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

July 30

Former Location of Conservatoire de Paris

After reading the historical sections of both the Paris Conservatory (CNSMDP) site and the Wikipedia page on the same subject matter, I'm still uncertain of where the music conservatory was located between 1911 and 1990. Was it housed in a former Jesuit College (Rue de Madrid)? If so, is that building (or set of buildings) still standing and what is the exact address? I appreciate any assistance that can be offered.

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=fr&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnsmdp.fr%2F http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatoire_de_Paris 98.242.77.225 (talk) 03:30, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

In the French WP about the Rue de Madrid, it is said that the conservatory was located from 1911 to 1990 at the number 16 of this street. But in the page about the Conservatoire à rayonnement régional de Paris, it is said that the Paris Conservatory was settled at number 14 of the rue de Madrid. I checked with Google Street, the correct address is 14; a shop called Le temps industriel is located at the number 16. — AldoSyrt (talk) 09:40, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Politic worms

Hello, can you please tell me the meaning of the word politic in shakespeare's expression "a certain convocation of politic worms" ? 41.141.77.160 (talk) 10:22, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

This book glosses the word as "shrewd" or "scheming". Calliopejen1 (talk) 11:47, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I'd say it means people who manipulate others to get what they want. StuRat (talk) 05:23, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

This brings up a point. I saw once a claim that the word policy in the phrase honesty is the best policy does not mean "framework for behavior" as it would today, but something more like "diplomatic manipulation". In other words, the phrase is not a pious platitude, but more of an ironic paradox, something like "the most effective way to lie is to do it without saying anything untrue" or something along those lines. Maybe this should be a question at the language desk, but as long as we're here, can anyone give evidence to support or refute this idea? --Trovatore (talk) 06:07, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Or "Honesty is critically important...once you've fooled everyone into thinking you're honest, you've got it made". StuRat (talk) 06:23, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

gold versus bonds

Doesn't the US government have gold it can sell instead of bonds? --DeeperQA (talk) 12:51, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

That's not quite how it works. Start with United States Bullion Depository. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:06, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Do they have to add hot water to the bullion to turn it back into gold ? :-) StuRat (talk) 05:21, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I think you're thinking of bouillon. I wasn't aware of the spelling difference, either, until quite recently. --Trovatore (talk) 06:08, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Puns don't respect spelling. However, your link doesn't go to either the gold or soup base, but rather a region of Belgium. StuRat (talk) 06:20, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

...and I suppose you are one of those who would say the price of gold and inflation are not related. --DeeperQA (talk) 13:52, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Do you have an actual question or are you trying to foment an argument? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:07, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I am one of those who believe the price of gold is independent of inflation. At least, regarding the data of the last years, when we got 300% inflation on gold price and a much, much lower inflation. 193.153.125.105 (talk) 21:39, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Even though selling more bonds (increasing the debt limit) is the traditional way of raising cash to cover expenditures, that even though not traditional, selling grandmother's heirlooms to pay off debt if when the credit card gets maxed out will provide the necessary cash for expenditures to be paid. --DeeperQA (talk) 22:24, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

According to gold reserve, the US official reserves are about 8,000 tonnes and the price per tonne is about $50m (and that would drop if the US started selling off its reserves, due to simple supply and demand). That means the total reserves are worth about $0.4tn, but couldn't be sold for even that much. The US deficit is currently over $1tn a year and the total debt is over $14tn. As you can see, selling the gold reserves would hardly make a dent in the debt. It could buy the government a few months longer to get the debt ceiling raised, but at the cost of seriously damaging confidence in the ability of the US to pay its bills. --Tango (talk) 16:23, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

The screwy part is that the U.S. supposedly doesn't want to "look bad" by selling gold, and the Russians apparently were even buying it. I suppose if our countries understood the whole "buy low sell high" thing, they wouldn't be in debt up the eyebrows... Wnt (talk) 23:04, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Makes one wonder what was really behind the fall of Ancient Rome. --DeeperQA (talk) 02:38, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Lenin and Stalin

Is there any evidence or clue that Lenin tried to get Stalin killed ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.253.137.28 (talk) 13:47, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

You can start by reading about Lenin and Stalin. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:07, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Not a very helpful answer, to just echo back the names contained in a question. Neither article appears to address the question. The Stalin article says Lenin had a "rift" with Stalin in 1921 or 1922, but also transferred more power to him. Edison (talk) 13:53, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

C'mon ! I know Wiki has articles on both chaps, I wanted if someone has something special... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.253.137.28 (talk) 15:15, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

If any of us had 'something special' it would no doubt be on Google. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 23:32, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

...and probably for sale. --DeeperQA (talk) 02:41, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

So none of the RefDesk regulars here have a clue about the topic, or any time to do research, but just wanted to post something? Several of the early revolutionary leaders were accused of plotting to kill Stalin, and Stalin had several other leaders killed after show trials. Stalin was accused of plotting to kill Lenin, or of taking steps to speed his death. Lenin was not known for killing other revolutionary leaders, though he had lots of others killed. Lenin conferred power on Stalin, whose brutal methods aided him in his rivalry with Leon Trotsky and is said to have had doubts about Stalin on his deathbed,such as a writing in January 1923 where he said Stalin was "too brutal" to be the leader. See Rise of Joseph Stalin#Lenin's retirement and death for more on Lenin's doubts about Stalin, during a period after Lenin had had a stroke and when Stalin was his intermediary with the Party. Maybe Lenin whispered in someone's ear a desire to be rid of Stalin, but I could not find a reliable source which said Lenin sought to have Stalin killed. See [1]. There has been much propaganda and disinformation published about Stalin and Lenin, and some questionable memoirs were published as by Trotsky, years after the death of Lenin. Edison (talk) 13:53, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

(EC)Apologies, Edison, as I myself did actually search Google specifically for 'stalin assassination attempts lenin' and found nothing which I deemed related specifically to would answer the OP's question. My answer was a recommendation for the OP to use Google, as I had done. Maybe I should have said that more clearly. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 14:21, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Lots of reliable sources talk about death plots against Stalin. They also say Lenin wanted Stalin removed as General Secretary, and did not want him to be the big boss after Lenin's departure. At the same time, Stalin was in charge of Lenin's personal guard, and found out about Lenin's criticism of him shortly before Lenin's death. There have been accounts that say Stalin took steps to hasten Lenin's death. It would not be a huge leap for Lenin to have said something on some occasion comparable to King Henry saying ""Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?", which led to the murder of Thomas Becket. But I could not find that the various plotters against Stalin said that Lenin had uttered even such an indirect request for Stalin's assassination. Edison (talk) 16:23, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

As to that "Stalin is too brutal" thing, for which you've linked a reference from Michael Charlton's book: that word "brutal" doesn't seem to be the way it's universally translated into English. Our own Lenin's Testament quotes a translation that has it as "Stalin is too rude". In his ongoing series Russia: The Wild East, Martin Sixsmith also used "rude". A quick survey of Google Books finds the same ("rude") translation used by Alan Wood's Stalin and Stalinism, Adam Ulam's Stalin, the man and his era, and many others. Looking at the text in the context of the paragraph that follows it, it's a complaint about Stalin's bad manners - suggesting the communists replace him with someone who is more "polite" and "tolerant" and less "capricious". In that context the "rude" translation is much more consonant than "brutal". So Lenin isn't saying "watch out for Stalin, he's a brutal psycho", he's saying "Stalin is too rough and crude for a high political office requiring people skills and finesse". Lenin is suggesting a modest re-org, not a hit. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 17:05, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

The EDL leader's lament

In the wake of the Breivik shootings, an anti-Islamic group he praised called the English Defence League has been getting lots of publicity.^[2] Its leader presented some of his grievances in a news article, which I think concern the town of Luton. How much of this stuff is actually true? (Feel free to respond under any individual point below:)

• Millions of Muslims obey "Saudi Arabian-funded “command-and-control” mosques".

• "We are eating halal meat. I’m Catholic, I don’t want to eat meat blessed by another God, but I am eating it on a daily basis without even being told about it." (Is halal anything more than a description of fairly common meat preparation practices? If you don't know meat is halal is it treated in any way differently than non-halal meat?)

• "My kids are having to visit mosques as part of the national curriculum in school."

• "If you want to go swimming on a Tuesday you can’t because it is the Muslim swimming day. It is just renamed women-only days" (???)

• "Icknield High School, last St. George's Day, completely banned the emblem of St. George. If anyone brought in a pin badge they were suspended." (Why?)

• "Muslims who ... protested against the Iraq war “recruiting for, and promoting jihad” ... without police hindrance. However, his counter-protest was met with ... police on horseback with coshes out.”

• In response to charges ranging from "racially aggravated abuse to criminal damage of property", as he put it the court "put a restraint order on me so that I can only have £250 a week" [leading to loss of his business]. (Can this be done to someone in Britain before a trial?)

Please note that I'm not asking this to endorse his opinions; but these claims are interesting because radical groups generally seem good at identifying problems even if they offer the wrong solutions. Wnt (talk) 14:12, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, what political groups often do is to distort and invent facts to support their viewpoints. And the farther out they are, the farther out the distortions and inventions are. You can start with the false claim that the Islamic God is not the Christian God. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:18, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

It is perfectly possible to answer the question as stated. I'm not quite sure what the last bit means. ("I can only have"?) The last-but-one is one of these things which is spin. EDL marches (in Luton and elsewhere) have been met with a heavy police presence, and I'm sure some would have had horseback police. Their marches have a history of violence both by them and against them (by UAF, for example). This is not unusual for any rally of this sort and almost every time how 'fair' the presence was is looked at in the press, usually because one or both of UAF/EDL complains. Most of the Iraq war marches were police mandated, whether they were by Muslims or not. It would be impossible to police every street corner, maybe some weren't. In general, though, police fairness is always questioned, but never found guilty (other aspects of procedure are). On the Saint George's day thing, it's a case of pulling the one example that suits your cause. If you're a Muslim extremist, you pick the girl who was made to take her burka off; in EDL's case, it maybe happened, it's just the hasty generalisation that's false. I can't find any press of it, so maybe not. (You'd think maybe the Daily Mail or their website had something.) It would seem cause for a large backlash and it does not appear that it even happened. On the halal meat thing, it's prepared differently to usual. There was some press some time ago about fast food restuaruants in Muslim-dominated areas not bothering to offer two separate versions of everything, and giving everyone halal. This took people months to notice, as I recall the coverage was late in the day, and mentioned a handful of places (halal's more expensive, so you can see why). Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 14:34, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

The "I can only have" presumably refers to a withdrawal limit on a frozen account, which as I understand is fairly usual - what seems less common to me is that this would be done pretrial to an individual not accused of a drug or other lucrative offense. Wnt (talk) 15:40, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

There are background articles about islamophobia in Luton here and here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:59, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I find this fascinating for some reason, so let's get started.

Millions of UK citizens are indeed followers of the Islamic faith, and attend mosques. I have no idea whose control those mosques are under, but if some of them are instructing their worshippers to do things that break UK law, then it's easy enough for the UK authorities to infiltrate such mosques and then take action against them. (Some controversial Muslim preachers in the UK have indeed had legal action taken against them.) Is it true that some rich Saudi Arabians are donating vast amounts of their petro-dollars to provide mosques and community centres and daycare and such in the UK, all for free? Gosh, I hope so.

Halal meat is relatively unremarkable for anyone whose religion does not forbid its consumption - the main difference is a requirement for the killing to be done with a sharp knife to the jugular, and usually death by electrocution is not permitted (but stunning with electrocution is permitted). I believe some slaughterhouses are jointly run so that both halal and kosher meat can be produced there, actually by the same staff. In fact, our article on the process, states that Islamic law permits the slaughtering to be carried out by a Jew or Christian, and the meat still qualifies as halal. It's entirely possible that some halal meat was served to people that weren't informed it was halal, just as it's possible kosher meat has been. (When I go to an Indian restaurant run by muslims, I assume I am eating halal food, but they very rarely specifically tell me so, and I don't care.) Catholicism does not forbid the consumption of halal meat (as far as I know).

I believe the National Curriculum requires pupils to be taught about the major world religions, of which Islam would be one, and Christianity another. It seems extremely unlikely that the National Curriculum requires pupils to be taken to visit a mosque specifically. Some schools might take pupils to visit a mosque (or a church, or a buddhist temple) as part of teaching about religion. One assumes parents would have the right to opt their children out of such a visit.

I can well believe that some municipal swimming pools in the UK have women-only days; a bit sexist, but it happens. What the person is presumably trying to imply is that the women-only day is a cover story for a day when muslims can swim and others are excluded. This seems wildly implausible, but is easy to claim because people will believe it easily. All it would take would be for the Daily Mail to send along a female reporter, and then they could plaster the scandal all over their pages. This hasn't happened. Why? Because it's nonsense.

Many UK schools have uniforms, and sometimes strict rules about what adornments pupils can wear with them. I imagine it's possible that a school (or even an individual teacher) forbade the wearing of St. George badges (just as they might forbid the wearing of Islamic badges or Hezbollah badges), but for pupils to be suspended for it seems implausible. Schools suspend or expel for serious misbehaviour, or where it's unavoidable. If a pupil comes to school wearing jeans and t-shirt in defiance of a uniform policy, and doesn't have a change of clothes, then sending them home is the only option. But if a pupil comes to school wearing a forbidden badge, then they can merely be told to remove it. If they refuse to remove it, then that's a different matter - they're being suspended for refusing to follow the uniform policy, not for wearing the badge. Most UK schools, however, wouldn't care about a reasonably unobtrusive badge. It's worth pointing out that St George's Day was pretty much ignored for the whole of the 19th and 20th centuries, and the recent trend towards observing it is rather manufactured. Most people in England probably couldn't even tell you what date it is, and you see 1000x more flags of St George during the World Cup, than on St George's Day itself. So I think the idea of swarms of patriotic schoolchildren being suspended for celebrating it, is a fairy story.

Right-wing marches produce left-wing counter-demonstrations, and any sensible police officer merely wants to keep the two apart, because when they meet, they usually fight. The majority of UK police officers are white Anglo-Saxon Christians, so a pro-minority bias seems unlikely. Reality does have a liberal bias though, and if individual police officers or commanders feel that the cause of the disorder is the right-wing people being there in the first place, that might affect how they react. For a historical example of British police "taking sides" in a similar sort of confrontation, see Battle of Cable Street.

Restraining orders can be arranged for all sorts of things in the UK, just like in the USA. No idea about the details of the case. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:29, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

It's clear that there's a lot of Christian discussion regarding whether halal meat counts as "meat offered to idols".^[3] It appears that the Catholic view in particular is laid-back on this, because Christianity in general (under Paul) made huge strides toward eating anything available.^[4] However, various fundamentalist groups put a lot more emphasis on Old Testament views (though in this case the change was even later than that). In general, if halal meat requires some actual religious action, and doesn't just describe a means of preparation (which seems to be what I'm getting here and from the article) it is easy enough to see why a devoted believer would not want such a ritual said on his behalf, when he rejects the religion. Wnt (talk) 20:49, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

According to the article Islam in England, some 1.5 million Muslims lived in England and Wales in 2001. It is possible that some more millions (as per the posting above) are adherents of Islam. A reference to support such a statement ("Millions of UK citizens are indeed followers of the Islamic faith...") would be useful. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 18:22, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Or you could go with "a seven figure number of Muslims" or "between one and two million Muslims", or "more than a million Muslims". Whichever causes you least stress. In the meantime, a Wikipedia article stating that 1.5 million Muslims lived in England and Wales in 2001, doesn't really say much with certainty about how many Muslims live in the entirety of the UK, in total, in 2011. So yeah, references would be great, especially if they include estimates for those who might not be registered in official statistics. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:32, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

"If you want to go swimming on a Tuesday you can’t because it is the Muslim swimming day. It is just renamed women-only days" (???)

This one is not exactly fantasy, more spin. My local swimming pool in a middling-sized market town in the south of England used to offer occasional 'women only' swim sessions, simply because there were some women who felt uncomfortable or unsafe wearing revealing clothes and swimming in the presence of men, and women made up a good proportion of the customers, and it was felt reasonable. This would only be a session or two a week, since I don't know any swimming pools open most of the year that have 'whole day' sessions. More recently, this was discontinued because the number of women only swimming in those sessions dropped: women felt safer and more comfortable swimming with men than previously, so there was no need. Interestingly, they also used to offer nude swimming sessions, which seemed to vanish about the same time as the women-only ones.

