Revision as of 06:34, 17 October 2011

• 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 12

Upholstery for royal sittery

I remember watching a show about very upper-end (frankly, royal) upholstery that was produced generation after generation and meant to be used to repair furniture which was centuries old. Such as chairs at Versailles and Buckingham Castle and so forth. The show may have been on PBS, but I think it was on the Ovation Channel carried by Time Warner Cable in Manhattan. Can anyone both name the type of fabric and, especially, provide a link to the provider or originasl video? μηδείς (talk) 04:50, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I suspect that you mean Buckingham Palace. Alansplodge (talk) 11:31, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Damask, probably. Here's a provider of damask for upholstery at Buckingham Palace. - Nunh-huh 11:50, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

LOL, Buckingham castle...yeah...palace. Damask is not the word I am looking for. These were simpler fabrics, although Damasks might be included. There was a simple "English" name like "standard" or some such that was used. The cloth was noted for running to hundreds of pounds for the square yard. It was noted for its quality and the fact that the patterns were retained over the centuries to ensure continuity. For example, one could say "I need the Louis Quinze print" to fix a tear in a three century old chair and the right cloth would be in stock. μηδείς (talk) 12:12, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Brocade? --TammyMoet (talk) 12:16, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I am not looking for a specific type of weaving or fabric like tweed or corduroy per se but rather standard patterns of whatever high-quality type that have been maintained for the specific purpose that they will be available to replace worn material with an exact match over time, in the same way that China patterns enjoy a long vogue, so that one can invest in expensive dinner sets without having to replace the entire set because the pattern is no longer in production if just one plate breaks.μηδείς (talk) 12:23, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Isn't this amenable to reverse engineering? Particularly as you're talking about a luxury market of veblen goods (in capital) or feudal ostentation ala Louis XIV's strategy of "dazzle by underlings so they don't rise up" (in pre-capitalism). Reverse engineering in the contemporary era would be fine for restoration. For the pre-modern era, you might look into the economics of Versailles, which supported craftsmen on a long term (well, three generation) basis. Prior to Versailles as a system, you'd want to think about the continuity of female or religious domestic production, as in the "oeconomy" of the home-producers. Most feudal households maintained a continuity of economic function that would make even the longest lasting capitalist corporations envious. You'd also want to look at the "lay" orders of religious in the Low Countries. A key site of economic production, leveraging their position in the trade networks of Europe. I know this doesn't go directly to your question about maintaining long production cycles of specific cloths, but it does explain that prior to the factory system, production units were much longer lived being based in households and communities. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:27, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

The problem for any search seems to be that there is no simple distinctive key word. My hope was that someone here had seen the show which was almost certainly produced by or in conjunction with the BBC. I can imagine Ozwald Boateng or Princess Michael of Kent being interviewed. Perhaps regarding the renovation of a palace. The segment in question dealt with a shop in London which specialised in these kinds of luxurious and very standard traditional patterns (imagine, say, Burberry Tartan then take it up a few notches in quality and down a notch in gaudiness) kept in production unchanged for generations (believe since at least the 18th century) to service noble estates. The fabric proprietor showed rolls of the different cloths, specifically one in red and gold, explaining the exclusive tradition. I do believe the fabrics were produced in the Low Countries. The word standard keeps coming to mind, but whatever it was it was a common English word being used in a very specific sense and it wasn't a word I am familiar with like print or bolt from every-day seamstressing. μηδείς (talk) 02:48, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I suggest you contact a GLAM information professional at a museum of science and technology. If you lived in NSW or Australia, I'd suggest the Powerhouse Museum. Asking to speak to their curator of fabrics might be the best way forward. Seems to be] the context you're dealing with, but I'm not able to find the concept of a standard beyond the idea of the "pattern" in a Jacquard. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:21, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I think the Met is a great idea. μηδείς (talk) 10:38, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Ancient Roman math

How did the Ancient Roman use Roman numerals to do bookkeeping and calculate volumes, curves for arches and water flumes and other structures like the Coliseums or did they bring in Arabs or Greeks who had better tools to make such calculations? --DeeperQA (talk) 07:53, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I can't answer your question directly, but there are ways of doing multiplication. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 08:02, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Romans used the abacus to do calculations.
Sleigh (talk) 08:49, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Using various forms of abacus, which are ideally suited to Roman numerals. Note that these are not like the toy abacuses you see for children today, which are good for nothing but basic counting and tallies: these abacuses have units, 5s, 10s, 50s, etc, and can be used to calculate complicated problems very quickly, once you're trained. There was a long-running dispute between whether the Roman-numeral based abacus method, or the Arabic-numeral based algebraist method, was better, with dualing calculations. In the end, Europe went with Arabic numerals and written calculation. Note that this wasn't an obvious choice: a portable abacus can be more convenient than a sandtray for writing calculations in, and both methods can be done mentally to an extent. 86.163.1.168 (talk) 08:55, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Note that Arabic numerals as we known them only date from around the 9th century AD, so they wouldn't be much use for the Romans. Greek numerals may seem slightly simpler than Roman numerals, but they still don't use positional values or zero in writing large integers, meaning modern math isn't much easier. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:02, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Which Romans? Byzantium Fifelfoo (talk) 09:45, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I believe the golden age of Colosseum (sic for amphitheatres I guess) and aqueduct building was over before byzantine times. --Saddhiyama (talk) 18:00, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Two excellent sources on Roman technology that I'm aware of, that are easily accessible in English online, are works by Vitruvius and Pliny the Elder. The former, an engineer by trade, is probably more likely to give you the kind of information you're looking for. Our article is a good one and includes lots of links to external sites where you can read his books. Pliny, who famously died in the eruption at Pompeii, an event recorded by his nephew, the arguably more famous Pliny the Younger, was more interested in nature, but as an admiral and a scientist recorded a fair bit about technology in passing, from what I remember. --Dweller (talk) 09:28, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Don't forget Frontinus, who wrote the fascinating work De aquaeductu on the state of the aqueducts of Rome. The Latin text of the book can be read here and the English translation here. --Saddhiyama (talk) 18:00, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

By the way, astronomers in the Roman empire used a sexagesimal (base-60) notation system, which was closer to being a place-value or positional system than any other numerical notation system in use around the Mediterranean at that time. Not sure whether engineers would have used it (and accountants definitely wouldn't have). AnonMoos (talk) 11:53, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Why did Republicans block Obama jobs bill?

Is there much truth in Obama's assertion that "...they'll have a hard time explaining why they voted no on this bill - other than the fact that I proposed it"? (source: BBC News, 12 October 2011 01:15 GMT) Astronaut (talk) 10:44, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Note to answerers: Please avoid having just a debate over this. Please back up any answers with references. Thanks in advance. --Mr.98 (talk) 11:49, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Look up Jim DeMint's infamous "Waterloo" policy (which oddly is not mentioned on the Jim DeMint article), and peruse this article by Mike Lofgren for the underlying basic general reasons... AnonMoos (talk) 11:59, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

This question is political showboating that should be deleted. The fact is that there is a Democratic majority in the Senate and it is they who did not pass the bill. μηδείς (talk) 12:04, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

As the Senate rules require a vote of at least 60 senators to allow a bill to even reach the point of discussion, and it would have required several Republican senators to reach that number of votes, it is, in fact, correct to state that the Republicans blocked the bill. --LarryMac | Talk 12:10, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

News articles on the topic list reasons given by Republicans - e.g. and . The primary argument given is that it is very similar to the 2009 stimulus package, which did not meet all its targets, and the Republicans argue that it was a failure. You may agree or disagree with this line of argument, but they do not appear to have any trouble giving the explanation, so I would contend that Obama's specific assertion given above is incorrect. Warofdreams talk 12:33, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

(EC) I'm not from the US but as I understand it while some (2 according to the source) Democratic senators may not have supported the bill, it was a moot point because they needed 60 votes to overide a filibuster and there is not a Democractic 60 vote majority (supermajority) in the Senate so it was in the power of Republicans to filibuster the bill in the Senate and they did so (or technically 2 Democracts and all 47 Republicans). Reading the source above and other US sources seems to reaffirm my view.

Not mentioned in the source, but as I understand it, technically the Democrats in the senate could use the 'nuclear option', as they can change the rules with only a simple majority so can remove the requirement for a 60 vote majority to overide a filibuster. But so far neither party has considered it a wise move as it raises serious issues which go beyond any single bill. Is this what you're referring to? If so, solely blaming the Democractic majority for refusing to change a long standing tradition which was way beyond the jobs bill seems a bit flawed, particularly at this early stage in the process where it seems likely it'll be even more controversial. To be fair, it seems they did make minor use of what can be called the nuclear option recently, which was itself fairly controversial even though it seems to be of limited consequence in itself and mainly about stopping a different kind of filibuster, using amendments to make a point a delay a bill briefly. But if anything, that just seems to re-affirm the view that the nuclear option is indeed a nuclear option.

Of course as I'm said I'm not from the US, so if I'm wrong I welcome sourced corrections.

Nil Einne (talk) 12:42, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

The majority decides whether a cloture vote is held. The politically safe failed cloture vote was brought intentionally by the Democrat leadership, knowing that it would fail, so that Republicans could be described as "do nothing". But it is reported that had the cloture vote passed, enough Democrats who voted for cloture would have voted against the bill itself to prevent its passing. "Sen. Jim Webb, D-Va., had said earlier that although he intended to vote in favor of ending the Republican filibuster, he did not intend to support the bill if it reached a final vote." μηδείς (talk) 18:27, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Nowhere did your article report that "had the cloture vote passed, enough Democrats who voted for cloture would have voted against the bill itself to prevent its passing". Please don't cite sources to support your statements if the sources do not, in fact, support your statements. --140.180.26.155 (talk) 20:50, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. The source does say Jim Webb would not have supported the bill, and since the motion to end cloture was 50-49 a naïve reasoning may lead one to believe this means it would have failed. However per the BusinessWeek source as well as simple math, there was still one missing vote which was a Democratic senator. The Fox News source does not say this missing senator would have opposed the bill nor does it say any other senator who supported the cloture vote would have opposed the bill. Therefore without any evidence to the contrary we can only assume the tally would have been 50-50 if the cloture vote had passed which I believe means VP Joe Biden gets to cast the deciding vote, and there's no evidence to suggest they would have voted against. In other words, no evidence has been presented which demonstrates the bill would have failed, if the cloture has passed.

In any case, AFAIK no evidence has been presented here to suggest the reason for the Republican voting against cloture was because they believe the bill would have failed (so it was a waste of time or whatever). Or to put it a different way, as things stand, there's no evidence to suggest the senate Democrats have any hope of passing the bill even if all 53 come together, sing Kumbaya and reach complete unanimity to pass it.

In the end, all this speculation is just plain silly. You can't say the Democrats are at fault, for what may or may not have happened if the Republicans (and 2 Democrats) had did something they did not do and were never going to do anyway. Even if evidence does emerge it would have failed, the original statement "it is they who did not pass the bill" is clearly wrong, "they" never got the opportunity to "not pass" the bill because of something the Republicans and 2 Democrats did. Now if the Republicans had supported cloture, and the bill had failed, μηδείς would have a point, but that's not what happened.

Edit: Just noticed the BusinessWeek (actually AP) source which I provided earlier, but not the FoxNews source μηδείς provided, says Joe Lieberman opposed the measure although it doesn't explicitly say he would have vote against it. This does suggest it may have failed 49-51 but as I said above such speculation is silly. We can't be sure what would have happened if something else had happened which didn't happen. I also note even if the bill had come to vote and failed, the most accurate summation would not be 'they who did not pass the bill', but 'all Republicans and 4 Democrats (or 3 + 1 independent who supports them) who did not pass the bill' (or whatever the tally was). And just to be clear, I'm not arguing that stopping the bill was wrong, simply pointing out what we actually know, and what actually happened.

Nil Einne (talk) 21:52, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the article to which I linked did, when featured on Fox News' front page, indeed originally say that fewer Democrats would have voted in favor of the bill itself than voted for cloture. In any case, all reports about this bill have said dead on arrival and that it would not have been passed even on a Dem majority. No source indicates it had majority support for passage. μηδείς (talk) 22:14, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

But the Senate is a complicated place — you don't know how many votes until you actually vote on it. Which the Republicans have made clear they don't want to do. So I do think that saying the Republicans have been the ones to stall it is correct. There's no wiggling out of the fact that they've decided to filibuster it rather than put it up to the vote. Presumably enough of them are afraid it could actually get passed that they're unwilling to take the chance. --Mr.98 (talk) 22:21, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Having played the late VP candidate in our high school's mock presidential debate in 1984, I can say I understand the mechanics of the legislature. The point is not that the Republicans "blocked" the bill but that the Democrats brought it up when they knew cloture would fail, regardless of reports that the bill itself would have failed in both the Senate and the House. The proper question here is not why the Republicans "blocked" the bill, but why the Dems brought it up for a vote knowing (see Whip (politics) ) it would fail. The answer is the politically risk-free base-appeasing opportunity to blame the Republicans for not voting for a hugely unpopular bill without having to risk a backlash at its having been passed. μηδείς (talk) 23:14, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Just as a note I found several sources suggesting there was one more Democrat who said they would have voted against it , but again, no real difference to my point. I agree with Mr.98 obviously although the Republican POV (of not wanting to risk it) is understandable. From what I read the other 2 people who said they would vote against it are not facing re-election and either way, anyone can say 'I would have done X' when you know few are going to remember or care (which applies both ways); or as a trick. And most Democrats senators would be laughing at their Republican counterparts if they had let it through only for those who said they would vote against it to turn around and say 'hahahaha, you believed that crap?' and passed it. The Republicans clearly didn't want that so didn't risk it, helped by 2 superflurous Democrats, even though letting a few Democrats help really kill the bill may have been better for them. Then again suggests both Obama and the Republican senate leader want gridlock because they believe it will serve either to improve Democratic numbers on congress or to stop Obama getting re-elected, so perhaps both parties got what they wanted. As I said earlier though, what happened happened, regardless of the reasons or what may have happened in other circumstances. Nil Einne (talk) 23:06, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

At the risk of provoking boring political debate, it should be pointed out that some political pundits have said that this was a bill that no one ever thought would pass. Obama proposed an unpassable jobs bill, it's said, so that he could focus his 2012 presidential campaign against a "do nothing" Congress. What we're seeing now is not a serious attempt to pass legislation, but political theater. Whether or not you agree with this assessment, some folks see it that way. 71.72.156.36 (talk) 00:17, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I noted that above except that I also noted some sources like suggest both Obama and the Republican/minority leader prefer the current state of affairs as they both believe it will serve their purposes. Nil Einne (talk) 03:40, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

best selling living poets

I can't believe I can't find this easily online. Who are the best selling living poets, and how many books do they sell (on average) each year? Harley Spleet (talk) 10:46, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Whoever the best selling recording artists are. They don't sell books, they sell CDs or songs on iTunes.
Sleigh (talk) 11:03, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

This is a good question. I'm sorry I don't know the answer, but Sleigh's answer is obviously not what you're looking for. The Nobel Academy obviously distinguishes between songwriting and poems.... Spleet has a very fair question. Shadowjams (talk) 11:22, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually, Sleigh's is the exactly correct answer. It's a bizarre sort of elitism that confers the title poet only to obscure artistes whose claim to fame is lack of popular recognition. I would go with Pink Floyd for Dark Side of the Moon or Fleetwood Mac for Rumours given that Michael Jackson and Elvis Presley and most of the Beatles are dead. There's also The Rolling Stones' and their Sympathy for the Devil of course.μηδείς (talk) 12:01, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

If we want to stick to people who self-identify as poets, I think Bob Dylan would feature pretty highly. Warofdreams talk 12:13, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh come on RD, we can do better than that. It's pretty obvious what kind of writers the OP is looking for, and it's not rock stars. Dark Side of the Moon, Rumours and so on are not books, which seems to have escaped Medeis' notice, and I'm not sure Dylan self-identifies as a poet either. Even if he does, that doesn't settle the issue of whether he should be considered one for the purposes of this question. I don't know the answer, but I would have thought that, in the English-speaking world at least, people like Seamus Heaney, Carol Ann Duffy and Simon Armitage would be up there. I wouldn't count Pam Ayres as a poet either, although Wendy Cope may qualify. --Viennese Waltz 12:22, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Ah, yes, when I said Sleigh's answer ("Whoever the best selling recording artists are. They don't sell books, they sell CDs or songs on iTunes") was exactly correct, I obviously overlooked the part about not selling books. μηδείς (talk) 19:38, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

So, if we're excluding Pam Ayres, we're looking for the best selling unpopular poet whose words aren't set to music, right? Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:29, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Yup. And we'd better exclude Julia Donaldson, many of whose books are poems, but for the fact that they're, err, not. --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:03, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

