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

October 7

What about the bottom 10%?

Will a Federal Discount Card providing up to a 50% off retail, utility and tax charges now be possible, acceptable or necessary or are there other known means to compensate those living at or below the poverty line who have suffered doubling and tripling of prices from deregulation and privatization of State and County services by Republican Governors and legislatures backed by corporate greed? --DeeperQA (talk) 01:27, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

This Federal Discount Card is a thing of your own invention? There are, as a moment's thought would prove, many other ways in which such compensation could be given, were the legislature inclined to do so. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:37, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Its a logical method - much better than standing on a street corner, checking names and handing out $1,000 bills. While the State legislature or County Commission is controlled by corporate greed the American Congress is always ready, willing and able to lend the poor a helping hand. --DeeperQA (talk) 04:15, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

• (PS.To be fair Verizon is giving temporary discounts of as much as $50 off its regular $90 FIOS charge for 15/5 Internet and voice to coax subscribers to move from analog POTS and DSL to digital FIOS by also stating that subscriber can always return to analog POTS and DSL within the 2 year discount period if they are dissatisfied with FIOS, even though Verizon's motive for the discount is to phaseout analog POTS and DSL entirely whereas the motive for Congress in issuing a Federal Dicount Card is to prevent riot.) --DeeperQA (talk) 05:02, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm assuming you're in America. Food stamps and Medicaid are essentially a version of what you mention. Your proposal would almost certainly be constitutional, in some form, under the Taxing and Spending Clause. Feasibly possible to pass in this political climate? Not really. NW (Talk) 02:40, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes they are but perhaps more complimentary to a surtax, which the Congress is considering, in order to get the intended results versus trying only to generate a "we-are-doing-something" atmosphere. --DeeperQA (talk) 04:19, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Please don't use the Reference Desk as a WP:SOAPBOX to talk about your personal proposals. Comet Tuttle (talk) 05:48, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree, DeeperQA, you are bringing up more and more similar questions daily, this is not a forum for discussion, it's suppose to be a place where you ask for references. Public awareness (talk) 06:25, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

You right it is a place to ask for references. I have been commenting on articles in the news and forget sometimes that the articles here have their own talk pages. In that regard what articles here cover the 5% on millionaire proposal before Congress right now and the $5 debit card proposal by Bank of America? --DeeperQA (talk) 06:32, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Article talk pages are equally inappropriate for commentary unrelated to improving the article. Also see WP:NOTFORUM. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 06:55, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

IMHO the question might well change the perspective of the article just as pointing out that a $5 charge for a previously free debit card sounds like replacing Coke Classic with the New Coke or splitting up original Netflix service and charging 150% for both cost Netflix over 1 million subscribers. Do you prefer edit wars in articles or discussions to avoid them on the talk page? WP:There are no rules. --DeeperQA (talk) 07:12, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

The point is that your feelings about whether it is a good idea or not, or your feelings about whether the change is meaningless or ineffective are irrelevant, this is not a forum. If you choose to edit articles to put in your own opinions you will most definitely be reverted. There may be a random essay called "Ignore all rules" but Wikipedia is built on a foundation of no original research, simply saying you want there to be original research and opinion doesn't mean it will ever be considered acceptable here. Discussions on talk pages should not be about your opinions either, they should be about references, and how to use those references in the article. Chris M. (talk) 16:37, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I will rephrase the question: Would the "pay in proportion to what you earn" as discussed here provide a superior option? --DeeperQA (talk) 07:32, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

In the same sense that a progressive tax system is "fair". Googlemeister (talk) 14:26, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

In the US poor people (and fraudsters with only cash income) commonly get food stamps, commodities, low cost housing or housing vouchers, "scholarships" allowing their children free or reduced cost YMCA memberships, and subsidized or free school lunches. There are real estate tax breaks in many localities for senior citizens. The OP's "50% off card" would presumably require a merchant or utility to sell his goods for half of the regular price (I would assume it would not apply to sale items). Food stamps, by contrast, can be used for sale or discount items. In many cases, this card would require the merchant or utility to sell below cost. If many of the customers of a given store used this card, the merchant or utility would certainly be forced out of business. Fraud via straw purchases would be rampant, if there was no limit on the amount of goods that could be purchased. If Granny is poor and gets the card, then Sonny could take Granny to the appliance store and get his new bigscreen TV for half price, with a straw purchase by Granny. If Granny gets a set amount of foodstamps each month, there is less possibility of fraud. Edison (talk) 15:37, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

The discount card would operate more or less identical to food stamps but include other items besides food as the primary difference. A discount card is simply a way to assure immediate and desperate relief at the bottom for the poor just as creating jobs is seen as a simple way to assure immediate and desperate relief for the middle class that would entail perhaps a 5% tax on assets. --DeeperQA (talk) 02:12, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

DeeperQA: This is not a proper way to use this page. This is a reference desk, the purpose of which is to ask for help in finding sources, or perhaps for objective answers to relatively straightforward questions. This is not the venue to hold subjective debates about class war in America. Gabbe (talk) 16:56, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you should not blame the OP for the question and debate but the members who provide their own opinions rather than citing references with supporting comments? --DeeperQA (talk) 02:48, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

The earliest response to you wasn't particularly opinionated at all. They said your proposal would be constitutional but not really politically feasible. While there may not be a reference to the latter, your response: "Its a logical method - much better than standing on a street corner, checking names and handing out $1,000 bills. While the State legislature or County Commission is controlled by corporate greed the American Congress is always ready, willing and able to lend the poor a helping hand." is most certainly a statement of opinion, that your method is "better" and there is corporate greed. Your answers may not have been devoid of any opinion, but your responses to them were nothing but soapboxing. Chris M. (talk) 16:37, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I believe the OP is looking for From each according to his ability, to each according to his need. DOR (HK) (talk) 07:30, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Purchasing a small kasher handwritten Torah scroll for personal use

I'm quite frankly not sure who or where one would ask about this, so I'll ask in Ref Desk (always a good spot imo). Where could one purchase a small (say about 1-2 feet tall) hand-written kasher (written on parchment made from the skin of a kasher animal) torah scroll that they could use for personal use (say Simchat Torah and also display)? I know they sell little electrically copied ones, [1] but I want something more authentic. And, if someone happens to find out where, could they be so kind as to tell the cost? (I'll assume they're not cheap) Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 9 Tishrei 5772 05:03, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll tell you if you use the correct English term, "kosher", from now on. Comet Tuttle (talk) 05:29, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Flinders does seem to be exhibiting pointy behaviour. Not done, old chap. --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:17, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

This appears to be one option [2] (rather pricey for new ones), but I wonder about ones produced in Israel. Can someone with better Hebrew skills than mine maybe locate such a service or two? It also looks like by small I meant 8 inches tall for the actual scroll (the other bits are taller :p) Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 9 Tishrei 5772 06:26, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm guessing that their main market is institutional buyers, not individuals. Get ten guys together pooling their money and it's not so bad. Interestingly, they use the "o." SDY (talk) 06:28, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

It appears that some of the smaller Torot [3] are advertised for both communities (by which I would guess they mean Jewish community centers and possibly other groups), as well as private homes, though it's too late to call about those (they also don't have the measurements sadly enough). I wonder if they sell such tiny ones in Israel that can be imported. I think many of the sites for those would probably be in Hebrew. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 9 Tishrei 5772 06:33, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Da yau have samething against the letter "o"? Googlemeister (talk) 13:18, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

It interferes with his sense of self-righteousness. --Jayron32 14:20, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Is there a Userbox for the user pages of editors who insist on spelling non-Latin-alphabet words in a transliteration other than the commonly used one? Then other editors could take a quick look at someone's user page and understand why he was using odd spellings on talk pages. Like if someone pointedly asked question at the Reference Desk about "Peiping," "Bombay," or "Mahomet." Many words in English were originated in other languages with different alphabets, and many words which came from the precursors of modern English were once spelled differently (. This would save volunteers on Ref Desk from doing Google Book searches or other research with spellings which are not used in references which might contain the information the OP says he wants. Or the editor could just refrain from trolling in the form of using idiosyncratic spellings. Edison (talk) 15:24, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

May I suggest that if SWMFP wants to use the original spelling he should also be using Hebrew characters? He should probably also be using Anglo-Saxon rather than the degraded Modern English.μηδείς (talk) 15:27, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Alright, I come back from Yom Kippur to find a series of personal attack and uncivil remarks which I should get out of the way. While I did not initially know that the spelling I use is also appears to be accepted by all major American English dictionaries as well as Encyclopedia Britannica as an alternative spelling of "Kosher"; [Merriam-Webster http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/kasher], [The American Heritage Dictionary and Collins English Dictionary http://www.thefreedictionary.com/kasher] [Random House Dictionary and Encylopedia Britannica http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/kasher] I am not going to do something childish demand or even ask for an apology for this unnecessary behaviour, but I will say that my respect for several editors whom I previously respected has been greatly diminished. I would also like to politely ask that if someone does not like the fact that I spell kosher as kasher, which, as you can see, is an accepted spelling (not knowing about something is no reason to get upset and uncivil about it) please ignore me when I use it (if you don't like something ignore it). I am not going to ask any further questions on these topics and will instead seek out a rebbe or another reference source. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 11 Tishrei 5772 04:15, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Consider yourself fortunate that Cuddly is currently on vacation, as they would likely have been all over you about this oddity. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:56, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

FWIW I agree you've been treated a little unfairly and was thinking that earlier but was reluctant to get involved before it was clear you cared. In the other thread, where you said it was the proper term, questioning/discussing that claim was IMO an acceptable diversion which you basically brought on yourself. However in this thread, as you didn't make the claim and instead simply chose to use your preferred term I don't see anything wrong with it. You've been accused of WP:Pointy behaviour but this seems to be an assumption of bad faith as I don't see any reason to believe your questions aren't real questions. (Of course if you did ask them just so you can use the term 'kasher' then you are somewhat guilty of point behaviour.) I also agree while people are free not to answer your question, coming here to say they won't answer it seems unnecessary although I can accept them saying it one time just to let you know. (I do wonder what sort of answers those who said they would answer can actually provide, I'm tempted to try it myself not for pointy reasons but just to see what sort of answers.) I don't personally believe it matters much whether the spelling appears in a dictionary either, I think it's fine people have their own preferred terms things. If you had taken it too far and used so many alternative terms that no one could understand what you were saying that would be a problem. But since you wikilinked the one term you did use an alternative for this wasn't an issue.

Anyway I didn't think I could help but actually did find a few things from a quick search. [4] discusses new ones and [5] discussed used ones. Used ones are suggested to be $5000-$12000. (I'm presuming all currencies are USD.) No price is suggested for new ones but the page for used ones suggests they perhaps not surprisingly are usually cheaper. There are a few listed in the used one pages but you have to ask about prices and no idea on when the page was updated (there's a 2009 copyright but it may not mean much either way). They are suggested to be for communities rather then inviduals but I would guess if you're Jewish and looking for the scroll for religious reasons they will have no problem selling to you. [6] also has new and used ones (look at the top for [7] and [8]). Again no prices but several used ones are listed although I have no idea how often the site is updated (a 2002-2003 copyright notice but again may not mean much). Next [9] which offers used and new ones. The cheapest new ones seem to be two different Ari style ones for $25000. There are 2 or 3 used ones, the cheapest one is either $12000 or $11000 (I'm not certain the 11k one is a scroll). However I should warn you most of the items were added in 2005 - 2007 (including the used ones) so it may be the site is quite outdated by now. Finally I found [10] (from [11]) which only seems to list new ones. The cheapest seems to be in Beis Yosef style for $22000. Again no idea on dates.

As for the kasher issue, the first site specifically mentions it. For the other sites, I didn't see anything but I would guess it's something they've considered so just ask if your concerned. Most of the sizes I saw were within your range (I saw ~12-22 inches).

BTW if I may make a suggestion, I'm not sure whether a tiny size is going to make a new scroll much cheaper. The big cost is likely to be the labour and provided we aren't talking about an extremely large one, I'm not sure how much easier it's going to be to scribe a small one (in fact it could even be more difficult). Other factors may make a bigger difference. Also a number of these, even if they are US sites seem to be using sofers in Israel. You may be able to save a bit by cutting out the 'go-between', so to speak, but I'm not sure whether it'll make a big difference. As I mentioned the labour is likely the big cost and it doesn't sound to me like the sort of thing you can expect cheaply. (Well actually the cheaper option may be to get some random likely non Jewish person in China or India or some other low wage economy to do it but I don't think they'd be considered an acceptable sofer.)

From these results I would suggest if you're willing and able to spend ~$25k for a new one it's probably worth making inquiries. Similarly if your willing to spend ~$10k for a used one. (Perhaps down to $5k but it seems less likely.) The sites may be outdated and even if not, perhaps the people involved would be willing to make inquiries or keep a lookout for something that fits what you want if you're a genuine potential and suitable buyer. I also saw it suggested you ask your rabbi for recommendations or assistance but I guess that already occured to you.

P.S. Also came across [12] but no idea if it's what you want and [13] which is but doesn't list anything. Still perhaps worth considering if you're making inquiries.

Edit: Was planning to suggest eBay but didn't actually do it. But just did a quick search for 'torah (scroll, sefer)', include description, located in any country/region and there are some things which may interest you. Some used ones which are listed as kasher for under $10k (~$7k). Ironically some of these seem to be from the torahscroll.com site above (which supports my view it's worth making inquiries if you're willing to spend that much). One (or more) is from some tiferes-judaica but seems different from the site you found. But that and some others come from Israel. Unfortunately a few of these are not listed as kasher (they specifically mention it), I don't quite understand why but I think it may be either because they haven't been sufficiently analysed or because they may contain errors, you should of course make inqueries if you're interested.

Which is another thing I was meaning to mention, if your Hebrew isn't that flash you'd likely need to find someone to help you make inquiries (if you are contacting someone who doesn't speak English well) to help ensure you know what you're getting. So getting someone here to find Hebrew sites may only be of limited use.

Also just to be clear I didn't intend my eBay search to be complete but a quick test. For example while looking thorough one sellers, I found in their listings a bunch of stuff I originally missed called 'Sefer Torah' in the title (but torah scroll is mentioned in the details). I've modified my search but you still want to think if there's any terms you may be missing, like looking at whats on sale and what's used to describe it and looking at the sellers and see if there's anything in their listings your missing in the search that may be used to describe the item instead. (As may also be obvious from the descriptions with stuff like 'currier', some of them don't have great English spelling so things like scrol, seffer and may be even sofer are worth considering.)

Also I don't know whether eBay is that significant for local/intra-Israel selling. If there's some other auction or similar small time seller site in Israel which is commonly used, look there too, and if you don't know see if you can find out. (E.g. in NZ TradeMe dominates the market, Malaysia has Lelong and a few other places, Japan has Yahoo auctions and of course Taobao in China.)

Hope this helps!

Nil Einne (talk) 16:16, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

dolls for sale

I'm interested in buying two Precious Moments, Inc. Native American vinyl dolls. Where can I find a legitimate place to do so?24.90.204.234 (talk) 05:14, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Well they have a shop on their official website which is linked in that article you linked. [14] You can also buy them at American Greetings from what I know. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 9 Tishrei 5772 05:17, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Ebay has a few. --Mr.98 (talk) 17:16, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I checked their website. They don't have what I want. Ebay mainly has the porcelain versions. The American Greetings website only sells eCards and printables.24.90.204.234 (talk) 21:47, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Have you tried here? (which I found in a quick Google search, by the way)--TammyMoet (talk) 12:03, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

They don't have what I want. What I wanted was one sitting Indian girl and one sitting Indian boy. I remember seeing them somewhere, I don't remember off the top of my head. Where can I find them?24.90.204.234 (talk) 06:01, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Have you actually spoken to them? You may be able to commission them to find them for you.--TammyMoet (talk) 07:12, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

iPhone 4s online order taking rollout

Is the purpose of syncing the online order taking rollout of the iPhone to a specific time to test the capacity of the ICload to handle a massive amount of simultaneous transactions or events? --DeeperQA (talk) 05:23, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

This is definitely a question for the Computing RefDesk. Also, I don't know anything about Apple products, so I can't actually answer your question. Sorry. :( Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 9 Tishrei 5772 05:26, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

No. It's to increase the excitement of being one of the first, even though in this case the user is being one of the first to order, rather than being one of the first to hold the device, or unbox it, or whatever. If you think about it a bit, taking these orders is very important for Apple financially; more so than any client's use of the servers. A test takes place to see if the server system fails, and obviously it would be awful for Apple if there were a big server failure on zero day. Comet Tuttle (talk) 05:28, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

It is exciting but also disappointing - Apple answers the phone and say it can understand a sentence so I ask: "How do I buy a new iPhone 4S?" I hear computer keyboard in the background and eventually Apple says its sorry that due to heavy call volume... call back later. --DeeperQA (talk) 06:42, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Fraternal lodge regalia? What's in this picture?

http://images.wikia.com/happymeal/images/f/fd/Fratlodge.jpg

http://images.wikia.com/happymeal/images/9/98/Fratlodge2.jpg

Can anyone identify the outfits on these fellows, as being from a particular type of fraternal lodge, or something similar? The photo is from what now is called the Greater Toronto Area in Ontario, Canada, but is currently unidentified. -- Zanimum (talk) 14:22, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Definitely not the Masons... my first thought was either the Grange, or the Orange Order. But the logo isn't right for either of those either. Granted, It is hard to make out the logo given the resolution of the photos... but it seems seem to be a red and white rose side by side (possibly with a thorn at the top)... so it could be some sort of Anglo-Scottish patriotic society. Blueboar (talk) 15:48, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. This is actually from an archives, where I work as a reprographics specialist one day a week. We're planning to post it on our Flickr, but we don't have an ID yet, so it's solely a picture of 200-300 men and boys in front of a barn, for the time being. Not remembering right now if this image was from one of the glass negatives, or from a print, but the people in the original... their heads are about 2 mm tall in the first image. Not sure how much more detail I'll be able to extract, if I do a new scan. (We're also a few miles away from the storage facility, which is under renovation, and we're understaffed, so it's not as easy as I'd like.) The photo was taken by Ernest Alfred Parsons, so it's possible that they're an Anglo-Scottish patriotic society, as you suggest. We have a bit of a biography about him, but nothing that relates to organizations he was in.

