Revision as of 05:14, 26 October 2013

• Computing
• Entertainment
• Humanities
• Language
• Mathematics
• Science
• Miscellaneous
• Archives

• WP:RD/H

Main page: Help searching Misplaced Pages

How can I get my question answered?

• Select the section of the desk that best fits the general topic of your question (see the navigation column to the right).
• Post your question to only one section, providing a short header that gives the topic of your question.
• Type '~~~~' (that is, four tilde characters) at the end – this signs and dates your contribution so we know who wrote what and when.
• Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. Any answers will be provided here.
• Please be as specific as possible, and include all relevant context – the usefulness of answers may depend on the context.
• Note:
  • We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice.
  • We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate.
  • We don't do your homework for you, though we'll help you past the stuck point.
  • We don't conduct original research or provide a free source of ideas, but we'll help you find information you need.

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/Guidelines

• The best answers address the question directly, and back up facts with wikilinks and links to sources. Do not edit others' comments and do not give any medical or legal advice.

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

October 21

explanation of famous picture: lunch during building skyscraper (workmen sitting down on a beam)

Could you give me some explanation on this: http://i.imgur.com/TUm5Bpj.jpg

why were they sititng down, and so close? how? was there a sheer drop below?

I just found our article: http://en.wikipedia.org/Lunch_atop_a_Skyscraper - but it doesn't say much. Would people actually eat like that? 212.96.61.236 (talk) 00:24, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

According to the Daily Mail (not always the most reliable source, admittedly), it was a publicity stunt. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:48, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Confusion about the Time Line of Events in Hamlet

I am very confused about a particular scene in Hamlet. Any insight is appreciated. In the final lines of Act 2, Hamlet gives his soliloquy that ends with "the play's the thing, in which I'll catch the conscience of the king". In that soliloquy, Hamlet berates himself for not taking action to avenge his father's murder. He is very upset with himself, he calls himself an ass, etc. Then, about half-way into the soliloquy, Hamlet has a brainstorm idea to solve the problem: he will have the players re-enact his father's murder and he will observe Claudius's response (to see if Claudius "reveals" his guilt). So, it seems to me that Hamlet never had this bright idea before, and he just developed the idea mid-way through this particular soliloquy. It was as if a light bulb went off over his head, half-way through the soliloquy. (If he had had this great idea prior to this speech, he would not be so angry and upset with himself in the first half of the speech.) So, here's the source of my confusion and, hence, my question. Prior to this speech, Hamlet had asked the First Player if the acting troupe could perform The Murder of Gonzago the next day. First Player says "yes". Hamlet then asks if he (Hamlet) can write up some 12 or 16 lines of new text to insert into the play; can the troupe of actors memorize these new lines overnight and insert them into the play the next day? First Player says "yes". So, why did Hamlet want to pen 12-16 lines of new text to insert into the Murder of Gonzago play, if he had not yet even had his brainstorm idea, his "light bulb" moment? What am I missing? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:52, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

We can't know exactly what was in Shakespeare's mind when he wrote the play, but there are two possibilities. One is that Hamlet was intending an improved speech, since they had just been discussing the merits of various lines. The other, more likely, in my opinion, is that this is just dramatic licence (not an accidental continuity error), where Hamlet reveals his thinking to the audience to clarify what has just occurred to him, and he is recalling the "light-bulb" moment a few minutes earlier. There will be a difference in the delivery of the line "Dost thou hear me, old friend; can you play the Murder of Gonzago?" if that is the true "light-bulb" moment. Dbfirs 07:53, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Also opinion. Remember that in this soliloquy Hamlet expresses disgust at himself over his inability to show his grief and rage and physically revenge his father. In part this is because he's still not 100% convinced that the ghost's message was genuine rather than the devil trying to fool him (or at least, that's his excuse). OK, he's finally doing something with his sneaky little plan to doctor the play and watch his uncle to see whether he betrays himself, but it's more reactive than proactive and is hardly decisive manly action involving tears, shouting and weaponry. If he remains disgusted by his own pussyfooting around, it's hardly surprising that he expresses this for a few lines before confirming to the audience that his request to the First Player did indeed have an ulterior motive. He'd still rather have the guts to howl with grief and stab his uncle, though. - Karenjc (talk) 08:48, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you. I see what you are saying. But ... this is what I am having the problem with. That soliloquy essentially has two halves: the first half in which he berates himself for his inability, inaction, and indecisiveness in avenging his father's murder; and the second half in which he reveals his great scheme to get Claudius to confess to murder (i.e., by having the players stage a re-enactment of his father's murder in the garden). The problem for me is the few lines that separate the first half of the soliloquy from the second half. I don't have the exact text in front of me. But, the gist of that mid-point section of the speech is something along these lines (paraphrased). Hamlet essentially says ... "Wow, I am a jerk; I can't believe what a jerk I am; I really need to get off my ass and do something about this; that First Player put me to shame with his reaction to a merely fictionalized scenario", etc., etc., etc. Then (at the mid-point of the speech), he says: "OK, let me wrack my brain now; come on, brain, please get to work for me; come on, brain, please give me some bright idea here; come on, brain, I really need your help right now", etc. etc. etc. So, that is what I am calling the turning point of the soliloquy, in which his anger turns to action. He summons up all the power in his brain to try to come up with a great idea. Then, at that moment, the light bulb goes off. In other words, the great idea about the re-enactment (which will surely reveal Claudius's guilt) had not happened before this; it happened at exactly this moment. That is why the tenor of his soliloquy changes so dramatically. The first half is anger, despair, shame, etc. The second half is joy, excitement, anticipation, etc. He was so pleased with himself that he just had this great idea (at that exact moment). When this light bulb went off over his head, he thought out loud: "wow, this is a great idea that I just came up with; this plan is really gonna work; it can't fail; now I will know for sure if the ghost is telling the truth or if the ghost is just the devil in disguise, leading me down a path of damnation". So, if the light bulb went off at that exact moment, it did not make sense that a few moments earlier, he was scheming with the First Player to insert some new lines into tomorrow's play. I can't reconcile this (apparent) discrepancy. In a nutshell, if indeed the great idea (brainstorm) had really occurred earlier in the scene (before the soliloquy), then the first half of his soliloquy would not be so filled with anger, hatred, disgust, and despair. At least, I think. In fact, the soliloquy itself actually begins with Hamlet saying "OK, now I am all alone, finally. Now, I can think about all this. So, let me collect my thoughts on this situation and on my predicament. Let me get to work here". Thoughts? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:28, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I see what you mean and I agree with your analysis. The turning-point in the soliloquy would be at the line "About, my brain!" (i.e. "Let's re-think this."). My opinion would be that Shakespeare is using a dramatic technique (common at that time) to replay what has just happened in the conversation, but revealing Hamlet's thinking. Modern playwrights would use a different technique, but the device would have been accepted in Shakespeare's time without criticism. Dbfirs 15:49, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

You're missing the fact that Shakespeare was merely human, and that continuity problems plague all works of fiction from ancient times to modernity. Homer's Iliad, which was far more influential in classical Greece than anyone today can imagine, had various "Homeric nods". The Bible's inconsistencies and contradictions are legendary, literally and metaphorically. Fans of Star Trek, Star Wars, Harry Potter, and every other popular book you can imagine make a big deal about concocting narratives that explain away logical inconsistencies "in-universe". The simplest explanation is that Shakespeare simply made a mistake, and forgot that Hamlet was not supposed to have this bright idea until the middle of the speech. --Bowlhover (talk) 17:15, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree with your general comments about continuity errors in works of fiction. However, this was a pretty "big" (significant) plot point for Shakespeare to "miss". The whole point of the entire play of Hamlet is his (Hamlet's) inability to move from indecision to action. His attempts to (finally) try to move from the paralysis of indecision toward decisive action is, essentially, the whole thrust of Hamlet's frame of mind and, thus, of the whole play. Being such a significant component of the overall work, I'd find it hard to believe that Shakespeare would "overlook" this (as an error in continuity). Being the genius that he was — not to mention that this is his greatest masterpiece — I have to assume there is some other reason/explanation for the seeming internal inconsistency ... and I am just trying to find out what that explanation might plausibly be. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:54, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

