Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2010 February 8

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

February 8

Meaning of CDT 00120

This is in reference to the ADA (American Dental Association) CDT (Current Dental Terminology) coding system. Many online references describe this code as "Periodic oral examination." This article] in Dental Economics is the only source I could find that provides anything more than the name. I'm trying to find out whether this code describes a procedure which must be performed by a dentist, or whether it is permissible to charge for it when performed by a hygienist. Ma^t_chups 04:55, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I called my insurance carrier, Delta Dental of Missouri, and was told that this code requires a licensed dentist.Ma^t_chups 02:12, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Find relatives of Miguel Rebeiro in portugal

Am trying to find lost relatives of my great grandad in Portugal.His name was Miguel Rebeiro. He immigrated from Portugal(don't have the date) to Ghana where he married a local lady. He had children,one named Ama Mansama who he later took with him to Portugal. He never returned to Ghana. But I know I have relatives in Portugal. Can you kindly help me trace them. Am ever so grateful. Wishing all the best in this endevour —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.186.23.190 (talk) 07:55, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

This isn't something Wikipedia can help you with directly, but there are plenty of websites devoted to genealogy that may be useful. GenForum hosts a Portugal genealogy message board here where you can post queries, and there's a free Portugal mailing list at RootsWeb here. I am not familiar with where and how Portuguese national records are kept, but if you ask on one of those two sites you will probably find someone who can advise you where to look further for material about your great grandfather and his family. Good luck with your search, Karenjc 13:00, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Where do Mennonites live in Canada

Hello. I would like to find out which Canadian provinces have a Mennonite population and the size of the populations. There is an article here on Mennonite but it isn't specific. The Statistics Canada site is driving me mad. (http://www.statcan.gc.ca). Please help. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.134.250.140 (talk) 16:33, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Here is a list from 1991; the numbers are probably different now but the relative sizes should be the same. As you can see, most of them live in Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, and BC. Adam Bishop (talk) 16:46, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Adam. I really appreciate it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.134.250.140 (talk) 18:22, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Just to make sure you realize that the article referenced above includes all Mennonites, not just the Old Order Mennonites, which is what some people mean when they say "Mennonite". If you are looking to be more specific there are large concentrations of Mennonites (both Old Order and others) round Waterloo, Ontario. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:50, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

bridges

In a design for a bridge crossing water through which small boats accoasionally travel, would a 1:10 slope up and back down work, or would that be too steep? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.197.114.158 (talk) 16:49, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean is a 10% grade ok for the road bed? Usually roads try to keep the grade lower then that, but having said that, I do know of smaller roads with grades of 25% or more. If it is a railroad bridge, that might be too much, since rails are more susceptible to large grades. A walking bridge would not be much of a problem for that grade. Googlemeister (talk) 17:05, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

That depends on what kind of traffic, and what kind of speeds that traffic would be doing, over the bridge. At one extreme, Interstate Highway standards says that the maximum grade for an interstate highway in the US is 6%. This document (for New Zealand local governments) sets the limit for their roads at 1:8 (12.5%). This document talks about grade considerations for wheelchair users, which sets 8.33% as the maximum, and requires a handrail for anything steeper than 5%. Even if your proposed bridge isn't open to the public (or otherwise isn't subject to road or footpath legal requirements for your jurisdiction) you might consider what the capabilities of your projected users are. If it's a footbridge, and you successfully cater for wheelchair users, then surely you'll also be fine for walkers, cyclists, pram and pushchair shovers, and skaters. On the flipside, the Grade (slope) article shows some terrific grades. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 17:11, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps off topic, but as the data above indicates that 1:10 is a bit steep: I assume you've considered the option of a swing bridge or a bascule bridge? You do say the traffic is occasional. It is not uncommon here (the UK) for canals to utilise swing bridges, and the canal traffic is a bit more than occasional, I'd say. Maedin\^talk 17:24, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

The UK at least has a lot of "humpback bridges" which have a very steep grade, but since they don't rise very high the length of grade is very short. It means vehicles don't have trouble climbing the grade, but long vehicles can ground. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:19, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

As someone said above, it really depends on what sort of traffic is expected on the bridge. The grade isn't the only issue, either; you also have to consider the vertical curvature where the upgrade and downgrade meet. For high-speed traffic this would have to be pretty gentle, and as DJ said, even for low-speed traffic a sharp vertical curve can be a problem with long vehicles. --Anonymous, 23:59 UTC, February 8, 2010.

