I am looking for a reference for income tax revenue from ~1920-30 in the United States. I myself could only find data going back to 1934, [1]. If anyone knows of a good source for this data it would be much appreciated and would be used to improve relevant articles. Furious Style (talk) 00:58, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This link might help you -- http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/revenue_chart_1910_2010USp_XXs1li011mcn_11f12f_Federal_Income_Taxes Futurist110 (talk) 05:39, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I had found that and dismissed it as not good enough, but I now realise I could use that data set along with another and have now determined that a paragraph in Supply-side economics was indeed false. Furious Style (talk) 19:54, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Flag of the Qing Dynasty speak about a Ba gua flag and a Qilin flag. Do illustration of such flags exist?--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 07:49, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They were never made, only presented as options to the Empress Dowager by the Zongli Yamen in a memorial. I could find no sources to indicate whether illustrations accompanied the memorial, but you may be able to find out by contacting the No. 1 National Archives in Beijing, who should hold the original of the memorial if it still exists. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 13:40, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A memorial, or a memorandum? (It's worth asking, because it affects how you would search for such a thing in the state archives.) AlexTiefling (talk) 16:55, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Memorial" is the usual English translation for the Chinese word "奏章", which in turn is a generic name for all types of reports submitted by bureaucrats to the emperor. In turn, "奏" and "章" separately are two of the many types of reports submitted by bureaucrats. I don't know what particular format or type was used in this instance, but I'm not sure it is necessary to know that when searching the state archives. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 19:42, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. I think that English (at least, bureaucratic UK English) uses 'memorandum' rather than 'memorial' for this; the distinction being that a memorial is a thing that commemorates a person, event or thing - that is, it is a thing remember them by, whereas a memorandum is something which ought to be remembered. (The boring detail is that 'memorandum', like 'agenda', 'referendum', and 'Miranda', is a Latin gerundive, which conveys 'something that ought to be verbed', for a given choice of transitive verb.) But as the bureaucrats in question speak Chinese, I agree that this is not, after all, a relevant distinction. AlexTiefling (talk) 20:57, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For a famous such example of "memorial", see the Tanaka Memorial... AnonMoos (talk) 04:59, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, I wouldn't use "memorial" to refer to a ministerial memorandum or a cabinet submission in the Westminster sense either. It seems to be a sort of jargon used only in the East Asian context. The term "memorial to the throne" is also used. I have no idea how the translation originated, given that it doesn't seem to be the most obvious translation of the Chinese term.--PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:44, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The OED entry on "memorial" is interesting. It suggests similar historical usage in English, to mean and also "In diplomatic use: any of various informal state papers giving an account of a matter under discussion, esp. one presented by an ambassador to the state to which he or she is accredited, or by a government to one of its agents abroad. Obs.", and "A statement of facts forming the basis of or expressed in the form of a petition or remonstrance to a person in authority, a government, etc.", and quotes, for example:

"1832 H. Martineau Demerara ii. 15 They met from time to time to..draw up memorials to Government.

"1900 Congress. Rec. (U.S.) 3 Jan. 638/1 A memorial of the legislature of the State of Colorado, favoring the return to the Republic of Mexico of captured cannon, flags, and banners.

"1697 Acts & Resolves Mass. Bay VII. 556 The Said Committee being also directed to Consider..ye memorialls presented by the ministers..are of Opinion [etc.]."

and also mentions that the word is in current use in Scottish law in a related sense, as "A statement of facts drawn up to be submitted to the Lord Ordinary in the Court of Session preliminary to a hearing. Also: an advocate's brief." --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:59, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At a guess, I would imagine the ba gua flag to be similar to the flag of South Korea, and a Qilin flag to be similar to the flag of the Republic of Formosa. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 13:42, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any connection between Mandora Station in Western Australia and the British victory at the Battle of Mandora in 1801? I've just written a stub about the battle. and wondered if there was a link between the two. Alansplodge (talk) 15:16, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find any reference to such a connection, Alan. My guess fwiw is that Mandora is a local Aboriginal word, but I've not been able to confirm that either. But here's a record of an Aboriginal woman named Mandora (1910).

Mandora Station has itself contributed indirectly to the name of a suburb of Perth, Madora Bay (no n): First approved as Madora in 1990, and amended to Madora Bay in 2003, this suburb derives its name from “Madora Beach Estate” of 1960. The estate was a development of Perry’s Estate Agency in Mandurah, and the name was derived from two Western Australian place names: Chadora, a mill and railway siding near Dwellingup, and Mandora, a cattle station between Broome and Port Hedland. [2] -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 20:00, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks - it was worth a go, after all, there's a Trafalgar, Victoria and four towns called Waterloo in Australia. Alansplodge (talk) 20:24, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yes. I'm only an hour's drive from Trafalgar. My own hamlet of Maffra is said to be at least indirectly named after the Portuguese town and municipality of Mafra, prominent in the Peninsular War. And my Maffra is located within the Shire of Wellington's jurisdiction. The shire's headquarters are in Sale, named after Major General Sir Robert Henry Sale, a British Army officer who commanded the garrison of Jalalabad during the First Afghan War and was killed in action during the First Anglo-Sikh War. We're a traditional lot down here and we have long memories of places we've never heard of. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 22:55, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can't imagine where you inherited that from! Alansplodge (talk) 12:42, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to the City of Mandurah official site, that place got its name from a local name, Mandjoogoordap. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:27, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mandurah is several hundred miles away from Mandora Station, but it is still plausible that Mandora's name is derived from an Aboriginal name. It is also plausible that the place was named after the battle. Marco polo (talk) 21:12, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we'll never know. The battle seems to have been largely forgotten, even contemporary accounts often just call it the "action of 13th March" as it was overshadowed by the Battle of Alexandria eight days later. I was hoping that I could prove a link with the Mandora crater on Mars, but all in vain. Alansplodge (talk) 14:47, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am looking for examples of Wikipedia content being reused to create something imaginative and new. I have one so far - Google Maps Wikipedia layer. Any other ideas? Please note that I am looking for remixes/reuses adding something new, so don't tell me about mirrors, forks or for-profit scams - I am aware of those, and they are not wbat I am asking about. I am also aware of GLAM and WiR stuff, but again, they are somewhat off topic here, as they are about Wikipedia working with others and making them contribute to Wikipedia, and not necessarily about others reusing Wikipedia content. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:32, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it is not certain that it is Wikipedia's content being reused (it could have been some textbook) and the extent of reuse is very limited, but at least [3] (look at [4] - "Equestria Daily", "Episode Followup: It's About Time", 2012-03-11 - for more context) certainly shows an imaginative use in "My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic" episode "It's About Time" (filling the blackboard with formulas that are real and correspond to the ones in Time dilation#Time dilation at constant acceleration - [5]). If you want examples to show that our work is not wasted, I'd say this could be useful. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 19:20, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Black history month question: When was the term "Black American" coined acceptable by the United_States_Census? Venustar84 (talk) 21:47, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The 1850 questionnaire used the term "black".[6] What you mean by 'coined acceptable" is unclear. μηδείς (talk) 00:38, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly because at one time "black" was considered offensive or at least demeaning, until black Americans took ownership of the term and made it a thing of pride. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:26, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

These things go through cycles (the "euphemism treadmill" vs. "reclaiming"); so the name of the NAACP has "Colored", UNCF has "Negro", while organizations founded since the late 1960's have "Black" or "African-American"... AnonMoos (talk) 04:50, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly, the "Colored", "Black", and "Negro" usage were equally prominent among civil rights leaders at the turn of the 20th century. The NAACP was founded in 1909 by a group that included W. E. B. Du Bois, whose landmark book on race consciousness at the turn of the 20th century (the one which introduced the phrase "color line" into the lexicon) was The Souls of Black Folk. Dubois was also a member of the National Negro Committee, which was the forerunner to the NAACP. So, it doesn't appear that any of the three words, at that particular time, carried more or less stigma. Other times may have favored one term over the other, but there were times when they were clearly interchangable. --Jayron32 05:06, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The source I quoted has the verbiage from the 1800's through the 1900's. The 1850 and 1890 censi ask about blacks explicitly and the 1980 census is the first to ask about "race". I filled out the long form census for my parents when they got it in both 1980 and 1990 and told the census takers to bugger off both times. According to the press non-informative answers were supposed to earn us visits by a live census taker, but that didn't happen either time. μηδείς (talk) 05:25, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You found an 1890 census form? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:58, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

see the source I found in my first response above. μηδείς (talk) 19:11, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Very interesting, very useful. But for a hot second, I thought you had found a filled-out 1890 form, which would likely be a rarity. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:17, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A few selections from the census sheets on ancestry.com, which of course it only has through 1940:

1840: Head of household plus counts of Free White Persons and Free Colored Persons.

1850, 1860: Color: White, Black, or Mulatto.

1870, 1880: Color: White, Black, Mulatto, Chinese, or Indian.

1890: Records were lost in a fire.

1900, 1910, 1920, 1930, 1940: Color or race.

←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:15, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding U.S. antitrust law and professional sports: I was reading the article about the USFL suit against the NFL , and the article about the Federal_Baseball_Club_v._National_League lawsuit against the MLB. Apparently the MLB is not considered to be interstate commerce and thus not subject to antitrust law. Did the court in the NFL case give any reasoning why football is interstate but baseball is not, or was that defense not raised? RudolfRed (talk) 03:09, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Supreme Court has given professional baseball a specific antitrust exemption, as a result of a 1922 decision which has not been overturned... AnonMoos (talk) 04:37, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Toolson v. New York Yankees, Federal Baseball Club v. National League, etc. AnonMoos (talk) 04:45, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It should also be noted that the NFL lost its case against the USFL, but the USFL was given a nominal $1 in damages (trebled to $3 by statute), which is the U.S. court system's way of saying "Don't fuck with the NFL". --Jayron32 04:48, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of note here may be the fact that the NCAA was sued under antitrust law and lost; see NCAA v. Board of Regents of Univ. of Oklahoma. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 14:40, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In case there is any doubt, I am thinking of trophies like the World Cup, Stanley Cup, any of the tennis "Major" trophies, etc. By valuable I mean strictly considering their raw materials - not what it would get at auction, not the sentimental value. If you melted down the World Cup trophy, or the Davis Cup, or the Stanley Cup etc. and sold at market rate for component materials ... what professional sports trophy is the most valuable? The Masked Booby (talk) 03:16, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I dimly remember a diamond-encrusted racket available in tennis for some competition or other in the 80s. That'd have to be a contender. Can anyone fill in the gaps? --Dweller (talk) 10:58, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There was one for ECC Antwerp which had a value of $1,000,000. However, in 2008 the Proximus Diamond Games had a diamond/gold racket as a prize valued at 1,500,000 Euros or US$2,035,500. And there is the The Tennis Channel Kwiat Million Dollar Diamond Swinger. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 13:10, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good Morning, how is the story of ill conde is imperfectly perfect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.68.103.22 (talk) 04:39, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure you are in the correct forum. 1) This sounds like a homework question, and no one here is going to do your homework for you and 2) Even if it isn't, this is a request for opinion, which is also something we don't do here. Sorry. --Jayron32 04:50, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone know when Edwin Black (the author who wrote that book about IBM and the Holocaust) was born? Thank you very much. Futurist110 (talk) 06:37, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article you link states that he was 12 in 1943. So that would make it sometime around 1931. --Jayron32 07:14, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

His mom was 12 in 1943, not Edwin Black himself. Here's the exact quote from that article -- "His mother Edjya, from Białystok, had only managed to survive the Holocaust when as a 12-year old in August 1943 she was pushed to safety by her mother and other prisoners through the vent of a boxcar en route to the Treblinka extermination camp." Futurist110 (talk) 07:20, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. Then he'd be considerably younger than that. --Jayron32 07:24, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ya think?  :) -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 07:33, 7 February 2013 (UTC) [reply]

• His VIAF entry has one record suggesting born 1950, though as there's no birthdate listed for the others this may be an anomaly or an error. Andrew Gray (talk) 09:46, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source, please? Futurist110 (talk) 09:00, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's linked at the bottom of the article - VIAF 61670375. Andrew Gray (talk) 10:25, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi guys,

What's the name of the fallacy you can quote when people say something like "why are you wasting your time researching squirrels when people are dying of cancer?". The fallacy I'm thinking of goes something like, we can't all work on the most important problems in the world, or trivial problems would become the most important problems.