Anyone else want to take a shot at it, please? -- Zanimum (talk) 16:53, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

One more suggestion... contact The National Heritage Museum in Lexington Mass (the website is: [15] ... it has contact info)... they specialize in the history of Fraternal Orders (Masons, Odd Fellows, Elks, Knights of Columbus, Grange, etc) and the Fraternalism movement in general. They may recognize the regalia, or at least give you some additional suggestions for your own research. Blueboar (talk) 01:28, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

(US) Prohibition (against alcohol)

The recent Ken Burns series Prohibition inspired these questions:

1) He said "Prior to prohibition, female alcoholism was non-existent". I can't believe that. So, what was the actual rate before, during, and after Prohibition ?

2) The passing of the 18th Amendment is portrayed as a failure of representative democracy, with "representatives" voting for it even though they drank themselves (as did the majority of their constituents), out of fear of being targeted for "immorality" by dry forces. So, what percentage of the popular vote would have been for Prohibition ? Is it less than the 2/3 or 3/4 required to pass an Amendment ?

3) The enforcers seemed to feel free to not only destroy any seized alcoholic beverages, but also the barrels, trucks, etc., used to transport it. Was this legal ? StuRat (talk) 16:52, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Would they have even accurately have recorded rates of female alcoholism, before Prohibition? It seems like something families would keep hush-hush. -- Zanimum (talk) 16:55, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

On #2, from an article abstract:

Prevalence estimates of women alcoholics first appeared in the late nineteenth century; and between 1884 and 1912, data on some 24,200 institutionalized alcoholics produced male-female patient ratios ranging from 3:1 to 9:1. These estimates, however, suffered from some of the same difficulties inherent in modern prevalence figures: "Hidden alcoholism" and a lack of treatment facilities caused the data to under-report women, while patient sex ratios varied by socioeconomic status. These data problems are largely unresolved, and securing reliable prevalence information on women alcoholics remains a frustrating matter for both the social historian and the modern alcohol researcher.

So it was hardly "non-existent", given that you had a pretty strong presence of women in treatment centers, and that number is clearly a low-ball estimate. This article discusses a number of more qualitative factors involved as well. --Mr.98 (talk) 17:12, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, 98, but you seem to have confused your number 1 and number 2. StuRat (talk) 21:26, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Regarding #3, if they seize the property the government then ends up with it. What are they going to do with it? Governments seizing property and then using it for themselves has an awkward connotation: it begs the question of whether the seizure took place because the government wanted the object, not because of a violation of the law. Destroying it makes it clear that the government's objective is enforcement, not theft. Out of curiosity, I know that drug busts still have similar consequences (i.e. if you're using a car to smuggle illicit drugs in NY, they take your car as well). Do they auction off the property and use the proceeds to pay for the defendant's legal expenses? SDY (talk) 22:04, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Here in the US, I believe they auction it off and keep the money (not personally, but it goes into the general fund), so this certainly is a conflict of interest, and one must wonder if a city low on funds and about to lay off cops might find that those cops tend to plant drugs on out-of-state vehicles (whose occupants presumably can't vote for a new mayor or police chief to clean up the corruption). But I believe there are specific drug forfeiture laws which apply, now. My question is whether such laws existed during Prohibition or if the cops just did as they pleased. StuRat (talk) 22:09, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Our article on this is Asset forfeiture. Comet Tuttle (talk) 22:47, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any mention of the Prohibition era there. StuRat (talk) 00:16, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

As far as a "failure of democracy" is concerned, yes and no. As far as how many voters would have supported it, what is "it"? At least according to the documentary (one of Burns' better works), most Americans believed that what was being targeted -- "intoxicating liquors" -- referred to hard liquor; the assumption seemed to be that beer and wine would remain legal. So it's hard to tell what percentage of the population would have voted in favor of total prohibition (as opposed to partial prohibition), since the populace was never asked (and polling was very much in its infancy.) --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:19, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Note that I said "failure of representative democracy", not "failure of democracy" in general. That is, if the margin of people who supported total Prohibition was less than what would be needed to pass a Constitutional Amendment (if, in fact, those Amendments were passed based on popular vote), then direct democracy would presumably have avoided this foolish mistake. I'm trying to establish whether this is the case, or not. I can't believe that such a major change in American life passed without anyone having done a survey. StuRat (talk) 16:36, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

As I said, opinion polling was in its infancy; how would such a survey have been done? --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:51, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Door-to-door, by phone, by letter, etc. A simple count of "for" and "against" letters to a newspaper would give some indication. StuRat (talk) 17:05, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

How about the simple count of votes "for" and "against" "dry" political candidates? --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 18:49, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

That doesn't work because presumably the voters vote for and against candidates for many reasons, not just their stance on Prohibition. StuRat (talk) 01:53, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

The US is not a direct democracy it is a constitutional republic, thus it does not matter what the people think on an issue, the elected officials can make any decision they wish on a matter. Public awareness (talk) 18:52, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Irrelevant to my Q. StuRat (talk) 22:30, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

According to the graphics shown in the first episode, the majority of Americans were already subject to "dry" laws by the time the amendment roared through. But look at the problems they were trying to fix, and it's easy to conclude that it seemed like a good idea at the time. It lasted 13 year or so and then was repealed. That strikes me as a triumph, not a failure, of representative democracy. As interesting and informative as Burns' films are, he sometimes latches on to an idea and sticks with it even when it's factually questionable. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:51, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

They also said those "dry laws" often allowed for the purchase of liquor for home consumption, and only were aimed at closing saloons. That seems more reasonable to me. (Having a bar you drive to and from, and expecting that people driving from the bar will never be driving drunk, is absurd.) Also, prior to prohibition, it was often only a short drive to a wet town. I do agree with Ken Burns often "not letting facts get in the way of a good story", though. StuRat (talk) 01:42, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

There is just about nothing regarding the 1932 Democratic platform, which stood for the repeal of prohibition, and which was a stand that attracted a lot of "single issue voters". Here are the planks:

• We advocate the repeal of the Eighteenth Amendment. To effect such repeal we demand that the Congress immediately propose a Constitutional Amendment to truly represent [sic] the conventions in the states called to act solely on that proposal; we urge the enactment of such measures by the several states as will actually promote temperance, effectively prevent the return of the saloon, and bring the liquor traffic into the open under complete supervision and control by the states.

• We demand that the Federal Government effectively exercise its power to enable the states to protect themselves against importation of intoxicating liquors in violation of their laws.

• Pending repeal, we favor immediate modification of the Volstead Act; to legalize the manufacture and sale of beer and other beverages of such alcoholic content as is permissible under the Constitution and to provide therefrom a proper and needed revenue. [www.presidency.ucsb.edu http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=29595#ixzz1aImLSVrh Read more at the American Presidency Project]

μηδείς (talk) 16:22, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Strategic -Culture Fit in MNC (software of the mind) -articles

HI, I am a Research Scholar, searching out for the information on the Topic, "Software of the Mind"- Strategic-Culture Fit in Multinational Corporations of various countries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sheela Reddy (talk • contribs) 18:34, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

That doesn't sound like a topic, but more like a rather obscure title. If you can decipher that into an actual topic, then maybe we can help. The "Software of the mind" part sounds like it's talking about human intelligence, while "Strategic-Culture Fit in Multinational Corporations of various countries" sounds like maybe it's talking about companies which alter their products to fit different cultures. I don't see how the two are directly related, do you ? StuRat (talk) 21:23, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused as to what exactly you are asking, but (if I have understood your question properly) you might like to look at the work of Geert Hofstede around culture in multinational corporations. --TammyMoet (talk) 12:01, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Marx and morality of wages and profit

In Capital I, p.61, Marx wrote that "[Adolf Wagner] foists me on the idea that "the surplus-value produced by the labourers alone improperly remains with the capitalist entrepeneurs"... In fact, I say the direct opposite: namely that at a certain point commodity production necessarily becomes 'capitalist' commodity production and that according to the law of value governing the latter, the "surplus-value" is necessarily the capitalist's and not the labourer's." (my emphasis)

What? I've only just begun to browse through his material, but this contradicts everything any modern marxist has ever said to me - if I'm reading it right, that is. What I read here (and it is echoed a few other places), if I am to translate it into what I easily understand, is that the entrepeneur, having facilitated for the efficient production of the commodity, properly owns some of the profit. That's the word he uses here, and it's as normative as they come: It is PROPER of the entrepeneur to retain profit. Now, Marx repeatedly says that -part- of the surplus-value is unpaid labour, and that this is immoral. What I want to know is, does he ever get any more specific with regards to how much profit is moral to keep?

In the end, it appears to me that Marx says profit, within reason for the labourer, is entirely alright prior to the social revolution, ie as long as there are capitalists. However, Eduard Bernstein never seems to meet him on this point in The Preconditions for Socialism - as I'm almost sure he would.

Could any of you possibly help shed some light on the issue? I thank you in advance! 129.241.165.147 (talk) 20:43, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

We have an article on surplus value that talks about this and might help. Marx's problem was that the laborer was providing more than he was being paid for, and that the difference between costs to the employer and benefits to the employer (the difference being the "surplus value") was essentially theft. Since the laborer cannot make money without the employer, they are nominally stuck with any terms the employer gives them. This doesn't hold as much water as Marx might like since the employer is also dependent on the laborer, the employer has to pay something even if the laborer's only option is a take it or leave it. SDY (talk) 21:13, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Marx isn't a moralist—Marx is a social constructivist when it comes to moral theories: all society exists in the context of its material base. For Marx, within capitalism, capitalism justifies its moral order by being the natural order of culture in capitalism. The point Marx is making here, is that in Feudal societies, extracting profit from workers was viewed as usury or unjust, whereas in capitalism, such as extraction is viewed as moral. The morality is socially contingent. Marx never gets specific about how much surplus value it is moral to keep in capitalism, as Marx's Capital is a revolutionary manual (see Harry Cleaver's Reading Capital Politically for this). Every category Marx presents: wage labour, the length of the working day, surplus value, is contestable—why? Marx thinks that the whole edifice of capital can be dismantled. As Marx shows in the contest over the length of the working day, each of these categories is contingent upon social power. So with enough social power, the surplus value extracted can be reduced. A key example here is social democracy such as the Labour governments in Britain after the war. They had sufficient social power to tax surplus value production and divest it as social goods. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:48, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

The error underlying Marx work on surplus value and profit is that value is objective. The labor theory of value is based on the assumption that value is objective because value, in Marx' world, is determined by the amount of labor that goes into production. If this were true, then an apple pie would be as valuable as (and command the same price as) a mud pie assuming the same amount of labor went into the production of each. Objective value also gives rise to the "markets as exploitation" argument since every transaction is a zero-sum game: if you pay $12 for something that has an objective value of $10, you lose and the seller wins. In fact, value is subjective. Suppose you value a car so much that you'd be willing to part with $20,000 to obtain the car, and a seller values the same car so much that he'd not be willing to part with it for less than $10,000. If the two of you agree on a sale price of $16,000, then you both win -- you get a car worth (to you) $20,000 for a price of $16,000, and the seller sells a car worth (to him) $10,000 for a price of $16,000. Wikiant (talk) 13:07, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd suggest you actually read Marx. His labour theory of value has nothing in common with the absurdity you just presented. Marx stipulates that the labour power engaged in producing value is exerted labour power in an abstract social form performed at the socially average productivity rate. It is in Volume 1 and it is clearly presented. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:00, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

OP here. Thank you for your help, it is much appreciated. I chose to ignore what Wikiant provided -- it seemed entirely irrelevant.

I guess it is the wording that gets to a lot of people; the word "exploit" (same in German) is used so often that I can understand why readers could attribute a moral condemnation to what Marx wrote, when they really should not. I have another question which is tangentially related: As Bernstein wrote in Preconditions, capitalism looks to increase the length of the working day. Expanded infinitely, I reason, this amounts to slavery. However, Bernstein/Marx/others are pretty clear that the Lassallean understanding of the iron law of wages must be discarded -- as (I believe) you say above, there is a cultural factor here. My question then is, did Marx pursue the arguments about the working-day length to the point where they'd amount to slavery? 129.241.222.144 (talk) 12:19, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I think Marx chose "exploit" for political reasons—there's a link between the "exploitation of natural resources" which is the sense in which Marx describes the exploitation of workers, and the idea of "unfair exploitation". Marx's discussion on the production of value from the labour process is based on a model wherein nobody "cheats" each other, and everything occurs through formal legal consent. Workers are exploited to the extent that they don't control their own production. Given that workers—people reliant on wages for subsistence—are reliant on the employing class regardless of the length of the working day to survive, any length of working day means that they're in the condition of wage slavery. Arguments about the appropriate length of the working day have generally occurred when the amount of rest and leisure was insufficient for the reproduction of labour and the reproduction of labour power by workers: when they're too tired to work. This view sees the shortening of the working day and week as part of increasing total labour exertion, and as a response to "skill" increases required by increasing mechanisation. When you're too tired to operate the widget shifter, it breaks. Debates on the intensity of the worked day are also apt, when people worked 14 hour days, some worked very slack 14 hour days. EP Thompson's [Time Work Discipline and Industrial Capitalism] is useful here. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:35, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Dwindling nationalism?

So one can find many examples of sharp rises in nationalism throughout history (Québec in the 1960s, Scotland a bit later, the Basque country in the 1930s...) but I can't think of a clear example of fervent —separatist— nationalist sentiment shrinking or disappearing in modern history. Can anyone think of a strong separatist sentiment become marginal again after a few years, decades or maybe centuries? --Belchman (talk) 21:56, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

The State of Jefferson almost got going for a while. Then WWII happened and people had other things to think about. It's not a separatist movement in the usual sense, but it is one example. SDY (talk) 22:10, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure how strong these all were, and their current level of interest, but perhaps, Riograndense Republic,Confederate States of America, Free Aceh Movement, Hawaiian sovereignty movement, and Sri Lankan Civil War. Belgium seems to be losing its nationalism, which was of course strong when it fought for its independence in the 1830s, Partition of Belgium. To go back a bit further in time, you may try looking to see in any of the Indian states which formed India had seperatist sentiments at the time, but are now gone, and same could go for Germany, Italy, France, and Spain, which all unified from multiple states. Public awareness (talk) 22:26, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Also, Republic of Yucatán & Boer Wars, and you may want to check out this list, List of former sovereign states. But when reading the list remember that many of the nations that did split from their mother nation were not always because of popular setiment, but could have been splits due to crown inheritence problems in monarch states or a few individuals trying to pull a Coup d'état on a province of a nation and trying to get independence. Public awareness (talk) 22:37, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

What about every nationalist movement you mentioned? Quebec, Scotland, and the Basque country are not separate states today, despite the rising nationalist periods you mentioned; nationalist sentiment has dwindled in each of those places now compared to various times in the past. Comet Tuttle (talk) 22:39, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I think separatism can increase rapidly, but only slowly reduces. StuRat (talk) 00:26, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Khalistani separatism dwindled quite rapidly in the 1990s. --Soman (talk) 08:35, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Texas Nationalism saw a surge during the year before the most recent election for governor. I haven't heard much about it since then. This particular movement sees peaks and valleys every decade-and-a-half-or-so. Schyler (exquirere bonum ipsum) 18:26, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Many regions in Europe have at times an active separatist movement: Bavaria in Germany, Andalusia in Spai, Bretagne in France, South Tirol in Italy. They come and go, sometimes after several decades. Quest09 (talk) 20:35, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Andalusia has never had anything remotely resembling a separatist movement. They do have a strong regional identity though —but their Spanish identity is equally strong. --Belchman (talk) 23:58, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps they were thinking of Basque seperatists. StuRat (talk) 01:48, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I guess you meant "separatists"... --Belchman (talk) 21:55, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Yep. Looks like that error is so common that Wikipedia has a redirect for it. StuRat (talk) 22:15, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

To an American, the southern United States are the obvious example. Lots of southerners still feel a strong sense of regional identity, but not many want to secede from the USA any more. Looie496 (talk) 23:10, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Also see Biafra and Katanga. Losing a civil war tends to do that. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:12, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

The Bavaria Party once had a considerable turnout, but then lost most of its voters. But if we are talking about powerful separatist movements you truly should read the article Belgium. Flamarande (talk) 11:25, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I keep thinking the NO vote in the Australian republic referendum, 1999 could be seen as a case of dwindling nationalism. The Prime Minister of the day, John Howard, is an avowed monarchist, and he certainly has never had any interest in bringing on a republic. He responded to significant public demand for a change, but was smart enough to offer only one type of republic as an alternative, which he knew few would be prepared to accept. So the majority voted to keep a head of state who lives in another country. Since then, the public mood appears to be quite disinterested in the whole issue. They say its time will come again. They say that will happen whenever Queen Elizabeth dies. Why it should tied to that event, I have never been able to work out. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 10:51, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

The European Union is a prime example of anti-nationalism. DOR (HK) (talk) 07:33, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Not really. On the contrary the institutions of EU work hard to foster (although rather unsuccessfully) a 'European identity', which itself would be a form of nationalism. --Soman (talk) 08:43, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

October 8

Gun fights between members of the Provisional IRA and loyalist paramilitaries

Did the republican and the loyalist paramilitaries ever fight a direct gun fight or something resembling a regular battle? --Belchman (talk) 19:58, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes. See Battle_of_St_Matthew's. Quest09 (talk) 21:24, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Ulster Protestants and Scotland

Why do Protestants living in Northern Ireland fanatically self-identify as British while separatism in their mother country Scotland is so popular? --Belchman (talk) 20:20, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

"fanatically" is a matter of opinion. They identify as British because they are indeed British and agree that this is the right status quo, with Northern Ireland being a part of the UK. Otherwise they will call themselves Irish.