I have certainly heard of Muslim women being unable to go swimming because it would involve being immodestly dressed around men. Combining this, it would be completely reasonable for a local authority or swimming pool owner in an area with a high Muslim population to offer women-only swims, either because they were asked to or because they were smart. So, these women-only sessions would be offered because of the Muslim population, and might even mostly be full of Muslim women (because other women might not seek out a women-only session), but they wouldn't be 'disguised' Muslim-only sessions: they would genuinely be women-only. 82.24.248.137 (talk) 20:13, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

That would have been my guess (especially if the Muslim women all only come on the women-only day) but it's nice to see it confirmed. If so, this is a highly useful example of a logical fallacy: public resources are made available for everyone; group X tends to use the public resource in a manner that is segregated by location or time; therefore public resources are being specially earmarked for group X. Wnt (talk) 20:40, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

This reminds me me a bit of how some people in the US were complaining about Six Flags some sort of theme park having a 'Muslim family day' with many saying they never had a Christian family day except that a simple search showed they'd done so many times in the past possibly even more then once a year (and quite a few of the results appeared to be from before the controversy i.e. it's not like it was something you wouldn't have found before it blew up). In fact I think it wasn't even their first Muslim family day Nil Einne (talk) 10:28, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

And I think the questioner meant the EDL not EDF leader. Sussexonian (talk) 21:57, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Er, yes - header corrected. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:06, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

value of gold

Can anyone verify that the total value of all the gold ever refined in the world throughout history at today's price of $1,625 per ounce would come to only $11.07 trillion dollars. --DeeperQA (talk) 14:24, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

This website, which seems respectable, says 166,600 tonnes have been mined in world history. I won't work it out, though, as I'm unsure of the units (is the gold price in troy ounces?). Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 14:36, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

1 tonne = 1000 kg = 1000 * 32.1507466 troy ounces. So 166,600 tonnes = 8.6726639 × 10¹² dollars. Which is more than I would have thought... Wnt (talk) 15:43, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

That's $8.7 trillion. Even less than the OP's estimate. --Tango (talk) 16:25, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I would just point out that a trillion is a very, very, very large number — saying something is "only" $11 trillion is kind of like saying that the Earth is "only" 4.5 billion years old. Yes, we become accustomed to bandying about large numbers, but they're still pretty large from a human point of view (if you distributed $11 trillion dollars equally amongst the Earth's current population, every human being would get $1800 or so, which is more than the annual income of 80% of the world population.[5] Total worldwide wealth is something like $192 trillion.[6] So having gold being worth 5% of all total wealth is still kind of impressive, given how many other forms of resources and value there are. More interesting I suppose would be to know how much mineral wealth is in the world, and what percentage of that is gold. --Mr.98 (talk) 02:42, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

The only part of that knowledge which would be meaningful in context of the budget is the part that is revenue of the US government at this moment in time. --DeeperQA (talk) 03:00, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Who said anything about the budget? --Mr.98 (talk) 01:48, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Bishop of Arezzo

How many Bishops were there in Arezzo before Guido Tarlati?

Here's a list. Looks like 21 by my count. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:52, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 23:14, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

North America without First Nations

I read somewhere that the reason most colonies in North America survived was because of the Natives. What are some instances that could have caused the hardship in North American colonies (and possibly lead to their demise) without Native Americans? (For example, without Natives, Jacques Cartier's crew of men would have died of scurvy.) Any help would be appreciated. 64.229.153.236 (talk) 23:03, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Squanto taught the Pilgrims how to grow maize, which kept them alive after they almost all starved to death. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 23:50, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Squanto did a LOT more for the Pilgrims than just show them how to grow maize. He and Samoset brokered a treaty with Massasoit, who was the most powerful sachem in the region; without Massasoits protection it is possible that they would have been massacred by hostile tribes. It was well past colonial times, but Sacagawea was a vital member of the Lewis and Clark expedition in the early 19th century. --Jayron32 02:24, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

The question was whether the colonists could survive without the Native Americans. If there were no Native Americans, there would be no "hostile tribes" in the first place. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 05:07, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

While some colonies might not have survived, in the long run Europeans would have figured out which foods grow well in the Americas and made a go of it. Perhaps more supplies would have been needed to have been brought there, initially, though, to allow for the time it would take to adapt to the New World.

Another thought, though, is that without any previous humans in the Americas to wipe them out, saber-toothed tigers might still have been running around, chasing Pilgrims about. :-) StuRat (talk) 05:13, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Without natives to have selectively bred maize that grows extremely well in the conditions present there, colonists would have had to make do with European crops that weren't specialised to quite the same conditions. They wouldn't be impossible, by any means (there are plenty of formerly European crops being grown in North America today), but it would have made things much harder. --Tango (talk) 18:58, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

July 31

What is the Roman Catholic Church's position on Christian Existentialism, Phenomenology and Kierkegaard?

What is the Roman Catholic Church's position on Christian Existentialism, Phenomenology and Kierkegaard? Have any of those doctrines been condemned? Is it considered compatible with orthodoxy? Have there been any influences of those schools on orthodox theology? Are there any Catholic thinkers in good standing who have been influenced by those schools or publically praised any of them? --Gary123 (talk) 01:17, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if you already know that orthodox simply means "right belief." Orthodox catholicism may mean something different to the pope than it does to you. In fact, take a look at this story, for example. In the only several steps in hierarchy between the pope and a bishop, orthodoxy can be radically redefined.

In direct answer to your question, I don't know. I'm rather curious myself.Schyler (exquirere bonum ipsum) 13:38, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

This discussion, and this slightly less charitable one, might help somewhat. I don't think there is an official position on it as such, and I don't know that the Roman (Latin Rite) Catholic Church differs in its beliefs from the rest of the Catholic Church in a way that would affect this. There are some philosophical differences between the Latin Rite and various Eastern Rite branches of the Catholic Church, but I don't think they're especially relevant to Existentialism. (to Schyler: they use 'small o' orthodoxy, meaning orthodox Catholic belief, not Orthodox belief) 86.164.73.187 (talk) 13:45, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Thomism is the orthodox philosophy of the Catholic Church. It holds the possibility of objective knowledge of the real world and of moral truths, and of individual happiness. It rejects skepticism and Kantianism and hence the skeptical and subjectivist bases for existentialism. You can read Aquinas' Treatise on Happiness and Cardinal Mercier's 2 Vol. Manual of Scholastic Philosophy at googlebooks which provides the Catholic stand on such issues without directly addressing existentialism which was a word that had not come into use at the Time ~1900 of Mercier's writing. Cardinal Ratzinger might also be worth reading. μηδείς (talk) 17:42, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

That's not quite true. Thomism is hugely, hugely important to the Church, especially the Latin Rite (the Eastern Rites tend to place less importance and emphasis on it, because they come from a more Eastern Orthodox background). St Thomas's writings are considered shining examples of theology and philosophy, they are fully in line with the Church's beliefs, and very influential on Catholic theology and philosophy. However, the Church doesn't actually claim  to 'pick' a philosophical school. I guess I'm saying that Thomism is indeed orthodox Catholic philosophy, but not the orthodox Catholic philosophy. I'm pretty sure that most Existentialism will be outside orthodox Catholic beliefs. I recommend a read of Fides et Ratio:

The Magisterium's discernment as diakonia of the truth

49. The Church has no philosophy of her own nor does she canonize any one particular philosophy in preference to others.(54) The underlying reason for this reluctance is that, even when it engages theology, philosophy must remain faithful to its own principles and methods. Otherwise there would be no guarantee that it would remain oriented to truth and that it was moving towards truth by way of a process governed by reason. A philosophy which did not proceed in the light of reason according to its own principles and methods would serve little purpose. At the deepest level, the autonomy which philosophy enjoys is rooted in the fact that reason is by its nature oriented to truth and is equipped moreover with the means necessary to arrive at truth. A philosophy conscious of this as its “constitutive status” cannot but respect the demands and the data of revealed truth.

53. The Magisterium's pronouncements have been concerned less with individual philosophical theses than with the need for rational and hence ultimately philosophical knowledge for the understanding of faith. 

212.183.128.5 (talk) 12:33, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, since the Church accepted sola fidei it seems to have been all down hill. But Thomism explains the traditional centrality of that philosophy. μηδείς (talk) 18:40, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Wut? Am I missing a joke? The Church doesn't accept sola fide unless you redefine sola fide to match what the Church teaches. Thomism is indeed hugely important, as I said, and very influential, but (as explained in fides at ratio) for philosophy to function as philosophy it needs to operate under its own rules, and thus cannot be an 'official' Church philosophy. Equally, the Church teaches what it teaches based on Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture interpreted by the Magisterium: a philosophy can inform that, and work with that, but an 'official philosophy' would imply it as the source of divine knowledge, which would be more of a Lutheran position (I think it's Lutherans who have Reason as one of their sources of Truth? Or was that Methodists? It may be Methodists, given some of the quotes from Luther on Reason as the enemy of Faith). 86.161.210.242 (talk) 16:18, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

(Add): It must have been Methodists I heard it from, because I see it's an Anglican thing with Reason taking the place of the Magisterium. 86.161.210.242 (talk) 16:25, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

invention of rhyme

who invented rhyme, in poetry?  when did it appear?  where?  Ancient Greek poetry didn't rhyme, did it? 78.131.30.76 (talk) 01:48, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Rhyme#History tells us about the earliest surviving example of rhyme. But it's a good guess that they didn't invent it. APL (talk) 02:10, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) :It doesn't rhyme in English, but it may very well rhyme in Greek. Rhyme#History dates the oldest rhyme to 10th century BC in China. It also notes that ancient Greeks did rhyme in at least some of their poetry. It doesn't seem like the kind of thing that one person, or even one culture, would have "invented" and then introduced to the whole world. Rhyme seems like one of those things that would have developed hundreds of times in many cultures... --Jayron32 02:15, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

And of course considering the nature of rhyming it would have most likely been invented in prehistoric societies that relied on the oral tradition, possibly as a mnemonic technique for story tellers. So it is not possible to say who invented it. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:20, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh. (OP here). I thought it was some guy named Rhymus or something, given the odd spelling of the word. The name sounds Greek, but I know Homer's poetry didn't rhyme, so I thought it was some guy in the Golden Age of Greece. 89.135.188.193 (talk) 14:21, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

No, Ancient Greek and Latin poetry depended on meter, not rhyme, and this was true long after Homer. Old English poetry depended on meter and alliteration. Rhyme became prominent in mediaeval Latin Carmina Burana and the Romance languages and can be seen in Chaucer but not Beowulf or Caedmon's Hymn. No one invented rhyme, however. It is wordplay as old as spoken language. See also Rhyme#Etymology μηδείς (talk) 17:23, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

My English teacher - an Oxford graduate - told us that rhyme, metre et al, were invented to allow ancient bards to remember large tracts of narrative. Epic poems often existed for centuries in verbal form only, an Oral tradition, passed from one person to another and learned by rote. It makes sense; I can recite several rather long poems word perfectly (not all of them rhyme), but would struggle to quote more than a couple of sentances of somebody else's prose. Alansplodge (talk) 18:00, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

We have a brief page on Oral poetry. Alansplodge (talk) 18:06, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't doubt that at all, certain forms are easier to remember than others after all. However I suspect that it wasn't "invented" then as such, no one sat down and did a study on human memory, figured out that this was a superior method and implemented it wide-scale. A more likely case is that the people responsible for the oral tradition did it themselves, over the years, as they forgot some words and replaced them in easier-to-remember form. Not to mention certain things just sound good, and we find that these things are true across languages. I don't think one culture ever introduced another to rhetorical forms, they are more or less universal. HominidMachinae (talk) 20:21, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

It's worth noting, on the "universal" note, that according to Temple Grandin, some whale songs also rhyme, and have other rhetorical tricks to them (like meter).[7] --Mr.98 (talk) 22:31, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

"Invented to" is false; it amounts to literary creationism. That rhyme and meter make verse more easily memorable doesn't mean they were consciously designed that way. Word play such as alliteration is simply natural. Preliterate kids do it. It is much more likely that, as with popular anonymously authored and Christmas carols and nursery rhymes, those that were pleasant and easy to remember stuck, while others were forgotten.

Also, keep in mind that rhyme is more striking in languages like English, French and German which often use bare stems rather than inflected forms. For instance, the -and rhymes of Ozymandias are rhymes of bare stems, while an inflected language like Latin could cheaply rhymes all sorts of inflected endings (say, nouns in -orum or verbs in -erunt) without any effort. μηδείς (talk) 04:45, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

There's no "could" about it. If you look at Latin rhyming poetry like the Dies Irae, it does take shameless advantage of inflected endings, e.g. in verse 6 where the rhyme comes from the 3rd person singular future ending -ebit or verse 13 where the rhyme comes from the 2nd person singular perfect ending -isti. Pais (talk) 07:54, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

(Yes. Note, as I said in my first comment on this thread, mediaeval Latin poetry (Dies Irae is dated to 1200) does use rhyme, the classical metric traditions having died out. μηδείς (talk) 21:19, 2 August 2011 (UTC))

gold coins

How much would the 200 gold coins Caesar paid each solder after winning the war against the Gauls be worth today? --DeeperQA (talk) 02:51, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

According to Aureus, the standard gold coin at the time was roughly 8 grams, give or take. According to [8] gold is selling at $52 or so per gram. So each coin was worth $416 dollars, 200 of which would be worth $83,200; a tidy sum. Of course, judging on pure cost alone doesn't take into account purchasing power. Some sources cite a dinarius (at 25 to the aureus) to be roughly 1 day's wage for the average laborer. So an aureus was then worth 25 days wage, 200 of which would be 5000 days wage for an average laborer, or 6 years of income, which would make it somewhat more valuable in terms of wage equivalence than the gold content. --Jayron32 03:05, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Am I missing something? 5000 days is a lot more than 6 years. Using a modern work-year of 240 days it's over 20 years; even assuming no holidays at all it's 14 years. --ColinFine (talk) 09:18, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right. My math is stoopid. --Jayron32 18:56, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Of course if you had 200 of the actual gold coins from the time of Caesar, they would be worth a lot more than their weight in gold, simply because they would be very collectible antiques. --Saddhiyama (talk) 19:24, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Jans Janzoon Von Haarlem

I'm not very good at computers but have a lot more information to contribute to my pirate ancestor, Jans alias Murat Reis, and one of his sons, Anthony von Salee, from whom I am descended. Some are citations from old history books and court records. How do I do this? <contact information removed> — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.169.233.183 (talk) 03:09, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I certainly hope you read this again, as is noted in the instructions at the top of the page, no one will contact you and your contact information has been removed. Help:Contents/Getting started is basically the instruction manual for Wikipedia, and Wikipedia:Your first article is a decent walkthrough for creating an article. If you have good old book sources, it sounds like this could be the start of a really cool article. Good luck, and if you have any specific questions, feel free to ask. You can ask again here, or you can drop a note on my user talk page (User talk:Jayron32) if you need help. --Jayron32 03:21, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

(ec) A good principle behind Wikipedia is to be bold! The edits you make should always be taken in good faith, so no need to worry; if they are not perfect (which they won't be), someone else will revise them.
The two articles about the pirates named Murat Reis seem to be fairly complete, though. Wikipedia would welcome any further helpful and well-sourced information. You can click the button at the top of the page that says "edit." Like I said, don't be too worried about making mistakes. Schyler (exquirere bonum ipsum) 03:25, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, it looks like your ancester was Jan Janszoon, so if you have additional information or sources you can add them to that article. If you are concerned about how to add them correctly, you can use the talk page at Talk:Jan Janszoon and leave the information there for someone else to help incorporate into the article. --Jayron32 03:32, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Could the US Government turn to corporate sponsorship to pay down the debt?

As seen in Simpsons episode Make Room for Lisa, a cellular company named OmniTouch sponsors the Smithsonian in order to cut operating costs as a result of the government running out of money. The year that episode was made, I was in middle school so I thought that the idea of companies sponsoring the government was funny and ridiculous.

Now that I'm in college and get a disability income, I find it a nifty initiative considering that my current way of life could be in jeopardy if the US debt impasse doesn't solve very soon.

