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 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)

"...there are no obligatory codes of behaviour - just courtesy.". Alansplodge (talk) 23:28, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

"We don't have protocol here, just bloody good manners." (p.4) And yet, there are certain niceties to be observed that demonstrate good manners, the most public recent example being when the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge bowed/curtsied to the Queen after their wedding. Textorus (talk) 01:01, 1 November 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[1] 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)

The quote does not states that he said that as he was 5. He just heard it from his mother at this age. Quest09 (talk) 15:47, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

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

Isn't there an easy way to do a Google search but organized chronologically? I don't mean the News Archive search (which only searches the News Archives, not the whole web) or the Wayback Machine (aka archive.org). I seem to recall when that fake MLK quote was everywhere on Twitter and Facebook,[2] there was an easy way to search to find out when the quote first appeared on the Internet.

Anyway, I did figure out how to do a Google search chronologically but in descending order.[3] I clicked through the search results until I got to the end. The final hit was this[4] which according to Google is dated Jan 31, 2001. It's a web page run by Christopher R. Johnson, a professor of Computer Science for the University of Utah. I wonder where he got the quote from. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:06, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I find it extremely unlikely it's from Lennon and even if he said it, it's extremely unlikely it's true. Lennon wouldn't have called "homework" an "assignment" in his Liverpool upbringing. And a 5 year old in the UK wouldn't have had written homework in those days. --Dweller (talk) 14:13, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

The quote does not states that he said that as he was 5. He just heard it from his mother at this age. Quest09 (talk) 15:49, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

As Albert Einstein said:

“ Mistrust of every kind of information - specially from the Internet: a skeptical attitude toward unsourced material is necessary for everyone ”

Quest09 (talk) 15:56, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Wasn't John Lennon brought up by his Aunt Mimi instead of his mother? This so-called Lennon quote just doesn't have the ring of truth about it, I'm afraid.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:32, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Dick Starkey was the one with the rings, Jeanne. Maybe he stole the Ring of Truth from John.  :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 18:38, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

He still lived with his mother when he was 5 though. Adam Bishop (talk) 07:41, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but the quote just does not contain the right amount of acid for it to have come from John Lennon's mouth.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:44, 2 November 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)

Just because there are a lot of pages with those two words on them doesn't mean it's possible. The page you've linked to is using the term plow metaphorically. Pigs are not harness animals — they cannot be hooked up to a plow. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:10, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I realized, when I posted that comment, that the article discusses pigs being used as plows, and not pigs pulling plows. My reason for linking to that article is that it counters the comment above by Ludwigs2, that pigs "have no conflicting value".

—Wavelength (talk) 19:36, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

This is not a criticism (or at least, it is not meant to be a non-constructive one), but you post a lot of links without giving any information as to what you think is of value in the link, or what you intend people to take away from it. It makes a lot of your links look completely irrelevant to the discussion, if not outright confused. If you had posted the sentence you just did along with your link, it would have increased the value of your contribution mightily, and wouldn't have required two more edits (mine and then yours) to clarify what you had originally meant to clarify in the first place. Just a suggestion. --Mr.98 (talk) 19:13, 1 November 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)

Yes, and pigs compete for the same resources that early man depended on. So just like the Neanderthal's they constitute a potential threat to survival. Genetic survival in humans is a dominant factor, mostly confined to close blood relatives – as the European history of royal conflicts demonstrates, time and time again. --Aspro (talk) 20:32, 31 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)

My guess is that, except for the few which end up at ethnic butcher shops (if you go to most major cities, somewhere deep in the neighborhood known as "Little Ethiopia"/"Kazaktown"/"The South Asian District"/etc. will be little hole-in-the-wall shops where you can procure all manner of exotic meats), the rest end up as pet food. That's historically where meat/animals that aren't sold to humans end up. Case in point, I recall seeing a package of mutton jerky for dogs in the pet food aisle. -- 174.24.217.108 (talk) 15:40, 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." Also, Wikipedia has an article about everything: see Pig toilet. I should add that British pigs have their diet very closely controlled by a whole regiment of bureaucrats emplyed by DEFRA and the EU.[6] I hope I haven't put anyone off their bacon sandwich. Alansplodge (talk) 11:31, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

More research: apparently a single Chinese ideogram signifies both "pigsty" and "privy". Alansplodge (talk) 16:34, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Goats are low-maintenance as well, but goat meat is hard to find in Europe (and I guess North America too)... ElMa-sa (talk) 12:20, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

It depends on what part of North America or Europe. I have had goat with a Greek family in New Hampshire, so its availible, if not common. It is common enough in Greece, where whole roasted goat is a standard Easter dish (akin to Turkey on Thanksgiving in the U.S.) and that was the context when I enjoyed it. I have seen roasted goat availible in greek restaurants in Chicago as well. It is also quite common in Mexico, which is North America, of course, and among Mexican communities in the U.S. as well; you can get it as street food from some taco trucks in many places. --Jayron32 19:24, 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)

"The Feds" in London never pay their Congestion Charge; they owe us more than USD 10 million[7]. Alansplodge (talk) 16:15, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I would write a check but you're just going to have to start detaining officials and citizens for shakedowns at Customs just like any other creditor nation. Dualus (talk) 09:50, 2 November 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)

I thought they were allegedly called that by other Catholics because their "army" failed to defend Catholics areas during the 1969 Northern Ireland riots. --Belchman (talk) 11:29, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes that's right, they had given up their arms and the community was attacked and thousands were driven out of their homes. They had little reason to think that giving up arms again was a good first step to peace. Dmcq (talk) 14:32, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

The failed Sunningdale Agreement in the 1970s offers a historical parallel. Many unionists objected to any form of power sharing or any formal arrangements with the Republic of Ireland, which they saw as steps on the road to a united Ireland (or an attempt by the Antichrist to capture good Christian hearts, if you believed some of Ian Paisley's rhetoric). --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:03, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

The Ulster Workers' Council Strike which was carried out in protest against Sunningdale and the power-sharing executive united all unionist parties and the rival UDA and UVF; it was so successful that it brought Northern Ireland to its knees. On the third day into the strike, the UVF executed a devastating bombing attack in both Dublin and Monaghan resulting in the deaths of 33 people, plus an unborn baby.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:11, 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)

Although it only provides 2001 information (as the 2011 census results are not yet available), you may find Table KS6 here provides relevant information - though it deals with people of African "ethnic groups" generally, not specific former colonies. The simple answer is London. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:35, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't mean to be flippant here, but I would say the answer the OP's question is: "All of them" (ie every city in the UK has a significant population of African immigrants Nigeria, Kenya, Sierra Leone, etc).

It might help if the OP were to define what a "significant" population is (is "significance" based on raw numbers, having more than a given number of immigrants living in the city? is it based on the percentage of immigrants compared to the total number of citizens? is it based on the cultural impact that the immigrant population has on the city?)... the OP also needs to define "immigrant" - (are we limited to first generation immigrants who personally moved to the UK from Africa, or do we include their children/grand children... people of recent African descent who were born and grew up in the UK?). Blueboar (talk) 13:48, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd say Scottish cities don't have a significant population of African origin. Quest09 (talk) 15:42, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Neither does Belfast.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:54, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Or Plymouth (so probably "all of them" wasn't helpful). Alansplodge (talk) 16:04, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Also not Wells, Lichfield, or Ely, Cambridgeshire, I suspect. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:06, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

According to Black people in Ireland#Northern Ireland "At the time of the 2001 UK Census, of the total population (1,685,267); 255 people described their ethnicity as Black Caribbean, 494 as Black African and 387 as Other Black, meaning that the total Black population was 1,136. These figures do not include individuals who described themselves as being of mixed-race" so it does seem questionable if any cities in Northern Ireland had a significant population of African origin in 2001 although I'm confused by the mixed-race bit (is mixed-race a specific category or is it excluding anyone who said they were say 'Black African' and 'Chinese' or 'White Irish' (I don't know if the later was an actual category)). Black Scottish people notes in the infobox that in the 2001 census Scotland had 5118 people identifying as Black African (Black Caribbean - 1,778 & Black Scottish/Other Black - 1,129) although suggests Glasgow, Edinburgh, Aberdeen have a significant of Black Scottish people (but significant is undefined). It also suggests the percentage is likely to be much higher now. As has been noted, the OP's question is unclear. I presume they are excluding Black Caribbean immigrants, even if they can trace their ancestry to what's now Nigeria or whatever but this wasn't clearly specified. Are they including white/European people from said colonies? (Black African obviously includes people the OP is not interested in like French colonies in Africa.) Nil Einne (talk) 16:33, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Returning to the 2001 census source that I helpfully identified before people threw out random less helpful factoids, we see that the percentage who self-described as both black and African was 0.97% over England as a whole. The only urban areas with percentages higher than that were London (5.28%), Slough (1.91%), Luton (1.74%), Manchester (1.69%), Reading (1.55%), Milton Keynes (1.25%), Leicester (1.23%) and Oxford (1.05%). Not all of those are defined administratively as "cities", but generally "city" is taken to mean any substantial urban area. I haven't checked for Scotland or NI, but the figures are likely to be lower. So in summary, my initial suggestion that "the simple answer is London" was quite accurate. Thank you. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:30, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

As a side-question: I wonder why are there so little people of African origin in Scotland and N. Ireland. Those who can live in England can also live in the former regions. And Glasgow and Belfast were definitely economic heavy weights in the past, and therefore, able to attract lots of immigrants. 88.9.210.218 (talk) 22:58, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

There's a difference between "people of African origin" - by which I assume you mean descendants of slaves moved from Africa to the West Indies, who then migrated from the Caribbean to the UK over the past 60 or so years - and "African immigrants" - which I assumed meant people who moved directly from Africa to the UK, over the last 40 or so years. The first group mainly moved to where jobs were available at that time, and where communities of similar origin became established - and they were mainly in England (although there were also earlier communities in some ports like Cardiff). The second group mainly moved either for higher education or as refugees (for instance, from Somalia), and may have a more complex distribution pattern. Glasgow, Belfast and (for example) South Wales were "economic heavyweights" during periods before many of these population movements occurred, but over the last 60 years or so have tended to have high unemployment. The "economic heavyweight" over that period has been, primarily, London and the South East of England. Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:08, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

By "people of African origin" I mean Blacks, but was trying to be PC. I think I expressed myself poorly, which is often the case by PC expressions. 88.9.210.218 (talk) 00:01, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I believe "black people" would be more polite than "blacks", which is considered rather derogatory in most Englissh speaking countries. It's a question of good manners rather than political correctness. Alansplodge (talk) 09:21, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

There is a lot more information at the article on Black British, including a summary of distribution patterns. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:24, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I can't speak for British and Commonwealth usage, but in the United States, "blacks" is an acceptable term [8][9][10][11], although some writers prefer to use "African-American" (which of course, does not include all black people in the world, though I have seen amusing instances of careless or too-timid writers using it that way). Textorus (talk) 00:23, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

The term "blacks" would certainly tend to be avoided in the UK. There are Afro-Caribbean communities of course, but (per Alansplodge) most thoughtful British people would avoid simplistic categorisations of individuals based on their melanin level. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:03, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

As a child in the segregated South, my parents strictly cautioned me never to refer to people as black in their hearing, which was very rude; colored was the polite word, and 'Negro' was the formal term. But then by the time I was in high school, Black is beautiful reversed all those ideas, and it became a sin to say anything but black. Your practice may be different in Britain, and that's fine, but the point is that sensitivities, and therefore good manners, vary from time to time and place to place. What's accepted as ordinary, neutral speech in one country may not be in another, depending on many factors. Textorus (talk) 16:57, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

In Northern Ireland, the amount of immigration has traditionally been quite small up until the last decade or so. Less diverse employment opportunities, fewer employment oppportunities generally, relative geographic isolation compared to mainland UK, the large number of small villages and fewer large cities (where immigrants tend to live), and perhaps most significantly, The Troubles, have discouraged immigration. Throughout the Troubles, Northern Ireland experienced a net decrease in population every year, then an brief increase in the early 90s, and another when the EU was expanded around five years ago. [12] It has recently dipped again, probably for economic reasons. (However, according to this, net migration from the UK generally increased during the 70s and 80s.) From personal observation, the black population is still comparatively tiny compared to the Asian and Eastern European populations; this report gives a reasonable historical overview, but it's difficult to get statistics about people who have immigrated from other parts of the UK, as opposed to international migration. --Kateshortforbob _talk 14:34, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

A Nigerian immigrant was one of three people killed in a bomb placed in a train going from Lisburn to Belfast in 1980.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:08, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Stratego

What is the name of the game which is stratego or L'Attaque with navy and airforce? Kittybrewster ☎ 16:38, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

English Wikipedia doesn't have any entry on it, but French Wikipedia suggests that the game is called "Les Grands Amiraux". It sounds like a mainly french version of Stratego with navy and air force. See fr:Les Grands Amiraux. --Jayron32 18:08, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Good find. I remember there was an English version in c.1960. Kittybrewster ☎ 18:16, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

The English version was called "Admirals" and was supposedly published in 1972, so you may be off by a few years. See [13]. --Jayron32 18:37, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Well done. Kittybrewster ☎ 18:42, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello there - you might to check out the following links as well :-

• L'Attaque - the original 1909 land warfare game at [14].
• Dover Patrol - the naval variant from 1919 at [15].
• Aviation: The Aerial Tactics Game of Attack and Defence the 1925 air variant at [16].
• Tri-Tactics - the combined warfare variant from 1932 at [17].

And possible Risk (game). Mitch Ames (talk) 11:49, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Quintessential British Gentleman (talk) 20:36, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Very well done. Kittybrewster ☎ 23:28, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Publication date of Alexis de Tocqueville's "What prevents the French from having good colonies?"

Does anybody know when the above text was published. Most internet sources suggest that it was written in 1833, but I'm unsure as to the initial publication date (potentially around 1837?). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.24.27.197 (talk) 20:35, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

This PDF document (p. 84) says Tocqueville intended to include the essay in his and Gustave de Beaumont's Du système pénitentiaire aux États-unis, et de son application en France (1833), but in the event it wasn't actually published until after Tocqueville's death in Beaumont's edition of his Oeuvres et correspondance inédites (1861). --Antiquary (talk) 21:38, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Parents of multiple monarchs of different sexes

Calling all royal experts. A handful of people throughout history have had the distinction of being the parent of more than one monarch. For example, Catherine de' Medici and Henri II of France were parents of three kings of France: Francis II, Charles IX and Henri III (and also 2 queens consort, but they're not relevant to my enquiry); and George V of the UK and Queen Mary were the parents of both Edward VIII and George VI.

I'm interested in the sub-set of people who were parents of both a king and a queen regnant (at least one of each). The only example I can readily bring to mind is Henry VIII of England, who fathered Mary I, Elizabeth I and Edward VI. Are there any other cases? We don't have a Category:Parents of monarchs to help with this search. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 21:45, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

John II of Castile was the father of both Henry IV of Castile and Isabella I of Castile (although they had different mothers). Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 21:52, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Amalric I and Agnes of Courtenay were parents of Sibylla of Jerusalem and Baldwin IV, both rulers in their own right. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 21:56, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

David Soslan and Tamar of Georgia were father and mother of George IV of Georgia and Rusudan of Georgia; Charles III of Naples and Margaret of Durazzo had Ladislaus of Naples and Joan II of Naples; and Charles XI of Sweden and Ulrika Eleonora of Denmark had Charles XII of Sweden and Ulrika Eleonora, Queen of Sweden. One good way of finding these people, by the way, is by Googling the phrase "succeeded her brother". There are certainly more to be found if you carry on looking longer than I did. --Antiquary (talk) 22:56, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the excellent answers so far, folks. I thought there may have been a Russian case, but the closest is the parents of Peter III of Russia, who were the parents-in-law of Catherine the Great, who was initially merely her husband's wife but succeeded him as monarch in her own right. The upstart. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 23:16, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Here's a rare one: The father who's children inherit thrones of different countries. During the 13th century, the thrones of Navarre and France became united, but because of differing succession laws in the two lands and because of insane medieval politics, the children of Louis X of France, each of different mothers, became Joan II of Navarre (queen regnant of the Kingdom of Navarre) and John I of France. John I (John the Postumous) "ruled" from his birth till his death at the ripe old age of 5 days, but he is still counted as King of France. --Jayron32 03:08, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

And another similar one, also involving the Kingdom of Navarre (which seems to have had a very convoluted history tied very closely to the neighboring kingdoms of France and Aragon). Depending on how rival claimants are counted, John II of Aragon, besides his son Ferdinand II of Aragon also had two daughters who either ruled or had claim to be rulers of Navarre, being Eleanor of Navarre and Blanche II of Navarre. --Jayron32 03:15, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Yet another from Navarre: Gaston of Foix, Prince of Viana had a son and daughter who were both monarchs of Navarre, Francis Phoebus of Navarre and Catherine of Navarre. --Jayron32 03:17, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Roger II of Sicily fathered (by different mothers) William I of Sicily and Constance, Queen of Sicily. --Jayron32 03:27, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Some of non-European monarchs. Kekūanāoa and Kīnaʻu were the parents of King Kamehameha IV and King Kamehameha IV. And if you can count Victoria Kamāmalu who along with her mother was kuhina nui, sort of like a vice-monarch; plus she was acting monarch for a day in November 30, 1863.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 03:32, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Maybe this is more suitable Kapaakea and Keohokālole were the parents of King Kalākaua and Queen Liliuokalani.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 03:34, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

King Pōmare II and Queen Teriʻtoʻoterai Teremoemoe were the parents of King Pōmare III and Queen Pōmare IV. And Queen Pōmare IV and Ariifaaite were the parents of Queen Teriimaevarua II of Bora Bora, King Tamatoa V of Raiatea, and King Pōmare V. King Tamatoa III of Raiatea and his wife Queen Tura'iari'i Ehevahine were the parents of King Tamatoa IV of Raiatea, Queen regnant Teri'itari'a II of Huahine (also Queen consort of Tahiti as one of the wives of Pōmare II) and Queen consort Teriʻtoʻoterai Teremoemoe of Tahiti (mentioned above). Ta'aroa Ari'i and Tematafainuu were the parents of Queen Maihara of Huahine and King Ari'imate of Huahine. King Ari'imate and Queen regnant (succeed after her husband's desposition) Tehaapapa II were the parents of Queen Teuhe II of Huahine and King Tamatoa VI of Raiatea.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 03:56, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Wow, I'd heard of the Hawaiian and Tongan monarchies, but I didn't know there were other Pacific monarchies. The things you find out here. Tks, KAVBEAR. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 19:19, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

