Revision as of 16:54, 15 October 2013

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

• WP:RD/H

Main page: Help searching Misplaced Pages

How can I get my question answered?

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

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/Guidelines

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

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

October 9

What about Peake?

I've been exploring areas around Chessie (railroad mascot). On the B&O Railroad Museum online gift store, there's a plush Chessie. On another website involving Chessie, there's a plush "Nip" and a plush "Tuck". But I don't find anything regarding "Peake". What did he look like? Could anyone help, please? Thank you.142.255.103.121 (talk) 07:52, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I googled around some seems there is a historical society with lots of pictures & merch. here, here & here there are tons more under search. The society page is here. _{⧐ Diamond Way} 07:59, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, but I was hoping to find a plush "Peake", actually.142.255.103.121 (talk) 18:27, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Very true, after dozens of search result sites I lost track of that, I did the obligatory Google images and Ebay searches, nothing at all is turning up for Peake plushes. Not tons of experience in these type of searches so another editor may know of sites/portals that could give more detailed results than a google or google image query. _{⧐ Diamond Way} 19:10, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Alright. But judging what you provided me, can you do so with the description of Peake, please? Thank you.142.255.103.121 (talk) 04:43, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

You're asking to run the searches again for "plushes"? Not sure what you're asking, but in my 2nd response I was saying that I did go back with Ebay, Google and Google images and run those search combos, nothing at all is turning up. There could be other editors with knowledge of some other search portal or resource for a search but I am unaware of any. _{⧐ Diamond Way} 14:07, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

No, I'm not asking to run the searches again for "plushes". What I'm trying to ask is with everything you provided me on Peake, can you go back over them and suggest to me what color of plush cat to buy and name "Peake", please? Thank you.142.255.103.121 (talk) 03:14, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

From my vantage point Peake is greyish/dark brown with some black vertical striping that is splotchy, a black line running along its back with white tuffsfur on the upper chest, chin, cheeks & above the nose in a line to the forehead, tho I doubt those are set in stone & any greyish/dark brown cat with some black splotches would fit the bill. I'm just going off the images I linked to above from the search site I linked to. _{⧐ Diamond Way} 03:58, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you so much.142.255.103.121 (talk) 06:02, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Your welcome, glad I could help, btw I never even knew these characters existed & always thought the Chessie logo was a cat on the prowl not a cat on the nap. ;-). _{⧐ Diamond Way} 17:12, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Recommendations for graphic novels

I recently read Alan Moore's Watchmen and enjoyed it very much. Can anyone provide me with recommendations for other graphic novels in a similar vein? Obviously Moore's own V for Vendetta is one. I would like to read graphic novels which are particularly literate in tone and formally experimental in style, like Watchmen is. Thanks, --Viennese Waltz 13:28, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

It sounds like you'd like some other titles in DC's Vertigo imprint, which I believe publishes both of the works you mentioned. You mention "literate" and "experimental;" it's hard to combine those two traits much better than Moore does it, but I'd recommend Transmetropolitan by Warren Ellis (literate; imagine, among other things, Douglas Adams writing a fictionalized biography of Hunter S. Thompson in the style of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy and you'll start to approach Transmet), though perhaps relatively straightforward in its pacing. I also enjoyed Grant Morrison's The Invisibles. Morrison definitely falls on the "experimental" side of things and clearly has a lot of fun doing it (while using enough arcane sources to keep you busy at the library for days afterward if you really get into it). The first thing anyone will recommend to you, however, is Neil Gaiman's The Sandman, which would be worth buying even if it only consisted of Dave McKean's cover art (but it turns out there are complex and interesting stories there, too, huh). Other than Watchmen, or maybe American Splendor, Sandman is probably the most recognized English-language comic series, and for good reason. If you want to get away from heroes and gods, you might check out the work of Daniel Clowes (other editors can recommend more authors on that side of the literary spectrum). Happy reading! ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 14:51, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

What do we call a graphic novel that contains what the media loves to call "graphic violence" - a "graphic graphic novel"? -- Jack of Oz 20:27, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Not to mention back in the eighties and nineties, before the idea of comics for anyone other than children was really established in the popular imagination, you had formulations like "adult graphic novel" or "graphic novel for adults" which made them sound absolutely filthy. Sadly, very few of them were. --Nicknack009 (talk) 15:56, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

McCloud Understanding Comics, Reinventing Comics, and Zot! (Wasn't it? Hard to find.). Satrapi Persepolis and Persepolis 2. Spiegelman Maus. Spiegelman etal RAW. Fleener Life of the Party. Sacco Safe Area Gorazde. Moebius Madwoman of the Sacred Heart. Miller 300 Sin City (Collected). Various, Lucifer (Trust me on this one, particularly the Eileen Belloc subplot). Lutes Berlin. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:35, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Let me link: Understanding Comics, Reinventing Comics, Zot!. Persepolis (graphic novel) and Persepolis 2, Maus, RAW (magazine), Life of the Party, Safe Area Gorazde, Madwoman of the Sacred Heart, 300 (graphic novel), Sin City, Lucifer (DC comics), Berlin (comic). --Error (talk) 23:16, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Keeping with Moore, The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen. I don't remember if Miller's Ronin (graphic novel) is what you want.