Separatism might be popular or not depending on how violent you are. People sympathize more with non-violent separatists. Quest09 (talk) 21:28, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Maybe I used the wrong word. Probably "fiercely" would be more appropriate. I meant that they're apparently very proud of their British identity. --Belchman (talk) 23:30, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

It would be a mistake to think that Presbyterians in Ireland were always Unionists or supporters of the (Episcopalian) Protestant Ascendancy. The Society of United Irishmen article would be worth reading in this regard. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:35, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

As an English Briton, it seems from this side of the water as though the Ulster Unionists cling to their British identity as a way of preventing themselves from being sidelined in a mainly Catholic and republican (ie anti-monarchist) island. To us, they seem to act in a very un-British way - marching through the streets under a forest of Union Jacks behind a fife and drum band is something that few English people would do. It is also astonishing to me that anyone calling themselves a Loyalist would consider throwing bricks at the Queen's police officers, but that has happened with depressing regularity during the Ulster "marching season". If there was an easy answer to the Irish conundrum, I expect it would have been found by now. Alansplodge (talk) 22:54, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

As a descendant of Irish Catholic immigrants in Liverpool (because we colonized them back!) the problems in Ireland have always been of interest to me. Alan's comment of this behaviour being very 'un-British', though, is slightly incorrect, as I have memories of my 1970s childhood, when we still had the Orange marches here in Liverpool (which we still do very occasionally), and my grandfather (ex-seargent major in his adopted country's army, and who fought in El-Alamein and Italy) plowing into the marching men and women with a big stick, along with hundreds of others. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 07:34, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

That's really interesting. I knew that the Orange Order was a big thing in Glasgow, but it's completely alien to us here in the south. In the 1990s I was staying in a bed-and-breakfast in Fort William and was given a lecture by a Glaswegian on how he hoped Manchester United woulldn't win the FA Cup because apparently they're a Catholic team. I was astonished that any football club in England would have a religious affiliation or that anyone would care. It makes no sense. Alansplodge (talk) 08:43, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Everton FC and Liverpool FC were originally catholic and protestant, respectively. Everton supporters were (and mostly still are) Catholic, and Liverpool supporters were originally protestant. We have Catholic and Protestant schools here in Liverpool (and suburbs) - some of them right opposite each other, leading to massive brawls at home-time when we were kids, and in my early years I remember even having whole areas of suburbs being designated as 'proddie' (i.e. protestant) and were therefore no-go areas for us catholics. This was the 1970s, though. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 08:48, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

That's the first I've heard of any sectarian divide in football in Liverpool and I never detected any such issues when I lived in the city in the 1980s. Neither History of Liverpool F.C. nor History of Everton F.C. mention it either. Astronaut (talk) 14:52, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Here's a reference for it: "During the 1950s and 1960s Everton were coined as the Catholic club mainly as a result of successful Irish players Tommy Eglington, Peter Farrell and Jimmy O'Neill as well as manager Johnny Carey. This in turn caused Liverpool to be thought of as Protestant club, not signing an Irish Catholic until Ronnie Whelan in 1979. However, it should be noted that this notional divide was never seen as a basis for supporting a certain side as is the case with Celtic and Rangers. In truth both teams have strong support from all denominations as well as many fans from Presbyterian North Wales and Catholic Ireland. Most importantly, the actual clubs themselves did not act to strengthen sectarian divides and in fact both clubs stem from a Methodist origin." Alansplodge (talk) 15:27, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest that the OP get a copy of Dervla Murphy's excellent book A PLace Apart which she wrote after cycling around Northern Ireland in 1976 and 1977, and exploring the mentality of the locals. Her keen insights into the loyalist mindset and his/her wish to maintain his British identity is worth reading. Remember that the religious issues in Northern Ireland stem from the Draconian Penal Laws enacted by the English following William III's victory at the Battle of the Boyne and the subtle theocracy of the Catholic Church in Ireland. Both Catholics and Protestants in Ulster are reared on their own particular myths. I went to a party held by loyalists in a prosperous area in south Belfast and one drunken woman began lamenting about "the days of the Empire". That says a lot regarding the loyalist mindset.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:14, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

There seems to be a fair amount of confusion in these posts between "British" and "English". Although there may be some residual remnants of Protestant - Catholic sectarianism in Liverpool, elsewhere in England that simply no longer exists, so far as I'm aware. The overwhelming majority of English people have no interest in religion, and those that do have no interest in differentiation by denomination. But it certainly exists in Glasgow, and I suspect across wider areas of Scotland. As has been said, Northern Ireland was mainly colonised by Scots - who, if you look at a map, are just a few miles away - rather than by the English. Why, then, is the Ulster Protestant sentiment related to "Britain", rather than to Scotland? What would happen if Scotland became independent of England? Would Ulster Protestants then want to associate themselves with England rather than Scotland - and, if so, why? Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:29, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

There was a settlement from England, under the Earl Fitzwilliam, who took workers from his estates in West Yorkshire. At a guess, people descended from this settlement would wish to associate themselves with England - although if Yorkshire ever gained its independence, they might wish to go back to their real roots... --TammyMoet (talk) 10:52, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually there were plenty of English settlements in Ulster, not to mention Cromwell's men who were given land as a reward for their (God-guided) military prowess, and many Protestants from Dublin who moved North following partition (these were mainly English). And let us not overlook the many English soldiers who remained in Northern Ireland and married Ulster women. Another thing; if one takes a look at the bios of these loyalists one can see the many connections Northern Ireland Protestants have with England: Billy Wright (loyalist) (born in Wolverhampton of Northern Irish parents; Davy Fogel, a Londoner and former British soldier who settled in Belfast; Gusty Spence English dad; Michael Stone (loyalist), allegedly born in England. The Orange Order was founded by the Anglican Church, not Presbyterian, as a means of uniting all Protestanst in Ulster against the Catholics. Another point: the enthusiastic flag-waving and church-going Ulstermen of today would not have been out of place in pre-war England, and whilst religion is no longer important to the average English person it sure as hell was before. After all, the UK is one of the few nations whose anthem contains the word "God". Like Voltaire said, England is the nation of one sauce and a hundred religions.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:15, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

You're quite right in what you say Jeanne; my point is that behaving in a way that was abandoned 70 years ago (or more) in the rest of the country is not easily defensible, especially when the rest of the country is paying the bills for them to do it. Apologies for the rant; I'll take a deep breath now... Alansplodge (talk) 15:33, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

That's why I suggested that the OP get a copy of Dervla Murphy's book as she brings up your sentiments in her book. Many British soldiers in fact had felt outraged at the way the loyalists were using the Union Jack. On the other hand, once the PIRA started killing British soldiers, to avoid having to fight two battling paramiltary groups, many British soldiers had no choice but to take the side of the loyalists (or to make it appear that way). I always had a lot of sympathy for the British soldiers caught in the Ulster muddle. They were always friendly and polite to me whenever I went up North.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:43, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I was in Manchester city centre on Saturday, three weeks ago, and was walking up Cross Street when I was rather surprised to come across a godawful racket which turned out to be an Orange Order march coming the other way with lots of pipes and drums. Most of the banners seemed to refer to lodges in Scotland, and a few from Liverpool and possibly one from Preston (though it may have been Prestonpans, depending on how the banner fell). In 53 years living in this country, it's the first time I've come across the Orange Order in the flesh. The local reaction seemed to be curiosity, combined with some annoyance that they were stopping people from crossing the street to Marks and Spencer for ten minutes on a Saturday afternoon! -- Arwel Parry (talk) 20:23, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

It's wrong to say that Unionists oppose devolution or decentralisation. They don't want to be part of a united Ireland and prefer to remain in the UK, but are happy to have control over their own land. Many Ulster Unionists have always supported devolution, providing it was on their terms: from the 1920s until the imposition of direct rule in 1972, Northern Ireland was run by a devolved Unionist-led government, and around the time of the Good Friday Agreement the then-dominant Ulster Unionist Party was keen on devolution. The DUP, now the main Unionist party, has also come to see the advantages.

Similarly, while Scots want some control over their own country, most do not want independence. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:59, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

This article may be of interest: Vanguard Unionist Progressive Party.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:07, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Going back to a comment at the top — not all Presbyterians in Northern Ireland, even in the present day, are pro-British or anti-British. The Reformed Presbyterian Church of Ireland has always maintained, to the present day, a strict neutrality on the issue; in the past, it was because it dissented from the government, and today it's quite simply a practical way to avoid intentionally being targeted by militants on either side. Nyttend (talk) 04:39, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

_Provisional_ Irish Republican Army

Why is the Provisional IRA called "Provisional"? The article on the PIRA says something about a "Provisional" Army Council but other than that, what's the reason? --Belchman (talk) 23:38, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

The original IRA broke up in 1969; the group that followed the original leadership became the Official Irish Republican Army, while the other group had to "scrape together" a leadership council, so became the "Provisional" IRA. The "Official" and "Provisional" appellations were originally rejected by both groups, who both considered themselves the legitimate successors to the original Irish Republican Army (1922–1969), they both just called themselves the "IRA". Historians and media came to differentiate the groups between those that remained with the original leadership and ideology (The Officials) and those that formed from the new leadership (The Provisionals). You can get the sense of this history at all three articles. --Jayron32 00:52, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

The "official" IRA from the 1920s ended up becoming pretty much a minor Trotskyite faction, without any real interest or capability in extralegal activities, so those who wanted a more actively confrontational grouping had to form their own organization. Nowadays we have the "Real IRA"... AnonMoos (talk) 17:00, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

The main difference between the Officials and the Provisionals is that the former were overtly Marxist and sought a political solution whereas the Provos modus operandi was to conduct a military campaign with the aim of ending partition on the island of Ireland, British occupation in Northern Ireland, and to establish a 32-county socialist republic based on the 1916 proclamation.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 10:26, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

The Officials never turned Trotskyists. Rather they landed quite close to the CPSU line. The differences between the Officials (Workers Party) and the CPI is a quite interesting tale, as CPI was more supportive of the Provos. --Soman (talk) 12:30, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

October 9

Do Canadians do anything?

Why is Canada mentioned so rarely in the American media? Canada is the world's 10th wealthiest country, one of America's neighbors, its biggest trading partner, and its biggest supplier of energy. It's the closest thing to an economic and financial powerhouse within several thousand kilometers, yet I very rarely hear any mention of Canada in American news. Why is this the case? --140.180.16.144 (talk) 00:22, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Because in Canada you don't have shootings like in Columbine, millions being evicted, bombing of third nations and an active pop culture industry. Honestly, to report something there must be something to report. Is there a Canadian Paris Hilton?. Add on the top of that that Americans really don't care much about foreign affairs. Wikiweek (talk) 00:26, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

"Is there a Canadian <that woman whose name I refuse ever to utter>?" - No other country would dare produce such a creature. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 01:19, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Celine Dion, Justin Bieber? --140.180.16.144 (talk) 06:03, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Of course. The Canadian versions of Dion and Bieber are Dion and Bieber themselves. I suspect Jack is talking about that American women who might be a distant in-law of one of the members of Monty Python, but maybe not. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:38, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Because the USA pretends that everything revolves around themselves. →Στc. 00:27, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Now, that comment reveals a nearsighted viewpoint. Or perhaps asigmatism. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:41, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

On what basis is the OP making the claim that Canada is underrepresented in the American media? Could the answer be "it isn't being underrepresented" or "before we can answer your question, could you at least present some evidence before making outrageous and unproven statements?" Answering a question which is itself completely wrong doesn't make any sense. Before we answer the question, can we at least fact-check the premise? Have you stopped beating your wife? I'm not absolutely saying that the OP is incorrect, but we also cannot assume that they are without evidence... --Jayron32 00:44, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Mass media has no duty to equally represent news, their business is only to attract viewers which they sell to advertisers. Sooo, what gets coverage in the media is based on what gets viewers, see Missing white woman syndrome for a well known major distortion. Public awareness (talk) 01:06, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Could you please stop putting words into my mouth? I never claimed Canada was "underrepresented". In fact, I never claimed anything aside from easily-verifiable facts--that Canada is the world's tenth largest economy, that it's a U.S. neighbor, and so on. My question, for those who couldn't be bothered to read it, was "why is Canada mentioned so rarely in the American media?" That's my personal impression, and you're free to disagree with it. In addition, my not-entirely-serious title was "do Canadians do anything?" suggests that one reason is that Canada has minimal impact on the world, aka that it's NOT underrepresented.

Even if I was claiming that Canada is underrepresented--which I wasn't--I feel sorry for you for considering such a statement outrageous. If you're so insulted by a neutral and non-judgmental statement, why are you on Wikipedia in the first place, and how do you deal with edit wars? --140.180.16.144 (talk) 01:03, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't think Jayron32 meant anything personal by it, and it is very easy to connect "underrepresented" and "mentioned so rarely". Please try to keep your tone calm, even if someone was being a jerk, it's best to keep calm. Public awareness (talk) 01:09, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Disagree with your premise, and like Jayron I agree you have asked a complex question. Mentioned rarely? A Google News search for just the last 24 hours comes up with stories in the Washington Post, CNN, Bloomberg, Fox, USA Today, San Francisco Chronicle, Houston Chronicle, and hundreds of other smaller outlets; stories include the Keystone Pipeline, the Canadian dollar vs other world currencies, a falling satellite (German), labor data, a jobs boost (in Canada, not in the US), and other things. Plenty of coverage. Antandrus (talk) 01:12, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Americans were grateful for Canadian efforts to rescue American diplomats during the Iran hostage crisis.

The last actual news out of Canada was their helping to smuggle a bunch of our hostages out of Iran. The operation is known as Yo, Canada!. But plenty of things happen in the US that are news in Canada, like premier Danny Williams flying to the US for heart surgery [16] while his compatriots wait months and die before being allowed to use either of the two MRI's rationed per province under their free national healthcare system. But what does any of this have to do with the reference desk? μηδείς (talk) 01:21, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

If you claim an event that happened over 30 years ago (!) was the last actual news out of Canada, that doesn't say much for your interest in references. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 02:17, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

You, know, Jack, it was your claim that I was "in hot water" in the last thread without specifying what it was that I was in hot water for that reminded me of my total lack of respect for you as a racist ni99er joke maker with no sense of irony or self awareness, and, in contrast to myself and others here, very little to say on topics, and all too much to say on personality. Now, if you want to post some news out of Canada that matters to you, feel free. I stand by my assertion that the resscue of the Iranian-held US hostages is the biggest story in the US regarding Canada for the last 35 years if not more. I provided links. What have you provided? But if you intend to continue with these WP:personal attacks I'll simply provide links to your racist nonsense, and maybe file an RfC, but otherwise ignore you. Stick to the topics. No one is impressed by your baseless opinions and personal insults. μηδείς (talk) 03:27, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Not that it's relevant to this thread or even this desk, but I specified exactly what the hot water was about. Quote from the Miscellaneous desk: "You got into hot water when you made the question only about the USA, though it never had any such territorial limitation. That argument was opposed, and you have not defended it. End of issue." But frankly, there's no point carrying on that conversation here, when you haven't done so there. So much for sticking to the topic.

You call me "a racist ni99er joke maker", and say you have no respect for me, yet accuse me of personal attacks and personal insults. Do you see something wrong here?

