Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

Select a section:

WP:RD/H

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.

September 9

Shinnoke and Oke

Why did the Americans found it necessary to limit the size of the Japanese Imperial Family and abolished the shinnoke and the oke families in the Imperial Household Law after World War II? Can the Japanese government in future restore the shinnoke and oke families to their titles?--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 02:38, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With the Japanese emperor being purely a symbolic one following WW2, the need for such a large, extended lineage of royals was lessened. And having an excess of royals supported by the state puts an ~~undo~~ undue burden upon it. StuRat (talk) 03:02, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So the Occupation undid it. —Tamfang (talk) 04:04, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch. Computers have apparently rotted my brain. :-) StuRat (talk) 04:10, 9 September 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Monarchy in post-WWII Japan

Were there any plans for the Americans to abolished the Japanese monarchy and replace it with a Republic after World War II since worship and fanaticism for the Japanese Emperor was a big reason for some of the action of the Japanese people during WWII?--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 02:38, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if there were any plans, but the U.S. figured out that abolishing the Japanese monarchy would piss off the Japanese people much more and thus decided to turn Japan into a constitutional monarchy instead. Futurist110 (talk) 02:45, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it, this was considered, and the Japanese Instrument of Surrender gave the Allies that option: "The authority of the Emperor and the Japanese Government to rule the State shall be subject to the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers...". The main concern was that there might be continued resistance after the surrender. It was felt that the Japanese Emperor could serve a purpose, if he spoke publicly and asked all Japanese to stop fighting: [1]. If, however, he encouraged resistance in any way, then the Allies would have abolished the monarchy. StuRat (talk) 02:49, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Remember that by late 1944 the overwhelming fear of the U.S. wasn't Japan but Soviet influence in the far east. It is documented as one of the top if not the main reason FDR/Truman dropped both bombs--as a strong statement to the Soviets that we would protect parts of Asia from communism. By the time of the USS Missouri signing the military leadership was focused on using any and all means available in Japan to strengthen U.S. influence there for years to come, when there is the Soviet bear in front of you issues about some papertiger toothless emperor become how we can use that mean to the blocking soviet end. Marketdiamond (talk) 02:55, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it was mostly MacArthur who played the biggest role in retaining the Monarchy in Japan. In his role as Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers (an article which has a LOT of good information to answer this question), MacArthur was given wide latitude in shaping post-war Japan, Constitution_of_Japan#Drafting_process has a lot of information on how the post-war Japanese government was constituted, and it was basically MacArthur with the big picture, with the actual text left to a few underlings of his. The reason why Japan is still a Monarchy has a lot to do with MacArthur's influence. I can't find his exact rationale right now, but I do remember reading several times in several places that he meant to maintain the Monarchy to give the Japanese people something to rally around. He did wish to build them back up again, and the Monarchy gave them some focus for their national pride. --Jayron32 03:23, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See also Potsdam Declaration and Surrender of Japan. Reading the latter of these two articles suggests the continued role of Hirohito as Emperor was the only path to surrender that the "doves" in the Japanese government would accept - including Hirohito himself. It must have seemed a small price for the Western Allies to accept, against a rushed invasion of the Japanese home islands (before the Soviets got there) and the casualties they expected to suffer, estimated at between 1.4 and 4 million. Alansplodge (talk) 22:26, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But, as I noted above, the surrender document did give the Allies the right to abolish the monarchy, if they wished to do so. Was an oral promise made that, so long as he behaved, Hirohito could keep his throne ? StuRat (talk) 22:44, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. But without that carrot, the Japanese would probably have fought to the bitter end. That day, Hirohito informed the imperial family of his decision to surrender. One of his uncles, Prince Asaka, then asked whether the war would be continued if the kokutai (national polity) could not be preserved. The emperor simply replied "of course."

Greatest Age Difference Between Meeting a Famous Person and One's Own Death

Jeanne Calment met Vincent van Gogh in 1888, when she was 13. Van Gogh committed suicide in 1890, and Calment died 107 years after van Gogh died and 109 years after meeting him. Calment died in 1997 at the age of 122.45, and she probably had memories of van Gogh right up until her death. Has anyone ever met a famous person when young and exceeded either of these two time differences (between meeting a famous person/having that famous person die and one's own death)? Futurist110 (talk) 02:45, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would imagine that given we are speaking of 10s of millions of people that "met" celebrities at 6 months, 1 or 2 years old odds say there should be at least a few that did exceed it. Since its about any private non-famous person meeting a famous person would we even know for sure about some private person in Iowa that died at 102 and met say Mark Twain at 1 years old? Marketdiamond (talk) 02:58, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

107>101 and 109>101. Futurist110 (talk) 03:07, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

LOL your inferring I can't calculate . . . doesn't matter the law of big numbers takes over here, how many hundreds of newborns did Mark Twain meet in the final year of his life . . . Einstein, Jim Thorpe, Lincoln, Genges Kahn, Emperor Constantine, Tsun Tszu, Jesus, Mohammed, Noah . . . biiiiig numbers. :-) Marketdiamond (talk) 03:15, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Would be interested if someone did find a documented case of it, but the absence of evidence doesn't necessarily prove anything ;-). Marketdiamond (talk) 03:19, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah let me see if I can find a documented case of it. Futurist110 (talk) 03:47, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Futurist, what possible encyclopedic resource do you imagine can address your question? Are you afraid we are running out of questions here? Or is this a result of your OR on the weed and IQ question? μηδείς (talk) 04:31, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly does weed and IQ have to do with this question or with me in general? Anyway, as for a source for this, a news source (such as a website, magazine, or newspaper) might work. Futurist110 (talk) 05:09, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Adam met god pretty much as soon as he was created, and lived for about 900+ years after the fact. What a bizarre question this is. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 13:26, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Except Adam didn't meet God or live 900+ years. Futurist110 (talk) 16:57, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As above, I agree this is a pretty silly question - there are perhaps a few a hundred people known to have lived up to or over 110 years, and the odds are presumably good that at least one of them encountered someone who was famous then, or would go on to be famous, in infancy. On the other hand, isn't this getting at the heart of the reason we're fascinated with extremely long-lived people? The sense of a connection to the past - that we can meet a person who saw or experienced or remembers something vastly long ago. So I guess it's interesting as a question, in some ways... Andrew Gray (talk) 14:55, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have found the answer that would beat Calment for longest time different between meeting a famous person and one's death--Alphaeus Philemon Cole "met" his father Timothy Cole when he was a baby and died 112 years later. Also, Katherine Plunket probably met her great-grandfather William Plunket when she was a baby, toddler, and/or very small child and died 108+ years later. I know that it's kinda cheating to use family, but oh well. Futurist110 (talk) 16:56, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For a non-relative, Florrie Baldwin saw Queen Victoria in 1900, Victoria died in 1901, and Baldwin died in 2010. Warofdreams talk 00:25, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Converts to Judaism in Areas Under Nazi Control During World War II

What did the Nazis do to people who were ethnically non-Jewish but who converted to Judaism at some point in their lives? Were they killed immediately, were they forced to do hard labor, or were they allowed to denounce their Jewish religion in exchange for getting their lives spared? I know that ethnicity was the main benchmark that Nazis used to determine Jews, rather than religion. Thus people like Edith Stein and Irene Nemirovsky were killed despite being Christians by religion. Futurist110 (talk) 03:46, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that "Aryan" converts would be treated as "traitors to their race", so just as badly. StuRat (talk) 03:57, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What if they claimed that they were "seduced" by their Jewish lovers and that they were tricked into accepting Judaism and are actually hardcore Aryans (assuming that the converts were ethnically German/Dutch/English/Scandivanian) and anti-Semites? Futurist110 (talk) 03:58, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In light of what we've been discussing on the Talk page, I'm sure StuRat didn't mean to suspect his answer, but has a good citation he's willing to share with us all. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 04:02, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As per the discussion there, I tend to agree with the suggestion to make it known when you are giving your opinion. The "I suspect" should make that quite clear. StuRat (talk) 04:12, 9 September 2012 (UTC) [reply]

I agree that the "suspect" absolves the referencelessness of the answer, but not its timing. If you don't know, there's no need to be the first to speculate. The question will be here for days. μηδείς (talk) 04:28, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) That's OK as far as it goes, which is about a half an inch. The OP wants to know what actually happened historically. Your (or anyone's) suspicions will never fit that bill, as they would always need to be confirmed or dis-confirmed by reference to the actual historical record. So why not just go straight there? Imagine a history of a major conflict or major country or time period, in which the author made constant reference to his "suspicions" about stuff? He'd be laughed out of town and his name as a historian would be lower than mud. Basically, for questions like this, if you are unwilling or unable to track down a cite or at least provide a link to a suitable WP article, the only proper option open to you is silence. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 04:31, 9 September 2012 (UTC) [reply]

If your concern is that I wasted the OP's time, you've just wasted far more of it. StuRat (talk) 04:50, 9 September 2012 (UTC) [reply]

(after I picked my jaw up off the floor) Continued at your talk page. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 06:55, 9 September 2012 (UTC) [reply]

According to writers such as Raul Hilberg, the treatment of converts was often arbitrary. There are instances of people with four German grandparents who converted to Judaism and perished. Even stranger, a woman who married a Jew and converted, was widowed, reconverted back to Christianity, and remarried and had a child with the second Aryan husband would be Aryan, but her son of fully German blood was considered a Mischlinge. More discussion can be read at this link:[2].

The Nazis made a great deal out of the purported "deviance" of Jewish men and their "hunger" for Aryan blood. Women married to or in loving relationships with Jewish men were often shaved bald and made to parade in the streets wearing a sign that provoked abuse (or worse). The only way for a German woman to avoid that would be to claim rape: in that case one would expect the Jewish man to be arrested and quietly killed. German men who had sex with Jewish women could be convicted of race defilement. This deterred consensual sex but not rape, as the easiest way for a rapist to duck the charge would be to murder the victim. --NellieBlyMobile (talk) 07:28, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Related question, with a little setup: In the (great) film La vita è bella, Roberto Benigni plays a Jewish man who marries a non-Jewish woman (played by the lovely Nicoletta Braschi, Benigni's real-life wife). When the Nazis take him and their son off to one of the camps, Braschi's character insists on going with them and sharing their fate, and the Nazis accomodate her. Are there any documented examples of that sort of thing happening? --Trovatore (talk) 03:45, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your premise that Jews were killed is false before 1942. Most Jews weren't killed before the Final Solution in 1942 and one million Jews were executed before 1942.
Sleigh (talk) 13:47, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not following you. Who claimed that most of the Jews were killed before 1942 ? Are you responding to a post that has subsequently been removed ? StuRat (talk) 02:59, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sleigh's comment contradicts itself -- first he says that Jews were not killed before 1942, and then in the very next sentence he admits that "one million Jews were executed before 1942". So which is it? 24.23.196.85 (talk) 03:39, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the 9 years before 1942, one million Jews were killed including pogroms though progroms killed Jews before the Nazis came to power. 4.9 million Jews were killed in the 3 years of the Final Solution.
Sleigh (talk) 08:57, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sleigh, the first person in this thread to mention 1942 was you. Whose premise are you trying to correct? --Dweller (talk) 10:39, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The OP asked "Were they killed immediately...?" Not until after the Final Solution in 1942.
Sleigh (talk) 00:51, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see. You interpreted "immediately" to mean "immediately upon the ascension to power of the Nazi Party" while the rest of us took it to mean "once those individuals were taken into custody, during the implementation of the Final Solution". StuRat (talk) 00:59, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vaguely related to the OP's question might be the Rosenstrasse protest, where "aryans" demanded the return of their Jewish spouses and relatives.

As to raping Jewish girls... the nazis seemed to have different attitudes to the issue. From what I gather, many desisted, considering any sexual contact with a Jewess to be a traitorous act of "race defilement". They might freely (and brutally) murder Jewish girls and women, but rape was a different story. However, this squeamishness did not necessarily extend those who fell victim to Nazi brutality for "non-racial" reasons (such as perceived political opponents, female residents of occupied areas, or harbourers of partisans). 58.111.230.117 (talk) 11:11, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Minorities in France

What are the largest minorities in France? --168.7.238.231 (talk) 04:46, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The French census doesn't ask about or record race and religion but a marketing company called Solis (look at Demographics_of_France#Ethnic_groups) made some estimates and concluded that the correct answer to your question is Maghrebis, or people from the Maghreb, who are generally either Arabs, Berbers, or a combination of both of these ethnic groups. Futurist110 (talk) 05:04, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's complicated because people don't necessarily stay minorities. For instance there are a lot of people in France who came from Poland, Italy, Spain or Portugal, or whose parents or grandparents came from those countries, or one of their parents or grandparents did. Those people quite often identify much more as French than as their heritage nationality. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:04, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Judith. The estimates from Solis are from 2009, so they might certainly change in the future. Futurist110 (talk) 17:00, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What's your definition of minority? Surely the largest minority is either males or females — obviously it's statistically impossible for precisely 50% of the population to be male and precisely 50% to be female, so one or the other must be in the minority, but both are close enough to 50% that it would be impossible for there to be a larger minority. Nyttend (talk) 02:35, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My definition of minority for this question is a racial or ethnic minority. Futurist110 (talk) 04:58, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Occitan? -- Q Chris (talk) 10:09, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Widest river bisecting a city?

Is there somewhere one can find a list comparing characteristics of rivers bisecting major cities? I would like to know which city has a river flowing through it at the greatest width. For my question this excludes estuaries, bays, etc., and both banks should be considered part of the same city. I tried browsing the lists in Longest bridge, but most of the bridges don't fit these criteria. --101.109.212.23 (talk) 10:16, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The highest volume river (by far) and according to many measures the widest river is the Amazon River, so that would be a good first check to see if any municipalities along it lie on both sides of it. A good candidate may be Manaus which is at the confluence of two of the Amazon's largest tributaries, though I don't know how the corporate borders compare to the rivers in question. --Jayron32 11:56, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This list gives the names of some cities worth checking. (It does not include U.S. cities.) Without looking at each one of these on a map, I do not know for sure how many of these are divided and how many are on one shore only. Many cities were at one time divided, but in relatively recent times the jurisdiction on one side was made a separate city (e.g., Washington, DC). I would suggest prime candidates for the city with the widest dividing river would be London (by the Thames) or New Orleans (by the Mississippi). → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 12:45, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Thames in London isn't very wide, you can walk across a bridge in 2 minutes or less. -- Arwel Parry (talk) 13:09, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As a starter for ten, the Árpád Bridge is the widest in Budapest over the Danube, and is either 928m or 981 m long, depending on which part of our article you believe. --Viennese Waltz 13:22, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that would put Budapest ahead of New Orleans. The Danube is ~900m / ~3,000ft, while the Mississippi at New Orleans is ~600m / ~2,000ft wide. → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 13:52, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Further downstream, the Pančevo Bridge in Belgrade seems to span 1,134m of the river. Andrew Gray (talk) 15:28, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, all these bridges may be red herrings. The OP asked for width of rivers, not length of bridges. We're assuming that the two can be equated, but it's quite possible that there could be a stretch of river which is not bridged and which is wider than those which are bridged. --Viennese Waltz 15:35, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed - in fact, it's likely, as you'll probably choose to build a bridge over the shortest possible span, all other things being equal. However, it seems a decent proxy for river width in the absence of other data. Andrew Gray (talk) 15:42, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean to exclude the Bosphorus splitting Istanbul ? According to our article, "Its maximum width is 3,420 m (1.85 nmi) between Umuryeri and Büyükdere Limanı, and minimum width 700 m (0.38 nmi) between Kandilli Point and Aşiyan." StuRat (talk) 14:46, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, seeing as the Bosphorus is not a river but a strait, I don't understand why you could possibly think it could be included. --Viennese Waltz 14:54, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly do, as those defs overlap. For example, the Detroit River could arguably be called a strait, in that it connects two lakes. StuRat (talk) 03:41, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They may overlap in the case of the Detroit River, but it's pretty unarguable that the Bosphorus is a strait and not a river, so my point stands. --Viennese Waltz 07:19, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto New York; the Narrows between Staten Island and Brooklyn is a tidal strait, not a river. I had initially wondered if the Hudson might qualify, but the west bank of the Hudson isn't in NYC proper. If we're willing to be a little flexible on the requirement of "the same city" - many metropolitan areas that would be treated as one jurisdiction in Europe remain officially separate in the US - then you could count the Hudson; it seems to be a bit over 1100 m wide at the George Washington Bridge. Andrew Gray (talk) 15:22, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I know that on the Ohio River the widest point is near Louisville, Kentucky, not sure if that qualifies for a world record. Marketdiamond (talk) 15:58, 9 September 2012 (UTC

Arwel Parry, 2 minutes over the Thames, I'm gonna have to check that out! Marketdiamond (talk) 15:59, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I found this great website: http://www.woodlands-junior.kent.sch.uk/riverthames/facts.htm with the widths of the Thames at different places. Of them, Teddington is in the west of (Greater) London, London Bridge is obviously in Central London, Woolwich is in the east of London, and Gravesend beyond London to the east. As you'll see, the river widens out a lot as it flows east, but nowhere in London does it compare with Shanghai or Belgrade mentioned below. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:20, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Yangpu Bridge in Shanghai just edges out the Pancevo Bridge in Belgrade mentioned above, with a span over the river proper of 1,172m. But do you consider the Yangtze in Shanghai to be an estuary? 184.147.128.34 (talk) 16:42, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While looking up the Jiangdong Bridge in Hangzhou (1,595 m), I found this site: Structurae. It has a list of bridges by main span and might be a helpful starting point. 184.147.128.34 (talk) 16:56, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Still in China, now I find the Wuhan Baishazhou Yangtze River Bridge with a span of 3,586 m. But still can't find any claims of longest/widest, so I'm sorry this has not been more helpful. 184.147.128.34 (talk) 17:02, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It would be absurd to argue that the Hudson river empties to the Atlantic Ocean via Arthur Kill or the very strongly south-flowing East River. Hence the Narrows is the southern extension of the Hudson, (most major rivers are tidal at their mouths--the Delaware River is tidal as far north as the inland city of Philadelphia) and the Verrazano-Narrows Bridge is so far the best candidate span within one city. μηδείς (talk) 20:52, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reform, Conservative parties in Israel

