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.

May 9

Is there any correlation between the areas of Roundhead and Labour support in UK elections?

The Vendee of France, Southern states of USA, Peloponnese of Greece remain the most conservative areas of their nation as part of longterm sociopolitical trends. Perhaps based on very long duree rural/urban divides. In France there is still a direct correlation between Legitimist-Jacobin areas and Socialist-Gaullist areas today.

I was wondering if there was anything like this in the UK? Any correlations between the areas of Roundhead and Cavalier support during the English Civil War and current Labour and Tory constituencies. Likewise in Scotland between areas of Covenantor and Jacobite support and current SNP/ Labour trends. --Gary123 (talk) 00:51, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, except that the larger towns often declared for Parliament, whereas the countryside often stayed loyal to the Crown, which perhaps echoes today's urban support for Labour and rural / suburban Conservatism. The real hotbed of Parliamentarianism was rural East Anglia, which is nowadays mainly Conservative with a hint of LibDem. The main issue in the English Civil War and its Scottish adjunct was chiefly religious, an issue on which (Northern Ireland aside) we seem to be able to rub along pretty well today, perhaps because many people don't really care about it. Alansplodge (talk) 08:51, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the maps, judge for yourself. Bosstopher (talk) 10:39, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

[reply]

Are there any universities today that have a post-positivist or anti-positivist curriculum for political science?

Positivism is no doubt the most dominant approach in political science. The number of quantitative courses in political science is catching up with that of their qualitative counterparts. Given this trend, are there any schools today that focus almost exclusively on the historical and other qualitative approaches to political science?Rja2015 (talk) 16:10, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sussex European Institute is pretty critical of positivism.Itsmejudith (talk) 19:00, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Positivism needs a link here. StuRat (talk) 00:24, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1850 Double "O" Double Eagle

What makes an 1850 "O" a Double "O". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.27.110.45 (talk) 22:08, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See Liberty Head double eagle for our article on the coin - the "O" on a particular coin indicates it was produced at the New Orleans Mint. Looking through some listings (here, for instance), "Double O" appears to indicate a double-strike, so that the mint mark appears twice on the coin. Tevildo (talk) 22:56, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)In numismatics, descriptions such as "double O" usually mean a mis-struck coin on which the "O" appears blurry or as if there were two "O"s on top of each other. See these double struck coins for terribly mis-struck coins. Coins described as "double O" or "double 9" usually just show defects in that one letter/digit. It's been a long time since I was active in numismatics, but I do remember 1850 is one of the rarest years for collectible Double Eagles and I don't recall there being a "double O" variety. This PCGS resource doesn't mention any either. However, that doesn't mean that there aren't a few individual coins that may show errors on the "O" still around. It is called a "Double Eagle" because the Eagle (United States coin) was worth $10, so the "Double Eagle" was originally worth $20.--William Thweatt ^Talk^Contribs 23:13, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The few listings for "Double-O" Double Eagles that I found were for coins recovered from the wreck of the SS Republic. I'm not sure if this enables a more precise answer to the OP's question. Tevildo (talk) 00:06, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is England and/or Britain really planning to leave the EU unless they can get more Big Brother laws?

According to [1], "Cameron has projected ambivalence on the issue, saying he wants the country to remain inside Europe, but only if he can win critical changes to the E.U. charter — changes his European allies have repeatedly said they are unwilling to grant." The article doesn't explain that; searching recent news I found [2] which says "Following the 7/7 bombings in London in 2005, the British shaped an EU data retention directive, adopted the following year, allowing the capture and storage of electronic communications. But last April the European Court of Justice struck down the directive as in breach of the EU’s charter of fundamental rights." (It also talks about Cameron seeking to ban encryption, even Snapchat!)

Is the British leadership, newly ratified by its people, really so dead-set on expanding spying beyond even the current extraordinary state that they would leave the EU to be ~~hindered~~ rid of troublesome constitutional limits? Wnt (talk) 23:08, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

By "hindered of" do you mean "rid of" ? And it might just be a negotiating tactic, but the whole point would then be to convince everyone it's not just a bluff, making it difficult for us to know. StuRat (talk) 00:11, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Per the header on every reference desk We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate. You should know this. --Jayron 32 02:05, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The first news article made a statement: "Cameron has projected ambivalence on the issue, saying he wants the country to remain inside Europe, but only if he can win critical changes to the E.U. charter — changes his European allies have repeatedly said they are unwilling to grant." My question is what those changes are. The article refers to past-tense discussions about them, so they should be known, no crystal ball required. Wnt (talk) 02:58, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The side standing up for freedom to compute and against overweening state presence is — the EU? God help us. --Trovatore (talk) 03:39, 10 May 2015 (UTC) [reply]

See this article from the Daily Telegraph (with a linked video of David Cameron's speech) for his opinions on the subject as expressed last year. The main issues are border controls and immigration, and Parlimentary soveriegnty - although he doesn't mention them explicitly, the two main factors in this area which have raised political hackles recently are prisoner voting rights (see Hirst v United Kingdom (No 2)) and whole-life tariffs, not anti-terrorism legislation specifically. This article from the Guardian says "[T]he expectation in EU capitals is that the prime minister will unfold his shopping list at a Brussels summit on 21 June." Tevildo (talk) 08:01, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I should recap that the first article cites the following:

1 New controls to stop “vast migrations” across the continent when new countries join the EU;

2 Tighter immigration rules to ensure that migrants come to Britain to work, not as tourists planning to cash in on “free benefits”;

3 A new power for groups of national parliaments to work together to block unwanted European legislation;

4 Businesses to be freed from red tape and “excessive interference” from Brussels, and given access to new markets through “turbo charging” free trade deals with America and Asia;

5 British police and courts liberated from “unnecessary interference” from the European Court of Human Rights;

6 More power “flowing away” from Brussels to Britain and other member states, rather than increasingly centralising laws in the EU;

7 Abolishing the principle of “ever closer union” among EU member states, which Mr Cameron says is “not right for Britain”.

So it appears #5 really is to scrap any EU bill of rights, which so far as I know would leave Britain entirely without one. Scrapping the Schengen Area seems to be the gist of 1 and 2. I don't understand the others as well, but it amazes me that the two best things I know of about the EU are the things he campaigned on getting rid of, and the public supports him on that. Wnt (talk) 12:10, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK the Conservative Party under David Cameron wants to replace the Human Rights Act 1998 with a new UK Bill of Rights [3] [4]. Ideally I think the Conservative Party doesn't want the European Convention on Human Rights to be considered at all by the European Court of Human Rights or to be able to ignore it if they do [5]. And Parliamentary sovereignty in the United Kingdom may mean the Bill of Rights would have a more limited effect on laws, whatever the talk of entrenchment. So there are concerns over what the new Bill of Rights will actually mean if the Conservative Party get their way (although wikipedia isn't the place to discuss such concerns). But I don't think it's Conservative Party policy to have no bill of rights. Nil Einne (talk) 14:36, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, though it amazes me that people would support a "To Be Announced" bill of rights. Wnt (talk) 15:24, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Forty years ago it was the Labour government seeking renegotiations and holding an "in/out" referendum. However, the government went on to campaign to remain in what was at that time the EEC, supported by the Conservative opposition, led by Margaret Thatcher. Thincat (talk) 08:26, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sounds ironic if one doesn't look at the difference, but fourty years ago the idea was a free-trade customs union, not a metastasizing Brusselocracy. Britain has never surrendered monetary sovereignty. μηδείς (talk) 16:31, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

May 10

Is it easier to sell a commercial property in China with or without a restaurant lessee?

We don't answer requests for opinions.... If you need specific advice (for example, medical, legal, financial or risk management), please seek a professional who is licensed or knowledgeable in that area.

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

Thanks. Imagine Reason (talk) 09:47, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We can neither offer an opinion nor financial or legal advice. μηδείς (talk) 14:51, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Debt

Is there a list showing how much debt each country is in? 84.13.22.227 (talk) 12:16, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See List of countries by external debt. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (もしもし！) 12:32, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That list includes private debt, a table which shows the amount that governments are in debt would be found at List of countries by public debt under the heading "Net government debt as % of GDP". 173.32.72.65 (talk) 18:18, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jehovah's Witnesses and the name "Jehovah"

I have two questions regarding the Jehovah's Witnesses, both involving their use of the name "Jehovah".

1. Exactly why did they decide on the name Jehovah's Witnesses? I am aware that the "Witnesses" part comes from Isaiah 43:10, but that verse says "Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD" ("the LORD" originally being the Tetragrammaton, usually rendered in Bibles as such, though some Bibles, notably the Witnesses' New World Translation, render it as "Jehovah" instead), and not all Bibles render the Tetragrammaton as "Jehovah", so why did they choose the name "Jehovah" in particular, rather than use, say "Yahweh's Witnesses", "Christ's Witnesses", or "God's Witnesses"?

2. Biblical scholarship , before, during, and after the time of Joseph F. Rutherford (the Watchtower President who introduced the name "Jehovah's Witnesses") had debunked the name "Jehovah", saying that the word would have been impossible in ancient Hebrew, and most scholars today that the Tetragrammaton was originally pronounced "Yahweh". Why do the Witnesses continue to use the name "Jehovah" when it has already been debunked by scholars?