Marxism, communism, socialism, whatever it is called question

So I was thinking here, in the style of economy where basically everything is owned by everybody, how would some jobs get done? I mean to take a modern example, it might be quite easy to fill certain jobs because that kind of work would appeal to a great deal of people, but where would the janitors, and coal miners and toxic waste cleanup people come from without economic incentive to fill those jobs? Would people be forced into those jobs? But by who since true communism or whatever it is called would not have a government either? Googlemeister (talk) 17:38, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

You're talking about true stateless communism, the endpoint of Marxism. If memory serves, Marx and Engels didn't discuss this subject rigorously, but only famously said that the state would "fade away". Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:43, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

restricting ourselves (for the moment) to 'true' or 'stateless' communism: where did you get the idea that there wouldn't be a government? The problem with government (in Marxist terms) is not that that it exists, but that it gets co-opted to serve the interests of a particular class (as an example, some modern Marxists have fun pointing out how the US government goes to the ends of the earth to protect the interests of major corporations, but can't even pass a health care bill that would protect average citizens). a pure marxist society would obviously have some system for making collective decisions - I have no idea what that would look like, but there's nothing in Marxism against it.

with respect to 'dirty, dangerous, difficult' jobs: again, Marxism would not be a system without remuneration, but any remuneration in pure Marxist society would be based on the value of the labor. in any socio-economic system sanitation work has a very, very high value (if you've ever been in a city during a garbage strike, you know what I mean). The reason sanitation work is avoided in capitalist societies is that it is constructed as 'menial' labor (a class based distinction), and no one wants to be classed as a menial if they can avoid it. In a class-free society that stigma wouldn't be there, and sanitation workers would get significant social rewards for doing a job that everyone in society recognizes as vital. --Ludwigs2 18:38, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

In the Soviet Union I believe that you could be simply assigned to a job. I presume that is how essential but unwanted jobs would be done. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:16, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I heard an hour-long interview on NPR with a woman who lived in East Germany under Erich Honecker, and she explained at length how training and employment worked. When she was in her early teens, she took an aptitude test which gave her an array of training options for H.S./College. Based on her aptitude test, she had several options, of which she chose a "hopitality" track, where she trained to work in the hotel/travel industry. She had hoped for a job working in a hotel or travel agency. However, when she graduated, there were more trainees in that job pool than open jobs, so she ended up working as a janitor; essentially unskilled labor, since she had no other training for anything else. She ultimately had no say in her employment options; based on the results of her aptitude test, she was basically assigned a training track, and then once she was trained, the government assigned her a job she was expected to perform her whole life. Again, she had no say in that at all. Her biggest problem was the over-specificity of her training; she probably had the intelligence to do any number of jobs, but she was untrained for them because her training was very specific, and ultimately a dead-end when it came to her actual job prospects. In the end, she ended up working in a hotel as a desk clerk, but that came in the 1990s after reunification. --Jayron32 19:29, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Similar things happen in the west: you get a degree in Media Studies or something similar, fail to get a job, then have to do menial work you are over qualified for, and are too poor or too proud to get another degree in something else. 92.26.29.37 (talk) 19:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

yeah... the Soviet Union was a stalinist single-party system that's about as far from the ideal of pure Marxism as you can imagine. This is a bit like citing British colonialism as an example of Smith's free market economics. --Ludwigs2 19:28, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Much of the British Empire was acquired by private capitalism and in order to further trade, i.e. the free market. You might want to choose a different simile. DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:36, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll choose a different simile when you show how the British interaction with native peoples in India, Africa, and elsewhere was a product of the free market. or are you suggesting that market forces convinced Africans to sell themselves into slavery? --Ludwigs2 21:22, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry to say that your comment implies you don't know very much about the subject. I read "Memoirs Of A Slave Trader" by Theodore Canot recently, someone more American than any other nationality, and it described how the local Kings willingly cooperated with the slavers and sold enemies and people considered wrongdoers into slavery for money or goods. The continental-European or American slavers bought the slaves from the Kings, who readily delivered them to the coast themselves. The author also described how difficult it was to get past the British warships who, (with great bravery and risking their own lives) did everything they could to stop the slave trade and led to the author giving up his business. Extremely regretably and to our shame, the British did play a big part in the trade befoe it became illegal in the British juristriction (which included the Atlantic Ocean). See Triangular trade, Arab slave trade and Barbary corsairs. The articles say the figures are between 11 and 18 million people by Arab Slave Trader, 9.4 to 14 million in the Atlantic Slave Trade, and 0.8 to 1.25 million by Barbary Pirates. 89.240.202.189 (talk) 00:53, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Much of what became the British Empire was originally privately held by British companies. The East India Company, the Hudson's Bay Company, etc. And a company buying and selling slaves for profit is still free-market capitalism. They have a product and a market, don't they? Adam Bishop (talk) 22:02, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

lol - I cannot believe that you guys are actually justifying the trade in human beings as a valid form of free market interaction. are you going to start justifying the international trade in women as sex workers as a free market interaction as well? and note, please, that I didn't say anything about trading with kings - a free market assumes that all participants in the transaction enter into the engagement 'freely', which would seem to be precluded by the act of enslaving someone (or are you suggesting that slaves should be considered material objects rather than participants in the exchange?). silliness... The british colonials did not 'trade' with indigenous peoples for products: the enslaved them, coerced them militarily, subverted their governments, or displaced them through direct colonization. anything as egalitarian as actual 'trade' would have been uneconomical. please... --Ludwigs2 21:15, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