I know that there are Orthodox Jewish political parties in Israel but is there any political parties in Israel that serves or advocates the Jews who are Reform, Reconstructionist and Conservative? -- 16:10, 9 September 2012‎ 65.92.155.47

Kadima, Labor, and Likud appeal more to secular-minded Jews than the ultra-Orthodox parties. Yisrael Beitenu appeals to secular Jews as well, but primarily to those who are either of Soviet origin or those who are ultra-nationalist. Futurist110 (talk) 17:03, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

65.92.155.47 -- Traditionally, non-Orthodox forms of Judaism have been quite weak in Israel, with no representation in the official government rabbinate, and sometimes denied recognition (or threatened to be denied recognition) as Judaism at all. The political polarity is more between secular (חופשי) and Orthodox... AnonMoos (talk) 17:15, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't that be "חלוני"? Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:45, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it should. That's the proper name. Either it was a typo, or AnonMoos is trying to say that the secular are more liberated (חופשי means free). --Activism1234 04:09, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, secular-minded Jews in Israel who group together politically to avoid the impositions of the religious often call themselves חופשי (though of course that's not the literal or basic meaning of the word). There's something about this in article Hatikvah (oddly). AnonMoos (talk) 08:17, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say that Meretz is pretty much radically secular, as they campaign on many issues that even secular people feel uncomfortable about (driving on Yom Kippur, for example). But I don't think any particular party advocates specifically for any group, other than Shas for Sephardic Orthodox Jews. As said above, Kadima, Labor, Likud, etc, are all for the general public, and most Israelis are secular Jews, so the ruling government would thus largely be chosen by secular Jews and would be representing them. --Activism1234 19:23, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cory Monteith

Does anybody know to which branch of the Canadian military the father of Cory Monteith belongs? Thank you. AmericanMarinee (talk) 17:37, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to this, "his dad was a rifle sergeant in the Princess Patricia’s Canadian Light Infantry". - Ka renjc 18:15, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!!! AmericanMarinee (talk) 18:20, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question about the Columbine massacre

I have a question regarding the Columbine massacre. I just read Eric Harris' journal and in November 1998, he wrote how much he would like to have "animalistic" sex with a person, and he writes on to state that he would like to "taste human flesh", a cannibalistic rant according to acolumbinesite.com. My question is: Should we add Category:American cannibals to their article? AmericanMarinee (talk) 19:24, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be the week for cannibal references here.

No, unless there's evidence he actually ate human flesh, he cannot be regarded as a cannibal. Someone who expressed a wish to kill his mother-in-law but who very unfortunately never quite got around to it is not classified as a murderer. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 19:42, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You mean "very fortunately never quite got around to it". Futurist110 (talk) 20:18, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That depends on his view of mothers-in-law. :) Dismas|^(talk) 20:28, 9 September 2012 (UTC) [reply]

I loved my late ex-mother-in-law dearly, but in my post above I chose my words carefully, as I always do. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 20:41, 9 September 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Your response is the answer to the question. To put it another way, admiring Jeffrey Dahmer is not the same thing as being Jeffrey Dahmer. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:48, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting how this "brand new" user is picking fights between Canada and Australia and asking sophisticated questions about categories and such only three days after having been born. Why are we feeding this cuckoo in the nest? μηδείς (talk) 20:36, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What's your problem with me?, I am not breaking any rules, and I've already contributed to the ITN section. You are quite intolerant I see. Unfortunately. AmericanMarinee (talk) 20:55, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Medeis, since AmericanMarinee has gotten an account, he has gotten a nomination posted on the front page of ITN, helped out and asked intriguing questions on the reference desk, and has improved some articles. That's a very harsh attack you're making on him, and for no reason. He hasn't broken the rules, and I think his question is very good - not cuckoo at all. Please don't continue this again, you're a great experienced editor and there's no point in it. --Activism1234 21:30, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious, but what's ITN? In the news? Futurist110 (talk) 22:36, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, see WP:ITN/C. --Activism1234 22:41, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It seems a reasonable question, especially since AmericanMarinee hasn't been around long, he's not aware of Wikipedia's categorization rules. Generally, more categories is not always better, as eventually you reach the point where you get swamped with so many categories (and so many tangentially related articles within a category) that the entire system becomes useless. It is best to keep articles within only those categories that they are absolutely the most relevent to. Thus, the Donner Party is an obvious addition to the Canibals category because the Donners are primarly known for being canibals. Hardly anyone will have pored over Eric Harris' journal in such exacting detail to know that he wrote about canablism, and writing about canabilism in one's diary is a VERY tenuous connection to the category, it simply isn't helpful to categorize it that way. --Jayron32 23:07, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Books on Indophobia and anti-Pakistan sentiments

Is there any books on Indophobia and Anti-Pakistan sentiments? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.54.64.46 (talk) 19:52, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is a wikiarticle on the latter topic with some books listed in the references also one good place to find books on any topic is Google Books search. I see a few results immediately on Google. Hope this helps. Marketdiamond (talk) 00:04, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good, reliable articles/online pages about the 2004 and 2008 U.S. presidential elections

I found good online pages summarizing all U.S. Presidential elections from 1936 to 2000, but I need some help with 2004 and 2008 for this article-- Historical polling for U.S. Presidential elections. Thank you. For the record, I just want one or two general sources, not say, 10 or 20 sources. Futurist110 (talk) 22:56, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are tons of sites, as a politics junkie I have always found Real Clear Politics as the most comprehensive (type in 2008 in the URL for the other election), also CNN AllPolitics is very cool, not sure if they archive thou. Marketdiamond (talk) 23:59, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. However, I'm sorry but I should have been more clear. This is my fault. I meant "are there any websites which describe the 2004 and 2008 Presidential campaigns in great detail (rather than the polling from those elections)?". I already got enough poll data for this article. And Yes, I'm fully aware of how the 2004 and 2008 campaigns went and how these elections turned out, but I still need a website that provides a brief summary of each of those campaigns. Futurist110 (talk) 01:02, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

USA Today may help, did you check on CNN AllPolitics? Marketdiamond (talk) 08:36, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

September 10

Title of WW2 novel

I'm trying to find a WW2 novel that I've read a long time ago. I don't remember the title or the author's name, but here's the description: The story takes place in occupied Denmark in 1943 or 1944; the main character is a Danish schoolgirl named Anne-Marie Johannsen, who has to help get her Jewish friend Ellen Rosen out of the country; and some of the plot events include the following: The Germans perform a nighttime search of the Johannsens' home, during which time Anne-Marie is forced to rip off Ellen's necklace with the Star of David in order to hide her Jewish ancestry; at this or another time (I don't remember for certain), Ellen identifies herself as Lise Johannsen, Anne-Marie's older sister who was hit by a car (as it later turned out, Lise was purposely run over by the Germans during a Resistance meeting); and toward the end, Anne-Marie is stopped by a German patrol with attack dogs on the way to the fishermen's wharf, and uses a special handkerchief to neutralize the dogs' sense of smell. Does anyone know which book I'm looking for? Thanks in advance! 24.23.196.85 (talk) 03:32, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Number the Stars. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:34, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! 24.23.196.85 (talk) 05:27, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

US post-WWI "trench-war litterature" ?

Hello learned humanitarians ! Can you tell me which were in the USA the equivalents of, say, Remarque's Im Westen nichts Neues and Barbusse's Le Feu ? Thanks a lot beforehand for your answers. T.y. Arapaima (talk) 09:35, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ernest Hemingways A Farewell to Arms comes to mind. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:10, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Sun Also Rises if I remember correctly had elements of the devastation and aftereffects of WWI. Marketdiamond (talk) 10:12, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Given the USA joined World War I pretty late, and its soldiers saw most of their action after the entrenched front had been largely broken, there wasn't such a vast and traumatizing experience of trench warfare among American soldiers. Hemingway joined the conflict as a volunteer ambulance driver, and thus was exposed to some combat action on the Italian front, but his experience was very different from Barbusse or Remarque's, enlisted men who spent considerable time on the front lines. --Xuxl (talk) 12:21, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot to all ! In the meantime, I found Journey's End by RC Sheriff , but it's British , & appeared much later. T.y. Arapaima (talk) 07:10, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could a former two-term President run for election if a repealing of terms limits was also on the ballot?

Sorry for the lengthy title, my question is this. Say Bill Clinton decided to go for a third term, and managed to get a national referendum to repeal term limits on the ballot to be voted on the same day as the presidential election. Could he run for office before the referendum was voted on, on the understanding that if he won he would only take office if the referendum was passed as well, or could he not run again until the next election when the new rules were in force? If he could run hoping for a 'Yes' vote on the referendum, what would happen if he won the election but lost the referendum? Would the second place candidate win? Many thanks, 130.88.135.70 (talk) 14:49, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's no such thing as a national referendum in the U.S. (see Article Five of the United States Constitution for information on how its amended). But if such a think exists in the future (there has been some push made for allowing nationwide referendums) I'd assume Clinton wouldn't be allowed on since it's likely the change wouldn't go into effect until the next election. Hot Stop (Edits) 14:54, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What if Obama passed an executive order? 79.172.242.173 (talk) 00:36, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

130.88.135.70: "Could he run for office before the referendum was voted on, on the understanding that if he won he would only take office if the referendum was passed as well, or could he not run again until the next election when the new rules were in force? If he could run hoping for a 'Yes' vote on the referendum, what would happen if he won the election but lost the referendum? Would the second place candidate win?" . . . if a law like this was ever enacted (overturning term limits for presidents and retroactive to former presidents) then Congress would fill those 2,500 pages with every possible extrapolation. When you ask all those questions it becomes partly pie in the sky, imagine all the national debate and discussion on health care for 6-12 months, for 12 months we would all know more about the impact of non-term limits then we would ever want to, and Congress would write any answer to those questions it wanted to, so the short answer is if any law like that was passed all of the above and none of the above to whatever extent Congress wants to enact those stipulations, the oldest saying in Washington is watching sausage being made is actually easier to follow then watching a bill become law, well that and a camel is just a throughbred racehorse cobbled together by a Congressional committee lol. Marketdiamond (talk) 15:33, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Except that it's a Constitutional Amendment that would need to be written (because the two term limits are in the 22nd Amendment) which isn't quite the same thing as writing a law. Congress can propose an Amendment, and then the legislatures of the states can ratify it or not. It's not the same thing as them writing thousand page laws, and most amendments are quite short. A more likely scenario is Congress passing something like the Twenty-first Amendment to the United States Constitution, and then maybe adding a clause that says "this is retroactive to past presidents" or maybe "Congress may come up with the rules as to how this applies to past Presidents" or something like that. But not thousands of pages of stipulations. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:00, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also keep in mind that the 22nd Amendment controls who can be elected. It doesn't say anything about who can be on the ballot. There have certainly been presidential candidates on the ballot in one or more states who were ineligible to be elected, and where this fact was perfectly well known to everyone in advance (for example Róger Calero). --Trovatore (talk) 00:51, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The simplest way to undo the limit would be to enact an Amendment saying "The 22d article of amendment is repealed." That alone would suffice to relieve Obama, Bush, Clinton, Reagan, Nixon and Eisenhower of the disqualification. If Congress wanted to preserve the bar for past Presidents, it would have to replace A22 with something more complex and absurd: "The 22d article of amendment is repealed; but no person who, between the effective date thereof and that of this article, was twice elected to the Presidency or served six years as President ...." Or: "Section 1: The 22d article of amendment is repealed. Section 2: Congress may by law disqualify any person who has served more than N years as President from re-eligibility to that office." (Yeah, that'll fly!)

(Me, I'd replace the lifetime limit with a ban on consecutive terms.) —Tamfang (talk) 07:55, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, there's a reasonable answer to "would the second-place candidate win"? Let's assume that there were no "faithless electors", that all the electors of the ineligible candidate voted for him/her. Then, under the twelfth amendment their votes would be conveyed to the President of the Senate (that is, the Vice President), who would count them in the presence of a joint session of Congress. The votes for the ineligible candidate would not count, and therefore no candidate would have a majority of electoral votes.

That would leave it up to the House of Representatives, who would have to select among the top three finishers, except they couldn't pick the ineligible guy. So if only one other candidate got any electoral votes, then yes, the second-place candidate would win. --Trovatore (talk) 01:05, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

History of capital gains tax long-term holdings discount

Re [3] I noticed that when the long-term holdings discount on U.S. capital gains tax was abolished in 1984, a holding period of only six months was necessary to qualify. For some reason I thought it had been five years, maybe before that. Where can I find a table or graph of the rate of the capital gains tax, the long term holding discount percentage, and the qualifying holding period side-by-side? Is this something tax accountants would have handy, maybe? —Cupco 15:07, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Found this [4] Page 6 and on has some really pretty charts on rates and years, didn't search for holding period but it may have that too. Marketdiamond (talk) 15:38, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/TaxTimeline.htm has it - in the 1930s it was a "complicated" sliding time scale up to 10 years, then in the 1940s it was simplified to a period of just one year, where it stayed until 1984 (six months) and the long term holding discount was abolished in 1986. —Cupco 01:04, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rationale behind women-only chess touraments?

What is the rationale behind women-only chess tournaments such as Women's_World_Chess_Championship? Gender has no impact on one's chess skills as far as I can tell. Would these gender-specific tournaments be considered sex discrimination? This question also applies to any other gender-specific tournament where athletic abilities is not a factor. A8875 (talk) 17:03, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We had this question a few months ago, see Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Entertainment/2012 May 17 for answers. To answer if it would be sex discrimination, well, yes by the basic definition of "discrimination", which merely means to make choices based on characterisics. Restrooms discriminate based on gender. The question I think you want to ask is if this represents unjustified sex discrimination. That I have no feeling on, but tautologically a single-gender based anything is exhibiting sex discrimination; and that doesn't automatically mean it is bad. My wife's gynecologist has a practice that discriminates overwhelmingly in favor of women clientelle. That's a fine sort of discrimination. --Jayron32 17:08, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that most of the chess grand masters are male. This implies one or more of the following:

1) Males are better at chess. (Note that this doesn't mean they are more intelligent, in general, as males and females think differently.)

2) Females are less interested in competing in chess.

3) Females are discriminated against in some manner.

Having a separate competition can reduce or eliminate many of these potential issues. StuRat (talk) 19:11, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm willing to bet it's mostly that too few parents give their daughters chess sets to play with at a young age. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:56, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That would fall under #3. StuRat (talk) 02:11, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A8875 -- It's by no means clear to me that "Gender has no impact on one's chess skills". Intelligence testing has more or less established that men and women have the same average intelligence, but males have a greater range (standard deviation) of intelligences -- i.e. compared to women, there are both more male geniuses and more male morons. Also, chess uses skills (i.e. abstract geometric/spatial reasoning) which men tend to do better at (while women tend to do better at language skills etc. -- obviously with many individual exceptions to such generalizations)... AnonMoos (talk) 22:18, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The average woman tends to believe, at times anyway, that she married into the moron end of that bell curve. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:18, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes it seems as if there are more on that end. :-) StuRat (talk) 20:52, 14 September 2012 (UTC) [reply]

"Hey girl... you look as though you have no Boutroses - and it happens that I have one to spare..."

With regards to Mr. Boutros Boutros Ghali. Before I had a cursory read of his article, my total knowledge of him could be surmised so: "Is/was a guy (poss. South American?) who was the secretary general of the UN several years ago. Has a name that sounds comical in my culture".

I was wondering - what is the story behind his name. Why did his parents name him 'Boutros Boutros'? Not trying to troll or be racial here - I just remember how hearing his name on TV always made people smile and laugh, the various jokes/one-liners about him such as the subject of this post (supposedly his favourite chat-up line). --146.90.92.245 (talk) 19:08, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe he was named after his grandfather Boutros Ghali, who was an earlier Prime Minister of Egypt. The name repetition is a bit "funny" sounding to western ears, but even Westerners have similarly repetitive names, i.e. William Carlos Williams, Phillip Phillips, Richard Rich, Dave Davies, etc. etc. --Jayron32 19:14, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And his name apparently translates as "Peter Peter Expensive"... --TammyMoet (talk) 19:40, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

His last name is actually Boutros-Ghali. His full name is not much different, when you think about it, from Congressman Pete Peterson or from Secretary of Commerce Peter G. Peterson, who are both contemporaries. --Xuxl (talk) 20:38, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They are supposed to have funny sounding names. Bus stop (talk) 20:57, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Funny to whom? Presumably, it's a fairly unremarkable name among Egyptian Coptics, especially if Tammy's translation is correct. All of the other Secretaries General have names that don't seem funny given their origins. --Jayron32 21:08, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, TammyMoet seems to be correct. Bus stop (talk) 21:25, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was an oft repeated gag on the 1990s British comedy The Fast Show. One of the regular items was a spoof of a TV channel from an indeterminate Mediterranean country, where the presenters would gabble away in a pretend language that sounded vaguely Spanish / Italian / Greek; the only recognisable words were Chris Waddle and Boutros Boutros Ghali.[5] It was funnier than it sounds - there may be some clips on YouTube if you're intrigued. Alansplodge (talk) 22:19, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now, some people's names are funny no matter what the context. Dick Trickle's race finishes were anounced on SportsCenter every week regardless of how well he did ("The race was won by Dale Earnhardt; Dick Trickle came in 25th place"), and it wasn't because he was all that great of a racecar driver. --Jayron32 23:25, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Although that is a double entendre rather than just sounding funny. Alansplodge (talk) 11:35, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Prince of Nassau Siegen

Charles Henry of Nassau-Siegen and Karl Heinrich von Nassau-Siegen - is this supposed to be the same person?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.161.119.26 (talk) 19:26, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The identical birth dates and similar names certainly imply so. If this is the case, the two articles should be merged. StuRat (talk) 19:31, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since Charles Henry and Karl Heinrich are cognates, I'd say so. The newer article should be WP:HISTMERGEed into the older one, and the information from the two (which does not completely overlapped) should be combined into a single article. I've never done a History Merge, but many admins have, you could ask for help doing so at WP:AN. --Jayron32 19:35, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since no one did it yet, I put up a merger proposal on both pages. The knowledgeable are invited to proceed with the actual merger. Ratzd'mishukribo (talk) 02:09, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Should Canadians fear Iranian response to the severance of relations?