Cheers,

Aaadddaaammm (talk) 09:34, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's actually a fallacy per se, sometimes it can be a valid concern as people need to get their priorities right. Also, many trivial problems will never become the most important problems, no matter how neglected they are. - Lindert (talk) 09:51, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you asking this when you could be researching squirrels? Paul B (talk) 09:57, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We hear this from politicians all the time. Rather than address the substance of whatever the issue is, they'll cry rhetorically "Why is the government wasting time on this matter when there are so many more important things to be getting on with?" - as if the government of a nation is a linear and sequential thing, with only ever one thing at a time being considered. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 10:05, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not the fallacy has a name is irrelevant. Our list of fallacies is mostly unreferenced dog-Latin. The question you should ask is: Is this argument fallacious? If so, you should be able to demonstrate that it is, which is a much better refutation than simply providing the name of an alleged error. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:39, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All fallacies are non-sequiturs. Many non-sequiturs don't have names, although you can invent one if you like (the most recent one I've come across being coined is reductio ad Hitlerum). All arguments that attempt to go from a set of facts, to conclusions about what ought to be done, must confront the is-ought problem, first articulated by David Hume. They are all, in a sense, non-sequiturs, because they attempt to bridge the gap between what is true and what should be done, and this is more or less impossible. However, in practice, when debating with such people, you are really having a pointless and empty discussion. My solution is to read a book instead, or do some productive work. IBE (talk) 10:56, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How about reductio ad rodentia? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:54, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not bad. More prosaically, you could in fact try "reductio ad amplitudinem" - reducing it to a size issue. Point of order: it would be reductio ad rodentiam, or if you are looking for the actual Latin word, I think that would be rodentem. Of course this is a ridiculous nitpick on a non-serious comment, but that is why you study Latin in the first place ;). Actually, it might be fun to try some comment like this on someone - they try a silly argument along the lines of what the OP has been hearing, and you hit back with a meaningless dog Latin phrase - and make it sound convincing. Then act surprised when they don't know what you are talking about. IBE (talk) 14:08, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Funny that you say "must confront" with a straight face in the same sentence you treat Hume's is-ought problem as if it were valid. μηδείς (talk) 01:40, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Very clever. But you should see how crooked my face is at the best of times ;). Seriously, fwiw, I think I can talk my way out of this one. There is a classic paradox in philosophy that runs like this: "If you kicked a goal, you can't have missed. But you could have missed. Therefore you can never kick a goal." The paradox turns on the different uses of "can't", one based on possibility, another based on logic. The imperative sense is a third one. It is similar with "must", as in, "It is a truth universally acknowledged that a single man, in possession of a good fortune must be in want of a wife." This is, I think, the logical deduction that the various ladies are making about Darcy - it is not a moral requirement. I claim (this might be rather tenuous) that I am doing much the same thing. Nice try, but you simply must not try to argue words with a master of b-s- ;) IBE (talk) 13:22, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting quote about the single man and the occasional ambiguities of English. It reminds me of a quote attributed to Zsa Zsa Gabor: "A man is incomplete without a wife. Once he gets married, then he is finished." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:13, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see this as being a fallacious argument, it's a valid argument from utilitarianism (whether it is right or not is another question). If you do one thing (say, squirrel research) you cannot do something else (say, rocket science), or cannot do as much of the other thing. If some other thing (rocket science) is more valuable than what you are choosing to do (squirrels) then the case can be made that you are making a bad decision and should instead maximise the time on the more valuable action (rocket science). 46.30.55.66 (talk) 17:28, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is only true if the choice is between squirrel research and rocket science. In most cases, the choice is actually between squirrel research and no research at all (i.e. flipping burgers), because a biologist is unlikely to have the motivation or skills needed to be a good rocket scientist. --140.180.247.198 (talk) 18:01, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In that vein, false dilemma could apply to the original question. --BDD (talk) 21:32, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While not a fallacy, the phrase think globally, act locally, sort of expresses a related idea. Bus stop (talk) 03:49, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

46.30.55.66 illustrates this best: "If some other thing (rocket science) is more valuable than what you are choosing to do (squirrels) then the case can be made that you are making a bad decision and should instead maximise the time on the more valuable action (rocket science)." By his argument, we should all spend our entire lives on rocket science, which is obviously wrong, and potentially even logically wrong. Do any philosophers worry themselves about this argument? Aaadddaaammm (talk) 09:12, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a dilettante in philosophy from way back, and I can assure you I've never come across it before. I haven't read deeply, but I have read reasonably broadly for a layperson. It just isn't the sort of thing philosophers concern themselves with, unless it requires naming a particularly pernicious fallacy. They focus on funny little dissections of ideas, stuff that's way over my head. There's a story about a philosopher on a plane flight who sat next to a nice, pleasant, chatty person, who asked him what he did for a living. When he told her, she said "Oh - so what are some of your sayings then?" In reality, when asked to name their favourite philosopher, many professional philosophers name someone no one has ever heard of, and who few people understand, for example Donald Davidson. That is closer to the mark of what philosophers go on about, than either nifty sayings, or spotting everyday fallacies. You are concerning yourself with what is really an economic debate, or even a political one. You might like to check out political philosophy, since that is where you will most likely turn up something along the lines of what you are looking for. IBE (talk) 14:29, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In response to the OP, red herring fallacy and appeal to hypocrisy might work here. Futurist110 (talk) 20:37, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• TV Tropes calls this Appeal to worse problems.--Pacostein (talk) 20:44, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It has always fascinated me exactly at which point in history or prehistory, modern society's sex-negativity and social conservative attitude originated. Most ancient civilizations such as Roman Empire had a sex-positive culture. My questions are: (all the following questions are related to prehistory and ancient history, not medieval and modern history)

• What factors contributed to the change from a sex-positive culture to sex-negative cultural environment during the ancient or early medieval era?
• Exactly at which point in history did this change occur? Did it happen in ancient era or early medieval era? Does it have something to do with the rise of organized religions?
• When did the concepts of modesty and indecent exposure originate? Since clothing originated long before recorded history and the Neanderthals used clothing, is it possible to know whether the concept of modesty existed among other species in the genus Homo? Did paleolithic hunter-gathering bands have the concept of modesty? --PlanetEditor (talk) 11:24, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PlanetEditor -- the pre-Hellenistic Greeks wore clothes most of the time, but they had very different ideas of bodily modesty than modern Western societies. Men would think nothing about going naked for specific purposes (athletic competition, swimming etc.) even in public. Women were a little more reticent (outside the Spartan foot-race), but see the Doric chiton for a garment which is constructed with ideas of bodily modesty which were very different from modern ones... AnonMoos (talk) 13:46, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I would say the premise is false. This varies wildly even in "modern society". I would also say that the Romans were certainly not sex-positive in the sense that you mean it, at least not all of them and not all the time. (If you don't like modern American neoconservativism, you definitely wouldn't like classical Rome...) Adam Bishop (talk) 12:16, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying sex negativity originated before the advent of civilizations, during the paleolithic era? --PlanetEditor (talk) 12:32, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's a reasonable bet that it had to do with survival and protection. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:48, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

PlanetEditor -- I would be skeptical that many (or any) ancient peoples were indiscriminately "sex-positive" in any modern sense. However, a major turning point was in the early centuries A.D., when many currents of spiritual "seeking" in the Mediterranean area ran in ascetic channels which ended up influencing people far beyond a few wilderness hermits and itinerant holy men. One conspicuous manifestation of this was many forms of Gnosticism (though there were actually currents of both ascetic Gnosticism and "antinomian" Gnosticism, and the Gnostics weren't the only philosophical ascetics of the period). Gnostic influence on the doctrinal theology of Christianity turned out to be extremely slight, but Gnosticism did play an important role in determining the cultural climate of opinion out of which negative early Christian teachings about sexuality emerged (Origen had himself castrated, Jerome exalted perpetual virginity as being far better than marriage, etc.). AnonMoos (talk) 13:31, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. What Wikipedia has on this seems to be rather scattered in small dribs and drabs, but see Acts of Thomas for one text which strongly advocated for sexless marriage... AnonMoos (talk) 13:55, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the explanation. But I'm still interested in knowing how did the concept of modesty originate. The Sentinelese people, for example, are pre-Neolithic tribes and uncontacted people [7]. They don't have a culture of clothing, but they do cover their genitals. The Bushmen are also paleolithic tribes and they also have a culture of covering only the genitals. This means paleolithic people did develop a cultural taboo of genitals. How and why did it originate? While this taboo is nonexistent among other Hominids, why did humans, better to say certain species among the genus Homo, develop it? Is there any explanation from the perspective of evolutionary biology or neurobiology? --PlanetEditor (talk) 14:29, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That aspect of the question is purely anthropological, so I wonder why you bothered to mention the Roman empire in the first place... I think it's fairly safe to say that various anthropological cultures differ very widely on what needs to be concealed/covered and what doesn't, and under which circumstances -- but even those in which very little is required to be concealed do uphold the requirements that they have. As for the origins of modesty, since the early decades of the 20th century anthropologists have been rather skeptical of trying to reconstruct historical "origins" for most cultural customs where little or no direct historical evidence is available. Leading 19th-century anthropologists often seemed to be more interested in speculating on the remote origins of things than in understanding how they fit in to the contemporary cultures for which they had direct evidence available, and the 19th-century anthropologists constructed highly-dubious historical hypotheses (such as rigid inflexible unilineal social evolution). Freud may have helped along the discrediting of this particular style of anthropology when he wrote some books (such as Totem and Taboo) which were either ridiculously awful or awfully ridiculous, but had no value whatsoever other than revealing aspects of Freud's own mentality.

The modern approach to anthropological origin problems is to avoid nineteenth-century style speculating, and base everything on empirical observations and reasonably solidly-grounded theories of evolutionary psychology etc. AnonMoos (talk) 17:50, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget that many societies celebrate and encourage sex for some groups, highly discourage it for others. No Sex Please, We're British was just a comedy play. To label societies as "sex-negative" or "sex-positive" is simplistic. Michel Foucault said that the Victorians, far from being anti-sex were obsessed with investigating and defining it, and I think he had a point. Perhaps it's hypocrisy that is the human universal. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:22, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One of the classic works of anthropology is the work of Claude Lévi-Strauss on kinship systems and the incest taboo, which is one of the cornerstones of all human cultures. The centrality of sex to social relations is confirmed by the sociobiological work of primatologists. Probably the most important mechanism of social control is the social regulation of sexuality, given, on the one hand, the individual's instinctive drive to seek sex and the great physical pleasure it offers to the individual, and, on the other hand, the centrality of sexual relations to family relationships, which are the closest and most basic human social relations. So it is really simplistic to classify societies as sex-negative and sex-positive. It is only during the past century or so, when capitalism, urbanization, and geographic mobility combined to make relations of kinship less essential to the social order, that there has been anything like a positive cultural attitude toward, say, heterosexual relations outside of marriage. Certain past societies were more tolerant toward homosexual relations outside of (but usually not in place of) marriage, but mainly because those homosexual relations fostered some other value of the culture in question. Even in classical times, sexual norms were highly circumscribed. The supposed sexual abandon of certain Roman emperors and aristocrats is usually reported by writers whose goal was to denigrate those emperors and aristocrats for their immorality. On the other hand, sexual relations between adult men and adolescent boys were considered normal in ancient Greece and Rome not because of modern sexual liberalism but because those relations (really only among members of the elite) were believed to perpetuate the system of patriarchy in those societies. In other societies, homosexuality and other forms of extramarital sex were permitted only with individuals who had a religious or ritual role, such as, for example Two-Spirits or sacred prostitution. Societies with these kinds of institutions were not more "sex positive" than those without; they just drew different kinds of limits around sexuality. Marco polo (talk) 19:54, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the incest taboo is one which exists in many other species, as well. Even the free-love bonobos don't endorse mother-son sex, for example. Another example is if a male outside the group attempts to have sex with females in the group. This will cause a violent reaction from the resident male(s), in a number of species, such as lions. So, "sex-negative" attitudes not only predate civilization, they predate hominids. The same could probably be said of modesty, where an interested female might "present", while a disinterested female will hide her genitals from the sight of the male. StuRat (talk) 05:50, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's also a question of perspective. Practices and attitudes in one context described as "sex positive" could be seen in subtly different contexts as "objectifying of women". Merely because a society has more public attitudes towards sex doesn't mean it's a particularly positive attitude towards sex. Being out in the open isn't the be-all-and-end-all of positivity. One can be publicly oppressive, and one can be discreetly egalitarian. --Jayron32 01:10, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My question refers more to the way that historians have reported the Holocaust as an event which took place sequentially without any long-term vision for the fate of European Jews. In my opinion, if you analyze Nazi policy the outcome which was the Final Solution seems quite easy to envision. In the years 1933-1938 (perhaps even until 1940) the legislation which the Nazi party passed to discriminate and isolate the Jewish people is commonly thought to encourage their emigration abroad. However, the way I see it, the Nazi policy of expanding their Lebensraum makes this inherently untenable; Germany had 500,000 Jews, encouraging them to emigrate might have been feasible. However, after the Anschluss and the annexation of the Sudetenland and the invasion of Poland, German Jewish populations increased exponentially. My theory is that the legislation passed against the Jewish people, in addition to the decrees designed to humiliate, identify or economically cripple them, were designed not to encourage immigration; I put forth the theory that they were designed to affect German attitudes towards their Jewish neighbours. The more the Nazis made it visible to the German people that the Jews were Untermenschen, anti-German and not worth of living in Germany, the more indifferent Germans would be come and, consequently, the less likely they would be to question why the Jews were disappearing and not being seen again. Does anybody else recognize this as a credible theory or have I missed something. Basically, I think the final solution was known about at the time of coming to power, or very soon after, and that it was litmus tested by the Nazi party to see how long it would take to transform German attitudes to the Jewish people to the extent that their extermination would be passively accepted. Sorry the question was so wordy, and thanks for taking the time to answer it --Andrew 13:16, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it, and I'm happy to be corrected, there's no evidence for a Nazi plan to exterminate the Jews prior to the 1942 Wannsee Conference. But I think we can go further than that in response to your theory. Remember, at the time of the Nuremberg Laws, Germany controlled just a small proportion of Europe and so a very small proportion of European Jewry. Unless you'd like to argue that in 1935, Hitler (who, remember, had only just reached power and was hardly even a runaway electoral success at home) already had a grand scheme for conquering all the way to Moscow (and beyond?), it's hard to support your thoughts. And I don't think that's a likely scenario. It's far more likely that the laws were as they appear to be at face value: popularist and ideological racist measures. --Dweller (talk) 14:00, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Our Mein Kampf article says "a retrospective review of the text reveals the crystallisation of Hitler's goal to completely exterminate the Jewish presence in Europe." That's from a 1925 publication, published when the Nazi party had virtually no political power. — Lomn 14:55, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That sentence, which I've just tagged for being uncited, is directly contradicted by the following, cited, sentence, which reads, "While historians diverge on the exact date Hitler decided to exterminate the Jewish people, few place the decision before the mid 1930s". Interestingly, the cited sentence implies that some historians would go as far as saying that Hitler had plans to exterminate the Jews around the time of the Nuremberg Laws, which would mean that there may be room for the OP's opinion, after all. Though it still seems very unlikely. Hitler was very practical and planning to wipe out people who live a long way outside of one's borders is not a practical plan. --Dweller (talk) 15:03, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To me the OP seems quite reasonable. Of course the Nazis could only expect to exterminate the German Jews in 1933, but this seems to have been a (possibly subconscious) goal from the start: E.g. to Sebastian Haffner it was clear already in 1933 that the Nazis wanted to eventually kill all the Jews, acc. to his "autobiography" ("Geschichte eines Deutschen", written in 1939). The Jews were actually prevented from emigrating with one of the 1933 laws. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 17:21, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The OP is also supported by Daniel Goldhagen: "The elimination of the Jews was Hitler's aim from the beginning. It already began in 1933 by excluding the Jews from society." („Die Eliminierung der Juden war von Anfang an Hitlers Ziel. Es begann schon 1933 mit dem Ausschluss von Juden aus der Gesellschaft.“ Spiegel-Gespräch: „Mörder dürfen ermordet werden“, in: DER SPIEGEL, Nr. 41/2009, S. 134-140, as stated in [8].) Roentgenium111 (talk) 17:35, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Does Goldhagen give any evidence for his claim, aside from merely asserting it? Are you sure that by "elimination", he meant genocide and not exclusion from society (which the second sentence seems to imply)?

