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 26

Is this a genuine North Korean philosophy textbook?

I found this textbook on Archive.org which claims to be a North Korean textbook criticizing the "bourgeois" philosophies of Freud, Darwin, James and Sartre. http://www.archive.org/details/GuidingLightOfDestiny

It is also hosted at the U of Oregon Asia library http://e-asia.uoregon.edu/taxonomy/term/589

However doing an extensive google and worldcat search I haven't found any evidence that such a work was ever published in North Korea by the Foreign Languages Publishing House. Can anyone familiar with the topic, determine whether this book is genuine or fraudulent?

--Gary123 (talk) 01:52, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

It looks authentic. Do note that North Korean publisher wouldn't coordinate with ISBN or list books in int'l library system. --Soman (talk) 05:50, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

The publishing house is real; the LoC records has over 500 items published in English by them (though only a handful in recent years). A number of the other works posted by this user match up with recorded books issued by the same publishing house under the same titles, which seems to support the likelihood of it being authentic - it certainly looks plausible, in terms of production style. Shimgray | talk | 12:48, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I read a few pages of it, seems too weird to be fake. The first sections contain a bizarre mix of hardline Marxism and strange versions of Greek myths with the characters and locations all mixed up. --Daniel 15:22, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Tahitians in Hawaiian

Does anybody know of any distint demographical population of Tahitians living in Hawaii today and how many? Distinct from a general term such as Pacific Islanders or Others.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 02:03, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I do remember reading somewhere about modern day Tahitians in Hawaii, but the article on Hawaii says nothing and I am not well-versed in the subject. μηδείς (talk) 00:58, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

friends and similarities

It's understood Yu-Na Kim and Mao Asada are good friends despite being rivals. But I was wondering if Mai Asada is also good friends with Yu-Na Kim. Anyone know?24.90.204.234 (talk) 05:20, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

What sub-penny stocks are the most promising and why?

Some penny stocks out there that are currently trading at $0.0099 or lower that also DTC eligible are promising to invest into. Which ones would you suppose are, and why so? How likely is a failure-event to happen with the stocks you mention? Thanks, --70.179.174.63 (talk) 09:50, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

As with a number of your questions, this one starts with a questionable premise. Why do you believe any of them are 'promising to invest into'? As you were told list time (Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2011 August 28#Zecco can't give a history of stocks' asking prices. Anyplace that will?), one of the reasons why they are trading so low is because the market thinks a failure-event is fairly likely and investing in them is definitely not a sound strategy. As our article says, the big 'advantage' to 'investors' for penny stocks is they are easy to manipulate. In any case, no one is likely to provide advice on specific stocks on the RD, as they shouldn't and as we've told you countless times, there is no get rick quick scheme we can provide you. Nil Einne (talk) 10:24, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure who added the first fact tag but since I provided a direct link to the last time the OP asked, it was fairly silly. As for the second fact tag, I'm not going to dig thru the countless times the OP has asked about ways to make money quickly. Edit: See it was the OP [1]. I've attempted to help you here and below and several other times because despite the fact you often seem to ignore our advice because I've believed you genuinely want help. If you are to continue to deny, as you did with that Indian braces/orthodontist question, you are the same person as the one who asked a very similar question before using an IP belonging to the same ISP and geolocating to the same area (admitedly seemingly the wrong area here but both IPs do that) which in this specific case disappeared from wikipedia not long before your IP above appeared, and who tends to often ask related questions revealing similar information, I have no choice but to conclude you don't genuinely want help. Nil Einne (talk) 05:08, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

We are neither licensed nor qualified to give financial advice. DOR (HK) (talk) 03:57, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

For the record, the original poster may have been prompted to research this question because of the disheartening surge of penny stock web advertisements that I have noticed on major websites over the last couple of months, promising that there's a guy who has made a fortune so you may be able to, too. To the original poster: Penny stocks lose almost all investors all of their money; they are businesses who are likely to fail, and on top of that, penny stocks are pretty easily manipulated, as seen in the film Boiler Room. Comet Tuttle (talk) 05:25, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Why is Fox News so popular?

Whenever I hear about Fox News, it is always cited as being "unfair and unbalanced" with a right wing bias in its reporting. (This is, of course, partially due to the fact that I live in Norway where the media is more liberal than its US counterpart, and secondly due to the news sources I choose.) However, the article on Fox News states that Americans find it to factual in its reporting. Even 43% of democrats find its reporting to be accurate. So, my question is: Given that Fox News is frequently criticised for being right wing and biased, why is it still viewed so favourably by Americans, Democrats included? V85 (talk) 11:19, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

It might be important to distinguish its "news" programs (which seemed to be fair-and-balanced the last time I looked) vs. its "commentary" programs (which are typically right-leaning). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:08, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

It's probably also important to distinguish between "Accurate" and "balanced". You can create a very strong bias simply by picking and choosing which stories to run. APL (talk) 16:08, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Some people like it because it justifies their own views. Other people watch it because it goes against their views and they are addicted to the adrenaline rush they get when they get angry with some talking head on the television. -- kainaw™ 14:19, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Because the other cable news channels (CNN and MSNBC) are boring. Hot Stop talk-contribs 14:31, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Those who watch it because it goes against there own views and they get an adrenaline rush don't seem to think it through. If they stopped watching what they thought was right wing rubbish then the channel would lose viewers and therefore money through advertising. If there were a sizable amount of people who thought this way perhaps there would be less of Murdochs views on television. I personally would not watch a channel that constantly pushed their own views so much that other views did not get a look in. Carson101 (talk) 14:33, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I can't speak for others, but ... I watch Fox news precisely because it is biased towards the conservative viewpoint. It is a counter weight to those media outlets that are biased towards the liberal viewpoint. By watching multiple news channels, representing multiple political viewpoints, I get a more complete picture of all sides of political/social issues. Which better allows me to form an informed political opinion of my own. Blueboar (talk) 14:48, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm. I've yet to encounter any mainstream media outlet is the US that is biased towards a "liberal" (i.e. left) viewpoint. From this side of the pond, the core of the US political spectrum stretches from right-of-center to "you gotta be kidding me" cave men. I'd call Noam Chomsky an inconvenient centrist over here ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:24, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

It's a matter of perspective. In general, the political center in Europe skews more to towards the left than the center in the States. ie, positions that are considered "liberal" in the US may not be seen as "liberal" in Europe. Thus, while the majority of American networks (MSNBC, CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS etc.) may not seem "liberal" to a European, they are seen as being biased towards the liberal from an American viewpoint. However... Fox is really the only news outlet that presents the American conservative viewpoint. That means it is the only network you can go to if you want to understand that viewpoint. Hence its popularity. Blueboar (talk) 15:56, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I am American, and I find that all of the US networks have a rightwing bias, in that none of them seriously question a political economic system skewed toward power for large corporations and wealthy individuals. Hardly any US network ever presents a truly socialist perspective, except occasionally to deride it. The farthest voices to the left that are taken seriously would be considered right of center in any other country. Marco polo (talk) 16:11, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I endorse Marco polo's statements above. Comet Tuttle (talk) 05:21, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't overestimate how popular TV news is generally, except for the half-hour evening news programs (and even those are not watched all that much). During the day, most people are not watching TV, and if they are they're mostly watching entertainment. During the evening, more people watch TV, but again overwhelmingly it's entertainment programs. The half-hour nightly news is most people's limit, if they even watch that. Media pundits and political professionals have Fox and CNN and MSNBC etc. on all the time, and material that these networks feature seeps into the more general discourse to some extent, but the actual viewership is quite small. Herostratus (talk) 16:21, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

It depends truly on your view of "left". In the U.S., any policy in which the government is going to take over and handle an issue is commonly seen as "left". Any policy in which the private sector is going to take over and handle an issue is commonly seen as "right". Support for government health care is left. Support for commercial health care is right. Support for increasing government regulations on power companies is left. Support for deregulating power companies is right. It is much more a big vs. small government topic - which is radically different than the view of left and right outside of the United States. Perhaps there should be a wholly different pair of words to define it. -- kainaw™ 16:21, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Economically, yes. However, the right tends to be pro-government-control on social issues. In your parlance: support for government control of who gets to be married = right, while support for private decisions over who marries who = left. And any of a number of other issues. --Jayron32 16:57, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Two other key issues are the military and government support for certain kinds of business. The right in the U.S. tends to support expensive military interventions overseas even though they increase the share of GDP going to government. The right tends to support tax breaks and subsidies for certain kinds of business, particularly oil companies. The left tends to oppose such interventions and the spending they entail. Put another way, the right tends to support a larger role for the U.S. government supporting certain kinds of corporations, in people's bedrooms, in other people's countries, in fact in any area other than intervening in the economy to protect the environment or to help the less advantaged. The left tends to support a smaller role for the U.S. government in people's bedrooms, supporting big business, and in other people's countries, but a larger role in such areas as protecting the environment and helping the disadvantaged. Marco polo (talk) 18:13, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Responding to your original question, I don't think that Fox News is viewed favorably by most Americans. It has a substantial group of partisans, mostly Republican. A minority (43%) of Democrats apparently feels that its reporting is accurate. This may mean no more than that they think its statements of facts are indeed factual. It does not necessarily mean that 43% of Democrats think that Fox News is balanced in its selection of the facts it reports. I think most Americans recognize that Fox has an agenda. Many, probably most, Americans avoid it for that reason. Marco polo (talk) 18:20, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Are you kiddin me? Glenn, Icecold Coulter, The Newt, Michelle Maglalang Malkin, Shannety, Scientology Susteren, Billy Reilly, what more do you want?! Facts? It's not Comedy Central! DS Belgium (talk) 20:10, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Rather more prosaically, a US friend of mine claims that Fox has considerably fewer, and considerably shorter, ad breaks than CNN and its other competitors. That would suggest that CNN is expected to pay its own way, but FN is subsidised by the rest of the Fox family. I know that Fox' UK cousin Sky News is heavily subsidised, the continuation of which was a factor in the (finally abortive) discussions regarding NI fully acquiring Sky. Personally I can't help but observe that, at least for Sky News, they seem to have a news anchor (and sports anchor) hiring policy that's largely based on looks rather than journalistic quality. Put together that would suggest that humans have a low attention span and like pictures of pretty girls. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 20:38, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't get all of that. I was busy looking at pictures of pretty girls... Oooh, what's that... --Jayron32 23:02, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Is this discussion starting to remind people of a discussion about Univision which incidentally evidentally RM once considered buying Nil Einne (talk) 13:57, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I read a study once that argued that Fox News doesn't turn people into Republicans; rather, it attracts people who already are Republicans. The Fox News viewership is overwhelmingly Republican, or at least far more Republican than Democratic. Fox viewers watch it because they agree with it. I don't think Fox News is viewed favorably by a majority. In 2010, Sacred Heard University did a survey in which Fox News ranked highest when people were asked which TV news source they trusted the most. It also ranked highest when they asked people which TV news source they trusted the least. Clearly, Fox News is very polarizing, and people either love it or hate it. Incidentally, another poll found most moderates and the vast majority of liberals distrusted Fox News. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:27, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

You don't watch Fox News. You monitor it.Greg Bard (talk) 00:43, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Aren't you required to make air quotes with your fingers whenever you say the second word of that channel's name? --Jayron32 01:02, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Xenophobic populism is surprisingly effective in the U.S. because the majority of socially conservative Christians believe there is a supernatural conspiracy by Satan to control and sway the minds of the powerful. Ordinary libertarian-leaning citizens similarly believe in a conspiracy by the powerful to restrict their rights (by, for example, concentrating wealth and restricting the liberty of the middle and lower classes.) Rupert Murdoch, Roger Ailes, Bill O'Reilly, Glenn Beck, and the FNC staff are adept at playing to all these fears in ways that benefit the ruling elite who buy their advertising time and thus pay their bills. For more information, please see fair.org. Dualus (talk) 23:34, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

OMG: how many biases against Americans are in Dualus' post? Quest09 (talk) 00:30, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

"Why do I hate America?"? I'm an American. What do you think is biased? Dualus (talk) 02:21, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Please see also Noam Chomsky. Dualus (talk) 06:50, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

As job rejection is a guaranteed constant, are there ANY other "ways in?"

The economy may be shared by everyone, but I have a set of disorders (AS/SPD) and haven't worked since July 2009 (which was a temp job), so that make me harder to employ. A critical friend says that I wouldn't win any cases in which I suspect an employer detecting a disability, as a reason to reject me. (At least the university's attorney is free.)

My therapist promises that internships would increase the chances of future employment, but with a 2.3 GPA, how hard is it to land an internship in the first place?

With an 85 on the ASVAB, I could put that on my resume, but medication alone disqualifies me from any branch of the military.

Institutionalization is potentially free, but only if my Healthconnect (a subsidiary of Medicaid) makes it so. With my case, would they cover it? (Doubtful, IMHO.)

From Sallie Mae alone, the monthlies would be $557.15 at the current level of what I owe them. My rent is $350 before utilities. My SSI is $674/month. What sum does that make? A pretty horrid outlook!

I have some rough drafts of future planned novels, but how much does it cost to apply to publish them? What is the rejection rate? Even if my books ARE published (which is a long shot at this juncture), what are the royalty rates? (1% of the book price per book, or 1% of the net-only profits? That's a guess though.)

SRS promises to make "incentives" to employers to hire me once I graduate. Therefore, they can influence them; make it easier for them to hire me, but can't force them. (That gives some hope, but I still feel shaky over this.)

Failing all that, my only safety net is to defer loans by continuing college in some form (by at least 6 credit-hours per semester.) This may take on more loans, but would this beat not leaving enough for rent, compounding interest and/or surcharges for late payments and default fees? (Seems to in the present.)

There are allegations that Sallie Mae could still track me down if I flee the country (though AFAIK, garnishments can only happen to bank accounts in the same nation as the garnishers.) This is to say nothing of the compounding that would continue. (If I left school with $90k in debt, and left the nation for 25 years without payment, excluding late and other default fees, the total owed would be over a half-million dollars. {$616,362.77, assuming an average of 8% interest.}) I would only flee with the objective that I pay them back under my own terms, therefore not being squeezed tighter than I'm comfortable with.

