose of the conference was not to establish world peace, it was to prevent a re-run of the British-German naval arms race of the decade of the 1900s, but this time in the Pacific. It was largely successful for a decade or so. AnonMoos (talk) 19:04, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Huge numbers of warships, including submarines, which were built in WW1, even near the end of the war, were scrapped as a result of the conference. Not all the surviving ships were obsolete and useless even by WW2. As for the League of Nations, the US did not join it because of strong opposition from US politicians, so it is doubtful the US would have participated in any disarmament conference under LON sponsorship. If all the other countries wanted to scrap their subs, destroyers, cruisers and battleships while the US kept theirs, it would have been fine with the US, but the proposal would have been doubtful of acceptance by anyone else. Edison (talk) 20:10, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Hindi ज्ञ jñ

I used to know this, but now that I've forgotten I can't find it anywhere. How do you pronounce ज्ञ jñ in Hindustani? (specifically). — kwami (talk) 21:24, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

A pronunciation guide gives:

ज्ञ Coupled sound of ‘j’ and ‘n’= ‘jn’

Cuddlyable3 (talk) 01:17, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I think that site is incorrect. Besides not being what I remember, they say that क्ष is a Coupled sound of ‘k’, ‘s’, ‘h’, which is absolute hogwash. Jñ is an unstable sequence that developed into different things in different Indic languages. In Gujarati, for example, I think it's gñ. — kwami (talk) 03:06, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

May get more specific answers on Language Desk... AnonMoos (talk) 13:47, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Duh, okay. :-| — kwami (talk) 18:25, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

(I meant the 'duh' for me)

August 31

Quick onset of irreligiosity in Quebec

In Montreal, several years ago, my family visited a major cathedral. I can't recall which one it was, but I remember climbing a lot of steps to get to it. Our guide, a layman but obviously a fanatic, claimed that Quebec had experienced the most sudden onset of "secularisation" in the history of the hemisphere. He claimed that during the fifties, Quebec was "99% devout Catholic", but that the great majority had effectively abandoned the church by the early seventies. He stressed that the transformation was much more abrupt than in France, and that Quebec is today much less religious than France. I was inclined to doubt his commentary, but I've since seen a lot of evidence that France is more reactionary and clerical than Quebec. For instance, gay rights are far less advanced in France. So maybe the tour guide wasn't as deluded as I assumed. But why would this be the case? How did rustic provincials become more secular than metropolitan sophisticates? LANTZY^TALK 00:08, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Secularization of France dates to at least the French Revolution, many Quebecois missed this as many had settled in North America prior to the Revolution. I have a book which is buried in a box in my crawlspace whose name and author I forget, but which was part of a French History class I took in college which laid out the causes and long-term historical effects of the secularization of (metropolitan) French society due to the French Revolution... --Jayron32 01:35, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

The "secularizaiton" of Quebec was part of the Quiet Revolution, although the Wikipedia article seems to focus on the political side of it rather than the social side. I'm not an expert on the subject, but it seems that in the 1960s, French Quebec went from a largely insular, conservative, Church-dominated, rural society content to leave business in the hands of the Montreal Anglos to a secular, leftist, nationalist society that sought economic power for itself. I'm not quite sure how this happened. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:54, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

The real story seems to be how Quebec was held back, relative to Canada, the US, and Europe, until then. The Church seemed to maintain it's position of authority up until 1960, which resulted in the same corruption, economic stagnation, and low level of education that occurred in Europe back when the Church ruled supreme. Rapid reform then occurred, and it's not surprising that many people resented the Church and left it. StuRat (talk) 04:51, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

By the way, what you visited was probably Saint Joseph's Oratory, not a cathedral. Deor (talk) 11:13, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I only wish to point out that there isn't a clear relationship between the most popular religion of a given country and gay marriage. Gay marriage is legal in some countries which supposedly are more religious than others (e.g.: Spain, Portugal VS France, Germany). Gay marriage is even forbidden in several countries whose official propaganda decries the evils of religion (e.g.: China). So your (and you guide's) reasoning that France is more religious (and/or reactionary and clerical) than Canada and that that shows itself in the issue of gay marriage is mistaken. Flamarande (talk) 12:16, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

That's true, but I did write "gay rights", not "same-sex marriage". France is way behind Quebec with respect to gay rights in general. France even seems to lag behind most other western European states in this regard. It's strange that so many right-leaning Americans conceive of France as the platonic ideal of permissive liberality, when in reality its political establishment (even on the left) is often quite committed to sexual traditionalism, the conventional family unit, etc. Forget Quebec. Maybe the question I ought to be asking is, "Why is France itself not more socially/sexually progressive?" LANTZY^TALK 18:31, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Lantzy, I don't know what you mean by referring to your guide as a fanatic. An enthusiastic secularist? A committed Catholic? It is true that Quebec society changed greatly over a very short period of time (the Quiet Revolution, as referred to above) and enormously over a relatively short period (say, WWII to the 1976 election of the nationalist Parti Quebecois). Women didn't get the vote in provincial elections until 1940, for example (Timeline of women's suffrage). The province had been known for its high birth rate, long after other areas had entered what Quebec historian Claude Bélanger calls a "modern demographic regime". Here is the concluding paragraph of his essay entitled "Birth Rate":

I suppose I used the word "fanatic" in its original sense of religious mania (L. fānum, temple). I should have qualified it. Don't get the wrong idea. He was a perfectly nice guy, more Ned Flanders than Rick Santorum, but he was creepily adamant about the literal reality of miracles and the efficacy of faith healing. I vividly remember him pointing to a huge collection of wooden crutches as "all the proof you need" that pilgrims to this place (Saint Joseph's Oratory, as Dior says) had been cured of their lameness. Crutches were mounted on the wall like snowshoes. Later he climbed a stone staircase on his knees. We were an ostensibly Catholic tour group, so I guess he was letting his hair down. If we'd been Japanese or Episcopalian, he would have probably confined himself to the architecture. LANTZY^TALK 18:15, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

The very sharp decline in the birth rate witnessed in Quebec in the 1960’s, throughout the Quiet Revolution, was thus a fast catching up to the behaviour that others had achieved more progressively previously. As traditional behaviour was abandoned throughout the Quiet Revolution in Quebec, the demographic comportment of Quebecers altered in a very rapid way. Between 1959 and 1971, Quebec moved from the position of having the highest birth rate in Canada to that of the lowest. This transformation was to have all kinds of effects on the status of women in Quebec, on the family, on education and the economic status of the population, on employment, on how Quebecers viewed their collective security given their diminishing proportion in Canada. It thus affected the language issue within Quebec and the rise of separatism. (© 1999 Claude Bélanger, Marianopolis College)

(My emphasis.) Obviously, this is linked (chicken and egg) to the decline in the power of the Catholic Church, which used to run the education and health systems, among other things. It is true that other social and political changes have occurred more abruptly in Quebec than in other parts of the superficially similar developed world. A Canadian political economist told me that, for instance, electoral swings in Quebec presaged those in the rest of the country, in a "canary in a coal mine" way. BrainyBabe (talk) 14:20, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

concept of double punishment for one and same cause of action

I love my India (Redacted), Advocate. As per Indian traditions, death sentence is beyond law limitations, but even then we have introduced death sentence in law of today. But when an accused is in jail for twenty years waiting final hanging, he has completed life imprisonment and hanging of such an accused means he is condemned to double punishment for one and the same cause of action and therefore, such people should be given freedom. (Redacted) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.94.251.55 (talk) 03:00, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a question? I'm afraid we can't give legal advice.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 03:43, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

This isn't really a question for legal advice, in my opinion. It's not "this is my situation what should I do?" it's "I've noticed an inconsistency in law and I wonder how it came to be." The sentence is not to be hanged alone, and the imprisonment for 20 years is not a fixed term for legal purposes. In reality the sentence is something akin to the old British wording "to be taken from this court to the prison at [insert prison name] there to be held until he is conveyed to the place of execution where he is to be hung by the neck until dead." The sentence provides for the inmate being held in prison prior to their execution. HominidMachinae (talk) 04:26, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Also, how does 20 years constitute a "life sentence"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:09, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Not sure about India Bugs, but in England, the judge decides the "minimum term" before a prisoner is eligible for parole; in the case of a single murder, this is usually 15 years. Alansplodge (talk) 12:10, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Also, if the guy is hanged, then his life is over, so in effect you have a life sentence for any amount of incarceration before the execution. Googlemeister (talk) 13:00, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Certainly. The thing is, the OP stated that 20 years equates to a "life sentence". I don't see how or why. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:13, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

He means that if you murder someone and are sentanced to imprisonment for life, you can expect to be paroled after a minimum 14 years (if you play your cards right). Effectively that's the end of your life sentence, unless you breach the conditions of your parole. If however, a murderer serves 20 years (perhaps more than another man's life sentence) and then get hung, it seems to the OP that he is being punished twice. Is there a legal principle behind this? I don't know. Alansplodge (talk) 18:12, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

As I said above the legal principle involved is basically that you're not sentenced just to be hanged, you're sentenced to be confined and then hanged. Also, the period of incarceration is usually the result of mandatory automatic appeals and delays in the legal process, in that regard they're in the best interest of the convicted to suffer the period of incarceration because it allows them the chance to appeal. If they took you right from the court to execution there's no do-overs. HominidMachinae (talk) 21:10, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

That seems (to me anyway) to answer the question. Alansplodge (talk) 23:30, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I think the OP makes a point: there is an injustice to being executed after 20 years incarceration. Allow me pose this question—would there be an injustice if a person was executed after 100 years incarceration? We would probably say yes. If so—what type of distinction are we making between the two amounts of incarceration? Bus stop (talk) 23:48, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

The appeals allow for time to look for legal glitches (or even innocence). In the old days, they used to take them out after like a week and string them up. I wonder if the OP would prefer that approach. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:15, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Surely the person who is immediately executed is getting a harsher punishment than the person who gets to live for 20 years first, regardless of the fact that those 20 years are spent in prison. 188.117.30.209 (talk) 16:38, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Not in all cases. There are probably cases of suicides committed in prison that are a consequence of the incarceration itself. Bus stop (talk) 17:03, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I fail to see how suicide could be considered a punishment. Googlemeister (talk) 18:09, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I think you're missing the point. BS is suggesting prison is so bad for some people they choose to commit suicide rather then either spend their rest of their lives or in some cases even likely only part of the rest of their lives in prison. This suggests that for some people, getting executed quickly would be preferable to being sentenced to spend 20 years in prison and to be executed after that. Nil Einne (talk) 17:19, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

United States Veto and Iraqi Economic Sanctions

Did the United States ever actually veto a plan to remove the economic sanctions against Iraq or did it just threaten to, so no such plan was ever introduced? --CGPGrey (talk) 10:18, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

You mean in the US or the UN (such as UN Security Council)?Smallman12q (talk) 17:32, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

A Level results: ranking students

Ideally, I'd like some sort of graph or something where one could put in the grades and it would output how many people beat that/did worse – for example, if I entered AAA, then it might be 95% or something. (I don't know what the answers might be, hence the question!) I suppose this would be done via UCAS points (as a way of saying if CC or AF was better, for example), so that would be fine as well. Any recent year would be fine. Thanks, Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 10:23, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

How's this: [20]? Unless I've misunderstood "tariff" means point score. 2.25.97.119 (talk) 11:26, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Looks good, thanks! Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 12:25, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Do you need planning permission to park a caravan on UK green belt land?