Thanks for the tips from my side as well.

--Error (talk) 23:16, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the recommendations all. -Viennese Waltz 07:14, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Cages by Dave McKean, Eddie Campbell's Alec stories, Moore and Campbell's From Hell, The Wrong Place by Brecht Evens, and Gemma Bovery and Tamara Drewe by Posy Simmonds are some graphic novels with literary and formalist ambitions that spring to mind. I'd dispute the inclusion of 300 and Sin City - regardless of how good they are, they're pulp rather than literary in style. Straddling literary and pulp, I'd suggest The Adventures of Luther Arkwright by Bryan Talbot and Button Man by John Wagner and Arthur Ranson. McCloud's Understanding Comics and its follow-ups may be formalist, but are academic rather than literary - they're explorations of comics form and theory. --Nicknack009 (talk) 12:48, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I can't make any recommendations, since I don't follow the media. But I will say I broke up with someone for liking From Hell. μηδείς (talk) 00:48, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

A Rhetorics introduction textbook?

I am looking for a good Introduction textbook in Rhetorics (Something that covers the topic generally). it should be a cherished text in the academic world, admired, and chosen by the most active and honored institutions. you have my deep thanks ! Ben-Natan (talk) 21:38, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Rhetorics is a pretty broad topic, it would be difficult to come up with one, unless you tell us what you want to learn exactly.

On the other hand, many "active and honored institutions" have online syllabus of their courses, you could check these for a literature list. OsmanRF34 (talk) 22:12, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Note that "rhetorics" is a rather archaic word. You might have better luck looking for "persuasive writing" or "persuasive speaking". How to Win Friends and Influence People by Dale Carnegie is one such book. As I recall, Ben, constantly repeating your target's name, Ben, is a way, Ben, to make them feel like you are their friend, Ben. :-) StuRat (talk) 12:50, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Agreed with the views already expressed, however you may find a links like this useful. There are also books & websites on famous quotations, toastmaster guides & even the presidency project with transcripts of all speeches & papers going back in time. _{⧐ Diamond Way} 14:13, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

• I have never come across any such thing, and I would be interested if there were a good one. Rhetorics nowadays is divided into grammar, composition, logic and so on. Rhetorics also depends on having an ideology--without one there's really no framework within which to argue from. Ayn Rand's disciple Leonard Peikoff has just public a book of rhetoric called "Objectively Speaking". He's got a few gems, such as when to know not to argue with someone, and an explanation as to why there is no such thing as a perfect, unanswerable argument. But the book is the transcription of a recorded lecture, and it presumes you already know a lot about Rand's philosophy. I can't recommend it except as a matter of curiosity to people who are already fans of Rand's. μηδείς (talk) 00:40, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

October 10

It's drafty in here.

During the American Civil War, could someone who had already served in the Union Army be drafted? I'm trying to figure out if William H. Crook was a soldier. Arlington National Cemetery thinks so, but Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln notes he was drafted in 1865, and that Lincoln had to arrange to get him out of it. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:27, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

At the bottom of the Crook article, there’s a link to his autobiography – see page 25 where he describes being drafted and says ”I had served in the army already”. Is that enough? Taknaran (talk) 16:07, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't really want to use a primary source. I can't find anything conclusive. Thanks anyway. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:27, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

It would make sense to draft army veterans in a US war, since they would need less training. I've seen no evidence that army veterans were exempt from the draft in WW1 or WW2. Some enlisted for a year or whatever and then went home during the Civil War. They could certainly re-enlist. This on and off in and out service was unlike WW2 where they were grabbed for the duration. Edison (talk) 14:39, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

It makes sense to draft veterans of one war in a following one, but I've never heard of drafting them in the same one. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:24, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Is a published autobiography really a "primary source" whose credibility on the topic of something like military service is so doubtful that we wouldn't include it? I feel like that's a gray area. Anyway, I know this isn't exactly the stunning proof we're seeking, but the Arlington cemetery record reads "CROOK, WILLIAM H PCT CAPT KNIGHTS CO 3D BATTN D C MILTIA INF CW", and there appears to be a William H. Crook in the 3rd battalion of the D.C. militia -- this site, at least, lists a William H. Crook as a 3 month enlistee in that battalion in 1861. Is the combination of Arlington's assertion and the apparent existence of confirming evidence not enough? There might perhaps be more authoritative sources available online via the National Archives, but of course the shutdown prevents access to a lot of material there. Jwrosenzweig (talk) 17:23, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I was a bit leery of the Arlington site because it also listed him as a "Colonel, United States Army". An unreliable source (which I can't find now) called it an honorary rank, which makes sense, since he hardly served long enough (or had money and influence enough) to earn it. That being said, I've found The New York Times obituary for him, and it does say he fought in the Civil War. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:24, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Have to say it, the title of this section lacks clarity! -Δ-220 of 01:38, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