I'm from Edmonton, Alberta and I'm 20, I know that I may know nothing of politics, but I fear the Iranian reaction. Could there be a military action? Cooppeerr (talk) 23:01, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"The reference desk does not answer requests for opinions or predictions about future events. Do not start a debate; please seek an internet forum instead". AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:04, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry then. Cooppeerr (talk) 23:07, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Their reaction just might be, "Who is this 'Canada', again?" 23:13, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

"You mean Satan has a hat?" :) Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:18, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

...perhaps a tuque ? Or maybe Canada is the little Devil on the Great Satan's shoulder, whispering evil ideas into it's ear. :-) StuRat (talk) 23:36, 10 September 2012 (UTC) [reply]

I never thought to stumble upon anti-Canadian sentiment on Wikipedia. Cooppeerr (talk) 23:20, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's not anti-Canadian sentiment. We have a bit of a jokey culture here on the Reference Desks, but it's often very easy to misinterpret online humour as something else. I know I've done it. The small type is usually a give-away. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 23:42, 10 September 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Americans make fun of Canada, and even Canadians make fun of Canada. Meanwhile, a favorite comment from Drew Carey on Whose Line Is It Anyway?: "The points in the game mean nothing. They're like spy planes over Canada." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:02, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Coop, don't worry. Iran certainly isn't sending their military against you, and if they do, a slew of countries will come to the defense of Canada (although Canada has a good enough military in such a confrontation anyway). The only real threat I see is the use of terrorists to perpetrate a suicide bombing or other type of attack in Canada, via Iranian Revolutionary Guards or Hezbollah. Still, I don't think it's worth living your life in fear. This can happen in any country, look what happened in Bulgaria two months ago, when a bus full of Israeli tourists was blown up by a suicide bomber. In Bulgaria. Thailand and Greece also thwarted a terrorist plot which had Iranian links. But should Bulgarians or Thais or Greeks have lived their lives in fear, and continue to do so? Of course not. Should Canadians live their lives in fear? Of course not. And I don't even know if such a thing would happen - I'm just speculating. We have intelligence agencies for a reason - and while they can't always win all the time, most of the time they will, and it's just silly to live life in fear.

Hope this helps. --Activism1234 23:58, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To be perfectly fair, Canadians have a lot more to fear from other Canadians than any Iranian, on average. Case in point, the recent dust up in Montreal. --Jayron32 00:08, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Canada has to be pretty far down the enemies list for Iran. That list would include Israel, the US, most of Europe, many of the Gulf nations, Pakistan, etc. So, judge for yourself the chances of an attack. StuRat (talk) 00:29, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, but remember, the countries you mentioned would definitely have much more increased security and detailed intelligence than Canada, a country that doesn't expect anything from Iran. So if Iran wanted to send someone to attack Canada, it'd make perfect sense, and would be a lot easier for them to do than those other countries you mentioned (again - this is assuming Iran wants to do this). But yes, I agree - it's silly to live in fear. --Activism1234 00:35, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and similarly, Canadians don't expect anything from the US. If the US wanted to attack Canada, it would make perfect sense, because Canada would not be as prepared as North Korea, Iran, China, or Russia. --140.180.247.208 (talk) 03:01, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The old "fooled him with my seven-shooter" trick. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:05, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's ridiculous, no reason US would attack Canada, and I was giving only a possible scenario involving a bombing in response to the OP's question. --Activism1234 03:37, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not exactly unexpected. See Defence_Scheme_No._1 A8875 (talk) 15:41, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are reasons, if you consider sixth-largest oil-producing country in the world to be a reason. Of course, the only time the US would have any motivation to do so would be in some kind of highly unpleasant apocalyptic scenario where oil supplies from literally everywhere are somehow shut off. Such an attack would effectively dissolve NATO instantly, however, so only a madman would be willing to start such a war. This is all completely off topic, of course. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:50, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Except the U.S. has little motivation to do so, since U.S.-based oil companies already have access to that oil, and are heavily involved in extracting and refining it. For various reasons, it is controversial, but the article Keystone Pipeline should make it clear that, once completed, that project should mean that the U.S. has no real reason to invade Canada to get the oil since it's all going to end up in the U.S. anyways. --Jayron32 04:45, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

George Bush: "Canada ? Isn't that one of our northern states ?"

Aide: "No, sir, we aren't scheduled to invade and annex Canada until next year, sir." - Chilly Beach. StuRat (talk) 04:52, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I can't easily see Iran resorting to a terrorist act over something like ditching diplomatic relations. It just wouldn't seem logical. If Iran reacts, I assume it would be in (for example) the economic sphere, such as reducing the access of Canadian companies to Iranian oil projects. 58.111.230.117 (talk) 07:24, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As opposed to all those logical terrorist attacks everyone's always talking about? Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 07:27, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are some. The al Qaeda inspired 2004 Madrid train bombings seemed to succeed in getting Spain to withdraw from Iraq, for example. StuRat (talk) 07:36, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe they didn't much care. According to the Canadian government, "In 2007, both countries reduced their representation to the Chargé level."[6] I.e. they couldn't be bothered to appoint full ambassadors. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:28, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that "couldn't be bothered" played any part in their decisions. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 21:23, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

September 11

Since the internet and public libraries have everything theoretical that's taught in college

Since every bit of theoretical knowledge at college can be learned for free at the public library or the internet, is there anything set up where they tell you what to learn that normally would be taught at college and from expensive textbooks, and one can just learn it on the internet that way to know as much as one would have learned from an expensive education? I don't mean the random selections of free courses, but the entirety listed and said "this is what is learned". Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 03:06, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Public libraries rarely hold the research collection or undergraduate teaching collection that a University library holds. Public libraries that break this rule (NLA Canberra, SLNSW Sydney, etc.) are called deposit libraries, or state libraries and are of a different grade. If you lived in Newcastle, Australia you would read in the University library, rather than the public library system (generally). The internet's "collection" is substantially worse than most university libraries, mainly in indexing, planned collection and access to journal articles. Assuming you could access an appropriate library (University or deposit), you could attempt to read following a curriculum. One problem with doing this is that academics guide students through a curriculum by introducing concepts to students in an ordered fashion aimed at inculcating understandings that allow for further understandings. I suggest this blog post as a review of an amateur-hour attempt at distance education: http://www.angrymath.com/2012/09/udacity-statistics-101.html . Next, most Universities supply tutorials or laboratories, where students engage in action based learning by performing knowledge. Finally, Universities provided assessment and examination, both as a review of work allowing better work in future, and as a way of certifying the knowledge gained. The "Reading course" where an individual student at a university reads material under supervision, plans their own assessment, and doesn't have access to lectures and tutorials typically results in a worse mark. Curriculum content, btw, is hard to come by for free; and, even if it includes a full copy of the assessment requirements including all prompts and questions, you're not going to get the feedback. Most courses vary in their content and assessment requirements and full Universities self-certify through a policing system which compares Course X to Course Y in the same institution, where students may reasonably take a course like X and a course like Y. Again, you're not going to get access to that review or context if you download random curriculum documents. Finally, most Universities inculcate disciplinary understandings of epistemology, knowledge creation and verification, and methods of expression. These learning outcomes aren't factual, but are "thinks like a historian." The University provides a model in the academics, and variant examples in your peers, that learning alone won't provide. Trying to read to match your current understanding of a particular model or ideal outcome will be much much harder without examples lying around (or being reinforced in a tutorial or lab) of how a chemist measures and extrapolates, or how a literary critic confirms a hypothesis by argument. Good luck, but a reading list and learning outcomes list isn't what you need. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:21, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More to the point, there is more to learning than reading. If it were as easy as reading stuff, everyone would do it and be successful at it. A large part of learning comes from being able to interact with ones teachers, to have someone to bounce ideas off of, to have someone who can see what you are learning and help guide and direct that learning, the ability to correct you and teach you as you go. Like, when you think you understand something, but don't, they can fix that. If you have no one who really knows the material who can supervise, it is quite easy to go off course, and think you understand something, when you don't. I suspect that's a big part of the Dunning–Kruger effect; people who never get to interact with people who know more than them don't know that they misunderstand stuff. Sitting around reading books will only get you so far. At some point, you do need someone to tell what you've learned, so they can confirm that you are right, or if you aren't, they can correct you. --Jayron32 04:42, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jayron32 brings an interesting point up in my mind (bouncing off it, in fact). Many working class people used to get an education through the union, the church (or anti-church), or the party. Public lectures used to be very popular. The more thorough-going education in this form involved both reading and discussion programmes. The communist Party School is one example of this. Now the old Leninist parties didn't have the best methodology or epistemology, but damnit they put people in rooms together with reading materials, curriculums and made them bounce off each other. Just pointing to, again, the interactive nature of education. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:10, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Until recently, one missing ingredient has been computers and software, which can make up for many of the deficiencies of reading alone:

1) They can detect your learning style and speed, and alter the curriculum accordingly, say by adding more remedial material for students who are struggling.

2) They can allow you to interact with other students via chat rooms, bulletin boards, etc.

3) Potentially, they can allow you to interact with an instructor, too. However, they either need to be a volunteers or we need to find a way to pay the instructor.

4) Many labs can be simulated online.

So, what's the hold up ? Well, it will take time to have all the curricula put online, especially if it's all to be done by volunteers. However, there are some initial attempts at it, like these classes: https://www.edx.org/courses. StuRat (talk) 05:43, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, sort of. Except there's no substitute for someone who can watch you work directly, and give you on-the-fly feedback. While technically, that is possible via the series-of-tubes, it turns out that most of the so-called online schools out there are little more than diploma mills, and a large proportion of them don't provide the same sort of training that traditional brick-and-mortar schools do. This NY Times article calls into question the efficacy of online school programs, and takes the cynical stance that the entire online education movement is primarily motivated by cost-saving and not by actual pedagogical success. That is, school districts and states are shuttling kids into online education because it is cheaper than actually teaching them with live human beings. Having seen the education system from the inside for most of my adult life, I'd have to say that there is more than a nugget of truth in that sentiment. this article in the Wall Street Journal is far more comprehensive, and also presents a rather dismal view of the online schooling system: it is rife with inconsistancy: some are actually decent programs with high amounts of teacher involvement, but the problem is that those good programs are swamped by the shitton of crappy online programs that are little more than reading quizzes taken online by students. It is quite impossible to seperate the wheat from the chaff in that system. It also notes that online students do significantly worse on standardized tests; while such tests are not the be-all-and-end-all of assessing educational outcomes, they are one measure, and they don't show that online schools do all that good of a job. I can't find it right now, but there have been several studies done tracking the job success of students from online schools, and IIRC, it doesn't look all that good either. I'm still looking. --Jayron32 06:08, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, "for profit schools" tend to think of money first and students last, so I wouldn't expect much quality from them. The link I provided lists some free classes from MIT, Berkeley, and Harvard, and I suspect those classes will be better (once they get all the bugs worked out). StuRat (talk) 07:10, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone through college before and while the practical aspects need in person teaching (I include math as practical too), most of it was listen to a professor and take notes and then go home and read a lot of stuff. Then re-read and memorize. And then the test comes and what everyone is tested on is based on theoretical stuff memorized. There are occasional projects but it's mainly just a rote memorization. The harder professors teach stuff in class and then have nothing in class is on the test, it's all from stuff not covered in the books. I'm certain I can find everything in overpriced textbooks on the internet, the problem however is that it's disorganized. It would work someone wrote a book with homework assignments basically saying "find out this, found out that" and people search, and then it tests them. I've personally not seen anything organized like that myself, a you'll know about the subject if you learn these aspects. Thanks. Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 05:53, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, what you've hit upon is bad teaching in person. The solution to bad in-person teaching is not to replace it with teacherless learning. It's to actually replace it with quality, responsive teaching. It would be like saying "My toilet is always clogged and never flushes right, so I'll just crap in the woods from now on" If you replaced your malfunctioning toilet with a proper functioning one, it would be far better than abandoning the toilet altogether. Likewise with your educational experience. Yeah, you had shitty teachers. But that doesn't mean the teacher is superfluous. Just that yours sucked. --Jayron32 06:11, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well aside from practical learning, everything non-practical was the teacher lectured and we took notes. Or they show a film or something and we took notes. And that was class. In one of the Legally Blonde movies, her classes were all where they discussed the topic socratically all the time, but that was an Ivy league school and I've not seen that myself. And in fact all through middle school and high school, every teacher constantly drilled into us--take notes instead of just listening because in college every class is just taking notes. And then we go home and study our notes. I've even heard of professors that have a teacher's assistant prepare just read the professor's lecture notes while the professor rarely shows up to class. And as per your criticism of online schools, the whole reason things can be found for free on the internet, makes online schools largely a waste of money. All students would need is a list of material to learn and then someone could go to a free forum website and they could all discuss it if they have questions -- that's what a lot of companies do instead of tech support, just have forums. Then once the theoretical is learned, much shorter period of practical training is needed, which can be done by internships. ... of course I'm asking not to debate this or that, but to discover a feasible means for this to be a reality. Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 07:19, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there are several problems which occur in brick-and-mortar classes which could hopefully be eliminated in online classes. These include instructors who apparently don't speak English, don't speak loudly enough, can't write legibly, erase their notes before you can copy them, not being able to see from the back of the lecture hall, the instructor standing in front of his notes as you try to copy them, etc. I once had a robotics instructor derive some equations during several classes, then tell us to implement them to get straight-line motion out of our robotic arm, but nobody could make them work. Since that appeared to be the first time he ever derived those equations (no notes were used), I have to conclude that his equations were faulty. StuRat (talk) 07:26, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My main motivation is just how expensive college is when I could get the knowledge for free online. Even my cheap community college in where I grew up quadrupled in price over the last 14 years. And I'm just seeing it add up and going "I put off all these expenses that cost a fraction of this money when I could get the information for free with a bit of hard work online." People have even scanned their college textbooks and created torrents out of them. I'm just, I could learn this myself for free and then get some unpaid internship at a company to learn the rest. It's basically like this scene in Goodwill Hunting (hopefully linking to youtube isn't taboo here). Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 08:12, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The system of higher education you describe is so vastly different from the post-UK post-1960s tutorial revolution system of mass higher education that I'm familiar with that I'm unable to respond to you in a sensible format. However, any attempt to conduct self-directed reading without an internalised research structure and without serious exposure to disciplinarity will result in, at best the kind of annoyingly incoherent didacticism seen in isolated self-directed learning. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:20, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You might be interested in the company Coursera, which my University recently started offering classes through. Classes are taught by professors at good (not-for-profit) universities, to tens of thousands of students, for free. It remains to be seen how this type of education model works, but it will be interesting.Buddy431 (talk) 16:28, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it Considered Indecent for a Woman to Expose Her Nipples?