I was just reading the news about the Dale Farm travellers site evictions: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14715777 wherein it says "The travellers own the site at Dale Farm, but half of its pitches - 51 - do not have planning permission and have been deemed illegal." I know that all construction, including the construction of fences, can be banned on green belt land, but surely you're allowed to place a temporary structure, like a caravan? How about a tent, or a car? The article does say "pitches", though, so maybe that refers to some un-nomadic permanent structures like fences? I've read green belt and Dale Farm, but I still don't get it, except for where the latter article says vaguely that the travellers have "developed" the green belt part of the site.  Card Zero  (talk) 12:12, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, they've built a lot of permanent structures like walls and stuff. Some of them may even have built houses. --Viennese Waltz 12:23, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I just found http://www.advocacynet.org/resource/1300 which seems to say the council is aiming to remove "hard standing and fencing". I wonder whether most of the 50 or so travellers have caravans, in which they will leave when evicted and return after the surfaces and fences are broken up?  Card Zero  (talk) 12:35, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

In certain areas at least, you need permission to keep your caravan on your own drive. (Might be conservation areas, I'm not sure.) The clear intention was at Dale Farm that this was always going to be permanent. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 12:37, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Good lord. I guess there must be a legal definition of "caravan" somewhere, then. How petty.  Card Zero  (talk) 12:41, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Here. I don't think it's petty &ndash it's when the caravan is being used as a house, and houses require permission for all sorts of reasons. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 12:49, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, the problem is that the Dale Farm travellers are ignoring planning laws which clearly apply to them. That may sound petty. It is petty. But settled people have to abide by planning laws – and have action taken against them when they don't – so there's not much of an argument for turning a blind eye when travellers do it. --Viennese Waltz 12:51, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

This photo shows the extent of the settlement that's supposed to be an agricultural field. Britain is a crowded little island; we need legal controls on who can build what and where, and everybody needs to play by the rules. "The fundamental aim of green belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open, and consequently the most important attribute of green belts is their openness." Some FAQs about Dale Farm here - from Basildon Council's point-of-view anyway. Alansplodge (talk) 17:37, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

A "caravan" sounds like a procession of people on camels through the desert, but I guess it refers to what our side of the pond calls a trailer. In my US town there is no way I would be allowed to park a trailer, even a small travel trailer, in the street or in my yard, for very long. (I ran across an odd factoid: "Lee" is a common traveller name, and Robert E. Lee named his horse used during the American Civil War -- wait for it -- "Traveller". Hmmm.) Edison (talk) 04:23, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Sucro, Spain

Where exactly is Sucro, Spain and why don't we have an article on this town?--Doug Coldwell ^talk 12:30, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

[21] on the Spanish Wikipedia is a redirect to the Júcar river. My Spanish is non-existent but from the introductory paragraph it sounds like Sucre was the Roman name for this river. Not a town, then. --Viennese Waltz 12:47, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

There was a place known in pre-Roman times as Sucro, mentioned by a couple of Latin writers. This place may be the present-day Alzira. Marco polo (talk) 15:09, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm reading information on Scipio Africanus for around 206 BC just after the capture of New Carthage. Which place above sounds more logical where he may have left a garrison of troops? Perhaps Alzira is on the Júcar river, therefore making them one and the same at the Mediterranean Sea??--Doug Coldwell ^talk 17:32, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

As our article on Alzira states, the town is located on the banks of the Júcar. It is not far (~20 km/12 miles/less than a day's march) from the coast, about 200 km (120 mi) north of Cartagena, and at what might be a strategic location commanding both a section of the coastal plain and a major route through the coastal mountains to the interior. Marco polo (talk) 18:42, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

This book says that it was on the coast at the mouth of the Jucar (then the Sucro). (Or at least I'm 95% sure - it's in somewhat old-fashioned Spanish--from 1839--so maybe someone else should confirm.) So based on that description I'd guess near present-day Cullera. The book says the town existed at the time of Tiberius but no longer existed at the time of Vespasian. Another (1837) book says authorities don't know which modern town precisely it corresponds to, raising Cullera and Sueca as possibilities. This 1833 book says it's Cullera. This 1807 book devotes an entire chapter to where exactly Sucro is located - from my skimming it looks like it's an open question. But basically near Cullera. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:09, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Apparently, there is some controversy over the location of Sucro. According to this book, it was located at present-day Alzira (Alcira). This old book makes the same claim. It isn't clear that all scholars agree on the location of the pre-Roman town. Marco polo (talk) 19:35, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

That all would make sense since Barcelona, just north of these cities on the same coast, sources say is a city that could have been named after the Carthaginian general Hamilcar Barca, who was supposed to have founded the city in the 3rd century BC (200s BC - the same time period I am reading on for Scipio Africanus). This stronghold of "Sucro" would then act as a buffer between "New Barca" (Barcelona) and New Carthage, which in 206 BC the Romans controlled because of Scipio.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 19:34, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Using Google Translate in Chapter 3 of the 1807 book it says:
(1) 'Charter of Cullera = May 16, 1892. = Mr. Director of the corespondent of Yalencia "Yesterday was kind enough = D. Piles Ibars Andres, historian of the town, moving my hands to an index of documents accumulated to date refer to Cullera, this is why I begged the man who made public his gratitude to the illustrious history of Don Juan Bautista Swedish Gra. But this should not be precluded, in the respect we deserve study, application and talent, set out the way we feel about not so great a height to reach the above efforts, sufficient to carry conviction. As proposed by Mr. Piles, that is, Cullera is the successor to Sucre, even to those less versed in matters of this nature, despite the profusion of arguments and gives plenty of quotes and quotations more or less stringent legal and accommodative that accumulates in the cited work, attributing his adoptive population succession of ancient Roman villa.

It appears to me that Cullera is the successor to Sucre; and in any case Sueca, Sucre, Cullera and Alzira are all very close to each other.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 20:49, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

celebration of Eid ul-Fitr 2011

Which countries celebrated Eid on August 30 and which on August 31 (today) ? --Kenatipo ^speak! 17:50, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

There is a rather comprehensive listing at the bottom of this page. First, a lot of people consider Eid ul-Fitr to be a three-day holiday, which would mean it does not end tonight regardless of when it started. Second, more countries began celebrating yesterday (although, yes, I understand Indonesia and South Asia's choice of today means more Muslims celebrated the holiday today). tariqabjotu 18:43, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Tariq; that's useful information. --Kenatipo ^speak! 21:20, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Addresses of Aérospatiale and BAC

What were the street/physical addresses of the head offices of Aérospatiale and British Aircraft Corporation? I want to know where their head offices were located. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:13, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

They were at 37 boulevard de Montmorency, Paris and 100 Pall Mall, London respectively.--Cam (talk) 01:05, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! I am sourcing and adding the info! WhisperToMe (talk) 02:25, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

September 1

The Libyan dinar

• http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14734420

The U.K. just shipped £950m's worth of Libyan dinar to Libya (I don't expect to see Col. Gaddafi's mugshot on it).

Who printed Libya's banknotes before? Did Libya hire a U.K. printer to print their money during Col. Gaddafi's regime?

I won't be surprised if Col. Gaddafi had his money printed in a foreign country. Many countries' banknotes and bonds are printed in the U.K. It's a big business. I also won't be surprised if the U.S. and its allies already have the capability to "print" many other countries' money. -- Toytoy (talk) 01:04, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

The story you cited says, itself in the first sentence, "The cash, printed in the UK, is the first tranche of £950m that will be handed to Libya's Central Bank." Presumably, the body or company responsible for printing the cash in the U.K. was not allowed to print and/or ship the currency to Libya because of the embargo. --Jayron32 01:20, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Is "tranche" really a commonly used word, outside Wikipedia? It sounds like a hillbilly talking about an excavation: ("Ah dug a big tranche out back.") What are more common synonyms? Edison (talk) 04:13, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Hey, it was the BBC's word, not mine. It just means "a portion", usually in the context of a series or sequence of portions which are intended to be doled out on a schedule. See wikt:tranche. --Jayron32 04:21, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

yes, at least in the professional world

ALR (talk) 08:03, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

The banknotes were printed by De La Rue in Hampshire (ref). DLR is the world's leading non-government printer of banknotes (and I believe postage stamps). The technical wherewithall to securely manufacture banknotes (to a sufficient standard) and to do the necessary secure handling of materials is beyond the banking systems of many smaller or poorer countries (any idiot can print banknotes, but then again any idiot can print banknotes that any idiot can print). -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 07:37, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

The same UK firm printed Libya's banknotes under the old regime - as the article notes, this is actually a shipment that was held in February when the uprising began. (The article doesn't go into detail, but I remember a couple of news stories from the time - the shipment was due to be flown out a day or two before the embargo came into force, but some enterprising civil servants managed to find enough paperwork to delay it for long enough...)