King James Version and the Apocrypha

King James Version notes how the Apocrypha was included between the Old and New Testaments in the original 1611 version, and it discusses how the Apocrypha began, on occasion, to be removed from certain printings of the KJV Bible. I'm unclear as to whether current printings of the KJV Bible contain the Apocrypha. Also, do those that are part of the King James Only movement, who consider the original 1611 printing to be the only acceptable translation, consider the Apocrypha to be cannon? Joefromrandb (talk) 04:27, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

The KJV is currently available in both versions and the KJV Only people would use the one without it. Rmhermen (talk) 05:07, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

The exact status of the Apocrypha in the Anglican Church is described in Article VI of the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion; "And the other Books (ie the Apocrypha), as Hierome saith, the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners; but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine..." Our article, Biblical apocrypha says; "All King James Bibles published before 1666 included the Apocrypha. In 1826, the British and Foreign Bible Society decided that no BFBS funds were to pay for printing any Apocryphal books anywhere. Since then most modern editions of the Bible and re-printings of the King James Bible omit the Apocrypha section.". Alansplodge (talk) 12:45, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

@Joefromrandb:, please note that the KJV-onlyists generally use the 1769 revision of the King James, which apparently is the last major update of the translation that carries the name "King James Version", i.e. as opposed to later revisions, which carry different names, e.g. the Revised Standard Version. Since the 1769 revision apparently doesn't get mentioned in most printings nowadays, most people don't appear to be aware that its text is different from the 1611 original, so when groups such as this church claim that they're using 1611, you need to take it with a grain of salt unless you have good evidence, e.g. they openly reject 1769, or their church sign says "Our helpe is in the name of the Lord: who made heauen and earth" instead of the later spelling of "Our help is in the name of the LORD, who made heaven and earth". Nyttend (talk) 19:16, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Why do Jewish people look white?

Living in the United States, a person who says that he is Jewish looks like a typical white person, not South Asian, East Asian, Southeast Asian, sub-Saharan African, or Native American. Why do Jews look white even though the Semitic peoples come from the Middle East, which is part of West Asia, and have darker complexion with black/brown hair+eyes and tan skin color? Also, during World War II, if a Jewish family refuses to put on the yellow star badge thingy and practices Judaism in secret under the mask of Christianity, then can that evade persecution by the NAZIs? 164.107.102.180 (talk) 14:20, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I must add that, in research experiments, researchers may ask, "What is your race/ethnicity?" and offer choices like "Asian-American/Pacific Islander, White-American, African-American, Jewish, and Other," and then adds, "Are you Hispanic?" and the choice is "Yes/No". So, is being Jewish treated as an ethnicity or a race, even though Jewish people may look like white people? 164.107.102.180 (talk) 14:29, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I'll answer only about the allegation that Jews look white. well, Not all Jews look "White". Some Jews, mainly those of Ashkenazi ancestry may look europeanish (and i can promise that it probably won't be a typical north-european look though there are exceptions off course). This is because primarily, jews from europe tend to resemble some kind of a mixture between Israelite, European-native, and a bit Khazar ancestry. Ben-Natan (talk) 14:38, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

As to the second, Nazism#Racial theories shows that the Nazi persecution was racial, not religious. Unlike the Spanish Inquisition, where many Jews survived by converting, the Nazis were only interested in who your parents were. There were cases of people who did not even know that they had Jewish ancestry being "outed" and persecuted by the regime. --ColinFine (talk) 14:36, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

So, practicing Jews and non-Jewish people with Jewish ancestry can be persecuted, huh? I imagine that a Jewish family may survive through the Spanish Inquisition, but fails to survive through the Holocaust, because the NAZIs base the Jewish identity on race and looks. 164.107.102.180 (talk) 15:05, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually they based their discrimination on official records (automatized by Dehomag machines), since, as you say, real Jews were often indistinguishable from "Aryans".

A further example are the Crimean Karaites. They practice a variant of Judaism, but they were not targeted for extermination since Nazi theory held them as a converted Turkic people.

--Error (talk) 21:52, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Some corrections: Maybe you didn't expect this kind of Spanish Inquisition, but Jews were expelled from Spain in 1492 (a bit later for Portuguese Jews). Hence, the Inquisition didn't deal with Jews. It dealt with Judaizantes, Crypto-Jews, relapses, baptised Christians that were perceived to practice Judaism in secret. Actually, some Messiah claimant (David Reubeni?, Solomon Molcho?) fell in the hands of the Spanish government. He was imprisoned as a Jew, but his deputy was passed to the Inquisition and relaxed to the secular arm since he was a baptisee of Jewish descent who practiced Judaism when abroad.

And under the laws of limpieza de sangre, New Christians (people of Jewish or Moorish or heretic descent) were discriminated against in Spain. Even if they were exemplary Christians (or even later recognized as saints), their ancestry made them suspect.