Therefore, wouldn't the government make this kind of sponsorship a "Plan B" for when their impasse doesn't solve? Some may resent the following, but I wouldn't mind seeing extra advertisements on federal buildings, vehicles, even landmarks (like a tall ad for a Samsung air purifier on one side of the Washington Monument) if it means that we'll keep being paid, and that no part of our livelihoods will fall like dominoes. --70.179.165.67 (talk) 06:19, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Already a very well established practice, called "taxes." DOR (HK) (talk) 06:51, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Just so you're clear, you know that J. P. Morgan bailed out the gov't in the past, right? The danger with corporate sponsorship lies in shady deals and favoritism from the gov't to companies that sponsored the gov't. Dismas|^(talk) 06:55, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

One of the stalwart plot points of Cyberpunk fiction is the extra-territorial status of corporations and their superiority to governments. I would think if it's that common in literature enough people would be leery of creating a corporate state that there would be heavy opposition. 98.209.39.71 (talk) 07:56, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I just read a news article that stated Apple has about 3% more cash and securities than the Federal government so yes, cash ladened businesses like Microsoft, Google, Hathaway and Apple could by themselves come to the rescue of the government under which they have been allowed to make so much profit without batting an eye. Will they? Probably not. --DeeperQA (talk) 16:16, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh, yeah, that would buy Apple a lot of good will. Proud new sponsors of iPAT, enhanced intrusion from The Department of Homeland Security.... μηδείς (talk) 17:17, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

One problem is that the amount of money corporations could contribute in advertising campaigns of this type is pretty small compared to the deficit. According to page 171 of this 4.1MB PDF file, which is the government's 2012 budget, revenues are expected to be about $2.6 trillion, and outlays are going to be about $3.7 trillion, for a deficit of about $1.1 trillion. Apple's cash on hand, which it has taken a decade to amass, is around $76 billion. If Apple "sponsored" the US government by blowing all its cash on hand, the government would burn through that cash in around 25 days. Much better than I expected, actually. Of course, Apple's shareholders would never allow this; the advertising would be unlikely to bring in $76+ billion of new profit to Apple. A second problem is of course that sponsorship introduces an automatic conflict of interest that is even more obvious than today's automatic conflict of interest — everyone at the USDA would know that if they talk smack about drinking too much maple syrup for breakfast, Mrs. Butterworth's might not renew their lucrative sponsorship contract for the Vietnam Veterans' Memorial. As I mentioned over at the Entertainment Desk thread yesterday, we could of course turn to an Americathon. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:48, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

The estimated total spend by all US companies on advertising in all media (online, TV, outdoor, direct mail) for 2011 is about $240bn-$300bn (US dollars).[9][10] This isn't going to make much of a dent in the $1 trillion yearly deficit, still less the national debt. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:18, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

A 24-30% dent to be exact... Googlemeister (talk) 13:15, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

(Historical question) Alcohol aboard Royal or US Navy ships

From various sources I gather that in Nelson's time the Royal Navy (and US Navy, and probably most others) issues all sailors with rather significant rations of strong alcohol, e.g. rum. In fact, they seem to have been so large that in the modern day people who drink so much every day would probably be treated for alcoholism. According to our article on grog, the US Navy stopped the practice in 1862. I would imagine that would have caused quite a bit of upheaval among the common sailors who would have been effectively addicted to it at this point. So I am curious if there are any sources discussing this event. (By the way, it seems that Royal Navy has drawn down the amounts more gradually over more than 100 years, so I don't imagine it being as much of an issue. We do have an interesting article on Black Tot Day). --99.113.32.198 (talk) 06:29, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

A few thoughts:

1) Historically, alcohol in drinks was a good way to ensure that they didn't contain large quantities of microbes that would cause disease. Modern water-treatment methods eliminated this need.

2) I would think the timing of consumption of alcohol would be critical, and that ship's captains would want control of that. For example, having a drunken crew right before a battle could get everybody killed, while getting drunk while off duty and far from any potential combat was less of an issue.

3) Allowing occasional drinking was probably good for morale.

4) Withholding alcohol might make an effective punishment. StuRat (talk) 06:39, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Gosh, you know such a lot about everything, StuRat. Regarding point 2) - during WW1 spirits were freely available in quantity in the trenches, a ration was specifically given to soldiers before they attacked over no-mans-land, and from first person accounts I've read officers at least were commonly drunk or very drunk. During WW2 heavy drinking was also encouraged as it was thought to make people more aggressive. So one can assume that at and previous to that time the navy did not have the dainty scruples that you speculate about. 2.101.8.165 (talk) 11:34, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not talking about "dainty scruples", but rather physical changes from intoxication, like increased reaction time and decreased judgement, either of which can be disastrous in combat. Perhaps they were unaware of these effects back then, though. StuRat (talk) 18:23, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I am aware of the motivations for and against it. I am simply curious how the transition went. --99.113.32.198 (talk) 06:53, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

The House of Commons debate on the abolition of the rum ration in 1970 in the UK is reported in Hansard here. All good stuff, including Hon. Members shouting "Shiver me timbers!" It contains several references to the opposition to the abolition of the ration among serving sailors. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:26, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

About "shiver me timbers": I've heard that expression before and I have no idea what it might mean. I guess that "timbers" refers to a ship's masts but I cannot imagine why anyone would want to shiver them. Any ideas?--Zoppp (talk) 07:46, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

See "Shiver my timbers". Apparently, "In heavy seas, ships would be lifted up and pounded down so hard as to "shiver" the timbers, startling the sailors. Such an exclamation was meant to convey a feeling of fear and awe...." Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:58, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

The New York Times has a searchable article archive back to 1851. You can look at articles mentioning the US Navy around Sept. 1 1862 when the ration was stopped. [11] I could not see any mention. Perhaps it was not considered newsworthy. If you have a similar date for the UK Navy you can check the archive of the Times 174.88.10.35 (talk) 16:00, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

As linked above, the rum ration was abolished on 31 July 1970 known as Black Tot Day - linked above. More information here. The tot had to be consumed in the presence of an officer so that it couldn't be hoarded. It was watered down and then watered down again for junior ratings. A single measure of rum wouldn't have made anyone actually drunk, especially if you drank the same amount every day. At abolition, the daily amount of beer that sailors were allowed to purchase was increased by one can (from 2 to 3) in compensation. Alansplodge (talk) 17:48, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

That was a sad day for those whose personal motto was "Rum, sodomy and the lash!". -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 19:43, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

The lash was banned in 1881; I'm not sure sodomy at sea is lawful even now. Alansplodge (talk) 21:18, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Who said anything about these things being lawful? If it feels good ... you know the rest.  :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 21:47, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Isn't there a small bit of the whale-sized book Moby-Dick where it indicates a physical relationship between Ishmael and has pal, Queequeg or some such, aboardship? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:46, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

GK Question

What word was contributed to the English language by the Seventeen magazine?? It has something to do with Marketing , I am not sure if it is direct marketing , Mail order or target marketing ; Not able to get correct reference;

will appreciate any help — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.83.211.172 (talk) 19:33, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Question from this quiz. If you win, will you share the money with us? -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 19:37, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

My guess is "teenager", which etymonline cites to only 1941. Seventeen magazine could have been instrumental in the dissemination of the word. --Jayron32 19:41, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I will share. More than the prize I am keen to know; it can not be teenager since the seventeen magazine was first published in 1944 and also it is not a marketing term — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.83.211.172 (talk) 19:56, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

If you don't think teenager is a marketing term, you perhaps need a better introduction to the concept of "marketing"... --Jayron32 21:54, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

August 1

Map of 50 new states for the USA

In the eighties there was a map of fifty newly designed states for America based on a rationalization of state boundaries according to geography. I assume it was in Scientific American, Discover or Omni magazine. Can anyone give a citation, or better yet, link to such a map? μηδείς (talk) 04:15, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I've been digging, and I kinda remember the map you are talking about. I haven't found it yet, but I did find this fun map blog: [12]. Here's one giving all 50 states nearly identical populations: [13]. (after more searching) My best guess is This map by George Etzel Pearcy that I was actually looking for; perhaps this is the one you remember as well? It dates from 1973. --Jayron32 04:43, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

An interesting, fanciful idea that conveniently ignores what a "state" is, in the context of the USA. Not to say that would never change. But not likely soon. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:53, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

As a very occasional visitor, I've sometimes wondered if California could be two states. It's big enough, both in space and population. HiLo48 (talk) 05:10, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

It could be, if both the state and Congress agreed to it. And don't forget Texas, the largest of the lower 48, with its vast expanses of nothingness between its major cities. The likelihood of Texans agreeing to name their state something besides Texas, never mind the idea of reshaping it, is roughly that of Texas issuing an official pardon to Santa Anna. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:14, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah I can see that with Texas. I noted the Texas shaped waffles I was served for breakfast and the map of the state being part of its self image. There's a real ownership of "the great State of...". I didn't get the same feeling with California, and a north/south division with the obvious North/South names would not seem so impossible. HiLo48 (talk) 05:22, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

It can't happen unless the party that controls both houses of Congress is also the party that stands to benefit. At the moment I think that's the Republicans. For the foreseeable future both California senators will be Democrats; a split along the lines of a proposal recently in the news (creating a "South California" that was really more like Southeast California, excluding LA) could easily mean two new Republican senators. --Trovatore (talk) 05:27, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) California and Texas both joined the union under, lets say, unusual circumstances which is the major reason why they were so large. California, unlike almost every other state, didn't have to go through the standard "be a territory first and then apply for statehood" procedure; the timing of its statehood is tied up in the complicated politics of the Compromise of 1850. Basically, since Californians had no desire to legalize slavery, the Southern U.S. States would only allow California to be admitted as a single state; if it had been split into multiple smaller states it would have upset the balance of power between free and slave states in a way that Southerners wouldn't have allowed. Additionally, the only real population center was San Francisco; what we think of as Southern California was lightly populated desert; there would have been no one there to make a seperate state out of. Texas was supposed to be split up into 5 seperate states, but it sorta never got happened. See List_of_U.S._state_partition_proposals#Texas and Texas divisionism. Part of the issue was that Texas was a pro-slavery state, and for the same reasons California never got split up also applies to Texas from the other direction; Northerners didn't exactly want 5 new pro-slavery states where 1 would do. --Jayron32 05:33, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it was George Etzel Pearcy's map, most definitely! I liked it because it used totally new names. Jayron's second link was also interesting-but I didn't find the relevant map at your first link, the overlong blog page. Is a direct link available?

And thanks to Bugs for pointing out the very relevant and overlooked political fact that the states are sovereign, not geographical conveniences. μηδείς (talk) 05:26, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Even changing a state's name is a big deal. Every so often, a governor of North Dakota will propose renaming the state to simply "Dakota". The proposal will typically die in a hail of laughter, with the South Dakota governor saying that instead it should be renamed simply "North", given its "Frozen North" reputation. I think the last name change to a state or a portion thereof was when West Virginia split off Virginia and stayed in the Union during teh Civil War. States are very defensive about their borders. Along the Mississippi River, there are various places where pieces of a state are on the opposite side of the river, due to the changes in the rivers meandering. Rather than re-drawing the map, they keep the borders the way they were in the 1830s or whenever. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:37, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

There have been a few minor adjustements since then; jurisdiction over the Delaware wedge wasn't resolved until the 1920's, and a large part of Ellis Island was officially ruled to be in New Jersey (and not New York) in 1998. So there have been some border changes. --Jayron32 15:31, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I've seen that Pearcy map here and there. Always thought the state names were...curious. Funny how his state of "Erie" doesn't border Lake Erie. And I'm not sure about Memphis being the main "Ozark" city! Still, I enjoy maps like that, despite being fanciful. Pfly (talk) 10:41, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

A more modest name change proposal was one I saw used as an example in a discussion about states. It had southern California separating and merging with Arizona, resulting in a new stated called "Calizona". Those fanciful maps are fun. I can't find it on the internet, but in the early 1970s someone had a map of the world's oil reserves, with each nation or region's size proportional to its supply. Hence the US was fairly small at 8 percent while the middle least was huge, like 53 percent. And then National Lampoon ran the same map, relabeling it "stupidity reserves". It's a good thing that things have changed since then, yes? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:44, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Pfly, I've never thought of you as being fanciful. Just a little idiosyncratic, perhaps.  :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 19:36, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

List_of_United_States_territories_that_failed_to_become_states#Proposed_but_non-existent_entities has links to other plans for splitting and combining US states. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:15, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

China vs United States economic management

It seems that because China embraced capitalism under it's "one government, two systems" policy China has been able as a nation to manage its resources in a far superior manner than the United States and out-prospering the United States, without resorting to the stimulus of war. Chine seems in far better control of its economy and by lending the United States money vying for a position from which it can dictate terms and even absorb the United States without resorting to war (of course unless the United States does not follow China's dictates like no public meetings between the Dali lama and members of Congress or the President. Does China have the advantage by ruling over capitalist enterprises as if it were a giant department store and it was the administration as opposed to the United States which appears to have nothing near the control of China over its industries and businesses? --DeeperQA (talk) 05:46, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

What exactly is the question? Stimulus of war? Dictate terms? Absorb? What? - ArtifexMayhem (talk) 06:36, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

"Does China have the advantage by ruling over capitalist enterprises as if it were a giant department store and it was the administration; as opposed to the United States which appears to have nothing near the control of China over its industries and businesses?" Seems like a perfectly reasonable question to me. 2.101.8.165 (talk) 11:44, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Does China have the economic management advantage? --DeeperQA (talk) 08:31, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Your question is still vague to the point of being difficult to answer. You have to be more precise in what you mean by "advantage" here. Are you asking whether China's economic management will lead to higher annual growth (as a percentage of GDP) than the US, or to a lower Gini coefficient, or to a smaller percentage of the population with a wage lower than one USD per day, or to a smaller ecological footprint, or to a higher GDP per capita, or what? Are we taking long-term or short-term views? What do you mean, exactly, by a "superior" management of resources? Gabbe (talk) 11:39, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean by "more precise", "asking" ? The question was clear. 2.101.8.165 (talk) 11:46, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Let me put it another way... are the people of the People's Republic of China the sole stock holders and do they garner all of the profits versus collecting taxes and is this the reason why China will be able to crush the US economically in the rapidly approaching and not too distant future. --DeeperQA (talk) 11:44, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

The government of the PRC is not the country's sole stockholder. Companies and individuals own and trade stocks on the Shanghai Stock Exchange, for example. And they do have taxes in China too, see "Taxation in the People's Republic of China". I'm not sure what you mean by "crush the US economically", but if you look at "List of countries by GDP (nominal)" you'll see that the Gross Domestic Product of the US is at present approximately three times larger than that of China. The growth rate of the US has averaged about 3% per year in recent times, whereas that of China has been in the vicinity of 10% per year. If (and this is a pretty big if) these rates were to hold for the following decades the GDP of China would equal that of the US in about 16 years or so. Gabbe (talk) 12:16, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Did you use the price of gold as a standard or the currency exchange rates to figure the rate of growth? --DeeperQA (talk) 13:48, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Gabbe. An economy does not crush another. That would be stupid to crush a customer and / or provider. The Chinese economy will out grow the American economy, very likely, but that will not necessarily harm it. The American economy is likely to continue to grow, at its own pace. This will be like when the US economy became larger than the British economy. The British economy was not crushed by the American economy, it simply became the second economy in the world instead of the first. --Lgriot (talk) 12:44, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

My application of the word "crush" is in regard to the American ego for not having an economic and government system that allows it to be superior to a Communist State run by a bunch of "chinks," even though it may retain its transition size. --DeeperQA (talk) 13:14, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

However, you only have to look on the shelves of every store in the US, not fail to find a Chinese eatery somewhere, find a university engineering department not filled with Chinese students already receiving offers from NASA and other agencies including the Pentagon.

When you couple all of this with owning China over a trillion dollars then it makes one begin to ask, who will have the real economic management advantage in a short order of time, China or the US? --DeeperQA (talk) 13:26, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Conditions in the United States today are very different from those in China. The United States has a "mature" economy. It has already made full use of the technologies currently available for improving productivity and uses its work force at something approaching its full potential (though in recent years, high unemployment certainly leaves some room for improvement in human resource utilization). By contrast, China has had and continues to have much more opportunity for improving productivity and moving its work force up the skill ladder. As a result, it has much more potential for growth, and it has been realizing that potential. Its position is similar to that of the United States in the first 3 decades of the 20th century, when the U.S. economy grew at rates similar to those of the Chinese economy today. This is not a matter of economic management. It is a matter of different economic circumstances and levels of development. In fact, I don't think that there is a lot of difference in economic management techniques between China and the United States.