As Finlay notes, a substantial amount of banknote printing is outsourced to overseas commercial firms, and not merely by "small" countries - De La Rue, the firm in the original article, was involved in a major dispute over the last year with the Reserve Bank of India over banknote production. In terms of how widespread commercial vs. nationally-controlled banknote production is, Euro banknotes#Printing works has an interesting table showing the various firms producing euro notes, of which six are private-sector, including one (DLR again) who aren't even in the Eurozone. Shimgray | talk | 10:38, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

How would Libya or any of the other countries keep the printing company from producing a couple extra runs of notes on the side for themselves? Googlemeister (talk) 13:28, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

All in all I think it's obvious if you run a successful security printing company, it's in your interest to ensure you are really what you claim (and the only reason why anyone would use you is because they believe you are). If we take countries without the problems of recognition Libya currently has, this could easily lead to a massive lawsuit or legal settlement for breach of contract and other similar reasons which could (depending on the contract) be originated in the country the firm is located (most of them being located in countries with generally respected law systems) and where the judgement can likely be enforced by the court. And of course if the law suit or settlement isn't enough to bankrupt them, the loss of all their custom would be. There's also likely a risk of criminal charges. Nil Einne (talk) 15:36, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

In addition to this, there's also likely to be heavy audit mechanisms in place, both internally (the company making sure its employees aren't on the take) and externally (someone checking serial numbers, etc etc.) It's unlikely that the contracts are as simple as "we'd like fifty crates of notes by next January, here's the printing plates, see you then"; there'll be some form of provision for oversight of the manufacture and shipping process, though I suspect exactly what that is is confidential. Shimgray | talk | 16:07, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

It's a business built entirely on reputation. The ability of the company to make money (if you excuse the pun) hinges on the fact that entire nations can trust them. If they skimmed surplus banknotes for themselves, or otherwise participated in fraud or other such shenanigans, the risks of getting caught would end their business pretty much overnight. It would instantly and completely ruin them. They need to be scrupulously honest because they run on a business whose sole value comes from its scruples. If they can't be trusted to the highest degree, then no one is going to buy their product. --Jayron32 21:58, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Since their product is money, most people would be only too happy to buy it, at least until Libya could make another arrangement. Their product is 100% liquid. Googlemeister (talk) 13:40, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't really understand what you're saying. As several people have said, if De La Rue (or whoever) is caught blatantly skimming (if it's a smaller problem which the company takes action against it will still have a negative effect but perhaps they'll survive) stuff they produce, their business will basically collapse overnight. Most people who rely on them for printing will cancel any contracts and look for someone else to do their printing ASAP. They most likely won't accept anything which is been or has been produced but which they haven't officially accepted yet. DLR could try to sell what they produced to some third parties but other then the fact this would likely be illegal or at least something a court in their home country could put a stop, only unscrupulous people (or collectors) are likely to buy it. No one is going to want to be publicly associated with that (and they will also likely be at legal risk themselves), and it will also defeat the purpose since it will make it far easier for whichever country (or whatever) to know where the counterfeit or invalid notes have gone so it will know where to look out for them. I thought this was obvious at the time and Shimgray has also mentioned this but in case it is not, the unsanctioned money would be detectable via serial numbers (if they reused the serial numbers this will still be detected although knowing which one is the valid legal tender will be more difficult). And in case that part also isn't clear, any of the unsanctioned money will clearly not be legal tender. Worst case scenario from the POV of the country, they may need to make new notes and replace/cancel the old ones (making sure they don't accept the invalid ones). Also in the unlikely event there is really no legal action against the DLR people involved in their home country, I wouldn't put it past a number of the countries involved to assassinate those involved if the problem is severe enough. In other words, the only real risk is from a small group of people who think they can get away with it by being undetected (at least before they escape and hide with their ill-gotten gains), it's not something that's going to be beneficial to the company itself. And as has been said, for that same reason the company itself will have plenty of mechanisms to try and stop that. (And note that in that event there's only limited difference between asking how the company can manage it and how a government organisation can, the only things the government has to its advantage is a possible sense of patriotism/national pride, a clearer legal situation and framework and perhaps a greater ability to protect whistleblowers.) Nil Einne (talk) 16:55, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

What is a "lay theologian"?

Category:Lay theologians gives that title to a bunch of subjects of Wikipedia articles. I can think of two possible meanings:

• A theologian who is a "lay person" in the old sense of the word, i.e. not an ordained clergyman, or perhaps neither that nor a monk, nun, etc.; or
• A theologian who is a "lay person" in the more modern sense of the word, i.e. not having professional credentials in that field.

Is there some consensus on this? (For now we have no article titled lay theologian.) Michael Hardy (talk) 02:07, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

In religious contexts, "lay" usually means not ordained. Thus, "lay clergy" are people who preach or serve other roles traditionally held by ordained ministers, but are not themselves ordained. A person may be considered an expert on theological issues (say, having an advanced degree in the subject) but may not be an ordained minister. That would be my understanding of a "lay theologian". --Jayron32 03:28, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Must...resist...urge...to...make...priest sex abuse joke. StuRat (talk) 03:35, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I already laughed at the joke you didn't make. It was funny. --Jayron32 03:38, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Whereas I took great offense at the blasphemy you didn't commit, and the implied insult to a religion you didn't specify. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.179 (talk) 09:51, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Glad I was able to resist, then. Priests the world over can breathe a sigh of relief and return to tending to the needs of their rectories. StuRat (talk) 19:11, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Ably aided by Vergers and their virges, no doubt. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.179 (talk) 11:20, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Trademark leaders

Mobutu had a trademark which was his leopard skin hat. Is there any other leaders who had trademarks to be easily recognized for? regardless his voice, her hair or face or commitment? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.89.40.133 (talk) 03:34, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Assuming you mean trademark in a general sense, not a legal one, Hitler's toothbrush moustache, although common at the time, has since become closely linked with him. Abraham Lincoln's stovepipe hat is also almost uniquely associated with him, now. StuRat (talk) 03:37, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Lenin had his goatee. Franklin Roosevelt had his cigarette holder. Abraham Lincoln had two: the stovepipe hat and the chin curtain beard. Jawaharlal Nehru had his jacket. Bill Clinton had his cigar. well, maybe a bit of a joke on the last one --Jayron32 03:45, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

(EC) Abe Lincoln wore a tall stovepipe hat and a beard(did other US Presidents?), sufficient clues to tell the audience what character a child in a school play portrays. How about Neville Chamberlain and his umbrella? It inspired Umbrella Man (JFK assassination) who flourished an umbrella (coincidentally) at the 1963 Kennedy assassination, as well as a cartoon villain in a 1967 Spiderman cartoon, the "Sinister Prime Minister." How about Churchill and his cigar? Douglas MacArthur, leader of a fair number of "warfighters", had a strange looking corncob pipe as his trademark. Montgomery wore an odd beret which was rarely if ever worn by other WW2 British generals. Patton seems to be the only general who wore a signature pair of pearl-handled pistols in WW2. Edison (talk) 04:01, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

As for beards, with few exceptions, we started with an era where no US President had facial hair, then hit an era where all US Presidents had facial hair, then returned to the no facial hair rule. StuRat (talk) 04:06, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Edisons parenthetical question: Other U.S. presidents wore beards, but Lincoln was the only one who wore the "beard and no mustache" combination known as the chin curtain. See Ulysses S. Grant, Benjamin Harrison for some close-cropped beards and Rutherford B. Hayes for an impressively long flowy-type one. Other than Grant, however, Harrison and Hayes were too obscure to merit having a "trademark", and Grant's beard is probably not distinctive enough. --Jayron32 04:11, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

commons:Category:Yasser Arafat. I think you can spot it. PrimeHunter (talk) 04:08, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, he supposedly arranged his head scarf to look like Palestine, although in this pic [22] it seems to have annexed the Sinai peninsula. :-) StuRat (talk) 04:13, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Ooh. Another one: Fidel Castro and his olive drab fatigues, especially with the hat, like here and here. --Jayron32 04:18, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

And while we're on that one, who would Che Guevara have been without the black beret. --Jayron32 04:29, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Was Che an admirer of Field Marshall Montgomery? Edison (talk) 18:51, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

No hat ma, but Gandhi usually wore a dhoti. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:34, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Sir Robert Menzies was famous both in Australia and overseas for his eyebrows. He had a head of pure-white hair, under which were his notoriously jet-black bushy eyebrows. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 04:44, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

See, I think eyebrows, and I think of Leonid Brezhnev. But Menzies had some pretty impressive ones as well. --Jayron32 04:48, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Does Mikhail Gorbachev's prominent forehead birthmark count? Thinking back, 'Russian, commie, bald, has red thing on his head' would be the way that a lot of folks would describe the man... --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 06:08, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Leslie Nielsen revealed it as a trademark in The Naked Gun: From the Files of Police Squad!: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3oEA6zK_8u8 (at 2:10). The clip also shows some of the others mentioned here. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:00, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Hamid Karzai is usually photographed with his cap thing and his green cape thing. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 06:13, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Muammar Ghadafy and his medals.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:10, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Amongst British prime ministers; Neville Chamberlain's wing collar, Winston Churchill's bow tie and cigar and Harold Wilson's pipe and Aquascutum coat. Alansplodge (talk) 08:03, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Chamberlain was more famous for his umbrella, and Wilson's raincoat was Gannex (made by his friend and future, ahem, prison reformer Joe Kagan). Anthony Eden's Homburg hat was so famous it was named after him. How could you forget Margaret Thatcher's handbag? Sam Blacketer (talk) 08:28, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Also remember James Maxton's long hair, which inspired a memorable heckle when he was indicting the Government for the large numbers of unemployed on Clydeside: "Aye Jimmy, and every second one of them a barber". Sam Blacketer (talk) 17:28, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Charles de Gaulle's military attire, particularly the hat. That is to say he didn't always where them, but you could tell who it was easily if he did. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 09:04, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

If a movie director wanted the audience to identify a character instantly as DeGaulle, he would put the hat on a tall actor with a long nose. Edison (talk) 18:54, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Pierre Trudeau always wore a red rose in his lapel. Adam Bishop (talk) 09:25, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Mao Zedong's peasant jackets (he carefully promoted his image). Kaiser Wilhelm II, German Emperor had a distinctive mustache, as did Stalin. Ayatollah Khomeini's beard, although recently the large number of other long-bearded Islamists has diminished his brand value. John Major's distinctive upper lip and philtrum, used by every caricaturist. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:20, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

