Marco polo (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 367: | Line 367: | ||
:How did inflicting injury upon you "fix" the problem? Did it really fix it, or did you just comply with his demands in order not to be hit again? ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 20:58, 18 February 2013 (UTC) |
:How did inflicting injury upon you "fix" the problem? Did it really fix it, or did you just comply with his demands in order not to be hit again? ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 20:58, 18 February 2013 (UTC) |
||
::According to [http://d-scholarship.pitt.edu/9520/ this source], neither videogames nor animé are among the causes identified by any of the scholarly research on this topic. [[User:Marco polo|Marco polo]] ([[User talk:Marco polo|talk]]) 21:00, 18 February 2013 (UTC) |
::According to [http://d-scholarship.pitt.edu/9520/ this source], neither videogames nor animé are among the causes identified by any of the scholarly research on this topic. [[User:Marco polo|Marco polo]] ([[User talk:Marco polo|talk]]) 21:00, 18 February 2013 (UTC) |
||
Indeed, I complied with his demands. I didn't want any more beats up. [[User:Kotjap|Kotjap]] ([[User talk:Kotjap|talk]]) 21:01, 18 February 2013 (UTC) |
Revision as of 21:01, 18 February 2013
of the Wikipedia reference desk.
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.
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.
February 13
Ethnic makeup of Ottoman imperial spouses
It seem that the Ottoman emperors married Greeks, Eastern European or Caucasian as in from the Caucasus region. How did the they choose their wives, was it through bride shows, matchmaking by nobles or their own parents? Also were any wives, who were former Christian, allow to keep their faith or if not did any practice it secretly.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 01:33, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- I don't know a whole lot about the the Sultan's household, but my understanding from skimming the relevent Wikipedia articles is that the organization of the Imperial Harem was complex; one member of that harem was often elevated to Haseki sultan who was the designated concubine to whom was given the dignity of being mother to the heir, I think Haseki sultan is sometimes translated as "wife", but I don't know if that's really accurate and if the Haseki was a legal wife, or just the top concubine in the pecking order. I've browsed the articles, and it isn't always clear the difference between Haseki and Wife; if they were really different concepts or merely different translations of the same idea. For example, Turhan Hatice is described as Haseki and NOT wife, while Amina Mihr-i Shah is described as "spouse" and Roxelana is described as both "wife" and "Haseki" in ways that make it seem as those were different concepts. Regarding the choosing of concubines and wives, my understanding is that that job went to the Valide Sultan, who was the mother of the Sultan. --Jayron32 05:53, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- As far as I understand it, most of them most of the time were slave concubines from the point of view of Islamic law (not wives), and the only real female position of authority in the harem was the Valide Sultan or mother of the reigning Sultan (which you mentioned). The process of adding to the harem was more a matter of slave procurement than matchmaking... AnonMoos (talk) 11:54, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
What were the biggest bluffs ever made?
Not that they have to be successful. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 05:39, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- In many cases, we may never know if they were bluffs or would have really been followed through on, like Mutually Assured Destruction. StuRat (talk) 05:54, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) What do you mean by bluff? Could you explain in more detail? In what context? --Jayron32 05:55, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- As well as defining bluff you need to define "successful". Can 2.2 billion people be wrong?--Shantavira|feed me 09:17, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- Chris Moneymaker against Sam Farha[1], a key successful bluff in the Main Event of the World Series of Poker on his way to winning the championship. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:00, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- Operation Bodyguard - although it might be classed as a bait-and-switch rather than a bluff in the conventional sense of the term. Roger (talk) 10:39, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- I would define the most common general use of "bluff" as a poker metaphor: A bluff is a statement "If you don't do what I want, then I will do what you don't want" uttered when the reality is that I will not or cannot do what I'm threatening. The bluff is successful if the recipient accedes to the demand. Example 1: "If you don't fold your poker hand, I'll top your hand" (spoken when I know I have a bad hand). Example 2: Mutual assured destruction: "If you don't refrain from nuking the US, we'll respond by nuking the USSR" (or vice versa), if spoken in the knowledge that we won't really retaliate. We'll never know whether the US or the USSR was bluffing about that -- that's the hallmark of a good successful bluff: if the other party follows the dictates of the bluffer ("don't nuke me in the first place"), then ex post no one ever finds out if the threat was real or a bluff. Example 3: possibly the Cuban missile crisis: "We might start a war that could spin out of control if you don't take the missiles out of Cuba". (Again, since the dictate was followed, albeit with compensating concessions, we don't know what would have happened if the missilies had been kept in Cuba, so we don't know if Kennedy was bluffing.) Example 4: possibly North Korea saying that they'll use a nuclear response if the US and South Korea invade. (Again, we don't know if they're bluffing or not.) Example 5: "We (the US) might invade you (Iran) if you don't dismantle your nuclear program" (again, in progress, so we don't know whether that implied threat is a bluff or not). Example 6: "If you (China) don't refrain from invading Taiwan, we (the US) will defend Taiwan militarily." (Maybe a bluff, maybe a true threat. If a bluff, maybe successful so far or maybe China wouldn't have invaded Taiwan by now anyway.) So there are lots of examples from the military and diplomatic sphere.
- I wonder if there are any military/diplomatic examples that caused someone to obey the dictate but which archives have subsequently shown were bluffs. And I wonder if there are any non-military/diplomatic, non-poker examples. Duoduoduo (talk) 17:32, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- Mutually Assured Destruction, fiat currency. μηδείς (talk) 18:15, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- A non-example: apparently Donald Trump was not bluffing when he threatened to sue Bill Maher if Maher didn't pay up on his "promise" to donate money if Trump could prove his father is not an orangutan. Duoduoduo (talk) 18:59, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- Hmm I'm reluctant to mention this for BLP reasons but I guess it's no worse then what's already mentioned. May be it's still a bluff? From what I see, Donald Trump hasn't actually provided useful evidence to counter the claim (if we ignore whether such evidence is needed). All he's provided is a birth certificate, but we know how easy those are to fake; even if not fake, birth certificates are sometimes wrong about who the biological father is; in any case, the birth certificate even if true only tells us his father's name not his genus. And I don't see that his father's genus is established anymore then Donald's himself, probably less so since we don't have videos of him telling people they're fired, although depending on how we interpret the claim the father will have the be mostly 100% orangutan but Donald only around 50%. Why has he avoided a DNA test which while not telling us who his actual father is in the absence of someone's DNA to compare it to, should tell us whether there's any sign of any orangutan ancestors. Unless perhaps he has something to hide ;-) Nil Einne (talk) 08:56, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Lavon Affair accounts
Is Ben Gurion's Spy generally well-regarded by historians? Are there works on the Lavon Affair which are better regarded than this book? --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 05:57, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- Well, at least one historian isn't impressed; "Teveth presents a systematic apology for Ben Gurion. He does not deign to engage and refute arguments that differ from his own. Therefore, Teveth should be used with great caution despite his access to many documents unavailable to others." From: Joel Beinin, The Dispersion of Egyptian Jewry: Culture, Politics, and the Formation of a Modern Diaspora, University of California Press 1998, ISBN 0-520-211175-8 (p.278). Alansplodge (talk) 00:39, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for that, I hadn't seen anything negative (from historians) until yours.--Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 20:24, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Copyright in Canadian films?
Hi all,
Does anyone know when films (ie, movies, or "cinematograph productions" to use the contemporary term) gained copyright protection in Canada?
In the UK, they seem to have first been covered by the Copyright Act 1911. It seems likely to me that they were brought under protection in Canada by the Copyright Act of Canada in 1921, brought into force in 1924, as this was essentially a local adoption of the 1911 Act; however, there were 1900 and 1905 amendments to existing legislation which may have covered them. On the other hand, there wasn't a Canadian film industry in any real sense before WWI, so there'd be no domestic impetus for protection.
Any ideas? I'm not completely sure where to look, and my cursory researches haven't been very productive. Andrew Gray (talk) 11:14, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Nazi Germany question
Horst Wessel was made a martyr of the Nazi cause, he belonged to the Sturmabteilung and was murdered by a Red in 1930. In 1934 Hitler murdered all the Sturmabteilung right?. My question is, so why Wessel remained as hero until the end of the Reich? Thank. Kotjap (talk) 19:41, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- The article you linked says there were 3,000,000 members of the SA in 1934, and that the number of people killed in the purge was estimated at "between 150 and 200 persons". So "Hitler murdered all the Sturmabteilung" isn't true. Those 2,999,800 remainders either stayed in the SA (which the article says continued to exist) or were incorporated into the SS. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 19:51, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- 3 million is a lot. Are you sure about that? 86.163.209.18 (talk) 20:44, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- The German Wikipedia claims it was 3.5 million. Röhm himself bragged about there being 4 million members. There is a reason nazism is termed a mass movement. --Saddhiyama (talk) 20:51, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- 3 million is a lot. Are you sure about that? 86.163.209.18 (talk) 20:44, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
I missed the point, I thought the rest were already in the other side of the river. Kotjap (talk) 20:01, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Worst Popes ever?
The outgoing Pope has come in for criticism about his Nazi past - however, I don't really suppose that the guy was really doing anything that wasn't expected of him at the time, as a young man in Germany and I've never really heard much evidence that he actually believed the nonsense that the Nazis were spouting - more that he went along with it because he had no real choice, along with millions of other German citizens.
Anyway - it got me thiking that in the grand scheme of things, in terms of 'popes who have done bad things', Benedict XVI's transgressions are pretty insignificant. Over the years I've heard stories about the nefarious deeds of previous popes throughout history (murder, rape, incest, bestiality, sodomy, financial impropriety, theft, devil worship, desecrating corpses, etc.), though most of the details escape me at present (the names tend to blend into each other for me), and I'm wondering now... Which popes are generally considered by historians to be the worst popes of all time? --91.125.221.136 (talk) 21:22, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- WP:WHAAOE. See The Bad Popes. RNealK (talk) 22:18, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Some historians have criticized Pius XII for not condemning the Holocaust enough and for being too vague in the instances when he did condemn the Holocaust. Futurist110 (talk) 07:33, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- Maybe the first pope to resign (basically selling the papacy) was Benedict IX. One of his successors, pope Victor III referred to his "rapes, murders and other unspeakable acts. His life as a pope so vile, so foul, so execrable, that I shudder to think of it". Some possible candidates here. - Lindert (talk) 22:33, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- The first to resign was Pope Pontian, in the year 235. Looie496 (talk) 22:40, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- Two candidates are Pope Alexander VI, who led a life of lavish luxury and self-indulgence combined with cut-throat politics, at a time when thoughtful people were calling for church reform (and fearing what might happen if there was no reform), and Pope Pius V, who issued the infamous bull Regnans in Excelsis which required English Catholics to choose between being political traitors and bad Catholics -- this did basically nothing to depose Elizabeth, but together with the foamings and frothings at the mouth of Cardinal Allen it managed to set Catholicism in England back many decades. The next Pope after Pius V, Gregory XIII had to scale back on Regnans because it was self-evidently counter-productive (however, he apparently issued a medal in celebration of the St. Bartholomew's Day massacre)... AnonMoos (talk) 23:21, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- Let me suggest Urban II, who kicked off the Crusades. Sort of a Catholic Osama bin Laden. StuRat (talk) 00:35, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- Don't think so -- he incited straightforward army-against-army open declared warfare (not surprise terrorist attacks), at a time when serious people were worried about Christian Europe being caught up in a pincer movement of aggressive Muslim attacks along two fronts at once (a western front in Spain and an eastern front in Anatolia after the Battle of Manzikert, threatening Greece and the Balkans), and Christians had a number of legitimate religious grievances in the Holy Land (such as the Church of the Holy Sepulchre having been destroyed in 1009, and the Turks blocking Christian pilgrimages). The sleazy side of the first Crusade manifested itself much more against Jews than Muslims... AnonMoos (talk) 05:33, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- And that was nothing compared to the Fourth Crusade, which did a very good job of breaking down resistance by a Christian state that had fought Islam since Muhammad was in living memory. Nyttend (talk) 15:00, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- That wasn't the pope's idea, at least...but the same pope (Innocent III) was big on eradicating the Cathars, if you are looking for something to pin on him. It would be amusing if you tried to argue that Innocent III is the worst pope ever though (he is clearly the best pope ever). Adam Bishop (talk) 01:32, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- And that was nothing compared to the Fourth Crusade, which did a very good job of breaking down resistance by a Christian state that had fought Islam since Muhammad was in living memory. Nyttend (talk) 15:00, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- Don't think so -- he incited straightforward army-against-army open declared warfare (not surprise terrorist attacks), at a time when serious people were worried about Christian Europe being caught up in a pincer movement of aggressive Muslim attacks along two fronts at once (a western front in Spain and an eastern front in Anatolia after the Battle of Manzikert, threatening Greece and the Balkans), and Christians had a number of legitimate religious grievances in the Holy Land (such as the Church of the Holy Sepulchre having been destroyed in 1009, and the Turks blocking Christian pilgrimages). The sleazy side of the first Crusade manifested itself much more against Jews than Muslims... AnonMoos (talk) 05:33, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Royal inbreeding
Where the Habsburg jaw originate in the family? I mean it got worse with each generation of inbreeding but there must have one individual farther up the line who had a pronounce jaw and the trait slowlying as his or her descendants intermarried. Also we hear a lot of the Habsburg inbreeding and the British but he Portuguese Braganzas were inbreeding along the same scale as the Habsburgs, did their descendants acquire any distinguishing disabilities or traits from this?--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 21:37, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- Try reading The Role of Inbreeding in the Extinction of a European Royal Dynasty. Alansplodge (talk) 00:22, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- de:Habsburger Unterlippe gives several possibilities, in other words: it is unknown. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 02:03, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Is there records someplace as to the length of the battle lines and how many?--Doug Coldwell (talk) 22:22, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- Try reading English Heritage Battlefield Report: Lewes 1264. Alansplodge (talk) 00:24, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- Looks like an excellent source at first glance. Will have to study it. Thanks for lead.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 00:35, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Religious conversion to Catholicism
What and how does a person say to a priest in order to convert to Roman Catholicism? Once converted, can the person attend and participate in an Eastern Orthodox or Protestant church, or must only be affiliated with the Roman Catholic church at all times? How hard is it to convert to Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, or Protestantism? Do the priests ask the potential convert an exhaustive list of questions, detailing the rigorous and disciplined life of a Christian in order to persuade the non-Christian that the Christian life is not as glamourous as he/she thinks it is? Would a child being born in a Christian household have an easier time being a Christian than someone who converts as an adult? 140.254.121.60 (talk) 22:23, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- These days, conversion to Catholicism generally involves RCIA. Typically, this involves a fairly lengthy process (ideally, it is supposed to take at least a year), and is supposed to prepare the candidate and ensure they are making an informed decision. Technically, RCIA itself is only really for unbaptised adults, with slightly different (shorter) processes for candidates who are baptised. RCIA will involve an unbaptised person being baptised, confirmed, receiving reconciliation and communion (the Sacraments of Initiation). Conversion will involve a baptised person being confirmed, and receiving reconciliation and communion.
- One of the duties of a Catholic is to try to make it to a Catholic Mass every Sunday and Holy Day of Obligation when reasonably possible. This could be at a Roman Catholic church, or an Eastern Catholic church, but it cannot be at an Orthodox Divine Liturgy or a Protestant service. That doesn't mean Catholics cannot attend those services, but they still need to attend Mass at a Catholic church as well. When a Catholic attends a service at a non-Catholic church, they shouldn't receive Communion there, so that it doesn't look like they think Communion in a Catholic church is the same as people in that church think theirs is, and so that it doesn't look like the churches are in more agreement than they are.