The OP's theory fails Occam's razor. There is no evidence that Hitler planned to exterminate the Jews before 1942. It is far from clear, even with 70 years of hindsight and complete access to information, that persecuting Jews would decrease instead of increase public sympathy for them. By contrast, the theory that Hitler's policies were initially intended to encourage emigration is simple, obvious, logical, and supported by all contemporary documents and all contemporary policies. --140.180.247.198 (talk) 17:50, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We have a whole article on this: Functionalism versus intentionalism. That Hitler wanted to eliminate, in the sense of "get rid of", Jews from Germany is undisputed as far as I know. That's not the same as saying that he had a long-established master-plan of some sort to murder them all. I can't see how that could have been even envisaged in practical terms before 1941. Paul B (talk) 18:37, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. If extermination had been the plan all along, it's difficult to see why emigration was allowed in 1937-38 or why he didn't make a start earlier. Alansplodge (talk) 12:16, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, 1937-38 Hitler never had the pretense and chaos of open warfare to stop people asking questions. And prior to the war Hitler couldn't have anticipated the public reaction to such a policy, so better to do it covertly on disputed territory? --Andrew 13:48, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but Poland was occupied in 1939. so the why delay? The conventional view is that the "success" (in Nazi terms) of the Action T4 euthanasia programme proved to the leadership that the "final solution" was possible. Alansplodge (talk) 15:00, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I think though that when you factor in other things late 1939 to 1941 is quite a short time frame. First of all the Germans had to consolidate their position in Poland and create the General Government; then of course there's the administrative element involved of establishing which 3 million people out of a total of 35 million were Jewish; then of course the process of Aryanization and then walling them off in the Ghetto's while the extermination camps were being built or until the Einsatzgruppen arrived. I don't know I think to have pulled all that off within about 18 months was done with typical German efficiency --Andrew 18:10, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It would be worth consulting some of the many books published on this topic rather than speculating. I believe that Saul Friedländer's book Nazi Germany and the Jews, 1933-1945 is currently considered to be the best single-volume work on the topic. Richard E. Evans' recent three volume history of Nazi Germany is also superb. Nick-D (talk) 23:58, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For those readers who are already accustomed with the basics, I can heartily recommend the book Rethinking the Holocaust by Yehuda Bauer. Gabbe (talk) 09:38, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that the recipe for a religion is this: beliefs + rituals + ethics + time + follower(s) = religion. Perhaps, a person may invest in the pursuit of an established belief system that is closest to the person's values taught by his parents/guardians since birth, adopt a series of rituals that fit and make sense with this belief system, collect ethical wisdom that the person deems agreeable, spend some time practicing his new faith, and begin his religious teaching, thereby creating a new generation of disciples that shall hold this school of thought or maybe even expand the school of thought. How does one characterize a religion made from scratch and a religion based on an older religion or a religion with the religious leader being a follower of an older and more established religious tradition while simultaneously teaching a new religious tradition? At this point, would this new religious movement be characterized as a religious denomination of an older religion, or a separate religion in its own right, or will the new school of thought merely be more of an ethical-philosophical belief system within already established religion or can be made compatible with the founder's native faith? 140.254.226.231 (talk) 00:06, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See L. Ron Hubbard. --Jayron32 00:16, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"In a cult, there is one person at the top who knows the whole thing is a scam. In a religion, that person is dead."Dncsky (talk) 00:37, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So, Moses, Jesus, Buddha, Muhammad founded cults that became religions when they died? It's a witty line, but doesn't really stand up to close examination. --Dweller (talk) 14:04, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Most scholars wouldn't class Christianity as either a cult or a religion until several decades after Jesus' death, at the very earliest. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 14:07, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dnc's comment is kind of in the same category as "A statesman is a dead politician". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:09, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Surely you (Dweller) know that Christianity was an illegal iconoclastic minority religion until well after Jesus died? As such, it would satisfy the commonly-understood definition of a "cult". Islam is different because Muhammad was a ruthless military leader who conquered a vast territory before he died. Even so, Islam remained a minority religion within the Islamic empire itself for centuries. We know nearly nothing about the lives of Buddha or Moses, and they may even be purely legendary, so I don't know how they support your point. Incidentally, this suggests an addition to the OP's list of requirements. If a language is a dialect with an army and navy, then a religion is a cult with an army and navy, because the history of Christianity and Islam show that armed force is the best way to spread a religion. --140.180.247.198 (talk) 21:37, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, in certain ways there's a pretty good parallel between Muhammad and the Roman emperor Constantine, who established Christianity as the Roman state religion, and was just a tad ruthless himself. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:49, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Surely someone has previously pointed out to you that Constantine the Great did no such thing? Have you been reading Chick tracts? 86.163.209.18 (talk) 22:02, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My source was The History Channel. Silly me. I should have believed an IP address instead. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:35, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you shouldn't trust me: I linked you to our article, or you could have done some basic research in a history text book. Did the History Channel also tell you that Jesus was an alien? It does that. 86.163.209.18 (talk) 13:40, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The History Channel isn't what I call a reliable source. If I were you, I would read generally accepted academic textbooks on the subject matter. There was one time I watched Intelligent Design on Trial, and apparently, it seems to portray creationists as believing in a 6000-year-old Earth. That is not really the case, when you consider that that there are different types of creationists. Yet, creationists are creationists, because they believe in that the Genesis is literally true to some degree, or at least treat Genesis as a science or history textbook. PBS has written extensively on the rise of Christianity. It features the opinion of Rodney Stark, an academic scholar whose textbook on the subject matter has actually been chosen as part of the academic curriculum at the university level. Sneazy (talk) 23:58, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

140.254.226.231 -- Such matters are studied by scholars of "new religious movements", but this field is littered with bitter controversies. AnonMoos (talk) 02:13, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy Leary wrote a pamphlet with the title Start your own religion. I haven't read it, though, so I can't say if it is any good. But he was certainly not unfamiliar with the subject. --Saddhiyama (talk) 15:49, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a debate forum. Please seek an online forum for this discussion.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I refer to the verse 22:78. “And make jihad in God’s cause with true jihad. It is He who has chosen you, and has laid no hardship on you in religion; the creed of your forefather Abraham. It is He who has named you Muslims, in bygone times and in this [book], so that the Messenger might bear witness for you, and that you might bear witness for all mankind. Thus, attend regularly to your prayer, and pay out your zakāt, and hold fast to God. He is your Guardian: the best of guardians and the best to give support”. On the part “…has laid no hardship on you in religion…”, all the tafseer that I have researched basically gives the explanation of the concessionaries that are given. For instance, when performing one's ablution or standing erect due to establishing prayers requires much pain, provision is given in tayammun and prayers in sitting position. However I believe a different perspective can be made: Basically the main theme of this verse is about jihad: 1. It starts out with the exhortation “…And make jihad in God’s cause with true jihad…”. 2. The previous verse “Believers! Bow down and prostrate yourselves, and worship your Lord alone, and do good, so that you might be successful.” Some mufassir says the command of prayer is a preparation for jihad. 3. The last part of this verse “…He is your Guardian: the best of guardians and the best to give support.” could also indicate that making jihad is “difficult”, but Allah is here to give support. So we could see the statement “…has laid no hardship on you in religion...” in the context of jihad. Jihad could be perhaps be regarded as the aspect of deen that seemingly brings the most hardship,more so with true jihad. However Allah is implying that in the real sense, jihad would actually bring ease not hardship! For example if we makes jihad to pray tahajjud, at first it will be hard to wake extra early in the cold morning. But if we make the jihad, after some time, we will actually find nikmah in the tahajjud prayer. Also we will find ourselves more energetic in the day. However if we succumb to sleep, we will sooner or later becomes lazier and more lethargic. Another example is giving charity. We might think we will be more “hard up” if we are not well off. However if we do give,we will find Allah will make actually our rizq more than before. This concept would be consistent with the meaning of the verses: “So, verily, with every hardship, there is ease: Verily, with every hardship there is ease” (Surah Inshirah 94: 5-6) What is your comment? Please give your arguments whether you agree or disagree with this perspective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ASMA89 (talk • contribs) 05:38, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] This is not a debate forum, even if it seems that way at times. If you want to find out what wikipedia has to say about it, start with Jihad and see where it takes you. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:45, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've recently heard some people criticize the U.S.'s role during the Libya intervention as too small. What is the reality in regards to this--how much of a role did the United States have in the 2011 NATO Libya intervention (between March 2011 and October 2011)? Can anyone please shed some light on this? Thank you very much. Futurist110 (talk) 05:51, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See 2011 military intervention in Libya. --Jayron32 05:58, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I will look at this article (again). Futurist110 (talk) 20:36, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the US air support was absolutely critical to defeating Quaddafi. What were they criticizing, the lack of a ground invasion and occupation force afterwards ? StuRat (talk) 06:04, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They were criticizing the fact that the U.S. let France and the U.K. do most of the work (and that the U.S. took more credit that it should have after the end and the success of the intervention). Futurist110 (talk) 08:41, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, considering all the wars where the US does most of the work, it seems only fair that the European nations should take the lead occasionally, especially in wars which are "right on their doorstep", and when the US was spread thin by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. This allows them to participate in ways which would be impossible on the other side of the world. This site seems to support the idea that France took the lead, at least as far as as sorties go: [9]. StuRat (talk) 21:47, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I have a question--did the U.S. let Europe take the lead in the 1990s Bosnia and Kosovo operations as well? Futurist110 (talk) 00:35, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No. According to this article, the US accounted for some 62% of the sorties: [10]. Of course, the US wasn't committed in two other wars, then. Still, it seems that Europe should have taken the lead in a European war. France has impressed me recently, though, what with taking the lead on both Libya and now Mali. And the UK did quite a bit in Iraq and Afghanistan. Now if only the rest of Europe would pull their weight, we'd all be safe (and I think it's time to re-arm Japan, too, so they can do their part, and defend themselves from China and North Korea). StuRat (talk) 06:32, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While the US didn't contribute many aircraft to the long-running air campaign, it formed a core part of the operating by 'kicking the door in' during the first days of the intervention by destroying the Libyan air defence network (using capabilities the European countries don't possess, such as stealth bombers and large numbers of cruise missiles), and then provided a large chunk of the vital intelligence and in-flight refueling aircraft with which the campaign would have been impossible. From memory, the European countries also had to draw on US stocks of bombs after their supplies ran low (which the US Government was pretty unhappy about, for obvious reasons given that its NATO allies are meant to hold large stocks of such weapons themselves). Nick-D (talk) 23:46, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Most or all of this is listed/written in that Wikipedia article that Jayron linked, right? Futurist110 (talk) 00:35, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I hope so Nick-D (talk) 05:13, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The US only played a logistical role, mostly. They were reluctant to get involved. Don't get me wrong, their role was very welcome, but there was not much combat involved, whilst the UK had planes in the air and boots on the ground (in the form of our SAS and Intelligence Services). The French did their bit, and the Italians helped too. The Americans just supplied the weaponry, with a few isolated attacks. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 16:08, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

in the spanish american war why did the imperial nation get involved in colony? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fpenn (talk • contribs) 06:29, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I follow your question. Which nation and which colony? The war primarily involved Spain and the U.S.; and colonies involved ranged from Cuba to Guam to the Philippines. You can read more at Spanish-American war. --Jayron32 06:35, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By 1898, Spain's overseas colonial empire was a kind of creaking anachronism (disproportionate to its weakness within Europe), and Spanish misgovernment of Cuba created instability in the Caribbean, etc. Those in the U.S. who were in favor of the war saw easy pickings for the U.S., an end to the perpetually-festering sore of Cuba, the possibility for U.S. to acquire island bases relatively close to (but separated from) the east Asian mainland, etc. Those in the U.S. who were opposed to the war didn't want to see the U.S. become an out-and-out aggressively imperialist power, doubted whether the inhabitants of Cuba or the Philippines would really benefit too much, etc. (very few opposed the war out of any tender solicitude towards Spain). AnonMoos (talk) 12:24, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some large corporations pay for, or subsidize, higher education for some of their employees. Is there any study available that demonstrates the cost/benefit? I have figured every corporation has its own prestige reasons for doing so, but also someone somewhere has probably run the numbers and claimed that, say, paying for an employee to get an MBA costs US$20,000 and ends up earning the company US$60,000 if the employee stays for 5+ years ... or whatever. Any pointers are welcome. Tarcil (talk) 07:20, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the thing you may want to consider is the cost difference between training employees in-house versus outsourcing the training to universities. Much (possibly even most) of the university-outsourced training of employees is retraining employees for management: employees which work as "underlings" or without any supervisory or policy-making experience may be groomed for transition into management positions within the same company. This training is often done through graduate programs in management or administration. As you note, there is a cost involved in such training; the real question is whether the company gets more value in outsourcing that training versus doing it in-house: it is necessary training (excepting in those organizations that use non-standard management models, i.e. W. L. Gore and Associates). Insofar as a company needs people to manage its employees and make broad strategic decisions about how the company operates, people need training in those fields. So, if you're going to retrain an employee to be a manager, do you have an on-site management training staff, which teaches the principles of management and administration to them; or do you send them off to be trained at a nearby university. For a huge company with many thousands of employees, you may be training dozens or hundreds of such people every year. IBM, IIRC, has its own internal management school for employees it is grooming for advanced management and executive positions. For a smaller company, you may only need to train up one or two employees each year, and then it isn't cost effective to do such training in-house: keeping a teaching staff and facilities around to train one person a year seems wasteful. Just some thoughts. --Jayron32 14:54, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

my experience has been this is negotiated as part of a benefits package, so it is seen as a perk for working at that company rather than one which doesn't offer such a benefit. And I believe its very tax-beneficial for the company. μηδείς (talk) 17:59, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, such training is under the guise of continuing professional development; again, the company has an interest in seeing that its workforce remains well trained, and doesn't become ossified in the skills that they had merely at the start of their jobs: the nature of any work changes over time, and a company has a direct interest in seeing that their employees keep abreast of such changes. The couching of the training in the terms of "benefits" is merely a semantic distinction to make the prospect more attractive to employee candidates than "we're going to require you to be retrained every so often". Which is the real goal of the company. Again, it comes down to outsourcing professional development versus handling it in house. Professional development is a vital part of keeping a business going; the difference between in-house training versus outsourcing it to universities is likely one of scale as I described above. For some companies it makes sense to do all such training themselves; to others it makes more sense to offer to pay their employees to get that training from a university. --Jayron32 18:15, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I follow your initial conclusion. What are you referring to when you say "in that case"? Is it the tax benefit? If so, and if I remember my Australian tax law correctly, all sorts of fringe benefits are tax-beneficial without it having to be continuing professional development, and often it is simply part of the benefit package, as Medeis says, akin to a "free" kettle or iPod, rather than a way to outsource professional training. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 18:54, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the specific example of which I was thinking regarded a corporation that would pay for any accredited higher education in which the student earned a C or higher grade, regardless of relevance to the job application. Many employees took advantage of this to earn degrees in totally different fields and then quit the company. In most such cases I am aware of it was a benefit, not job-training. Of course the latter is quite common too. μηδείς (talk) 19:57, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How many Austrian archdukes and archduchesses were alive at the time the Austrian monarchy ended?--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 07:49, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting question. As noted by the article Archduke, the title was used by any bloodline decedent of the House of Habsburg, which may mean that by the 20th century, the number of people so titled could have numbered in the hundreds. --Jayron32 15:40, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why couldn't they use the title while they were alive? --Trovatore (talk) 19:52, 9 February 2013 (UTC) [reply]