For my money, Dbfirs' 2nd possibility (in his 1st post at 7:53, 21 Oct) is what it's all about. He is essentially bringing the audience up to speed, by use of what we'd these days call a 'flashback' to an earlier point in his emotional timeline, followed immediately by where he's at now. Just as in a cinematic flashback, the actors are actually acting out events that happened in the past and not just talking about them from the point of view of the present, but to someone who wandered into the cinema late, it looks for all the world like the present, and they only discover they were watching a flashback a little later. That "Shakespeare" guy, whoever he was, was way ahead of his time. But OTOH, the audiences of his day would have been expected to understand immediately what was being presented, without the benefit of the billions of words of Shakespearean analysis that have been written since then, and Dbfirs' 2nd post (at 15:49, 21 Oct) confirms this was an accepted dramatic device of the time. As those billions of words amply demonstrate, it is possible to overthink these sorts of things. Shakespeare's audiences were a mix of aristocracy and simple uneducated folk, and he wrote for all of them collectively (while also writing for each of them separately). -- Jack of Oz 19:44, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Perfect competitive market

Characteristics of perfect competitive market
Zero transaction cost
Zero exit and entry barriers
Why?

```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.188.129.220 (talk) 03:09, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the Misplaced Pages Reference Desk. Your question appears to be a homework question. I apologize if this is a misinterpretation, but it is our aim here not to do people's homework for them, but to merely aid them in doing it themselves. Letting someone else do your homework does not help you learn nearly as much as doing it yourself. Please attempt to solve the problem or answer the question yourself first. If you need help with a specific part of your homework, feel free to tell us where you are stuck and ask for help. If you need help grasping the concept of a problem, by all means let us know. RudolfRed (talk) 03:41, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not even sure what the question is. You might get a more helpful response if your question was clearer.--Shantavira| 08:09, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

If your question is "why does the perfect competition model make these assumptions when they are clearly unrelistic ?", then the answer is probably because they allow the construction of a theoretically tractable model. Whether this simplified model can provide any useful insights into the behaviour of real-world markets is then another good question. Our article on perfect competition may help you. Gandalf61 (talk) 08:42, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

This is interesting, I'd like to add a secondary question here. "Zero transaction cost" is in the article, but why would that be necessary for perfect competition? Of course everyone would be better off when all information about buyers and sellers would just magically appear on everyones Smartphone at the exact time they needed it, but it doesn't. You have to pay for that information somehow, which a long time ago created the market for markets, auctions, Yellow Pages, and more recently Craigslist, eBay, Google and LinkedIn. They all make money from lowering transaction costs by providing information. That information isn't free; it needs people, machines, electricity to get it to the consumer. Similarly, a farmer needs information about the weather. If it will be raining for the next few weeks, maybe now it's the best time to gather the potatoes before they rot. It's obvious that a weather forecast costs money. Some farmers will pay for that information, others will find it too expensive. They can choose between more information or a better harvesting machine. Why should information about suppliers, qualities, employees, prices, etc be magically free in a perfect competitive market? A "perfect competitive market" with zero transaction costs would have no advertising, privacy, prisons, HR-departments, or even companies. That sounds like a nice model for eery fiction literature, but not as a perfect model of a competitive market. Joepnl (talk) 23:20, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Because the purpose of the model of "perfect competition" is to tell a very simple (and very abstract) story of supply and demand. The law of one price only prevails where there are no transaction costs, because otherwise there will be situations where it isn't worth a buyer seeking out that lower price because it will cost them more to transact to the seller than the difference in price (transport costs over a distance is the simple example). When economists say perfect competition, they don't mean the market is ideal, they simply mean that the market is perfectly (that is 100%) competitive. 124.170.108.225 (talk) 15:38, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

You can find some ideas at User:Wavelength/About society/Holistic economics.

—Wavelength (talk) 16:10, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

File:England Adminstrative 2010.png

What's up with all of the different shades/colours for the different districts? The colour scheme isn't explained in either of the articles using the image, and the image description also doesn't discuss it. Note that some counties' districts are all the same colour, while other counties have lots of different colours; clearly it's not an application of the Four color theorem to distinguish counties, and it's also not reflecting something that's present in every county. Nyttend (talk) 04:42, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

It may not be a strict application of the four colour theorem, but at first glance it does look like all the neighbouring counties are in different shades. So I would say they have done it that way for the sake of clarity. --Viennese Waltz 07:38, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree. It looks fine to me apart from a few misspellings. The different colours within some counties indicate unitary authorities and metropolitan and non-metropolitan districts (see key at top right).--Shantavira| 07:48, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it's about unitaries. So all the districts of Kent are the same shade, except that Medway, which is a unitary authority, is a different shade. Medway is in the ceremonial county of Kent but not in the administrative Kent County Council area. All the former districts in Berkshire ceremonial counties are unitaries in their own right, so each is a different colour. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:46, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Washington Coat of Arms Verification

I was watching a documentary called "Secrets of Henry VIII's Palace" and then at the end was advertising for another documentary called "Secrets of Althorp". They explain there was a connection with the 1st president of the United States, George Washington. "In the church yard you'll see the Washington tombs, and in the Isle of the church, if you lift up a wooden shield, underneath is the Washington star, their coat of arms." I was taken aback by them showing the coat of arms and the center star (of 3) is inverted. When I looked up the Washington coat of arms online, the inverted star is turned right side up. In fact there is nowhere else that I can find any evidence of the inverted star besides the picture that was shown of it on this show. Since I can see for myself that it is indeed, upside down, (I can provide a video clip of the part of the documentary if necessary) Can you verify or explain why it was changed & when, etc??

Thank you, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.174.58.243 (talk) 10:08, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Is it the Church of St James the Less, Sulgrave? If not, could you give us a clue? Alansplodge (talk) 12:44, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Coat of arms of George Washington has a list of about a dozen English churches that display the Washington arms. Alansplodge (talk) 12:48, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

It's likely that there never was an authorised (by the College of Arms) change to the arms, as in heraldic symbology and practice such a minor difference to a minor part of the blazon would be meaningless, to my knowledge. While this variety of "star" (technically a mullet) is conventionally depicted with one point uppermost, inverting it might have been simply a stylistic decision on the part of the artist who created that particular representation, whether or not it actually exceeds the (rather loose) limitations of artistic variation permitted — mistakes are sometimes made! {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 212.95.237.92 (talk) 14:08, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Titanic violin fetched £900,000 in 10 minutes at auction - why didn't they wait for the price to go up further?

I was reading http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-wiltshire-24582739 where a violin that was played on the titanic fetched £900,000 in ten minutes. My question is why didn't they wait even longer so that the price would go up even more? 212.96.61.236 (talk) 12:59, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

The report says bidding ended at £900,000 after fierce bidding between two bidders. Presumably one of the bidders gave up at that point. Auctions are not normally timed out. --Viennese Waltz 13:05, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Ten minutes is actually quite a long time to spend on auctioning any item. If bidders can't make up their minds whether to give a higher bid in 30 seconds, then the auctioneer usually assumes that they are not going to bid any more. Dbfirs 15:24, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, real-life auctions are not like those on eBay, where there is a time limit and the trick is to get your bid in just before the deadline, possibly with artificial help. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 17:15, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. The site's use of the phrase "just 10 minutes" is inaccurate; auctions are extremely quick affairs. I've seen paintings get knocked down for $50,000 in much less than a minute. My guess is that there were a large number of phone bids, which can sometimes cause delays. Matt Deres (talk) 19:47, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Idle speculation: I wonder if waiting longer would reduce the proceeds. Someone might get "caught up in the moment" and go over his intended maximum bid in a quick auction, or in a long one two bidders might go out for coffee and come back with the affair settled by a coin toss or a private payoff... Wnt (talk) 16:47, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Since when did the French language drop out of the English tongue?

Back in the olden days, it seems that English-speaking peoples used to learn and speak in Latin, French, and English. Latin makes sense, because it used to be the liturgical language, and medieval manuscripts were written in this language. French makes sense because of the Norman French conquerors who probably expect the conquered people to speak their language. And yet, Latin and Greek persist to be used in scholarly literature, but French is dropped out? Why? 140.254.227.76 (talk) 13:34, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I must add that nowadays Spanish seems to have a growing influence on English, but I think it may be due to the Spanish-speaking immigrants that come to the primarily English-speaking United States. One example that I can think of from the top of my head is the word aficionado and its plural form, aficionados. 140.254.227.76 (talk) 13:37, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

