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 11

family

to whome this may concern i have been trying to find information about my father and his family my mother realy dont no much i no my father was born in 1902 he said he came to pass christan ms when he was 17 i no he dame from purto rico hi mother name was petra delgado and his fathers name was pancho levy i hope you can help me i have tryed every thing to find out that side of my family history if i can get a pitcher or any thing i would be so gratful i have tryed anstry that didny help.its like my fathrt never exzisted please help me i no he married my mother in june 12 1964 my name is toni james thank you i hope to find something soon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.180.80.228 (talk) 00:18, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

If you know that he lived in Pass Christian, Mississippi, then your best option is to find the records department at the Pass Christian town/city hall and try to find him on the rolls, for example paying local taxes and the such. At the minimum, he should also have birth records for his children, things like that. You could also try U.S. Imigration records, and U.S. census records, both of which are freely availible if you know who to ask. --Jayron32 03:06, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

You might find something useful here[1]. Alansplodge (talk) 16:13, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Assuming that your father has passed away, it might help to track down his death certificate from the Mississippi Vital Records Office. A death certificate will normally list the person's date and place of birth. Assuming that you are correct that this was in Puerto Rico, you could then look for records of his family in his place of birth in Puerto Rico. Here is a link to the public records office in Puerto Rico, from which you could request a birth certificate for your father, which might have a little more information on his parents. To use the site, you will need to understand Spanish or find someone who does. Marco polo (talk) 01:34, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Why have the rich been acting against everyone's interest?

In economies with robust consumer spending, the net present value of assets is much larger than in societies where the middle class is shrinking, even when the nominal value of assets is increasing. Why do the rich tend to increase their nominal wealth instead of their net present value wealth? 208.54.5.71 (talk) 00:50, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

As Thorstein Veblen pointed out long ago, what rich people are really trying to increase is their social status, by and large. Which of these measures do you think would correlate best with social status? Looie496 (talk) 03:36, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

So how is the problem addressed? Lowering the status of those who forgo net present value for lesser nominal wealth? Satire? IRS audits? Actuaries canvassing luxury stores? 208.54.5.71 (talk) 07:24, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Veblen argued that it was a natural human urge to increase personal leisure time (status increase was more a Weberian concept). increases in leisure for one, obviously, invariably means in increase in labor for others. --Ludwigs2 05:49, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Variably: the average hours in a work week can be lowered to restore lost economies in inefficient employment markets. 71.198.176.22 (talk) 21:19, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

To answer your second question, because people are placed in the category "rich" according to their nominal wealth, and NPV wealth is not measured for that purpose? So its just a matter of definition? Where do you get your information from, by the way? Please also explain the logical connections between your first question and the two sentences in your text - they seem to be non sequitur (logic), unless you have hidden assumptions that you have not revealed. I doubt that the assumption of your first question is correct. 92.24.189.189 (talk) 11:11, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

v:Rising Tide 71.198.176.22 (talk) 17:52, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Let's go back to the assumptions in the original post: where exactly is the middle class shrinking? DOR (HK) (talk) 09:03, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I am working on a map. I need Hans Rosling's and his peers' help! 71.198.176.22 (talk) 07:52, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

The Great Depression

what were relief boots and who wore them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.86.167.133 (talk) 01:03, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I can't find any reference whatsover to anything like that. Looie496 (talk) 03:40, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

They were "running shoes," worn by poor children. Rather than leather shoes with leather soles, they could be canvas shoes with rubber shoes, like tennis shoes or basketball shoes. See [2]. Think of any clothing which allows assholes to claim they are better than you because they don't have to wear "relief boots" or any other charity garment, because their Dad hasn't lost his job (yet). Edison (talk) 03:45, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Sort of the footwear equivalent of Government cheese. --Jayron32 04:47, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Average Life Expectancy of African-American Single Mother

How do long do the average African-American single mother live up to? What is their life expectancy? 99.245.73.51 (talk) 04:37, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Have you tried looking at http://www.census.gov ? They have a wealth of information like this availible there. This page has a document titled "Expectation of Life and Expected Deaths by Race, Sex, and Age: 2004" and is availible in both Microsoft Excel and PDF formats. --Jayron32 04:45, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

pauline bienvenue "free men of color buying slaves in 1860 in new orleans"

I'm looking for information on Pauline Bienvenue and her connection to free men of color buying slaevs in 1860 in New Orleans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.113.202.120 (talk) 04:53, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I can find nothing on a Pauline Bienvenue in either google OR google books. I change of spelling turns up a Pauline Bienvenu in google books, [3], however her name appears in the records of the French National Assembly during the French Revolution, apparently the government authorized a payment of 120 livres (pounds sterling) to her for mending some drapes. Doesn't sound like your girl. Otherwise, I turn up squadoosh in a google search. Sorry. --Jayron32 05:06, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

BTW, Livres were the currency of pre-Revolutionary France although it has a common root with the Pound Sterling (i.e. originally a pound (weight) of silver). Alansplodge (talk) 12:26, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Not on this woman, but Wikipedia's art:::icle Free negro, does describe the practice of free blacks owning other black slaves. There are some references at the end of the article, numbers 6, 7, and 8, which appear to have some related information. That may give you some leads. --Jayron32 05:10, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

1930s Depression, 1950s abundance

How did the USA get from the great depression of the 1930s, as illustrated by The Grapes Of Wrath, to the abundance of the 1950s? In historical terms it seems rather quick. Or was the depression and abundance illusionary and not universal? 92.24.189.189 (talk) 11:37, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

World Wars have historically proved to be rather lucrative for the USA (at least that's what they told us at school in the UK - stand by for a scholarly debate). This page has some details[4]. Alansplodge (talk) 12:10, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

A starting point is that in the 1930's, unemployment was a major problem. After the wars, it was common for households to have both parents with full-time employment. -- kainaw™ 12:47, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

It is interesting to note in the references cited by Kainaw that the US economy went from one with a relatively small federal government which did not collect income taxes and spent comparatively little, to a vast tax/spend/borrow governemnt. Tea Party speakers claim that it is impossible for the government now to improve the economy and reduce unemployment by collecting taxes and spending money and borrowing. The UK also went through war conversion, but I understand that the British people still did not get adequate food in the 1950's, that heat was limited and that electric power was somewhat erratic and inadequate. Did the UK not have a postwar boom of household abundance in the 1950's? Edison (talk) 12:54, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Certainly the UK had a 1950s boom, but it took a while to get going. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:56, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Because our infra-structure was bombed to bits (there were still large numbers of Brits living in prefab houses in the 1970s); we were only saved from bankruptcy in 1946 by a huge loan from the US while other Europeans were getting Marshall Aid, and a massive defence bill due to the Cold War and the retreat from Empire. Alansplodge (talk) 15:51, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Harold Macmillan's successful slogan for the General Election of 1959 was "You never had it so good!". And compared with the Slump, Wartime Austerity and even-more-severe Postwar Austerity, he was right and the electorate agreed with him. The Labour Government of 1945-1951 was credited by the voters with introducing reforms like the National Health Service, but remembered negatively for the continuation of rationing and shortages like those of the dark, cold, winter of 1947. Macmillan and R.A. Butler, his Chancellor of the Exchequer, were "red Tories" and stone-cold Keynesians of a type that would make true Tea Partiers and U.S. Libertarians shudder. —— Shakescene (talk) 13:08, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

In the 1950s few women worked outside the home. The 1960s and the advent of feminism changed all of that.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:10, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

There were two reasons for the US recovery from the Great Depression: a very large fiscal stimulus (WWII) and a rise in inflation. During the depression, the economy was crippled by an enormous amount of private debt, but because of inflation this debt was much diminished, relative to the size of the economy. [5] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.166.72.254 (talk) 14:37, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

According to statistics I find online, the female workforce increased from 1950-1960: 9% increase, 2 million women more in the workplace by 1952, by 1960, 38% of women worked... -- kainaw™ 14:46, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

All very good answers, and certainly the second world war had a lot to do with it.

Now, there's tea on the talk page you know! And I am certain that you ladies would be most welcome there, "too"... :) WikiDao ☯ (talk) 16:18, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Water supplies during the Berlin airlift

How were the allied-controlled parts of Berlin supplied with water during the 1948–1949 Soviet blockade? —Mark Dominus (talk) 13:14, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Berlin gets all of its drinking water from deep wells. It currently has 9 waterworks and exports water to Brandenburg. I would suspect that at least some of these wells and works are in West Berlin. Given that the Havel and the Spree also flow through West Berlin, water is not a vulnerability. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:10, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! —Mark Dominus (talk) 15:34, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

costs of things

how much social security money has been spent on Irag and Afghanistan wars —Preceding unsigned comment added by Parpar47 (talk • contribs) 15:46, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok, from "Social Security" I'm going to assume you're a U.S. citizen. The total expenditure on activities in Iraq and Afghanistan since the September 11 attacks has been ~$1.1 trillion ($1,100,000,000,000) (ED: Fixed from my earlier £ notation) according to the Congressional Budget Office. ([6]) However, obviously nowhere near all of that money would have gone into social security had it not been spent on the wars. For example, between 2000 (before this whole mess started) and 2009, U.S. Defense spending rose from $294b to $690b, while spending on social security rose from $409b to $431b ([7]).

Would social security spending have risen more had it not been for the inflating Defense budget? Probably, but who knows by how much, and maybe it wouldn't have at all. Personally, I suspect that spending wouldn't have increased all that much more, but the U.S. would have a much lower national debt than it's currently bearing, and would have had a bit more leeway in dealing with the economic crisis, which in all likelihood would have taken place, foreign wars or no. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 16:26, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

There is another angle to this. Apparently, the Social Security Administration invests most (or all) of the social security system surplus (and yes, there usually is some!) into the Social Security Trust Fund, which uses it to buy special US federal government bonds. So the social security system does finance a significant part of the US deficit, and hence of the government spending. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:09, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

(e/c) For the Americans in the crowd (such as myself) that's $1,747,418,586.18. I'm happy to pay off the 18 cents myself, but I could have sworn the mid-east wars tallied up to a good bit more than that - I seem to remember a figure of closer to 3 trillion dollars. Is the CBO report excluding some costs (interest payments, payouts to non-governmental contractors, stockpile consumption, or other implicit expenditures)? --Ludwigs2 17:11, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

The source document GeeJo quotes is American, and uses US dollars exclusively. The relevant deficit was $1.1 trillion, not £1.1 trillion. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:03, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

My apologies for the typo. Not all that used to thinking in dollars. Corrected in my earlier post. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 08:19, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Social Security has run a surplus for quite some time now (since 1983, as pointed out in the Social Security Trust Fund article), though that's predicted to change in the next couple of years (2017, according to this 2005 article). Basically, the surplus money is invested in U.S. government bonds (seems like a safe investment, right?). Of course, the government's using the money to cover its deficit, just like it does for every other bond it sells. In that respect, social security's no different. However, when the government's essentially loaning money to itself, there becomes a temptation to not pay things back when the time comes to do so (I guess that Chinese investors are pushier than bureaucrats whose jobs depend on the people you're loaning money to). It used to be that there were no physical bonds held, that everything was just kept track of electronically, or in a ledger. Someone wanted something physical that the social security guys could wave around, so now we have things in a file cabinet in some office building somewhere. Even so, I think that there's a pretty good chance that the legislature isn't going to want to redeem those bonds when they're due. What that means for social security isn't certain, but let's just say that I, a U.S. citizen in his 20s, am not including social security payments in my retirement plans. Buddy431 (talk) 19:26, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Lookup ancestry.co.uk ?

Who was Mary Arbuthnott who married 1990 Ran Laurie father of Hugh Laurie? Kittybrewster ☎ 17:53, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

The source quoted in the article for the marriage doesnt actually say Mary just Eveline M Arbuthnot. She may have been Eveline M. Morgan who married Ernest D Arbuthnot (note with one t) in 1939[8] but that is just guesswork. The death index for 2004 gives her middle name as Mary. MilborneOne (talk) 19:55, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Perfect answer. Good guesswork which is spot on. Thank you. Kittybrewster ☎ 01:40, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

The Road by Cormac McCarthy

Was the misspelling of words, use of non-words and lack of apostophes intentional in this book? I finally started writing words down to look them up after thinking I was coming down with Alzheimer's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.10.65.145 (talk) 19:22, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't remember that at all (I think I've given my own copy away, alas). It's certainly not Ulysses in that regard. Jonathan Franzen not withstanding, modern works very rarely are printed with major editing errors. Can you list some of these un-words? -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 19:31, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

McCarthy does it on purpose; it creates a certain mood or tone distinctive to his writing. Faulkner (and the two are often compared) did the same sort of thing. Our article mentions his grammatical style very briefly:

"McCarthy noted to Oprah that he prefers 'simple declarative sentences' and that he uses capital letters, periods, an occasional comma, a colon for setting off a list, but 'never a semicolon.' He does not use quotation marks for dialogue and believes there is no reason to 'blot the page up with weird little marks.'"