I am not sure if it could have been hundreds. The House of Habsburg went extinct in 1780, with the death of Maria Theresa. Her patrilineal descendants belonged to the House of Habsburg-Lorraine and never (or extremely rarely) failed to point that out. Thus, after the last male member of the House of Habsburg died in 1740, patrilineal descendants of only one woman were entitled to bear the title. Maria Theresa had 16 children, five of which were sons. One died as a teenager, one was celibate and one died childless, leaving the mother of 16 with two children to pass on the title. The agnatic line of the younger of the two went extinct in 1875, long before the monarchy ended. The most recent common patrilineal ancestor of all archdukes of Austria alive in 1918 is the older of the two, Holy Roman Emperor Leopold II. Four of Leopold's sons (Francis, Ferdinand, Charles and Joseph) made suitable matches which resulted in agnatic descendants living in 1918. I suggest that you start counting them, while of course excluding those descended from morganatic marriages. Surtsicna (talk) 21:03, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Any of you sleuths able to come up with a date of death for Auguste Doriot and a source to support that? I checked Google books and even tried to get a clue from ancestry.com and familysearch.org, but did not find anything. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:11, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to the document Quand deux sociétés Peugeot concurrentes construisaient des automobiles (1895 - 1910), page 242 (note 37), Auguste Doriot died in 1955 in Menton. — AldoSyrt (talk) 08:13, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

subject has it all. any great inventions (meaning, actually mass-marketed) that were thought up while high? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.120.48.242 (talk) 14:31, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on what you mean by "invention". There are well known works of art which were conceived while under the influence of drugs, going back centuries. The works of Samuel Taylor Coleridge, notably Kubla Khan, were conceived or composed under the influence of opiates. You're also likely to find many examples of popular music and art which were conceived while high. --Jayron32 14:43, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I mean like a typical invention, lightbulbs, steam engines, wallkman or ipod or 3d tv or whatever, you get the idea. I do know about the creative examples - millions or records sold to which the answer (if I had asked that question) would have been yes. I was wondering the same thing about hard, technological, inventions. Any examples of millions of items sold of an invention that was thought up (invented) while high? 91.120.48.242 (talk) 15:03, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Until recently, anyone other than an artist who admitted to indulging in that manner would be taking a serious risk. So if it did happen, it most likely wouldn't be told.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:26, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Until recently.... I think you meant to say since 1913. And to quote bill hicks:

"I think drugs have done some good things for us. I really do. And if you don't believe drugs have done good things for us, do me a favor. Go home tonight. Take all your albums, all your tapes and all your CDs and burn them. 'Cause you know what, the musicians that made all that great music that's enhanced your lives throughout the years were rrreal fucking high on drugs." Shadowjams (talk) 21:29, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) It may also depend on which types of mind-alterations you mean by "high". There's the classic trope of having "sketched something out on a bar napkin", many such things may have been "invented" while the discoverer had a few drinks in them. There's also a few other problems with the premise of the question:

• The problem that correlation does not imply causation. The fact that someone may have been under the influence of some mind-altering substance (be it alcohol, weed, acid, Ecstasy, whatever) doesn't mean that the invention happened because of the mind-alteration. It may have happened in spite of it.
• The problem that the romantic notion of one man, working in his garage, through sheer force of individual will, and with no help from anyone, invents some important thing out of whole cloth which has a profound impact on the world. That almost never happens. Most major inventions and innovations occur collaboratively, sometimes deliberately (people working together for a common cause) and sometimes randomly (a collection of events slowly produces incremental changes to existing technology to provide new things). Many people we consider major inventors or innovators were actually managers of people more than singular inventors (Thomas Edison's invention of the lightbulb and Wallace Carothers invention of nylon fit this pattern), or they were fantastic marketers, both of themselves and of their work. People may also invent things by finding ways to better express, organize, or restate existing concepts in novel ways. The core parts of Albert Einsteins great theories of relativity already existed within the physics canon; Einstein's contribution was as much his way of taking existing, disparate concepts and explaining them in simple terms. If you really want to get an interesting perspective on how invention and innovation really occur, the old TV series Connections does a fantastic job of it.

--Jayron32 15:36, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your points seem to be, respectively, "although you did not list your reasons, your question clearly shows the wrong reasons.", and "there is no such thing as an inventor, nor an act of inventing, so even if we excuse your wrong, unlisted, reasons, it is a question about unicorns". Thank you, but I believe there are inventors, and there are inventions. And thank you, but I believe it is not possible to jump to the wrong correlation when you are only charting a single axis: inventions that have been made by high. Even if that number is precisely, exactly 0, it doesn't say much if in your opinion the number of inventions worldwide is precisely 0. 91.120.48.242 (talk) 16:49, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See Strawman. I have said neither of those things. --Jayron32 17:16, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, okay, I thought you were saying something that we were to have construed as in any way related to answering the question. Of course you're right, a lot of things weren't invented by a great inventor, and, of course you're right, that it would be impossible to draw any causation from knowing some kind of correlation between inventing and being high. Thanks for clearing up that in no way was anything you wrote intended to have any kind of relevance to the question. It was rather silly of me to try to relate your answers to the question in some way! I admit it was a stretch. I can see I shouldn't have done that now. Anyhoo thanks for the chat, if you do happen to think of anything even remotely related to answering the question, I'd be interested in hearing it! Otherwise feel free to continue chatting about just fucking anything, thanks. 178.48.114.143 (talk) 11:48, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Who are you? Are you the same editor as 91.120.48.242? If you can't keep your own identity consistent from post to post, why would we be required to keep to the same topic? In any case, you've gone completely off the deep end. Jayron merely denied your understanding of what he said; but what he did say was on-topic, if you care to re-examine it. You're the one accusing people of veering off the topic. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 00:21, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but I can't remember them. μηδείς (talk) 17:47, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I know it's probably not true, but I have a hard time imagining Frito Pie wasn't invented by someone one toke over the line, as it were. --Jayron32 17:55, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I don't know. Poutine inspires the same sort of speculation, but I don't think that weed is necessary to account for these sorts of culinary aberrations. Human folly is endless even without pharmacological assistance. Deor (talk) 21:17, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pregnancy brain could also be the culprit. StuRat (talk) 21:43, 8 February 2013 (UTC) [reply]

Mmmmm. Poutine... --Jayron32 23:58, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What Medeis said. Shadowjams (talk) 11:59, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the early research about anesthesia was done by doctors trying various substances on themselves. They were without doubt sometimes "high". Sjö (talk) 10:00, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would imagine that a lot of the items at the local head shop (if you live somewhere where they still exist) were devised under such conditions. Gzuckier (talk) 05:50, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Redacted)

• We can't offer legal advice, and you can't make unsubstantiated allegations about living people here. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:48, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi.

This question relates to the Driving in the UK article that I was updating at Wikivoyage, I'd like to include a reasonably accurate distance table for major destinations.

So what are the major 20 destinations in the UK, from a motoring perspective? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:41, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could you expand a little on what you mean by "destinations"? Tourist attractions? Airports? Cities? National parks? Distance from where? --TammyMoet (talk) 19:10, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In context cities, and major ferry terminals.. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:57, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If it's any help, printed Road Atlases used commonly to feature just such a table of distances between major cities and towns (though not, say, tourist attractions), frequently on the inside back cover, and they probably still do. (My car is a few minutes walk away from the office or I'd nip out and check mine.) {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 84.21.143.150 (talk) 19:22, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have a printed road atlas with about 50 destinations. Really the only way to narrow that down would be to consider the top conurbations by population. Next you have to consider what you mean by "destinations". If you include commuting journeys as destinations, then you will not get beyond that list of conurbations, since commuting journeys are far more numerous per capita than long-distance trips, for example to ferry ports. If you are interested in long-distance trips, though, according to this source, UK households average 5.4 long-distance trips by car per capita per year, so you could multiply the population of each conurbation by this number and compare it to traffic from the various ferry ports. Multiplying this number by the populations of the conurbations ranked between 18 and 20 in the first linked table suggests that a ferry port would need to handle more than 1.8 million passengers to surpass, say, the 18th conurbation by population as a destination. Only 3 ferry ports in the UK handle that many passengers, according the tables linked here. They are Dover, Portsmouth, and Holyhead. Portsmouth is already one of the top 17 conurbations. So your table should consist of the main cities of each of the top 18 conurbations by population, plus Dover and Holyhead. Since one of the top 17 conurbations is Belfast, you will need to figure mileage through Stranraer, the main ferry port for journeys from Great Britain to Northern Ireland, but Stranraer itself would not be one of your top 20 destinations. Marco polo (talk) 21:05, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's Cairnryan now, though that won't make much of a difference (it's only a few miles away). There's also a Belfast-Liverpool ferry; it takes substantially longer, but may still be a faster route if coming from southern England - it'll probably be worth checking.

It's also worth bearing in mind that a lot of the target audience for Wikitravel is inevitably leisure travellers, who even in a general article on road transport may well be more interested in Oxford (150,000 people) over Sunderland (250,000 people). I would be tempted to say "find the fifteen or so most popular places on Wikitravel and add the ports" ;-) Andrew Gray (talk) 21:16, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bear in mind this was for Wikivoyage so the list should reflect 'travel' priority as opposed to 'commuter'. I'm not averse to extending the list, but I don't think I need the full 'Primary Destinations' list.

So let's see what an initial list might need, (excluding NI for the moment).

Cities(England & Wales):

• London, (taken as Charing Cross/Trafalgar square.)
• Manchester,
• Birmingham, (taken as The Bull Ring)
• Liverpool,
• Bristol,
• Cardiff,
• Leeds,
• Sheffield,
• Newcastle,
• Carlisle,
• Lancaster,
• Norwich,
• Exter,
• Turo,
• Brighton
• Oxford
• Cambridge

Destinations:

• Bath
• Stonehenge
• Salisbury
• Cantebury
• Winchester
• Durham
• York
• N.E.C.

Cities(Scotland)  :

• Glasgow,
• Ayr,
• Edinburgh,
• Inverness,
• Aberdeen,
• Perth,
• Dundee

Destinations (Scotland):

• Fort William
• Kyle of Localsh
• Oban
• Aviemore

Ports (Ferry):

• Dover, (Eastern Docks)
• Portsmouth,
• Weymouth(for Channel Islands),
• Hollyhead,
• Harwich,
• Hull,
• Aberdeen (For Shetlands),
• Ullapool (for Western Isles),
• Southampton,
• Stranerar,
• Liverpool ,
• Hollyhead (for Dublin),

Airpots:

• Heathrow,
• Gatwick,
• Stanstead,
• Luton,
• Manchester,
• Birmingham International,
• Glasgow International.

which makes the list over 50, I've almost certainly missed some important ones :( Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:40, 8 February 2013 (UTC) AmmendedSfan00 IMG (talk) 00:23, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If your concern is tourism, Bath, Stonehenge, Salisbury, Winchester, Durham, and York (especially York) are all important destinations missing from your list. Marco polo (talk) 22:52, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... Is it over 50 yet? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:23, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Now for the "distances from where" question. Where are you measuring the distance from? London? New York? Each other? What is the point of the measurement? (that answer might help with other answers) --TammyMoet (talk) 12:34, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What I am trying to get is a 'distance table' I.E it's a table of distances between all 50 or so destinations.

I found these: [11], [12]. There used to be a good chart in the back of the AA Handbook (not including airports though) however, their website now has a distance calculator where you type in the towns you want to travel to and from. You could make your own grid if you have the patience. Alansplodge (talk) 14:59, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

UNITY - The 12 Traditions of Alcoholics Anonymous

2. For our group purpose there is but one ultimate authority - a loving God as he may express Himself in our group conscience. Our leaders are but trusted servants; they do not govern.

2. Came to believe that a Power greater than ourselves could restore us to sanity.

3. Made a decision to turn our will and our lives over to the care of God as we understood Him.

5. Admitted to God, to ourselves, and to another human being the exact nature of our wrongs.

6. Were entirely ready to have God remove all these defects of character.

11. Sought through prayer and meditation to improve our conscious contact with God as we understood Him, praying only for knowledge of His will for us and the power to carry that out.

12. Having had a spiritual awakening as a result of these steps, we tried to carry this message to alcoholics, and to practice these principles in all our affairs.

It seems that AA incorporates a lot of spiritual stuff in their social groups. But I am quite interested in their concept of "God". Apparently, they think that:

1. "God" is loving.

2. "God" is powerful, or at least powerful enough to help you cope with alcoholism.

3. You repent to "God" your wrongs.

4. You ask "God" to help change yourself.

5. You pray and meditate to become closer to "God".

6. "God" seems to be a personal god, can listen to people, and help them in times of stress.

Is Alcoholics Anonymous a self-help social group for people with alcoholism? What are the religious beliefs of the founders? After attending these meetings, do people become more religious/spiritual as a result or employ this sort of spirituality as a form of self-discipline? I can't help but think that AA's concept of "God" resembles the Abrahamic god. Along with the fact that some AA groups just happen to take place in church environments, I am beginning to suspect about the number of people who attend AA meetings with issues become committed Christians later in life.140.254.227.65 (talk) 19:37, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be inviting debate, which I don't want to encourage. That being said, Ayn Rand, the notorious atheist, had good things to say about AA and her Objectivist protege Leonard Peikoff in his weekly Q&A webcast (quoted here) had to say:

I once asked an official in AA, "Did you have to believe in God in order to join?" And he said, "No. We leave the higher power..." -- what they call a higher power -- "...to the interpretation of the individual. And if you want to make it objective external reality, that's OK with us. We want something that you can't manipulate by will. And, of course, since you can't manipulate reality by will, it basically plays to the same rule for an atheist that 'higher power' does."
I think, as far as I can tell, all of the steps that AA takes are actually interpretable in secular terms like that....
So I don't agree with a lot of their formulations. But, as far as I can tell, the essence of their creed -- combined with the important social support that they offer -- makes it not necessary to choose between AA and Objectivism.