--Error (talk) 21:52, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

You also have families of several different races who have converted to Judaism such as Semei Kakungulu & the list goes on. _{⧐ Diamond Way} 14:48, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

It is worth pointing out that Semitic peoples in general are sometimes classified as 'white' - the 'races' are all social constructs, with no clear scientific method existing to establish 'boundaries' - or for that matter, to establish how many 'races' there supposedly are. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:53, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Ethnicity, on the other hand, may be more measurable, because it is dependent on culture and ancestry rather than on physical appearance. 164.107.102.180 (talk) 14:58, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Ethnicity is dependant on who/what people think they are. Nothing more, nothing less. And what do you measure culture with? AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:04, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

That is more of an understatement. Classification of ethnicity based on skin colour or on perceived historical or ancestral links with certain geographical locations is problematic and unscientific; however, that doesn't mean that classification of ethnicity is less important. As a matter of fact, the following source shows that ethnic identification is important in its relationship with health and other indicators and asks for a clearer understanding of the processes involved in ethnic identification in England: Karlsen, S. (2004). 'Black like Beckham'? Moving beyond definitions of ethnicity based on skin colour and ancestry. Ethnicity & Health, 9(2), 107-137. doi:10.1080/1355785042000222842. Sure, ethnicity may be dependent on "who/what people think they are", but your "nothing more" part is arguable due to the perceived correlations between ethnicity and health. And furthermore, I didn't mean quantitative measurement; I meant to say qualitative "measurement" or putting people into categories. 164.107.102.180 (talk) 15:30, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Hogwash ATG, thats a silly eucentirc version without any regard for the rest of the world. All jews are NOT European (and hae not been persecuted either)/. Ashkenazis (who are the lasrgest immigrants to teh US) are white./ There race is white, then you have Mizrahi and Sephardic who look totally different. Indian Jews (and Ethiopians and East Asians) look like thaeir counterparts from that part of the world.

Any study will tell you that are varied definition so "nothing more, nothing less" is absoltuely silly rooted in nothing but personal opinion.Lihaas (talk) 15:15, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Nobody has suggested that "Jews are all European". As for my definition of ethnicity, it is the one given in our (well sourced) article on the subject. Read it. You might learn something. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:32, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I think that the degree of genetic integration with non-Jewish populations must be higher than is sometimes assumed, despite the evidence of traceable Y-chromosomes. (For one thing, it is immensely more drastic for a man to consider conversion than a woman...) Certainly to my eye Dutch Jews look Dutch, Russian Jews look Russian, etc. See also Ethiopian Jews... Wnt (talk) 15:29, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

• Sammy Davis Jr. didn't look particularly white. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 19:17, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

There is the dispùted hypothesis that Ashkenazis descend in a great part of Khazars. --Error (talk) 21:52, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

A recent publication: "A substantial prehistoric European ancestry amongst Ashkenazi maternal lineages" --Nelson Ricardo (talk) 00:44, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

• Take a look at our article Khazaria which argues that most Ashkenazim have any real connection to Ancient Israel and that the majority of them originate in an area near Russia. Im sure some of the theorizing is backed up by genetic tests--82.46.142.98 (talk) 22:52, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

That's considered a crackpot theory nowadays, although I have no personal opinion. Given 20% of the Roman Empire was Jewish I don't think one needs to make special (some might say conspiracy) theories. The answer to the OP's question is the same as to why do Greeks or Italians look white. μηδείς (talk) 00:33, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

See , though still a minority theory. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 09:48, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

What proportion of Americans were raised in Christian households?

It seems to be quite common to find a Christian or someone who is raised Christian in the United States (i.e. sometimes people may say that they celebrate Easter and Christmas with their families). My question is, what proportion of the population were raised Christian or came from Christian households? 164.107.102.180 (talk) 16:33, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Christianity in the United States says that 73% of Americans self-identify as Christians in a 2012 survey. --Jayron32 16:39, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

(ec) Aside from the inherit problems that no one is obligated to report this data (unlike Census) & that this data is dependent on respondents who are not swearing to its accuracy, this resource may help answer your questions. _{⧐ Diamond Way} 16:44, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I know Jewish people who celebrate Christmas with their families. They certainly do not consider themselves Christian families. And when I say "celebrate Christmas", I mean exactly what most people who call themselves Christians do, i.e. share presents and gorge themselves stupid, but go nowhere near any church. -- Jack of Oz 18:24, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

On Arthur's Perfect Christmas, Francine Frensky and Muffy Crosswire were mad at each other. Francine wanted to celebrate Hanukkah with her Jewish family, not going to Muffy's party. Muffy assumed that Hanukkah was not important as Christmas, and Francine said, "Well, it is to me!" and slammed the phone down. Jack of Oz, do you mean eating a very large Christmas banquet for "gorge themselves stupid"? I think many people do that during the Big Holidays in many cultural traditions. :) 140.254.70.33 (talk) 18:30, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, exactly that. -- Jack of Oz 22:59, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Jack of Oz, we might know the same people lol. Some of my Eastern Orthodox friends even celebrate two Christmases a year which raises the interesting question of if you're a Christian if you recognize two different birthdays for Christ. _{⧐ Diamond Way} 21:20, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Being as how the celebration of Jesus' birthday was set up to coincide with pagan rites about the winter solstice, and that Jesus was likely born nowhere close to December 25th, you can celebrate as often as you like. :) ←Baseball Bugs carrots→