We're not "justifying the trade in human beings as a valid form of free market interaction" as you incorrectly and falsly assert. You also make other false incorrect unjustified assertions such as the "The british colonials....uneconomical." You also make unannounced changes in your definitions: previously you were writing about trading with "Africans", now you have altered this to mean "all Africans". Its impossible to have a sensible debate with someone who keeps chopping and changing like this. 89.243.182.24 (talk) 14:47, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Since you're asking about stateless communism, you might be interested in knowing how a bunch of anarchists have answered this question: it's section I.4.13 of the Anarchist FAQ. Marnanel (talk) 20:43, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

We had a very left wing teacher at our 1970s Comprehensive school; he argued that society could work like a Kibbutz with people rotating through jobs every few weeks. He couldn't explain what would happen when the street sweeper became the heart surgeon and I'm not sure he was serious. In WWII Britain, every tenth(?) man was concripted into the coal mines (the Bevin Boys) instead of the armed services. It wasn't very popular; most would have preferred to be shot at apparently[1]. Alansplodge (talk) 20:45, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Your suspicions that he was parodying have merit. But if he was serious, for that concept I have this to say in rebuttal: College of Coaches. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:14, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah! If only we'd had Wikipedia then (and a computer to read it from). Alansplodge (talk) 09:23, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Ludwigs, you seem to have forgotten the motto of Communism: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." Peter jackson (talk) 11:15, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

It's always seemed to me that capitalism focuses on the first half of that, and socialism on the second half. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

hmmm... I don't see what makes you think I've forgotten that, unless you've misinterpreted that phrase to imply some kind of dysfunctional subservience to the state (a common misinterpretation among capitalists and socialists alike). All that phrase means is that people should give their best efforts for producing something (which every capitalist would agree with emphatically) and that people should receive what they need to lead a decent life (which most capitalists would complain about bitterly). where's the problem? --Ludwigs2 21:23, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Marx was very inspired by the improvements of technology in the Industrial Revolution and one of his ideas was that improvements in technology would make all jobs much easier and less time consuming. Hence low-status jobs like cleaning could be done by machines that would remove most of the unpleasantness.

It's also worth noting that many people are willing to clean their own homes, cars, etc, without renumeration, far beyond what is minimally necessary for hygiene, some people volunteer to pick up litter in public places, and some people even claim to enjoy cleaning (just not all day every day). --Normansmithy (talk) 11:32, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

There are few Kibbutzim left that truly follow the original idea of Kibbutz, without deviation, but on them, yes the crappy jobs are happily shared out among the members on a variety of bases, whether taking turns or people specialising in them. As theoretically there is no social kudos from doing a better or worse job, it helps. In practice, most Kibbutzim will buy in local labourers to fill some horrid jobs, especially as there's often a seasonal shortage of hands. --Dweller (talk) 14:23, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

In The Dispossessed the author suggests that in a society with no money for status,the willingness to do dirty,hard or dangerous jobs would confer status and I could see this.hotclaws 19:48, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I've noticed this on some kibbutzim, where the people who do "Gadash" (basically irrigation tasks) involving getting muddy and lugging very heavy pipes, are well-respected. --Dweller (talk) 20:58, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

that's a basic rule of human (social) nature. If you can force someone to do something unpleasant, you will think of them as corruptible and weak and treat them with disrespect. if you can't force them to do it, but they do it anyways, you will think of them as strong and generous, and treat them with respect. Unfortunately, capitalism has fixated on the belief that people must be forced to do unpleasant things, and so capitalists can't help but disrespect the people that do them. vicious little circle. --Ludwigs2 21:30, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Ludwigs, what you said was "any remuneration in pure Marxist society would be based on the value of the labor". that clearly contradicts the motto I cited. Peter jackson (talk) 10:37, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Your last remark doesn't seem to make much sense either. You seem to be using an odd sense of the word "forced". Slavery is forced labour. Capitalism isn't. Peter jackson (talk) 10:39, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

To answer the OP's question, see Stakhanovite, where a very hard working miner became a celebrity and was a role model for others. That would be a new twist on current celebrity culture - instead of becoming a celebrity duie to being on TV a lot, you become a celebrity due to doing something usefull for society - media editors please note. Also see Udarnik, Alija Sirotanović, and Socialist emulation. We do have many voluntary Subbotniks in the UK, doing charity work or nature conservation, or even just clearing litter, although nobody has heard of that term. The Corvée article surprisingly says that compulsory government-ordered unpaid work continued in the USA up until 1910. 89.243.182.24 (talk) 15:07, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

And Scottish miners were serfs until 1800. Peter jackson (talk) 17:52, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Is it possible to be proud or ashamed?