Which doesn't really convey the quality of the actual literary result, but given the kind of writer he is it would seem okay to assume that he probably knows what he's doing... :) WikiDao ☯ (talk) 19:50, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

68.10.65.145, I just flipped through my copy and didn't really see any misspelling or use of non-words. It's the apostrophes and quote-marks (or rather lack of them) that really stand out in McCarthy. Would you mind listing a few of the words you wrote down – and how did you look them up if they were "non-words"...? WikiDao ☯ (talk) 23:26, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I've skimmed my copy of All the pretty horses. He does have some stylistic quirks, but they're all there to speed your reading. The thing about not having quotation marks for speech, and omitting the "he said, she said, he said, ..." from dialog-heavy parts is unusual but certainly not unique. Hubert Selby Jr. uses this extensively in Last exit to Brooklyn; in the introduction for that, Selby says that he strove to get the text out of the way of you reading it - to give each character a sufficiently distinct voice that you just know from reading the text who's saying what. All the pretty horses uses a lot of Spanish loanwords (unsurprising given its milieu), and there's a bunch of topic-specific vocabulary that wasn't familiar to me (most people don't talk about a hackamore in their modern lives); The Road should do less of this, but McCarthy isn't afraid to use a word you might not know, if it suits him better. Lastly, when McCarthy writes phonetic dialog, he does seem to omit apostrophes when showing omitted letters - ridin rather than ridin'. But the accent is a lot less thick than Huckleberry Finn (which, as a child in Scotland, read to me like it was written by a Martian) and a heck of a lot less than How late it was, how late. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 13:18, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

The Big Clunking Fist

In his final Prime Ministers Questions of his premiership, Tony Blair made a speech in which he described his successor, Gordon Brown, as a "big clunking fist", a heavyweight who would knock out the flyweight David Cameron. We are looking for an audio recording of this speech - do you know where such a recording would be available, ideally online? Such a recording does exist as it has been used in a programme after the resignation of Gordon Brown, which unfortunately was not available to "listen again". Any such advice any of you could impart would be most gratefully received. All the best, Artie and Wanda (talk) 20:58, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

http://www.kewego.com/video/iLyROoaftmm0.html or http://news.bbc.co.uk/player/nol/newsid_6240000/newsid_6245400/6245442.stm?bw=nb&mp=wm but for some reason neither are loading probably so can't find if they include the comment you refer to. ny156uk (talk) 21:32, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Roosevelt and the Depression

I remember reading somewhere that during FDR's economic stimulus projects the economy began to turn up and Roosevelt decided to cut spending which immediately resulted in a massive downturn that he had to solve with even more spending. Does Wikipedia have an article, and if not What year was this, how much was cut? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.92.78.167 (talk) 22:05, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

See Roosevelt Recession, a.k.a. Recession of 1937–1938. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:12, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

how did rome fall

how did the roman emire fall. was it fast or pesefull

how did the roman emire fall. was it fast or pesefull —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.5.150 (talk) 23:55, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Barbaric invasions I believe caused Rome's fall. ScienceApe (talk) 00:19, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

It could be considered to start with the Crisis of the third century and end in 1204 (4th crusade) or 1453 (fall of Constantinople), so it wasn't really too "fast". A classic work is The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire... AnonMoos (talk) 00:43, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

During the late 200s, the Roman Empire was divided into two parts, the Western Empire and the Eastern Empire, to make it easier to govern. The Eastern Roman Empire endured for more 1,000 years in the form of the Byzantine Empire, which had a very gradual, but not a peaceful decline. Its final collapse in 1453 was the result of a military siege and therefore not peaceful. The Western Roman Empire, on the other hand, had a fairly rapid decline and fall during the 5th century (400s). A recent work that has won some critical acclaim—The Fall of Rome and the End of Civilization by Bryan Ward-Perkins—argues that the Western Empire was reasonably prosperous and mostly peaceful as late as the year 400. According to his account, it was a series of invasions by mostly Germanic tribal armies, beginning with the Crossing of the Rhine in 406 and the Sack of Rome (410) that brought the empire down. These events weakened the empire, which suffered a series of additional invasions, until a Germanic military leader named Odoacer overthrew the last Western Emperor in 476. So, the fall of the Western Empire occurred during the span of a single human lifetime, and it was certainly not peaceful. Marco polo (talk) 01:09, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

One could always argue that the institution of a Centralist regime versus the Democratic form of government was the initialization of the fall of Rome. The Roman Republic, as far as I know, was fairly stable with a good series of ups and downs, but no bottoming out. The Roman Empire, however, was ridden with Civil War and fights over succession to the throne. schyler (talk) 03:49, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the reality is likely much the opposite. The republic was NOT terribly stable, especially in the later years, the centralization of power in the Imperial government provided some much needed stability. The last century or so of the Republic, starting with the Gracchi reforms and down through the end of the Empire, was one major upheaval after another. In the last years of the republic, you had two military dictators Sulla and Julius Caesar, both of which occupied the city of Rome militarily. You had open civil war amd war with Egypt after Caesars' death. By contrast, the first several decades of the Empire were relatively peaceful. There were some upheavals, mostly due to the lack of a concrete succession plan (which is ALWAYS a problem, everywhere and at every point of history).

To answer the OP's question, it is fairly complex. The Western Empire's fall was largely due to several factors. First, the Western Empire was much poorer, in terms of resources, and in terms of more dispersed population, than the Eastern. The Eastern Empire had a long, relatively stable border with a highly organized state (Persia), so negotiating peace meant negotiating with ONE government. The West, on the other hand, had a long, hard to defend border with no single organized state. Instead, you had dozens of warring bands of Germans, who were frequently at war with each other AND with Rome, and were impossible to make peace with, since there was no one really to negotiate peace with. If you made peace with the Visigoths, that pissed off the Gepids. If you made peace with the Gepids, the Vandals took umbridge. Etc. Etc. So, for many centuries, the West was always in a precarious position. Even before the Empire was formally divided into east and west, many Emperors prefered to rule from Constantinople, rather than Rome. By the end of the 4th century, the western Emperors were also pretty inept. Nearly all of the last half-dozen or so died violent deaths, either assinated or lynched by their own people. The western Armies were under the control of Germanic generals (Ricimer, Gundobad, Odoacer), and they held the REAL power in the west, the various emperors were just their puppets. So, what brought down the Western Empire was the following factors:

• Poorer, in general, than the Eastern, including

• Less natural resources
• Less urban, more dispersed, and lower population
• Less developed infrastructure (outside of the Peninsula of Italy, it was quite poorly built and maintained)

• Long, undefendable frontier with warring tribal peoples
• Generally weak, ineffectual emperors under the control of their Germanic generals.

The last of these Generals, Odoacer, finally gave up trying to rule the Empire through the various Puppet emperors, and declared himself King of Italy, and thus an end to the Western Empire.

The Eastern Empire lived on for another 1000 years, it had several more centuries of prosperity, though after the Siege of Constantinople (1204), it was basically nibbled away by Latin crusaders from the West and from migrating Turks from the East. It dragged on as a "rump" empire for almost another 300 years after that, though it was finally put to rest in 1492, as the Ottomans seized control of Constantinople. After 1492, there were various claims to the Third Rome, such as the Russians (as the sole defenders of Orthodox Christianity) and the Ottomans (as the rulers of Constantinople, the second Rome). --Jayron32 04:24, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Small correction, it was 1453. 1492 was another tragedy ;-). As for the original question, scholars (and others) have spent ages speculating on why Rome "fell". Apart from the fact that the Empire was absurdly overstretched, given the manpower and communication methods of the time, I think one major reason was its own prosperity. It was always more attractive to try to fight for control in Rome than to fight against its enemies - Rome was simply the larger price. That lead to many civil wars. Diocletian's reforms that ended the crisis of the third century did so at the cost of imposing a much stricter, top-down administration. It worked in the short term, but lacked the resilience in the long term (where, of course, we have to keep in mind that Rome's decline even in the west lasted longer than many current states exist - it's a bit like us feeling superior to the Dinosaurs, because they only made it for 160 million years). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:03, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I’d like to mention Joseph Tainter’s interpretation of the collapse of Western Rome (which is very much on the lines already suggested by Stephan above): to Tainter, it’s just another case of overshoot and collapse. The empire never really had the productive base to support its own weight. It grew on conquest and plunder but then had to be maintained with ever higher taxes. The yoke was too heavy on the peasants’ shoulders, and the collapse was inevitable. But here’s the thing: they couldn’t very well scale down either. They just kept doing what they’d always done – centralizing the government, raising taxes and pouring money into the military, until their economy was kaputt, their coffers were empty and they couldn't even retreat any more. In the end, the west caved in while the eastern half, being much richer to begin with, managed a transition to a less centralized system.

And pace Ward-Perkins, Tainter maintains that in many places in the west, the barbarians were actually ”greeted as liberators” by the downtrodden peasantry. A peasant’s life in late western Rome was serfdom, hard and unrewarding. No wonder the Roman Church was so harsh on suicide and so big on ”the sweat of thy brow”.--Rallette (talk) 09:25, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

And remember that the "barbarians" had been in contact with Rome for hundreds of years, and were heavily Romanized themselves. Adam Bishop (talk) 19:12, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. Not only had the "barbarians" been romanized, they had totally bought in to the romantic notion of the Perpetual Empire. Consider that the two important successors to the Western Emperors, Odoacer and Theodoric the Great, were both German "barbarian" military leaders who saw themselves as defenders of the Empire, not as its conquerers. The both voluntarily ruled Italy as viceroys of the Eastern Emperor, not as independant kings in their own right. --Jayron32 01:31, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

October 12

Bengali version of haiku

In Bengali literature, they have their own haiku poetry but it is different when it comes to number of syllables and lines. i forgot what is called. Does anybody know? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.89.43.219 (talk) 00:05, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

There is the kural in Tamil literature. Could there be a Bengali equivalent? -- Q Chris (talk) 09:15, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Good things Nazis did

I'm trying to compile a list of some good things Nazis did. The only things I can really think of are their treatment of animals (which was humane), and their methods for treating hypothermia (although at the cost of subjecting many human subjects to freezing temperatures). Was there anything else? ScienceApe (talk) 00:19, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

What is your definition of "good?" For example, the Nazis made great advances in rocket science -- but at the expense of slave labor, and they used the rockets to attack British cities. That's why questions like this are impossible to answer. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:31, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I consider the V2 rocket to be a good thing. ScienceApe (talk) 01:40, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

As in any war, great strides in technology were made by the nations involved in World War II. I believe that Germany developped a lot of synthetic oil and coal derivatives: Buna rubber, for examples. IG Farben was the big German chemical company before and during the war. You can't forget advances made in all sorts of war technology (tanks, guns, planes; it's up to you whether any of that's "good" or not, but it was certainly technological progress). The one that I think people would like the most is jet engines, although it's not like we wouldn't have 747s if the Nazis hadn't invented the jet during the war (others were certainly developing similar concepts). Hitler instigated his infamous anti-smoking campaign, the butt of so many jokes employing Reductio ad Hitlerum arguments. There's also the German Autobahnen, much of which was built under the Nazis. Buddy431 (talk) 02:02, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

BTW, the US jet engine programme started in 1942, before any of the Allies knew about German jets, with the assistance of Frank Whittle who wasn't a Nazi. The first US jet engine was based on a British engine. The US ended up making the Armstrong Siddeley Sapphire under licence. The Soviets just copied a Rolls-Royce engine that we sent them as a present. Alansplodge (talk) 20:48, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

The classic VW bug was a great car for its era. Magnetic tape recording was seized upon by the world after the fall of Germany and revolutionized record making and radio production. U-boats were the best submarines of the era and influenced postwar sub design. Edison (talk)

We just had this question a couple of months ago, with some more examples given there. Adam Bishop (talk) 04:30, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

It is largely to their credit that others determined the need to end WWII. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 04:35, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think they did any good things. Any "good things" they did were the result of barbaric methods such as slave-labour or the lethal experimentation upon unwilling victims, eg sea hypothermia data. The VW was manufactured by the British Vw#1945:_British_Army.2C_Major_Ivan_Hirst.2C_unclear_future after the war, although designed prior to the war. A4 paper was designed in Germany but prior to when the Nazis were in power. A4 paper is in daily use throughout the world (apart from North America) today, but apparantly it was not designed by the Nazis. 92.29.125.142 (talk) 09:44, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

There is a certain sense of chicanery involved. The Germans do have these incredibly nice roads, but the thing is, it's easy to make a nice smooth stable road if you make it three times thicker by everyone else's using virtual slave labor. But the philosophy gets a little bit dicier where technology is involved: do the externalities of the V-2 impinge on the science? Can someone say, he worked out principles of rocket design, but wasn't fouled by considerations of how those rockets were made, how that information was learned, what its purpose was at the time? Such questions have been asked in many contexts and often it seems like neither "yes" nor "no" can be satisfactory. Wnt (talk) 20:51, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Or as Tom Lehrer said, "'Vonce ze rockets are up, who cares vhere zey come down? Zat's not my department!' says Wernher von Braun. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:48, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

They gave us the Volkswagen. Assuming that's a "good" thing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:18, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Not quite. Almost none were built before or during the war. See Vw#1945:_British_Army.2C_Major_Ivan_Hirst.2C_unclear_future. 92.28.252.6 (talk) 22:51, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

The Nazis provided us with some good laffs. Bus stop (talk) 22:47, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

This isn't too funny but I just thought I should reference it for perspective. Bus stop (talk) 23:35, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

It occurs to me that "good" things is perhaps a bit of an oxymoron. Maybe "useful" things would be closer to the mark. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:45, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Unquestionably the best thing they did was lose the war. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:35, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Italian comic

I would ask this on the refdesk at it.wiki, but as far as I can tell there isn't one, so here goes:

In the early 90s there was a series of humorous writings called Pillole, put out by something called Università del Progetto. The one I'm looking for in particular was an account of Adam and Eve in the Garden, with God warning them not to eat of the nocciol tree (from Italian nocciolo, "hazelnut tree"), because he wanted all the Nuttell (Nutella) for himself. It was written in that funny sort of italo-English. I remember a line "Adam and Eve didn't ebber the temp that the tuons and fulmins apparved in the ciel".