The main difference is in the countries' political systems, not their economic management. In the United States, an outwardly democratic but actually plutocratic system means that control of government and the economy is diffuse, but generally oriented toward the perceived interests of the very rich. The democratic trappings act as a pressure valve allowing the masses the sense of having a say and arguably giving the very rich freer rein than they have in China to loot the economy. In China, an autocratic system allows more central control of the economy and creates a different set of political constraints. Because of a lack of democratic forms, the ruling Communist Party has to be more concerned about legitimacy than the U.S. officials elected by the voting public but demonstrably serving wealthy campaign contributors. Consequently, the Communist Party may use its power to manage the economy in such a way as to ensure that the benefits of growth are distributed just widely enough to limit the potential for unrest. It is impossible to say which political system offers the greater "advantage," especially since different groups within each country are differently advantaged (or not) by its political system. Marco polo (talk) 15:02, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

The OP points out that "China [has] embraced capitalism." Now that the government uses two systems, it inherits the follies of each, rather than one canceling out the other. This story talks about bubbles: the capitalistic folly; this story talks about dissidents and online censorship: a traditional communistic folly.
The Chinese seem to not be able to see their own wisdom; take a look at this article. Schyler (exquirere bonum ipsum) 15:17, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Looking at the OP's opening question; " It seems that because China embraced capitalism under it's "one government, two systems" policy China has been able as a nation to manage its resources in a far superior manner than the United States ". In fact the term is One country, two systems and this policy was introduced purely for enabling China to unite with the independent capitalist territories of Hong Kong (British) and Macau (Portuguese). Outwith these territories, China was supposed to remain socialist. But now in fact China is one country, one system-- deeply authoritarian in its power and control structures, very liberal and capitalistic in its economic policies--but no longer communist, except in name only. Chinese citizens can be as entrepreneurial as they like and can make as much money as they like with little or no state interference.

"Chine seems in far better control of its economy and by lending the United States money vying for a position from which it can dictate terms and even absorb the United States without resorting to war" . China manipulates its economy by keeping its currency weak so as to boost its exports. Yes, it has bought about a quarter of all foreign holdings of US securities but that doesn't take into account where the rest of these securities are held. The total foreign holdings are less than half of the total amount of treasury securities issued (47%). So China's total holding is about 11% of the total. Sorry can't see them absorbing the US any time soon.

"Does China have the advantage by ruling over capitalist enterprises as if it were a giant department store and it was the administration as opposed to the United States which appears to have nothing near the control of China over its industries and businesses?" . You have a point here. State monoliths in China are starting to buy into foreign companies but even then these state companies aren't the 'dead hand' of the former eastern bloc of the soviet empire--they know exactly what they are doing and everything is geared to increasing wealth. The OP's statement that the US doesn't have the control over its industries and businesses as does China. Well that's true and it isn't true both at the same time. Which governments are not involved in their countries' economies--none I would suggest. But the US is one of the major economies that promote a smaller state footprint and stands for no state control, no state ownership--the land of the free (sorry got carried away there).

So, an authoritarian capitalist economy such as China (with no looking over the shoulder at the next election) will always be in a better shape than democratic economies, as President Obama is finding out. --Bill Reid | (talk) 18:33, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

If you have 41 minutes there's a lengthy interview with historian Niall Ferguson at http://bigthink.com/niallferguson where he shares some interesting insights on the issue, including his identification of the six "killer apps" of Western civilization and their adoption by China. Gabbe (talk) 19:27, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

[ec] I don't think it's possible to make a sweeping statement that authoritarian political economies "always" outperform. It happens to be true of these two countries at the moment due to circumstances at this juncture that are mostly independent of the countries' different political systems. During the period from 1870 to 1913, Germany had an authoritarian capitalist economy, while the United States had a pluralist capitalist economy. According to the first table on this page, Germany's GDP grew during this period from $72,149 million to $237,332 million in constant US dollars, representing a respectable average annual growth rate of 2.8%. During the same period, the GDP of the United States grew from $93,374 million to $517,383 million, representing average annual growth of 4.1%. So, in this case, the authoritarian capitalist economy underperformed the pluralist capitalist economy. The advantage of a freer capitalist economy is that it can respond more nimbly to market forces. Other things being equal, less profitable units and activities are more easily eliminated and capital is shifted more readily to more productive uses in a free economy than in an autocratic setting, in which less productive or profitable activities may be protected for political reasons. So I don't think that we can look to China's authoritarianism as an explanation for its relative growth advantage. Marco polo (talk) 19:56, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I think it's fallacious to say that China is outperforming the U.S. simply because its economy is growing. Yeah, maybe it looks that way if you own stock or yuan. But in terms of what it provides for the people - no one denies that China is still poorer overall. Whether it can peak at a point where it produces more goods and services per work hour than the U.S. still has to be determined. Wnt (talk) 00:52, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

"One government, two systems" my ass. That the dictatorial central committee of the Chinese communist party has been employing free market reforms says nothing about their totalitarian, unjust rule. Hans Rosling explains why the developing world is growing so much faster than industrialized countries. The investment gamble offer to those willing to tolerate moderate risk: Bet against war and famine to outperform local index funds. 64.134.228.55 (talk) 01:11, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Comparing the pre-1914 economies of Germany and the US and then using that to make comparisons of present day economies isn't particularly helpful. For example, in those days although Germany was authoritarian and its growth by European standards was impressive, yet it went in for socialist style large scale nationalisation programmes -- not a feature of the US economy of the time (nor now). Germany started to introduce large scale costly welfare programmes to counter the growing socialist movement--the US didn't need to do these things. In the present day, the democratic political systems of the west are checked by what these governments think their electorates will tolerate and the present economic crisis in the US is no different -- if I understand the situation the US government will now make an additional $2 trillion of treasury securities available and China will be in there snapping them up -- Obama wants to be re-elected. Ireland and Britain have sacked their governments that were perceived to be responsible for their present circumstances. Greece, Portugal and Spain will most likely do the same. China alone doesn't give a damn about its electorate--it doesn't have one. So I disagree, the political system of China is the main driver of its economic growth. --Bill Reid | (talk) 16:12, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Global economic crises are typically preceded by oil price peaks, regardless of individual national management. ~AH1 ^(discuss!) 22:31, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay, because I cannot see through closed doors, imagine this: China became concerned long ago about America's ability to pay back principle and interest on US bonds China acquired. This is because China got its vast surplus by wise management albeit dictatorial management. The whole budget deficit crises which the US prolonged today by increasing how much it borrow today merely to show China that even depriving its own people would not stand in the way of the US repaying principle and interest to cover its bonds. We agreed today to deprive our own people through spending cuts to pay the interest on the bonds we have sold to China and others by selling even more bonds to then instead of raising taxes. China is the better manager of money than we are.

China told the US not to show support for the Dali Lama in public although freedom of religion is one of the hallmarks of American ideals.

In effect the US is still following the foreign policy it had of selling scrap steel to Japan before WWII. Either that or the US is providing foreign aid to a Communist country by depriving its own citizens of aid which might be okay if tax cuts, tax breaks and tax loopholes for the rich were what was being deprived instead of cost of living increases necessary to offset increasing prices. --DeeperQA (talk) 00:49, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

This is a reference desk, not a soapbox. Do you have any more questions, or are you looking to hold a discussion? Gabbe (talk) 11:17, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

...then get off yours. --DeeperQA (talk) 14:14, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Many people have become aware of China's economy because of its ability to export (it now ranks #1, and #2 in imports, worldwide). However, more than half (about 55%) of both exports and imports are by foreign-invested companies. So, perhaps what China has become is a good place to do a certain kind of business. DOR (HK) (talk) 07:40, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Cyrus Cylinder

Was the Cyrus Cylinder known about before its discovery in 1879? If so, for how long before?--Doug Coldwell ^talk 13:16, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

In the Discovery section it says it was found in a foundation deposit during excavations of the temple Esagila. That leads me to believe that it had been largely forgotten since it's placement there, which would be before the temple's destruction in 482 BC. —Akrabbim^talk 14:30, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

O.K., thanks.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 11:12, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Source of Terence McKenna quotes?

I'm looking for the source of some Terence McKenna quotes: 1. "Ego is a structure that is erected by a neurotic individual who is a member of a neurotic culture against the facts of the matter. And culture, which we put on like an overcoat, is the collectivized consensus about what sort of neurotic behaviors are acceptable." 2. "There may be entities seeking control, but to seek control is to take enormous aggravation upon yourself. It's like trying to control a dream." 3. "We are so much the victims of abstraction that with the Earth in flames we can barely rouse ourselves to wander across the room and look at the thermostat." I can find these quotes littered around the web, but there is no indication as to where they're from (at least that I can find). Ericoides (talk) 15:31, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

He used to give lots of talks, many of which were recorded and passed around on cassette tapes. I had a good box full of them once upon a time. I would guess a lot of quotes come from those. He said an awful lot more during talks than he wrote in books. Some years back I came across a large collection of audiofiles of talks he gave. Perhaps such archives are still online. Might be hard to find a specific quote though. 12:32, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Incredulity

This is logic, and so part of philosophy. That's why I am asking in this topic.

''If one sees 100 coins on a table, all heads up, it is a good indication that someone deliberately placed them there with all heads up. If, on the other hand, about 50 were heads up and the others were tails up, in random order, then it could be a result of chance. Mathematicians who work with probability speak of certain very small such probabilities as being equivalent to impossible.''

Isn't it an argument from incredulity to say that it can only be a product of an intelligent person, not chance? Or is the argument from incredulity not always a fallacy?

See also: [14]

Aquitania (talk) 21:23, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, in your paragraph about the 100 coins, you wrote that it's a "good indication" that the outcome was deliberate, and that in the second case it "could" be a result of chance. In your next paragraph, you jump ahead to ask about what logic is used if it could "only" be deliberate, which is different. I would say that yes, it's an argument from incredulity to claim that the all-heads flip was 100% certain to have been deliberately placed; but it would not be if, as you wrote in the earlier paragraph, you were to claim that the all-heads flip was "likely" or even "nearly certain" to have been deliberately placed. Comet Tuttle (talk) 21:42, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Arguments from incredulity are always fallacies; fallacies are developed (and nurtured) by logicians who maintain that fallacies exist. The phrase "the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence" is an example of this fallacy. Although technically fallacious, it tends to spark thought and is genuinely applicable to many situations. Regardless of the fallacious nature of the phrase, it may very well be true. The quotation above is mathematical. I like the story of a man walking through a field who stumbles upon a rock and a pocket watch; indeed a glacier or something most likely moved the rock there AND natural forces may have assembled a perfectly working pocket watch; probably not though: it's very beautiful and serves a purpose. Another example is the Infinite monkey theorem. Schyler (exquirere bonum ipsum) 21:45, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think there is such a thing as an "argument from incredulity" because incredulity is a conclusion, not an argument. Wikipedia has an article section about Distinguishing absence of evidence from evidence of absence. The phrase "the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence" is true because no counterexample can be shown. Sometimes something that looks like a lump of rock actually is a clock. The useful link for "true" is Truth, not the disambiguation page,Cuddlyable3 (talk) 22:38, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

no, not at all. 100 coins all heads up have very low entropy, it's not disordered enough to be by chance (except in an unlikely case!). This is easy to verify. Flip a coin a hundred times and write down the results, then come back and tell me the series. I bet your briefest description is going to be longer than my briefest description of the series "100 heads". This is related to Kolmogorov complexity. 89.132.119.207 (talk) 21:47, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I mean, really do it! The very briefest I can make my description of 100 heads is "e2H", which may or may not be understood, though if we were really, really trying to look hard at what series the description of 100 flips refers to, I guess (at the risk o some disagreement), even "Ch" would get us "100 heads". But "100 heads" or "100 H" or "100H" are each very small (just a few letters)... By comparison, here is a relatively brief description, in English, of a genuine random string of 100 heads and tails... can you reconstruct it? 2HTH7T4HT8H3THTHHT4H5THHT4HTTHHTTTHTTHTT4TTHHT4HTHTTTHTTHT4HTTHHTHTHHTTHT the original is here: http://codepad.org/4MF2hkTO 89.135.188.193 (talk) 22:09, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Incredulity per se is not proof of anything, because you might be missing imagination. For example, maybe the coins are all heads up because they spilled off of a conveyor belt in the mint building you happen to be standing in; or maybe they have a sticky adhesive on one side from a coin album they were once stored in; or maybe a monkey in the house has acquired the habit of turning them heads up, etc. Wnt (talk) 00:43, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

It could also result from a natural mechanical process, like coins being washed by a river, given enough time and stability. This is like the clay theory of abiogenesis. (No, I don't know what the table is doing in the river.)  Card Zero  (talk) 11:17, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Gluing coins into an album is a great way to ruin any value a coin might have to a numismatist. Googlemeister (talk) 21:24, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Maybe the head sides are dull, and the tail sides are shiny. A magpie (let's not get into how intelligent such birds are) tosses the shiny objects with its beak, but is much less interested in the dull objects, especially when there are still shiny objects to manipulate. Thus, the magpie tends to toss coins that are tails up, and leave heads up coins alone. The coin tosses are still random, but the coins wouldn't take terribly long to all be heads up without any intelligence placng them so. Imagination is important, as is distinguishing between 'unlikely' and 'impossible', which is the main mistake made in the argument from incredulity. 212.183.128.102 (talk) 09:20, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

The OP's throwaway "see also" reference indicates they are less interested in statistic calculation than interested in resurrecting the tired old teleological argument for existence of God and/or intelligent design. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 10:02, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Worth mentioning that "certainty" is a fallacy embedded in our language - or at least, it's a subjective and context-dependent shorthand, which only becomes meaningful when expanded into a reasoned explanation of probabilities. "Very likely" also depends on the context of the range of the possible events we are considering, and able to imagine.  Card Zero  (talk) 11:28, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Who initially flipped the 100 coins or even so much as merely placed them all on the table, if not either an intelligent human or a robot designed by humankind? ~AH1 ^(discuss!) 22:28, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Using abductive logic (considered valid by most logicians), one may reasonably conclude that an organized pattern of coins on a table was placed there by a human.Greg Bard (talk) 23:40, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

WW2 protests against segregation

When large numbers of US troops during WW2 entered the UK and fraternised with the UK troops and population, the US forces were racially segregated. However the UK had no such segregation in living memory. The agreed common enemy was the intensely racist Nazi regime. Are there sources about protests from the British about the restrictions placed on black US soldiers? Cuddlyable3 (talk) 22:14, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

If the UK had no tradition of Jim Crow laws, they certainly had a strong tradition of everyone knowing his "station" so the cobbler's son did not try to date the Lord's daughter. I read a novel, perhaps consistent with history, about black US soldiers visiting Northern Ireland. They liked being able to go to a dance and dance with white women without being lynched. Men urged them to desert and travel across the border to the Irish Republic and be done with the war. I've read of general resentment of white US soldiers' success with UK women: "They're overpaid, they're oversexed, and worst of all, they're OVER HERE." [15] says that because the American blacks and whites fought when they went offbase to bars, the authorities alternated "white nights" and "black nights," and parents only authorized their daughters to go to bars on selected nights (without specifying that it was always white nights.) Many American black jazz musicians loved living in Paris in the 1920's-1930's, because they were not subjected to the constant insults and discrimination they encountered in the US. I haven't read of such an exodus of American black musicians to the UK in the 20's and 30's. When Louis Armstrong and Duke Ellington toured Britain in the early 1930's the reception was disappointing. Listeners would sometimes walk out, or throw pennies on the stage as an insult. Armstrong's concert promoters sought to find a band of English black jazz musicians, but could not, so they brought in a band from Paris. Perhaps it is the history of slavery in the US, and antimiscegenation laws, and Jim Crow policies that fostered racism in the US in the 1940's, but did the average UK citizen see no difference between their daughter dating a white or black American soldier? Were they inclined to run around like 1960's Civil Rights activists and protest racial inequality in the policies of the US military? What was the percentage of African descent in the UK population 1941, before the US influx? Edison (talk) 00:43, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I've looked through several pages of that book you linked to: where does it say coins were thrown on the stage? In fact it says that Duke Ellington was very well recieved in Britain, with crowds turning out, as he had a well organised publicity campain beforehand. Louis Armstrong had a more mixed reception because he didnt have so much publicity. I think it more likely that people booked seats at the London Palladium, the top nightspot at the time, regardless of what was offered and then some people left when the music was not to their taste, or perhaps they wanted dinner. According to the book jazz was rare in Britain at that time, with records difficult to get, so jazz was only familiar to a monority. A jazz session may have been very different to the entertainment they were expecting. In my experience some people walk out in cinemas, even though the film was not objectionable in any way. 2.97.215.11 (talk) 11:24, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