There needs to be another "way in" to having a steady income in order to keep me above water with the student loans. Are there possibly jobs that do not require interviews anywhere that may take me in? (Where would you suggest?) Other than that, what would those other ways be? Thank you, --70.179.174.63 (talk) 11:51, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Since you forsee problems getting a job in the future and haven't yet graduated may I suggest trying hard for internships (even the best students often face a few rejections and ultimately you don't know if you can get one until you try), including when you have to go for a interview, and concentrating on improving you improving your GPA may be two of your most important tasks? About the internship, there must be help for this at your university but at a guess as with seeking a job it may help if you concentrate on your strengths. E.g. if you are resonably comfortable speaking or writing Hindi or Mandarin, are there any internships where this may be of use? Of course I don't mean you should ignore personal development in other areas, it sounds like you are already getting help learning to best cope with your disability but from what you've said you may also want to learn how to write a decent resume and to improve your interview skills (i.e. job seeking skills) and perhaps personal confidence (it sounds like you're convinced you're never going to get a job which may not help) and people skills (as has been said before if people keep holding 'grudges' consider whether it is entirely their fault). The good news is you can probably get help with these at university for close to free.

Other stuff like worrying about changing your IP (and whatever caused you to need to change it), earning money off eBay, trading in penny stocks, frankly any get-rich quick schemes, and also trying to convince people of the wonders of washlets likely should take a back-burner as they don't sound particularly important if you feel you're struggling at university or in life in general.

There's nothing wrong with thinking rationally about your future but you probably should abandon the idea of running away. Not because of whether or not someone can come after you for your student loan, but because if you're a recent graduate without much money and without a brillant record and can't get a job in the US, there's little reason to think you have any chance of legally working in (not counting working holidays and stuff like that) or migrating to another country unless you can get or already have citizenship by birth or descent.

Nil Einne (talk) 15:06, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

It's not a very good source of decent money, but at a site like Elance at least you can bid on jobs using proof of your degree, some proficiency tests they administer, and whatever you say to potential buyers. I have no idea if this actually works, though. Wnt (talk) 17:41, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

In my limited experience with elance, it seems like the majority of the jobs go to contractors from countries where the pay rates are much lower, at rates about 1/10th what an American contractor would expect. I assume many of them are probably competent, but some of them are clearly scams. (Some of them bid on every single contract, even ones that are technically impossible to complete.)

Not to discourage anyone from trying. Some people claim to have had better luck than me. APL (talk) 19:39, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

One thing to try is Coffee and Power, Philip Rosedale's new venture. I think it hasn't quite taken off yet, but at least keep watch on it, because it may get fairly big. For all that, the real thing that will get you a job is connections. In Australia (I think everywhere) there is a saying, "it's not what you know, it's who you know", and trust me, unless you are in a boomtime, this is not at all facetious. If you can manage it, start anything freelance, for any fee, to get your name out there, and find out what you are good at - I took up part-time tutoring, and it nearly led to a teaching career (but that's another story). I have a minor disability, and I had trouble finding a way in, so I can appreciate at least a little how hard it is. Generally, at least in Australia, government jobs are more secure and less fickle when it comes to people with disabilitites, but I don't know anything about the US government as an employer. Good luck. It's been emotional (talk) 19:54, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

A company made news this year (example article) by saying it specifically wants to hire software testers who have Asperger's. Here's another article about the same startup, and that led me to the jobs4autism website, which seems to point to many resources. But I have to strongly recommend that you use your university's career counselors on this one. It is their job to specifically help you. They will be able to help you a thousand times more significantly than your Internet searches and questions here on the Reference Desk. Comet Tuttle (talk) 05:18, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Comet Tuttle, but let me say this. You might want to focus on developing a skill or skills that will enable you to make money without working for an employer. I have known some people make decent bucks (enough to live modestly on) just taking care of people's lawns and gardens, or cleaning their windows and rain gutters. If you are handy with tools, there's always a need for general home repairs/cleanup, possibly starting in your own neighborhood (put flyers on people's doors with your phone number/email address). Or if you have some artistic talent, that might be another path to self-sufficiency if you can find a niche market for your creativity (I have heard of people who make a living painting murals or stencils in people's homes, or by catering/cake baking). And of course some people have found ways to make money just by running some kind of internet site or business, though from what I've seen, programs like Google AdSense don't really work well. On the other hand, some people have come up with improbable ideas and prospered with them: see this amusing website, which has gotten the author not one but two book deals so far. Whatever you do, I really wouldn't advise racking up a mountain of student loan debt: it just keeps getting bigger and bigger with interest and late charges piled on, you can't get rid of it through bankruptcy, and it could well hang over you for all the rest of your life, making life that much harder for you - if you do find a steady job, they can and will garnish your wages, taking a sizeable chunk out of every paycheck. Nor can you run away from it: it costs more money than you think to emigrate to another country, a lot more than just the airfare, and in any case, any country that's nice to live in is going to screen you first to ensure that you don't end up on the welfare rolls there. So do some brainstorming with friends, counselors, and family, and think seriously about finding a line of work that you can do independently, would be my best and strongest advice. Good luck to you. Textorus (talk) 12:14, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

What community colleges offer the cheapest online courses per credit-hour?

At least for a Kansas resident?

Even though it's to protect myself financially, I could still gain practical skills from these online courses.

I would intend to work while in college, and the easiest way to juggle the two would be with online-only classes. Possibly driving commercial vehicles long distances would be all the more reason to anyway. Thank you, --70.179.174.63 (talk) 11:51, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

The answer is almost certainly "Kansas community colleges" because otherwise you would have to pay out-of-state tuition at some other state's college, and that is usually waaay more than in-state tuition. Private online colleges have hefty tuition fees also. If I were you, I'd start with my nearest community college and talk with an admissions counselor about fees and coursework. But a caution: online courses require a great deal of motivation and self-discipline, and some people find them more challenging than regular ones for that reason. Textorus (talk) 19:12, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Given that the community colleges of Kansas vary in their pricing, in this case, which of them would offer the lowest prices for their online courses? --98.190.13.3 (talk) 06:17, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Not necessarily. Some schools will waive out of state tuition for online students Georgia Perimeter College seems to be one example of a state community college with a large online campus, with tuition that is the same for in state and out of state students. They list it at 99$ for credit hour, or usually 300$ per class. See http://www.gpc.edu/online/content/how-much-will-it-cost. Llamabr (talk) 03:29, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Great, thanks. Hopefully there will be no ancillary fees (like "privilege" fees and the like. I'll know where to find some low-priced E-textbooks therefore not worry about the overall costs so much after all.) I'll look into this one. However, if anyone knows of any other college that'll be even cheaper for me, please do post. --98.190.13.3 (talk) 06:17, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

A culture where only the corrupt rise to power (2nd try)

I'm trying to remember a term which consists of a surname (I think it starts with a "W", not quite sure though) and is followed by "law", "rule" or "principle" or something similar. It's a theory or an observation rather about the social dynamics in certain modern organizational or societal sectors whereby a climate of corruption and lawlessness has become so prominent that in order for anyone to rise to power in this climate they must themselves be willing to take part in the corruption. I know we have an article specifically discussing it, but I'm unable to recall its name or otherwise locate it.

In my previous attempt to find this term here on this page I got the following suggestions: "iron laws" and kleptocracy.

I'm reposting now, hoping someone this time around will know the key term. __meco (talk) 13:49, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Wasta? Flamarande (talk) 15:21, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

John Dalberg-Acton, 1st Baron Acton (he of the "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely" remark) has a number of quotes at the bottom of his article that suggest he would have agreed with your premise, but left no body of work or any named law or rule that I could find. Bielle (talk) 15:27, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

This wouldn't be a name for a prevailing social milieu that is corrupt but baksheesh is one name for bribe. I stumbled upon this nice collection of quotes some of which are on-topic. I'll keep thinking. I like the question. Bus stop (talk) 15:49, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Still nobody has come up with the term. I suppose the guy who defined this state was either a sociologist or an economist. __meco (talk) 17:43, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Stab in the dark, on the "Sociologist" and "W" thing, but Max Weber spent a lot of his thought thinking about the legitimacy of the state with regard to how it behaves. Maybe a lead? --Jayron32 17:51, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I think the individual is a contemporary figure. Also, I don't want to emphasize too strongly the name starting with 'w'. It could be another letter. __meco (talk) 19:55, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

We have Category:Political corruption in the United States and Category:Political corruption. Also William M. Tweed, Tammany Hall, and the article Political corruption. Bus stop (talk) 01:00, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

There is the word "kakistocracy", meaning government by the worst.--Rallette (talk) 05:46, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

And as to Acton's famous principle, Frank Herbert once refined it a bit: it's not so much that power corrupts, it's that power attracts the corruptible. But I don't know that anyone's ever called this "Herbert's Law" or anything like that.--Rallette (talk) 05:59, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

No, it's not "Herbert's Law" and it's not "kakistocracy". The term was used by a guest on the "Keiser Report" several months ago. That's where I learned it the first time before forgetting the name of it. __meco (talk) 07:49, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I know Immanuel Wallerstein wrote a lot about corruption and modern politics, but I don't know that there was ever a 'law' named after him. I've never heard of that particular 'law' - closest I can think of is the Peter Principle - and it's the kind of thing I ought to be aware of if it exists. but… --Ludwigs2 17:04, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Aithihyamala

Aithihyamala (ഐതിഹ്യമാല) is a book of mythology or folklore of Kerala written in Malayalam by Kottarathil Sankunni. In that book there is a chapter (16. Kaaladiyil Bhattathiri) in which sooryakaladi Bhattathiri is cursed (ശപിച്ചു) by a yakshi and a gandharva. But both said if he would go to thiruvaloor temple he won't die. My question is: Even though he went to the temple, his curse was not removed and he died; why? Anybody who read the book, please answer. --nijil (talk) 16:41, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Please see ഐതിഹ്യമാല/കാലടിയിൽ ഭട്ടതിരി source text. Dualus (talk) 00:28, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Hiram Clarke Civic Club

How do I check if the Hiram Clarke Civic Club has a geographic boundary? I cannot find a website or an e-mail. The group is registered as the "Hiram Clarke Civic Club, Inc." in the state of Texas Thanks, WhisperToMe (talk) 18:45, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean a "Geographic boundary"? Do you mean if they own land? If they do, a local Recorder of deeds will have them on record. You should be able to find (with some work) if they own land and what plots of land they own; the register of deeds or similar office should have public Plats which show who owns what land. --Jayron32 18:56, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Not so much that it owns the land, but it has a service area.

An American homeowner's association has a geographic boundary of houses that it provides services to

WhisperToMe (talk) 20:53, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

You hadn't mentioned what kind of organization it was. If it is an HOA, then yes, it will have a defined service area. Do you have a phone number for the organization? You could contact them. --Jayron32 20:58, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll check Google Books. I hoped that such a thing would appear in print... WhisperToMe (talk) 01:42, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

http://www.houstontx.gov/cao/civicclubs.pdf gives the phone number (713) 729-3631 WhisperToMe (talk) 01:44, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I tried calling the number, but I didn't get a response. It's okay as http://www.chron.com/CDA/archives/archive.mpl?id=2003_3668949 tells me what the boundaries are.

Jayron, thank you for your help!

WhisperToMe (talk) 20:27, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Actions against collaborators after WW2 in Western Europe

Are there any articles on that topic in enwiki, or any other language? All I find is nl:Repressie (België) about Flanders. Nothing on Wallonia, where more people received the death penalty. No article on the Netherlands.. DS Belgium (talk) 19:48, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

For France, we have an article on the "Épuration légale". The French Wikipedia has a bunch of articles about this. Adam Bishop (talk) 19:57, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

There is an omnibus article located at Collaboration with the Axis Powers during World War II which may lead you to more articles and/or references on any topics you are looking for. --Jayron32 20:01, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Legal purge in Norway after World War II __meco (talk) 20:06, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Where, indeed, Vidkun Quisling was executed. Related to Belgium, we have Victor Matthys and José Streel, both executed. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 20:11, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Good links, thanks, but I might have given the wrong impression talking about death sentences, I was mainly thinking about the "mob rule" so to speak, the extra-judicial actions. The dutch article about Flanders mentions it, people put in cages in the Antwerp zoo, women with their heads shaven, rape, etc. But it could well be that other countries haven't documented these as much, in Belgium it remained a hot topic because Flemish collaboration was in part related to the language problems. But thanks for your troubles everyone. DS Belgium (talk) 21:03, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Pursuit of Nazi collaborators talks about it, country by country. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:07, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

October 27

Secession from the union

Excuse me for asking a question that has no doubt been extensively chewed over. If a state wishes to succeed from the United States, petitions congress for permission, AND congress is amenable to granting this wish(!) what exactly is needed? Can an act of congress alone authorize a succession? Or is there a need for a constitutional amendment to allow permitting successions? (No, such a thing is NOT "impossible", the civil war notwithstanding). 58.111.224.157 (talk) 07:37, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

You mean secession, not succession. Quest09 (talk) 08:09, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

It's complicated. See Texas v. White.