(undent) Sigismund I the Old, king of Poland, and his second wife Bona Sforza were the parents of Sigismund II Augustus and Anna Jagiellon, both of whom ruled as monarchs of Poland (Anna in a "William & Mary"-like arrangment with her husband Stephen Bathory). --Jayron32 04:04, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Orange Suede Sofa above mentioned Amalric I of Jerusalem and Agnes of Courtenay and Sibylla and Baldwin IV, but Amalric also had another daughter, Isabella I of Jerusalem with his second wife Maria Comnena. Sibylla might have had this distinction too - her son was Baldwin V of Jerusalem, and she had daughters, but they all died before they could inherit the throne. Adam Bishop (talk) 07:36, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Another one is John II of Cyprus, sort of - his daughter Charlotte succeeded him, but the throne was contested by his illegitimate son James II, who was also crowned. Adam Bishop (talk) 07:50, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

May I introduce you to Emma of Normandy, who, not content with being Queen consort herself with two different monarchs, and Queen consort of three separate realms, was mother to 2 kings of England; stepmother to 2 other kings of England; and mother to Gunhilda, Queen of the Romans. --TammyMoet (talk) 09:01, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Pleased to meet you, Emma. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 19:19, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

How could I have forgotten Cleopatra and her brothers Ptolemy XIII and Ptolemy XIV, all of whom occupied the throne of Egypt? I'm sorry if I'm weirding you out but she was also married to each of them in turn. --Antiquary (talk) 18:57, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry, I've been hanging around here too long, and I am now officially unweirdable. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 19:19, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Even more wierd; Ptolemy XIII was only 11 when he married Cleopatra who was 18 - if I've done my sums right. Alansplodge (talk) 16:18, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I should have mentioned that Cleopatra's sisters (or half-sisters) Arsinoe IV and Berenice IV each reigned as queen of Egypt at different times. There are other examples from the Ptolemaic dynasty, including Ptolemy V Epiphanes, whose daughter Cleopatra II ruled Egypt after the reigns of her brothers Ptolemy VI Philometor and Ptolemy VIII Physcon, each of whom she married. Then there's Ptolemy I Soter and his four children Ptolemy Keraunos, king of Macedon, Meleager, also king of Macedon, Ptolemy II Philadelphus, king of Egypt, and Arsinoe II, queen regnant of Egypt, who married her brother Ptolemy and had children by him. Next up: Hecatomnus, king of Caria, was father of Mausolus, king of Caria, who of course married his sister (I find I'm weirding less and less) Artemisia II, later queen regnant of Caria. The Byzantine Emperor Arcadius and his wife Aelia Eudoxia were parents of Theodosius II and Pulcheria; Theodosius succeeded to the throne while still a child, but Pulcheria eventually became his regent and also proclaimed herself Empress. Finally, for the moment, Alfonso VIII of Castile and his wife Eleanor of England were succeeded by their son Henry I of Castile, but when he died without children his sister Berengaria became for a few weeks queen of Castile. --Antiquary (talk) 22:20, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

THank you one and all for those surprising answers. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 18:46, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

November 1

United Kingdom embassy not in commonwealth nations

Why United Kingdom doesn't have their embassy in former colonies like Maldives, Somalia, Dominica, Bahamas, Grenada, St. Kitts and Nevis, Lesotho, Kiribati, Nauru, Samoa, Tonga, Tuvalu and Vanuatu? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.95.107.236 (talk) 03:21, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

"Diplomatic missions between Commonwealth countries are designated as High Commissions rather than embassies." from our article. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:37, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Every nation does not necessarily maintain an embassy with every other nation in the world. In many cases, diplomatic missions are maintained by proxy with a nearby embassy. For example, the UK's diplomatic commissioner for the Bahamas resides in Kingston, Jamaica. Negotiations between the UK and the Bahamas can thus be initiated in Kingston, or in London, where the Bahamas does maintain an Embassy. See List of diplomatic missions in The Bahamas and List of diplomatic missions in the United Kingdom. --Jayron32 04:40, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Given the security situation in Somalia for the past two decades, I doubt any Western country has a resident Embassy there these days. The other countries mentioned are small island states, and in these days of budget restraints, it's not feasible to open an Embassy in every country, given relations are very limited, and the local population is often extremely small. --Xuxl (talk) 10:48, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

See also dual accreditation. Neutrality^talk 19:30, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Looking for a film

I'm looking for the title of an old film which AFAI can remember has some similarities with In Time (film). The protagonist is a young male, who through hard work and a considerable amount of luck gains a lot of time. His mother runs a shop and is facing bankruptcy and death. To save his mother he decides to travel to a mysterious place (at the end of some road) to speak with some powerful people in order to give his time to his mother. The guy who talks with him says that this request is unusual (most come to ask for more time = money), and that he will grant it. However a mutual girlfriend convinces the protagonist to change his mind. In the end he is present at his mother's funeral and gives a valuable necklace to two somewhat dimwitted friends, while he and the woman go away. That's all I can remember. Much obliged. Flamarande (talk) 04:29, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Subnational entities sharing names with their countries

How many subnational entities share their names with their countries? I'm only interested in first-level subdivisions (whether administrative subdivisions of unitary states or autonomous components of federal states), such as Île-de-France, the State of Mexico, and Western/South Australia. Nyttend (talk) 06:06, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

The Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina is one of the two constituent "entities" of Bosnia and Herzegovina (the other being Republika Srpska). Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 07:22, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Finland Proper has given its name to the whole of Finland. It is one of the historic provinces of Finland, now an administrative region.--Rallette (talk) 08:58, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

And then there's Schwyz.--Rallette (talk) 09:01, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Luxembourg. Not sure whether Buganda would count. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:20, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Four levels, in that case - Luxembourg (city), in Luxembourg (canton), in Luxembourg (district), in Luxembourg... Shimgray | talk | 18:34, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Why does tiny Luxembourg need four levels of localities? Is there a separate government at each level or are they just administrative divisions? -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:48, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Ukraine used to be known semi-formally as Little Russia, back when it was a part of Russia. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 09:53, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Monaco-Ville, sometimes called simply Monaco, is an administrative division of the nation of Monaco.

A little dubious, but the region Holland (now divided into North Holland and South Holland) is smaller than Holland-as-a-name-for-the-Netherlands. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:01, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

There's also Panamá Province in Panama. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:07, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

... and Djibouti. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:10, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

And Guatemala Department. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:11, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

At a stretch, Svealand and Bohemia (Čechy in Czech). The land of Svea, whence Svea rike, Sverige, and Sweden, is not today an administrative division except as the judicial district of the Svea Court of Appeal. Since 1973, HM the King is no longer Sveriges, Götes och Vendes Konung but simply Sveriges Konung - the Sverige in the old title meant Svealand, or "Sweden Proper". As for the Czech name of Bohemia, Čechy is the toponym, Česka in Česka Republika is an adjective.--Rallette (talk) 11:11, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Furthermore, the adjective "český" can mean either "Czech" or "Bohemian," a fact that has caused confusion on occasion. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:50, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

An asterisk for District of Columbia, as "Columbia" is an alternate name for "USA". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:43, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

• • A couple of clarifications, which I would have made last night if I'd not been so sleepy — (1) Only interested in current situations, so I'm not looking for Little Russia; (2) Only interested in official names, so not interested in Holland or DC. Thanks for everything so far; do we know of others? Nyttend (talk) 12:11, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Hmm? District of Columbia is the "official name" of the District of Columbia. --Trovatore (talk) 01:35, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Never mind; I see what you mean. I thought you were thinking the official name was Washington, which it's not. But what you meant was that Columbia is not the official name of the US, and that's certainly true. --Trovatore (talk) 01:38, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

If you extend it to countries taking their name from a city, then you can add Tunisia (Tunis), Algeria (Alger), and Morocco (from Marrakech). Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:18, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this counts, but São Tomé and Príncipe is divided into two provinces whose names you can probably guess. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:00, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, if we're going down that road, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland clearly takes its name from Northern Ireland.... Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:43, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Poland has the voivodeships Greater Poland and Lesser Poland. --Wrongfilter (talk) 15:38, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

The ancient port known to the Romans as Portus Cale gave its name first to the present-day city of Porto on the same site and to the County of Portugal, which later gave its name to the present-day country. Likewise, per Name of Canada, the native name Canada first applied to the area around present-day Quebec City, then to Canada, New France—the present-day province of Quebec, later to what are now Quebec and Ontario (the erstwhile Province of Canada, and finally to the entire country that carries the name today. Marco polo (talk) 18:40, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Here are several more. Austria takes its name from the March of Austria, a region that corresponds roughly to the present-day Austrian states of Upper Austria and Lower Austria. Panama takes its name from Panama City (lying within Panamá Province), Belize from Belize City (the capital of Belize District), the Dominican Republic from Santo Domingo (until recently the capital of Santo Domingo Province. Marco polo (talk) 18:54, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Mexico has State of Mexico. Belize has Belize District. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 20:47, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

An administrative division of Tonga (meaning "South") is called Tongatapu (meaning "Sacred South"). See also Table of administrative divisions by country. --Theurgist (talk) 01:32, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

San Marino has the City of San Marino as one of its municipalities (castelli). Interesingly, its not even the country's most populous. Neutrality^talk 19:32, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Countries where pay-first sit-down restaurants are the norm

In the United States, with the exception of buffet-style places like Golden Corral, Old Country Buffet etc. (except every Chinese buffet I've ever been to where I paid at the end of the meal), at sit-down restaurants (by that colloquial term, I exclude fast food restaurants despite the literal fact that some people do sit down there), it's pretty much universal that you pay at the end of your meal. I've never seen a non-buffet, non-fast food restaurant where you sit down, look at the menu, pick and pay for your food, then eat it and, if the service was good, leave a tip. Is there anywhere in the world where this is the norm? 20.137.18.53 (talk) 12:13, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

In Bolivia, and several other Latin American countries as well, it is quite standard that you approach a counter, pay for what you want (often set menus for lunch) and get a small paper ticket. The ticket is then given to a waiter who brings your food to your table. Tipping in these places is not very standard. Fancier places will have the eat first, pay later policy. --Soman (talk) 12:35, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

It's usual in British pubs that serve food (including full sit-down meals). While pubs are not officially restaurants (some British pubs have attached restaurants with the normal pay-after-eating procedure, and actual restaurants may include a bar theoretically available to non-diners), they may (or may not) fall into the same conceptual category for your purposes.

In a British pub, rather than offer a monetary tip (in connection with a meal or otherwise) the more usual custom - especially if one is a "regular" rather than a one-time visitor - is to invite the barman/maid (who is notionally or actually a friend rather than just a server), while ordering drinks etc, if he/she will "have one yourself," often by adding ". . . and one for yourself?" to one's order. This allows them to add the price of a reasonable drink (not, say, a treble whisky!) to the tariff and then either actually pour and drink it then and there, say they'll have it later (implying when less busy or after closing time) and do so, or simply take the sum in cash after closing (in a busy establishment staff may use beer-bottle caps or similar tokens to keep track of how much they're owed by the till at the end of the session).

If one wanted to tip someone (X) who brought the meal to the table, etc, but was not serving at the bar, one might similarly ask the bar person to "get one in for X". {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.254 (talk) 12:59, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I certainly don't think that inviting bar staff to have a drink is "usual custom" in the UK. It may be done occasionally (mostly, in my experience, by somewhat pompous older men), but it's no more "usual" than leaving a tip on the table or adding something to the total on the chip & pin machine. Most bar staff work too hard to have time for a drink, and have to stay sober, just as much as people working in any other job. Pubs these days usually offer you the choice of paying either when you order, or after you have eaten. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:12, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

My "usual" was intended to refer more to the practice of paying on ordering the meal, which is in my own experience (fairly wide, as a member of CAMRA and a sometime resident in or visitor to many different parts of the UK, and a barman myself in a few of them) more frequent than paying after eating, though as I attempted to convey paranthetically, summarising a gamut of different styles of establishment, paying afterwards may also be encountered.

As regards tipping bar staff and others by offering a notional drink (which as I tried to explain may often be taken as cash rather than in actual (alcoholic or soft) liquid form, though I regularly experience the latter) again this is customary behaviour by regulars in the majority of pubs I frequent, though of course it's not something one does at every order, or even on every visit. Perhaps, Ghmyrtle, we tend to frequent different styles of pub. I will cheerfully admit to being a man, old, and pompous, although I would prefer the term "courteous." {the poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.254 (talk) 13:40, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Man, old, pompous....... yup, that's me too.  ;-) Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:19, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Just to summarise the foregoing: in pubs in the UK and Ireland, you order and pay for your meal at the bar, then go and sit down - the meal is usually brought to you. Tipping is not obligatory, but you can leave coins on the table or ask the staff if they'd like a drink. Alansplodge (talk) 12:34, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I suppose in the end this comes down to your definition of fast food. I've been to plenty of places in the US — not "fast food" but not very fancy — where you pay at the register, take a ticket, wait for it to be brought to you (or for them to call out a number). Tipping not expected ("but always welcome!"). There are lots of Mexican places where this is quite common, just as an example. Is it fast food? Sure, I suppose, by definition — even if the food is pretty much exactly the same as what you'd get in another Mexican place down the road, where they have waiters that bring you the food and you pay afterwards. So I guess I'm sort of concluding that the definition of "fast food" is in part related to the order in which one pays. --Mr.98 (talk) 19:04, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I think the fast-food/non-fast-food distinction is in error. From a restaurant's point of view, if you are going to place an order for some food and what you order is all you will get, ask for the money up front. If you are going to possibly extend your order with more items such as drinks or desserts, ask for money when the meal is done. Adding to this, if you tend to get customers who run off without paying, ask for money up front (in the U.S., you can't simply ignore them or they will sue). If you have a captive group of customers, such as a resort where it is a pain to go elsewhere, you can hold the bill until the customers are getting ready to leave. That makes me think of a hotel I stayed at where all meals were just added to the tab and I paid when I checked out. -- kainaw™ 19:14, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I didn't understand what you meant by "you can't simply ignore them or they will sue". Who will sue whom, and for what cause ? StuRat (talk) 20:54, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Every couple years some restaurant chain in the U.S. is sued because they refused to serve some (fill in the oppressed minority here) people. -- kainaw™ 00:17, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Aah! I initially read you as meaning that some people will order food, eat it, run off without paying, and then sue the restaurant! {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.254 (talk) 14:46, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

My brother only gets a half hour for lunch, which is darned near impossible at most restaurants. He goes to Pizza Hut, which has a pizza buffet at lunch. He walks right in, grabs a slice and starts eating. They usually get around to giving him the bill while he's there (which he then pays immediately to the waitress), but, if not, he just walks out without paying. Note that if he had to wait in any type of line to pay (either before or after), lunch would go over the time limit. StuRat (talk) 20:54, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Why doesn't he go up to the counter to settle his bill? APL (talk) 02:42, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Because then he would have to wait in a long line and be late. StuRat (talk) 05:40, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I assume very common passive-aggressive behavior. Instead of complaining to his boss, he takes out his frustration over a short lunch on strangers at Pizza Hut. -- kainaw™ 02:56, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's a good idea to publish a statement on the internet that your brother routinely steals pizza... If he doesn't have time to wait for them to bring the bill, he could just leave the cash on the table (it sounds like he goes there quite often, so presumably he knows how much it is). Alternatively, if he doesn't have time to eat in a restaurant he could try not eating in a restaurant. He could bring a packed lunch from home, he could go to a sandwich bar, he could go to a fast-food vendor, etc.. A short lunch break is not a good excuse for stealing your lunch. --Tango (talk) 12:13, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

So called "fast food" places like McDonald's tend to be slower, due to long lines at lunchtime. That's why he likes Pizza Hut's pizza buffet, no need to wait in a long line (if they bring him the bill and collect at the table in a timely manner) or wait for food to be prepared. StuRat (talk) 05:47, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Are things really that bad during lunch hour in the US? 30 minutes isn't that long but from my experience is more then doable even if you have to go somewhere. It seems to me if it takes him 8 minutes to and back from the place and 8 minutes to eat, he still has 14 minutes to que up to order, pay and receive his order. I'm surprised that it routinely takes more than 14 minutes at all fast food places in the US even during lunch hour. If it takes more then 8 minutes to walk there and back (please don't tell me he's driving), then even more reason to bring a packed lunch. Even ignoring the ethics, it seems to me to be a bad idea to routinely steal food from the same outlet, even if it's during a lunch hour rush there's a fair chance ultimately someone will notice and if he goes there all the time, tracking him down isn't going to be too hard. Of course as others have suggested, there are other options then bring a packed lunch and find a place that works better, like negotiating a longer lunch break or even trying to work out a deal with the Pizza Hut where he pays for the meals at some other time or way. I do agree with Tango on another point and this reminds me of someone else on the RD, remember it's one thing to reveal details about yourself, another to reveal details about others, are you sure your brother would be happy with you telling everyone on the internet he routinely steals food? Don't assume you aren't identifable just because you use a pseudonym. Nil Einne (talk) 11:32, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, he's driving. You have to understand that few people have a restaurant in walking distance here (partly because restaurants tend to clump together, probably due to zoning laws). He would ride his bike, but there's no way he could do that in time. As for the pizza police rappelling out of their black helicopters and smashing through his windows, that's a risk he'll just have to take. :-) StuRat (talk) 03:37, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I was about to make the same points as Tango. A packed lunch would also be healthier and less stressful. Alternatively, he could speak to the other employees, or his trade union (if he has one) about jointly approaching the boss about negotiating a change to the working conditions. If there's give and take in the suggestion, most employers would be pleased to have happier staff, who'll work better and more productively, not slag off their business to friends and won't need expensive/inconvenient replacement every so often. --Dweller (talk) 12:20, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Presumably when they get round to bringing him the bill for last week's pizza, he will cheerfully pay them.  Card Zero  (talk) 18:44, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

You see it a lot in asian restaurants/diners (particularly Chinese, Japanese, Korean). I noticed it when I lived in Sydney, and even more so now I am living in Singapore. I went to places like that in China and Japan too. Ballchef (talk) 15:41, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Presidential Visits in the Year before an Election in the US?