In contrast to a man? Futurist110 (talk) 05:41, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't in many cultures. In those where it is, it may have to do with their reproductive function (feeding babies), which men's nipples lack. And breasts are a secondary sexual characteristic, although men's beards are, too, and I can't think of any culture which feels the need to hide those. StuRat (talk) 05:46, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tuaregs? -- AnonMoos (talk) 05:59, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting oddity. StuRat (talk) 06:24, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's some information at Breast#Cultural_aspects as well as at Toplessness#Social_attitudes and Modesty#Generally-accepted_Western_norms. The answer is somewhat tautological: It is considered indecent because the cultural norms in many Western societies say that it is. Cultural norms don't necessarily have mechanistic "whys" the way that, say, a scientific law would have. A question like "Why does the light bulb glow when I flip the switch?" can be answered with diagrams and equations and references to scientific principles like electricity and resistance and materials science. Questions like "Why can't women show their nipples?" can be answered with lots of really complicated and dense discussions that distill down to "Just 'cuz" when you get down to it. You end up with a never ending recursion of "Why" questions, rather than any good core answer. --Jayron32 05:51, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, nipples being sexualized makes a bit more logical sense than, say, ankles, which oddly enough were at one point. StuRat (talk) 05:57, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In Victorian times, ankles were actually the only part of the female body below the waist which was often publicly-visible under form-fitting clothing... AnonMoos (talk) 06:03, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, nipples are an erogenous zone for both men and women, so it doesn't explain the double standard the OP asks about. That is, men's nipples are as much fun as women's are, but men get to bare theirs in public, while women generally don't. --Jayron32 06:19, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's legal in New York state. http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2011/06/topless_bowery.php As for decent regardless to the law, well if she is attractive then in one way it's good because she's pretty but in another way it's bad because she's so distracting to men and it could get so bad it would cause traffic accidents. Though even if she was sub-a-cup and boring, it would still be considered indecent because it's unusual. Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 05:57, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is actually legal in many states. Most states don't make bearing chests strictly illegal, but that doesn't mean that cultural norms follow the law: people's expectation that women keep their nipples covered is a strong one, and may be a stronger impediment to bearing breasts than any law would be. As far as the rest of your answer, I think you seriously need to reassess your place here at a project like this. I'm not a woman, but I can see how many would be offended by your follow on comments, and you would do good to retract them. They are utter nonsense. --Jayron32 06:19, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did not mean it as offensive or nonsense. It's a simple fact that people would react a certain way to being topless. If two men were topless and one was thin and hairless and the other was morbidly obese and hairy, would most people not react differently? And do men who go shirtless normally not in some degree of shape and with little body hair? And if a guy is really in shape and muscular, not just thin and plain would you expect women to react? And if another topless man is in his 90s would you expect people to slightly grossed out? I don't mean to offend, this is how reality is. And you can always test this experimentally if you think I am speaking "nonsense". Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 06:59, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And, conversely, if toplessness was the norm, it wouldn't cause accidents, as everyone would be used to it. StuRat (talk) 05:59, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My guess: the intent of the rule is to forbid displaying breasts. Because it's not easy to define the boundaries of a breast in fair and objective terms, the prudes can't get all they want; but when the nipple appears, the prudes can say "Come on, you can't say that isn't an exposed breast." —Tamfang (talk) 08:05, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Going far beyond avoidance of exposing the female nipple to view, in the US it is extremely rare for even the mere hint of the shape of the nipple to be visible through clothing, with padded bras or padding under swimsuit tops designed to conceal. By contrast, after a famous 1976 Farrah Fawcett swimsuit poster, female nipple protrusion became part of US fashion to the point that department store mannequins got nipple shapes added so shoppers could see that a top would allow some hint of the underlying nips. Today in the US, (original research) nipple protrusion seems more common among women over 50 than in those under 30, who seem to view it as obscene. Edison (talk) 15:53, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And notice that, while male nipples are acceptable at the beach and a few other places, they are not acceptable in most places. Try walking into a restaurant or office shirtless and you are likely to be booted out. Even seeing the shape of male nipples is also considered to be "bad form", in most places. StuRat (talk) 16:24, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note that exposure of the adult male chest in public has not always been socially acceptable. It wasn't until 1936 that the first daring bare chested male swimmers appeared at the Olympics[7]. Alansplodge (talk) 13:51, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Right on. It wasn't the nipple factor specifically. Male nipples have been historically relegated to worthless and pointless appendages, so the mere display of them was considered no worse than any other part of the torso, such as the belly button, chest hair, pecs, etc. But it was bad enough, because the nipples happen to be on the chest, and no part of the chest was to be displayed. Some people have finally woken up to the real function and purpose of the male nipples, but for many they remain the Final Frontier. When that's finally recognised by the world at large, I imagine we'll have to cover up again. Such are the cycles of history. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 22:18, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can't "Insider trading" rules be easily evaded?

I'm no financial wizard, but the practical issue of enforcing insider trading rules in financial markets strikes me as odd. Evasion would seem dead easy.

Imagine I, as an investor, hear "insider" information that a certain stock is likely to soon experience a jump in price (e.g. a takeover offer). Would I just go and start buying up the stock? Hell no - I'd easily be caught.

What would appear all too simple to do, however, is place a "standing order" for the stock in the system designed to trigger at the next price notch upwards. (I'm sure there's a technical name for such an order, just not sure what it is). Essentially, it would allow you to "get in early" once the good news breaks (and the upward price jump starts), essentially still catching much of the price rise. Whilst buying pre-rise would be suspicious, this would simply look as if the investor is "buying into the rise" (which is totally normal and very common).

The opposite would seem to hold true as well. If I own stock, and I hear of (as-yet secret) bad news in the horizon, selling the stock might sound alarms. However, putting a "stop-loss order" on the stock (which would make it sell early in the plunge, once it hits, thus minimising my loss) would seem awfully harder to catch.

Would such actions still be illegal? And, if it is, how would regulators attempt to catch such things? What am I missing here? scratches head

(Note, I am not an investor, so this isn't a request for legal advice). 58.111.230.117 (talk) 07:41, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From what I hear, there isn't any legal advice to be had; the authorities refuse to say what is and isn't insider trading, so they can punish it when they feel like it. —Tamfang (talk) 08:07, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting question, despite getting cute with how you trade in and how you trade out the ones who are usually caught are the serial abusers. Like almost every crime the criminal almost never gets caught the 1st or 3rd or even 8th time they commit it. Everything from bank robbers to random serial killers to shoplifters are because they get greedy, get over confident and there is even some evidence that it becomes addictive. Now if you are one of the 1 or 2% in a position to both financially and by word of mouth to trade inside on more than one stock, even if there are 2-3-4 ways to hide getting in and getting out by the 5th or 8th time your doing this it gets very suspicious very quick. As Robert DeNiro's character on Casino (betting follows many of the same rules as stock trading) caught most of the "cheats" because of how much they won, how greedy/sloppy they got and by memorizing the odds (watching some cheats win 2 or 3 out of 5 all day and knowing how impossible that was) combine that investigative technique with the old Watergate question "what did you know and when did you know it" and a lot of prosecutors have enough to start intimidating you and everyone you know to cough up admissions. The tactic starts with something along the lines: how could a pattern of stock trades always with x% gain or higher always on stocks your pal or you had insider knowledge of be explained any other way when the odds are a million to one against you? Since insider trading is always a team sport, you have a lot of what you would see on the movie Casino Jack where it is a race to be the singing canary once the Feds start the interrogations. Over half of police work is just making sure you listen to the confession, the vast majority of humans have an instinctual urge to just come clean and not live with secrets, the pressure cooker of US Assistant District Attorney staffs playing good cop bad cop with you as your life flashes by and the knawing thought that the others in the scheme are spilling beans and getting reduced sentences combined with that human urge to take credit for things--even crimes, is usually enough to crack those cases. People in finance and running companies and banks are very smart but usually have not one clue how to run and maintain a criminal conspiracy, I'm thinking the first 3 seasons of Breaking Bad where Walt despite his genius looked like a fool trying to keep up with hardened criminals. Marketdiamond (talk) 11:08, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Remember also (though many are confused by it) that Gordon Gekko was caught because of Insider Trading in the movie. The whole "Get me the information" thing. One might say it was just a movie but interesting tidbit, Oliver Stone's father worked on Wall Street his entire career and Oliver basically grew up going down to brokerage and banking houses (and the exchange) with his dad, for most in the industry Wall Street is a very strikingly realistic version of what actually happens day to day in Financial markets. Marketdiamond (talk) 11:20, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The basic answer here is that it is impossible to prevent some level of insider trading, but it is essential to make a very serious effort to restrain it, because investors won't buy stock if they get too strong a feeling that the game is rigged against them. Looie496 (talk) 17:41, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add...Some argue that insider trading should be made legal Insider trading#Arguments for legalizing insider trading. ny156uk (talk) 19:37, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First time I have seen on the Ref Desk a first response of considerable length to a real-life situation but only sourced to the fiction of movies and T.V. Bielle (talk) 17:57, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you are in possession of inside information on which it is illegal to trade, trading does not suddenly become legal simply by using the strategems you suggest. You are still placing trades on the basis of inside information. It would be different if you had a preexisting trading plan under Rule 10b5-1. Would you get away with it? It's hard to say. Although the SEC likes to catch all insider traders, even those who lose money, they do have to set priorities. The very oddness of your strategy might get you caught: Who uses a buy stop order without a corresponding short sale? The regulators have access to market data and can identify odd trading patterns with computerized analyses, so it doesn't pay to get too cute. But you might get through the net, because they aren't focused on strategies that are ineffectual. And your strategy would probably be ineffectual. When there is great good news, the stock doesn't just gradually rise; it jumps. So, by the time your order is filled, the trading price would already reflect the news, and you would get the same high price that everyone else got.

Tamfang: The law prohibits the purchase or sale of a security of any issuer, on the basis of material nonpublic information about that security or issuer, in breach of a duty of trust or confidence that is owed directly, indirectly, or derivatively, to the issuer of that security or the shareholders of that issuer, or to any other person who is the source of the material nonpublic information. There is a discussion at this blog post on when information is nonpublic. John M Baker (talk) 21:20, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It would be particularly interesting to hear more about insider trading by espionage agencies or their fronts or personnel. I would think that they should have no need for public funding, though I suppose nobody turns down more money. Wnt (talk) 21:55, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Bielle . . . Gordon Gekko was fiction?!?, aw you just burst my bubble ;-), to step back just for a moment the OP is basically asking how serious Federal felonies (not to mention rule breaking that can bar you from owning/running a company, get you kicked out of the exchange and have any professional licenses revoked) can be evaded(or to that affect) in the context of non-legal advice, so isn't this all speaking hypothetically . . . or fictionally? The best most widely understood examples would be fiction, and as I said earlier Wall Street is so realistic with character development and actual events it is somewhat scary, with Oliver Stones father exposing him to "the Street" for the first 18-19 years of his life. That said, I did chuckle some at your poking fun! Marketdiamond (talk) 07:03, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Wnt . . . although not impossible to overcome part of the problem for espionage agencies or their fronts or personnel is that your assets are put under a fine tooth comb once you deposit them into a brokerage account in the U.S., Japan or Europe. To come in with the amount of cash to make it worth all the time and trouble would attract serious attention on how exactly ones "organization" was coming into all this money, and the nightmare of many of these espionage agencies is that once a U.S. or European or Japanese market even suspects that it is illicit the government can freeze and or seize those accounts, and now your talking years and years and depositions and witnesses and courts and appeals just to get back to square one. The whole point of having an espionage organization is to not have it know that you are that, as John M Baker correctly pointed out the government (and the exchanges and brokerage firms) have lots of power and access to your data and information. Think how they caught Al Capone, if your into espionage the stock market would be one of the last places you'd want those 100,000s or millions showing up, even worse to have it show up with you intimidating or attempting to buy your way into information and then having to explain not only where all this untraceable money came from to invest but how exactly someone not on Wall Street for a number of years posted these kinds of profits so quickly. There was some news stories a few years ago about the Mafia roughing up and shaking down some brokers and brokerage offices for influence. Now the more interesting stories would be of investors who after a decade or two working their way as insiders in the market then turned to espionage and used espionage in the market and to launder money, but again either the espionage group would need to court people with decades of experience in the markets and with their own large asset accounts or people turning to espionage on their own after such decades long experience, which in a way is how the CIA was founded. When your speaking about those few types of people best of luck getting any complete and actual stories. Would be interesting to hear them though if you did. Marketdiamond (talk) 07:45, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Infant formula -> To Autism? Why no study?

How come there doesn't appear to be a study linking infant formula (or compounds thereof) to the forming of Autism? Wouldn't it be obvious that Autism rates are skyrocketing because something poisonous is being added to the babies' / toddlers' daily sustenance?

I swear, if a substance found in a set of children's products is ever positively linked to the epidemic, this finding could trigger the most epic class-action lawsuit of the century! --70.179.167.78 (talk) 10:18, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How thoroughly have you searched for a study? I spent 15 seconds and found a whole bunch of potentially relevant studies here. Your excitement is understandable, but please try to moderate it in case you unnecessarily frighten any parents of newborns with words like "poisonous" and suggesting the link is "obvious". --Dweller (talk) 10:24, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) In fact,such studies do exist (assuming you mean 'a study investigating the link between infant formula and autism'. I haven't seen a study that proves such a link.) Google Scholar is very useful for this - try searching 'infant formula autism' and you get a number of studies which investigate the link. The top result, interestingly, concludes that "children who were not breastfed or were fed infant formula without docosahexaenoic acid/arachidonic acid supplementation were significantly more likely to have autistic disorder" (emphasis mine) - that is, the study concluded that some infant formulas may provide important compounds (that seem to be present in breast milk) which play a role in reducing autism. You may find different conclusions from other papers whilst searching. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 10:30, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As Cucumber Mike notes, there are many theories, studies and conflicting conclusions about possible environmental causes of autism. On the one hand we have Could Infant Formula Cause Autism ?; on the other hand we have Autism Caused By Breast Milk ?. Gandalf61 (talk) 10:38, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(after ec) It would be obvious; but it is probably not true, so it isn't. Autism is known to have a significant genetic factor in its etiology. Moreover, there's been (proportionally) excessive emphasis recently on cases of regressive autism, where the child develops autistic traits in late infancy, leading to the loss of already acquired skills. The majority of autism cases do not follow this pattern. And it's important to note that there's been much controversy about the way that some autism causation studies have been conducted, and the lack of review they received before being taken up by the press.

It's not abundantly clear that there is an 'autism epidemic' at all - further research is needed, but with historical data lacking, it's always going to be hard to be sure. It's still possible that the perceived increase in autism is simply an increase in detection rates. There are many with a vested interest in claiming that such a thing exists. For example, the web site 'Age of Autism' is run by a communications manager from the Unification Church, or Moonies; hardly what I would call a neutral or reliable source.

The publication of DSM5 next year will probably lead to a reappraisal of some of these issues, as it looks set to amend the medical definition of autism. and that's not trivial; autism is not a transmissible condition which can be subjected to regular epidemiological analysis, but a neurological condition which may have one or several causes. It is not detected by checking the patient's blood for antibodies or bacteria, but by assessment by a trained professional according to the DSM criteria (or the equivalent and substantially derivative European standards). And those criteria are subject to change.

It's worth reading the UK National Autistic Society's pages on the causes of Autism: [8]

The NAS (unlike, for example, Autism Speaks) is well-supported and well-regarded by people who themselves have autism, and is not ideologically committed to demonstrating any foregone conclusions about the causes of the condition. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:45, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seen not all agree, that lead to the conclusions that it is not obvious that autism rates are skyrocketing or that something is being added to baby formula or that the second is the cause of the first. Some people speculate that vaccines are the cause of many autism cases, many more consider it a genetic disorder. See MMR vaccine controversy and Causes of autism for the alternative view. OsmanRF34 (talk) 13:16, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I point out that, as in so many cases of childhood conditions that are neither superficially obvious nor amenable to surgery, the layman's response is to either a) blame mother for caising the problem, generally through non-conformity ("coldness", allowing vaccines, formula feeding, etc., etc.) or b) blame the mother for making the affliction up in her tiny inferior neurotic female brain. --NellieBlyMobile (talk) 00:14, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sexual attraction and ethnicity

Are people predisposed towards finding people of similar ethnicity more sexually attractive than others, or is the prevalence of such relationships merely the result of availability and cultural norms? Ankh.Morpork 12:27, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Articles Allophilia, Xenophily... AnonMoos (talk) 13:03, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah neither of those are about sexual attraction... --Viennese Waltz 13:10, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They're about generalized attraction which can include sexual attraction in some cases. AnonMoos (talk) 13:34, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Physical attractiveness touches on race in a few places. Your question seems like a bit of a false dichotomy - sexual attraction is certainly affected by cultural norms. 130.88.99.231 (talk) 13:38, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I may have been unclear. I certainly understand that cultural norms will affect the nature of people's sexual proclivities and may even serve as the predominant factor. What I am curious about is whether in addition to this artificially induced behavior, there exists an underlying genetic impulse that affects our interracial sexual behavior. Ankh.Morpork 14:01, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There could possibly be 'an underlying genetic impulse', but if so it is an 'impulse' operating on a social construct - 'race'/ethnicity etc aren't biological facts in the first place, and whether someone is seen as 'of similar ethnicity' depends very much on the context. Even if this 'impulse' exists though, it appears not to be a particularly strong one - otherwise the 'cultural norms' (and the mechanisms to enforce them), them wouldn't be needed in the first place. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:28, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"'race'/ethnicity etc aren't biological facts in the first place" - While certain ethnic determinants such as a common history, language or culture are socially designed, there are genetic similarities that are very much biological. Ankh.Morpork 14:41, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

'Genetic similarities' between what and what? Please explain without resorting to social constructs... AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:05, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. The genetic relationship argument is largely bullshit. There are people from neighboring villages in Africa that each share more genetically with a person from France than either shares with each other. What counts for a "race" or an "ethnicity" in one culture is vastly different from what counts in another. The article Race and genetics is a decent read, and notes many of the problems with finding a genetic component to racial categories. The short story is that there isn't one, or where there is, it actually doesn't bear out in ways that justify the arbitrary racial characterizations we have (such as genetic malarial resistance among sub-Saharan Africans). --Jayron32 16:13, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article that you refer to delineates the various positions on this issue and I am not convinced that your summation that "the short story is that there isn't one [a genetic component]" is accurate. Notably, Lewontin's Fallacy contested this line of thought, and was later endorsed by evolutionary biologist, Richard Dawkins. I will add that it is misleading to refer to our tiny genetic variations and adduce this as proof of genetic similarity. By the same token, we should not make a taxonomic distinction between humans and chimpanzees which share a 98% genetic make-up, and would you similarly contend that our sex is of no genetic significance since there are people from neighboring villages in Africa that each share more genetically with the opposite sex then than either shares with each other? Here, Dawkins addresses the significance of racial classification and adumbrates theories involving sexual selection in explanation of racial differences. Ankh.Morpork 17:31, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

However, it is known that people are attracted to people who look like themselves [9], and people who are genetically more similar to you are more likely to look like you. I think Jared Diamond had a chapter about this in The Third Chimpanzee. Buddy431 (talk) 16:20, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is perfectly valid to claim that there is a genetic component to attractiveness. But genetics is not ethnicity. --Jayron32 16:24, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that you can assert that "people are attracted to people who look like themselves" is 'known' based on a single questionable experiment - which said nothing about ethnicity. Not that ethnicity necessarily has much at all to do with how people look. How many of us could tell a Serb from a Croat by appearance? AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:28, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's based on more than one experiment, that's just the one that I pulled off the internet first. Certain features among sexual partners, from the length of the earlobe to the distance between the eyes, show much higher correlation than they do among the general population [10]. Again, I'm not saying that it's all genetic or all cultural, and there are obviously confounding variables, but it's an interesting field. Buddy431 (talk) 16:50, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AndyTheGrump cherry-picked two ethnicities that happened to be very similar. How many people can tell a Chinese from an Italian, or an Arab from a Jew? See also homophily, which has been confirmed by experiments in not just humans, but other animals. --140.180.247.208 (talk) 16:57, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"How many people can tell... an Arab from a Jew"? Or indeed "a Jew" from "a non-Jew". If you want to suggest that there is a correlation between appearance and ethnicity, I can't think of a less useful one than that. Whatever 'Jeweshness' is, it has very little to do with biologically-determined appearance. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:04, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You guys can argue all you want about how ethnicity's "constructed" or false or whatever else, but for most of our history people have defined themselves in these terms so you can't just sweep away that they exist because they have an ugly history.