Does this ring a bell with anyone? I can't seem to track it down with Google. --Trovatore (talk) 08:49, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:RD has an interwiki link to the Italian page it:Wikipedia:Oracolo, which appears to be a reference desk of sorts. Algebraist 09:17, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I've made a request there. Still, if anyone here recognizes it, please let me know. --Trovatore (talk) 09:24, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

obviously impossible

Dear Madam,

your article says: " In this series an eyewitness account tells of Hitler watching movies (which he did very often). If ever a scene showed (even fictional) cruelty to or death of an animal, Hitler would cover his eyes and look away until someone alerted him the scene was over" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler's_vegetarianism

This is obviously impossible of a man who ordered millions of people killed. So, you should change it, since as it stands it is the strongest sentence denying the holocaust as orchestrated by Hitler that I have ever read.

Please accept the expression of my regards, 92.229.15.149 (talk) 09:59, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

John Wayne Gacy was a clown at children's parties. Monsters have feelings too, it just doesn't excuse their monstrous behaviour. There is no such thing as 'obviously impossible' when it comes to human nature and cognitive dissonance. → ROUX ₪ 10:05, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Dear Roux,

Did you even read my quotation? It says he would look away even if an animal was killed. This is impossible to reconcile with ordering humans killed. You must change that sentence.

Please accept, etc 92.229.15.149 (talk) 10:45, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

No, it doesn't work that way. It's quite possible for there to be reputable sources that attest to his discomfiture at seeing cruelty to animals, co-existing with reputable sources that attest to his ordering of the Holocaust. People are complex creatures. Just because we find it hard to reconcile the opposing aspects of their characters does not mean that the more unlikely sounding reported behaviour is obviously wrong. And his feelings for animals do in NO way, shape or form amount to holocaust denial. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 11:13, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The article doesn't say that he did look away when an animal was killed. It says an eyewitness reported he did. There must be questions as to how reliable any friend, associate or even acquaintance of Hitler would be as an eyewitness. I think we should look at the source and check that we have reflected the source in the most appropriate way. It may take a little bit of time to do that. Any of us can help out with that, including the original poster. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:14, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, that article is in dire need of attention. The point about Hitler regaling his company with graphic descriptions of an abattoir is used twice, and in support of mutually conflicting conclusions. (I'd say there's no conflict between that story and a love of animals; it's rather like Tolstoy's little prank of serving a live duck plus a meat cleaver to a carnivorous guest.)

And as we know, millions of people are happy to eat factory-farmed meat so long as they don't have to see what it means "on the ground", as they say. People can, it seems, reconcile anything inside their own heads.--Rallette (talk) 11:16, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Is anyone else getting sick of 92's trolling? Adam Bishop (talk) 11:41, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

92, you should go have a listen to the gentle, acoustic Look at Your Game, Girl sung by Charles Manson. Nobody would ever guess that soft, melodic voice belonged to the wild-eyed Manson. Jack of Oz is right: human beings are complex, contradictory. A ferocious wife-beater could cry during a sad film; decent law-abiding citizens often walk uncaringly past injured people in the street, violent criminals attend religious services....I could go on and on citing the contradictory behaviour of humans.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:21, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

You may be eyewitness yourself to Hitler's tender moments with his dog (video). Cuddlyable3 (talk) 14:28, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I suppose the obvious question that arises from this is "Did Hitler ever watch any of the cruel acts that he caused"? Was he ever present at an execution, or visit a concentration camp? Buddy431 (talk) 14:29, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article about the failed 20 July plot to assassinate Hitler notes that Hitler ordered those found guilty to be "hanged like cattle". The executions were reportedly filmed and later reviewed by Hitler. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 14:44, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

While I understand the attraction of the whole 'boogieman' scenario - the belief that horrendous events must be caused by ravening maniacs - the reality of the situation is that evil events are usually caused by more-or-less normal people who believe they are 'doing the right thing' according to a flawed interpretation of some ideology. Doesn't matter whether you're talking about the Manson killings, the Holocaust, the Spanish Inquisition, 9/11, Abu Graib and Guantanamo Bay, or any other brutality; one has to be tremendously morally self-righteous even to contemplate such acts. --Ludwigs2 15:32, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes and no. There's a difference between "getting a government to do bad things" and "getting a small group of people to do bad things." There are different dynamics of accountability, how convincing you have to be, etc. Manson, for example, was pretty much a "raving maniac" who wanted to start a race war because he thought it would lead to him being appointed king of the whites. He was a sadist and a pimp and a guy who got people to follow him in part because he targeted very vulnerable individuals and then isolated them from everyone else and gave them huge amounts of drugs while he then drilled in his crazy worldview. Such an approach will probably at best get you about what Manson got — a dozen or so people willing to do horrible things in his name. It won't let you take over an entire nation, though. Hitler and Manson are two totally incomparable situations, even if some aspects of their worldviews overlap. --Mr.98 (talk) 18:23, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

actually, it's easier to get a nation to do atrocities than to get a small group to do so. Much greater diffusion of responsibility; much more potential for applying social pressure to recalcitrant individuals. Manson would have had a distinct problem appearing respectable enough to get himself elected to office, obviously, but if he had managed to do so it would have been child's play for him to convince the nation to start a race war, and he would have made the Nazis look like rank amateurs. --Ludwigs2 21:38, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I look away when a movie features onscreen surgery, but that doesn't mean I'm morally opposed to doctors, I just prefer not to watch them work. APL (talk) 16:13, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

People support the death penalty but hug their children at night. Impossible! Aaronite (talk) 16:19, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I find it hard to believe this question/request is done in good faith. Surely you have met people who are callous towards the fate of human beings in need (e.g. the poor or the unlucky) but would certainly cringe at the idea of hurting an animal? It is not that hard to believe at all. --Mr.98 (talk) 19:48, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Obviously it's not asked in good faith - if you don't pick that up from the 'dear madam' bit, you're gooney. but it's not a super-stupid question, all things considered, so whatever... --Ludwigs2 21:31, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Is there any eyewitness record of Hitler watching movies of mass murders in the Holocaust?Edison (talk) 05:06, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Obviously, this is an instance of what seems to be known as "trolling" here at the RD. Surprising that it was not dealt with as summarily as the one about "how do magnets work".

I thought this discussion was worthwhile; I think every one of the respondents above made a good point. Is there an article, though, that directly addresses the "gangster-crying-at-the-opera" phenomenon? I couldn't find one with that or similar search terms. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 08:15, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Here is an example of a ruthless killer garbed in the divine robes of the Holy Church: Cesare Borgia. Note that some historians are now attempting to whitewash him and his crimes. It should also be mentioned that Hitler had once thought of becoming a priest himself! It is in his article.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:30, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, Borgia at least had the wherewithal to employ Leonardo da Vinci, I guess. And I suppose it should be pointed out that some "ruthless killing" is considered acceptable, occasionally even commendable, even by "us".

The aerial bombardment of cities by the Allies during World War II, for example, culminating of course in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. How could President Truman have done it? Well, in the context at the time it seemed to be what needed to be done, so he did it. It is something that now all Americans (at least) "accept" and understand to have been done in their name, as horrible a thing as it truly was to do. Civilians are killed on a regular basis by military action (and OGA drone strikes...) today, and all Americans bear collective responsibility for that. Still, we permit it, let it be done in our name, with the understanding that it is a consequence of our national interest in needing to fight "terrorists", even though we (the vast majority of us) deeply regret that consequence and feel great remorse for those victims.

This is all far afield now from a discussion of what went on in Hitler's "experience". But we are all very complex beings, and there is good and evil in us all. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 09:19, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

See this article: Zoroastrianism.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 10:30, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, if we are going to start getting theological about it, our Problem of evil article ought perhaps to be mentioned here. And then from a completely different perspective, there is also the Evolutionary ethics article. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 10:45, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Can a dummies' guide to recognising trolls be included at the top of this page? For those of us who are dummies in that regard.Itsmejudith (talk) 10:48, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia Founder Jimbo Wales giving a lecture on dealing with trolls.

Discussing a guide to that is likely going to go way beyond the scope of this question (or this whole desk!), and will probably lead to exhaustive debate discussion on the talk page if proposed. There's What is a troll? which I haven't read myself yet. And I do not see any simple appropriate header templates at Reference desk templates to use here, either, if that's what you meant. I've seen something used that might serve that purpose, but don't know where that is WikiDao ☯ (talk) 11:14, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

19th Century English diction

Dear Madam,

I am interested in a "link" to a clear speaker of English from the 19th century... I have looked at several early recordings but the sound quality is very, very low. I am interested in diction, elocution, and pronunciation from this time. Thank you for any assistance you may be able to render in this matter.

In the wait of your response, please accept my most distinguished sentiments, 92.229.15.149 (talk) 11:19, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, sound-recording technology was still rather primitive then, and time has not been kind to many of the physical media on which the recordings were stored. AnonMoos (talk) 12:10, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Also the limitations of the equipment would not allow preservation of such details. Remember the grumpy faces and stiff poses of early photographs limited by the long reaction time of the photographic plates in use at the time. Early sound recording probably encouraged loud, slow, over-enunciated speech that didn't exactly preserve "natural" speech. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 12:55, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Cuddlyable3 (talk) 14:15, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

If you don't mind going further back in time, there are the current residents of Tangier Island. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 14:38, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

The above recording of Sullivan is a good example from the UK. Here is Thomas Edison, on a cylinder from 1888,"Around the world on the Phonograph." I note that initial "r" sounds sound a bit like a "flap r" and that vowels sound a bit longer than in modern speech. He can be taken as a nortmal speaker of 19th century midwestern US English, and not someone trained in elocution. Edison (talk) 16:11, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I note he says "hotehl" with a long "a" for the "e"' in hotel. In "Bombay" he has a long pure "a" like European languages, without the diphthong "ay" or "aee" of modern US English. Edison's (born 1847) English sounded more like 19th century UK English than their equivalents a century and more later. Edison (talk) 04:43, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

In the wait of your response, please accept my most distinguished sentiments - that seems very much in keeping with a question about 19th century manners. Is it a historically recorded valedictory form, or did you make it up yourself? -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 21:51, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Sounds fairly standard, compare to: "Awaiting your urgent response, I ask you, Dear Sir, to accept the assurance of my most distinguished sentiments,...". PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 22:37, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Here is Robert Browning, born 1812, in 1889, reciting a poem: [9], and here is Florence Nightingale, born 1820, recorded 1890, on Edison cylinders. Here [10] is Arthur Conan Doyle, born 1859, recorded in 1927. I note that the same speaker's speech patterns may vary over the decades.Edison (talk) 04:46, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Or you can listen to Alfred Lord Tennyson (1809-1892) reciting The Charge of the Light Brigade (poem) here[11]. Alansplodge (talk) 20:54, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Siamese Twin Terminology

It would appear to me that the term Siamese Twin would now be deemed politically incorrect, seeing as not all twins come from Siam. Would the more correct term today be conjoined twin? If not, then what would be considered politically correct? Thanks! Stripey the crab (talk) 12:38, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Conjoined twins - but not necessarily more "politically correct", just a better, clearer, less misleading term. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:55, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia has an article on Conjoined twins that explains the origin of the term Siamese twins. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 14:17, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Political correctness is the only reason why the terminology changed. "Conjoined twins" is not better, clearer or less misleading, since the term Siamese twins was already widely used and understood. --Viennese Waltz 07:35, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