Basically the supreme court ruled (Based on the Constitution and the Articles of Confederation) that secession is not legally possible "except through revolution or through consent of the States.". But as far as I know the procedure for that "consent" isn't really specified anywhere, but clearly it would take more than just the consent of the congress. Perhaps it would take a form similar to the procedure for admitting new states? APL (talk) 08:20, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

It's still secession, not succession. Huge difference. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 08:28, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Fixed. But I liked it better my way. APL (talk) 09:01, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I have already said that. I don't understand how people do not secede to understand the difference. Quest09 (talk) 09:10, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

That's why I said "still". Language change is a real phenomenon, but the meaning of the word "succession" did not change between 8:09 and 8:20 today. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 09:16, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Secession is fine, but succussion from the Union can't be beaten. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 09:26, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Nothing succudes like succuss. But wait, why are we all talking like Kiwis all of a sudden?  :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 11:17, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

APL, the procedure for admitting new states is by Act of Congress, as specified in the Constitution. Which means, as with any other piece of legislation, both houses have to agree on a bill, and the President then signs it into law. But the Constitution says nothing about letting a state go out of the Union, so there's no specified mechanism for that; no doubt the lawyers (to say nothing of the politicians and the journalists) would have a field day if there were ever a serious drive to get Congress to pass such a bill. And even if it got enacted, the matter would surely end up in the lap of the Supreme Court, and they might say that's a no-go. But it's never been done by Congress or the courts, only briefly by force of arms, so who knows? PS - Some people are still prepared to argue that there was no legal basis for America's successful, if treasonous, secession from the British Empire. Textorus (talk) 15:11, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Under those criteria, there's no end to the infinite regression back to the first proper state, and indeed back to the first organized tribe of humans. At some point, reality must be considered when compared against purely intellectual exercises such as this. --Jayron32 15:56, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Right, since the legal basis for the English colonists' earlier expropriation of Native American lands, often at musket-point, is even more questionable. Marco polo (talk) 19:12, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

When I saw that article, I was very surprised to hear that anyone argued that it was legal. Americans at the time were subject to British law and I think it is pretty obvious that fighting the British authorities is against British law. A new state being created in a way that was within the law of the predecessor state has never been a requirement for recognising a new country, and nor should it be. That doesn't make it legal, though. --Tango (talk) 21:04, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

The European colonists mostly justified the taking of Native American land using one or another aspect of international law (as it had evolved in Europe anyway), at least after the earliest foothold planting stages. Of course it was never hard to find casus belli, fight and win a war, then claim territory by right of conquest. Nice and legal, right? Pfly (talk) 21:12, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Textorus. Oh, you're right. I think I was thinking of the procedure for ratifying constitutional amendments, not new states. APL (talk) 22:56, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, admitting new states is much easier than amending the Constitution. Procedurally, that is. Textorus (talk) 07:11, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

An amendment to the U.S. Constitution could certainly do it, if the State legislature consented to be "deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate." Dualus (talk) 23:42, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me that various treaties establishing the Canada - United States border (such as Webster–Ashburton Treaty) have involved the cession of land which, at least from the U.S. perspective, was U.S. territory. (most comically, the Pig War, named after its sole casualty!) So it seems like the U.S. can give up territory, at least, without special constitutional actions. There's also a long List of U.S. state partition proposals in which states have been split up. Combining these two things, it seems altogether plausible that nothing beyond an ordinary vote is required for secession - maybe the standards for ratifying a treaty apply. Wnt (talk) 21:50, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Witikind

I would like to know some things on Witikind. I have tried your site many times but all I have found is Widukind. Please help meLynae8475 (talk) 13:24, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

"Witikind" and "Widukind" are different ways of spelling the same name (along with various other ways, like "Wittekind". Which one are you looking for? Widukind, the enemy of Charlemagne? Adam Bishop (talk) 13:35, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Mexican secession

As the US integrated parts of Mexican territory, what happened to the population living there? Did they have to go to Mexican? Did they become American citizens? Did the US try to move as much population as possible into the new territories? Quest09 (talk) 16:02, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

See Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, which explains in several places what happened to the Mexicans living in the territories. It appears they were granted American citizenship, and were nominally guaranteed property rights, but their property rights were later compromised. The number of actual "Mexican nationals" quoted by the article so affected is listed at about 3000 people, which seems quite low; it likely doesn't include Native Americans living in the area. Most of the territory was lightly populated; I think the only sizable settlement in the area was San Francisco whose population was under 1000 at annexation and whose population was very multinational, even then. --Jayron32 17:02, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh dear, another near-miss on spelling. What you mean is the Mexican Cession. You're talking about a relatively sparse population dotted across a vast territory, which was already a mix of races, ethnicities, and nationalities, so the answers to your questions are not easily summed up in a few words. But I'll start the ball rolling by saying, No they did not have to go to what was left of Mexico, Yes they became American citizens when the territory was transferred, and there was no particular rush by the U.S. Government to "move as much population as possible into the new territories," not in the way you seem to be thinking. Americans - if you mean by that non-Hispanic whites - had already been trickling into Mexican territories for decades. Indeed, Spain, and later Mexico, deliberately encouraged such Americans to come colonize Texas long before the Mexican War. See Mexican Texas. Textorus (talk) 17:09, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

There were certainly more than 3,000 people of Mexican origin in the Mexican Cession when it passed to the United States. Most of these were in what is now New Mexico, where their descendants to this day make up nearly half of that state's population. In 1850, when the first census was taken in New Mexico Territory, its population was 61,547 per the U.S. Census, a large majority of which was Mexican in origin. This area included the present-day states of both Arizona and New Mexico. In the present-day area of New Mexico alone, according to a source cited in History of New Mexico, the Spanish population in 1842 had been almost 50,000. California was not as heavily populated under Mexican rule, and, as others have said, part of its population was already of Anglo origin before 1848. Still, according to this source, the Spanish or Mexican population of California in the 1840s was almost 12,000. So, there were certainly at least 60,000 Mexican nationals in the Mexican Cession when it passed to the United States. I will edit our article accordingly. Marco polo (talk) 18:29, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Our article Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo gives a scholarly source for a figure of 80,000 Mexicans. Also, as far as their citizenship, Article VIII of the treaty says that Mexicans in the ceded territory have a year to move back to Mexico, or if they remain, "shall be considered to have elected to become citizens of the United States." Textorus (talk) 18:42, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

So the article was internally inconsistent before my edit. Note, however, that the figure of 80,000 includes Texas, which is not normally considered part of the Mexican Cession. Marco polo (talk) 19:05, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

It's an interesting question. The Mexican Texas article quotes a scholarly source for 30,000 Americans and only 7,800 Mexicans in the province of Texas in 1834. The Republic of Texas article infobox gives an unsourced figure of 70,000 total population for the Republic, no year specified. I don't have the inclination to dig further, but the Handbook of Texas might have more figures if anyone's itching to do the math. Textorus (talk) 19:45, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

It's not so hard to get from 7,800 Mexicans in Texas in 1834 to maybe 15,000 Mexicans in 1850 (80,000 in Texas and the Mexican Cession minus about 65,000 in the Mexican Cession proper) given birth rates at that time. Marco polo (talk) 19:50, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

That sounds pretty reasonable to me. Textorus (talk) 20:34, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

@Textorus, there was a bit of a rush to move people into the territories owing to the desire of both the North and the South to pile as many people sympathetic to their side of the "slavery question" to encourage said territory to become a Free or Slave state when statehood would come about. It was a HUGELY contentious issue, and there was several years of jockeying during the 1840s-1850s on how to deal with it. See Wilmot Proviso and Compromise of 1850 for some background. --Jayron32 20:05, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Yup, the slavery question was indeed hugely contentious - to put it mildly. In Bleeding Kansas, lots of pro-slavery settlers from Missouri flocked to establish "squatter sovereignty," all in hopes of preserving the free/slave balance in the U.S. Senate. So you're quite right that in some places there may have been a move on by individuals and groups to settle new territories - but it was tied in with the never-ending slavery issue, which was self-limiting: I know that in Texas, for example, the cotton-producing lands where slavery was economically practical ended just east of San Antonio. Further west, it's too arid for those kinds of crops, so no rush of Southerners, at least, to populate the empty, wide-open Southwest just for the hell of it. And the OP's question implied that the federal government might have tried to stimulate settlement of the Mexican Cession as a deliberate policy, but I've never heard of any such policy. I think instead that the feds had their hands full trying to avert the looming sectional rift in the country, and assumed that the natural westward movement of the population would take care of populating the Southwest in due time. Them's my thoughts on it, anyway, without digging any further into sources. Textorus (talk) 20:34, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

The history of New Mexico's incorporation into the US is a bit unusual. It was made New Mexico Territory in 1850, at which time the population was over 60,000, with former-Mexican-now-US citizens being the vast majority. There was a spectrum of peoples between Mexicans of Spanish heritage and Native Americans, with unusual and often mixed heritage groups like the Puebloan peoples and the Comancheros. I'm not quite sure how the US decided which people would automatically become US citizens and which would not (Native Americans were not fully granted citizenship until 1924). In any case, the territorial population required for statehood was 60,000, I think. New Mexico's efforts to gain statehood were rejected by Congress for over 60 years, until 1912. I think this is the longest period between territory and state status for any state. In comparison, Nevada Territory was formed in 1861 and statehood was granted in 1864. The population in 1864 was less than 40,000, but Congress let that pass. So why did it take so long for New Mexico to gain statehood? The slavery issue was part of it, sure, but not after the 1860s. Basically, it wasn't until the 20th century that "Anglo" American citizens outnumbered "Hispanic" citizens in New Mexico Territory. It is a telling example of how the Mexicans incorporated into the US after the Mexican War were, despite being given citizenship, not really considered truly "American". Pfly (talk) 21:43, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I should say the history is more complex than I just put it. And New Mexico's Anglo population didn't match the Hispanic population until the 1930s. Also, statehood wasn't blocked by Congress so much as by political conflict between Anglos and Hispanos within New Mexico. The first attempt to become a state was not until 1890, and when put to a vote in New Mexico was soundly rejected by both Anglos and Hispanos. The history is complicated, but I think it is safe to say the long gap between territorial and state status was mostly due to the large Hispanic population and Anglo distrust of them (and vice versa), and the commonly held opinion that the Hispanics were "un-American" in various ways. Anyway, I'm not sure our Wikipedia pages say much about this. I got this info mostly from Meinig, Donald W. (1971). Southwest: Three Peoples in Geographical Change, 1600-1970. Oxford University Press. Pfly (talk) 22:02, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, but that's New Mexico wasn't all that strategically important, excepting as a place to put a railroad through. The important bit of the Mexican Cession was always California; it was what the U.S. wanted; even before the discovery of Gold and Silver in the Cession lands on either side of the Sierra Nevadas. California had farmland, and more importantly, some really good cites for ports (San Francisco especially). While the discovery of Gold certainly sweetened the pot in terms of attractiveness, California was always the goal of the U.S. New Mexico was sort of the bit of wasteland that they had to take as part of the package. It may be unfair to the New Mexicans, but that's really how it was treated historically. --Jayron32 00:06, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Donald W. Meinig has written some well-known books on the politics/economics of different groups within New Mexico / Texas during the history of the United States... AnonMoos (talk) 02:25, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

In one of his Shaping of America books there's an interesting section on the debate within the US, during the peace treaty process at the end of the Mexican War, about how large the Mexican Cession shoule be. There were many proposals, some of which would have taken way more territory. It's true that New Mexico was not high on the list of US demands (the port of San Diego was way more important), but the Mexicans of New Mexico were not all that keen about remaining part of Mexico. As a remote territory of low population density (relative to the Valley of Mexico), they felt alienated from the central government to the to the point of nearly declaring independence. At the same time they did not want to be absorbed into the US. But New Mexico was too small to hope for a future existence separate from both Mexico and the US. Anyway, yes, California was the real prize for the US, but the history of New Mexico in all this is interesting and complicated. Pfly (talk) 11:37, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Interesting. As a Texan, I've never paid much attention to New Mexico history. I would have thought that the long delay of statehood was due to low population; but how interesting to hear that both Anglos and Hispanics opposed it in 1890. I wonder if there were economic reasons at work also. Textorus (talk) 11:48, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

There were economic differences between New Mexico's Anglo and Hispanic peoples of the time, but it seems the main impasse was each side fearing domination by the other. Here's a passage from that Meinig book I cited above, context being the late 19th century: "In general. the Anglos of the southern counties [of NM] opposed statehood out of fear of domination by the Hispanos of the north, whereas the latter were fearful that merger into the federal body would only accentuate their minority position within the nation and bring about even heavier pressures upon their institutions." And on the 1890 statehood bid: "[soundly defeated by both]: by the Hispanos of the north, led by the local Catholic church which saw its parochial school system threatened, and by the Democrats of the south [the northern Hispanos were largely Republican] who did not wish to be an Anglo minority under the domination of Santa Fe. The national Congress...was reluctant to admit New Mexico simply because its dominant Spanish-speaking Roman Catholic population seemed 'un-American'." Another bit apparently not described on Wikipedia: There was an attempt to separate the southern part of New Mexico Territory, which had an Anglo majority, as the Territory of Sierra, which would perhaps merge with part of Arizona Territory. I thought we might have a page about this aborted Sierra Territory, but it seems we don't. Pfly (talk) 16:25, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Very interesting indeed, thanks for the quotes. There's always been something for people to quarrel over, hasn't there? Textorus (talk) 03:15, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Mystic Fiction Writers

If you know some notable English-speaking authors in the mystic fiction genre, I'll be thankful to have your suggestions. --Omidinist (talk) 16:00, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean by "mystic fiction"? Do you mean Magic realism? --Jayron32 16:52, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

A little Googling reveals that "mystic fiction" is an obscure term that was invented in early 2010, and apparently means a type of romance novel that is set in a fantasy world. Looie496 (talk) 17:47, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Mysticism, theosophy, in fiction is what I mean. It may include magic realism. --Omidinist (talk) 17:49, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd think of some of Robert Anton Wilson's writing as mystic fiction, as it apparently borrows heavily from Freemasonry. Wnt (talk) 17:53, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh, that's a relief. Arthur Machen?  Card Zero  (talk) 22:48, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

No idea whether they fit your personal definition, but George MacDonald and Charles Williams are well-known earlier authors whose works sometimes contained prominent mystical themes... AnonMoos (talk) 01:54, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Also, two who are obscure now, but somewhat well-known in their day, are Marie Corelli and Dion Fortune... AnonMoos (talk) 02:21, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Identify a movie?