And before anyone asks, I've read the relevant articles on the Witnesses and Jehovah, but neither of these articles answer my question, other than, to quote our article on Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs, they "believe only their religion is making God's name known."

@Wavelength: @Jeffro77:

Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 15:13, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is briefly mentioned in the article of Jehovah, saying that they use the Authorized King James Version (1611) version of the Bible as an example, it uses the word Jehovah. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (もしもし！) 15:38, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@KageTora: The article does not mention why they decided to use "Jehovah" rather than, say "Yahweh". Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 23:01, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your first question is answered by their article at http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1102012143, and your second question is answered by their article at http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200002391.

—Wavelength (talk) 16:52, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Wavelength: Neither of your links answered my questions. The first link does not mention exactly why they decided to use the name "Jehovah" rather than "Yahweh" or other transliterations of the Tetragrammaton. The second link, on the other hand, does not mention exactly why they continue to use the name "Jehovah" even though they acknowledge that the Tetragrammaton was most likely pronounced "Yahweh". Given that they believe that the use of God's personal name is important, I would have assumed that they would have made steps to ensure that the name they actually used was historically correct (meaning they would have dropped "Jehovah" as soon as scholarly consensus that it was inaccurate took hold and used "Yahweh" instead). Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 23:01, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200002391?q=%22What+is+the+proper+pronunciation+of+God’s+name%22&p=par?

—Wavelength (talk) 00:31, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The JHV part, at least, was the Latinized version of YHW(H).[6] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:15, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Prior to the Watch Tower Society's production of their own translation, the JWs generally preferred the American Standard Version, which uses Jehovah throughout. JWs' emphasis on the name Jehovah was primarily a result of Joseph Rutherford's efforts to distinguish his group from other Bible Student movement groups (who preferred the King James Version), with special emphasis of the name beginning in 1926. Prior to Rutherford, Charles Russell only occasionally used the name Jehovah, and did not use that name exclusively. See also Development of Jehovah's Witnesses doctrine#1920–1929 and American Standard Version#Usage by Jehovah's Witnesses. The reason JWs continue to prefer the term not preferred by scholars is much the same as Rutherford's—to appear distinctive.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:22, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Non-fiction Classification Pre-Dewey Decimal

What were the various ways that libraries classified non-fiction books before the widespread adoption of the Dewey Decimal System? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.183.146.98 (talk) 15:26, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What an interesting question to research. I've stumbled across The "Amherst Method": The Origins of the Dewey Decimal Classification Scheme"; not sure if this has the answer to your question, but it's an interesting read about the history of the Dewey system. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:55, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some classified books by alphabetically by title, or by author's name. Believe it or not, some even organized them by physical size. Bear in mind that this wasn't as big of a problem in many cases as it would be today, since many libraries of the period had closed stacks, i.e. you had to request the book you wanted, and you couldn't just go and get it yourself. In such a situation, classification only serves to make it simpler for the librarian to find books when asked: if you're really familiar with a small collection, you can use whatever idiosyncratic system you feel like, since you're the only one using it. However, some libraries did classify by subject; the basis of the current Library of Congress collection is Thomas Jefferson's personal library (they bought it after the British burned the original collection), and if I remember rightly, the Library of Congress Classification system was developed from the subject classification that Jefferson had himself used. Nyttend (talk) 19:49, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Au contraire; it was designed specifically to replace Jefferson's "fixed location system", at least according to Wikipedia. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 20:55, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what that means; it would help if the article had a citation there. See the Library's page about Jefferson's books. "In Thomas Jefferson's day, most libraries were arranged alphabetically. But Jefferson preferred to arrange his by subject. He chose Lord Bacon's table of science, the hierarchy of Memory (History), Reason (Philosophy) and Imagination (Fine Arts) to order his arrangement of books by subject with some modifications. The resulting arrangement as illustrated in the Nicholas Trist (1800–1870) copy of Jefferson's library catalog for 1815 is a combination of subject and chronology. In practice, however, Jefferson shelved his books by size." Nyttend (talk) 21:42, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cambridge University Library uses a fixed location system: the index is primarily by subject, but the final reference to a book is not just to the subject area within the library, but to the specific shelf and the number of the volume on that shelf. --ColinFine (talk) 17:14, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question about how WW2 ended the Great Depression in America

I'm trying to understand how is this not a broken windows fallacy? Let's say you have two parallel universe one where WW2 happened and one where it didn't. Let's say in this parallel universe, they spend tons of money on military technology just like we do, except the only difference is that it's not actually being used in warfare. So it's just building up more and more weaponry. Where does any additional wealth come from? Sure specific entities can get richer, the ones who make the weapons, but the country overall doesn't acquire any new wealth in fact it just loses money from dumping it all into weaponry. So it stands to reason that the great depression wasn't ended simply due to massive military spending, wealth had to be acquired externally correct? Malamockq (talk) 18:10, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's a common myth that you're talking about. Fighting doesn't help the economy, what helped end the great depression was the government's massive spending which created a massive number of local jobs. 173.32.72.65 (talk) 18:24, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But of course the wealth didn't come from nowhere; the government got vast amounts of additional money from war bonds and higher taxes, so people would have had less to spend by themselves. However, the citizenry became more productive (tons and tons of people working extra hours; tons of women entering the workforce, etc.), and anyway average people were more willing to see higher taxes and to buy government bonds because average people were strongly in favor of the war. The same situation wouldn't have worked to a comparable extent had the citizenry been divided in 1943 as strongly as they were a quarter-century later. Nyttend (talk) 19:46, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Excess profits tax stalled the Trickle-up effect. Thus, workers had more money and freed up more working capital. Thus, the US economy came out of the war richer than when it entered. Think of it in terms that when a CEO spends oodles of dollars on a luxury yacht, he is actually diverting away money that could go into something that produces more wealth for the US in general. The Excess Profits Tax kept those oodles of dollars in the economy. --Aspro (talk) 20:53, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above Keynesianism is utter rubbish. Given the privations during the war, American workers who'd been digging and refilling ditches in the 30's came home and built homes and cars and fridges in the late 40's. Just as we ended the makework of the New Deal once the war was over, Britain immediately adopted outright socialism and continued to starve for another 5 years. μηδείς (talk) 21:18, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Citation needed on that one. Precisely which British post-war policy adversely affected the food supply and how? Alansplodge (talk) 21:25, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If Medeis googled Quaker Capitalism she would realize that I was not talking Keynesianism. So just forget her comment as not applicable.--Aspro (talk) 22:10, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As usual Medy is applying politics to reality, thereby turning it into utter bollocks. The recovery of the US from the Great Depression in the classic example of how Keynesianism works. Just because the idiotic Austrian economics are fashionable at the moment, doesn't make that any less true. Moreover, Britain did not 'starve' at any point during or after the war, in fact nutrition was better at the end of the war than at the start. Less varied? Sure. Starving? Complete bollocks. Don't make up nonsense to try and defend a flawed anachronistic political point, Medy! Fgf10 (talk) 22:28, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget that before the Lend-Lease Act in March 1941, the huge quantity of US made munitions and other supplies being sold to the UK (and initially France) was being paid for in gold bullion. Lend-Lease came about when the UK was nearing the bottom of the barrel. See Cash and carry (World War II) and British Purchasing Commission which says; "By December 1940 British cash orders for aircraft had exceeded $1,200,000,000." Alansplodge (talk) 21:35, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Back to the original question — see Parable of the broken window, to which "Broken window fallacy" redirects. I initially misunderstood and was confused how it could at all be related to Broken windows theory. Nyttend (talk) 21:47, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was answering the original question which states '"...the country overall doesn't acquire any new wealth". Well, the US acquired an awful lot of new wealth from its overseas clients. Alansplodge (talk) 21:49, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I know you were — I wasn't attempting to address your response. Just supplying a link that I should have supplied at the start. Nyttend (talk) 21:53, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, many apologies. Alansplodge (talk) 17:45, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Give you another example. Some thing that the US did right in the 1930's was to concentrate on infrastructure. For instance, they build the Hoover Dam that could produce far more electrical power than there was demand for at the time. The industrialists built far more aluminium smelting capacity than there was demand for at the time. Yet, come the time the US entered the second world war, loads of aluminium could be produced because the 'US" had the capacity and electrical power. The 'excess profits tax' enabled other business to turn that aluminium into war machines. To do that, they needed machine tools. That stimulated another manufacturing sector. All those machine tools needed operators. That created a skilled work force, which come peace-time, could produce oodles of consumer items at an affordable price. It is an economic growth principle, that some resent politicians in the last few decades, prefer to ignore. The UK (which did not have the mineral resources of the US) created the National Health Service. That diverted money into bring sick people back to health so that they could once more contribute to the economy. So in answer to the OP. It wasn't the war per-se but the change in fiscal policy and taxation. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it . It is the thee-generation-cycle thing that is before our eyes. The US is now back in the past agin, where a few have loads and the rest have very little and is thus no longer the major power on the world stage. The nation is once again staved of working capital to keep it a head of everyone else.--Aspro (talk) 21:56, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Easy, Alansplodge, see Rationing_in_the_United_Kingdom#Post-World_War_II:
On 8 May 1945 the Second World War ended in Europe, but rationing continued. Some aspects of rationing became stricter for some years after the war. At the time this was presented as needed to feed people in European areas under British control, whose economies had been devastated by the fighting.[2] This was partly true, but with many British men still mobilised in the armed forces, an austere economic climate, and a centrally-planned economy under the post-war Labour government, [italics mine] resources were not available to expand food production and food imports. Frequent strikes by some workers (most critically dock workers) made things worse.[2] A common ration book fraud was the ration books of the dead being kept and used by the living.
As opposed to this, the US demobilised, ended rationing, and cut government spending drastically. In the US people went back to work for themselves and in the UK they kept working . . . for Clement Atlee. μηδείς (talk) 22:08, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Err... Just don't understand that last comment. The US spent less of its GNP on the war than the UK did. It could afford to bounce back instantly. Also, the fiscal changes left it more prosperous than before the US entered the war. They did not have to suffer a balance of trade deficit created by importing oil and minerals (lead , copper, aluminium, tungsten, vanadium, chrome etc.) – the US had those raw materials in its own back yard .--Aspro (talk) 22:33, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Or the early end of lend-lease. Why is the troll Medeis tolerated here? DuncanHill (talk) 22:41, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because life would be boring without her...--Aspro (talk) 22:53, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Boredom is an insult to oneself. No second parties are required to rescue us from our own self-abasement. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:08, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, but I am lazy. Medeis rescues my from boredom without me having to put in any effort to do it myself.--Aspro (talk) 01:16, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The premise of the question is flawed. The Great Depression in the United States consisted of two recessionary events, a recession of unparalleled severity from 1929 to 1933, followed by the severe Recession of 1937–38. It was ended by a combination of fiscal and monetary stimulus (i.e., the federal government spent more money, and the Federal Reserve lowered interest rates while the administration engineered inflation). Although World War II caused a further drop in unemployment, that was in the context of an economy that was already in recovery. John M Baker (talk) 11:22, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hate to say it but JMB is right. Think of it into days terms of Freddie Mac & Fannie Mae. Pension companies et al (the places were our wealth is invested) have taken a big hit. It was the same in the 1930's. The wealth of the country ended up in the hands of the few after the big Wall Street crash. By the 1940's that debt due to 1920's speculation had been absorb by the average Joe (by reducing his standard of living for many a year). Faced with War, that wealth -held by the few- had to be released quickly back into the economy. The federal government did this. After the war McCarthy tried to establish the old order but was finally over-ruled and the US went on to experience the American Dream of 1957. I.E., Full employment, upward mobility and everything else that the US prided it-self upon. Now we are back to the simple dualism of the 1930's, some 'have' because they are worthy- most other don't because they are just lazy. Just as it was mooted in the 1930's: If you want us (the rich) to work harder -then pay us more.. Don't we deserve more money because we know how to make the poor work harder -by paying them less. – Aren't we smarter and therefore worthy of more and more cash! That diverts billions of dollars of working capital into company jets, luxury yachts, big 60 room homes with three swimming pools and dozens of domestic servants etc. But what should they care, they only live for today. </rant> So in answer to the OP's question – it was the big change in fiscal policy.--Aspro (talk) 18:13, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hate to say it, but you haven't given a reference for this, Aspro. Most of the New Deal programs were cut/ended with the advent of WWII and FDR's taxes were cut when it ended. [7]. In 1946 Americans went back to work in private sector jobs and had babies. As noted above, Britons (when I quoted verbatim from WP and got hysterically attacked) elected Atlee and continued central planning and the nationalization of industry and austerity as a chosen policy. From that point til Thatcher, if Britons in labour jobs and large swathes of other sectors wanted a raise they had to go on strike against the government. Regardless of the usual Leftist screaming, sexist name calling, and desire for those who disagree with the party line to be jailed, it's quite clear that American private industry not only ended the depression (caused by Hawley Smoot and the Fed Reserve stock market bubble) the European welfare state was made possible by US military subsidies to NATO. Now if you like Soviet communism and austerity for Atlees sake, you can just say so, you don't need to make up nicknames for me. You don't have to argue with me. μηδείς (talk) 01:45, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Groundhog Day in Punxsutawney