There's a useful summary of Dylan's self-identification as a poet, or not, here. Warofdreams talk 12:36, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but his words are meant to be accompanied by music. I'm a huge Dylan fan, and I think his lyrics are wonderfully poetic, but that doesn't make him a poet. Besides, the OP is looking for books, not records and CDs. Maybe Dylan's collected lyrics is a best seller, but it's not his collected poems, is it? --Viennese Waltz 12:57, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm a bit surprised that nobody has mentioned Maya Angelou yet. (Knows little to nothing about any poetry outside of Robert Frost and Flander's Fields ---->) Dismas| 13:11, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I just want to say that I don't think it should matter terribly much whether an individual "self-identifies" as a poet. We all should be competent to evaluate whether or not an individual is a poet on our own. Such an evaluation would obviously focus on the material—not on the person. I don't think the individual in question—in this case Dylan—should be understood to have any special insight into the question being pondered here concerning whether or not the material being evaluated is poetry. Bus stop (talk) 14:54, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I would have expected the "best selling,"(in terms of dollars earned), living poets to be writers of insipid but popular inspirational verse, like the late Helen Steiner Rice, of greeting card fame. Or they might write childrens' poetry, like Dr. Seuss or Shel Silverstein (both of whom died in the 1990's). I would not expect them to be be poets whose work is admired by critics, but aimed at the highbrow reader. The 30th edition version of Silverstein's "Where the sidewalk ends" is #263 in Amazon sales, and #2 in "children's poetry". As a matter of fact, his poetry books are 7 of the 10 best sellers in children's poetry at present at Amazon. The highest placed living writer of children's poetry is Joyce Sidman, who has published 11 books of poetry since 2000. But then I discovered that at Amazon, in the list of best selling books of poetry Tomas Tranströmer, a living "serious" poet, (whose name I can't help reading as "Thomas Transformer") is the author of 4 of the top 10 books at present, so he sounds like a good bet. If you are looking for total career sales as well, he published new works from 1954 through 2004, so there were lots of opportunities for poetry lovers to purchase his work over the years, besides his work being translated into 50 languages. Poetry in translation seem of dubious interest, in general, at least the old fashioned type which rhymed and scanned. For blank verse, a Google machine translation would probably be as much fun to read as the original in many cases. His "The Great Enigma: New Collected Poems" is presently #135 among all books at Amazon. Edison (talk) 15:22, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Just to throw a spanner in the works regarding poetry and music, John Betjeman was the English Poet Laureate, but also had his poems set to music (or formed part of musical works) on several occasions. Does that mean he wasn't really a poet? --TammyMoet (talk) 16:51, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Also Jewel published a book of poetry which apparently sold very well but less on its quality as poetry and more on her fame as a singer. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 17:18, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Speakings of spanners, most if not all of "Shakespeare"'s plays have been the basis of opera libretti, and many of his sonnets have been set as songs. Does that mean he wasn't really a playwright, or a poet? -- Jack of Oz 19:30, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

WOW guys. I'd have thought it would have been obvious from my question that I meant poets in the traditional sense (there's an article on wikipedia about it - poet, if you're interested). I can't work out if μηδείς is a massive troll or just wrong all the time, but no, I don't think it's elitist to say that Fleetwood Mac aren't a poet. Let alone the fact that there's four of them (even Wordsworth & Coleridge had separate names when they released Lyrical Ballads!). I guess I could have better phrased my question: How can I find a list of best-selling poetry books written by living people, but I didn't think I'd have to be so specific. Thanks to all the people who have genuinely been helpful, but I'd have expected a bit better from Misplaced Pages than a load of people squabbling with eachother - it's a bit like arguing with a turing test machine at points. Thanks for the Duffy / Heaney / Armitage / Angelou suggestions - that's helpful. I suspect Transtromer is so high up the list because he's just won the nobel prize for literature, and a load of English-speaking journalists have been urgently brushing up on him so they can write articles. Which sort of leads me on to my question. I know it might be sligtly too much to ask, but if anyone can find a list that answers this (modified) question, I would be very grateful.

Rephrased question: I was recently having a conversation with a friend about living poets, and whether they can make a living from book sales alone. He suggested that it was very unlikely that anyone is making a living solely from publishing books of poetry, and that poets often have other jobs (bank clerk, librarian, giving poetry workshops, etc). Is there a list anywhere that shows the bestselling poetry books from, say, 2010 (although I'll accept a partial 2011 list)? nb: I'm using the word 'poet' in a traditional sense - I don't think Betjeman becomes any less of a poet when he's set to music, but I don't reckon you can put the collected works of Lennon & Mc Cartney down on paper and call them poets - as they're foremost musicians. Not 100% sure about the exact cross-over: both Leonard Cohen and Patti Smith were successful poets before they became successful musicians - I'd accept a hypothetical book by either of them, but not collected lyrics, for the sake of this question.

Sorry for being so picky - I had no idea this would become such a protracted discussion! Harley Spleet (talk) 21:36, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

No need for an apology but if you specifically meant by book sales you could have said by book sales. Not only should you mean what you say, but you should say what you mean. (Lewis Carroll?) μηδείς (talk) 22:02, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

The OP did specifically say book sales. It's true that they didn't anticipate that everyone would immediately say, "but book sales are not important!", but I hardly blame the OP for that. They did say what they meant; the Ref Deskers seemed to decide that what they said was wrong, in their pedantic fashion, and decided to answer the question how they wanted it answered, not the OP. --Mr.98 (talk) 22:23, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for being a voice of sanity and succinctly describing what happens all too often on the internet. Shadowjams (talk) 03:34, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

If he had said "How many books does the best selling poet sell each year" he would have gotten a different answer. I do believe there is something going on when the first thing to occur independently to the first two respondents is "song lyrics." Even the answers that don't address what the OP meant to say strike me as interesting. I myself have bought Plath, Yeats, Keats, Blake, Frost, and Shakespeare as well as Bloom and Paglia on poets. Unfortunately, they are all dead excpet the last who is a critic not an artist. μηδείς (talk) 23:22, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me? What is the difference between "How many books does the best selling poet sell each year" and what he wrote? If he'd written that, you would just have put "But the best selling poets don't sell books! They sell CDs!" and then gone off on your Pink Floyd/Fleetwood Mac riff. What is "going on" here is that you are not answering the question. --Viennese Waltz 07:28, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

This is rather getting off the point, but that is most certainly different to the question asked at the top of this section. It's same difference as between "how many bananas do the best-selling poets sell each year", and "who are the best selling living poets, and how many bananas do they sell each year?". The "and" makes it two different questions, which can have different answers. Warofdreams talk 08:40, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. All the original question makes clear is that the OP assumed we would understand that "best selling" was about books. That turned out to not be the case, but it wasn't a crazy assumption, and if you read the question for what it is (and not as an opportunity to be pedantic), it's clear that's what the OP was asking about. Your example is irrelevant because there is no reason to assume "best selling" and "bananas" have anything to do with each other. If you replace "poet" with "writer" or "novelist" or " essayist" then it becomes indisputable that the assumption is that "best selling" relates to books. Anyway, once again, the Ref Deskers not only have decided that pedantry is the best way to answer questions, they've managed to make the entire thread about their pedantry, rather than about the answers to the questions. I wonder if this is our local idiocy, the way that Yahoo! Answers always devolves into "no way my mum told me so lol" sorts of answers. --Mr.98 (talk) 11:49, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

That's not the way that any of the first few contributors to the thread read the question, so it's hardly indisputable! Warofdreams talk 11:52, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

This isn't the whole story, but the Amazon Best Sellers in Poetry is probably a useful resource in probing this question, at least at the moment. (Unfortunately it's based on what's best selling just this minute, so Tomas Transtromer is heavily overrepresented since he just won the Nobel Prize in Literature.) It's also telling that almost none of them are living. --Mr.98 (talk) 22:25, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

• To steer the discussion toward the kind of poets the original poster was probably thinking about, the Poetry Foundation compiles lists of the best-selling books of contemporary poetry, poetry anthologies, and children's poetry. Supposedly the list is compiled weekly using data from Nielsen BookScan, but it doesn't seem to have been updated since Sept. 25. The same data was used to compile the list of the contemporary poetry best-sellers of 2010. This data won't answer the original poster's question directly, but it will answer the question "Who are some contemporary poets whose books of poetry have sold relatively well recently?" --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:01, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Post office at Harlem, Texas

At http://lifeonthebrazosriver.com/Harlem,Texas.htm

the page says that there was a post office at Harlem, TX (address of a state prison farm) from 1888 to August 31, 1907.

Now I can't use that page as an RS. But it could be useful in helping find something that is an RS that can be used.

What RSes could be used to back up this info? Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 11:25, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

A directory or gazetteer of the area, from that period, would be likely to list the post office, and be a reliable source demonstrating that it existed. Of course, it wouldn't show that it was notable. Warofdreams talk 12:11, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not trying to start an article on it or anything. I just want to see if Jester State Prison Farm ever had a post office. WhisperToMe (talk) 15:30, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

http://www.hallettsvillelibrary.org/microfilm_holdings.pdf says that the Halletsville, TX library has "Wheat, Postmasters and Post Offices of Texas 1846 – 1930" - wouldn't a library in a big Texas city have something like this too? WhisperToMe (talk) 15:32, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Try Clarence Wharton, Wharton's History of Fort Bend County and S. A. McMillan, comp., The Book of Fort Bend County. They're referenced from http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/acj01, but that article itself doesn't mention a post office. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 23:21, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I just found that the Wheat book is online. A search on it comes up with http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~txpost/fortbend.html, which says that there was a post office in Harlem from 1888 to 1907. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 23:25, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Cool! Thank you very much :) WhisperToMe (talk) 02:35, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Wehrmacht veterans

Do Wehrmacht veterans recieve veterans' benefits in modern Germany? Whoop whoop pull up 13:00, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, although those found guilty of criminal activity, including war crimes, could be denied a pension. Here is an English source on this question. Marco polo (talk) 13:16, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, criminals could get their pension denied, but Germany tried to persecute its own war criminals as little as possible, so not many indeed went unpaid. Wikiweek (talk) 14:25, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

If I may disagree with Wikiweek... Denazification was a much more complicated issue than just Germany (If you recall there were two German states after the second world war, or even more correctly four Occupied Zones) refusing to persecute war criminals. Even states that had much more radical approaches often have no clear-cut positive results of their actions. See Pursuit_of_Nazi_collaborators for examples. History, especially this part, is still a very muddy business, see, for example, the impact that Günter Grass' revelations about his past had. --Abracus (talk) 16:00, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it was not just Germany or both German states. But the allies denazified, persecuted and prosecuted, as much as they could. Both German states had their problems. The West German government had more shortcomings as many thought before. From Adenauer's Germany and the Nazi Past by Norbert Frei:

the West German side of de-Nazification and the profound contrast to measures taken by the Allies. The latter tried to promote extensive purges, whereas

the new West German regime showed far greater leniency, especially through the amnesty laws of 1949 and 1954, and by trying to reduce the number of suspected

war criminals singled out for trials."

Wikiweek (talk) 21:01, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I've indented the passage as it was breaking my (and possibly others') display. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 14:26, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

For the record, I believe both Wikiweek and Abracus meant prosecute, not persecute. Comet Tuttle (talk) 16:37, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Not necessarily, "persecute" makes sense in Wikiweek's post at least. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 16:58, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

For all of West Germany's Denazification flaws, they pale in comparison to East Germany, where the Nazis more or less easily transitioned into being the Stasi. --Mr.98 (talk) 22:27, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

What about Austrian and Sudeten Wehrmacht members? Do/did they receive veterans' benefits in their home countries? The Mark of the Beast (talk) 23:27, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Right, the OP asked for Wehrmacht (German military) veterans, not for war criminals or Nazi supporters which are different topics. Remember that military service was compulsory, hence all available men of the appropriate age were drafted. They received during their military service time an allowance of - e.g. in Germany 50 Reichspfennig (0.5 Reichsmark) - a day, which was just enough to buy some tobacco. After a couple of years in service, perhaps wounded several times, they became war prisoners with very little pocket money or were forced to labor camps. This was the common fate of all men in Middle Europe, independent of the nationality. Most men spent six to ten years (1939 thru 1949) in military service and as prisoners of war (some men were released only in 1955). In the social security system of many European countries (not just Germany) this time was reckoned as public duty and gave some financial benefits in the social security. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 09:34, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

@Pp.paul: no, war criminals are not a different topic. It's obvious that Wehrmacht veterans got a pension. The question is if even Wehrmacht veterans who committed war crimes had a right to a pension in their capacity as Wehrmacht veterans or merely the old-age pension like everyone else? And to what degree war criminals who served in the Wehrmacht got a pension as Wehrmacht veterans. Indeed, West Germany could deny payment to war criminals, but was not forced to investigate applicants, so many got pensions, even if they committed crimes. Quest09 (talk) 14:07, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Soldier's wages, veterans' benefits or pensions are probably paid in states who have paid soldiers. Conscription in Germany (up to 1 July 2011) and other European states forced every man into the army. Hence there was no need to pay soldiers, and no need for benefits or special pensions for soldiers, just the "old-age pension like everybody else" for the recruits (draftees) and a pension for the officers (volunteers). Does this help? --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 15:37, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

No, it doesn't help at all. It's simply not on topic. Conscription in Germany is relevant for the period between 1956 up to 2011. There is nothing there about Wehrpflicht veterans. Quest09 (talk) 16:17, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I doubt that some state, even one with conscription, didn't have any professional soldiers. Modern armies are simply too complex to be left completely at the hand of the poorly trained conscripted soldiers. The drafts were (and still might be applied again) simply a form of completing the army. 88.11.244.183 (talk) 16:39, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Agree - conscription does not mean the summary rejection of all volunteers for not being conscripted. Whoop whoop pull up 19:52, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Number related to US veterans' affairs

Working in an archive, I've come across a series of papers (produced in the early 1970s) related to different US military veterans. Most of these letters include numbers in close physical proximity to the names of the different veterans; the numbers are typically of the format letter-space-numeral-numeral-space-numeral-numeral-numeral-space-numeral-numeral-numeral; e.g. they often appear as "C 99 999 999 John Doe". Are these VA file numbers for the named individuals, or are they something else? Nyttend backup (talk) 13:47, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Does the article Service number (United States Armed Forces) help? --Jayron32 14:03, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, thanks; I've never heard of service numbers before. Nyttend backup (talk) 14:10, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Milan Kantor married Anne Murdoch

They had five children. incl Michael (married Sylvia), Julie and Eve (married Mark Wootton). What are the names of the two others? Kittybrewster ☎ 14:40, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

One of them was named Tom Kantor (1965-2001). I haven't been able to find the name of the fifth child.--Cam (talk) 15:13, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Apparently he was a middle brother which means that we are hunting a male. Did he have a wife or children? Kittybrewster ☎ 15:20, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Map of the caves Balankancha

Hello! For the Russian Misplaced Pages need a map\scheme Balankanche cave, but the license and copyright permission. Even better with the right to free distribution. Please help. Странник27 (talk) 15:04, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

If you have some source data, you can request that a map be created for you at Misplaced Pages:Graphic Lab/Map workshop. --Jayron32 18:35, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Cost of Canada Post to tax payers

Does Canada Post receive any funding or subsidy from the government of Canada? Does Canada Post still have to pay tax on its earnings like any other corporation?

I can't find anything on the WP article nor google searches. I can find its profits every year, but I'm not sure how much of those profits are subsidies. 142.150.237.60 (talk) 15:16, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Based on what I can deduce from sources such as this annual report, Canada Post does not receive any direct subsidies from the government of Canada, and it pays taxes on its earnings like other corporations. What I don't know is whether there are provisions in Canada's tax code that offer unique benefits to Canada Post. In a few recent years, Canada Post has had a negative tax liability. That is, it received a net tax refund in those years. However, in every recent year, Canada Post has had positive net income (or profit), after taxes. In years when Canada Post has had a net tax refund, that profit has exceeded its net tax refund, so the profit was not entirely due to the refund. Since Canada Post is a crown corporation wholly owned by the government, any profit it earns is in effect income for the Canadian government in addition to any tax payments made by Canada Post. Of course, a substantial part of any profit may be reinvested in the business. However, Canada Post apparently has no net cost to taxpayers. In fact, Canada Post appears to contribute to the government's income, thereby reducing the need for taxes. Marco polo (talk) 19:05, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the help. That answers my question perfectly.142.150.237.62 (talk) 22:56, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Extent of the Hopi / Navajo Nation Reservation in Arizona

I have found conflicting maps of the location of the Hopi and Navajo Nation maps and would like some clarification. Some maps look like this, showing a small Hopi Exclave west of the main reservation:

But others look like this: Map without Hopi Exclave

Which is correct? --CGPGrey (talk) 16:35, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

That is the Hopi enclave of Moenkopi, Arizona, near Tuba City. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 17:12, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Income inequality in the US after 2008?

Why do all the graphs on Income inequality in the United States end before 2008? Dualus (talk) 18:28, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Two possiblities I can think of:

1. 2008 was the last year that the data actually has been published for
2. There is more recent data which exists, but no volunteer has updated the article and its graphics with that data.