I responded to your claim that the Iran hostage thing was the "last" news out of Canada, clearly an absurd proposition. Now you're saying it's "the biggest" story in the past 35 years. That is one huge backtrack. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 03:50, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Plus it is absurd and not true. Operation Yellow Ribbon was a pretty big deal. 207.81.30.213 (talk) 16:15, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd be surprised to see that that made the front page anywhere, although there is no downplaying the goodlifullness of the assistance. But the rescue of the hostages was the top story for days. Not until the escape of Bambi Bembenek would Canada reappear so in the headlines. μηδείς (talk) 16:29, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Because Canada is a peaceful, prosperous, democratic country that's always more or less friendly to the United States. Mexico is known for drug wars, assassinations and millions of illegal immigrants crossing into the U.S., so of course it's going to be in the news a lot. Europe has a debt crisis that could wreck the world economy. The Middle East is full of conflict and revolution. But Canada? Do you think it really makes a difference to American viewers who wins the election in Ontario? It's not as if it could lead to a war or communist takeover or something. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:38, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

That is, basically, the correct answer. It is not like Nebraska or North Dakota or Alabama makes the news either. There was the Trial of Mark Steyn and the last time the Toronto Bluejays or the Montreal Canadiens made the playoffs. Or when John Candy or the naturalized US citizen and 9/11 collateral victim Peter Jennings died. But those events occurred in the US, eh? μηδείς (talk) 03:47, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I think Canada is overrepresented in American news, mentioned more often than other similar places than one would expect given the general criteria that results in news coverage, probably because of its proximity, friendship, and similarity of language and culture. What are those criteria? In broad strokes, conflict. We write more about angst than we do about anything else. We will always write more about beheadings taking place than we will about some peaceful thing happening. Canada, as a relatively stable, peaceful, law abiding, war free place gets far more coverage than other similar conflict free places. Murder, death, violence, war, drugs is bigger news than peaceful topics.--108.54.26.7 (talk) 04:49, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Having lived most of my life in Buffalo and Seattle, I've gotten lots of news out of Canada. Currently an issue that comes up often in the Seattle area is controversy over various pipeline proposals for getting Alberta petroleum products to ports in BC—probably near Vancouver, which would increase tanker traffic in the shared waters of the Strait of Juan de Fuca. Also a coal export terminal proposed to be built near Bellingham, WA, is often compared to a similar BC coal terminal at Westshore Terminals, just barely north of the international border. The coal unit trains that haul coal to Westshore go via Portland, OR, and north through Olympia, Tacoma, Seattle, and Bellingham. I can't speak for US news in general, but regionally, Canadian news is certainly important for US regions near Canada--especially economic news that would effect transnational regions. Canadian political news doesn't tend to be paid as much attention. But even there, the fall of the Liberal party and various votes of no confidence and other crises have made some newsfall down here ("newsfall"?). Pfly (talk) 05:33, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Due to the fact that we haven't been at war with Canada since they were a British colony and when The Star-Spangled Banner was written, there's not a whole lot of reason for Canada to be in the news all the time. We think of them as harmless, or mostly harmless. There was a bit of a tiff over them harboring draft dodgers in the 1960s, but that was awhile back. One answer would be one time on Whose Line Is It Anyway? where host Drew Carey said that the points awarded to the performers on the show "mean nothing. They're like spy planes over Canada." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:44, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I happen to know from very reliable sources that Canadians with their small beady eyes are planning to invade America and warp the fragile little minds of the children!-- Obsidi♠n Soul 15:10, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Interesting responses, everyone. It looks like my original impression that Canada isn't in the news very much is inaccurate, especially for regions near the border.

@Jayron: sorry if my previous post seemed like a personal attack. I was very surprised that anyone would consider a question like "why is Canada rarely in the news?" to be outrageous. --140.180.16.144 (talk) 06:02, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

No offense taken here. I didn't say the question was outrageous; I even allowed that the supposition may have actually been correct.(read my post again, and pay special attention to the words which say "I'm not absolutely saying that the OP is incorrect". What I meant by that was that I was not absolutely saying that you were incorrect). However, what you have not done is presented any studies or data which show that the number of Canadian stories in the newsmedia is less than one should expect given their size and proximity to the U.S. You have made the supposition in your question; it may be a true supposition or it may be a false supposition, but so far we have not yet established it one way or another. We cannot answer why a supposition is true if, in fact, it has not been shown to be true in the first place! That's all I am asking; it is not outrage that I express, just healthy skepticisim in the face of an utter lack of evidence to support the idea. Again, I have not said you were wrong, I have just said that you have not established that you are right. Without establishing that first, the rest of the discussion takes on no meaning; people could just as well be arguing to justify a "fact" which, it may turn out, isn't true to begin with. What would THAT mean? --Jayron32 23:50, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Was this actually spam? I demand an answer. Dualus (talk) 08:02, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Study strategies for history

What are some helpful strategies for studying history at a pre-college level? What approach should the student take when studying a topic, e.g. a historic culture or historical period? What would be helpful for the student to pay attention to or keep in mind?

For test taking, are there general categories that history questions can be put into? If the answer is yes, what would be some strategies for dealing with the different types of questions?

Any help will be much appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.94.148.216 (talk) 00:38, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, there's memorization of facts, like dates, for which flash cards are good. For the more detailed understanding of the relationships between different historical forces, perhaps doing study questions is best. If the test is all multiple choice, true/false, matching and fill in the blank, then it's likely to be mostly about facts. If it's an essay, then it's more about historic forces (although you should sprinkle a few facts in, too). StuRat (talk) 01:09, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I knew my world history 1400-1900 and all world cities by age 16 by playing video games like Victoria: An Empire Under the Sun and Europa Universalis II. But thats just a personal thing and it doesn't teach specifics of actual battles, but if you asked me I could draw you a detailed map of Europe during any period during those centuries. Details come easier once you know the big picture I think, I mean, what's the point of knowing all about the Battle of Austerlitz if you don't know the map of Europe and who the great powers were at the time. And of course the main benefit is that it's passive learning that's enjoyable. Public awareness (talk) 01:27, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

The difficulty of pre-college history is that it is really an area dominated by history buffs rather than historians. Hence the emphasis is on memorization and (frankly) trivia, rather than deep historical understanding, period awareness, or historical empathy. (I say this as an historian, one who hated history before college.)

My recommendations, as an historian and a teacher, follow:

1. Visualization helps a lot. Going through lists of vocabulary and dates doesn't work well for most people. (If it does for you, you probably wouldn't have asked.) When I need to learn about something, I try to find out what it looked like, because I find I can remember images a lot better than words. (This is not a new, or original, observation — see Art of memory.) So if I've got to memorize something about a person, I find out what he or she looked like. I can usually remember the visual later, and work backwards to other facts from there.

2. History has a form and a structure on which the facts hang. Focus on the "skeleton" of history first — big movements, big changes, big shifts. Learn the big picture first and primarily. Focus on the major movements. Once you know those, filling in the little details — the exact proclamations, battles, books, what have you — comes a lot easier. If you focus on the details (as the buffs would do it), you will miss the big picture. If you have lost the big picture, you will easily commit stupid gaffes like putting the wrong ideas in the wrong century and things of that nature. If you know the big picture, you can often work backwards to infer the probable details, as well. In any case, once you have a scaffold of a big picture, the little facts — the specific years and dates — are a lot easier to "hang" onto them. It saves you from memorizing what feels like a lot of unconnected things — find the connections first, then work backwards for the details.

3. Writing will teaching you more than reading. Reading is important! But writing is what makes us really learn things. If you spend time reading and understanding something and then re-writing it in your own words, or with your own conclusions, and really put thought into what you write (not just parroting a book), you will really understand it better. It forces you to synthesize rather than memorize. It keeps the information from just going in one ear and out the other. Neurologically it probably involves creating a new little network of memories connected to other parts of the brain, I don't know. But if I write something down, I generally know it for a huge amount of time, and deeply. If I just read it, I can forget it within a week.

I don't know if these will help with you, but they do reflect my own approach to this, and I've done this for a long time now. I'm not any better at memorizing things than the average person — probably worse. I was horrible with flash cards and high school history. People are often very impressed with how many facts and dates I remember now — but that's not because I sat down with the idea of memorizing them, it's because I've worked to set up a framework in my head that holds it all together, and keeps the really important things fresh and interesting to me. Whether this approach will work in a buff-like atmosphere, I don't know. I'd love to believe it would, but I don't know. It's a more worthwhile way to approach the study of history, though, in my opinion. One of the reasons I started editing Wikipedia was because it gave me a chance to write about topics of interest, without the barrier of coming up with something new each time as is required by an academic setting. What I write, I know. --Mr.98 (talk) 02:28, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm a historian, but unlike Mr.98, I'm not (yet) a teacher. Mr.98's advice is excellent. I'd just like to point out that some high school syllabus (NSW HSC, for example) is focused on real history. Here Mr.98's point 2 is even more important, the story, theory, structure and process of history is the key. As an aside, the UK university system publishes some quite nice 100 page primers aimed at final year high school / first year university students. These combine narrative, major analyses, documents and questions together. If you can get your hand on text books that combine primary and secondary source analysis, with guided theoretical questions, and the narrative you'll have something worth (perhaps even exciting) enough to read. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:53, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

(and a good thing I'm choosing to answer this question, and not the one above it ... <looking for right emoticon :)>) I can only add to these excellent answers by saying that I'm not a historian, but as an ex history student, the main thing I regret was not focusing hard enough on primary sources, and the debates surrounding them. Somehow they seem to crystallise a lot of knowledge, and gather it around an intense focal point, especially as one goes back further in history, and source material generally becomes scarcer. Writing is indeed important, and if you are working on an essay, start drafting early (another regret of mine; do as I say, not as I do JJ). Another thing that has helped me to get more value is looking over past essays with a critical eye, as a wiser editor, with some emotional distance from the dubious generalisations I wrote in my youth. And don't be afraid to memorise a few core facts that keep popping up in your reading. And finally, at least read a chapter of Edward Gibbon's Decline and Fall - you'll thank me later. Generally speaking, eloquent writing is worth something in this field, because it keeps you enthralled for page after page. It's been emotional (talk) 08:46, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Even at that level, noticing and briefly commenting on any bias in sources, will always be appreciated by examiners. --Dweller (talk) 12:00, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I forgot, the Military trivia publisher "Osprey" publishes an "Essential Histories" series—I can only speak for the fact that their Korean War one was a decent primer. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:11, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Cult leader

How to become a famous and influential cult leader? --Tyour (talk) 05:22, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Like Joseph Stalin? →Στc. 05:23, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Or Jim Jones? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:38, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Like Lyndon LaRouche --Tyour (talk) 07:02, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

The answer would seem to be to find a cause that you think some people will identify with, and then advertise - which should be easy on the internet. It also helps to have unshakeable confidence that you're in the right. The question might be, how large a cult do you want? If you're in the USA, running for some political office might work, especially if your views stand out from the crowd somehow. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:14, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Although perhaps not exactly the thing you are looking for, I find it close enough. Timothy Leary wrote a small book called How to start your own religion. --Saddhiyama (talk) 07:20, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

If someone is influential, does that disqualify them from being "cult" leaders? For example, Jones and LaRouche were famous, or maybe "infamous" would be the better term, but how influential were they, beyond selling newspapers? And if Leary was significantly influential, does it really count as a "cult"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:35, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Be a very good liar. So good, you'll end up believing yourself.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 11:48, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Another way to put it is, learn to be a salesman. A salesman has to not only lie, but to believe the lie. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:49, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

That doesn't really hang together, Bugs. A lie is a statement made by someone who knows it is untrue. If I truly believe Henry VIII was Mexican and I say so, I am not lying, just making a false statement. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 18:59, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

If you truly believe in it you start seeing evidence everywhere. You write a book about it, start a meme, get into debates, and pretty soon you'll have a small rabid following of HenryVIIIisMexican-ites. You'll move them to tears with rousing speeches of suppression of the truth by the anti-HenryVIIIisMexican-ites. You'll acquire a logo, a secret code, grandmothers will give you all their money for the cause. You give some of it back in save-the-Henry-VIII-Mexican-memorabilia charities. You establish a HenryVIIIisMexican-ite cathedral and buy a fleet of limos, a helicopter, a private yacht, and a lear jet with the rest. Politicians will start respecting your voting block, you'll get political clout and get exempted from taxes. You acquire a radio station, then a TV station. You start filming your rousing speeches and more and more people join your cause. And more grandmas give you money. By the time you die hooked to the latest medical equipment in your palatial private mansion attended by the best doctors in your giant bed, you're now a saint.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 15:53, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

See our article, Cult, and also Charismatic authority, which our Cult article invokes religiously. Comet Tuttle (talk) 16:21, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

You need three things: Charisma, heavies, and lots of money, honey.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:16, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Этика

Чем отличается этика от нравственности и морали? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.186.94.59 (talk) 06:45, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

According to Google Translate, the section title is "Ethics" and the question is "What distinguishes ethics from morality?" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:59, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I guess one might link directly to ru:Этика and ru:Мораль to help answer this homework question . --ColinFine (talk) 10:53, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

188.186.94.59: Смотрите также ru:Мораль#Мораль и нравственность и ru:Нравственность#Нравственность и мораль. --Theurgist (talk) 12:08, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

The first word is Greek and the second is Latin. There is no consensus distinction, and I am not aware of any major thinker who opposes the terms. It does seem that in English morality, the less learned word, is more commonly used in conjunction with religious viewpoints and ethics, the less common word among laymen, is more used in technical philosophy. But this is a matter of usage, not a fundamental distinction in meaning. μηδείς (talk) 17:02, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

For those who can't readily understand the original question in Russian, here is what the person asks as literally as possible: "By what does этика differ from нравственность and мораль?" Three terms are included in the poster's question, not just two. --Theurgist (talk) 17:22, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

The third term translates to Sittlichkeit which is an obscure concept of Hegel's apparently. (I had noticed the third word but assumed it was being used as a synonym for morals. The comparison of two such broad concepts with such an esoteric one seems to imply some unstated context.) I have only read Hegel third hand so cannot comment. μηδείς (talk) 17:41, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Here is the Stanford Encyclopedia's article on Hegel which tries to explain the concept. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hegel/ μηδείς (talk) 17:44, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

The saying is something along the lines of the ethical man knowing the difference between right and wrong and the moral man doing what is right. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 20:45, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Gov. Brown

Is there some website where I can see a listing of all the California State Legislature bills that Governor Jerry Brown has vetoed or signed into law (for the batch from the most recent session, that is)? Today (Oct. 9) is the last day for the governor to sign some 600 bills sent to him by the Legislature during that session: Is there some place where I can see a listing of all of these and the action taken upon each? Neutrality^talk 09:06, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

The California State Legislature Information page allows you to search for bills from as far back as 1993. It does not provide a neat listing of all of the bills that Brown has signed or vetoed, but you can see which bills have had status changes each day of the month. Looking at today's Assembly updates, for instance, shows which he has signed and vetoed today. It's easy to see which he has vetoed, because there is a link to the veto message with each. For those that he hasn't vetoed, you will need to view the bill history to see if it has been approved. Unfortunately, the website does not provide links to each day's activities as far as I can find; you will have to manually edit the URL to change the date. There are also different updates for both the Assembly and the Senate, so you would have to look through both. Another option is to use their search function and perform a keyword search on "Vetoed by Governor" and "Approved by the Governor", which are the two lines added into the text of the bills after the Governor takes action. I've tested this method, however, and I've found that the text of the bills are not updated on a daily basis, so the information is not as complete.

The Legislature is beta testing a new site which will hopefully have improved functionality, but as of right now, there doesn't seem to be a place to find a neat, concise list like you would like.

I hope this helps answer your question. Below are citations to the websites mentioned. This question was answered by a library-in-training as part of the monthly Slam the Boards! event. 64.189.89.246 (talk) 21:33, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

"Official California Legislative Information". Retrieved October 9, 2011.

"Beta Site for California Legislative Information". Retrieved October 9, 2011.

Thank you. It's rather unfortunate that the Legislature (or the Governor's Office) doesn't compile this info in neater form! Neutrality^talk 00:14, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Why would most non-religious people tend to be liberals on non-social issues and why would religious people tend to be conservatives on non-social issues?

Most of the atheists I’ve heard or come across with who are into American politics said that they were either Democrats or just liberals. Some of the atheists I know used to be Christians & while they were Christians, they were not only social conservatives, but fiscal & national defense conservatives too. I decided to do some research to see what surveys, polls, & studies have to say about this. Sure enough, the surveys, polls, & studies confirm that if you’re either an atheist or just believe in evolution; most likely you would likely be a Democrat &/or a liberal. [17] [18] [19] [20] I noticed as well, based some of the links that follows, that it looks like most in scientific community are definitely not conservatives nor Republicans. [21] [22] [23] [24] [25]

I can see why many secular people are opened about the following issues that Democrats &/or liberals support or are at least opened to do so & which Christian conservatives &/or Republicans don’t support nor are opened to do so: Abortion, gay marriage, pre-marital sex, man-made global warming, big bang, extraterrestrial life, separation of church & state, etc. What I don’t understand is this: It also seems that those people who have other politically left-leaning views such as: those who support taxing the rich, social security, for more government control over small businesses, giving amnesty to illegal aliens in the U.S, more gun control; & those who are against the death penalty, the Iraq &/or Afghanistan wars, the Tea Party, the phrase “Drill baby drill,” etc. are also more likely to either be atheists or believe in evolution, & those who are against these things are likely not to be. Why does all this seem to be the case? What are the secular or religious connections to views on fiscal, national defense issues, & the death penalty? Also, since there’s a decline in Christian fundamentalism & Christianity in general in the U.S; does that mean that there’s a decline of Republicans & Republican influence in the U.S too? Willminator (talk) 13:22, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Because Jesus taught us that forgiveness, sharing, acceptance, unconditional kindness and love are all evil sinful things. Oh wait... -- Obsidi♠n Soul 14:39, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

(ec)You are starting with a major flawed assumption. Please do not equate religiousness with fundamentalism. Not all religious Christians are fundamentalists, nor are they all conservative in their politics. Indeed, there are many extremely religious Christians who are liberal in their politics precisely because their interpretation of Christ's message guides them to support the liberal viewpoint. Blueboar (talk) 14:50, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

It's the other way around (to the original assertion) in the UK. Most famously in 1983, the Church of England published a report called Faith in the City which "created a large amount of controversy when it was published, as one of its conclusions was that much of the blame for growing spiritual and economic poverty in British inner cities was due to Thatcherite policies." Alansplodge (talk) 15:13, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

You have lumped together all the stereotypical Republican Party platform stances, and lumped together all the stereotypical Democratic Party platform stances. You have not provided any references that show that your assertions about religion and these stances are true. Do you have any references? They might point the way to an answer (if your assertions are indeed true and not just assumptions). Comet Tuttle (talk) 16:19, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Even so, religionists in general emphasize living the straight-and-narrow in hopes of a better hereafter; whereas non-religionists don't believe in a hereafter, so they tend to emphasize the here-and-now. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:22, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

, Bugs. Atheists have children, too, and if our original poster is correct, it's the howling atheists who are more inclined to attempt to take care of the Earth, which is not a here-and-now proposition. Comet Tuttle (talk) 16:24, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

The belief or non-belief in an afterlife is central to the answer to the question. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:17, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Is there some relevant Reference Desk question here? If this is just to be yet another debate based on stereotypes it needs to be closed. μηδείς (talk) 17:06, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Your suspicion may well be correct. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:44, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

The question is indeed based on "stereotypes", but the OP is asking for an explanation of those stereotypes, which can be answered completely objectively. Additionally, a stereotype is not necessarily invalid. I've found the OP's impressions to be very accurate for US politics, even if, as Alansplodge said, it doesn't necessarily hold for other countries. Even if the OP's stereotype is invalid, suppressing discussion of its origins and/or validity is hardly the best way to enlighten the OP or other readers of the reference desks.