Where does the "official" celebration stuff happen: is it somewhere on the Punxsutawney town square and/or somewhere nearby, or is it out at Gobbler's Knob? The knob itself is in Bell Township, not in Punxsutawney proper; I'd like to use File:Groundhogday2005.jpg to illustrate the township article, but of course I won't if the scene's within the borough boundaries. I've heard of the knob plenty of times, and the Punxsutawney Phil article says that he emerges from his home on the knob, but I'm not clear whether he "emerges" by being taken into town, and anyway the film (yes, I know it's fictional :-) definitely sets it on the town square. Nyttend (talk) 19:56, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the official website of both the town of Punxsutawney and all of the events surrounding the Groundhog Day celebrations. There's maps and lists of events and dates and locations and whatnot. I'm sure if anywhere has the information you seek, it would be there. Furthermore, there's contact information on that website. If you can't find it yourself, the people best to contact would be someone there. --Jayron 32 20:39, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I had looked over that page already, but I completely missed the maps. Turns out I was wrong — it's not in Punxsutawney or Bell Township, because they don't have it at the site marked as Gobblers Knob on the USGS topo maps. Thanks for the help! Nyttend (talk) 20:57, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Myth of Polish cavalry charging German tanks with lance and sabre during WWII...

I'm well aware this this never actually happened (although I was actually taught it as fact in history lessons at school!). However, is it true that for many years, a lot of people in Poland thought that is was true too and that they even turned it into a matter of national pride and an example of the bravery and resolve of the Polish people - something like their own Charge of the Light Brigade? I was told this recently by someone who had worked in Poland.

FWIW, when I was told about it in school, it was presented as an example of Polish heroism in the face of overwhelming odds. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 22:22, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I remember reading about the Polish sabre charge in the Guinness Book of Records. I'm not sure whether they were referring to the Battle of Krasnobród or the Battle of Schoenfeld. What is the charge you say "never actually happened"? See cavalry charge. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:58, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK, there was a Polish sabre charge against a German *troop column*, I believe - which was very successful. But then they were forced to retreat when the panzers arrived. This was later spun by the Nazis into a 'the Poles launched a direct cavalry charge against our tanks', 'this is how stupid they are'/'how willing their generals are to send their men to their deaths' narrative for propaganda purposes. Which was largely believed for decades afterwards. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 23:06, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We have Charge at Krojanty and Polish cavalry#Cavalry charges and propaganda. -- ToE 23:53, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to look for some sources, but for now I can give you my personal opinion that this story, whatever its actual veracity, does play nicely into a Polish self-stereotype of a quixotic romantic ready to attack the sun with a hoe (as a Polish saying goes). The Warsaw Uprising is a pretty good real-life example of this attitude, but it's just one in a long string of Polish "moral victories" (which were exact opposites of actual victories) over the last 250 years. And as the Smolensk air crash shows, if you can't have a good tragic defeat at the hands of a treacherous, overwhelmingly stronger enemy, you've got to make one up. — Kpalion^(talk) 13:25, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

May 11

How did the Portuguese get hold of Northern Brazil Amazon Forest but not the British, the French or others?

How did the Portuguese Empire get hold of Northern Brazil which is a large area of the Amazon Forest? Did the British, the Dutch and the French try to take Northern Brazil from the Brazilian Portuguese before? 173.33.183.141 (talk) 04:03, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Portuguese actually got an early start during the Age of Exploration. See Henry the Navigator for some background on why this happened. As far as nobody else later taking it away from them, that might precipitate a broader European war, since there were many entangling alliances. And while there was still open land that could easily be claimed in the Americas, risking war would seem like a foolish option. StuRat (talk) 04:12, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The answer to your question is "yes", somebody else indeed try to take it away from them: please see the Dutch Brazil article. Nyttend (talk) 05:24, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline_of_Amazon_history and Amazonas_(Brazilian_state) history section has some info. It seems even the Irish had a go at colonizing over there. Star Lord - 星王 (talk) 07:43, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

British acquisitions on mainland South America were limited to British Guiana. Establishing a useful colony from scratch in such an inhospitable place was expensive and dangerous. The British acquired their colony from the Netherlands during the Napoleonic Wars and held on to it by means of the Anglo-Dutch Treaty of 1814. Thereafter it was developed for sugar production by slave labour. The only possible use for rain forest would be for logging tropical hardwood and the British already had as much of that as they could use in British Honduras (now Belize). Alansplodge (talk) 18:12, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not only there are hardwoods, but precious minerals could be found there. The British Empire was the most powerful empire back 200 years ago and they could have taken Northern Brazil if they want to. Right? 173.33.183.141 (talk) 01:40, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. The British Empire had a sizable fleet, but was stretched to its administrative limit managing the entire Empire as it was, also it had no reason to impose itself upon the territory of it's historically strongest ally. Seriously, there's no reason Britain would ever want to invade and take Brazil. It had no means to do so anyways, but even if it did have the means, it had no reason to. --Jayron 32 01:49, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brazil became independence from Portugal in 1822. That would mean Brazil had nothing to do with Portugal, and Brazil was not an English ally anymore because it was a free country like the United States. The British could invade and take some lands from Brazil if they want to. Am I right? 173.33.183.141 (talk) 02:52, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, Brazilian independence doesn't mean "they had nothing to do with Portugal", anymore than the granting of Dominion status to Canada would mean that the U.K. "had nothing to do with Canada" anymore. You can be damned sure that if, say, Portugal invaded Canada the UK would have a whole shitload of very angry words to say about. Read up on the process of Brazilian independence, and you'll learn some of the nuances of history. Or don't, and keep saying silly things that have no connection to the realities of history. Makes no difference to me. If you want to actually be educated, we have tons of articles on the topic. Start with Transfer of the Portuguese Court to Brazil, and follow on through Brazil–Portugal relations to understand the modern perspective, and try to see if Portugal would have turned a blind eye to their historically strongest ally (Britain) invading their largest former colony with whom they also enjoyed a strong bond. Or, you can continue to argue asinine ideas from a place of ignorance. Makes no difference to me. I've done my best to provide you with places to educate yourself. You do what you want. --Jayron 32 00:48, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They certainly could have tried. I would have expected a protracted jungle war leading to their eventual defeat, much like the French (and later Americans) in Indochina. It's just too much land, in too different of a climate, and too far away, for them to do very well. Of course, they did manage to conquer India, but that was many little kingdoms when they arrived, not a united nation fighting against them.