As to actually attempt to answer the OPs question instead of diving into a generic discussion about race/ethnicity/nature-vs-nurture, which these discussions are wont to do, here's a modest attempt at some references at this desk:

Some OK Cupid internal studies. Perhaps not the same as being published in Science, but on the other hand they have a large dataset and it's people acting in real world conditions, not responding to what they think they should say. There are some very interesting findings in some of these posts: [11] [12].
Here are some more scholarly ones (some behind paywalls): Homophily in online dating: when do you like someone like yourself? doi 10.1145/1056808.1056919
Assessing attractiveness in online dating profiles doi 10.1145/1357054.1357181
Racial preferences in dating, "Females exhibit stronger racial preferences than males....Older subjects and more physically attractive subjects exhibit weaker same-race preferences." 0034-6527/08/00060117
Mate Preferences and Matching Outcomes in Online Dating

There's a lot of research on this subject. Just use some google scholar. Shadowjams (talk) 17:33, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

None of which has any relevance to the question asked by AnkhMorpork - which is whether there is any biological predisposition towards this. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:58, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

rofl... "people predisposed towards finding people of similar ethnicity more sexually attractive than others, or is the prevalence of such relationships merely the result of availability and cultural norms?" If you bothered to look at some of those studies they speak directly to that question. For instance I believe the 4th one talks about how social friction may have a lot to do with those differences, as do changes throughout ages and other issues. But by all means, get back to the tangent discussion. Shadowjams (talk) 22:35, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What AndyTheGrump is saying is that such studies do not in any way disentangle the social from the predisposed (biological). They show that social categories of race matter in attractiveness — which the OP was already aware of, and asserting. They do not explain why. Social factors obviously play a big role, which the OP already knew. The question is whether there are more than social factors. I'm not sure how you'd measure such a thing empirically. Even with twin studies the cultural influences are going to be pretty dang huge. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:10, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Experience can figure into it also. Maybe Grumpy has not heard the expression, "Once you go black, you never go back." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:54, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like this is the sort of thing which could be easily turned on its head by the KKK and other racists. Nil Einne (talk) 05:58, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Were you unfamiliar with that saying until now? (I.e., is it an Americanism unfamiliar outside NA?) μηδείς (talk) 18:13, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to remember that some of the news stories during the Bosnian war described the Albanians as a uniquely attractive people - though I think I must have that mixed up with the Bosniaks and/or the Kosovo War! Wnt (talk) 01:26, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All the world's geniuses

i'd like to get a view of all the worlds geniuses. I have heard that before this generation there has been many geniuses.This leaves a question on my mind,who are they?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.51.2.168 (talk) 20:46, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can start with me, although my reporting that will have to remain WP:OR. See Genius and Lewis Terman. μηδείς (talk) 21:40, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Terman article refers to the stereotype of "conceited, freakish, socially eccentric, and [insane]". Just saying. Ankh.Morpork 22:42, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And? Stanford-Binet IQ test is probably a lot less fun. μηδείς (talk) 22:44, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you want a good scholarly work on human achievement, with plenty of lists, you should read the book Human Accomplishment by Charles Murray, here at Amazon. Unfortunately it lacks many of my favorite geniuses like J. R. R. Tolkien and Ayn Rand because their primary works were dated after 1950. μηδείς (talk) 21:52, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Genius and achievement are by no means synonymous. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:52, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure the OP is fascinated by yours and Pork's suggested reading. μηδείς (talk) 02:10, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Genius is such a squirmy concept, it's difficult to draw the line after the obvious choices: Albert Einstein, Isaac Newton, Charles Darwin, Aristotle, Socrates, Plato, Leonardo da Vinci, etc. I for one wouldn't call Tolkien one. Was Sigmund Freud a genius? What about Napoleon? Steve Jobs? It all depends on your criteria. (P.S. There are more geniuses before this generation simply because there werew more people in total before. Plus any budding ones may not yet be recognized for their brilliance yet.) Clarityfiend (talk) 02:54, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Small pendatic point: there were certainly more people in the deep past, but the current "generation" of living people is obviously larger than any in the past. If "genius" is something that occurs as a function of population (so many per thousand), then in theory there are more geniuses in China today than existed in the entire 18th century. In practice, whatever genetic components to "genius" there may be, its expression, application, and broader identification must surely rely on social conditions of various sorts. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:32, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tolkien definitely was a genius, his work is important in multiple fields, not that he compares with the top people listed in Murray's work, which I again recommend. Murray claimed in an interview that he held Aristotle in the highest regard, and I agree with that judgment. Aristotle, Newton, Galileo, Descartes, Goethe, and Da Vinci all rank in multiple categories according to Murray. Beethoven, Shakespeare, Edison and Watt all rank at the top of one category. Note that all of these names are one-word links to the person involved, except for the last two, whose names are still linked prominently and for obvious reasons at those pages. Avicenna and Averroes deservedly take their place at the top of the Muslim world. I cannot myself from experience comment on oriental culture.μηδείς (talk) 03:06, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you want some interesting polymaths (i.e. people who work in multiple fields to a great degree of success), two of my favorite are Greg Graffin and Brian May, two highly successful musicians who somehow found the time to also be gifted academics. They have PhDs in fields unrelated to music, and also serve as professional academics. Besides leading Bad Religion, one of the fathers of hardcore punk, Gaffin is also a university lecturer in evolutionary biology and anthropology. Brian May is a fantastically great guitarist, built his own electric guitar from scratch (like carved it from wood and also installed all of the electronics and stuff), and oh, he has a PhD in astrophysics and is also a University Chancellor. People who can operate at that level of success in multiple, unrelated fields are quite facinating to me as well. --Jayron32 03:14, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And, he wrote the best Queen song of all time, Too Much Love Will Kill You, and sang it alongside Luciano Pavarotti. --Trovatore (talk) 03:18, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If that isn't enough, he fosters injured wildlife on his farm. --NellieBlyMobile (talk) 00:17, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c x 2) Yes, most of us probably have our own internal lists of geniuses, but if pressed we probably couldn't say exactly why one person's in but another's out. There is no generally agreed definition; certain people are widely considered to be so (Leonardo, Newton, Einstein ...) but there are those who would say that Einstein was the devil incarnate because his work ultimately led to Hiroshima and Nagasaki. But then, who's to say that geniuses are only ever associated with deeds that are uplifting to the human spirit? Some infamous denizens of the dark side have been referred to as "criminal geniuses". Without a definition, anything goes, really. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 03:16, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Einstein came up with the general equation of the equivalence of mass and energy, but didn't do much of the work which directly led to the possibility of the atomic bomb. AnonMoos (talk) 04:25, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would say he didn't do any of it, unless you include signing his name to the grant proposal.

It's an interesting question, though, whether having the theoretical framework of relativity aided the development of the bomb. It clearly wasn't necessary in the strict sense — the experimentalists had observed fission, and presumably the energy derived from it, and in principle should have been able to build a bomb without knowing that it "converted mass to energy". They could have thought of the energy as coming from the mutual repulsion of the two positively-charged fragments of the uranium nucleus (which is, of course, a correct description), and still built the bomb.

But we humans have our peculiarities, and one of them is that we work better when we have a conceptual framework to hang things on. So it might have helped.

Does anyone know whether there's any evidence that the calculation of the mass difference of the U nucleus from the sum of its daughters, put through Einstein's formula, was used by the Manhattan team (or earlier, by Fermi) as a way of predicting the energy output, before experimental results were available? --Trovatore (talk) 08:31, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was used by Meitner and Frisch to calculate the energy released from the fission of a uranium atom in 1938, when they first came up with the physical explanation. Of course, in the spirit of all of the other pedantry, I hasten to add that nuclear fission in and of itself is not what makes atomic bombs, it is the chain reaction. That's its own separate thing; if for whatever reason a chain reaction was impossible, nuclear fission would just be an interesting physical curiosity. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:22, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The blame for Hiroshima and Nagasaki lies squarely on the stretched neck of Hideki Tōjō. μηδείς (talk) 05:35, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

O ye of little reading but much haste to correct. What I said was "his work ultimately led to Hiroshima and Nagasaki". I know damn well that he didn't directly contribute to it and cannot be directly blamed. But some people have made the tenuous connection and pointed the finger. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 09:39, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jack, I just have to point out that, as you're addressing only one person (at least I think you are), it needs to be O thou, not O ye. --Trovatore (talk) 09:52, 12 September 2012 (UTC) [reply]

No, I was addressing everyone who made a comment after me, about the blame for the bombings. Not all were replying directly to me, but all were commenting on the subject I raised. If your comment is really about my indenting, you may have a point. But the editor before me may have confused matters, so best start with them. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 10:03, 12 September 2012 (UTC) [reply]

The connection between E=mc² and the A-bomb seems to have entered the popular consciousness due to the Smyth Report, but Einstein was not actually prominent in the work which directly laid the foundations for nuclear weapons... AnonMoos (talk) 14:22, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia article Mass–energy equivalence#Radioactivity and nuclear energy... AnonMoos (talk) 14:32, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I should have mentioned Maimonides, Spinoza, and Nietzsche, as well as Leibnitz. And, of course, Jefferson and Franklin. μηδείς (talk) 05:29, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Donal Wales.</wiki> --Robert Keiden (talk) 07:25, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to put forwards Roger Bacon to a list of genii. And also, if you look at child prodigies, John Stuart Mill and Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart. --TammyMoet (talk) 09:07, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Darwin: a scientist doesn't need to be a genius. Wallace almost published his Theory of Evolution before Darwin. Napolean: yes. Confucius, Copernicus, Kepler, Faraday, Maxwell: yes. Edison: a first-rank genius.
Sleigh (talk) 09:09, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Even if Darwin had never published, it wouldn't necessarily impact his claims to being a genius. I'm not sure how one can evaluate whether Copernicus was a genius or not — not much to go on, and his version of heliocentrism was unconvincing and incomplete, something he himself knew. I think your list, and this page in general, suffers a bit too much from textbook versions of the history of science, which are big on mnemonic hero worship but bad on facts. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:38, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of Edison, Nikola Tesla is in the news at the moment because of the new Tesla museum. The organizer of the funding describes him a "this insane mega genius" [13]. Card Zero (talk) 11:57, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you reverse the order of "insane" and "mega" that works.--Robert Keiden (talk) 23:53, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jayron mentioned the article Polymath, above. We also have a List of people who have been called a "polymath", which, as the specicifity of its title indicates, has been the subject of endless heated debate, both before and since it was hacked out of the Polymath article in 2009. --Dweller (talk) 11:26, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Judging from responses given so far, we can narrow down the population of possible geniuses to white men (Confucius being an exception). — Kpalion^(talk) 11:53, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to add Mary Wollstonecraft, so I'll add her after that statement. --TammyMoet (talk) 12:30, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As per the above discussion concerning "Hiroshima and Nagasaki", cannot nuclear weapons be put to good use, such as in altering the paths of incoming asteroids or larger celestial bodies? (If done carefully, of course.) The question is a general one: aren't there any potentially beneficial applications for the ~~destructive~~ very large power of nuclear explosions? (Sorry, as this is off-topic.) Bus stop (talk) 12:16, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. See Operation Plowshare, or Project Orion, for examples. Whether the potential for blowing big holes in the ground, or powering cool sci-fi spaceships, makes up for the real possibility of mass annihilation is an open question. The original idea that genius and social good are related seems totally silly to me, though. Nobody can doubt that John von Neumann was a genius, but he was far more hawkish than Einstein ever was, and there's no doubt about his contributions to the development of weapons of mass destruction. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:26, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Our article "Asteroid impact avoidance" also mentions nuclear weapons as a possible means of altering the path of a Near-Earth object. Bus stop (talk) 16:54, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Whether they'd work or not depends on the type of asteroid. If it's big and solid, they're a good idea. If it is loose and diffuse, they're not. --Mr.98 (talk) 18:45, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kpalion, you talk of narrowing but I think of expanding our horizons and looking at the bigger picture. Just for starters, there are heartbreaking works of staggering genius, failed genius, evil geniuses, genius shit, geniuses who didn’t know they were geniuses, schools for geniuses, salons for geniuses, political genius, aqueous genius, comedic genius, black genius, dark geniuses, neurotic genius, billionaire geniuses, supreme geniuses, genius sperm banks, lone geniuses, mythological Genius and his feminine counterpart, and how to keep a genius busy for hours. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 13:05, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kpalion, fewer than half a dozen of the first 20 names on the list of polymaths were probably white. In fact, one user, now banned, complained that there were too many Arabs in the list! More recent entries do tend to fall in line with our general systemic bias problem. But I'd also argue that most of the recent entries aren't really polymaths in the true sense - one of the reasons why the editors of the article (myself included) try so hard to make it into WP:LAME. The preponderence of men in such a list is easily understood by considering that gender equality has barely begun to make an impact, relative to the 4,500 years of history covered by the article. --Dweller (talk) 13:20, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dweller, I was referring to the names mentioned in this thread, not in the list of people who have been called a "polymath". And I'm glad to see that list is somewhat less biased (although I would still count most Arabs as whites). As for female geniuses, perhaps there's been fewer of them because of the phenomenon AnonMoos wrote about above (men and women have the same average intelligence, but males have a greater range [standard deviation] of intelligences). But ingenius women have definitely existed; Mary Wollstonecraft was mentioned above, so let me add Marie Curie to make it two. — Kpalion^(talk) 16:10, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@ Mr 98, Murray goes into quite some detail as to his methodology in Humman Accomplishment, his work is not based on subjective intuition. @ Tammy, Mozart is tied with Beethoven at the top of Murray's list of composers, although he does list Beethoven first. It would be interesting to see where Lennon and McCartney would have placed. μηδείς (talk) 17:36, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't addressing Murray's work whatsoever. --Mr.98 (talk) 18:45, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not aware I said you did. I was just taking your comments seriously and suggesting that there was actually someone who has tried to look into the matter in a rigorous way. μηδείς (talk) 19:31, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously though. If Jimbo doesn't fit polymath where would you put him? polyeverything?--Robert Keiden (talk) 23:53, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of people are polymaths. Even I have always described myself on my user page as a "pauper's polymath". No way does that make me a genius. Not by my definition. Whatever it is. All I know is, whatever my definition would be if I had one, I wouldn't fit it. Others are naturally free to disagree. Very welcome, in fact. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 00:46, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Twelve Tables

This article just simply says this law gave rights to the plebeians but it doesn't not specially say what rights do the plebeians got. So what specially the rights the plebeians got due to this Twelve Tables law? Can someone know the answer just add the info into the article? Or leave the answer here and I will add it to article. Info must include sources otherwise it would be consider as made up information.Pendragon5 (talk) 22:17, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The external links section of that article gives a link to their translation. See http://www.constitution.org/sps/sps01_1.htm μηδείς (talk) 22:31, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Who took this picture?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.128.133.237 (talk) 22:43, 11 September 2012 (UTC) [reply]

That file is poorly documented. The "author" field should identify the photographer, but just mentions the Yugoslavian national revolutionary museum. The actual photographer may be unknown. μηδείς (talk) 22:50, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Slobodanka Vasić (Požarevac, 23 March 1925 – ? ). See for example [14]. Is she still alive? --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 10:12, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Or possibly Radojko Antić (26 January 1927-1971) [15][16]. And here's a print citation for Vasić as photographer:^[1]

Oops. The last one is not yet published. So I guess its still OR for now. --Robert Keiden (talk) 02:17, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, the link Pp.paul provided says that "Slobodanka je mnogo kad pominjana kao najverovatniji autor poznate fotografije vešanja u Valjevu, 22. maja 1942. godine, partizana Stjepana-Steve Filipovića. ", translated that would mean:"Slobodanka is often mentioned as the most probable author of the famous photograph of the hanging of Partisan Stjepen-Stevo Filipovic". The links by Robert Kaiden hold the claim that Radojko Antic (14 at the time, sitting on the shoulders of his father) was in fact the author and the announcement of a book to be published about the subject of the photograph's authorship (apparently this books stance is that the author is Slobodanka Vasic. 164.71.1.222 (talk) 03:28, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, both worked for the same photographer and tell more or less the same story of the picture's origins, aside from the actual photographer. There is another reference here pretty much down the page. The men depicted in the background are presumably Serbian guards. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 16:15, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Davidovića, Radivoja. Stevan Filipović-istina o istorijskoj fotografiji. Belgrade: Čigoja štampa.

September 12

Edward G. Robinson + feeding pigs = in what film ?