You're right the account of unhappy listeners throwing pennies on the stage referred to Ellington's tour in the 1930's, not Armstrong's. The book did say "20 to 30" unhappy listeners walked out of an Armstrong performance. 20 years earlier, when Armstrong as a lad was singing with a few friends in the streets of New Orleans, he had been happy for people to toss pennies at his feet. Edison (talk) 18:47, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't know anything about what happened in the US, but page 234 of that book appears to be what you are greatly misrepresenting about Ellingtons performance in Britain in the 1930s. It says most of the audience were "ecstatic", the rest baffled, and "a few" people threw coins and left during one particular piece. Far less than 1% of the audience I expect, as the Palladium probably seats thousands of people. Charlie Sheen had a very much worse time here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rzKq3CUgXUE 2.97.215.11 (talk) 18:57, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

• Nevil Shute's novel, The Chequer Board is interesting... even if, one may say, a bit "didactic". -- Vmenkov (talk) 00:32, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

At the time, the English societies were recovering from their abuse of the Indian caste systems resulting from company rule in India, so racial segregation was probably a taboo subject of conversation. The unspoken understandings of the analogous situations, however, likely often spoke louder than words. 64.134.228.55 (talk) 01:05, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I think that's at best just guessing, and not true. I've never heard of anything like that. Do you have any sources to back it up at all? British people were grateful and respectful of any foriegn person who volunteered to fight for Britain, irrespective of colour. Indian people formed an essential part of British administration in India. See the writings of Rudyard Kipling for example. 2.97.215.11 (talk) 11:29, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I read a comment from a British person during WWII (don't remember where, unfortunately) remarking on how Southern white U.S. soldiers would raise a ruckus when they saw a black guy in a restaurant they were dining in, even when it was a British black guy. The writer in jest recommended black Britons wear a pin or armband or something to indicate their Britishness. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:21, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Here are a couple of links I've found: http://www.bbc.co.uk/ww2peopleswar/stories/67/a2337167.shtml http://www.bbc.co.uk/ww2peopleswar/stories/96/a1921196.shtml I think most or nearly all British people did not approve of the discrimination shown by white American soldiers, in the same way that I'm shocked by the active discrimination in the US as late as the 1960s. 2.97.215.11 (talk) 13:30, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

It isn't true to say that there was no racism in Britain in the 1940s, but much of it was a jokey, derogatory sort of racism that white people thought was harmless fun. This continued into the 1970s and 80s before it was generally thought to be harmful. There were very few people of colour in the UK before WWII; my father's photos from an ordinary state school in 1920s east London show only rows of white faces. During wartime there was much propaganda about the "Imperial Family" and how we were all in it together; I think this was generally accepted. When mass immigration began in the late 1940s, race became a more pertinent issue; there were famously signs saying "NO IRISH OR BLACKS" in adverts for rented accomodation. Alansplodge (talk) 18:33, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

It is funny to depict Britain as a society devoid of racism in the early 20th century. Consider Agatha Christie's popular book "Ten Little Niggers." Consider the black dog named "Nigger" featured in the WW2 story of a bombing program popularized in The Dam Busters about No. 617 Squadron RAF. Consider the common usage of Wog i the early/mid 20th century as a derogatory word for "dark skinned" people, particularly from the Middle East, the Caribbean, and the Indian subcontinent. When did Packy become a British slang word for a Pakistani? Edison (talk) 01:31, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

"Nigger" simply meant "black" and wasn't usually used in a derogatory way in the UK, as it was in the USA. Perhaps, in future, "black" will become a racist label? Dbfirs 00:45, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

If we listed all the instances of racism in the US during the same time periods, then we'd need several large volumes, and the racism would be very much more serious and institutionalised. The words you list were slang terms at the time, and did not have the same intention of offense as they do currently in the US, although the "w" word was intended to be offensive. In Britain we have plenty of slang terms for even European people, such as "frogs". 2.97.219.104 (talk) 11:10, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Mentioned above, but worth a bit more detail, in Nevil Shute's 1947 novel The Chequer Board. From our article: "The novel deals fairly with the question of racism within the US forces during World War II and portrays black characters with great sympathy and support." It is set in rural England, among villagers who have never previously met black people. They like them a lot better than the arrogant white soldiers from the American South. Presumably Shute was drawing on a wartime trope. BrainyBabe (talk) 22:57, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

August 2

Starving in Britain

I read about someone starving to death in Britain in the early 20th. century. What was the latest date at which a person could starve to death in Britain from lack of money? I also read another book - The South Country, a collection of the prose non-fiction writing of Edward Thomas (poet) - which describes the unemployed starving around the turn of the 19th/20th centuries. I expect when the welfare state was intoduced in the late 1940s, then starvation stopped, but does anyone have more precise details? 2.97.215.11 (talk) 12:46, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

You'll likely find that the rate of starvation just reduced, but didn't end, due to people too proud to accept charity, etc. StuRat (talk) 13:55, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

There is information on poverty and malnutrition in the UK today in this report. There's a narrow line between starvation and malnutrition, and as StuRat says, the availability of benefits doesn't mean that everyone eligible does actually claim them, or knows how to. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:09, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

English Poor Laws explains legislated "relief" for the poor existed as far back as at least 1536. Moving ahead through history, read Liberal welfare reforms for new laws passed between 1906 and 1914 that did things such as make free school meals compulsory. National Assistance Act 1948 created the modern social safety net. There's also Timeline of the Poor Law system. 67.22.236.140 (talk) 14:22, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Of course, free school meals are no use to people too old to go to school. Pais (talk) 14:40, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

This sort of thing is always caused by alcoholism or mental illness or child abuse or state violations of human rights. No one simply starves to death in the modern West without some other cause than mere lack of abundance of food. μηδείς (talk) 21:15, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

You have not read the question. 2.97.215.11 (talk) 22:47, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I answered you. Never, unless there were some other more fundamental reason. μηδείς (talk) 23:51, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

You have still not read the question, sigh. 92.29.116.165 (talk) 10:02, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Although the Liberal welfare reforms (linked above) provided limited unemployment benefit, old age pensions and sickness pay, there were many who were not eligable for these payments. For them the last resort were the workhouses, which were not finally wound-up until 1929. For those unwilling to submit themselves to such an austere regime, starvation could have been the end result. Alansplodge (talk) 23:12, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

There are reports of death from starvation during the depression of the 1930s, although this was rare.[16]

Generally, England has not suffered serious food shortages for a long time: Famine#England says the last peace-time famine was in 1623-4. As mentioned above, England has had welfare provisions since the middle ages (see English Poor Laws). Depending on your definition of Britain, the Irish potato famine killed a large number of people in Ulster as well as the rest of Ireland in the 1840s, and at that time all Ireland was part of the UK - see Great Famine (Ireland). The Highland Potato Famine in Scotland in the 1840s doesn't seem to have led to significant deaths from starvation, thanks to state aid.[17]

People still die of starvation today, typically through anorexia nervosa and other mental illness, child neglect[18], or the neglect of old people in homes and hospitals who who are unable to feed themselves[19][20][21]. There are reports of an elderly woman dying in 2009 of "self-neglect" after failing to eat enough[22] although poverty was not involved. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:54, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

The amount of food in the economy is not the point, the point is if someone who had no money to buy food would starve. 92.29.116.165 (talk) 10:08, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

That is outright nonsense. Show one documented case since the government-caused Irish famine of a person dying of starvation on the street, asking for food, who was refused charitable aid. Just one case. μηδείς (talk) 20:14, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Medeis, are you perhaps very tired? Other users have repeatedly suggest you reread the question, as you are responding to things that are not there. 86.163.1.169 (talk) 21:06, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

The question is based on the false premise that without government involvement, people would routinely be starving to death due to lack of money. The premise is manifestly false. If it isn't, surely we can get some pictures of starving Yorkshiremen or quotes of villagers in Arkansas saying that they knew old man Smith was slowly dying due to lack of food but didn't know how to help him. Except for starvation caused by other problems--mental illness, abuse, government-caused famine--no one has starved to death in the civilized world for hundreds of years. μηδείς (talk) 18:32, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

First to claim prayer is ineffective?

Who is the first person or philosophy in history to claim prayer doesn't work? --RisingSunWiki 13:32, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

The article "Efficacy of prayer" implies that Francis Galton in 1872 "made the first statistical analysis of third-party prayer". Gabbe (talk) 13:47, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I believe some Enlightenment philosophers questioned the efficacy of prayer in the 17th century, at least 200 years before Galton. --RisingSunWiki 13:51, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

If you define prayer as asking a deity for favours then you could say that The Buddha was the first. -- Q Chris (talk) 14:31, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Later followed by Jesus, when he asked "God, why hast thou forsaken me?" (Christians no doubt have a different interpretation of that line, which we're no doubt about to hear.)--Shantavira|^{feed me} 14:55, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I can't see how anyone, Christian or otherwise, could interpret Jesus' quoting Psalm 22 as an assertion on his part that prayer is ineffective. Pais (talk) 15:29, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

The reason he said this is because he was a fervent apocalypticist. He said it in response to realizing that the world was not going to come to an end and that his central message was completely wrong.Greg Bard (talk) 23:24, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Possible candidate: Cicero quotes Diagoras of Melos, about 2,500 years ago, as mocking people who had prayed to be saved from shipwreck and drowning and who were now offering prayers of gratitude (see Diagoras_of_Melos#Philosophy). However, note also that History of atheism claims the belief God doesn't exist is at least as old as the belief that God does exist. Presumably atheists have always said prayer is ineffective, so your question may not be answerable. (Another 2,500-year-old text you might look through: Ishvarakrishna's Samkhyakarika.) 207.107.246.140 (talk) 14:56, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

To the OP: Define what you mean by "doesn't work". If I pray for a new car, I'm not likely to be handed one. However, if I pray for spiritual strength, I'm very likely to receive it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:40, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

For example, "Dear God, please cure my cancer", or "Dear God, please protect me while I drive on the freeway". --RisingSunWiki 16:52, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

From a theological point of view, the idea that God is omniscient is very hard to reconcile with the idea that human prayer can cause God to change his mind. This has been a sore point for the Catholic church for hundreds of years, which they have mainly resolved by ducking and weaving. The official doctrine since the middle ages, I believe, has been that the proper function of prayer is not to influence God's actions, but to bind oneself more tightly to God. But it is not considered heretical to ask God for something, only misguided. Looie496 (talk) 16:59, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Who was the first to claim that prayer does work? It is possible that the claim that prayer doesn't work preceded the claim that prayer does work. Do we have a historical record of the earliest claim that prayer does work? Bus stop (talk) 17:01, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

So, Looie, if it's misguided to use prayer to ask God for things, what's "Give us this day our daily bread" all about? -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 03:15, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

It seems foremost like a metaphor; that forgiveness is as vital to the spirit as food to the body. Wnt (talk) 14:12, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

It's rarely used as a metaphor, though. Drought-affected communities pray for rain, often led by their local Christian clergyperson. People pray that their child/parent/relative/friend survives the major surgery they're undergoing. People go to Lourdes and other places to get the sacred water and pray for cures for incurable diseases, and there's a whole industry that's grown up around this, fully sanctioned by the Church. How does that work if it's considered theologically misguided to pray for such things? -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 23:23, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Epicurus properly held that if the gods exist they are perfect, and hence not concerned with our affairs. Unfortunately for Bugs' theory above, the belief that prayer can give one spiritual strength is based upon a false notion of the later, and if it succeeds, it only does so accidentally. You cannot petition the Lord with prayer.

μηδείς (talk) 20:43, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm with Bus Stop above. I like to think that man was rational before someone tried to fool him with religion. Not praying (i.e. having no faith in prayer) would have come before believing in it. HiLo48 (talk) 20:50, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

No, HiLo48. Dominant male chimps pound their chests at the sky and shake the trees when it rains, constituting a divergent branch of the priesthood of the primate rain god. Video.

μηδείς (talk) 21:09, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I think you missed an "Original research"-template. --Saddhiyama (talk) 21:48, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

If that comment was meant for me, you obviously didn't follow the source I gave. Others are available. Sweep your own stable before sniffing mine. μηδείς (talk) 23:54, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

There's no reason to think that humans were "reasonable" and were then "fooled" by religion. Human beings seem to create folk religions almost spontaneously. We're clearly hardwired to do it. (Probably because we're hardwired to make meaning out of the world, and our brains are wired to accept bad or partial answers pretty readily.) "Rationality" or "reason" much less "empiricism" has not been our lot's default state, something which is stressed implicitly by the amount of training it takes to become a reason-machine (philosopher, scientist, logician, what have you). I suspect most people's experience backs this up. --Mr.98 (talk) 21:34, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes. The so-called "pagan" religions, or "folk" religions have been around forever, i.e. the tendency to anthropomorphize (sp?) natural phenomena. Listen to descriptions of weather events, and you'll observe that paganism is alive and well. And there are countless folks who will tell you that any given event "happens for a reason". The notion of atheism, at least as an overt "anti-religion", is relatively recent. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:09, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Prayer is mostly effective in guiding action, or changing non-personal probability from 49% to 51%. ~AH1 ^(discuss!) 22:25, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

That is what is called thought, not "prayer". μηδείς (talk) 03:55, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Hair removal in ancient time

How did men and women remove body hair in ancient time? What were the tools used by them? --Cosmic Cosmos (talk) 14:52, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean by ancient? The razor dates back to the Bronze Age. Before that I would guess they didn't bother.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 14:57, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I recall reading that in Roman times (when being hirsute was not in style), they were plucked by slaves. (Brief mention in Plucking (hair removal).) Tweezers are a simple enough concept that I would not doubt they had them in ancient times. -- 174.24.213.112 (talk) 16:26, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, while our article states that razors date back to the Bronze Age, it also states that before the Bronze Age sharpened flints, clamshells, and other objects were used as razors. So it is likely that hair removal dates back well into prehistoric time. Still, I don't think we can assume that the removal of body hair was necessarily practiced in every past culture. Hair removal is a matter of fashion, which changes over time. Marco polo (talk) 17:20, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Tweezers also date back many millennia. Pais (talk) 17:35, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Scissors actually seem more complex, so I wonder how people cut their hair before that. StuRat (talk) 17:47, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

You only need one blade to cut your hair (it's easier with two blades, but it's possible with one), so anything sufficiently sharp that can be used as a knife can be used to cut hair. Pais (talk) 18:12, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Having had haircuts before with nothing but a straight razor and a comb, a skilled barber doesn't need scissors. A properly sharpened razor blade works fine. You use the comb to guide the blade to cut the hair to the proper length. --Jayron32 19:44, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Pumice stones ,sugaring ,and I believe the Egyptians used honey in some way but I can't find a decent link right now. Hotclaws (talk) 21:19, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I have read of native Americans plucking hairs with clamshells. Edison (talk) 01:43, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Aristophanes mentions at least three techniques in his plays. In Assemblywomen, Praxagora celebrates her lantern, among other with "Thou alone shinest into the secret recesses of our thighs and dost singe the hair that groweth there, and with thy flame dost light the actions of our loves.". Another woman states: "I began by throwing away my razor, so that I might get quite hairy, and no longer resemble a woman." ([23]). (technique mentioned above). In Lysistrata, the protagonist's words "with our dear Venus-plats plucked trim and neat" [24] refers to a third technique (also mentioned above). ---Sluzzelin talk 02:38, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

This blog post may be interesting. It also mentions threading (which according to that article dates back to ancient Persia) and primitive depilatory creams, for which the Romans used quicklime or arsenic[25][26] (modern depilatory products typically use calcium hydroxide rather than sodium hydroxide, according to Chemical depilatory). --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:07, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Status quo

I fully understand why kingdoms etc.Have a two tier system of government,but I do not see why former communist countries and America/s have adopted such an undemocratic form when the idea was to be governed by the majority and not a load of rich,appointed farts who only wish to maintain STATUS QUO for their own advantage !! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.135.76.4 (talk) 17:50, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Hey, don't be rude about the Royal Family. British people are proud that they waste our money. 2.97.215.11 (talk) 19:24, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Is this supposed to be a question? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:53, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I think you are asking why representative democracy is almost universally practiced over direct democracy. Is this correct ? If so, here are a couple reasons:

1) It historically wasn't logistically possible for everyone to vote on every issue, as this would involve them physically going to voting booths on a daily basis, or voting via mail, which wouldn't work well for the illiterate and would slow things down considerably. Modern technology now makes this possible, however.