Finally, I'm also interested in the OP's question, and would appreciate further responses. --140.180.16.144 (talk) 20:12, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

To equate "religious" with "conservative" is simply inaccurate (not to mention being quite offensive to many religious liberals)... even in the US. Now, if you narrow the question to "why do many Christian fundamentalists hold conservative political views?" we might be able to answer the question. Blueboar (talk) 20:33, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Whoever is in U.S. politics these days, where invective has replaced debate, is hardly indicative of much, unfortunately. The common thread I do see is that people like people like themselves—and so, extremists attract extremists, based mainly on self-appointed high-ground against an immoral enemy. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 20:41, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Personally I feel this thread should have been left closed but I would note that whatever misconceptions and inaccuracies the OP has expressed, they never seemed to suggest all religious people in the US hold conservative views etc. Rather they used a lot of WP:weasel words like many, most, most likely, more likely, tend to etc which ultimately suggest they're saying a majority of religious people have conservative views etc. I'm not of course saying that these statements are any more accurate. (And there's still the problem of lumping all the views together.) Nil Einne (talk) 21:02, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I don’t feel like explaining again what I was intending to ask as that will be too energy-draining and time consuming for me. You know what I mean? However, I will say a few things: My intention was not to stereotype anyone. Now, read the whole entire articles (sources): 1, 2, 3, and 4. After that, read the these whole entire articles (sources): 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. Now go back and carefully reread my question above and hopefully, you’ll understand at least the idea of what I’m trying to ask. I apologize if my question has ended up being too controversial or confusing. Regards to all of you. Willminator (talk) 23:34, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

This is a brilliant and well-researched question, tidily expressed and sincerely asked. Please continue to do things like this, and ignore some of the bizarre comments that spring up. In advance of finding the time to look at your references (which I will certainly bookmark at the very least) I can only say that I will take your point on trust, and answer on hypothetical grounds, that is, assuming the facts stated are true. You are asking a very deep "why" question, and it will involve some speculation. Since you have received a reasonable and intelligent reply to the effect that it is quite the reverse in the UK, you can certainly take it that the experience is not universal, and therefore not the result of large-scale political forces tending towards conservatism or liberalism. I suspect it is more about division and the self-interested nature of politics in practice, that is, in most countries there would seem to be two major political parties, aligned with two major divisions, roughly, status quo vs. anti-status quo. When a new issue arises, it can either be shuffled off to the side if it doesn't fit these debates (concerns about tv and video game violence don't seem to follow political divisions) or it can be incorporated somehow. The manner of incorporation depends on circumstances, as far as I can tell, so whether your party likes freedom of speech or not will be unpredictable from a theoretical standpoint. But there is a tendency to the bipartite division, apparently because there just isn't room in people's heads for confusing alignments along multiple axes. The divisions occur because people in debates tend to force them - in Iran, the moment someone talks about freedom, the government simply says that they are just being American, and they want to be like the West, and the people can't talk about it anymore. By using existing divisions, and recasting a debate along those lines, they can force a new and sensible discussion into the pattern caused by existing hatred.

I cannot provide a researched answer at this time, but the very interesting observation about the UK says that we have a way of using examples to show the manner of division in politics and how it occurs (I have given a less valid, but reasonable, example about Iran to advance the discussion also). I hope we can do better than the chaos above. It's been emotional (talk) 00:58, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

For the record, to respond to one point in the above odd response, TV and video game violence does follow partisan lines unfortunately in the US; the Democratic Party is the one that is typically concerned, while the Republican Party doesn't care nearly as much, because of the "less government in all things" mantra. Change the subject to "sex on TV" and "sex in video games" and it flips back the other way. Comet Tuttle (talk) 01:07, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

In the US, at least, most people who call themselves "Christians" really aren't, in that they don't believe in the teachings of Christ, which include pacifism, caring for the poor, avoiding the accumulation of wealth, etc. What they actually believe is the Old Testament, which is more about killing and/or enslaving your enemies and taking all their stuff. In that context "Christians" being for the rich keeping all their money makes more sense. StuRat (talk) 02:33, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

It's not logical to claim that believing in the Old Testament is contrary to Christianity. Jesus not only believed in the Old Testament, his teachings claimed it as the supreme authority for all religious matters. Of course, his other teachings are not necessarily consistent with (his) Scripture, just like how Christians today don't necessarily behave in accordance to the Bible, and just like how the Bible itself is not internally consistent. --140.180.16.144 (talk) 04:07, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

If by "not necessarily consistent" you mean the polar opposite, then I agree. StuRat (talk) 01:27, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

140, if you are interested in the original question, I suggest you leave off-topic remarks to themselves. I am trying to answer the question constructively, but I cannot do so on my own. Comet Tuttle has made a valid and interesting point, but I have come across several references that disagree quite strongly, though none of them would be reliable sources. [26] mentions a Republican campaigner against video game violence, [27] refers (at the bottom of the article) to several Republican initiatives (although it also acknowledges the Republican aversion to government intervention at the same time), and this same article talks about a Republican campaigner who is against regulation, but seems to suggest he is fine with sex. In the context of the OP's question, it only means there is a case where something doesn't follow party lines, seemingly (unless Comet Tuttle can give a reference, which I would be keen to read). It is a rare case of an issue that is publicly significant, but not politically fixed.

This story quotes the then-president of the Entertainment Software Association as saying that the 2004 wave of attempts to restrict video game sales and content as being mostly initiated by Democrats; he attributed this to the Democrats having lost the 2004 elections on values, and attacking the relatively non-powerful video game industry was a calculated political move to try to appeal to "values" voters. Certainly Democrat Hillary Clinton and mostly-Democrat Joe Lieberman are the two headliners in this type of crusade that come to mind for me. Of course if this 2004 wave was politically motivated it would presumably decrease over time, and I'm not aware of a long term survey of which political party has tried to lean on video games more over the years. The Video Game Voters Network should be keeping track. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:39, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks for getting back to me. I'll check out those sources more fully some time, but I have read in the past that it doesn't strictly follow party lines. Not to suggest there aren't party concerns relevant to this issue, as you have pointed out. It's been emotional (talk) 07:34, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Now, having read the OP's sources (and having checked the archives to make sure they were attached with the original question), I can say they fully back up the assertions made, and that anyone can read where he says in his second paragraph that it seems those who have other politically left-leaning views (etc.) are more likely to be atheists. The list of views is not deeply critical to the question; we know that Republicans/Democrats tend to be aligned on many issues (unless someone wishes to prove to the contrary), and we can see some kind of link between those views and the ideologies of those parties. The question was about atheism in this context. I can only say that in Australia, instead of being one way or the other, it is something the major parties avoid discussing publicly. I even once saw Julie Bishop on Q&A go out of her way to say nothing when the question was put to her. I think it has nothing to do with left and right per se, so someone in the US might want to show what the particular considerations are. It's been emotional (talk) 04:50, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

StuRat made a comment, which I criticized as inaccurate. I fail to see how my remark was any more off-topic than StuRat's. --140.180.16.144 (talk) 15:19, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I forgot to add previously that whenever there's a discussion about politics or about Obama on Christian radio and TV here in the U.S, almost always there's a politically conservative slant not just on the scientific, social, and cultural issues, whch are more understandable from a religiously conservative point of view, but on economic, national defense, and other issues as well that don't seem to have anything to do with religion. I have heard Christian radio and have watched Christian TV enough to know that's the case. Willminator (talk) 15:00, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad you've followed this up. I think there's some kind of pattern here, and that is, there are plenty of left-wing religious people, who don't wear their faith on their sleeve. Those who do tend to be more conservative, especially when they argue for teaching their religious beliefs as fact (or anything similar). Religion per se is not a left vs. right issue, but opposing the separation of church and state is very much a conservative belief. I don't mean to say this holds universally, only that I think your point is correct, and it has something to do with a tendency among religious people to be more public about their beliefs when they are conservative, and hold to some idea of connecting religion directly with politics. I don't know how this works in practice in America, and as you suggest, there would appear to be fewer left-wing than right-wing Christians, whether they are open about it or not. Perhaps Christianity in America has simply become identified with the right, and therefore lost appeal with the left, having had its image tarnished. I hope I've been at least slightly helpful, but I too was looking for some kind of historical discussion, perhaps relating it to educational standards - I've heard that Christians in the US decided to forgo the task of educating ministers in order to attract more priests, leading to a de-intellectualisation of Christianity. Perhaps this has some bearing on the political situation?? It's been emotional (talk) 02:43, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Having checked a few sources, I should just admit that any claim about low educational standards of ministers in the US at the moment is definitely false, but what I read (only in a book review at Amazon) concerned the historical development of American Christianity. Feel free to enlighten me, anyone, but I might do some reading then ask it as my own question. Sorry if I misled anyone. It's been emotional (talk) 07:34, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

---

quibbling over whether this is a valid question stays above this line; potential answer below. thank you for respecting this dividing line.

To answer the OP's question (loosely, because it's very broad), what you are seeing is two different loci of fear that are pretty much endemic in free societies:

1. The fear that other members of society (left uncontrolled) will destroy the social and moral fabric of the community. This is an intrinsically conservative fear, and you can see it in almost every conservative talking point: abortion, birth control, marijuana (creates 'loose' women and dissipated youth); taxes and 'big government' (takes resources away from tight-knit communities to benefit distant and untrustworthy strangers); evolution and other forms of intellectualism (draws youth away from traditional values); death penalty, strong laws, pro-war attitudes (active defense against any threat to the established 'good' society)
2. The fear that other members of society (left uncontrolled) will do vast harm to people outside of their tight-knit communities. This is an intrinsically liberal fear, and you can see it in almost every liberal talking point: civil rights, opposition to warfare, opposition to abuses of power (causes harm to 'outsiders' in unsavory ways); environmentalism (destruction of collective properties like water, air and forest for the benefit of a greedy few); anti-corporatism (poor treatment of workers, poor management of public resources).

In short, conservatives live in a world in which they feel they need to protect themselves and those close to them from the influences of unsavory outsiders, while liberals live in a world in which they feel the need to protect everyone from the the willful abuses of powerful factions. As far as I'm concerned they both have a point, but that may be because I don't have a lot of fear on either account. it takes an extraordinary effort to step past your fears to see the broader perspective. --Ludwigs2 16:12, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

American conservatism (at least since the Regan era) is essentially an uneasy alliance between social conservatives, fiscal conservatives, and small government libertarians. Fundamentalist Christians do tend to be social conservatives, and so Fundamentalist TV and Radio broadcasts will reflect that uneasy alliance. However, Fundamentalists TV is primarily about promoting a particular brand of religious dogma... and so they will put a religious spin on everything they talk about. Even fiscal matters. Conservatives who are not Fundamentalists will not do this. Note... the Religious Left will also talk about fiscal issues in religious terms. For the extremely religious, no matter what their political viewpoint, everything is viewed through a religious lens. Blueboar (talk) 16:20, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

There are multiple responses. A general thesis on capitalist society holds that ideology, or structured political beliefs, governs the accumulation of power. A particularly useful conception here is Gramsci's concepts of hegemony and counter-hegemony. For Gramsci, hegemony is the structure of bourgeois beliefs that cement the structure of society as it is—a key example of this is conservative religion. Counter-hegemonies, on the other hand, mobilise a structured resistance to bourgeois rule, as lead by the proletariat. If we look at organised proletarian institutions that oppose the current social structure, such as some labour parties or revolutionary political parties, trade unions and community organisations, there is a high degree of correlation between opposition to the culture of society and opposition to the economic organisation of society. If we look at disorganised proletarian institutions, like working class culture in areas of long term working class resistance there is often a high degree of religious non-observance, or personally chosen observance in opposition to religious hierarchies, there is often a greater toleration of de facto sexual freedom. So there is a correlation between capitalism and bourgeois culture, and between anti-capitalism and proletarian culture. There's also a significant correlation between authoritarian religion and bourgeois culture, and between militant atheism atheism non-observant religion and personally decided observance and proletarian culture. We can understand that working class atheists would be beguiled by US liberalism, much like workers with conservative religions are beguiled by conservatism—this is precisely the function of hegemony. This is all well and good, but it doesn't explain why US liberalism, which is very much an element of bourgeois hegemony in the US, supports a kind of liberal episcopalian / liberal dissent / liberal atheism. Herbert Marcuse would argue that secular culture in the US provides an equivalent socially cohering function to religion, and that television replaces the church in hegemony. This could be compared to the co-aligned fights, where British Liberals and British Chartists in the 19th century both fought against British Tories for parliamentary reform—that the culture of the "left" of bourgeois politics shared much with the culture of the proletarian movement. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:05, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the answers that have been provided here so far. I also forgot to talk about American conservative websites like Conservapedia that is politically conservative. Yet, it talks about Christianity a lot from religiously conservative point of view. This is another source that goes with my previous previous posts above. Anyway, thanks again for you're answers. I see that progress is now being made here. Willminator (talk) 22:29, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

US Constitutional Convention

Which Constitution amendments have been proposed by Lawrence Lessig? 208.54.38.162 (talk) 16:41, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

In the time it took you to type that out, you could have Google "lawrence lessig constitutional amendment" and hit the "I'm feeling lucky" button and found this article by Lessig which explains his position. If you have more questions, don't hesitate to ask on here, but do a little Googling yourself, first. --Mr.98 (talk) 17:07, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

That links to http://action.change-congress.org/page/s/amendpetition which appears to be dead. Where is the text of the amendment? Which ones at http://convention.idea.informer.com/ are Lessig's? 64.134.157.164 (talk) 19:42, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Found it!