- A good, accessible resource for learning about how people convert to Catholicism is www.beginningcatholic.com. Warning: this is a website aimed at converts to Catholicism and is written from a Catholic perspective, so treat accordingly. I am sure others will provide similar guides for converts to the main forms of Orthodoxy and Protestantism: I gather it is highly variable, so specifics will probably be interesting. 86.163.209.18 (talk) 23:00, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- These days? How did people convert back in the olden days? During the Middle Ages or Dark Ages? How did the missionaries manage to convert populations in Central and South America and the Phillippines? 140.254.229.147 (talk) 23:40, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- Way, way back in early Christianity, people converted by a long secretive process. The modern RCIA process is supposed to be modelled on this in some ways, but much more open. Through the Middle Ages until the late 20th century, there wasn't really a properly formalised route for converts, because adult converts weren't really expected for the most part: the Church was established, and people were generally born into the faith. The conversion process was much more variable and depended on the convert chatting to a priest over a period of time in which they learnt about Catholicism and thought about what converting would mean, followed by the Sacraments of Initiation as discussed above. RCIA was created as a more formalised modern process with a set structure because of an awareness that the Church was getting more adult converts in established areas. 86.163.209.18 (talk) 00:02, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- In the Middle Ages there were tons of adult converts. There were lots of Jews, Muslims, and pagans who converted...often by force, of course, but that was different. Sometimes they converted willingly, and there certainly was a formalized process for them. Basically you just have to be a catechumen for a certain amount of time first...not quite so formalized as it is now, but not too different. This happened a lot in Spain, Sicily, the crusader states, anywhere where Catholics lived with non-Catholics. Adam Bishop (talk) 11:55, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- Way, way back in early Christianity, people converted by a long secretive process. The modern RCIA process is supposed to be modelled on this in some ways, but much more open. Through the Middle Ages until the late 20th century, there wasn't really a properly formalised route for converts, because adult converts weren't really expected for the most part: the Church was established, and people were generally born into the faith. The conversion process was much more variable and depended on the convert chatting to a priest over a period of time in which they learnt about Catholicism and thought about what converting would mean, followed by the Sacraments of Initiation as discussed above. RCIA was created as a more formalised modern process with a set structure because of an awareness that the Church was getting more adult converts in established areas. 86.163.209.18 (talk) 00:02, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- 140.254.229.147 -- for the early days of Christianity, see article Catechumen. Collective group conversions would have been less individually rigorous. AnonMoos (talk) 05:22, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- Cuius regio eius religio for the old method. My maternal grandparents woke up one day and found out they were Catholic instead of Orthodox when their Eparchate switched from Russian to Romish. Their priest was married, and they kept the Eastern Rite in which I was baptized and confirmed at the same time as an infant. My Lutheran grandfather spent a year converting to Catholicism on his deathbed. I witnessed his confirmation. Anyone can baptize in extremis. μηδείς (talk) 05:59, 14 February 2013 (UTC)μηδείς (talk) 05:53, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- If your maternal grandparents belong to one of the Eastern Catholic Churches, that's not really a conversion, and they never became Roman Catholic. Their Church just moved into a full Communion with the Church in Rome, and potentially out of Communion with the Eastern or Oriental Orthodox Churches (if they started out in Communion with one of those groups). Historically, the various ancient Particular Churches have moved in and out of communion with each other repeatedly, without anyone involved 'converting' to or from anything. 86.163.209.18 (talk) 09:29, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
February 14
Are the people from Equatorial Guinea in the U.S Hispanics?
Since Spanish is the most widely Spoken language in Equatorial Guinea, would the Spanish-speaking Equatoguinean people living in the U.S be considered not only as African Americans, but also as Hispanic Americans or even Latinos (after all, they come from a country where the majority of the people speak a Latin-based language known as Spanish)? Would it then be appropriate, acceptable, and accurate or not for a person from Equatorial Guinea to serve as the national Hispanic campaign chairperson or co-chairperson for the campaign of some U.S presidential candidate? In other words, can Equatoguineans in the U.S run for and hold positions that are ONLY meant for Hispanics and Latinos? Willminator (talk) 02:46, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- There are plenty of blacks in other "Hispanic" nations, like Brazil, so I don't see a problem. They should try it and see if they are accepted (would this make them Equatorial Guinea pigs ?). StuRat (talk) 02:56, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- In the U.S. context, Hispanic just means that you come from a Spanish and/or Portuguese background, without regard for skin tone or race. There are a large number of Black Hispanics from the Caribbean, for example. See Manny Ramirez, Roberto Clemente, Al Horford. Also, I have no idea what is meant by "in the U.S run for and hold positions that are ONLY meant for Hispanics and Latinos?" There are no public offices in the U.S. which are reserved for people of a specific racial or national or ethnic background. --Jayron32 04:21, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- I wonder if there even are any such people. It's a tiny little country with a total population of less than a million. Looie496 (talk) 04:48, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- I just checked through the U.S. census website, [2]. There was literally no one who reported "Equatorial Guinea" as either their country of birth (implying they were born there) or their ancestry (implying they identified with the country historically). It's an option when searching (Equatorial Guinea is country code 632, so the census is at least prepared for collecting said data) and the search turns up no data in any of the Census's files which has any information about people from Equatorial Guinea. By contrast, if you turn off "Equatorial Guinea" and turn on "Mexico", you get plenty of data on Mexicans in the U.S. So, it seams that there just aren't any, or at least no one who self-reported as such on the American Community Survey. Now, since the ACS is a representative sample, and not a formal census, very well could miss a very small number of people from Equatorial Guinea who do live in the U.S., but those people would be a very tiny number indeed, and the definition of "not statistically significant". Still, it is possible there are at least a handful of such people living in the U.S. right now. --Jayron32 05:04, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- There are a few dozens. The US State Department's reports ("Immigrant Visas Issued by Foreign State Chargeability (All Categories): Fiscal Years 2003-2012") say that over the last 10 years, about 30 immigrant visas were issued by US consulates abroad to people born in Equatorial Guinea. (From 1 to 7 visa per fiscal year). Besides this, there must have been also a few people from that country who came to the US as non-immigrants (students [F and J visas], visitors for pleasure or for business [B], diplomats [A] - about 1200 non-immigrant visas were issued to EG-ans in 2012) and then managed to obtain an "adjustment of status" to permanent residence (e.g., due to a marriage, or as a result of claiming asylum), or just overstayed their admission period, becoming, in American parlance, "illegal aliens". -- Vmenkov (talk) 17:08, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- A "few dozens" would indeed be statistically insignificant, which is why the ACS hasn't picked them up, given the sample size of the ACS. --Jayron32 20:25, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- Jayron, you should know better than this. "Statistically insignificant" when testing what hypothesis? What is the null and what is the alternative, and what's your level of significance? I'm pretty sure you know what these things mean, but a lot of people don't, and use "statistically significant" to mean, well, not much really. It's a precise term from inferential statistics that has no application whatsoever in descriptive statistics; the question here seems more related to descriptive than inferential stats. --Trovatore (talk) 20:20, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- A "few dozens" would indeed be statistically insignificant, which is why the ACS hasn't picked them up, given the sample size of the ACS. --Jayron32 20:25, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
I am not quite sure where the idea comes from that Brazilians are Hispanics, since Brazil is not Spanish in any way. Neither are Philipinos or Catalonians usually described as Hispanic, even though they are or have been under the Spanish crown. The term in English is usually used to refer to native Spanish speakers in Spanish speaking countries outside Spain--where they are just called Spanish. But fullblooded non-assimilated Quechua in Peru would normally be called Native Americans, rather than Hispanics. Given French and Portuguese are also official languages of Equatorial Guinea, and well over 90% of its inhabitants belong to an indigenous tribe speaking a Bantu language as their mother tongue, calling them Hispanic would be an odd choice. μηδείς (talk) 05:48, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- The term "Hispanic" (at least in my experience; i.e., common American usage) is one of the slipperiest ethnic definitions in existence. It is most commonly used in reference to those native to Latin America and their descendants. In practice, those described by the term are generally of mixed descent from both Spanish colonists and the Native Americans of Central and South America (we had a specific word for this -- mestizo -- but it is now practically obsolete). This is the case so much that any Spanish person with light or olive-tone skin is highly unlikely to be described as "Hispanic" by an average American, even though they could be considered the archetype by which the term should be measured. I have never been sure as to whether Hispanic-ness is measured by Spanish descent (i.e., having ancestors native to Spain) or merely cultural roots in a Spanish-speaking country -- a definition that would include those from Equatorial Guinea and other countries with absolutely no European ancestry.
- As far as the Portuguese are concerned, our article Hispanic defines the term as "an ethnonym that denotes a relationship to Spain or, in some definitions, to ancient Hispania, which comprised the Iberian Peninsula including the modern states of Andorra, Portugal, and Spain and the British Crown Dependency of Gibraltar." So that would mean... maybe. Kind of... A little bit. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 06:12, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- Brazilians are indeed called Latins or Latinos, but not Hispanics except by Americans who think they speak Spanish, as that usually refers to the Spanish speaking natives of Spain's new world colonies. (Of course Italians are Latins but not Latinos in the US.) One is entitled to use a word how one likes if one defines it within reason and is consistent. None of this really matters, but Americans are simply not going to call Bantu speakers from EG Hispanics. μηδείς (talk) 06:44, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- I have an idea. Just call them people. HiLo48 (talk) 07:13, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- Of course, if the government just calls them people, it does not prevent the other people within the country, and the political, social and economic systems of that country from discriminating against such social groups. Being able to identify what groups of people are being so discriminated against is a necessary prerequisite to providing relief for said discrimination. In other words, Hispanic people in the U.S. would still be treated poorly even if the Government refused to identify them and collect data on them, except that the government wouldn't be as well informed about the nature of the problem and wouldn't be able to respond to said problems. --Jayron32 13:32, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- I have an idea. Just call them people. HiLo48 (talk) 07:13, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
This US Census site (first page after acknowledgements) (dating back to 2004, but I doubt they would have changed their definitions much since then) says
- The federal government defines Hispanic or Latino as a person of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, South or Central American, or other Spanish culture or origin regardless of race.
How's that for clarity -- the wording implies that anything Central or South American is "Spanish" in culture or origin. (Suriname? Guyana? French Guiana? Brazil?) But since it does eventually narrow it down to Spanish culture or origin, that would preclude Brazil etc. On the other hand, it includes Spain, and the list in the table includes "Spaniard". Duoduoduo (talk) 16:50, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- So, where would the people of Equatorial Guinea fall under the federal government definition? So, would it be right for a Equatoguinean in the U.S (if there are any) to put in the Race section of a job application or other applications any of the following options other than the "Black or African American" option: "Hispanic or Latino," "Two or more races," or "Other?" Willminator (talk) 17:23, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- As others have said, the concept of "Hispanic" is not well defined, but it normally involves Spanish ancestry or cultural heritage. I think that an Equatorial Guinean with Spanish ancestors or who is a native speaker of Spanish could qualify as Hispanic, but probably only a small percentage of Equatorial Guineans meet this criterion. On the other hand, the United States doesn't regulate individuals' racial or ethnic status. (That is, individuals are not registered with racial or ethnic categories by the government, though government workers might label individuals by race for purposes of identification.) On job applications and census forms, people are generally accepted to be whatever they claim to be, though a blond-haired blue-eyed person without any obvious African American or Hispanic cultural attributes might have trouble being accepted as African American or Hispanic for affirmative action purposes when they show up for a job or school admissions interview. So Equatorial Guineans, especially those who speak Spanish, could probably get away with claiming to be Hispanic, "two or more races", or "other", according to their whims. Marco polo (talk) 19:51, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- Also, there is no qualification of such terms. The U.S. census doesn't require people to prove their ethnicity by documentation or anything. It's all about how a person identifies themselves, because a person knows best how they relate to various cultures, and which culture they think of themself as belonging to. There's no qualification to be had. The census asks you if you're Hispanic, you say yes if you think you are. That's it. --Jayron32 20:23, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- Let me mention that their street and building signs in Equatorial Guinea seem to all be in Spanish, based on some pictures and YouTube videos I've seen from there, like it is in all other Spanish-speaking countries, which indicates to me that Spanish is very widely spoken there. Willminator (talk) 19:57, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- Also, there is no qualification of such terms. The U.S. census doesn't require people to prove their ethnicity by documentation or anything. It's all about how a person identifies themselves, because a person knows best how they relate to various cultures, and which culture they think of themself as belonging to. There's no qualification to be had. The census asks you if you're Hispanic, you say yes if you think you are. That's it. --Jayron32 20:23, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- As others have said, the concept of "Hispanic" is not well defined, but it normally involves Spanish ancestry or cultural heritage. I think that an Equatorial Guinean with Spanish ancestors or who is a native speaker of Spanish could qualify as Hispanic, but probably only a small percentage of Equatorial Guineans meet this criterion. On the other hand, the United States doesn't regulate individuals' racial or ethnic status. (That is, individuals are not registered with racial or ethnic categories by the government, though government workers might label individuals by race for purposes of identification.) On job applications and census forms, people are generally accepted to be whatever they claim to be, though a blond-haired blue-eyed person without any obvious African American or Hispanic cultural attributes might have trouble being accepted as African American or Hispanic for affirmative action purposes when they show up for a job or school admissions interview. So Equatorial Guineans, especially those who speak Spanish, could probably get away with claiming to be Hispanic, "two or more races", or "other", according to their whims. Marco polo (talk) 19:51, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Jewish population
How many jews live in this world? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.88.221 (talk) 03:56, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- See the Wikipedia article titled Jews. --Jayron32 04:23, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- Given I'm unaware of any offworld colonies, I suspect they all do. Althoughμηδείς (talk) 05:51, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- You beat me to the punch line again! OK, here's another one, from Myron Cohen. I'll keep it short: A Martian lands in a Jewish section of New York. His spacecraft has a flat tire, so he buys a bagel to replace it. The store manager asks, "Do you all you Martians have green skin?" "Yes." "Do you all have 3 eyes?" "Yes." "Do you all wear those little beanies?" "No, only the orthodox." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:14, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- Given I'm unaware of any offworld colonies, I suspect they all do. Althoughμηδείς (talk) 05:51, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- According to this source -- http://books.google.com/books?id=-MChymxEfdsC&pg=PA213&lpg=PA213&dq=jewish+population+world+2012+13,746,100&source=bl&ots=J4ALyZzalY&sig=vvHeAA11wpXiWSLi0gpEB-698_Y&hl=en&sa=X&ei=-pEcUZnjJIrliwLn64GwBA&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=jewish%20population%20world%202012%2013%2C746%2C100&f=false -- 13,746,100 at the beginning of 2012. Futurist110 (talk) 07:28, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
What is the difference between political philosophy and political theory? Or, is there?
The two titles have been used interchangeably. In one reference, for example, Aristotle was referred to as a political theorist and a political philosopher. In graduate schools' websites, political theory and political philosophy are both used to refer the ideas of Marx and Kant. And according to some other references which points out the difference between PP and PT, political philosophy is more on the metaphysical and ethical side, while political theory is on the realist side. But, in my very humble opinion, they may have different ways of arriving to a conclusion, but they are basically talking about the same thing. So what exactly is the difference? Or, are they just the same? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshua Atienza (talk • contribs) 04:26, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- Try clicking this blue link: Political theory and you'll get your answer. --Jayron32 04:48, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
A theory seeks to explain; a philosophy to convince. DOR (HK) (talk) 09:47, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Other ethnic-dominanted gang in Europe
36 Boys in Kreuzberg, Berlin, Germany mostly of Turkish background. Is there any gang in Europe that are of an ethnic dominant group like Bangladeshis, Indians, Sikhs, Pakistanis, Iranian, Arabs, Somalis and etc?--Donmust90 (talk) 04:40, 14 February 2013 (UTC)Donmust90
- The Sicilian Mafia of course. Scotland Yard says 47% of 180 crime gangs it has identified have members "bound by a common language or homeland".[3] The Black Cobras "are mostly of Turkish, Albanian or Russian origin."[4] In Scotland, there have Albanian, Chinese, Bangladeshi and Czech gangs.[5] Gangs in the United Kingdom says that "in the London Borough of Tower Hamlets, the majority of the gangs are Bangladeshi". Etc. etc. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:23, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- The Somalis are apparently the latest addition to the British gang scene.[6] [7] [8] Alansplodge (talk) 12:42, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- I wonder if Scotland Yard's 47% includes gangs whose members' "common language or homeland" is English and England, or Scotland, Wales, or Northern Ireland. Is "ethnic" here being used to mean "having a foreign ethnic background"? According to the standard definition of ethnic, a gang of ethnically English young men who share the English language (and perhaps a regional variety of that language) would be an ethnic gang too, right? In fact, as described, the Black Cobras don't qualify, since Albanians, Turks, and Russians do not share a common language or homeland. I would think that the Black Cobras are an exception, and that most gangs do share a common language and homeland (such as English and England), since a common culture would ease communication and bind gang members together. Marco polo (talk) 14:43, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- But being from the locality's majority culture, language, or homeland, while easing communication, is not going to bind the members of the English-speaking gangs together. "What we share in common is the culture of most of the people in our city/region -- it's us against the world!" isn't going to bind them together. That's why in common usage "ethnic gang" refers to a gang of a minority ethnicity. Duoduoduo (talk) 17:27, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- I don't agree. There are plenty of racist or xenophobic gangs whose binding ideology if you will is their majority ethnicity, culture or point of origin. Kicking out, bashing or burning the homes or shops of people of minority or different ethnicities have been heard as rallying cries everywhere and throughout history.