Everyone always asks how come the love and peace stop dead the moment the official Christmas period ends, and why can't the spirit continue all year around. Well, the folks you refer to (and members of the family into which I married do the same) are taking the initiative. -- Jack of Oz 22:59, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Remember the words of Tom Lehrer: "On Christmas Day, you can't get sore / Your fellow man you must adore / There's time to rob him all the more / The other three-hundred and sixty-four." ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 00:36, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Deregulation in 2000s in the US

Does anyone know about major industry deregulations (laws) after the year 2000? This page (http://en.wikipedia.org/Deregulation) lists many of them from late 1970s to late 1990s. However, I am curious if much has happened since year 2000 in any major industry in the US. Need this information for a research project.--130.160.161.93 (talk) 18:43, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I looked at Domestic policy of George W. Bush#Regulation, since Republicans are generally the party of deregulation in the US. It says that Bush was big on regulation, but it's entirely sourced to an article in Reason, a libertarian publication, so that should be taken with a grain of salt. I can't think of any major deregulation after 2000; the focus in the main Deregulation article is probably about right. Checking Google under deregulation under bush (it all seems to focus on 43) yields mostly a partisan mix of the left saying Bush deregulated and caused the financial crisis and the right pushing back against that. And while less intuitive, deregulation under obama offers some similar, mostly partisan, sources. --BDD (talk) 19:08, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

If you look up the total pages of federal regulation, the only time they've gone down since after WWII was under Reagan, and they quickly went back up to the old level under Clinton. There was no deregulation of anything under either of the Bushes. Sarbanes-Oxley came in under Bush II and was credited for driving down IPO's and sending financial business to London, causing a boom there. μηδείς (talk) 21:03, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Very true, but London was not the lone benefactor of increased US regulation Jim_Rogers#2002_to_present gives insight on where some of the "smart money" is moving. _{⧐ Diamond Way} 21:16, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

The number of Federal Register pages, to which Medeis refers, is frequently cited as a measure of regulation, but it's highly misleading. Not everything or even most things in the Federal Register are regulatory, and even when a document actually is adding rules, the number of pages is a poor measure of the breadth and intrusiveness of the regulation. Note also that deregulatory as well as regulatory initiatives must be printed in the Federal Register. Perhaps most significantly, the length of regulatory documents in the Register has increased over the years, in part because of deregulatory initiatives such as the Paperwork Reduction Act (yes, that's a statute that requires more paperwork) and the increased need to provide legal and economic support for regulatory changes.

In the area of securities and finance, there were major deregulatory statutes under Clinton: the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, National Securities Markets Improvement Act of 1996, the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, and the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000. Since then there have been major regulatory initiatives in the form of the USA Patriot Act, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. Of course, to call a statute regulatory or deregulatory can obscure important details. For example, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act was a partial repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act, but it also imposed extensive new federal protections for consumer privacy.

The parties behaved stereotypically with the Dodd-Frank Act, with the Democrats pushing for more regulation and the Republicans seeking to limit it, but that's about the only time. I haven't gone back to check, but I think that most of the other statutes were bipartisan. The anti-money laundering provisions of the USA Patriot Act were a Republican idea, although they also received quite a bit of support from Democrats. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act was supported more strongly by Democrats than Republicans, but the single most intrusive provision, requiring CEOs and CFOs to certify the accuracy of SEC filings, came from the Bush Administration. John M Baker (talk) 00:24, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I can't name the title of the act, but the law that loosened the reigns on banks and let them make riskier and less-oversighted investments (which came back to haunt all of us) was passed by a Republican Congress and happily signed by Clinton. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 00:32, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

That would be the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. It didn't actually have much to do with the financial crisis; in fact, the financial institutions that diversified in reliance on GLB tended to do somewhat better than institutions like Washington Mutual, which continued to invest in mortgages. From a regulatory perspective, the single greatest cause of the crisis was the Federal Reserve's failure to use existing authority to regulate the mortgage process. I believe that the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act may have been a factor in the SEC's failure or inability to regulate the net capital of large investment banks like Lehman Brothers, so in that sense GLB may have contributed to the crisis. John M Baker (talk) 01:09, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

John M Baker, wanted to comment/compliment you that editors such as myself really appreciate your contributions on these desks but it may not show with responses because of your extremely well thought out & great generosity in sharing your expertise. Most times I spend more than an hour just digesting all your posts so just because I & possibly others don't respond doesn't mean that we aren't very avid readers that look forward to these. There are a dozen+ editors on here that I admire & enjoy reading but I usually give them a reply to agree/disagree (human nature is that we all enjoy a response) just wanted to make up for a lot of interesting reads you provide with a umbrella reply here. Thanks again for your contributions. _{⧐ Diamond Way} 14:33, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