Those are the best answers I can think of. --Jayron32 18:33, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I found the data for 08/09/10, here under "H-1 all races" (3rd down). I don't really know how to update or make images/graphs, but hopefully someone here will. Apparently the rich got richer and the poor got poorer, now how about that. Public awareness (talk) 19:45, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

But that is not even possible under a progressive president and Nobel Peace Prize winner, is it? μηδείς (talk) 04:12, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

In the US there are three branches of government, and Donald Trump is more progressive than the president. The Senate is full of Blue Dog Democrats and won't pass anything without 60% of States where North Dakota and California are treated as equals. And the Supreme Court just recently gave foreign donors and anonymous shell corporations the right to spend whatever they want on political campaigns. The Peace Prize is normally awarded by helping to reduce the combat death rate, not total lifespan. Dualus (talk) 17:31, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

If you click on the image with the old graph in Misplaced Pages, it will bring you to the image information page, which will tell you who created the graph. If you contact that user on his/her user talk page, and provide them with the new data, perhaps they would be willing to create a new graphic for the article. --Jayron32 20:00, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Ugh, I'm trying to do it myself. I'm trying without success to install gnuplot, there's no executable....ugh. Public awareness (talk) 20:44, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

See Misplaced Pages:Graphic Lab/Illustration workshop.

—Wavelength (talk) 16:33, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

If you're running gnuplot, the odds are you're also able to run gnumeric :-). It's not very good as a spreadsheet, but it does allow its graphs (created & prettified the same way as in Excel) to be saved as .svg files - you might find this an easier approach than gnuplot-wrangling. Shimgray | talk | 11:10, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I added Misplaced Pages:Graphic Lab/Illustration workshop#Income inequality after 2008. Dualus (talk) 17:44, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Israeli political prisoners

How many political prisoners does Israel have? --70.248.222.85 (talk) 22:32, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

This question might intersect with Misplaced Pages:Reference_desk/Miscellaneous#Prisioners_numbers, or not; depending on your definition of political prisoners, perhaps. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:40, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Since nobody can agree who qualifies as a political prisoner (see the article Political prisoner) I doubt there is any universally-agreed answer. Can you be more precise as to your definition - do you mean people convicted in connection with terrorism or political violence, or people imprisoned purely for their beliefs (prisoners of conscience, insofar as that's a meaningful category), people detained for non-violent protest (albeit maybe jailed for contempt of court, trespass, property damage, etc), or some other definition (e.g. people detained without trial)? --Colapeninsula (talk) 23:00, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

October 13

Burma or Myanmar?

Which is correct, Burma or Myanmar? --70.248.222.85 (talk) 01:25, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Either. Both. Neither. Depends on the context. See Names of Burma. Pfly (talk) 01:31, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

There have also been huge discussions between Misplaced Pages editors. See Talk:Burma/Myanmar. PrimeHunter (talk) 05:06, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Having visited the country under each of these names, I can tell you (OR) that I vastly perfer Burma. DOR (HK) (talk) 09:15, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Rote learning

Has it been scientifically established that rote learning has certain advantages in developing the brain which learning by understanding does not? In many religious traditions too, rote learning is emphasized. Are there some advantages, besides just being able to repeat the information learned, something which develop as a by-product in the background without a person being aware of it while he/she is engaged in rote learning. Thanks-Shahab (talk) 02:01, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

All I can say is that rote learning has its place when addressing bare arbitrary (or conventional) facts, such as the list of names of British monarchs, American presidents, and Catholic popes. Nothing about Pope John Paul II would have told you that his successor would choose the name Benedict XVI. These brute facts serve as the material substance out of which, or, better, the circumstances from within which our conceptual analysis of the world arises. There is a comprehensible trend behind such things as the evolution in time of the British constitution. The import of the Abdication of Edward VIII makes sense only if you know both the brute fact learnt by rote and the relevant concepts and historical trends. For the importance of conceptual understanding, rather than rote memorisation of concretes, I would direct you to Ayn Rand's Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology and the radical contingency of Stephen Jay Gould's punctuated equilibrium. μηδείς (talk) 03:45, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Let's define "rote learning" as memorisation of factual information by repetition. Usually it's chunks of text, poems, lists, paradigms, numbers etc rather than one-off facts (as in Medeis' example of Abdication of Edward VII). Usually by repetition aloud in class.

I agree with Medeis that facts and understanding go together in historical knowledge. A teacher might get a class to chant: "In Fourteen Hundred and Ninety-Two, Columbus Sailed the Ocean Blue". Rhyme is a great aid to memorisation. But if that isn't backed up with the story of how he thought he was going to India and ended up elsewhere, the rhyme, recalled in later life, is of no use at all.

It seems that there is a claim going around that the memorisation of the Qur'an is particularly good for children's subsequent learning. I don't think there is much research into that yet. It would seem logical that doing a lot of rote learning in childhood makes you better at memorisation later on. But there is also the opportunity cost to consider. Is an hour memorising Qur'anic verses better spent than an hour learning physics? That probably depends on what skills and knowledge are valued in the society the child is entering.

There are bound to be positive spin-offs from so much concentrated learning effort, but we don't really know what they are, whether they are the same for everyone, or whether they are more beneficial than if the same time had been spent on learning something else, with a different method. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:18, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I would, as an historian and a teacher, just object to using history as the great example of rote learning. Knowing "the facts" (names and dates) does not make one a student of history or give one a historical understanding. It just means one can take tests on facts, or spew out facts. I'm heavily against rote memorization as a method of teaching history, because the students inevitably forget most of it anyway, and you can't do anything with the facts alone, so they slip away. If you actually work with the facts, you tend to memorize them quite quickly anyway. --Mr.98 (talk) 11:44, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

This is actually a big deal in maths teaching. On the one hand, rote learning (and blindly learning methods), by itself, doesn't let you solve real-world problems or problems outside the standard form found in your textbook, and if you don't understand the methods you cannot decide which is appropriate when, or spot when you've misremembered a step and produced a nonsense answer, and you certainly cannot synthesize a new method to solve a new problem. On the other hand, if you don't memorise any facts and methods, it takes you much longer to solve problems, even if you understand completely how to do so. I know I wasted a lot of time solving problems from first principles because I couldn't remember specific methods to solve them. And one of the big problems that many less mathematically inclined children face with maths is that they don't trust their recollection: they don't trust the answer popping into their head when someone asks them, "what's 3 times 5?", and teaching them to trust that ability and give instant answers can significantly improve their learning. Even the very mathematically capable can spend a lot longer solving a problem if they didn't learn their times tables, even with a calculator: I know being forced to memorise the square numbers up to 20 made a big difference when I started on more interesting calculus and force-balancing problems. On top of that, for most people to make use of maths in their daily lives requires them to have memorised a lot of standard mathematical facts and methods: it is no good understanding how addition and subtraction and the decimal number system work, when faced with making change, if you haven't memorised a lot of number pairs and short-cut methods: you will still be working it out 10 minutes later.

The problem comes when it becomes politically and ideologically charged: rote-learning becomes 'traditional', 'no nonsense', 'back to basics', 'empty learning', and understanding becomes 'progressive', 'hippie', 'true maths', 'all shall have prizes'. And I have sympathy with both views, because either method alone is worthless: politicians make speeches about one or the other, but children need to have both. 86.163.1.168 (talk) 14:13, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

One of the most interesting things raised above is it isn't enough to memorise information, you have to then be able to operationalise the information in context. I suspect that children who learn their tables easily and then apply them in calculations have used many more strategies than simple repetition and practice. As said, you need not just to have "3 fives: 15" come into your head, but to be able to trust it. You need to know that if you needed to, you would have a means of double-checking. "Is that right? five plus five, 10 plus five, yes, 15" or "half of 3, 1 and a half, 10 times that, yes 15" or "half-way between 10 and 20, yes, 15". People use a lot of different mental methods in arithemetic. I agree with Mr 98 about history, too. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:30, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

In my experience, there's rote learning and there's rote learning. Multiplication tables, which I agree must be known by heart if one expects to get anywhere in maths, are learned by rote but at the same time, one is systematically applying them, doing exercises with their help. The same goes for learning irregular conjugations in foreign languages, etc. - and if one doesn't get practice, the memorized stuff can be almost useless. I could give you the list of German prepositions that take the dative case if you woke me up in the middle of the night, wouldn't miss a beat. But if I try to speak German, the list in my head does not work for me, or at best, it works very clumsily. Another thing I know by rote are the prophets of the Old Testament in the order in which they are conventionally printed. Again, that information is in my head but inaccessible except if I recite the list mentally. I can't tell you whether Obadiah comes before Nahum or the other way round without starting from the beginning. That is not to say memorizing such lists couldn't have its uses. But it's one thing to learn things by rote with application and another to just memorize lists or texts.

Incidentally, Bertrand Russell, in an essay arguing against the use of Euclid as a textbook, says that there were schools in the 19th Century where the boys were taught "geometry" by making them learn Euclid by rote. That is, just the text of The Elements, without using actual rulers and compasses. It's difficult now to imagine how anyone ever thought that was a good idea. But if someone thinks teaching religious texts by rote makes good priests or theologians, well...--Rallette (talk) 15:54, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I have done some searching and can't find any research supporting the idea that rote learning has value in itself. Rote learning does not appear to train the mind in ways that are useful in other areas of learning. On the other hand, rote learning does have value as a way of building up an arsenal of facts or examples that may be used for some purpose other than rote learning. So, for example, memorizing multiplication tables may help a person do mathematical calculations or even use a calculator more efficiently. Memorizing the Quran may help a person learn Classical Arabic. Learning Classical Arabic in this way may make it easier for a person to learn other languages later on. However, there is no evidence that memorizing the Quran, especially if no effort is made to understand the meaning of the language, will help a person learn anything else. (Of course, one may believe that learning the Quran, even without understanding it, may have spiritual or religious value, but there is no way to test that sort of thing scientifically.) Marco polo (talk) 15:58, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

There are lots and lots of studies on rote learning in mathematics, in particular, because of the whole "new math" debates that has been going on for a long while. I'm not sure there is an unambiguous "winner" though at this point. For a personal anecdote, I was enrolled in one of those "conceptual" math courses that de-emphasized rote learning, when I was in high school, some time back now. The result was that I was quite good at ferreting out concepts and logical things... but I'm lousy at actually doing the calculations, and struggle quite a bit if I don't have a calculator handy to do all of the grunt work for me (I have difficulty calculating even a 15% tip in my head). That's just one anecdote, but I think in my personal case I would have been a bit better served by actually doing some repetitive, but useful, math, more so than focusing on the concepts, which were nice and fun, but neither instilled any great mathematical understanding in me, nor gave me the practical quantitative skills that would have been more useful later in life (when one does not use trigonometry on a daily basis, but would like to be able to quickly tally up numbers here and there). But this is a personal, anecdotal account. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:41, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

There are situations where there is no underlying meaning to the knowledge, it's simply right or wrong. Conjugations of verbs (as I was reminded when I butchered Spanish in my visit to Ecuador this year) are something where there's not a lot of room for interpretation and rote learning is the practical way to teach it. Another example from my vestry days, the services in the Book of Common Prayer are another piece of rote learning. The order of the alphabet can really only be taught by rote. I'm guessing most speakers of English know that song, but maybe it's just an American thing? Boxing the compass is fortunately something we've dispensed with, but I for one never eat soggy waffles. SDY (talk) 16:48, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Two things:

• in traditional societies, rote learning was in fact the best method of preserving complex information over generations. Prior to the printing press (which allowed text to be set in a durable material and replicated precisely), transcription of written texts had a relatively high error rate, either from mistakes (such as misspellings or word substitutions) or from changes in conventional semantics over time.
• Rote learning has a certain intrinsic value for base tasks (there's no effective way to learn, say, multiplication tables or the capitals of nations except by simple repetition). but rote learning also has some important secondary psychological aspects:
  • it teaches intellectual discipline, which is later necessary to learn more complex ideas
  • it engrains certain concepts which are foundational to higher cognition. e.g. memorizing that 1+1=2 or 2*2=4 simultaneously forces a recognition of mathematical invariance - 1+1 always equals 2 - a concept without which calculus could not possibly make sense. The same is true of rote religious training (which happens in every religion, not just Islam - consider Sunday school and rosaries), in that it implicitly teaches certain moral precepts which the faith hopes will be built upon in adult life. --Ludwigs2 17:39, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Just to clarify, although that it occurred is memorised by school children, the Abdication of Edward VIII was given as a complex historical event which could only be fully understood based on prior rote learning of the British Monarchs, and such concepts as the sacramental nature of coronation. Regarding history as an example of rote learning, my point is that certain things are simply bare facts and must be learnt as such. Whether actual repeated out-loud recitation of lists or just repeated exposure is the best way of learning these facts is an empirical matter. But you simply cannot derive the sequence Mary>Elizabeth>James from first principles. It is simply contingent fact. The same applies for things like evolutionary biology. The fact that there was a species called T. rex is simply a contingent fact that has to be memorised. It can't be derived from first principles.

As for multiplication tables, what four times six produces can be derived from first principles. One simply draws four rows of six dots each and then counts the number of dots in total. The proper method of teaching multiplication tables is to show the row and column method, to teach the trends (such as adding the digits of multiples of nine gives a sum of nine) and requiring a child, when he gives a mistaken answer, to go to the board and draw the rows of dots and count them. Repetition is necessary, but only to automatise knowledge which the student can derive by applied thought. Mere repetition without showing the child how to derive the results from first principles leads to crippling the child's conceptual faculty, in this case teaching him that mathematics is something you can't understand but just have to memorise. He will eventually agree that mathematics is something one can't understand.

There are serious advantages to memorizing the actual table instead of just knowing the first principle, though. For another math example, even if I can figure out the integral of y=2x+3 by drawing an infinite number of rectangles, it really helps to know by rote how to do the integral without having to do several minutes worth of calculations (technically you would spend infinite time doing so if you didn't apply some shorcuts). Less steps means less opportunities for error. Maybe not perfect from a "wisdom and enlightenment" education standpoint but from the standpoint of "your bridge fell down" rote learning has a place. SDY (talk) 18:25, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Once the principle of what multiplication is, the summing of units in a set number of rows and columns, has been learnt, and the child has comprehended how to figure out the result if he does not remember it by rote, then of course the process has to be practised by repetition until it becomes automatised. Automisation is the precondition of further abstraction, for which see Rand, mentioned above. But if you teach the answers to multiplication without teaching what multiplication is and how to do it if you have to, you are mentally crippling the child. μηδείς (talk) 01:43, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

If you want to get properly into this, I would strongly recommend exploring the actual published literature on pedagogy, child development, education and learning: Ayn Rand really doesn't cut it as a source for anything other than what Ayn Rand said. This is not to say that Ayn Rand is wrong in any specific thing said, but that she is not a good source for facts. I say this because I suspect that you love to understand things, and there is a lot of solid research in this area that has produced lovely, solid results and lovely, solid suggestions about good, evidence-based practice. You might want to start with things like Inside the Black Box, read about learning strategies (which you will be teaching to the children by how you teach them anything else), look at the impact of a teacher's understanding of maths, this hugely influential article on [relational understanding and instrumental understanding (read it: you'll be glad you did), and the entertaining Children's understanding of mathematics. This should give you access to a lot of related work, should you want to look further, and then you can reference someone other than Ayn Rand when you want to cite a source.

Obviously teaching rote facts and methods is not sufficient, but it is also crippling to avoid teaching any rote facts and methods: as I said, you need both. This actually has most impact on the less mathematically able, and those from social groups with a lower educational attainment, because those of us with enormous working memories and almost instinctive understanding of maths can get around a lot of problems by very quickly following inefficient methods, and children from social groups with higher educational attainment will already get drilled in basic facts, how to learn facts, and quickly recalling them when required.

Teaching understanding is very very important, and I push for it across the entire ability range, but rote learning, knowing how to learn things, having experience of learning things, having experience of recalling things, and knowing that you are capable of it? These are hugely important too, and they are most important for the children who will most struggle with the conceptual approach. Learning is not linear, it is not quite true that (as Piaget has it) we learn one principle and then progress to the next. Most of the children who will rush to understand the underlying concepts and visualisations of multiplication (and it's not really enough to see it as only one) will be the same children who have already been drilled in the rote facts, by their parents, just as the children who will rush to understand addition and subtraction will be those who have already been drilled in Number bonds, which are often introduced as a sort of counting-on without any mention made of 'adding'. And once they have encountered the underlying concepts, their recall and understanding of the memorised facts will likely improve because learning is more like a spiral, or a complicated system of connections, and these children will leap further and further ahead of their unfortunate classmates whose parents didn't gift them with a set of memorised facts before they met the underlying principles. You don't teach a child the underlying physics before they learn to walk, but anyone can run better if a well-informed coach explains the principles involved. 86.163.1.168 (talk) 15:09, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Ayn Rand writes about what she writes about? Oh, my. Did not know that. Interesting you also badmouth Piaget, whom I would recommend if you want to study all aspects of child learning in depth. The OP seemed to be interested in automization compared with concept formation. Rand's monograph addresses those matters directly for a lay audience from an epistemological standpoint. True, you have to look elsewhere if you want statistical studies and scholarly work that avoids making any explanatory claims.