According to whose definition does "Siamese" mean "conjoined"? "Conjoined twins" is obviously more correct, but I fail to see any sense in which it is "politically" correct. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:33, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I have the 1988 edition of Chambers English Dictionary in front of me. "Siamese twins: Chinese twins (1811-74), born in Siam, joined from birth by a fleshy ligature: any set of twins thus joined" [my emphasis]. --Viennese Waltz 08:51, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but I'm curious as to why you think that the terminology only changed because of "political correctness", when it is clearly a more accurate and appropriate term. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:19, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't accept that "conjoined" is a more accurate or appropriate term. How can it be, when the "Siamese" definition I quoted above is there in the dictionary? Notwithstanding Trovatore's comment below, there is no risk of ambiguity. No-one talks about "Siamese twins" meaning "twins from Siam", and if they did need to, then the context would make it clear that they were talking about twins from Siam rather than twins who are joined together. Your argument seems to be that "conjoined" is a neutral, purely descriptive term. My point is, so is "Siamese". --Viennese Waltz 09:42, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

The fact that a word or term is in dictionaries does not necessarily mean it is neutral, appropriate, PC or anything else. "Fuck", "cunt" and "nigger" are all found in most dictionaries, but one still must be somewhat judicious in their use. I think the point is this: Using an expression that uses a racial descriptor to apply to people of widely different races could easily be seen as politically incorrect, and its use would therefore be contraindicated. Using a more technically accurate expression, while not necessarily a case of politically correctness per se, would be the obvious alternative in this case. Another way of looking at it is that "Siamese twins" was completely accepted as the term, until the era of political corrrectness arrived, since when it has been deemed to no longer be appropriate. Had that era never arrived, we'd still probably be talking about Siamese twins. But we don't, and we can thank nobody but the political correctness police for that. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 09:54, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Was the deprecation of that term really driven by the political correctness police in this case? I wasn't aware that "Siamese" was ever much of a racial slur, was it? I think the eponymous case just became less culturally familiar and other cases with no "Siamese" connection ;) but with the quality of "being conjoined" became somewhat more familiar (I can't really think of any, but I'm sure they're out there). WikiDao ☯ (talk) 10:35, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I must say that I find the notion of there being "political correctness police" in cases like this quite baffling. Many people found the term "Siamese twins" inappropriate and inaccurate, compared to the term "conjoined twins" - so they stopped using it, in favour of the more accurate term. "Political correctness" does not describe the process. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:43, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Not a slur at all, but a word doesn't need to have pejorative possibilities to render its use undesirable. It's analogous to female presiding officers saying they didn't want to be referred to as "chairmen". There's nothing wrong with being a man, but to refer to a woman as any kind of "man" is as silly as referring to conjoined twins from Zanzibar, Iceland or Brazil as "Siamese". If I may put on my OR hat: Had the original so-called Siamese twins been Americans, does anyone seriously believe the term "American twins" would ever have come into use? Well, we can never know, but I would say No. To that extent, the use of "Siamese twins" had a whiff of racism about it. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 10:52, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Let me borrow that OR hat for a moment. Remember when we used to call tongue kisses "French kisses" even when they were not performed by Frenchmen? I know, how weird was that?

I don't know, I don't think the racial slur argument completely carries water here. I think this is one of the cases where the word Siamese is being avoided because it's a remainder of the fact that Siam used to be a colonial name of an "exotic land" - but if that is so, one has to wonder why we still call a breed of cats Siamese, or a type of tea Ceylon tea. I don't think there is any compelling reason to have had the terminology changed, I think some sort of hyper-corrective PC mindset was at work here. TomorrowTime (talk) 11:22, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

It is a racial descriptor, there's no doubt it has "racial" tones to its use. The eponymous twins came from a far away little-known place with an exotic name. It was a selling point to use it, but it could have been just about any other similarly exotic-sounding place for all Americans would have known. Which is certainly indicative of exploitation and cultural ignorance, no doubt. And the social move away from that sort of thing has undoubtedly played a part in the term's deprecation. Also, it was simply practical or otherwise linguistically desirable to shift to a more accurately descriptive name. So: all of the above. :) WikiDao ☯ (talk) 11:41, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

While it's true that Siamese twins was widely understood, it did create a problem when you wanted to talk about non-conjoined twins who happened to be Siamese. This is only somewhat alleviated by the fact that the contemporary demonym is Thai, because you could still have occasion to speak of non-conjoined twins from a historical period for which the term Siamese would be appropriate. --Trovatore (talk) 08:08, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Capital punishment in Venezuela

Did Hugo Chavez reinstate capital punishment when he came to power? --J4\/4 <talk> 15:12, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not aware of that, and I could not find any sources claiming this. The abolition of the death penalty has been written into the Venezuelan constitution, so it's not simply an act by any one official that can change this. See Capital punishment in Venezuela. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:00, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

But don't authoritarian leaders generally use the death penalty to crush dissent? --70.245.189.11 (talk) 20:12, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Assuming that hypothesis is true, it follows that either Chavez is not a leader, not authoritarian, or that the general case does not apply. I think there is something in at least 3 of the 4 possibilities. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:17, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Also bear in mind that Venezuela is more than 90% Roman Catholic, and today's Catholic church strongly discourages capital punishment (see JPII's Evangelium Vitae). It is not technically forbidden, but it's so strongly discouraged that it might as well be. LANTZY^TALK 07:27, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

In fact, the only place where Catholics don't mind the death penalty is the United States. Of the eleven U.S. states in which Catholicism is the largest denomination, eight employ the death penalty, and one of them, Texas, accounts for about half of the annual executions in the United States. The death penalty even remains legal in Pennsylvania, where more than half the population is Catholic. I think it may be the only majority-Catholic polity in the world where capital punishment has not been abolished.LANTZY^TALK 07:27, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, it was abolished at one stage in the USA, but was later unabolished (disabolished? deabolished?) -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 10:34, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

reinstated, reintroduced, regressed to Itsmejudith (talk) 14:19, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

What's more, according to this article, Venezuela was the very first country to abolish the death penalty for all crimes, all the way back in 1863. If that is true, it is probable that Venezuelans would perceive capital punishment to be not merely immoral but also foreign and un-Venezuelan. A Venezuelan government, however powerful, would be very unlikely to betray a point of national pride, just as an American government would be unlikely to, say, establish a hereditary monarchy. LANTZY^TALK 07:42, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Re. "don't authoritarian leaders generally use the death penalty to crush dissent?" – Chavez uses a talk show, "Aló Presidente", to address dissent, which is a much more transparent and "accessible" tool for that purpose (and the related purpose of achieving consensus) than many national leaders make (as much) use of these days. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 08:51, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

October 13

Legality of Prescription medicine purchases in Canada by Americans (No. 2)

The section above with this title makes me wonder: why does Canada permit Americans to buy drugs in Canada? I can't quite see why a government would subsidise something for its taxpayers yet welcome those who don't pay its taxes to buy that thing at the same rate. As an American, I see it as being as silly as it would be for one state to offer in-state tuition rates at its public universities to residents of other states. Nyttend (talk) 01:26, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

It should be obvious why visitors to Canada or any other country are allowed to buy drugs -- they might need them. Either they got sick and went to a doctor and got a prescription, or they had to stay longer than they originally intended and ran out of pills, or they left them in a hotel room before flying to another city, or whatever. As long as it only happens occasionally there's no issue. If it happened so much that Nyttend's point became an issue, and it was decided to charge a higher price for visitors, that it would be a big deal for drugstores: they'd have to have two (or more) prices for products that now have only one, they'd have to check ID on purchases where now they don't, and they'd have to do the necessary accounting to submit the price difference to the government. Canadian hospitals do do that sort of thing, but drugstores do a lot more transactions where the dollar amounts are a lot smaller, so the burden would be larger.

That said, I'm not sure how many drug prices here in Canada actually are regulated or subsidized. Is there a good, unbiased source for that? --Anonymous, 06:07 UTC, October 13, 2010.

Don't the Canadian provinces price-control drugs rather than subsidize them per se (except for people on a government drug plan)? -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:31, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Custodial award statistics by state

I am writing an exploratory essay regarding paternal custody rights but cannot seem to locate Washington state info. Any search engine wording suggestions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.113.255.29 (talk) 01:59, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, you need to be a little more specific — what have you tried so far, and what are you looking for that you haven't been able to find? I tried washington paternal custodial rights on Google, which provided a number of irrelevant links up toward the top; but the first page did include a seemingly useful eHow link, which in turn included a few reference links. I can't link directly there because eHow is on Wikipedia's spam blacklist, but you can manually type "www.ehow.com" in your browser and follow that with "/list_6504455_washington-parental-rights-unmarried-fathers.html". Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:47, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

U.S. federal death row for women?

Which Federal Bureau of Prisons facility is officially designated as the death row for women?

I understand the only federal female death row inmate that I know of is in FMC Carswell. But is Carswell considered to house the female death row? What documentation states where women under death sentences should be held? WhisperToMe (talk) 09:19, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

The U.S. federal gov. has only executed two women since 1927, the last in 1953. There appear to be only two women on federal death row currently. Angela Johnson who was convicted of helping a drug lord kill several witnesses against him and Lisa Montgomery who kidnapped and killed a pregnant women to steal her unborn child, who she then crossed state lines with.[12]. Both seem to be held at Carswell. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 04:38, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! I checked the BOP inmate locator at http://www.bop.gov/iloc2/LocateInmate.jsp . Both are in Carswell. Based on this I am simply going to say that Carswell has the female death row. It would be nice to have official documentation directly stating so, though. WhisperToMe (talk) 13:13, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Serbian football team salute

Last night before the ill-fated Serbia-Italy qualifying football match at Genoa, the Serbian team appeared on the field and gave a type of salute to their supporters. Does anyone know exactly what this signifies?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 10:34, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Was it the Three-finger salute (Serbian)? It seems to be a sort of national/ethnic "gang sign" that means "I'm Serbian and proud of it!" WikiDao ☯ (talk) 10:55, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, the three fingers is sort of a touchy subject in ex-Yugoslav space. It's one of those things that are meant to be patriotic, but sometimes cross the thin line over into nationalistic, and given the recent history of the Balkan peninsula, one can understand why many non-Serbs here cringe when they see it. TomorrowTime (talk) 11:11, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it was a three-finger salute. Thank you for the explanations.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 11:43, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Interestingly, a copy of this salute is used by Neonazis (I'm unsure if there is any connection whatsoever). In Germany it's called the 'Kühnengruß' or 'Widerstandgruß' (it's a means to evade legal prosecution - the Hitlersalute is punished by law). Flamarande (talk) 11:48, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, an Italian reporter on the field questioned one of the Serbian football players what it meant and he brusquely replied that it was given to pacify the supporters; the Italian sports commentators, however, viewed the gesture in a negative light.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:10, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

/OR/ Incidentally, the soccer riots may have been an echo of a more general feeling of (politically driven) civilian discontent that has recently been fermenting in Serbia and has just a couple of days ago resulted in thrashing of certain left-wing, pro-EU political parties' headquarters in Serbia, disguised as an anti gay riot. Reports say while the protesters were nominally protesting against a gay pride parade, they were given clear orders as to what and where to destroy along the way. Given the anti-EU bent of these Belgrade protests, Italy might have just seemed like a place to thrash, since it is, well, part of the self same EU. /end OR/TomorrowTime (talk) 13:32, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Ironically, years ago we used to hear the one-finger gesture referred to as "the Italian salute." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:43, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it is OR as many journalists are saying the same thing here (Italy). The mood was decidedly ugly and got worse when some of the Serbian footballers started tripping up the Italian players.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:08, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh. It was OR inasmuch as it was my own synthesis of events - I don't have time to follow the news as much as I'd like to these days, but I did hear about both events and thought they might have been connected. In any case, things are boiling in an unpleasant way in Serbia right now, apparently. Not in a "look out, another war is imminent" kinda way, but still unpleasant. Which is a shame, Serbia's a nice country - I just probably wont be going back there for a while... TomorrowTime (talk) 16:27, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

If this keeps up, Serbia might even lose its reputation for sunny, laid-back friendliness. LANTZY^TALK 16:46, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

The ringleader of the rioting fans has been arrested, I just saw it on the news here. The newsreader affirmed that both events are indeed connected.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:11, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

"I went to a riot and a soccer game broke out." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:40, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Soccer is the only sport so boring that getting punched in the face while watching the game is an entertaining distraction... --Jayron32 05:02, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

"And the boy gets a cigar!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:47, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

If soccer is so dull then why do all the players get the best-looking girls? They must be doing something pretty exciting! ---Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 11:13, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Uh, yeh, though maybe not directly on the pitch. Regardless of looks, women are generally practical. A survey might show that the attractiveness of the women is directly proportional to the player's salary. For example, Alex Rodriguez has had Hollywood starlets as pals, as contrasted with the average member of the Pittsburgh Pirates. And the Pirates' babes are probably cuter than those of the average fast-food or convenience-store worker. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:13, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

The other obvious question is: If soccer is so dull, how come so many hundreds of millions of people follow it with an avid passion appropriate for a game that's said to be far more serious than mere life-or-death, and how come some players get paid as much in a day as the US President gets in a year? Huh? Anyhow, it's still dull. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:53, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

An important soccer match is kind of like a big party that happens to have an athletic event going on. And unlike with games like cricket and baseball, you don't have to keep your eye on the field at all times, since it takes a long time for anything to happen. Kind of like the folks who occupy the infield at Indianapolis and have a great time and never actually see the race. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:05, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Except that seems like the opposite of the behaviour I've personally observed: cricket is a game designed for a holiday or Sunday on the village green, and as such is something you drift in and out of. Observers will chat, read, go to the pub, have a nice drink, and keep rough track of the game, watching only a few plays. It is a game well-suited to listening on the radio while you do other work. In contrast, soccer is a game of space and action: a good match, watched from the stands, is dramatic and tactical, in a way that can only be followed with close attention to the whole pitch. Unfortunately, this makes good matches inappropriate for television. English soccer, in contrast, plays fast and close to the ball, making it much more dramatic to watch on TV than most decent soccer, but much less tactical and interesting at the ground than other soccer. It also means we get owned by the other countries in international matches. 109.155.37.180 (talk) 21:02, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Y'all dang near got pwned by the US, even, too. Interesting analysis as to why that might more generally be happening. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 21:21, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Industrial disasters in Venice?