French was more the language of the aristocracy, I guess that it was primarily retained for diplomatic/political relations with France during the post-Norman period. Greek and Latin persists because they were universal languages used to communicate between scholars across the western world. Plasmic Physics (talk) 13:50, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

140.254.227.76 -- I'm not too sure what you mean. The heaviest French influence on English was probably in the 14th and neighboring centuries, but there has been some French influence on English in every century since the 11th, and things that were borrowed from French into English in previous centuries do not usually "drop out" of the English language... AnonMoos (talk) 13:59, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I originally thought the OP was asking more along the lines of, "Why don't English speakers learn other languages as much anymore?" I'd say more English speakers learn French than do Latin or especially Greek. French is still one of the two or three most useful languages to have in terms of communicating with the maximum number of people on Earth in various places; Latin and ancient Greek are not particularly useful outside of the Vatican and university language and history departments. In other words, while each of the two ancient languages at one point served as a lingua franca either academically or in general, they were largely supplanted by French. In recent years (since the Second World War or so), English has come to be used for diplomacy the way French was for several centuries; it's likely that there are other English speakers who live and work in most places you could travel. So there is much less incentive than there used to be for native English speakers to learn any other language at all; for those that do, however, French and Spanish (not necessarily in that order, depending on country) are by far the most common. Due to changing geopolitical circumstances, I'm sure Arabic and Mandarin are steadily increasing as second languages of native English speakers, but I have neither citations nor anecdotes for that. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 14:44, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

"French is still one of the two or three most useful languages to have in terms of communicating with the maximum number of people on Earth"

No, not even close. The first three are Chinese, English, and Spanish. French only comes in at 11th. See list of languages by total number of speakers. --Bowlhover (talk) 16:53, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Interestingly, these tables on second language ability suggest that French is a more popular choice than English as a second language (I suspect that is because English is often a third language choice, after a person’s local language and national language). Some more data on second language use: In Canada, about 32% of the population speak more than one language; 17.5% are bilingual in English-French. In the UK, 38% of the population have two or more languages. In Australia, the number is about 15%. In the USA, the number is about 18%. And according to that same source, in Europe the rate is about 53%. In Africa it’s about 50%. Taknaran (talk) 17:12, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Bowlhover, thanks for pointing out the numbers. I overstated the case somewhat (and struck out what's clearly false). I should say, French is still perceived to be among the most useful languages one can learn, at least in the U.S.; and I shouldn't have framed it in terms of number of speakers, but in terms of number of countries in which it is spoken. Obviously it's not as prevalent in official terms worldwide as it used to be, and it certainly won't help you on the streets of most cities in South America or Asia. While it may be in decline proportionally, though, for the moment it's still in use among the world's diplomats. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 18:42, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Medieval manuscripts were written in Latin because Latin was the language of universities England.
Sleigh (talk) 16:17, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

There are, of course, also plenty of medieval manuscripts written in French and English (and Irish...and German...etc) Adam Bishop (talk) 21:21, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

There is some information on this topic in History of the English language, particularly the section Middle English – from the late 11th to the late 15th century, though it isn't very clear on the reasons for the changes. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 17:23, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Grand tour, military prostitution (now there's an article we lack). "French makes sense because of the Norman French conquerors who probably expect the conquered people to speak their language." nope. History of English. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:15, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, see Anglo-Norman language#Trilingualism in Medieval England. An early 14th century writer recorded; "Children in school, contrary to the usage and custom of other nations, are compelled to drop their own language and to construe their lessons and other tasks in French, and have done so since the Normans first came to England. Also, gentlemen's children are taught to speak French from the time that they are rocked in their cradles and can talk and play with a child's toy; and provincial men want to liken themselves to gentlemen, and try with great effort to speak French, so as to be more thought of." It was during that century that English began to be used at court, the Provisions of Oxford being the first legal document to be written in English since the Conquest. Exactly why this happened seems to be something of a mystery. Alansplodge (talk) 07:46, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Correction, the Provisions of Oxford were in 1258, but the drift of my comments still stand. Alansplodge (talk) 07:56, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

A bit more digging reveals that two Cornishmen seem to have been responsible for restoring English as the medium of education. According to a third Cornishman, John of Trevisa (1326-1412): "For John Cornwall, a master of grammar, changed the learning in grammar schools and construction of French into English; and Richard Pencrych learned that manner of teaching from him... so that now, in the year of our Lord 1385, the ninth year of Richard II, in all the grammar schools of England children leave French, and construe and learn in English... The disadvantage is that now children of the grammar school know no more French than does their left heel..." From A Short History of Education by John William Adamson, which goes on to say that the Black Death may have been the turning point, although this is far from certain. Alansplodge (talk) 17:00, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Alan, Schooling was far from universal and its purpose was the getting of clerks for the state and clerics for the state's interests. In contrast continental war and the circulation of nobility (by war, hostage, wardship or Touring) were general forms of acquisition. Fifelfoo (talk) 20:33, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

So you're saying that people stopped using French in England because they were visiting Europe? Alansplodge (talk) 23:14, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm saying your evidence relates to such a fragmented fraction of society, that the "School" is restricted to pre-clerical and clerks, that it proves nothing about generalised French use or acquisition in England. That your example isn't demonstrative that French inhabited the English tongue. Fifelfoo (talk) 20:26, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Difference in "right-wing" definition stateside and across the pond

Does WP have an article that really addresses the differences between the American right wing and the European right wing? I've searched a few articles but my curiosity was not squelched. I couldn't really find much online outside of WP either. It seems there are subtle differences that confuse me. I would prefer a pointer to an article (or even a book) rather than a user's interpretation (no offense!). Rgrds. --64.85.217.225 (talk) 14:47, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Don't know if you've already seen this, and don't know whether it will really satisfy you, but the best I could find on Misplaced Pages is Left–right politics, with sections "Usage in Western Europe" and "Contemporary usage in the United States". Duoduoduo (talk) 15:09, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Ahh, monarchism, that's something that is foreign to me that was tripping me up. Interesting. Thanks for the pointer. Now I know where to start digging. Rgrds. --64.85.217.225 (talk) 15:26, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

But don't get to carried away - most European constitutional monarchies enjoy support from the centre-left as well as from the centre-right. King Juan Carlos I of Spain almost single-handedly overthrew a right-wing military coup against a centrist government. In France, the monarchist party Renouveau français is clearly camped on the far right lunatic fringe, while Nouvelle Action Royaliste "are sometimes described as 'royalists of the left'". So not as clear cut as you might think. Alansplodge (talk) 16:52, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Not a specific article, but see Front national, Golden Dawn, and Jobbik for examples of extreme-right European parties that enjoy far more support than Renouveau français (which, as Alansplodge said, is on the lunatic fringes). Needless to say, such parties don't exist in the US. --Bowlhover (talk) 17:05, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

To clarify, I think you mean Golden Dawn (political party). Alansplodge (talk) 07:50, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

In very broad strokes, I think the biggest single difference is that the American right is more in favor of the free market than the European right. The strongest free-market supporters in Europe tend to be among parties that are not really seen as particularly right-wing (e.g. the Free Democratic Party in Germany, a certain tendency within the Italian Radicals, even arguably the Orange Book faction within the UK Liberal Democrats). --Trovatore (talk) 19:43, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Name these stories - two Chinese and the other Spanish

I can't find the source of these stories. I'd greatly appreciate it if anyone can find the source of these stories.

1. Once upon a time, there was a child. (To be honest, I have no idea if it were male or female, because the Chinese pronunciation for "he" or "she" sounds identical.) This child lived with his/her parents. One day, a bear told the child that he/she was going to eat the child up. The child became frightened. The child went home and made preparations. The parents were not at home. The bear arrived at night. Then, it followed a plotline that involved the bear's making a series of misfortunes inside the house and eventually learning his lesson. The protagonist lived happily ever after. THE END.