Hello. Can you help me identify a movie? I saw it at the IFC theatre in lower Manhattan maybe 3 christmases ago. I believe it was set outside of Prague, and had at its center a police man who was assigned to collect evidence of small time drug dealing by a few students. He didn't really want to do the job, and complained that probably the drug laws would change anyway soon. It ended with the police chief giving him an argument from a dictionary where he looked up "police" and "duty" and things like that. Do you know the title? 134.74.82.71 (talk) 17:39, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like Police, Adjective. See the New York Times review. Deor (talk) 18:39, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Hm, Romanian. That's it, thanks so much. 198.105.46.54 (talk) 22:44, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Advantage of being a woman artist

From a list of reasons:

"Working without the pressure of success" "Having the opportunity to choose between a career and motherhood"

And what does this reason mean:

"Getting your picture in the art magazines wearing a gorilla suit."? Quest09 (talk) 20:02, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Mmm, I think we'd have to see the picture to explain that one fully. Where did you find this list, in The Onion?Textorus (talk) 20:46, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

There was no picture. Just a list of reasons. It's not from a known source, I got this from a girlfriend's private newsletter. Quest09 (talk) 21:21, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Solved. It's from the Guerrilla Girls, as I just discovered. They are known for wearing gorilla masks. Quest09 (talk) 21:32, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I tried to read some of their writings once, but they just went on and on. It was a guerilla megillah. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:08, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Population of Texas and Mexico during the Texas Revolution

What was the population of Texas and what was the population of Mexico during the Texas Revolution? --Belchman (talk) 21:35, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

The population of Texas in 1835 was only about 35,000 (source); the population of Mexico at the same time was somewhere between 6 and 8 million (source). LANTZY^TALK 22:10, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I suspected that it was tiny at the time, but this begs the question: how did Texas manage to defeat Mexico with such a tiny population? --Belchman (talk) 22:26, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Read about the Battle of San Jacinto and it should give some insights. It didn't hurt that Santa Anna was captured in the aftermath. Holding the guy who was both the general of the army and the nation's president gave them a significant bargaining chip. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:33, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. That clears things up a bit. --Belchman (talk) 22:44, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

As said in Texas Revolution: it was 2,000 Texans against 6,500 Mexicans. The whole population is irrelevant, since not all were fighting. It's hardly unbelievable that such war cannot be won, if your side has the better weapons. Quest09 (talk) 23:42, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, much greater differences in force strength have been overcome before, see Battle of Crécy. --Jayron32 00:02, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Another example is the Battle of Agincourt, where the superior weaponry and placement of the English forces under Henry V resulted in their victory and the near decimation of the numerically-stronger French troops.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:31, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Key signatures

For pieces that don't change key, why aren't they always written in the easiest key for that instrument (e.g. C major/A minor for piano)? Even with pieces that change key, why isn't the piece transposed so that the largest section in in CM/am? --99.23.200.230 (talk) 23:46, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

In modern tunings (see equal temperament) all keys are harmonically equivalent; this didn't always used to be so in older tunings. Furthermore, you can write any piece of music in any key at all. It is completely arbitrary. However, you want to write the music in the key that uses the least number of accidentals, to make it easier to read and play. It does no good to write the music in C Major if every third note needs a sharp or a flat after it! --Jayron32 00:01, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

You wouldn't just change the key signature and add accidentals. What I meant was that if it was in, say, B major, you could raise every note by a semitone and it would still have the same number of accidentals as the original, just with an easier key signature to play. --99.23.200.230 (talk) 00:49, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Each key sounds different, and if every song was played in the same key it would get dull. I wondered this when I was directing my church choir until we played an entire Mass in one key and we were all bored by the end. Since the piano can play every key, and so could the singers (to a certain extent), things would have to be written in different keys to get that variety. After all, when the key is changed (up or down) the singers have to use a different vocal range and that affects the overall sound, even without the key change. Mingmingla (talk) 01:10, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

For a lot of popular music since at least the mid-20th century the guitar has been the most important instrument--more than the piano at least. The keys of C and A minor are less easy to play on guitar than keys like D, A, and G. For genres with brass instrument dominance, like much jazz, flat keys like Bb, Eb, and Ab tend to be easier. I would argue that music is indeed frequently written in the "easiest key for that instrument", or at least one of the easier keys for whatever instrument is dominant. Also, I find the key of C less easy to play on piano than keys with one or two sharps or flats. The black piano keys provide a kind of reference point for my fingers. When everything is all white keys I find my fingers get offset a note or two more easily. When sight reading, or at least when looking at the sheet music is more important than looking at my fingers, the black keys are especially useful for providing a "feel" for where my hands are on the keyboard, without having to look away from the sheet music, if that makes sense. That said, I've recently been toying around with the music of Salome--I have a piano reduction of the orchestral score. The work has an overarching "conflict" between the keys of C and C#, with Jochanaan's key being C and Salome's key being C#. When Salome is in control of the music the key sometimes modulates into even sharper keys, like G#. The score is full of double sharps. Trying to play--mostly sight read--that kind of thing on piano is extremely annoying! But there's sense and logic as to why Strauss composed the work this way, and there is a great moment near the end when Salome tries to "become one" with Jochanaan, resulting in a delightfully dissonant clashing of the keys of C and C#. Pfly (talk) 11:19, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

October 28

other than exogamy and endogamy

what is the term to refer a marriage between a man and a woman who have different nationality but same ethnic background like for example two Bengali couple-an Indian man and a Bangladeshi woman? What is the term to refer a marriage between a man and a woman who have religious background like a Muslim man and a Christian woman? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.148.22 (talk) 01:40, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

For the second, "inter-faith marriage"... AnonMoos (talk) 01:46, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Articles: Interfaith marriage, Transnational marriage. I don't know that there's a specific term for transnational marriages that match ethnicity, although it is surely a common situation in immigrant communities, especially with arranged marriages (and the less happy forced marriages). 86.163.1.168 (talk) 12:38, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Keep in mind that 'nationalism' is a relatively recent development in human history - even up to the 17th or 18th century people thought in terms of culture and race rather than in terms of nation. a Bengali/Bangladeshi marriage would not ever be considered a problem, so long as they were the same race and religion, so there's no special word for it. --Ludwigs2 13:53, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Celts??

Areas raided but not settled by Vikings are in green

Could someone be as kind as to answer whether the information in this article (from Null Hypothesis: Journal Of Unlikely Science) is veridical at all?

http://www.null-hypothesis.co.uk/science//item/top_ten_british_innovations_celts

ThanksAtonalPhysicist (talk) 02:32, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

The information seems to roughly jibe with what is written in the Wikipedia article Celts (modern), which has its own references you could follow. --Jayron32 02:59, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

From the Roman Empire to the Vikings navigating Northwest Europe at the time, the Celts survived because they figured out how to pay tribute to raiders but assimilate or fight off settlers. Dualus (talk) 03:26, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Diachronic distribution of Celtic peoples:

  core Hallstatt territory, by the 6th century BC

  maximal Celtic expansion, by 275 BC

  Lusitanian area of Iberia where Celtic presence is uncertain

  the "six Celtic nations" which retained significant numbers of Celtic speakers into the Early Modern period

  areas where Celtic languages remain widely spoken today

The website is being pointy to the point of pointlessness. The phenomenon itself, that of a related group of Indo-European peoples speaking pre- or Proto-Celtic languages originating in the Hallstatt culture and La Tene culture and colonizing much of western Eurasia is a real phenomenon undoubted by any serious linguist or archaeologist. The fact that scholars adopted the Greek word Keltoi (referring to the Gauls) to cover all these peoples from Spain to Denmark to Anatolia has nothing to do with delegitimizing the underlying facts. μηδείς (talk) 03:52, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure, however, why the unrelated Viking map to the right is reproduced at the top, see the second relevant map.

See also Gaul, Wales, Galatia, Galicia (Spain) and Galicia (Eastern Europe). μηδείς (talk) 03:55, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

This is off-topic, but to my surprise I just discovered that Diodorus Siculus describes ancient Celts as blond. I wonder why, then, I've always pictured Celtic people as dark and swarthy? Apparently I was misinformed. Textorus (talk) 09:11, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

In Wikisource the text is translated red-haired, not blond, so it is a question for language experts. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 11:51, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

People tend to identify characteristics as "typical" of foreigners when they're just slightly more prevalent among foreigners than among their own people. A large majority of Irish people, for example, have dark brown hair, and red hair is quite rare - but it's less rare than it is in many other countries, so people from those countries notice red hair more often among Irish people, and think of the "typical" Irish person as having red hair. Similarly, the mediterranean cultures of the classical world would have had fewer fair-haired people than they would see in northern Europe, so they thought of northern Europeans - Germans as well as Celts - as being "typically" fair. --Nicknack009 (talk) 12:56, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

So far as I'm aware, the term "Celtic" refers to a language group - not necessarily a genetic group. There's no reason why a group of people can't be descended genetically from people living in one area, but acquiring a language thousands (or tens of thousands) years later from people living in quite a different area, is there? So, some people speaking Celtic languages could have been "dark and swarthy" and others blond and blue-eyed. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:03, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

For various reasons, there can be a lot of commonality between a language group and a "genetic" one, people who live in the same area and don't associate with other groups will tend to develop an isolated gene pool and will also develop their own language. But it does not have to be so; the Franks were a Germanic people, but their decendants speak a Latin-derived language (French). Also, in both cases (geneticly and culturally/linguisticly) it is very rare that a group remains cohesive and isolated for very long; groups of people which come into frequent contact with other groups of people will eventually have sex with them. Cultures also change and morph over time. --Jayron32 13:14, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

It is true the idea of Celtic peoples is a modern phenomenon, in that medieval Europeans did not recognize links between, say, the Irish and the dimly known Gauls who preceded the Roman conquest. However, as Medeis correctly states, ancient Romans and Greeks did notice a commonality among the continental peoples variously known as Galli/Galatai or Celti/Keltoi. Still, it was really modern linguists who made a connection between the ancient continental Celts and the speakers of Celtic languages in Britain and Ireland.

As for the attribution of hair color to "the Celts" by ancient authors, we have to suppose that they were overgeneralizing, as Nicknack suggests. Also, the prevailing thinking these days is that, historically, languages have been spread mainly by small, migrant elites rather than by mass movements of people. Therefore, a greater prevalence of blond or red hair in some Celtic speaking regions is likely to reflect characteristics of the pre-Celtic population rather than traits brought by the elite (warrior or perhaps merchant) groups who brought Celtic languages to regions where they were subsequently adopted by the local population. Marco polo (talk) 16:01, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

It worked the other way too. A lot of Celtic-speaking Britons had to learn Anglo-Saxon and their offspring eventually called themselves English. The old idea that the Angles, Jutes and Saxons entirely displaced the Britons in England is now discredited. An article on the subject is here Alansplodge (talk) 17:09, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I would opine that the majority of English people have mtDNA that is British (as in Britons), rather than Anglo-Saxon considering the invaders would have been mainly men.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:17, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Our Anglo-Saxon settlement of Britain article quotes Stephen Oppenheimer; "no more than 10% of paternal lines may be designated as coming from an "Anglo-Saxon" migration event and that in the same English regions 69% of male lines are still of aboriginal origin" (aboriginal meaning descended from post ice-age Paleolithic settlers). This is an ongoing debate apparently. Alansplodge (talk) 22:39, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Che and Fidel relatives

G'day, I've read a fair bit about Che and Fidel Castro, and that they are living in, or have lived in Cuba. Does anyone know where their relatives live, and whether they agreed with Che and Castro's communist idealogies? --Sp33dyphil © • © 07:06, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Raúl Castro, Fidel's brother, is probably his best known relative. His sister Juanita Castro initially supported the revolution, but later defected to the USA. Fidel's daughter Alina Fernández is also a critic of the regime. We have articles on various of the cousins and nephews and nieces and similar. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 07:11, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Che's daughter Celia is a veterinarian at the Havana aquarium: [2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.171.56.13 (talk) 10:57, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

By the way, Castro's father was originally from Spain, and he has or had some relatives in Spain... AnonMoos (talk) 06:30, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Likewise, Che was Argentine, and he came from a largish family (four younger siblings). I wouldn't be surprised if he had nephews/neices and cousins and their decendents all over Argentina. Che also had some Irish background, his paternal grandmother was from Ireland and his father used the surname Lynch. He made an impromptu visit to Ireland once, even. See Guerrillero_Heroico#Meeting_Che_in_Ireland. --Jayron32 13:22, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Fidel's daughter Mariela Castro Espín is a sexologist: http://www.rnw.nl/english/article/castro’s-daughter-impressed-dutch-take-prostitution — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.171.56.13 (talk) 14:09, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Americans and Halloween

When did the idea of Halloween change in the United States, from a night when you dress up in a horror-themed costume to a night which is basically a big fancy dress party, where most costumes have got nothing to do ghosts or horror at all? 87.114.141.182 (talk) 07:42, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

The article Halloween costume may give some clues. As a personal observation, I think before 1970 or so, Halloween dress-up was mainly for kiddies, not grown-ups. Then us baby boomers found it was too much fun to give it up when we got to be adults: it tied in nicely with sex, drugs, and rock 'n' roll. And it came to be a really big deal among the party boy types in the post-Stonewall gay community. See Halloween as a gay holiday. Textorus (talk) 09:01, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Saturnalia, Carnivale, Mummer's Day, Mummers Parade, Mardi Gras. It's not like the world began in 1970. μηδείς (talk) 11:09, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I didn't think it did, Medeis, but now I'm very grateful to have confirmation of the fact. The OP was asking specifically about Halloween costumes in recent times in the United States, and my answer was tailored to that. Textorus (talk) 11:18, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

As someone who remembers the 1970s and even some things from before 1970, I can confirm that, when I was a kid in the 1970s, no adults that I knew put on costumes for Halloween. In fact, no one over the age of about 12 wore costumes. I think that adult gay men did wear costumes (mainly drag) on Halloween during the 1970s, but I don't think that adults dressing up for Halloween started to be anything mainstream in the United States until the 1980s. Marco polo (talk) 16:05, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

In the US, there were adult costume parties at Halloween from before WW1 and on, in addition to the kiddie parties: 1915, 1928 1930. 1934, 1938, 1939, 1941, 1941, 1947, 1956, 1958,1960, 1970 (top economic officials). They continue; I just got tired of linking them. There seemed to be fewer parties at adult organizations (country clubs, American Legion) in the 60's and thereafter compared to the kid parties, but lots of adult costume parties at bars. The adult costume market was projected at a billion dollars for 2010, with "Jersey Girls" a popular subject. Celebrities may be more popular than monsters. The costumes were not always monster themed back in the teens and 20's. "Bo-Peep," cavaliers, and other characters from fiction and history were always popular. Edison (talk) 22:09, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Great research, Edison, thanks for these very interesting links. Textorus (talk) 02:57, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Thing is, I didn't ask about adults vs children. I asked when the popular conception of Halloween in the USA changed from dressing up in horror costumes to dressing up in any old costumes. 81.174.199.204 (talk) 23:46, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

As Edison's research shows, there has never been as strict a "dress code" as you imagine. My own first costume at about age 3 was a clown suit my mom sewed for me. Then in first grade, I was a pirate. Then about 3rd grade, a ghost costume made out of an old sheet with a hole to put my masked head through. Other kids often dressed up as ghosts, witches, or skeletons, but there were other variations like Cinderella, or Superman, etc. But people didn't use the word "horror" costumes - the adjective would have been "spooky" or "ghosts and goblins" - most of the time the emphasis was on cute rather than scary. The modern fascination with horror and evil per se is a disturbing development that I think came from grisly horror movies that have gotten worse and worse in the last several decades, but that's a personal opinion. Textorus (talk) 02:57, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Occupy Wikipedia

Wikipedia editors Occupy protesters attempting to reach consensus.