2) There's concern that the "uneducated masses" might not vote logically. For example the Tea Party movement in the US might just choose to default on the US debt, regardless of the dire consequences. StuRat (talk) 17:56, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

The majority do not possess the necessary skills to make many decisions directly, so they appoint representatives. The results might be more disastrous if every individual had a direct say in almost everything. Bus stop (talk) 17:57, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah -- just look at Wikipedia. Looie496 (talk) 18:02, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

That's probably a good comparison. It was once thought that only "professionals" could write an encyclopedia, and that the anarchy resulting from everyone writing one would make it useless. However, that hasn't turned out to be the case. Sure, there are idiots out there who contribute, but the majority quickly revert their edits. Would the same lessons apply to direct democracy ? That is, no doubt there are morons who would just vote to "nuke the foreigners" on every international issue, but presumably the majority is intelligent enough to vote them down. I'd also suspect that most people who abstain from voting in areas outside their expertise, so, for example, we might get public school systems designed by teachers and parents, not by politicians, which might be a good thing. StuRat (talk) 18:07, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Our dignified representatives already voted to "nuke the foreigners". Bus stop (talk) 18:17, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure, and our article says also, that was by executive order so there wasn't much voting.... Nil Einne (talk) 02:51, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

That seems to be somewhat contradictory. If most people abstain from voting in areas outside their expertise, then it's easy for the 'nuke the foreigners' or whatever crew potentially without the expertise but who do care in whatever way to overule the teachers and parents. Although I'm not sure the majority of parents will always make the best decision anyway, look at creationism (including its recent intelligent design and 'teach the controversy'/'academic freedom' iterations in the US or whatever else. There is also the infamous South Dakota resolution [27] which was originally going to suggest the teaching of 'astrological' effects on climate change (but was changed I believe by the SD senate), this was from politicians but are such things less likely if it was only parents voting? I'm not convinced.... Of course 'abstain' is perhaps a little generous anyway. Sure some people may abstain but more likely many people just can't be bothered to vote. The Minaret controversy in Switzerland may be one example where the a lot of people didn't really care and so didn't vote so resulted in a decision which may not have had the support of the majority of the voting population even if it gained the majority vote of people who voted because they came out to vote. I'm sure of course these and plenty of other risks of direct democracy are discussed in the appropriate articles and in other external sources I won't comment more. Nil Einne (talk) 02:47, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

My perception is that the average total moron doesn't want anything to do with voting, but, if forced, is likely to vote to nuke anybody who annoys him. StuRat (talk) 04:07, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

One area where direct democracy doesn't help is with what I call "temporal bias". That is, either people or their representatives will vote themselves benefits now, and freely borrow money to do so, not worrying about the negative consequences which occur later, quite possibly to subsequent generations. I suppose we need to invent a time machine, so that those affected in the future by our current actions can also have a say. StuRat (talk) 18:16, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

See Tyranny of the majority. Just as applicable to Wikipedia. Schyler (exquirere bonum ipsum) 20:29, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

See also minoritarianism, social inertia and tipping point (sociology). ~AH1 ^(discuss!) 22:23, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Job Creation

In the history of the United States who has created the most jobs- Government or the Private Sector — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.65.250.106 (talk) 20:57, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, the U.S. Federal government is the largest single employer in the United States. They directly employ 2 million people. That doesn't include people who work directly for State governments or county governments or municipal governments. According to Economy of the United States, 22 million people are employed in public sector jobs overall, accounting for about 8% of all jobs. Now, this does not include contractors and other people who's jobs depend on the government, including people who work in the defense industry, infrastructure maintenance and building (like road crews), garbage collection, etc, a whole slew of industries that are privately owned but which contract from the government. Indeed, it is probably almost impossible to "parse out" which individual private sector jobs are dependent on the government and which aren't; a paving company has to pave both public roads and private parking lots; and it would likely employ less people if it had no roads to pave at all, but it makes calculating which specific people owe their jobs to paving roads, and which to paving driveways. The same is true of lots of "private" industry: Boeing builds planes for private airlines, but also builds military planes. The government at all levels (federal, state, county, and municipal) has an important role in creating lots of jobs in the United States, and not just because of people it employs directly. On raw numbers, over the course of history since 1776, one would have to say that most people have been employed by the private sector; but in the modern economy (as I outlined above) extracting who is responsible for those jobs is a tricky thing; it's tricky enough that it allows both political parties to create bullshit statistics to demonize their opponents with. --Jayron32 21:37, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

(ec) What are you defining as "creating a job"? If you mean, do more people work not directly as government employees than not, then yes, clear the private sector taken as a whole dwarfs the public sector. But many government "job creation" programs are not directed at direct employment: they are in the form of stimulus funds, contractors, or tax rebates that incentivize jobs in the private sector. So I'm not sure how you'd count that sort of activity in a systematic way. (We may also consider, perhaps, which sector has "destroyed" more jobs — at least national ones ones. How many U.S. jobs did the automobile industry dis-create when they decided to relocate their production facilities abroad?) --Mr.98 (talk) 21:38, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

The American debt

Hi. This may seem ignorant or insensitive, though I'm not trying to post a diatribe nor start a debate, but is there any specific reason the United States cannot send $15 trillion USD to China all at once to settle the debt problem? Thanks. ~AH1 ^(discuss!) 22:19, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

China only owns something like 11% of the US's debt, for one thing. For another, yes, the US could "print" US$15 trillion of money, but this would be a very inflationary move — this Federal Reserve link seems to say the M2 money supply measurement is only about half that amount. Comet Tuttle (talk) 22:45, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

As an example, take Hyperinflation in Zimbabwe, and this image, of what a local newspaper in Zimbabwe did as a publicity stunt. And yes, those are actual bills. -- Zanimum (talk) 23:21, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

The 'US debt problem' is not related to China at all. The US has set its debt limit by law. It's a completely different situation from countries like Greece, which cannot take more debt because no one would lend to them (at a reasonable rate). Quest09 (talk) 23:40, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

While the current US debt isn't yet at the point where the US can't "borrow from Peter to pay Paul", it may be at the tipping point beyond which this will one day inevitably occur. StuRat (talk) 00:03, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Besides the other objections that have been mentioned, China wouldn't have anything to do with that money except use it to buy US government bonds anyway. That's the only thing they can think of to do with the trade surplus they run with us. What China would really like to do, I believe, is simply throw our debts to them in the trash -- they're really just a nuisance both to them and to us. Looie496 (talk) 03:01, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

To explain a bit more what Looie496 means: China has a trade surplus with the U.S.; that means that lots of Chinese goods go to the U.S., and to buy those goods lots of cash goes to China. Now, as an individual, what do you do with excess cash? You don't keep it under the mattress; you probably want to invest it, and usually in something low risk. Most people keep their excess cash in a savings account at the local bank. Now, lets say you have a metric shitload of excess cash lying around: What is the safest investment vehicle in the entire world for excess cash? Like, literally the safest investment you can make (assume, for a second, we're talking 10 years ago, just for the sake of arguement). It's United States Treasury securitys. As Looie496 indicates: China doesn't buy U.S. debt for any nefarious purposes, it buys it because it has to do SOMETHING with the cash we keep sending them; they can't just keep piles of greenbacks lying around, so they invest it in something safe, which happens to be U.S. debt. That's all that's going on here. --Jayron32 03:10, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

One possibly paranoid allegation being made in my country, Australia, these days is that China is buying up lots of our land. I guess that's a fairly reliable investment. Don't know if it's happening in the USA. HiLo48 (talk) 03:55, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

It's actually a fairly shitty investment in the U.S. of late, given what happened in the real estate bubble of 2008. It started as overinflated housing prices, but that sort of thing infects the entire real estate market: not only is no one building houses, but commercial properties lie vacant, and undeveloped land now stays undeveloped, depressing its value. That shuttles you back into Treasury securities for safety... --Jayron32 03:58, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

That means it was a bad investment prior to the collapse of the bubble. Now that prices have bottomed out, it's a good investment again. StuRat (talk) 04:02, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Sort of, except that there's an oversupply of real estate on the market still. As would be expected, construction didn't stop the second the bubble burst; so before prices start going up we're going to need to see all the excess supply get taken care of. The real estate market hasn't bottomed out like a "V", it has bottomed out like an "L", real estate prices have been flat for a while, and are likely to remain flat for a long time to come. That makes real estate still a pretty lousy investment when compared to the bond markets, which generally have a guaranteed rate of return (excepting the rare possibility of default). There's no real sign of a genuine recovery in real estate prices for a long time; meaning that while they may become a good investment in the future, they probably aren't right now. --Jayron32 05:15, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Ah, but Americans have an ingenious solution to that. First the homeowner can't pay the mortgage some scammer sold him that has its rate explode unexpectedly. So the police throw him out of his home and give it to whatever company eventually turns out to own the mortgate. This company tears down the house and gives it to the local government to use for "open space" (which incidentally means no more taxes are paid on it; what's curious is how doggedly a local government in this free society will fight any attempt to build a church let alone a mosque because it would take land off the tax rolls). The company gets a tax writeoff for their charitable gift (I think that actually means they get a negative income tax subsidy, assuming they didn't really make money any other way, but I could be wrong) And we get more and more homeless people to pretend to care about while viciously kicking them from place to place until someday they learn dignity in jihad. If Americans were any cleverer, we'd be too stupid to breathe... [28] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wnt (talk • contribs)

Wnt, if you're going to engage in hyperbolic demagoguery, you could at least sign it to claim it... But it isn't particularly helpful to try to explain general trends using a highly specific example. In the article you cited, this is not being used as a widespread policy by the banks; rather it is being used in specific cases in really bad neighborhoods in rust belt cities like Cleveland and Detroit where the reposessed homes are valued at less than a used car. The banks aren't bulldozing $150,000 homes, they are bulldozing $1,500 homes; I daresay they probably have a lot of homes on their books that they are NOT bulldozing because they still have value; but if the sale price of the home doesn't even cover signing costs, the bank really has no options. Yes, it is happening, but it doesn't mean that one can extrapolate those specific examples into a nationwide policy. --Jayron32 05:31, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

To answer the original question, as others have said, the debt problem is not simply the amount that the United States owes to China. It is the total amount owed, and the ongoing deficit, which requires continued borrowing. Printing money to pay off the debt might be part of the solution, but printing money to pay off only China's debt would mean that China would probably just buy up the remaining debt and/or the newly issued debt. This would drive up the price of US Treasury bills and further lower interest rates, to negligible levels. Such a move would greatly reduce the appeal of holding assets denominated in US dollars, causing the relative value of the dollar to fall sharply. Such a sharp drop in the dollar would almost certainly lead to consumer price inflation, as it would push up the cost of any imported goods or goods whose price reflects imported inputs (such as the cost of petroleum-fueled transportation or production, e.g., food products). To truly monetize the debt, or pay the debt off through money creation, and truly "solve" the debt problem, the United States would first need to eliminate its deficit and its need to borrow through some combination of cutting expenditures and raising taxes. Then money could be printed to pay off the outstanding debt. Of course, if creditors such as China had no option of rolling over the cash that they received into new or recycled US debt, they would be forced to convert their US dollars into other currencies and/or use the dollars to buy up other assets, such as agricultural land in Australia or other places. The effect of such a large increase in the money supply would be a drop in the relative value of the US dollar and very high inflation. Conceivably, eliminating US debt could end the role of the US dollar as the world's chief reserve currency. This role has played a key role in supporting the relative value of the dollar. Ending this role and flooding world markets with dollars that have little remaining intrinsic value could cause the value of the dollar to plummet and dollars held worldwide to flow back to the United States, causing galloping inflation or even hyperinflation. Solving the debt problem in this way would create a set of new problems. Marco polo (talk) 13:16, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Copyright, Canada: can this image be made PD?

A newspaper takes a photograph of a costumed character of Winnie the Pooh (the official costume), in a mall, at a public event. The newspaper has:

• the permission of Disney to take the image,
• the permission of the mall,
• the permission of the kids in the mall,
• full copyright on the image, as the photographer was staff.

Can they choose to release this 1970s image as public domain (or CC-BY 3.0, or something else free), now? Similarly, they have a photo of amateur curlers on Halloween. The curlers (that's a sport, FYI) are wearing handmade costumes of McDonaldland characters, similar to cosplay. Again,

• permission of people in the photograph,
• permission of venue,
• staff photographer,

... but this one is unofficial characters. Note that the M on Ronald's outfit is just a Roman alphabet M, not the golden arches, so that's one trademark gone, it's just the fan-made characters. Each costume is clearly not official. Can the newspaper release that image as PD? -- Zanimum (talk) 23:16, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

You should ask this exact same question at WP:MCQ. --Jayron32 00:28, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

This is unfortunately, I think, a bit too close to legal advice for the Reference Desk. I would scrutinize closely what the permission of Disney to take the image says (assuming it is in writing). Barring something obvious there, I would check in with the newspaper's legal counsel. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:25, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

August 3

Why is the phrase "I'm going to the city" applied only to Manhattan, but not to the Bronx as well historically speaking?

People have told me all sorts of reasons as to why Manhattan is sometimes referred to as "the city" by New Yorkers of the outer boroughs even though Manhattan is part of "the City:" Manhattan is the most urban of all the boroughs of NYC, Manhattan is the center of the New York metropolitan area, Manhattan is the special borough that is more than just a borough, Manhattan is an island unlike Center City (Downtown Philadelphia) in Philadelphia or "the City of London" in Greater London, everyone wants to live in Manhattan, everyone commutes to Manhattan to work, Manhattan is more associated with NYC than any other boroughs, there is so much to do and see in Manhattan compared to the other boroughs, it was hard to go to Manhattan before the bridges and the subways were built, etc. That is all true, but one of the reasons also given to me for the phrase was that before New York City consolidated into the 5 boroughs in 1898, New York City only covered the island of Manhattan, but that is not true. Wikipedia's article on the Bronx in the introduction says that "The West Bronx was annexed to New York City (then largely confined to Manhattan) in 1874, and the areas east of the Bronx River in 1895. The Bronx first assumed a distinct legal identity when it became a borough of Greater New York in 1898. Bronx County, with the same boundaries as the borough, was separated from New York County (afterwards coextensive with the Borough of Manhattan) as of January 1, 1914." So historically and in that context, why wouldn't the Bronx be considered part of "the city" by New Yorkers, including those from the Bronx, even though the Bronx was already part of New York City before 1898 and even though it was part of New York County until 1914? Willminator (talk) 12:41, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Because the expression "the city", as used in the region, dates to earlier than 1874. Marco polo (talk) 13:03, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, the Bronx in 1874 was still pretty rural; even as it was being annexed into New York City. It never had a defined "city center" of its own; it was basically a few small villages which had grown, or were growing, into bedroom communities as public transportation was extended across the Harlem River. Some areas in the Bronx, even today, retain some of their earlier "small town" or rural feel, see City Island, New York for one example. --Jayron32 14:06, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I didn't know about this earlier annexation of part of The Bronx. A bit of googling seems to show Jayron has it right. There's a bit about the annexation and reasons for it here. Pfly (talk) 17:32, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Contacting a New York Times journalist

Hi! I am having trouble contacting Noam Cohen, a New York Times journalist. I used the "e-mail him" function on the NYT website, but I haven't heard back from him. I need to hear from him because of an issue on the Wikimedia Commons. Does anyone know how I can get an e-mail address to contact him or how I can e-mail someone who will relay the message to him? WhisperToMe (talk) 16:52, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Of course, he may not care about the Wikimedia Commons issue and is probably under no obligation to respond. In a situation like this, I would try phoning the New York Times editorial offices. I found the following phone number for the office: 212-556-1363. I would ask for Noam Cohen. You will most likely get his voice mail and can leave a message asking for his help and hoping that he cares enough to respond. Sometimes people are more likely to respond to voice mail. Another tack would be to do a little research and contact an editor who is likely to work with Cohen. Again, I suggest the phone, as e-mail is easy to ignore, especially if you are someone who gets 100+ e-mails a day and has to choose some to ignore. Also, if you don't get a response to voice mail, you can dial the number repeatedly (at decent intervals) in hopes of getting a live person. If the issue is that you need information from Cohen to determine whether an asset is fair use or public domain, be prepared to go without that information and to act as if that asset is not free for public distribution. Good luck. Marco polo (talk) 17:18, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I left a voice mail. If I hear back I will post more details on here. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:18, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

The reporter himself is unlikely to have the decisive word on a copyright issue. The NYT probably has a department or person dedicated to the licensing of content who might be able to help you. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:31, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Somalia aid