2. Once upon a time, there was a poor family, a husband and wife living together, in a poor village. The husband somehow left home and sought his fortune elsewhere. He came to a cave with some devils/demon-monsters. The devils were extremely powerful and tried to terrorize the man, but the man was clever and used his cleverness to overcome the devils' brawniness. One example was when the devils taunted the man that they could make the earth tremble. The man replied cleverly that he could make the ground flow out liquid by hiding an egg underneath loosened soil. Then, the devils taunted the man that they could pull out a tree while they presumed that the man couldn't. The man cleverly wrapped a rope around several trees, and the devils asked the man what the man was doing, to which the man replied that he was trying to pull all the trees of the forest. The devils became afraid and begged the man to not pull out their home. The man spared the devils their home. At the devils' home, the devils served meat and told the man he could eat some while the devils mined for gold and silver. The man ate some and buried the rest of the meat underground. When the devils returned, the man lied to the devils that he ate everything and shocked the devils beyond belief. At night, the devils tried to do a stealthy attack on the man's body. The man overheard this, and at night, he put stones in his bed so while he slept below the bed. The next morning, the man told the devils that he felt rain on his body and completely frightened the devils who then made him a compromise. The man took gold and silver home and gave some treasures to the villagers. Then there was the fox who told the devils that they were being scammed. One devil became angry and followed the fox to the village. The man had another trick up his sleeve and asked the fox why the fox only brought one devil and not the others. This made the gullible devil to turn his attention to the fox, thinking that the fox was trying to trick him, and killed the fox. The devil left for home, and everybody else lived happily ever after.

3. In a short Spanish play, two lovers tell each other how much they love each other. Then, one lover - Juan - goes into the forest. There is a gunshot. And then, the woman shouts, "Juan. Juan. Juan. Juan! Juan! Juan!" until the end of the play. 140.254.227.69 (talk) 17:08, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Let me guess: With soundtrack by Philip Glass. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 23:17, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Do you remember any Chinese at all from the Chinese story? Names, quotes, cheng yu, or anything else in Chinese that you remember would be very helpful. --Bowlhover (talk) 04:04, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Which bible version has the most contributions to literature?

Which bible version has the most contributions to English literature and would be recommended by serious academics of the Humanities departments? 140.254.226.201 (talk) 17:53, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

The influence of the King James Version, and the earlier English translations that contributed to it, on the English language is discussed by the editors of the Oxford English Dictionary in this posting. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 18:28, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

"Recommended" depends on the purpose. For studying ancient history and theology, a more modern translation with annotations and apparatus is more appropriate. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:01, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

It's fair to say that the KJV is more like literature (as per the OP's question), while more modern translations such as the RSV are better for ancient history and theology. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 23:16, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

October 22

16th/17th century French book describing medieval Paris

I am trying to remember the name of a book, written in the 16th or 17th century, that describes the history and architecture of Paris (or perhaps all of France). The name, however, has escaped me, and I can find neither it nor the authorities that describe it as Hugo's source. Can anyone help me?

Identifying details that I remember:

• The book is considered to be the source of Victor Hugo's detailed description of medieval Paris in The Hunchback of Notre Dame.
• The author has (considering his era) an unusually philo-Semitic description of the history of the Jews in France
• The author was familiar with many historical Jewish works (including Shalshelet ha-Qabbalah and Zemah David), apparently from their Hebrew originals
• The book has been digitized and is (or was) freely available online on a French website

הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 01:40, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Maybe Histoires et recherches des Antiquités de la Ville de Paris by Henri Sauval? He is actually mentioned in the text, and seems to have a lot to say about the Jews. It's on Google Books and archive.org. It's also on the Bibliothèque nationale website, which may be the French site you were thinking of. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:32, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that's it—thank you very much! (I accessed it through this site, which is in fact linked to at Henri Sauval#External links. His history of the Jews is in Volume 2, Book 10, pages 509–532. (For an interesting example of Sauval's Jewish history being included in Hugo's work, see page 526, as well as page 552.) הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 03:10, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

For the record, I was partially mistaken with respect to the date: Sauval lived in the 17th century, but his work was only published in 1724. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 03:13, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Whatever happened to Joanne Jacobs?

Once upon a time, the San Jose Mercury News had a brilliant columnist by the name of Joanne Jacobs. Sharp but clever wit, but I don't recall that she was ever mean. The only sensible political commentator attached to a Bay Area newspaper that I can even think of. (At the time, the SJMN did a reasonable job of keeping news separate from editorials; they have since become a stridently partisan paper in the European mold, which does have the advantage of a certain directness, I suppose.)

But I haven't seen anything from her in years, and Google has not been very much help. Anyone know what she's doing, and why she quit what she was so good at? --Trovatore (talk) 06:46, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

She comes up on a LinkedIn search with a 23-year history at that paper, so I'm pretty sure it's her. She has a website at www.joannejacobs.com and blogs and writes on education. - Karenjc (talk) 07:05, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

(ec) Here she is, and here too. <sub>⧐ Diamond Way</sub> 07:09, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, both. I suppose I saw some of those hits when searching. I'd just like to see more of the stuff she used to do. Oh well. --Trovatore (talk) 01:21, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Looking for a good explanation of literacy problems

Hi all, I saw on the news that an Australian student completed year 12 without knowing how to read or write. Does anyone know how this can actually happen? References would be great, but are not essential for contributing, because they might be hard to find. Anecdotal answers would be more than welcome. Speculation that involves some evidence, and some speculative gap-filling, would be quite ok. Pure speculation should be avoided, if you could be so kind. Thanks in advance, IBE (talk) 16:28, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

You may be interested in an historical case from the U.S. Dexter Manley is an interesting case study, he was basically shuffled along through the education system even though he could neither read nor write because he was a good athlete, and he performed well on various schools football teams. The Misplaced Pages article only touches on it briefly, but the phenomenon in general in the U.S., and Manley in particular, have been covered in depth by many reliable sources. For example here is a 1989 article on the case from the New York Times. I know you are looking for Australia specifically, but this at least gives you a related case from the U.S. --Jayron32 16:33, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

(ec) This is pretty good - funny, relevant, and interesting; a good start for the thread. The only thing wrong is that the explanation is too good, so it wouldn't apply to many cases, where I think the same thing happens without a special motive on the part of the institution. I don't think the Australian student had such compensating advantages, because I would expect them to have been mentioned in the news story. That is far from certain, but likely all the same. So any examples of less talented people who could trip around the system without being tripped up by it would also be welcome. Examples from first world countries strike me as quite relevant by analogy. IBE (talk) 17:03, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

See Social promotion. Duoduoduo (talk) 17:01, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

In cases where it's not in the school's interest to admit that they failed to teach a student, they will often cover up that fact. Tests are supposed to tell us things like this, but there have been cases of teachers correcting answers on tests so they look better: . StuRat (talk) 17:59, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

IBE, can you provide a link to the news story you heard? There are various hits for people finishing school who cannot properly read or write (whatever that means) or are "functionally illiterate", but your question makes it sound as if this person couldn't do these things at all. That would suggest a massive cover-up on the part of the education authorities, which continued every year for about 12 years. I struggle to believe this. -- Jack of Oz 18:09, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Sure, see and go to the show The Project, Monday 21 October, 32:00 (main story), 33:15 (Mark Haddrick, barely able to read his own name after year 12). IBE (talk) 18:36, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Got it, thanks. Here's a direct link to the story: . There could be various factors as to why a particular person has special challenges with reading and writing, dyslexia and vision problems being the most obvious. But for him to be advanced in grade year after year for 12 years without being able to do any of the work says to me there's something seriously broken with the system. How come every other kid had to sit many, many written tests, and had to demonstrate their ability to read aloud, and had to demonstrate they could comprehend what they were reading - but he always got let off? How come his parents weren't consulted about his difficulties? (Or maybe they were, and maybe they gave up too.) To me, this is child educational abuse, and in terms of ongoing impact on his life it's on a par with child sexual abuse. -- Jack of Oz 19:00, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

The first number on that page makes me extremely suspicious of its reliability. 44% have a literacy level below 3? Neither the study nor the definitions of the literacy levels are identified, but it's simply not possible that 44% of Australians can't read medication labels or road signs. --Bowlhover (talk) 21:21, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I found the study this number refers to. The way it is presented in the article makes me a bit suspicious of its intent. The OECD study shows that the results for Australia are consistent with or better that the remaining OECD countries. The definitions used show that level 3 is rather demanding and has more to do with reading comprehension than what we typically understand as "literacy".No longer a penguin (talk) 08:39, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

The OP wrote that the student "completed year 12", not that the student "passed year 12". The system in the state of Victoria, Australia allows that. HiLo48 (talk) 11:25, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