Does rote learning include learning how to write? I have a kid in Kindergarten and the teacher works hard on getting the kids to learn to write, and write clearly. At their age this mainly involves knowing how to hold pencils/pens/etc and draw the letter (and number) shapes clearly. She combines the rote aspect with lots of other non-rote, more understanding-base stuff, but still, there's a basic muscle memory aspect to writing letters clearly. Mental understanding of how to do it can't replace lots of repetitive practice, can it? Or is there is distinction between rote learning and gaining muscle memory via repitition and memorization? Pfly (talk) 04:20, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, repetitive practice is vital for the mechanical physical skill of writing. Consider that it is no good explaining the physics of bicycle riding. You just have to get on the seat and do it. μηδείς (talk) 18:18, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Also, I didn't know about the new math thing. It sounds similar to a more recent "fad" of reform mathematics, described on the Math wars page. My still-evolving understanding is that reform mathematics tends to turn out crappy math skills, but various hybrid curricula do better. Pfly (talk) 04:25, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Also, also, since a lot of this thread has focused on math, I think the best overall approach would be one that is able, somehow, to take into account the different natural abilities of different kids and "leverage" then (to use a word a hate). For example I've always been terrible with numbers and rote math learning. I simply have trouble remembering raw number patterns. I can't even remember phone numbers half the time, or my own PIN numbers. So forced rote learning of multiplication tables and the like quickly got me shuffled off into remedial math levels and a dropping out as early as I could. On the other hand, some people, like my wife, are excellent at remembering number patterns, and enjoy playing with it, and do well with rote style teaching, which can lead to being able to more quickly grasp and work through complex problems when larger conceptual issues are in place as well. So she became a math major while I avoided it like the plague. Later, I found I loved math when it was a tool being used for an interesting reason (music and electronic synthesis being my route in, which can rapidly lead to calculus Fourier transforms, and various wave stuff). So in her case a mix of rote and comprehension teaching worked great, while for me the rote aspect resulted in bad grades and bad teachers and a deep hatred of math, until I finally realized, long out of school, it can be used for cool stuff. If math curricula, from a young age (my math hatred goes back to at least 3rd grade), could somehow identify which students would do well with which approaches, that would be a good thing, I think. Pfly (talk) 04:36, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

One final thing. The OP wrote "In many religious traditions too, rote learning is emphasized. Are there some advantages, besides just being able to repeat the information learned, something which develop as a by-product in the background without a person being aware of it while he/she is engaged in rote learning." While I don't have a scientific study to point to, I think this idea is basically sound, and applies to my example of writing to write letters clearly. As I understand it is something emphasized in various sports and performance arts (like playing the piano)—first you have to gain a level of basic muscle memory that allows rapid relatively "unthinking" response, then you can hone that in various ways. There's always the risk that muscle memory becomes a crutch though. With piano playing, an example would be the ability to play a piece from memory, except that if you get stuck you have to start over from the start and can't recover. Good piano playing requires a mix of muscle memory and intellectual understanding of a piece's form. If you know you got stuck at a place where an A major key is modulating to a D minor key, and what that means in terms of notes, you'll be much more likely to recover in the moment than if you only know the piece via muscle memory. But if you only understand the piece intellectually without muscle memory, you probably won't be able to play it at all. The same basic idea goes for fencing (the sword dueling sport), which I've long enjoyed. It is an extremely fast paced sport. You absolutely need muscle memory deeply engrained to the point of instinctive reaction. But you also need to analyze your opponent, looking for weaknesses, and developing strategies on-the-fly for taking advantage of them. And vice-verse, realizing when your opponent is doing exactly that and taking counter-measures. The balance between instinctive muscle memory and millsecond-fast readjustments to those instincts is one of the most enjoyable aspects of fencing. I think a lot of these kind of things can to applicable to religious rituals as well. To be religiously mindful and open the rituals must be in "muscle memory", but if they are carried out robotically the point is entirely missed. Pfly (talk) 04:49, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Sanzomon's hat

The character Sanzomon is based on Sanzo from Journey to the West. It wears a hat with several chinese characters on it, which can be seen here, here, and here. From what I've been able to find, it appears that this hat may be called a "five-part crown", and the symbols would be references to the Five Dhyani Buddhas. Can anyone tell me the correct name of this hat, and what the symbols are/are a reference to? Please message me at my wikia talk page if you have any answers. Thanks!192.249.47.196 (talk) 18:01, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

French Rwanda Burundi Zaire French not Dutch

Why Rwanda, Burundi, and Zaire (Democratic Republic of Congo) decided to choose French as its official language despite the Belgians were Dutch speaking? Who meaning the leaders of these nations made French as official languages? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.16.163 (talk) 18:41, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

French is an official language of Belgium (spoken by 40% of the population) as well as Dutch (see Languages of Belgium). There is a suggestion on a forum here that "The Belgian Congo had two official languages : French and Dutch. This means cities, streets, etc, always carried two names ( Leopoldville – Leopoldstad, etc…), but in reality French was by far the most used language in the Belgian Congo." The same would no doubt have applied to Ruanda-Urundi, and the reason is presumably that French is much more widely spoken than Dutch both globally and in other parts of Africa. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:01, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

At the time when the Belgians created the colonies that became these African nations, during the late 19th and early 20th century, French was the sole official language of Belgium. This was the case because French was the language of the Belgian ruling class. The political system of Belgium gave extra votes to voters based on their wealth, and most of the wealth was held by the French-speaking bourgeoisie. In Belgium, French was the language of education and status, whereas the common people spoke the "regional languages" of Walloon and Flemish. The status of French was boosted by the fact that French-speaking southern Belgium was first to industrialize and until the mid-20th century was the most prosperous part of the country. Even those whose native language was Flemish/Dutch learned French in school and had to use French professionally if they wanted to pursue a career. This began to change during the 1920s and 1930s when Belgium did away with weighting votes by wealth and Flemish was recognized as the language of government in the Flemish-speaking regions. It was not until the 1960s that the national government became fully bilingual. Of course, by that time, Belgium's colonies were gaining independence after a long period during which French was their primary official language. The use of French in neighboring former French colonies was a further argument in favor of French as an official language in these newly independent countries. Marco polo (talk) 19:28, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Belgium is officially tri-lingual, since there's a German dialect spoken in east Wallonia. In my days in the London insurance market, I used to have to fill in Belgian tax forms, which came with each question in three languages, one on top of the other, in tiny writing. I understand that the King of Belgium has to make his coronation oath in three languages too. But as you say, it was French only for official purposes until fairly recently. Alansplodge (talk) 07:57, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

But Belgium was not tri-lingual during the colonial period. It seems, from Language legislation in Belgium, that German was recognized only in 1962. --Soman (talk) 08:26, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I think that's what I said - if not, it's what I meant! Alansplodge (talk) 11:51, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't mean to be rude. Just pointing out that Belgium went from being mono- then bi- to trilingual officially. The latter period of Belgian rule over Congo, Belgium was officially bilingual, but trilingualism came afterwards. --Soman (talk) 12:54, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Agreed and no offence taken. Alansplodge (talk) 13:32, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Notably, Dutch also failed to establish itself in Indonesia as a colonial language (although many Dutch loan words are found in Bahasa Indonesia). This section gives some insight: Dutch_language#Belgian_Africa. --Soman (talk) 06:44, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Look Japan

Apparently Look Japan's last issue was in April 2004.

Do you know if there are any articles discussing the closing of Look Japan, or if the April 2004 issue says "we are closing - goodbye" ?

Thanks,

WhisperToMe (talk) 18:20, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

China

1. Who was the first European to actually succeed in reaching China (or India) by going west? 2. Since an accurate way of determining longitude wasn't available until the 18th century, how did Europeans know how far the New World was from Asia? In fact, how did they even know how far it was from Europe? --140.180.26.155 (talk) 20:23, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

The answer to your first question may be Martín de Rada, though of course Ferdinand Magellan sailed west across the Pacific earlier. Marco polo (talk) 20:51, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

As for your second question, Europeans had a rough idea of the distance based on sailing time and extrapolations from the circumference of the Earth, which had been calculated to a low degree of precision. Precise measurement of longitude and distance was not possible, however, until John Harrison invented the chronometer in the mid-18th century. Marco polo (talk) 21:03, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Legal question re: illegal camping in U.S. national parks

I've been trying to understand what exactly constitutes "camping without a permit" in U.S. national parks.

I've found the following two statutes:

36CFR2.10 AND § 1.4 What terms do I need to know?

The latter defines camping as:

"Camping means the erecting of a tent or shelter of natural or synthetic material, preparing a sleeping bag or other bedding material for use, parking of a motor vehicle, motor home or trailer, or mooring of a vessel for the apparent purpose of overnight occupancy."

Does this mean that as long as I am not caught actually erecting a tent, or laying out my sleeping bag, that they cannot charge me with illegal camping? That is, suppose I'm walking in a remote area on a hiking trail where I'm quite obviously camping without a permit(i.e. I'm carrying a large pack and camping gear and look like I've been living in the woods for a week), but I've got all of my gear in my pack. If I am adamant that I'm not actually camping (of course, I'll kindly cite the above-cited legal definition of "camping" for them) and am just carrying the equipment "for exercise", they couldn't fine me for illegal camping, right? That is, legally, they would have to actually catch me at a campsite to give me a ticket. Am I understanding this correctly? If not, could someone please explain where I could find more information on this.

Thanks in advance! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.211.30.204 (talk) 23:40, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

We cannot offer legal advice. Please see the legal disclaimer. Contact a lawyer.

As a general principle, the police do not need to catch you in the act of committing a crime to charge you with it, they merely need to have probable cause to believe that you have committed the crime. Once charges have been filed, it is up to the court system to determine if you have committed the crime beyond reasonable doubt. If you want to get more specific than this, consult a lawyer. --Carnildo (talk) 01:53, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Lots of national parks have additional restrictions on camping, especially for very popular areas and/or wilderness areas. Much of Mount Rainier National Park for example, is wilderness, and backcountry camping not only requires a permit but must be in designated camping areas. In short, for any given park it is likely there are more than the two statues you cited that apply. Pfly (talk) 02:08, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Also, permits for backcountry camping are usually done in place for good reasons, worth following. If unrestricted camping was allowed in popular places like The Enchantments (not a national park, but a national forest, still very very popular), the landscape would rapidly be degraded. The rather strict lottery-based permits used there were put in place because the place was getting trashed. Pfly (talk) 03:59, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

The sad part about this is that the OP is looking to get around the rules. The rules are there to try to preserve these popular national parks as much as possible. Disrespecting the rules is the same as disrespecting the park itself. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 10:30, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I think this might fall foul of various "going equipped to commit 'X' (crime)" laws my good man. If you're wandering around with a set of lockpicks, devices for neutralising electronic alarms and a large bag marked "SWAG" in a residential neighbourhood without you can get charged & convicted for going equipped to commit burglary without going anywhere near someone's domicile. Best to not try this old bean. Quintessential British Gentleman (talk) 13:45, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Without reference to legal specifics, so far as I know, homelessness is de facto illegal throughout the United States. Any community becoming noted for being soft on homelessness would become overburdened with them, suffering all manner of social ills and expenses, not to mention being abandoned by residents horrified at the implications for their property value etc. Prohibiting camping in parks is the first step, but it is by no means sufficient - it is absolutely necessary to crack down on churches that would house or feed them, for example. Existing encampments are not merely dispersed, but such belongings as the homeless have are confiscated and burned. They are, however, sometimes granted free bus fare to go somewhere else - while some people have absorbed a genuinely hateful attitude, more see it merely as a competition between communities. (More often they explain people are being sent away to temporary shelter as a humanitarian measure...) Typically the big cities are the most lenient, because it is relatively smaller expense to them and/or there are certain neighborhoods which prove expedient (for certain interests) to redline and devalue prior to eminent domain. The extreme option is to charge vagrancy, though after the Jim Crow era this ceased to be profitable and fell into disuse. Anyway, my point here, is that any practice, regardless of the law, which would permit anyplace in the U.S. to be used reliably by homeless people, will with certainty be stamped out. Wnt (talk) 14:34, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

October 14

Economics: Could venture capital boost the American green energy sector?

Hi. Venture capital is often awarded to new businesses, and green tech is often considered an emerging sector, but could it work in the current global marketplace? Thanks. ~AH1  00:13, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

It's hard to say. Per Wind power#Cost trends, wind power is currently growing so fast that it no longer seems to be utilizing subsidies, tax credit exchanges, or anything other than ordinary bank financing. And the developing world is growing much faster than the US. If you put those facts together, under ordinary financial conditions, any investor should be able to purchase a mutual fund or American depository receipts allowing taking advantage of such rapid growth rates. However, in the current investment climate, corporations try to produce derivatives which allow them to capture all the possible profits from an investment, precluding individual investors. Thank goodness they've learned how to outspend individuals during campaign season, or they might lose their advantage. Dualus (talk) 01:13, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Venture capital is not "awarded" but invested with expectation of return. Businessmen will invest in green in any technology if they think it will produce products which people will buy because they expect to benefit from it. μηδείς (talk) 01:29, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

One of the interesting things about capital in our society is that it is legally treated as private property. Unless restricted by contracts or law, owners of capital can do with them as they wish. Medeis notes one of the key limiting factors: the impression that a rate of return above market average is achievable when factoring risk in. Despite the methodological beliefs of a number of economists, and the methodological assumptions of another bunch of economists who want to get on with their discipline, not all capitalists act so as to seek the maximum rate of return. So yes, venture capital could choose to invest specifically in marketisable green energy; but choosing to do so when it isn't the most profitable sector seeking capital would be foolish if their aim is to maximise returns. Fifelfoo (talk) 06:23, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Christian denomination in Europe

So far, I know that France, Italy, Spain, and Portugal are dominantly Roman Catholic and Netherlands, U.K., Denmark, Sweden, Norway and Iceland are dominantly Protestants. What about other nations in Europe? Which are Roman Catholic? Which are Protestants? and Which are Orthodox? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.53.229.206 (talk) 02:31, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

See: File:Prevailing world religions map.png... this map should help. Blueboar (talk) 02:49, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

For proper balance it's only fair to mention File:Irreligion map.png as well - many countries in Europe, particularly northern Europe, are now predominantly non-religious. Ghmyrtle (talk) 06:42, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Try Christianity in Europe. Flamarande (talk) 13:02, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

That irreligion map contradicts the religion in china article. China is too dark on the map. It should be 40 to 60%, not 93%. The colors seem arbitrary and the whole thing needs a citation. Anyway, it's not relevant to the question as irreligion is not a "Christian denomination in Europe." Turkey is predominantely Armenian Orthodox as far as Christianity goes as 60% of Christians in that country follow that faith. They account for .08% of the population. There are far many more Christians in Sweden than in Turkey, although according to the Religion in Sweden article, there appears to be a great deal of variation among what sociologists believe. Why the authors of these maps pick the highest number even without a scholarly consensus to back it up is not clear. 24.38.31.81 (talk) 19:36, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Afrikaans speakers in South Africa

Although I often find surprising information on WP, it's rare for me to find something that apparently reveals my ignorance quite as much as this map. I'm surprised at two things - the high proportions speaking Afrikaans in the west of the country, and the low proportions in the east, including rural areas that I had always thought of as having historically quite high proportions of white Afrikaans-speaking settlers. The map suggests that it shows proportions of the total population - not just the ethnically "white" population. Firstly, is the map accurate; and, if so, what has led to the very sharp division between east and west of which I was previously unaware? Ghmyrtle (talk) 06:59, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

It is not just the whites that speak Afrikaans at home, Afrikaans is also the mother tongue of the majority of the coloured population. Compare the map above with this map: File:South Africa 2001 Coloured population proportion map.svg. --Soman (talk) 07:57, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Afrikaans-speaking Coloured people form a majority only in western South Africa. This is so because this was the first part of the country settled by Europeans. Prior to European settlement, it was sparsely settled by non-agrarian Khoisan peoples, since the climate of the west, with its summer drought, would not support the crops on which the Bantu peoples of the east depended. Over the first two centuries of European settlement, a Dutch-speaking land-owning elite came to depend on a much larger mixed-race working class, the ancestors of today's Coloured peoples. This working class consisted of the descendants of the original Khoisan population mixed with other groups imported from Madagascar or Asia as laborers. In addition, white masters often fathered children through (mutually consenting or forcible) sexual relations with female workers. These children became part of the Coloured community. Over these centuries, the Dutch of the white masters evolved, partly by acquiring vocabulary from the original languages of the working class, into Afrikaans, which became the common language of the Western Cape. It was only after the Great Trek of the mid-19th century that Afrikaans-speaking whites moved into what became eastern South Africa. Coloured people largely did not take part in the Great Trek but remained the majority population of the Western Cape. What is now eastern South Africa was and is heavily populated by speakers of Bantu languages, who have always formed a majority in this region. Therefore, the Afrikaans of the white population has never been a majority language in eastern South Africa except in the small and segregated enclaves where whites formed a majority. Marco polo (talk) 14:29, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

1940 version of "Wake Up America"

I'm trying to find a copy of the 1940 version of "Wake Up America" by James Montgomery Flagg. In that one, Uncle Sam is urging viewers to become aware of war overseas. Where can I find a copy? Anyone know?24.90.204.234 (talk) 07:49, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

The only image of it that I can find online is one of Flagg standing in front of a poster at

I've seen that image, and it's powerful. But is there another image similar, but without Flagg standing in front of it?24.90.204.234 (talk) 07:31, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Imperial Roman politics

So, this site is full of pages of detailed information of political offices in Rome during the empire, but what there is not much of is information on politics outside of the city. I asked some time ago regarding a book I have been writing, where one character has entered a political career in a town some way north of Rome itself (having had to go into hiding to escape dangerous criminals, hence why he cannot move back to the city just yet) and I recieved a few responses that were of some help. Since then, though, I have moved on a couple of chapters, and I think now he may well have not only moved up the cursus honorum in his town, but also be looking, perhaps unrealistically, even further up. I am wondering in particular whether there would have been any sort of regional government below the level of the provincial governors.