If we are just a product of the circumstances - social, historical, whatever. If there is no free will, a criminal and a hero are the same, just in another circumstances.--ProteanEd (talk) 17:46, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

See our Determinism article, which mentions many philosophers through the ages that have discussed the subject. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:01, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

also, check out nihilism, which argues something fairly close to what you've stated here. --Ludwigs2 18:41, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Read both. And how do we escape the despair of nihilism? Or the indifference of determinism? Are criminals and heroes the same? --ProteanEd (talk) 18:55, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, there's also Fatalism. The answer to your last question will be answered "no" by those who don't believe in determinism, and either "yes" or "no" by those who do. There are determinists who aren't idle fatalists. I notice that, disappointingly, the "ethics" paragraph in our determinism article is too brief, and uncited. Anyway, you're going to have to go to the philosophers to get any satisfaction for your question, and they're probably a better source than us. Personally I recommend Slaughterhouse Five. Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:43, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Escape? If you're asking for spiritual advice, I'll point out that the major failing of determinism and nihilism (and related philosophies like existentialism) is that they collapse physical experience into an intellectual abstraction. it's one thing to breathe, which we do most moments of every day. it's another thing entirely to think about breathing as an abstract concept: such thoughts will lead to the recognition that there's no 'reason' why we breathe or continue to breathe, which leads in turn to fears of death, angst about meaninglessness, paranoia about whether one is breathing 'correctly', philosophical meanderings about the relationship of breath to the greater cosmos... The only reason people do 'wrong' in the world is because they convince themselves (as a matter of intellectual abstraction) that they are doing 'right', and the only reason other people think it's wrong is that it violates their (intellectually abstract) preconceptions of what is right. when you see through your interpretation of the experience to the experience itself, the kind of despair you're talking about has no place to connect.

put another way, you have pretty much as much free will as you decide you have. If you decide you don't have very much (which is what most people do) you're a chump of circumstance, which may or may not work out well or you. If you decide you have a lot, then even bad times won't get you down because you'll make the best of them that you can. --Ludwigs2 19:58, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Well-stated. Someone deciding they have no free will is a cop-out. It enables them to blame someone else for their failings, rather than taking responsibility. Want proof of free will? Decide which letter on the keyboard you're going to hit next. Is someone forcing you to hit a particular key? No, you're choosing to. That's not to say there won't be different effects from hitting different keys. But actually hitting the key is your own responsibility and decision. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:08, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

But see Laplace's demon. I recommend the thread end, before we replicate 3,000 years of philosophical debate. Comet Tuttle (talk) 23:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

We need not concern ourselves about theoretical things for which there is no evidence of existence. Regarding replicating 3,000 years of philosophy... aw, c'mon, there's plenty of disk space. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:56, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you get it. The demon isn't a thing, it's a posited ability to predict the entirety of the future based on a complete knowledge of the situation right now. Mark Twain wrote: "When the first living atom found itself afloat on the great Laurentian sea the first act of that first atom led to the second act of that first atom, and so on down through the succeeding ages of all life, until, if the steps could be traced, it would be shown that the first act of that first atom has led inevitably to the act of my standing here in my dressing-gown at this instant talking to you." We are but slaves to the atoms of the moment, unable to perform any actions, or even generate any thoughts, that could not have been foreseen millions of years ago. I type here on the Humanities reference desk because the billiard balls making up the universe have collided in such a way that I type here on the Humanities reference desk. Comet Tuttle (talk) 00:14, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

if that's what you choose to believe, then c'est la vie. I choose otherwise. of course, you'll feel obligated to say that I can't choose otherwise, and I'll feel a definite urge to laugh at you, which I may or may not choose to do. --Ludwigs2 00:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like just another concept of what God might be. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:52, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

That's why I suggested it was spiritual advice. people underestimate the extent to which ontological discussions are both physical and spiritual. for instance, both the random gene model in evolutionary theory and the clockwork universe idea in physics were advanced (at least in part) because they explicitly nullified religious assertions about the presence of God in the world. Nihilism did the same - it was originally an effort (following Hegel and Neitzche) to create a secular/philosophical conception of morality. intellectual history is a fascinating thing... --Ludwigs2 07:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Writer of book (or article) falsely reporting Iraq War atrocities by US troops

We once had an article about a US soldier, or claimed soldier, who wrote such a book or article. As I recall, his work was initially met with great acclaim by the media but was later debunked. Does anyone recall his name? Thanks, CliffC (talk) 23:08, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

If it helps to jog anyone's memory, I recall there was at one point a photo of the writer in uniform – the photo was also debunked, due to some sort of mismatch (maybe the hat?) with the proper uniform for his claimed branch of service. --CliffC (talk) 23:25, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I've reposted this from the archives, perhaps someone thought my added comment was an answer. --CliffC (talk) 18:07, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