The same is true in NSW, where a number of students complete study without matriculating or sitting the Higher School Certificate. In particular, a large number of people with intellectual disabilities successfully complete schooling without having attempted a HSC or matriculation. Australia's grade system isn't comprised of a pass/fail test system or curriculum. In NSW it is a continuous curriculum of expectations, punctuated by two schools certificates examinations after the leaving age. Fifelfoo (talk) 20:39, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

See Why the Extent of English Illiteracy Is So Well-hidden.

—Wavelength (talk) 18:49, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

That article seems to be about American illiteracy - not English illiteracy!! Alansplodge (talk) 23:18, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

What would be the consequences...

What would be the consequences to America's foreign policy & national security if the U.S were to default on its debt in the future? -- Willminator (talk · contribs) 18:33, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I think this was discussed at some length a couple or three weeks ago. You might want to check the archives. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 18:40, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

In the meantime, let me get out my crystal ball... This is the reference desk, not the prediction desk. μηδείς (talk) 19:07, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Ok, so I went to the archives, but there was nothing about any impact a default would have on U.S foreign policy/national security. I'm pretty sure there are sources and alarming predictions out there. I just haven't found anything detailed yet. Where can I at least go and find this information if no one is willing to direct me to some answers? And predictions that can be backed by other sources are also valid assumptions for the Reference Desk. Willminator (talk) 19:25, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

And I'm pretty sure that almost this exact same question was asked, either just before or just after the shutdown occurred - and it was met with similar cautions about crystal ball. No one can say for sure what would happen. However, there are any number of news sources citing experts on what could happen. Have you looked for this subject in Google? I would stick with editorialists connected with relatively neutral news sources, such as CNN and BBC. Many pundits were predicting a potential "domino effect" on the world's economy, and a downturn in America's standing in the eyes of world. That kind of thing certainly could impact foreign policy and national security in some way. But you would need to consult those pundits' writings to learn why that domino effect could happen... and what its consequences could be. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 19:33, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

The US effectively defaulted in 1933, and had previously defaulted several times in the past if one includes all bonds which were not honoured in the past -- with no particular ill-effects (we disallowed the "in gold" clauses in all contracts and bonds in 1833). A short default is not really the same as refusing to honour bonds or notes, which is what some pundits seemed to think was the case. As the biggest "non US government" holder of those bonds and notes is, IIRC, the Federal Reserve (about 2 trillion dollars - or about the total securities held by the two largest foreign countries) and SSA holds nearly five trillion dollars of the debt - the scare reports are pretty far off the mark. Unless, of course, one thinks the SSA and Fed would participate in a panic? I suspect that neither the Fed nor SSA would panic at that point, and all other bonds could be kept current with minimal effort. But scaring people is the standard procedure for politicians. Collect (talk) 19:51, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

While that may be standard procedure for pols, most everyone seemed to be in agreement that we're better off not having to find out what a default would do. The OP's question is about foreign policy and national security, and that covers a lot of ground. I don't recall those subjects coming up very much, compared with the potential economic consequences. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 20:10, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

It isn't so theoretical since the US has defaulted at least twice before. See a USA Today story here and a Huff post story here. Also it is important to note that constitutionally all debt payments are paid first with the millionshundreds of billions in automatic custom fees/income taxes/other fees collected every month, so the only way a "default" would take place is either the Executive would give an unconstitutional order not to pay those first or an Executive branch official would make a major mistake. <sub>⧐ Diamond Way</sub> 20:19, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Where is that in the Constitution? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 20:31, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

The 2 actual defaults aren't in the constitution, but if you mean the debt being constitutionally obligated it would be the 14th Amendment. That was in the news the last 3 weeks ad nauseam for both "teams". <sub>⧐ Diamond Way</sub> 20:48, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I guess you're referring to Section 4: "The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void." ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 21:21, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Section 5 might provide guidance as well. <sub>⧐ Diamond Way</sub> 21:32, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Section 5 authorizes Congress to pass appropriate legislation. That's the can-of-worms found in some of the amendments beyond the Bill of Rights block. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 21:49, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

That would be one interpretation of the section, which is why a news search in the last 3 weeks and back in 1979, 1995 etc. turn up so much colorful language and not just between Republicans and Democrats. <sub>⧐ Diamond Way</sub> 21:58, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't see how there could be more than one interpretation of "Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article." The can-of-worms comes in where the word "appropriate" is concerned. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 22:04, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Applied to both, besides in the U.S. there are at least as many as '9 opinions' that come from a marble palace, Perry v US with the 14th. Interparty splits were evident in the recent write ups with different interpretations of how Congress enforces power or if the 14th lets the Executive enforce more then just debt payments passed by former Congresses. <sub>⧐ Diamond Way</sub> 01:15, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

As Perry notes, the 14th amendment clause merely confirmed an older Constitutional prohibition of default from the 5th amendment, because bonds are considered property. There have been many (generally unanimous) rulings that such government obligations, which include but are not restricted to bonds, are constitutionally protected, and so Congress does not have the power to repudiate them. Except for oddities of the sort that one would expect in centuries of existence, the USA has never nominally defaulted on its debt. The foreign policy & national security consequences are hard to say. It would rightly make the US look ridiculous in the world, and the natural, immediate economic effect of such a needless and irrational act would be very bad, comparable to 1929 or 2008. After that, who knows?John Z (talk) 05:32, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

A significant point in that amendment was to repudiate any Confederate debt. Of course, as with the basic Constitution calling slaves "certain persons" instead of slaves, the amendment doesn't advertise the Confederacy by directly naming it. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 08:16, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Warren Buffett, who is primarily an investor and not so much a politician, has some interesting things to say about the general subject. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 08:13, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Before I forget, I found these browsing this question on Google:

• A debt default occurs anytime a creditor fails to make a timely interest or principal payment.
• 1790 and 1933
• 1790, 1861, 1933, 1979
• 1779, 1862, 1934, 1979
• 1814 & 1979 with some mentions of 1933 & 1790
• Debt ceiling has been left to expire several times prior to 1979 & copy of same story.
• WashPost was 1979 a real default?
• another from WashPo
• from the UK Telegraph
• from Bloomberg
• from NPR
• NY Times. <sub>⧐ Diamond Way</sub> 11:10, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

October 23

humanities

i want all information about the grandson of raavana in the Ramayana.i am referring to vanmali — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.193.118.241 (talk) 11:20, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Does the Misplaced Pages article titled Ravana help any? --Jayron32 17:53, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Vanmali isn't mentioned in the article. --Soman (talk) 03:58, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I've asked WikiProject India if they can help you. The only grandsons of Ravan that I've heard of are Ahiravan and Mahiravan (but not in all versions of the story). Taknaran (talk) 13:07, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Ahiravana, Mahiravana are described his brothers of Ravana. I could not find any mention of sons of Indrajita in the Valmiki Ramayana or the Puranas. Regional Ramayanas may have a character called as Vanmali. --Redtigerxyz 17:03, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Identifying source Journals..

In a work at Wikosurce which I've just finished doing an inital transcription on there are some references to other journals.

Some of these are obvious, but it would be appreciate if someone can help with decoding..

Wikisource:Book_of_Halloween/Magazine_References_to_Hallowe'en_Entertainments

I can't figure out what Delin and W.H.C are. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:49, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

W.H.C. is likely Woman's Home Companion. It was published from 1873 until 1957. Delin is likely The Delineator. Edison (talk) 14:39, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

And Harper's Bazaar was formerly called Harper's Bazar, but it's never been spelled Bazzar. Deor (talk) 21:28, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:16, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Any Info on Jessie Willcox Smith?

I am a student at the College of Staten Island creating a more in depth page for the designer and Illustrator Jessie Willcox Smith. If anyone has any info that I could use it would be most helpful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnmccarthyyy (talk • contribs) 16:01, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I take it that you've already seen our Jessie Willcox Smith page and the list of links at the end? This page has a list of external links and below that, sources, all at the very bottom of the page. Jessie Willcox Smith: American Illustrator by Edward D. Nudelman has a preview on Google Books (well, it does for me anyway!) Alansplodge (talk) 16:18, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Wu Sangui (another story)

You will need a source to support this information if you believe it should be included in Misplaced Pages. - Karenjc (talk) 22:02, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Do you have a question? - Cucumber Mike (talk) 22:05, 23 October 2013 (UTC