What I would like then is either a rough outline of the political system as it would have been out in this town, such that I can then conduct more detailed research on whichever points seem most relevant at the time, or to be directed to another website that has a more detailed description of such matters.

I feel I should say, this is only to be a minor point in the book, so I felt I did not need much in the way of in depth research, just for a couple of lines to drop in at one point, if anyone feels like telling me I should have studied the subject a lot more before writing the book.

148.197.81.179 (talk) 08:33, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

What period of the Empire, and how far north of Rome? (Still in Italy, or somewhere else?) I guess for any random provincial city, there would be a local curia, and curiales and decurions, but there wasn't really a cursus honorum outside of Rome, because the cursus was for higher offices in Rome itself. There would be a provincial governor appointed from Rome, so it's not like a local person ever rose through the ranks to govern the province. But it's hard to say exactly, without knowing the place and time period. (Sorry, I can't seem to find your previous question.) Adam Bishop (talk) 09:27, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

The current chapter is set during 250, in the crisis of the third century, at a time when it seems to have calmed down a little, for a few months. I was thinking of a town quite close to Rome itself, perhaps only fifty or a hundred miles away. 148.197.81.179 (talk) 10:26, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Ah, well, that's a little bit simpler, since Italy wasn't exactly a province like the others, it was under the direct control of the emperor. For a town that close to Rome, the emperor's chief deputy was the urban prefect of Rome itself (for anything further away, it was the pretorian prefect). Your town (a municipium) would also have a council (a curia, essentially a mini-Senate), probably run by the wealthiest local landowners, although sometimes every adult male was obliged to serve on the council whether they wanted to or not (members of the council were called decuriones). They could collect taxes and pass local legislation and deal with local legal questions and disputes, make sure wills were propertly executed, liberate slaves, build houses and roads, that sort of thing. Serious crimes, though, were punished by the prefect, and of course taxes went to Rome. The prefect was also responsible for distribution of food. It's not that much different from a modern British, Canadian, or American town, or maybe a medieval English town near London, for example. Adam Bishop (talk) 12:35, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Cities in the Roman Empire were generally administered by various Duumviri, each of which had different functions. The "duumviri iure dicundo" were in charge of legal administration (police, law, courts, etc.), while the duumviri aedile were in charge of infrastructure and finances. Cities in the Empire were of two types; municipia, the lower class, were cities which had been absorbed by the Empire but not settled specifically by it; while Colonia, the higher class, had been founded and settled by the Empire specifically. This subdivision was, AFAIK, mostly relevent in the outer Roman provinces, which were under control of Roman governors of various titles. Within Italy itself, which was administerred directly by the Emperor, things may have worked a bit differently. However, if you want to use an authentic-sounding roman title of a city administrator, "duumviri iure dicundo" or something like that may work for you. --Jayron32 13:04, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Of course, the singular form would be duumvir iure dicundo. Marco polo (talk) 14:12, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Shonuff. --Jayron32 14:19, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

But that's a very early title (you can even tell by the archaic spelling of "dicundo"). It no longer existed by the time period the OP is asking about. Adam Bishop (talk) 14:26, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Poor people

The productive contribution of an individual poor person towards economic progress of the world is far less than the contribution of an individual rich person. Then why poor people are considered equal to riches? --Jigjig555 (talk) 12:21, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Two thoughts. First, your underlying assumption is wrong. A poor person may make a very much greater contribution than a rich person. Clearly, they do not have the spending capacity of a rich person, but that's not the only measure of a contribution. Secondly, the economic contribution that is made by a person to the economy is not the only measure of that person; from all sorts of other perspectives, people are people and should be treated as equals. Given that income does not corrolate well with "contribution to society / economy", then using wealth as a measure of worth is facile. --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:26, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Poor people are by definition unequal to the rich, that is what makes them poor. In the West, poor people are nominally considered equals under the law, but that has a tendency to not bear out in practice. --Daniel 16:07, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

The general attitude is that all people are created equal, but do not necessarily remain equal. If equality was maintained, removing rights from one person and not another would not be acceptable. -- kainaw™ 18:06, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

See http://www.coeinc.org/Articles/HousewifeWorth.pdf.

—Wavelength (talk) 18:58, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I question the premise. Wealth is ultimately created from labor and raw natural resources. Poor people generally do far more labor than rich people. APL (talk) 21:37, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

The question was not about labour, it was about "productive contribution ... towards economic progress" the men who created the Hall–Héroult process undoubtedly did contribute more than the labourer who actually create aluminum as these two men greatly increased the work efficiency for thousands of workers. I do however question how the OP basis the worth of a person on how much one makes. The idea that all humans are equal is more based on the though process of "If you prick us, do we not bleed? If you tickle us, do we not laugh? If you poison us, do we not die?" Our lives are all equally important to ourselves. I do not see much contemporary support in the developed world for the idea that killing poor people is less of a crime than killing rich people, or any other idea which would come from the idea that the rich are more worthy than the poor. Public awareness (talk) 22:48, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

• Public awareness has now been blocked indefinitely as a sock of the banned editor User:Passionless.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:43, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Matthew 26:11. μηδείς (talk) 20:05, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Matthew 25:40. Dualus (talk) 07:36, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Genesis 25:30. μηδείς (talk) 18:29, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Proverbs 14:31. Dualus (talk) 05:08, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

The Fall of Eve, Genesis condensed. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | 17 Tishrei 5772 19:12, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Genesis 3:22. Dualus (talk) 05:14, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Public awareness, the same logic can be applied in the case of animal rights. Animals do feel pain, they die, even they have emotion, should they have same right as humans? Some say yes, most say no. Poor people have the same biological feature as riches, but that doesn't entitle them to have same right as the riches. --Jigjig555 (talk) 01:37, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

And in the developed world animals do have rights, and these rights continue to grow. Rights are what society gives to all those within society. Mankind has moved forward, ending serfdom, than slavery, segregation, emancipated women, and ended anti-homosexuality laws. We give out rights equally because it is widely believed today that to do otherwise is unethical. Also, see the veil of ignorance and social equality. Public awareness (talk) 02:33, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

• Public awareness has now been blocked indefinitely as a sock of the banned editor User:Passionless.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:43, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

We've ended anti-homosexuality laws? Perhaps you're not from the United States (neither am I), but see defense of marriage act, LGBT rights in the United States, and Proposition 8.

Anyhow, I'm not sure what sort of equality the OP had in mind, but it's not necessarily true that the rich contribute more to the economy than the poor. Case in point: Public awareness mentioned the Hall-Heroult process. Hall was poor, and discovered the process in a wooden shed with minimal equipment. Almost all scientists, both today and throughout history, were not rich, yet they've changed the world much more profoundly than any CEO. Pierre and Marie Curie famously struggled with poverty. I'm fairly sure that Maxwell, Einstein, Darwin, and Dirac were not at the very top of the social ladder, but don't quote on that. --140.180.26.155 (talk) 03:04, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like the OP is pushing for slavery. The fact that in order for slavery to work, you need slaves underlines the mistake in your original assumption. "Rich" people do not (or rarely) do the actual work (and by rich, I'm referring to the upper strata of businesses here). They direct work. If we remove the workforce (and remove the idea of a workforce), a "rich" person's economic contribution is only worth what he can actually make with his own hands. He wouldn't be rich then. Does telling people what to do entitle you to more rights than the person who's doing what you ask of them? -- Obsidi♠n Soul 03:43, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

All sorts of geniuses have failed to patent their inventions or otherwise turned out to be poor businessmen. So what? Actual human rights are negative--such as the right not to be murdered. Yes, the rich sometimes get off, but usually because of "poor" (i.e., uneducated) juries. In the Anglo-West, at least, people do indeed have equally protected legal human rights. The poor are actually better off if you pretend such things as welfare and free education are rights. As for homosexuals, once again, nowhere in the West are they subject to persecution for their acts. They are also free to have any minister they like perform any magical ritual they want. The fact that some jurisdictions refuse to force third parties to pretend that gay couples are the same as married parents is not a violation of any negative right. It is simply a refusal to use the law to pretend that loving and commited acts of buggery and fellatio are the same as parturition. μηδείς (talk) 03:43, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

You should take a look at LGBT rights by country or territory. Gay couples in multiple US states and western countries are not allowed to adopt. In a few states only married couples are allowed to adopt children, and since gays cannot get married they cannot adopt children. Also, a marriage is not a "magical ritual", it is a legally binding union which ties finances together and entitles the couple to many financial benefits from tax reductions for families, to life insurance for a spouse. In most European nations gay men are still not allowed to donate blood, and in many nations gays cannot openly serve in military. Since the definition of persecution is "the systematic mistreatment of an individual or group by another group" I don't see how you cannot consider any of this to be persecution.AerobicFox (talk) 04:05, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I believe we are talking about positive rights here too, right to vote, right to education, right to movement, right to health care, right to not be discriminated against based on age, gender, sexual orientation, race, even right to Internet access. But this is off topic. The question was "why poor people are considered equal to riches", well from an economical standpoint they are not equal, from a law perspective they are equal for ethical reasons, from an individual's standpoint they may or not be equal, Sergei Polonsky has stated that "anyone without a billion dollars is a "loser" and "those who don't have a billion, can go to hell"." Public awareness (talk) 04:18, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

• Public awareness has now been blocked indefinitely as a sock of the banned editor User:Passionless.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:24, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I enjoy a bit of sodomy just as much as the next person, but that doesn't mean my rights are violated by not being able to adopt a child based on my being a sodomite. The issue involved is the child's best interests, not the desire of the homosexual couple for a pet or a trophy child. Gays are just as entitled as straights to do it the old fashioned way if they want children. Gays should also be enabled to adopt whomever they like as next of kin--just as was allowed in Roman times. Julius Caesar adopted Octavian when the latter was a grown man. That is all that the protection of an adult's right's require. Being able to seize children with the state's assent has nothing to do with same sex sex. So long as gays are not being deprived of their lives, freedom, or property, their rights are protected. The law cannot make them biological parents against the facts of nature. BTW, if a state allows single parents to adopt, it should not take into account their sexual orientation. I am not opposed to gays adopting. I am opposed to the state forcing third parties to treat loving sodomites as if they were the same thing as biological parents just because they are registered sodomites.μηδείς (talk) 04:41, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Capitalism. →Στc. 04:53, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Uhuh. Children up for adoption don't belong to their biological parents who abandoned them in the first place (which speaks volumes about the assertion that people who can make babies take better care of babies). What the heck is the difference between heterosexual adopters, single-parent adopters, and homosexual adopters? They are not biological parents. Adoption does not make you a biological parent. There will also always be 'trophy' adopted kids. Even straight people do that. Including that incident about one fundamentalist Christian couple who blathered on about how they love children so much they decided to adopt two orphans from Liberia on national television. Three years later they beat the 7 year old to death and hospitalized her older sister for mispronouncing a word. So yeah, what does sexual orientation have anything to do with your capacity to care for a child?

And just so you'll look at it the other way, it's the state forcing barriers on people based on arbitrary criteria. The state is actually saying all gay people are incapable of taking care of children against evidence otherwise just because the vocal ignorant majority says so. How would you like it if straight people of the opposite sexes were suddenly banned from being seen together alone? What about if certain genders were not allowed in certain professions? Oh wait... they already do that. It's the same thing. The "nature doesn't do that" argument is also a load of crap. Nature doesn't have organized religion either, they certainly don't kill each other over which imaginary friend is better, and you probably will find little evidence of kindness or altruism as well. In fact, relatively few animals adopt children. Heck lions kill the young of a competing male. If these are all unnatural things, what makes them exceptions of the "nature doesn't do that" argument?

The question is can they take care of the children whose own parents can not or will not? Will the children lead better lives away from orphanages? And the answer is yes. Leave the bullshit at the door. I'm sure you lurv "sodomy". Maybe you'd also like to try "gommorhea" sometime. *rolls eyes* -- Obsidi♠n Soul 05:16, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

It sounds like μηδείς is referring to the possibility of laws which prevent parent/s who are giving up their children for adoption from rejecting parents based on their sexual orientation. However as you pointed out, this isn't the issue most are concerned with here, the big issue is quite a few governments including unfortunately NZ preventing same sex couples from adopting or treating them the same as a single parent (which is questionable if you do have some recognition of an opposite-sex couple in adoptions). And this includes cases where the biological parents aren't involved at all. There is also the example of where third parties who are not the biological parents are involved, and whether they are allowed to reject people based on sexual orientation but again, this is another thing as well. I would note that if you start talking about the government disallowing a same sex couple to adopt because it's not in the 'child's best interests' (despite the lack of evidence for this claim), others may start to talk about whether you should allow parents who express the belief that being gay is wrong or that a woman's primary role in life should be as a caregiver and mother and other such views should be allowed to adopt for the same reasons. Nil Einne (talk) 14:15, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't want to continue a debate, since I think what I have said above is clear. Suggestions that I contract "gommorhea" are bizarre, and suggest an emotional impediment to rational discussion. But my point is that rights are negative. That is, the entitle you not to be assaulted, killed, robbed or defrauded, or denied life, liberty or property without due process. The only valid state reason for marriage as a legal institution is designation of next of kin and protection of a dependent mother and minor children. Gay couples--any adults-- should have the right to designate their next of kin, and historically this has been called (adult) adoption--e.g. Gay couples can also participate in whatever magic rituals and public announcements they like, and no civilized state prevents this. But since gay couplings do not produce children, legally designating them marriages serves some other purpose than protecting the rights of dependent mothers and children. The only reason for getting the state involved in calling gay cohabitation marriage is to force third parties, employers, landlords, insurers, religious entities--at gunpoint, since that is what the law is--to treat them as if they were the same as married couples. If as a leftist you want the state to force people to provide benefits to homosexual couples involuntarily, then that's what you should say. But to say that the government is currently violating the rights of homosexuals is an Orwellian use of language. (I should say that states which don't offer or recognize some sort of civil union or adult adoption are not providing people with equal protection of the law. I think Texas refuses to recognize civil unions from other states. If, on that basis, a person were denied access to a hospital patient as next of kin, that would indeed be a gross violation of rights.)

Can't speak sarcasm, when it's not yours? You seem to delight in using "sodomy" and "sodomite" in sentences despite claiming to be irreligious. That's like talking about Hispanic people and obliviously and repeatedly calling them "spics", expecting everyone to take it all in a stride. Political correctness be damned, there's a fine line between being honest and being obnoxious.

From past discussions I got the impression that you were all for smaller government interference with personal matters that do no harm to anyone. You seem to have no problems with government interference with minorities though. Who's forcing who? And what do "third parties" have anything to do with what two people do? People don't marry just to spite their landlords, local parishes, employers, and insurers (wtf?). And do you really think most gay people want to be married in a church? LOL And for the record, I don't care what you call it, marriage, civil union, partnership, as long as it has the same legal definition as heterosexual marriages with or without children, biological or otherwise. And yes your arguments are circular. If you want to make it negative, think of it this way: People have a right not to have to live their lives according to how others want them to live it. Self-determination? Free will? That's a really basic right, isn't it?