Also, as Brazilians were Christians by then, invading another Christian nation without just cause was consider bad form, at the time (similar to how invading any nation without just cause is bad form now). StuRat (talk) 03:05, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Does BPM Need To Cite Source

I edited the article for the song Leave Me Alone by Michael Jackson. The article stated that the song's tempo is 112 BPM when in reality the song is at 124 BPM. I don't have any source to site, but this information is self-evident when listening to the song. Is it alright not to have a source to cite in this case or no? This is my first (and perhaps my last) time editing on wikipedia so I'm not exactly sure what I'm doing. I'm not even sure if this is the right place to be asking this question or if I should have posted this on the talk page for that article, so please forgive me if I'm going about this the wrong way and making an ass out of myself. Thanks, --ElGimoni (talk) 04:53, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In this case the problem is that the article already cites a source for the tempo, and that source says it's 112. So by just changing the number and leaving the reference unchanged, you are claiming that the source says it's 124. If you had another source that said it was 124, you could cite that source and mention the conflicting information. But you say you know the tempo from listening to the song, and that's not a citeable source. I suggest changing the number back to 112 but flagging it {{dubious}}, and explaining on the talk page how it's obvious. (I'd do that myself, but I'm not familiar with the song, so I don't think it's appropriate for me to do it.)

I note that it is possible that the song has been recorded both at 112 and at 124, but you've only heard one of those recordings. Or maybe it was originally written for 112 but they decided to use 124 when the recording was made, and the reference cited is wrong. I wouldn't know about anything like that; but maybe someone does. --174.88.135.200 (talk) 05:38, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Humanities desk is probably not the best place for this discussion. In decreasing order I'd say the article's Talk page, or if you feel this specific problem brings up more general issues about editing Wikipedia you could go to the Help Desk, or if, for some reason, you must come to the Reference Desk your best shot is the Entertainment desk. Contact Basemetal here 17:29, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tobruk (Movie 1967)

Can anyone identify the German tanks in the film Tobruk, starring Rock Hudson? I watched it last night, and was bewildered to see German tanks that were shaped more like 1960s US tanks, such as the M46 Patton, just painted with German insignia. Also, throughout the film, they only use one type, so there is no need to watch the entire two-hour movie. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (もしもし！) 05:25, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just read the article about Tobruk (1967 film), and the article says the Italian tanks are played by M48 Pattons, so I was close. The article makes no mention of the German tanks, but I expect they are the same. Also, the German half-track was also an American one, which I also thought was odd. Still, I guess that the people who went to see Rock Hudson films were hardly military hardware geeks. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (もしもし！) 05:41, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

After watching RH crash through the barbed wire with a stolen tank at around the 1:29 mark on Youtube, it certainly looks like an M-48. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:34, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Other equipment in the film includes M3 Half-tracks imitating the Sd.Kfz. 251 and a Grumman Albatross masquerading as a German flying boat. Alansplodge (talk) 18:26, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that WW2 films made right after the end of the war would have had better access to working German and Italian tanks. Later films then had the choice of using other tanks, or constructing new mock-ups of Axis tanks, at great expenses, so this was probably only done in big-budget productions. StuRat (talk) 19:47, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can't recall any early war films that use real Axis tanks, but I may be wrong about that. Certainly by the 1960s, Hollywood films are using current US tanks as stand-ins, notably in Battle of the Bulge (1965) with huge fleets of tanks; M47 Pattons representing the Germans and M24 Chaffees representing the Americans. Patton (1970) has lots of M48s. In Saving Private Ryan more realism was required and an ex-Soviet T-34 was convincingly turned into a Tiger I. Alansplodge (talk) 21:33, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're wrong about that.[8] Clarityfiend (talk) 07:27, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Flag of Memelland

What's that on the sides of the seal ?

They are described as either wooden scaffolding (doesn't look like it to me) or "wharf elements" here: [9]. Does anyone have a photo of either that resembles the seal ? StuRat (talk) 12:44, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If "wharf elements" is correct then I'd guess they are stylized images of a wharf crane. That search gives mostly modern images, but I found an older picture here that has a device that vaguely resembles those on the flag. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 13:13, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are more images of the seal at Coat of arms of Klaipėda. Reading our article on Memel Castle, the castle was originally "wooden, protected by a tower". Could the scaffold bits represent wooden structures that were part of the castle? DuncanHill (talk) 13:28, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've included that much better pic here, to help us figure out what it is supposed to be. StuRat (talk) 18:56, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An article on GenWiki here says they are "wooden marker buoys (as in Bommelsvitte and "Galgenbake" in Schmelz).". DuncanHill (talk) 13:32, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First Amazon bridge

Upon its completion a few years ago, the Rio Negro Bridge was heralded as the first bridge anywhere in the Amazon system. How could this be the case? There aren't a ton of roads in the far western parts of the system, but Google Maps shows some that cross rivers; there's a big one on a national highway at the Ecuadorian provincial capital of Puerto Francisco de Orellana, a cable-stayed bridge (picture; approximately 0°28′20″S 76°58′46″W / 0.47222°S 76.97944°W / -0.47222; -76.97944) over the Río Napo, and this book, which predates the Rio Negro bridge by several years, mentions the Napo bridge as already being in place. Nyttend (talk) 14:06, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a link to a source making the claim for the Rio Negro Bridge? If we can all read it, maybe we can parse it for what it is saying. --Jayron 32 14:23, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Example, but that's just one thing; it was all through the press when it opened, and I'm sure you could find lots of different statements. I'm running on memory here. Nyttend (talk) 14:34, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, then the statement made by that article is wrong. Plain and simple. --Jayron 32 14:40, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but what about the tons of other sources that said the same thing? It's got to be a more nuanced situation than "well, duhh, it's wrong". Nyttend (talk) 23:13, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the nuance is "the first source got it wrong, and the error permeated through the other sources because lazy journalism." If you have evidence it's blatantly wrong, then it is blatantly wrong. Things continue to be wrong even if lots of people keep repeating its wrongness. --Jayron 32 23:41, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What was the first source? The Guardian's source seems to be this. Hardly a reliable source a Guardian article ought to refer to, to begin with, at least if you care to ask me. Amusingly the Guardian amended one bit of info in this 05/08/2010 article ("This article was amended on 6 August 2010. The original stated that the Manaus-Iranduba bridge is the longest in Brazil. This has been corrected."). Obviously they take accuracy in reporting very very seriously.

Contact Basemetal here 00:01, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the forum, the only thing I noticed where the claim could originate from is [10] where someone said "Very impressive ! The only bridge on Amazon. ". In the very next post someone else says "Actually, the bridge is not over the Amazon River itself, but over the Negro River, an affluent, which merges with Amazon ~5km downstream from the bridge." This person doesn't actually say that there are other bridges, but they also don't say there are none so can't be said to support the statement. So if the Guardian is really relying solely on someone making a unclear and potentially misleading statement (depending on how you interpret "on Amazon"), it's even worse than simply relying on a forum post. I wonder if the person is partly right. Is there any bridge on the Amazon River itself? (It may depend on what you mean by the Amazon, since as our article mentions, definitions vary.) There is some talk in page 6 of that forum of building a bridge over the Amazon itself. Nil Einne (talk) 12:29, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cartoon Character

I remember from maybe 50 years ago a cartoon character named "Dgeaux Bleaux," a satirical spelling of "Joe Blow." I thought Al Capp created Dgeaux Bleaux, but I have checked with his historians and his records and do not find this character. I have facetiously used the first name occasionally in place of my own name, "Joe." Do you have any record of this character?

JP Allryze — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.196.128.177 (talk) 15:07, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find any record of the character on the interwebz. But it would not be impossible. The use of "-eaux" in place of the "oh" sound in English words is often used to humorous effect as a means of representing "pseudo-French" language. The best example I can think of is the LSU Tigers which use Geaux Tigers as a motto; LSU being Louisiana State University, and Louisiana being home to many French-speaking Cajuns. --Jayron 32 15:48, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

... and for some, the Tigers Bleaux, naturally. Jos Bleau appears to be a Québécois French version of Joe Blow (see the Canada section in our article on John Q. Public, or the French WP article on homme de la rue, e.g.), but I wasn't able to locate a cartoon character named "Dgeaux Bleaux" (or Djeau/Djeaux Bleau/Bleaux, ...) ---Sluzzelin talk 16:36, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it ought to be Gaux or Gueaux. —Tamfang (talk) 19:57, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you're thinking of the Al Capp character Joe Btfsplk. --M @r ē ino 20:51, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Who painted these?