The OP seems to be complaining that the article section Wu Sangui#Loyalty and revolt is unfair to the article subject, and offers an explanation why. The place to discuss this is at Talk:Wu Sangui, but as I said, reliable sources will be needed. -Karenjc (talk) 06:48, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Maybe he should contact Mr. Wu's attorney, the Hon. Charles H. Hungadunga. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 02:23, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Speed of transport in 1810s Europe

I'd never heard of the Malet coup of 1812 until just now, when I saw it on the Main Page. According to the "Suppression of the coup" section, Napoleon wrote letters after 7 October that reached Paris by 23 October. According to File:Patriotic War of 1812 ENG map1.svg, Napoleon was near Moscow by the beginning of October. How long would it normally take for an unimpeded express courier to travel this route at this time? Nyttend (talk) 22:39, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Doing some searching, I'm getting (very rough estimate) the distance from Moscow to Paris at 1700 miles or so. The Pony Express could get mail and packages from Missouri to California in about 10 days, which is roughly 2000 miles. So, Napoleon's message certainly could have gotten the message to Paris in a little over 2 weeks. --Jayron32 23:00, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

According to a footnote here, Napoleon himself made it from Smarhon’ in Belarus to Paris in twelve days in December of that year. p. 179 also has a reply written on 16/10 to a letter from the Countess Montesquiou, his son's governess & so presumably in Paris, which was sent on 27/9 - so at this time in the campaign he was returning letters within nineteen days at the outmost. Remember that once an official message got near France it could have been picked up by the Chappé telegraph; by 1812 there was a signal network as far as Amsterdam and Venice, so I'm not sure how far east it had got into Germany. Andrew Gray (talk) 23:22, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Simply Chappe telegraph (no accent). — AldoSyrt (talk) 07:45, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Redirect has been created. Tevildo (talk) 20:03, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

In French, no accent to Claude Chappe, the inventor. Strange that his name gets one in English. — AldoSyrt (talk) 15:33, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Maybe he's considered a happé chappé in Englois. -- Jack of Oz 21:56, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

• I know I have seen travel time maps like these of the US in 1800/1830 of France during the revolutionary and Napoleonic eras in a class I took on the era as an undergrad. I have not succeeded at google, but they exist. μηδείς (talk) 02:17, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Referring to civil unrest and violence in Northern Ireland

When referring to violence in Northern Ireland (specifically in the second half of the 20th century) is saying "the Troubles" considered politically charged? Is there an accepted way to write about this in say political science or IR or global affairs literature? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.212.253.17 (talk) 23:39, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

The Misplaced Pages article is titled The Troubles and makes no specific mention that the term is perjorative or charged; however like much involved in such ethnic conflicts, literally EVERYTHING is "charged" in the sense that there is probably no "neutral" stance. --Jayron32 23:52, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Covering the troubles Christopher Hitchens was stopped by armed men at a roadblock and asked, "Are you Catholic or Protestant?" Hitchens replied, "I'm an atheist." The gunman responded, "Catholic atheist, or Protestant atheist?" μηδείς (talk) 01:01, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

That's a variant of an old joke; in its more classic form, the reply "I'm a Jew" is followed by "Are you a Catholic Jew or a Protestant Jew?" AnonMoos (talk) 01:30, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

If so, Hitchens' version at least makes sense; me being a Jewish Catholic, and a Catholic atheist. μηδείς (talk) 20:23, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

So were you like Bill Maher, who said he used to go to Confession and bring a lawyer with him? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 02:19, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Good one! Actually, if you needed a lawyer the best confessor to go to would be a Jesuit. They could be relied on to find loopholes to make your sins into lesser ones or guilt-free. It's called casuistry. Technically I am Jewish through my mother's ancestry. Culturally I am Catholic. But I have no faith. μηδείς (talk) 16:44, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I always thought of it as a typically Irish, fairly understated euphemism similar to World War II being known as "The Emergency". Biggs Pliff (talk) 01:07, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

English also, as in the book 1066 and All That. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 04:00, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I can't recall seeing any alternative term that is at least quasi-official, universal and less charged. Militant Republicans have used the phrase "the Armed Struggle" for the IRA's campaign against British military presence in Northern Ireland, but this hardly counts. The University of Ulster's CAIN website (Conflict Archive on the INternet) includes a good glossary of terms, loaded and neutral, connected with this subject, and points out that its own site uses 'The Troubles' and 'Northern Ireland conflict' interchangeably. -Karenjc (talk) 07:11, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

My view (UK) is that "The Troubles" came into use precisely because it was seen as much less politically charged than any alternative. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:36, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Alansplodge (talk) 07:38, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Yep. Even "Northern Ireland conflict" has connotations for those who prefer the term "Ulster". The CAIN glossary points out that it's not the first time the term "The Troubles" has been used to refer to violence and unrest in Irish history. - Karenjc (talk) 07:58, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Although I think you would have to specify if you meant any other "Troubles" than the late 20th century ones. Alansplodge (talk) 12:18, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Maybe not. Russia had its Time of Troubles between 1598 and 1613. God knows they've had an unending litany of troubled times, a litany that started many centuries before this relatively short period and has continued right up to the present day, but that specific expression refers only to the link. -- Jack of Oz 21:00, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

October 24

Relationship between foreign services

What's the relationship between the foreign (including clandestine) services of United States, Britain, Israel, Russia and China? I know James Bond shows UK and US cooperating - and Israel is an "ally" of the US. What about Russia? is it more hostile? is it "on the side of" China which has somewhat hostile (hack each other etc) relations with the U.S. (I imagine this might be the case due to communist past?). What about Russia and Israel? hostile to each other? Israel I thought was led by loads of Eastern European emigres? I guess I can imagine this going in either direction. so, which are hostile or cooperative among e.g. CIA MI6 Mossad KGB and whatever Chima 's hack happy service is? (plus other branches or foreign services; these are just examples) thanks!!!! 84.3.160.86 (talk) 12:07, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

We could tell you, but we'd have to kill you....-Jayron32 13:08, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Death by a thousand wiki-edits! <sub>⧐ Diamond Way</sub> 19:49, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

FSB replaced KGB.
Sleigh (talk) 19:01, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Fishing dependent communities in Spain and Portugal

Hello, dear Wikipedians.

I've searched a good bit now I reckon, but cannot find a good answer to what I had hoped would be a simple question: Which Spanish and Portugese regions/communities depend the most on fishing? Is their vast distant fishing fleet 'local' to any particular region?

I hope you can help me. Thank you in advance.

88.89.136.248 (talk) 13:06, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Fishing in Portugal#Marine fisheries says The main landing sites in Portugal (including Azores and Madeira), according to total landings in weight by year, are the harbours of Matosinhos, Peniche, Olhão, Sesimbra, Figueira da Foz, Sines, Portimão and Madeira.

The article Spain#Economy doesn't even mention fishing, so maybe it's not so important there. Duoduoduo (talk) 16:15, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

"Any study of the EU fishing fleet has to start with Spain, by far the EU's most significant fleet that ranks the highest in terms of tonnage, power and value of landings and is only tipped into second place by the Danes for landing volumes and the by Greeks for vessel numbers." This advocacy site mentions Galicia, the Basque ports and Lanzarote (the last for sardines). I'll try and look some more refs up when I have a minute. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:42, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Duoduoduo --the Spanish fishing fleet has been involved in several notorious incidents, such as the Turbot War... AnonMoos (talk) 01:26, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

OP here. Thank you for your answers. I had indeed gained the impression that Galicia, Eskuria and Lanzarote might be very important. I had simply not thought to look at the main country website for Portugal, thinking these secrets would be buried far deeper in the internet. This should be sufficient information for me. 88.89.136.248 (talk) 18:53, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

• • OP here: *Euskadi — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.89.136.248 (talk) 19:09, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

If you ask any Cornish or Irish fisherman where "their vast distant fishing fleet (is) 'local' to" they'll probably say "here". Alansplodge (talk) 20:39, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I know what you're getting at, Alan, but distant fishing fleets are all based in a certain port and travel vast distances. It started with the Basques and the English going to the Grand Banks from the 15th century or so. The other kind of fishing is inshore fishing (article needed), where boats go out only a short distance and return within 24 hours with a fresh catch. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:45, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid I was having a rant, but the whole system seems to be grossly wasteful and unfair with only the Spanish benefitting. Alansplodge (talk) 12:21, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Is Christianity just more intertwined in African American culture?

Is Christianity just more intertwined in African American culture, or are African Americans just more religious than white people? I recently watched a PBS documentary about African Americans, and one scene talked about how Europeans could not enslave other Europeans because Europeans were perceived to be Christian, and Christians could not enslave other Christians. In that case, the loophole would be: if you convert to Christianity, then you can be free, right? I suppose this was where the skin color/racial issue came about. Is African American spirituality (mainly Christianity) a large part of African American culture due to struggles during the slave years of the United States? (Nowadays, you hear African American music like Where is the love? by Black Eyed Peas and it can be loaded with Christian references.) 140.254.227.56 (talk) 14:24, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Atlantic slave trade and abolition discusses how religion was used both for and against slavery.