And Kaiser Wilhelm II is also known for his pointy helmet: [23]. StuRat (talk) 19:06, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

How about Franz Joseph of Austria with his bald head and crazy mustache? Googlemeister (talk) 13:26, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

That style was somewhat common at the time, and it wasn't even best associated with Franz Joseph. See Ambrose Burnside for whom sideburns were actually named for. While he was a rather prominent miltary and political figure (General and Senator), he was never the leader of his nation, however. --Jayron32 16:58, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Gerry Adams' beard.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:35, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Which isn't all that distinctive to him. You hear of a "Nehru Jacket" and a "Hitler Mustache" and a "Lincoln hat" but I'm not sure if I said someone had an "Adams beard" they'd instantly know who I was talking about... --Jayron32 21:55, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

"Grizzly Adams did have a beard." Googlemeister (talk) 13:38, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Medieval women and personal liberty

In which country or kingdom did medieval women (from the 12th to late 15th centuries) enjoy the most personal liberty? I would imagine it to have been England.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:10, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

What kind of women? And what kind of "personal liberty"? I suppose if you are talking about noblewomen, then you would be looking for a country that did not have Salic law, and where women were not normally secluded. For lower class women, you may be looking for a place where they can own, buy, sell, and inherit property, including houses, slaves, etc. For peasant women, we would have to look for a a place where they had freedom of movement, i.e. they can leave the land and move somewhere else, for example if they wanted to marry someone from a different village, or wanted to move to a city. But in that case both men and women were, at least in feudal countries, normally considered property of the landowner, and they could be bought and sold with the rest of the land and couldn't leave. For slaves, well, slaves of course don't have any personal liberty, but some places were more protective of their slaves than others. And what about nuns and abbesses and other religious women? This shows my own bias but I would go with Jerusalem in the twelfth century (at least for Catholic women of the middle and upper classes). You may be right about England, especially in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries after the Plague. But we should also remember that their concept of "personal liberty" was probably very different from yours, so do you mean a modern western standard of liberty (or one of many possible modern western standards of it), or according to some medieval standard? Adam Bishop (talk) 07:34, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

England had the Wife of Bath (whom even the most radical feminist might hesitate to invent, if Chaucer hadn't already done so). However, I'm not sure that women in England were greatly favored over women on the continent with respect to the formal legalities until the latter 19th century, after the Code Napoléon had been imposed on wide areas of the Continent, and the Matrimonial Causes Act 1857 and various Married Women's Property Acts had been passed in England. Of course, during much of the 18th and 19th centuries, Englishwomen had an advantage over Frenchwomen, in that Englishwomen mixed in society before their marriages, and were able to try to attract potential husbands, and say no to any suitor that they disapproved of, while respectable Frenchwomen were somewhat secluded from adult social occasions before marriage, and were very often presented with an arranged marriage as a fait accompli which they would have a very difficult time saying no to. However, this had to do with social customs, and not laws. (Sorry I can't give specifics on the medieval period.) AnonMoos (talk) 08:20, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I would agree with AnonMoos, that there is not much that suggests that during the medieval period England had a particular advantage in this as compared to most other European countries. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:26, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Social class is also important. In many societies, peasant women enjoyed freedoms not available to upper-class women: peasant women could often work (crafts at home or agricultural labor), dress more freely, socialise in a less rigid fashion, and be involved in the rituals of folk religion. Of course, the upper classes had other freedoms, such as freedom from work and from hunger. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:25, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Jeanne Boleyn, do you mean Europe or Christendom only? Don't forget that Islam gave women rights that European or Christian women didn't get until the C19 -- the right to own property, for example. Or what about the Iroquois in North America or the Minangkabau of Indonesia? BrainyBabe (talk) 11:59, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Are you sure that women in Christian Europe had no right to own property? The article Women in the Middle Ages is pretty vague about this matter. Flamarande (talk) 12:34, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I mean anywhere in the world. And women did inherit and own property in medieval Europe. I have created many articles on medieval heiresses. Cecily Bonville, 7th Baroness Harington was the richest heiress in late 15th century England having received much property and two titles when her father, grandfather, and great-grandfather died within the space of two and half months during the Wars of the Roses.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:03, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I would think that, before the modern era, you would need to look outside Europe for the place where women were most free. Minangkabau society appears to have offered women more power and autonomy than anywhere with an Abrahamic religion. The same may have been true in some pre-Columbian American societies and in other parts of Southeast Asia. Certainly women had considerable autonomy in the traditional societies of non-Islamic West Africa (i.e. the forested regions of West Africa). Within Europe, I would expect to find the greatest autonomy for women in the areas where patriarchal forms such as feudalism and tribalism were least established, namely regions such as Norway and Switzerland. As an aside, I would note that Wikipedia seems almost systematically to neglect gender relations in its coverage of cultures and national histories. No doubt this is related to the gender bias of most users. Marco polo (talk) 15:13, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd rather think that this is because gender relations have not been a major topic of standard and especially of popular history treatments. It now is an active field of study, but much of the results is still only found in specialized academic publications. I can't remember gender relations as significant topics in Runciman or Ostrogorsky or Gibbon or Norwich, to name a few of the more widely read historians. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:25, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Women's influence in history was pretty much written out by 19th century historians.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:52, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

How many ancient records do we know of women? Most women we know of are the mothers, sisters, wifes and lovers of great men. History is mostly about warriors, rulers and leaders and the female variety was a bit rare in ancient times. It's hardly the fault of 19th century historians (Women's influence in history was never written in in the first place).Flamarande (talk) 19:44, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

In that time period, Sardinia had the greatest property rights for commoner women, thanks to Eleanor of Arborea. 76.254.20.205 (talk) 18:39, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the English Wikipedia article reveals nothing about why women should have had "the greatest property rights" during her term. It would be appreciated if you could add some cited material covering this. --Saddhiyama (talk) 22:03, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Planned economy

Everyone knows that planned economy is not going to work. At least planned economy was among one of the big failures that killed the Soviet Union.

However, in the world of "free economy", we have more and more supermarkets, fast food chains and discount stores and fewer and fewer ma and pa stores. Many countries have big business groups that may control more than 10% of their GDP (Korea is a good example). There are also big international companies.

Is it possible that if we let the government have all the big companies' business information, at least theoretically, we may create a socialist country from a capitalist one? Great economists like Friedrich Hayek hated communism for all their lives. But can a free economy become a controlled and planned one overnight just because almost all business activities are recorded and we have almost limitless computing power?

I mean there are big companies. They have computerized records for all buying and selling transactions. Many consumers use credit cards. Many people buy and sell over the Internet. Most of us use ATMs for cash. Maybe we have already made the invisible hand visible.

The governments may force all business to hand over their records. A big business, if there's no anti-trust law, may control a whole country by endless M&A. As a result, a person may know almost everything about a country's business. Does it make him/her capable of making doable and very detailed economy plans? -- Toytoy (talk) 13:40, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

If I understand, you are asking, "Given the computerization of financial records and smaller number of companies controlling large parts of the market, could the government operate a planned economy efficiently?" The answer depends on how you define efficiency. By the standards usually applied in the Western world (supply of commodities) the answer would be no, at least not as efficiently as the market. Without competition, we would probably see a decrease in the supply of goods. However there are other ways of measuring efficiency: happiness, equality and connection with our work and fellow citizens. By those measures a planned economy based on our well developed market economy might actually work very well. It wont be happening anytime soon, especially in the US, but who knows. The issue real comes down to what should be the goal of society, with a free market it is the production and consumption of commodity, with a command economy the goal can be whatever the commander wants it to be. I would recommend reading Karl Marx's thoughts on this as well as some current Marxist thinkers like Slavoj Žižek. --Daniel 15:17, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I think the question is more "why can a giant multinational company with a budget much bigger than most states operate as a planned economy, but a state cannot?" --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:33, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

People are gathering information around the world. Say browser cookies may locate individual consumers so big business now knows who they are and what they want. Buyers were faceless decades ago. Now there are countless ways to collect their detailed information. It seems to me that some basic assumptions of free economy are no longer true. At least for commodities, we may develop better ways to produce and distribute staple foods so there is much less waste. The worldwide markets for grains (wheat, rice, corn ...) has already been controlled by a few big companies. I guess it's not very far from controlled economy because they control many countries' growth of grains and many more countries' sales. -- Toytoy (talk) 16:46, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

The answer is that giant multinational corporations have very different goals and spheres of influence than governments, and when, say, governments need to be concerned with matters of education, infrastructure, police, national defense, etc, functions which do not necessarily operate on the same principles as businesses do. Businesses do a pretty shitty job of being governments (Company towns generally all failed in the long run for being mainly tools to keep their workers and their families tied to the company indefinitely as a sort of modern-day serfdom, their inability to allow their workers any form of upward mobility or betterment led to their downfall) and likewise governments don't do all that good of a job running businesses (see Soviet Union). China's recent success is directly tied to the State getting the heck out of the markets and basically allowing the free market to flourish in China. The government has a role to play in business, in that it can act as an arbiter of fairness and prevent business interests from acting in harmful ways, but what it can't really do all that well is actually run the businesses themselves. --Jayron32 16:54, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Not that I'm a big fan of the Soviet economy, but in 1917 Russia was a backwater country that had just lost a war. In 1940, after a long and grueling civil war, the Soviet union was able to effectively withstand the assault of one of the strongest military powers with some of the most modern tactics and equipment in the world. In 1957, they put Sputnik into orbit, and in 1961 Gagarin, and they continued to scare the heck out of the West for another 30 years. That seems to indicate that they were able to perform some very impressive things from a very lousy base. Yes, they lost the economic race in the end, but than the West had a very long head start. I wouldn't be to eager in patting ourselves on the back... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:25, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, they put someone one the moon and built nuclear weapons at the cost of starving half of their population and destroying all non-ballistics related aspects of their economic future. I'd hardly call it a success. At best, they were able to force through some symbolic victories, like beating the Americans to space, but at the cost of pretty much wasting the rest of their economy. It was a house of cards from the beginning. The U.S. space program was built on economic surplusses. The Soviet space program was built on taking bread out of the mouths of the working class. Yeah for social equality! --Jayron32 21:53, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