The Scott Thomas Beauchamp controversy perhaps? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.171.56.13 (talk) 18:42, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah, excellent -- that's the guy. I might have had him confused with someone else as far as the uniform oddities, but that's the name I remember. Thanks, CliffC (talk) 02:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

chinese lending

I am having trouble finding the exact date the U.S. first borrowed money from China. Will you please help me? Stu Smith —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.164.76.35 (talk) 18:27, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Don't think there has ever been a "loan" in the sense of a direct government-to-government request for money, but China has bought a significant number of U.S. Treasury bonds (partly in pursuit of its own self-interest). AnonMoos (talk) 18:33, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

"partly"? Why ever would Chinese investors (government or private) buy US T-bills for any reason other than their own self interest? Investors buy US bonds because there's a huge market in them, because they're AAA rated, and because the investors want to diversity their investments out of their own and related economies; all prudent investment goals. Beyond that buying US bonds helps shore up US demand for Chinese products. All entirely, and openly, their obvious self interest. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 19:04, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I suspect that AnonMoos meant "in pursuit of its own self-interest other than simply making money". DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:11, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I've not found a reliable history of Chinese ownership of government T-bills, but China (where "China" means both the large government sovereign wealth fund and private owners) owned USD 790 billion in November 2009, up from 585 billion in September 2008; that latter article says "China’s ownership of U.S. government debt has doubled since July 2005", so you can put the July 2005 figure at around 290 billion. In general, this NY Times article says China has been increasing its ownership of US debt (which includes T-bills and mortgages from Fannie-Mae and Freddie-Mac) since the 1997 Asian Financial Crisis (the NT Times article says 1998 rather than 1997). -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 18:56, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

To expand on this a bit more. When we say that "China owns the U.S. debt" we don't mean that China and the U.S. made a direct dealing whereby China directly offered and the U.S. sought a loan like you would go to the bank and get a car loan. It doesn't really work that way. Instead, the U.S. offered United States Treasury securitys on the open bond market. These are no different than the bonds that any private company may offer to raise capital. Anyone could have bought those bonds, indeed many people and banks all over the world buy US Treasury securities; maybe your grandmother used to buy you U.S. Savings Bonds: its the exact same thing, but on a MUCH larger scale. Basically, China (meaning both the Chinese Government and individual and corporate investors based in China) purchased US Treasury Bonds as investment vehicles, just as individuals and corporations do in the U.S. --Jayron32 19:18, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

And to expand on that a bit more, the Chinese government may be buying these bonds at auction, or may be buying them on the open bond market from random people around the world who happen to want to sell them that day; if the latter, the US government doesn't actually receive any money from China at all. Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:35, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I think that the questioner understands by now that the United States does not go to China, hat in hand, asking for a loan. As for when China first bought U.S. debt securities, in effect lending money to the United States, I would think that this must have happened by the 1940s at the latest, though at nowhere near the scale of China's present-day holding of U.S. debt. I have not been able to find a reference to support my supposition, but the establishment of the Bretton Woods system in 1944 made the U.S. dollar the world's reserve currency. Even before 1944, but certainly after 1944, central banks held U.S. dollars or U.S. dollar securities as part of their foreign reserves. A key function of a central bank is to hold foreign reserves to help facilitate trade, among other reasons. Typically central banks, such as the Central Bank of China or the People's Bank of China, prefer to hold foreign-currency securities (i.e., debt) in their reserves rather than cash, because securities yield interest. It is hard to imagine that the central banks of China during the aftermath of World War II did not hold some U.S. debt. Marco polo (talk) 20:45, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

However, if that was the case, it would have been nationalist China. I assume the questioner had in mind mainly the PRC... AnonMoos (talk)

China (PRC) first purchased US T-bills in March 1985, and has been a regular buyer ever since. The total purchased as of Nov 2009 was $2,308 billion. However, that number does not include any purchase made through third parties (e.g., London dealers) or any sales. Over 25+ years, China has bought (same caveats as above) about 1% of all US T-bills and agency paper issued.

Why would the Chinese government buy T-bills? First, they are not our enemy; we’re not at war, not even a cold war, so there is no ideological disincentive. Second, T-bills are the most liquid high-rated financial instrument in the world. Third, once China’s purchase of T-bills (and, a whole lot of other stuff called agency paper) reached a volume where it was capable of moving the market, it was enormously discouraged from stopping (or even slowing) its purchases, as the knock-on effects would be devastating to China and the world economy. DOR (HK) (talk) 09:01, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

legal routing number on check

I received a check in the mail suppose to be a Grant check, but when I tryed to cash it they would not because of the name of the bank and then I took it to my bank and they could not find the bank name or routing number. How could I find out if this is a real check or not? The name of the bank is US Bank out of Minneapolis, MN 55480, routing number is "092005411", is there such a place or bank? Please let me know what I can do if anything.