Another factor in your question is the way that minorities or groups who perceive themselves to be disadvantaged, may use their distinctive style of worship as a symbol of their own identity. An extreme example is The Troubles in Northern Ireland that we have been discussing above; I'm not sure that many of the violent characters that drove the struggle are particularly devout Christians, but they define themselves and their community in terms of their faith that includes their friends but excludes their enemies. Alansplodge (talk) 17:03, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Christianity in the United States may give you some insight. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 17:05, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

• You seem to be talking about differences in cultural expression. Southern and black Christian denominations tend to be very expressive in worship, with song and dance and call-and-response preaching styles, with Gospel music, and speaking in tongues. Italians and Irish tend to be more religious in a quiet, intense, superstitious sort of way. I have in all my life never heard a congregant speak out or anyone make any spontaneous declaration a a Roman or Byzantine Catholic church. Only once, 30 years ago, was there ever applause at my local parish. The priest announced the mortgage on the church had been paid off. One person clapped, and there was some stunned reaction to this. Then the priest said "go ahead, applaud" and there was a standing ovation. μηδείς (talk) 19:13, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
• Christiantity is very important in White Anglo-Saxon Protestant culture ... Its just that "WASPs" tend not to be outwardly expressive about it. It's considered gauche to outwardly religious. Inwardly religious is fine. Blueboar (talk) 19:35, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

• For an inside view with the question see Intercession. Although this theme is more relevant to Catholicism and the Eastern species of Christianism than to its other branches, the point of agreement and understanding between Christians (which you called "loophole") depends on it, and most religious abolutionists understood it for this. Calvinists tended to be more practical indeed, but not excluding the agreement. The non-abstract aspect of the question is that someone - the more religiously aware - have to be able to intercede. Mysticism is an other question. --Askedonty (talk) 20:18, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

It seems to be a basic premise of Christianity, from the initial comments of Jesus about Pharisees, that it is not possible to tell how religious someone is from their observances. And everyone's opinion is different. Citing a "fruit of the tree" principle I might say that groups like the SNCC and Martin Luther King, Jr., the abolitionists, liberation theology, even the Deism of Thomas Jefferson would represent highlights of the Christian philosophy --- but that would be more a statement about me than about them. But surely there are good and bad people of all races. Wnt (talk) 02:03, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

African American Christians could still be slaves, couldn't they? There was no magic solution, you couldn't be freed just by being Christian, as far as I understand. However, this actually was the case in certain places in the Middle Ages - Christians couldn't be enslaved, and converting to Christianity (if you were a Muslim/Jewish/pagan slave) would automatically set you free. (Theoretically, anyway.) Adam Bishop (talk) 10:07, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Andrew Brown

Are Andrew Brown (writer) and Andrew Brown (media strategist) the same personn? thanks, --88.160.13.244 (talk) 16:02, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Interesting question, reading both wikiarticles carefully there are some general similarities but I would say no they are different people. <sub>⧐ Diamond Way</sub> 19:45, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

No, different people. Both "Andrew" and "Brown" are fairly common names, so the coincidence of names+dates isn't that remarkable. Andrew Gray (talk) 20:15, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Notability of same age/name/profession would be at least a little remarkable. <sub>⧐ Diamond Way</sub> 21:32, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Given that one self-identifies as English, and the other is Gordon Brown's brother... No. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:53, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

The one that "self-identifies as English" has Misplaced Pages listing his "nationality" as something not "English" (infobox). Given that the other's brother was PM Brown it seems both have claimed to be British. <sub>⧐ Diamond Way</sub> 21:59, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

As Gordon Brown's father was a Church of Scotland minister in Kirkcaldy, the it seems unlikely that his brother was born in London, although not impossible I suppose. Alansplodge (talk) 07:36, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

October 25

The town of Bulembu and the Bulembu clan

A post at the Help Desk requested help in finding sourcing to establish that the name for the town of Bulembu originated with the Bulembu clan of people, who are born with certain gifts that are passed down from parents to children where "bulembu" is the gift. I cross posted this request at Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/Language. -- Jreferee (talk) 04:42, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

It seems unlikely. The article on the town says the name comes from the Swati language word spider web; the meaning is the same in the Zulu language, and I cannot find any Zulu word for gift that resembles this. To have a clan named after a spider web doesn't seem at all unlikely. Attributing it rather to a gift may be a more modern face-saving back story, see also folk etymology. That being said, this is Swati, and not Zulu, (although they are very close) and I do not have a Swati dictionary and cannot prove a negative. μηδείς (talk) 16:38, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Editable

Besides wikipedia and rationalwiki, which are the top 5 high traffic editable encyclopedias online? Pass a Method talk 12:27, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Uncyclopedia has to be up there. <sub>⧐ Diamond Way</sub> 00:13, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

I would like you to add my books to your references

Under your title HADRIAN, could you please add my book as a reference: Hadrian and Antinous, their Lives and Times, by Michael Hone, 2013, on line at Amazon.

Under Antinous could you please add my book as a reference: Hadrian and Antinous, their Lives and Time, by Michael Hone, 2013, on line at Amazon.

Under Troy could you please add my book as a reference: TROY, on line at Amazon, by Michael Hone, 2012, on line at Amazon.

All of these works are on sale at $1:00 but can be downloaded for free, proof that I'm not at all interested in money.

Sincere Thanks,

Michael Hone — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.156.243.203 (talk) 13:37, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

The Hadrian and Antinous book and Troy book seem to be a self-published book. WP:USERGENERATED notes that self-published media are largely not acceptable in Misplaced Pages articles as Misplaced Pages reliable sources. Also, they do not seem to qualify for article placement under Misplaced Pages:External links. -- Jreferee (talk) 14:18, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Would a self-published book by an already-notable author, like for example David McCullough, be considered reliable? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 14:40, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Adding them as a reference, even if they were reliable, wouldn't make sense if they hadn't actually been used as a source for any of the information in the article. Mingmingla (talk) 15:12, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

To answer Bug's question... A lot depends on the reputation of the author and the specific subject matter of the self-published work. We do allow self-published works from established experts writing in their field of expertise. McCullough, for example, has earned respect from other historians for his works on American history and biography. That reputation would qualify him as a subject matter expert to some extent. So, if he self-published a biographical work relating to American History, we would probably not disqualify that book as a source. However, the same would not hold true if he self-published a book on (say) Macro-economics. That is not within his field of expertise. Blueboar (talk) 15:20, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

That makes sense. As with blogs, self-published works are pretty much only valid for expressing what their author thinks about something... maybe unless said blogs or self-published books have been peer-reviewed and then recommended by said peers. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 23:29, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Why does the US spy on its allies?

What's the point at all? They are not planning attacks on the US, or are lenient with terrorists (maybe Saudi Arabia is an exception here, but, it is a peculiar ally). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boreish23 (talk • contribs) 18:26, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Speaking on yesterday's The World at One, a retired senior British intelligence bigwig (for some reason that episode isn't available for download, so I can't check who specifically) said pretty much:

• every government does it, to everyone they can, all the time
• no politician (that we work for) ever complained to us that we were giving them info that came from spying on a "friend" like this
• before Dr. Merkel complained she should have consulted with the Bundesnachrichtendienst, 'cos they do it too, and she surely gets the product of that from them

-- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 18:51, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

As to why they'd bother- countries like the US and Germany are both "friends" (countries are not little girls - they don't have BFFs) and competitors:

• it's useful for negotiations (as they're all kinds of talks always going on, including endless trade disputes and treaties)
• for commercial purposes (where an intelligence agency passes info on to companies in its country - so if the boss of Airbus tells Angela Merkel how much they're offering to charge China Air for some A310s, NSA can tell Boeing who can just undercut that, without cutting their own throat). Again, the Americans aren't the only ones doing this - it was generally believed that the DGSE bugged the first-class cabins of Air France Concordes, and passed juicy commercial goodies on to French companies (ref, for example, Keeping Us Safe: Secret Intelligence and Homeland Security]] by Arthur Hulnick). An interview with someone from the VSSE about commercial espionage in Brussels is here.

-- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 19:03, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

But here's my favourite - as you know, the UK broke the German Enigma cipher and the similar but fancier Lorenz machine - but after the war, they kept their ability to do so completely secret. Why? Because the many independent Commonwealth countries that were emerging from the vanishing British Empire were using Enigma machines or similar rotor devices (commercial German variants, Swedish and American made Hagelin machines, and apparently some actual Enigmas and Lorenz machines the British captured at the end of the war). So up-and-coming Commonwealth countries including India, Pakistan, Ceylon, and various Caribbean states, could all be intercepted without issue. (ref, for example, Empire of Secrets: British Intelligence, the Cold War and the Twilight of Empire by Calder Walton). I think Australia, New Zealand, and Canada were in on the "ULTRA" secret and so this wouldn't work on them. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 19:30, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