- The kind of approach used by Scotland Yard begs the question: are they policing for everyone, or just the "majority" (however they see that concept)? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 17:50, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- I think the key classifier in that case is "hate group". When they talk about ethnic gangs I don't think hate crimes is the usual activity that they're trying to police. They may well have a separate list of hate groups. Duoduoduo (talk) 20:57, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- I get the distinction you're making here, D3, but at the same time there are plenty of cases where the two overlap; as one example, many of the more violent white supremacist groups, especially the ones with really refined hate-genetics, are, more or less by design and definition, going to be ethnically based, even if they are also based on a shared philosophy, rather than more general cultural adhesion. There are also plenty of white gangs in the U.K. that aren't particularly activist in their racial beliefs but a little more racist than the usual (which in the U.K. can translate to "still pretty damn racist") that are nonetheless all-white (and typically all from a much more specific white ethnicity who none-the-less think of themselves as British-descended) and speak only English. This is all without taking ethnic polarization in Northern Ireland into account, mind you. Snow (talk) 21:21, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- I think the key classifier in that case is "hate group". When they talk about ethnic gangs I don't think hate crimes is the usual activity that they're trying to police. They may well have a separate list of hate groups. Duoduoduo (talk) 20:57, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- But being from the locality's majority culture, language, or homeland, while easing communication, is not going to bind the members of the English-speaking gangs together. "What we share in common is the culture of most of the people in our city/region -- it's us against the world!" isn't going to bind them together. That's why in common usage "ethnic gang" refers to a gang of a minority ethnicity. Duoduoduo (talk) 17:27, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- I wonder if Scotland Yard's 47% includes gangs whose members' "common language or homeland" is English and England, or Scotland, Wales, or Northern Ireland. Is "ethnic" here being used to mean "having a foreign ethnic background"? According to the standard definition of ethnic, a gang of ethnically English young men who share the English language (and perhaps a regional variety of that language) would be an ethnic gang too, right? In fact, as described, the Black Cobras don't qualify, since Albanians, Turks, and Russians do not share a common language or homeland. I would think that the Black Cobras are an exception, and that most gangs do share a common language and homeland (such as English and England), since a common culture would ease communication and bind gang members together. Marco polo (talk) 14:43, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- The Somalis are apparently the latest addition to the British gang scene.[6] [7] [8] Alansplodge (talk) 12:42, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Pope Benedict XVI's Name
Once Pope Benedict XVI leaves the Papacy, will his official name remain Benedict XVI, will it become something like "The Former Benedict XVI", or will he receive the same name that he had before he became Pope in 2005? Futurist110 (talk) 07:30, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- See the sub-question titled "Ex-Pope" above. (Or, if you prefer, "Ex Benedict"). -- Jack of Oz [Talk] 07:49, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry, no. I'm not a big fan of Hollandaise sauce. --Jayron32 19:16, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
(I expect we will get this question several more times over the next few weeks. Please be patient with those who don't look to see that it has already been asked and answered.) Blueboar (talk) 01:28, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Why have I not heard of a single lady composer before 1900?
To anyone uninitiated in pop-music, and who does not read the title to clue them in, this piece sounds like it's from 1811, although in reality, it was made about 200 years later.
We hear so much about Beethoven, Bach, Mozart, Handel, Tchaikovsky, and so many others.
However, can you think of any major women composers before 1900? Me neither, so why not?
Why couldn't women get musically prominent until recent times? Or did they get prominent without my knowledge? I would hope that Madame Germanotta here was inspired by prior women composers who did their pieces before her time. --70.179.161.230 (talk) 11:16, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- For examples of female composers in history, see List of female composers by birth year. For women to compose music was contrary to societal norms for a long time, although there were no such restrictions on performing music. And even today there are some musical areas where women are quite underrepresented, for example, this top 20 of film music composers alive consists entirely of men. It's hard to give a definitive reason for this, whether it's purely cultural or if there is some biological factor to it. - Lindert (talk) 11:46, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- (Edit conflict) We have an article: List of female composers by birth year. The only names whose music I know that I have heard are Hildegard of Bingen and Elena Kats-Chernin (of the British Lloyds Bank advert fame).
- I don't know the answer to your question - although there was a strong bias against creative women in earlier centuries, that hasn't applied for a while. Several really famous male composers, Vivaldi for instance, were barely known before the mid-20th century, so there really isn't a bar on earlier women's music being "rediscovered". Alansplodge (talk) 12:02, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- Our article on Maria Anna Mozart might give you some idea of the challenges faced by female musicians and composers at certain periods. From that article: According to New Grove, "from 1769 onwards she was no longer permitted to show her artistic talent on travels with her brother, as she had reached a marriageable age." OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 12:57, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- Just this past week I heard a radio program about Fanny Mendelssohn, a composer in her own right. None of her own work was published during her lifetime under her name; she primarily composed for her own performances and kept her own manuscripts of her compositions, though a few of her works were published by her brother Felix under his name. --Jayron32 13:28, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- The puzzle is why we aren't listening to their music today. Is it because it's not terribly good? Alansplodge (talk) 18:10, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- No, it's because there's not very much of it, proportionally speaking, in the overall scheme of things. But it's far from unknown: I've had an LP of Clara Schumann's music for too many years to remember (not that I play it very much, but then, I play very few of my LPs these days; but that's irrelevant, as there are millions of CDs of music by women composers). What I've heard of Fanny Mendelssohn's music is high quality indeed. I've been practising Elena Kats-Chernin's Russian Rag for a few months; for a couple of years it was the theme music for Radio National's Late Night Live, having supplanted a Bach concerto that had a very good run of close to 20 years; the Russian Rag has since been replaced by Kats-Chernin's Wild Swans theme; so the score is: Compositions by male composers - 1, Compositions by female composers - 2). (Personal anedcote: I picked up the Russian Rag score in a Sydney music shop that has a jolly decent second-hand section. Pasted inside the back cover of my copy is a photocopy of an email from the composer to someone called "Phyllis", pointing out numerous errors in the printed score, which that owner has duly marked in pencil; the email gives Kats-Chernin's private phone numbers (landline and mobile) and email address. I'm tempted to call her out of the blue one day and tell her I've never heard a work of hers I didn't like.)
- If your knowledge of classical music is governed by what you hear on radio programs or at live concerts, then be aware that they all have their own biases and agendas and they tend to pander to the mainstream most of the time. For every little-known female composer, there are 100++ male composers the general public has never heard of at all. We can read about their magnificent achievements in obscure places like Wikipedia, but as for actually hearing their music .... -- Jack of Oz [Talk] 21:50, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- The puzzle is why we aren't listening to their music today. Is it because it's not terribly good? Alansplodge (talk) 18:10, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- (e/c - refers to Jayron's comment on Fanny Mendelssohn) Likewise, Clara Schumann composed a lot of music, but, in addition to the societal effects mentioned above, was somewhat overshadowed by her more famous husband. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 18:12, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- OP, I'm not sure where you got 1811 from with that baroque-sounding fugue. 1711 would be closer to the mark. 1811 was the year of Beethoven's Emperor Concerto and Archduke Trio, and Weber's Clarinet Concertos. We were at the birth of the Romantic period. -- Jack of Oz [Talk] 18:54, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Why is SPY trading at 13 cents above the index?
Half a quarter until ex-div, so shouldn't it have accrued half the dividend, or 55 cents, by now? 67.243.3.6 (talk) 16:21, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- Care to tell us what company "SPY" is, and what exchange they trade on ? StuRat (talk) 16:53, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- SPY is also the NYSE ticker symbol for one of the Standard & Poor's Depositary Receipts. → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 00:08, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Right, the SPDR S&P 500 ETF. [9] 67.243.3.6 (talk) 16:33, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Tracker funds never track perfectly. That would require too many trades to keep rebalancing the portfolio and the transaction costs would be too high. See tracking error. --Tango (talk) 21:58, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- SPY is traded so heavily it tracks the index extremely well. It's just that it doesn't seem to account for the upcoming dividend payment. 67.243.3.6 (talk) 17:44, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- Tracker funds never track perfectly. That would require too many trades to keep rebalancing the portfolio and the transaction costs would be too high. See tracking error. --Tango (talk) 21:58, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Right, the SPDR S&P 500 ETF. [9] 67.243.3.6 (talk) 16:33, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
who discovered air
I even searched in the page about air and it all mentioned what is air but no where it is mentioned who discovered. Hope you bring the answer. Thanking you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prashas.ameeplanet (talk • contribs) 17:34, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- Either the first person who saw tree branches moving in the wind and thought about what was going on, or Lavoisier... AnonMoos (talk) 17:55, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- But I wonder when was the first time that people realized or seriously hypothesized that air is the same kind of substance as liquids or solids, just thinner and invisible, as opposed to something that's not really there but can make things happen anyway. Duoduoduo (talk) 22:36, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- Not sure, but gadgets such as bellows that make air behave in a similar way to a fluid (maybe?) must have been a big clue, and they have been around for thousands of years. But I'm not an expert, perhaps someone who knows more than me about early science could comment? Alansplodge (talk) 23:05, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- Thales (c. 570 BC) seems to have known that air was comparable to water (see Aristotle's report in De Caelo II, 13; 294a). At any rate, it's clear that Aristotle (c. 350 BC) understood that air was a fluid with inertia (see Physics IV, 8; 215b). Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 06:07, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- But I wonder when was the first time that people realized or seriously hypothesized that air is the same kind of substance as liquids or solids, just thinner and invisible, as opposed to something that's not really there but can make things happen anyway. Duoduoduo (talk) 22:36, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- (Edit conflict) Air has been known about since ancient times, although their understanding of it seems a bit odd today - see Air (classical element). Joseph Priestley is generally agreed to have discovered oxygen, which he called "dephlogisticated air". Alansplodge (talk) 18:00, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Occultism / Vril
God Day, If I may trouble you for information on an author of, the Vril Society by Theo Paijman. The publisher states of this book that "After more than two decades of painstaking research, this book unveils the darkest innermost secrets and history of a secret Nazi occult order, The Vril Society." Publication date is 2008. Whom is this author, his background, his religious beliefs, etc. Thank you so much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.88.55.218 (talk) 17:46, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- To begin with, his name is Theo Paijmans - you may have better luck finding information about him via internet searches if you're using the right spelling. Wikipedia does not have an article devoted to him, but he is mentioned in 4 of our articles, as you will see by inputting his name into the "Search" box at the top right of this page: some of their references to him have links to items elsewhere on the internet.
- We have an article section on the Vril Society if anybody is interested. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 84.21.143.150 (talk) 19:38, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- I used to participate in a Usenet group in which Theo also participated, but I don't really know anything about him other than that he's Dutch and seemed like a nice guy. He may even be a dog. Deor (talk) 21:08, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Nazi Germany question
I'm like obsessed with the history of Horst-Wessel-Lied because at 22 he already was important within Nazi ranges. And he was made a martyr after his death in 1930. My question is, why was he killed? because of the song he wrote against the Reds and rebels? or what? Thank.Kotjap (talk) 18:38, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- Hopefully you have read our article: Horst Wessel? If so, you will have seen that it might have been a political assassination or the result of an argument over unpaid rent. Perhaps we'll never know. Alansplodge (talk) 19:11, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- The song article does say "Wessel was murdered by Albrecht Höhler, a Communist party member, in February 1930, and Joseph Goebbels made him a martyr of the Nazi movement", but there is more in the last paragraph of Horst Wessel#Nazi activist like Alan says.
- Note that the Nazi party of 1930 was violently anti-communist so it is not hard to believe that the communists fought back. Murdering the writer of the Nazi party's anthem was almost certainly a good choice to act against the Nazis and probably a lot easier than trying to hit at someone higher up in the party, a member of the "Leadership Corps" (Korps der politischen Leiter) for example. Astronaut (talk) 19:13, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- However, the song didn't become the Nazi anthem until 1933 and had only been published three months before Wessels' death in a party magazine, so my guess is that the Communists didn't even know about the song. I suspect that they were more exercised about Wessels' beating-people-up-in-the-street activities than his supposed musical talents. Personally, I prefer the rent money story. Alansplodge (talk) 19:25, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Oh Thank you, I had read Horst-Wessel-Lied but not Horst Wessel. Kotjap (talk) 19:19, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- So, in the Horst Wessel article, you only got as far as the picture? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:41, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- Yes Kotjap, you inserted a link to that article in your question yesterday. Alansplodge (talk) 21:48, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- I was thinking specifically of this item from Monday,[10] where the OP was asking about the picture. I guess he didn't actually read the article. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:01, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- I don't think so. BTW, my previous comments were addressed to the OP too, I didn't phrase it very well. Now corrected. Alansplodge (talk) 22:50, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- I was thinking specifically of this item from Monday,[10] where the OP was asking about the picture. I guess he didn't actually read the article. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:01, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- Yes Kotjap, you inserted a link to that article in your question yesterday. Alansplodge (talk) 21:48, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
In hearing that Heinz's board of directors approved the buyout offer by Berkshire Hathaway, I was confused that nothing was written about the shareholders approving the deal. Do the Heinz shareholders have to approve the deal or is that not necessary because it's clear that it is more of an acquisition for Berkshire Hathaway than a true merger?71.229.194.243 (talk) 20:54, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- erm, wouldn't it have involved buying the shares from the shareholders? ---- nonsense ferret 21:06, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Yes, they are being paid a premium, but there was nothing about them actually voting on it.71.229.194.243 (talk) 21:13, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- That's because the actual vote has yet to take place.
- "The takeover has been approved by the company's board, but still needs to be voted on by shareholders."[11]
- "The deal is subject to approval by Heinz shareholders, and is expected to be completed in the third quarter of this year."[12]Dncsky (talk) 21:51, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
That answers that, thanks Dncsky. 71.229.194.243 (talk) 01:43, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
To cut through all of this to the central point, this depends on the rules in the State of incorporation, often Delaware, but occasionally other places. Those rules have specific requirements about various corporate changes, and it also depends on the way the "merger" is structured. Reverse mergers, and buyouts are all possible variations. Almost all large companies will have shareholder say on critical decisions like this, as a general rule. But if you want to get detailed, you need a lawyer who's familiar with the particular state's corporate law. Shadowjams (talk) 09:15, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
February 15
What is this game called in English?