Are there records of how many times a presidential candidate has visited a state in the year before an election for the past several elections? --CGPGrey (talk) 14:53, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Fair Vote had a Campaign Tracker listing visits during the 2008 campaign. They also do an ongoing Presidential Tracker. I'm not aware of a list of visits for the year prior to an election. Dalliance (talk) 20:19, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

List of all US cities with a population over 10,000?

Is there a list of all US cities with a population over 10,000? Wikipedia only lists over 100,000 and I can't find the answer on the census site. --CGPGrey (talk) 15:19, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Wilipedia's List of lists of settlements in the United States might help, but it is not quite what you asked for. Dbfirs 16:05, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Such a list would be unweildy; there would be thousands of settlements whose population exceeded 10,000 people. --Jayron32 17:54, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Unwieldiness is a relative concept. One could argue having a collection of almost 4 million articles on notable subjects (and that's just in one language) is out of the question because it would be impossibly unwieldy. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 19:10, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

In that case, the OP could simply start at Category:Populated places in the United States and go through each article individually and find the ones with more than 10,000 people. I certainly would find such an endeavour "unweildy", but since you Jack do not, perhaps you Jack could do this for the OP? --Jayron32 19:13, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

That would be unwieldy, but that's not the same as generating a list automatically, which could surely be done easily with access to the database and some scripts. (Easiness is, of course, also a relative concept.) Adam Bishop (talk) 19:36, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

See http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=471319 for old data.

—Wavelength (talk) 19:55, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I can't find the info on the census bureau site either, but printed versions of the World Almanac and Book of Facts, among other such reference works, have long featured such a list - taken from Census Bureau data. Textorus (talk) 21:53, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Looks like you'll have to go into the raw data, download each state individually and pick them out. Or just e-mail the census and ask if they have it all in a single file. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:38, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

See https://ask.census.gov/app/ask.

—Wavelength (talk) 00:54, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

If it is important to be a list of cities and not, say, towns, there are plenty of incorporated towns with a population larger than 10,000. Danvers, Massachusetts, is the first example that comes to mind. Just something to consider. I think the best way to find an answer is to use the Census's "ask a question" link Wavelength posted. Pfly (talk) 02:00, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

The Census Bureau refers to cities and villages as "places" and entities like Massachusetts towns as "minor civil subdivisions." The problem is the bureau also counts unincorporated communities known as CDPs with "places," so a list of "places" will have both incorporated municipalities and places that aren't incorporated. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:34, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

See census-designated place and minor civil division ("division", not "subdivision"); if you want municipalities only, you're not going to count anything in Hawaii except Honolulu, since it doesn't have cities in the sense that the other 49 states do. All New England towns and towns in New York and Wisconsin are minor civil divisions, as are townships in every state that has them as a functioning unit of government; see Civil township. Nyttend (talk) 01:18, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Feminism

Why do feminists think that it's okay to oppress men? Isn't feminism just as sexist as misogyny? --207.160.233.153 (talk) 20:16, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Isn't your premise somewhat flawed? -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 20:46, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Isn't their main belief that women are better than men? --207.160.233.153 (talk) 20:47, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Isn't that something you've picked up from gossip, and not something that's actually supported by the facts? -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 20:49, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Or from listening to Rush Limbaugh too much. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:20, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

To make it clear for the OP, the basic tenets of feminism is essentially identical to gender equality; that is women should be given the same rights and privileges as men and should not be singled out or treated inferior merely for their gender. To be fair to the OP, there is a term called Misandry which may be what the OP is talking about; but misandry as an actual political or social movement, while it does exist, represents the Lunatic fringe of feminism; the vast majority of people who self-idenitify as feminist are merely interested in eliminating gender discrimination against women and do not feel that either gender is inherently "superior". --Jayron32 22:47, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Also to be fair to the OP, "feminism" is a misleading word. Communism means "supporting Communists", racism means "supporting only one race", and nationalism means "supporting only one nation"; linguistically, there's no reason why feminism doesn't mean "supporting only females". --140.180.14.123 (talk) 01:08, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

But, it doesn't mean supporting until they become the dominant gender. 88.9.210.218 (talk) 01:59, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

See Category:Male feminists.

—Wavelength (talk) 03:12, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

207.160.233.153 -- The people who hold such beliefs as you mention call themselves "Female supremacists", and tend to look down with disdain at mere feminists. What Wikipedia has on this is at Matriarchy#In feminist thought. Meanwhile, as Rebecca West may have said, "I only know that people call me a feminist whenever I express sentiments that differentiate me from a doormat or a prostitute." -- AnonMoos (talk) 14:45, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Obama Zombie and similar past incidents

Hello,

I was reading an article on the Obama zombie incident (article here: http://newsfeed.time.com/2011/11/01/republicans-criticize-local-gop-group-for-obama-zombie-depiction/) and was wondering if other similar incidents of this nature have occurred in the past (towards a president from either party). I suspect there have been, but have had a hard time finding any. Thank you in advance for your help. Marcus Lupus (talk) 22:32, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

What kind of parallels are you looking for? That is, what parts of this incident are you looking for similarities to? --Jayron32 22:38, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

You did have some Bush-as-a-vampire imagery while he was president — e.g. [18]. It's of a mostly different character than the "Obama zombie" stuff, though definitely not flattering. I don't think it was sent around by actual organs of the Democratic Party, though. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:11, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, imagery suggesting violence towards the president. It's not something one sees all to often, so I thought I'd ask whether there were past incidents (even the fast hundred or so years...). Marcus Lupus (talk) 00:20, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

[19] here's one. The sad thing is, the news reports at the time presented the graphic as an example of free speech ... meanwhile the secret service was getting the guy fired, at which point the site was shut down. (It seems to be one of their top skills) Wnt (talk) 02:28, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually the article doesn't describe the existance of any actual imagery of violence towards the US President. There was violent imagery for several people including Bob Dole (who was never president even if running to be one at the time) and Boris Yeltsin (who was the President of Russia at the time but never the US). The source also mentions the artist was considering adding Bill Clinton, and perhaps he did (although perhaps the site was shut down before he got round to it), but your source obviously doesn't establish he did. It may also be there was someone else in the list who was a president of the US but again, not mentioned in your source. Nil Einne (talk) 03:13, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Baby Bush was the butt of many violent depictions. For example, one artist made mock U.S. stamps that showed Bush with a gun to his head. The main difference is that when Bush was depicted in this way, the response was that he deserved it for being Republican. When Obama is depicted as a zombie, the response from both Republicans and Democrats was that it was in bad taste and should not happen ever again. -- kainaw™ 02:37, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

While there may be a difference in the way violent depictions of Bush were treated, I don't think the examples you've given show that. As Mr.98 mention and the source says, the example of the Obama zombie was from a GOP group, so Republicans had no choice to respond (and the media probably specifically asked them) to make it clear this was just one isolated group and not supported by most Republicans. The Bush stamp thing which was investigated by the Secret Service [20] [21], was my some random artist who's ties to any party don't seem to be mentioned and even if he was a member of the Democratic party, he was clear doing it as an individual so there was no point for people in either of the 2 major parties in the US to respond (and from what I can tell they didn't) and most likely the media never asked for a response. Nil Einne (talk) 03:04, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

It's not hard to find overreactions to presidential death images from previous administrations. Here's a story about the secret service investigating a high school student's t-shirt. APL (talk) 03:27, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I think the distinction of "random depiction" versus "a depiction sent out through official party channels" is a pretty big one. You can find a lot of individual nuts in the world, nobody doubts that. But for a nutty idea to be given some semblance of validity through official political channels is a pretty different situation. --Mr.98 (talk) 11:59, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Not violent and not a president but the painting of Harold Washington entitled Mirth & Girth might be worth a look. Washington was the mayor of Chicago. Dismas|^(talk) 03:40, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

November 2

bairum khan...of iran

GOOD morning sir, myself KADIR KHAN,from mumbai,india First of all i really thank you and wikipedia.org that they provide us with the column that we can ask question to it.

I want information about Bairum khan,who once upon a time a great soldier and commander,in one of the rule of the then king of iran .But i am not getting any information about him.I know only few things that,he was a great commamnder and soldier in army and once he had won a great fight,due to which his king got very happy and he rewarded him to go along with his family and stay in india,on which he came to india and resided in uttar pradesh,india..being i stay in India i cannot go iran and go on for so long search.it will be time consuming for me.also i am busy person with my studies..my parents had once told me this true story.. \ please sir will you help me,by searching this information..i love history.. [contact information removed] THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.97.140.126 (talk) 04:06, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

There's a short but decent article about him at Wikipedia, but it appears you just misspelled his name. See Bairam Khan. The article also has lots of references and additional reading, so if you can located those sources you can find more information about him. --Jayron32 04:24, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I found some information in The Cambridge History of Indua on Google books (I hope you can see it too, as different results are sometimes shown in different countries). You may be able to find a copy of this book in a public library. Alansplodge (talk) 09:01, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Liliuokalani on film

Was Queen Liliuokalani of Hawaii ever filmed on camera? It wouldn't have been in her reign but she did live till 1917.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 06:05, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Like these? Clarityfiend (talk) 09:42, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm assuming that you mean a moving image? There doesn't seem to be anything online.Alansplodge (talk) 09:45, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes moving pictures.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 23:49, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

IMDb only credits her for her songs, mostly "Aloha ʻOe" (as opposed to someone like Mark Twain, who has two acting credits). Clarityfiend (talk) 10:11, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

One Twain credit seems to be a mistake. Clarityfiend (talk) 18:53, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I've found a clip of it on youtube but here at 1.57 but does anyone know about the moment these two clips were taken and who she was with.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 23:49, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Clerical dress question

I was watching the old ATV adaptation of the Father Brown stories the other night. Kenneth More as Father Brown dresses always in some kind of cassock, with a sort of very short cape which only reaches to the elbows (picture). Can anyone tell me the name for this kind of garment? Marnanel (talk) 09:24, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

That would be a mozzetta. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:40, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I quote from the Mozzetta article: "A shoulder cape, elbow-length like the mozzetta but open in front, is sometimes worn with the cassock, either fixed to it or detachable. It is known as a pellegrina. It differs from the mozzetta also in not being associated with a cotta, surplice or rochet". Alansplodge (talk) 09:50, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

How many Hail Mary's must I say? Clarityfiend (talk) 10:05, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I only got there by following your link. I can do traditional Anglican kit, but Catholics have a whole lot more in their wardrobe, and Italian styling too! Alansplodge (talk) 10:40, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Ulster Resistance

What was the point of the Ulster Resistance thing? Why did someone feel that yet another loyalist paramilitary was needed instead of just, say, strengthen the UDA? I heard Ian Paisley supported the movement at first but when he "realized" it was violent in nature he retracted his support. Our article about them doesn't say much. --Belchman (talk) 11:02, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

What is the need for any new "splinter group". Obviously, the people who formed the Ulster Resistance opposed some fundemental philosophy in the UDA. This isn't a novel event, in many paramilitary groups this sort of thing happens all the time. You'll also note that besides the Ulster Resistance and UDA, there is also the Ulster Volunteer Force and the whole bunch listed at Ulster loyalism. See List of organisations known as the Irish Republican Army for a list of similar splinter groups. --Jayron32 13:19, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Ulster Resistance came about in the wake of the Anglo-Irish Agreement. It was an umbrella organisation comprising many leading Unionist politicians and religious leaders. The UDA was already an unwieldy, cumbersome organisation, with its many brigades. It often carried out bloody feuds with the UVF. Ulster Resistance served to bring in all loyalist groups and leaders.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:38, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

So it wasn't really a paramilitary organization —at first—, but a loyalist umbrella group to plan the loyalists' reaction to the Anglo-Irish Agreement (more or less), right? --Belchman (talk) 13:53, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

It was a paramilitary organisation.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:01, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

From the very beginning? Ian Paisley says he didn't know that —which is kind of difficult to believe, but whatever—. --Belchman (talk) 15:14, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

This article from the Belfast Telegraph may be of interest to you: "A Spectre From the Past Back to Haunt Peace". Belfast Telegragh--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:33, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Grim, indeed. --Belchman (talk) 16:09, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

The Pythons gave us some hilarious satire on splinter groups (socialist groups, to be fair). See Monty_Python's_Life_of_Brian#Political_satire. --Rixxin (talk) 11:07, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Contemporary autodidacts

Please name some contemporary autodidacts such as Eliezer Yudkowsky. --Toiuyty (talk) 11:15, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Most people are somehow autodidacts nowadays, but you seem to be searching for someone without formal education and with a successful career. 88.9.210.218 (talk) 11:34, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes. --Toiuyty (talk) 11:46, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Or maybe you want to know about school drop-outs who became successful? It's not rare to find self-made men in some fields like business. Many people like Bill Gates or Steve Jobs apparently didn't get any business formal education and only a little college exposure. 88.9.210.218 (talk) 14:10, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Though being a drop-out is pretty different from being an autodidact. Getting into the position to become a drop-out usually requires substantial formal learning, and exposure to college can be as valuable as the actual education. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:44, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

The other major problem is that most modern developed societies have full compulsory education though someone's late teens, and most of those also offer free post-secondary education for people who show the right apptitude for it, making it rare for a person who was raised in a developed nation to have avoided exposure to some level of advanced education. Presupposing the objections to this analysis, I will remind all people that the word "rare" is not a synonym for impossible, so I expect it does happen, just not as commonly as it used to. The OP can likely find people they are looking for at the article List of autodidacts. --Jayron32 16:20, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

It's a difficult thing to find out about, because in the modern age (where policitians are castigated if they don't put on a show of providing education for all) it's quite easy to be handed a structured education, whether at school or at university, even if you actually found the structure useless and took the initiative. (I see Jayron has just said much the same thing.) Searching for "did poorly at school", I came up with Jack Russell Weinstein, who "was able to pursue his long-held interests in reading, writing, and learning in the free university environment". I also found Arran Fernandez, who is extraordinarily precocious and passed a mathematics exam at age five. Does he structure his education himself? I'm not sure how to determine that.  Card Zero  (talk) 17:02, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

N.K.B.

Old New York Times Book Reviews are sometimes signed "N.K.B", such as this review from 1947. What is the full name of this reviewer? Viriditas (talk) 12:21, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Nash K. Burger, one of the editors of The New York Times Book Review. Adam Bishop (talk) 12:55, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! Viriditas (talk) 13:02, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

"Phaedon" in Moby Dick

In chapter 35 of Moby Dick, Melville writes:

And let me in this place movingly admonish you, ye shipowners of Nantucket! Beware of enlisting in your vigilant fisheries any lad with lean brow and hollow eye; given to unseasonable meditativeness; and who offers to ship with Phaedon instead of Bowditch in his head.

I know that Bowditch is the famous navigator, but who is Phaedon? Wikipedia finds several people with that name, none of whom seem to make sense here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.107.0.112 (talk) 17:46, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

This essay on the relationship between Herman Melville's writing and the US Civil War says: "Ishmael's deft contrast between Phaedo, Plato's great dialogue on the immortality of the soul, and Nathaniel Bowditch's New American Practical Navigator (1802) is but one indication of Melville's juxtaposition of the philosophical problem of the nature of the soul, with all its attendant implications for the best political regime, and the utterly practical problem of how to find one's way on the vast expanses of the ocean and thus to safety at last by returning to the shelter of political society." (p.202 - 203 or 11/104) I'm not much wiser after that, but at least we know who Phaedon is. Alansplodge (talk) 18:08, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I wonder if it isn't an alternative or misspelling of Phaeton, the reckless driver of Apollo's chariot (and not somebody you'd want at the head of your boat). Probably not, though, given the above. The more I read it, the more I think it's basically saying, "don't trust your boats to someone who reads philosophy rather than practical boatsmanship." Which seems like good advice... --Mr.98 (talk) 19:10, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Unlikely (your first thought, that is), because the same passage continues: ""Beware of such an one, I say: your whales must be seen before they can be killed; and this sunken-eyed young Platonist will tow you ten wakes round the world, and never make you one pint of sperm the richer" (my emboldening). This confirms his reference to Plato. Now, I'm sure an otherwise respectable editor is at this very instant itching to make a gag about the "pint of sperm", so I'll yield to the inevitable. Alansplodge (talk) 21:29, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. (Coincidentally, I've been reading Moby Dick myself lately, though I haven't gotten quite that far. It's really a marvelous book. I had been put off by its "mandatory reading" status, but it's far more entertaining, funny, and cleverly written than I had expected.) --Mr.98 (talk) 11:48, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Alansplodge, you've hit the nail squarely on the head. Bowditch refers to Nathaniel Bowditch's The American Practical Navigator. An updated version is still published by the DMA's Hydrographic/Topographic Center, and it remains a well known book among modern sailors who refer to it simply as "Bowditch" or as "Publication Number 9". (As I type this, both volumes are within arms reach on the port bookcase.) Likewise, Phaedon refers to Plato's dialog Phaedo (Greek: Φαίδων, Phaidon), named after Phaedo of Elis. Thus the line from Moby Dick is telling ship owners to sign on sailors who have studied the practical arts of sailing and navigation, not those contemplative souls who have studied philosophy (just as Mr. 98 wrote). -- ToE^T 00:47, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Melville places a lot of imagery into Moby Dick which exemplifies the painting of School of Athens by Raphael. You will notice that the Ishmael character goes to great length discussing the practical reality of whaling. There are several chapters, a little fantastic, which describe this. We learn that whales use their tails to feel out the bottom of the sea according to Ishmael. Also, sailors are paid according to their ability with a cannibal receiving one of the larger shares due to his immense skill as a harpooner. These descriptions are to be contrasted with Ahab's description of the Great Whale: a supernatural force of evil and the social and racial inequalities of the time. The chapter in question deals a lot with the superstition of the masthead. When we read this book, many years ago, we memorized four poems and recited them as class opened: Sea Fever by John Masefield[22], The World Is Too Much with Us by William Wordsworth, Once by the Pacific by Robert Frost[23], and excerpts of the The Rime of the Ancient Mariner by Samuel Taylor Coleridge. Besides overwhelming students with literature, the point was to show the students that the myths that we placed on the sea drew a contrast to the practical. The contrast of Plato pointing up and Aristotle with his hand outstretched over the ground is played out in Moby Dick and in the poems mentioned. In the context of the times, America was in the midst of the industrial revolution; its effect was decried in the Wordsworth poem in the English context. Melville presents us with both views in The School of Athens which exemplified the philosophical challenges in a world he found was rapidly becoming modern. There are other deep contrasts in the book: a golden doubloon embedded in the mast represents the practical implications of finding Moby Dick and material rather than a spiritual reward. In contrast, the coin contains astrological symbols representing fate, the supernatural, and the power beyond the physical realm. The coin's symbols are similar to Queequeg's tattoos. (yar, here be spoilers!) He later inscribes these on his coffin when he believes he is fated to die (showing a connection between finding the whale and his death all part of the ship’s fate). That coffin then serves a practical use in storing his belongings and saving a life. The particular passage in question in chapter 35 is yet another example of the character of Ishmael, representing the modern practical sailor of Aristotle, contrasting the superstitious, romantic, and Platonic sailor who reads much more into a wooden carving. Hopefully, that should be a sufficient star to steer her by for our inquirer to write a paper. Gx872op (talk) 17:24, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