BTW the things that are loosened are 'reins' (as in horses), not 'reigns' (as in monarchs). AndrewWTaylor (talk) 11:48, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Tell that to Charles I, Louis XVI, etc. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 13:25, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't believe that monarchs are fond of long rains. StuRat (talk) 02:22, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

I seem to recall that the federal agency responsible for collecting fees from oil companies which drilled on federal land simply failed to collect them under Bush. This appeared to be a backdoor way to help the oil companies out. I'm not sure if that qualifies as "deregulation", though. StuRat (talk) 05:06, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I'm having trouble thinking of any significant deregulatory statutes during the Bush era, but regulators tended to have a policy of benign neglect on many fronts, particularly during Bush's second term. Bush also appointed conservative judges who were more skeptical of regulation. John M Baker (talk) 05:41, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Do either of you have anything more specific to say than "It's Bush's fault", John and Stu? μηδείς (talk) 06:04, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

μηδείς, agreed that it's never as simple as 'so&so's fault', that the Republican congress led many of these during the Clinton era & the current administration's (& really almost every administration) similar "backdoor way to help" pet projects (as StuRat pointed out).

I didn't read the above as 'Bushes fault' per se, just of pointing out facts related to OP, that 99.9% of politicians & especially White House administrations do to some degree or another & that both Republican & Democratic presidents (tho it has been mostly Dem WHs taking credit due to the last 50 year history) have taken credit for the accomplishments of an opposition Congress during their administrations should be common knowledge to readers of these desks. True, even an attempt like John M Baker's to acknowledge that most were "bi-partisan" can be read by those few that already had their minds made up in a certain ideology. As long as all readers remember that there are good & bad politicians not parties, I think getting detailed about the exact things that happened is fine even if they may read one-sided. _{⧐ Diamond Way} 14:42, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I was hoping Stu at least had a link to an RS for the unpaid fee claim, which sounds dubious, and if true may have a reason behind it we're not hearing. μηδείς (talk) 16:42, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Would make for interesting reading, in more ways than one. _{⧐ Diamond Way} 18:14, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Here you go: . The kindest possible reading seems to be that the US Department of Interior is completely incompetent. StuRat (talk) 11:34, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Was an interesting read, thanks StuRat. Oh & did cross my mind to make a 'it's all relative' comment about the "completely incompetent" 'departments' but I'll defer lol. Given the current national discourse I found this from the article troubling:"Government data are incomplete and often inaccurate, making it almost impossible for enforcement officials to develop strategies for selecting companies for special scrutiny." _{⧐ Diamond Way} 19:33, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, this may be a novel form of deregulation: Put people in charge of regulation who are so utterly incompetent that it never actually happens. I am reminded of the efficiency of Dickens' office of circumlocution. StuRat (talk) 02:03, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

A lovely new entry for my Bullshit File. Thanks, StuRat. -- Jack of Oz 16:30, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome. Of course, if one accepts that both the Office of Circumlocution and US Department of Interior have the real goal of looking like they are doing something without actually doing anything, then they are both quite efficient at that. StuRat (talk) 22:11, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Marketdiamond, for the kind words. I wasn't really trying to take a position on the regulatory and deregulatory statutes I mentioned. They can go both ways. The National Securities Markets Improvement Act I consider a big success - it cut out a whole level of regulation, with essentially no negative effects. Conversely, the Commodity Futures Modernization Act kept swaps from being regulated, which arguably contribued to the 2007 - 2008 financial crisis and was overturned with the passage of the Dodd-Frank Act. I think you have to see that as a failed example of deregulation. John M Baker (talk) 19:29, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

If you want to "blame" someone for getting the ball rolling, Reagan is the godfather of it. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 13:27, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Credit where credit is due: Carter, deregulation's hero, tho Reagan was smart enough not to end the efforts. _{⧐ Diamond Way} 19:05, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Yeh, Jimmy was a real peach of a president. It reminds me of something Mark Russell said, during Reagan's early years, when there was an electrical problem at the Executive Mansion: "The last power shortage in the White House lasted four years." ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 21:27, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

UCAS

Do UCAS do CRB checks on all applicants or is that done by university admissions tutors for courses which require checks? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.46.142.98 (talk) 19:43, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Before anyone asks, this probably refers to UCAS and the (now renamed) Criminal Records Bureau (both in the UK). AndrewWTaylor (talk) 19:51, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

This may clear some of OP's questions, specifically: "On the UCAS form, you will be asked whether you have a "relevant" criminal conviction." _{⧐ Diamond Way} 20:16, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Obviously only UCAS can give you a definite answer to this, but given that UCAS processes over 2,600,000 applications a year, CRB checks do not come cheap, and the checking process is also notoriously slow and unreliable (though it is improving), I would be very surprised if they ran any checks at all.--Shantavira| 10:49, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