"Nothing in this Constitution shall be construed to restrict the power to limit, though not to ban, campaign expenditures of non-citizens of the United States during the last 60 days before an election."[28]

Can someone explain how that would get corporate money out of politics? 64.134.157.164 (talk) 19:46, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't think if it would get it out. Did someone suggest it would? The reason some want it is related to the decision at Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, there is extensive discussion in the article on the concerns relating to the ruling. BTW this appears to be the original full text [29] Nil Einne (talk) 21:19, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

It is aimed at corporations and PACs, which are both non-citizens. Comet Tuttle (talk) 01:01, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Why 60 days? Why not forever? 208.54.38.211 (talk) 03:11, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Well perhaps the first amendment ought to still mean something, irregardless of how people are assembled. In any case, this isn't the place to have a forum about stuff. Shadowjams (talk) 05:19, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

L'Hemingway

I was having a discussion with a coworker last night who is also a student of foreign language. I posited that English is a terrible language. She related what her linguistics professor once said about Hemingway. In one Hemingway's shorter works is beautiful and fulfilling, while being a quick read. When translated into French, however, the work is at least twice as thick and very boring. Does this story strike a chord with anyone? Thanks Wikipedians! Schyler (exquirere bonum ipsum) 19:46, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

That's simply because translations are necessarily worse than the original —technically that doesn't have to be true, but in my experience even great translations fail to convey the original meaning with 100% fidelity. --Belchman (talk) 20:59, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure one could easily find another great work of French literature that becomes unwieldy and unimpressive when translated into English. —Akrabbim^talk 21:25, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

For more pondering than most people would ever want or need on the topic of translation, I recommend Le Ton beau de Marot by Douglas Hofstadter. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 21:39, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

There's an interesting article [30] that finds that translations (at least English-Portugeuse ones) are indeed longer than the source text, on average. Somewhat less related, here's an interesting article about the formatting issues with translations. We also have a very detailed translation article, though I'm not seeing much discussion about the length of text changing. Buddy431 (talk) 21:53, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Nothing to do with the quality of the work, but in general French is a wordier language than English. I'm not surprised that translating a work from English to French would make it considerably longer; I would expect (though cannot prove), that a work translated the other way would be considerably shorter. --Jayron32 23:39, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I think by "twice as thick", the original poster didn't mean the length, but meant that the short stories are difficult to struggle through because of their boring prose. I've read Hemingway in Spanish but not in French so can't express an opinion on the original question. Comet Tuttle (talk) 01:11, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Maybe not literally twice as thick but it is almost surely longer in the French translation. I've seen many programming courses advise that you leave plenty of extra space in your original English if you're expecting your program to be translated into French or Spanish, and my personal experience seems to confirm this. I don't know if it's entirely because of the nature of the language or because translations tend to be wordier as they struggle to catch the original meaning. --Belchman (talk) 11:17, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

English sentence structure tends to have more "optional" parts than the Romance languages: if you do a word-for-word translation from one of those languages (especially if you're translating instructions), you'll find that you can drop about 20% of the words and get something that feels like "natural" English. --Carnildo (talk) 01:13, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, I managed to read the Silmarillion in French translation in the summer between high school and college. (I bough that and Dune in German in Switzerland on my senior trip.) The effect was entirely different, much more aetherial, less earthy. Dwarves are not at all the same when you call them nains. Especially since that sounds like "nah" (meaning the opposite of yeah) in English. I have found many French and Russian novels ruined (by which I mean unreadble past 20 pages) by stilted or affected translation. I was unable to read Hugo's '93 (Quatrevingt-treize) until I got the edition with Ayn Rand's introduction. Not having read the French I can't speak for the fidelity, but that translation was a transparent delight. There was no sense of it being forced or false. Back to the Silmarillion, that book is generally considered difficult in English. I think a native French speaker might actually have found the French less difficult than the English for a native speaker, given that Tolkien's archaicisms just come accross as the normal French conventions in literature like the use of the passé simple. μηδείς (talk) 02:40, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I think I read about this in Le Ton beau de Marot, but the English translation of La Disparition is in some ways more impressive than the original. Pfly (talk) 03:32, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Sartre's "Being and Nothingness" is significantly longer (and more difficult to read) in English than in French. Mostly this is because concepts that just make sense to French readers need to be explained to English readers. This is typical of any translation: sophisticated works that use the full power of a given language will run into troubles in different languages where the linguistic powers are different. As I understand it, English is a particularly good technical language (the syntax in English, like German, is primed for constructing fine details in noun phrases), while romance languages like French are better at conveying nuances of emotion. Other languages have their own strengths and weaknesses: Chinese, for instance, is a lousy language for expressing conditionality or time (it has a weak tense system that relies on the context of the discussion), but is one of the more efficient languages in terms of conventional conversation. If you're dealing with art-literature specifically, any language except the original is terrible: art-literature relies on so much more than just the words and grammar of the language that translating it is major problem. --Ludwigs2 03:37, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

The primary issue is having someone who (a) has superior command of both languages to understand and communicate all the nuances and (b) has the creative talent to be an author in either language. There are very few who meet that criteria in any pairing of languages. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 04:03, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

In general I observe that many foreign translations are wordier or just plain longer than the English. However, I think it depends on the work and how the translation has been done. I have a (rather old) translation of Dante's Inferno which has the original Italian on the left and the English translation on the right. The translator has retained (for the most part) the meter of the original and therefore both languages have the same length. I have also read an English translation of Faiza Guene's Kiffe Kiffe Demain in which the translator has translated some of the French verlan (street slang) into similar English street slang terms; the English translation also has slightly fewer pages according to Amazon, though I don't know if that is due to there being fewer words or just the translator introduction. Astronaut (talk) 12:36, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Funny, I read Being and Nothingness in English, and Huis clos in French, and thought both works by Sartre were in the original. μηδείς (talk) 07:45, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

October 10

Was Hitler insane?

Was Adolf Hitler really insane? Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty | Averted crashes} 01:55, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

This might serve as a starting point for a discussion relevant to the posed question. Bus stop (talk) 02:05, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

He committed suicide soon after getting married. Sounds perfectly sane to me. :-) StuRat (talk) 02:22, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Please see megalomania. Many national leaders "suffer" from this. 208.54.38.211 (talk) 03:05, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

If you mean clinical insanity there is no evidence of that. Hitler was (by all accounts) mentally competent and capable of functioning effectively within conventional social contexts. Hitler was, arguably, deluded, in that he held beliefs which would not have held up to empirical scrutiny, but in that regard is not necessarily different than any other person in the world. In fact - though it is a social convention to cast people we dislike as insane - there is no substantive evidence that Hitler was psychologically or emotionally abnormal in any significant way.

Sorry. --Ludwigs2 03:20, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Since when are clinical sociopaths incompetent? Why do you believe a mass murderer was "capable of functioning effectively"? 69.171.160.57 (talk) 17:58, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Sociopathy as a clinical diagnosis is very difficult to establish. It's an easy word to toss around colloquially, of course - anyone who behaves in ways we despise must necessarily be a sociopath - but that's not particularly meaningful. One does not have to be a sociopath to commit mass murder (and in fact, most mass murders are rage killings, which are unrelated to sociopathy). --Ludwigs2 16:25, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

The quality of Hypocrisy is a survival technique used by many. The failure to use it or the objection of its use may be considered insane, especially by those who rely upon hypocrisy for survival. According to all accounts it appears that Hitler was not a hypocrite (possibly with rare exception) since he reiterated in private what he said in public and vice versa. --DeeperQA (talk) 04:23, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Germans I know tend to describe Hitler as "crazy" and that he brought "disaster" upon Germany. That's a way of scapegoating Hitler. If he was crazy, then he had a large equally-crazy following. He was not insane, he was merely evil. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:54, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't know, being responsible for the deaths of so many people without it seeming to bother him would suggest sociopathic behavior, but I am not a psychiatrist. Googlemeister (talk) 13:38, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

The combination of ideology and distance has let many a world leader sleep peacefully despite oceans of blood on their hands. Ideology justifies the most horrific of crimes. Distance allows one to disassociate with the realities of such bloodshed. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:08, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Has there been a study looking into whether people with sociopathic tendencies might self select for ideological world leaders? Googlemeister (talk) 15:47, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

This kind of questions are a consequence of reading history though the outdated Great Man theory. The Holocaust and the military expantionism of Germany are the result of several social, political and economic causes, not just the will of a single man. Hitler, as any other leader in the world, does not act "on his own", but as the head of a number of factions that rquired the emergence of a leader like him.

Have in mind that I'm not defending Hitler, I'm defending the correct understanding of history. This perspective applies to any national leader or historical event. To think that WWII and the Holocaust took place because Hitler was crazy (which also means that if he wasn't then none of it would have happened), is just a gross oversimplification of a highly complex scenario. Cambalachero (talk) 16:05, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Even the most decidedly "big factors" historian recognizes that individuals do matter, though, when they get into positions of great influence because of said big factors. A world without Hitler probably would have played out very differently than a world with him. It doesn't mean Hitler the individual was everything — he couldn't have gotten into the place he was without those "big factors" — but to underestimate the importance of powerful individuals is just as silly as thinking that history is composed of nothing but powerful individuals. Most practicing historians try to take a fairly balanced approach to these sorts of things. Sometimes individuals matter; sometimes they don't. I think Hitler is among the few who truly mattered. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:48, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Hitler's physician Theodor Morell thought Hitler had syphilis, a disease that in its late stages can cause mental problems. However, proof seems to be lacking, and some people have questioned Morell's competence. Cardamon (talk) 21:59, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Questions revealing attributes of Adolph Hitler

Is there a comprehensive list of attribute questions, such as Was Hitler insane? with single word or short phrase answers? --DeeperQA (talk) 05:44, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

It's hard to imagine there could be. What do you count as comprehensive? Here's a start:

Was Hitler right-handed? Yes.

Did Hitler have a silly moustache? Yes.

Did Hitler like Wagner? Yes.

Did Hitler like dogs? Yes.

Did Hitler like Jews? No.

Did Hitler like mustard gas? No.

Did Hitler like World War I? No.

The humor in such a list draws from its silliness as a concept. You can type "Was Hitler" or "Did Hitler" into Google and see what other people have often asked when it "auto-suggests" based on popular searches (Was Hitler Jewish? Was Hitler gay? Was Hitler a vegetarian? Did Hitler have one testicle?), but that's about it. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:01, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

A "comprehensive list" is more likely to result in attributes that along with the silly stuff includes one or more attributes which can be compared to others. For instance: Was Jesus a Hypocrite? No. How about Hitler? uh.. guess not. His private statements, beliefs and feelings, as far as we know, where not different than those which he made public. --DeeperQA (talk) 19:38, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

What are you saying? That Hitler Has Only Got One Ball? Or are we talking about Hitler's possible monorchism. ^Avic_ennasis @ 17:32, 12 Tishrei 5772 / 17:32, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Hitler supposedly was a vegetarian, which some have used to ridicule vegetarianism. However, he was a vegetarian because it was easier on his system. So he at least made one good choice. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:57, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Reference, please (for the claim that he was vegetarian because it was easier on his system)? And discrediting vegetarianism based on Hitler is like saying that toilets are evil because Hitler used one. --140.180.16.144 (talk) 15:16, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

WP:WHAAOE See Adolf Hitler's vegetarianism. ^Avic_ennasis @ 17:36, 12 Tishrei 5772 / 17:36, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

We generally write things in sentences on Wikipedia. So if Hitler does not include evidence of delusions about his leadership skill and eugenics, sociopathy, and criminal murder, then please add them. They are not difficult to find in reliable secondary sources. 69.171.160.57 (talk) 15:06, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

If we don't already have one (there wasn't the last time I checked), an article on Hitler's mental health and/or psychology would make for fascinating reading. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:12, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure it's only a matter of time before that article gets made. We seem to have endless curiousity about Mr. Hitler; from his political and religious views, his directives, to his sexuality and celebration of his 50th birthday - not to mention his possible monorchism or his personal standard. We follow him all the way to his death and the concerns of his Last will and testament. We even look for people based on their connection to Hitler; of course there is Adolf Hitler's father and Adolf Hitler's mother, but we also are concerned about Adolf Hitler's driver and even Adolf Hitler's dog. ^Avic_ennasis @ 17:55, 12 Tishrei 5772 / 17:55, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Were he living nowadays, he would probably have frequent appearances on the cover of People. "This year's 50 most fascinating despots." And stuff like, "Grünen Riesen - The official canned vegetables of the Nazi Party." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:48, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

You might read The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich written by the German, William L. Shirer. According to that book Hitler required daily injection of Amphetamine.μηδείς (talk) 07:42, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Picasso/La Pasionaria

Did Picasso ever do any pictures of Dolores Ibarruri (La Pasionaria)? --superioridad ^(discusión) 03:24, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I've seen many paintings by Picasso, but a painting by him of la Pasionaria doesn't ring any bells with me. Also, I've googled for a while and didn't find a picture of her by Picasso. The odds are he didn't, but I haven't found anything that clearly proves he did not. --Belchman (talk) 22:31, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Regarding putting Native Americans into a fictional work?

So I would like to write a fiction book about a boy who accidentally tampers with an ancient Native American burial ground, causing him to summon a spirit who casts him a spell to remain 10 years old for the next 90 years.

Someone suggested that "you would tick off the Native Americans like you have never seen!"

So how about if I put down the name of a tribe that never existed ("Yuthoda" tribe) or a tribe that no longer exists (Yahi tribe)? I understand that the Comanche tribe could get ticked at involving them in a fictional work, but will I be safe if I involve a tribe that no longer is, or has never been, around?

Also, if any author is to involve a real-world Indian tribe in any fiction book, how can they go about it so as not to grab their ire? --70.179.174.63 (talk) 04:04, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Try researching actual Native American beliefs, and representing them accurately and not doing the Scooby Doo version? This would go a long way. Heiro 04:08, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

This is probably a good idea regardless. Even if you do go the route of making up a fictional "extinct tribe", it would probably still be a good idea to make it as close as possible to a local tribe. For believability reasons if nothing else.

I'm not sure if it completely addresses 70.179's concerns though. I doubt many actual tribes went around cursing people to stay ten years old for ninety years.

You might just have to live with the fact that if you mention an ethnicity, you're going to piss some people off. Besides, you should be so lucky! Controversy never fails to sell books. APL (talk) 04:25, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

If you're going to make up a tribe why not make up a whole people/civilization, or borrow one, say Atlantians, or the "Welsh Indians" of Madoc. Pfly (talk) 04:54, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

It'd be a bit of a stretch to have an Atlantian burial ground in North America. In fact, it'd be surprising to have an Atlantian burial ground above sea level! APL (talk) 14:47, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion the issue here is triteness more than anything. Obviously if you mention a real existing tribe, you will come across as at best ignorant and at worst a bigot. The real problem is that the "Indian Burial Ground" is about as tired a trope as you can get. Take a look at this. When this trope is used today it is almost always used in a tongue in cheek manner. It seems that this curse is just a device to allow the rest of the story to happen, so it could easily be changed without changing the rest of the story much. If I were you I'd come up with another way for the person to be stuck at 10 years old, something readers haven't seen hundreds of times. --Daniel 15:40, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

How about radiation? I think that has been used slightly less than burial ground curses. -- kainaw™ 16:15, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Or maybe mischievous aliens, that hasn't been done much either. Heiro 16:28, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

You could take a leaf out of Groundhog Day's book, conclude that there's no emotionally satisfying explanation you can use, so turn it into magical realism by not giving an explanation. Notice also that Big doesn't dwell on what actually happened and how. I think people overestimate how much set-up they need for these things, when you often get a better result by throwing the first chapter away. If you use an Indian Burial Ground, or Radiation, or Aliens, or Magical Elves, or whatever, you will generally write something viewed as pulp/B-movie stuff. You want to write a story about a boy stuck at 10 for 90 years, and you don't actually care how it happens, but any explanation will stick your story in an arbitrary genre. So don't explain it, or leave it vague.

There's no point writing an explanation if it doesn't contribute to the story you want to tell. 86.163.1.168 (talk) 21:02, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

There are plenty of places in Kentucky and Tenesssee which have indian mounds which cannot be strictly identified with modern indian tribes. See the map at http://starling.rinet.ru/maps/maps16.php?lan=en which shows an empty white spot for that area, see also http://www.freelang.net/families/maps/early-indian-languages.jpg and do a google map search to find "indian mound kentucky" and "indian mound tennessee" as places where modernly unknown tribes could have existed. Let me know if you want more help on the issue.μηδείς (talk)

Not just Kentucky and Tennessee — see the Ratcliffe Mound and Roberts Mound in Ohio, both of which (due to the lack of excavation and their unusual locations) haven't been identified as belonging to any specific mound building culture. Nyttend (talk) 04:42, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

It seems to be not only due to a lack of excavation but also due to the fact that the natives simply died off sometime afte Columbus and before that bastard Andrew Jackson. Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be relevant comparative evidence. My guess, based on thier advance culture, is that they were Muskogean Mississippians. But no proof.μηδείς (talk) 04:59, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

(aside on this point) It's also the case that many of these mounds were built long long before Columbus and their builders and purpose were largely forgotten by the time historical documentation arrived. In many cases the people who had built the mounds had long been displaced by other peoples. Pfly (talk) 05:04, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

As I understand, many Indian mounds were not for burial purposes. We do have List of burial mounds in the United States. Still, I agree with others above that unless the cause of the spell in the story is important to the story, it is probably better to leave the specifics vague. Pfly (talk) 05:01, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

The point regarding the "burial mounds" is not whether they were actually burial mounds, but that they exist at all and are not incontrovertibly linked with known cultures. That seems helpful to the OP to me. μηδείς (talk) 05:12, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

True enough. And I suppose "spirits" may be summoned up from any old which where... Pfly (talk) 06:24, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Barthélémy Lauvergne

Who was Barthélémy Lauvergne and when was he in Hawaii?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 05:10, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

No article on him as of yet, but see this image file [31]. Heiro 05:36, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

At last, a question of yours I can answer! Barthélémy Lauvergne was a painter, printmaker and lithographer, born in Toulon in 1805 (the precise date is disputed). He embarked for Australia in 1826 on the French exploration ship Astrolabe, serving as secretary to its captain Jules Dumont d'Urville. He visited various points on the Australian coast on that ship and on HMS Favourite, then in 1836 sailed for Hawaii on the corvette La Bonite, captained by Auguste-Nicolas Vaillant. Returning to France he lived in Paris and then Toulon, dying in Toulon in either 1871 or 1875. My sources ([32] [33] [34]) give more details. --Antiquary (talk) 18:28, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Republican baby boom in Northern Ireland?