It's called minding your own business. If you're not gay, then don't have gay sex. Ban them from entering your church/mosque/temple if you want, but seriously, reaching beyond that to affect legislation in a secular state is ridiculously obsessive attempts to control other people's lives. -- Obsidi♠n Soul 00:48, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Continue the debate or not I'm going to reply to this post. Your positive and negative rights argument is circular, the negative right to liberty which is granted to us allows us to do whatever we like as long as it does not harm others, we therefore have the right to do anything that doesn't hurt other people regardless of positive rights. By your reasoning the government could ban gay people from making phone calls and then state "The right to make phone calls is a positive right which you are not entitled to". If a person wants to raise a child then it is their right to do that unless it harms the child or someone else, that is why we ban child molesters from adopting children. Banning a gay person from raising a child without a reason to believe that it will harm anybody is a direct violation of their right to do whatever they like if it harms nobody else. I can't believe that you just compared a gay person finding a homeless orphan, taking them into their home and feeding them to "force third parties, employers, landlords, insurers, religious entities--at gunpoint", the gay people have a right to be left alone just like everybody else, it is at your metaphorical gunpoint that they are being told that they cannot adopt an orphan like a straight person could. AerobicFox (talk) 23:49, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

The claim of the reasons for marriage are in stark contrast to the modern realities of marriages. Plenty of people get married who cannot have children by themslves i.e. couples where one partner is clearly infertile (whether because of age or some other reason). Plenty of people get married with the explicit intention to never have kids (some may later change their minds but this doesn't change their original intention). Despite the Roman Catholic Church's disagreement with this concept (the RCC is at least somewhat consistent in this stance whereas a number of other religious figures don't seem to mind accepting marriages when there is no intention for children as long as the couple is of the opposite sex), it is one the modern realities of marriage. If you want to change the law to disallow marriages when children are not a possibiliy, you should do so, rather then denying certain couples the right to marry because they cannot have children whereas allowing other couples who cannot or do not wish to have children the right to marry because of their sex.

And as others have pointed out, you are still ignoring the fact were not primarily talking about forcing anyone 'to provide benefits to homosexual couples involuntarily' but about cases were the government denies same sex couples the right to adopt (at least as couples) whereas allowing opposite sex couples the right to adopt as couples, with only the government and no one else (not counting the couple or child of course) involved. I would note according to your logic, couples who find out they are infertile, should not be allowed to adopt as couples (even though there along with those who already knew it are probably the most common couples to adopt) but instead have their marriage automatically dissolved or turned in to a civil partnership/union because it no longer serves a purpose as a marriage. In fact, I wonder whether adoption agencies should require proof of fertility before they allowing a married couple to adopt. And should older children really be accepted as proof? It would seem not since fertility changes with age and from what I can tell you're suggesting only a currently fertile couple should adopt, although obviously the children mean the marriage still serves a purpose, that is until all the children die....

Similarly once a woman in a marriage reaches say the age of 60, if she has not yet conceived her marriage should be dissolved or turned into a civil partnership/union since it no longer serves a purpose as a marriage. The same if she did conceive, but only via a sperm donor (in fact the moment the sperm donor came in to consideration, the government probably should start to question the marriage), unless you're arguing same sex female couples should be allowed to marry but not same sex male couples.

Definitely anyone who provides anything to a married couple by merit of them being married is entitled to demand of anyone without biological children that they provide proof of fertility before treating them the same as a real married couple, since they clearly aren't really married if they are infertile. And if the proof is negative, they probably should be submitting it to the government to help them dissolve this fake marriage.

Of course all this seems unnecessarily complicated, perhaps the government should simply require fertility tests of both partners before the marriage can be approved and then require say biennially re-tests until say either partner reaches 30 then yearly re-tests thereafter, until a child is conceived, and of course starting up again if all the children die (not counting any adopted children). Of course, affirmation of a desire to have children would also be needed and if it's later found one party was lying, this fraud on the institute of marriage should be dealt with harshly. On that point, the fertility test thing may be somewhat wasting of government resources so probably marriages should not be allowed if the desire is not to have children yet, wait until they actually need the marriage.

Nil Einne (talk) 04:07, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I am (by most accounts) relatively poor. I am also (by most accounts) quite a bit smarter than average. This is a choice more than anything else; money doesn't mean much to me. Would I somehow be a better person if I dedicated all of my substantial intelligence to making money? I'd be a richer person, certainly, but a better one?

the mistake the OP (who I'm pretty sure is just goofing around regardless) made is to assert that wealth is somehow meaningful. In fact, wealth has only accomplished two productive things in its entire history:

• It has paid the wages of laborers who would otherwise be doing more menial tasks (like agricultural production) and thus advanced industrial society.
• it has given people who are actually creative the liberty of being creative, rather than wasting their time scrabbling after breadcrumbs.

Keep in mind that the Medici's (who were fabulously wealthy, even by modern standards) are only remembered because they sponsored some of the greatest artists of their period, and that your average spoiled wealthy person (the Kim Kardashians and Paris Hiltons of the world) will be forgotten in a generation or so, as millions of wealthy people have already been forgotten before them. It's nice to be wealthy - it makes life easy and fun - but at the end of the day wealth doesn't count for spit in a hurricane, unless you've used it to let someone else do something meaningful. --Ludwigs2 05:58, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Judging by the reactions here and there only being one reply by the author (as well as the question itself), I cannot help but to wonder, within the bounds of WP:AGF, whether the reactions of the other editors was what the OP was after; not saying they were, but it's a possibility. If that is the case, I think a fair number of editors here might have been trolled. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | 17 Tishrei 5772 17:13, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

And this surprises you? Ref desk editors (myself included) are surprisingly gullible sometimes, and most any question will manage to reach someone who's in a gullible mood. It's not really avoidable; and it's fine so long as (in the long run) it stays within the bounds of common sense. --Ludwigs2 18:26, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Well I did fall for the thing involving the dog and the peen, but no, not really. :p I always think it is better to have something bad happen to you while trying to do good than to be an asshole and tell the person to bugger off; so nothing wrong with being gullible sometimes. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | 17 Tishrei 5772 19:12, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Eggzaggedly. A noble spirit embiggens the smallest man! --Ludwigs2 21:19, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Irreligious society

Has there ever been a human society, that we know of, where the majority of the population was not religious at all? 114.75.60.48 (talk) 13:26, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes - large parts of the world now. See File:Irreligion map.png, and Irreligion by country. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:28, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Depends on how you define "not religious at all" (which, I suppose, depends on how you define "religious"). Do you mean the majority are outright atheists, or do you mean something else? Blueboar (talk) 13:39, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

North Korea? The USSR? Depends on if you consider certain political ideologies to be religious. Googlemeister (talk) 13:50, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

The Gallup poll - on which the map I linked to is based - asked the question "Is religion an important part of your daily life?". Majorities answered "no" in Sweden (88%), Denmark (82%), China (82%) and over 30 other countries, including (for example) the UK (76%), France (74%), Japan (72%), Australia (67%), Canada (61%), Russia (59%), Germany (59%) and Israel (54%). Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:59, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

This is why we need clearer definitions (and why polls can be misleading)... I certainly consider myself "religious", and yet I would have answered that poll with a "No" (My religion is not an important part of my daily life... I go for weeks without thinking about it). Blueboar (talk) 14:33, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

That poll and map are absolute garbage. There is no way that religion is an important part of daily life to 67% of Australians. Weekly attendance at Christian churches is around 7%. Other religions have smaller market share. HiLo48 (talk) 20:47, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Albania was officially 100% atheist for several decades... AnonMoos (talk) 14:03, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Thankyou. This is all very helpful. I suppose the definition of "religious" in this case would be that if somebody feels they're religious, they are. And if they feel they're not religious, they're not. 114.75.60.48 (talk) 15:52, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, the problem with that is that you get different people answering the question differently, not because they differ in either their beliefs or how they see their beliefs, but just because they use the word differently. That's not very interesting. For example, some people believe deeply in God but consider themselves non-religious, because they interpret the word "religious" as being about formal observance. --Trovatore (talk) 21:00, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

My favorite Bill Maher quote: "I believe in God! Religion is the bureaucracy between God and Man. --Trovatore (talk) 00:31, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Here are some more interesting maps, for comparison. This one was based strict atheism: "I agree that there isn't any sort of God, spirit, or life force". I can't tell if any countries are above 50%, but lots of European countries hover around it: . For a less strict definition of religiousness that includes both atheists and agnostics, see . There are definitely countries over 70% on this map. --140.180.26.155 (talk) 17:57, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Guilt is the god, silence the sacrament, and political correctness the dominant intolerant religion of Western Europe. Ask Ayaan Hirsi Ali. μηδείς (talk) 20:09, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

That's as incomprehensible and open to multiple interpretations as any religious book. Congratulations! HiLo48 (talk) 21:19, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Methinks she doth protest too much. μηδείς (talk) 23:23, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

O, but she'll keep her word. 86.163.1.168 (talk) 13:49, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Debt in communism

Has personal debt existed at all in communist societies states like the GDR or USSR? Quest09 (talk) 14:31, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Those socities still had money, and so people could still get into personal debt. --Jayron32 14:33, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

In fact, you don't even need money. In a barter society, you are in debt as long as you receive something and have not yet given whatever it is you promised in exchange. Blueboar (talk) 14:53, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Did the USSR have a formal bankruptcy system? 207.108.46.201 (talk) 16:50, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Neither of those countries had Communist societies. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 17:01, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

OK, they had communist states and not communist societies. Quest09 (talk) 18:04, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

The first bankruptcy courts were not established in Russian until the 1990s. I'm not sure what other mechanisms (penalties, etc.) would have existed for someone with large debts in the USSR. I'm not even sure whether there were opportunities to take out significant (and legal) loans in the USSR. I've poked around in a few books on the Soviet economy but it's quite foreign in its structure (all discussion of loans are about loans taken out by the state, in the form of bonds, not about individuals). --Mr.98 (talk) 17:33, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that there was a way for individuals to amass debts that could lead to bankruptcy. First of all, there were no credit cards. I don't think that banks made unsecured personal loans. State banks apparently did make home-building loans per this source, but these were secured loans, and if the borrower failed to meet the repayment terms, the bank could simply repossess the building or materials. If individuals wanted to purchase expensive goods, such as automobiles or appliances, they had to save for them. Individuals might make informal loans to one another, but it's hard to imagine someone being able to amass a large debt to other private individuals. If that somehow happened, and the debtor was unable to repay those loans, I would think that the debtor could be prosecuted for theft. Marco polo (talk) 19:02, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

In true communism there is no debt. →Στc. 04:56, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

A corollary to that is something Will Rogers once said: "In Russia, they ain't got no income tax! But they ain't got no income!" ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 06:20, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

• Urgh Mr.98, why do you have to raise this. Soviet-style economies had internal debts between production units; these were both cost accounting debts and substantive money debts. Production units in the Soviet-style economies operated in a kind of capitalism where a single share-holder synchronised their interests between firms, and where there was firm level resistance by individual managers. The Party-State apparatus could, and did, void loans at will, and could, and did, attainder and execute management. Stuff I've read on firm level politics indicates that attainder was advocated as a result of relatively low-level party battles during periods of extreme economic stress (1930s, war); but that in other periods management was relatively safe (1950s, 1960s). See Milovan Djilas on The New Class for this. Personal economic debt in the Soviet Union could occur in the black and grey economies, in these cases you would be killed over non-payment of debts. This was primarily an phenomena of the capitals and major cities. Finally, and obviously, the Soviet Union was not a society where economics was democratically organised by the principles "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need" and deep in to the 1930s, private capitalist enterprises continued to operate; and, throughout the life of the Soviet Union, value maximisation processes, alienated wage labour, and monified firm level accounting through banks continued. (Yugoslavia is even more confusing). Fifelfoo (talk) 11:02, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Were workers always paid in cash (weekly? monthly?) or into a bank account or savings account? If into an account, could they overdraw on that account? Also, was there hire purchase or anything similar? Itsmejudith (talk) 17:43, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

• The Soviet Encyclopaedia indicates by 1979 that wages were paid in a physical fashion, this implies weekly in cash to me. Shkurko notes the large social-democratic component of the Soviet Wage by 1964—my understanding from a seminar on this topic is that social-wage elements were paid out of factory budget…this lead to interesting results in the 1990s as the nomenklatura strategically defunded factories. Bergson indicates that authors were paid by royalty in 1951, which indicates a functioning market system. Matthews writing in 1986 on Soviet poverty hardly mentions personal debt, with the exception of collective housing mortgages which he briefly characterises as usurious. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:24, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Interesting, thanks. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:36, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Are UK Magistrates (JP's) gazetted?

I am searching for a reference that shows when Francis Alfred Broad became a justice of the peace (JP). According to The Tottenham & Edmonton Weekly Herald, Friday 6 January 1956, page 7, he was appointed a justice of the peace for Middlesex in 1933. I have searched The London Gazette without success. Are JP's gazetted? If so, where? --Senra (Talk) 16:14, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

There would be a record at the Lord Lieutenant's office as they are keeper of the rolls. Egg Centric 16:41, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Useful thank you, but no joy. I read the Lord Lieutenants record's history and found it interesting. I suspect that off-line catalogue would contain what I need but it would require a trip to London which is financially out of the question for me. I still suspect such appointments are gazetted somewhere. I also searched The Times using "Frank Broad" and "Francis Broad" between 1932 and 1934 without success. Still, thank you for your input --Senra (Talk) 18:02, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Just going to email you as there's one extra way I can help Egg Centric 20:14, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

No, appointments as Justices of the Peace are not published in the London Gazette (or The Times), and as far as I'm aware they never have been. Proteus (Talk) 15:20, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Cote d'Ivoire not a Muslim nation

I remember somebody said that Cote d'Ivoire is not a Muslim nation when it came to president and constitution in other African nations question. Then, how do you explain this? ]? It shows that Cote d'Ivoire is a Muslim nation in dark green underneath Mali. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.22.249 (talk) 20:04, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

That map shows Islam to be a dominant religion in Cote d'Ivoire, this is unrelated to whether the state is secular or not. Public awareness (talk) 20:08, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

• Public awareness has now been blocked indefinitely as a sock of the banned editor User:Passionless.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:43, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

To expand a little but on what Public awareness says: there is a difference between the religion practiced by the people of a nation, and the government endorsing (or enforcing) a nation as an official state religion. That is, there is a distinction to be made between being "a nation of people who are mostly Muslim" and "A nation whose government is a Muslim theocracy". Cote d'Ivoire is the former, Iran is the latter. --Jayron32 20:36, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

2001 data: Islam 35-40%, indigenous African religions 25-40%, Christianity 20-30%; see demographics of Côte d'Ivoire. Neutrality 03:53, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

All well and good. So, what's the data for Ivory Coast? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 08:47, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Ismaili significant population in Muslim world and non-Muslim world

Which Muslim nations and non-Muslim nations like India have the significant population of Ismailis regardless they are Mustalis, Nizaris and Druze? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.22.249 (talk) 20:08, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

The Misplaced Pages article Ismailism has that information, though not all in one paragraph. If you read the article, however, you can find lots of information as to where the various sects of Ismailis are dominant. --Jayron32 20:41, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Syrians in France

How come there is no article regarding Syrians in France, its former colonial master? like Lebanese in France article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.22.249 (talk) 20:13, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Because no one has yet created it. If you can find reliable sources which you can read and then create your own text based on the ideas therin, you are invited to create the article yourself. --Jayron32 20:32, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

US Code "source control"

What's the best way to look at a particular passage in the United States Code and figure out the law that is responsible for that exact passage? My specific question is about Title 17, section 109, but I'd love a solution to the general case. Comet Tuttle (talk) 22:16, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

The way I know of: get the GPO version of the code; it has the legislative history in it (and "legislative history" is generally the term you want to be searching for when finding out what various bills made up a particulate statute). E.g. For Title 17, Chapter 1, go here, then click on Section 109, and it will tell you in exquisite and difficult-to-parse detail all of the relevant laws that have revised the current code (e.g. "(Pub. L. 94-553, title I, Sec. 101, Oct. 19, 1976, 90 Stat. 2548; Pub. L. 98-450, Sec. 2, Oct. 4, 1984, 98 Stat. 1727; Pub. L. 100-617, Sec. 2, Nov. 5, 1988, 102 Stat. 3194; Pub. L. 101-650, title VIII, Secs. 802, 803, Dec. 1, 1990, 104 Stat. 5134, 5135; Pub. L. 103-465, title V, Sec. 514(b), Dec. 8, 1994, 108 Stat. 4981; Pub. L. 105-80, Sec. 12(a)(5), Nov. 13, 1997, 111 Stat. 1534.)", for one part of it.) You then have to work backwards to find out the contents of Public Law 94-553, and so on... fun! The GPO version seems to discuss some of the major changes, though, in the text itself. --Mr.98 (talk) 23:06, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

The legal citation for you law is either 17 USC 109 or 17 USCA 109. You can find cases that deal with your law with a search for either of those terms, either on the internet, or more narrowly through google scholar. The citation format is title number, followed by the abbreviation USC or USCA (for US Code or US Code annotated) then the section number. The absolute best source would be to go to a law library and ask for where the US Code Annotated could be found. You would pick up volume 17, then turn to section 109 to find your law. Printed there would be the legal text of it, all prior versions of the law, a list of federal regulations or other statues that cite the law, a list of law review articles that cites the law, a list of secondary sources that explain the law, and a list of cases which cite the law organized by jurisdiction and topic. If I was doing legal research on the law you mentioned. I would go to the USCA and find the legal encyclopedias that deal with it so I can learn how it works in the courts. I would then look at the American Law Reports (ALR) and American Jurisprudence (Am. Jur.) sections that were cited with the code. Where my research would take me next would be dependent on the reason for the research. If I were faced with a legal problem such as a client who wanted to sue or who was being sued, I would look to the cases to see where my problem fit within the gambit of the law. If I were doing scholarly research, I would look at the broader scope paying attention to the difficulties the courts have had with the law, policy concerns cited by the courts, and law review articles written on the subject. For your purposes, a search through the cases can lead you to a judge who had to pick a part the law. Often the judge will talk about the background of the law when making his or her interpretation. Legislative intent is a part of statutory interpretation. Some law clerk did extensive research on the law to help the judge render his or her opinion, so you can often save yourself some time if you can find a judicial opinion that does that. If you search for additional terms such as "legislative intent" or "intent of congress" you might find a juicy case with all that information right there for you. Gx872op (talk) 15:26, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Irreligion in Israel

Irreligion by country claims that Israel is 54% irreligious, but this makes no sense. Isn't Israel almost entirely Jewish? --75.50.55.27 (talk) 23:40, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Judaism is a complicated thing — both an ethnicity and a religion. Even as a religion, it's got many variants which tolerate extremely skeptical attitudes towards religion itself. The idea of "atheist Jews" or "agnostic Jews" is pretty standard (it is a culture that, in all but its orthodox varieties, promotes asking tough questions, and values secular education very highly — which is a nice recipe for producing agnostics). See Religion in Israel for a breakdown of the "spectrum" of religiosity in Israel. --Mr.98 (talk) 23:51, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Note that Irreligion by country#By proportion says: The Gallup poll has the most broad definition of irreligion: the question "Is religion an important part of your daily life?" was asked; the "no" answer is represented below.