After reading this report direct from the revolution, I am struck by how very, very familiar it all sounds: government by of a random group of unrelated volunteers all with different motives and objectives for being there, decisions made by a consensus of whoever happens to show up when the decision is being made, excruciatingly long discussions about what consensus even means in the first place, followed by the failure of consensus decisions to be taken seriously, especially by congenitally disruptive individuals who use name-calling and twisted logic to insult anyone who disagrees with their behavior, failure on the part of the minority to respect the needs and wishes of the majority, the few laboring to clean up after the many, and always the threat that the whole thing will collapse into anarchy and disappear like morning dew. What is the greek word for this type of government? And did the Occupiers consciously steal it from Wikipedia, ya think? Textorus (talk) 10:56, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

The Greeks called that anarchy, and it has always been thus. Adam Bishop (talk) 10:58, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Many of the problems you describe tend to settle down when anarchist decision making is faced with practical problems of production or distribution. Additionally, most people have prior experience at producing and distributing; generally, people have far less experience of governance (as opposed to being governed). Fifelfoo (talk) 12:05, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Obviously not a Greek term, but Consensus decision-making is one name for it, and that article seems quite good. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:11, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

As the name for the process, okay, but I'm looking for a word that means government-based-on-this-process. Textorus (talk) 02:39, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Athenian democracy? --140.180.14.123 (talk) 18:38, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Now that sounds classy. But somehow I can't picture the Occupiers going on to build an empire as the Athenians did with their government. Textorus (talk) 02:39, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia editors get together to give something to the world, while the Occupy folks want the world to give something to them. This fundamental difference probably influences the effectiveness of the decision making. 71.72.156.36 (talk) 19:30, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Nay, Wikipedia editors also want the world to give them things - pictures, documents to cite, sometimes even donations. And OWS protesters want to take certain things, like taxes on the rich (horrors!) so that that everyone can have them. Both are in the business of processing materials for public consumption. Wnt (talk) 20:53, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Someone should start the 99 Percent Declaration article. Maybe I will. Dualus (talk) 22:37, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

technically, this is 'democracy', in Aristotle's sense of the term - essentially rule-by-rabble. In modern terms, however, what you're probably looking for is something like 'hegemonic corporatism', where individual groups or factions vie in fairly Machiavellian ways to exert marginal influence over the structures of governance. Unfortunately corporatism of this sort is very difficult to define, because it is marked by a complete anti-idealism: rules, structures, ideals, and etc. have no value in themselves, but rather exist solely to be manipulated towards the interests of the group (despite the fact that rules, structures, ideals, and etc. must be presented as valuable-in-themselves, otherwise they lose their power as manipulable entities). Politics at its worst… --Ludwigs2 23:31, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

"Hegemonic corporatism," oo, that's got a catchy ring to it. But now before we run with that, define "rabble," please. Textorus (talk) 02:39, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

What, you don't own a dictionary? wikt:rabble. Keep in mind that in Aristotle's time and place, there was a huge education gap between the rich and the poor. The upper class in Greece was largely literate craftsmen and traders with a tradition of philosophy and analytic thought, while the lower classes consisted largely of illiterate manual laborers. 'Democracy' for Aristotle had overtones of 'rule by the ignorant and unlettered', and was far less desirable in his mind than oligarchy (because 'rule by the wealthy' was tantamount to 'rule by the wise'). Or more precisely, Aristotle felt that participation in governance required a 'wordly' perspective, but that the mass of humans were self-centered, venal, emotionally reactive, narrow-minded, argumentative, and generally far more interested in getting for them and theirs than doing what's best for the society. In our modern era, of course, we have largely bridged this gap, so that even the wealthy and educated are self-centered, venal, and emotionally reactive. The wonders of progress… --Ludwigs2 13:46, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Brilliant exposition, Ludgwigs - the wonders of progress, indeed. So in this brave new world of ours, where anyone rich or poor can grow up to be a tool, what shall we call it: toolocracy, the real workers' paradise?  :) Textorus (talk) 15:59, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

This video makes me feel like I've been part of The Movement ever since I clicked edit here. Dualus (talk) 20:32, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not like OWS: Wikipedia has a semblance of order. We ignore them when they stop making sense, but we're still very much a society of laws and we don't allow breaking the rules for the sake of drawing attention. We even have our own, somewhat informal, law enforcement and court system. OWS, on the other hand, is a shining example of why anarchy doesn't work. Wikipedia also has an objective, and it's we've established fairly strict criteria about what we are and what we are not. OWS, on the other hand, has some general concepts but no objective. Also, Wikipedia has been around for around a decade, OWS will be lucky if it lasts the winter. SDY (talk) 20:54, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

They are really quite different in their intentions, so I'm not sure it's sensible to compare the two. OWS is a mass protest. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Not quite the same thing. So far OWS has done a pretty good job at its main objective, which was to draw attention to their grievances and recruit people to the cause. That seems to have worked. Whether anything more persistent gets accomplished on account of that has yet to be seen, and can't really be known. --Mr.98 (talk) 21:28, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Sometimes I see Wikipedia as a protest against expensive knowledge. Dualus (talk) 02:30, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Some of the OWS people make a point of saying that their effort is not a protest, but an occupation. I'm not sure how much sense I can make of that, but I suppose Wikipedia must be an occupation too. Wnt (talk) 15:01, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

If so, What Is Our One Demand? Textorus (talk) 15:43, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Improve the encyclopedia. Dualus (talk) 17:05, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

The concept of "demands" in a protest goes back to the long socialist debate about what a platform is and what it should do—for this see Trotsky's transitional demand and the ideas of immediate demands and maximal programmes. Similarly it traces a route back through the critique of the Gotha programme, and then all the way back to the Chartists in the end. The idea of "making a demand" of another implies that you're begging for relief in law. The concept of "protest" goes to the same situation: seeking aid from another. In recent protest movements, the disconnection between goals, the possibility of relief, and the decision to directly restrict the action of capitalists and government figures caused a reassessment. The Seattle WTO protests is an example of this. The idea that protest was moral force has declined, much as the willingness of governments in neo-liberalism to listen to demands from the left of the population has declined. Not unsurprisingly, the idea of physical force (in the Chartist sense) has increased. OWS isn't appealing to a liberal state which it believes will serve it with redress; it is communicating with itself outside of a system of redress because the past 30 years of protest have demonstrated that the left gets no traction in parliament any more. … In comparison we're building an encyclopaedia. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:06, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

• Wow, look at all the red links. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:08, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

conference paper?

Hello,

I'm a college student (undergrad), and I've heard about an upcoming conference being held at my university. What exactly does it mean to say that a visiting professor is presenting a "paper", especially since he's probably giving a lecture on the exact same thing the paper is talking about? Do all of the papers get collected into a book that is issued on the same day as the conference? Can I just get a copy of the conference proceedings from someone (maybe the library?) and read those instead of attending the actual conference? 128.135.100.102 (talk) 11:07, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

In case you didn't get this sense from my previous post, I enjoy learning about the ideas being presented by professors, but I often find professors to be horrible lecturers. Some of them don't know how to make their work sound exciting, and others talk about their work in very esoteric ways. (i.e. suitable for grad students only) 128.135.100.102 (talk) 11:12, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Presenting a paper means that the professor will be talking about some research. The paper may be collected as part of the conference proceedings, and generally is, although the availability of the proceedings can vary from conference to conference. (It is normally made available to attendees, though). Sometimes the paper will later be extended and published in a journal.

Generally I like to attend presentations, as in my field, at least, the presentation is a relatively short summary of the research with questions, so it isn't as painful as a full lecture and the questions can be fun. The real question is who the paper is targeted at, and whether or not the topic (which is generally narrowly defined) is of interest. Generally the papers are targeted at other academics, so there may be a lot of assumed knowledge. - Bilby (talk) 11:27, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

The availability of conference proceedings varies hugely by discipline. In the humanities it is usual for no conference proceedings to result, as publishing them is rather expensive and getting a journal to throw its entire issue at a conference is sometimes a hard sell. --Mr.98 (talk) 11:34, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

There may be a real "paper" behind it, there may not be. There may eventually be proceedings, there may not be. It may eventually appear in print somewhere, it might not. There is no general rule and it varies a lot case to case. You may often be able to just e-mail the professor in question and say, "I'm interested in your talk, but I have a schedule conflict. Could you send me the paper?" and they often will. I agree that most professors are poor speakers, unfortunately. --Mr.98 (talk) 11:34, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) ::Generally speaking, in the academic world "presenting a paper" = giving a talk at a conference such as the one you are describing. Quite often, the people who give those talks - which of course, they have carefully composed in written form beforehand - will then go on to submit it to a professional journal in their field. Indeed, many such conferences are organized by scholarly or professional societies who also publish a regular journal - thus, by attracting scholars to their conferences, they also are generating material to publish. While it might be that all the "papers" would be printed in a single issue of a scholarly journal, it's very doubtful for logistical and financial reasons that they would be collected in a publication available on the day of the conference. And in most cases, I doubt that the speakers would leave a copy at the library of the university where the conference is being held, which is typically selected merely for being a convenient locale; some conferences are so large that they are held in hotels or other non-academic venues with large meeting rooms. But who knows, there might be exceptions to that general rule. You can find out about the availability of written copies of "papers" by a quick phone call or email to the people who are sponsoring the conference.

And yes, unless you are truly, deeply interested in the subject, you may well find the talks a bit boring and lecture-like. They are given not for entertainment value, but because professor types are obliged to publish or perish, and presenting a paper, no matter how confoundingly esoteric or deadly dull, looks awfully good on a curriculum vitae. Textorus (talk) 11:38, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I suspect that most of them are truthfully quite interested in the topics, but there is a genre of academic tedium. Those of us who endeavor to make our presentations interesting, humorous, or actually interested to people outside of our tiny niche are not generally rewarded. (Steven Pinker, for all that I find troublesome about him, is immensely talented at conveying complex information to an eager public. He's also outwardly loathed by many other Harvardian academics for this reason.) It's also the case that many if not most papers at academic conferences are addressed to people working on little ideas in narrow fields. This is an artifact of publish-or-perish as well, and a tight market. In the humanities, increased specification, increased presence of "in-group" conversations that make no sense to people outside of the sub-sub-field, increased use of jargon, increased requirement for churning out "novel" and "defendable" research, have all lead to a situation in which your average academic humanities conference paper is going to be pretty uninteresting to your average educated person, and your average college undergraduate. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:43, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

There is no guarantee that the paper will have much overlap with the talk, but it is fairly likely. You can ask for an advance copy of the conference proceedings paper, or a (p)reprint if it's a journal article. If it's still being drafted, you can offer to proofread it. You can also ask whether there will be refreshments at the talk. Good luck. Dualus (talk) 23:27, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

General ethics questions

Four questions:

(A) Let's say for the sake of argument that a few obscure technological advances have resulted in a method to build a medium sized atomic bomb for about $10,000 of easily available parts and about three months labor. Let's say you knew about the details through no fault of your own, but you'd also been told by some feds from the NNSA and FBI to keep a lid on it or you're going to be tossed in jail. Clearly, you probably aren't going to be answering anything close to the question on the reference desk. But lets say people keep asking something like "What's the least expensive way to make a nuclear bomb?" every week or two, and you see that others are slowly getting towards the point where some crucial WP:BEANS are going to be spilled. What do you do?

(B) Let's say someone asks how to commit the perfect murder. How do you respond?

(C) Let's say someone asks how to steal money and not get caught. How to approach that answer?

(D) Let's say that a technical medical journal article describes what appears to be the most powerful date rape drug imaginable, and someone asks about aphrodisiacs. Do you tell them about it?