Are there any paintings named Jefferson Dreams and Monument for a Vietnam Shrine? If yes, who have painted it? I've Googled a lot and couldn't find an answer. All I know is, this works are related to art movements. I found these names from a question paper. So, any help will be much appreciated.--Joseph 16:43, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Was it this question paper (p. 11)? If so, it's the only result that Google is providing for "Monument for a Vietnam Shrine" (the next painting in the question is Rain, Steam and Speed). Alansplodge (talk) 18:38, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I found "Study for Jefferson Dreams" (12" x 16"), by Lincoln Perry, an artist for which Wikipedia does not have an article, but he does have a website; lincolnperry.com. Alansplodge (talk) 19:52, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. That's is the question paper. Thanks for you effort.--Joseph 07:26, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The "Vietnam Shrine" painting might be "Reflections", by Lee Teter (no article) - see this page on his website. Tevildo (talk) 21:45, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hitler at strategy

Was Hitler a sophisticated strategist? Or was he more of a mad dog who just ordered his troops to attack?--Llaanngg (talk) 17:34, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wehrmacht#Command structure is a good place to start your research. Hitler was commander-in-chief of the military, the actual strategic operation of the military was managed by Wilhelm Keitel, leader of the Oberkommando der Wehrmacht, or OKW. Military strategy of Germany during WWII was complex and complicated; the Wehrmacht was officially insulated from the Nazi Party; Wehrmacht officers were forbidden from being members of political parties. I'll leave it to more experts to give better references for Hitler's actual involvement. --Jayron 32 18:17, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He declared war on the US after the US declared war on Japan, thus opening the door to our entry into the European theater of WWII. How well did that strategy work out? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:10, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, most strategists don't consider the U.S. involvement in the European theatre to have been the turning point, per se. The war would have likely dragged on for 2-3 more years, but the Eastern Front was a lost cause for Hitler and it was a matter of when rather than if Germany fell. The numbers bear that out: the Western Front (World War II) saw a total of about 1,000,000 Axis and 3,000,000 allied casualties. The Eastern Front (World War II) saw 5,000,000 Axis and 10,000,000 Soviet casualties. U.S. involvement in general, and D-Day specifically, was about not letting the Russians conquer all of Germany as much as (and perhaps more so) than defeating Germany itself. The Americans were only heavily involved in Europe from about 1943 on, both in the Italian Campaign and later D-Day. The Soviets had already softened up Germany pretty well by the time the U.S. had any fighting strength on the ground in Europe to challenge Germany. U.S. involvement was important, don't get me wrong; the U.S. had a major role to play in the outcome of the war in Europe, but it wasn't like without the U.S. Germany would have won the whole war; that seems unlikely. Without the U.S., the Iron Curtain would have been considerably further West (perhaps as far as the Atlantic Ocean), and THAT was the greater importance of U.S. involvement. Ultimately, if we were to make a claim to Hitler's biggest strategic mistake, it wasn't declaring war on the U.S. in 1941 (since the U.S. were already supplying the British war effort anyway), it was Hitler's decision to violate the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact. That was by far his biggest blunder. His major strategic goal was to re-establish the German Empire ("Grossdeutschland") and establish a buffer zone of satellite states to make it defensible. He achieved the first goal with the Anschluss and Munich Agreement; the second goal with the subjugation of France and Poland, and his alliances with Italy, Croatia, Hungary, etc. The invasion of Russia was Hitler's biggest mistake, and as Wikipedia's article on Operation Barbarossa notes, " the largest military operation in world history in both manpower and casualties. Its failure was a turning point in the Third Reich's fortunes." Many would argue it was the turning point. --Jayron 32 19:29, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Hitler thought of himself as an inspired strategist mainly because he championed a plan devised by Erich von Manstein and Heinz Guderian against the advice of his general staff, resulting in a resounding victory in the Battle of France. The victory might have included the destruction of the British Expeditionary Force, had Hitler not got cold feet and issued the "Halt Order" on the advice of his staff but against the opinion of von Manstein and Guderian, allowing the British to slip away from Dunkirk. Perhaps because of this, Hitler convinced himself that he was a military genius and became increasingly reluctant to listen to advice, relying instead on his own intuition. Perhaps his worst performance was staking so much on the pointless capture of Stalingrad (probably because it was named after Stalin), and when it was clear that it was unachievable, refusing to allow a breakout. He never really understood the concept of a tactical withdrawal and towards the end of the war was continually ordering last stands, which resulted in huge troop concentrations being encircled and stranded in isolated pockets, the Falaise pocket being the best known example in the west. The Western Allies forbade any attempt to assassinate Hitler, in case somebody that knew what they were doing took charge. Have a look at Hitler's Leadership Style by Dr Geoffrey Megargee and A MILITARY LEADERSHIP ANALYSIS OF ADOLF HITLER by Major Paul A. Braunbeck. Alansplodge (talk) 19:36, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks to Alan for providing these. I was a bit disappointed with the second item. What level is the Air Command and Staff College supposed to be, academically? Four-year college level? Contact Basemetal here 19:03, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Basemetal, I had a very cursory scan through it and it seemed to hit some of the salient points. I was working on the principal thet the college wouldn't have published it online if it wasn't any good. 16:25, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, as for US influence on the defeat of Germany, you have to include the critical non-combat role of the US, as the "Arsenal of Democracy" in arming and supplying the UK, Soviet Union, and other allies. Without this aid the UK and then the war might have been lost. StuRat (talk) 19:42, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why I did exactly that. --Jayron 32 19:45, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You said "The war would have likely dragged on for 2-3 more years, but the Eastern Front was a lost cause for Hitler and it was a matter of when rather than if Germany fell." I took that to mean you thought that Germany would have lost, even without any US assistance. Is that not what you meant ? StuRat (talk) 14:53, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much. The USSR was busy letting Hitler stupidly throw the bulk of his army against the impenetrable Russian winter to try, and fail, to capture a midling industrial city of little strategic importance. The USSR received little benefit from Lend-Lease (there was some nominal aid) and was beating Germany through sheer attrition. While twice as many Soviet Soldiers as Germans died along the Eastern front, population-wise the Soviet Union had roughly 4x the population to throw at the war effort as Germany did. They could afford to wait them out. The involvement of the U.S., while vital to keeping Britain in the war and keeping Germany busy in the west, merely accelerated a defeat that was already decided once Hitler invaded Russia. U.S. involvement was vital to the eventual outcome of the war, in terms of what spheres of influence existed within Europe after the war. But there was probably no way that Germany had the means to defeat the U.S.S.R. Had Germany been able to defeat Britain, it would have merely made more territory for the U.S.S.R. to subjugate once it rolled into Berlin. --Jayron 32 19:21, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We aren't supposed to do counterfactual speculation, but control of an ample oil supply was really the key to victory in World War II. Britain stood between Germany and the oil fields of the Middle East. If Germany had been able to knock out Britain, while keeping the Soviet Union locked temporarily in a stalemate, Germany could have gained control of the oil fields of the Middle East. This need not have been a matter of brute conquest but could have been achieved by diplomacy. (Sell us your oil at a favorable price and we won't attack you.) Turkey would then probably have seized the opportunity to join Germany as an ally, and a strengthened Germany could have turned itself to the defeat of the Soviet Union. With a firm base in the Middle East, Germany could probably have gained control of Azerbaijan, the Soviets' main source of oil at that time. It's not likely that Germany could have conquered Russia, in the sense of occupying and fully subduing it, but Germany could have encouraged the (already somewhat fissile) Soviet republics to break away from Russia, and Russia could have been reduced to virtual economic dependence on Greater Germany. So, while I agree that the Soviet Union did most of the work of defeating Germany, it very likely would not have succeeded without American assistance to Britain. Marco polo (talk) 20:02, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, except that the Battle of Britain wasn't really won with American hardware or American forces or American funding. Lend-Lease, and it's precursor, the Destroyers for Bases Agreement, came after Britain had already defended itself by itself thank you very much against pretty much everything Germany could throw at it, before Germany had even opened the Eastern Front. Knowing the chronology here is vital to understanding the history, and if you're going to present counterfactuals, they should at least be consistent with actual events as they happened to the point where you take off from history. The ability of Britain to defend itself against Germany all on its own let the U.S. know it was a good investment, and that's almost exactly WHY the U.S. agreed to supply the Allies with materiel and money. Hitler wouldn't start Operation Barbarossa until 9 months AFTER it had already knew it couldn't take on Britain. Now, if Hitler had not attacked the U.S.S.R, AND if they had concentrated their entire force on an amphibious attack on Britain, they may have been able to defeat them. But the situation in 1941, on the eve of Pearl Harbor, the die was already cast. Hitler had already abandoned the Western Front to a quiet stalemate, with France under friendly control, and was content to leave his forces in the West to tamp down the French Resistance and defend the Channel and Atlantic coast passively. He had, by the time the U.S. became actually involved in committing troops in December 1941, already committed the his forces to the Eastern Front in June 1941. The only reasonable counterfactual decision point which results in German victory is not attacking the U.S.S.R. The three biggest defeats the Germans faced in the entire war were all against Russia with no meaningful help from the US or UK: the Battle of Kursk, the Battle of Moscow, and the Battle of Stalingrad. Again, I'm not saying the involvement of the U.S. was not vital to history, not vital to the outcome of the war, etc. But it is more complex and nuanced than "The U.S. saved the world from Hitler!" No, The U.S.S.R saved the world from Hitler. Or more properly: Hitler saved the world from Hitler, because he foolishly attacked the U.S.S.R. --Jayron 32 21:06, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Had Hitler invaded the USSR properly, such as with full winter equipment, and then bypassed major points of resistance, like Stalingrad, he might have fared a lot better. StuRat (talk) 03:30, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the Soviets saved the world from Hitler; it's just too bad they failed to save the world from Stalin. — Kpalion^(talk) 15:30, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yup... --Jayron 32 16:45, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hitler should not have invaded the Soviet Union in the first place. With all that effort to fight a war there saved, he would have had the resources to mass produce jet fighters like the Messerschmitt Me 262, and develop the Horten Ho 229 of which only one prototype was build. Such an air force based on the existing German technology at the time, would have made the allied invasion impossible. The British and US air forces would have been unable to operate over Western Europe, and without any air cover any invasion attempt would have been doomed.