It's really depressing to read about how aid is not getting through to starving people in Somalia. I'm looking for any references that point to solutions - any organizations that reliably can say they are getting aid in. Is the Red Crescent, for example, or Muslim or non-Western organizations having better luck than the UN and western aid groups? Thanks.Dreenik (talk) 15:26, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

The typical problem is that local warlords use food as a weapon. That is, they give food to those who support them and starve those who don't. So, it's not about religion so much as power. Therefore, the only way to guarantee that food gets through is by military intervention, to defeat such warlords. However, there may also be limited success by bribing them (but, in the long run, this gives them more weapons and power, which may ultimately lead to even more deaths) or perhaps parachute food drops. The warlord's soldiers will still try to collect this food, but, if enough small drops are made, they may not be able to get them all. StuRat (talk) 15:53, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to have to agree with StuRat here: This is one of those situations which is really frustrating for which we really can't do much about it. The problem is with the people in power in various parts of Somalia; and until and unless those people are either forcably removed or miraculously become better quality people, the famine will go on despite our frustrated attempts to ammeliorate it. Either some major world power goes in and kicks ass and cleans the place up (an act usually seen, perhaps rightly, as imperialistic and colonial on the part of the "invader") or the situation isn't going to get better. This sort of shit happens all the time, all over the world, largely because the countries that have the technical power to fix the situation don't have the intestinal fortitude to deal with the backlash from what is likely to be the only solution. Somalia is NOT a new situation, just look at the situation in Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge or Rwanda in the 1990s or the Balkans in the 1990s or Biafra in the 1960's or any of a number of other analogous situations where simply wanting to peacefully help isn't an option. --Jayron32 16:25, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

"Forcably removed"? Is that removing them with a fork? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.153.125.105 (talk) 23:28, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the interesting discussion. I do appreciate it. I still hope, however, that someone might help me find references to any particular aid groups that say they are trying approaches that work or might work.Dreenik (talk) 19:17, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

This website, of the UK Government's Department for International Development, might have some relevance to your commendable interest. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.52 (talk) 21:45, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

A recent BBC article claims that SAACID are having some success at getting aid to the people who need it. Warofdreams talk 15:21, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Laborism

Could laborism be an alternative to capitalism? In a laborist system, labor is treated as the critical resource of production. Salaries or wages stem from the sale of time, instead of the deployment of capital. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.38.96.241 (talk) 19:37, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Under capitalism, salaries or wages can also be said to amount to the sale of labor power, typically measured in units of time. The distinguishing feature of capitalism is ownership of the means of production by private entrepreneurs who invest to make a profit. In other economic systems, the means of production are owned by different entities. It isn't clear to me, in your proposed system, who would own the means of production (the tools, equipment, hardware, software, intellectual property rights, etc.) used to produce goods and services. Can you clarify? Marco polo (talk) 19:43, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) See "Criticisms of the labour theory of value". Gabbe (talk) 19:44, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

This sounds like a homework question… …I take it from your use of "laborist" that you're either Ameriphone, or Australian. You may wish to strongly investigate the periods of Australian Labor Party governance, both at a state and a federal level, in Australia. In particular the Australian "long boom" period from the 1940s to the 1970s, when "Laborism" in the Australian sense was quite significant (it is the local variant of the social-democratic or Fordist bargain). This society was still fundamentally capitalist. Other people talk about the "Australian settlement" of arbitration, racism, living standards, capitalism and democracy. This is also associated with Laborism. Rick Kuhn provides a vehement and closely developed critique with others of his group, focused on the failure of the ALP to ever be a worker's party. Correspondingly there are ALP leftist thinkers, and ALP rightist thinkers who also provide information on Australian Laborism. These are not connected with using labour time (either simple, or socially necessary average productivity) to price goods. For that you'd want to look at socialist idealism in the mid to late 19th century, including anarchists. There's also a trend within vulgar marxism that advocates the use of socially necessary average labour time to price goods—as Marco polo observes, these often assume that the proletariat isn't in possession of the means and tools of production directly, and tend to have a statist tinge. Gabbe's suggestion is a good one, but may misdirect you into vulgar criticisms of vulgar marxism due to the low quality of our articles on Marxism. I'd suggest, quite strongly, 19th century idealist socialists. Is it an alternative to capitalism? No—it is capitalism, see Marx on capital's reliance on socially necessary average labour time to produce long run values, and the broad acceptance of long run values being dependent upon labour as the fundamental input in a fair bit of Keynsianism.

In fact, your suggestion that there are two means of appropriating social goods: "sale of labour" and "deployment of capital" mirrors the methods of appropriation, and control over productive things, that the workers and capitalists respectively possess at the moment: workers sell their labour and are paid for their labour, capitalists own capital and are paid for owning capital. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:47, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

James Graham, 1st Marquess of Montrose

In "James Graham, 1st Marquess of Montrose" site his date of birth is given as 25 October 1612. Where as most authors and historians do not give a specific date for the Marquess's birth but agree that it must have been in late October to early November 1612. Now I am finding references that use Wikipedia as a source when citing 25 October as his date of birth. Where did Wikipedia obtain this date of birth for the first Marquess of Montrose?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hagrarian (talk • contribs) 21:44, 3 August 2011 (UTC) 

Unfortunately, when User:baraqa1 added the birth date in this edit in November 2008, they failed to follow Wikipedia policy, and added the information unreferenced; so we can't tell where it came from. You could try asking baraqa1 on their talk page; but they don't seem to have been active since December 2010, so you might not get an answer.

If you have researched the matter, and been unable to find any sources independent of Wikipedia which give the date, I suggest you remove it from the article. But if you do so, make sure you give a useful edit summary, so that neither people nor bots will think your edit is vandalism; and preferably post on the article's talk page explaining that the date was unreferenced and that you have tried and failed to verify it. --ColinFine (talk) 22:54, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

12 Angry Men (1957 film)

Why was the film called 12 Angry men? Indeed, only 11 were angry.... Quest09 (talk) 21:59, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Which one are you saying wasn't angry? Surely you don't mean the Henry Fonda character? He's as angry as the rest of them. --Viennese Waltz 22:01, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

The title is not "12 men, angry against the accused" or "12 equally angry men." Each one is angry in a different way, and towards a different goal. 193.153.125.105 (talk) 22:08, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

In politically correct terminology it could be called The 12 Disgruntled individuals. : ) Bus stop (talk) 23:27, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

12 angry people would be PC enough, but not necessary. There's a 1997's version with the original name, 12 male jurors -4 of them black- and with a female judge. ASAIK, no one complained about the lack of PCness of this new version. 193.153.125.105 (talk) 23:36, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

An Indeterminate Number of Disapproving Life Forms. Bus stop (talk) 02:56, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Recent performances involving a cast containing both male and female jurors have been titled 12 Angry Jurors. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 18:07, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Markets "attacking" bonds

When the Spanish Minister of Economy and Finance talks about "markets attacking the Spanish debt/bonds", is she just talking BS or does it have some meaning? The price on the market for Spanish bonds is certainly higher, but how can investors "attack" bonds? 193.153.125.105 (talk) 23:21, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Anthropomorphizing "the markets" as though "the markets" were a sentient being has a long history, going back atleast as far as the "Invisible hand of the markets", a concept dating to the middle-late 18th century when Adam Smith coined the phrase. --Jayron32 23:25, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

That's a good beginning. But still: "Investors attacking bonds" is not very meaningful. If they demand a higher interest, is that an attack?193.153.125.105 (talk) 23:32, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

The most common way for investors to attack a security is by short selling to flood the market -- unfortunately our article doesn't really explain that concept, although it is well known to economists. I don't know if that's what the minister was talking about, though. Looie496 (talk) 02:46, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

While I don't know any details about the situation in question, to me this sounds like defensive political language. The minister might hope to create pressure for regulatory action that would aid the Spanish bond-issuers by curtailing certain types of trading, or perhaps more likely, to engender sympathy for the Spanish plight that could be leveraged into concessions in other areas. I'm skeptical how much it has to do with the reality of the situation, but I suppose you never know.

(My skepticism is not particular to Spain — this is just what finance ministers do.) --Trovatore (talk) 02:56, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

The finance minister is looking for a scapegoat so that she won't be blamed for what is happening; her scapegoat is "the markets". It is true that high-volume short selling can give the market a downward nudge, but it only works if demand is already weak at a given price. Meanwhile, short sellers help to slow market declines because they have to buy back whatever it is they sold at some point. So, a persistent decline cannot in any way be described as an "attack" by investors. Instead, it reflects a loss of confidence and a retreat by investors. Marco polo (talk) 13:15, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

United States presidents turning 50 in office

Barack Obama turning 50 today prompted me to do a bit of research. He’s the 7th US President to turn 50 while in office, but the spread is quite revealing.

• In the 19th century there were four in the space of 31.3 years: Polk in 1845, Pierce in 1854, Grant in 1872 and Cleveland in 1887. (Garfield would have been a 5th in 1881 if he hadn’t been assassinated and died 2 months short of his 50th birthday)
• Then a 21-year gap till Teddy Roosevelt in 1908.
• Then an 88-year gap till Clinton in 1996. (Kennedy would have turned 50 in his 2nd term in 1967 if he’d been given a chance, but that’s still 59 years since Roosevelt.)
• And now 15 years on, we have Obama.

So, what happened in the 20th century to have a string of relatively older people being elected US president, compared with the 19th century? Or is my logic complete crap, mathematically speaking? -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 23:58, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

It's somewhat misleading to phrase this in terms of years. 88 years is 22 presidential terms, but they often come two at a time (and FDR took four, although he died shortly into his fourth term, which popped Truman in there without an election, so I don't know how you'd count that). It's still interesting, but it's not as far from "statistical fluctuation" as the phrasing in terms of time intervals might make one think. --Trovatore (talk) 00:05, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I think a graph showing how age when first assuming Presidential office has changed over time might be more revealing than this somewhat-arbitrary point. Let's see what I can find... AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:09, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

List of Presidents of the United States by age has the necessary data to work this out. Time for some spreadsheet magic, I think... AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:14, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Male life expectancy in the 19th century was about 50 years (of course this was low in part because of high infant mortality). I would expect to see younger presidents mostly due to the fact their were fewer people over 50 to compete with. --Daniel 00:26, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the effect is much less; most deaths in a pre-modern-medicine society which dragged the average life expectency down were children dying very young and women dying in childbirth. For men who reached adulthood, most of them lived into their 60s and 70s, just as with today. So I wouldn't expect the average age of Presidents in the 1800s to be signficantly younger for that reason. John Demos did an excellent demographic study of Plymouth Colony, some 200 years before the time frame in question, and found that adult males in Plymouth Colony lived to an average age of 70 years old. Being all adult males (to this point), Presidents should be expected to live into their 70's, even in the earliest days of the Republic. If you look at the oldest presidents by age at death (rather than by age when they served) you'll find John Adams at #3 (aged 90 at death), James Madison (85) at #8, Thomas Jefferson(83) at #9, John Quincy Adams(80) at #11, Martin Van Buren at #12 (79) and Andrew Jackson(79) at #14. That's 6 of the first 8 presidents. So, the earliest presidents actually had LONGER lifespans than the later presidents. This has nothing to do on the age when they served, but demographically there's no reason to assume that the presidents had to be younger a long time ago merely because they should have all died before they reached their 60's and 70's. They didn't. --Jayron32 01:05, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Pesky Microsoft Works spreadsheets - I've got a graph, but it looks a mess. It looks as if there may be a slight trend towards younger presidents over time, but I'll leave this one to the statisticians to figure out. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:48, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

The average age at inauguration for the fist 22 Presidents was 55.6 years, and for the last 22, 54.7 years. However, I'm not sure that this tells us much. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:01, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't mean anything, given that your sample size is 44 people, the statistical error is significantly larger than the difference. Meaning that, statistically speaking, your two numbers are identical for all intents and purposes... i.e. that there is no difference. --Jayron32 01:11, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm sure you're right. I've never done a lot of statistics, and its years since I've had to calculate significance etc. In any case, even the limited data we have is flawed, what with Cleveland getting in twice, and Ford playing a walk-in (not necessarily while chewing gum) part... AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:38, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Male life expectancy of the sort of person who becomes president (rich men, generally from wealthy families) has been around 80-85 years since the founding of the country. The improvement in general male life expectancy has been through improved living conditions, working conditions, and health care for the rest of the country's population. --Carnildo (talk) 01:56, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

At birth? I doubt it. I might believe that such a person who reaches the age of 18 would have an expected age at death of 80-85, but not from birth, unless you have something to back it up. --Trovatore (talk) 02:17, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

A good question. It might be summarized "Why was it that between President X and President Y the US elected very old men to the presidency?" Perhaps medical advances made it less likely that an old man would die in office from high blood pressure, cancer or heart disease. Grover Cleveland had surgery for cancer in his mouth in 1893 at the age of 56. Woodrow Wilson had a disabling stroke at age 62, which his wife and handlers somehow kept a secret for a considerable time. Franklin Roosevelt had terribly high blood pressure, which his doctor apparently lacked the drugs to treat effectively, leaving it at over 200 systolic and 100 diastolic by 1944. By February 1945, at age 63, it was 260/150. It was 300/190 on the day he died. Were there no "water pills"/diuretics in 1945? Eisenhower survived a heart attack in 1955,at age 65, which his doctor treated with morphine as a pain killer. Kennedy, the youngest man elected president, had severe medical problems which were concealed from the public. Reagan, the oldest president inaugurated at 69 for his first term, served while increasingly senile during his second term, from Alzheimer's, but lived years beyond his presidency. In the Cleveland, Wilson, Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Reagan presidencies, the doctors served their patient rather than the public. Edison (talk) 01:10, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Raw data - if someone can format this properly, I'd be grateful (Age is in years, at inauguration):

George Washington 57.18 John Adams 61.34 Thomas Jefferson 57.89 James Madison 57.97 James Monroe 58.85 John Quincy Adams 57.65 Andrew Jackson 61.97 Martin Van Buren 54.24 William Henry Harrison 68.06 John Tyler 51.02 James K. Polk 49.33 Zachary Taylor 64.27 Millard Fillmore 50.50 Franklin Pierce 48.28 James Buchanan 65.86 Abraham Lincoln 52.05 Andrew Johnson 56.29 Ulysses S. Grant 46.85 Rutherford B. Hayes 54.41 James A. Garfield 49.29 Chester A. Arthur 51.96 Grover Cleveland 47.96 Benjamin Harrison 55.54 Grover Cleveland 55.96 William McKinley 54.09 Theodore Roosevelt 42.88 William Howard Taft 51.47 Woodrow Wilson 56.18 Warren G. Harding 55.33 Calvin Coolidge 51.08 Herbert Hoover 54.56 Franklin D. Roosevelt 51.09 Harry S. Truman 60.93 Dwight D. Eisenhower 62.27 John F. Kennedy 43.65 Lyndon B. Johnson 55.24 Richard Nixon 56.03 Gerald Ford 61.07 Jimmy Carter 52.30 Ronald Reagan 69.96 George H. W. Bush 64.61 Bill Clinton 46.42 George W. Bush 54.54 Barack Obama 47.46

AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:18, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, as usual Grover Cleveland screws up the data, and should Ford be included, or Truman? (I'll not comment on GWB...) AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:23, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

You just did.  :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 01:29, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Like this?