Why don't the Catholics/Republicans start a massive natural reproduction campaign in Northern Ireland to achieve a Catholic majority and win an eventual reunification referendum? Catholics are currently 40% of the population and about half of those support a united Ireland, so that could be achieved in just a few generations. This strategy was successfully used by Albanians in Kosovo and is currently increasing the percentage of Haredim in Israel dramatically. --Belchman (talk) 11:27, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, that is sort happening by itself anyway. I think there is a silent understanding in UK politics that this is the longterm development, and that the status of N. Ireland will be renegotiated at some point. --Soman (talk) 11:50, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Why? Because it's rather expensive and a life-changing event to have a child. And unless you can get a large number of other people to do it simultaneously, it would be a colossal waste of time and effort. I suspect that most Catholics in Northern Ireland are not sufficiently bothered about independence to take such a drastic step, and as you correctly recognise not all Catholics support unification (I wonder, with Ireland's recent financial strife, if it is becoming less popular). By comparison, killing most of the Protestants would also be a way to achieve demographic goals, but few people are currently attempting this either. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:09, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

And what would stop Protestants from carrying out their own baby boom to counterbalance that of the Republicans? It's not as if Protestants/loyalists/Unionists lack reproductive organs - On the contrary!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:13, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Knowing them, I'm afraid that's exactly what they would do :-) --Belchman (talk) 12:51, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

There is another caveat: people emigrate too. And if the Catholic population in NI is economically weaker, they will emigrate more. Quest09 (talk) 14:51, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Soman is probably right: "Statisticians predict both communities will achieve close to parity in size... Some foresee an eventual Catholic majority (albeit slight). However, as of 2005 most statisticians predict that Protestants will continue to slightly outnumber Catholics in Northern Ireland as a whole for some time to come." This is from our Demography and politics of Northern Ireland article. This blog (which may not be unbiased), presents a mass of statistics and concludes "In simplistic terms, there are more Catholic mothers each year, and each of them will have more children than their Protestant sisters. In the long-term this will ensure that the Catholic proportion of births continues to increase, and the Protestant proportion to decline." Make of that what you will. This lengthy thesis supports the parity scenario. Alansplodge (talk) 17:06, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

There isn't much difference between the communities in their views on birth control and having children so your 'plan' wouldn't work on that basis. The main difference during the troubles was that the unionists tended to emigrate more because of their British identity. There's some indication that difference may be much reduced now but the main thing that would stabilize the situation long term would be for them all to take on a Northern Ireland identity rather than Irish and British. If that doesn't happen then yes it is entirely possible that at some stage there would be an abrupt departure of a large part of the unionist population like there was in the south which I consider was a big loss to Ireland never mind the loss of their heritage for the people involved. Dmcq (talk) 22:18, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

It is unlikely to happen. See Demographic-economic paradox, aka the "Paradox of prosperity" (or one of them). On the balance, people who are more prosperous have less children, and this tends to hold across religion, politics, and anything else. Small, isolated populations are sometimes able to increase fertility for a generation or two, and there are isolated examples of individual families having large numbers of children within prosperous societies (see Jim Bob Duggar), but such occurances don't really have a great effect on the overall fertility of large populations. In a modern society, the socio-economic pressures to have small families will overcome politics. You'd have to convince all of the several hundred thousand N. Irish catholics that having large families for several generations is the way to go; and hope that in all that time politics and economics and society doesn't change dramatically to make the effort moot. Most of those people are just busy living their own lives, and probably aren't that interested in having lots of children just to further the political goals of some faction or another. Some will, but probably not enough to have enough of an effect to matter. --Jayron32 12:54, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, this the key to understanding the differences in demographic growth. The differences in birth rates of Catholics and Protestants in N. Ireland lie in economic disparities. But do you think socio-economic cleavages between Protestants and Catholics will disappear in the near future? --Soman (talk) 07:07, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Reading this thread makes me want to go and watch Monty Python's The Meaning of Life. Blueboar (talk) 13:26, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Incidence of rape among homosexuals

Has there ever been any studies into the rates/percentages of rape occurring amongst homosexuals living in homosexual communities? Specifically gays raping gays versus lesbians raping lesbians. Keep in mind this should not include prison rape which is usually perpetrated by heterosexuals. 198.151.130.133 (talk) 15:07, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

If someone has sex with men, for me, he's at least bisexual, even if he do not identify as such. Quest09 (talk) 15:23, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

See Bisexuality, Homosexuality, Prison rape in the United States, Prison sexuality, Sexual orientation identity, Situational sexual behavior, Situational offender and Sexual orientation and then perhaps explain the relevence of your personal beliefs to the OP? Nil Einne (talk) 16:01, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Argh, read that all? No, I was not answering the question, but just putting a note on it. I don't want to get that deep into it. And yes, I know that there are Men who have sex with men and do not define as homosexual. But for me it's a logical impossibility. What you do is what you are, not what you believe you are. There are no heterosexual men raping men. In the same line, what would you say of a child rapist who is not a pederast? Quest09 (talk) 16:47, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

The question is whether "homosexual" defines the action or the identity. If you can be a homosexual who doesn't have sex with men (which I suspect you can acknowledge exists quite frequently), then "homosexual" doesn't define the activity but the identity. You can similarly imagine a male who has sex with women regularly but who is not really "heterosexual". Similarly you can imagine people who have sex with nobody yet still fall into one of those two categories. Some descriptors are purely about the action (like pederast, or murderer, or snowboarder), some are about an identity. It is a subtle but important difference. --Mr.98 (talk) 18:59, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, someone can identify as homosexual and do not have homosexual sex. However, this person is being coherent, he is just admitting that he has homosexual desires. Homosexual rapist should also be coherent and admit they are "not really "heterosexual"." Wikiweek (talk) 20:16, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I suppose the question is, are you trying to force people into boxes that you've decided exist ahead of time, or are you trying to figure out where they fit in practice? Because human sexual practices do not break into neat categories of "homosexual," "heterosexual," and "bisexual." It's much more woolly territory. The articles discuss this in some depth. It's not a matter of political correctness so much as "actually trying to understand the spectrum of human sexuality." --Mr.98 (talk) 20:19, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

It seems a point Wikiweek is probably missing is that some male who rape other males in prison and similar situations may have no real desire to rape or have sex with another man. They may much rather have sex (consensual or not) with a woman. But if none is available for a very long time, raping a man may be acceptable to them as a way for them to satisfy their urges. (Note this is a very simplistic analysis on purpose, rape may also be about things like power.) Similarly some men have sex with men for payment, whether in porn or as a sex worker despite having little or no sexual attraction to men. Nil Einne (talk) 20:47, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

BTW I think you chose the wrong term Q09. There are many child rapists who wouldn't be considered pederasts by the common usage of that term (e.g. someone who rapes a girl and it's also questionable of someone who rapes a 5 year old boy is a pederast as well). I think you meant paedophile Nil Einne (talk) 19:31, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

You are right on this. Both terms are different. Most people tend to confuse both terms, and use them alternatively.Wikiweek (talk) 20:12, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Nothing wide-ranging, but see:

• Sexual Coercion among Gay Men, Bisexual Men and Takatāpui Tāne in Aotearoa/New Zealand (Fenaughty et al., 2006)
• Sexual Coercion in Gay/Lesbian Relationships: Descriptives and Gender Differences (Waldner-Haugrud & Gratch, 1997) (paywall)
• Battering Victimization Among a Probability-Based Sample of Men Who Have Sex With Men (Greenwood et al., 2002)

Note that in some of those, the perpetrators actually identify as heterosexual, particularly in cases of group rape. It's also a particularly difficult subject to delimit and study, as unlike heterosexual rapes, victims of same-sex rapes outside the context of intimate relationships can not often identify the orientation of the perpetrator with much confidence. -- Obsidi♠n Soul 16:17, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Let me point out that rape is primarily an act of violence, not an expression of sexual attraction. Consequently, the object of a rapist's violence is not an obvious indication of his preferred sexual partner. For example, a man primarily interested in sex with other men may be capable of raping a woman as an act of violence. Likewise, a heterosexual man may be capable of raping another man as a way of violating him. Marco polo (talk) 23:33, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Which is what I just said. The OP asked for instances where orientation is clearcut. And I just pointed out that it's particularly difficult to know that in same-sex rapes (where quite a large number are done out of homophobia - simply a way to degrade a [perceived] homosexual victim).-- Obsidi♠n Soul 23:47, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure that all rape is more of an expression of violence than sexual attraction. Would that hold true for date rape? How about rape among animals? 67.6.175.132 (talk) 00:16, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Swedish newspaper Aftonbladet has an article today on a woman convicted of raping another woman, http://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/article13763208.ab --Soman (talk) 13:42, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Time actually spent in combat

I distinctly remember reading somewhere a few years ago that conversely to the popular perception, most soldiers in the Second World War actually spent a large proportion of their active duty time waiting in foxholes, and most of the combat was usually limited to exchanging limited fire for short amounts of time, usually a few hours (compared to what video games show let's say). I believe that the said statement compared this to the past situation in Vietnam and the current one in Iraq, arguing that American soldiers in Iraq were more relied upon, and therefore more susceptible to combat fatigue as a result. Any ideas about a possible source? Raskolkhan (talk) 18:18, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

See Trench warfare. It was actually far more prevalent in the WWI and most iconic in the Battle of Verdun. In WW2 it became somewhat obsolete as Nazis circumvented it with Blitzkrieg tactics-- Obsidi♠n Soul 20:42, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Does being on the receiving end of a artillary barrage count as being in combat?
Sleigh (talk) 22:48, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I would think the difference in combat fatigue would also be because earlier wars had fronts, so that when you got leave and left the front, you could relax. In modern wars you aren't safe anywhere, so are in a sense always in combat, whether anyone is firing at you or not. StuRat (talk) 01:21, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Because world war II bombers only dropped bombs on the front lines? Googlemeister (talk) 13:22, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

My statement about foxholes was more about conveying the idea that troops actually spent most their time reading books and talking with their peers, and other related leisure activities, rather than actually fighting. In fact, the link you posted about Trench Warfare demonstrates this (however there seems to be no source): "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trench_warfare#World_War_I:_Life_in_the_trenches"

Found something: The average infantryman in the South Pacific during World War II saw about 40 days of combat in four years. The average infantryman in Vietnam saw about 240 days of combat in one year thanks to the mobility of the helicopter.

http://www.vhfcn.org/stat.html

The last comparison is a bit misleading. The WWII Pacific Campaign was primarily a naval war, and the average infantryman in the South Pacific probably spent a fair bit of time in transit between islands. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:36, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Paul Hardcastle's song "Nineteen" while drawing data from probably the same sources addresses this issue. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:46, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

That and a 1 year tour in Vietnam would probably be a lot more survivable then a 1 year tour in WW2 Pacific, what with the high casualty rate storming beaches tends to incur. Googlemeister (talk) 13:26, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

How would I qoute a letter that I found in an archive?

I recently went to the archives at the Royal Geographic Society in London and found a letter that would be benficial to a wikipedia article. Ciclismo91 (talk) 18:54, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

In general, primary source research of this sort is frowned upon on Wikipedia — it is considered original research, which is forbidden. --Mr.98 (talk) 18:55, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

You could write a book about it, get it published and then persuade someone else to quote it for you ;-) Alansplodge (talk) 19:23, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

It depends on what it is and how accessible (i.e. verifiable) it is. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:45, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Not completely forbidden - you could still use it as a reference if it relates to the letter, a bit like Jones was in Sometown on 3 August 1892 when he wrote a letter to Smith (and ref the letter) what you cant do is interpret or assume anything from the letter like Jones was not happy and he begged Smith for money is made up and original research. So as bugs says it all depends on what you want to use the letter for. MilborneOne (talk) 22:06, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

If one were to cite an archival letter — which again I would be very cautious about, and frankly don't recommend (as a trained historian, I am pretty dubious about amateur usage of archival sources) — there is no single accepted Wikipedia citation style for this, and no pre-made templates. I would do it this way, personally, just because it is straightforward, has all of the useful information, and jibes with scholarly convention:

John Smith to John Doe (15 March 1921), National Archives of Wherever (City of Whatever, Country of Wherever), John Smith Collection (MSS 40504), Box 6, Folder 3.

Or something along those lines. What's important is the full information about who wrote it (and to whom), the date, the name of the archives, the location of the archives, the name of the collection (and its identification number, if it has one), the box, the folder. (If the folder has a name rather than a number, use the name. If it had both, use both.) --Mr.98 (talk) 22:36, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

But don't waste your time: such a citation could, should, and probably would be removed from a Wikipedia article. It's sometimes acceptable to cite primary sources on Wikipedia, but it's never acceptable to cite unpublished primary sources (such as a letter in an archive). Wikipedians too often confuse the roles of writing history and writing an encyclopedia article. If you're thinking of citing an archival letter on Wikipedia, you're confused about what it is we do here.

A better route is to communicate with a blog, website, or historian who might be interested in this letter. You might find that historians have long known about the letter but don't find it significant enough to specifically cite. (Happens all the time.) You might find that historians have already cited this letter. In this case, you can track down a secondary source that cites the letter and cite it instead. (Been there, done that.) You might find that historians consider the letter to be unreliable, inauthentic, or otherwise problematic. (Yes, it happens.) Determining the reliability and importance of archival material is the job of historians, not Wikipedians. —Kevin Myers 01:57, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Other historians have adequately covered the fact that this is original research from primary sources and unacceptable on Wikipedia. I'd even say that the idea that the claimed author wrote it in the claimed place on the claimed date is original research, I certainly wouldn't make this claim based on a single document. To cite archives see Mr.98's example: What the Document is (When it was created), Who holds the collection (And where), What the collection is called (And its code number), Box and Folder numbers. Remember to ask your friendly archivist about how to cite their archives, they'll have examples. Archivists are probably my favourite information professional, and I like information professionals a lot. My suggestion on using the information you believe you've discovered: write it up and get it published in a reliable source! Fifelfoo (talk) 03:14, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Trouble finding primary sources for the water & steam power thesis

The thesis is: "While water power formed the basis of the first Industrial Revolution, it took steam and railroading to mark the border between the first and the second Industrial Revolution."

The sources I found were considered "secondary sources" and he wants three primary sources.

With "James Watt" as a beacon for the direction to take, which of his works would back up this thesis? Thanks. --129.130.98.221 (talk) 19:03, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

But secondary sources are more accurate. I guess you should try to find a newspaper clippings database going back that far. Didn't the New York Times recently put all their OCRed back issues online? Goodness knows I've probably typed in at least a foot high stack of their stuff in reCaptcha. 67.6.175.132 (talk) 00:01, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

You're not going to find online newspaper clippings going back to the first industrial revolution, or James Watt... --Mr.98 (talk) 01:09, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

See scholarly histories of science and technology such as The Unbound Prometheus which is exactly on this topic. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:10, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

And then read the footnotes to find appropriate primary sources. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:18, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

But it would take a lot more than three primary sources to support the point. 300 perhaps. You could refer to Watt's patents or his letters, but they wouldn't show that his work was the boundary between 1st and 2nd industrial revolutions. Watt didn't even know what an industrial revolution was. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:02, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

He may have:Industrial revolution#Name history shows the term was in use in his lifetime. Rmhermen (talk) 13:11, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I actually have no idea how you'd support this point through the accumulation of primary sources, it seems to hang off a number of theoretical elements (motive force as the distinguishing characteristic, the validity of the Unbound Prometheus periodisation, the exclusion of Thompsonian class formation concerns...) primary sources look like they would be illustrative here. Actually didn't water as a motive force affect different industries to steam? So there's no continuum for primary sources in like industries for a motive force analysis. Maybe going to _economic_ histories and checking for their primary sources. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:58, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I assume that you need the sources for a school or college paper, and not for a Wikipedia article (unlike school, for a Wikipedia article, we prefer secondary sources). My advice (echoing that of Fifelfoo) is to go to the library and find secondary sources on the first and second industrial revolutions... and then look at the bibliography and footnotes to see which primary sources the authors used. Then try to track down those sources and see if they can support your thesis. Blueboar (talk) 13:16, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

The trick about finding useful primary sources for this kind of thesis will be making sure they are very narrow. Because you can't do this entire argument with primary sources — it'd be quite a lot, and take mastery of the material that you don't have. What you could do is try to find examples illustrating different ways of living or thinking during this period. For this specific example (which I admit is not really my period of expertise), you might think about your three primary sources in a chronological way — one before the steam engine and railroad, one in the middle of it, one after the change had happened.

Primary sources need not come out of archives. You can find lots on the web, in the form of books or pamphlets that were published at the time.