The universities do the checks. It would be extremely unwise to lie in your application. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:38, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

• Well I dont have what they consider to be a valid criminal record although I have convictions for very minor things, like smoking pot --82.46.142.98 (talk) 23:03, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks for that update. It's time you sign off here and talk to a lawyer. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 23:25, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

October 12

Other Examples of Colonial Partitions

Were there ever any other cases besides the 1947 Partition of Palestine and the 1947 Partition of India in which a colonial/imperial power (or the United Nations, et cetera) divided its colony (or whatever its proper name is) into two or more countries along ethnic/racial/religious/et cetera lines before giving these countries their independence? I hope that my question here is clear enough. Thank you very much. Futurist110 (talk) 08:00, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Somewhat related is when the Pope created the Line of Demarcation, giving the "old world" to Portugal and the "new world" to Spain. The Portuguese did get to colonize Brazil, though. StuRat (talk) 11:14, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Partitioning of the Ottoman Empire. This pretty much drew the map of the Middle East, and not always wisely. StuRat (talk) 11:24, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Practically all the borders in Africa were drawn without any regard at all for ethnic or national coherence - tribal areas and kingdoms were arbitrarily divided between different colonies. The consequences have blighted the continent ever since. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:48, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Partition of Ireland. Technically not separated into two independent countries but figured I'd throw it in anyway.Biggs Pliff (talk) 13:05, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Out of the many responses to this question, no offense, but you were one of the few people who understood what I meant here. Futurist110 (talk) 19:26, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Partitions of Poland. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 13:23, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Although Poland was partitioned at the start of colonization - the OP is asking about the other end. Alansplodge (talk) 14:36, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

The "before giving these countries independence" thing is a bit tricky since some might claim they weren't independent until the partition, even if the 'partitioned' was for years. That said the Cyprus dispute, United Nations Transitional Administration in East Timor and even Separation of Panama from Colombia. Also when Simon Bolivar died many nations declared their "independence" by partition. _{⧐ Diamond Way} 14:33, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, yeah, I meant that these colonies would get partitioned and then become independent. Futurist110 (talk) 19:26, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Not quite what you're looking for, but Partition of Babylon gives some interesting context. As with some of the other partitions mentioned, many parts were more of a re-partitioning from before they got collected together. Matt Deres (talk) 17:08, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. For the record, I think that most of the people who responded to my question here misunderstood it. I meant cases of partition specifically along ethnic/racial/religious/et cetera lines, rather than some country/countries simply drawing lines on a map without regards for the ethnicity/race/religion/et cetera of the population(s). Futurist110 (talk) 19:26, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

I've never heard it referred to as "the Partition of New South Wales", but that's exactly what happened, many times. At States and territories of Australia is a gif map showing the creation of the colonies/states and mainland territories. New South Wales at one point contained all of what is now NSW, Victoria, Tasmania, Queensland, South Australia, the Northern Territory, the Australian Capital Territory, Jervis Bay Territory, Norfolk Island and New Zealand. All the bits were progressively lopped off, in NZ's case becoming a separate nation.

NSW never contained any part of what is now Western Australia; and curiously that state is the only Australian jurisdiction that ever made a serious attempt to secede from the rest of the nation. -- Jack of Oz 19:24, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

This partition was not along ethnic/racial/religious lines, though, which is what I was asking about here. Futurist110 (talk) 19:27, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Quite right. My deepest and most abject apologies. -- Jack of Oz 16:24, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

The Constitutional Act of 1791 divided Canada into Upper Canada and Lower Canada - the "Lower" part being the core of what had previously been the French colony of Canada, conquered by the British in 1763 and essentially modern Quebec, and the "Upper" part being the part where English-speaking Loyalist settlers had fled during the American Revolution, essentially the modern Canadian province of Ontario. Britain also divided the former French colony of Acadia into modern New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. The Acadians were expelled in 1755, and during the Revolution, English-speaking Loyalists settled in what would become New Brunswick (although Nova Scotia became English-speaking as well since the Acadians were no longer there). These were the four provinces that became independent (more or less) as Canada in 1867. Adam Bishop (talk) 20:34, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

The creation of Lebanon certainly qualifies. Likewise the other modern Arab states are largely drawn on colonial lines, but in the case of Lebanon the borders were consciously drawn by the French to create a Christian-majority state. --Soman (talk) 13:33, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Another, perhaps more controversial case, is how borders of USSR Central Asian republics were drawn when the Turkestan ASSR was split. It's difficult to say that the relationship between Moscow and Central Asia was 'colonial', but there are some aspects to it. --Soman (talk) 13:39, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

There was certainly a colonial aspect to Russian expansion into Asia, and to the USSR's policies towards non-Russian inhabitants of its borders. See Russification. --Jayron32 12:21, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Was a Comprehensive Encyclopedia like Misplaced Pages Ever Imagined in Science Fiction or Fantasy?