My own answers are: (A) I'd avoid the direct question and mention the born secret doctrine to try to warn others off; (B) I would have no problem mentoning nitrogen asphyxiation for as long as more inhumane methods are being used to execute people; (C) I might ignore the question, but I might answer it if I thought doing so might make the method less likely to be successful in the long run; (D) Currently I think it would not be ethical to do so, but the inevitability makes me think this might be morally equivalent to question (C) in a way, so I'm not sure. Dualus (talk) 16:29, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

(A) call the ACLU; this is a personal threat (B) Say "No" when you get asked about organ donation on your driver's license (C) do it for a bank which is Too Big To Fail (D) a date rape drug isn't an aphrodisiac, so it's not relevant. He'd have to ask about date rape drugs. Wnt (talk) 18:36, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Are there any moral issues involved with (A) besides free speech and civil liberties? Dualus (talk) 18:55, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I would just point out that in a real-world (A) scenario, you should probably keep your mouth shut. The attempt to censor known dangerous knowledge confirms it. (As the United States found out the only time they tried to invoke "born secret" to get an injunction against publication of nuclear information — see United States v. The Progressive.) You're better off letting the nattering crowd give their (probably not correct) answers, and arguing with each other, and coming to confused and divergent conclusions, than you are trying to get involved and confirm that there is important information there, and end up hinting at what it might be. Anyway, this is a highly unlikely scenario for any individual editor to run across. --Mr.98 (talk) 20:47, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I have moved this from WT:RD#General ethics questions on your advice. Dualus (talk) 23:29, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Keep in mind that if information is available, potential victims and law enforcement agencies would also be able to use it. It has some advantages. Quest09 (talk) 01:26, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

We've had people asking how to commit the perfect murder before, check the archives to see how we responded. Note that these have been hypothetical cases, if someone suggested they wanted to actually commit a perfect murder we'd probably block or revert them as a troll and/or someone may report them to law enforcement or the foundation (who would decide whether to report them) even if they doubted they were serious. Nil Einne (talk) 02:51, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

BTW I'll add that if someone keeps coming back asking the same question every 2 weeks they're likely to get ignored or told to stop and then blocked if they don't after a while. We've had that before, e.g. BWH, planet colour/interacial marriage person, lately the Muslim majority et al person. Nil Einne (talk) 06:17, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

So, if I ask: "I am writing a novel, how can a character kill without living traces" that's acceptable and will get answers; but, if I start with "My neighbor is so annoying" don't? Quest09 (talk) 10:06, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Here's an interesting challenge: visit the Science ref desk, look only at the table of contents, quick now, identify the question by this OP, just from the title. You've got 10 seconds from when the page loads. If it takes any longer, seek (professional) help. I'm not assuming these edits are in bad faith, but they are so illogical that I think we should be a bit aloof. Am I alone? If so, I'll drop the issue. It's been emotional (talk) 06:08, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I thought I had more than one question at the Science desk at the moment. Please tell me what you mean by illogical. Dualus (talk) 06:34, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

There is no rule against posing confused questions on here. People can do their best to answer them or not, but being confused or illogical is perfectly fine. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:23, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

October 29

List of Muslim-majority countries excerpt Bosnia

How come you didn't mention Bosnia in the list of Muslim Majority countries article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.153.77 (talk) 01:18, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Talk:List of Muslim-majority countries is where you need to raise this question.

Btw, it's already been raised there and the answer seems to be that Bosnia is not a country with a Muslim majority. But any further discussion should be conducted on that page, not here. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 01:39, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Religion_in_Bosnia_and_Herzegovina has the answer. Only 43%-45% of the population is Muslim. Quest09 (talk) 01:51, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Who celebrates Thanksgiving in the US?

Do all Americans do it? Since it originally comes from the first settlers, Spanish or English, is it possible that some minorities do not identify with it? Quest09 (talk) 01:33, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Just about everybody does it. Here in the U.S., we like any excuse for a party. Loads of people who have not a drop of Irish blood in them merrily drink green beer and wear leprechaun hats on St. Patrick's Day. In recent years, Cinco de Mayo has gotten to be a popular excuse for a celebration of some kind all over the country, even among people with no Hispanic background at all. Likewise with Mardi Gras, originally connected with the observance of Ash Wednesday, now very popular among all kinds of non-religious people who have no idea what or when Ash Wednesday is. As to Thanksgiving, there might be some few people somewhere who have no interest in "celebrating" it for some political or religious reason - and the celebration consists of a big family dinner with a turkey at the center, so what's not to like? - but it's not something I'm aware of as being controversial. Most people get a 4-day weekend out of the Thanksgiving holiday every year, and a trip home to see the family or vice versa, so nobody's complaining. Textorus (talk) 02:20, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Mardi Gras (literally "Fat Tuesday") is Shrove Tuesday in English, but Ash Wednesday IS the following day, so I'm just being pedantic. Alansplodge (talk) 14:41, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah but for Anglicans all Shrove Tuesday gets you is a plate of prim and proper pancakes in the back of the parish hall, whoop-te-do. Those Catholics, though, know how to party.  :) Textorus (talk) 15:07, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanksgiving and Christmas are about the only holidays during the year in America in which virtually EVERYTHING is closed except for a very few stores, and emergency or essential services. I don't know if "celebrating" is quite the right term. It's more of just "getting together". Someone once said that Thanksgiving is the one holiday that doesn't get screwed up by the things that can screw up the other holidays. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:01, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

When I lived in Los Angeles, there were quite a few shops open on Christmas Day. My friend would get triple pay for working! In Ireland, however, eveything would be closed as well as the day after (St. Stephen's Day).--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 05:35, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The bigger the urban area, the more stores might be open on Xmas, but as a general rule (in smaller cities and towns of Texas, at least) only convenience stores and major drugstore chains like CVS are open 24/7 every day of the year, along with gasoline stations on major highways/interstates, and some, but not all, fast food places. Oh, and some urban movie theaters do a big business on Christmas Day too. All of the above generally applies to Thanksgiving and the Fourth of July as well, but big box stores are more likely to be open then than on Xmas, in my experience. Textorus (talk) 06:28, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Some Native Americans regard versions of stories about the "First Thanksgiving" as being somewhat whitewashed and sanitized, and may overall have mixed feelings about the holiday. Otherwise, Thanksgiving in the U.S. is vaguely associated with ceremonial deism, but is non-sectarian and non-denominational, and you should only have a problem with it if your beliefs forbid you to celebrate the gathering-in of the crops (harvest festival). AnonMoos (talk) 06:19, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

As BB said above, almost everyone gets the day off, most places are closed (or close early), lots of people get a 4 day weekend and travel to be with family, and it's late November thus, in much of the US, chilly or quite cold, and gets dark early. In short, even if you don't "celebrate" it or "identify" with it, you'll be effected by it. I've sometimes passed Thanksgiving without doing much of note, but it was still impossible to not know it was Thanksgiving. And as AnonMoos said, it is basically a harvest festival. It doesn't demand much. If fact it doesn't really demand anything. Sure there are some traditions, like having turkey and watching football, but these are far from required. For several years when I was a teenager in Buffalo my immediate family took to "celebrating" in a funny way. We would drive over the Peace Bridge, into Canada, where it wasn't Thanksgiving, and go to a Chinese restaurant. Turkey and football get can get really boring. And I've always hated cranberry sauce! Pfly (talk) 09:33, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Pfly refers to Buffalo, New York. Nyttend (talk) 14:03, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Of course there are are some (probably few) Americans who don't observe Thanksgiving, but probably the only ethnic group likely to abstain would be Native Americans, because the holiday commemorates the survival of winter and a successful first harvest by one of the first groups of English colonists in what became the United States. Those colonists had in effect stolen the land of Native Americans, and their descendants dispossessed Native Americans across the country. However, immigrant families tend to see celebrating Thanksgiving as a way for themselves and their children to connect with or assimilate to the dominant U.S. culture. Because religion is not an obligatory part of the holiday, and because the holiday offers an opportunity to teach history, Thanksgiving gets a lot of attention in the public schools, and immigrant kids, hearing other kids' enthusiasm for turkey and pumpkin pie, no doubt urge their parents to put on a Thanksgiving meal, too. Marco polo (talk) 00:20, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

In the early US, it was regional. New England celebrated Thanksgiving more than Christmas, while other areas celebrated Christmas without much notice of Thanksgiving. Edison (talk) 01:19, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Most Cherokees have celebrated Thanksgiving since 1885. And here is a traditional Cherokee Thanksgiving menu. Baked rabbit and squirrel gravy, yum. Textorus (talk) 06:35, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Members of Jehovah's Witnesses generally eschew all holiday celebrations, including Thanksgiving. Other than that, it is almost universally celebrated in the U.S. — Michael J 10:09, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Worst Candidate Result in the US Electoral College?

Which candidate received the largest percent of the popular vote and the least number of votes in the electoral college in American history? --CGPGrey (talk) 11:41, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

If you mean who required the most popular votes (by %) to win each Electoral College vote, then I wonder if it is Alf Landon, who won 36.5% of the vote but won only 8 of 531 Electoral College votes; or 24.2% of the popular vote for each 1% of the electoral college vote. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 12:04, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

That looks like a good contender. 36.5% of the popular vote with only 1.5% of the electoral vote is a pretty skewed result. Can anyone find worse? --CGPGrey (talk) 12:58, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

The United States presidential election, 1992 resulted in Ross Perot receiving 19% of the popular vote without receiving a single elector. However, since you cannot divide by zero, it is impossible to say how many people voted "per elector" in his case. Gabbe (talk) 13:04, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) x2 Walter Mondale in 1984 would be a close second. He won 40.6% of the electoral vote for a 13/538 electoral votes. That's 16.4% of the popular vote for each 1% of the electoral vote. Mondale took only 2 electoral college contingents: His home state of Minnesota and Washington DC. Landon also only won 2 states, Maine and Vermont. --Jayron32 13:05, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Awesome catch on the division by zero influence of the ranking of answers by correctness. Thank you! Dualus (talk) 18:36, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

In the 19th century, Stephen A. Douglas in the election of 1860... AnonMoos (talk) 13:48, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

What was Douglas's spoil ratio compared to Al Gore's? Dualus (talk) 18:37, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't really know or care, but he came in a strong second in the popular vote total, but a miserable fourth and last in the electoral vote total. as you can see at United States presidential election, 1860. (Of course, as with all pre-1868 elections, the political elites of South Caroline refused to let the unwashed masses have any say in the presidential election, so there was no popular vote total there...) -- AnonMoos (talk) 23:03, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

United States presidential election, 1888 might be worth a look. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:04, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Where to publish ideas regarding unsolved problems in Humanities and Science?

Imagine that I'm a well-read amateur in a particular topic and, after extensive study, come up with a plausible explanation for an unsolved problem in Humanities or Science —or an alternative, more plausible, explanation for something considered to be solved—. Wikipedia, of course, doesn't allow original research in its articles. Where could I publish such things? --Belchman (talk) 12:56, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Follow these steps:

1. Apply to and get accepted to a graduate program in the area of the topic you wish to publish in.
2. Earn your PhD
3. Get a job as a professor at a university, or a fellow at a well-known "think tank" or other similar body
4. Submit your paper to a well respected peer-reviewed journal.

This is necessary if you want your paper to be taken seriously. The reason for going through all of these steps is that the world is filled with people who have ideas. Lots of ideas, many of them are batshit insane. Which is not to say that yours is. But a gatekeeper which seperates the batshit insane from the reasonably likely not-to-be-batshit-insane is academic qualifications; people who have earned a doctoral degree from a well-respected institution, and have an academic job at a similar institution are generally adjudged to be less likely to be batshit insane (which is not to say that cohort is completely batshit-free... just that it's an indicator there is a better chance you can trust what experts say than amateurs, owing to the value of training and experience). On the other hand, if you don't particularly care if anyone respects what you have to say (or even reads it), you could publish it in a blog. --Jayron32 13:16, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

One option for technical discoveries is to fill for a patent. Another option is arXiv.org: it is still better than a blog, but the chances of being taken seriously are also quite low. On a side note, I have to say that even if you follow Jayron's steps, you probably won't get much attention, specially outside of your field. Quest09 (talk) 13:32, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Jayron's steps are a little extreme, unless Belchman wants to be a lifelong academic. Maybe it depends on the field, but you don't need a PhD to submit a paper to a journal, or to read a paper at a conference (at least, at conferences I have been to, there are always "independent scholars" who may be essentially hobbyists). Your submission should be read blind anyway, so if you know what you're talking about and have actually proven something, it won't matter if you have a PhD or not. But even without knowing your name or your credentials, if you don't know what you're talking about, it will be pretty obvious. So go ahead and submit to a journal, there's no harm in trying, even academics get rejected sometimes. Adam Bishop (talk) 14:00, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

My experience with journals is that in the humanities, anyway, the editor wields so much influence that they would be unlikely to send an article out for peer review if it was from a total outsider. Peer review is ideally (but not always) blind, but the process of deciding who gets peer reviewed is generally not. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:04, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

The way in which outsiders traditionally gain attention from insiders without becoming an insider themselves is to find a sympathetic insider who will vouch for their work as worth paying attention to. The most famous case of this was Einstein (who would have been ignored without Max Planck's interventions), but there are other more mundane cases as well in the history of science (e.g. Nicholas Christofilos). In the humanities the bar is not necessarily so high — there are plenty of untrained (non-Ph.D.) authors who are recognized as competent or outstanding historians (for example, Richard Rhodes or David McCullough). Depending on what field you are talking about, though, you may or may not need to do things in the "science" fashion to be taken seriously. As with all things, the higher the bar of the claim, the more difficult the case is likely to be — if you're trying to prove that, say, Einstein was wrong, or Shakespeare did not exist, or aliens built the pyramids, or some such, you're going to have a real struggle of it. If you're just trying to show that the African warbler has been sighted in Central Park, it's probably not as hard, if you have evidence to back it up. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:03, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

There is no easy answer. It's a bit like saying that you have the ability to coach a professional football team to a championship and asking who will give you a chance to prove it: the answer is, nobody, unless you have some evidence that makes the claim plausible. To get people to pay attention to your ideas, you need some hook that will make them believe your ideas are better than other people's. Usually that means starting small and working upward. Looie496 (talk) 15:18, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

The idea of an "unsolved problem" indicates that the scholarly field actually specifies public and obvious research programmes. If this is the case, then submitting a paper to a conference in that discipline ought to attract attention to your solution. Unless you've read the scholarly literature in your discipline, you may discover that your "problem" was already solved, or that your "solution" has been demonstrated to be a dead end. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:38, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

---

In my broad field, Michael Ventris had a large impact without any academic qualifications -- but on the other hand, the vast majority of proposals for revised etymologies of Biblical Hebrew words and names made by outsiders are merely horrendous blatant and pathetic nonsense, not worthy of the slightest extended consideration (it's surprising how many people think that they're somehow qualified to venture into the realm of advanced and difficult Semitic etymologies without having the slightest knowledge or understanding of the basic principle of Semitic word-structure, the triconsonantal root...). AnonMoos (talk) 00:49, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