μηδείς (talk) 19:51, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• See Bill W.#Alternative cures and spiritualism for an overview of one of AA's founder's religious views, which don't seem to resemble mainstream Christianity. I don't see any relevant information on the article for Bob Smith, the other founder. Alcoholics Anonymous#Spirituality only briefly discusses one study, but it may be of interest. If AA's conception of God, or a higher power, resembles the Abrahamic god, this may reflect American societal traditions and trends rather than a religious endorsement. Compare to the legal concept of ceremonial deism. Or more simply, Americans aren't always talking about god/God every time they say the word. --BDD (talk) 20:19, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So, are you going to link to an article on American societal traditions and trends? A credible source about American societal traditions and trends would be very helpful, you know. It makes me wonder what Americans are really thinking of when they use the term "God" in a sentence. I wonder if "Thank God that you are safe" or "Thank heavens that you are safe" or "God blesses you" would count as meaningful or meaningless. 140.254.227.65 (talk) 20:55, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They originally said "God", but, as has been noted above, they now say "a higher power". This can be viewed as doing the bare minimum to skirt around separation of Church and State laws. This way, they can still be offered as an alternative to other sentencing options for drunk drivers and such, without the court being sued. Penn & Teller's Bullshit! did an episode on this. StuRat (talk) 21:37, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know the exact episode name? 140.254.227.65 (talk) 21:45, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"12-Stepping", season 2, episode 11 (24th episode overall), first aired on August 19, 2004. StuRat (talk) 22:01, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How do you remember the title so precisely? 140.254.227.65 (talk) 22:06, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't. I clicked on the Bullshit! link I provided previously, then did a find (Control F) on "anon", which was found in the description of the episode. If that hadn't worked, I'd have looked through all the episodes listed. StuRat (talk) 22:09, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are there other alternative options available as well? Or would I (hypothetically), as an atheist, only have the options of going to prison (which would probably kill me) or pretend-participate in AA, and therefor very likely keep my addicion and possibly harm others more? To put it another way, are there US courts that recommend the faith-based AA, but don't recognize science-based substance abuse treatment programs? /81.170.148.21 (talk) 23:36, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The six points you list seem entirely consistent with mainstream Protestantism, and Christianity in general. It seems that the AA's "concept of God" is the same as just about every other Christian's, unless I'm missing something. Alansplodge (talk) 21:38, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. A very Christian conception. If you try substituting "Dao" or "Buddha" for God or higher power, it really doesn't fit. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:01, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Christianity is about faith in Jesus washing away your sins. Doesn't have anything to do with submission or following a path like Islam or Buddhism. μηδείς (talk) 03:46, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The second sentence may be correct, but the Christian faith can't be reduced to the glib one-liner in the first sentence. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 00:14, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't meant as glib: sola fide. μηδείς (talk) 02:08, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind it wasn't that long ago that Christians were operating with the same viciousness that we tend to stick on Islamists nowadays. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:12, 10 February 2013 , (UTC)

Viciousness has many faces. I've never heard of any Muslim institutions mentioned in connection with any allegations of child (sexual) abuse. I've heard of plenty of Christian ones; and a few Jewish ones. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 19:20, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeh, here they rape them; there they attach bombs to them. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:12, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That probably says more about the media and your consumption of them, than actual practice. See for example: [13], [14]. But why spoil a good narrative? 86.163.209.18 (talk) 13:27, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have enlightened me, thank you. Well, since there seems to be no society or culture or group or family that doesn't practise what we call "child abuse", it's obvious it's an inherent part of the human condition, which means our definition of "child abuse" has been wrong all these years and needs to be rethought, to exclude from its ambit at least your common, every day rapes, molestations, tamperings and interferences. <end sardonicist commentary> -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 19:55, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Us the Japanese. At least their governments are hostile toward us. Kotjap (talk) 19:58, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We don't engage in debate. So back up a step and find us a high quality notable source such as a book or essay by a notable author on the subject, and tell us what he says that backs up your claim, for which we have no proof, although we might be reminded of Rape of Nanking, Comfort Women or Hikkomori, for that matter. μηδείς (talk) 20:03, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see what the Hikikomoris have to do with it, it's a Japanese phenomenon and I was once one. My back up is that North Korea launches missiles over our skies and China is being hostile with the Senkaku Islands dispute. Kotjap (talk) 20:06, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your statement that these people hate the Japanese is ill-supported, and my point was if the question is unclear, the answers will be unclear. You really do need to give us a reference explaining to us why you think these nations hate the Japanese. Missile launches and territorial disputes are not obviously acts of ethnic hate. μηδείς (talk) 21:03, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• You may want to browse Sino-Japanese relations and Japan–North Korea relations. "Hate" is a pretty subjective term. --BDD (talk) 20:12, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, differing interests do not necessarily imply hate. North Korea is a dictatorship, and those traditionally like to build an external enemy to help internal unity. Still, they seem to be more concerned with the US. Japan simply happens to be in the way of orbital and near-orbital rockets launched from Korea - it's a matter of physics and geography. Space rockets need to start eastward, to get the benefit of Earth's rotation. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:18, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You really can't ignore the historical context in a question like this. North Korea's leaders fanned and extended existing resentments; they didn't create them. To the OP, the historical context is the Japanese conquest and occupation of the Korean peninsula and parts of China starting around 1905. The Senkaku Islands are claimed by both China and Japan, hence the hostility. thx1138 (talk) 21:34, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have known people from Taiwan who distrusted the Japanese more than they distrusted "Red" China. It goes back to this little skirmish called Wor4ld War II, in which Japan attempted to dominate the Pacific Rim. Similarly, a lot of old-time Americans don't trust Germany very well either, having had some issues with them in the past. I wouldn't call those sentiments "hate", it's more like "wariness". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:42, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't trust Germany?!? Seems a bit petty, over something that happened nearly 100 years ago, or a piece of paper in the 1940s, don't you think? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:29, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I take it you mean WW1 by "something that happened nearly 100 years ago", but referring to WW2 as " a piece of paper in the 1940s" baffles me. Americans fought the Germans from 1941 (well, 1942 on a large scale) to 1945. StuRat (talk) 03:39, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OR: China, Japan and the Koreas all went through leadership transitions in the past year. In each of these societies, an influential segment of the political spectrum supports a strong foreign policy posture. In other words, and in a gross generalization that won't stand up for five minutes, being concilliatory or even reasonable toward foreigners doesn't tend to win support. Put the four transitions together and there was almost no chance of relations among these countries becoming more reasonable in the past 12-18 months. The tendency is now running its course, and will soon end. DOR (HK) (talk) 05:51, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In William Faulkner's novel As I Lay Dying, why does Darl burn down the barn? Any thoughts or insights? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:46, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

... Anyone? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:06, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Our article states that he "... burns down the Gillespie barn with the intention of incinerating the coffin and Addie’s rotting corpse." StuRat (talk) 06:00, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because it makes a good homework question? DOR (HK) (talk) 05:52, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At least he didn't ask us to explain Chapter 19, repeated, in it's entirety, here: "My mother is a fish." StuRat (talk) 05:58, 10 February 2013 (UTC) [reply]

Thanks. I am a college professor. I hardly have "homework" to do. I just finished the book, and I would like more insight on that event in the novel. That is the very purpose and function of this Help Desk. I had also read the article summary. I came to this Help Desk seeking more than just the one-line blurb that the article offers. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 13:32, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have not read Faulker's novel. Do these, not necessarily reliable sources, help at all?

• SparkNotes Editors. “SparkNote on As I Lay Dying.” SparkNotes.com. SparkNotes LLC. 2003. Web. 10 Feb. 2013. suggests that it is a literary device (chiasmus) to give "form to a story that might otherwise fail to have a narrative arc"
• Roberts, James L. The Arizona Quarterly 16.1 (Spring 1960): pp. 26–38 suggests it is "Cash, who thinks that, after all, Darl was probably right in trying to burn the barn but that it should have been he (Cash) who performed the action"
• Moreland, Richard C. (2008) A Companion to William Faulkner. John Wiley & Sons p. 440 "Darl's destruction of the barn is the climax of his vision and his distance from what the other Bundrens regard as reality"

I hope the above is useful --Senra (talk) 16:31, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, Professor, perhaps you would consider helping Wikipedia by contributing to our apparent poor coverage of Narrative arc, Story arc and Dramatic structure? Unless your professorship is in a non literary discipline. But even then? --Senra (talk) 16:54, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have read a report from a Danish organization that 10% of all Danish children have been sexually assaulted. Can it fit or figure is unrealistically high?--109.232.72.49 (talk) 22:40, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That number does not sound at all surprising and if anything sounds low. That kind of thing is horribly common in many or all societies. See these figures from the United States. Marco polo (talk) 22:45, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Awkward moment when you lose the last faith in humanity. --109.232.72.49 (talk) 22:57, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That would just be adding yourself to the list of victims. You have control over what you have faith in; don't let child abusers dictate this to you. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 23:15, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, don't let anti-child abuse panic organizations make you lose your faith in humanity. They may well be exaggerating and e.g. counting every dropped case as a genuine sexual assault, counting teenager situations like the one Stu mentions below etc. And round the numbers heavily. Remember that it is in their interest to make the problem they are fighting seem like the most important one in society, since that will likely make them get more donations and more money from government organizations, for their cause. I'm not saying that their cause isn't good or important, just that most organizations will put their specific cause ahead of others. /81.170.148.21 (talk) 23:28, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Those figures are extremely dubious, to say the least. Let's examine its claims, starting from its first citation. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services analyzed the reported child abuse cases in 2010. It found that 9.2% of children were victimized in 2010, and that 9.2% out of that 9.2% were sexual assault victims. It did not try to determine the percentage of children who were victimized at any point in their lives. The statistics from David Finkelhor suffer from a double conflict of interest: the webpage is from the Center for Victims of Crime, and Finkelhor is Director of the Crimes Against Children Research Center. Furthermore, all of the statistics are uncited, with no stated methodology and no year. The webpage also claims "a Bureau of Justice Statistics report shows 1.6 % (sixteen out of one thousand) of children between the ages of 12-17 were victims of rape/sexual assault (page 18)." First of all, 1.6% is an order of magnitude less than the supposed Finkelhor figures. Second, if you actually go to page 18, you'll see that the table's title is "Standard errors for violent victimizations, by type of crime, by sex, race, Hispanic origin, and age of victim, 2010". The webpage confused standard errors for the actual rate, and the year 2010 for a cumulative lifetime sexual assault rate. Whether the actual sexual assault rate is for children, the webpage is clearly rubbish and should not be trusted.

As for the OP's question, can you give us a link to the study? We can't judge its methodology or point out possible conflicts of interest without reading it first. --140.180.247.198 (talk) 03:17, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When I hear such numbers I always wonder if they're including statutory rape, such as consensual sex between a 17 year old "child" and 18 year old "adult". StuRat (talk) 23:07, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. See Patrice O'Neal. --Jayron32 23:56, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You should move to NJ, what you describe, Stu, is legal there. μηδείς (talk) 23:11, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neither being 17 or 18, nor being interested in anyone who is, NJ would have little to offer me that I can't get here in Detroit, except perhaps hurricanes and a governor who makes (seismic) waves. StuRat (talk) 03:13, 9 February 2013 (UTC) [reply]

I am sorry, StuRat, but are you sending me a gilded invitation to ask you whether you are quite happy with the price of crack and the murder rate in The Motor City? (although I think the latter may be higher in Camden, Lol. μηδείς (talk) 03:42, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I got the 10% from this danish site (http://www.landsforeningen-spor.dk/fakta.html). --109.232.72.49 (talk) 00:02, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The numbers there also lack citations and are weird. The first bullet point says that 10 % of all Danish children have been abused, but the second bullet point says 1.200 of those born a particular year have been abused, which corresponds to 2 %. Unless there's a big difference between misbrugt and victim of overgrep I don't see how that adds up. Sjö (talk) 14:12, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When I saw a decent study in the Netherlands (for example), it found a rate of about 10% by asking adults to anonymously record whether they had experienced sexual abuse as children. It did not include such American ideas as "statutory rape", and did not look at cases reported at the time or taken to court (which would seriously underestimate the rate). It found 10% of all adults had experienced sexual abuse as children, although the proportion who had experienced the most serious forms was (of course) lower. The study made all of this very clear. The rate in institutions such as children's homes, boarding schools, and young offenders institutes was closer to 20%. These are horrifying numbers, but not unexpected. Usually, such studies I've seen for western countries have a peak in the 1950s or 1960s. 86.163.209.18 (talk) 14:41, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide a link to the study, so that we can properly examine its claims? As I showed above, it's very easy to misinterpret statistics and imply that they say what they actually don't. Considering that not one reliable study has been posted here that shows a sexual abuse rate close to 10%, I find your numbers highly suspicious. --140.180.243.51 (talk) 17:39, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest starting with something like this [15] which provides an overview of the literature, and discusses usual findings and flaws. 10% is not a surprising figure ifor Denmark. A summary of the report I was referring to can be found here, with pages 8-9 being most relevant to you. I don't have a way to link you to the full thing. But really, this is the usual scale found in most studies, give or take. 86.163.209.18 (talk) 21:31, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As a person from the United States, I am a little confused on the "mark". I see in the article the "mark" had a value at first of 100 penny. After the Norman Conquest it was worth 160 pence. About what value in England did it have in the fourteenth century?--Doug Coldwell (talk) 22:46, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the C14 its value was standardised: two thirds of a pound, 160 pence. 13 shillings and fourpence. One good source is Jonathan Sumption's history of the 100 Years War. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:55, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 13:15, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have a paper to do on any American subject I would want, with various requirements. I want to write this paper on Teddy Roosevelt and the creation of National Parks. For this paper, I need opposing views on the creation of parks, who opposed the creation of such parks, and who supported. I read at Presidency_of_Theodore_Roosevelt#Conservation that "In 1903 Roosevelt toured the Yosemite Valley with John Muir, who had a very different view of conservation, and tried to minimize commercial use of water resources and forests." The article goes into no more detail than that on Muir's "opposing views". On Muir's article I see no specific differences between Muir and Roosevelt. I also saw that they had no conflicts when the spent a night together under a tent at what would become Yosemite National Park. What were their opposing views, and who else opposed the creation of National Parks? Perhaps our article should make this clear? Thanks. Albacore (talk) 01:54, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There was a multi-hour-long TV miniseries which explored these questions at length on PBS not long ago... AnonMoos (talk) 02:07, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and here it is: [16]. This quote from that page might offer some insight: "Muir's final crusade, to prevent the city of San Francisco from building a dam and creating a massive water reservoir in Yosemite's Hetch Hetchy Valley, ended in bitter defeat with federal approval of the project in 1913". I don't think TR would have opposed such a project. With Teddy, it was more of a case of environmentalism if their was no huge cost, while John Muir would be willing to pay any price. StuRat (talk) 02:59, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Those who opposed the parks are often those who used the future park areas for extractive purposes - lumbering, mining, cattle ranching, water supply, etc. And those dispossessed (settlers, Native Americans). But note that Yosemite was already a national park before Roosevelt was president and the national park service wasn't founded until seven years after he left office. Of the 5 national parks Roosevelt signed on, 2 were later demoted (and the other 3 aren't iconic). His big idea was the Antiquities Act and two of his four national monuments were later promoted to national parks.[17] 75.41.109.190 (talk) 14:49, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I happen to have watched the PBS series quite recently. There are two things that stuck out to me as more interesting: 1. TR's views were basically along the lines of "let's save the buffalo so that we can hunt them later for fun." That is, it is old-school conservationism — preserve things so that people can use them. Muir's views were very different — he saw wilderness as a holy, transcendental experience and that it needed to be preserved largely from humans and overuse. They overlapped on the park question but for different reasons — Muir was not a fan of hunting, for example. 2. The act that gave TR the power to do these things was very broad. Basically it allows the President huge powers to remove lands from private use. This has always been controversial in the short term — though in the long term people are usually pretty happy that we have things like the Grand Canyon and Yosemite and places of that nature. Anyway, it's a good program, and there is ample discussion of Muir vs. TR's views, so it is a good place to start. --Mr.98 (talk) 18:16, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We have the page Conservation in the United States, which has some stuff on this topic. I think Roosevelt's views were more in line with those of Gifford Pinchot. Roosevelt and Pinchot were "conservationists" while Muir was a "preservationist". If I understand right there was a bit of a struggle between these ideologies. The conservation movement created what began the United States National Forest system, and the preservation movement the National Park Service. One interesting difference between these—and a telling one I've always thought—is that the United States Forest Service, which manages the national forests, is part of the Department of Agriculture, while the Park Service is part of the Department of the Interior.