Hello L.H. (Learned Humanitarians) ! In Chief of Hearts (The Simpsons, 2010) , I saw the great EGR as a cameo, associated with pigs feeding from some unidentified cruor in a shed : what film does it refer to ? Thanks beforehand for your answers. Arapaima (talk) 07:16, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not a big Simpsons fan, though I don't recall any Robinson film with Pigs (that doesn't mean there wasn't any) could it just be a inside joke with the Simpsons, possibly just ridiculing the fact that Robinson is an immigrant from Eastern Europe and could have easily grown up as a poor pig farmer? Just guessing here. Marketdiamond (talk) 08:12, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The montage shows scenes which remind Homer of Clancy. Clancy resembles Robinson, and, unfortunately (due to the slang word "pig" meaning a police man) he also resembles a pig. See the last sentence in the 2nd to last paragraph here: [17]. I don't believe there is any real movie with both Robinson and pigs. StuRat (talk) 09:16, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks kindly to all — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.200.73.201 (talk) 17:41, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're quite welcome. Are you Arapaima ? If so, may we mark this Q resolved ? StuRat (talk) 21:24, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could be The Red House (film), where he plays a farmer.John Z (talk) 21:35, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to all. I thought there'd be some hint at a film, since The Simpson's cultural references are sometimes deliciously far-fetched...BTW, yes, it was me, riding one of my old iMacs (these dear old hags, with their OS 9 or X, don't know how to log in, but they are so sweet to use...). T.Y. , Arapaima (talk) 06:28, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

International waters on the Great Lakes?

It is 12 Nautical miles but also 3 nautical miles for civil law? Each North American Great Lake spans more than that. Or does the 3 and 12 only apply to saltwater? Marketdiamond (talk) 10:10, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much, yes. The Great Lakes are split right down the middle between the US and Canada, except in places with special provisions (for islands and such), so there are no international waters there. StuRat (talk) 10:17, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good to know thanks for the quick reply! Marketdiamond (talk) 10:53, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're quite welcome. The actual border shows up on any good map. I'll mark this Q resolved. StuRat (talk) 10:55, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? "Pretty much, yes." to what? Is that answering the first or the second question asked? CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 00:46, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I had to think about that for a second, but the last question, and StuRats context explains it further. If I have it right no part of any Great Lake is not at least claimed by either the U.S. or Canada, the borders are "right down the middle" usually. Referencing maps also confirmed, RATS to my Casino boat out of Cleveland idea ala SunCruz Casinos no wonder Konstantinos "Gus" Boulis had to move to Florida from Toronto to do it, lol. Marketdiamond (talk) 08:08, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At least in this case, the international waters rule does not apply. I suspect it's not so much that the water isn't salty, but that you would have to travel through the territory of one nation or the other to get there that makes this ineligible to be international waters. For example, the Great Salt Lake is 28 miles wide at parts, but I believe it's still entirely US territory. The whole idea of international waters is to allow safe conduct of vessels which might otherwise be molested by the navies of the nations which claim them. However, in the Great Lakes, nobody has any business being there without the permission of the US or Canada, since there is no place to go on them other than the US or Canada. StuRat (talk) 17:41, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

For the curious, a little historical context is here. Alansplodge (talk) 13:36, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently there's a small triangle of water between Alaska and BC which each side wants to pawn off on the other. Is that where poisonous jellyfish hang out, or what ? :-) StuRat (talk) 21:22, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, we just want to have our own Bir Tawil underwater. Nyttend (talk) 17:26, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nice link Alansplodge! Marketdiamond (talk) 15:33, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was hoping to find a little more about the boundary commission, whom I imagine sitting in a rowing boat with a map and compass arguing about where the border line should go; however it's more likely that they used a pencil and ruler in a well heated office somewhere. Alansplodge (talk) 21:15, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Heard they sometimes just use darts and blindfolds after a long night of drinking, would explain the non-logic of some border areas. lol. Marketdiamond (talk) 08:06, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why do most republics have ceremonial presidents?

I've wondered why there are several republics have presidents who have mostly ceremonial roles. I can understand a monarchy where the head of state has limited powers, as usually they are monarchies for tradition or tourism, but why republics? Wouldn't it be more logical for republics to have presidential systems where the president is both head of state and head of government, or even a semi-presidential system like in Russia or France where the prime minister is more or less an assistant to the president and is basically a more powerful vice president? Why is this the case in the first place? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:28, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One answer grounded in realism, but without a source: A ceremonial head of state can be tasked with doing all sorts of time-consuming ceremonial things that a head of government would rather not spend the time on. Some potential examples can be seen in Head_of_state#Symbolic_role. --Dweller (talk) 11:36, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Having a ceremonial figurehead helps by having someone go to state dinners, state funerals, etc., leaving the real leader free to spend his time doing more useful things. StuRat (talk) 11:38, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(ec2) Having a president with limited political power allows him/her to be more impartial in representing the nation. The president doesn't need to be involved in campaigning or mud-throwing. Similar to a monarch, such a president can be somewhat neutral figure that facilitates stable foreign relations. - Lindert (talk) 11:41, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is a historical context too. Countries that have changed from a monarchy to a republic can keep the same apparatus of government by giving the president a similar role to the displaced monarch. Greece is an example of this, who deposed King Constantine and established the Third Hellenic Republic in a referendum in 1973. In post WWI Germany and Austria, the new presidents had less power than the emperors that they replaced, but otherwise the system remained the same. In the Republic of Ireland, where there had previously been no self-governance, they were able to adopt system based on the Westminster model that they were familiar with, with the president replacing the role of the king. In the post-colonial period, many Commonwealth countries were actively encouraged by Britain to go down this line, if they didn't want to retain the Queen as head of State. See also Westminster system#Role of head of state. Alansplodge (talk) 13:16, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have made a mistake in the answer above - Ireland first became independent as the Irish Free State which had Dominion status. The head of state was still the king, who appointed a Governor-General on the advice of the Irish cabinet. This continued until 1937 when the office of President of Ireland was created to take over the powers of the Governor-General. India had a similar but shorter transitional phase as a dominion. Alansplodge (talk) 22:20, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Russian patronyms

How do you say the patronyms "son of Louis" or "daughter of Louis" in Russian?--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 16:22, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eastern Slavic naming customs has some background. It doesn't list any cognates of Louis/Lewis/Ludwig in Russian, but Louis (given name) has an interlanguage link to the Russian wikipedia, so you could combine that with the standard patronymic rules from Russian and work out a reasonable answer. --Jayron32 16:31, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Russian equivalent to Louis is Людовик (Lyudovik), which doesn't seem to be a particularly popular name in Russia. The patronymics are Людовикович (Lyudovikovich), e.g. Пётр Людовикович Драверт, and Людовиковна (Lyudovikovna), e.g. Лела Людовиковна Цурцумия. — Kpalion^(talk) 17:14, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just to transliterate (those of us who are completely familiar with Cyrillic easily forget exactly how confusing those look to people who don't), those two very long names that Kpalion posted are Pyotr Lyudovikovich Dravert and Lela Lyudovikovna Tsurtsumiya. --Mr.98 (talk)

And in case anyone is interested, Dravert is a Russian scientist, poet and writer; and Lela Tsurtsumia is "the most popular" Georgian pop/folk singer. Astronaut (talk) 18:31, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Religious police in Saudi Arabia, do they carry firearms?

Do they carry firearms? are they uniformed? Thank you. Timothy. Timothyhere (talk) 17:01, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working on getting some more direct references to answer your question, but in the meantime, the article Legal system of Saudi Arabia has some background information you may find related to your inquiry. --Jayron32 17:07, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Found more. The so-called "religious police" are officially known as the Committee for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice or the Mutaween and according to the Wikipedia article, they are currently unarmed, but previously carried wooden canes as weapons. That article, and the related article Freedom of religion in Saudi Arabia has some more background as well. --Jayron32 17:10, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Timothyhere (talk) 17:19, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is the economy a "renewable resource"?

Hi. While arguing spastically one day my mind conjured up this unusual question. Basically, what I think my question means is: can an economy return its net revenue toward creating more resources that in turn generate more revenue? I'm not considering "pulling money out of thin air", though wind energy could work if more efficient; I'm hoping someone will make sense of my question. Thanks. ~AH1 ^(discuss!) 17:14, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can see, you are simply describing the concept of investment. But maybe I have misunderstood you. Looie496 (talk) 18:00, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Economies can re-invest the money generated in ways that return more investment. There are limits to growth, however (at an absolute physical end, there's the Second Law of Thermodynamics but practical human economies are going to hit that limit long before that). Even renewable resources have finite energy outputs — there is a limited amount of wind energy to be harnessed for example — we're nowhere near it, obviously, and it's a very large number, but it's completely finite. --Mr.98 (talk) 18:37, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "net revenue"? Economies are usually measured in terms of production (GDP). Pretty much everything that is produced is then consumed, so the net is essentially zero (there is some investment, which is basically defering consumption until later, and there is some international trade, which involves the production and consumption happening in different countries, but everything gets consumed somewhere in the end). You're basically talking about economic growth, though, so that article may be useful. --Tango (talk) 11:16, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

John Nash 's "Over the top" : what precise date ?

Hello L.H. . At what date in 1918 did the Artists Rifles's 1° Battallion scramble over the top to attack towards Marcoing, near Cambrai ? The picture can be seen here : File:NashOverTheTop.jpg. Thanks a lot beforehand. signé Arapaima (I'm using an iMac, & the old miss doesn't know how to log in...) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.200.73.201 (talk) 17:40, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The full title is "'Over The Top': First Artists' Rifles at Marcoing, 30 December 1917", do you have a reason to doubt that date is correct?—eric 18:57, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This particular battle is more often referred to as the "Action at Welsh Ridge"[18], in which the Germans attacked across snow covered ground wearing white camouflage suits, and penetrated a British salient in the line near Cambrai. The 1st Battalion, the Artists' Rifles was ordered to counter-attack. A fuller account can be read in The Regimental Roll of Honour and War Record of the Artists' Rifles (1/28th, 2/28th and 3/28th battalions, the London Regiment T. F.) page xxvi. The modern descendant of the Artists Rifles is 21 Special Air Service Regiment. Alansplodge (talk) 21:45, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks awfully ! I added the right date to World War I in popular culture & John Nash (artist). Alan, thanks +++ for your excellent docs. Ghastly...My grand-parents owned a farm in that region, & my father (born in 1910) told me that, while playing as a 12 years old boy in the fields with his pals, they would find here and there some half-buried skeleton. And it was to come back 21 years later ! ..T.y. Arapaima (talk) 06:42, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What were the methods of collecting public housing rent in the 1960s/70s in the UK?

Public housing in the UK in the 50s and 60s was owned by the government or by non-profit organisations. My question is: how did the councils collect these rents? Today, tenants can pay it online, for example. But 60-odd years ago did you have to go to the council with a rent book? Specifically I'd like to know whether or not members of the local council did the rounds collecting the rents from tenants in government properties. I'm thinking about the UK, specifically Glasgow. Thank you! - Kiskispal

Kiskispal (talk) 20:05, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Personal knowledge, based on having worked on old housing files: Tenants could pay at a local rent office (of which there would have been many more than there are today) and there were also, certainly in the earlier part of the period, council workers who would call at properties and collect the rent. A rent card or rent book was used to keep a record of payments. DuncanHill (talk) 20:11, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well in the Black Country we had a rentman come round every week, then every fortnight after about 1965. This happened to my knowledge right up until the 1990s in that case. I also had a friend in South Yorkshire who was the rent lady for large parts of Rotherham in the 1990s. (My parents kept every single rent book by the way. They paid rent for a total of 48 years.) --TammyMoet (talk) 20:11, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Same here. We had a rent collector (and insurance collector, and the baker, and the coalman, and the laundryman, and the paperboy, and the milkman....) coming round to every house in my village in the 1950s, and of course all the housewives would usually be at home to deal with them.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 20:25, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From the Burnley Express in 2005: "Frank Edwards, one of the country's last council rent collectors, has hung up his cash bag after 17 years." Alansplodge (talk) 20:56, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From enquiry. Paying rent could be a problem for a single working person. Time needed to be taken off work to go to the rent office to pay in cash there. Easier if you had a housewife. ~~.~

Wasn't the rent payable at the post office back in the late 60s early 70s? I remember going to the post office to pick up my grannies pension and it seems to me that sometimes my friends who lived in public housing being there to put in the rent money. Don't forget that the post office would have been open on Saturday and could be visited during the lunch hour instead of taking time off. Would the rent office have been open on a Saturday too? CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 00:42, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking about this last night for some time. Many utilities (gas, electric, water) had offices/showrooms in towns for people to go to and pay over the counter, and they would be open until at least 1pm on Saturdays (how generous!). Try as I might, I cannot remember my parents ever going anywhere to pay their rent, and can only assume that, if they missed the visit of the rent collector, it would have been my mother going to our nearest council offices during her lunch break. Maybe CBW's right about the post office. --TammyMoet (talk) 09:18, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking for more information and discovered that you can pay at the post office today. Curious, TammyMoet, but was Saturday half day closing common to all shops? I just can't recall anywhere that closed at 1 pm on Saturdays. Ours was on a Wednesday. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 10:16, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I paid gas, electricity and telephone bills in the way Tammy describes until the mid-1990s. The shops, selling appliances, were open all Saturday afternoon, but the counter at the back where bill payments could be made did indeed close at about 1pm. I also paid Community charge and then Council tax by this method at the counter of my local council's payments office (now closed), where I queued with people waiting to pay their council rent. This office too was open until Saturday lunchtime. (These days, efficiency savings mean direct rent payments are taken by the local sports centre seven days a week, taking advantage of their longer opening hours.) - Ka renjc 12:03, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CBW I'm a generation removed from all this, being a child of the 50s, but to my recollection Saturday was half-day closing as well as a day in the week (Wednesday or Thursday). Factories in the industrial West Midlands worked a 5 and a half day week AFAIK, and they would then disgorge the men into football grounds. The 2 day "weekend" only became common during the 70s, as did shops being open past 1 pm. --TammyMoet (talk) 13:51, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shops in London were open all day on Saturdays in the 1960s, but my father had to work on Saturday mornings at his factory. Banks and offices had a 5-day week though. Not far outside London, shops in small towns and villages were still closing at 3pm on a Saturday in the 1990s. Alansplodge (talk) 20:03, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, everyone. Some interesting facts and recollections, and now I know that the rent collectors did exist. Thanks again! Kiskispal (talk) 21:35, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Euro/US dollar comparison

Why is saving the euro such a daunting task? Imagine that Texas or California starts increasing their public debt to the highs of Greece or Portugal, would that have any effect on the dollar? I don't see why public debt matters so much. If EU countries had independent currencies, they could devalue their currency and improve their competitiveness. But, US states also have different economies, and are tied by one single currency, why is that not a problem? OsmanRF34 (talk) 21:20, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

European national economies vary more than US state economies. For example, the age of retirement varies more. StuRat (talk) 22:12, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the answer may be that a US State cannot legally go bankrupt. Municipalities and certain public entities can go bankrupt under Chapter 9, Title 11, United States Code, but a state cannot declare bankruptcy, and there is no legal path for a state to simply be absolved of its debts. And so while creditors of a state may certainly have doubt as to when they will be payed back, they can have confidence that they will be eventually. So I guess to answer your question, public debt matters because Eurozone members are sovereign states and get to decide what they do with their public debt, whereas US states are stuck obeying a common set of financial regulations. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:19, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The reason states can't go bankrupt is sovereign immunity. Accordingly their recourse is to simply not pay, if they choose. There is no guarantee that state creditors will be paid. The federal government can do the same. The better answer is AnonMoos below. Shadowjams (talk) 23:27, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see I have grossly misapplied the rule on exceptions to the rule. Municipalities have a bankruptcy procedure precisely because higher forms of government don't need one. But does their immunity truly exist, though? From a legal perspective. Under the Tucker Act, the US Federal government can be sued for monetary damages that stem from a contract with to which the government was a party. Is there no similar law(s) regarding state liabilities? Of course it's questionable whether any government can be compelled to pay a debt by its own courts, so there is still no lack of guarantee. I notice that in our sovereign default, it is suggested that no US state has defaulted on its debts in over 100 years. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:33, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the Tucker Act is much like the Federal Tort Claims Act in that the government consents to being sued, usually with reservation. There are similar laws in most if not all States. The obvious reason being that nobody's going to contract with you if they can't ensure you will follow through with your end of the deal. And the tort equivalents are based around political considerations. Chapter 9 is rife with constitutional issues too related to this, that were only fixed by a consent process that's built into it. Shadowjams (talk) 19:38, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OsmanRF34 -- the Eurozone's situation falls awkwardly between a true economic union (where there would be a central treasury, uniform interest rates, centralized control over banks etc.) and separate nations with separate currencies (where in a crisis an individual nation can independently allow currency devaluation etc. to prepare itself for eventual recovery). The Eurozone doesn't really have the necessary tools to deal with an overall crisis, but the existence of a currency union precludes steps that individual nations could take to deal with crises within their own borders. With respect to Greece, the EU has undertaken a long series of temporary stop-gap measures which don't really solve the problem (but just postpone it for several months), combined with relentless demands for austerity which contracts the Greek economy without providing any near-term or medium-term prospect for recovery. The Greeks have had problems with collecting taxes, controlling budgets, etc., but it's not clear how temporary stop-gap bailouts plus contracting depressionary economy really fixes anything... AnonMoos (talk) 23:08, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, excellent answer, AnonMoos. The US Federal government can't "do the same", as Shadowjams said though. It has constitutional obligations to perform the very easy action of "paying" its debts, as a lot of case law before & after the 14th amendment prohibition of questioning the validity of the public debt. There is no doubt that the courts would rule in favor of a defrauded creditor of the USA.

On the other hand, the Eurozone's problems are intrinsic to the Euro & basic features of the treaties creating it, which could only have been concocted during a dark age of (macro)economics, and which were predicted, but dismissed, from the outset. Essentially, rational, ordinary common sense actions by the states & the ECB are superstitiously prohibited, while suicidal absurdities are institutionalized. The real problem of the Euro states is that they have saddled themselves with enormous debts, from the inception of the Euro. They are equivalent to US states, but with the exception of Luxemburg, they are all far more indebted than any US state has ever been. And above all, since these debts are in a foreign currency that they cannot create, they can become unpayable, just as US states, households or firms can have unpayable debts, and the Eurozone superstition/structure acts to forestall necessary central action to help the beleaguered Euro states. If they had their own currencies, as the USA does & the US states do not, then they could pay any of their interest bearing debt with ease, by printing up the money or by allowing matured bonds to be used to pay taxes. In a normal country, OsmanRF34 is right, public debt matters hardly at all. If anything, the National Debt is too small in the US, UK etc.