The inherent bias of public opinions

Hello,

I'm am writing an essay about my skepticism about the notion that ideology was the main reason behind the conflict between the Soviet Union and the United States during the Cold War, as it is generally (and nearly universally) assumed by the historiographic scholarship of the era. I'm mostly having an issue with John Lewis Gaddis' work, who purports that the legitimacy of the Soviet memos that he had access to is irrefutable proof that 1) the Soviet leadership strongly believed in communism, and 2) since strong belief in something leads to proselytizing, imperialism was unexpected. (however Gaddis also notes that the U.S wasn't really a Saint, either; but that's beyond the point)

However, how does one know that what the Soviet leadership wrote was sincere? It's frigging words. They're dead, and even if they weren't, they could still be lying. That's like when politicians claim that they are very saddened by events; how does one know that they are actually disturbed, and not playing a game due to peer pressure? Further, assuming that the politicians know that some day it is highly likely that what they're writing will be unveiled to the public, they're probably taking extra care for the sake of their historical posterity. let's say that Khrushchev wrote in a memo "America must be destroyed. The Motherland is awesome". How does one know that Mr. Khrushchev was not playing ta game for the sake of power (i.e. for the chicks) and not a closeted liberal? Has there been any scholarship done on such a subject? Like, I don't know, the bias of historical documents. 184.163.160.61 (talk) 18:30, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree with your premise that nearly all scholarship of the era claims that ideology was the main reason behind the conflict. In fact I don't think I have never run into any scholarship that claimed ideology was the main reason for the conflict. Neither of the current main works of the history of the 20th century, like Tony Judts Postwar, Mark Mazowers Dark Continent or Eric Hobsbawms Age of Extremes, claim that ideology is the main reason. --Saddhiyama (talk) 18:36, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

On your general point, there is definitely a line of criticism that suggests that the obsession with archival findings (as opposed to intangibles) is a basic part of historical methodology. In the end there is an insurmountable gulf when one discusses the internal states of human beings. We do our best to navigate around it — any such approaches must be theories at best. The question is whether the theory matches up with the indisputable things. It would be a fair criticism to say that Gaddis uses official documents to derive internal states of being, and this is no doubt as false as doing so today would with regards to official press statements. By itself that's not enough, though — you'd want to push the alternative as well and show how it could be acceptable given said documents.

As for historiography, Gaddis is something of a revisionist, so attributing the majority point of view to him is wrong. Gaddis pushes ideology in particular as a way to revise the pre-1990s view of the Cold War as just realpolitik. Gaddis is saying, no, ideology was important too. Whether one agrees or disagrees with that, it's important to situate Gaddis correctly. He is important and a major figure, but he's not what I would call representative of the general historiography of the Cold War. --Mr.98 (talk) 19:18, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I suppose one could try to understand what people really believed by looking at their non-public works, such as their diaries or personal letters. Granted, no one among the Soviet nomenklatura was going to leave a diary saying "I hate Stalin" around or something. The KGB didn't ask for search warrants. But I did see an interview with Khrushchev's son Sergei in which he says his father really believed in communism, and I see no reason not to believe him. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:31, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

In the end it's a judgment call. Part of what it means to be a real historian is to learn enough of the facts and context to be able to interpret actions, letters, utterances, etc. A huge amount of historical practice is judging which sources are the most reliable, and making sense of the genuinely contradictory nature of real-life human beings. There is always some unknown there. I'm glad for it — it makes being an historian interesting, and it means there are always a lot of new things to be found, interpreted, understood. History has always straddled the boundary between the social sciences and the humanities; I lean towards the humanities personally, recognizing that there is a great deal of art to it. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:16, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

You could look for Western appreciations of Soviet theory of international politics from the era; but, you'd be arguing that Soviet theory actually influenced practice. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:09, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with your skepticism in believing the words of politicians. I would judge them by their actions, not their words. Did these "communists" actually work for the equality of all or just use that as a pretext to accumulate riches and power unto themselves ? StuRat (talk) 03:08, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Eeesh, this could lead to some rather conflicted results. While Soviet policy within its current sphere of influence was defined by obvious and immediate support for bastards in almost all instances (Kadar at the head of an "anti-party bloc" over Nagy at the head of a bunch of reformists with broad worker's councils support for example; for the counter, consider the removal of Rakosi); in the case of Soviet support for agents outside the Soviet sphere of influence, for example with the Vietnamese Workers' Party this is less clear, as it is only possible to untangle the revolutionary current from the nomenklatura current in the mid 1970s. An equivalent analysis of the United States would leave us with a similarly schizoid power that acts with apparent altruism at times (Suez), merely lobbies for its ridiculous policies in some allies' public sphere (Encounter Quadrant), but in other cases engages in acts of mass barbarity for the most trivial reasons only rivalled by the other great powers' own trivial mass barbarity of the day. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:12, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Im confused by one thing - why do you say imperialism was unexpected? Is this confusing ideology with idealism, or have I missed something? It is possible to believe in communism as a system, but not be sincerely egalitarian, or share too much common ground with Marx. It's been emotional (talk) 02:29, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I suppose it's possible to really believe that true communism can work, yet still only give it lip service as a means to establish yourself as an absolute dictator. This would seem more likely early on, before the shortcomings of communism became apparent. Later communist leaders must have been fully aware that true communism would never work, yet still used it as a means of controlling the masses. Then there's the case of the leader who is a true believer at first, but, once they figure out it will never work, then decide to use it for their own purposes, instead of to benefit their people. StuRat (talk) 18:15, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Small c-Conservative and large c conservative

What is the difference between small-c conservative and large-c conservative? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.89.43.151 (talk • contribs)

It depends on your political context (politics is relative to the political system you are working in). I see from your IP address that you appear to be editing from Canada, I apologize in advance if you are not, but I will make my answer based on that assumption. In that case, the difference is likely between people who self-identify as "political conservatives" (see Conservatism) and people who are members of, and/or self-identify with the Conservative Party of Canada. A small-c conservative would be someone who supports political conservatism as a concept, but does not belong to or support the Conservative Party of Canada. A large-c Conservative would be a person who was a member/direct supporter of the Conservative Party of Canada. The difference would be between a person holding a particular ideology and belonging to a specific political party. Usually, someone who specifically calls themselves a "small-c conservative" is saying they adhere to the ideology of conservatism, but for whatever reason are distancing themselves from the Conservative Party. --Jayron32 19:24, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Also, see Small-c conservative. --Jayron32 19:29, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Richard Armour once defined "conservative" as "a man who saves his money (even before women and children)." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:27, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Red grit and blue grit

Is there such thing as red grit and blue grit in Canadian politics? what about blue tory and red tory?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.89.43.151 (talk • contribs)

See Blue Tory and Red Tory for the different strains of Conservatism in Canada. There are no "Blue Grits" and "Red Grits" because the Liberal Party of Canada has not had the same sort of shake-up and division that the Tories have had. The distinction between the reds and the blues among Canadian Tories has to do with the way in which divisions arose within the Conservative Party (or parties, there have been several splits and mergers over history) over fundemental ideology. It appears that the distinction came about in the 1960s, per info in some of these articles. --Jayron32 19:37, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

The term "Blue Liberals" has sometimes been used to describe centrist members of the Liberal Party. For those unfamiliar with the topic, members of the Canadian Liberal Party are knowns as "grits" for some reason. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:12, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I sometimes wondered about that. It seems the name came from a predecessor of the Liberal Party, the Clear Grits. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:29, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

England political conservative and liberal areas

Which parts of England are conservative due to history of Conservative Party traditional strongholds and which parts of England are liberal due to history of Labour Party traditional stronghold?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.89.43.151 (talk • contribs)

You can find a map of the most recent election by constituency at United Kingdom general election, 2010 and you can also work backwards to previous elections using the navigation tools at the top of the infobox in that article for similar maps. Going just by the 2010 election, the three main parties appear to be arranged on a rural/urban distinction: Labour won most of the seats in urban districts (the red bits on the map are concentrated near the largest urban areas like London, Merseyside, Birmingham, Manchester, Newcastle, the Edinburgh/Glasgow axis in Scotland, South Wales which has many of the urban areas in Wales) while the Conservatives seem concentrated away from those urban centers. The Liberal Democrats seemed to take sizable numbers of seats in the Scottish highlands, in the Southwest, and in Central Wales. The balance of the seats seems to mostly consist of the Nationalist parties like the Scottish National Party, Plaid Cymru, various Irish national parties in N. Ireland, etc. There are also a few random seats from various minor parties. --Jayron32 20:02, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Do note that the Labour Party are historically socialist, rather than liberal. You may be thinking of the Liberal Party or the Liberal Democrats. Or you may have confused liberalism with the left wing. Marnanel (talk) 21:16, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

To add to the above, generally it's the industrial or formerly-industrial areas like Merseyside, Tyneside, and parts of the Midlands and Yorkshire that were traditionally liberal or left-wing. In the 19th century, Whigs and Liberals were associated with Manchester and Liverpool, the West Midlands, and other areas of early industrialisation; the newly wealthy industrialists were in conflict with the Tories who got their wealth from land rather than manufacture, and who had their power base in the more rural areas and the south-east. The strong working-class culture of trades-unionism, particularly in mining and heavy industries like steel and ship-building, had close links to the Labour party; these were generally based in the north and midlands (where there was coal, water, iron ore, etc). London has traditionally been more mixed, with lots of wealth, but also poverty, immigrants, and some industry. The countryside and farmers in particular have always been Conservative supporters (for various, not always obvious, reasons). The south-west (Cornwall and Devon) has a strong history of Liberalism rather than socialism through the 20th century, often returning Liberal and Liberal Democrat MPs; I'm not so sure why this is, but it probably reflects an independence of spirit and localism. --Colapeninsula (talk) 21:21, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Independence of spirit and localism yes, but also chapel: church is Tory ("The Church of England is the Tory party at prayer"), chapel is Liberal. DuncanHill (talk) 21:52, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Not so much now - more the bane of the Conservative Party. The Dean of St Paul's Cathedral invited anti-capitalist protesters to camp out in the forecourt[24] and the Archbishop of Canterbury (who was once arrested at a US airbase on a CND protest) said this week that bankers should be taxed more[25]. Then there was the Faith in the City thing in the 1980s that riled Mrs Thatcher so. Alansplodge (talk) 22:12, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't describe anything about the Labour party being particularly liberal. Bunch of statist control freaks is the description you're looking for.

ALR (talk) 22:17, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not going to comment on your soapboxing, but the person asking the question is from Canada, where "liberal" can mean "left of center," as opposed to "libertarian." -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:09, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Liberalism and Libertarianism are themselves quite different, although there is a more Libertarian wing within the Liberal Democrat Party, as there is in the Conservative Party. Equally neither of those would compare to the flavour of libertarianism in North America.

There is a very small liberal wing within the Labour Party, although predominantly present in the Co-Operative Party element there. They've certainly not been particularly prominent in the last 13 years.

ALR (talk) 11:12, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

The debate on the political complexion of Labor generally accepts that Labour has always been multifaceted. Why the ILP ran a strong socialist line in early labour, the majority of labour were lib-labs with a liberal or at best "Labourite" mentality of social progress. The role of nationalisation and universal welfare in labour were hotly contested, especially from working class areas satisfied with working men's welfare. The emergence of a concept of labour as nationalisation and universal welfare came relatively late in British Labour due to a strong lib-lab influence, and due to confusion over whether nationalisation actually meant socialism (a thing many labourites opposed). So while it is more than a little silly to call Labour voters in the UK "Liberal" from a US perspective, when "Labourite" represents a long running ideology of social welfare in British society and is the term of art often used in political analysis of the Anglophone labour parties... the UK Liberal mentality had a long standing influence on Labour through the lib-labs. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:04, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Which cities of England liberal and conservative?

Which cities of England are liberal and which cities of England are conservative?

Your use of these terms in opposition suggests that you are from the U.S., where these terms refer roughly to "left-wing" and "right-wing" respectively. From a U.S. perspective, all but a tiny handful of Britons would be considered "liberal", so your question doesn't have much meaning. All English cities are liberal from a U.S. perspective. Marco polo (talk) 20:32, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

right wing and left wing france

Which part of France has been traditionally left wing stronghold (e.g. Socialist Party) and which part of France has been traditionally right wing stronghold (e.g. UMP, and its predecessors)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.89.43.151 (talk) 20:07, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

The maps in the article French presidential election, 2007 should give you an idea. Also in the French wiki article there are some maps and a table "Analyse socioprofessionnelle" at the bottom of how different employment groups voted. Sussexonian (talk) 20:45, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

In recent years the east and north have voted conservative, while the more rural south and west are more left-wing.[26][27] However, 30 years ago things were a bit different with the industrial north-east and the area around Marseille (traditionally popular with immigrants and full of shipworkers) left-wing or even communist.[28][29] Lately Marseille seems to have gone more towards the National Front. --Colapeninsula (talk) 21:34, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Several of the Département d'outre-mer are traditional communist strongholds, such as Reunion, Martinique and Guadeloupe. Also, there are several municipalities in the north and north-east of the Paris region, that are communist strongholds, were you find schools and streets named after Rosa Luxemburg, Karl Marx, etc.. --Soman (talk) 13:07, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

French cities liberal and conservative

Which cities of France are liberal and which cities of France are conservative?

Your use of these terms in opposition suggests that you are from the U.S., where these terms refer roughly to "left-wing" and "right-wing" respectively. From a U.S. perspective, all but a tiny handful of Europeans would be considered "liberal", so your question doesn't have much meaning. All French cities are liberal from a U.S. perspective. Marco polo (talk) 20:31, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

How can I go about researching the Hobby Horse for an article I need to write on wikipedia for class?

Besides utilizing my school library and google, where else is good to look? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MYoung1030 (talk • contribs) 22:09, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Please have a look at our Hobby horse (disambiguation) page and let us know what sort of hobby horse you would like to know about. Alansplodge (talk) 22:35, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Assuming you mean hobby horse, we already have an article on that. If you want to add to it, perhaps you could call toy stores and antiques dealers and see if any of them have one you can take a picture of, and then upload that picture to Wikipedia (which would require scanning, if it's a film picture). StuRat (talk) 02:54, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Leaving the euro

I'm seeing articles that Greece could leave the euro.[30] (Also mentioned at Greek_financial_crisis#Objections_to_proposed_policies) Question is... how does that work in practice? It seems to me that anyone in Greece, knowing the local currency would be destined to lose most of its value, would stick to using euros at all costs. So how do they switch? Wnt (talk) 22:31, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Whooo-hoo! Greece goes back on the dollar? Yeah! Helen never looked so good. USA! Dualus (talk) 23:08, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Helen was said to have weighed in the neighborhood of 200 pounds. However, that was Troy weight. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:25, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe they would let people a chance to keep using the euro. They would declare a bank holiday and force convert all assets. Or simply introduce the new currency and start paying all civil servants in it. 88.9.210.218 (talk) 23:21, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Does this mean that right now Greeks are frantically moving their assets to offshore accounts? Wnt (talk) 01:39, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

[31] it has been happening for a long time, it's not like this is the first time the possibility of Greece leaving the Euro has been suggested. Edit: Rereading the article more carefully it highlights another issue, the Eurozone problems and the risk to Eurozone banks, even without considering Greece leaving, are itself a reason for some to get out. Nil Einne (talk) 05:19, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

The new currency would only lose value if they print too much of it. Given the lack of discipline that led to the crisis in the first place, that's not unlikely, but there is nothing that forces it to happen. Looie496 (talk) 23:33, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Currency doesn't only lose value by printing too much of it. The new currency would lose value depending on the expectations regarding the Greek economy. And I'm pretty sure that they are bad. 88.9.210.218 (talk) 23:42, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Indeed given their current situation it's difficult to imagine what's the point of (or how it would happen that) Greece leaving the Euro if it's going to remain the same value as the Euro. Nil Einne (talk) 05:17, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree that leaving the Euro would be a disaster for Greece. If they pay their civil servants in drachmas, with little value (since they could not be backed by anything and people would have no faith in them), and everyone else continues to use Euros (either legally or on a black market, if made illegal), then civil servants would be paid less than everybody else and would eventually all quit. A similar situation exists in Cuba, where waiters who get tips in dollars do far better than doctors who are paid by the government. StuRat (talk) 02:48, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

This has been discussed several times before, e.g. Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2011 August 19#The Euro, Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2011 June 21#Weak countries leaving the Euro - could it work at all?, Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2011 September 7#Euro and the debt of others. As mentioned there, Argentine economic crisis (1999-2002)#End of convertibility perhaps has some lessons here. Nil Einne (talk) 04:50, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Another good historical example from S. America was Plano Real, the Brazilian plan to revamp its currency. Brazil's problem wasn't sovereign debt so much as inflation, but it does present a model of sorts for shutting down one currency and establishing a new one. --Jayron32 05:55, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Heh, I guess I should have looked! [32] was quite informative, for example. Wnt (talk) 05:51, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Wnt -- The "local currency [being] destined to lose most of its value" would be a bad thing for some people, but probably would be an overall good thing for the Greek economy as a whole, according to many economists. Right now, all the EU has to offer to Greece is perpetual austerity with no end in sight. Keeping Greece in the Eurozone requires continual bailouts and infusions of new money, but these expensive bailouts do almost nothing to improve the situation of ordinary people in Greece. By contrast, if Greece had a separate currency, it could take a short-term dose of bitter medicine, and then hopefully be in a position to start a good long-term recovery (as has happened to many nations in the past, including Argentina etc.). AnonMoos (talk) 09:27, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