This page is a press release about a recent music album. The text of the press release refers to "industrial disasters in the Venice area during the 1970s and 1980s, when many workers and citizens alike died of cancer as a result of corporate decisions." I've been trying to find out more about these disasters but without success. Does anyone have any more information? Thanks, --Viennese Waltz 15:12, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

It is very likely a reference to high cancer rates related to PVC production. The story was generally popularized by Gabriel Bortolozzo. -- kainaw™ 15:19, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Kainaw. There's something about it two-thirds of the way down this page, under Appendix. But we don't seem to have an article. --Viennese Waltz 15:26, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

The mainland towns of Mestre and Marghera, which are politically part of Venice, are notorious for industrial pollution. The English versions of the articles aren't much, but there's more in the Italian versions, if you can read Italian. Acroterion _(talk) 12:39, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Do we have an article on this?

Coverage from Huff Po [13] all the recession articles are in such a mess I can't find it. (Assuming its there)... The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 18:29, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

If we did, I would vote for deletion. This is an announcement of a forthcoming investigation that may happen, and it may find nothing occurred. Let's not fall victim to the recency effect. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:51, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Not about the investigation necessarily but this whole part of it shutting down foreclosures in fifty states that itself seems notable and seem some one would have wrritten one since its been in the newscycle for about 3 weeks now The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 18:54, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't see anything about foreclosures having been "shut down". This investigation may well become notable, but it isn't yet; and we don't really need to be in a rush to write up a Wikipedia article on every news topic that has "been in the news cycle". That's what Wikinews is for. Our Wikipedia:Recentism article discusses this. Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:32, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I am not arguing there merits of the case for an article merely surprised that some one may have actually followed WP:NOTNEWS for once. Thank you for you assitance. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 20:29, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, this is not AfD, but this was above the fold on The New York Times front page today, and the financial media are blaming this for a big drop in bank stocks today, so it's clearly notable by now. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:09, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

October 14

Iranian president

I notice that the past Iranian since revolution including present are ethnic Persians. Is it because that their constitution says that the President of Iran has to be Persian? When was the last time that Iran had a President who was non-Persian? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.153.18 (talk) 03:34, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

65% of Iran's population is of the Persian ethnic group, according to Demography_of_Iran#Languages_and_ethnic_groups. Noting that all Presidents of the last 30 years have come from this ethnic group would be akin to noting that all Presidents of the United States of the past 240 years (prior to January, 2009) were Caucasian Males, and then asking if there was a law requiring it. There may be cultural contexts which determine that all of the leaders of Iran come from the majority ethnic group (just as there are in the U.S. and many other countries), but that doesn't mean that there are written rules that require it. --Jayron32 03:41, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Ali Khamenei, who was President in the 1980s, is an Iranian Azeri. ---Sluzzelin talk 03:51, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, there ya go. --Jayron32 05:01, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Here is the relevant section of the Iranian Constitution. It contains no mention of ethnic requirements on the President. This section makes Persian the official language. --Sean 16:46, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Arrogant American court?

Why would an American judge even think about issuing a restraining order regarding an event in another country which the court has no jurisdiction or authority in? See http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/l/liverpool/9091246.stm and http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/l/liverpool/9080946.stm This and other incidents suggest that American courts regard other countries merely as provinces of America. 92.15.4.145 (talk) 10:12, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Heh, back in the 1980s, an American judge sentenced some poor blighter to "transportation to the Australian colonies" for a certain period of time. This was incredibly ignorant and wrong on about 20 different levels, and naturally the sentence was not executed. The judge should probably have been, though. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 10:46, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

IANAL, but the owners of Liverpool are Americans and the company that wants to buy the club is American too. A Texas court can issue a restraining order against a US company, I suppose. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.171.56.13 (talk) 10:49, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Strangely enough, that fact is discernible within the articles which the US-hating OP cited. Since the OP obviously did not actually read the articles, is there any reason not to box this one up? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:08, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

"the US-hating oP"! Please do not troll. 92.15.2.211 (talk) 13:43, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, OP, please do not troll. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:15, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

If this 92 IP is the same one who doesn't like Nazis, we're probably being trolled again. Adam Bishop (talk) 12:29, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Not trolling at all. Someone changed the title - I've changed it back. Someone has at least provided a possible explaination - saying that the sellers and buyers of the club are both American. But having re-read both artiocles I cannot see where it says that the club is currently owned by Americans, so the explaination does not seem to be the correct one. The club appears to be owned by several different interests. Edit: However the Liverpool F.C. article says it is currently owned by two American businessmen. 92.15.2.211 (talk) 13:39, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

The fact of your insistence on that offensive section title is proof enough that you're a troll. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:16, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

• WP:INSULT WikiDao ☯ (talk) 20:32, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Though I am a US citizen and resident, I am the first to admit that US institutions are sometimes guilty of arrogance beyond US borders. However, I don't think that this is such a case. The court is merely blocking a transaction between two US parties. The fact that the transaction involves a property in another country is incidental. If the team were not US-owned, the US court would have no power over its owners. Incidentally, I happen to work for a British-owned corporation. It is entirely conceivable that a court ruling in the UK could affect, or even eliminate, my job. That would not be a case of British arrogance. It would just be part of life in a globalized world. Marco polo (talk) 14:23, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

See Piper Aircraft v. Reyno[14]. There is a wikipedia article for Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, but it is rather horribly written. The most important facts about the case were that this was a plane crash in Scottland, which killed Scottish citizens, and the plane was registered and operated in Britain. The survivors of the Scottish citizens brough an action against the company who made the plane in California when the plane was manufactured on the other side of the United States in Pennsylvania. The reason why they did this is because the United States gives greater legal protections involving those injured by products than the UK does. Basically, American laws were better for the Scottish than Scottish law. (I find this particularly amusing that they aknowledge this). The case went all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States, which finally determined that Scottland would be a better place to handle the lawsuit. As you can see, it works both ways. I don't think our Scottish brothers believed America to be a mere province for handling their legal problems. This sort of thing happens a hundred times a year both in the UK and in America. We routinely decide whether these foreign matters should be heard in our courts. Indeed, the Supreme Court ruled in Helcopteros Nacionale v. Hall[15] that a Texas court did not have jurisdiction to handle a crash that happened in Peru. There are thousands of district judges; sometimes they make mistakes. To get more examples of the UK exercising jurisdiction over matters that occurred abroad and by individuals who have never set foot in the UK, do a google search for extraterritorial jurisdiction. The UK routinely does this, particularly with war crimes. Gx872op (talk) 15:17, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

The points here are well made, about the complexities of the modern world with its extensive internationalism - something which, if the OP is sincere (which some of us question), he may be unfamiliar with. The fact is that many corporations have their tentacles in many countries, and while it may a good thing overall, it can get vexingly tricky due to the manifold laws and jurisdictions. I myself work for an international company, and I can assure you that things can get very complicated, and we retain full-time legal staff to deal with that complexity. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:42, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I would read the extensive coverage that The Guardian website is giving to this story (http://www.guardian.co.uk/football). Basically as others have said law in the international system is complicated, and the main concern appears to be not whether or not the court can 'decide' on the Liverpool sale case, but rather what sway the court holds in terms of the ongoing interests that those involved have in the US (at least that's the suggestions i've heard). ny156uk (talk) 21:43, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

The U.S. plaintiffs' claim says Dallas is an appropriate jurisdiction because "all parties are subject to personal jurisdiction in Texas based on their continuous and systematic contacts with Texas, the intentional tortious conduct they have directed at this State, and/or other conduct and contacts with this State as alleged herein." That's clearly boilerplate language, and I don't know the background of it. If the case were to go to trial, or at least if it went to an appeals court, that point might be debated further.

It's worth noting that jurisdiction shopping is common in civil law. For example, it's common for patent-holders to sue tech companies in rural Texas, since that area is supposed to have owner-friendly juries, and you can sue someone anywhere the offending product is sold in the U.S. It's not limited to America -- "libel tourism" is the term now used for plaintiffs who sue for libel in a country with strict libel laws, such as the U.K, when the natural jurisdiction is elsewhere. In one instance, a Saudi businessman won a libel judgment against an American author in England over a book that was not sold directly in the U.K. It's also interesting that the British judge in the Liverpool case has one-upped the Texas judge by ordering the U.S. plaintiffs to withdraw their U.S. claim or be held in contempt of court in the U.K.! -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:06, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Prison ID of Valerie Suzette Friend

I'm trying to find the prison ID of Valerie Suzette Friend, who was a federal death row inmate. I'm trying to find out her location, to see if she is in Carswell (with the other two federal death row inmates).

Her news story is at:

• "Lecco and Friend Sentenced to Death." WOWK. Tuesday May 29, 2007.

"A federal jury on Tuesday sentenced two Mingo County residents to death for murdering a drug informant. George "Porgy Lecco, 57, and Valerie Friend, 33, received a death sentence recommendation for the death of 33-year-old Carla Collins in April 2005. "

So we know she was a federal DR inmate. It's just that I can't find her record on the inmate locator at http://www.bop.gov/iloc2/LocateInmate.jsp

According to:

• Goad, Julia Roberts. "Friend escapes death, gets life." Williamson Daily News. October 2, 2009.