Then without any significant allied attacks on Germany, the Germans would have found it much easier to improve their jet fighters and also their missile program would have progressed much faster. By the mid 1940s, Germany would have been beyond military defeat, because the US would by that time not have been able to deploy nuclear weapons due to a lack of a delivery method. The B-29 would not have been able to penetrate German controlled air space anymore. Then the post war development of our jet and missile technology would not have have happened on a similar time line, because we profited a lot from captured German technology and their scientist and engineers who decided to work for us. Count Iblis (talk) 17:09, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For a comparison of Hitler's and Napoleon's thinking which led them to attack the USSR/Russia I found Grégoire Gafenco's ~~"Preliminaires of the War in the East" pretty interesting. Unfortunately there's no English translation, only the French original ("Préliminaires de la guerre à l'Est").~~ "Prelude to the Russian Campaign", London, 1945 (translated by Edgar Fletcher-Allen) pretty interesting. (But I read the French original "Préliminaires de la guerre à l'Est", Paris, 1944). Among the reasons that induced them to attack the USSR/Russia was also what they felt was the risk of leaving at the their back a huge power that could decide to attack them when circumstances allowed. We may think today there is zero chance Stalin/Alexander I would ever have done that, but the question is whether it was reasonable for them to believe they could. Contact Basemetal here 20:01, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What was also a factor is that Hitler knew that sooner or later the US would join the war. That meant that Germany needed far more resources to be able to defend itself. The only way to get enough raw materials was to invade the Soviet Union and then get control of the vast oil and gas reserves there. Also Germany was engaged in Northern Africa, the plan was that these forces would take control of the Mid East and then link up with the forces in the Caucasus. So, I think the mistake made by Hitler was to think too much in terms of the industrial base and control of territory to get the raw materials to power that industrial base, rather than attempting to expand the advantage in technology that Germany already had. Count Iblis (talk) 20:56, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

UK elections 2015

I have two questions: How many candidates were of Bangladeshi descent? and is there a list of candidates for Respect Party on the internet? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donmust90 (talk • contribs) 18:46, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See this article and UK General Election 2015 candidates - Other candidates. Nanonic (talk) 18:59, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

May 12

Muslims killed by .... won't go to Paradise

I have heard several versions of this tale. In the 80's I heard from a UN soldier that they used to fix bayonets because they were feared by Muslims who thought they wouldn't go to Paradise if they were killed by steel. I've heard that being killed by a bullet smeared with pig blood or grease will bar Muslims from Paradise. Lately I've heard the same about why female Peshmerga fighters are so feared: they say a Muslim killed by a woman wont go to Paradise.

I call bullshit on all of those, partly because (as I understand it) intent or recklessness is needed for an action to be considered sinful in Islam. Also, about the death by steel, dying by steel would for many centuries be the most common way to go for those that died in battle. Surely one would have heard something about how those warriors, even though they died for the cause would be barred from Paradise. But, I'm not 100 % sure that the tales are 100 % untrue, especially considering that Islam is almost as diverse as Christianity. There are in other religions ways to die that will prevent you from entering heaven, like suicide in Christianity or that Valhalla was only for those that died in battle, so it's not entirely unlikely. Are there any denominations in Islam where some ways of dying will bar you from Paradise? Sjö (talk) 05:41, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Suicide is the first that comes to mind, at least in most mainstream forms of Islam.Bosstopher (talk) 07:25, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bullets covered in pig blood were supposedly used by Jack Pershing in the Philippines, and the idea has resurfaced more recently of course, although I doubt anyone has ever actually done that. Anyway, doing something terrible to a Muslim to prevent them from going to heaven is a 100% sure way for them to be considered a martyr who will automatically end up in heaven no matter what you've done to them. Adam Bishop (talk) 10:22, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is right up there with silver bullets for werewolves and a stake through the heart for vampires. There's no evidence that anyone goes to 'paradise', and certainly no basis for any claims that non-Muslims can 'invent' ways that 'prevent' Muslims from getting there. Beyond really bad fan fiction, it's drivel.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:35, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sjö is asking about doctrine and belief (which often differ), and is not positing an actual paradise. (This is WP:RDH, not WP:RDS!) Sjö could have carefully carried the "feared" and "thought" used in the second sentence throughout the entire question, but doing so would yield a tedious passage. -- ToE 13:50, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently you missed the point. The silly claims about what 'prevents' Muslims from getting into 'paradise' are typically invented by non-Muslims. As such, they are just stupid bigoted fiction.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:06, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well the "story" is that in Islam, if you are "unclean" you don't go to heaven, touching pork makes you unclean until you can wash (or whatever the appropriate purifiaction ritual is). So if someone put pork on a bullet, the last thing the shot muslim will touch is pork, making them unclean. Ergo.... I've seen a video of a soldier dipping bullets in SPAM before loading them into his magazine. I'm sure if you google muslim spam bullets you'll find it. Now having said that, I have NOT seen any muslim reaction to that kind of thing, whether they actually believe they'd be made unclean by those bullets or if it would have any bearing on their eligibility to paradise, I personally doubt it as it seems dying defending islam is amongst the highest honor (among people inclined to die "defending" Islam at any rate), but have no source to back that up. Vespine (talk) 06:16, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I shouldn't have stealthily linked to it above - shahid has plenty of references for that. Adam Bishop (talk) 10:36, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, Vespine, you're just wrong. Muslims are even permitted to eat pork if no other food is available, so the claim that someone else murdering them with 'bullets with pigs blood on them' will 'prevent them getting in to paradise' is just stupid bigoted nonsense. It doesn't matter how many bigoted idiots 'imagine' this nonsense 'works'. And how would the dead Muslim know that the bullet had been 'dipped in SPAM' anyway? You've simply demonstrated that it's not really about what Muslims believe, but what bigoted idiots believe.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:37, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffro, I have no dog in this fight, but it appears to me that you are arguing with people who are saying the same things as you in slightly different ways. Just sayin'. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 212.95.237.92 (talk) 13:02, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why do people end their posts with "Just sayin(g)"? What does it mean, apart from what was obviously true without them saying it, viz. that whatever it was they were just saying was something they were ... er, just saying? Just askin(g). I breathed about 40 times while I was typing this. Just breathing. I blinked a few times, too. Just blinking. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:49, 13 May 2015 (UTC) [reply]

As with many expressions it means more than a literal interpretation of its words. At its best it is a modern appeal against "shooting the messenger" or a rephrasing of the older "I merely make an observation," and is tagged onto the end of a comment which the well-intentioned author fears might be taken as insulting or argumentative. At its worst and most passive aggressive it is sarcastically tagged onto the end of an intended insult. This latter usage is pervasive, but in this case all appearances suggest that Tpfka87 intended the former usage. For more information you could re-ask your question on WP:RDL. Just sayin'. -- ToE 23:30, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just thankin' you. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 05:20, 14 May 2015 (UTC) [reply]