They asked people to die for the greater good. It's not an alien concept: it's what all world militaries do all the time. Obviously I do not condone the killing of millions of people, it was far too large a number. The concept of trading deaths for the better lives of the remainder should not be dismissed as barbarian. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 21:57, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, the "greater good" was the enrichment of the power and glory and wealth of the Soviet Union's ruling class. The irony and absolute hubris of a government claiming to be creating a "worker's paradise" by killing off millions of people so that the ruling elite, the Nomenklatura could drive big fancy cars and consolidate power and claim victories against the "evil U.S.A." is so completely freaking rediculous that it boggles the mind. The individual choosing to die for the greater good is a noble cause; killing your own people for your own personal "greater good" is disgusting. --Jayron32 18:41, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I think the major fault in the Soviet Union's centrally planned economy was that it was planned by that ruling elite of elderly communist men, who were opposed to fundamental changes. If they had a democracy, and particularly a direct democracy, thus avoiding the corrupt politicians, they might have been the ones to develop the Internet, etc. That is, if everyone could vote, they might support new technology, and with the weight of the government behind it, they might have had the resources devoted to it's development to bring it about more quickly. Central planning was able to bring about rapid industrialization and improvements in literacy, and presumably could have done the same for modern technologies, has the rulers only been willing to embrace them. StuRat (talk) 19:02, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Every so often, someone tells me "but everyone's pro-life, so it's a meaningless distinction". And every so often, I have it confirmed that the pro-life perspective is totally alien to much of the world. I wish I could link to an article describing the actual pro-life position, but all we seem to have is stuff about opposition to abortion, which would be like our only articles on evolution being about its opposition to Biblical creationism. 86.164.62.111 (talk) 10:49, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

And they never did get a guy on the moon either. Googlemeister (talk) 13:37, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Another issue may be that corporations tend to promote staff according to merit more than governments, which frequently are replaced on the basis of ideology and issues which have nothing to do with economics. 76.254.20.205 (talk) 19:31, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the previous posters that the reason government-run businesses earn less money isn't that they lack information on how to do so, it's that they put a lower priority on that, versus things like providing jobs to the public, on the good side, or jobs for incompetent relatives, friends, and financial contributors, on the bad side. StuRat (talk) 19:36, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Currency question

Suppose Norway were to adopt the Mauritian rupee as their currency (obviously, this is a hypothetical question), without any sort of liaison with the Mauritian government, meaning that money exchanged, taxed etc. within Norway would be in Mauritian rupees.

1. Would the Mauritian economy be affected, and if so, how?
2. If negatively, would the Mauritian government have any legal recourse against the Norwegian government?

--Leon (talk) 18:05, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Increased demand for a currency, all else being equal, will deflate it (prices in rupees would go down), but the Mauritians could counter this by printing more without inflation. The problem would be if the Mauritians got used to it and then Norway changed their mind and started to dump rupees, which would cause inflation and potentially difficult issues for the Mauritians. 76.254.20.205 (talk) 19:29, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

It should greatly help the economy of the smaller nation with the less-stable currency, since it would then inherit the stability of the larger economy. StuRat (talk) 19:40, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

A danger here is that, if the Mauritian rupee became Norway's currency, since Norway is an oil exporter, the rupee could face increased demand (as a "commodity currency") and upward pressure on global currency markets. As the rupee rose, prices would tend to deflate in Mauritius, but Mauritian exports would suffer by losing price competitiveness. The Mauritian government and central bank could respond in three ways: 1) By lowering interest rates on the rupee, they would decrease its attractiveness. 2) As others have said, Mauritius could issue enough of the currency to meet and exceed demand, thereby forcing the exchange rate down, though calibrating such an operation to stop short of destabilizing inflation could be tricky. 3) They could impose capital controls limiting the circulation of rupees outside of Mauritius and/or the repatriation of rupees and require that all trade with Mauritius be conducted in another currency, such as the euro or US dollar. Incidentally, the imposition of capital controls would be one form of recourse against Norway, since the Mauritian central bank controls the issuance of rupees, and banning the export of rupees would soon cause a currency shortage in Norway, with damage to the Norwegian economy from lack of a means of exchange. Marco polo (talk) 19:53, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Such things do happen. For instance, Montenegro adopted the Euro unilaterally from outside the Eurozone. In theory, the answer to the first question depends on how responsible the central banks are. In principle, there are huge potential benefits to Mauritius, which could have a life-changing increase to its revenue from the seigniorage gained by multiplying the total of its rupees in circulation. In practice, Norway would soon get fed up with the arrangement, so Mauritius would need to discipline itself and have enough reserves always on hand to buy in the flood of unwanted rupees as soon as it came. As an alternative (and this is a reason why the scenario would be very unlikely to develop), Mauritius could simply demonetize all of its existing bank notes and issue new ones: Russia did this once with the rouble, giving only a few days for its own citizens to exchange their notes within Russia, so that huge quantities of roubles were left unchanged and became worthless. This gave a big short-term boost to the Russian central bank but also caused a loss of confidence in the rouble everywhere.

The second question is about international law. If there is no universal agreement on such matters (and I've never heard of one) then it's a question of what international agreements Norway and Mauritius have entered into. Even then, enforcement of such agreements is practically impossible. Even the Dispute Settlement Body of the World Trade Organization has no concept of awarding damages or restitution. Moonraker (talk) 20:54, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Panama presents an interesting case: They have a native currency (the Panamanian balboa) which is pretty obsolete because everyone uses American banknotes. They tried to print their own banknotes, but they flopped, so they just use American dollars and call them Balboas. --Jayron32 21:48, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Seems a rocky policy to me.  :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 22:50, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Wow, thanks! So if, in the other direction, say, Bangladesh, adopted the Qatari riyal (I'm picking Bangladesh and Qatar as their national GDPs are similar, though their GDP per capita figures are vastly different), how would this affect either country? Presumably Bangladesh wouldn't mysteriously get richer (if it were that simple, I'd expect to see it tried!), but would the riyal lose value? Or, rather, would it gain even further value owing to increased Bangladeshi demand?

ALSO, Seigniorage is a concept I don't think I fully appreciate: is it the way that new cash enters the system, and furthermore the way in which the total value stored in cash can increase? I'm aware that cash represents only a small fraction of the total value accounted for in bank deposits, but it is (I believe) nonetheless an important part of the system.--Leon (talk) 23:38, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Relevant article dollarization... AnonMoos (talk) 02:19, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Talon of Gold/Silver/Copper

What is a 'talon,' in the context of "Talon of Gold," and what is the value of such? It seems to be somewhat exact, since references to being paid a quarter or half talon are common. --75.128.244.178 (talk) 20:50, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Do you mean talent of gold? Moonraker (talk) 21:01, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that must be it. Thanks a lot. --75.128.244.178 (talk) 21:50, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

While some people have a talent for making gold, many others would like to get their claws on some. StuRat (talk) 23:31, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Shiva

If Shiva is the god of destruction, why do Hindus revere him as a good god? --76.211.88.37 (talk) 23:01, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Do they revere him as a specifically "good" god? My (limited) understanding is that he is revered as a powerful, important god, or, in some traditions, as avatars of the Supreme God (Atman), with Vishnu the Protector being another prominent avatar, along with Devi and Ganesha and etc. It might also be noted that destruction need not be "bad". (Is the Judeo-Christian deity a "bad" god because he decided to kill most people in a horrendous flood? Is not destruction a necessary part of existence?) --Mr.98 (talk) 23:31, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

In Western or Abrahamic religions, good and evil are opposite and separate things. In Eastern religions, however, good and evil, and all opposites, tend to be seen as different aspects of the same thing. Going a bit farther East, the yin-yang symbol is a good illustration of this, where the black and white define one another, and are contained within each other. This actually seems like a better model, to me, since it's impossible for a God to be both all-powerful and also all-good. If that was the case, why do natural disasters occur ? StuRat (talk) 23:38, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I should just note that, "it's impossible for a God to be both all-powerful and also all-good" is Sturat's view, but it is not something that philosophy, logic, or theology have generally agreed with him on. I suggest starting with theodicy and Problem of evil. I note that, if you are Christian, the Irenaean theodicy strikes me as most compatible with the Gospels. Why else is it so hard for the rich man to enter into Heaven? 86.164.62.111 (talk) 10:00, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I think our article Shiva provides a pretty thorough explanation. Looie496 (talk) 02:28, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

The problem of the question is that it assumes that destruction is evil. I suppose one way of looking at Shiva is that he selectively destroyes things to make new room for new things, just like how a forest fire can lead to new forest growth. Also, just refering to the god Shiva as the god of destruction is a bit narrow. He is also associated with yogic meditation, and many of the Saivite sect believe that he encompases creation, preservation, AND, destruction. Rabuve (talk) 14:52, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

September 2

WW2 bombings of cities

When debating WW2 an argument often comes up that US and GB bombed civilian cities and USSR didn't. I am interested in why that is. I know Russian troops used artillery fire on Berlin and probably on a bunch of other civilian targets, but why did the Soviet airforce restrain from bombing cities? If that's not true, I want examples and sources. The interpretation you'll usually get from modern Russians is that it's because Soviets didn't participate in terrorism. I am looking for a more down to earth explanation. Did the Soviets have the resources to bomb German cities? Thanks for replies. Sfairat. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.8.168.251 (talk) 00:00, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

It probably came down to the realization that, given the choice, the Germans would much rather surrender to the West, which they thought, correctly, would go far easier on them. The goal of carpet bombing was to demoralize the enemy and make them surrender earlier than they otherwise would. The West wanted this, but the Russians did not, since this likely would mean the Germans would surrender to the West, wherever possible. So, the Soviet Union focused on capturing ground, instead, which they had no intention of ever giving back. Early on there was also the possibility of something less than unconditional surrender, where Germany would remain largely intact, and the Soviet Union wanted nothing to do with that. StuRat (talk) 00:06, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

That sounds like a quite unusual interpretation of history to me. The Soviet Union was very much hanging on by the skin of its teeth. They did not have the resources to fight the war on the ground, to fight the tactical air war, and to also build large fleets of bombers. The Western Allies, on the other hand, were desperately looking for ways to bring their force to bear against Germany and the Axis. The bombing campaign was one such way (as was Operation Torch, and later the Normandy landings). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:28, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