In other words: all bank savings of the Greek people would become virtually worthless as they would be exchanged into the new Drachma, which would lose its value extremely quickly. Better withdraw every single euro before that happens and hide under the mattress (no Greek bank will be able to survive that). The same would happen to the salaries (of the people who still have a job); they would be paid in the new Drachma and as the hypothetical new currency is meant to be devalued on purpose the monthly salary may just become sufficient to by a loaf of bread. I believe that rampant inflation also hurts the economy. But yes, the Greek economy would survive. I'm not so sure about Greek democracy though. Flamarande (talk) 10:47, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Economics not being my strong suit, can anyone point me to a brief account in plain English of why Greece went down the tubes in the first place? From a reliable source, of course. Textorus (talk) 11:52, 3 November 2011 (UTC) Never mind, I found one on the Greek_financial_crisis page. Textorus (talk) 11:55, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

A nice summary from the BBC: [33] Flamarande (talk) 11:59, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, that helps too. Textorus (talk) 12:28, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I think I've commented on this kind of question before, but there are ways to control this process. If the process of imposing a new currency is not well-controlled, then you could have bank failures, a public repudiation of the new currency, hoarding, and other chaotic and harmful results. If the exit from the euro is forced and a plan is not in place, then various kinds of unpredictable chaos could result. However, one hopes that Greece's government is competent enough to have a backup plan, which would look something like this: 1) A bank holiday is declared without warning for the conversion to be put in place. Conversion could involve a temporary measure such as stamping euro notes while a replacement currency is printed and distributed. Internal debts and deposit accounts would be redenominated in the replacement currency at a 1:1 or some other rate of conversion. Of course, whatever the official conversion rate for depositors and creditors, the new currency will have a lower market value. 2) The Greek government declares a moratorium on debt service, with terms for creditors to be negotiated. 3) As needed, failing Greek banks are nationalized. 4) As soon as possible, banks are reopened, and depositors are allowed to withdraw a limited amount of funds per day in the new currency. 5) Conversion controls will be put in place limiting the amount of local currency that any individual may convert into euros currency. At first, the limit may be zero. 6) As the situation stabilizes, some controls may be lifted. The results of this process would include the following: People with savings inside Greece would find that they are worth much less. Imports would become dramatically more expensive, while Greek products would drop sharply in price outside of Greece. The result would be a sharp spur to the local economy, although wages and pensions would buy less than before. Greeks would buy local goods instead of imports wherever possible, imports would become unaffordable to many Greeks, Greek exports would jump, and Greece would become the new bargain tourism destination. Outside of Greece, the results would be less predictable. Initially, foreign banks would suffer, but few or none would fail because most have already written off much of their Greek assets. However, a Greek default and exit from the euro could destroy any remaining confidence in Spanish and Italian debt, and that could lead to bank runs and bank failures throughout Europe. It is almost impossible to predict how that process would play out. Marco polo (talk) 14:14, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Letter bomb attacks against Alois Brunner

I'd like to know more details about the letter bomb attacks against Alois Brunner. Was the intention of the Mossad to kill or just to mane him? How could he fall into the same plot twice? Couldn't the Mossad have killed him instead of sending letter bombs? 88.9.210.218 (talk) 23:06, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

The only way to know the intentions of a militarised government agency is to either accept the rare public announcements regarding that agency's intentions, or to wait until the archives are released and historians analyse them. As with the great Soviet history debacle, where "pre-archival" and "archival" work often have substantively different conclusions due to the suspect methods of anti-communist Sovietologists; I'd suggest that even "expert" speculation by academics regarding Mossad's intentions will be far less trustworthy than the results of research after the Mossad archives open. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:58, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Not sure what that means -- When Soviet archives were made partially available in the 1990s, it threw new light on many things, including Soviet spying in the U.S., and even verified many of the claims of Elizabeth Bentley (who had been considered by many to be a hysterical liar). AnonMoos (talk) 09:15, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm happy to accept that in areas other than the ones I read, that new light was thrown on different phenomena. In the areas I read, mainly Soviet society, the hystericism of the 1950s and 1960s sovietology in the US wasn't borne out. Rather, the non-Americans, the non-sovietologists, the historians and sociologists generally had their depiction of soviet society confirmed. Fitzpatrick on administrative structures and advancement, for example, did much better than the various hermeneutics of dispatches. (What's even sadder is that it wasn't hard to correctly read data coming of central and eastern europe correctly, and the CIA readers got it right, and quite often published most of it.) Fifelfoo (talk) 09:24, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

My Auntie Maim wants to know, does he have that ghastly a mullet? Clarityfiend (talk) 00:41, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

But, how can we know at all that it was the Mossad then? Couldn't it be any other Jewish/Polish/Dutch/Dane/whatever-Nazi-victims group? 88.9.210.218 (talk) 02:13, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Our article is reliant on Alois Brunner : La Haine Irreductible by Didier Epelbaum, January 1990; who seems to publish scholarship, but I'm not very good at the French system. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:18, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

November 3

Islamic New Year

How Prophet Muhammed PBUH used to celebrate the Islamic New Year the hijri new year? like eid ul fitr or different like doing a lot of prayers or something else? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.18.28 (talk) 01:44, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

The first month of the year is sacred in Islam to allow pilgrims to return. I'm guessing family dinners. Dualus (talk) 05:26, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I can't find any hadith about the Islamic New Year. You may want to contact an ulama through a local mosque or Islamic center. Marco polo (talk) 13:54, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Becoming famous

How to become famous on facebook and youtube? --Toiuyty (talk) 04:13, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Ask Fred Figglehorn. --Jayron32 04:29, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

It might be worth pointing out that many times originality is needed, though, rather than there being any given "template for fame" that works for anyone. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 04:37, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Wait for your 15 minutes to roll around? -- AnonMoos (talk) 09:05, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Self-promotion. Lots of websites display amusing videos from the internet (see e.g. Viral video#Notable viral video sites, Social bookmarking, and social networks), and many take submissions or let users post links to videos they've found. Lots of people use Facebook and twitter for promotion; if you can get some famous people re-tweeting a link to your video, you've got it made. Warning: about 99.999% of videos on the internet are dull, and there are millions if not billions of videos online, so you do actually have to have something interesting going on. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:44, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

It's a bit like jazz: if you have to ask, you don't understand it. If you show even the tiniest interest in becoming famous, then you at least currently are not exhibiting any of whatever it takes to actually be famous. Be less interested in being famous, and be more interested in making a difference and being of service. One day you might wake up and discover you're famous - but you may not like it as much as you think - or, you may be famous simply for being famous, which would be a fate worse than death because it would mark you as molecularly shallow. Or you may never be famous, but you might have a fabulous and rewarding and achievement-filled life anyway. Treat fame as the icing on the steak. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 20:11, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

downside of fame

Follow up question... do we have an article (or a section of an article) that discusses the potential down side of becoming famous on social media sites? Blueboar (talk) 13:36, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Fame sucks. Example: Epic Beard Man. He was happy doing his daily thing, living as an old retired Vietnam veteran. Then, he becomes famous. His phone rings constantly. Half the calls are from people who want to kill him. Half the calls are from people who want to worship him. He gets agents pestering him to represent his media engagements. Journalists write articles about him. They interview his family - and find out he was never in the military. He spent most of his life with Vietnam veterans as friends and now he is exposed as not being a veteran himself. He eventually has to have friends go shopping for him as he becomes a shut-in because he doesn't know if a walk down the street will result in someone wanting to fight with him or follow him around taking pictures. What did he get paid for all of it? Nothing. His "agents" claimed in an interview that I read a long time ago that there was some interest in a book, but that collapsed when it turned out he was a fake veteran. I know this is just one example, but even John, Paul, George, and Ringo have made many statements about how bad fame is. It is cute when it is new, but gets old very quick. -- kainaw™ 00:21, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Kainaw is of course refering two one of the participants in a 2010 AC Transit Bus fight/ Buddy431 (talk) 02:58, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Totally OR here, but I have found that anonymous people make a far bigger difference in the world than famous people. — Michael J 00:47, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Is it true that America won every major battle in the Vietnam War?

Topic says it all. ScienceApe (talk) 11:36, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

The situation in Vietnam doesn't really lend itself well to a fairly binary question like this. Essentially the answer is, broadly yes for an arbitrary value of "won".

From a broader perspective you'd want to ask "did the engagement deliver the desired outcomes or results?" In that case you'd say no they didn't.

Vietnam was very much what we'd now describe as an asymmetric conflict. Campaign objectives were never going to be delivered through set piece battles.

ALR (talk) 11:53, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

It depends on your definition of "major", "battle", and "won". For reference, see Category:Battles and operations of the Vietnam War. The USA/South Vietnam won most battles during the time the USA was there. However there were Viet Cong wins during that time, such as: Battle of Fire Support Base Ripcord, Battle of Pat To. Some battles were inconclusive: e.g. Operation Bribie, and it's hard to say who won the Tet Offensive - a tactical victory for the US but a strategic loss. After the US withdrew, the North won battles such as Battle of Phuoc Long. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:10, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

The PLAF won a number of battles prior to 1964, and the PAVN won a number of battles subsequence to 1972. So it also depends on your definition of the Vietnam War. Also, and I can't reemphaise Colapeninsula enough here, the ARVN won quite a number of battles; and the Korean and Australian forces won a smaller number of battles. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:13, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

It wasn't the military battles that led to the U.S. withdrawal (and ultimately to the collapse of the South Vietnam government). It was two other, ultimately more important things: 1) the political battle for the allegiance of the rural majority in Vietnam, and 2) frequent and repeated skirmishes and sporadic attacks that didn't amount to "battles" but that the Viet Cong certainly "won". When the United States recognized that it had lost the political battle, it had to recognize that there was no way to end the attacks and skirmishes that were destroying U.S. morale, without committing egregious war crimes that would offend U.S. and world opinion. That's when it was decided to withdraw. Marco polo (talk) 13:30, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

The USA and its friends won a lot of major battles, but wasn't so successful on the guerrilla warfare front. HiLo48 (talk) 00:10, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Note that you could just about be describing our little adventure in Afghanistan. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:45, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Yep. Time to bring back John Wayne. HiLo48 (talk) 02:06, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Sure, let's make a desert and call it peace. And make some kick-ass movies while we're at it. Yeehaw. Textorus (talk) 08:39, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Right. Maybe we need a sequel to Charlie Wilson's War? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:49, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

"You can kill ten of our men for every one we kill of yours. But even at those odds, you will lose and we will win." Ho Chi Minh. See also our article on General William Westmoreland, the architect of the Body count strategy. Alansplodge (talk) 11:22, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

why does china have such little debt

i just read this article

http://www.news.com.au/national/aussie-taxpayers-shouldnt-have-to-rescue-eu/story-e6frfkvr-1226184375316

and am curious, but I want a short answer.

Why is their debt so relatively small compared to the GDP/debt of other (western) countries.

thanks Ballchef (talk) 12:13, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Not a debt expert myself, but one reason could be that PRC had dismal relationship with Western lenders for quite a long time. Once they initiated political relationship with the west, they had already built up a quite impressive industrial production oriented for exports. This puts the PRC in quite different position than most other third-world countries. Chinese_financial_system#External_debt has some info on current debt. --Soman (talk) 12:47, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

There are several reasons for this. 1) Until recently, China has had a rather rudimentary financial system that would not have been able to handle the financing of much debt. For reasons to do with national sovereignty, China has never had much interest in using foreign intermediaries to issue debt. 2) Very much unlike most English-speaking countries and most of the highly indebted European countries, China has for years maintained a large current account surplus. Therefore, unlike those countries, it has not needed to borrow money to finance imports. 3) China's government faces less pressure than democratic governments to spend more than it raises in taxes. Marco polo (talk) 13:20, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Interesting! Thanks Soman and Marco! Ballchef (talk) 15:30, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Nor, going the other way, democratic pressure against raising taxes to pay for all the graft and corruption... --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 18:56, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Relationships and physical/cultural distance

There's one question that has entered my head...

Do many people (especially women?) prefer relationships with those who are from a different town, city, region or even country? I suppose it adds some novelty to it, rather than having people who have grown up in exactly the same area where there is no 'mystery' to it. Like, they may have a different accent, have had a different upbringing, etc. This adds to the romantic element of the relationship as it adds a level of 'specialness', the indulgence of romance.

Like for example if I was in my hometown, people may see things as just dull and routine and no place for finding a partner. But if I was on holiday and meeting people there in bars and so on it would be a better environment for it because of exaggerated behaviour in alien culture, a different environment is perfect for change, trying new people. I am male by the way.--It's a Cow! (talk) 14:06, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Some do, some don't. The problem with human beings is that they are infinitely variable; in other words, individuals. So no reliable statistics can be found to answer your question with. Rather than foreign-ness, believe it or not, your looks and personality have much more to do with romantic success than any other factor. Trust me on this. But just to prove it to yourself, try this simple experiment: go hang out at your local bar or pub one night and count how many girls hit on you. Then go to an out-of-town bar and do the same thing. Repeat the experiment on alternate weekends for six months, and then add up your totals to find out in which locality you are more likely to score. Textorus (talk) 16:02, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Not sure if that would always be a valid experiment... especially if you live in a small town. Prior familiarity could bias the results. In a small town, all the local women will probably already know you and your reputation (those around your age have probably known you since childhood). If you have a poor reputation, fewer local women will hit on you. On the other hand, when you go to an out of town bar or pub, your poor reputation will not have preceded you, and so more women may hit on you. It will work the other way as well... if you have a good reputation locally, you should find that the local women already think of you in a positive light, and will thus be more likely to hit on you than if you were a stranger.

That said, vacation spot hook-ups can be fun and exciting, and they occasionally do lead to lasting relationships... but on average they tend to be short term. The majority of people find lasting relationships and romance closer to home ... schools, work places, houses of worship, organizations related to an interest/hobby, places like that. Where vacation spots make the greatest impact is in moving an existing relationship into new stages of romance. The exotic/romantic setting can help reduce inhibitions that were holding back the relationship's growth. Blueboar (talk) 16:51, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

And thus, since it works both ways as you just said, the only way for the OP to find out which locale works best for him is to get out of the house and try his luck in both places, right? Q. E. D.  :) Textorus (talk) 16:59, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm a woman and believe me a good-looking guy with a foreign accent will attract more attention from females than a good-looking guy with a local accent. Clothes also count.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:11, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

See what I mean? Looks are half the equation, at home or abroad. I can't imagine many of you ladies fawning over a stranger who looks like Michael Moore or Rupert Murdoch, even with a French accent.  :) Textorus (talk) 16:26, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Then again, there is the charisma factor which is not dependent upon looks. John Lennon and Mick Jagger are perfect examples of this phenomenon. Where I live in Sicily, the men adore foreign women (not so much as potential brides, but for casual relstionships), whereas the women overwhelmingly prefer their own men--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:43, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

See what I mean? Personality is the other half of the equation; cf. Bill Clinton.  :) Textorus (talk) 16:53, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Mystique (personality trait) redirects to charisma; I think it shouldn't. I don't think it's really a personality trait, either. Maybe it should redirect to fetishism, which might be what the OP has in mind, though that article seems to limit the concept to material objects, which also seems incorrect to me.  Card Zero  (talk) 18:23, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't know about modern statistics and romance, but there is a biological and historical basis for such a phenomenon, it's called exogamy and outcrossing. Increasing genetic diversity results in healthier populations in biology that are more likely to survive environmental changes that would have caused extinction in highly inbred populations. Customs like the incest taboo (which can extend from siblings only to distant cousins), bride kidnapping, and arranged marriages, among others, were/are very widespread cultural mechanisms to ensure this in human populations.