You'd have to actually thank him somehow to be able to then tag that "Just thankin' you". On its own like this, well, I don't know. In this specific case you could, if you wanted, engage in a rant that does not much look like thanks and then go: "Just thankin' you". That would be the agressive or sarcastic use of the phrase mentioned above. I'm, er, "just tryin' to help". Contact Basemetal here 10:51, 14 May 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Jeffro77, I'M not wrong, I am simply reporting the 'claims', I am an atheists so I also believe it's all nonsense. Yes it's stupid bigoted nonsense, I don't disagree. There is I believe a "subtle" point you are "missing" though, and that is that peope can ACTUALLY BELIEVE these things, i.e. they don't need to be "aware" that the bullets are covered in pig's blood for it to 'work', for them this is the way the world works whether you believe it or not, that's why THEY are right and we are wrong (I'm talking about muslims AND christians). In their "reality" this IS the way things work, so simply showing muslims that there are bullets covered in spam is enough elicit the desired response. Of course in THIS particlar case, covering bullets in blood is based on a misunderstanding of Islamic doctrine, but the argument is sound: IF the unclean don't get into heaven (which probably IS the case in some circumstances) and IF getting shot with a unclean bullet makes you unclean (this is probably not the case) THEN someone shot with an unclean bullet won't go to heaven. The argument is valid, however one premise is almost certainly faulty. Vespine (talk) 22:55, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Further, if it's not abundantly clear, the action's intention is Psychological warfare. Vespine (talk) 00:12, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, someone can't actually 'believe' that they won't go to 'paradise' when they're killed by a bullet that they have no way of knowing was 'dipped in [insert pig-based food product]' because 1) they would have no way of knowing it was dipped in said foodstuff (so the claim is wrong in practical terms) and 2) the Koran doesn't forbid Muslims from unavoidably coming in contact with pigs (so the claim is wrong on doctrinal terms).--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:04, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Leaving aside the question of whether any of the specific stories alluded to above has ever actually occurred, as a general point it is worth pointing out that 1) there is a way to "let them know", by spreading rumors for example, and 2) not all Muslims are expert theologians, there are such things as superstitions and superstitious people especially among the uneducated, in other words what the qur'ān says, in your opinion or in the opinion of expert ʿulamāʾ, might not be what superstitious uneducated people believe, and finally 3) this thread is becoming tiresome. Just sayin'. Contact Basemetal here 12:45, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffro, of course it is possible for someone to believe (ie fear) that if they are killed by a bullet smeared in pork, they won't be let into to paradise. To illustrate: I may believe that, whether I know that the bullet was "tainted" or not, Allah will know... and keep me out of paradise (and wouldn't that be a nasty surprise!). That said... I do agree that the story is more likely to be something that was made up by non-muslims. Blueboar (talk) 15:55, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Inconsistent apostrophes in older work

See this page, where crucify'd appears in reſponſe #1, rais'd in point 10, receiv'd and confeſ'd in point 11, and betray'd in the final full line. I've encountered this use a lot lately while working with 17th- and 18th-century English publications. What was the point? I mean, I understand that it conveys a two-syllable re-ceived versus a three-syllable re-ceiv-ed, but why print it that way? The printers generally don't seem to have attempted to use eye dialect for these publications, and anyway -ed also appears numerous times; ſtrengthened and confirmed appear just before crucify'd, and the final large paragraph on the same page includes purchased and admitted. Nyttend (talk) 13:22, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Under the original pronunciation, there was a deliberate strong accent on the -ed part of past tense words, so "confirmed" would have been pronounced "con-firm-ED", with the last syllable distinctly sounding like the male name "Ed". The addition of the 'd is a note that those words were pronounced -d rather than -ed. Remember that prior to the early 18th century, there was no standardized spelling. All spelling was foneticklee done, so each writer did their best to spell words as they felt they would most likely be read. There were some dialectical standards that developed somewhat organically among people who were formally trained in the same tradition (that is, people who learned to write in the same area in the same sorts of schools), but it wasn't until the great dictionary writers of the late 1700s and early 1800s that there came to be a standardized English spelling, people like Noah Webster (for American English) and Samuel Johnson (for British English) are often credited with establishing the formal standardized spelling we see today. The best Wikipedia article I can find to cover this in one place is probably English-language spelling reform, though it concentrates more on unrealized attempts to alter English as she is wrote today, it does cover some of the historical movements to standardize English, touching on the various printing "house styles" that were used, as well as the work of Webster and Johnson and others. Prior to them, there simply wasn't any authority on English spelling, and there was wide variation. When researching an older topic, like for example when I was working on the Plymouth Colony article, you find in the original writings a wide variety of spellings, for example Myles Standish is as often as not spelled Miles Standish, and the name of the settlement itself can by Plymoth, Plymouth, Plimoth, Plimouth, etc. There just was no standard. It got better throughout the 1700s, and by the early 1800s there was more unformity, by the middle of the 19th century we had reached the modern standards. --Jayron 32 14:01, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit conflict] Prior to the 17th century, the e in -ed actually was pronounced, especially in careful speech. (See this source.) This pronunciation may have been remembered during the 17th and 18th centuries as old-fashioned, and/or it may have survived in some contexts longer than in others, for example after a stressed syllable. So the apostrophe represents a conscious omission of the vowel. Also, spelling was not standardized during these centuries, so it is not surprising that the spelling varies between apostrophes and silent 'e's. Marco polo (talk) 14:05, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jayron, are you sure that the last syllable of premodern English preterites was actually stressed? Certainly it was pronounced, with a distinct vowel (probably ɛ) in Middle English but with a schwa (ə) by the 16th century. However, it would be a striking departure from the Germanic pattern for that syllable to be stressed. Marco polo (talk) 14:09, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please read what I already wrote. I understand that it conveys a two-syllable re-ceived versus a three-syllable re-ceiv-ed. Moreover, I'm not addressing what today we consider alternate spellings — believe me, I could go on about this; not being familiar with the University of Michigan's online edition, I transcribed the contents for William Gouge's Of domesticall duties, fourteen pages of wiues and inioying, or wanting of prosperitie. I'm asking about the phenomenon that the same page of the same book will alternate between -ed and -'d, a phenomenon that is common to many works. Nyttend (talk) 14:21, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Both Jayron and I stated that spelling was not standardized before the 19th century. So it is not surprising to see spellings change within a work, even on the same page, between an apostrophe and a silent 'e'. I don't understand what question of yours has not yet been answered. Marco polo (talk) 14:35, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They may have wanted it to be pronounced differently to match the different spellings. This is similar to how I often use the full form of a word or a shortened version, to avoid sounding repetitive: "I utilize long forms to complement use of short forms." StuRat (talk) 14:47, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In some dialects of English in the north of the country, and notably Braid Scots, the "ed" is still enunciated as a distinct syllable to this day, though the syllable is unstressed and unvoiced, and the vowel is virtually a schwa rather than anything clearer, so the "ed" tends to be written as "it". See, for example, the "waukit" in this sample. RomanSpa (talk) 17:46, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This question may have attracted some more good sources if it had been posted to the Language Desk. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:00, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It may be worth mentioning that printers of the time felt free to use variant spellings to remove or add space in justified lines of type. I obviously can't say whether that was the case in the OP's example, but it can account for such inconsistencies. Deor (talk) 13:00, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stella van der Loopen

Is Stella van der Loopen a chrysanthemum, a heroine of the American War of Independence, or something by Romney in the Louvre? DuncanHill (talk) 22:48, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure she's not made up by H. H. Munro? Clearly "van der Loopen" is a Dutch surname, but the only google hits for "Stella van der Loopen" point to the novel you just quoted. If she was a war heroine, she is now thoroughly forgotten; if a flower was named after her, the name didn't stick and I find it frankly inconceivable that a painting by a famous artist hanging in one of the world's most prestigious museums would get no results on google whatsoever. - Lindert (talk) 23:28, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose Saki could have made it up, but I find that he usually refers to real people, icebreakers, restaurants, etc in comments like that. DuncanHill (talk) 23:37, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But in this case he may have felt it wasn't him who made it up, but his character. And I think it is "Novipazar", but, again, it wouldn't be Saki's mistake, but his character's. It'd still be interesting to figure out what may have led him to specifically manufacture "Stella van der Loopen". Are there maybe a chrysanthemum, etc. whose names sound a bit like that but are not quite it? Contact Basemetal here 23:46, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Novibazar would have been standard English usage at the time. But the chaplain also found himself unable to remember which Stella van der Loopen was. Your suggestion of something or someone that sounds a bit like it could be right. DuncanHill (talk) 23:58, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note Google returns no result for "Van der Loopen"/"Van der Lopen" or "Vander Loopen"/"Vander Lopen" or "Vanderloopen"/"Vanderlopen". The latter would be a newer way to spell such names, but the spelling of surnames rarely gets updated. There does not seem to be a surname "Van der Loopen" etc. In any case Google only knows about "Van der Loop" etc. Contact Basemetal here 19:09, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It may have to do with search location, but I do find one facebook page of someone with the surname "Van der Loopen". - Lindert (talk) 22:59, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

May 13

Iranian reactions to the Andijan massacre?