USSR conducted multiple air raids against civilian cities, namely Berlin, Königsberg, Danzig, using the Petlyakov_Pe-8 heavy bomber. Anonymous.translator (talk) 00:22, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

According to our article, only 93 Pe-8s were ever built - the simple fact is that the Soviet Union never had sufficient long-range heavy bombers to have engaged in the types of raids that the western Allies did. The Soviet air force had always operated more closely with ground troops than as an independent force, and as such strategic bombing wasn't part of military doctrine. I think I read somewhere that they asked for heavy bombers under the lend-lease scheme, but that these were refused. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:36, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

But just saying they didn't have long-range bombers isn't the full story, the next question is why they didn't. Being refused them under Lend-Lease (no doubt out of fear they would use them on the Allies next) is one reason, but why didn't they build them themselves ? They were certainly capable, so they must have put a lower priority on this than other war equipment. And why was that ? StuRat (talk) 00:48, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Because during most of the war, they were in desperate need of weapons directly and immediately useful for front-line fighting, and didn't have a lot to spare for other things. Before the war, the TB-3 was pretty much an early-1930s type of airplane; in the mid-1930s Stalin doesn't seem to have been much interested in strategic bombers, and purged most of the forward-thinking military strategists... AnonMoos (talk) 02:11, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

They did try, in Helsinki in February 1944, but with unimpressive results. Of 2,600 tons of bombs, 95 per cent missed the city altogether. It seems they just weren't very good at it.--Rallette (talk) 05:27, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Probably just due to lack of practice. Other Allies' first attempts were rather unimpressive, too. StuRat (talk) 06:44, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

The Soviet air force was equipped with small tactical bombers which were unsuitable for strategic operations such as attacks on cities. The USSR did seek Liberator bombers through Lend Lease to set up a strategic bombing force, but this request was turned down. Nick-D (talk) 07:53, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

A few historical thoughts from an historian:

1. I have to admit I've never seen this particular argument come up. While one can certainly take issue with strategic bombing, there are really no grounds by which to claim that the Soviets fought a more morally superior war. They were notoriously awful in their conduct against the enemy while they were winning, and awful against their own men while they were losing.
2. The question itself seems to consider the use of strategic bombing the "natural" case and the lack of such use as the exception to be explained. This is quite the reverse of the usual historical explanation, whereby strategic bombing of the sort practiced by the UK and the US was actually the unusual case. Heavy firebombing of cities was a late development and a controversial one. It was not even considered to be terribly effective as a means of waging war. The "normal" state of bombing was to send a few bombers to take out specific targets, a much harder task but one that did not require as much air superiority or as many planes.
3. The Soviets did have long-range bombers that were adequate for the European theatre. The Ilyushin DB-3 was their primary bomber, and with a range of 2,280 miles. That's plenty for the Eastern Front (keep in mind that American pushes for very long range bombers had to do with the requirements of the Pacific War). They later got the Yermolaev Yer-2 and the Petlyakov Pe-8. The latter had the combat capability around the same level as an American B-17. They didn't develop strategic bombers, though, as their priorities went towards fighter and ground-attack aircraft, which makes military sense given their situation (they were not, like the UK and the US, fighting the enemy from "afar").
4. The US did provide the USSR with some bombers under lend-lease — nearly 3000 Douglas A-20s, nearly a thousand B-25s, and one B-24. B-17s and B-29s were not supplied tto the USSR, but they got their hands on a few of them by chance in 1944, and from those produced their postwar clone, the Tupolev Tu-4.[24]
5. It should be remembered that very long-range strategic bombers of the sort produced en masse by the USA during WWII were no easy technical feat. A little-known but significant fact is that the program to develop the B-29 cost more (~$3B in 1945USD) than the program to develop the atomic bomb (~$2B).

Above all, it should be emphasized that while the Soviets did not carpet bomb German cities, they certainly didn't treat the inhabitants with any greater respect or mercy than the Allies did — mass rape and pillaging was extremely common amongst the invaded cities of the Red Army. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:20, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Point 2 touches on a key issue here, I think - geography. Soviet aviation lost most of their forward bases very early in the war - Smolensk, which is twice as far from Berlin as Frankfurt is from East Anglia, was captured within the first three weeks of fighting - and after that any strategic air offensive would have to be based deep inside Soviet territory. From there, most of the accessible targets would be in occupied Polish or Soviet territory; you would have to go a very long way to hit the "high value" industrial targets that the Western Allies could reach easily from England. (Note that the only major example noted above was Helsinki - a city that was close to Soviet-held territory.) Once the front line started rolling forward again, you would in theory be in a better position to reach Germany proper, but you would have to use bases on recently recaptured territory, where the infrastructure had been almost completely destroyed... and by the time those obstacles had been overcome, the Western Allied bombing campaign would have stepped up to even higher levels, and your own front line would be beginning to reach Germany itself. Shimgray | talk | 20:23, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Also, if the Soviets needed anything to be bombed, they could ask us to do it; an example is (allegedly) Dresden. The Western Allies were desperate to prove to Stalin that they were doing their bit. Alansplodge (talk) 10:25, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

The Paper Chase

As I understand it, they form a study group with 6 members, each of whom will develop an outline for a different area of the law. They then intend to copy the outlines for each other, and use them as study tools. These outlines are each dozens of pages long, for a total hundreds of pages long.

Now, my questions:

A) Were the textbooks so useless that they don't contain such outlines, already ?

B) Are such outlines not available from any other source ?

C) The book was written in 1970, so, has this situation improved any since, or must law students basically still write their own books each term to compensate for lousy textbooks ? StuRat (talk) 00:00, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Textbooks are not the only way to learn, nor are they necessarily the best. Even if information has been pre-processed and chopped up into text books, there is real value in learning by doing research yourself. Students could learn a lot more by going to the source material and developing their own understanding than by simply getting superficial knowledge from any textbook. I took a history class in Grad School on Witchcraft in New England, where the final project was to research, from the original source documents (court transcripts, property documents, birth and marriage certificates, stuff like that) from the late 1600's, a specific witch and to develop a narrative based on those source documents. I tell you, I learned more from that one activity than I ever would have reading what some other historian may have developed and written in some text book. Even if there were really awesome textbooks availible, the actual act of doing the work themselves has pedagogical value. --Jayron32 02:21, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

That project sounds like a real Goody. :-) I agree in the value of "do-it-yourself", but don't think that excuses the textbook authors for failing to provide material good enough to study from. In the case of The Paper Chase, the students only did 1/6th of the work, themselves, anyway, apparently because there would be nowhere near enough time for each of them to research it all. StuRat (talk) 03:08, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

In the film — and in many real-life schools — textbooks are actually just a supplement to the classroom instruction, where teachers use the Socratic method of teaching. The interactive method is sometimes considered to be more effective for intangible subjects such as law. — Michael J 03:43, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

The study group described would be excellent preparation for a would be lawyer. The method of study echos how legal research is done in the real world. Blueboar (talk) 13:29, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

My understanding about that particular era of Harvard Law (which, from what I hear, is only somewhat past at the moment) is that the textbooks are not the entirety of what is meant to be known by the student. The outline is not just the textbooks, but various articles, other books, and notes from the lectures, with the goal of condensing what is likely to be specifically on the exam that the course offers at the end of the semester (because the entire grade is based on that exam). So they are gigantic study guides for specific tests, rather than textbooks.

Law textbooks, incidentally, are hugely dense, hugely detailed, hugely long compendiums of specific cases, rules, and discussions of said cases and rules. An outline would definitely be a useful precis. It doesn't mean that the textbook is not valuable. The real question for me is whether the outlines would be valuable to anyone other than the one who actually compiled them. --Mr.98 (talk) 21:45, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

This is still how it's done, although the level of dread and panic varies considerably by school. I don't know about the 70s, but I graduated law school in the past decade, and outlines are very much a part of studying for exams. Most of the assigned "textbooks" are actually casebooks which, to varying degrees, are long on questions and short on answers. Many casebooks have very little in terms of original content, many are just a collection of cases (arranged purposefully) with questions at the end, most of which invite discussion more than give answers.

Outlines are the answer to this. My outlines were usually 40-60 pages of exactly that, a microsoft word outline. There are outline banks online where you can trade or download for free other outlines. If you wanted to know how a particular part of the law works, it'd be a long road to pick up a casebook. Instead, you'd find either modern practice guides or materials, or their more academic cousins, treatises (the shortened versions are called hornbooks). Treatises are very detailed, well referenced, often incredibly expensive, and meticulously edited comprehensive guides to the law.

As for legal "textbooks" that are more like most other text books, the E&E (Examples and Explanations) series is quite good for law students, and there's no messing around when it comes to bar study. Bar review courses don't even pretend to care about how you think: they just give you answers. If you wanted or needed to look up the answer to a specific question, you go to these kind of sources, not casebooks. I'm a fan of the law school socratic method. I think it achieves its purpose in teaching future lawyers how to think rather than just answers. But mileage varies. Shadowjams (talk) 06:10, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh, a few other specifics. I think the days of tight knit study groups like that are largely over, although I did know some classmates that did exactly what's described in that movie. I had study groups but they were for individual classes, not the whole body. The other thing that's changed is that most (I think) law schools now do semester exams, whereas back then at Harvard Law (not sure today) they did one exam for the whole year. Shadowjams (talk) 06:12, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I have a friend who has just enrolled at HLS this year, and he said they still divide them into study groups, I believe. But apparently a phone call home to your mother costs more than a dime... --Mr.98 (talk) 14:45, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

For those unfamiliar with the movie, the prof says "Here's a dime, call your mother and tell her there's serious doubt about you making it as a law student". I thought a good response would be "Thank you, this dime is probably the most valuable thing you've ever given a student, especially when compared with you lectures". (In other words "None of your lectures are worth a dime".) StuRat (talk) 18:39, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Libyans in support of US presence

Have there been any polls on whether the Libyan population support(ed) the US intervention? 74.15.138.178 (talk) 01:45, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

It's rather to do polls in the midst of a civil war, but one could assume that pro-Qadaffi forces oppose US and NATO intervention, while most of the rebels support it. StuRat (talk) 02:04, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Sure, but were any poles polls conducted before the onset of war? 74.15.138.178 (talk) 02:40, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Then Libya was under the control of Qadaffi, wouldn't wouldn't have allowed such a poll (or would just shoot anyone who said they were in favor). StuRat (talk) 03:03, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

New poll: Qadaffi has 114% approval rating True, true. Thanks. 74.15.138.178 (talk) 04:40, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Making a Profit From the 9-11 Attacks

Shortly after 9-11-01, I read several reports from reliable sources, that definite evidence existed that just before the attacks, that some or several individuals or entities, had bought short on airline stocks in massive amounts. These entities then made billions of dollars because of these purchases. Those who did this buying (and selling) obviously knew that the 9-11 attacks were coming.