This security of issuing debt with a stable nominal value, at a controllable interest rate, allows normal states to issue as much currency or bond debt (they're really the same thing) as they please, and to achieve full employment by fiscal policy. Whether or not this devalues the currency or makes the country's exports more competitive is secondary; could be good, could be bad. The European Central Bank is the only actor which can create Euros universally accepted in the Eurozone, so it has enormous quasi-fiscal, quasi-sovereign powers. Following innumerable similar stopgap measures, it has very recently exercised them, over some German objections, to support members' bonds & interest rates. This would be a good thing, but it only does so if the institutionalized superstitions are obeyed, if the periphery engages in purely destructive austerity, which raises unemployment and inefficiency, and thereby makes their debts higher and more unpayable, the opposite of the purported aim of austerity. Essentially, seeing that the Euro as designed cannot work, but seeing that it is a great engine of destruction of European welfare states and the prosperity and security of the lower 99%, the periphery nations are kept alive in the Euro system which is wrecking their economies and will continue to wreck more and more of them. It gives them a transfusion, so that they can be bled longer.

But, US states also have different economies, and are tied by one single currency, why is that not a problem? In the USA, the federal government provides an enormous equalizing role, in many ways, by e.g. military spending - which Congress has directed to every county in the USA, by pensions like Social Security, by conceiving of high unemployment as a national problem - federal spending on unemployment insurance, by any sort of federal spending. Banking is controlled federally by the Federal Reserve System & banks' deposit liabilities backed by the FDIC, not the individual states, so banking crises do not bankrupt & wreck whole state economies, as they have in Spain & Ireland. Different US states have different balance of payments with each other. Some have dollars flow out, some flow in. But because there is a stable currency issuing government over all, hardly anybody keeps track of or thinks about such things. These "fiscal transfers" serve to counterbalance flows of money the other way. In the old days, say, spending in the South would enable it to continue to buy goods from the industrialized North, to the benefit of both sections of the country - the South would get more real wealth, the North would accumulate more money, both get higher employment.John Z (talk) 01:35, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is 0 constitutional obligation for the U.S. federal government to "pay its debts" as you describe it. And if you disagree, please point me to the decision / Constitutional provision that says otherwise. Your first paragraph answer displays a remarkable ignorance of basic constitutional law, that a quick reading of Hans should hopefully fix.... I actually can't even name a federal sovereign immunity case offhand (long day), and I don't have the resources available right now to look it up, but the fact is so basic that our article doesn't even list an appellate case. Perhaps I'll revisit this later, but the point is painfully obvious. Shadowjams (talk) 07:51, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The 14th Amendment's public debt clause (noted above) & even before the Civil War, the 5th amendment's taking's clause have been so interpreted (very naturally) to protect bondholders. The general principle that Congress has the power to create obligations that can bind future Congresses (unlike, say, the UK Parliament) because they are constitutionally protected, and include above all, US debt, has been stated in a long line of cases up to the 2004 (?) Cherokee Nation case (iirc the 1995 Winstar (?) Corp case has a brief historical review & comparison to the UK ). Perry v US enforced the principle by breaching it concerning redeemability for gold. E.g. "Having this power to authorize the issue of definite obligations for the payment of money borrowed, the Congress has not been vested with authority to alter or destroy those obligations." Yes, the government could forestall the courts, but politically there is nil probability that it would for such a suicidal purpose; it never has for such financial cases, afaik. Perry was the closest, and there are no gold clauses any more.John Z (talk) 09:50, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding of the problems in the Eurozone is that you have a disconnect between Monetary policy and Fiscal policy. In a country with its own currency, the two policies work together. For example, if a country has fiscal problems (i.e. it spends more than it takes in), it can correct for those issues partially with monetary policy (by controlling the flow of cash). The problem with Europe (and I can't believe that all those smart economists didn't see this shitstorm coming decades ago) is that monetary policy is handled at the continent-wide level, while fiscal policy is handled by the individual countries. Thus, when Greece gets itself into fiscal trouble, it has no monetary relief. Greece can't control its own money supply to ammeliorate its fiscal problems, so it is fooked. In the U.S., the federal government handles a LOT of the big expenses the states don't have to, things like the military, and it heavily subsidizes the responsibilities the states have, like education and infrastructure, which gives some cushion to the states. In Europe, there isn't an effective system of doing so. In the U.S. the individual states have limited internal sovereignty, but the greater sovereignty lies with the Federal government. The Eurozone flips that relationship; the individual nation states have full sovereignty, excepting for the parts they have ceded to the ECB and European Parliament, which isn't enough to get them out of the mess they are in. At least, that's my understanding. --Jayron32 02:39, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have it there - the federal government does try to give money to states unequally to favor those that fall behind, by virtue of programs targeted at the poor and so forth. But I think there's also an element that people move very freely in the U.S. - there are no language barriers and there's nothing unusual about crossing the country for work or education. Even so, there are definitely regions that get the shit end of the stick, such as East St. Louis or Camden, New Jersey - the twins of big cities reserved to a very poor population that can't support taxes. And the worst turn of the screw is reserved for the Pine Ridge Reservation and such, little zones under America's ever quaint system of Indian affairs which has provided the perfect preserve for corruption, censorship, murder, and Third World poverty. Wnt (talk) 04:44, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When you get down to the granular level, the U.S. does have its failures, at least in meeting the needs of all of its people, and that is well documented. It is also well outside of the scope of the discussion, which is about why the U.S. economic system works well enough to prevent the sort of precarious problems Europe is experiencing right now. It's a macroeconomic issue, and it boils down to the fact that Federalism in the U.S. works for supporting a single currency, whereas it appears that Federalism in Europe is too skewed towards having too much sovereignty among the individual countries. That is, the Eurozone is playing a dangerous game: Greece has enough sovereignty to get itself into trouble, but has surrendered those parts of its sovereignty that could help itself. In the U.S., the balance is skewed in the other direction; certainly the states can get themselves into trouble (witness: California since about 2002), but on the balance the states don't have the sovereignty issues that Europe does. If you really want to over simplify it: Oregonians and New Jerseyites and North Carolinians are still Americans first, so the ways that money flows between U.S. states doesn't generate a lot of questions about the sovereignty of each state. Greeks and Germans and Belgians are not "Europeans first", in either a cultural or legal sense, so there are serious cultural, social, and legal hurdles towards the Eurozone efficiently shuffling money around to deal with problems as America does. --Jayron32 04:56, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Protestants majority nations

Which Caribbean nations are Protestants majority? I ask that because the map of Protestant world by country didn't make sense or confusing. Also, which Oceania nations are Protestants-majority nations? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.54.66.95 (talk) 22:02, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Catholic majority nations

Which Caribbean and Oceania nations are Roman Catholic majority? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.54.66.95 (talk) 22:08, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For this and the Q above, I suggest you do some research at the CIA Factbook: [19]. To get you started, here's their info on Aruba: [20]. StuRat (talk) 22:41, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you find a better source than the CIA Factbook if you want to do research on the topic - the CIA has neither the mandate nor the means to actually find such data themselves, and seems to be remarkably inconsistent in how it presents what they do have. Find scholarly sources instead. 23:45, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump, do you have an example of this inconsistency ? (One possibility is that they rely on local surveys, which will tend to vary in quality. However, I doubt if any ref source actually is able to do the surveys themself in every nation.) StuRat (talk) 23:54, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Examples of CIA Factbook inconsistancy regarding religion in the Caribbean:

CUBA: "nominally Roman Catholic 85%, Protestant, Jehovah's Witnesses, Jewish, Santeria. note: prior to CASTRO assuming power" - rather out of date, I'd suggest?

HAITI: "Roman Catholic 80%, Protestant 16% (Baptist 10%, Pentecostal 4%, Adventist 1%, other 1%), none 1%, other 3%. note: roughly half of the population practices voodoo" - so is voodoo a religion or not? If it is, one would assume that any useful data would include an indication of any correlation between the voodoo and other religions, and if it isn't, why mention it?

JAMAICA: "Protestant 62.5% (Seventh-Day Adventist 10.8%, Pentecostal 9.5%, Other Church of God 8.3%, Baptist 7.2%, New Testament Church of God 6.3%, Church of God in Jamaica 4.8%, Church of God of Prophecy 4.3%, Anglican 3.6%, other Christian 7.7%), Roman Catholic 2.6%, other or unspecified 14.2%, none 20.9%, (2001 census)" - No mention of Rastafarianism?

SAINT KITTS AND NEVIS: "Anglican, other Protestant, Roman Catholic" - no percentages.

SAINT VINCENT AND THE GRENADINES: "Protestant 75% (Anglican 47%, Methodist 28%), Roman Catholic 13%, other (includes Hindu, Seventh-Day Adventist, other Protestant) 12%" - does anyone have a clue what the difference is between 'Protestant' and 'other Protestant', and what makes them 'other'?

Having looked at the abysmal mess the CIA Factbook made trying to report on ethnicity in Latin America, I'd suggest that they are actually doing marginally better here - but they still fail to mention their sources more often than not. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:07, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I love it when someone talks of a source's inconsistency, and spells it "- ency/ent" in one place and "-ancy/ant" in another place. Giggle. Sorry. Please continue. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 00:41, 13 September 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Ooops! Mea culpa, peccavi, etc, etc - though in my defence, I'll point out that seeking consistency (or even consistancy) in spelling is a recent phenomenon, and probably a passing fad. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:10, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's fascinating how many other sources use the CIA data, though. It's cited on our article Religious demographics and another main source cited there, Association of Religion Data Archives, notes it used CIA data (see the entry for Haiti, which also doesn't mention voudou). The apparently most scholarly source in the references section of our article, this paper, used CIA data as one of its four sources (and I'm not even certain the other three sources it checked are independent of the CIA data). The UN doesn't seem to collect religious info. Where else can the OP look? Our article Religion in North America doesn't even include the Caribbean. 184.147.128.34 (talk) 00:49, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Back to trying to answer the question... Oceania has many definitions, so it's not clear what's included, but I'd suggest that to find the Catholic "nations" (another issue in itself) you couldn't do much better than picking those with French background, i.e. New Caledonia, French Polynesia, and Wallis and Futuna, but I'll admit I'm guessing. A broader definition of Oceania might include the Philippines which is pretty strongly Catholic. HiLo48 (talk) 01:48, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Antigua and Barbuda government census - see page 42 for religous data. 94% religious. 10% Roman Catholic. 26% Anglican. 56% other Christian protestant denominations. 184.147.128.34 (talk) 09:45, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

September 13

Hanging Gardens of Babylon

In the "Scholarship and controversy" section, there is a sentence: "There is also no mention of Nebuchadnezzar's wife Amyitis (or any other wives), although a political marriage to a Median or Persian would not have been unusual." If we didn't know if Nebuchadnezzar had a wife or not then why this article confirms Amytis of Media was indeed his wife. The article also gave a birth date and dead date of Amytis, I wonder if they are actual real information or made up.Pendragon5 (talk) 00:47, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That refers to "lack of documentation in contemporaneous Babylonian sources", leaving open sources outside Babylon, and/or later sources. For example, later sources could have been based on "contemporaneous Babylonian sources", which have since been lost. Unfortunately, the farther back you go, the more difficult it is to tell fact from myth, and we must rely on second-hand or third-hand sources, or even worse. StuRat (talk) 01:17, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This page summarises most of the sources that deal with the hanging gardens. Many of them are lost or fragmentary but the story was repeated by later historians. The whole period was a complicated mess of competing empires and it is likely there were several gardens including one by Semiramis 200 years before Nebuchadnezzar. Calling Amyitis the wife of Nebuchadnezzar seems to originate, long after, in Eusebius who got his information from Abydenus who in turn seems to use Berossus. The information from Berossus is quoted (probably via Polyhistor) by Josephus but the queen is not named. Ctesias on the other hand mentions Amytis (note single I) as the wife of Cyrus the Great and Ctesias is the one who places the garden earlier with Semiramis. Both Amyitis and Amytis could be the same person, a remarried widow, or two women confused. No idea where the dates come from, they seem little more than a plausible guess. The whole subject of the gardens is a romantic legend and any truth there may be is blurred behind the stories the later historians embroidered from it. The wikipedia article is just the latest in a long line of texts misusing sources and presenting conjecture as truth. meltBanana 15:28, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

compositional balance vs composition

What is the difference between "compositional balance" and "composition"?Smallman12q (talk) 00:59, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Context please ? StuRat (talk) 01:12, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Compositional balance is an aspect of composition -- it means having a composition that is balanced. Composition is the way that items in the scene are arranged -- balance means that they are distributed so as to create a center of interest, similarly to the way that massive objects can be distributed to create a center of mass. Looie496 (talk) 01:41, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you talking about photography, writing, or something else ? StuRat (talk) 01:46, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

– I was thinking of art...Smallman12q (talk) 22:41, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can I be Regarded as a Philosopher being an Autodidact?

close oft repeated req for opinion

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Please give a straight forward answer and seriously and briefly explain. Thank You very much!

Being an autodidact in philosophy while academically undertaking a Major in Political Science can I be considered and regarded as a philosopher not by just mere entitlement but by the notion that one creates and studies philosophical world view as anybody of such field does regardless of academic degrees? I am so disturbed with some comments that it is only through credentials that one becomes a philosopher I would would like to defy and counter this confined notion by proving that it is not the only means, thus I require supporting views of this topic so once again, can I be considered and regarded a philosopher being an autodidact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BT-7A (talk • contribs) 02:33, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This question has been posted repeatedly, the inquirer knows the consensus on this, but requests that we provide a different answer--we do not do opinion here. μηδείς (talk) 02:39, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Baja California and the Mexican-American War

Why did the U.S. choose to draw the line at the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo at the point that it did? Why not attempt to go a little farther, and say, ask for Baja California or other Mexican territories? Futurist110 (talk) 05:32, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Once again with the "Why didn't" questions. The terms of the treaty are explained in quite some good detail in the article you describe. The article states that the U.S. had considered asking for Baja California, but when one considers that the ultimate goal of the treaty was to secure a workable Pacific coastline for the U.S., there wasn't much impetus to get Baja California: there weren't any good ports or mineral resources the U.S. coveted. The line was picked somewhat arbitrarily, but the mechanism for picking it is described exactly in the article: The U.S. wanted San Diego. Through Arizona, the Gila River made a convenient natural boundary, but west of where the Gila empties into the Colorado, there's not a convenient boundary, so the just dropped a ruler on the map and drew one giving the U.S. the port of San Diego. After the Mexican War, there were some putative attempts to grab additional Mexican territories, essentially by soldiers of fortune who had no connection to the U.S. government. See William Walker and Republic of Sonora. Nothing much came of that. But to your original counterfactual question, what about Baja California did the U.S. Government really want or need? They wanted San Diego and San Francisco, and they got that. There's just nothing in Baja that they needed. --Jayron32 05:52, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Baja California had a huge amount of coastline which would be used for vacation resorts as well as for secure military base locations. Futurist110 (talk) 06:26, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the debate in congress (I studied it years ago) was population, even though New Mexico and California had some Mexican population you had American (white) immigrants in NM and Cali as well as present day Arizona, Nevada, Utah, Colorado and Texas. Part of the debate in congress was the feasibility of somehow assimilating and governing huge wide swaths of territory in the mid 1840s, Baja had virtually no white or American immigrant factor and the the extreme southern parts of it actually had larger Mexican populations then NM and Cali combined at that time. Though not in the Congressional debates per se Bajas long and very close coastline to large population centers (relative to back then) in Mexico may not have been desirable, I say this because it was a common theme in the congressional speeches to place the border west of Texas in the middle of "no mans land" basically to draw the line in desert parts away from natural population centers or potential population centers as much as possible. Remember this is an era where the Southern politicians with slavery as the norm thought in terms of racial politics and even purity and northern politicians were weary of taking more and more Mexican territory that could one day out vote the north on issues concerning slavery and abolition, this actually was a local issue in Arizona and New Mexico even parts of southern California in the late 1850s and early 1860s and is the reason Nevada was redrawn to include its southern tip (most maps had Nevada's southern border aligned with Utah's and present day Clark County etc. in Arizona). Arizona had some pro-slavery rumblings in the 1850s so free slave state controlled Congress shrunk it down. Imagine Bloody Kansas and the Missouri Compromise being compounded with Baja North and Baja South or even other Mexican border states seeking admission as "slave states". Was this really a realistic fear for northerners? Was the lack of any history or tradition of "white" immigration into Baja like there was in 1830s and 1840s Cali and NM really a realistic "race mixing" fear of Southern politicians? Doesn't really matter except that it was the pressure cooker and the real "ends" to the annexation "means" that these decisions were hammered out in. Plus after the Louisiana Purchase in the 1810s, East and West Florida in the 1820s, Oregon and now Texas and the Southwest, you would have been laughed off Capitol Hill if you suggested we wouldn't be taking over Mexico, Cuba, etc. in the next 50 years anyway, who knew then that it was pretty much the last major expansion (aside from non-contigious Alaska, Hawaii, PR, VI, Guam).Marketdiamond (talk) 07:57, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good summation. Thanks for providing that insight. Directly answering Futurist's questions regarding the vacation and military significance of Baja. To put it simply: in the 1840s, neither was a concern at all. People didn't take vacations, at least in the modern sense, so having a place for spring breakers to go and get drunk and laid just wasn't in the thinking. And there also wasn't anything like a "standing army" that the U.S. maintained in times of peace. The modern practice of establishing permanent military bases, either at home or abroad, is a 20th century innovation. Marketdiamond hints at the race politics issues involved in dealing with the Mexican cession, a good read regarding that particular issue is Wilmot Proviso, and the long debate over how to handle the Mexican Cession was one of the direct political causes of the civil war. --Jayron32 12:01, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I wrote a thesis on the Mexican-American war. MarketDiamond's got the main issue, the North did not want to spend lives and money on territory which would presumably be settled by Southerners and increase the slave state vote. See also Manifest Destiny and History_of_Cuba#The_possibility_of_annexation. μηδείς (talk) 18:54, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for all your responses. Yeah, the distance from large population centers, the fear of more slave states, and the lack of whites in Baja California combined seem to make sense and be good factors for this. Futurist110 (talk) 06:44, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Does Anyone remember his Name ?