The quick and easy route would be to just make a Youtube video explaining your theory, discovery, or insight, perhaps illustrating it with a working model of the device, or a demonstration of the process, or a test of the theory, or a practical illustration of why X happens under circumstances Y. Or you could write a self-published book or Ebook. Getting actually published in a peer-reviewed journal would be harder but would provide more credibility. It should not be that hard to find someone in the world who is an assistant professor at some college in the field in question,. There is your credential. Get a notarized and witnessed copy of your manuscript, so the prof can't just steal your work and claim it is his own. Theft of ideas and other academic piracy are all too common. Now explain to him your great breakthrough theory, and prove it to him to his satisfaction. Then he can help you get it up to a publishable standard, and could use a lab at his school to do some experiment showing its predictive power. Then it can be shipped off to a journal, with the two of you as co-authors, with which ever one contributed the most as first author. Many papers have an undergraduate as second author, so you could also consider registering for "independent study" at the college in an upper level undergrad course related to the subject area. I have been an editorial consultant for a journal, and when a manuscript came in from someone with no advanced degree and no institutional affiliation, it was usually something absurd, besides being poorly written, and lacking a literature review to show familiarity with any related research in the field. Yet some of the outsiders might well come up with an insight, observation or discovery as useful as penicillin was in its day. In the lab I was associated with, if an undergrad came in with a good knowledge of the current theory and research and had an idea for an experiment, he would have been given access to a lab. He might have been tested by being assigned to do an initial experiment as an apprenticeship, which included a replication of some recent unpublished result, to see that he was competent. More than an "idea" is usually needed. If Jane Goodall had just sought to publish a paper claiming that chimps are a lot like people, or whatever, without the years of field work, she would have gotten nowhere. She also got Louis Leakey's mentorship. AEdison (talk) 01:07, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Why would you go for an assistant professor? That strikes me as very wrong. Assistant professors are non-tenured but tenure-track. Their primary motivation is boosting their own fortunes (to make the career jump to associate or full professor), not anyone else's. They're liable to be more conservative with regards to other's ideas as well, in my experience. I would be aiming for someone who is secure, tenured, but not emeritus (emeriti have a reputation for being seduced by bad outsider ideas in their dotage). That's the Max Planck or Louis Leakey sort of person — both of them were quite senior (but not senile) when they started helping ambitious outsiders. --Mr.98 (talk) 18:40, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

See also the cautionary tale of Philo Farnsworth, a brilliant amateur with a fabulous idea - who, sadly, died penniless. Textorus (talk) 10:47, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

But that wasn't because he was an outsider. --Mr.98 (talk) 18:40, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Maybe he wanted to be "thoroughly used up" when he died, a la GBS. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 18:52, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

A nice idealistic quote, but like so many others floating around the 'net, it doesn't quite have the tart freshness of the alleged author's voice, IMO. Textorus (talk) 02:49, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

You dare to deny it? For your sins, you must now go further, and provide the name of the true author. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 09:22, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Laws of Aikido

What are the laws of Aikido, and how would this martial art possibly be relevant in a dispute on Wikipedia? Someone recently made a statement, "One of your friends, by whom I was attacked User:Nyttend, is engaged in Aikido and he knows all these laws." I'd never even heard of Aikido until I read this comment, and I can't figure out the answer from reading the article. Nyttend (talk) 14:05, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

It probably refers to the philosophy of Morihei Ueshiba? I don't know. I did Aikido for years a long time ago and don't remember any codified laws, just lots of very vague things relating to its general approach to things (e.g. protecting yourself and protecting your attacker simultaneously). In context it looks like a fairly rambling and not very coherent statement, but it doesn't seem negative. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:13, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd say that in general Aikido is the most defensive of the traditional martial arts, and in particular the one that most turns the attackers momentum against him or her. In the Wikipedia context, that would suggest one to proceed carefully and with due consideration, so as to not give the opponent the chance to turn your own words and actions against you. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:49, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Dualus (talk) 21:39, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Northern Irish accent

Is there a typical Northern Irish accent? The guy who sings this song has something that sounds to me like a thick Scottish accent. I've heard other Protestants speak like him, but people like Gerry Adams sound very different to me. --Belchman (talk) 14:18, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I know that there's a bit of variation from place to place to place; when my family were in Dervock for a summer in the 1990s, we were told that the area was well-known for having what outsiders considered an extraordinarily strong and difficult accent. Nyttend (talk) 14:29, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

For people outside of Northern Ireland, there is a general distinctive accent (not quite Irish and not quite Scottish), which I suppose is probably usually the Belfast accent. But certainly people from NI can distinguish many variations, from different cities, different parts of Belfast, different rural accents, and apparently also different Catholic and Protestant accents. Maybe Jeanne Boleyn will be along shortly, I think she lived in Belfast for awhile. Adam Bishop (talk) 16:08, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

As for why the Northern Irish accent may have some commonalities with some Scottish accents, Ulster Scots people may have some answers. As far as examples of famous Northern Irish people for whom to compare, Liam Neeson (the actor), Van Morrison (the singer) and Stiff Little Fingers (the band) are all from Northern Ireland. --Jayron32 17:47, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Not a good comparison as Stiff Little Fingers and Van Morrison both come from Belfast; whereas Neeson is from Ballymena which is close by. OP should go over to YouTube and check out clips on loyalist Billy Wright to hear a strong Portadown accent, Martin McGuinness for a Derry accent, Jackie McDonald for a Belfast accent, and the film Omagh for authentic County Tyrone accents (vastly different from Belfast ones). BTW, the guy singing the song in the clip the OP cited has a very strong Belfast accent. Gerry Adams' Belfast accent (although pronounced) does sound less harsh on the ears.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:54, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Do Catholics and Protestants have different accents in the same city? --Belchman (talk) 18:11, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I could never tell the difference. I linked the YouTube Billy Wright clip above. Have a listen to a typical Portadown accent.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:17, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! It certainly takes a while to get used to these guys' accents: at first I could barely understand what they were saying :-) --Belchman (talk) 18:48, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

My wife's relatives in Belfast say that Catholics have a different accent. This is apparently because each neighbourhood has a different accent, and the Catholics and Protestants don't really interact with each other. I can't tell the difference, of course. Adam Bishop (talk) 19:14, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

<unindent>If the OP doesn't get a sufficient answer here, I suggest asking again on the Language Refdesk. -- One shibboleth of Northern Irish pronunciation of the letter H, or so I have heard. There's a BBC article on shifting pronunciation in British English over time, and some discussion of that letter, but not its geographic importance: until I got to the comments:

The way you pronounced H was used by kids playing at sectarianism, in 1950s Luton where my Irish Dad spent most of his childhood. Native English speakers would say "aitch" and be assumed to be Protestant, whereas those of Irish decent would say "haitch" and be assumed to be Catholic. This self-consciousness meant my Dad quickly lost his Irish accent and to this day speaks with a broad Bedfordshire lilt.

This may provide some pointers of where else to look. BrainyBabe (talk) 20:48, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Each of the 6 Counties that are in Northern Ireland have a distinct accent the same with Donegal which is the northernmost part of Ireland their accent is very similar to the people of Derry and can be hard to distinguish between the two counties. Mo ainm~Talk 20:53, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

For what it's worth, back in the 1980s I spent a bit of time in Belfast. At one point, while spending the evening at a pub with a group that I think were all or mostly Catholic, I asked if Catholics and Protestants had different accents. (To my American ears the accents around Belfast all sound much the same.) They said that different towns and neighborhoods had different accents but that people of both religions from the same town had the same accent. Marco polo (talk) 00:06, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I've heard the "H" thing. I've also heard that "Catlicks can't pronounce the th sound". I wouldn't give much credence to either. But you know who really can't pronounce the th sound? People from Waterford. Mrs Stoughton (nee O'Brien), is from there - a fisherman's daughter - and she tells how a speech teacher would come into her primary school once a month to drill the kids in pronunciation. "This, that, there, those" the teacher would enunciate, mantra-like, month-in and month-out. And month-in, month-out the response would come from 25 Waterford kids: "Dis, dat, dere, dose". Ivor Stoughton (talk) 03:12, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

It's not just the letter "H" that is pronounced differently in Northern Ireland. Protestants always pronounce the letter "A" as "aye" (as in rain) but Catholics typically pronounce it as "aah" (as in man). This latter derives from the Irish language which many Catholics are taught to speak in school. It's usual for Catholics in Northern Ireland to attend parrochial schools.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:14, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

?? - "Aye" rhymes with "eye" in English on both sides of the Atlantic, doesn't it? Perhaps you mean "ay"? Textorus (talk) 15:41, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Aye, indeed I did mean "ay"! Thanks for pointing out my early-morning, half-asleep, sans expresso, in-a-hurry-need-to-get-dressed error! In fact, "aye" is used much more frequently in the North than "yes". "Ach" or "och" are also used. The adjective "wee" is applied to practically anything or anyone. I was called a "wee girl" and I am 5'8! BTW, that was considered quite tall for a female in the Ireland of the 1980s (north and south of the border).--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:31, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

That's very true, so it is. And we reaffirm everything we say with "so", so we do. Like calling everything "wee" ("here's your wee coffee", "here's your wee bill"), it can get quite annoying after a while, so it can. --Nicknack009 (talk) 10:26, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Aye, Nicknack, you're dead on like, so ye are. Here's a wee bit of waffle: my wee boyfriend from Omey Town had the wee habit of calling everybody "mustard". I have yet to discover the origin of this wee word. Another thing before I go till the shops, the word "now" is pronounced as "nie". This is a very noticeable feature of the Norn Iron accent. There ye are nie.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 10:32, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

So does that last sentence rhyme with blarney or with aren't I? I've never been to the Emerald Isle, so it's not quite clear to me. Textorus (talk) 11:09, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Aren't I would be closer to that "nie" pronounciation of theirs of the word "now", I think. To me, the most noticeable feature of their accent is the way they pronounce the ou cluster in words like "out", "about" and "shout" as /əʉ/. They also say something like "tame" instead of "time". A fun accent indeed. :-) --Belchman (talk) 11:26, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Free White Male Adult Property Owners by State in 1790?

My understanding is that only free white male adult property owners could vote in 1790. How many of them were there in each state? --CGPGrey (talk) 17:16, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Probably not answerable with any exactitude. See the article 1790 United States Census for a breakdown of population by state, or check the original report submitted by Thomas Jefferson. Problem is, it counted all males over 16 as one category (adult = 21+ in those times), and it didn't indicate how many of them were property owners. Textorus (talk) 18:03, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually, there were some brief experiments with women voting around 1800. In any case, the necessary voting qualifications were decided locally within each state, so there was no common criterion applied to all states uniformly. AnonMoos (talk) 22:55, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

unicorn

Question: Am I correct in assuming a unicorn may be either male or female?Kukanuk (talk) 17:28, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, unless you are mistaken a mythical creature for a Eunuch :o) The Last Angry Man (talk) 17:35, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

ouch - that was a Corny joke! --Ludwigs2 18:32, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

This is simple to explain. Unlike the Mustang they don’t roam around in herds. Being rather rare, people are so surprised when they see one that they that they don't think to determine its sex. Even Gaff (that little clinkey eyed jobs-worth that keeps dropping origami figures of unicorns in my path) hasn't included the anatomical differences – but I remember seeing them as a child running around on the prairie and they came in both sexes.--Aspro (talk) 19:31, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

My wife Rachael also say's she's not only seen both stallions and mares but a gelding that didn't quite leap high enough, over a barb-wire fence. It always amazes me how we have both seem to have such similar childhood memories. --Aspro (talk) 19:53, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Was the fence enclosing a flock of electric sheep? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.253 (talk) 22:00, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

As it happens, I do seem to remember an android shepherd but Rachael thinks he was probable not one of us, since the poor clone obviously had a screw loose due to his constant mutterings of Danger, Will Robinson. What he thought Robinson might do however , we never found out. Not even after the Directors Cut. Maybe we ought to ask about this on Wikipedia Reference Desk.--Aspro (talk) 20:16, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I guess you are asking whether any of the legends about unicorns say anything about their sex. There is no mention of this in our article unicorn. I would agree with you in supposing that the unicorn referred to by ancient writers, supposed to be an exotic but otherwise normal beast, would have had the usual two sexes. I'm not so sure the assumption does apply to the mediaeval legendary unicorn, because of its differential susceptibility to virgin females; but in the absence of any information about their sex perhaps we have no grounds for any other assumption. --ColinFine (talk) 00:46, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Why is Human history called History of the world?