See also Who is a Jew? PrimeHunter (talk) 23:55, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

The religion in Israel article has very similar statistics though for the number of Jews in Israel who do not consider themselves religious. 43% non-religious, 5% "anti-religious". --Mr.98 (talk) 01:46, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

The stats for affiliation under the old inherited Ottoman millet system, and for personal religious belief, are two entirely distinct things. As also in the United States, being Jewish is often considered to be the basis of an ethnic group identity... AnonMoos (talk) 00:01, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Whereas in Israel it is considered an umbrella for several ethnic groups, the main ones being Ashkenazi, Sphardi and Mizrahi Jews. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | 17 Tishrei 5772 16:42, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

And of course, Israel is not almost entirely Jewish, as there as are plenty of Muslims and Christians there too. Adam Bishop (talk) 06:06, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

It is around 75% self-identified as "Jewish," but again that is not necessarily a description of their religious practices. So that's a substantial majority, and of particular note since it's an astoundingly high percentage compared to any other country. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:38, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

From what I remember about half of Israeli Jews are considred secular these days, but that varies in definition. There's a secularism where our rich cultural heritage is venerated and also atheism, which can involve some of the aspects of secular Judaism or, in some cases, a total rejection of religion alltogether. We're a very complex people you see. :p Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | 17 Tishrei 5772 16:42, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Don't put too much faith in polls or read too much into them. The poll did not ask how often they attend services or whether they believe in God. It asked if religion was important in their daily lives. We can't have the illogical conclusion that if you don't believe religion is important to you in your daily life you are an atheist or agnostic. The poll doesn't answer that question. It points to the most religious. If you go to the religion in Sweden article, you will notice that other polls indicate that 17% feel religion is important in their daily lives, but over half of all marriages take place in a church and 9 out of 10 have a Christian burial. 46% seems pretty religious for Israel. Nearly half of Israel believes religion is important in their daily lives. 24.38.31.81 (talk) 14:18, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

October 15

Alianzarena, Munich

I am going to Munich this weekend (21st to 25th) to visit a friend. I have two questions. First, besides Dachau which we will visit, are there any other places my fellow wikipedians can recommend? Secondly, she has tickets for the Alianzarena, but won't tell me what we are seeing. Does anyone know what's happening that weekend? --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 12:42, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Victorian water colour painter

Name George Arbuthnot. Born c.1803. Living in London 1829-1854. Who was he? Kittybrewster ☎ 13:46, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Are there any cases of reverse-provocateur government agents?

So traditionally one of the tactics used to break up and destroy subversive groups is to infiltrate them with agent provocateurs. The provocateur will usually encourage and incite the group to become more radical, militant and extreme and urge the organization to commit outrageous acts of violence, which will both discredit the group among the general population and give the government a pretext to crack down and make arrests. In some cases provocateurs might even initiate violence alone in the name of the organization.

So my question is are there any cases of reverse-provocateurs? By which I mean government agents that infiltrate radical militant groups to stear them in a more peaceful, nonviolent, legal, moderate, reformist direction. So instead of encouraging a nonviolent group to become violent, these agents would attempt to drive the violent organization in a less violent direction.

It would seem like agents who encouraged subversive groups to engage in LESS illegal activities would be less likely to be detected as provocateurs, and such a tactic might be better for a longterm strategy of defusing radicalism from within, making them less of a direct violent/terroristic revolutionary threat to the state.

So if anyone knows any examples of government use of this tactic, either from history or contemporary politics please let me know. --Gary123 (talk) 13:54, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, the goal of law enforcement is generally to discredit and disband such groups, so the strategy you're talking about isn't really amenable to that mindset. But in the intelligence community you do have things like this, such as the CIA's funding of the Congress for Cultural Freedom, which was generally meant to have a "liberal" (as opposed to "radical") approach to Europeans, who were perceived as particularly likely to be sucked in by Soviet propaganda during the Cold War. It wasn't so much that they paid people to try and influence towards liberalism (and against Communism) as that they funded people who happened to already believe that in the first place, and give them a mouthpiece. Other than that, though, I can't think of any comparable examples. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:59, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Wasn't there some white power skinhead group which was being infiltrated by cops in the 1990s out in the midwest U.S. somewhere? 208.54.38.200 (talk) 16:34, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Last Rites for a Catholic priest

Suppose a Roman Catholic priest finds himself unexpectedly and suddenly mortally injured, with only a short time left to live. What would be the proper/recommended course of action recommended by the Catholic Church for him to take, especially with regard to Last Rites? Specifically, what would he do in each of the following three situations?

(1) If the priest was with another priest, would the other priest administer Last Rites to him, or are priests exempt from Last Rites?

(2a) If no one else was around except a layperson, would the priest quickly instruct the layperson in how to administer Last Rites to him, or do rules prohibit laypersons from administering Last Rites?

(2b) Given that women cannot be ordained as priests in Catholic Church, would it make any difference if that layperson is female?

(3) If the priest was alone, would he administer Last Rites to himself, or are Last Rites something that one cannot administer to oneself?

—SeekingAnswers (reply) 14:42, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Your questions are answered in the article you linked, and in the articles linked within that article such as Anointing of the Sick (Catholic Church). For a start, priests are not exempt from anything in the Catholic Church, and the question seems to assume that the Sacraments are a burdensome duty rather than a source of Grace. That is: it is a privilege to have access to the Sacraments, rather than the Sacraments being something we must do because we are told to.

As our articles say, the 'Last Rites' include 'Anointing of the sick', which is a Sacrament that can only be administered by a priest, and the Sacrament of Penance, which can only be administered by a priest, and viaticum, receiving the Eucharist, which can be brought from the Tabernacle in the nearest chapel or church by a layperson, and given to the dying by a layperson, although it must have been left over from a Mass presided over by a priest, and the ordinary form is for the Eucharist to be brought and administered by a priest or deacon. The priest could not anoint himself, nor give himself absolution, although he could make a good act of contrition. 86.163.1.168 (talk) 14:58, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

The sacrament of Marriage is something that only a priest can conduct but is not something he can personally receive without it having significant ramifications for his priesthood. -- Jack of Oz 20:30, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the Sacrament of Marriage is conferred by the couple getting married, and overseen by a priest or deacon. Just a weird quirk: Baptism and Marriage are the two Sacraments that don't need to be administered by an ordained person, which is why Protestant Baptisms and Marriages can be considered valid by the Catholic Church. A priest who has been defrocked can marry, and marrying would almost certainly lead to being defrocked, but he can never lose his priestly status because it is considered a permanent mark on his soul. He'd still be a priest, even if ordered not to do any of the jobs a priest does in the Church.

But, yes, I was interpreting the word exempt as meaning you don't have to do it rather than you may not do it, which was perhaps a mistake on my part. There is nothing that all lay Catholics are supposed to do which Catholic priests are not also supposed to do. There is no priestly shortcut that means you don't need a Sacrament. 86.163.1.168 (talk) 21:51, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Let me explore this a little because I'm not sure I have it nailed down. To be recognised as a valid sacramental marriage, it must occur in a Christian church (as distinct from a registry office, or in your living room before a civil celebrant, or in a non-Christian religious ceremony) but it does not have to involve a priest? Is that what you're saying? Apart from the 2 witnesses, does it have to involve anyone else at all? Or must there be someone there "overseeing" it? Could one of the witnesses also be the "overseer"? What's the absolute minimum number of people that must be present at a wedding: 4 or 5? -- Jack of Oz 22:09, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

The two witnesses are a requirement of civil law, not church law; the priest is the witness for the church as the couple contracts the marriage. As far as the church is concerned, the marriage can occur anywhere; it needn't be in church; laws as to where weddings can occur are civil laws. (But the church wants you to comply with civil laws, so civil law restrictions on place would be obeyed.) So the minimum number of people would be 3 (the couple and the priest), unless civil law requires more. The other distinction you may want to explore is between "licit" and "valid" marriages, but that opens up all sorts of casuistry in which the licitness and validity will depend on the religions of those getting married. (I suspect the minimum number of people who could be at the valid and licit sacramental marriage of two non-Catholic but baptized people is two...) - Nunh-huh 22:29, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, N-h. So, combining what you and 86.163.1.168 have said: as far as the church is concerned the marriage can take place anywhere at all, not necessarily in a church; and the celebrant-cum-witness can be anyone at all, not necessarily a priest. Say a couple got married on top of Mt Everest, using their sherpa guide as the celebrant/sole witness. How would they ever prove to the satisfaction of the Church that they had married in accordance with church law? -- Jack of Oz 05:57, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, they probably couldn't, and if they did, it wouldn't matter. Speaking specifically about sacramental marriages, at least one party must be a baptized Christian (otherwise the church isn't going to claim jurisdiction: the church calls marriages between two non-Christians "natural marriages"). If two Catholics went through a marriage ceremony in the absence of a priest, that marriage would likely be deemed invalid (unless there is a dispensation obtained), because it is "deficient in form". If two Christian non-Catholics marry in the absence of a priest, the church does not consider that that makes the marriage invalid. In the case where two non-baptized persons marry, and one later converts to Christianity and can no longer tolerate his spouse, that marriage can be dissolved and the baptized party can then marry a Christian (the Pauline Privilege). If a baptized person and a non-baptized person marry, that marriage can be dissolved by the Pope (Petrine Privilege). In any case, the validity or licitness of a marriage would be decided by testimony before a church legal tribunal. (And of course, like any legal proceeding, a specific outcome can't necessarily be predicted. :) - Nunh-huh 06:22, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

This seems to have strayed from the original question a tad. One thing is unclear: Wouldn't the Roman Catholic Church recognize pretty much any "conventional" marriage (one man, one woman) that's allowed by law? For example, a married Jewish couple. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 09:24, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I think Nunh-huh's answer to which you are indented as a reply explains the distinction pretty clearly. What part of their answer was unclear to you? I don't want to just repeat what they said. 86.163.1.168 (talk) 12:13, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Where to buy Kippot in the Czech Republic?

Where can kippot be bought in the Czech Republic either online or in person?--147.32.97.254 (talk) 18:06, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Well I don't know about buying them in person, but I suspect there are some Jewish stores in Prague. As for online, I guess you could use a site like (they've been okay in the past). Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | 17 Tishrei 5772 18:09, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Now that I think about it, check local synagogues, they would definitely know where you can buy kippot and some probably have Judaica stores that would sell them. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | 17 Tishrei 5772 18:12, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

The Old New Synagogue is the only one still active on that list though. >.< But wait, I have found something else! Chabad of Prague 'Chabad of Prague • Parizska 3 • Praha 1, 11000 • Czech Republic • 420-222-320-200/192 -- Tefillin, Mezuzot and other Judaica items are available at Chabad. Please call +420 222 320 200.' If they have those, there is no doubt that they have kippot! Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | 17 Tishrei 5772 18:20, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, you are probably right. I just found that website very confusing (in all languages, Czech and Hebrew included) and skipped over it entirely. I'll be sure to go soon.--147.32.97.254 (talk) 19:24, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I know, it is poorly designed, but I thankfully noticed that stuff at the bottom. !חג שמח (Happy holiday!) Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | 17 Tishrei 5772 19:29, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Brechova, where Shelanu Deli is located, is a short extension from Maiselova. Walk from the main square of the Old Town straight up Parizska (sorry, no háčeks on this keyboard apart from copy and paste) and turn left into Bilkova. Alternatively, from the Staromestska metro walk up 17. listopadu and turn right. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 19:51, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Il Canzoniere

I know it is obvious to some, but I seem to have missed the meaning of the "II". Is it because it is to be broken up into two words?--Doug Coldwell 18:25, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

"Canzoniere" would simply be song book. "Il Canzoniere" is the song book. It's just a Definite article. SDY (talk) 18:45, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I think the sans-serif font has misled you. It isn't the Roman numeral II. It's a capital eye followed by a lowercase ell, pronounced (approximately) eel. --Trovatore (talk) 18:50, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, now I get it. The sans-serif font did throw me off. It has NOTHING to do with the Roman numeral II.--Doug Coldwell 18:58, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Cottage cheese in Israel

A while back, I read a news article regarding popular protests in Israel about cost of living, and cottage cheese came up as a specific bone of contention. Is there some particular reason this is ingrained in Israeli culture? I had a couple of Orthodox friends growing up, and none of them seemed particularly taken by the stuff. SDY (talk) 18:47, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Cottage cheese touched it off. Israelis love six types of food: Fish, Dairy, Cucumbers, anything made from chickpea, Tomatoes and Bread. I think there was some price fixing going on between the dairy companies like Tnuva and prices of cheese and other dairy products skyrocketed. Oh yeah, and I believe that another reason for the high prices was that, in the realm of dairy, Israel is very protectionist and does not allow dairy imports; or didn't until the protests, and I believe this was after several Israeli grocery stores said they would stop carrying Tnuva's products if they didn't lower the prices as the stores were apparently selling them for little or no profit. A lot of politics though. So, people got incredibly pissed off and it eventually evolved into a protest over many other things including government corruption, monopolies and high cost of living. I don't quite remember how it transitioned though, but that was an epic protest. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | 17 Tishrei 5772 19:16, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Good info, but why cottage cheese in particular? Our article on the product doesn't give any background on the history of it other than the curds and whey. It more or less doesn't exist in India, so it's not a universal dairy food. I'm thinking Hawaiians and spam: it's a traditional food because there weren't many other meat options. Paneer has an additional quality that some cottage cheese shares, which is lack of rennet, and is that appealing from a standpoint of kashrut? SDY (talk) 21:15, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Cottage cheese is one of those foodstuffs which many cultures (at least, those that eat dairy) have arrived at independently; many have different names for it, and slightly different applications and preparation techniques, but most dairy-consuming cultures have a fresh, unaged cheese product. (besides the aforementioned Paneer, there is also things like Farmer's cheese and Queso fresco, and Quark (cheese) and so on). In Israel, apparently, it is a staple foodstuff; I'm not sure there needs to be a causitive agent for its popularity. Why do Italians eat pasta? Why do the Irish drink dark, warm beer? Why do Asian cultures use soy sauce? It just is... --Jayron32 23:35, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Apologies, as usual I ignored the most obvious answer. The main reason Israelis were so pissed off was because the price increase was completely and totally unreasonable to them. Israelis hate, and I mean hate, feeling like someone is taking advantage of them, to be considered a fraier (sucker, chump) is horrible (the only thing worse is to be called out as the person taking advantage of someone). The fact is that if an Israeli sees the price of something like cheese go up by 53% in the course of one month (I think that was it), he or she is going to be pissed because he or she feels that someone is trying to play him or her for a chump. It's not so much the cost or the love of cheese as the principle and no Israeli willingly takes such things lying down. Statements vetted and confirmed by Israeli girlfriend Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | 18 Tishrei 5772 05:16, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

OT but how much is cottage cheese in Israel? It's not actually something I like much but I recently bought some and it was NZ$1.99 for 250g albeit on special. Of course NZ has a large dairy industry but we do get common complaints about the price of dairy products particularly milk. Nil Einne (talk) 16:11, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

"professional, dedicated, highly skilled and resilient"

According to Mike Jackson, the British Army's Chief of the General Staff, as the article Provisional Irish Republican Army campaign 1969–1997 points out, the Provisional IRA was "professional, dedicated, highly skilled and resilient". Where can I read the paper (by Jackson) wherein he described the IRA as being like that? --Belchman (talk) 19:39, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Operation Banner released under FOI The Last Angry Man (talk) 20:00, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Great, thank you! --Belchman (talk) 20:57, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

silk road

What countries did the silk road go through and what goods were traded? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.92.76.13 (talk) 21:43, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Please, see Silk Road. --Belchman (talk) 22:28, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Why didn't Derry/Londonderry join the Republic of Ireland during the partition?