It is even more striking in other animals and plants, as they usually have very elaborate mechanisms to ensure they breed with the least related individuals if possible. Flowering plants have mechanisms to avoid self-pollination (timing or flower structure), sexual dimorphism ensures a constant internal natural selection (kind of like pitting two parts of the same species together to evolve a stronger whole by requiring each participant to contribute different parts of their genetic makeup with certain conditions; in this case the males are the "accessory gender", see Red Queen's Hypothesis), breeding grounds and timed mating seasons ensure populations still come back together to contribute to the species' gene pool no matter how far they may migrate to find food, social animals often force related male offspring to leave groups once they reach breeding age to prevent inbreeding (or else do not contain males at all, like in elephant matriarchies), females can be predisposed to be attracted to itinerant males (as in meerkats) or new arrivals to groups, only one male and female pair may be allowed to reproduce (the alpha male and female which are also oftentimes the parents of the entire group, as in wolves and marmots), etc.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 16:17, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

There are some built in assumptions to the question asked. I'm not sure if they are reasonable assumptions. The original question for instance says, "there is no 'mystery' to it", and "This adds to the romantic element", and "it adds a level of 'specialness', the indulgence of romance." Is it in fact established that the element of "mystery" enhances romance or intimacy? Bus stop (talk) 16:35, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

The article says that romance (love) is a "feeling of mystery" and that there is emphasis on the emotion of intimacy. This doesn't mean that mystery (surrounding a person) and intimacy enhance each other, though. Petrarch seems to know very little about the Laura with whom he was obsessed, apart from that she had nice hair and at least one lovely foot. Likewise Dante only met Beatrice Portinari twice. They are basically stalking, and the objects of their affections are nearly imaginary. In contrast to this there is Sonnet 130 where Shakespeare talks about his mistress's wiry hair and stinky breath, and claims this doesn't put him off at all, although she sounds mundane and unmysterious.  Card Zero  (talk) 19:52, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

CZ, have you never longed for someone you could not have? The poets are "stalking" only in the sense that marriage is legalized prostitution, as some people have been known to claim: a gross exaggeration and misuse of the term. Also - Shakespeare does not mean that his mistress has stinky breath, etc.; he is clearly speaking facetiously, which is precisely what makes the poem so charming. Readers in this technology-worshipping age are so very literal-minded. Sad. Textorus (talk) 08:29, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Alaska, United States and Canada

Why did United States buy Alaska from Russia and etc as opposed to Canada buying it? Espcecially, giving it location. This is not the first time that I have thought about this, but it is the first time that did something about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mybodymyself (talk • contribs) 15:17, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

In 1867, Canada was only just constituted as an entity, and still was a British colony. Britain and Russia were not on the warmest terms, and indeed, one of the reasons Russia sold Alaska was for fear of losing it to Britain anyways. See Alaska Purchase. Also, of course, Canada has all the frozen waste it needs, and to spare (remember that Canada is slightly bigger than the US including Alaska, but has only about 10% of the population). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:37, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Russia had recently been at war with the UK (in the Crimean War), while Russia and the USA were allies (Russia supported the North in the US Civil War). --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:41, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

The US was concerned about coming into conflict with Russia on the west coast -- if I recall correctly, Russia had sent expeditions as far south as Oregon. The US was not really interested in Alaska at that time, but was interested in keeping the Russians from moving south. Russia, on the other hand, was concerned about being overextended -- even in Siberia their presence was very light. So both of them had motives for making a deal. Looie496 (talk) 17:33, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, refreshing my memory, the Russians made it a good bit farther -- they established a colony at Fort Ross, California, right next to San Francisco Bay -- the Russian River derives its name from that colony. The colony was sold in the 1840s, but it still was a worrisome precedent. Looie496 (talk) 18:33, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

--Jessica A Bruno 21:25, 3 November 2011 (UTC) Thank you for all of your answers to my question here. All of them were interesting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mybodymyself (talk • contribs) 21:25, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

For some more context, see Maritime Fur Trade. The Alaska Panhandle always struck me as an anomaly, unlike the longer division between the US & Canada, the 49th parallel BrainyBabe (talk) 12:25, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Mmm, I'm always pleased to see Maritime Fur Trade mentioned. I think that page is the best thing I've ever done on Wikipedia! Pfly (talk) 06:50, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

The Alaska panhandle makes perfect sense when you consider the money which was to be made off of fishing, which was a HUGE industry, and likely a major part of the value of Alaska. Many of the settlements on the Panhandle were Russian, and so "part of the deal", see Sitka for one example; such sites were (and still are) major salmon fisheries, not to mention the logging and fur trade in such places. The Panhandle was probably the most important part of the purchase, economically speaking; the bulk of the mainland of Alaska is basically worthless artic wastes which Russia dumped on the U.S. as part of the deal along with the more valuable coastal areas. That's why the Alaska boundary dispute centered on the Panhandle, both the Russia/the U.S. and Canada had a LOT to lose or gain depending on how the boundary was drawn there. The Panhandle was considered so important to Alaska that the eventual capital, Juneau ended up there. It's easy in modern times to tend to think of places in terms of the land they occupy; for most of history, however, the coastal areas and rivers were far more important; nations evolved along (and fought over access to) coasts and rivers far more often than interior lands, see Thalassocracy for some background on the development of states based on waterbodies rather than lands. --Jayron32 20:15, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

As others have basically said, the long and short of it is that Russia didn't want Britain/Canada to acquire Alaska, so the offer was not extended to them. As for the panhandle, it had been defined long before the Alaska Purchase. Britain/Canada had controlled the interior ("New Caledonia") since the early 19th century. Russia controlled the maritime coast down to 54-40 (the current boundary between Alaska and British Columbia). There was a short-lived, saber-rattling attempt by Russia to claim the coast down to about the northern end of Vancouver Island. That attempt resulted in treaties cementing 54-40 as the southern boundary. Fort Ross was an anomoly, and one which all sides knew could not be duplicated or expanded upon. Pfly (talk) 06:45, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Also, the Alaska Boundary Dispute centered on the panhandle not just because it was the most important region, but also because its boundary was the least well-defined. The northern boundary was unambiguously defined as the 141st meridian west. The panhandle's boundary was much less clear, as the Alaska Boundary Dispute page describes. Pfly (talk) 06:55, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

3 questions about Charles Francis Adams, Jr.

Hello learned ones ! I translated Charles Francis Adams, Jr. into french (& BTW thanks awfully for the text), but I still wonder :

1/ I couldn't find where CFAJr pronounced his 1913 adress "'Tis 60 years since" on Founders' Day. I assumed it was at Harvard. Right ?

2/ I found only one source saying he was lieutenant colonel of the 5th US Colored Cavalry. Is it true ?

3/ As for the book written in 1965 by Edward C. Kirkland Charles F. Adams, Jr.: The Patrician at Bay (which I have no hope whatsoever to get here in France) does the enticing title infer that CFAJr has been cornered (in monetary or judiciary domains, which could occur, since he was also a wealthy businessman) - or that he conceived bays (i.e. railroad branch-lines) ?

Thanks a lot beforehand for your answers .T.y. Arapaima (talk) 18:21, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

To answer #3: "At bay" has nothing to do with railroads. It means he was cornered, like a pursued animal. Textorus (talk) 18:44, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Metaphorically, it means "rendered harmless" or "put on the defensive". This may have to do with his work attempting to regulate rail firms, in which he faced opposition from various parties. Marco polo (talk) 18:58, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

(2) He's not listed on this "Complete Roster". I'm a bit intrigued by Elvira Adams though. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:49, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Number 1: The speech was at the University of South Carolina in Columbia on January 16, 1913.--Cam (talk) 03:48, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I should note that in this context Founders' Day refers to a holiday specific to that university (near the anniversary of its founding).--Cam (talk) 03:53, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Regarding #2: List of United States Colored Troops Civil War units has 6 "colored" cavalry units listed, only the 5th has an article. He could have served in another. However, in the Civil War, most regiments were organized geographically, and the 5th United States Colored Cavalry was organized in Kentucky; it would have been somewhat unusual for a Massachusetts officer to serve in it. Maybe he served in one of the other cavalry units. --Jayron32 04:11, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

According to this list, there is a Charles F. Adams Jr. listed for the 1st Massachusetts Cavalry, and a Charles F. Adams (no Jr.) listed for the 5th Colored Cavalry. There are also numerous other Charles F. Adams entries and many Charles Adams (no middle initial) listed. It is entirely unclear how many of these entries refer to the Charles F. Adams, Jr. we are interested in here. --Jayron32 04:18, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

This book I found on Google Books says that he was a brevet brigadier general in command of the 5th Massachusetts Cavalry, which was a unit of African American troops. This appears to be a different unit than the 5th Colored Cavalry. That may be the source of confusion. --Jayron32 04:29, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Jewish law

Jewish law prohibits doing all sorts of things on the Sabbath, but what if someone's life is in danger? Are Jews required to let him/her die in order to avoid working on the Sabbath? --70.134.52.4 (talk) 23:27, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I think Pikuach nefesh#Shabbat and holidays addresses this question. Bus stop (talk) 23:32, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

One way to look at it is what I've heard/seen referred to as the "greater sin" rule. It may be a sin to violate the Sabbath, but it's a greater sin to endanger human life. In contrast, Jesus was presumably only healing on the Sabbath, not lifesaving, hence the temple pooh-bahs objected. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:43, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

"...whosoever preserves a single soul..., scripture ascribes [merit] to him as though he had preserved a complete world." Talmud, Sanhedrin 37a.[34] Alansplodge (talk) 09:15, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

If 'working' is really so imperative as to save lives then surely it will not be regarded as work at all -- more 'emergency measures' such as repairing a dyke or defending your village from marauding brigands. And if you've gotta pick a zucchini for use in your dinner, well picking just one isn't really work now is it. In fact you might be able to get away with picking two or three before the full force of the law comes crashing down on your head. Vranak (talk) 15:50, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I think picking zucchini would be considered reaping. Bus stop (talk) 16:10, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I think the rules prohibit cooking on the Sabbath, among a very long list of other things. Textorus (talk) 17:03, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Unbelievable! What about eating? Vranak (talk) 17:06, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Sure, that's why they make ovens. --Sean 19:12, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Wow, just wow. Is it just me or are these kinds of arcane restrictions totally neurotic? I mean, what's the point of avoiding these things? How is a man expected to profit -- spiritually or otherwise -- from not lighting fires on the Sabbath? Vranak (talk) 04:35, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Presumably by devoting his thoughts to God instead of to worldly things for one day of the week, but I'm no expert. You probably would need to ask an Orthodox rabbi to get a good answer to that question. But note that other branches of Judaism do not necessarily follow all these rules. Other religions have their own rules which may seem odd to outsiders: e.g., abstaining from meat on certain days (Catholicism), abstaining totally from alcohol (Islam), males never cutting their hair (Sikhism), etc., etc.

November 4

Greek opinion polls?

Any links to Greek opinion polls (on party sympathies), from let's say the last month or so? --Soman (talk) 11:24, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Googling on "poll Greeks" brings this up as the fourth result. Textorus (talk) 12:04, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, but that is a subscription service. Also, I'm not looking for attitudes regarding the bail-out deal, but party sympathies. I see references that Pasok has 14% support now, but can't find which opinion poll this refers to (would like to see how the other parties are faring as well). Greek language links would be ok. --Soman (talk) 12:43, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't subscribe to WSJ but the link comes right up when I click on it from the Google results. The relevant part you want from a poll published on Sunday, Oct. 30, is this:

The popularity of Greece's two major parties—the governing Socialist, or Pasok, party, and the center-right New Democracy opposition—continued to scrape lows, with Pasok commanding just 14.7% public support, and New Democracy just 22.2%. More than a quarter of Greeks, 26.5%, said they were undecided about who they would vote for if elections were held next week. But 55.2% said they would rather have Greece's political parties work together than have early elections.

Hope this helps. Textorus (talk) 13:10, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! But I curious how these development affect the other parliamentary forces, such as the left and LAOS. It seems there is an additional 36.6% of votes to be distributed. Does the WSJ state who did the poll? --Soman (talk) 17:12, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

With the numbers from the WSJ quote above, I found this link http://www.grreporter.info/en/majority_greeks_reject_decision_european_union/5352 --Soman (talk) 17:19, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Cool, glad I could help. Textorus (talk) 17:39, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Descendants of Cœur de Lion

The Daily Telegraph reports that the Viscounts St Davids are descended from Richard I. As Richard left only one son, Philip of Cognac, who died in his late teens/early twenties and left no issue, how is this possible? Textorus (talk) 11:27, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's not, but it sure sounds good, doesn't it? Adam Bishop (talk) 12:02, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

This obituary of the third Viscount (also from the Telegraph) mentions an ancestor fighting for Richard but nothing about being descended from him.--Cam (talk) 12:35, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

The article says nothing about Philip having died without issue; it only says that his wife failed to produce offspring. Most young medieval men sired children out of wedlock prior to and after their marriages. A man in his late teens/early twenties would have likely left behind a byblow or two.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:33, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

What Jeanne says does tend to be true for men from the aristocratic elite, largely because young women might hope to gain privilege or other rewards by sleeping with a nobleman. I don't think that young male commoners in the Middle Ages were as likely to find young women willing to risk pregnancy out of wedlock. Marco polo (talk) 13:48, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

And while that did happen sometimes, was there much to be gained from being impregnated by the bastard son of a dead king? Philip wouldn't have gained anything from it either. It seems extremely unlikely that he had any children, especially since there seems to be no other evidence for it. Adam Bishop (talk) 16:12, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Men normally don't think about anything beyond their own gratification whilst they are impregnating a woman. We really have no way of knowing whether or not he left descendants. Anymore than the average man today knows if he has any illegitimate children or not. I had a close friend who had her baby put up for adoption without the little boy's father ever being informed of his existance.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:27, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Well that's rather a glib view of men, women, and history. In any case, if Philip had a child and didn't know about it, and no one else ever knew about it either, and we don't know about it either, isn't this effectively the same as if he never had any children at all? And we do have a very good way of knowing if he had any descendants: the actual material evidence tells us he didn't. All else is speculation, and that's fun, but why not consider all the possibilities? IF Philip was at least a teenager while Richard was still alive, he was still a bastard and not in line to inherit anything. Richard was not the most popular ruler, since he was always off fighting expensive wars (or getting captured and in need of expensive ransoms). If Richard was already dead, Philip and his own hypothetical bastard(s) certainly weren't in any position to get anything from John, or Eleanor, or anyone else for that matter. Who would want to have an illegitimate child with an illegitimate child? But maybe he raped someone; it's possible, but if he raped someone important that is the kind of scandal that would have been recorded, and if it was some random girl, how would we ever know? And this is all assuming that Philip has the leisure time to go around trying to impregnate people, even though he wouldn't have been living the spoiled, do-nothing life of a legitimate royal heir who is actually in line for the throne - and there are plenty of those in history (medieval or otherwise) who did go around seducing women, without leaving any children. It's entirely possible to have sex without impregnating anyone, then as now, whether the woman is willing or not, and even if she are willing and specifically trying to get pregnant. And especially then, even if he did manage to impregnate someone, it was a lot easier for the child to die young without leaving further descendants. But we don't even know when Philip himself was born or died. All we know is that he had a wife who died without children, with no other indication that he had illegitimate children with someone else. Adam Bishop (talk) 17:38, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

What you say may be right, Adam, but the assumption that Philip, as a bastard, was just turned out of the house to fend for himself with no job and no prospects doesn't seem quite right, not necessarily so. Our article on Philip says that his father left him the castle of Cognac - and presumably, I would think, the surrounding lands and tenantry, which would have produced an independent income for the boy. Illegitimacy was not necessarily the same as degradation and poverty for the children of kings: Philip's illegitimate uncle Geoffrey was brought up with the rest of Henry II's children, and Richard made him Archbishop of York, a very high ranking post, indeed. And of course, the progenitor of the English line, William Conqueror himself, was a bastard. So there may well have been an aura of the royal about our boy Philip; and of course, history records many, many royal mistresses who made out like bandits for their, um, services to the Crown. Even if it was just a medieval one-night stand, an obliging wench would probably have gotten a few gold coins to tuck into her chemise - it was the age of chivalry and courtly manners (not that some royal guys didn't act behave like bastards, then as now). But of course, we can't prove a negative one way or the other, unless the Viscounts have a genealogy back through some unmarried mistress of Philip's that doesn't turn up in a google search. Would be interesting to know, though. Textorus (talk) 17:58, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Illegitimate offspring of royalty and the nobility were generally well-provided for as was the lucky girl's family; many royal mistresses were of the gentry or nobility themselves. In the case of Philip we will likely never know whether he left descendants or not; for that matter, we don't know if Richard had other (unrecorded) offspring.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:34, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for introducing me to the word "byblow", Jeanne. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 19:54, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I also learned that word today thanks to her. --Belchman (talk) 21:42, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

You're both very welcome. This is where my avid reading of historical romances has paid off by having added such words as "byblow", "leman" and "wanton" to my vocabulary!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:10, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I've heard it said that the surname Carlyon is derived from Cœur de Lion. Whether that began through true heredity or through some other means I don't know. HiLo48 (talk) 21:47, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Some if not all instances might be locational surnames derived from the two places in Great Britain formerly called Caerleon, or from Carlisle. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.193.78.58 (talk) 00:02, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Surely the way to settle this is to access the St Davids' pedigree? I have tried to access Burke's Peerage online but I get a 404 message. Perhaps it's available through a library. --TammyMoet (talk) 10:21, 5 November 2011 (UTC) Scrub that, it's not going to help - I found this which indicate it's of recent creation. --TammyMoet (talk) 10:23, 5 November 2011 (UTC) I've also found this which as a forum may be a better place for this query. --TammyMoet (talk) 10:25, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

How interesting. The obituaries cited at thepeerage.com say that the late Viscount also held five separate baronies, one of which goes back to 1299 - just a century after Coeur de Lion's death. So maybe there is a connection somehow, albeit with a bar sinister. Not curious enough to seach any futher for it, but thanks for the tip. Textorus (talk) 11:48, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

How are statutes of limitations good for the people?

How are statutes of limitations good for the people? How is not punishing illegal behavior just because it occurred too many times around the sun before it got found out good? Please don't tell me "See Statute of limitations," I did. Just please give me a to-the-point example of why it would be bad to categorically say that it's impossible to prosecute a case that had perfectly fine evidence yesterday but not today without even leaving the opportunity for cases that have nothing but nothing wrong with the evidence?