And, is this video spectacular? Dualus (talk) 18:54, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't know. But maybe because of anthropocentrism. In Latin mundus meant both the universe and mankind according to this. This usage is more or less still in use in some Romance languages such as French or Spanish, in which "tout le monde"/"todo el mundo" (lit.: "all the world") means "everyone". --Belchman (talk) 19:12, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

• Because the world is defined as human civilization and so its just another name for human history] --Thanks, Hadseys 19:18, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I thought the world was just Earth, even back when when humans were just a gleam in some cell's membrane; even back when the metals of the crust were just carbon and oxygen in some dying star; even back when the local spacetime manifold was collapsed inside a pair of colliding black holes. I have no idea what came before that. Dualus (talk) 20:29, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

The planet is Earth. The world is the civilization, usually, though sometimes it is used to only mean the planet. Neither world nor planet refer to the composition of metals that would eventually become the Earth before they did become a planetoid of some sort. Anyway, this is just semantics. You could call it whatever you wanted to; this is what we happen to call it. --Mr.98 (talk) 21:12, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

You can think of in terms of creating fictional works. Worldbuilding refers to creating the setting of the work, and nearly always includes creating not just the physical properties of the land, but the people/creatures/civilizations in it. Otherwise it's just landscaping. Mingmingla (talk) 22:24, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and New World vs. Old World. Neither refer to planets. Mingmingla (talk) 22:24, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Neither does the well-known adjective "novomundane". -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 00:48, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I think the video jumps around out of chronological order at the end, should start with the big bang, and does not adequately represent modern life. Dualus (talk) 18:45, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

As Mr.98 said, there are two distinct concepts here: the physical object that we are all riding around the sun on, and the realm of personal experience. 'World' is usually reserved for the largest extension of the realm of human experience (in the sense of 'worldview'). Thus 'history of the world' translates to 'history of worldviews' which translates to 'human history'. 'History of the earth', by contrast, usually starts some 4 billion years ago and charts out the development of physical features of the planet. --Ludwigs2 18:12, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Suppose intelligent extraterrestrials existed and were able to communicate with humans. Would they be part of a shared experience? Dualus (talk) 18:29, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Can we get their primary sources? History is the study of records of human culture through an analysis of content and form—typically it is the study of textual records. If some other culture produces records, historians will historicise it. Fifelfoo (talk) 20:57, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

http://ufohastings.com/ is good, but there are many other corroborating sources. Dualus (talk) 23:33, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Those purport to be primary sources (predominantly third hand oral reports) regarding aliens. They're not primary sources by aliens. Alien historiography will have to wait until someone finds an archival cache. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:57, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

name of philosophy

Most philosophies and religions assume that humans are the most important thing, or God is. (Please let's not get into a discussion of the existence of the latter.) We even have a way-of-life called humanism. I assume there is a philosophy based on the assumption that humans are nothing special, given the rest of the cosmos, and which leaves God out of the equation. What is it called? BrainyBabe (talk) 20:59, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Nihilism? --Mr.98 (talk) 21:13, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Antihumanism would be a step in that direction. Materialism generally views humans (including consciousness) as simply a part of the rest of the universe. --Daniel 21:15, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement doesn't believe that humans are the most important thing on the planet. Mitch Ames (talk) 22:18, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

evolution?190.56.105.233 (talk) 22:46, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Hedonism?190.56.105.233 (talk) 23:05, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

The idea that humans are the most important thing is anthropocentrism. Our article suggests that its antithesis is "biocentrism", but other web resources suggest "pantheism" or "non-anthropocentrism". None of those seem really adequate. Looie496 (talk) 23:15, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

The opposite of "assuming humans are the most important thing" would be "assuming humans are the least important thing", no? The question isn't asking about the opposite though, rather the idea that "humans are nothing special" (and leaving out God). The first thing I thought of was Zen--although there are many types of Zen and some seem to consider humans as somehow special. At the least, most Zen philosophy I've encountered tends to take the position that you are "nothing special". There's a Joko Beck book with that exact title, Nothing Special. As for "leaving God out", Zen as I know it does that. Whether there is or isn't a God, or gods, and what he/she/they are like is a non-issue ([3]). But that was just my first thought. I imagine there is a better answer. Pfly (talk) 04:02, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

The cosmological principle is what came to my mind, but that isn't really a philosophy - it's more like the mere assertion that "humans are nothing special". 128.232.241.211 (talk) 08:08, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Is humanism really contradictory to your beliefs? According to the article, "Secular Humanism is a secular ideology which espouses reason, ethics, and justice, whilst specifically rejecting supernatural and religious dogma as a basis of morality and decision-making." I don't see where it says humans are the most important thing, or that non-humans (animals, plants?) are unimportant. In fact, I would consider myself a humanist, but by no means do I think humans are the only important beings in the universe (or even on Earth). --140.180.14.123 (talk) 10:47, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

That's right. Humanists in my experience don't think that humans are any better, higher or more important than other lifeforms or objects, just that, as humans, nothing should be more important to us than being good towards other humans. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:11, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion, it still becomes utilitarianism because their actionable beliefs are similar to humanists'. Dualus (talk) 18:18, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Makeup question for the ladies and or people with SFX makeup knowledge (Halloween related)

I like to paint my face up like a skull when I go begging with my niece and nephew on Halloween. I usually bring the black makeup up to my "waterline." The end result is neat (old pic), but I always have problems getting that black off of my waterline at the end of the night. More precisely, I get the bulk of the makeup off, but it sort of dyes my water line and part of my lashes. I always look like I'm wearing mascara the next day (something I would like to avoid since I have class the following day). What product could I use (before or after) to avoid this? I've heard that putting Vaseline on your face before makeup will make it easier to wash off. Is there some type of makeup remover that ladies use that might help with the waterline thing? --Ghostexorcist (talk) 23:38, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Hope this helps. Remove make up with oil or cold cream before washing off. Cotton swabs with oil are helpful too. Oda Mari (talk) 10:03, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

You can get special eye-makeup remover, including on pre-soaked pads, which aims to remove the makeup without risking injury to your eyes. This means you can clean around the actual eyes much closer to the edge of the lids, although I still don't recommend getting it actually in or on your eyeballs (it stings like anything). Otherwise, have you considered using cheap actual makeup for women in the area closest to your eyeballs, since in my experience that comes off more easily than greasepaint or expensive waterproof makeup? 86.163.1.168 (talk) 16:45, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

October 30

royals meeting other royals

Is there a formal protocol that royals have to follow when meeting another country's royalty? For example, would the Crown Princess of Sweden have to curtsey to the King of Thailand? Are the guidelines for royal etiquette actually written down somewhere, or do royals just tend to do whatever they feel like doing? 128.135.100.102 (talk) 00:35, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Wilhelm II of Germany with Nicholas II of Russia in 1905, wearing the military uniforms of each other's nations, as was the royal etiquette of the day.

Yes, this is called diplomatic protocol. Please see. Dualus (talk) 02:33, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Dualus, the OP wants to know what the precise protocol is on the occasions they're asking about. That link just talks about protocol in general terms. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 03:05, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

There are rules of etiquette for meetings between visiting members of royal families on formal occasions - historians and biographers often mention some details of such things in passing when describing those encounters - but it's hard to find a comprehensive source for the rules, presumably because etiquette books are written for us peons, not for royalty, who probably learn those things at their royal grandmother's knee. I can't find a source, but I have a strong suspicion that a mere princess would curtsy, and her husband would bow, to the reigning sovereign of another country and to his consort. But who would bow/curtsy to whom if a princess of one country meets a prince/princess of another, who knows? I think when two sovereigns meet, being equals, neither curtsies to the other, they just shake hands. There are certain standard forms of formal address, too: the Queen writes to fellow monarchs beginning, "Sir my Brother," but to presidents of republics as "Great and Good Friend." (Charles Roetter, The Art of Diplomacy, 1963, p. 157.) If you really are desperate to know the details, you might write to Debrett's, the prime British etiquette experts, and ask them to refer you to some source books. Textorus (talk) 06:18, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

#occupyprotocol? Dualus (talk) 23:35, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Is this a real quote from John Lennon?

Yesterday, I saw this quote in my Facebook newsfeed attributed to John Lennon of the Beatles:

“ When I was 5 years old, my mother always told me that happiness was the key to life. When I went to school, they asked me what I wanted to be when I grew up. I wrote down ‘happy’. They told me I didn't understand the assignment, and I told them they didn't understand life. ”

It's a great quote and Lennon was famous for his wit. But I've been a fan for years and have never run across this quote before. I Binged it[4] and found over 2 million hits on the quote but none of the sites looked like they would be authorities on the matter. Does anyone know if this quote is real or is apocryphal like so many other quotes? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:26, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

My immediate thought is that British children sixty years ago did not have "assignments". But Lennon lived in the US in later life, so if he did tell that story, he might have used the word.--ColinFine (talk) 01:01, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I have no memory of seeing anything like that in any of his published interviews. Of note, he states that it was when he was five. He was terrible at writing when he was a teenager (as shown in his many letters and postcards that have been published). It is very hard to believe that he was writing at age five. Further, his statements about his first school years were not about how he stood up to the system. He was shy and quiet. His "teddy" rebellious side came out as a teenager. -- kainaw™ 02:00, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Although many sites do give Lennon as an author, at least as many say "Unknown" - which seems more likely. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:46, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

It's widely considered false, aka apocryphal. Lennon never said it. Viriditas (talk) 10:26, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Why is pork the most consumed meat in the world?

I would expect it to be chicken because: (i) chicken is cheaper; and (ii) Muslims don't eat pork, and they're around a sixth of the world's population (I am aware that Jews don't either, but they're a tiny share of the global total). I do know that pork is the most eaten meat in China, but for both China and much of the rest of the world, why?

The only explanation I can think of is that it is possible to cure pork products, allowing to keep in areas with weak refrigeration, but I'm not sure if that's really it.--Leon (talk) 18:40, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

If you are correct (and I would have thought chicken or fish too, but maybe it's just the two together) then it would be because it tastes the most like human flesh. Happy Halloween. Dualus (talk) 18:47, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Ghoulishness aside - - pigs are easier to maintain that cattle or sheep (they require no grazing land and thrive on all sorts of scraps that humans have no other use for), are meatier and less subject to predation than chickens (foxes, cats, and other small predators can rain hell on a hen house, but it takes an apex predator to pull down a swine), aren't subject to the special tools, locations or seasonal variations that are involved in fishing, have no conflicting value (they can't pull a plow or provide wool), and are generally hardy, maintenance-free and good breeders as domesticated animals go. --Ludwigs2 19:08, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

My Google search for pigs plow reported 2,010,000 results, the second one being Plow With Pigs by Mother Earth News.

—Wavelength (talk) 20:47, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Do we have a table of how much farmland area it takes a person to live on? I know it varies by country, but there must be global averages. I've heard it's 0.33 acres for a vegan, 0.5 acres for a vegitarian, and 3 acres for an omnivore, but I know that beef produces about eight times as much CO2 as poultry per pound (Scientific American a few years ago), so I'm sure that must correspond to the amount of farmland area to feed the livestock. Dualus (talk) 19:49, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Dualus's comment does not seem daft to me. Pig protein is so similar to human flesh that the body has less trouble digesting it, without forming immune draining antibodies and getting congested with immune-complexes. It is also very tasty -especially Miss Piggy. Moreover, pigs are very high in fat – a high value energy source. Pound for pound, I don't see any reason why any other domesticated animal should have greater appeal.--Aspro (talk) 19:55, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

You realize that "tastes the most like" is strongly correlated to "has the most genes in common with" don't you? Dualus (talk) 23:37, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I tracked down the original claim here [5]. Our article on offal says it's also the most consumed meat in China. I think that on some of the South Pacific islands pigs were brought in earlier than many other livestock. In the U.S. ... I have no idea why, but the supermarkets do not carry mutton. If they did, I know I'd want to lower that pork statistic. Wnt (talk) 03:41, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Most do carry lamb however. Maybe if you let it sit around for a while... --Jayron32 03:51, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

True, and much appreciated ... but not a very wide selection, and sporadically. I always wondered where sheep in the U.S. go when they grow up. Wnt (talk) 04:09, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

OMG. I never thought about that before, but now I'm gonna be up all night wondering where the little sheeps go to. The U.S. doesn't produce much "sheep meat": it's 18th in the world, behind Morocco and Nigeria. The American Sheep Industry Association doesn't say exactly what they do with them, but I suspect most are raised for their wool. Not to mention being frightfully decorative, dotted about your fields. As the other poster above noted, mutton is practically nonexistent in this country; this delightfully witty article explains why. Lamb, nearly all of which we get frozen from the lands Down Under, is mighty good though, marinated in wine and served with mint jelly. I highly recommend it. Textorus (talk) 05:17, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

As Ludwigs2 says, pigs will eat almost anything. A friend who had travelled in Asia once told me of a village (in India perhaps) where the communal latrine emptied into the pig sty. Still looking for a reference to confirm this practice, but it makes the religious ban on on pork seem very sensible. Alansplodge (talk) 11:13, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Me again: a model of a Han Dynasty Pig Sty-Latrine in the Minneapolis Institute of Art. "Combination pig sty-latrines similar to this replica can be seen in many parts of rural China today." Alansplodge (talk) 11:22, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

U.S. Government Licence Tags

Are vehicles with U.S. government license tags exempt from being pulled over for traffic infractions or receiving fines for tripping those red light cameras? 166.137.8.73 (talk) 19:01, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Nobody is exempt from being cited for safety infractions. Can you imagine what the feds would do if they didn't get pulled over for leaking gas, for example? Dualus (talk) 19:45, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I know someone with the NYPD, and I've heard that the foreign diplomats with the UN up there drive like crazy and don't feed the parking meters and there's nothing they can do about it. Don't know about the Feds though. 166.137.8.73 (talk) 23:14, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

That's because of diplomatic immunity, not because they are federal. (See Diplomatic_immunity#Vehicular.) --Mr.98 (talk) 23:38, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

They can definitely get tickets. Apparently they often are poor about paying them because the consequences are low for some reason (the report doesn't specify why this is different than for individuals, but it must go through the agency in some way that is different). In Washington, DC, they do not tow or boot federal vehicles, though, as a matter of policy. Separately, a bus driver (in DC) told me not very long ago that if they get a ticket, they get some kind of automatic suspension, and if they get two, they get fired. But obviously that's a little bit different, given that their job is in shuttling around other people... --Mr.98 (talk) 01:54, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Mutual funds

Are there any companies allowing people to invest in wind power in developing countries, or credit unions and other investments compatible with the Occupy Wall Street "99 Percent Declaration"? (This question was copied from Talk:Mutual fund and I will summarize there.) Dualus (talk) 19:43, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

See Socially responsible investing. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:26, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Why did the Democratic Unionist Party oppose the Belfast Agreement?

Why? --Belchman (talk) 21:55, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, there's a section in DUP's article about their opposition to the Belfast Agreement, but it's quite short. --Belchman (talk) 22:01, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Primarily, because it was because they objected to power sharing. Historically, unionists' peculiar view of democracy has been that, because the protestant community are the majority, decisions should be made by protestants. In the referendum on the agreement, the overwhelming majority of the nationalist/catholic community and about half of the unionist/protestant community voted yes, and the DUP tried to claim that wasn't valid because there wasn't a clear majority of protestants in favour, never mind that there was a 75% majority overall and a broad consensus of both communities. --Nicknack009 (talk) 22:15, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

That's a bit simplistic. The DUP refer to "Sein Fein/IRA"; to them, allowing Sein Fein into the government was only permissible if SF distanced itself from the IRA. Take this article, for example. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 22:29, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

It is pretty amazing either side agreed. The IRA was taunted with 'I ran away' at the start of the troubles because they had given up arms and were trying for a solution by peaceful means. Dmcq (talk) 07:25, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

October 31

African immigrants in U.K. from british colonies of Africa

Which cities of United Kingdom have significant population of African immigrants from former British colonies in Africa? e.g. Nigeria, sierra leone, etc? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.149.7 (talk) 04:01, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Foreign-born population of the United Kingdom looks like a good starting point for you to do your research. --Jayron32 04:03, 31 October 2011 (UTC)