I'm not sure Gifford Pinchot was exactly against national parks, but he was certainly more in favor of national forests and his work undermined Muir in many ways. During the 1890s, when Muir and Pinchot were both working hard to made their visions of land protection a reality, vast amounts of land were designated national forest, but Muir only managed to get Sequoia and Yosemite designated national parks, in the early 1890s, then Mount Rainier in 1899. In contrast, something like 30 national forests were created in the 1890s, with an acreage that dwarfed the national parks. Muir and the Sierra Club spent much of the 1890s trying to get Mount Rainier National Park created out of land that had been set aside as national forest in 1893. This "redesignation" from national forest to national park was a major battle—previous national parks had predated the national forest system. It took many years and lots of work to get Congress to approve Rainier. Among other things, Congress demanded assurance that none of the park land had mining or farming potential, and that no money would be required to maintain it. I think the fight for Mount Rainier National Park is a good example of conservation vs. preservation, with powerful forces working against the national park idea.

I don't know about Roosevelt so much, and Rainier was created before he became president. But I note that only three national parks were created during Roosevelt's decade (1901-1909)—two of them, Wind Cave National Park and Mesa Verde National Park, quite small (the third being Crater Lake National Park). After Roosevelt, in the 1910s, quite a few national parks were made, some quite large. What, if anything, this says about Roosevelt though, I'm not sure. Pfly (talk) 11:34, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, there's also a book that goes along with the PBS documentary, The National Parks: America's Best Idea. It's not bad, although there are certainly more scholarly sources out there detailing the early history of the Forest Service and Park Service, and the ideological struggle between conservationism and preservationism. A Google Books search is bound to turn up some leads. Pfly (talk) 11:38, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The American writer Philip K. Dick made the remarkable claim that

Hitler had once said that the true victory of the Nazis would be to force its enemies, the United States in particular, to become like the Third Reich -- i.e. a totalitarian society -- in order to win. Hitler, then, expected to win even in losing.

Source: http://www.philipkdickfans.com/mirror/websites/pkdweb/short_stories/Oh%20To%20Be%20A%20Blobel.htm

Did Hitler really say that and if so, where and when? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.107.215.90 (talk) 02:30, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's going to be difficult to prove someone never said something, but this seems unlikely, to me. His biggest goal wasn't totalitarianism, it was having "Aryans" rule over (or just kill) "inferior races". The US, being a melting pot, would be a nightmare for him. StuRat (talk) 02:56, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the quick reply. If you don't mind can my question be kept open for 24 hours in case someone finds a quote? Thanks again! 188.107.215.90 (talk) 03:02, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the quote along these lines that I have seen attributed to Hitler:

The great strength of the totalitarian state is that it forces those who fear it to imitate it.

Not exactly the same; it doesn't indicate that this outcome is in and of itself a victory for his side. But it's close enough that it could have been what Dick was thinking of. On the other hand I don't know that Hitler actually said it — I was able to find the quote easily enough, but I haven't tracked down the circumstances under which he supposedly said it. --Trovatore (talk) 03:05, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will just note that it sounds an awful lot like a very common Cold War claim that the USA had to become like the USSR to compete against them (hence the military-industrial-complex, which bores more than a passing resemblance to the Soviet command economy). --Mr.98 (talk) 18:22, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We do have a large Wikiquote page for Hitler, which includes this quote: "I have sympathy for Mr. Roosevelt, because he marches straight toward his objectives over Congress, lobbies and bureaucracy." The sentiment is not dissimilar. --Mr.98 (talk) 18:25, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Based on content from several TV series I recently saw, along with questions I asked close friends & family members, it seems that if someone has decided to vanish after deliberately declaring their intention to do so, then it would be no use to report them missing. Is that really true? 24.47.141.254 (talk) 06:34, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yea. They might file a report, but I wouldn't expect any real effort to be expended on the case. StuRat (talk) 06:49, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Laws regarding declarations of "death in absentia" vary from place to place, but in some jurisdictions one can only be declared dead after a specific amount of time has passed following the initial report of being missing. If some of the family members are intending to access the vanishing person's bank accounts (or similar), it would make sense to file a report early. Gabbe (talk) 08:35, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I read it, this question isn't about death. Generally, in the absence of evidence of disease or intent for self-harm, the police won't search for an adult non-criminal who doesn't want to be found. For example if I tell everybody I know that I feel a sudden urge to hitchhike from California to New York tomorrow, and tomorrow morning I walk out with my backpack and don't return, the police won't search for me, even if my friends ask them to. What I am doing might be stupid, but there is no law against stupidity. Looie496 (talk) 17:16, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What did the earliest arrow makers use to keep the fletching attached to the arrow shafts? I vaguely remember reading something about glue made from sinew, but that might have been some other subject. RNealK (talk) 07:03, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article says they used plant-based resins to attach the arrowhead, and I imagine they used it for fletching, too (once they figure out they needed fletching to keep the arrows stable in flight): [18]. StuRat (talk) 07:18, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Any idea what sorts of resins? Might tree sap work? RNealK (talk) 19:41, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tree sap is usually too thin to start with, but can be boiled down to make a reasonable adhesive. Or, if you just let it sit, water will evaporate out, but you can't let it go too far, or will become solid. StuRat (talk) 20:08, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The arrows found with Ötzi the Iceman (about 3,300 BC) had "the remains of three-part radial fletching attached with birch tar and thin nettle thread."[19] The technique of spiral binding remained in use until the advent of plastic fletchings, and is still used by traditional archers today. Don't know if this YouTube vid will help,[20] Alansplodge (talk) 00:09, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As a Japanese I acknowledge the multiple atrocities committed by our troops. I'm not sure if apologizing is the right way since nobody apologized for the war crimes committed against us. But right to the question, i.e. Yoshio Kodaira kept killing once back in Japan. My question is, war made him a serial killer or he was born that way? Kotjap (talk) 15:05, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The reference desk is probably not the right place to discuss this subject. Neither do we know whether you are Japanese nor do we know that Yoshio Kodaira was involved in War crimes during WW II (at least the English and the more detailed German article do not mention this). And what made him a serial killer is definitely beyond our knowledge. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 16:41, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The answer is easy... he became a serial killer because there was no Wikipedia around back then to occupy his formative years and tell him that such behavior was wrong. Blueboar (talk) 16:59, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Beware that those guilty of war crimes frequently try to make it look like "everybody else was doing the same thing". While undoubtedly their were some war crimes committed against the Japanese, the overwhelming trend was that it was the Japanese committing the war crimes. The atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki are a special case, which some might consider war crimes, but others consider a necessary step to end the war quickly, thus preventing even more civilian deaths. On the other hand, there's no way to argue that the Rape of Nanking, etc., was in any way for "the greater good".

Also, if you're talking about apologizing as an individual, then that seems unnecessary, especially if you weren't alive at the time or were too young to have fought in the war. The Japanese government, on the other hand, should apologize, and make sure that history books and schools tell the true story, and not alter history to make Japan look like the victim. The US government has a similar issue with it's massacres of American Indians 100+ years ago. StuRat (talk) 17:13, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kotjap, the German Government has apologised for the war crimes of the 3rd Reich, I don't see why the Japanese government still refuses to apologise. It think it would appease the relations with both Koreas and China significantly and would be beneficial to the country (it is much easier to sell your products when the people and the goverment like you). The Japanese pride may be what is preventing these apologies to happen, and that is not healthy. But I also support that the US should apologise for the Nukes. It would help. Even though it is Japan which declared war on America, not the reverse. --Lgriot (talk) 10:03, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

since you have lifeboats and you don't crash against anything? Kotjap (talk) 15:07, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of accidents and disasters by death toll --TammyMoet (talk) 15:16, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't really answer the Q, as we'd need to know total miles traveled on each and divide the total death tolls by that. StuRat (talk) 16:50, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, ships are inherently safer, yes. However, there's an effect (I don't know if it has a name) where people take extra precautions to make inherently dangerous things safer, which they don't take for less dangerous things. So, airplanes are likely to be given more thorough maintenance checks than ships, for example. Then there's also attacks by pirates which are a concern for ships and not for planes. StuRat (talk) 16:50, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c)The link you want is Aviation safety#Statistics. The answer depends how you measure it; in terms of distance travelled, air travel is far safer than sea travel. Ships do of course crash against things, and planes also have lifeboats. But there isn't always time to get into a lifeboat.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 16:54, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a I call ^{[citation needed]} on your statement, StuRat. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 17:32, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know what "Wikt:inherent" means, Jack ? It doesn't mean that ships are actually safer, just that, if no precautions were taken, they would be. You have to admit that a ship's engine's stalling, losing electricity, or a collision isn't nearly as severe a problem as on a plane. However, precautions are taken such as tracking planes on multiple radars, to ensure that things like collisions don't occur. That even things out quite a bit. Also, I don't think you should edit the posts of others like that. StuRat (talk) 17:56, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I do know what "inherent(ly)" means, Stu. My question to you is: Do you know what "reference" or "citation" or "source" mean? In the context of this specific question from the OP, it's not exactly an unreasonable request. Nowhere did I actually dispute the veracity of what you said, I just asked for a citation; because ships are not inherently safer than planes just because you or I or anyone else says so. That may surprise you after all these years, but there it is. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 18:10, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're not going to find refs for that, only if they are actually safer. To get refs for whether they are inherently safer, you'd need to fly lots of planes with no radar tracking or any other precaution not taken for ships. That would be unethical. So, we have to rely on common sense here. StuRat (talk) 18:26, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you only mean that a disastrous failure on an airplane is worse than a disastrous failure on a ship, then yes, common sense does say that. But if an airplane is 1000 times more reliable, less likely to collide, and less likely to be hijacked than a ship, the plane is still "inherently" safer by any reasonable definition. If you want to make that claim, you need a source. --140.180.247.198 (talk) 18:42, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason why an airplane would be inherently more reliable. You may be talking about them doing more checks and maintenance to make planes more reliable, but I don't consider that to be an inherent feature of airplanes, rather an adjustment we make to make them reasonably safe. The same is true of collisions. If we didn't add all sorts of collision avoidance systems and radar systems to planes, they would be crashing right and left. This is the inherent risk in airplanes. StuRat (talk) 18:47, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The fact is there's nothing "inherent" about either a plane or a ship. They've both undergone a long development. What you may think of as an "inherent" feature of a modern American plane, may not have been there even 5 years ago, may still not be there in a plane from another country, and would have been utterly unimaginable to the Wright Brothers. There's the basic concept, and everything after that is essentially icing on the cake. We tend to see the icing as the main thing and take the cake for granted. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 19:13, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. There are some inherent features of any airplane, which make them dangerous. Among these are a height above the surface which makes falling to the ground likely to be fatal, a speed which makes any collision likely to be fatal, a need to reduce weight, which limits the emergency equipment which can be kept on board, the need to reach a destination within a few hours of departure, limiting options for avoiding dangers, and a higher fuel per passenger-mile ratio. These make airplanes inherently more dangerous. Only by taking extraordinary precautions have we managed to make them safer. The economics of airplanes also makes it necessary to pack people into much tighter volumes, which can lead to the spread of disease and other problems. StuRat (talk) 19:56, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The closest named thing to what Stu says is the Peltzman effect, which now redirects to something with a more boring title. IBE (talk) 17:51, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, that's it. StuRat (talk) 17:59, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It really depends on the ship. Ferries in third-world countries are notorious deathtraps. Looie496 (talk) 17:28, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An expert on marine safety told me that the reason travel on a plane is safer than travel on a ship is that rich people travel by plane, and poor people travel by ship. His implication was that when poor people die, less of a fuss is made. Slightly less cynically, one might also speculate that modes of travel frequented by richer people are more profitable and thus can afford more investment in safety technology. Of course, one of the premises of the expert's theory is less and less true in developed countries (budget airlines are now widespread). --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:22, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I question the other premise, too. The only time many people would be likely to travel by ship is on a pleasure craft (luxury liner, speed boat, etc.), while they use the plane for basic long-distance transportation. Their used to be luxury airplanes, like the Concorde, but those are gone now (although Learjets remain). StuRat (talk) 20:16, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's the same premise, not a different one. If you're one of hundreds or thousands of people packed into a passenger ferry between Sumatra and Malaya, or somewhere in the Philippines and somewhere else in the Philippines, or Madagascar and Africa, or wherever else the third-world deathtrap ferries that Looie mentioned ply their trade, you are almost certianly not there for luxury or the thrill of speed. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:22, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• A lot more people are robbed, go missing, and are thrown overboard on cruise ships than during flights to the same destination. μηδείς (talk) 18:25, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Doing risk comparisons is notoriously difficult. There are different hazards associated with boats than with airplanes. There are different accident rates, both per trip and per distance traveled, and are hugely affected by the type of vehicle you're talking about (small versus large, for example). I don't think one can abstractly compare boating with flying, but one could certainly find statistics for a more structured query, like cruise trips across the Atlantic versus large plane flights across the Atlantic. I think any "common sense" claims that one is more "inherently" safe than another are baseless and should be ignored. --Mr.98 (talk) 18:32, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See my comment above. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 19:13, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The question is too general. I would feel a lot safer in a large cruise ship than in a small plane. And I would feel a lot safer in a major airline's plane than in a small fishing boat. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:50, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's true, and it really depends on the route. London to Paris: plane extremely safe, train extremely safe, car and ferry very safe, car and shuttle very safe, bus and shuttle very safe, motorbike and ferry safe, bicycle and ferry safe. London to New York: plane extremely safe, boat extremely safe. London to Beijing: plane extremely safe, train extremely safe, container ship and train extremely safe. New York to LA plane extremely safe, train extremely safe, bus extremely safe, car safe. Etc. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:48, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• 10 Feb, 2013: Five people killed in Canary Island cruise ship accident after lifeboat falls into sea during safety drill. Ever hear of five airline stewardesses plunging falling to their deaths from a coffee cart? μηδείς (talk) 18:38, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• No. But it appears a trolley broke a flight attendants ankle once! --Senra (talk) 19:06, 10 February 2013 (UTC) [reply]