The stories reported that the money was sent to numbered Swiss bank accounts, but because of international banking laws, the Swiss banks would not reveal the name(s) of those who owned these numbered bank accounts. The United States Government officials then accepted this explanation and did nothing further to find out this vital information to the U.S. national security.

I have several questions about this story.

1) Is it basically true, as I have related it? 2) Surely the U.S. Government could have forced the Swiss banks to give them the information described, through brute military force, if no other way. Why didn't they? The fact that they didn't lends credence to the various conspiracy theories, such as (a) George Bush and Dick Cheney, et all, engineered the 9-11 attacks (a theory long promulgated by Pat Buchanan, among many others); (b) Bush & Cheney (et all) knew the attacks were coming and chose not to stop them, so they could play their war games, etc., and they were the ones behind the stock buying and profits. 3) Why didn't the various media follow up on this story? 4) Was it the Saudi royal family that made the stock market profits described, and the U.S. government did not want to create the tension and bad blood with its main ally in the Mid East, so it did not pursue the matter?

from Stan daMann — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stan daMann (talk • contribs) 08:32, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article 9/11 conspiracy theories#Suspected insider trading suggests there was some suspicious trading, not only in airlines but in Morgan Stanley who let part of the WTC, and in defence firm Raytheon. That page carries some links, showing there was some media interest, e.g.[25]. However it seems hard to prove that something was going on other than normal speculative investments, and it seems surprising that there wasn't further investigation (some of the links suggest that Bin Laden did the purchasing to fund his terrorism, which would mean there was no wider conspiracy). --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:33, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

September 11 attacks advance-knowledge debate has more info. It says the 9/11 Commission investigated and found legitimate reasons for the vast majority of the trades (the report is online), although this conclusion is open to criticism. Most of the trades were by Americans, not individuals with secretive Swiss bank accounts. That's evidence that the trading was investigated, at least. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:43, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

One wonders just how realistic a US invasion of Switzerland might be...

As already noted transactions involving the Swiss industry were only a component of all of the transactions that may have warranted financial investigation

ALR (talk) 09:56, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

See also this article from Foreign Policy Journal (an online publication but the article is extensively referenced): it names many of the individuals and companies involved in trading but there's not much about Switzerland. It seems investigators have a good idea who was involved, and decided there was nothing suspicious involved. Your mileage may vary. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:01, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Reading the "conspiracy theory" pages, one point leaps out: some people did know this coming. The bombers themselves, and one would assume a number of related people. Knowing it was coming might be a crime of huge significance for government; it would be considerable for a US citizen. But it's not inconceivable people in al-Qaeda (which has a few rich people backing in) thought it opportune to raise some funds for the group while they were at it. I'm surprised this theory isn't mentioned. Perhaps because there's no conspiracy. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 10:05, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

The investigations referenced above found that none of the investors had any connection to Osama Bin Laden or Al Qaeda (a couple had connections to the Bin Laden family, but it's hard to do business in the Arabian peninsula without encountering a Bin Laden or two). There have been claims that Bin Laden used his foreknowledge of 9/11 make investments and finance his terrorism, but the 9/11 Commission didn't find any evidence. The 9/11 Commission is criticised by truthers for only researching connections between the suspicious investments and Al Qaeda, e.g. they didn't consider if someone in the US government was providing information. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:13, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

So far, none of the references or comments have addressed the fact that the U.S. government did not pursue the identities of the profiteers, because of international banking laws. After 10 years, how quickly we forget. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stan daMann (talk • contribs) 20:41, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Since people buy stocks and short sell all the time, can we assume an evil motive if some people happened to short sell airline stocks just prior to 9-11 ? That hardly seems like overwhelming evidence that they were in on it. However, I do have a basic problem with the concept of short sales, allowing someone to bet that a company will fail. There's an obvious incentive there for them to sabotage said company. Then again, naming yourself as the beneficiary on a life insurance policy on somebody else seems rather questionable, at least where you wouldn't suffer a proportional economic loss for their death. StuRat (talk) 21:32, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Then you'll really hate viatical settlements. As far as short selling goes, betting a stock price will fall isn't betting "to fail", it's perhaps betting to return to a more realistic price. It's a trap to moralize technical financial judgments (and a convenient rhetorical device too). More importantly, a healthy economy will have companies that fail, and an efficient market is one that transmits information the most efficiently, good or bad. Short selling's a vital part of this. There are other ways (often less efficient) to effectuate the same thing too. Unless you're talking about naked short selling that somehow overwhelms the stock's float (which for most major exchange funds requires an insane amount of capital), short selling can't "manipulate" the price of a stock any more than placing an overpriced order to buy can. Shadowjams (talk) 06:23, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

You're missing my point. If it's in somebody's interest that a company's stock price fall, they can sabotage the company to ensure that this happens. For example, they can inject bacteria into meats produced by a company to cause a recall. This would be easiest if they work at the company or have an "inside man" to do the dirty work. StuRat (talk) 18:31, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

StuRat...just on that last point, here in the UK (and presumably elsewhere) you can only be a beneficiary if the person has an 'insurable interest' and you have a relationship to the insured individual (i.e. you would love out financial, even if just on potential future earnings). These rules get more strict above a certain threshold too. ny156uk (talk) 23:57, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Nice Freudian slip. We should all learn to substitute "love" for "lose". :-) StuRat (talk) 01:43, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Hate can be turned to love in at most 4 steps: HATE-HAVE-HOVE-LOVE. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 02:01, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

And you can change lust into love just as easily: LUST-LOST-LOSE-LOVE. StuRat (talk) 06:04, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Economics: a term for the point at which the overall market cap decreases

In an economics discussion with some friends we've described a value that seems like it could have a name, but I don't know what it is. It's the point at which the overall market cap for a given scarce good (as defined by the unit value times the number of units) stops increasing and starts decreasing. (It could reasonably be considered the end of the scarcity of that good, I suppose.)

Take, for example, gold. If I discover a new ounce of gold, the overall market for gold increases a little bit: it's one more ounce times just about the same price per ounce. But if I discover very very many ounces of gold, that decreases the scarcity of gold, and thus the price of each ounce. At a certain point, the value of an ounce of gold falls faster than the amount of gold is increasing.

Anybody know a name for that term?

ParkerHiggins ( talk contribs ) 12:38, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Are you thinking of the Hubbert curve? Schyler (exquirere bonum ipsum) 13:50, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

In classical economics the effect in question will never occur, and in real economics when it does occur it is a result of temporary irrationality or of the gradual onset of economies of scale. For example, when the price of farm goods falls, farmers may react not by producing less (as classical economics would predict; see supply and demand), but by producing more in an effort to maintain their incomes, thereby causing prices to crash. These sorts of effects depend on temporal dynamics, though, so there is really no well-defined "point" that can be identified. Looie496 (talk) 16:05, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Could you please provide some references (or at least explanations) for your first sentence? I disagree with your statement about farmers. Classical supply and demand works quite well to describe what happens. You don't have individual farmers choosing to produce less, that's true, but that's not what supply and demand would predict anyway. What supply and demand predicts and what actually happens is that some farmers keep doing what they were always doing (those that were more profitable) and others stop producing at all (they may abandon farming altogether and sell their land to property developers, or they may start producing something different, like flowers). They are unlikely to produce more in order to maintain their income because if they were able to produce more they would already have been doing it (farmers tend not to earn so much, even in good times, as to become complacent and stop trying to earn more). With agriculture, it's a little skewed by the various subsidies farmers tend to get, but the principles still just about work. --Tango (talk) 11:20, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

States printing money of their enemies

Could a state print the currency of their enemies to topple their economies? I know that North Korea is said to have printed dollars, but this effort was apparently not very destructive. Considering that they have better means than any criminal organization, and these are almost printing perfect dollars and euros, it should be relatively easy to do that. Quest09 (talk) 14:46, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

They can try - see Operation Bernhard. An excellent BBC comedy drama, Private Schulz was made in 1981 based loosely on the story. Sam Blacketer (talk) 15:07, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

It's happened...see Super dollar though given that most currency exsists digitally and is fiat...it would take quite a bit of printing to have any effect. It's estimated that less than $1B exists in counterfeit currency. There are more effective methods in Economic warfare(which is a incomplete) than mere counterfeiting. Marketing poor assets(illiquid and junk) as collateral/insurance in CDOs and Credit default swap would probably be more effective.Smallman12q (talk) 16:40, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Some other problems with this method:

1) You have to deliver the cash to the target nation. During a war, this might not be so easy. And, if any is intercepted, the target nation will warn everyone to look out for counterfeits (assuming there is some method of telling the difference). "New looking" bills might be the most suspect.

2) Currency with serial numbers and dates means that, once the range of serial numbers and dates on the counterfeit bills is known, this could be used to identify them. This could be countered by changing those randomly.

3) The target nation can issue new currency, multiple times, if needed.

4) The target nation can then turn around and use the same method. So, this doesn't offer a unique advantage for one nation to defeat another. StuRat (talk) 17:24, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

One can always spend the counterfeit cash in neutral countries. Anonymous.translator (talk) 19:24, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

As stated, it would take a lot of counterfeit currency to have an effect. Then you have to get it in but to inject that much currency, you'd raise a lot of suspicion. You can't just send your agents over to spend a few billion at gas stations and other cash businesses where small amounts wouldn't be scrutinized. Dismas|^(talk) 02:22, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

That's only going to work if the currency you are counterfeiting is one that is often used outside of its home country or in transactions not including someone from its home country. That's true for the US dollar and, to a lesser extent, the Euro. It's not really true for any other currencies, with a few exceptions where use is very localised (eg. the South African Rand). --Tango (talk) 11:28, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Another option, if you have total air superiority, is to drop counterfeit bills from bombers. Of course, those on the ground will know they are counterfeit, but, human nature means many will pick them up and try to spend them anyway. And merchants, knowing there are many counterfeits out there, might refuse to accept any of that nation's currency, unless they can tell the real ones from the fake. StuRat (talk) 18:22, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

MFN status

What is the advantage of having MFN status with otjer countries?what role does WTO has in it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Navneeth tn (talk • contribs) 14:48, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

The article Most favoured nation has a section entitled "benefits", and it also talks about the MFN status with regards to the World Trade Organization. -- 174.24.197.132 (talk) 15:09, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Why does nationalist populism work?