When I was in Japan, I was the leader of a squad playing 'Survival', where two (or more) teams attack each other with BB guns. In Japanese, they use the English word 'survival' as the name of the game. What is the English name? KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 06:23, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Please see Airsoft.Dncsky (talk) 06:33, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks. I can never remember the English name for it. Getting old now. Cheers. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 07:32, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Airsoft guns shoot small plastic balls while BB guns shoot steel BB's. While some have used these in such games it is significantly more dangerous. Paintball uses larger soft paint-filled balls. Rmhermen (talk) 19:13, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- My team had steel BBs, which didn't go as far as the plastic ones, but we used them because it was easier for the opposing team to actually know they had been hit, if we fired at the torso, which is what we usually did, because you don't fire at the face if you can help it. Sort of an unwritten, but common sense, rule. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 05:51, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- In the US, shooting someone intentionally with a BB gun would be assault. RNealK (talk) 23:02, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- It would also be considered as assault in most countries, but not when it is a game. Consider American 'Football', where people attack each other to grab a ball, or consider rugby, or other contact sports. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 05:51, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- What makes something a "game"? If a friend and I go out with shotguns and blast away at each other, that's just a game, isn't it? RNealK (talk) 20:48, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- Using BBs, there is not quite the same damaging effect as a shotgun. Plus, there are rules for each game. I believe you have taken this all out of proportion. There are no contact sports in the modern world where people kill each other intentionally. We have fun, and shoot little balls at each other, not 50 cal rifles that can blow a man's head apart. Anyway, for the answer to your question, a game becomes a game when we say it is a game, and reserve a place to play it. It is actually that simple. Try to play the game before you comment, because you will see what I mean. This is like vegetarians saying to me they are vegetarian but they would eat fish, even though a fish is not a bloody vegetable! KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 09:19, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- I had a BB gun when I was a kid. I was taught it was a horrible thing to do, to try to shoot a person or an animal with it. Only targets were allowed. RNealK (talk) 23:44, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- Well yeah, it would be a terrible thing to go shooting your friends (or even the school bully) with it, in any usual context. That's a far cry from what KageTora is talking about, where everyone knows the rules and consents to them, and presumably wears adequate protection over anything that could forseeably be seriously injured (say, eyes and ears). Now, I wouldn't play that game, but if others want to, it's their lookout, I suppose. --Trovatore (talk) 23:49, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- Dude, there's certainly a huge difference between mutually playing a game and randomly shooting someone with a BB gun. If my buddies and I were to go out and shoot eachother with BB guns, we'd all get a bunch of welts, but that was a mutual decision and nobodies going to do anything about it. Ryan Vesey 23:53, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Are you entirely positive you shot BB guns at each other and not airsoft rifles?As pointed out at BB gun#Skirmish fighting it occurs, but it's relatively uncommon because it hurts less and it's safer to fight with. You'll find more information on the game at MilSim. Ryan Vesey 23:53, 17 February 2013 (UTC)- I missed your comment above where you mentioned that you did in fact use steel BBs. Ryan Vesey 00:02, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- We mostly used electric-powered BB guns, which was annoying after an hour or so, because we had to change the battery, so we were weighed down by half a dozen batteries in our jackets, and in a heated battle it was hard to remember which ones were still charged. Some in the team had pump-action, and others preferred the gas-type, but most used the high-powered electric ones. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 05:49, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- I missed your comment above where you mentioned that you did in fact use steel BBs. Ryan Vesey 00:02, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- I had a BB gun when I was a kid. I was taught it was a horrible thing to do, to try to shoot a person or an animal with it. Only targets were allowed. RNealK (talk) 23:44, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- Using BBs, there is not quite the same damaging effect as a shotgun. Plus, there are rules for each game. I believe you have taken this all out of proportion. There are no contact sports in the modern world where people kill each other intentionally. We have fun, and shoot little balls at each other, not 50 cal rifles that can blow a man's head apart. Anyway, for the answer to your question, a game becomes a game when we say it is a game, and reserve a place to play it. It is actually that simple. Try to play the game before you comment, because you will see what I mean. This is like vegetarians saying to me they are vegetarian but they would eat fish, even though a fish is not a bloody vegetable! KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 09:19, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- What makes something a "game"? If a friend and I go out with shotguns and blast away at each other, that's just a game, isn't it? RNealK (talk) 20:48, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- It would also be considered as assault in most countries, but not when it is a game. Consider American 'Football', where people attack each other to grab a ball, or consider rugby, or other contact sports. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 05:51, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- [http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2012/12/24/3745059/man-shot-with-bb-gun-northwest.html - note the use of the word "crime". RNealK (talk) 00:33, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Well, duh. Are you deliberately missing the point? If I walk up to you on the street and punch you in the jaw, that's a crime and I can go to prison for it for a substantial amount of time. If we're sparring in the boxing ring and I punch you in the jaw, that's nobody's business but ours. --Trovatore (talk) 02:25, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Exactly, he is not understanding the thread. We use guns and hand grenades, wear protective gear, and have rules which all consent to, on land that we have hired to play the game. This makes it a game. Walking around in the street and shooting random people with a BB gun is a crime. Nobody gets killed or injured badly in a BB game (there are occasionally some light injuries, unfortunately, but you get that with skateboarding, or roller skating), so there are no problems. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 05:49, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Well, duh. Are you deliberately missing the point? If I walk up to you on the street and punch you in the jaw, that's a crime and I can go to prison for it for a substantial amount of time. If we're sparring in the boxing ring and I punch you in the jaw, that's nobody's business but ours. --Trovatore (talk) 02:25, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- [http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2012/12/24/3745059/man-shot-with-bb-gun-northwest.html - note the use of the word "crime". RNealK (talk) 00:33, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Cost of execution vs cost of life in prison around the world
The cost of a death penalty case is much more than the cost of a comparable non-death penalty case in the US. (If you disagree on this point then please don't respond. I have no interest in debates.)
I suspect this is also true in most of the developed world (that practice death penalty). However, for less-developed countries the opposite is probably true. Take the extreme case of North Korea for example.
I am looking for a dataset that compares the cost of death penalty cases versus comparable non-death penalty cases worldwide. I am interested in where the breakeven point lies.
I tried googling but no matter what keywords I choose I keep getting pages about debates in the US. Even when I tried to focus the search on particular countries I still get US data: "According to American statistics (no Japanese statistics are available)"[13]. Dncsky (talk) 06:31, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Afaik China doesn't even release the total number of executions, let alone the detail you're after. I don't know about Japan. North Korea is obviously not even worth discussing. Shadowjams (talk) 09:12, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- There are very few countries that operate a death penalty with any significant degree of transparency. The US does, but that's about it (there may be a few others, but they generally have very few executions). That's why you can only find statistics based on the US. The high cost in the US comes from the large number of appeals that are generally involved. If you can find any statistics on time between the death penalty being passed and the execution actually taking place (which may be slightly easier to find that direct cost statistics), that would be a pretty good proxy for cost - the longer it takes, the more time there is to spend money. --Tango (talk) 12:44, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Note that, in the historic sense, the cost of imprisoning people for life was highly variable, too. In the worst cases, they just tossed them in some hole and never did anything else for them, leaving it to friends and relatives to bring them food, clothing, coal for heating, etc., and bury the body once they died. StuRat (talk) 12:57, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- In the old days, the time between conviction and execution was short, so it was certainly cost-effective. Nowadays, as noted by Tango, there is an automatic and lengthy appeals process, presumably to be sure there is no doubt about the case. There can also be appeals connected with lengthy prison sentences as well. We incarcerate a lot of people here, but we give them a better chance than many other nations would. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:30, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Japan has a similarly lengthy appeal process (from Capital punishment in Japan: " Therefore, in practice, the typical stay on death row is between five and seven years; a quarter of the prisoners have been on death row for over ten years. For several, the stay has been over 30 years"); however, death row prisoners are held in separate locations under harsher conditions so the costs may be widely different from those of supporting regular lifers. Rmhermen (talk) 19:23, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Holocaust question
During the Holocaust, were there any attempts by the victims to actually break out en masse from the gas chambers? I don't mean the "state of the art" ones like the one at Auschwitz-Birkenau where the Nazis used Zyklon-B, which kills quickly -- but surely in older or mobile ones, where diesel exhaust was the asphyxiating agent used, the victims knew right away that they were being suffocated, and had a few minutes to try to break out? Especially in the case of the death vans used in the T-4 program, which were basically converted city buses with sealed and painted-over windows and with the exhaust pipe directed into the passenger compartment, wouldn't it have been very much possible in those few minutes to smash a window and jump out (preferably when the bus is not moving, but even at speed if need be)? I mean, other than being burned alive (which was practiced at some of the death camps, as well), is there anything worse than being slowly suffocated to death? 24.23.196.85 (talk) 06:59, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- It depends on whether you're being suffocated by nitrogen: I am reliably informed that it makes you extremely happy just before you succumb. --TammyMoet (talk) 10:19, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- That actually has nothing to do with the nitrogen - any relatively inert gas will have the same effect. The urge to take a breath is determined by build up of CO2, rather than lack of oxygen, so as long as you are still able to breathe out the CO2 you won't get the panic usually associated with asphyxiation. When you are strangled, you can't breathe out the CO2, so you feel the desperate need to take a breath and panic as a result. Exhaust fumes kill by carbon monoxide poisoning, I think, which starts with a nasty headache and then causes drowsiness and you fall unconcious. I don't think it's particularly unpleasant in itself (people often don't notice it is happening to them), although the other things in exhaust would probably be unpleasant even though they aren't killing you. --Tango (talk) 12:51, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- One of the insidious things about the Holocaust was that most of the people being executed did not know what was happening until it was too late to do anything about it. As those around them began to die, I am sure that at least some realized something awful was going on, and tried to escape (individually or en masse)... but found the doors to the truck or gas chamber securely locked. And if they did manage to escape, there were guards with machine guns waiting to mow them down. Blueboar (talk) 17:19, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- I don't think that in the case of the carbon monoxide gas chambers, it would have taken so long for people to realize what was happening -- the characteristic smell would have alerted the victims that someone was piping smoke into the chamber long before anyone actually succumbed to the toxicity. And it was during that time frame that the victims had the best chance of breaking out en masse (break down the door and rush out, ignoring the guards' bullets; or, in the case of the carbon monoxide buses, just smash out a window and jump, like I said before). 24.23.196.85 (talk) 02:36, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
So, you have three questions from the IP here.
- "were there any attempts by the victims to actually break out en masse from the gas chambers" (by the people inside the chambers while they were actually running)?
- is it true that "the victims knew right away that they were being suffocated"?
- "is there anything worse than being slowly suffocated to death", other than, "being burned alive"?
It looks like we have dealt with questions two and three (unless anyone would like to expand on question three), so do we have any responses for question one? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:56, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- This site notes that, on June 10, 1942, "Mutiny and an attempt at mass escape of about 350 Polish prisoners from the penal company in Birkenau. 7 managed to escape, 300 died." Bielle (talk) 03:19, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- Pssst, 24.23.196.85: Carbon monoxide is colourless, tasteless and odourless. Bielle (talk) 03:12, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- CO was used in the gas vans, but it was anything but pure CO — it was the exhaust gas of the vehicles themselves. I am sure that would have been easily detectable by the victims. A far larger number were killed with HCN, which is not odorless (though not everyone can smell it). --Trovatore (talk) 03:17, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- Pssst, 24.23.196.85: Carbon monoxide is colourless, tasteless and odourless. Bielle (talk) 03:12, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- As Gas chamber#Nazi Germany notes, the CO came from the exhaust of petrol or diesel motors (sometimes on vehicles). -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 03:19, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Is there any nihilist thinker today?
Is this philosophy still existing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshua Atienza (talk • contribs) 07:01, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- There are seven billion people in the world, so the answer to pretty any question of the form "is there anyone that believes X?" is going to be "yes". --Tango (talk) 12:52, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- undoubtedly there are lots, some might even write about it, but most probably don't see the point---- nonsense ferret 12:58, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- I think the OP means "Are there any professional philosophers that actually get published in reputable journals, or who publish books that other professional philosophers are aware of, who are nihilists?" This is a ref desk, so a reference saying there are none, or a reference to one or more, would be nice. Duoduoduo (talk) 15:51, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Two potential examples are Gianni Vattimo John N. Gray --nonsense ferret 20:23, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Religious order for scientifically minded
I am not even a religious believer, but I am sort of idly wondering what sort of (male) religious order I would join if I were religious (perhaps Catholic). What appeals to me is something like Stasheff's fictional Order of St. Vidicon. What's the closest real equivalent? I.e. a primarily teaching or intellectually oriented order with lots of scientists and engineers? My guess is that Jesuits might be one, but it has a very ambiguous history, not one I would especially like to be associated with. What are some other ones? --50.136.244.171 (talk) 08:02, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- You might like to explore Buddhism. --TammyMoet (talk) 10:16, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- There is a "God" in Buddhism, only this "God" isn't a personal deity as in Western religions. The existence of spirits or some higher power would be antithetical to atheism. 140.254.227.58 (talk) 19:18, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Deism in general, and Freemasonry in particular both have a long history of a rational approach to the theistic view of the universe, though I'm not sure either of them can be described as a "religious order". Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 10:25, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- For Catholic orders, the Society of Jesus (perhaps better known as "Jesuits") have a very intellectual bent, with a focus on science and education. See List of Jesuit scientists. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:38, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- The OP more or less ruled the Jesuits out in his question. -- Jack of Oz [Talk] 11:29, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- I should read more carefully... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:50, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- The OP more or less ruled the Jesuits out in his question. -- Jack of Oz [Talk] 11:29, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- For Catholic orders, the Society of Jesus (perhaps better known as "Jesuits") have a very intellectual bent, with a focus on science and education. See List of Jesuit scientists. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:38, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- You might investigate Chaos Magic, some of whose practitioners (ObPersonal) have been described as pursuing or being associated with Techno-magic(k) (the latter term is also used in (more) explicitly fictional settings). {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 84.21.143.150 (talk) 12:29, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Taoism was always closely associated with Chinese science. But it isn't an order. Not a disorder either. The Tao itself is the order. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:58, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- I don't think there is a religious order that is specifically oriented towards scientific exploration ... but most orders would have no problem if a member of their order focused on scientific exploration as part of their personal vocation. Given that monasteries tend not to have modern science labs, a Monastic order such as the Benedictines or Cistercians would probably not be the best option. You would probably want to join one of the Mendicant orders (friars) such as the Dominicans or Franciscans. While these orders focus on religious works, there is nothing in the orders' rules that would bar a friar from working at a scientific institution. (and if you are into Astronomy... you could apply to work at the Vatican Observatory) Blueboar (talk) 16:58, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Taoism was always closely associated with Chinese science. But it isn't an order. Not a disorder either. The Tao itself is the order. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:58, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- In the history of the Catholic church, the Dominican Order is classically associated with intellectual pursuits. The Franciscans have also been intellectual, but they tended to be more left-leaning and open-minded whereas the Dominicans were right-leaning and conservative. Even so, some important proto-scientists such as Roger Bacon and William of Ockham were Franciscans. Looie496 (talk) 16:34, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- The Benedictines were also rather intellectual. But were there ever any scientists or engineers in the modern understanding in any of the religious orders? Adam Bishop (talk) 22:19, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- We have the rather interesting page List_of_Roman_Catholic_scientist-clerics, which is limited to
priestsclerics which seems to include monks and abbots.... It seems to list the religious order next to the relevant names, and while Jesuits are strongly represented it seems all the other orders mentioned here also feature. For the general case, we seem to have List of Catholic scientists, which you could skim for lay religious. I found these via the Big Bang theory article, because I can never remember how to spell George L's name. 86.163.209.18 (talk) 22:44, 15 February 2013 (UTC)- OP here. Thanks guys, I am indeed more interested in modern rather than historical situations. To me Franciscans are primarily "caring for the poor" kind of guys nowadays, I don't think they go for intellectual stuff much, or am I wrong? Modern Dominicans I don't know much about. 50.136.244.171 (talk) 04:37, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- We have the rather interesting page List_of_Roman_Catholic_scientist-clerics, which is limited to
- I challenge anyone to watch Franco Zeffirelli's very very beautiful Brother Sun, Sister Moon [14] and not want to be a Franciscan ;) --nonsense ferret 22:27, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, one of my favourite movies ever. It's hard not to shed a tear. Then one reads stories like this, and sheds tears for different reasons. -- Jack of Oz [Talk] 00:15, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- The Franciscans have a relatively poor record in dealing with certain native peoples, in WW2 Croatia, etc. (for some reason the Jesuits were better at protecting native peoples in the early Spanish colonial empire). The Pueblo Revolt was in significant degree motivated by hatred of Franciscan practices... AnonMoos (talk) 15:49, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- The Marist Brothers are also highly intellectual. μηδείς (talk) 04:20, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks, I'll look them up. 50.136.244.171 (talk) 04:37, 16 February 2013 (UTC) (OP)
Five American presidents
The lead of the article Encyclopædia Britannica states (without a source, I will add), that among the Encyclopedia's thousands of contributors have been "five American presidents". The article itself doesn't mention this (which makes the statement constitute a violation of WP:SUMMARY, but that's not the point), and a cursory check of Google turns up no results for the claim. Does anyone have further info on this? Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 11:24, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- I wonder if they include unwitting contributors. For example, the def for "score", meaning 20, might quote Abraham Lincoln: "Four score and seven years ago...". StuRat (talk) 12:53, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- That would be a highly creative and original definition of "contributor", Stu. I've never heard of someone whose words are merely quoted in some book as being a "contributor" to that book; not even an unwitting one. I'm sure David Irving included a few quotes in his various scribblings, but I doubt any of the originators would be happy to consider themselves as contributors to those esteemed publications. -- Jack of Oz [Talk] 20:26, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Manhattan Phone Number 1942
Hello. What would a phone number look like, which was current in Manhattan in the year 1942? Thanks. --Logograph (talk) 12:23, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- That would depend on where in Manhattan you were: [15]. The 7 digit number would be the same, except that the first two digits would be given as letters, with a word used to remember it. See PEnnsylvania 6-5000 for an interesting example of a song based on such a number. Note that area codes did not exist at the time. So, to call from out of state, you'd dial 0 for the operator, then say "Long distance please, New York City, PEnnsylvania 6-5000 ... thank you". StuRat (talk) 12:41, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Here's a 1940 Manhattan phone book (the form of the phone numbers didn't change between 1940 and 1942). Some of the exchange names are slightly abbreviated in the phone book, but the full forms are easy to deduce. Deor (talk) 12:54, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- For an example of how people wrote down a phone number, see journalist Ward Green's draft card. Zoonoses (talk) 05:40, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- Wow, doing the math, that draft registration card was for men 45 to 65. What, no 100-year olds ? StuRat (talk) 05:55, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- As per Selective Service System, 65 was indeed the cut off age for registration at the time. Nil Einne (talk) 04:55, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- Wow, doing the math, that draft registration card was for men 45 to 65. What, no 100-year olds ? StuRat (talk) 05:55, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Category German murderers of children
After reading an article on here on Wikipedia I consider including Hitler's personal dentist Helmut Kunz and personal surgeon Ludwig Stumpfegger into that category? Am I allowed to do so or I have to request permission on the talk page? Kotjap (talk) 17:46, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- You can either be WP:BOLD and just do it, or you can ask on the talk page what other editors think. Your choice. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:53, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
I've added the categories, I am open to discussion. Kotjap (talk) 18:21, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- You already asked about Ludwig Stumpfegger at Wikipedia:Help desk#Category (Wikipedia:Help desk#Category 2 until an old section is archived) where I answered: "That sounds inappropriate if he wasn't in charge and didn't give it directly to the children." PrimeHunter (talk) 18:30, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Janez Kenzer, oil painter
Janez Kenzer is a Yugoslavian-born, German painter, born 1930, best known for his "Winery Village Landscape," and "Tranquil Village Scene." Several galleries carry and sell his work.