President	Age
George Washington	57.18
John Adams	61.34
Thomas Jefferson	57.89
James Madison	57.97
James Monroe	58.85
John Quincy Adams	57.65
Andrew Jackson	61.97
Martin Van Buren	54.24
William Henry Harrison	68.06
John Tyler	51.02
James K. Polk	49.33
Zachary Taylor	64.27
Millard Fillmore	50.5
Franklin Pierce	48.28
James Buchanan	65.86
Abraham Lincoln	52.05
Andrew Johnson	56.29
Ulysses S. Grant	46.85
Rutherford B. Hayes	54.41
James A. Garfield	49.29
Chester A. Arthur	51.96
Grover Cleveland	47.96
Benjamin Harrison	55.54
Grover Cleveland	55.96
William McKinley	54.09
Theodore Roosevelt	42.88
William Howard Taft	51.47
Woodrow Wilson	56.18
Warren G. Harding	55.33
Calvin Coolidge	51.08
Herbert Hoover	54.56
Franklin D. Roosevelt	51.09
Harry S. Truman	60.93
Dwight D. Eisenhower	62.27
John F. Kennedy	43.65
Lyndon B. Johnson	55.24
Richard Nixon	56.03
Gerald Ford	61.07
Jimmy Carter	52.3
Ronald Reagan	69.96
George H. W. Bush	64.61
Bill Clinton	46.42
George W. Bush	54.54
Barack Obama	47.46

Is this the formatting you were looking for? ^Avic_ennasis @ 01:52, 4 Av 5771 / 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks - yes, it looks neater and allows sorting by age, though as Jayron points out, it doesn't really tell us a great deal. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:26, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

This is really speculative and impressionistic, but there were two long stretches during which no one under 50 was inaugurated: the first 50 or so years of the republic and the long interval between Teddy Roosevelt and JFK. During the first years of the republic, the office of president was seen very much as that of a senior statesman, the father of the country. A younger man during that time would have had less appeal. I think it's kind of a matter of chance that no one under 50 took office after Teddy Roosevelt and before 1930, but the Great Depression had a profound impact on the generations that lived through it, at least as adults. It was a time of deprivation and insecurity but also of unrest, both at home but especially elsewhere around the world. The generations who had lived through that time as adults typically wanted an experienced father figure to lead the country. By 1960, the generation that had lived through the 1930s as children or teenagers and that had fought World War II as young people had come to dominate the electorate, and a younger generation, with no memory of the 1930s, had come of age. There was a fatigue with the stodgy conventionality of the 1950s and a taste for what was fresh, modern, and new. It was in this atmosphere that both nominees, John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon, were under 50. Later, when Baby Boomers came to dominate the electorate, they elected Bill Clinton, one of their own. Marco polo (talk) 13:06, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Here is a graph with a best-fit line (basically flat, and r squared=0.02!):

I don't see much of a pattern at all. Calliopejen1 (talk) 13:46, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

The graph would be useful if the zero point was not "zero" but was instead 35, the minimum age for a US President. As for patterns, I think there are some, but not across the entire period of time. It's interesting that in the 19th century there was a lot of oscillation between the pretty old and the pretty young, in pretty rapid succession. By the early 20th century you mostly have people around the same age. By the late 20th it looks a lot more random. --Mr.98 (talk) 17:39, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

August 4

Literary firsts

Who was the 1st published afro-american female to be published??? conflicting entries in wiki sem to identify both Lucy Terry and Phyllis Wheatly```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.18.24.29 (talk) 02:38, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

They don't conflict, just the wording could use some reworking.

• from Lucy Terry: Lucy Terry (c.1730-1821) is the author of the oldest known work of literature by an African American. ... Her work, "Bars Fight", is a ballad about attack upon two white families by Native Americans on August 25, 1746. ... The poem was preserved orally until it was finally published in 1855.

• from Phillis Wheatley: Phillis Wheatley (1753 – December 5, 1784) was the first published African American poet and first African-American woman whose writings were published. ... The 1773 publication of Wheatley's Poems on Various Subjects, Religious and Moral brought her fame, with figures such as George Washington praising her work.

So, Lucy Terry's work was around 1746, however it wasn't published until 1855. So, Lucy's work is older - but wasn't published until much later. Phillis Wheatley's work was published in 1773, so she was the first to be published, though other works by African-Americans are older. ^Avic_ennasis @ 02:46, 4 Av 5771 / 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Successful lottery investor

I recall reading a Wikipedia article about an investor who saw a mathematical flaw in the way the winnings of a certain lottery (Maybe in the UK?) was calculated. According to his calculations the expected value of each lottery ticket was actually slightly higher than its cost, making it actually profitable to play this lottery. In order to minimize his risks (2% chance of getting $100 isn't necessarily better than $1), he needed enough money and manpower to corner all the available numbers so that the investment becomes essentially risk-free. He then gather a small group of private investor and together they hired workers to buy hundreds of thousands of tickets. Eventually the lottery commision caught on and disabled some of the automatic machines, but it was too late. In the end the group made a sizable profit without breaking any laws or taking any risks. After this incident the lottery winning rules were updated to close the loophole.

I can vividly recall the details of the plot but can't for the life of me remember his name or which lottery it was. Can someone please help me out here? Anonymous.translator (talk) 04:31, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Nevermind, just found it National_Lottery_(Ireland). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonymous.translator (talk • contribs) 04:40, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Also see a recent story from Massachusetts - "Cash WinFall". [29] Sigh... how incompetent does a government have to be to run a casino where the house doesn't always win? Wnt (talk) 15:08, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

KNIGHTS - HOW EXACTLY DID THEY DIFFER FROM BARONS AND COUNTS/EARLS IN THE MIDDLE AGES?

I've been reading sides up and down about knights, barons, counts, nobility and articles regarding feudalism and fiefdoms for some time, here on Wiki and on the net in general, but they all fail to explain (or maybe sometimes I fail to see) how knights differ from barons etc. in certain aspects.

I always thought that a knight would almost without exception be a high-born, and I do still, but perhaps contrary to what I have believed before knights did not necessarily need to be actual barons or counts themselves, but perhaps just members of a noble family, like a son or nephew perhaps of a noble lord. Because obviously, boys were sent away early to be pages and then squires, starting at seven usually if they were to become knights.

So far, I think I've got it spot on but I still have many questions unanswered :

1) Was it often or rare that an actual heir to a barony/county/earldom would become a knight as a young man, thus in the end both holding a noble title AND being a knight at the same time when he inherited his father's land and title? Or would these oldest sons of a lord have to be content with the knowing they one day would inherit their father's land, and then perhaps younger brothers and possibly nephews and such would aspire for knighthood instead? I know not on what criterias a boy was chosen to be sent away to start knight-training, so I'm uncertain about this.

2) What kind of land would a knight hold, compared to a baron (Barony) and a count/earl (county/earldom) ? The land these landlords would hold would vary on many things I suppose; size, richness of the land/soil and location of the land, but a knight would have to be able to fend for himself and hold men-at-arms which was vital of course for a knight, as well as for barons and counts. So would knights have as big a land as barons or would they have smaller ones with a purpose of providing for as many men-at-arms as possible? Last but not least, what would a knight's land be called? As I have understood it, Barons and counts were supposed to hold land more "permanently" than knights, who instead actually rented land from the king, sort of... Or so it is sometimes vaguely explained. It's hard to grasp the difference here sometimes - especially since many articles often refer to EVERYONE with their own men-at-arms as barons. It can be kind of unclear and confusing.

3) How many men-at-arms would a knight basically have, and how many would a baron and count/earl have? I'm interested to learn if there was any particular difference here between the three. Once again, size, richness of the land and how many people lived on and worked the land would certainly be a very deciding factor. But roughly? It's very hard to find any info about this. Would they hold 20 ? 40? 100? more?

I have left duke out of this since Duchies would sometimes be sovereign and independent, more or less, especially grand duchies, so it might be difficult to compare duke with barons, counts/earls and knights.

85.165.122.165 (talk) 12:09, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

See the article Knight particularly Origins of medieval knighthood. Knighthood is generally granted by a head of state to selected persons to recognise some meritorious achievement. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 12:33, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Another thing to remember is that Knight was also a military rank and a military unit: A knight was first-and-foremost a unit of heavy cavalry; because of the extreme expense in maintaining horses and armor and being trained for the use therof in battle, knights became a privileged class. Knighthood was really distinct from the ranks of nobility (like Duke, Earl, etc.) which were hereditary ranks and which were primarily administrative in function. Originally, Dukes and Earls/Counts, Marquises/Marcher Lords etc. were awarded those titles to give them a sort of "governor" status over land. Of course, by the age of bastard feudalism all of the titles became sort-of honorary as the actual means of fighting wars changed. If you want to get to the origin of the different titles, think of the title of "knight" to be more like a military rank (like Captain or Major or Colonel) and the titles of nobility (like Duke, Earl, etc.) to be more like political offices (like Governor or Mayor or something like that). It is far from a perfect analogy, but it helps to understand the very different origins of the terms and offices. --Jayron32 13:01, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Something else to factor in... the status (and function) of a Knight changed over time (the "Middle Ages" is a very imprecise term that covers several hundred years), and it differed from one region of Europe to another. So, are we talking about Knights in the year 1000 AD, 1200 AD or 1400 AD? And are we talking about England or France or Germany (etc.)? Blueboar (talk) 13:16, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the meaning of knighthood changed over time. In modern British usage, knighthood is an honor bestowed by the monarch. (You can see from my spelling that I'm not British.) However, before the late Middle Ages, it was essentially an occupation, with an associated rank. Generally, knights were the lowest level of the landed feudal elite. Typically, they controlled an estate containing one to maybe five or six peasant villages. (Most would have had no more than one, often small, village.) This estate provided them with the income needed to support them, their horses, armor and often one or more attendants, during potentially long periods at war. Until the late middle ages, all nobles, even monarchs, were expected to master the military skills needed to be a knight, and young heirs to baronies or counties might act as knights in battle, but their status was distinctly above that of mere knights, because they were heirs to a set of territories that would include several or many knights who owed allegiance to them. A knight need not command any attendants or men-at-arms. For that matter, a knight was himself considered a man-at-arms. Different levels of the feudal hierarchy were not associated with specific numbers of men-at-arms. There was a rough correspondence between the size of a fief or an estate, the number of men-at-arms that the estate could support, and the position of its lord in the feudal hierarchy, but it is entirely possible that a mere knight with an unusually large estate might have more men-at-arms than a baron with a very small barony, or that a very powerful baron might have more men-at-arms than a lowly count, though those would have been exceptions from the norm. I don't have enough expertise to offer specific numbers of men-at-arms that each rank would typically command. Those numbers would certainly depend on the region and the time period. Marco polo (talk) 13:46, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Just to make it a bit clearer; knighthood was not a rank which confered an estate onto its recipient, that's actually about 180 degrees backwards: the status of being an estate lord was generally a prequalification for becoming a knight. It wasn't as though some poor kid picking turnips in the field would ever one day be able to aspire to becoming a knight; the best he could hope for was to become an unarmored infantryman carrying a spear or something like that. Knighthoods were specifically awarded to the estate-owning class, and were not a means of social mobility or anything like that. If you owned land and served as a lord of a manor, then it would be expected for you to serve in defense of the realm as a knight or equivalent. This sort of thing is ALSO distinct from titles of nobility; again you had to be a member of the land-owning class before you could be awarded awarded a Duchy or an Earldom; some estates became themselves attached to a title but the origin of the system was not as a means to give land to people; Duchies didn't ever get awarded to landless peasants; they were given to scions of important families and provided the family with additional lands and rights.

• It can get confusing, because these terms end up being applied to the same people (thus John Doe would own estates, have a baronial title, and serve in the armored cavalry, so he can be considered a manorial lord, a member of the peerage, and a knight all at once). But they really began as seperate concepts with seperate purposes. The land-owning class was a product of Manorialism, which was the socio-economic organization of society during the middle ages: if defined ones social class, and also determined the economic organization of society; the source of wealth (being land), who had access to own that land (the upper class) and who worked the land (the peasantry).
• Of seperate concern of this was the system of peerages and noble ranks (Baronies, Earldoms, Duchies, etc.) These were primarily titles associated with the apparatus of the state (what is in the U.S. known as "the Government"). Estates were given to people when titles were confered to them, but as land (rather then currency) was the primary form of wealth during this age, you can think of this land as being akin to the "salary and benefits package" that, say, a civil servant is given when they are employed by the government. The titles were heritable, but they also confered certain responsibilities: owners of a title often had administrative responsibilities over territories (like the responsibility of the Marcher Lords to police and control the borders) and stuff like that.
• The responsibility of the Knight was defense of the realm: this was a responsibility as a soldier. His job was to carry arms and fight wars for the King.
• The way these get to be tied up is through the system of feudalism, which sits on top of the manorial system. In order for the right to be a lord of the manor, the lord had to pledge to defend the realm in times of war: this relationship defines feudalism: the awarding of landholding rights in exchange for military service. However, when it is explained like this, it sounds like any old peasant could agree to serve in the army, and then viola, they were granted land and became part of the aristocracy. It didn't really work like that: The land owners were just expected to also serve as knights; it was an established, entrenched system which wasn't open to change or question or social mobility. If you were born the son of a manor lord, you inherited his estates, and his responsibilities to serve as a knight. Because all manor lords were also expected to right horses and wear armor in battle (thus, serve as the military role of a knight) that title became a shorthand, and later official title, as the default title for any member of the landed class who was otherwise untitled. That's why you usually see "Knight" listed as a rank underneath say "Baron". It generally meant "any member of the upper class who had no other title of his own".
• When modern "knighthoods" are awarded as an honorary title, what is literally happening is the recipient is being inducted into an "honorary" military order; if you look at the language of the titles granted with honorary knighthood today (like the Order of the British Empire) they have ranks like "Knight", "Commander", "Officer", which reflects this military past. --Jayron32 15:56, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks guys ! I got much out of that. Having learned much already, but much of your helpful input helps fill in some blanks and make me see things in a clearer light. Always impressed to see how many fellow wikipedians share so much knowledge and so many viewpoints with each other :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.165.122.165 (talk) 18:53, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

UK VAT number

would the UK vat number consisting of 8 digits (45234133 as a fictive example) be used as the EU VAT number as well? Or would the company have to do something special? Thanks. 89.135.188.193 (talk) 12:24, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Best bet is to consult an accountant, I think that a UK VAT registration is all that's needed as HMRC take care of the extra-national transactions. fwiw I only have a UK VAT registration and can use it for mainland europe transactions.

ALR (talk) 13:39, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

The Value added tax identification number article says "The full identifier starts with an ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 country code", and lists the various formats employed by differing systems. So you'd use GB45234133. -- 87.115.147.37 (talk) 15:42, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

THE ENTRANCE OF NEW NATION IN ABIA AND IMO STATE OF NIGERIA

How can I get the contacts of some teachers in Abia state in Nigeria government secondary schools through this web site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Godson chibuzor (talk • contribs) 14:18, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

We have an article List of schools in Nigeria, and a surprising number of Nigeria government secondary schools come up if you search the site. Some of the schools have websites listed which you might get information from. Unfortunately Wikipedia is officially "not a directory" so finding contact information here will be hit and miss, mostly miss. Wnt (talk) 15:02, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

French cheese

Bonjour all :) When I was little my mother tried to introduce me to good cheese but I wasn't very interested at the time (and let's just say her sense of good cheese was... not mainstream). I would now like to try cheese again, but my cheese-eating friends all warn me not to start too strong or I'll be turned away from the stuff again. They say Brie is generally the "gateway cheese", lol, but I find its ammonic taste and smell disagreeable. I'm looking for a French cheese that's not too strong but has an interesting and pleasant flavor (to set it apart from the plastic they put on sandwiches in the States), and is not too strong. I thought at first to just go out and buy a bunch of random French cheese to try but there are so many, I don't know where to start. Does anyone have any suggestions from their personal experience? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.98.102.189 (talk) 18:19, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

You might want to check out our article Types of cheese for an overview of the subject. Many different types of cheese are produced in France. It sounds as if you don't like (or don't yet like) soft-ripened cheeses such as brie. A mild cheese that you might like could be Port-Salut. Marco polo (talk) 18:47, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. I find most bries to be mild, unless it is over ripe - ie almost past its best & runny. Also, the taste is milder if the cheese is still at 'fridge temperature - the taste increases as it warms up. CS Miller (talk) 19:19, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I know you asked about french cheese, but there are also many British cheeses: see List of British cheeses. White stilton is my favourite, followed by Wenslyedale. 92.24.140.101 (talk) 19:20, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

School Library Journal?

I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask, but the Novels and Literature wikiproject pages seem to be mostly un-monitored, so I'm not sure I'd get an answer there. Anyway, on Moonrise (Warriors), ref 15 requires a page number. However, the link given requires a subscription, and I don't have one. I'd therefore like to ask if anyone can find the page number for me. The review in question is from School Library Journal, Volume 49, Issue 5, May 1, 2003, on Warriors: Into the Wild. Thanks, Brambleclawx 18:59, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

You might be better off asking on the wikiproject library&resource exchange page - the folks over there will borrow the journal if it is available at their local library, and get back to you with the reference. CS Miller (talk) 19:15, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Hostile legislative riders

In the United States Congress, here have been lots of occasions where Congressmen seeking to kill a bill that might otherwise pass add amendments or riders to it that are calculated to guarantee that the original bill will be rejected. This has been on display quite a bit lately, but in particular I have in mind the case described here.

I'm a bit rusty on my civics courses. How does a member of Congress (Senate or House) get an amendment approved to go onto a bill? Is it done by committee, or something voted for by the whole? It strikes me as a particular devious way to tank legislation. --Mr.98 (talk) 19:13, 4 August 2011 (UTC)