Thank You, DuAnn Goode <email removed to prevent spam> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.82.9.61 (talk) 19:09, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Your bank would know this far better than anonymous people on the Internet like us. I googled "092005411" and what comes up is many pages of warnings about counterfeit money orders and checks. You will have to believe your bank on this one. Sorry you were scammed. How exactly did it occur? Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:38, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Did you have to send the "Grantor" money in order to get the suspect check? Edison (talk) 20:21, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

If so, the scammers have probably cashed it by now, but it could be worth trying to stop the payment somehow. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:33, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm confused by your question. Did this grant cheque arrive totally unexpectedly, like a random stranger just sent it to you? If so, it could easily be a scam or fraud. On the other hand, if you were expecting this cheque from a legitimate source of grants (ie. you made an application to the government or some charity), I would contact them for more information about their bank. Astronaut (talk) 05:13, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Also, I don't know about routing numbers, but could there be a misprint on the cheque? I also found several US Banks in the Minneapolis area including their corporate headquarters. Visit http://www.usbank.com/ for more info. Astronaut (talk) 06:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

It is unlikely to be a misprint, I'm afraid. It appears you have been scammed by the "Greendot grant aid scam". It works like this: you receieve a cheque, supposedly an advance on a grant, from someone claiming to be a grants administrator. You send them a "commission" (usually around $400) via the Greendot money transfer service, and they send you the balance of your grant (usually several thousand dollars). The cheque is a fraud and will bounce or be cancelled, the grant doesn't arrive, and your $400 has gone for good. The routing number 092005411 is linked repeatedly to this fraud, although the bank ID varies. The signatory on the cheque is often named Marilyn Ritchie. There's info out there on this scam, although some on forums Wikipedia doesn't like, so I won't link. Google "greendot marilyn ritchie grant scam". I'm sorry you've been targeted, and I hope you have not lost money. Karenjc 17:52, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I can't find that scam covered in wikipedia. Seems like it ought to be. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

It would come under advance fee fraud, and particularly the subsection about fake cheques. Karenjc 22:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I am surprised anyone would fall for this. Isn't it obvious that to get a grant for something, you have to apply for it first and not just recieve a cheque unexpectedly in the mail? And who has ever heard of having to pay some middleman a "commission" to recieve a grant? Astronaut (talk) 01:18, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Because it offers hope. It targets those the scammers reckon are desperate enough to bite, like many other scams of this type, i.e. it preys directly on the vulnerable and needy. When the funds appear to clear into their account (see the explanation of the "float" at Advance_fee_fraud#Fake_cheques), the recipient is reassured that the cheque is valid, and believes it is safe to send the "commission". Those who don't need the money will be more likely to suspect a scam, but people in desperate straits may not be aware of the warnings and information out there, and may lack the means to access them easily before they are duped. It is a double whammy, because the recipient will usually spend the inital payment (perhaps to clear existing debts) once it has "cleared" into their account (not realising that it may be reclaimed if the cheque fails), as well as sending the commission. When the cheque is declined and the funds disappear from the recipient's account, they end up in debt to the bank as well as losing the commission. Yes, it's surprising that people fall for it, but it is carefully calculated to draw them in. Nice people, those who rob the poor. Karenjc 09:21, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Possible qualification to claim title of Emperor

Thinking in terms of qualifications required to hold a title would a good definition for Emperor be the person who within a specified period of time was the first person to reduce to minimum form the greatest number of valid logical equations, which had the greatest number of variables with the greatest number of states? (Similar to how one might define of the final winner in a Chess championship such as Big Blue, or whatever the last Chess playing computer winner was named, that had won against all other players.) 71.100.8.16 (talk) 22:02, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Emperor of what? Adam Bishop (talk) 22:05, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

The Universe, or at least as far in that direction as control over it from Earth might extend. 71.100.8.16 (talk) 06:46, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

It appears that you don't need to rule over an empire to be called an emperor, as in the case of the Emperor of Japan. --Kvasir (talk) 22:25, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I reckon a monarch can call itself whatever it wants to. In any case, in 1941 it was an empire, as FDR referred to in his speech about having been attacked by "the Empire of Japan". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:53, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Japan is considered an empire because the Yamato (the imperial family) conquered lots of little kingdoms to unify the country. Nyttend (talk) 02:27, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

The Emperor of Japan is so titled because the title was directly chosen to emulate the Chinese title Huangdi, which is translated as Emperor because of the similarity in status of the Chines Emperor versus the predecessor Chinese kingdom and the subject kingdoms as that of the Roman Emperor.