I believe he is worthy of research and an entry in Wikipedia.
Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.236.146.135 (talk) 17:57, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- You can request an article at WP:Requested Articles (but the list is very long). You can try your hand at writing it yourself with the Wikipedia:Article wizard. Rmhermen (talk) 19:02, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Anne of Brittany
After the death of Francis II, Duke of Brittany, the throne should have gone to the descendants of Joanna of Penthièvre not his daughter Anne of Brittany according to the agreement established after the Breton War of Succession. I understand the agreement was forgotten or ignored but who stood to benefit if it had been followed, who would have been the duke of Brittany?--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 18:05, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- The king of France. The king bought the rights from the Penthièvres. Could you do that? Apparently. Paul B (talk) 20:44, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- I've just checked up on the details. It was in-effect sold to Louis XI by countess Nicole de Châtillon (Nicole du Bois), but legally it was "bequeathed" on her death (1480). The union of Britanny and France was facilitated by the 1480 claim, which was reaffirmed in the 1535 treaty of union. I should add that the exact implications of the original 1365 treaty were disputed. The Montforts claimed that they had ceased to be valid because the terms had expired. Had it not been sold (sorry, bequeathed) it would, I assume, have gone to Nicole's son Jean III de Brosse. Paul B (talk) 21:06, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- We also have an article on the Treaty of Guérande (1365). I don't think it's so much that the terms had "expired", but the imprisonment of John VI by the Countess of Penthievre in 1420 invalidated the treaty (at least in the eyes of the Montfort line). By the way, the castle where John VI was imprisoned was called Chateauceaux, but in revenge he razed the whole thing to the ground, and the town is now called Champtoceaux, heh. Adam Bishop (talk) 22:15, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Princess Augusta of Cambridge
Princess Augusta of Cambridge seemed like she was hilarious senile old lady in the latter part of her life. But for some reason I can't find any of her quotes like about Princess Maud of Wales becoming "the Queen of a revolutionary throne" outside of Wikipedia.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 19:08, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
In the "Supremacy in Wales" section of this article it says: ...and could if he wished, purchase the homage of the one outstanding native prince - Maredudd ap Rhys of Deheubarth - for another 5,000 marks. Could someone explain further in simple terms what this means exactly. Is there further reference sources detailing this?--Doug Coldwell (talk) 22:57, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- It means that Henry gave him nominal sovreignty over Wales, and the other Welsh princes went along with it (at first), except Maredudd...it's a coy way of saying that Maredudd would be loyal, for a price. Adam Bishop (talk) 23:37, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry, wait, that's not quite right. Maredudd owed homage to Henry in England, and it was Henry who was willing to extort a bit of extra money by selling this homage to Llywelyn. Apparently this is the text of the treaty. Adam Bishop (talk) 23:41, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you Adam. The book source is very useful. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 13:33, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Sale with rebates up to 75% or more even for shoes, where's the logic and where's the arbitrage?
The price of shoes swing enormously during the year, prices being lowered up to 90% during "sale" (Closeout (sale)). There must be a lot of customers like me who wear shoes for at least a year without being afraid of being totally old-fashioned, buying more or less exactly the same shoes when they get too old. Apparantly, I'm a complete idiot for buying shoes whenever I feel like instead of waiting for the rebates. So my first question is: why do shoe prices swing that much during the year whereas they don't seem to change that much? And my second question is, why are there no "arbitrage shops" that buy the cheap shoes at 75% off and sell them all year at 50% off? Joepnl (talk) 23:46, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- There are places that always sell shoes at a discount. Factory outlet stores, for example, like Saks 5th Avenue Off 5th: [16]. (There are actually more factory outlet stores than full-priced Sakses.) StuRat (talk) 23:55, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Incidentally, that type of pricing usually indicates substantial markups. That is, the shoes that sell for $200 probably only cost $10 to make, thanks to Asian sweat shops, so they can still make a profit even at 90% off ($20). StuRat (talk) 23:58, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for the prompt reply, it's amazing how fast Wikipedia answers questions, especially people like you. Between the Asian $10 shoes and the shop are of course numerous others that have to design them, ship them, take the risk of not selling any, etc. Anyway, I alway buy the same Dutch brand of shoes. I was aware of outlet stores, but they seem solve the inventory problems at factory level (?). I mean a shop that does all brands, buying all the "left overs" from normal shops (with possibly even bigger rebates) selling them at a time when I see there is a hole in my shoe instead of a sign at a shop. Joepnl (talk) 00:15, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- Some places have sales which say "no dealers" or something similar. You might think "How would they know you intend to resell them ?". Well, if you ask for 500 pair, and your name isn't Imelda, that's their first clue. Also, the ones on sale are likely to be a few pair of each style, heavy in some sizes and lacking in others, with some damaged or irregulars. It's hard to run a shoe store with stock like that (which is why the original store is selling them off cheaply). StuRat (talk) 00:55, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- I never saw a "no dealers" sign here, but that would indicate some arbitrage happening. If I had a shop I'd love to see a dealer buying 500 pair instead of having to talk to 499 extra customers so I don't see why a shop would carry such a sign. (unless the sale is a kind of service to their regular customers?). The season might be important for an extremely fashionable clientile but that can't be the case for shoes. All the other shops don't have these seasons. A hardware shop doesn't sell hammers at 25% of the price because its september, the end of hammering season. Joepnl (talk) 01:47, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- I don't really get the relevance of this to the original discussion since you seemed to be the first to bring up seasons. But anyway I don't know how things work in the US however I'm reasonably sure here in NZ there is a strong seasonal aspect to DIY or hardware shops. You may not see this quite so much in hammers (although I expect there could still easily be a few hundred percent difference in sales figures between the highest selling month and lowest selling month) but you do see this with other items. For example outdoor paint and other stuff intended for the outdoors will have higher sales in the spring and summer months. You also see the advertising and sales targeted at what they expect people to be buying during that time. They don't tend to have post season sales because they aren't completely eliminating stock and they probably have an easier time with inventory management then more completely seasonal items. There are also other peak times, e.g. power tools and other such more personal items during father's day and Christmas. Note that in mild temperate countries at least, there must be a strong seasonal aspect to clothes regardless of whether the clientele is 'fashionable' since far fewer people buy thick jackets and coats during the summer and far fewer people buy everyday short pants during winter. Even with stuff like pyjamas and other nightwear there is often a difference between what's suitable for the hotter months and what's suitable for the colder months. P.S. In plenty of cases, even when an item isn't a loss leader if it's quite cheap in relative terms the stores hope is probably to get you in the door and buying other stuff (whether in addition to or instead of the item that's cheap). This doesn't generally apply with sales to dealers. In addition, a store may sometimes negotiate a good deal with a supplier with the proviso they don't onsell to other dealers. Nil Einne (talk) 12:39, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- The "No dealers" notice, or alternatively a limit on quantity, are often listed in the fine print for an ad, so you won't see it unless you look for it. I've wondered myself why they don't allow this. I suspect a combo of not wanting to piss off loyal customers who come in for a sale only to find everything was bought up already, and not wanting to give a potential competitor any help. As far as end-of-the-season sales, one huge factor is if the same item can be sold again next season. Since things like shoes tend to be redesigned every year, last year's shoes won't sell well. A hammer, on the other hand, doesn't need to be redesigned each year. However, when they do come out with a new model, they do, indeed, have a clearance sale to get rid of the old ones. StuRat (talk) 17:54, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
February 16
Italian Monopoly on Papacy
How come all Popes between 1523 and 1978 (for 455 years) were Italians? Was this a coincidence, or was there something more to it? Does the fact that the Papal Residence is very close to Italy (and previously, to some Italian city states) have anything to do with this? Futurist110 (talk) 00:08, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- For much of that period, the Papacy was a political power as well as the head of the Church. As such, they had all the usual problems, like needing to avoid wars with their neighbors, which other states accomplished through intermarriage, etc. One way for the Papacy to do so was to appoint a Pope from a neighboring city-state, which would certainly help to prevent war with them. Later on, having an Italian Pope just became a tradition. StuRat (talk) 01:08, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- I don't know that it's an outright majority any more, but it's definitely a plurality of the eligible-to-vote cardinals. I believe the article I saw said 28 Italians are eligible to vote for the Pope, with something like 11 Americans as the next-most-powerful nation voting bloc. — Lomn 03:18, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- Use the search box, or see Plurality (voting). [17] says: "Only cardinals below 80 years old can vote and be voted upon in the Conclave, set before Easter. That makes only 29 Italians attending, 24 percent of the 119 total." College of Cardinals#Members of the College of Cardinals has unsourced percentages at eight times in the 20th century. It shows Italian majority in the first half. PrimeHunter (talk) 04:09, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- Plurality could be considered as the Mode (statistics). ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:02, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- It is entirely because the seat of the papacy was in Rome. Of course, prior to the middle 1800s, there was no Italy; there was a plethora of states on the Italian peninsula, and they spoke a variety of languages and had a variety of cultures. But the fact that all Popes came from near Rome is entirely understandable, if for no other reason than the Pope was the ruler of a large country known as the Papal States, and inviting some foreigner in to rule was not, at the time, seen as a good idea. After all, it didn't go so well for Poland when they did just that. The Italian Papacy was pretty much secured by the results of the Western Schism, which was a controversy over whether Rome or Avignon (in France) would be the seat of the Papacy. It is no coincidence that the Avignon Popes were almost all French. After the Great Schism, the power in the Papacy returned to Rome, and Rome was committed to keeping it that way. --Jayron32 03:24, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- It isn't right to say that prior to the mid-1800s, there was no Italy. It is absolutely true that there was no single Italian state, and Italian regional identities were stronger, but from the time of the early Renaissance at the latest, all of Italy shared a common standard language and literary culture as well as a coherent economy. The careers of the great early modern Italian artists and writers show a lot of geographic mobility among the various city-states of the peninsula. This shows cultural and economic coherence in the absence of political unity. In this context, an Italian from outside the Papal States would not have been seen as a foreigner by residents of those states. By contrast, a French, Spanish, or German pope might have had more difficulty ruling the Papal States. Marco polo (talk) 19:51, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Itschory - Itsyursk - Itsiursk
I wish to pin down the location and current name of the place called Itschory, the birth place of Vasily Safonov. All we're told there is that it was in the Russian Caucasus. A google search for Itschory just turns up a few thousand hits for Safonov, where his birth place is just parroted mindlessly.
Another variant I've seen is Itsyursk, but a google search again gives me many hits about Safonov and nothing about the place itself.
My 1954 Grove's Dictionary of Music and Musicians renders it as "Itsiursk, Terek, Caucasus". Google gives me no hits for Itsiursk at all. Grove's goes on "He was the son of a Cossack general living in a village in the northern Caucasus, on the banks of the romantic river Terek, sung by the poets Pushkin and Lermontov". But whether the first mention of Terek was a reference to the river or to either of the localities mentioned at Terek, Russia, I could not say.
Since Safonov's birth in 1852, there has been rather a lot of political and military activity in this whole region, and what Itschory - Itsyursk - Itsiursk was back then is almost certainly not what it is today. It might have been swallowed up in some larger conurbation. It might have been wiped out in some conflict. It could even be in Georgia.
Does anyone have any clues about this place? Thanks. -- Jack of Oz [Talk] 01:32, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- You're probably just being foiled by the vagaries of RU->EN transliteration. ru.wikipedia says he was born in ru:Ищерская in the Terek Oblast, which Google Maps and other English language sources transliterate as "Ishcherskaya". -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 01:50, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- Wow, vagaries indeed. I must be losing the plot, because it never occurred to me to check in ru:WP. Thanks for the quick detective work, Mr McWalter. -- Jack of Oz [Talk] 01:58, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Sesquialtera
The Spanish baroque composer Gaspar Sanz wrote some pieces entitled "Sesquialtera", and I was wondering how these pieces are supposed to be played/interpreted. I cannot find any information about this kind of piece (suppose it must be a dance, as most pieces by Sanz were); and just going by the tablature and score I have, I'm not really sure of how to play them. I searched in some musical encyclopedias, only finding stuff about organ stops, and even Wikipedia doesn't give me more. The pieces contain some strange harmonies, making them quite interesting. Anybody able to help? MuDavid (talk) 02:11, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Favorite pastime of the Eskimo (also known as Inuit)
What's the favorite pastime of the Eskimo (aka Inuit)? Is it playing games, like cat's cradle? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattdillon87 (talk • contribs) 05:58, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- Inuit culture may shed some light. --PlanetEditor (talk) 08:15, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- Eliot Avedon Virtual Museum of Games - Inuit (Eskimo) Games is a quite detailed resource - espedially the menu grid at the bottom of the page. Also Traditional Inuit Games which has been compiled by Inuit schoolchildren. Video clips of some more athletic games can be seen at Arctic Survival Skills: Traditional Inuit Games, and Inuit Cultural Online Resource - Inuit Games. I also found Allunaariaqattaarneq – Inuit rope gymnastics. A present day Olympic sport which was directly inspired by the Inuit is kayaking, although for them it primarily a means of transport and for hunting. The Inuit Kayak says that competitive kayaking is popular in modern Inuit communities. Finally, everything you wanted to know about String games of the Eskimos but were afraid to ask. Alansplodge (talk) 17:29, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
raytheon stock
why does our article says raytheon has revenue of $24Bn, assets of $25Bn, but yahoo finance says its whole market cap is only $17bn (just a few months of revenue)? am i making a mistake or looking at two different companys? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.101.32.82 (talk) 08:37, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- First of all, you're confusing revenue with profit. Raytheon's revenue is $24.8 billion, but its profit is only $1.8 billion.