Does anyone have any information about the reaction of the Iranian government (if any) after the Andijan massacre? What kind of relations were/are there between Iran and Uzbekistan before/after? Did the Andijan massacre change anything regarding those relations? Thanks. Contact Basemetal here 00:36, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It was mentioned as a bloody massacre in the press, but it didn't change anything in moderate relations between the two governments. Omidinist (talk) 03:31, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So reactions in the Iranian press but no official reactions at all? Do I understand this right? In 2009 the Iranian government called for international sanctions against Germany when one Muslim Egyptian (!) woman was murdered in a Dresden courtroom by a psycho who had nothing whatsoever to do with the German government. Has anyone seen anywhere an explanation for the apparent inconsistency? What "algorithm" does the Iranian government use to decide when to react and when not to to the killing of Muslims? Contact Basemetal here 13:30, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, please. As if Western governments did not apply all kinds of double standards based on their material, strategic, or ideological interests. For example, Western governments tend to be much more vocal about violations of human rights in Iran than in Saudi Arabia. Marco polo (talk) 13:58, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No kidding? My question was not about a comparison between various inconsistent behaviors but about how things work in Iran. Does this sort of "double standards" always have some rational explanation? I do have some sort of idea as to what explains Western "double standards" but am fairly ignorant in the case of Iran so I thought I'd ask people with more expertise. To say that Western countries do it too does not really explain why, when and how Iran does it. Or are you saying that Iran does it specifically to match Western inconsistency? (Like "We can be just as inconsistent as you") But in fact what strikes me as odd sometimes in the case of Iran (maybe that's just because of my ignorance) is that their "double standards" cannot be explained using objective strategic arguments like they can for instance in the case of the US, that Iranian policies seem to be driven by ideology against what would seem to be their own objective strategic interests. For example an objective analysis would seem to indicate (unless it's again my ignorance) that Iran and Israel ought to be allies and the Arab countries in between should be adversaries to both. There does not seem to be anything about which Iran and Israel are objective competitors. But instead, because of ideology, you see this three-way enmity which must be a pretty rare if not unique geopolitical configuration. And to get back to my question, I really don't see why Iran needs Uzbekistan, whereas I thought there were important commercial relations between Germany and Iran. So, to just say "Western countries apply double standard too" can hardly serve as a useful explanation for Iranian behavior. Contact Basemetal here 15:02, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think a fear of Colour Revolutions which had happened a year or two earlier in the same region might have caused a cautionary approach. This same fear led to government clampdown on peaceful demonstrations of Iranians after the presidential elections of 2009. Protesters were accused of having been inspired by Colour Revolutions and having subversive intentions. Omidinist (talk) 17:49, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I misread you. I thought that you were expressing moral outrage, when in fact you were honestly looking for an explanation. My apologies. In the Iranian legislative election, 2004, just one year before the massacre, Iran's Council of Guardians had vetoed the candidacy of more than 2,000 reformist candidates. Support for Uzbeks protesting government repression would have been embarrassing and/or risky for the Iranian government, as it was complicit in such repression itself. The government could well have felt that implicitly supporting the Uzbeki protests might provide an opening for domestic protests. (How could the government crack down after condemning the crackdown in Uzbekistan?) The demonstrations of 2009, mentioned by Omnidinist, bear out the risk (from the government's perspective) of anti-government protest in Iran at this time. Also, the defense of Islam is central to the Iranian government's claim to legitimacy. In Uzbekistan, both the protesters and security forces were Muslim, and so there was no way Iran could portray Andijan as an assault on Islam or Muslims calling for an Iranian response. In essence, the Iranian government saw nothing to gain from speaking out on the massacre. By contrast, an assault on a Muslim in a western country is an opportunity for the Iranian government to bolster its legitimacy in the eyes of Iranian Muslims by speaking out in protest. So its response to the murder in Germany was probably based more on domestic political considerations than foreign policy. Marco polo (talk) 19:08, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright for Maya hieroglyphs font based on drawings by scholar Thompson

Hello. I have a question about copyright law for a specific font. I've scanned through the Wikipedia article Intellectual property protection of typefaces but it's all pretty confusing with the technical difference between fonts, typefaces, etc. and what can be copyrighted and what can't.

Anyways, the creator of the font "Maya 4.14" here makes the following claim at the bottom of his page: "In lieu of a licence, fonts and documents in this site are not pieces of property or merchandise items; they carry no trademark, copyright, license or other market tags; they are free for any use. George Douros."

Basically, George Duoros based himself on "A Catalog of Maya Hieroglyphs by J. Eric S. Thompson" to make his font. The Catalog is composed of drawings made by Thompson and the use of his drawings is limited to scholarly use (see here) (Copyright © 1962 University of Oklahoma Press. All rights reserved.).

My question is, however, if I can use this font freely for whatever purpose, commercial or not, as George Duoros states/implies. I had understood that his drawings were copyrighted, but that fonts can't be copyrighted, and when George Duoros created this font he specifically stated that it os free for any use.

Thanks in advance!

--190.192.233.38 (talk) 01:42, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:COPY and if the advice there is not clear, ask for help at the WP:Help desk. Those pages specialize on such technical on-site issues. WE help with external matters, except things like law, and we'd be giving legal advice if we commented, which we are not allowed to do. μηδείς (talk) 05:48, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Derivative work and transformativeness are probably relevant articles. SemanticMantis (talk) 13:36, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Parent & child life peers

Apart from Peter and James Palumbo, are there, or have there ever been, any other instances of a parent and child both being life peers? DuncanHill (talk) 18:34, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know where you can get a complete list, but it has certainly happened. For example, consider Anthony Hurd, Baron Hurd and Douglas Hurd, both of whom were Conservative Party politicians. RomanSpa (talk) 19:28, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

May 14

Birds flying into large picture windows

I have noticed that, up on the second floor, birds frequently fly right into the glass of some big picture windows. They must think that the clear glass is just "open air", so they fly right into it. They cannot see the clear glass. When they crash into the window, they make a loud thud. Sometimes, they get killed. Other times, they are just stunned and eventually fly away. My question is: is there any way to prevent this? Of course, when I keep the blinds down or the curtains drawn, the birds see those items through the clear glass. And, thus, they do not fly into the window. However, it's not always practical (or desirable) to constantly keep the blinds down and the curtains drawn. I am looking for a realistic solution, also. For example, I can probably get some duct tape and tape it in the shape of a big "X" across the window. This will probably be enough to alert the birds that the window is not, in fact, open airspace. But, realistically, I am not going to do that. Any thoughts? Thanks. ocated in a riverside park in Toronto.Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:52, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I found an obscure website that may help: [11]. Try that. --Jayron 32 01:02, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen cut-out silhouettes of raptors stuck onto such windows to deter birds from approaching. DuncanHill (talk) 01:34, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds sell such stickers Bird silhouette window stickers. DuncanHill (talk) 01:36, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an example of silhouettes in use at a station on the Toronto subway where it comes above ground to cross a river and the adjacent park. --174.88.135.200 (talk) 09:59, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's odd. Wouldn't those silhouettes attract rather than repel other birds? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:38, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Audubon Society of Portland sell a similar product, and have a page of information about this problem Birds and Windows. DuncanHill (talk) 01:39, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

American Bird Conservancy advice You can save birds from flying into windows!

I do hope this helps, DuncanHill (talk) 01:42, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bird-skyscraper collisions#Solutions lists a number of suggestions, but notes "some are unproven". Clarityfiend (talk) 03:37, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Did the French schools in Kabul close?

I want to the see if the Centre d'Enseignement Français en Afghanistan (Lycees Estlaqal and Malalai) closed. They no longer appear on AEFE's lists of schools and the websites haven't been updated, but I'm unable to confirm if they have closed or not. WhisperToMe (talk) 07:32, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mirabeau and the end of absolutism

Eric Hobsbawm in The Age Of Revolution: 1789-1848, p. 60, defines the end of absolutism in France by quoting a speech of Mirabeau: "Absolutism was at an end as Mirabeau, a brilliant and disreputable ex-noble, told the King: 'Sire, you are a stranger in this assembly, you have not the right to speak here.' (annotation #5)". Annotation #5 is Albert Goodwin, The French Revolution (1959 ed.), p. 70, which I do not have. Did Mirabeau really say that and what was the wording in French? --Stuhlsasse (talk) 19:44, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In the French Wikipedia article on Mirabeau there's a very similar quote (without the stranger part). He was not speaking to the king but to the master of ceremonies who was speaking for the king. "Oui, Monsieur, nous avons entendu les intentions qu’on a suggérées au Roy ; et vous qui ne sauriez être son organe auprès des États-Généraux, vous qui n’avez ici ni place ni voix, ni droit de parler, vous n’êtes pas fait pour nous rappeler son discours." It's sourced to the Moniteur newspaper, 25 June 1789 (that's the date of the newspaper, which was a few days after the speech). 184.147.117.34 (talk) 21:11, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is a specific story or author in the public domain?

How do I find out if a specific author-- or specific story-- is in the public domain? I would like to upload some onto Duolingo, a site where people can learn languages for free, and practice translating uploaded articles and works (which don't violate copyright). For example, short story "The Coming of the Ice" was published in 1923 (I think) in Amazing Stories.

A different author, Edgar Allan Poe, died maybe 66 years ago. I don't know if his works are in the public domain. Maybe some are, and some are not. What rules apply? Layman's terms would be appreciated.

I have found general guidelines (i.e., 70 years after author's death for printed works; some might be released sooner at author's discretion, or if copyright is not renewed; a lot depends on the time period; under certain conditions copyright may be extended). But I am not a lawyer. Such rules offer little help in specific cases.

Where can I find a search that says that this specific story, poem, or author's works, are in the public domain/ creative commons? Yes, no, status unclear, circumstances that may affect it? I have found a website which has a number of "pulp fiction" (I especially like SF/Fantasy) stories which they believe are in the public domain. To the best of their knowledge-- but they caution readers to do outside homework to verify this.

How do I do that homework? I want to quickly and easily ascertain whether (X story/poem/author) may be safely copied and shared in person, or on the Internet, without violating copyright. I appreciate your assistance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.106.44.217 (talk) 21:03, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]