By contrast, the title granted by the Chinese emperor to the ruler of Japan is merely Wang, or "king". --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 02:57, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Hasn't this already been automated (at least for binary logic)? Besides, philosophers apparently only aspire to be kings, while mathematicians are satisfied with princes. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:52, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

...and for polyvalued ( Many-valued might be the better term since poly-valued could suggest that more than a single state of the same variable could be valid at the same time. You tell me. ) logic here? 71.100.8.16 (talk) 06:16, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

While Japan was indeed considered an empire, it is no longer considered so, even in Japanese parlance. 日本国 is the name of the country, whereas 大日本帝國 (Great Japanese Empire) dissolved after WWII following its defeat. See Empire of Japan. Emperor Hirohito was forced to renounce his divinity and took on a symbolic status. This has not change with the current Emperor Akihito. --Kvasir (talk) 17:04, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

So here's the long and short of it. In English, the word "Emperor" has two contexts:

• In a European context, there is only one Emperor: the Roman Emperor. For most of history, every legitimate claimaint to the actual title of Emperor, or a varient thereof, has a connection to the Roman Emperor. This claim has been divided multiple times over history, but they all usually claim a thread back to Rome. Consider the following claimaint threads:
• When Rome divided into the Eastern Roman Empire and Western Roman Empire, it essentially created two Emperors, and all Emperors connect to one or the other. There was the Western/Latin/Catholic Emperor thread and the Eastern/Orthodox/Greek Emperor thread. Lets follow each of these:

• The Western claim basically disappeared after Odoacer deposed the last legitimate western emperor. The next realistic claimaint to that title was Charlemagne who established the Frankish Empire. Through him, the Holy Roman Empire gets its claim to the title of Emperor. When Napoleon officially disbanded the HRE, he got to claim himself as the head of the French Empire (since he was replacing the last legitimate Western empire with himself). Napoleon III based his claim on a French Empire through Napoleon I's claim, and then, via the results of the Franco-Prussian War, when Napoleon III was deposed, the Western claim passed on to the German Empire. Through all of this, the Hapsburgs maintained their claim to the Western title, so Austria and Austria/Hungary also maintained the title of Emperor, even after the HRE was officially ended by Napoleon. After WWI, the west finally decided to end the entire charade, and the Roman Empire in the West was put to an end.
• The Eastern claim evolved from the Eastern Roman Empire to the Byzantine Empire (which is a modern term, the Eastern Roman Empire never stopped calling itself that, so as far as they were concerned, there was no functional change). At various times, when Constantinople fell, the claim was divided or shifted to other claimants. For example, when the crusaders sacked the city, they established the Latin Empire. When the Ottoman Turks seized the city in 1453, the claim devolved to the Empire of Trebizond (as direct descendants of the Byzantine Emperors) and to Moscow, which seized the title of "Third Rome" as the last bastion of eastern orthodox christendom, the Dukes of Muscovy took the tile Tsar, from "Caesar" or "Emperor". So, the main eastern claimaint was the Tsar of Russia, which also basically expired during WWI (or more properly the Russian Revolution).
• By the 19th century, there occasionally sprung up some states with absolutely no claim to the Roman Empire title, but with European connections. The two off hand I can think of are the Empire of Brazil (basically a continuation of the Kingdom of Portugal-in-exile after the Napoleonic wars) and the two Mexican Empires.

• So that's the story for Europe. Elsewhere in the world, the term "Emperor" is more liberally applied to monarchs in other cultures whose states operate something like the Roman Empire did, or occupied the same sort of Hegemony over their part of the world. Thus, we have things like the Chinese Emperor, the Japanese Emperor, the Aztec Emperor, etc. etc. Since these cultures had absolutely zero connection to Rome, the term emperor is used somewhat poetically; the term has a different meaning in these contexts than it does in the European one, and isn't a direct translation of Emperor, instead its just the term we use in English as an analog to the local term of "Highest possible ranking monarch" for that culture. --Jayron32 04:04, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Not so fast, Jayron32. Victoria also laid claim to be Empress of India, albeit iirc this was forced on her by one of her prime ministers. --Tagishsimon (talk) 04:16, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

As I stated, the title was occasionally used in the 19th century by European rulers over their non-European possessions. See my cites for the Empire of Brazil and Empire of Mexico above. Though I did not mentioned it specifically, the use of the "Empire of India" title by the British Monarchy certainly fits right in this category. I may have missed a few other such 19th cnetury usages, my naming of the Empire of Brazil and the Empire of Mexico was not intended to be comprehensive, merely representative, of the odd 19th century usage. --Jayron32 05:48, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Your response is excellent. Its reader friendly yet detailed enough to surpass Monarch Notes (tiny pun intended) but surely the Roman title is qualified on the basis of something like military power or gold reserves or legal system or some religious belief as grounds for making the claim which the title represents. What I am asking is whether the basis I have suggested would make a better basis for the title than anything, anywhere in the past, future or present and if not what that other thing might be. (Please consider writing a book if you have not already done so.) 71.100.8.16 (talk) 06:32, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Not really. Every title has an historical context; the term Emperor was not invented out of whole cloth to refer to just any ruler of a multinational state. It is used often that way in a modern context, as I stated above, somewhat poetically. But in terms of its historical context, the title Emperor has a very specific usage, just as do terms like King and Duke and Count and Sherrif and various other titles. Generally, even in a modern usage, these have retained some of their historical context (in the U.S. the Sherrif is the top law-enforcement officer in a County (Shire) and so, the term is very close to its original meaning from England, "Shire-reeve"). I mean, you can just to call anyone anything you want. LeBron James is "King James", Edward Kennedy Ellington was a "Duke", Joshua Abraham Norton was an "Emperor". --Jayron32 16:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Babe Ruth was a Sultan, Rogers Hornsby was a Rajah, Mr. Aaron was the King of Slam, etc. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:31, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