Why didn't it? Its population is mostly Catholic and nationalist. --Belchman (talk) 23:01, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

According to the relevant articles including Irish Boundary Commission and Partition of Ireland areas which were otherwise majority Catholic and Nationalist, including (London)Derry, were included on the northeast side of the border for primarily economic reasons: If the border were drawn on purely sectarian lines (i.e. fully seperating only those areas which were Protestant and Unionist into Northern Ireland), then the Northern Irish area would not have been economically viable. --Jayron32 23:25, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, checking those articles. Also, fixed a spelling mistake. --Belchman (talk) 23:37, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Also, it's the largest city in the northwest of Ireland, and has been considered by some to be a kind of Protestant holy city after the events of 1689. AnonMoos (talk) 09:33, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

The border decided in 1920 was provisional, to be adjusted by a Boundary Commission, which was appointed in 1924. Its report recommended transferring some parts of Northern Ireland to the Free State, as it then was, and some parts of County Donegal to Northern Ireland, but it was suppressed for a variety of reasons - mainly because the Irish government traded it for removal of liability for a proportion of the UK's public debt, which had been included in the 1920 treaty, but also because they felt it would entrench partition and make it harder to one day get rid of entirely. --Nicknack009 (talk) 11:02, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

David & Karina Calvert-Jones

What are the names of their two children? Living in Los Angeles. Possibly in birth announcements in Australia. Kittybrewster ☎ 23:29, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Women in old Russia before seclusion

I know that before the Western reforms issued by Peter the Great in the early 18th century, Russian women lived secluded life's, at least in the upper classes, were they were not allowed to mingle with men. My question is, when were they secluded like this in the first place? Surely, they could not have been secluded in old Kievan Rus', as it was influenced by the Swedish culture, were women were not secluded? Or was it? Perhaps Kievan Rus were not influenced by Swedish culture, or not to that degree? If women were not secluded in Kievan Rus, then when were they placed in the seclusion from which they were freed by Peter the Great? Was it under the influence of the Golden Horde? Thank you.--Aciram (talk) 23:35, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I am not familiar with this in Russians per se, the practice here is attributed to a development even beyond Mongol and Byzantine influence, but Purdah was a common Indo-European practice also known in Persia, india, and among the Greeks. Indo-Europeans themselves, the Slavs were influenced by the Greeks and the Aryan relatives of the Persians. It is doubtful that the Ruotsi brought that many women along with them and probably took native brides--but that's a guess on my part. μηδείς (talk) 00:41, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

It's very doubtful whether it should be called an "Indo-European practice", since it was definitely not practiced by the speakers of the original Proto-Indo-European language, and there are whole branches of the Indo-European languages whose speakers have never practiced it.

It actually originated in the urban civilizations of the middle east. However, it seems to have been systematized and intensified in Achaemenid Persia, and it was the Persians who were most influential in transmitting the custom to other nations or civilizations... AnonMoos (talk)

As far as I understand, the women of India were not secluded before Islam? In any case, perhaps it is best to determine when the seclusion was first practiced in Russia? Were the Grand Princesses of Kiev secluded? And if not all, who was the first one of them to live in seclusion? Were the women secluded in the 11th century, in the 12th century, or in the 13th century Russia? If it was byzantine influence, then perhaps it was introduced by the Byzantine marriage and Christianisation of the Grand duke in 988? In short, when did the practice start? When is the first time were this practice is observed in Russia? And when is the last time when the women were not secluded? It was definitely in full practice in the 15th century, when Sophia Palaiologina was exempted from it. --Aciram (talk) 11:07, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, as I said the one book source I could find said that the seclusion of Muscovite women became more severe over time. I don't have an opinion of the source, having only seen it on google. I should say that there is no Indo-European word meaning "purdah" or "seclusion" in the strict sense. But, the seclusion of wives among the Greco-Aryans; the fact that the word "wed" and its analogs in other branches means "to lead away"; the fact that PIE kin terms are patrilocal; while evidence of Old Europe (archaeology) shows the opposite practice; the likelihood that the Latin word uxor comes from a root with a meaning "to become accustomed" (i.e., to one's role); the fact that the Romans found the equality with which the Etruscans treated their women suprising, while the Romans had such cults as the Vestal Virgins; the suggested etymology of wife from a verb *weip meaing "to wrap, enveil"; and many other things all imply a secluded role for wives in the culture of the Kurgan expansionists. μηδείς (talk) 02:17, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't really find that credible. The proto-Indo-European speakers were no doubt somewhat patriarchal in their own particular way, but their fairly mobile lifestyle (often more attached to their animals than to any particular plot of land) was not conducive to any type of strict segregation, and if they lived significantly north of the Caucasus mountain range (as seems most plausible), then they were too far away from urban civilizations to be directly influenced by them. Furthermore, it's quite dubious whether the English word "wife" goes back to Indo-European, and the attested early Germanic forms of this word don't really mean "married woman" anyway. And a source I have here explains the etymology of uxor as meaning "she who bgets accustomed (to the new household)", implying patrilocal marriage customs, but not purdah. (In any case, in a society with purdah, a woman who went from seclusion in her father's household to seclusion in her husband's household would not have to become accustomed to purdah...) And the Greco-Aryan article describes what seems to be a rather speculative hypothesis. AnonMoos (talk) 06:06, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

October 16

Bahá'ís on Sundays?

According to an advertisement in my campus paper, the local Bahá'í center is the location of a worship service (or whatever it's called; my apologies, but I'm very unfamiliar with Bahá'ísm) on Sundays. Is Sunday typically the day of worship for Bahá'ís worldwide, or is it chosen here because Christianity, as the dominant religion in the USA, worships on Sundays? I can't find anything relevant in Bahá'í Faith or in Bahá'í calendar. Nyttend backup (talk) 04:52, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

This would be because of its significance in Christianity. The article Bahá'í calendar says that the day of rest for Baha'is is Friday, and as far as I know, that is the only reference to a specific day of the week of significance in the Faith. Worship is based around the Feasts (an administrative/worhip-based gathering held every 19 days) and the Holy Days (11 per year, with work suspended on nine of these). As a long-term member, I can assure you that much of Baha'i civic life is designed to fit in with mainstream society, since Baha'is have to work, and generally aim to be compatible with the world. It's been emotional (talk) 06:11, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Patriot act

I've read somewhere that it is abuse of the Patriot Act that is killing America and may be preventing economic recovery and job creation. If this is true then did Bin Laden win by means of the American government's reaction to 9/11? --DeeperQA (talk) 07:38, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

IF, it's true, than probably, see the terrorists have won. Public awareness (talk) 08:11, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand your question. It isn't even grammatical. Can you write more clearly? Pfly (talk) 08:18, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Wait, maybe I can parse the question. Are you asking if the Patriot Act caused the Late-2000s recession? If so, it seems unlikely to me, but what do I know? Pfly (talk) 08:31, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Multinational corporations, reassigning the "good" jobs to foreign countries, is a much more likely explanation. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 09:20, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

See also Occupy Wall Street. Pfly (talk) 09:27, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

This is rapidly going to turn into "insert your political bias here." That doesn't answer the OP's question. I'm guessing that the OP is referring to this piece or something akin to it. There's a specific question they raise about regulations leading to people not holding their money in US banks, which may have had some effect on their ability to lend, and also reducing the influence of the dollar as currency. It's an interesting idea, and it's not one of the usual complaints about the USA PATRIOT Act (there's nothing patriotic about it, it's just a loaded language initialism), though it doesn't address what's usually fingered as the source of the problem, as Greenspan put it "irrational exuberance" and also the loophole in regulations of investment products that allowed banks to create houses of cards predicated on overly optimistic assumptions about housing prices. Did the USA PATRIOT Act contribute? Possible, but it was far from alone. SDY (talk) 10:29, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

The most relevant complaint about the Patriot act to the economy that I have heard is that it makes it much more difficult for talented immigrants to come to or stay in the United States. There are some pretty hard facts out there with regards to science, technology, engineering, and medicine that the trend since 2001 has been for talented foreigners to get their educations in the United States and then to immediately go back to their home countries, rather than contributing to the United States. That's not great for the US, on the whole, and is a somewhat stupid side-effect of being overly tough on immigration issues. But it's not the cause of the financial crashes. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:47, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Parsing things through the question of "did Bin Laden win?" is a very foolish mode of analysis. It invites nothing but bias and silliness, and gets emotions up. It's subjective to say the least. There are lots of productive conversations to be had about the effects of 9/11 or the Patriot Act, but whether anyone has "won" or "lost" is the least productive lens to view these events through, and misses the important points. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:49, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Capitalism is failing at last. →Στc. 20:16, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Please stop trolling. --Mr.98 (talk) 02:09, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

buddhi

I see the definition of "buddhi" in Wiktionary. Can you give me a sentence or two with this usage of A transpersonal faculty of mind higher than the rational mind that might be translated as ‘intuitive intelligence’ or simply ‘higher mind’?--Doug Coldwell 11:40, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

This word isn't generally used by English speakers - most will use the Chan Buddhist equivalent 'Buddha nature'. Buddhi would translate directly as something like 'wakefulness', and you'd say something like: proper understanding and discrimination in the world can only be achieved by buddhi; lower faculties of the mind are bound to their limited perspectives". --Ludwigs2 13:56, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I haven't heard of "Buddha nature" being used, but I have come across "higher self" - the self which is subconsciously in tune with the spiritual world. One translation of "namaste" I have seen is "My higher self recognises and salutes your higher self". But to be honest I've never come across "buddhi" either! "Higher Self" is more in my experience. --TammyMoet (talk) 14:22, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I am getting a good understanding on this now.--Doug Coldwell 23:00, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I've never heard the term Buddhi in english before. I think in sanskrit it means something like intelect or intuition in non-buddhist contexts, but something like wakefulness in Buddhist ones, but don't quote me on that as I have no idea where I read that. Rabuve (talk) 01:43, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, buddhi certainly isn't intellect, which is a lower faculty. If I remember correctly, Hindus would say something like 'Buddhi is the state of experiencing atman/brahman' (universal consciousness in its personal or general form). When you are buddhi (in contact with universal consciousness) your perspective is universal, when you are not, then your perspective is intellectual, emotional, physical… each of which is a progressively more narrow and limited worldview. --Ludwigs2 04:47, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

British government or British military opinion on the various loyalist paramilitaries

Where can I find a paper by the British government or the British military about the loyalist paramilitaries? --Belchman (talk) 14:02, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Here unclassified from the HOC The Last Angry Man (talk) 14:16, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

National archives are also good The Last Angry Man (talk) 14:19, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Brilliant, thank you. --Belchman (talk) 14:21, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Amerigo Vespucci

Is it true that America is named after Amerigo, because he was the first to actually realize that America was a completely new continent and not India? Or was it because he spread the word to Europeans that this land was a new continent and not India? Or neither? ScienceApe (talk) 16:30, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

See Americas#Etymology and naming. It is unclear whether Vespucci realized that South America was a separate continent. Lesgles (talk) 17:48, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Anyway, they thought they were in the "Indies" -- i.e. parts of Indonesia, or islands to the east of China -- not India itself. AnonMoos (talk) 18:00, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

According to East Indies, it seems like "Indies" was just a term they used back then for the entire Indian Subcontinent. ScienceApe (talk) 18:31, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but India itself was fairly clearly known to Europeans as early as Hellenistic times (e.g. the Periplus of the Erythraean Sea, Ptolemy's maps, etc.), and Columbus never had any delusions that he was off the coast of India -- rather he thought he was finding indeterminate islands east of China, hopefully not all that far off from the either the Chinese mainland or islands where exportable spices grew... AnonMoos (talk) 01:22, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

The technical answer is "no" because the question implies that Amerigo did know he discovered a new continent. It was named after Amerigo because others thought that he knew he discovered a new continent. I've seen it suggested in multiple places that Amerigo's descriptions of topless natives made his writings very popular compared to the writings of other explorers, so his descriptions had a better chance of being accepted as the definitive descriptions of the new world. I've seen just as many objections to that claim. -- kainaw™ 01:38, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

need to find an old saying

There is an old quote that begins with the danger of committing murder because it then leads to a list of other, lesser crimes and eventually ending with something like foul language. Anyone remember this? Thanks. 76.116.92.205 (talk) 20:14, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Thomas de Quincy. See http://quotationsbook.com/quote/27548/ . --Trovatore (talk) 02:13, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

The quote is from the (appropriately named) essay On Murder Considered as one of the Fine Arts. The entire essay (along with all of de Quincy's works) can be found at Project Gutenberg. Buddy431 (talk) 04:17, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Positive pessimism

is there any philosophical ideas or any philosopher that has a view of positive pessimism?

I described positive pessismism as expecting the worst out of things to be happy to whatever the outcome is. Does it make sense? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.112.82.128 (talk) 23:33, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Somehow yes, that seems to be something in the direction of Buddhism or stoicism. Wikiweek (talk) 00:10, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Some might say that approaches fatalism... AnonMoos (talk) 01:10, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I think you should take a look at Raymond Smullyan's This Book Needs No Title. In it he describes optimists, incurable optimists, and pessimistic optimists. An optimist thinks everything that happens is for the best, mankind will survive. An incurable optimist believes that even if mankind doesn't survive, it's still for the best. A pessimistic optimist sadly shakes his head and says "I'm very much afraid everything is for the best." Whereas Arthur Schopenhauer was an optimistic pessimist. He was happy to say "See, everything is for the worst." Furthermore, he was optimistic that everything would continue going as bad as he predicted.Greg Bard (talk) 01:32, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Some interesting reads in this area may be Candide (especially the character of Pangloss), as well as the real person upon whom Pangloss is based, see Gottfried Leibniz#Theodicy and optimism and Best of all possible worlds. --Jayron32 02:05, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Stoicism? I prefer utilitarianism, because it lets me smile more often. Dualus (talk) 02:48, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

October 17

Polynesian ethnic group in French Polynesia

What are the different kind of ethinic groups in French Polynesia? It seems like they are all clump together as Polynesians, but they are as different as Hawaiians are from Samoans or Maoris are from Rapa Nuians. What are some of thing other than Tahitians and Marquesans? Also what are the people of the Society Islands west of Tahiti called?

Also what are the different Polynesians called other than Tahitian?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 01:50, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

According to Tahitians, it would appear that the Society Islands culture is refered to as "Tahitian" in general terms, implying a somewhat homogenous culture. The article Tahitian language lists other dialects and closely related tongues; language and culture being closely tied together this may lead you on some interesting threads. The article Polynesians lists various Polynesian ethnic groups, so that may also help you differentiate between them. --Jayron32 02:01, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Why do Western buddhist monks and nuns change their names to Eastern names?

I was flipping through Buddhadharma:_The_Practitioner's_Quarterly at a bookstore and found myself continuously surprised to see Americans with names like John Smith Rinpoche. Or outright foreign names. While I have no problem with people naming themselves whatever they please, I'm curious why they do this. When I pick up a book written by Ven. Sri Buddhadharma Rinpoche and find on the inside flap that this is a Caucasian American it is very mentally jarring! Is this part of the ordination process? The Masked Booby (talk) 02:48, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

It is a religious name. It is mainly a tradition for religious figures to adopt new names, similar to how the German-born Joseph Aloisius Ratzinger adopted the more-Latin name of Pope Benedict XVI. Religious names for Buddhist monks are traditionally Eastern names. Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:16, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

More to the point, in many mystical traditions one gives up one's name as a symbol of release from worldly affairs, and adopts a name that reflects the spiritual principles one is aspiring to. Since these spiritual principles are usually expressed in the language of the faith, the odd names follow. Note, also, that words like 'Rinpoche' are actually titles, not names (Rinpoche translates roughly as 'one who is dear to us'). --Ludwigs2 04:33, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

free tuition and other benefits

Is the State of California being blackmailed into providing free tuition and other benefits for illegal, undocumented and migrant produce workers so the nation's supply of produce will not stop or become contaminated with diseases like Listeria or bacteria like e-coli?

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