From Statute of limitations with my counters in italics:

One reason is that, over time, evidence can be corrupted or disappear, memories fade, crime scenes are changed, and companies dispose of records. Yes, things can dilute evidence, but that shouldn't invalidate cases where all the evidence still is good The best time to bring a lawsuit is while the evidence is not lost and as close as possible to the alleged illegal behavior. Well, the best thing is for crimes not to happen at all, but we take what we get in life. Again, this shouldn't allow us to categorically invalidate cases where nothing is lost. And now that the crime is known about, what's the good in arbitrarily assigning a duration of time prescriptively to how close is 'as close as possible' when people are wanting justice for things such as rape, arson, murder (in Japan after 25 years), for instance? Another reason is that people want to get on with their lives and not have legal battles from their past come up unexpectedly. The injured party has a responsibility to quickly bring about charges so that the process can begin. Yet again, people who do want to see the state administer justice shouldn't lose their opportunity just because some other people hold a different outlook 20.137.18.53 (talk) 12:46, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

As the header clearly says, this isn't a place for debates. However I will say clearly different people will have different views and if you think only your view is the correct one you're not going to get anywhere. Nil Einne (talk) 13:05, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree the topic is one that could easily arouse emotions, but if I am ignoring some objective reason(s) why it would be good to have statutes of limitations in all cases of a given type of crime instead of taking it on a case-by-case basis, I'd like to know what that/those reason(s) is/are. 20.137.18.53 (talk) 13:15, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

It originated at a time where the primary evidence consisted of witness-statements. And as such if a case was reopened after a certain period of time, the accuracy of witnesses could not be deemed trustworthy. However with the development of forensic evidence, specifically DNA, it does seem like cases could be made in a lot of instances after the statute of limitation. I guess the main reason to introduce this was probably to alleviate the pressure on an already strained justice system. --Saddhiyama (talk) 13:37, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

OK, I can accept the practical if not ideal issue you point out of making a cut-off because the system isn't believed to be able to handle the volume of cases that would come in without the cut-off more than the reasons given from the Wikipedia article that I quoted above. Sacrificing justice for some being the price to pay to avoid delaying everyone's day in court by possibly years or more. Thanks.20.137.18.53 (talk) 14:22, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Again, you seem to be missing the point it's not just about delays (which can probably be partially alleviated by increasing resources spent) but also about whether it's an effective use of resources to prosecute someone for some historic crime, particularly if it's low level offence. Note that even in your hypothetical but unexplained case by case basis, presumably you still need to investigate to some extent to decide whether it's one case worth prosecuting. Remember money and time doesn't come out of thin air. Nil Einne (talk) 15:48, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Well a simple example: You said 'Yet again, people who do want to see the state administer justice shouldn't lose their opportunity just because some other people hold a different outlook' but you seem to be ignoring the fact it's a binary (if we ignore things like sentence time). Either the state administers justice or it doesn't. If it does, then those who want to see justice or say it's unfair on the victim will say that's wrong. If it doesn't then those who consider it a waste of the governments resources, unfair to alleged perpetrators, not helping perpertrators reform and get on with their lives, may be even damaging to any victims, etc will say it's wrong. Your initial statement suggests you only think the first parties matter. (You now say on a case by case basis but you don't seem to have considered how this works. A national vote for every person past the statute of limitations? Randomly selecting people who will be prosecuted past the statute of limitations to try to please both those who want to see the state administer justice and those who disagree? ) Nil Einne (talk) 15:48, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

The reason we have laws in the first place, is to protect the individual from the abuses of the government. Laws exist to protect YOU, (yes, YOU OP 20.137.18.53). People, in their analysis seem to always think about the law as pertaining to OTHER people, as if no one is ever falsely accused. Well people are falsely accused A LOT. So tell me 20.137.18.53, how wonderful and fair a system do you think it would be if some snot nose decided to accuse YOU of molesting them, 25 years ago. How exactly would you go about defending yourself of that charge? Isn't it a bit obvious now, the answer to your question? Greg Bard (talk) 15:19, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Ex post facto?

By the way, do limitations on ex post facto laws affect the statute of limitations? Like, if the legislature decides that due to DNA evidence certain rape cases can be tried even 35 years after the fact where there's physical evidence, can they simply pass such a law and go after the culprits? Wnt (talk) 15:23, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Ex post facto laws are unconstitutional in the US. In the case of new technology, there doesn't have to be a new law permitting each and every advance in the field of forensics. They are already permitted for in the law, as far as courtroom procedures are concerned. The crime itself is separate and distinct (and therefore the statutes of limitations on them) from any methods we use to discover the culprits. Greg Bard (talk) 15:32, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Here are a couple of reliable legal sources that address all the concerns heretofore raised in this thread:

• • "Statutes of Limitations" in Criminal Law and Procedure, Ronald J. Bacigal, 2008. (law textbook)
  • "Statutes of Limitation in Federal Criminal Cases: An Overview," Congressional Research Service, 2007. (page 1 has a nice overview of the general topic)

Textorus (talk) 15:39, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! The FAS link (though I don't know why they'd have it) is clear that the statute of limitations can be extended retroactively unless it has expired, oddly enough. Wnt (talk) 20:42, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Glad I could help. Textorus (talk) 12:06, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I think the idea is that if a crime isn't that severe, then it may just be for the good of everyone to let past crimes slide and focus more on the present. Another idea is that if a crime was really that egregious, then surely it would have be brought to the attention of the appropriate authorities long ago. Perhaps the powers that be want to discourage people from holding onto secret knowledge until the time is right and then exposing a crime, which is maybe not such kosher behaviour since it carries the idea that a crime isn't worth reporting until there's some potential profit margin for the person bringing it to light. Vranak (talk) 15:45, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Also, if a crime is not investigated promptly, it's far more difficult to get a complete and accurate history of what happened (people forget, evidence is spoiled, etc...). Without a good understanding of what happened, the possibility of a miscarriage of justice is far higher. SDY (talk) 16:03, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

The roots of statutes of limitations go all the way back to ancient Hebrew law, believe it or not. The concern was over vengeance, where the victims of a crime and their relatives might pursue vengeance well out of proportion to the severity of the original crime, even visiting it on family members or descendants. This vendetta mindset was considered more damaging to the society than the crime itself. In Hebrew law - if I remember the details correctly - a criminal could flee his homeland to another city, and the victim and his family were forbidden to pursue him there. Then after a certain amount of time had passed (25 years in the case of murder, I think) he could return home (a very important principle in ancient judaic philosophy) and the victim and his relatives were forbidden from reprisals. This ideal gradually mutated - the state took control of the punishment of criminals and formalized the ideal that justice should be a balance between reparations to the victims and the interests of civil society (including those of the perpetrator).

Unfortunately (in the US anyway) there's been a push towards more and more severe punishment (the state becoming a proxy for vengeance due to political pressure, rather than an instrument of justice). too bad… --Ludwigs2 16:05, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Regarding Ludwigs2's notes on ancient Hebrew attitudes towards assylum, see Cities of Refuge for the cities he mentions. --Jayron32 16:46, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Our Supreme Court has held:

The purpose of a statute of limitations is to limit exposure to criminal prosecution to a certain fixed period of time following the occurrence of those acts the legislature has decided to punish by criminal sanctions. Such a limitation is designed to protect individuals from having to defend themselves against charges when the basic facts may have become obscured by the passage of time and to minimize the danger of official punishment because of acts in the far-distant past. Such a time limit may also have the salutary effect of encouraging law enforcement officials promptly to investigate suspected criminal activity. Toussie v. United States, 397 U. S. 112, 114-115 (1970)[35]

The example of child molestation is poor example as there is no statute of limitations for child molestation in certain states such as Florida, Mississippi, Texas, New York, New Jersey and Michigan. We are now also seeing a DNA exception to the statute of limitations in some states such as California. Where the identity of the defendant is conclusively established through DNA evidence, there will be no barring of the proseuction by the statute of limitations. The statute of limitations in Pennsylvania for the rape of a minor is when the minor reaches 50 years of age. The legislative trend is to expand or eliminate the statute of limitations for child molestation. That was not a good example. As for how ex post facto laws impact the statute of limitations, they do, but if prosecution was still possible at the time of the extension, the prohibition against ex post facto laws does not apply. Only in those cases where the statute of limitations had run will a later extension not include those crimes. Gx872op (talk) 16:18, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

The Texas judge currently in US news who can easily be seen and heard beating his daughter on video (which evidence was not withered by time) and will not be prosecuted due to statutes of limitations is what brought on this question. As for what I was saying that I accept the idea of the strain on the legal system being more of a valid reason for making a cut-off than the nebulous notion that some people want to forget about it or that in some cases (to some people) it's not worth the effort, the end result of a cut-off may be the same, but at least the former is motivated out of impartial necessity, while the latter is favoring one group of humans' outlook. Note that in this specific case, I acknowledge that knowingly sitting on the evidence helps to hold up the statute of limitations ruling. But what if someone else had caught this video if it were done outside (or even if the judge himself had recorded it unbeknownst to her) and held onto the video and cruelly given it to her the day after the limitation had run out?20.137.18.53 (talk) 16:38, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

The primary moral issue here is protecting citizens from false accusations, and false prosecutions. Court case load or "strain on the legal system" is a ZERO priority as far as moral justice is concerned, and that argument has no place. In direct answer to your last question about someone cruelly withholding evidence... it's terrible, and too bad, however in the scheme of things the truth is that A) <shocking>we don't have to punish every single criminal for civilization to remain intact</shocking>. B) It is better to have 100 guilty people go free than have 1 innocent person be wrongly punished. C) Just having the video evidence, and not being able to prosecute actually makes some justice possible, in that now the world knows, and can judge the judge for themselves. His reputation suffers accordingly. As far as the cruel withholding is concerned, there is no way to differentiate that person from someone who just didn't think the video was anything special or meaningful and just put the recording aside and forgot about it innocently. The truth is that, in that case, it's just a bonus that we should be grateful for.Greg Bard (talk) 17:07, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

But the issue isn't just about 'moral justice' but what's the best overall outcome. I don't know whether this is much of a concern re:statute of limitations, but whether prosecutions for offences are an efficient use of resources (which may include the investigation & court costs & time and the cost of any punishments handed out) are a commonly discussed issue including by lawmakers. The resources can to some extent be boiled down to time and money (some would say time is money but from a societies POV, time is limited by population so if you need more of your population-time on criminal justice, you're taking it away from elsewhere). Since no society has unlimited resources, there is always going to be the question of where to direct those resources. So in criminal law, the question of whether spending the resources to achieve some idea of 'moral justice' (or whatever) as opposed to other things, like reducing the chance of injustice in the first place is an obvious one. And this is ignoring the possibility the resources you spend on certain prosecutions which may have limited benefit even if they are successful (which again may be a big if) will in fact reduce the chance of a quick or successful prosecution in other cases where the 'injustice' is seen as greater. Nil Einne (talk) 20:33, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Wow. First of all the moral priority is, well, morality. I am always surprised when I run into someone like this who places no value on morality, but then I ask why am I so surprised. What the "best outcome for all" is, is a matter of interpretation, an interpretation of what is the utilitarian thing to do. Utility isn't a moral value, it is a name we give to a collection of results, and does not involve any actual real moral principles, just consequences. I could easily take a utilitarian approach that supports my view: i.e. the "best outcome for all" is to make sure to respect the rights of the accused because that is the moral priority, and upholding moral priorities has it's own consequences. The judiciary has been underfunded traditionally. There are all kinds of systemic political reasons for that, and they are all, in reality, lower priorities than supporting our judiciary so as to ensure "justice for all." That is the reality. I don't have to pretend about it. The case load of the judiciary is a ZERO priority, as I have already stated, insofar as the moral priority is concerned (and for those who are morally unreflective, the moral priority is ALWAYS the real priority). Overburdened courts and police can NEVER be a reason for taking some action or not taking some action, insofar as institutionalizing a principle of law is concerned. If statutes of limitations being abolished had the effect of (somehow) relieving the caseload, that still would not be a reason to do it. The reason to have statutes of limitations is to protect the accused. Period. If somehow the overburdened courts and police was a reason to do anything, wouldn't it be a reason to properly fund them in the first place?!? Greg Bard (talk) 23:46, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) In any just society with rules to maximize justice, those exact same rules will also, by necessity, also cause (sometimes grave) miscarriages of justice in certain cases. That doesn't mean that the rules have no purpose, or should not exist. A similar problem to what 20.137 notes is the laws prohibiting double jeopardy. Such laws exist to prevent the state from vexatious prosecution by repeatedly bringing the same charges over and over even if there is little or no chance of a guilty verdict. However, the same law also allows that, sometimes, a guilty person will 'get off' and be immune from being punished for that same crime, no matter how heinous. Such a person could literally confess to the crime and describe exactly how they did it immediately after the conclusion of their trial, and suffer no prosecution for that crime. Society has decided that such a thing happening is, on the balance, less destructive to society than would be the problem of vexatious prosecution, and so laws against double jeopardy exist. Similarly, laws exist to prevent evidence gained through unethical, immoral, or illegal means from being admissible in court, even when such evidence would be very damning against the defendant. That is to discourage police and prosecutors from using unscrupulous tactics to gain such evidence; again abuses by the state against possibly innocent people are seen as worse than a guilty person evading punishment for their crimes. It is the same here with statutes of limitations. --Jayron32 17:13, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

'while the latter is favoring one group of humans' outlook' - seems to prove my first point. Since as has been explained, as is obvious, ultimately the law can only be in favour of one 'outlook', this suggests you are convinced your 'outlook' is the correct one and are unwilling to accept not everyone agrees with you. If there was no statute of limitations because 20.137.18.53 doesn't think there should be one, then the law is still 'favoring one group of humans' outlook', it's just that you're saying it's okay because it's your outlook. P.S. Just to be clear, I'm not saying any specific view on the statute of limitations is right or wrong, simply that there are plenty of reasons why people may feel one way or the other on the matter, and as with most things, if you automatically reject someone else's arguments as wrong because you disagree with them, you're not getting anywhere. Nil Einne (talk) 20:33, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

To the original poster: rather than discussing in the abstract how the statutes could be good for "the people", whatever that is, let's talk about how they could potentially be good for you. They could be good for you because you might someday be accused of something. That would cause you serious negative consequences whether the accusation is true or not, and whether you are convicted or not. Perhaps the prosecution's case, if brought on the basis of evidence involving fading memories and such, would not stand up, but it would still harm you to have it brought at all.

So the statutes say that, after a time that is likely to have rendered evidence unreliable, we bar prosecution. This protects you from having ambiguous evidence from long ago used to bring a case against you. Against this, you have to weigh the value of being able to bring cases based on more solid evidence against the unambiguously guilty. I am not saying whether the current statutes strike the correct balance, but I think you have to remember that, just because an accused person is not convicted, does not mean that person is not harmed. --Trovatore (talk) 21:19, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Curse of the Hope diamond

Regarding the curse of the Hope diamond, is it true that the Smithsonian's fortunes have been increasing while the United States' have been in decline? Dualus (talk) 19:04, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

According to Google News, Smithsonian set record attendance last year. It is well known that the U.S. economy has been suffering for the last 10 years. -- kainaw™ 19:11, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

However, setting record attendance records is only one possible measure of success. That doesn't necessarily mean they are a financial success or considered to be a quality museum. StuRat (talk) 22:02, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I wonder if the indirect advertising via Bones (TV series) has helped? HiLo48 (talk) 16:57, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

What is the term for the verve/initiative/morale/spirit of a group of soldiers that was considered the most important factor in who won or lost a battle, rather than real strategy?

I used to hear it a lot, but it's completely left my head. I don't even know if it's a whole truth or one of those mythical attributes applied to commanders in the middle ages, and British officers in ww1. It would be phrased like " Commander X was confident that the ______ of his troops would win the day" Bewhatever (talk) 19:54, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the word is just morale, but sometimes the french term esprit de corps (lit "spirit of the body", better translated as "spirit of the group") is used. --Jayron32 19:58, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Or you might be thinking of their élan. Textorus (talk) 20:44, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

It's élan. Thank you so much! I was going crazy from frustration.Bewhatever (talk) 21:37, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

No problem. Textorus (talk) 21:52, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Soldiers were often enjoined to be "men of pluck and dash". -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 22:38, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

When I pluck and dash, my wife complains. She wants me to stay around and cuddle for a while afterwards. --Jayron32 23:23, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Women often fall for dashing pluckers. Textorus (talk) 18:21, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

The pheasant plucker™? KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 18:35, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Are we all getting in early for Thanksgiving? -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 20:12, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Espirit d' corps? Greg Bard (talk) 23:21, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Aka Esprit de corps. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.193.78.58 (talk) 23:54, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I believe that another similar term is 'fighting spirit'. Flamarande (talk) 02:09, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Sky Pilot, how high can you fly......--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:04, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Do we ever apply terms like that to our enemies? HiLo48 (talk) 06:19, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Analysis of opposing force morale as a decisive factor is often conducted by military intelligence. Fifelfoo (talk) 06:25, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Depends on who you mean by "we", the media and general public generally wouldn't. Professional military do. As observed it's also an element of assessing the combat effectiveness of an opposing force.

ALR (talk) 10:31, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I was partly thinking of the Japanese "fighting spirit" in WWII. It was rarely doubted, but I cannot imagine anyone using the term élan to describe it. It seemed to be largely based on a love of the Emperor. HiLo48 (talk) 16:54, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

On Google Books, I found only one use of élan applied to Japanese forces during WWII, in a U.S. War Department handbook. As opposed to Japanese "élan vital," which is a different concept. I didn't try to perform an exhaustive search; but my sense is that military élan is a complimentary term, more likely to be used about one's own or an ally's troops than of the enemy's. Textorus (talk) 18:20, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

2nd Indian Mutiny

My late father once mentioned that he was in India after WW2 finished, and took part in a strike, which he referred to as a second Indian Mutiny. He quoted this as the reason he didn't claim his medals and wouldn't buy a poppy. I have been unable to find any detail on this, and wonder if someone out there can help me with this. Thank you. --TammyMoet (talk) 20:23, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Could it have been the Royal Air Force Mutiny of 1946? Textorus (talk) 20:46, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

More likely the Royal Indian Navy mutiny, which was more far-reaching. --Soman (talk) 06:31, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Textorus, you're probably spot on because he was a RAF wireless operator. Thank you. --TammyMoet (talk) 10:12, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. BTW, you might be able to order your dad's service record from the War Office, or whatever it is they call it nowadays. I just saw an episode of Who Do You Think You Are? on youtube where someone did just that. Textorus (talk) 10:43, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

The National Archive

ALR (talk) 10:47, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, my father's records are kept by the RAF Museum at Hendon, and I have it on my "things to do before I die" list to go and research there. Doing it from a distance costs money which I don't have, and going to London costs money which I don't have. I've got as far as I can without spending money, I'm afraid. --TammyMoet (talk) 12:31, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Israel & American policy

From a foreign policy perspective, why does it make sense for the United States to continue supporting Israel and alienate almost every Arabic country in the process? If our Israel - United States relations article is to be trusted, the US went from the most admired country in the Middle East to the most hated due to this support. I understand that during the Cold War, the US wanted allies in that region to prevent all of it from falling into the Soviet sphere, but that concern is obviously no longer valid. --140.180.36.161 (talk) 06:39, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

A non-American's guess - the big parties' policies are influenced by their big financial supporters. It sure happens in my country. HiLo48 (talk) 06:44, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

It's complicated. First you have to read about the Balfour Declaration, which raised the expectation of a Jewish state in Palestine. Then, after the appalling persecution of Jews in the Holocaust, and other factors, President Truman recognized the State of Israel at the moment of its creation, because, as he later said: "Hitler had been murdering Jews right and left. I saw it, and I dream about it even to this day. The Jews needed some place where they could go. It is my attitude that the American government couldn't stand idly by while the victims [of] Hitler's madness are not allowed to build new lives." So ever since, the U.S. has been an ally of Israel. That's how we got involved in the first place. But - there is no simple answer to your question, first of all because it depends on exactly what you mean by "supporting Israel." Militarily? Politically? Approving some particular action or other of the Israeli government? There are many conflicting points of view on those topics here in the U.S., so without a more specific question, no precise answer is possible. However, the overall policy of the current U.S. administration is summed up by our State Department in this speech given yesterday by Assistant Secretary Andrew Shapiro:

We don’t just support Israel because of a long standing bond, we support Israel because it is in our national interests to do so. This aspect of our relationship with Israel is often overlooked. America’s commitment to Israel’s security and prosperity has extended over many decades because our leaders on both sides of the aisle have long understood that a robust United States-Israel security relationship is in our interests. Our support for Israel’s security helps preserve peace and stability in the region. If Israel were weaker, its enemies would be bolder. This would make broader conflict more likely, which would be catastrophic to American interests in the region. It is the very strength of Israel’s military which deters potential aggressors and helps foster peace and stability. Ensuring Israel’s military strength and its superiority in the region, is therefore critical to regional stability and as a result is fundamentally a core interest of the United States.