And Mr Bob Geldof is commonly but mistakenly referred to as Sir Bob Geldof. He's no more a real Sir than Count Basie was a real count or Duke Wayne was a real duke. . -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Well that's not quite true. Bob Geldof KBE would be a Sir if he were a Commonwealth citizen, it's not merely a nickname like the others. FiggyBee (talk) 02:44, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Except that he's not a Commonwealth citizen. He can certainly use the KBE, but as for Sir, well, that is just not on. Would anyone ever call Ronald Reagan or George HW Bush or Steven Spielberg "Sir Ronald" or "Sir George" or "Sir Steven"? Of course not; nobody has ever done that; that is almost a "non-existent concept". But they too had honorary knighthoods, just like Geldof. It's very stark: either one is entitled to "Sir", or one is not. Bob Geldof is not. The use of "Sir" for an honorary knight is absolutely a nickname. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 07:23, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Americans have been known to call their President "King [whoever]]", but that's very seldom intended to be a compliment. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:57, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

See Imperator for the origins of the title. FiggyBee (talk) 10:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Jack is perfectly correct about knighthoods. However, even the British media habitually refer to someone as "Sir" as soon as his knighthood is announced, rather than wait till he's actually knighted, so how can poor benighted foreigners be expected to get it right? Peter jackson (talk) 10:42, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Now, I believe that that practice has been enshrined in the rules somewhere. It used to be the case that a knight was not a knight until they were physically dubbed with a sword by the monarch or their representative; what they were in between the gazettal/announcement and the conferral ceremony, I don't know; maybe "knight-designate"? But some years ago - quite some years ago now - it was recognised that the gazettal (i.e the formal announcement) effectively converted a Mr into a Sir in the eyes of the public, and formal approval was given to refer to new knights as Sir immediately, without waiting for the dubbing. Were this not the case, how would people like Henry Cotton get on? He accepted a knighthood, but died even before the official announcement was due to be made on New Year's Eve, let alone before any conferral ceremony; yet he is entitled to be known as "Sir Henry Cotton" because the official date of his knighthood was decreed to be the date of his death, i.e. he became a knight on the stroke of midnight, and died some time later that day. Or people who died between the announcement and the conferral ceremony? They are not permanently denied their "Sir" because of an accident of history over which they had no control. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:37, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

That would certainly be interesting. Can you supply a citation for it? Peter jackson (talk) 14:54, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes. From Debretts: The recipient is allowed to use his title and to attach the appropriate letters for Knights of Orders of Chivalry after his name from the date of the announcement in the London Gazette. He does not have to wait for the accolade to be officially conferred upon him. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 23:15, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll have a look through some old editions to see when it changed, & perhaps how. Peter jackson (talk) 12:01, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

You may have quite a search on your hands, Peter. We don't have knighthoods in Australia any more, but back in the days when we did (pre-1983), new knights and dames always used their Sirs and Dames immediately upon the public announcement (traditionally New Year's Day and Queen's Birthday, latterly Australia Day and QB). Same was true for other honours that came with postnominal letters. Whether the practice ever varied in the UK, I couldn't say for certain; but the notion that a new knight is announced in the media, but cannot be referred to as "Sir <name>" until such time as he goes to the Palace for the investiture, seems unsustainable. How would ordinary people know whether a particular knight has been invested yet or not? Alfred Hitchcock was Sir Alfred from the moment of his public announcement, but he never got to the Palace at all. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:53, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

follow-up

After looking up Imperator, watching a flick about the Last Emperor of China and a few episodes of the HBO series named ROME it is fairly clear that the historical basis is 1) the accumulation of many titles like merit badges in the Boy Scouts and 2) how many enemy's of the state you have sent to their death on the assumption that makes you the guy who can reduce the most variables, etc. What I was asking is whether or not perhaps say for instance just playing a sophisticated computer game against the computer if the person who last won the most games got to be crowned Emperor but of course for real not just his status in the computer game. 71.100.8.16 (talk) 12:05, 11 February 2010 (UTC)