I think the operative expression in that joke would be "plunging to their deaths". -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 19:10, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

in all parts of its territory? Kotjap (talk) 19:39, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When you ask such Q's you need to say what country you are from. I happen to know that it's Japan, but others won't. Some US states have the death penalty (although only Texas applies it frequently), and the Federal government has some rarely used death penalties. Looking at Death_penalty#Global_distribution, it appears that many Middle-East nations have it, and some of those might be called "developed". Belarus seems to be the only one in Europe, however. StuRat (talk) 19:42, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Use of capital punishment by country might help. MilborneOne (talk) 19:44, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sorry. It's Japan. Kotjap (talk) 19:45, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But Belarus cannot be considered developed right? Kotjap (talk) 19:48, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's borderline, but has a PPP GDP of $15,028 per capita, which isn't too bad. StuRat (talk) 20:06, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Belarus not developed? Ha! All sorts of better countries than Japan have the death penalty: India, the US, China, Cuba, Indonesia, Russia, Taiwan. You are quite familiar with how the ref desk works, Kotjap. You need to do some basic research with the search bar on the left of your screen rather than posting every single question here that comes to mind. μηδείς (talk) 20:12, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

De facto there is no death penalty in Russia. The last execution took place in 1994 or 1996. --Ghirla^-трёп- 07:16, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The OQ asked "in all parts of the country". The US does not have the death penalty in every state. RNealK (talk) 20:46, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

However it does have it for crimes coming under federal jurisdiction Capital punishment by the United States federal government. Even if it's very rarely done and many crimes do not come under federal jurisdiction, people committing a crime in any state can obviously be receive the death penalty. So it's not entirely clear to me it's accurate to say the US does not have the death penalty in all parts of its territory. It's more a matter of frequency and types of crimes including variation where it's applied within the territory. Nil Einne (talk) 22:25, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's not a totally straightforward "yes" or "no". As a practical matter, if someone breaks a federal capital crime, the state in which it happens to happen has no jurisdiction, hence no say in the matter, regardless of the state's own death penalty or lack thereof. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:38, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's not true, see Timothy McVeigh for example. Hot Stop (Talk) 04:48, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your point is unclear. μηδείς (talk) 05:08, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oklahoma could've opted to try him on state charges, but didn't. I assumed BB meant that one could only be charged in federal court or state court, not both. Hot Stop (Talk) 05:12, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would think he could be charged in both, as obviously there is overlap. Oklahoma could have found him guilty of the statute against murder and sentenced him to life, for example. Then the Feds could have found him guilty of breaking federal law against killing federal government employees and then sentenced him to death. OK would have no say in whether or not the Feds could put him down. In the case of overlapping crimes, it's possible the Feds get first dibs on the perp, but I don't know that. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:33, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Better ? What does that mean ? He asked about developed nations, not "better" ones. StuRat (talk) 20:13, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You know, inherently better. That should make sense to you, Stu. :) -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 20:28, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, ha, ha, ha, good one, Jack. I am quite sure Kotjap does, or should, get my point. μηδείς (talk) 20:35, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From what I gather from our list, the following countries that the UN considers to have "very high human development" have some form of the death penalty in their legal code: Bahrain, Barbados, Brunei, Chile, Israel, Japan, Qatar, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan, the United Arab Emirates, and the United States. Out of those, only Bahrain, Japan, Singapore, the UAE, and the US carried out executions in 2010 or 2011. If you also include countries with "high human development", there are of course more, including Belarus, Iran, Libya, and Malaysia. Lesgles (talk) 20:21, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let's all use this as a jumping off point to discuss the wisdom and ethics of capital punishment! Shadowjams (talk) 23:10, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You jump first, and if you land safely, others could follow. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:39, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My death penalty is better than your death penalty... :P Blueboar (talk) 23:57, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, i laughed for 30 seconds at that one, Blue. μηδείς (talk) 02:01, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lethal injection is kind of anticlimactic. Things just aren't the same in New York since they put Old Sparky out to pasture. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:09, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New York declared their death penalty unconstitutional (which you could get for killing two mere people, or one cop) way back under Pataki. μηδείς (talk) 05:06, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I see - Blueboar was being subtle. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:25, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The UK abolished it in the 60s, because it's better to give them a lifetime of being careful not to drop the soap in the showers. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 13:44, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, KageTora, for reminding us that forcible rape is funny, as long as it's directed at people who are often mentally ill, or members of undesirable minorities, or potentially wrongfully convicted. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:02, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So, you would prefer "people who are often mentally ill, or members of undesirable minorities, or potentially wrongfully convicted" to be executed instead? That's an interesting perspective, and actually the very reason the death penalty was abolished in the UK in the first place. At least putting them in prison gives them a chance to prove their innocence (if true). Executing them would not. My comment about dropping the soap was a reference to the fact that being in prison is not a barrel of laughs. Prison gives the prisoners time to think about why they are there and what they have done. This is what my reference was meant for. Sure, it was jokingly said, but it was meant that way. Execution, however, denies this opportunity. There are some countries (e.g. Japan) where people actually commit terrible crimes in order to be sentenced to death, because they do not have the courage to continue with life, nor to commit suicide. This is a fact. The OP, being from Japan, will know this, as it comes up periodically in the news. One might actually say that it encourages crime. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 06:42, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's all a matter of perspective. Mel Brooks once said, "Tragedy is if I have a hangnail. Comedy is if you get killed." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:11, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good point, Bugs. Rape jokes are funny, and I'm glad there are people like you to stand up for the innocent people who spout them. God, this place disgusts me sometimes. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:13, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently there's a high-tech ball-and-chain keeping you here against your will. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:25, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Scam?

I am seeing advertisement for "invest in Brazilian eucalyptus plantations" all over the internet recently, promising +10% guaranteed return. Is that some sort of new scam or just risky business? OsmanRF34 (talk) 20:49, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If it were a proper business investment, would you really want to make money on the back of the obliteration of the rainforest?--TammyMoet (talk) 20:55, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If it was such a good investment, why wouldn't they just invest their money into it rather than spending their time spamming you for your cash? Invariably these days, whatever the question, it is a scam ---- _nonsense ferret 21:10, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's all a scam by koalas to get humans to grow their favorite food source around the world, as a prelude to world conquest. :-) StuRat (talk) 23:26, 9 February 2013 (UTC) [reply]

Beware a koala-bear market. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:30, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How much can a koala bear? (I've had the misfortune to see this live) --Shirt58 (talk) 05:56, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just How Many "scams" are you are party to, Osman? Are your local police and local secret police familiar with you? Should they be? μηδείς (talk) 05:20, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if anyone should take your comment seriously. You seem to be much more interested into scam than I, at a rate of 12/37. Just see: [[21]]

I'll assume the previous question is by Osman, and ask how many such questions did I myself ask as compared to him? My saying such questions are problematic doesn't count as my having posted them. μηδείς (talk) 00:25, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

neo-cyber-punk

Once heard some people refer to themselves as neo-cyber-punk, or just cyber-punk. Does this mean that it is an independent subculture in line with emo? --109.232.72.49 (talk) 23:58, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Has nothing to do with emo. Cyberpunk was a style of science-fiction writing popularized in the 1980s and 1990s and typified by the writings of William Gibson (especially Neuromancer). The style evolved in the middle 1990s, and by the early 2000s had been replaced by steampunk in terms of popularity as a style of novel and graphic novel writing. It has seen a bit of a revival lately, and "neo-cyberpunk" or "post-cyberpunk" writing has developed with authors like Neal Stephenson. Emo is a style of music that developed at around the same time as cyberpunk, and I suppose there are some people who listened to emo music and read cyberpunk fiction, but I don't know that there is any overt connection. --Jayron32 00:27, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A little off-topic remark here: Somehow when the term cyberpunk surfaced, I assumed that it was some very abstract thing, where you had to do a lot of work just to get past the difficulties of the form (think Time Considered as a Helix of Semi-Precious Stones or Stars in My Pocket Like Grains of Sand or The Beast that Shouted Love at the Heart of the World). I still haven't read Neuromancer, but my impression from some of the "precursors", at least (say, Philip K. Dick) is that it's not like that at all — it's actually quite accessible, not that far removed from pulp. I'm curious to hear from anyone here who's read 'core cyberpunk — is it closer to pulp, or to the three long-winded formalist works I mentioned? --Trovatore (talk) 08:14, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the OP was asking whether it is a subculture in the same way that emo is a subculture, examples from the past being punks, casuals, mods, rockers, hippies etc. The answer would be "no", it is the genre of literature that Jayron has explained. Young people may be fans, but I've never heard of them forming into groups or adopting particular dress or behaviour. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:31, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The fans of any genre of anything often develop a subculture which reflects their fandom; Emo is primarily a genre of music, but the fans of Emo music have developed a subculture which reflects the way that Emo bands dress and which reflects the tenor of the music. There's probably a real "cyperpunk fandom subculture" out there that borrows from the imagery and attitudes of cyberpunk literature. Steampunk certainly developed a sub culture; steampunk cosplay and fanfic is a very common part of it. I wouldn't doubt that cyberpunk similarly has developed such a sub culture, and I would not be shocked to see a crossover with Emo fans as well; however, it is important to understand that these fandom subcultures are still organized around artistic movements, and if you want to understand where the subculture comes from you need to first start with the art that led to it. --Jayron32 18:44, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

February 10

Muslim contributions to geography and science and mathematics

Who are the famous or not so famous Muslims of Golden Age of Islam who have made contributions to geography and science and mathematics?--Donmust90 (talk) 03:59, 10 February 2013 (UTC)Donmust90 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donmust90 (talk • contribs) 03:58, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Science in the medieval Islamic world should be a good start - there are links to several sub-articles, and lists of scientists. Adam Bishop (talk) 04:16, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) It'd be a huge list, probably too big to retype it all here. You could start with Islamic Golden Age and Islamic contributions to Medieval Europe and Science in the medieval Islamic world and List of inventions in the medieval Islamic world and List of Muslim scientists. Each of those articles contains links to more detailed articles on specific sciences. It wasn't a "Golden Age" for nothing; the Caliphate was the most powerful and stable empire in the west for hundreds of years, and the prosperity and stability it brought was known to allow for a flourishing in the sciences. --Jayron32 04:17, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's important to note that although Islamic scientific discoveries were very impressive for the time, almost none of it had an influence on modern science, meaning science since Kepler and Newton. For example, Islamic astronomy mostly refined the Ptolemaic model, developed spherical trigonometry for finding the qiblah, and improved a few devices like the sundial and astrolabe. Of course the entire Ptolemaic model being thrown out the window is the definitive event of the Scientific Revolution. Today, the Islamic legacy in astronomy is limited to nomenclature--most star names are Arabic in origin.