• Finlay's answers are spot on. I would just add the Jonathan Pollard case. There are also the quotes of Lord Palmerston, Charles de Gaulle, and John Foster Dulles that nations have interests, not friends. μηδείς (talk) 19:40, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

All countries spy on their allies, if they can. At least I assume they do. Then if they get caught, the spied-upon country will affect as much hurt outrage as they think will benefit them, but most likely they're spying on the other country too. Merkel's biggest gripe is likely to be not so much that Obama can hear her phone calls as that her spies aren't good enough to let her hear his. That is, assuming they're not, which who knows. --Trovatore (talk) 19:42, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

The same World at One also had an interview with a guy from a German security company which was in the process of rolling out an add-on cryptosystem for German Government handis, which consisted of an SD-Card with an additional crypto hardware chip (and some software for the phone to use it, I guess). He said that he didn't think Merkel had one of these in the timeframe in question (bet you're ass she's got one now). He said that once she did have the chip, NSA wouldn't be able to intercept her any more (but MRDA...). We can also recall the battle Obama had with USSS+NSA about keeping his Blackberry - it looks like he succeeded, but only because they made him a crap(pier) one. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 20:52, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I remember hearing some years ago an allegation that a company bidding in a telecoms auction had received information about the other bids from the intelligence services of the allied government where it was based. At the time I thought to myself what on earth are they doing getting engaged in commercial espionage instead of tackling terrorism, but now it occurs to me that the intelligence services probably had an arrangement with the company to help them with their spying if they got the bid. So much for allies! Dmcq (talk) 23:44, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Sweden

Two questions about Sweden: 1) According to the Economy of Sweden article, business is largely private, with only 5% of companies state-owned. But over 50% of Sweden's GDP comes from government spending. So what goods and services does the government supply exactly?

2) Why haven't private companies moved to other countries to escape high taxes? 74.15.138.165 (talk) 19:11, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

(1)They have very high tax rates and social spending, this gets taken from and funneled back to private businesses. (2) How do you move a restaurant, a grocery store, a mine, a dentist's office, or a moving company overseas? μηδείς (talk) 19:42, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Endorse this. What goods and services does the government supply? Overwhelmingly services, and those mainly health and education, as in most developed countries. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:23, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

It is also worth noting that it says that 5% of companies are state-owned. One explanation for the discrepancy in numbers is that significant parts of GDP comes from national, regional and municipal agencies, health organisations and other forms of organi~sations that aren't companies. /176.10.249.240 (talk) 21:00, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Agree with 176.10.249.240, my limited understanding of nations like Sweden is that 5% of companies are government owned, but that just happens to be the largest oil company, airline, energy utility, brodcast tv network, hospital system, insurance company, bank, car company etc. So despite 5% of all companies that tiny 5% represents something like 70%-90% of the GDP of the nation. It would be similar to the Fortune 500 in the U.S. having the top 300 corporations owned by the government, true it is just a very tiny fraction of all companies large and small, but they are the largest and most powerful corporations. <sub>⧐ Diamond Way</sub> 00:08, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, your understanding is very limited (and possibly prejudiced) indeed. You have no support for these numbers and as far as I can see your claim is completely false. Swedish stateowned companies doesn't exceed 10% of their GDP. You are mistaking your local propaganda and the description of banana republics with reality. --Saddhiyama (talk) 00:25, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Okay, so my next question is: how has business done so well in Sweden despite high taxes? Higher taxes reduces the profitability of business, so shouldn't business be doing worse than it is now? And what do you mean when you say taxes get "funneled back to private business"? Thanks. 74.15.138.165 (talk) 23:58, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

That is a popular economic theory but there are also a lot of believers in Keynesian economics especially where government controls and expenditures are encouraged for their view of economic success. <sub>⧐ Diamond Way</sub> 00:11, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

The problem is you're only looking at half the equation. The money the government takes in taxes hopefully doesn't all end up in the politicians' pockets, but actually is put to use to help the economy. So, good roads, airports, and ports, a well educated, healthy work-force, good fire and police services to protect the business's assets, etc. Third world nations tend to have very low taxes, but the total lack of all these government services makes their economies pathetic by comparison.

In theory, there should be a certain ideal tax rate, where the economy does the best, assuming those taxes are put to good use. US Conservatives would have us all believe that the ideal tax rate is zero, but that's absurd. What the exact ideal tax rate is is difficult to determine, but since countries like Sweden seem to have an impressive GDP per person, this suggests they have it about right. StuRat (talk) 00:12, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

What's absurd is your claim conservatives want a zero tax rate. That's called anarchism. Conservatives want at least a military to protect us and our interests, Police and courts to protect lives and property, and most even support state-owned roads, schools, and a social safety net, though not all. In any case, that conservatives want zero taxes is an ignorant canard. μηδείς (talk) 00:30, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, whatever the tax rate is, they always say it's too high. Can you find any example of them wanting to raise taxes ? As for wanting a military, when you get to the Tea Party movement and Ron Paul, I'm not even sure that's true anymore. They might argue we should all just buy machine guns to stop any invaders, and stay out of world affairs. StuRat (talk) 01:06, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

You seem to be posing the question as if higher taxes were a good thing in and of itself. In any case, Ron Paul's an anarchist crackpot (close to your defend the US with machine guns) in the viewpoint of all but the libertarian left, including the Randians who are indeed for no more than defense spending, the courts and the police. The only common denominator of the various Tea Party organizations is a return to limited, constitutional government. Although people were starving in the streets that year, even a return to 2006 spending levels would cut $1 Trillion off the deficit. All things being equal, of course conservatives and the Tea Party prefer lower taxes. μηδείς (talk) 02:29, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

"Limited government" is right-wing code verbiage for "letting us go back to Jim Crow laws without federal interference." It's not a coincidence when tea partiers show up with Confederate flags. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 05:10, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

And I hasten to add that this did "limited government" stuff did not start with the tea partiers. It goes back to 60s when the civil rights laws were passed and the white supremacists could no longer get their way all the time. They used to call it "states rights". Now they call it "limited government". But either way, it's a longing for a return to white supremacy. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 05:14, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

And my point is that whatever the tax rate is, they want it lowered. If you keep doing as they want, you would eventually arrive at zero taxes. Have you ever heard them say that taxes should never be lowered below a certain rate ? And yes, zero taxes would mean anarchy, but they either don't know this or don't care. StuRat (talk) 03:45, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

What you're missing is that people don't mind so much when other people's taxes go up, they just want their own taxes to go down. For example, I love high taxes on alcohol and tobacco, because those are things I don't use. In general, though, this is really the corollary to a Dilbert some years ago. The boss says in the meeting, "We need to find out what our customers want." Dilbert responds, "What the customers want is better products, for free." We want government services, but we would be very happy if someone else would pay for them. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 05:08, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Need reference about inspiration of Tolkien

I tried to ask the same question at Portal talk:Middle-earth, but I guess the portal might be inactive for some years, I would also ask it there: Article of Half-elven says:"Like many other ideas in Tolkien's mythos, the notion of half-elves is borrowed from Norse mythology, in which elves occasionally had children with humans." Is there a reference to this(e.g. The Letters of J. R. R. Tolkien), or is it merely a speculation?--朝鲜的轮子 (talk) 22:53, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I read the Letters twice and don't remember anything about them being in any way Norse-inspired. The Letters are available here in pdf form. A search reveals no connections. μηδείς (talk) 00:24, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Really? I think there are quite some results if we search Tolkien and Norse in google and google scholar. Maybe the Half-elf thing is less mentioned than others as an example.--朝鲜的轮子 (talk) 02:24, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

I responded to you specifically about the Letters, as you yourself mentioned them. (I was surprised you hadn't found that PDF yourself.) Now that you are challenging me over what's available at google, I am even more curious why you are asking for our help. We don't do debate. You can certainly "search Tolkien and Norse in google and google scholar" and even get back to us if there's something you need explaining. μηδείς (talk) 02:33, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

The OP asked for references, and gave JRRT's Letters as an example of where such a ref might be found. It wasn't meant to be restricted to the Letters. -- Jack of Oz 03:10, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

October 26

• Pages automatically checked for accidental language links
• Misplaced Pages resources for researchers
• Misplaced Pages help forums
• Misplaced Pages reference desk