She now has a life sentence, but she should still be listed in the BOP database

WhisperToMe (talk) 15:12, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I didn't find her, either. If I were you I would contact each reporter of the news stories about this (such as here and here; both have e-mail links) to ask whether the reporter or editor has any insight. Comet Tuttle (talk) 20:39, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

This article from July 2010 says, "In addition to the cooperation in the Lecco case, Friend is helping authorities who are investigating allegations that corrections officers had improper sexual contact with female inmates at the Carter County Detention Center in Kentucky, where she has spent much of the five years she has been in custody, he said." Dalliance (talk) 22:10, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Aha, so she must not have been incarcerated in the federal system. Thank you for helping me :) WhisperToMe (talk) 03:00, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Americans ancestry

I remembering reading something somewhere (helpful, I know) that was something along the lines of 1 in x Americans are desended from whomever. Anybody know of something like this? Personally, I'm decended from John Alden, and I'm sure a decent percentage of other Americans are as well. Grsz¹¹ 17:22, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

This is similar to Descent from Genghis Khan. I know I had a history teacher in grade school who was descendant from Ulysses S. Grant. My grandfather talks about our family descending from Charlemagne. Although whenever someone purports this, it's not readily proven, and a polite "really?" works nicely. schyler (talk) 18:57, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Everyone in Europe is "descendent" from Charlemagne due to a book that someone published a long time ago that listed all the descendants of Charlemagne. The problem with the book is that wealthy (or even somewhat well-off) families could get into the book by just purchasing one of the ancestors. After it was published, people took it as fact and suddenly everyone was some part royalty. It really makes ancestry.com a bunch of garbage because people use the book as proof of their ancestors on there. ...searching... Found the book for sale here. -- kainaw™ 19:02, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, Charlemagne had 20 "official" children, and there are ~1200 years (or 40 generations) since his reign. Assuming only 2 surviving children per generation (i.e. the replacement rate - it should really be a lot higher for the first few generations, if Carlo the Big is in any way typical), and no inbreeding (we know that this is a wrong assumption, but what the heck ;-), he should have about 10¹² descendants if you start with his generation, and 10 times more if you start with the generation of his official children. So it's not impossible that everybody of recent European descent has him somewhere up in the tree. Of course, you probably also have about one million average yokels somewhere in there - the exponential growth works both ways... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:19, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

The average yokels being the ones who get the actual work done. :) To be descended from some old-time figure, they have to have been prolific enough to start with a broad based, as you're suggesting. I think I read that there are no longer any living descendants of President Lincoln, and that's in no small part because he only had one child that grew to adulthood. And anyone checking to see if they're descended from his predecessor, President Buchanan, is likely out of luck. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:28, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, Lincoln's last confirmed living descendant, his greatgrandson Robert Todd Lincoln Beckwith, died in 1985. There is some possibility that Timothy Lincoln Beckwith may be Robert Beckwith's son, but he claimed it wasn't his son, and Timothy has never had a paternity test. --Jayron32 22:42, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

We're forgetting other possible illegitimate offspring besides Timothy Beckwith. There may be Lincoln descendants around due to the fact that birth control (prior to 1967),if it was practised at all, was notoriously unreliable.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:50, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

No, you have it backwards. Timothy Beckwith's mother claimed that Timothy was legitimate, Timothy's father denied that he was (he basically disowned him as his offspring) while Timothy has been officially coy on the matter, refusing to confirm or deny his own legitimacy. In otherwords, he is either a) a legitimate decendant of Honest Abe (if his mother is to be believed) or b) of no relation to the Lincoln family (if his (not-)father is to be believed). --Jayron32 06:53, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

That still does not negate my point. It's possible that either Honest Abe himself or his son fathered illegitimate offspring. That was what I was trying to say.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:01, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Alden had 11 children. If you assume that they each had on average 2 children who became adults and their descendants too, and if you assume that there were 16 generations since his death (323 years / 20 years for each generation), then there are today 720,868 descendant of Alden. --Lgriot (talk) 12:31, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

What about the descendants of Pocahontas? There are a lot of Vitginia families which claim her as an ancestress.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:39, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Scholarships

I am an American Permanent Resident (Green card holder) and would prefer not to become a citizen. To what extent would my scholarship opportunities be limited, and does this vary according to prestige of school? Thanks. 24.92.78.167 (talk) 21:57, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Scholarship opportunities are going to vary from school to school, and I doubt there's a strong correlation between scholarship delta as a foreign national and "prestige" (however that's defined). Generally, US universities seem to encourage foreign national attendance, so while some scholarships will definitely be off-limits to you, I don't know that I'd assume that less is available collectively. All that said, rather than getting a vague handwavy answer here, why not just contact the admissions departments of some schools you're interested in? You'll no doubt get a more detailed and more accurate answer. — Lomn 13:19, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Voting record - Canada's election to Security Council

Is it possible to see which countries voted for, or against Canada's election to a non-permanent seat to the Security Council? 132.205.215.33 (talk) 23:07, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

This UN webpage says that recorded votes are only undertaken if specifically requested beforehand. Normally, only a summary of the result is made available. Dalliance (talk) 08:47, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

It was a secret vote. No one can know who voted for whom unless countries declare openly who they voted for. But it is not in their interest to do so, as many had promised their vote to all three candidates. --Xuxl (talk) 18:03, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

October 15

How did Albert Battel escape punishment?

I'm watching a documentary about the Holocaust and discovered the amazing story of Albert Battel, a lieutenant in the Wehrmacht who helped save a hundred Jews under SS control. What makes the story especially amazing is that the Jews were already in a Jewish ghetto under SS guard. Battel threatened to send his troops in and force entry unless the SS freed about a hundreds Jews. (I don't think he saved all the Jews, just the ones who worded for him.) The SS guards backed down and released them. Battel then sheltered some of them to basement of the army headquarters. According to our article on him, Battel also ordered the bridge over the River San, the only access into the Jewish ghetto, to be blocked. As the SS commando attempted to cross to the other side, the sergeant-major in charge of the bridge threatened to open fire unless they withdrew. The SS opened a secret investigation and recommended that Battel be arrested after the war. My question is why did the SS want to wait until after the war to arrest Battel? I thought the SS had more power than that. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:10, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

The German Wikipedia goes into a bit more detail:

Battels Intervention für die „Wehrmachtsjuden“ konnte als logistische Notwendigkeit hingestellt werden. Offenbar kamen Battel wie auch Liedtke mit geringfügigen disziplinarischen Strafen davon: Stubenarrest, Rücknahme des Kriegsverdienstkreuzes und der Versetzung an anderen Einsatzort.[2] Möglicherweise besteht ein ursächlicher Zusammenhang zu einem später erlassenen Befehl des Oberkommandos des Heeres vom 31. Oktober 1942, in dem Offizieren eine „kompromisslose Haltung“ gegenüber dem Judentum abverlangt wird; andernfalls sei ein Offizier untragbar.

Norbert Haase stellt heraus, dass eine Versetzung an die Front oder schärfere Sanktionen ausblieben. Vorgefundene situative Möglichkeiten, ein Gruppenzusammenhalt in der Wehrmacht wie auch biografische Dispositionen hätten zum erfolgreichen Rettungshandeln geführt.

Unfortunately, I don't speak German, and the Google translation is unclear. Perhaps a German-speaking reader can translate? -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:27, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

It is a very good question. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 01:06, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

The Google translation of the German page has this line:

"Norbert Haase turns out that a dislocation, the front or stayed away from tougher sanctions. Corpus situational opportunities, a group cohesion in the Wehrmacht as well as biographical dispositions that led to the successful rescue action."

which sounds like it might be something like an answer (unsourced though), whatever it is it's trying to say. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 01:28, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Let me try. (My German is a bit rusty but I think I get the gist of that.)

Battel's intervention in favour of the "Wehrmacht Jews" could be put down as dictated by logistical needs. Clearly Battel as well as Liedtke were let off with only insignificant disciplinary measures: barracks arrest [don't know the English term], forfeiture of the Kriegsverdienstkreuz and a transfer. A possible extenuating circumstance may have been the fact that the order from the High Command requiring officers to assume an "uncompromising attitude" towards Jews had been issued only after the incident, on 31 October 1942

Norbert Haase points out that no one was transferred to the front or given any harsher punishment. The success of the rescue may have been the result of opportunity, group cohesion in the Wehrmacht as well as personal dispositions.

Or something. Haase is a historian who specializes in German resistance to Nazi rule.--Rallette (talk) 09:08, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

And as to the original question: from what I read in the German article, Battel was technically within his rights to block the SS from crossing the river, since the area had been shut off and the Wehrmacht was in charge. And the people he saved were working for the Wehrmacht, so he could indeed claim he needed them.--Rallette (talk) 09:22, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

If your Italian is stronger than your German, you might be able to pick up a few extra details (such as the year Battel joined the NSDAP, 1933) from the Italian version, it:Albert Battel. (There's also a version in Russian-language Wikipedia.) —— Shakescene (talk) 04:03, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Most evil female in history

I know we had a similar question a while back regarding the most evil human being of all time. I am curious as to which female (with the exception of biblical personages) is regarded as the most cruel-and yes, evil- in recorded history? Thank you.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:41, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

According to this 'source' Elizabeth Bathory could be the one you're looking for..Sealedinskin (talk) 07:20, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Ahhhh, she was the person I had in mind for the number 1 place. I was curious as to whether there were any others who outdid her in sheer barbarity, which is why I posted the question. In the 20th century alone Ilse Koch, Jeanne Weber, and Myra Hindley would surely fit the bill.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:27, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Do you intend to run for the post and want to check out the competition? ;-) Anyways, here are some candidates (I'll leave of 20th and 21st century for now to avoid derailing this into a political debate):

• Julia Agrippina, mother of Nero, who, according to some sources "poisoned everybody" to ensure "proper" succession. Of course, we don't know if these speculations are right.
• Caterina Sforza (who allegedly said "I can bear more" when her hostage children where threatened with death - of course, a man would probably be lauded for putting the interest of the state before his own children).
• Madame de Brinvilliers, serial poisoner.

--Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:36, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

There is also Catherine de Medici, who instigated the infamous St. Bartolomew's Massacre in which Huguenots of all ages were brutally murdered in the streets of Paris. And Catherine Monvoisin a contemporary of Madame de Brinvilliers.As for wishing to run for the post? No way, Jose, I don't have mean-looking eyes. Who would I be able to intimidate?!!!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:13, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Do rent Barbarella. Cute looks are no obstacle for absolute evil - they may even be an advantage (and no, I'm not referring to Jane Fonda, but to the man-eating dolls ;-). And our list misses "the Warden" from any WIP flick. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:54, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

While I do admire Jane Fonda, I much prefer Anita Pallenberg. She personified the 1960s!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:14, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Also Ranavalona I. --151.51.28.10 (talk) 08:46, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

More fun if you allow fictional characters. I vote for Nurse Ratched. The Marquise de Merteuil probably makes the list, as does Dolores Umbridge, but neither of them really comes close to the good nurse. --Trovatore (talk) 09:09, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

According to Christian mythology Eve - without her none of the others would have been evil. -- Q Chris (talk) 09:12, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Biblical, mythological and fictional personages do not count. I am referring to actual historical women. They need not be connected with politics.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:16, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think one can really rank such people, but if a list is to be compiled, there have been a number of baby-farmers who certainly deserve a place on it.--Rallette (talk) 09:33, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Rosemary West was fairly horrible. Then there was Beverley Allitt. --Viennese Waltz 09:54, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Griselda Blanco was pretty unpleasant, though I don't know about "most evil." She certainly demonstrated that men have no monopoly on sociopathic violence... --Mr.98 (talk) 16:56, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Margaret Thatcher War monger and no friend to the working class Mo ainm~Talk 16:59, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

With the lack of a universal quantification of "evilness" this question can not really be fully answered. Though there have been some candidates put forth, it would be impossible to say which is the most evil. Googlemeister (talk) 19:04, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Magda Goebbels who murdered her 6 children. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 19:38, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure killing your children puts you as "evil." Lots of parents kill their own children when they think that unspeakable horror would otherwise confront them. I don't have any children but if I thought they'd be beaten and raped by Soviet troops I might consider the morphine plus cyanide a better way out. Whether or not her fears were justified is an entirely separate matter, but it doesn't make her "evil". She certainly didn't kill them because she enjoyed killing children. It was probably a very hard thing for her to do. (None of which is any attempt to say that the Goebbels were victims or anything, but I don't think she ranks on the "evil" list at all.) --Mr.98 (talk) 21:14, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Killing your own children ranks you as evil in my book, whatever genitalia you happen to have. Killing them because you can't bear for them to live in a world without Nazism puts you pretty high up the list of evil. DuncanHill (talk) 23:42, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

The vast majority of people who kill their own children do so out of fear that worse is about to happen to them. Often these fears are unfounded or due to them being mentally ill or what have you. But they're doing it out of a "greater good" impulse. I can't say I find that "evil" — I generally just find it to be sad. Whether being a Nazi or being a fan of Nazism makes you evil or not is an entirely separate question. She was probably right that things wouldn't have worked out well for her and her kids in a postwar world. She's certainly not a contender for most evil woman in the world, though, however you slice it. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:12, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Something worse than being murdered? You mean something like "not being murdered"? DuncanHill (talk) 15:23, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

More possibilities: Jiang Qing, Mao's wife and a figure in China's disastrous Cultural Revolution; Nazi war criminals Irma Grese, Juana Bormann, Elisabeth Volkenrath and Ilse Koch; Isabella I of Castile, supporter of the Inquisition and queen of Spain during the expulsion of Jews and Muslims; and quasi-fascist Argentine President Isabel Peron -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:42, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

On a slightly different tack, we have Hetty Green, who was fantastically rich but also fantastically miserly, so much so that her son was said to have lost his leg because she was unwilling to pay for proper treatment. After years of believing this story, I am devastated to now read that it was only partially true. But what the hell. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 23:23, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

The heretic Elizabeth I.
Sleigh (talk) 00:37, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Gloriana evil? Never! Bloody Mary on the other hand... DuncanHill (talk) 03:06, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I always thought Sharon Osbourne seemed pretty nice, really, but she is married to the Prince of Darkness Himself, and it sounds like she can get a bit bitchy at times. Does that sort of thing count, or do you have to actually kill a lot of people? Catherine the Great killed a lot of people. But, then, so did Jeanne d'Arc, too. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 03:00, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