In general, it's important to remember that Western science after the Scientific Revolution is drastically different from any earlier form of science. Science, as we know it today, is an exclusively European development, and far surpasses in accuracy and objectivity any other "science" invented by any other civilization. --140.180.247.198 (talk) 06:26, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You mean the "Western science" whose practitioners wrote it down using a modified semitic alphabet, using Arabic numerals based on the Hindu–Arabic numeral system and manipulated formulas using Algebra? All while drinking distilled alcohol and later coffee to get the brain going? Science has a lot more continuity that you seem to think, and it's pretty hopeless to try to cut it off from its many different roots. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:33, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How are the alphabet, Arabic numerals, algebra, alcohol, and coffee in any way science? I was expecting you to give actual examples of science, not mathematics or popular beverages. --140.180.243.51 (talk) 16:52, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1) The OP asked about mathematics 2) The methods of distillation and extraction developed by early Islamic chemists are still vital to science today, and these Islamic sources are among the earliest descriptions of them; some of their earliest uses were in the distillation of alcohol and in the brewing of coffee. The basic techniques to do each are not functionally different from what a chemist in a modern laboratory may do, and some of their earliest descriptions come from Islamic sources. --Jayron32 18:40, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How can someone not consider algebra the basis of science? And even compare mathematics with popular beverages (like if it were as useless as Coke).OsmanRF34 (talk) 20:09, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be talking about physics there. There was more continuity in chemistry, and don't forget the technologies in everyday use, like paper-making and sugar refining. Also, the philosophical approaches that we call Western, and that allowed the scientific outlook to develop, had thei roots in Islamic theology. The books and TV programmes of Jim Al-Khalili are a good introduction to the topic. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:00, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See also Medicine in the medieval Islamic world. Alansplodge (talk) 09:25, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree there was slightly more continuity in chemistry, as revealed by Chemistry#History. Paper making and sugar refining are technologies, not sciences. I haven't read anything by Jim Al-Khalili, but a priori I highly doubt that the scientific outlook had their roots in Islamic theology. I see no reason why Christian Europeans during the Scientific Revolution would have cared about Islamic theology, and no evidence that Bacon, Newton, Kepler et al. were influenced by it. --140.180.243.51 (talk) 16:52, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Technological development and scientific development are linked, cf the steam engine. The scientific revolution could hardly have got off the ground without paper. Distillation, as mentioned by Stephan, led the Arabs to understand more about the properties of medicinal plants, and we wouldn't have the key pharmaceutical concept of "active ingredient" without it. Pharmaceutical and chemical research went together in Europe at least till the time of Luke Howard. As for the theology, the trajectory usually described is this: Thomas Aquinas and the Scholastics including William of Ockham (Occam's Razor) developed their ideas by engaging with the works of Islamic philosophers like Avicenna and Averroes. Critique of the Scholastics gave us Renaissance Humanism, and critique of Renaissance Humanism gave us the Enlightenment. These connections can be sourced, although I expect they are also debated. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:54, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On geography we have Geography and cartography in medieval Islam, although there seems to be more info at History_of_geodesy#Islamic_world. There were a few new techniques, like spherical trigonometry, useful for measuring the circumference of the Earth, apparently quite accurately. I think I've read about some connection between these Persian and Arabic circumference calculations and Columbus's mistake about the size of the Earth, but I can't recall quite what it was. Something about Columbus assuming the "Arabic mile" used by Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn Kathīr al-Farghānī was the same as a Roman mile... Pfly (talk) 12:00, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Son of Francis II, Duke of Brittany

Was the son of Francis II, Duke of Brittany and his first wife Margaret of Brittany named John or Francis. The French wiki says Jean (John). http://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/BRITTANY.htm#_Toc284059595 says Francois (Francis). Also is he buried in the same part of Nantes Cathedral his parents were buried in?--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 07:07, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, the only bones in there are Francis, his two wives, and some other bones which may or may not be his uncle Arthur III. I'm not sure about the name of his son...Medieval Lands is often wrong or wildly out of date. For example it says Francis II is buried in the Carmelite convent. Well, originally, yeah, but the tomb is now in the Cathedral. I would trust the French Wikipedia, but neither site has a source for the name. I could ask about it over there, if you'd like (and you can always e-mail the guy in charge of Medieval Lands, Charles Cawley). If Francis' son was buried in the cathedral, this would have been the old Romanesque cathedral, which was just beginning to be replaced by the current Gothic one. The Romanesque building is completely gone now, so it's conceivable that anyone who was buried there is gone too (the only surviving part is the crypt, but no one is buried there now). If he is still buried in the cathedral, he's not in his parents' tomb, and there is nothing marking his grave. Adam Bishop (talk) 12:47, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AFP anonymity question

Just now, I read a news by AFP (the news doesn't appear to be on their website yet, so here's a link). The news was disclosed by an unnamed US official, who wished to remain anonymous for reasons that are neither mentioned nor implied in the news report. Usually, when anyone asks to be anonymous in news reports, it's usually because: 1. He/she is not authorized to speak to the media, and/or 2. The news in question had something to do with particularly sensitive topics, such as North Korea, Syria, or any military-related news. However, the nature of the news report (It's about the top diplomat of the US in Asia, Kurt Campbell, who doesn't appear to have an article here, stepping down) implies that the nature of anonymity is neither of the two aforementioned cases. What is likely to be the reason why the official wants to be anonymous? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 09:28, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why you're ruling out "not authorized to provide this particular bit of information to the media". Note that there's a related reason, "doesn't want to be known as the guy who provides information to the media". — Lomn 13:53, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Usually, if it's because their not authorized to speak, it would be explicitly mentioned (e.g. "wishes to remain anonymous because he is not authorized to speak to the media"). In this case, no reason is given, so it's possible that that's not the case. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 14:17, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A person with a sensitive position or a prominent public profile may simply not wish to be identified in public with a quote because it could generate unwanted attention on that person. I have not read the article you quote, but if for example you are a highly placed official who sometimes appears publicly, you may not want to have to field questions about this issue the next time you speak because it could distract from what you are supposed to be talking about. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 14:50, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It could also be a method for getting the news out there before making an official statement. This gives the public a false sense of empowerment. Businesses use this tactic all the time. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:15, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Meat traceability etc.

Political economy question. Should these rules have applied to the French companies in Findus' supply chain? Or are they just best practice? Itsmejudith (talk) 14:22, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Me again. No, they didn't apply. They relate to minced beef that has the label "100% muscle". [22]. If anyone can help me quickly get to the EU rules for minced beef in general, that would be good. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:51, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What does this have to do with political economy? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 14:53, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if this answers your question PalaceGuard, but the question relates to the "Findus beef lasagne ready meal was up to 100 per cent horse meat" story. Alansplodge (talk) 16:44, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I understood that part Alansplodge, it was the "political economy" part that confused me. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 19:32, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Political economy approaches in food studies include looking at supply chains. As opposed to sociology of consumption, which has a different focus.Itsmejudith (talk) 17:40, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

After thinking about this for a bit, I can see how this can make your interest in the scandal political-economic (if indeed that's the case), but the question you asked here is definitely legal/regulatory. Understanding or applying political economy is not relevant to answering whether certain regulations are mandatory. Anyway, I've gone far off-topic.--PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 19:38, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to make it clear that I wanted Humanities Desk type responses rather than Science Desk type responses or any other. Didn't work. :-( Itsmejudith (talk) 21:21, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is it why Japan didn't deploy major troops in Iraq?

Al Qaeda promised to strike the heart of Tokyo if troops sent to Iraq. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kotjap (talk • contribs) 18:36, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are there treaties prohibiting Japan from involving their military in actions that aren't strictly defensive? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:56, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not a treaty, but the current Japanese Constitution contains very strict rules about what Japan can and (mostly) can't do in situations which are not strictly defensive. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 19:43, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Japan did send warships to the gulf. Granted, this may not count as a "major troop deployment", but they were there... and protecting the oil supply was in their national interest. Blueboar (talk) 19:02, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What Al Qaeda "promises" to do and what it's actually capable of doing are very different things. Towards the end of WWII, Hitler fantasized about New York going up in flames, but it was nothing more than a delusion. Today, "Germany" is a tiny ragtag group of uneducated fanatics who can barely manage to kill several people every few years, while "the Allies" are many orders of magnitude more sophisticated and powerful than they were in WWII. --140.180.243.51 (talk) 19:13, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are countries taking part in the Mali conflict at risk of terror attack?

My country Japan has taken a side now and is sending money to Mali troops. Kotjap (talk) 18:49, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Any country that participates in world politics in any way is at risk from somebody. The more nations take sides against al-qaeda, the better chance there is of exterminating them. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:55, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Any country that opposes terrorists are at risk of terror attacks, even countries that support terrorism (if there are any) are at risk of terror attacks from terrorists who don't agree with them. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 19:40, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note that countries which don't confront terrorists may be at even more of a long-term risk from terrorists. Once they figure out that your nation won't fight back, they may well start taking your people hostage, etc. StuRat (talk) 04:19, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kissing up to terrorists in hopes they won't attack you could be called the "Chamberlain Theory". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:04, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Appeasement is the relevant article, I think. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 11:08, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How many bus driving hours between Michigan and LA?

I may visit the U.S. and would like to know that. Kotjap (talk) 22:34, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Greyhound Bus website says that their quickest trip from Detroit to Los Angeles takes 2 days, 3 hours and 25 minutes. There are transfers in Dayton, Ohio, St. Louis, Missouri, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma and Phoenix, Arizona. All of the schedules take over 2 days. RNealK (talk) 23:33, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From an eating-and-drinking perspective, how practical are these long-haul itineraries that the Greyhound website generates? With very brief layovers, at odd hours of the night, in dingy bus depots often in scary parts of town, it doesn't seem practical to find anything to eat (except maybe chips and candy from a kiosk). So if someone wanted to do a trip like this, and wanted to eat anything resembling sane food (even sandwiches) wouldn't they have to essentially pack a mega brown-bag for the whole trip? -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 23:54, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Depending on your route, there are often 30 minute meal breaks that take you to nicer truck stops, bus depots with hot food, or places of that sort. In my bus traveling days, I lived on beef jerky and bottled lemonade - Both of which can be picked up at just about any stop, and tend to not taste awful if you don't eat/drink right away. 24.229.178.39 (talk) 00:23, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For any point-to-point question in the US, there are various websites that do that for you. One is Google Maps. I entered [detroit to los angeles] and they list 3 options, the shortest of which is basically I-80 all the way: 2,282 miles, 33 hours. That supposes an average speed of 70, if no stops, so take that with a grain of salt. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:46, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I-94 to I-80 to I-15 to I-10. I-80 doesn't go to Detroit, and you'd have to get off I-80 about 2/3rds of the way there since I-80 goes to San Francisco and not L.A. The PCH is pretty, but it's a bit of a roundabout way to go all the way on I-80 and then head south. I-15 from Salt Lake City goes more-or-less directly towards L.A. --Jayron32 00:00, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On what basis is anyone here assuming LA means other than Louisiana? And are we to assume Kotjap has a commercial driving license? Should amphetamine use figure in? μηδείς (talk) 00:21, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're not really serious about the Louisiana thing, right? LA is the postal code for Louisiana, but it's pretty rare to use it that way outside that context. The abbreviation "La.", with the lowercase a and the period afterwards, I would probably take to mean Louisiana. --Trovatore (talk) 02:44, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The saddest thing is, she absolutely is serious. --Jayron32 03:03, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Note that it is actually cheaper to fly from Detroit to LA than to travel by Greyhound, if you can book well ahead of time. People from Europe or Japan often have a hard time grasping how far apart things are in the US. Looie496 (talk) 00:28, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Greyhound website says tickets from Detroit to Los Angeles can cost anywhere from $193 to $270, I don't think you can get a flight for that. RNealK (talk) 02:40, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In a few minutes searching, I found a Delta flight for $285. With more work you might find something cheaper. And even if not, it's probably worth the extra money to not be on a bus for 2 days. RudolfRed (talk) 03:18, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Southwest shows one-way flights for less than $130, if you pick the right day. Looie496 (talk) 04:43, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@ Trovatore, Yes, I am totally serious. Los Angeles is known as L.A., not LA. If I am entitled to read Kotjap's mind then I am entitled to tell you he's a troll, as per Wikipedia:Competence is required and the fact that 34 of his last less than 100 edits have been the creation of threads that are almost universally nonsensical, hysterical, or just lazy. Googling "travel time from detroit to los angeles" is beyond easy and below kotjap's obvious skill level, not above it--he knows how to give a link when he wants to. But I am not entitled to assume kotjap is a troll who's wasting space here and taking willing victims for a ride, so I will take him utterly seriously. Does he mean from the state of Michigan to the state of Louisiana like he implies, or not? μηδείς (talk) 03:15, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Plenty of people (including me, a sometime Angeleno) frequently drop the periods and refer to the City of Angels as LA. It's not an error. If he were using postal codes (who does that?) to refer to the states, then why didn't he call Michigan MI? --Trovatore (talk) 03:24, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. I have suggested to him at least half a dozen times (in this incarnation--I don't know about his previous user names) that he use google first, provide links, and be clear in what he says and asks. And he's promised to do so, see my talk page and his unsolicited responses. I don't think that's so unreasonable for someone with such a mastery of how to edit, ask questions at the ref desk, and provide good links and create and upload material as he is, who has supposedly only been around for about a month and less than 100 edits. I think you also know I am not one to shirk spending hours on good faith questions by occasional actual questioners when they are posed, Trovatore. μηδείς (talk) 03:42, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The OP's post here was the last post he made. Maybe he'll come back here and clarify. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:52, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not all that interested in the question, frankly. But LA is a perfectly normal abbreviation for Los Angeles, and an unlikely one for Louisiana, unless in a postal address or at the very least preceded by a city name. --Trovatore (talk) 04:02, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My immediate assumption was that LA meant Los Angeles, although it could be Louisiana; also, it's a bit odd to talk about driving from a state to a city. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:01, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Michigan is a large state. As such, which city within Michigan you choose will make quite a difference. It's something like a 4 hour drive from Detroit to the South-Western corner of Michigan. It's something like a 12 hour drive from either of those to the westernmost tip of the Upper Peninsula (although at some point you would change your route to go to Los Angeles via Wisconsin). StuRat (talk) 04:14, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, which is why I arbitrarily picked Detroit, and another reason why I am sure Kotjap's "question" (he is supposedly from British Columbia) is utter bullshit. But maybe I am wrong. My calling his suggestion that someone would fly from Vancouver to to Michigan to LA (whether that means Louisiana like it says, or Los Angeles) bullshit should certainly not prejudice anyone here against assuming he didn't mean what he typed. All answers should be in good faith. μηδείς (talk) 04:27, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Does good faith account for the amphetamine reference? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 04:38, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably he's referring to drastic methods drivers have been known to use to stay awake on very long drives. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:01, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I know what she's referring to. "All answers should be in good faith", and yet there's an assumption the law is being broken. Those two statements don't seem to belong in the same conversation, at least from the same author. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 07:11, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Royals who visited Hawaii in the 19th century

Besides Alfred, Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, Prince Henry of Prussia (1862–1929), Prince Henry, Count of Bardi and Prince Henry, Count of Bardi, did any other foreign royals visit Hawaii before 1898? And what exactly was the Count and Countess of Bardi doing in Hawaii in 1889?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 22:35, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

February 11

Golden Rule buyout in fiction

"In a Golden Rule buyout, the parties agree that in the event they disagree to such an extent that the company effectively cannot function, each partner can offer to buy the other out for a price determined by the offering partner. The other partner then has a period of time (usually thirty days) in which to do one of two things: he or she can either agree to the price and terms offered by the offering partner and sell their ownership stake, or he or she can turn around and buy the offering partner's stake in the company for the same price and terms that the offering partner proposed."[23]

Basically applying Divide and choose on a company.

I'm looking for works of fiction that contain a Golden Rule buyout between two partners, preferably as a major plot element. Dncsky (talk) 02:34, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Would Science Fiction suffice? Consider Irvine, A (2009) Buyout Del Ray --Senra (talk) 11:23, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

what was Robert Ludlum writing about when he died?

Our article says, "Ludlum died on March 12, 2001, at his home in Naples, Florida, whilst recovering from severe burns caused by a mysterious fire which occurred on February 10."

What was he writing about (at home) or working on at this time? --Curiouserandlesscurious (talk) 07:34, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]