The question in the heading pretty much says it all. I've thought of two reasons why nationalist populism works:

1) it tells you that, thanks to your nationality, you're the best in the world 2) it creates an external enemy to unite people around it.

Are there any other reasons nationalist populism works? Thanks. Leptictidium (mt) 15:43, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

In the EU my view is that it works because the electorate in richer countries (rightfully) feel being robbed of their money by a supranational entity they didn't want in the first place. Joepnl (talk) 15:47, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

It marks boundaries along easily defined lines that are (generally) culturally well established and historically significant. That is to say nationalism makes more sense in a less connected world than a massively inter-connected one in my view, as nowadays boundaries of nations are increasingly blurred due to culture, international laws/cultures, communication networks, international trade etc. all being very much more integrated nowadays. Joepnl's comment (whilst I personally disagree with the notion) are accurate in such that there are many people that see cross-nation political groups like the EU as reducing their autonomy/national sovereignity. So yes, autonomy of choice would be another factor. ny156uk (talk) 23:52, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Restricting my argument to the European case where I think the rise of nationalist populism is most prominent (and I do know something about). Strange that you say nationalism makes more sense in a less connected world. In a totally unconnected world (no trade, Wikipedia, immigration, media, war etc between nations), the word nationalism wouldn't even exist because it would simply have no meaning. But it's Facebook nor trade that leads to nationalism, quite the opposite I'd say. It is forced "solidarity" between nations where the people of nation A see their pensions wasted on nation B. Not because of globalisation but indeed the opposite: politicians and the EU itself are telling people in nation A that they have a natural bonding with people in nation B. Which, in reality, is precisely what nationalism is: to say that you belong to a certain group and people in that group should stick with each other. The EU is telling us that the Germans and the Dutch are (using your words) culturally and historically connected to the Greeks. Also heard: the EU needs its own army "as a counterweight" to the US. That pretty much defines nationalism. The counter movement may be called "nationalists", but, in the European setting, I think you can well say that they are more "anti-continentioalists" and would applaud globalisation. Joepnl (talk) 02:45, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I think you listed all the benefits in your original posting Leptictidium. Most nations that have ever existed have promoted nationalism, I can't think of a nation that had the ability to monitor their borders that did not, but let people come and go. It is important to know that nationalism has many disadvantages too, especially when taken to an extreme such as North Korea. Nationalism is the reason why there have been hundreds of wars of independence, and many thousands of attempted wars of independence. Nationalism creates xenophobia, decreases culture movement(if we were more nationalist, I would not know of sushi or turkish delight), it makes international trade and cooperation with other nations difficult even to the point of war. There are an untold number of wars started due to one nation thinking they are the best such as WWII, the cold war, crimean war, and the napoleonic war. 99.235.194.16 (talk) 06:46, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

What sort of (Polish?) military hat is this?

This is from Dad's Army and was supposedly worn by a Polish officer during WW2. I would like to know what the type of hat is called? Thanks. ╟─TreasuryTag►Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster─╢ 19:01, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Rogatywka meltBanana 19:36, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

A more elaborate version was worn by British lancers, copied from the Poles after their lancers gave us a pasting at the Battle of Waterloo. Afterwards, several British Light Dragoon regiments converted to lancers complete with Polish-style uniforms. In the British Army, this headgear was called a Czapka, which apparently is just Polish for "cap". Alansplodge (talk) 08:22, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Mercantilism vs protectionism

I have read the article on mercantilism many times but I still don't get what it's about. In particular, I don't understand the difference between mercantilism and protectionism. I'd appreciate if someone could explain this to me. --Belchman (talk) 19:29, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

The key underlying aim of mercantilism is to create a net flow of precious metals toward a country. This was a common goal during the early modern period, when currencies were backed by precious metals, and when amassing reserves of precious metals augmented a state's ability to wage war. Protectionism is a feature of mercantilism, but mercantilism goes far beyond protectionism. Marco polo (talk) 19:37, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

That clears things up a bit, thanks. --Belchman (talk) 21:54, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Mercantalism was a bit broader than precious metals, however. The concept of mercantalism was the flow of raw materials to the home country. Mercantalist thought holds that wealth is generated by creating finished products from raw materials; so mercantalists are very concerned with vertical integration of supply chains. One of the major parts of mercantalism is actually the importance of colonialism; colonies are a way to secure exclusive control of raw materials; but one important part of mercantalism was that colonies do not manufacture goods. All raw materials produced in the mother country stay in the mother country, and all raw materials produced in the colonies are sent to the mother country for production of finished goods. The famed triangular trade is pure mercantalism: You ship slaves from Africa to the colonies to work mines, farms, and plantations to procure raw goods; you ship the raw goods to Europe for finished products; most of the finished products stay in Europe, but large amounts are sent to Africa to procure more slaves to send to the colonies to get raw materials. Its a closed system bent on concentrating wealth in the home country. As noted by Marco polo, protectionism is a key part of it; but the concepts of how to obtain raw materials and where manufacturing is to take place make mercantalism different. --Jayron32 23:50, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

September 3

PROGRAM ON AMERICAN NEGRO AND SLAVE TRADE

I watched your programme on the Slave Trade in the America's. The most amazing part is there is not once mention made of the CHIEFS IN AFRICA THAT ACTIALLY SOLD THEIR PEOPLE AS SLAVES. The bad people is the buyers why is there not any mention of the SELLERS WHO TO ME IS THE BAD PEOPLE. I noticed that many MEN were slaves to work in the SUGAR CANE fields, where did the women come from... or were there female slaves as well... where did the men get women to have children because reference was made of families or did they relate with the people who was on the islands. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.135.25.103 (talk) 07:13, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I believe the articles "African slave trade", "Atlantic slave trade", "Slavery in the colonial United States" and "Slavery in the United States" will answer most of your questions. Gabbe (talk) 09:18, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

During the 16th century through the mid-19th century, the European powers other than Portugal had little presence in sub-Saharan tropical Africa beyond the coast, and so were dependent on the cooperation of local rulers to funnel captives to the coast. In some of the Caribbean islands which were intensively devoted to sugar-cane plantations, the owners imported more male slaves than female slaves, and effectively worked them to death over a period of a decade or so. This was less common in the British North American colonies (later United States), where there was no sugar-cane, and relatively few large-scale single-crop plantations before the late 18th century... AnonMoos (talk) 09:45, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Do note that they mostly sold war captives. In the same way that Europeans a mere few centuries earlier also sold war captives to neighboring kingdoms. Please do not treat Africans as a single people. Africa is a continent of numerous cultures and languages and not at all united. Perhaps it may be because you appear to be American and 'American' to you refers to a citizen of a single country, not inhabitants of two continents. Americans would not call Canadians 'their people' in the same way that a 16th century Somali slave owner would not consider his Bantu slave a member of the Somali people. -- Obsidi♠n Soul 10:58, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a TV channel so you must have watched someone else's program. Female slaves were in demand in USA as housemaids and could be sexually abused. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 13:15, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I take your point that some movies and TV programs tend to overlook the issue of the complicity of some Negroes in the slave trade. I see them, and also the Caucasian and Arab slavers, as culpable. However, keep in mind that if you were the chief of a tribe, and captured an enemy group, your options were limited:

1) Kill them.

2) Let them go, risking them attacking you later. Even women and children were a risk, since the boys could grow up to be enemy warriors, and the women and girls would give birth to future enemy warriors.

3) Keep them captive yourself, straining food supplies, and requiring guards to watch them, meaning they can't join the war party.

4) Sell them into slavery, and use the money to buy weapons to protect your tribe from future attacks.

Also, if we view this from another perspective, wars typically start over scarce resources, like food. If there's not enough food in an area to support the population, the only two options available were for people to die (or be killed) or for them to leave (or be taken from) the area. Slavery was considered a less drastic option of removing people from the area, rather than killing them. StuRat (talk) 18:14, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Disagreement over Childhood Mortality in Iraq on (Wikipedia vs Google)

Why does this childhood mortality graph on google so wildly disagree with this one on wikipedia? --CGPGrey (talk) 14:56, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Two thoughts:

1. The UNICEF data that the Wikipedia graph is supposedly based on matches the Google data almost perfectly. So it's not a dataset issue in that sense.

2. The Wikipedia graph is set to a different scale — survival out of 100%, rather than deaths per 1000. I wonder how the author calculated this difference, but it ought to be different. List of countries by infant mortality rate also gives data much more similar to the other data — a simple downward slope, no indication of a crash after sanctions.

I suspect some sort of either accidental or purposeful data manipulation, to be frank. --Mr.98 (talk) 18:06, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Strange political party in the UK from 15/20-ish years ago...

Anyone remember these guys? They were practitioners of some sort of unusual meditational technique that involved sitting in the lotus position and bouncing up and down on their backsides or making short hops back and forth while ommmming and ommmming and were of the belief that doing such generated some sort of 'good energy' that made society a better place given a sufficient concentration. They had a political party that ran in at least one general election and stated that if they got in, then they'd pass laws to get more people bouncing in the lotus position while meditating, generating enough positivity to cause violent crime rates to fall across the country and generally make people nicer to each other. Sound familiar, anyone? I remember that my mum voted for them - because she was hacked off with the mainstream parties and it was either these or the fash... --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 15:55, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Probably the Natural Law Party. Adam Bishop (talk) 16:00, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Definitely sounds like it. They have a legacy website which may jog memories, especially their party election broadcasts. Sam Blacketer (talk) 16:32, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Lined paper

Is it known when lined paper was first used? And before it was "invented", would people (for example, explorers writing their experiences in their journals about finding the New World) just use regular paper to write their "adventures?" 64.229.181.189 (talk) 18:48, 3 September 2011 (UTC)