You don't mean "evil" in the way that the archetype of Lilith represents a kind of "feminine evil", right? You're asking about women who have exhibited what is usually considered a more "masculine" variety of evil (which is what "politics" has traditionally been a realm of...)? WikiDao ☯ (talk) 04:02, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I actually meant evil in the sense of a female Adolf Hitler, Cesare Borgia, Vlad the Impaler. A woman whose ruthless actions and cruelty brought death, destruction and misery to many people. I personally nominate Catherine de Medici and Elizabeth Bathory to share pole position. There is also this lady: Helena Palaiologina who was pretty wicked (she poisoned her son-in-law, cut off the nose of her husband's mistress), but she was not quite in the Bathory-de Medici class.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 04:09, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh. So I guess Karla LaVey just wouldn't cut it... WikiDao ☯ (talk) 04:12, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Uh, no. I should also add Margaret of Anjou, whose actions during the War of the Roses were quite ruthless and bloody. After all she encouraged her Lancastrian troops to rape and plunder the villages they passed through, not to mention the crowned heads of her enemies placed upon York Gate at her order following the Battle of Wakefield. Queen Mary I of England wasn't a very nice lady either. The 20th century needs to include the horrible Sarah Louise Northcott.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 04:27, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

just trying for a little humor to lighten a sad and serious subject - it;s still Friday night my time! ;)

But all of the real "paragons" of Human Evil (Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Napoleon, Benedict Arnold, the Medici Princes (m.)... etc etc etc) – all the "most evil of the evil" are males, aren't they? In that sense of "evil". I wonder why that might be...? WikiDao ☯ (talk) 04:39, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Because they all hold positions of power, which women were essentially excluded from, for most of history. Yes, there have been occasional female rulers, but they have been so rare as to each be notable just for being female. Women don't orchestrate genocides because they are not in a position to do so. It may be very different had we had gender equality in government for the past so many centuries... --Jayron32 04:44, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

That's what I was thinkin', too. (six comments up, counting yours) May I ask, Jeanne, if your list is to be used for some purpose (an article, perhaps?), or were you just interested in maybe hearing of possibilities you hadn't thought of before? WikiDao ☯ (talk) 04:56, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

WikiDao, your last question is correct. I was/am interested in learning about women of whom I had not been aware of before. I must reply to Jayron that when it comes to attaining and retaining power, history has shown us that the (lamentably) few female sovereigns throughout the centuries have been capable of displaying the same levels of ruthlessness as men. The previously-cited Catherine de Medici is one of the best wxamples; then we have Agrippina as has been mentioned already. In addition to these charmers, there have been a series of medieval Byzantine females who would make your skin crawl.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 05:49, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Agree fully with you there, it's why I implied that had women had equal access to power, we'd likely see more female genocidal leaders. Even so, its likely that as a percentage of total world leaders, the numbers of genocidal female leaders is roughly the same percent as found among the males. There's just such a smaller number of absolute examples. --Jayron32 05:58, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

"Agree" more-or-less pending hard stats. One wonders if perhaps the "ruthlessness" required to gain access to and then wield "power" (genocidally or not) in the first place is manifest on average more often in males than in females, for reasons involving the course of our evolutionary history, ie. in the balance of evolutionarily advantageous differences (hormonal, psycho-emotional, developmental, etc) between the sexes. To put it differently: if women are as "ruthless" as men when it comes to wielding worldly "power", then why haven't as many women as men in history gained and wielded that power (ruthlessly or not)? I think there are gender differences (on average) in the way "ruthlessness" is manifested and in the kind of "power" women tend to naturally possess, pursue, cultivate, and actually then wield. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 06:54, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Well in the past, power was typically gained on the battlefield by force of arms. Few women excelled at combat, so that excluded them in that arena. Then you had the laws of primogeniture and the Salic Law, both of which favoured men. Today, we see more females in the political sphere. Margaret Thatcher was Prime Minister of the UK from 1979 to 1990. Angela Merkel is Chancellor of one of the most powerful nations in Europe. Hilary Clinton is US Secretary of State.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:52, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) Yes. There is a change underway in the social environment, making political leadership for women far more a viable possibility than in the past. "Power" in the past was, as you say, and with which I have been agreeing, determined more by typically male qualities.

I wonder if this shift towards more equitable political power-sharing between the genders might eventually also have some overall effect of shifting the level of "ruthlessness" (of the typically male-variety, eg. war-fighting and so on) of the wielding of political power down a notch or two...? WikiDao ☯ (talk) 08:05, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how anybody could contest Jiang Qing as number one, especially given the enormity of evil represented by the cultural revolution and the relative sparcity of powerful women prior to the 20th Century. But then, to quote the great songwriter Jimm Chanson: "Women have been silenced throughout history / History's a book of men's names / But who's got more power, the killers who get caught / or the killers who nobody blames?" So certainly other great acts of evil in history have been as heavily influenced by women, but we just haven't heard of (or sufficiently blamed) the perpetrators. Wealthy Confederate women were big big fans of slavery ... but that was all the menfolk's fault, right? -- "Honey, can I give away all our property and you'll still do me? NO???!" 63.17.76.14 (talk) 08:30, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

These chicks are Rainbow Brite compared to Ann Coulter. LANTZY^TALK 08:40, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

"Amen" to that, brother... WikiDao ☯ (talk) 08:43, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I have to add the horrible Maria Mandel to the list. She killed over half a million people!!!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:27, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I would say Empress Lü Zhi considering what she did to her rival Consort Qi and her son and Wu Zetian according to legend she strangled her own child (who was only a princess not the desired prince) so she could frame her rival. Also if you want to get legendary there is Daji who cut open a pregnant woman to see what it would look like.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 03:51, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, all I can say is I'm surprised that no one has mentioned any ex-girlfriends/ex-wives, and thankful that no one has mentioned their mother. --Ludwigs2 05:04, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Are you sure that's what no one has done...? ;) WikiDao ☯ (talk) 05:20, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

October 16

website english singular plural

Is there a website where I can find words like phenomenon-singular and phenomena-plural, datum-singular and data-plural and etc? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.17.9 (talk) 01:13, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Have you seen English plural? Rojomoke (talk) 01:32, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Name of a fictional Native American Tribe

I am thinking about writing a short story concerning a young Native American boy who becomes an apprentice to the Thunderbird deity. I don't want to be hindered by having to adhere to the customs / beliefs of a real world tribe, therefore, I want to create a fictional tribe of my own. I'm open to name suggestions for this fictional tribe. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 11:02, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I might suggest looking at a lists of Native American words for existing tribes (e.g. [16]), and picking one that sounds good and has a meaning that makes sense as a name for your fictitious people (after checking that it already isn't a name of a tribe, of course). For example, the Blackfoot word for "man/men" is "Nínaawa". It'd be possible that a fictitious tribe related to (or near) the Blackfoot might be called "men"/"Ninaawa". It'd probably be good if you picked a tribe in the same general location as your story is set (e.g. if set in Arizona, pick someone like the Southern Paiute rather than the Blackfoot, who are from Montana.) If nothing else, looking at a Native American word list will give you a better sense of what real Native American words sound like. -- 174.24.199.14 (talk) 15:38, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for actually contributing something useful to this section. That is an interesting website. My tribe will most likely be an amalgam of those from the plains and South America. I will borrow lightly from their individual cultures to make my own. I'm thinking the story will take place prior to the European settlement in America. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 11:25, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

If you want to avoid offense, you might also want to specify in any accompanying notes that this is not based on any specific tribe, and you might even want to go the whole hog and make them a tribe (not Native American) in some alternative universe, which happens to be based on your impressions of Native Americans, thus avoiding writing about the beliefs and practices of a group of people inaccurately. 109.155.37.180 (talk) 18:48, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I think it would be best either to stick with a particular NAtive American culture and their system - or to not set the story in a Native American setting. The world has seen enough fake Native American stories - call the tribe N'avi or something...·Maunus·ƛ· 02:27, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

How interested are we in Ruritania nowadays?--Wetman (talk) 02:47, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

A school friend and I had a "fake summer camp name" game which was, in retrospect, a "fake Indian tribe" game. Basically we would just mash together a lot of anglicized Iroquoian morphemes, yielding strings like Chickapawntuck and Wockaswannee and Muckapawnsett. Pretty puerile stuff. Nothing like Little Pwagmattasquarmsettport. LANTZY^TALK 03:46, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Confused about my rights in Europe

Here's the deal: I'm an Australian who derived Irish citizenship through descent a few years ago, and therefore I hold an Irish passport without ever having been there. I recently entered Europe for the first time, flying direct to Berlin, and I'm now living here for about a month while my friend (who is just Australian) goes through the rigmarole of getting a British working visa, because we're going to try to live and work in London. Our Finnish roommate mentioned in passing that she needed to register her address with the police every three months or so, which confused me, and she didn't do a very good job of explaining why. Correct me if I'm wrong (and apparently I am) but I thought as an EU citizen I was permitted to remain indefinitely in any EU country. When I went through immigration they didn't scan or stamp my passport or anything. They really should TELL you stuff like this... 92.206.186.237 (talk) 11:33, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

You do have the right to live in any EU or EEA country. The best place to get information about any formalities is the embassy of your country (the republic of Ireland) in the country in which you wish to live. When I lived in Denmark I had to register with the local council, and got a nice shiny residence permit. DuncanHill (talk) 12:10, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

But that's the thing - why did you have to register, and get a residence PERMIT? 92.206.186.237 (talk) 12:25, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I mean, assuming you were an EU citizen. 92.206.186.237 (talk) 12:26, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I was and am an EU citizen. The permit is issued "as of right", but it has the equivalent of National Insurance and National Health numbers, so you can access employment and healthcare exactly as if you were a Danish citizen. Not sure what the procedures in Germany are - I did work there for a couple of weeks, but don't remember having to register or anything. Check with your embassy - they get paid to know this stuff!— Preceding unsigned comment added by DuncanHill (talk • contribs)

above added by someone else not me, unsigned and I'm lazy to find out who

Your mistake may be your presumption that just because you have the right to reside somewhere means you don't have to register with anyone. In some countries people (including citizens) are expected to register with someone whenever they move. I think this may include some EU countries as well in which case it's perhaps not surprising that other EU citizens are also expected to register when in those countries. However I'm also not sure if there's actually anything in EU law preventing member countries from requiring people to register their address even if it's not required of citizens. In any case, some examples of discussion of registration requirements in some EU countries [17] [18] [19]. The German one actually does suggest it's something common to all Germans. These say they are reference only so I would suggest you check with a better source if it actually matters, such as in your current case. For example [20] [21] or with your embassy as has beem suggested. Note that all these were found with simple internet searches. Nil Einne (talk) 16:16, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Found this EU site which gives free advice on your rights. DuncanHill (talk) 16:25, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

In Germany and Austria you need to register your place of residence. In Germany, it's even entered on your ID card. I'm fairly certain that you also need to register in France. I don't think I registered anywhere when living in Britain, but I went through some hoops in Italy - don't remember if this was just for getting a tax number or also involved residency. If you fail to register in Germany, it's a fairly minor offence. In theory you pay a small fine if caught, but in practice you are nearly never caught, and it's not prosecuted except in very rare circumstances. This does not affect your right to live or work in the EU, though. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:40, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

EU citizens in the UK are required to register to vote. You don't have to do anything proactive, though, just answer the letter when it comes (as it does once a year to every residence). Algebraist 16:43, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

• The Irish Embassy in Germany has a website here - they will be able to give you specific advice. DuncanHill (talk) 16:47, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Having lived in Germany, I can confirm that anyone living there, including a native-born German, is legally required to register with the police. This is not about getting a residence permit, it is just a requirement of all residents. They will ask you to show documentation proving your right to be in Germany. (In your case, this would be your Irish passport.) See Resident registration. To people from countries with a tradition of English common law, the requirement may seem a little creepy and Big Brotherish, but it is wise to respect the laws of the country where you are living even if you find them odd. Marco polo (talk) 20:02, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

A citizen of the Irish Republic wouldn't need to register in Britain, wouldn't need a passport even, but might want to check out how to get a National Insurance number. I noted that the EU website mentioned above had sections for "workers and pensioners" and "students". My impression is that you have the right within the EU to live in any country for the following purposes: on holiday, to work, to look for work, to study, to start a business, to work in a business, to retire, as a dependant of a worker, student, pensioner or business owner. That covers most cases but not all. Other than that, you don't necessarily have a right to live in another EU country. Solution: register with the JobCentre or equivalent to look for work. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:16, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies. It shouldn't really matter at the moment, since I'll be leaving in a few weeks for London, but it's good to know in the future if I ever live on the mainland again. Marco Polo, you're right, it does seem creepy and weird - obviously to the point that it never even occurred to me that it would be neccesary. Not as weird as the shelf toilets though. 92.206.186.237 (talk) 21:47, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Pretoria - official or administrative?