Eleven years ago I recall my late Father telling me about a guy he had just read of in the paper who had died. There was an article on him, with the obituary. This guy was alleged to have carried out a payroll robbery in 1969, of the Aulesbrooks biscuit factory here in Christchurch New Zealand, ( our version of the Brinks Job ), but his involvement was never proven. This factory one of the places my Father had worked at in the off seasons from the Freezing Works over the years.

The man in question could have been a good league player, but chose the other side of the tracks, getting involved, allegedly dare I say, in dodgy deals and drugs, from what I understand. There was a news item more recently about his daughter publicising his papers and people were keen on finding if he had had involvement in the robbery, but there was nothing there to indicate that. He may even have seemed a kind of DB Cooper type character locally as well, since in certain circles his reputation was known. Back in the sixties my Dad won a prize in a raffle this man had run, and went with a friend to collect a choice of prize. The friend said to my Dad, " What ever you do, Jim, take the money. If you choose the TV, he will know your address when he delivers it, and come later and burgle it back " - such was this man's reputation. Again, to be clear, I allege, as I am honestly not sure what is officially proven about him, and what is rumour. But now I simply cannot remember his name or find any other reference of him. I asked my Dad's older brother, who may have known even more, and he did recall who I was talking about, but not the man's name. If anyone has any ideas, that would be appreciated. Thank You.Chris the Russian Christopher Lilly 06:52, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wayne Beri -- http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10671161 Futurist110 (talk) 07:00, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And the suspected accomplice was Phil Brown. StuRat (talk) 07:01, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, you had all the info needed to do a Google search, which is what I, and presumably Futurist, did. The search term I used was:

1969 "Aulesbrooks biscuit factory" robbery Christchurch "New Zealand"

The first hit was that article. The quotation marks means those words must be kept together as one search term, in that order. StuRat (talk) 07:33, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cory Monteith and categories

Hi!, I'm fan of Canadian actor Cory Monteith, and I just love him because of his early life and his struggles with alcohol and substance abuse. I love the way he turned around his life and became a good person. But my question is, should he be regarded as Category:People self-identifying as alcoholics or Category:People self-identifying as substance abusers?. Thank you. Timothyhere (talk) 15:40, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. This question would be more suitable for the Help desk, which answers questions about how to edit Wikipedia. Our article states (with a reference to an article in Parade Magazine) that he "began to drink, smoke pot, and skip school" and had a "drug and alcohol addiction". These statements would seem to suggest he could be considered in both categories, although given his subsequent 'drying out', maybe he would not necessarily self-identify as either any more. In any case, if you wish to edit Wikipedia to add or change a page's category, just go right ahead (although be aware that articles regarding living people must meet particular standards of verifiability). If you need assistance with editing, this can be found at the Help desk or by asking at the new editors' help page. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 17:27, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How many Canada's and UK's soldiers have died in Afghanistan?

Thank you. Timothy. Timothyhere (talk) 16:38, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Since February 2002, 158 Canadian soldiers have died in the war in Afghanistan or in support of the war."[21]

"Between 2001 and May 2012 a total of 414 British military personnel have died on operations in Afghanistan."[22]

Though please note these numbers are out of date so the real figure will be slightly higher. A8875 (talk) 16:43, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The official list is kept here http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/news-nouvelles/fallen-disparus/index-eng.asp — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.150.38.84 (talk) 17:33, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This list of UK military deaths in Afghanistan including the latest death on 09 September 2012 has a total of 427. This attachment breaks the figures down - 376 to hostile action, 33 in accidents and 18 "others", which includes 7 killed in "friendly fire" incidents. Alansplodge (talk) 19:41, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ethiopian

What college or university in the United States teaches Ethiopian as a language?--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 16:46, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no "Ethiopian language". There are hundreds of languages spoken natively in Ethiopia, though the Amharic language is the official language for business and government purposes; and English is also widespread. Assuming you mean Amharic, this document lists several major American universities that have a course in Amharic. --Jayron32 17:02, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Best performance by a Communist party in a free election

"Thus, in the 1946 election, the KSČ won 38% of the vote. This was the best-ever performance by a European Communist party in a free election"[23]. Was this 38% record a world-wide record as well?A8875 (talk) 18:17, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Offhand, the country I can think of with the strongest Communist Party which is also generally held to have free elections is Greece, the Communist Party of Greece (KKE)'s best year was 1958, when they secured 24% of the vote, so your quote for the Czechoslovak election of 1946 may be the best I can think of. There aren't many democratic countries with a strong, truly Communist party. --Jayron32 19:03, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A bit more: Wikipedia has an article titled List of communist parties which you could comb through to see if any such communist party has won better than 38% of the vote in a free election. --Jayron32 19:06, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some more. In Cypriot legislative election, 2011 the Cypriot communist party won a plurality of the votes at 31%, roughly the same amount as in Cypriot legislative election, 2006 and in Cypriot legislative election, 2001 it was a little less than 35%. Looking back through the rest of the Cypriot election, the AKEL, their Communist party, consistantly polls between 30-35% as far back as Wikipedia has records for. Again, it doesn't beat your 38%, but it is another strong showing by a Communist party in an open election. --Jayron32 19:11, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No contender for a single party, but four different communist parties together received some 52% of the votes in the Nepalese_Constituent_Assembly_election,_2008#Results. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 19:12, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Italian Communist Party got 34.4% of the vote in the Italian general election, 1976. --Viennese Waltz 19:15, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Sandanistas got a substantial majority in the 1984 Nicaraguan elections, which I believe most observers considered to be free and fair. Looie496 (talk) 20:17, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Communist Party of the Russian Federation got the most votes for a party in 1999 with 24.29% of the votes.
Sleigh (talk) 02:16, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- President Aleksander Kwaśniewski of Poland was a former communist who ran under the social democrat banner and was widely described in the West as a communist. He won with 51% of the vote and served two terms. μηδείς (talk) 02:57, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Left Democratic Front in the southern Indian state of Kerala is often successful in state elections. In the Kerala State legislative assembly election, 2011, the Communist Party of India (Marxist) won 45 of the 140 seats, while their LDF allies Communist Party of India won another 13 seats and the Marxist-Leninist Revolutionary Socialist Party (India) won 2 seats - that's a total of 60 seats or 43% of the seats. The LDF took nearly 45% of the popular vote.

In the 2006 election the LDF took over 48% of the popular vote, winning 70% of the seats and led the State Assembly for the next 5 years. Astronaut (talk) 18:18, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

EU border crossing rule

Poland–Russia border contains this tantalizing sentence:

More crossings are being built, as the EU standards require Poland to operate at least seven for that border.

Is there a rule that no point of a (non-Schengen!) land border should be more than 20 km from a crossing, or what? (The border in question is 232 km long.) —Tamfang (talk) 21:18, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe this from the Conseil de l'Europe is useful:

"Therefore, the Assembly recommends that the Committee of Ministers... invite Poland... to establish an adequate number of border crossings at the international land border of the Kaliningrad Region, in particular with regard to small cross-border traffic including local trains and buses" and later "Border controls exist for decades at the common border with the Kaliningrad Region, but the limited number of border crossings does not correspond to the actual demand."

Seems it might be demand led - hardly an "EU standard" requiring such a thing, even if that is what the reference in Poland–Russia border says. Astronaut (talk) 18:04, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for a novel

I read an excerpt of a novel over a year ago and I forgot its title. I think I read it on Google books? It's also well known enough to have its own Wikipedia article. As much as I can remember, it's about an alcoholic writer who pens a novel in a short amount of time and has a sexual obsession with a clay sculptor. Oh, and the cover is yellow. That's all I remember! Anyone with the title would receive a billion thanks! Also, sorry that's not much to go on! 86.11.215.72 (talk) 22:48, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could you be thinking of Charles Bukowski's novel Women (based in part on his real relationship with sculptor Linda King)? -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 12:33, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a picture of a book cover. Also article titled Women (novel). Bus stop (talk) 12:40, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The "wandering Arabs and Tartar hordes" of 1869 Pennsylvania

Pennsylvania's voter ID law was recently upheld by an appellate court, which cited an 1869 precedent much after the spirit of the current legislation, in which the court further explained that to deny the tougher voting rules for Philadelphia voters "would be to place the vicious vagrant, the wandering Arabs, the Tartar hordes of our large cities, on a level with the virtuous and good man." [24]

But the thing is, I don't have much knowledge about vast numbers of Arabs and Tartars in 1869 Pennsylvania. Where did they come from? What happened to their descendants? Wnt (talk) 22:52, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the court was speaking metaphorically. Wrad (talk) 23:00, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, MEH-ta-PHOR. μηδείς (talk) 02:47, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't buy it. Metaphor for what? What meaning would "Arab" and "Tartar" be taken to indicate? How did they pick those two races? Doing some quick searching I'm finding that Tatars were described as "Russians" in old sources, [25] and though only 66,282 arrived from 1898 to 1909, 50% of them settled in Pennsylvania and New York.[26] Of course, that is not a good indication of what the situation was in 1869. It's hard for me to say (I'm not good with faces and such) but it seems to me like the woman on the top right in Tatars might remind me of the unique appearance of people from Hazleton, Pennsylvania, which, though I don't know what it is, seemed to have some unique recognizable local racial identity when I passed through some time ago. Indeed I see that article lists Russians as one of the nationalities who came there in the 1860s. I'm still way out of my depth on this, but I'm thinking it could be some kind of real reference. Wnt (talk) 06:19, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the second half of the 19th century down to Edwardian times, "street Arab" or "city Arab" could refer to street children (who weren't ethnically Arab at all of course; I would guess that it alluded to their being "nomadic" i.e. homeless). Tartars is probably a quasi-literary reference to ravaging medieval Mongol hordes (Gengis Khan etc.). AnonMoos (talk) 07:13, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Arab" also used to refer specifically to Bedouin, who were of course nomadic (and stereotypically thieving, etc). That's what T.E. Lawrence means when he says "my Arabs" for example, although in that case those are actual Arabs (and several decades later). I assume this also has something to do with 19th century interest in anything Middle Eastern or faux-Middle Eastern. Also from a few decades later, there was the belly-dancer(s) Little Egypt, and the song "The Streets of Cairo". Adam Bishop (talk) 09:28, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, here is an article from The Times in 1859, reprinted in Australia, that also refers to homeless people as "wandering Arabs". I doubt there were literal crowds of Arabs wandering the streets of London at the time. Adam Bishop (talk) 09:40, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Oxford English Dictionary, "Tatar," or "Tartar," also refers to wandering thieves, criminals, and vagabonds, or people who are wild, uncivilized, and uncontrollable. Wrad (talk) 14:52, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to these articles: [27] [28], Arab immigration to the US doesn't really start until the 1870s, after this statement was made. Also, according to our own article, Russian American, fewer than 7,000 Russians immigrated to the US between 1820 and 1870. Again, the real influx didn't come until later (the 1880s). Wrad (talk) 15:00, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to me they are talking about the homeless, both urban and rural, those "of no fixed address". Back in the day, some people led an itinerant rural existence, working now and then as "hired men" then moving on, or just living off the land in areas where they could get away with it. The Court does not seem to be talking about specific nationalities.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:37, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a joke? Bedouins and Tatars are classic nomadic peoples who might, like the Tinkers and Gypsies be mistrusted by sedentary property owners as not having a settled address or being subject to a known jurisdiction. This has nothing to do literally with Tatars or something about their physical characteristics. It is called metaphor. μηδείς (talk) 17:18, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, Wrad is pretty convincing. In my defense I can say only that it sounds like the author of the piece I cited was no more aware than I of this implication. Wnt (talk) 17:50, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

September 14

Finance fraud- - bank account fraud not located

Hello.

I'm looking in your fraud directory, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Finance_fraud and trying to find something. But I cannot find this category.

Can you add - or point to a page regarding bank fraud. I know its a scam of some sort, but I cannot find it easily.

A possible title will be "deposit money into bank fraud" ??

Summary of fraud: "I have a friend/business that is giving me money, but i need to to open a bank account, so it can be deposited. can you open a bank account for me."

I think this has a special name of a fraud, but i do not know what it is called. If it exiss, can it be named (or linked from the bank frauds page) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gordonisnz (talk • contribs) 07:22, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds a lot like a Nigerian letter... 192.51.44.16 (talk) 07:55, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More likely the initial stages of a money transfer fraud, where fake cheques will be deposited and the funds withdrawn before the fraud is discovered, leaving the account owner responsible for the resulting overdraft. The various types of scam listed at Internet fraud may contain your answer. - Ka renjc 11:35, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Has al Qaeda ever threatened Canada or not?

I read about the Toronto 18 and the terrorist plot they were planning and would like to know whether those attacks were ordered by al Qaeda or not and whether al Qaeda itself has ever threatened Canada. Thank you. Timothyhere (talk) 13:41, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia article itself says directly and unambiguously that the Toronto 18 were an al-Qaeda affiliated group. I'm not sure what more you need than that. --Jayron32 13:43, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but I mean, they were al Qaeda members or they were just following their orders without being al Qaeda members? Timothyhere (talk) 13:46, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure the al-Qaeda website has a list of members on it, you could check that maybe. </sarcasm> --Viennese Waltz 13:52, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit conflict with Viennese Waltz's joke answer). I think you misunderstand how al Qaeda operates. It isn't a military command structure that provides orders for people to do things. It is more of an umbrella organization that provides funding, support, and training for groups that wish to spread their agenda. That is, al Qaeda doesn't order anything. It does support groups that are interested in spreading a particular type of islamist fundementalism through a particular set of tactics, but it doesn't organize and order anything. Al-Qaeda#Command_structure explains this quite well, and I quote "When asked about the possibility of al-Qaeda's connection to the July 7, 2005 London bombings in 2005, Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Ian Blair said: "Al-Qaeda is not an organization. Al-Qaeda is a way of working ... but this has the hallmark of that approach ... al-Qaeda clearly has the ability to provide training ... to provide expertise ... and I think that is what has occurred here."[47]" and later in the same section "The reality was that bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri had become the focus of a loose association of disillusioned Islamist militants who were attracted by the new strategy. But there was no organization. These were militants who mostly planned their own operations and looked to bin Laden for funding and assistance. He was not their commander." So, you see, al Qaeda isn't really an army that organizes and orders things, it is a term (probably largely invented from the outside, and not by themselves) that is used to signify a particular brand of islamist militantism that uses particular tactics, but that it isn't really all that "organized". --Jayron32 13:58, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I read someplace that bin Laden himself had come up with the term, and later regretted it because it was misunderstood and misused by the western media. In any case, forgetting the horrific nature of their activities, it sounds like an amazingly forward-looking business plan. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:09, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And in this case, the "Toronto 18" were "affiliated" in the sense of being inspired by them. Our article states directly at the beginning that they were al-Qaeda members but who knows where that comes from. Later on there are sourced statements denying any specific link. Adam Bishop (talk) 14:51, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, its something like Wikipedia, but without ArbCom / admins. And its about spreading Jihad instead of building an encyclopedia.--Robert Keiden (talk) 16:08, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any knowledge here, but are you sure you're not being taken in by a story? I mean, lots of groups claim to be leaderless but it turns out to be a major exaggeration - Wikileaks, for example. Wnt (talk) 17:57, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What keeps homeschooling parents in the US honest when grading kids' work?

Obviously, something like the SAT or ACT is reliably proctored, but as far as the buildup of one's transcripts, what keeps a parent from checking off that their kid got perfect scores so they look better on college applications? Do most colleges not accept the transcripts of homeschooled children as indication of their academic performance, or do homeschooled children in most states take verifiably proctored tests so that it is known that they were the ones who took the test and that their parents were not the ones who graded it? 20.137.18.53 (talk) 18:22, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe most states require home-schooled students to take standardized tests (typically annually) in order to verify that they are being taught the required curriculum. StuRat (talk) 18:25, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how this would differ from European countries or any other country, and why the US was chosen specifically. However, generally, being homeschooled isn't necessarily about grades in a report card, as it would be the parent - or the child himself (many high schoolers will simply teach themselves the material) - making up the grades. Clearly, that would be taken with a grain of salt. What's more important are the standardized tests the student has taken, such as the SAT, SAT IIs, APs, PSATs, any state-wide exams, etc, as well as the activities that the student has engaged in other than the core curriculum, for example joining a math club and learning number theory, which isn't part of most high school curriculum. Hope this helps! --Activism1234 18:36, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I only said US because that is the one I have personal experience with (not having been homeschooled, but having gone through public education in the US) I know that colleges take GPA into consideration, and was unsure how or if an equivalent to GPA is kept in the case of homeschooling, since it seems to me that having that in the hands of parents or the student themself would be unacceptable, while a school would seem to be more likely to give accurate, impartial GPAs. 20.137.18.53 (talk) 18:52, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Davidovića, Radivoja. Stevan Filipović-istina o istorijskoj fotografiji. Belgrade: Čigoja štampa.

[1]