Beyond that, it may be difficult to find a neutral assessment of the relationship. Feelings run high on both sides of every issue having to do with Israel, it seems to me, both here and around the world. As an individual, my greatest concern is for the victims of injustice and violence, the ordinary folks who suffer because the politicians and religionists of both sides can't sort things out. I just wish everybody would beat their swords into plowshares, settle down, follow the Golden Rule, and get along - but that's just me. Textorus (talk) 11:25, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

You should carefully distinguish between pre-1967 and post-1967 phases. In the 1948-1967 period, the United States certainly supported Israel's existence and the two countries generally had friendly relations (except during the Suez Crisis and its aftermath), but it would have been going a little too far to call the U.S. and Israel active allies -- and the U.S. was always very careful to avoid any appearance that there was any form of military alliance between the U.S. and Israel. However, those inhibitions on the part of the U.S. were thrown out of the window by the events of 1967, when the United States public formed an overall extremely low opinion of Arabs (or certainly of Egypt and Syria), due to the very frequent virulent "Throw the Jews into the sea!" type hate rhetoric accompanied by anti-Americanism that was being loosely tossed around by prominent Arab personalities or spokesmen or ugly mobs, followed shortly by the farcical and pathetic military collapse of the Arab armies on all fronts and the formation of strong and tight Egyptian-Soviet and Syrian-Soviet military alliances. After 1967, the United States and Israel became open close allies in the military and other spheres, and the Arabs mostly had themselves to blame for this turn of events... AnonMoos (talk) 12:51, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

It is an interesting question, why the U.S. is stuck in a posture obviously detrimental to its own interests. In 1948 the Arab world was not a strong actor on the international scene. The oil boom was yet to happen, and most Arab regions were still (directly or indirectly) under colonial control. Siding with the Zionists against the Arabs didn't appear to have to much consequences. The Arab states were also internally very weak, their resistance to the destruction of Palestine was to some extent a symbolic stand and I think many analysts at the time thought the conflict would eventually blow over. Now the situation evolved differently, as the Palestine question was instrumental in shaping the democratic of the Arab masses. Which in turn put the US on the sides of Arab dictatorships, having to repress the Arab people in order to shield of Israel.

That doesn't mean that the US-Israeli alliance is solely negative for US interests, through the military capacity of Israel the US is able to exert pressure of regional oil producers. But clearly the US puts in more in this relationship than it gets back. The problem is that once your get into deep shit, it is not so easy to get out of it. Any US politician speaking out against US funding of Israel is likely to get marginalized, and essentially all recent US govts are held hostage. Interestingly, Obama is more vulnerable to these types of attacks, due to race and conspiracy theories, and thus needs to reaffirm steadfast support for Israel again and again.

We should also remember, that in 1948 both the US and Soviet Union sought to outbid each other for support to Israel. The Soviets hoped that Israel would evolve into a progressive state, and supplied (through Czechoslovakia) armaments for the new state. However, the US sphere provided the financial support for the new state (through direct funds from the US and reparations from West Germany, still technically under occupation), which held to the forging of business linkages and the integration of Israel in the Western sphere of influence. Post WWII events in the Socialist Bloc also contributed to turning Israeli public opinion anti-Soviet. So, in the end the Soviets (after some years of rather confused Middle East policy) opted for aligning with the emerging Arab nationalism of Nasser. --Soman (talk) 14:44, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

"The Soviets hoped that Israel would evolve into a progressive state" seems to be a highly-tendentious code-phrase for "Stalin was in favor of anything that that would lessen British control and power in the middle-east, and was not hesitant about stirring things up and trying out a number of seemingly-inconsistent policies in pursuit of that goal. Stalin also was not without hopes that a new state of Israel could be influenced in some manner by Stalinism -- or at least that the Communist party in Israel would play a role analogous to the French or Italian Communist parties." The word progressive is really a grotesque solecism in this context. AnonMoos (talk) 15:12, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, that is your interpretation. Also, don't forget that Mapam was clearly pro-Soviet in the early phase of the Israeli state. At 1948 Mapam was the second largest party in Israel, and combined with the smaller Israeli CP and the Arab list of Mapam the pro-Soviet bloc had 18.8% of the votes in the 1949 election. So, politically there was a foundation for the Soviet policy. However, the Soviets were incapable to matching the US support economically, leading to the integration of Israel in the Western sphere of influence. --Soman (talk) 16:29, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

By the way, when it comes to Israel's reputation in the U.S. (which is a necessary but not sufficient condition for U.S. support for Israel), Israel actually has a very mixed and overall indifferent record over the years when it comes to spinning specific events. 1967 was a great public opinion success (more because of Arab failings than because of any marked Israeli propaganda prowess, as indicated above) -- but 1956 and 1982 were almost equally great failures. However, one area where Israel was highly successful in connecting with the U.S. public for many decades was in giving the general impression that the Israelis are "like us" or "like Americans" in their values of democracy and political freedom, their desires to work hard to build up a successful society and to be left alone to live with their 2.5-child family in the resulting prosperity, etc. By contrast, the events especially of the 1960s and 1970s gave many Americans an impression of Arabs as a people who hadn't achieved many real accomplishments in modern times that Americans would respect (such as building up strong economies, advanced technologies, progressive societies -- in the sense of the word "progressive" which does not mean "being a subservient toadying groveling flunky to Stalin" -- or political democracies), and yet who seemed to be eager to tear down and destroy the accomplishments that others had achieved, displaying somewhat self-destructively spiteful attitudes of the "I would rather starve than accept half a loaf of bread, if that means that my enemy will also receive half a loaf" type. If things are starting to change in recent years, it's more because of the apparent inability of the Israeli government to crack down on provocative actions by a small number of Jewish religious fanatics and/or the events in the Arab world outside the Palestine-Israel area (since Arabs have almost always been hopeless in framing the Palestinian issue in terms that will significantly appeal to the broad U.S. public, outside of a few lefties or paleocons...) AnonMoos (talk) 16:22, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Are you sure about that last statement? There seems to be considerable debate about the Israeli-Palestinian issue in the US, and lots of people partially support Palestine (and don't unconditionally support Israel). --140.180.36.161 (talk) 17:54, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I think the initial question can best be answered by taking the question in the inverse: Why would it be in the world's interest if there were no Israel, that is, if the Jewish people had no sovereign state at all of their own? That's what the OP is really asking here; phrasing it in the positive rather than the negative doesn't change the fundemental nature of the question; which is about the survival vs. extinction of the Israeli state. I'd posit that the world is NOT a better place without a sovereign Israel in it, which is not to say that the existance of the State of Israel does not itself create stresses on the world. However, this is not a situation where there is some magic solution that has no negative consequences, it's a matter of which situation is less negative; and then working through that situation to ammeliorate the problems it creates. The world tried having the Jewish people as a stateless ethnicity; see The Holocaust for how well THAT worked out. Statelessness is never good for a culture or a people, and the recognition of that is why Isreal has a fundemental right to exist. Now, that DOES raise the problem of how to deal with the (now) stateless people that the creation of Israel caused (the Palestinian people), but we're working on that... The solution is painfully slow, but it would be inaccurate to say that progress has not been made at all in that regard. --Jayron32 16:13, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

That's a false dichotomy. The Palestinian question is not one of Israel as it is now vs. no Israel at all. The favoured solution by the international community seems to be the "two-state solution". There would still be an Israel for the Jews (albeit smaller than it is now), but there would be a Palestine for the Arabs as well. --Tango (talk) 17:39, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I never once, in any word above, made that claim in my entire analysis, so I will thank you not to pretend that I did just to make your own attempt to disagree with me look better. The question was made of why the U.S. supports Israel. The answer is that without U.S. support, Israel would likely cease to exist. The question of Palestinian statehood is a problem that needs to be solved. I clearly and unambigously stated this, so I'm not sure why you felt the need to disagree with a statement that I did not make. It is quite possible to believe that full statehood for both peoples is the only tenable solution to a peaceful middle east, which is why above I made that exact arguement. I'm not sure why you say my statement was false, and then go on to make the exact same statement I made in slightly different words. Let me say it in smaller words and packed all together in one sentance so it is not confusing for you: The Israeli and Palestinian people both deserve sovereign states. If the U.S. did not support Israel's right to exist, however, it would not exist at all. That is the arguement I made above. --Jayron32 20:25, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

You said "I'd posit that the world is NOT a better place without a sovereign Israel in it" - why did you posit that? No-one has been proposing eliminating Israel completely (well, Iran has, but that's about it). Israel would continue to exist without US support, since no-one with any real power wants to get rid of it. You are the one arguing against straw men, not me. --Tango (talk) 22:48, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's the United States government that believes that Israel's survival depends on U.S. support, not me. I was answering the OP's question regarding the beliefs of the U.S. government, not my personal beliefs. My personal beliefs are irrelevent to this discussion, so I'm not sure why you feel the need to assume what they are. If you wish to change the U.S. government's position on this, you should contact your congressperson to convince them, not me. I have no power to change the U.S. government's position. If the arguement is a strawman, then you need to contact the U.S. government who believes that strawman, not me, who is impotent in changing policy with regards to Israel. If it is so important to you that the U.S. government stops supporting Israel, you need to realize I have no power in that regard! --Jayron32 23:23, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

What a bunch of odd responses. The OP's question wasn't about the history of Israel or about Jewish persecution. It said "why does it make sense for the United States to continue supporting Israel?" (I've bolded what seem to be the key words.) It's still a good question. Talk of what happened way back in 1948, '56, '67 and '82 doesn't help explain the word continuing. The Soviets are obviously irrelevant too. Non-specific comments about what's best for the world don't explain American behaviour. HiLo48 (talk) 16:40, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

The U.S. continues to provide support for Israel because without that continued support Israel could cease to exist. --Jayron32 20:25, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

But why does it care about that? HiLo48 (talk) 21:26, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Why do you care whether New Zealand ceases to exist, or any other country? See Israel: Background and Relations with the United States, Congressional Research Service, 2007, p. 3: Since 1948, the United States and Israel have developed a close friendship based on common democratic values, religious affinities, and security interests. . . . The United States and Israel concluded a free-trade agreement in 1985, and the United States is Israel’s largest trading partner. Israel is a prominent recipient of U.S. foreign aid. The two countries also have close security relations. Not to mention 7.7 million souls that could potentially be wiped out because The government views Iran as an existential threat due to its nuclear ambitions and support for anti-Israel terrorists. Textorus (talk) 21:59, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

More history (not relevant to "continue"), and free trade, etc. The US has NOT intervened automatically to stop citizens of other nations being "wiped out". So why Israel? The only hint of a formal reason in your post was "...close security relations". Note: I'm not advocating standing around and watching any people being wiped out, but every country is selective. HiLo48 (talk) 22:13, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

HiLo, it's like you are being deliberately obtuse and disruptive here. You keep asking why, why, why, like a little child who is never satisfied with any answer but keeps on and on just to annoy the hell out of his daddy. I don't make U.S. foreign policy myself, nor do I necessarily agree with every iota of it, but twice in this thread I have quoted the official U. S. government explanation of the policy to you, and provided the links to further reading on the subject in official U.S. government publications. If you don't understand what you read, I guess the only thing left for you to do is to write the State Department and ask for clarification. Textorus (talk) 22:57, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Let's look at that last bit of "policy". It mentions Iran's nuclear ambitions. Hey, Israel already has nuclear weapons. So that doesn't work. Then it mentions Iran's support for anti-Israel terrorists. That's just begging the question. It comes back to the issue of why the US takes Israel's side. Would the US be concerned about terrorism aimed against Iran? The US didn't worry too much about Tamil terrorism. Again, all countries are selective. The US is very selective about Israel. It's interesting to ask why, without condemning that behaviour. HiLo48 (talk) 23:10, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

The answer is really the same as to any question about why politicians do a particular thing - they think it will get them more votes than not doing it. That's not necessarily due to lots of voters supporting the idea (it can be due to campaign funding, for instance), but at the end of the day it always comes down to votes. --Tango (talk) 17:39, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

One can't ignore the possibility that supporting Israel no longer is in the US' rational interest, but that the US continues to do so because it has in the past, and it fears instability should that support diminish or cease. Much of US middle-east policy emphasises short-term stability over a rational (for the US or the middle east) long-term strategy, but short term electoral math says "don't rock the boat". 87.114.91.4 (talk) 17:52, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

With the choice basically being a binary one, between support for Israel or the Muslim states, I believe the reason for a lack of support for Muslims is their terrible reputation in the US. The US sees them as terrorists, people who refuse women the vote, beat them for not wearing a burqa, and stone them to death if any man says they committed adultery. If they convert to Christianity, they can be executed for that, too. The US gets video of them dressing up toddlers as suicide bombers wielding machine guns and see them as hostage takers and murderers. The 1973 Arab oil embargo didn't win them any friends in the US either. Then we see Palestinians dancing in the streets in celebration on 9-11.

There's also the political fact that Muslim nations seem to be unreliable allies. For example, when Turkey was asked to allow US troops to pass through their nation to invade Iraq, the Turks refused, but also implied they might go along if bribed with enough money. And Turkey also refuses to admit to the Armenian genocide and imprisons anyone who talks about it. The there's Saudi Arabia, with a government and laws straight out of the dark ages. And our former ally, Iraq, whom we supported in the Iran/Iraq war, then turned around and used poison gas on the Kurdish villages and invaded Kuwait. Pakistan was also our ally, in fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan, but then turned around and supported Al Queda. Then low and behold, we find Bin Laden hiding right next to their military academy. And Egypt was another ally, but with a government so oppressive it led to a revolution.

Also, if we need something "dirty" done, like bombing the Iranian nuclear sites, Israel is the only one that will do it for us. Now, if as a result of the revolutions of this year (hopefully including the fall of the Syrian government), we get democratic governments that respect basic human rights (freedom of the press, freedom of religion, equal rights for women, etc.) then perhaps the situation will change. I'm skeptical, though, and picture more Taliban-style governments. StuRat (talk) 22:08, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it's easy to find lots of nasty things that some of Israel's neighbours have done, but Israel hasn't exactly been as pure as the driven snow in its behaviour either. I know a tit-for-tat argument is pointless. But saying that the support for Israel is on humanitarian grounds is not enough. That Israel will do the US's dirty work makes sense. HiLo48 (talk) 22:35, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd agree that Israelis have done nasty things to Muslims, just as Muslims have done nasty things to Jews. However, I can't think of any terrorist attacks on the US launched by Jews, nor do they oppress their own people to the same degree that many Muslim nations do. Also, Muslims have attacked other religions, too, such as Christianity (church attacks), Hindus (attacks in India), and even Buddhism (the destruction of the Buddhist statues in Afghanistan by the Taliban). When you attack everyone, you end up with no friends. StuRat (talk) 22:39, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Éamon de Valera and the plastic Paddies

Was Éamon de Valera a plastic Paddy? --Belchman (talk) 16:09, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't appear so. Our article, which surely you have read, mentions his mother was Irish and his father absent (or so); he appears to have been raised Irish and taken to Ireland age 2. The articles gives every indication he was properly Irish. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 16:14, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) No, his mother was Irish and he was raised in Ireland. Plastic Paddy's are the people who show up for the St. Patricks Day parade to drink green beer and wear the "Kiss Me I'm Irish" buttons, and have no other connection to Irish culture than that. Despite the American location of his birth and his Cuban father, Éamon de Valera was clearly an Irishman through and through; I think it borders on offensive to imply that a man who fought hard for Irish independence, and seved multiple terms as both Taoiseach and President of Ireland was a "plastic paddy". --Jayron32 16:18, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I have personally known plastic paddies in the US to claim spurious Cherokee Indian ancestry besides the Irish.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:23, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I'd wager that at least three out of four caucasian families in the U.S. claim to have a Cherokee great-great-grandmother. This claim is common knowledge among people who work in family history, but alas, said grandmas are notoriously shy about appearing in the actual genealogical records. Textorus (talk) 16:43, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes and it's always a Cherokee. Never Sioux, Cheyenne, Iroquois, Choctaw. As if the only Native American tribe was Cherokee and all the women married white guys! I once saw an online family tree where a family claimed their great-grandmother was a full-blood Cherokee yet claimed she was directly descended from English royalty and Charlemagne!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:49, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

In which case, Charlemagne must have had his own Cherokee grandmother.  ;) Textorus (talk) 17:21, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I don't see what makes the claim impossible. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:57, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

The Cherokee lived in the South as a "civilized tribe" during the early settlement of the thinly settled frontier. There was thus some neighborly interaction in the 1600's and 1700's. I'm not sure the Easterners going out West on stagecoaches or later trains interacted in the same way with the Sioux and other western tribes. Many of the ancestral "Cherokee" might have been other tribes of the south and southeast. In many cases the claim is true. At least I know that my grandmother was told that her grandfather was half Cherokee. I doubt that her parents, or her grandmother just made that up. Edison (talk) 20:06, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Same story in my family, but when I traced all the lines back to the appropriate generation and before, there's nothing to indicate Indian ancestry, and nobody turns up on the Dawes Rolls. There may well be a basis for the stories somewhere in the past, but not so near as we were told. Textorus (talk) 20:55, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Guys... all that is very interesting but it's not related to my question, you know. --Belchman (talk) 22:52, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

You got your answer in the first two replies. What did you not understand? Textorus (talk) 23:04, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

You miss the point. I'm saying that this is not the place to chit-chat about that. --Belchman (talk) 23:26, 5 November 2011 (UTC)