- Secondly, you're confusing assets with net assets. Raytheon has a total asset of $26.7 billion, but it also has $19 billion in total liabilities. Thus its net assets is $26 - $18.7 = $8 billion; this number is also called net worth or book value (and for our British friends, Net asset value). The market cap must obviously be larger than the net assets. Dncsky (talk) 10:09, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- Raytheon's net income (profit) (=revenues minus expenses) is $1.8 billion; its revenues are higher. The market capitalization represents investors' expectations about the present value of all present and future profits, which may differ substantially from its book value. Duoduoduo (talk) 15:34, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Jewish Law of Unclean Things
In accordance to Jewish Law, are alive cats and dogs unclean? Are these animals forbidden to be touched? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.52.145.100 (talk) 08:57, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- No. Only their carcasses are considered unclean in Judaism. See here. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 08:59, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
jewish law
What if a woman unclean for seven days touched a public object(for example, a keyboard in an internet cafe), and it happened that I touched the object without knowing that it had been touched by an unclean woman and it was not cleaned according to the law, did I sin? Do I have to ask everyone if a public object is touched by an unclean person so I can be safe from uncleanness? What about the case of objects touched by thousands of people before me touching it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.52.145.100 (talk) 09:12, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- I don't think any serious teacher of Jewish law would hold that accidentally contracting ritual purity constitutes a sin in the traditional sense, nor are all modern rabbis (even Orthodox) of the opinion that such laws need be fully observed in modern times. Also keep in mind that no impurity is of an indefinite duration (with the possible exception of, IIRC, impurity from contact with a corpse, absent the red heifer ritual), so there would be no concern about the "thousands of people" before you. I also am not certain that merely touching an object such as a keyboard in the public domain is enough to transfer ritual impurity (though sitting in the same chair very well may be). You might try asking a rabbi about this if it is a practical concern for you. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 09:42, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Article Niddah... AnonMoos (talk) 15:38, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Restoration of dignity of Anne Boleyn
Apparently, one of the first public acts passed during the reign of Elizabeth I of England was Restoration of dignity of Anne Boleyn. I have not been able to find out anything about this act. What is it about? Where can I read about it? Surtsicna (talk) 10:41, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry, a thorough Google search didn't find any more than is in our article. Alansplodge (talk) 12:48, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- It was presumably related to the installation of Anne Boleyn's daughter Elizabeth on the throne in 1558, after the death of Mary I. Was it to retrospectively restore the title of "Queen" to Anne Boleyn? Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:47, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- I have no idea about the title. In fact, I cannot imagine what it could be about. Mary I had her parents' marriage declared (or confirmed) valid and herself a legitimate child. Elizabeth I, as far as I know, never did anything to that effect; had she declared her mother's marriage to her father valid or implied that it was valid by restoring Anne's title, she would have undermined the newly-formed Church of England. Reportedly, during her entire life, she only mentioned her mother's name twice. So what was that act about? Surtsicna (talk) 16:16, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- Um, why would declaring her parents' marriage valid have "undermined the Church of England"? Declaring it invalid certainly would have done so, since the marriage only went ahead bacuse pappy Pope was out of the picture. I'm somewhat confused by your argument. Paul B (talk) 16:40, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- It should be noted that this was an act of Parliament, not an act of Elizabeth. Looie496 (talk) 16:43, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- Because Anne Boleyn's marriage to Henry VIII was declared null and void by the Church of England in 1536, Paul B. Of course, it was an act of Parliament, but I doubt the Parliament's decision to pass the act in 1558 had absolutely nothing to do with the fact that Elizabeth ascended the throne a couple of weeks earlier. Surtsicna (talk) 16:55, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- Um, why would declaring her parents' marriage valid have "undermined the Church of England"? Declaring it invalid certainly would have done so, since the marriage only went ahead bacuse pappy Pope was out of the picture. I'm somewhat confused by your argument. Paul B (talk) 16:40, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- I have no idea about the title. In fact, I cannot imagine what it could be about. Mary I had her parents' marriage declared (or confirmed) valid and herself a legitimate child. Elizabeth I, as far as I know, never did anything to that effect; had she declared her mother's marriage to her father valid or implied that it was valid by restoring Anne's title, she would have undermined the newly-formed Church of England. Reportedly, during her entire life, she only mentioned her mother's name twice. So what was that act about? Surtsicna (talk) 16:16, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- It was presumably related to the installation of Anne Boleyn's daughter Elizabeth on the throne in 1558, after the death of Mary I. Was it to retrospectively restore the title of "Queen" to Anne Boleyn? Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:47, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- Our article says that it was Cranmer who personally declared the marriage void, and this declaration was made the night before Anne's execution, more in order to protect Cranmer than for any other reason. So the voiding seemed not to have been Henry's idea, because surely he would have arranged that much earlier. And if it wasn't Henry's idea, then maybe Elizabeth was acting accordingly. Failing that, might this restoration of dignity have something to do with the Marquessate of Pembroke? -- Jack of Oz [Talk] 20:58, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- If I remember correctly from Anne of a Thousand Neestons she was executed for treason, not as a method of divorce. μηδείς (talk) 23:18, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- Whatever the case, after May 1536, Henry always insisted that his marriage to Anne Boleyn was not valid. It is quite possible that it had something to do with the Marquessate of Pembroke. Perhaps Anne was retrospectively declared innocent and the marquessate was declared to have been hers up until the moment of her death (as opposed to merging with the Crown on her marriage or being forfeited)? Then again, it could be something completely unrelated to the marquessate. Surtsicna (talk) 23:25, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- Can someone say on what ground? He could have executed her as an incestuous traitor (as he did) without having Elizabeth implied a bastard. μηδείς (talk) 23:30, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- For one thing, it was a bit less shocking to have your mistress executed than to do the same to your lawfully wedded wife the Queen. You can read about that here. I don't think that is relevant here, though. The only question is what the 1558 act was about. Surtsicna (talk) 23:55, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- Can someone say on what ground? He could have executed her as an incestuous traitor (as he did) without having Elizabeth implied a bastard. μηδείς (talk) 23:30, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- Whatever the case, after May 1536, Henry always insisted that his marriage to Anne Boleyn was not valid. It is quite possible that it had something to do with the Marquessate of Pembroke. Perhaps Anne was retrospectively declared innocent and the marquessate was declared to have been hers up until the moment of her death (as opposed to merging with the Crown on her marriage or being forfeited)? Then again, it could be something completely unrelated to the marquessate. Surtsicna (talk) 23:25, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- If I remember correctly from Anne of a Thousand Neestons she was executed for treason, not as a method of divorce. μηδείς (talk) 23:18, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- Our article says that it was Cranmer who personally declared the marriage void, and this declaration was made the night before Anne's execution, more in order to protect Cranmer than for any other reason. So the voiding seemed not to have been Henry's idea, because surely he would have arranged that much earlier. And if it wasn't Henry's idea, then maybe Elizabeth was acting accordingly. Failing that, might this restoration of dignity have something to do with the Marquessate of Pembroke? -- Jack of Oz [Talk] 20:58, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- I'm actually quite surprised that there isn't a public database of all the laws ever passed by the parliaments of Britain, showing their history, including details of all amendments and their current status. This one may not be a current statute, but it was once, and if people were expected to obey the law, there must have been some way of telling them what the law was. Even before the computer age, people would have needed this information in some form. -- Jack of Oz [Talk] 01:10, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- For current legislation, there's Halsbury's Statutes. In ye olden days things were less organised: this page details the relevant sources. HenryFlower 02:43, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- Fascinating. Thanks, Henry. -- Jack of Oz [Talk] 04:35, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- Legislation that had not been fully repealed (rather than amended) before 1991 is viewable online at The UK Statute Law Database which is administered by The National Archives. The only legislation for 1558 that is included is the Act of Supremacy 1558; "An Acte restoring to the Crowne th'auncyent Jurisdiction over the State Ecclesiasticall and Spirituall, and abolyshing all Forreine Power repugnaunt to the same." (They don't write them like that any more). I suspect that transcribing all the many tens or hundreds of thousands of redundant acts onto a database is a skilled job that would take many decades to complete and be of great expense and very limited utility. Alansplodge (talk) 16:20, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- Fascinating. Thanks, Henry. -- Jack of Oz [Talk] 04:35, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- For current legislation, there's Halsbury's Statutes. In ye olden days things were less organised: this page details the relevant sources. HenryFlower 02:43, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- I'm actually quite surprised that there isn't a public database of all the laws ever passed by the parliaments of Britain, showing their history, including details of all amendments and their current status. This one may not be a current statute, but it was once, and if people were expected to obey the law, there must have been some way of telling them what the law was. Even before the computer age, people would have needed this information in some form. -- Jack of Oz [Talk] 01:10, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Despite the foregoing, I found; Journal of the House of Commons: volume 1: 1547-1629 (1802), entry for 16 February 1559 (p.54) "Jovis, 16o Februarii Queen's Restitution in Blood. L. 1. - The Bill for Restitution in Blood of the Queen's Highness, for the Attainder of Queen Anne her Highness Mother." "Restitution in Blood" was apparently to restore full legal rights to those whose ancestors had been convicted of treason.Geoffrey Rudolph Elton, The Parliament of England: 1559-1581 Cambridge University Press 1986 (p.303) So perhaps such an act was required to fully legitimise Elizabeth's reign? Alansplodge (talk) 16:54, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- That sounds very interesting, Alansplodge! Since Elizabeth ascended according to the Third Succession Act and through her father (rather than through her mother), I am more inclined to believe that it has to do with the Boleyn inheritance after all. Whether it's her mother's marquessate or her maternal grandfather's earldom (see Mary Boleyn#Early life, second paragraph), Elizabeth obviously had a reason to seek connection to her maternal legacy. Surtsicna (talk) 17:48, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Did Norway have native actors in the 18th century?
I remember once to have read an essay regarding travelling theatre companies in Norway in cirka 1800, which were described as being native and not foreign. However, I have found no examples of Norwegian actors in Norway prior to the establishment of the Johan Peter Strömberg (later Christiania Theater) in Oslo in 1827: this is described as the first permanent professional theatre in Norway. Where really all the travelling theatre companies that performed in Norway in the 18th century Danish or Swedish? What about, for example, the theatre of Martin Nürenbach in Oslo in 1771-1772? Or were they actually no Norwegian actors until 1827? Thank you. --85.226.41.14 (talk) 17:47, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Nazi salute
In our article Nazi salute, there's a person crying in the picture. My question is, was this person forced to give the salute? It seems like she's a gipsy, was she a target?. Thank.Kotjap (talk) 18:25, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- Gypsy people were targets, yes, so she might have been trying to protect herself by showing loyalty. Or, maybe she isn't a Gypsy but is of German origin, and is genuinely happy that the Sudetenland has been annexed by Germany. People do sometimes cry when happy. StuRat (talk) 18:34, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- Agree with your second point StuRat. The image was taken in the town of Cheb German: Eger which is a town right on the border with Czechoslovakia. It sat in a German-speaking area called Egerland which had been Germanic from 807 AD and part of Bohemia (latterly in the Austro-Hungarian Empire) from 1322 to 1919. When the German-speaking townspeople found out that they had been excluded from German-speaking Austria and included in the new Czech state, there were demonstrations which were put down with force by the new Czech army. "...involving 54 deaths and well over one hundred injuries." It wasn't just losing their nationality that they were upset about; "In 1919 the [Czech] government confiscated one-fifth of each individual's holdings in paper currency. Germans, constituting the wealthiest element in the Czech lands, were most affected. The Land Control Act brought the expropriation of vast estates belonging to Germans. Land was allotted primarily to Czech peasants".[1] The manifest unfairness of the treatment of the Sudeten Germans was one of the factors in Britain and France deciding to appease Hitler and allow him to annex the Sudatenland - Germany and Austria were unified by then.