One thing that comes to mind is to look at something like The Wealth of Nations, which is very much a "first industrial revolution" sort of document (pin factories and other economies of scale, rather than transportation or power). One could then look for something like, oh, a passage from Marx when he talks about the railroads and the differences it brought, or even a novel by Elizabeth Gaskell (many of which have to do with the industrial revolution—North and South, for example). Just ideas. These would illustrate changes in how contemporaries discussed things. --Mr.98 (talk) 22:20, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

October 11

Bells tolling canonical hours

In Naples of the sixteenth century, how many bell tolls signalled each of the 8 canonical hours, and was there an introductory flourish before the number was struck?211.28.63.151 (talk) 04:51, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Lingering (US) financial impact from the Bank Bail out

I've checked out the relevent articles and while I've learned that some banks have paid back their bail out funds, exactly what is the direct financial impact to our country from this. If we made a profit in general, would it be reasonable to talk about the (strictly financial) cost of the bailout as if it was a downside? 148.134.37.3 (talk) 16:06, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

The data you do find will likely be a direct result of the political party which is sponsoring the data; those that support the party which sponsored the bailout will produce data to say it was a raging success, and those that support the party which opposed the bailout will produce data to say it was an abject failure. Don't take any greater meaning from this other than you can predict the politics of the person publishing the numbers merely by what the numbers they publish are. --Jayron32 17:16, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

The bailout of the traditional banks is probably a wash for the government. A bigger and continuing liability to the government has been the bailout of nonbanks such as the American International Group, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac, which left the government holding a large amount of questionable debt (i.e., debt that may never be repaid) and left the government with an almost exclusive responsibility for mortgage finance and a growing exposure to risky mortgage debt. Marco polo (talk) 19:40, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Should we even attempt to observe that there were time cost advantages to the private capital bailed out, that can never be recooped from private investors by the commonweal? Fifelfoo (talk) 11:07, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

What does that mean exactly? If you mean time value of money then we typically call that an interest rate and that's certainly reflected in the bailouts. And as per Marco's point....I'm not sure I've ever heard anyone call the whole endevour of the past 3 years a wash. It's not like the government's participating in the housing market as a naive investor. The U.S. government for at least 60 years had been intimately involved in the mortgage market, in fact if you consider mortgage in its legal sense this predates the railroad based land sales... but digressing the government's very much a player in this market. Shadowjams (talk) 11:12, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

human generation length

How long is the average human generation and how much does it differ in various locations around the world, from State to State, race to race, occupation to occupation, income to income, family size to family size? --DeeperQA (talk) 16:40, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

A "generation" is not a unit of measurement. Perhaps you want to know what average age that women have their first birth, which can be seen as a number of years between mothers and children on average. -- kainaw™ 16:53, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Googling "Mother's age at first birth": here returns promissing results, here is a good breakdown by U.S. State as one link I got from there. Some "generations" are defined by a shared culture, in the U.S. at least there are groups known as the Silent Generation (born roughly 1925-1945), the Baby boomers (born roughly 1946-1964), Generation X (born roughly 1965-1980 or so), Generation Y (born roughly 1981-late 1990s), Generation Z (born late 1990s - today). These definitions are very fuzzy around the edges (i.e. there may not be a significant cultural difference between someone born in 1945 or someone born in 1946, despite being nominally from different defined generations); and these cultural definitions seem to run VERY roughly about 15-18 years. But don't look for these ill-defined, fuzzy groups to be useful to extract a lot of meaning as far as the "average length of a generation"; these are mainly used by historians to define certain historical "eras" and cultures, rather than to define fertility data. --Jayron32 17:12, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Generation length is not a statistic usually collected by demographers. Average age of mothers at birth may be collected, but it doesn't directly measure the duration of generations, since it may not be the same as the average age of fathers at birth. These statistics are generally not collected for all of the variables that you mention. In most historical societies, the average age of fathers has been higher than that of mothers. An average of these two numbers (weighted slightly according to the sex ratio) would yield the average duration of generations. That number has varied historically depending on economic and cultural factors. For example, in societies in which there is a financial hurdle to marriage (e.g., a requirement that a man had to have his own house and be able to support a family before marrying), the average duration of generations tends to be longer. In much of the world today, the duration of generations is longer than it was before the mid-20th century because of parents' desire to assure a high standard of living for their offspring, which may involve saving for a home purchase, saving for a wedding, paying professional dues before achieving an income that would support a family, and so on. Also, as women have gained better access to education, they tend to postpone childbearing until they have completed their education and perhaps embarked on a career. See Demographic transition. Marco polo (talk) 20:05, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

We do actually have an article that is relevant to some of the OP's questions, see Generation#Familial_generation, which states that Some define a familial generation as the average time between a mother's first offspring and her daughter's first offspring. (unsourced), and a little further down in the section:

In developed nations the average familial generation length is in the high 20s and has even reached 30 years in some nations.(Ref: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Social Policy Division SF2.3: Mean age of mothers at first childbirth) As of 2008, the average generation length in the United States was 25 years, up 3.6 years since 1970 (Ref: Mathews TJ, Hamilton BE. Delayed childbearing: More women are having their first child later in life. NCHS data brief, no 21. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics. 2009). Germany saw the largest increase in generation length over that time period, from 24 years in 1970 to 30 years in 2008. Conversely, generation length has changed little and remains in the low 20s in less developed nations. --NorwegianBlue ^talk 20:16, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

And "real" generations get all confusing. While the "X", "Y" and "Millenials" are based on year, there is also the generations within families, and they don't all line up very well. For example, my grandparents were born the same decade as my wife's parents, but because her mom was so old when my wife was born, she is in my generation (X), even though she was born to the same generation as my parents (boomers). Mingmingla (talk) 03:15, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

The question as posed focusses on generation in the present and recent past, and I think the responses are downplaying the significance or the accuracy of such numbers. (The number do vary, so extreme accuracy is not to be expected.) But I think over the long term—involving tens of thousands of years—generation is an important unit of time, as it would seem to relate to the possibility for evolutionary change in human beings. Bus stop (talk) 03:39, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

A simple backwards calculation from the usage of most contemporary authors provides an age of 20 years per generation. Most native speakers of English I have encountered (Will Durant) will testify to the same span. I personally have never read an author such as Jeremy Wade who means to indicate more than 25 years at most for a generation. The fuzziness of the concept should be evident, but its ordinal relation to 20 years should be indubitable. μηδείς (talk) 04:11, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

There's not much magical about a fixed 20-year unit for a generation. "Age of mother at first childbirth" seems like a rather useful nugget of socio-demographic data, but there's nothing particularly magical about the "20-year generation" excepting as a loose historical definition of eras, and even then it isn't restricted to 20-year windows on the dot; but a loose definition of people likely to share common values and history based on when they were born. It's a useful concept, but not extended too far. When attempting to gather hard data on the "length of a generation", the OP seems to be asking on the numerical timeperiod between someone's birth and someone's having children of their own; and how this varies over time, space, and economics. In that case, the relevent data is "mother's age at childbirth" or "parent's age at childbirth" or other similar data. The historical "generation" eras (Boomers, Gen-X, etc.) are useful for entirely different purposes. --Jayron32 04:31, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, if he wants hard data let him say so. But even by the nominal "data" of so-called generations like "X" we seem to be looking at 20-year periods. For God's sake, do let the man speak up. μηδείς (talk) 04:55, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Iran murder plot 2011 on the Saudi ambassador, why no article?

I read about the Iran murder plot on the Saudi ambassador, why is there no article on this?, there ought be lots of stuff to write about. sourceElectron9 (talk) 20:02, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

This is a very very very current event. Wikipedia is not a news outlet for late-breaking news. Perhaps you want WikiNews. -- kainaw™ 20:04, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

You could write the article yourself. 24.38.31.81 (talk) 20:46, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

There is some mention here Adel al-Jubeir#2011 Assassination Plan. From the small amount I've seen, I would suggesting splitting it into a seperate article is premature. Nil Einne (talk) 21:26, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

This will affect the international relations, even in the long term. So at least the "Iran – United States relations" article ought to have a link. The complete vaccum seems weird. Electron9 (talk) 21:51, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually there is already 2 articles Iranian assassination plot and Adel Al-Jubeir assassination plot. The first article has existed since 18:41, 11 October 2011‎ (UTC) i.e. before your first post while the second since 21:29, 11 October 2011‎ (UTC) i.e. before your second post. I'm not sure why you believe there's a vacuum. Nil Einne (talk) 22:55, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

They lack proper linking then, even google failed to find the article.Electron9 (talk) 23:28, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

That's a common problem and part of the reason we often get multiple articles, you can't expect articles to be perfect for something which only happened a few hours ago. The wikipedia search is definitely slow at updating and should not be used for searching something created so recently but from my experience Google updates quite fast (it definitely found both articles when I searched about the time of my second reply, I did not do so earlier as I presumed it had already been done). It doesn't mean there's a vacuum. Nil Einne (talk) 23:33, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I almost created the article myself and was similarly surprised when it wasn't created when I went to look for it. That said, I also was the first to note on wiki (I think) the two duplicate articles and the OP of the first one merged them soon after. While the wiki process has its issues, it also tends to fix things pretty quickly. As far as the current name/scope of the article, that's extremely hard to get right early on. I think the most important thing for a wiki to do is focus all efforts onto one article, so the debates and disagreements can happen early and often, as opposed to being distributed across a dozen articles or subjects that people can't find til weeks later... and I think in this case that has been expertly accomplished. The name of the article may change, but at least everyone's on the same [literal] page. Shadowjams (talk) 07:06, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

October 12

Upholstery for royal sittery

I remember watching a show about very upper-end (frankly, royal) upholstery that was produced generation after generation and meant to be used to repair furniture which was centuries old. Such as chairs at Versailles and Buckingham Castle and so forth. The show may have been on PBS, but I think it was on the Ovation Channel carried by Time Warner Cable in Manhattan. Can anyone both name the type of fabric and, especially, provide a link to the provider or originasl video? μηδείς (talk) 04:50, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I suspect that you mean Buckingham Palace. Alansplodge (talk) 11:31, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Damask, probably. Here's a provider of damask for upholstery at Buckingham Palace. - Nunh-huh 11:50, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

LOL, Buckingham castle...yeah...palace. Damask is not the word I am looking for. These were simpler fabrics, although Damasks might be included. There was a simple "English" name like "standard" or some such that was used. The cloth was noted for running to hundreds of pounds for the square yard. It was noted for its quality and the fact that the patterns were retained over the centuries to ensure continuity. For example, one could say "I need the Louis Quinze print" to fix a tear in a three century old chair and the right cloth would be in stock. μηδείς (talk) 12:12, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Brocade? --TammyMoet (talk) 12:16, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I am not looking for a specific type of weaving or fabric like tweed or corduroy per se but rather standard patterns of whatever high-quality type that have been maintained for the specific purpose that they will be available to replace worn material with an exact match over time, in the same way that China patterns enjoy a long vogue, so that one can invest in expensive dinner sets without having to replace the entire set because the pattern is no longer in production if just one plate breaks.μηδείς (talk) 12:23, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Ancient Roman math

How did the Ancient Roman use Roman numerals to do bookkeeping and calculate volumes, curves for arches and water flumes and other structures like the Coliseums or did they bring in Arabs or Greeks who had better tools to make such calculations? --DeeperQA (talk) 07:53, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I can't answer your question directly, but there are ways of doing multiplication. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 08:02, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Romans used the abacus to do calculations.
Sleigh (talk) 08:49, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Using various forms of abacus, which are ideally suited to Roman numerals. Note that these are not like the toy abacuses you see for children today, which are good for nothing but basic counting and tallies: these abacuses have units, 5s, 10s, 50s, etc, and can be used to calculate complicated problems very quickly, once you're trained. There was a long-running dispute between whether the Roman-numeral based abacus method, or the Arabic-numeral based algebraist method, was better, with dualing calculations. In the end, Europe went with Arabic numerals and written calculation. Note that this wasn't an obvious choice: a portable abacus can be more convenient than a sandtray for writing calculations in, and both methods can be done mentally to an extent. 86.163.1.168 (talk) 08:55, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Note that Arabic numerals as we known them only date from around the 9th century AD, so they wouldn't be much use for the Romans. Greek numerals may seem slightly simpler than Roman numerals, but they still don't use positional values or zero in writing large integers, meaning modern math isn't much easier. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:02, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Which Romans? Byzantium Fifelfoo (talk) 09:45, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Two excellent sources on Roman technology that I'm aware of, that are easily accessible in English online, are works by Vitruvius and Pliny the Elder. The former, an engineer by trade, is probably more likely to give you the kind of information you're looking for. Our article is a good one and includes lots [too many, perhaps] of links to external sites where you can read his books. Pliny, who famously died in the eruption at Pompeii, an event recorded by his nephew, the arguably more famous Pliny the Younger, was more interested in nature, but as an admiral and a scientist recorded a fair bit about technology in passing, from what I remember. --Dweller (talk) 09:28, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

---

By the way, astronomers in the Roman empire used a sexagesimal (base-60) notation system, which was closer to being a place-value or positional system than any other numerical notation system in use around the Mediterranean at that time. Not sure whether engineers would have used it (and accountants definitely wouldn't have). AnonMoos (talk) 11:53, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Why did Republicans block Obama jobs bill?

Is there much truth in Obama's assertion that "...they'll have a hard time explaining why they voted no on this bill - other than the fact that I proposed it"? (source: BBC News, 12 October 2011 01:15 GMT) Astronaut (talk) 10:44, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Note to answerers: Please avoid having just a debate over this. Please back up any answers with references. Thanks in advance. --Mr.98 (talk) 11:49, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Look up Jim DeMint's infamous "Waterloo" policy (which oddly is not mentioned on the Jim DeMint article), and peruse this article by Mike Lofgren for the underlying basic general reasons... AnonMoos (talk) 11:59, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

This question is political showboating that should be deleted. The fact is that there is a Democratic majority in the Senate and it is they who did not pass the bill. μηδείς (talk) 12:04, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

As the Senate rules require a vote of at least 60 senators to allow a bill to even reach the point of discussion, and it would have required several Republican senators to reach that number of votes, it is, in fact, correct to state that the Republicans blocked the bill. --LarryMac | Talk 12:10, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

News articles on the topic list reasons given by Republicans - e.g. [[35] and [[36]. The primary argument given is that it is very similar to the 2009 stimulus package, which did not meet all its targets, and the Republicans argue that it was a failure. You may agree or disagree with this line of argument, but they do not appear to have any trouble giving the explanation, so I would contend that Obama's specific assertion given above is incorrect. Warofdreams talk 12:33, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

(EC) I'm not from the US but as I understand it while some (2 according to the source) Democratic senators may not have supported the bill, it was a moot point because they needed 60 votes to overide a filibuster and there is not a Democractic 60 vote majority (supermajority) in the Senate so it was in the power of Republicans to block the bill in the Senate and they did so (or technically 2 Democracts and all 47 Republicans). Reading the source above and other US sources [37] [38] [39] seems to reaffirm my view.

Not mentioned in the source, but as I understand it, technically the Democrats in the senate could use the 'nuclear option', as they can change the rules with only a simple majority so can remove the requirement for a 60 vote majority to overide a filibuster. But so far neither party has considered it a wise move as it raises serious issues which go beyond any single bill. Is this what you're referring to? If so, solely blaming the Democractic majority for refusing to change a long standing tradition which was way beyond the jobs bill seems a bit flawed, particularly at this early stage in the process where it seems likely it'll be even more controversial. To be fair, it seems they did make minor use of what can be called the nuclear option recently, which was itself fairly controversial [40] [41] [42] even though it seems to be of limited consequence in itself and mainly about stopping a different kind of filibuster, using amendments to make a point a delay a bill briefly. But if anything, that just seems to re-affirm the view that the nuclear option is indeed a nuclear option.

Of course as I'm said I'm not from the US, so if I'm wrong I welcome sourced corrections.

Nil Einne (talk) 12:42, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

best selling living poets

I can't believe I can't find this easily online. Who are the best selling living poets, and how many books do they sell (on average) each year? Harley Spleet (talk) 10:46, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Whoever the best selling recording artists are. They don't sell books, they sell CDs or songs on iTunes.
Sleigh (talk) 11:03, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

This is a good question. I'm sorry I don't know the answer, but Sleigh's answer is obviously not what you're looking for. The Nobel Academy obviously distinguishes between songwriting and poems.... Spleet has a very fair question. Shadowjams (talk) 11:22, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually, Sleigh's is the exactly correct answer. It's a bizarre sort of elitism that confers the title poet only to obscure artistes whose claim to fame is lack of popular recognition. I would go with Pink Floyd for Dark Side of the Moon or Fleetwood Mac for Rumours given that Michael Jackson and Elvis Presley and most of the Beatles are dead. There's also The Rolling Stones' and their Sympathy for the Devil of course.μηδείς (talk) 12:01, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

If we want to stick to people who self-identify as poets, I think Bob Dylan would feature pretty highly. Warofdreams talk 12:13, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh come on RD, we can do better than that. It's pretty obvious what kind of writers the OP is looking for, and it's not rock stars. Dark Side of the Moon, Rumours and so on are not books, which seems to have escaped Medeis' notice, and I'm not sure Dylan self-identifies as a poet either. Even if he does, that doesn't settle the issue of whether he should be considered one for the purposes of this question. I don't know the answer, but I would have thought that, in the English-speaking world at least, people like Seamus Heaney, Carol Ann Duffy and Simon Armitage would be up there. I wouldn't count Pam Ayres as a poet either, although Wendy Cope may qualify. --Viennese Waltz 12:22, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

So, if we're excluding Pam Ayres, we're looking for the best selling unpopular poet whose words aren't set to music, right? Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:29, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Yup. And we'd better exclude Julia Donaldson, many of whose books are poems, but for the fact that they're, err, not. --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:03, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

There's a useful summary of Dylan's self-identification as a poet, or not, here. Warofdreams talk 12:36, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but his words are meant to be accompanied by music. I'm a huge Dylan fan, and I think his lyrics are wonderfully poetic, but that doesn't make him a poet. Besides, the OP is looking for books, not records and CDs. Maybe Dylan's collected lyrics is a best seller, but it's not his collected poems, is it? --Viennese Waltz 12:57, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm a bit surprised that nobody has mentioned Maya Angelou yet. (Knows little to nothing about any poetry outside of Robert Frost and Flander's Fields ---->) Dismas|^(talk) 13:11, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Post office at Harlem, Texas

At http://lifeonthebrazosriver.com/Harlem,Texas.htm

the page says that there was a post office at Harlem, TX (address of a state prison farm) from 1888 to August 31, 1907.

Now I can't use that page as an RS. But it could be useful in helping find something that is an RS that can be used.

What RSes could be used to back up this info? Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 11:25, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

A directory or gazetteer of the area, from that period, would be likely to list the post office, and be a reliable source demonstrating that it existed. Of course, it wouldn't show that it was notable. Warofdreams talk 12:11, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Wehrmacht veterans

Do Wehrmacht veterans recieve veterans' benefits in modern Germany? Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty | Averted crashes} 13:00, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Marco polo (talk) 13:16, 12 October 2011 (UTC)