In the article list of national capitals I asked:

According to this article, Pretoria is the official capital of South Africa, but according to the articles Pretoria, South Africa, Cape Town and others, it's the administrative capital. Is that a mistake? 82.166.216.211 (talk) 21:48, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

13:41, 16 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.250.188.44 (talk)

According to our South Africa article:

"South Africa has three capital cities: Cape Town, the largest of the three, is the legislative capital; Pretoria is the administrative capital; and Bloemfontein is the judicial capital."

They can probably all be described as "official" capitals, whatever that means. Rojomoke (talk) 15:34, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

"Official" usually means it's stated in some law, regulation, statute, formal decree, whatever. For example, the official capital of the USA is the entire District of Columbia, because it says so in some law or other. The capital for all practical purposes is the city of Washington, but it alone is not the official capital as such. What official status, if any, any of South Africa's 3 capitals has - search me. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:29, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Historically, the Union of South Africa was created out of three seperate colonies, Cape Colony, Orange Free State, and Transvaal Colony. The capital cities of these colonies were, respectively, Cape Town, Bloemfontaine, and Pretoria. When they merged to form the union, rather then designate any one of these as the National capital, it was agreed to establish a sort of power-sharing situation where each city would take some of the functions of the national government. Officially, all three are considered capital cities. It is not the only country in the world with capital cities of an odd status like this. Amsterdam has always been the "official designated capital" of the Netherlands, but The Hague has almost always been the "seat of government", i.e. its a strange situation where the Government doesn't actually operate out of the capital. A similar situation exists in Bolivia, where Sucre is the designated capital, but the government works out of La Paz. --Jayron32 23:59, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

St. Louis Gateway Arch

Can you tell me how much, if anything, the architect Eero Sarinan was paid for the design of the St. Louis Arch?76.115.151.53 (talk) 14:16, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

It isn't mentioned in our article Gateway Arch. According to Eero Saarinen: Shaping the Future, the five finalists (which also included teams by T. Marshall Rainey; Berger, Hornbostel, and Lewis; Phillips and Eng; as well as Harris Armstrong) each received USD 10,000 for the second stage of the competition in 1947. The final prize money Saarinen's team received from the Jefferson National Expansion Memorial Association amounted to USD 40,000. (Saarinen, Pelkonen, Albrecht, Taidehalli; Eero Saarinen: Shaping the Future, Yale Universtiy Press (2006), p 226). ---Sluzzelin talk 14:41, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Maratha people with Jain Surname

I was reading this page for Maratha Caste (under Castes of India)to find any information on Maratha people with surname Jain. One of my friends is a Maratha from Mumbai but his surname is Jain, which is otherwise a different caste in India. I was curious to find out his origins as Maratha although even his forefathers belong to Maratha caste. Could you possibly find any literature with such kind of example (Caste different as oppose to surname ) particulary Maratha people with Jain Surname ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.39.42.124 (talk) 15:35, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I thought the name Jain indicated a religion, rather than a caste. Rojomoke (talk) 16:06, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

French texts

What are some easy but good (as in good literature) French texts (written by and for native speakers, of course), preferably not too long, that are good for introducing French learners to French literature? Thanks. --Nichols. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.92.78.167 (talk) 18:11, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

(Based on some of the first things outside textbooks we read in French classes at school): Any of the Le petit Nicolas books, Le Petit Prince, Simenon's Commissaire Maigret stories, Une vie de boy. ---Sluzzelin talk 18:34, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

We did an excerpt from Le Comte de Monte-Cristo, which I loved. It's probably much too long to do the whole thing though. Jules Verne also wrote in French, though I've never read any of his works in French (so I'm not sure how difficult they are, and again, probably too long to do the entire thing). Buddy431 (talk) 18:58, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the Maigret stories. In school we also read some short stories, like The Necklace by Maupassant and The Guest by Camus, which were not too difficult. Adam Bishop (talk) 20:37, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I can second Le Petit Prince, as I also read that text during my first year of French in high school and at the time managed to understand most of it. --Saddhiyama (talk) 20:43, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Alphonse Daudet, Le Petit Chose.--Wetman (talk) 02:45, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Alain Robbe-Grillet's Djinn was written for the purpose of gradually introducing readers to increasingly more difficult aspects of the French language. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.171.56.13 (talk) 12:39, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Marshall Field and Co.

Did Marshall Field and Co. manufacture blankets for the US Army during World War IMinerva34 (talk) 20:33, 16 October 2010 (UTC) and if so, what would be on the label?Minerva34 (talk) 20:33, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

October 17

Name of Science Fiction Novel

Many years ago I read a science fiction novel in which people lived in vast tower blocks and spent much of their time in some sort of dream state where they could influence their dreams. Unknown to them, they were actually influencing events on earth. I think the book had the word "Dream" or "Dreamers" in the title. Ring any bells with anybody? Japier 00:01, 17 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crossdeep (talk • contribs)

You might like to narrow it down with anything else you remember, like how old the book was roughly, when you read it, anything else you remember: so far, I suspect there are many stories that fit. But, wildly stab in the dark, it wasn't The Lathe of Heaven, was it? 109.155.37.180 (talk) 01:02, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

sounds a bit more like Wine of the Dreamers to me. but yeah, more information would help. --Ludwigs2 01:20, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

moral relativism

is there any ethical theory etc that would have influenced Germans' judgments regarding their actions during theHolocaust (murdering civilians of their own country who were in good standing), or were they just, simplistically, morally depraved monsters, to a man?

for example, as an American when people talk about war crimes american troops commit against civilians in Iraq, I think they don't realize that there is a moral theory working, that it is good to spread American freedom to dictatorships. was there any "moral theory" working during the Holocaust? 92.224.205.50 (talk) 01:12, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

See Dehumanization. One way to make atrocities fit into a moral code is to deny the humanity of the victims of the atrocity. If blacks aren't real people, American slavery becomes tolerable. If women aren't real people, mysogyny becomes explanable. If Jews aren't real people, there is no longer the moral quandry of dealing with real people. --Jayron32 01:26, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Also, see Demagogy. If it wouldn't have been for a strong central figure to rally round (whom around to rally?) then there may have been no World War 2. schyler (talk) 01:31, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Also see Hannah Arendt and Banality of evil - this is a really good explanation of why people do what is evil even when judged by their own ethical system. Ethical systems and moral philosophy is often very far from daily life. ·Maunus·ƛ· 02:21, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I suspect you're not using the correct terminology. moral philosophy is an esoteric field that few people pay any attention to. There is a sense in which the core Nazi ideology was built around (a misinterpretation of) the moral philosophies of Neitzche and Heidegger, but that would have had almost no impact on the common soldier or the common citizen. You seem to be reaching more towards the influence of propaganda. In the Nazi case that would have been eugenics type arguments: the people subject to the holocaust were broadly portrayed as less than human, soldiers and citizens were exposed to rhetoric about the ascendency of the german 'race' and its right to expand into and dominate other regions. It's usually neither possible nor necessary to convince a person to do something he/she would normally consider evil; all that's required is to convince him/her that someone more important and significant has made the decision for what must be valid reasons, and most people will comply, even if they have reservations. see Milgram experiment--Ludwigs2 01:33, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

And it's not like Jews "were in good standing" in Germany before that. They were there, and there were lots of them, but they were always different, never quite fully accepted. Hitler didn't suddenly start picking on Jews for no reason, and German citizens didn't suddenly decide that this was okay. That's how it was for the Jews in Europe for centuries before Hitler. Why the Jews? Well, from the perspective of a random German person in the 1930s...who else was there? Adam Bishop (talk) 02:15, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

When I first saw the title of this section, I thought it was referring to cultural relativism. In English class, we read an excerpt from something that referred to moral relativism as cultural relativism. Evidently, the author did not have a disclaimer like in the cultural relativism article saying the two should not be confused. =P Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 02:09, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

cultural relativism is a type of moral relativism, so... --Ludwigs2 02:42, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Munich, there have been civilian casualties in Iraq, some instances of which have been more severe and, yes, criminal than others. But there was never any policy to specifically target Iraqi civilians in the way the Nazis specifically, and as a central aspect of policy, targeted Jews and other civilian groups. So, could you try to explain more clearly what comparison you would like to ask about between US military action in Iraq and the Holocaust? WikiDao ☯ (talk) 03:02, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I think I read somewhere that Hitler read Schopenhauer in the trenches of WW1: presumably The World as Will and Representation, although I'm not sure how true that is. Leaders being very willful or "strong" seems to be one of the core values of Nazi beliefs, so it was like institutionalised bullying. I've read that the Nazis would settle leadership disputes in Nazi party branches by just letting the two contenders metaphorically fight it out, like Social Darwinism, where "Might is right", and the "strongest" would win. Bullies must have victims to demonstrate the bullies powerfullness to their audience. The audience is "us", the victims are "them". The audience feels gratitude to the leader/bully for being in the prestigeous and protected "us" group. Jewish people, or their stereotype, fell into the despised "them" group. I wonder if the German culture of drinkiing lots of beer, such as their beer halls and beer gardens turned them into psychos. There must have been a lot of undiagnosed alchoholics around, even though Hitler did not drink. See also Hofbräuhaus#Nazi_history 92.24.191.208 (talk) 13:29, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

(rolls eyes) Really, you're blaming the beer gardens for Nazism? Are the economic, racist, social, and political explanations for the rise of Hitler so insufficient that we have to appeal to undiagnosed alcoholism? --Mr.98 (talk) 13:42, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm suggesting it could be a factor amony many others. An alcoholic I once knew did rant just like Hitler, and was a bully using the method described above. Most of my little essay does not mention booze. 92.24.191.208 (talk) 13:50, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

If you're interested in learning the moral theory that people like Hitler thought justified them, read Mein Kampf. It's propaganda, it's nuts, but if you think it is truth then all of the Holocaust seems like an unpleasant but necessary outcome to a big problem. If you want to find out what moral system motivates people, you have to read their own professions of why they do what they do. You don't have to agree with it, obviously.

Note that there is a big difference between the moral justifications used by people at the top (who don't have to do the dirty work) and those used at the bottom (the guys with the guns). Recommended reading on the latter point: Christopher Browning, Ordinary Men: Reserve Police Battalion 101 and the Final Solution in Poland (1992). --Mr.98 (talk) 13:39, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Interactive Theatre gone Awry

Hello there:

I was talking with my friend about ideas for plays where the actors would interact with the crowd, and the crowd would be part of the story. He told me of a situation where there was a play with an all-black cast, seemingly in America, where the cast pretended to be white supremacists in the vein of the KKK, and abused the audience as though they were black victims back in the pre-Civil Rights Movement era. They would even physically attack plants, causing quite an uproar because much of the audience didn't distinguish it as being fictional. When I asked where he had heard of this story, he said that it was either chronicled in a book about/by Pacino or De Niro that he'd read, where either man was in the audience.

Has anyone out there heard of a play like the one described? I'd very much appreciate it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.105.19.66 (talk) 01:24, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Not a play, but you may want to read up on the Stanford prison experiment. --Jayron32 01:29, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

This sounds like the Stanford prison experiment after being run through something like the Telephone game to me, too. If that experiment was adapted for the stage at some point, though, that would be interesting to find out! :) WikiDao ☯ (talk) 03:23, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I was confused for a moment by the reference to "attacking plants" until I realised it was meaning 7 of wikt:plant). :: --ColinFine (talk) 13:12, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Freshness

I have just met a new lady frend. When we have sex, I am put off by the bad smell of her bum. Is there anyway i can tactfully suggest that she uses some sort of perfumed cleansing tissue. If so, is there any product on the market that can safely be flushed down the toilet?--RackOpinion (talk) 11:54, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

A perfumed cleansing tissue will just cover the smell with an artificial smell, and is liable to irritate the extremely sensitive areas down there. I'd recommend 1)taking this as an opportunity to first check that you yourself are scrupulously clean and sweet-smelling (aftershave and cologne are no substitute), including your genitals and bum 2)having checked you are yourself scrupulously clean, you can then say that you are a bit neurotic about hygiene and could she please take a shower, especially concentrating on her genitals and bum, before you are intimate. If you also shower before, or even shower at the same time (which can be fun), all should be well. If, when you are both very clean, there is still a smell that puts you off, either you just don't like the smell of women or she should see a doctor :P 109.156.205.27 (talk) 12:06, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Levels of communication and identity

Years ago I attended a seminar. The speaker said something about communication (between people) occurring at three levels, the third of which is at the level of one's identity (which I took to mean one's religious or cultural identity, or something like that.) The speaker said that when people perceive a message as an attack on something that defines their identities, they will be offended and become defensive.

I got the impression that there must be some theory of communication on which the speaker based his remark; If so, I want to learn more about it. I'd welcome a brief explanation of it or some reading suggestions. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.49.79.13 (talk) 12:45, 17 October 2010 (UTC)