- So, the women in the picture is probably very happy and relieved rather than upset. Her embroidered waistcoat is typical of German and Austrian national dress, just wearing a headscarf doesn't prove that she's a Gypsy. Alansplodge (talk) 21:00, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- That's a rather famous picture depicting the fact that the locals were required to come out and give the Nazi salute as the occupiers paraded by. There's no indication she's anything other than a Czech, perhaps a shopkeeper. People who cry when they are happy usually smile, however distortedly, not grimace as this woman is doing. μηδείς (talk) 20:23, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- Possibly, but what would be the motivation of a German official photographer taking a picture of somebody who was upset by their arrival? Also, the great majority of the townspeople were ethnic Germans. That was the point. The caption which follows the line that you suggest was added by the East German Communists and has a label on the Commons page saying; "This description has been identified as biased or incorrect: propaganda." Alansplodge (talk) 21:10, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- Exhibit A in the case for the defence m'Lud. Alansplodge (talk) 21:24, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- There's actually a cropped version of the crying woman here. The Nazi's captioned the picture "A Sudeten woman, overcome with emotion, pays homage as the Wehrmacht enters the Sudeten border town of Cheb" The American NARA captioned it "The tragedy of this Sudeten woman, unable to conceal her misery as she dutifully salutes the triumphant Hitler, is the tragedy of the silent millions who have been 'won over' to Hitlerism by the 'everlasting use' of ruthless force." Ryan Vesey 21:43, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- So you can make your own decision, but for my money, the circumstantial evidence is on the side of Nazi propaganda and against US and East German variety. Alansplodge (talk) 21:50, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- Probably we'll never know, in this life at least. But it might be worth pointing out that "crying for happiness" is ambiguous in the best of circumstances; the cryer is feeling pain of some sort, even if it's pain brought on by the contrast of this moment with the everyday, or anticipated mourning of the loss of the moment. In this case the woman may be happy at some level to welcome the Germans, but at another level have an intuition of what could be coming. Anyway I don't have any more evidence than anyone else (though there have been studies on the "pain" point, which should probably be mentioned in the crying article), but it's a fascinating ambiguity to speculate on. --Trovatore (talk) 21:56, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- So you can make your own decision, but for my money, the circumstantial evidence is on the side of Nazi propaganda and against US and East German variety. Alansplodge (talk) 21:50, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- A bit more light is shed on the subject when we see the whole photograph, especially the rather jolly lady on the left. Alansplodge (talk) 21:59, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- First, there's the context that the local occupied people were forced to turn out for the Nazi occupation parades whether they supported it or not, look at the crying people in the http://library.thinkquest.org/CR0212881/crypar.jpg famous Parisian picture] as well. Second, there's the fact that this woman is clearly grimacing, cover her face above her nose and look at just her mouth. That is not the sign of someone crying in joy--and she's certainly not crying in surprise. μηδείς (talk) 23:09, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- No Nazi salutes on that picture. And you have provided no sources for anything about people being forced to turn out for Nazi occupation parades, so we don't have the slightest reason to believe there is such a "context". And Alansplodge made a very good case for the argument that it was indeed a Sudeten German that was crying out of happiness. --Saddhiyama (talk) 23:53, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- Also see this ref desk thread regarding that particular picture. He was crying watching French troops departing for North Africa after the German victories. No forced appearance at German parades on that picture. --Saddhiyama (talk) 00:07, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- That's a good catch on the French picture, and certainly explains the lack of salutes. I am not quite sure how Alansplodge has argued away that fact that the crying bride picture shows a happy mouth (cover up the eyes and look) and the surprised daughter has an open mouth with no grimace. (I have to admit the bride picture looks posed, though.) μηδείς (talk) 20:34, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- BTW, in response to the caption above, the camera often lies, unless these tourists really were holding up the Leaning Tower of Pisa: [20]. 22:26, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- No, the camera is not lying there. The only lie is a part of your brain telling your conscious mind that those people are holding up the tower, but that's immediately countermanded by another part of your brain saying that such an interpretation is contrary to plausibility and there must be another explanation. Cameras don't lie, and computers don't make errors. -- Jack of Oz [Talk] 01:02, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- The "Camera never lies" comment was intended to be ironic, in that you can make up whatever lies you like about a picture (especially if you chop bits off). Alansplodge (talk) 08:49, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- No, the camera is not lying there. The only lie is a part of your brain telling your conscious mind that those people are holding up the tower, but that's immediately countermanded by another part of your brain saying that such an interpretation is contrary to plausibility and there must be another explanation. Cameras don't lie, and computers don't make errors. -- Jack of Oz [Talk] 01:02, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- About all we can say for sure about that picture is that they are holding up their right arms; and that one is crying, one is smiling, and the one in the middle is a neutral expression. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:17, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- Flourish. Exeunt Omnes. FINIS. Alansplodge (talk) 08:52, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- I don't think that's a neutral expression Bugs; even though she isn't jumping for joy like the woman to her right (your left) it's pretty clear she is welcoming of the Nazis. 72.128.82.131 (talk) 18:25, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- No, it's a non-expression, so you can't read anything into it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:05, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- I don't think that's a neutral expression Bugs; even though she isn't jumping for joy like the woman to her right (your left) it's pretty clear she is welcoming of the Nazis. 72.128.82.131 (talk) 18:25, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- Flourish. Exeunt Omnes. FINIS. Alansplodge (talk) 08:52, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- About all we can say for sure about that picture is that they are holding up their right arms; and that one is crying, one is smiling, and the one in the middle is a neutral expression. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:17, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
UK Parliamentary select committee composition
I was looking at UK select committees and I count at least 4 (Defence, Home Affairs, Scottish, Welsh) of them which don't have a majority for the government parties. Is there any reason? Isn't it counterproductive to do this because the government won't necessarily be able to get a majority on committee votes (obviously assuming no-one rebels)? User:SamUK 18:45, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- You'll note that they are meant to be chosen "independently of the party whips, as chosen by the Select Committee of Selection" per Select_committees_of_the_Parliament_of_the_United_Kingdom. In theory they are meant to offer some degree of independent scrutiny of different aspects of the work of the parliament, and are not there to follow party lines. Often in many cases members will bring some special personal expertise to the work of the committee. Perhaps it is a fiction, but my impression is the committees take their job of independent scrutiny quite seriously and are often noted to come up with recommendations that the government might not be happy with. --nonsense ferret 19:38, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- I see the logic in that. But wouldn't the majority party (parties) want a situation where they have maximum influence. Obviously when one party has an overall majority in the HoC, it is simpler; but even with the current makeup, wouldn't the Conservatives and Lib Dems have something to gain if they had a majority between themselves. For the Conservatives, they would have exactly half the committee seats, meaning they can block if the Lib Dem member votes with Labour MPs. And for the Lib Dem it would give them balance of power. At the moment, the opposition members on the committees I named can block the Cons and Libs. User:SamUK 20:40, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- I found the content of this speech quite interesting from the Speaker of the House of Commons - [21] - he puts forward the view very strongly that given the purpose of the committees is to be a check and balance against the unfettered exercise of power by the executive, then it should be removed as much as possible from the influences of the main party machinery. This is I think very much the traditional view, and has broad support across the benches. The Government of today will be the opposition of tomorrow, and that is something they will probably bear in mind. In some countries there is a clear written constitution that sets out the clear checks and balances that must be adhered to, and the processes of scrutiny. That isn't really the case in the UK, but it would be a mistake to think that there are no effective checks and balances. It is a fascinating subject, thanks for asking the question. The Government of the day tend to recognise that some of these long-standing 'conventions' are worth having, even if sometimes it seems to get in the way of doing what they want to do. --nonsense ferret 21:18, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- I see the logic in that. But wouldn't the majority party (parties) want a situation where they have maximum influence. Obviously when one party has an overall majority in the HoC, it is simpler; but even with the current makeup, wouldn't the Conservatives and Lib Dems have something to gain if they had a majority between themselves. For the Conservatives, they would have exactly half the committee seats, meaning they can block if the Lib Dem member votes with Labour MPs. And for the Lib Dem it would give them balance of power. At the moment, the opposition members on the committees I named can block the Cons and Libs. User:SamUK 20:40, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
House of Hanover
At the time of Queen Victoria's accession to the British throne, who was her nearest heir? RNealK (talk) 20:57, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- See History of the British line of succession. It was her uncle Ernest Augustus I of Hanover. Hia10 (talk) 21:49, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
What was the geography of Deheubarth when King Henry III granted the homage and lordship of Maredudd to Llywelyn for the payment of 5,000 marks on 30 August 1270?
- There are two outline maps in our Deheubarth article. I suspect, given the quality of medieval cartography, that you're not going to find anything better than that. Alansplodge (talk) 21:42, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- Just to prove myself wrong - here's a better one but a bit on the tiny side. Alansplodge (talk) 21:47, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks Alansplodge.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 14:31, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- Just to prove myself wrong - here's a better one but a bit on the tiny side. Alansplodge (talk) 21:47, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Interested in the topography - mostly of what it may have looked like in 1270 (land features).--Doug Coldwell (talk) 17:46, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- Very rural. Hills and valleys as at present. No canals; river courses would not have been straightened or embanked, at least not so much as today. Probably more woodland and heathland than today. Small settlements, and there is a distinctive Celtic field pattern. Dry stone walls and hedgerows. Lots of sheep and cattle, some cereals. Castles and abbeys. Others may know more. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:17, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for the impressions. In this document it says A major campaign to control Llywelyn ap Gruffydd of Wales began in 1277 and lasted until Llywelyn's death in 1282. I'm not familiar with Wales, so don't know its land features. I'm getting the impression the land controlled by Llywelyn ap Gruffydd was perhaps mountainous or hilly? It perhaps then was also a partial grassy area by your description of the distinctive "Celtic field" pattern?--Doug Coldwell (talk) 00:29, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Deheubarth is broadly the area now covered by Pembrokeshire, Carmarthenshire, and Ceredigion, and looking at information on those areas will give you a general picture. The areas won't have changed that much over a mere 700 years or so. So, it had a long coastline, backed with lowlying marshes and dunes in the south, hilly rather than mountainous elsewhere, and, as has been said, very rural but with fishing and farming villages and small market towns. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:11, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Although some of the hills are quite big by British standards, the Brecon Beacons, and the Black Mountains for example.- Sorry, I was misreading the map I linked you to - the Preseli Hills is a better link. I have an idea that the today's bare hills and moors are a product of the intensive sheep grazing introduced in the 19th century, and that it would be much more heavily wooded in the middle ages. Woodland would be Sessile oak, ash, hazel and alder - apart from a few yews and junipers, there were no conifers in Wales until the 17th century. Alansplodge (talk) 18:00, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Page 32 of this source indicates that deforestation took place in pre-Roman times, so the prevailing landscape during the Middle Ages would already have been the grassy uplands and heaths that exist today. There would have been some woodlands, mainly on the steeper slopes and deeper valleys. Marco polo (talk) 19:41, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for all the input. I have a good idea what it was like in the 1270s now.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 20:32, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Page 32 of this source indicates that deforestation took place in pre-Roman times, so the prevailing landscape during the Middle Ages would already have been the grassy uplands and heaths that exist today. There would have been some woodlands, mainly on the steeper slopes and deeper valleys. Marco polo (talk) 19:41, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
February 17
What is the meaning of the term "methodology" in "political theory and methodology"?
Does methodology refer to mathematics? If not, what does it mean with political theory? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshua Atienza (talk • contribs) 01:46, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- According to our article stub Political methodology, which I quote here in its entirety, Political methodology is a subfield of Political Science that studies the quantitative methods used to study politics. It combines statistics, mathematics, empirical techniques, and formal theory. Political methodology is often used for positive research, in contrast to normative research. Duoduoduo (talk) 15:24, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- The term methodology shouldn't really be limited to quantitative methods, even if those are the ones most frequently used. It refers to the study of all research methods. Marco polo (talk) 18:24, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Books for modern political theory
I need a book about political theory, aside from the book great political theories, which includes a number of modern theorists. Can you recommend any. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshua Atienza (talk • contribs) 02:01, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- How modern? Political Ideologies by Andrew Heywood is the one I used when I did a Pol Sci unit. It was the textbook for a different unit to the one I did. I did a second year unit, and the book was for the first year unit. The book was fantastic at filling in the gaps, without my having to even do the unit. It has such "modern" theorists as Karl Marx, if that helps, but it also mentions more recent Marxists, feminists, and many others. IBE (talk) 09:20, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Nazi secret weapons
During World War 2, were any of the Nazi wonder weapons privately funded to any significant extent? Or was all the funding provided by the government, as was the general practice in the Soviet Union? 24.23.196.85 (talk) 05:59, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- A Google search on "nazi weapon funding" shows a lot of hits on something I already knew: there were many American companies, or 'industrialists', who financed the Nazi war machine and the development of weapons. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 09:06, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- The OP stipulated during World War II. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:38, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, and I expected anyone reading this thread to read the links provided before commenting. Here are some more. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 18:24, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- I don't see any links there that are remotely reliable, and that claim what you say it claims. In addition to spreading propaganda, you are fraudulently misrepresenting your own sources. Of course, there are plenty of sources that show industrial collaboration between American companies and German companies. That's hardly surprising, considering that Germany was a superpower with the most advanced industries in the world. That doesn't mean any American company funded a German superweapon during WWII, and I've seen no references that make such a claim. --140.180.243.51 (talk) 22:03, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- It depends on when you think the war started. Fur the UK, it started in 1939, whereas the Americans joined in a few years later. They were not at war with Germany for the first few years. During that time, they were financing the Germans (as well as the Brits, and the Russians, and just basically everyone else). KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 08:33, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- I don't see any links there that are remotely reliable, and that claim what you say it claims. In addition to spreading propaganda, you are fraudulently misrepresenting your own sources. Of course, there are plenty of sources that show industrial collaboration between American companies and German companies. That's hardly surprising, considering that Germany was a superpower with the most advanced industries in the world. That doesn't mean any American company funded a German superweapon during WWII, and I've seen no references that make such a claim. --140.180.243.51 (talk) 22:03, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, and I expected anyone reading this thread to read the links provided before commenting. Here are some more. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 18:24, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- The OP stipulated during World War II. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:38, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- Getting back to the original question, I can't think of any nation seeking or getting private funding for weapons research. The military likes to keep its secrets secret. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:43, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- And yet in the USA during World War 2, there was quite a bit of private funding for weapons development -- the P-38 Lightning and the P-51 Mustang, for example, were privately funded to a large extent. Same thing in Britain -- or have you forgot the story of Frank Whittle and the jet engine? But then again, in English-speaking countries (and ESPECIALLY in the USA), there's a long tradition of having private companies do everything by themselves -- the same might not have been true in Germany. 24.23.196.85 (talk) 04:57, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- How can I forget Frank Whittle when I never heard of him before? But that example doesn't work for me at least. He developed it on his own, not as part of a government programme. As for the fighters, it seems (from the articles at least) that the P-51 was ordered by the British government, while the P-38 was produced to compete for a US contract, not quite what I think of as private funding exactly. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:24, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not sure if I'm reading your comments correctly Clarityfiend, but they seem to be contradictory. Whittle's Power Jets Ltd doesn't count because it wasn't part of a government programme and the Mustang doesn't count because it was.
- However, a project that was privately developed in the design stage despite a lack of government interest until quite late in the day was the de Havilland Mosquito. Alansplodge (talk) 19:13, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- How can I forget Frank Whittle when I never heard of him before? But that example doesn't work for me at least. He developed it on his own, not as part of a government programme. As for the fighters, it seems (from the articles at least) that the P-51 was ordered by the British government, while the P-38 was produced to compete for a US contract, not quite what I think of as private funding exactly. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:24, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- And yet in the USA during World War 2, there was quite a bit of private funding for weapons development -- the P-38 Lightning and the P-51 Mustang, for example, were privately funded to a large extent. Same thing in Britain -- or have you forgot the story of Frank Whittle and the jet engine? But then again, in English-speaking countries (and ESPECIALLY in the USA), there's a long tradition of having private companies do everything by themselves -- the same might not have been true in Germany. 24.23.196.85 (talk) 04:57, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
historical growth and development of administrative law England
historical growth and development of administrative law England — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.30.45.114 (talk) 09:12, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- You could start with our article English administrative law, which at least gives you some headings, even though it doesn't cover the history. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:02, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Why are the dukes of Brittany listed as members of the Robertian dynasty? --The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 11:14, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- I'm sure there was an intermarriage at some point (possibly through Ermengarde-Gerberga of Anjou?) It doesn't make any sense to list them as "Robertians" though. (I'm not sure it makes any sense to list anyone as "Robertian"; Wikipedia is filled with non-sensical made-up dynasties...) Adam Bishop (talk) 20:32, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Portuguese hat
im looking for the name of the traditional hats, that the Portuguese where. i was looking at a picture of our lady of Fatima, and the boy, blessed Francisco, is wearing one. when i lived there, back in the 70's, the shepherds were the only ones that still wore them. i was hoping you had a picture of it, and the name, maybe some history on it. wish i had an extra million for all that you do. thanks so much. sincerely . Stephen j. Mansfield. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.213.166.245 (talk) 13:22, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- Is it either of the hats shown here: [22] or any shown here: [23] ? StuRat (talk) 15:37, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- Perhaps a Barretina? Hat Guide - Barretina: Popular hat across Mediterranean Europe I was led there via our rather amusing article called Caganer ;-) Alansplodge (talk) 15:49, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- Consider looking through our Culture of Portugal article --Senra (talk) 15:51, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- Perhaps a Barretina? Hat Guide - Barretina: Popular hat across Mediterranean Europe I was led there via our rather amusing article called Caganer ;-) Alansplodge (talk) 15:49, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
A portrait by George Frederic Watts
I am looking for "Miss Mary Fox with Spanish Pointer", a portrait of Lord Holland's adopted daughter painted by George Frederic Watts. The internet is full of paintings by Watts but I cannot find this one no matter how hard I try. Is there an art website where I should look? Any tips on finding it? Surtsicna (talk) 13:28, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- Is this what you were thinking of [24] ? It's a different Mary Fox, and by artist Pompeo Batoni. StuRat (talk) 15:47, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- It's reproduced in Barbara Bryant's catalogue of the Watts portraits. It may be in Veronica Gould's biography too. I'll have a look at my copy (which will have to be tomorrow morning). If you can't find it, I will happily scan it for you and upload it. BTW, her name was Marie Fox. However, the title you give is indeed how the name is inscribed on the
backfront. Paul B (talk) 16:53, 17 February 2013 (UTC)- Yes, Barbara Bryant's catalogue is precisely where I learned about the existence of the paintng. Her name was indeed Marie Fox, but she appears to have been called Mary quite frequently. This name complication suits her complicated life; she was a foundling found at a French orphanage who was adopted by a British nobleman and who eventually became an Austrian princess. She wrote an extensive account on Holland House and its art collection. I've been thinking of creating an article about her and nominating it for DYK. If you would be so kind to scan it and upload (which would be the most helpful thing a Wikipedian has done for me), I would make sure that you receive DYK credit. I am already very grateful. Surtsicna (talk) 17:21, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- I've found the book already and uploaded it for you File:Watts marie fox.jpg. Paul B (talk) 17:26, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, Barbara Bryant's catalogue is precisely where I learned about the existence of the paintng. Her name was indeed Marie Fox, but she appears to have been called Mary quite frequently. This name complication suits her complicated life; she was a foundling found at a French orphanage who was adopted by a British nobleman and who eventually became an Austrian princess. She wrote an extensive account on Holland House and its art collection. I've been thinking of creating an article about her and nominating it for DYK. If you would be so kind to scan it and upload (which would be the most helpful thing a Wikipedian has done for me), I would make sure that you receive DYK credit. I am already very grateful. Surtsicna (talk) 17:21, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Empire City Repository
I have a horse drawn sleigh that has a metal plate on the back reading "Empire City Repository 20, 22, 24,&26 Wooster St. NY". I live on the West Coast of U.S. and would love to know more about the sleigh's origin. Can you help me? Sweisskennewick (talk) 16:06, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Missing byline?
Hello. I was doing some research and found that this TIME article had no byline (i.e. no information on the article's author). I am primarily interested in who the author might be. Thanks, 72.128.82.131 (talk) 18:12, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- I can't view that without a Time subscription. However, here are some general reasons why they don't list an author:
- A) They may have gotten the story from a press service. If so, they should list the name of the wire service, like AP, UPI, or Rueters.
- B) They sometimes just say "Staff", meaning it was a collaboration of many authors on their staff. This practice seems to be spreading, recently, where, to write a story about topic X, they just grab paragraphs from every story on topic X they've written in the last year or so, resulting in a Frankenstein of a piece which is redundant and unreadable, especially if they are stealing from earlier Frankensteins.
- C) If the author fears retaliation for the story, they may choose to remain anonymous (different papers have different policies on this). StuRat (talk) 00:58, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- I can view this article since I am a TIME Magazine subscriber. There is no author listed, and the reason for this is probably one or more of the ones that StuRat previously mentioned. I think that it might have been more common for Time Magazine to write more articles without the author(s) being listed several decades ago than it is today. Futurist110 (talk) 03:04, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Sometimes it's just a blanket policy to not give author credit on articles -- for example The Economist never does so, not even for recurring columns always written by the same (unidentified) writer. Other magazines may give author credit for recurring columns but not for general news articles. Duoduoduo (talk) 14:12, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Name of a heresy
I was reading a document entitled "An Outline of the Faith" the other day - I'm not sure where it originates, but based on its contents I would suppose it's some sort of dissident sedevacantist Catholic organization. However, my question is about one line in the document: "By God's own act, his divine Son received our human nature from the Virgin Mary, his mother." Now, this is probably expressing a conventional hypostatic union view of Jesus' nature, but it reads as though they believe that Jesus was a biological hybrid of God and Man, like Heracles or Giglamesh or Lúthien. Does this belief have a name, and has any Christian church seriously entertained it? Tevildo (talk) 19:49, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- It seems likely that any possible combination has a name, there were so many of these things that were condemned as heresies...maybe Consubstantiality? Christology has a handy chart, does that help? Adam Bishop (talk) 20:27, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- Indeed... It's whatever the _opposite_ of "consubstantial" is, probably dyophysitism, although our article on that subject doesn't explicitly cover the view that Jesus' divine nature is _specifically_ from God, and His human nature _specifically_ from Mary. I'll do some more reading. Tevildo (talk) 22:24, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- Ha, that "document" is a section of the Book of Common Prayer of the Episcopal Church, arguably a dissident Catholic organization but generally viewed as a mainline Protestant church in the United States.--Cam (talk) 22:40, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- Ah I see that the sentence you quote appears in other books as well. I'll try to find its origin.--Cam (talk) 23:01, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- It's from the Catechism and you can read the whole document here. This is a considerable elaboration on the original 1662 Catechism. There doesn't seem to be an equivalent in Common Worship, the current prayer book used by the Church of England. Alansplodge (talk) 00:47, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- After a lot of Googling, it seems that the Anglican Communion generally adheres to the principles laid down in the seven Ecumenical councils of the early Church, and thus ought to have the same view as the Roman Catholics on this issue. See Ecumenical_council#Anglican_Communion. The Americans seem to have gone out on a limb here, but I'm not a theologian. Alansplodge (talk) 19:40, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- It's from the Catechism and you can read the whole document here. This is a considerable elaboration on the original 1662 Catechism. There doesn't seem to be an equivalent in Common Worship, the current prayer book used by the Church of England. Alansplodge (talk) 00:47, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Ah I see that the sentence you quote appears in other books as well. I'll try to find its origin.--Cam (talk) 23:01, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- Ha, that "document" is a section of the Book of Common Prayer of the Episcopal Church, arguably a dissident Catholic organization but generally viewed as a mainline Protestant church in the United States.--Cam (talk) 22:40, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- Indeed... It's whatever the _opposite_ of "consubstantial" is, probably dyophysitism, although our article on that subject doesn't explicitly cover the view that Jesus' divine nature is _specifically_ from God, and His human nature _specifically_ from Mary. I'll do some more reading. Tevildo (talk) 22:24, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
February 18
Presidential Insanity ?
In a moment or two of complete insanity does the american president have the ability to send the commands to set off nuclear bombs. and they actually get launched and land ? Or is there some fail safe in place that would tell the president that he cant do that ? If he uses the football to send the bombs to some other country and does all the commands correctly is there any way to stop him in that short period of time. I know if incapacitated the vice president would take over however by the time that takes place he could have killed a lot of people — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.98.4.9 (talk) 00:01, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- There is a procedure under the Twenty-fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. That being said, that won't fully answer your scenario. I think much would depend on whether there was unanimous agreement that he was crazy or not among White House and Pentagon officials.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:04, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- I don't think the 25th amendment really covers this scenario. Certainly, yes, the President has the authority to order the launch of nuclear weapons, but that's not quite the same as actually setting off nuclear weapons. Within the time scale of that activity, some means of declaring the President "temporarily incapacitated" in a manner that doesn't amount to mutiny seems unlikely. The question, then, is what happens with the chain of command when a nuclear launch order is given? Will it be executed? Deemed an unlawful order? Mutinied against? This has been the subject of much fiction and speculation (Last Resort (U.S. TV series), Crimson Tide (film), and The Sum of All Fears are recent American media takes on the issue), but I don't know that there's much in the way of firm reference to cite. Certainly the theory is that, once given the proper codes by the President, the relevant personnel will deploy the weapons with no questions asked. Abort modes will vary by type of weapon -- bombers can be recalled, and cruise missiles can probably be remotely self-destructed, and I assume the same is true for ICBMs, but there's not necessarily much time for that last option. — Lomn 02:31, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- The 25th Amendment is exactly on point, and is designed for this scenario, among others specifically. In addition, it's my understanding that the secretary of defense has to also authorize any nuclear retaliation, or something along those lines. That may be incorrect in practice, but it's written at least once here in wikipedia. Shadowjams (talk) 02:37, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- I was thinking of The Sum of All Fears as well, the article Two-man rule doesn't actually say that another man must confirm the president's decision. I don't know if the book bent reality, or if the article is incomplete. In any case, it's interesting that Harold Hering was discharged for asking the same question as the above. Ryan Vesey 02:39, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- The access controls are [presumably] much better now than they were back in Hering's day. It's frightening when you look at how little of those the Russians had at comparable times. Shadowjams (talk) 02:48, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- I don't think the 25th amendment really covers this scenario. Certainly, yes, the President has the authority to order the launch of nuclear weapons, but that's not quite the same as actually setting off nuclear weapons. Within the time scale of that activity, some means of declaring the President "temporarily incapacitated" in a manner that doesn't amount to mutiny seems unlikely. The question, then, is what happens with the chain of command when a nuclear launch order is given? Will it be executed? Deemed an unlawful order? Mutinied against? This has been the subject of much fiction and speculation (Last Resort (U.S. TV series), Crimson Tide (film), and The Sum of All Fears are recent American media takes on the issue), but I don't know that there's much in the way of firm reference to cite. Certainly the theory is that, once given the proper codes by the President, the relevant personnel will deploy the weapons with no questions asked. Abort modes will vary by type of weapon -- bombers can be recalled, and cruise missiles can probably be remotely self-destructed, and I assume the same is true for ICBMs, but there's not necessarily much time for that last option. — Lomn 02:31, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- There would really have to be some pretext for the president (or any proxy thereof who might be at the head of the chain of command in a time of emergency) to order a nuclear strike; it's not simply a matter of picking up a red phone and ordering such an attack as easily as one might a pizza. There's a strict procedure for establishing readiness of the non-conventional arsenal and even more specific protocols for the actual arming and launching of the weapons. If you have a JSTOR account, you may find this source, though dated, interesting: LAUNCH link! Snow (talk) 07:55, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- I have an inkling things have changed since 1985... but other than that, yeah. Shadowjams (talk) 08:45, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- The link was not provided to illustrate current readiness procedures but rather because it contains theoretical and hierarchical discussion of scenarios along the lines that OP was inquiring about. And I did note it was dated, but if you have something more contemporary, by all means... ;) Snow (talk) 08:58, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- I have an inkling things have changed since 1985... but other than that, yeah. Shadowjams (talk) 08:45, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- There are a number of stories floating around that James Schlesinger, during the late days of the Nixon administration, sought to ensure that any "unusual" military instructions from the White House would have to be confirmed with him. Interestingly, while many recent commentators take the line of the original poster here and interpret it as trying to prevent Nixon from starting a war, this 1983 Atlantic article suggests that Schlesinger was most concerned about an attempt to use troops to hold onto power in mid-1974 - a very different, and much "saner", problem! Andrew Gray (talk) 09:55, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Sort of the reverse of Seven Days in May, which was set in May 1974. -- Jack of Oz [Talk] 19:06, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Can Futurists Hypothesize when the human race will end and if China will ever become more powerful than the Western_world?
Can Futurists Hypothesize when the human race will end and if China will ever become more powerful than the Western_world What theories or facts can they base on? Venustar84 (talk) 04:02, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- 1) No.
- 2) China can be predicted to outpace the US in a few decades, but the entire Western world, probably not. StuRat (talk) 04:10, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- In regards to China surpassing the United States, I think you might find this(pdf) to be interesting reading stating otherwise Here's a non-PDF non full text link. It's been too long since I read it to remember the conclusion, but Robert J. Art's "The United States and the Rise of China" was a great read [25]. Ryan Vesey 04:27, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- User:Venustar84 might be interested in Timeline of the near future, Timeline of the future in forecasts, Timeline of the far future, etc. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:54, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Intelligence and shyness
Where did the conception that brainy people, you know, the type of people who have their nose prepetially stick in a book, are shy? Like the Gabriella Montez character in High School Musical. ZEfronbestfan (talk) 05:36, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Could it be that people who are shy would rather read books than interact with people ? StuRat (talk) 05:40, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Or they are insecure when around other people and therefore direct their attention at scholastic activities. Either way, it's a stereotype and not always true. I've known many people that are very smart and also very outgoing and engaging. There are some well known examples of people who are both smart and outgoing enough to be on television or in the limelight such as Neil DeGrasse Tyson, Bill Nye, Carl Sagan, and Stephen Hawking. Dismas|(talk) 05:47, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Most stereotypes are statistically true, which is why they became stereotypes in the first place. A few exceptions out of 7 billion people does not disprove a statistical correlation. --140.180.243.51 (talk) 07:13, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- No empirical validity to this statement whatsoever; stereotypes may reflect realistic trends or they may be completely contrived and false. Quantifying which are which across all the domains of human inquiry and expression is an impossible task and as such determining that a majority of them are accurate is entirely impressionistic speculation. In fact, in many contexts, the choice of the word stereotype to refer to a perceived tendency is used to explicitly mark that the belief is a superficial one and unlikely to be true. Snow (talk) 07:29, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Stereotypes are not statistically true in any way whatsoever. They are made up by people who have limited contact with the very type of people they are stereotyping. I do not think all Chinese look the same. I do not think that Jews are all penny-pinchers (any more than everyone else is). I do not think that all Eastern Europeans are alcoholics obsessed with sex and bad driving. If a British girl in Japan gets raped and killed and put in a bath of sand on the balcony of her killer, who turns out to be a complete nutcase, would that mean all Japanese are nutcases? Of course it wouldn't, but some people think that way. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 08:25, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Plenty of empirical evidence validates many stereotypes. Shadowjams (talk) 08:43, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- I said what I said because my niece wants to move to Japan, and as I lived there for most of my adult life, my family are asking if it is safe for her to go there. I insist it is, but they always talk about the Lindsay Walker incident. There are 127,000,000 people in Japan. There are not many incidents like this, but it becomes news, because news is all about hyping stuff up and making it emotional and all that jazz. She will be fine there, and if she has a problem, I won't be far away. I will reiterate: "stereotypes are made up by people who have limited contact with the very type of people they are stereotyping." KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 09:17, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- You say you lived there most of your adult life, yet you defer some important question to the reference desk? Come on, give me a break. You know the responses here are hardly intelligent. Shadowjams (talk) 11:37, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- I gave some very easy to understand answers. I am very surprised, that you, of all people, failed to understand them. Also, your use of the word 'defer' does not make sense in this context. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 12:02, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- You say you lived there most of your adult life, yet you defer some important question to the reference desk? Come on, give me a break. You know the responses here are hardly intelligent. Shadowjams (talk) 11:37, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- I said what I said because my niece wants to move to Japan, and as I lived there for most of my adult life, my family are asking if it is safe for her to go there. I insist it is, but they always talk about the Lindsay Walker incident. There are 127,000,000 people in Japan. There are not many incidents like this, but it becomes news, because news is all about hyping stuff up and making it emotional and all that jazz. She will be fine there, and if she has a problem, I won't be far away. I will reiterate: "stereotypes are made up by people who have limited contact with the very type of people they are stereotyping." KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 09:17, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Earliest mention of Mount Kailash and the word Shiva
I want to know when did Shiva came to be associated with Mount Kailash. Many scholars hypothesize that Shiva dates back to the pre-Vedic period in India (although some features with the Vedic god Rudra were attributed to him later). Kailash a holy place in Hinduism, Buddhism, Bon and Jainism.
I am trying to find out
- Which known text contains the earliest mention of the word "Shiva" (not other words that are considered synonyms of Shiva today)
- Which known text contains the earliest mention of Kailash?
- At what point in history did Shiva come to be associated with Kailash? utcursch | talk 17:04, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- It seems very unlikely that you'll get useful answers here. I'm afraid you will have to contact an expert on the history of the Hindu religion if you need this information. The first question in particular is going to be very difficult because, as our article says, the word "shiva" was originally an adjective, not a proper name at all. Looie496 (talk) 17:29, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- This was discussed in the Yahoo Indology list some while ago. Look in the archives. [26] As I recall it was used as an adjective for Rudra in the Rigveda. The thread was called "Rudra as Siva in the Vedas". Paul B (talk) 19:06, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Is anime the cause of hikikomori?
I'm 55 and I was one of the first generation of hikikomoris in Japan. My father beat me up and took me out of the bedroom and took me downstairs to the street by force and healed me. Now my nephew is a hikikomori and is a frequent user of videogames and anime. Could that cause them to that illness? Thank you indeed much. Kotjap (talk) 20:02, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- I'm curious to know how he "healed" you by inflicting bodily injury. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:40, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
I meant that he helped me out. I am not English native speaker. Kotjap (talk) 20:47, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- How did inflicting injury upon you "fix" the problem? Did it really fix it, or did you just comply with his demands in order not to be hit again? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:58, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- According to this source, neither videogames nor animé are among the causes identified by any of the scholarly research on this topic. Marco polo (talk) 21:00, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Indeed, I complied with his demands. I didn't want any more beats up. Kotjap (talk) 21:01, 18 February 2013 (UTC)