I was wondering if any science fiction stories mention Misplaced Pages or something similar to it; the closest thing I can think of is the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy. I would think it would be mentioned in some kind of cyber punk novel featuring a lot of computer use, but I've seen very few journalists even in cyber punk for that matter. Or alternatively is there an idea like Misplaced Pages in a fantasy novel; like a seemingly all knowing book; kept magically up to date?— Preceding unsigned comment added by CensoredScribe (talk • contribs) 12:49 October 2013

Isaac Asimov came up with the Encyclopedia Galactica in his Foundation (novel) series. Published first as a short story in 1942. 220 of 15:42, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

I believe Carl Sagan also referred to the Encyclopedia Galactica in his Cosmos TV series (and presumably the book of the same name). StuRat (talk) 01:53, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

H.G. Wells had the World Brain (WB) but not as far as I know as a part of a novel or similar. He expounded the idea in essays and addresses. 220 of 16:31, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

The people in The Machine Stops could be seen as dystopic Wikipedians and in ORA:CLE there are experts that link electronically, not unlike this reference desk. --Error (talk) 19:09, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Interestng, I haven't heard of either of those, though I have read a lot of Sci-Fi. ORA:CLE only links to the authors' page unfortunately. As it received a French literary award perhaps it should have its own page? -§- 220 of 8:58 pm, Today (UTC−4)

Yes, it should. I was surprised nobody has done it yet. --Error (talk) 00:48, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

• Borges's The Library of Babel, although I haven't read it. μηδείς (talk) 00:30, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

The Forerunner civilisation in the Halo-universe have/had such an universal source of information. Their heavy dependence upon it, contributed in part to their destruction as a consequence of war. Though, for the life of me, I cannot remember the name of that source. Plasmic Physics (talk) 02:18, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

The concept of a database with a compendium of all knowledge is somewhat common, even if it isn't explicitly discussed as the core of a story. Picture all the times in the various Star Trek series that someone asks the computer for information on something - they know it will have the information and use it casually, much like someone searching on Misplaced Pages or Google today in order to answer whatever question has come to mind. I'm having trouble coming up with other concrete examples right now, but I know I've seen the same kind of interaction in other sci fi. Katie R (talk) 14:15, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

For a fantasy example, the god of knowledge in Dragonlance constantly writes a book containing documenting the events around the world, from moment to moment. — The Hand That Feeds You:

There is Dr. Know in A.I. Artificial Intelligence. 122.111.240.138 (talk) 13:27, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

18th-century Spies

How would normally as spy be recruited during the 18th century? Where there any general way of doing this? Where there female spies in Europe during this century? Thank you. --Aciram (talk) 13:54, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Don't know if it answers your question, but our article spy gives some historical information. Duoduoduo (talk) 14:25, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Aciram -- I assume that it could differ greatly depending on the person's social background, and which level of society they would be expected to operate in... AnonMoos (talk) 18:23, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

There is a category for female wartime spies. From the American Revolution, there is Sarah Bradlee Fulton and Miss Jenny. Adam Bishop (talk) 20:06, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

It's possible most spies then were women, as like the later Mata Hari men had the info, and ladies have ways of getting it. O:-] 220 of 02:51, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

• The basic methods have always been pretty much the same: (1) bribery; (2) exploitation of divided loyalty, due to religion, ancestry, family ties, or whatever; (3) blackmail or other threats. Looie496 (talk) 04:54, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Nuclear tridents

Does "nuclear trident" get much use, either intentionally or unintentionally, for "nuclear triad"? It seems a plausible error (I just made it myself) and thus perhaps a plausible redirect, but all the pages I'm finding with Google are talking about nuclear-tipped Trident missiles. Nyttend (talk) 16:00, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

When I saw the title of this thread, my first thought was the missile, but then the phrase "nuclear triad" was unknown to me until a few seconds ago. In the UK, there was much debate about whether we acquire Trident in the first place and now over whether we should replace it and with what. . It is our only strategic nuclear weapon, so for us, "Trident" and "nuclear deterrent" are interchangeable. Alansplodge (talk) 17:08, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

When I saw the title, my first thought was there is a glowing new bubble gum ;-). _{⧐ Diamond Way} 19:39, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

"4 out of 5 nuclear scientists recommend Trident nuclear missiles for those nations which use nuclear missiles." StuRat (talk) 01:58, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

With 50 percent more cavities. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 04:31, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but it's all for the crater good. StuRat (talk) 22:44, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

 ;-) --220 of 09:44, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Nothing like a good trident joke to 'gum up the works' on here lol. _{⧐ Diamond Way} 02:48, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

October 13

The Geography of Thought

Richard Nisbett's book argues that cognition isn't the same everywhere. What does he mean by this? That there are brainial differences between East and West or that this is because of cultural differences? — Melab±1 ☎ 04:01, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

There's nothing inherent in the Chinese language or Chinese (or Eastern) genetics that makes their culture different from the West. What might differ would be the fact that concepts have to be discovered, which is a long, slow, difficult historical process. Aristotle discovered logic. Spinoza (and others) discovered objectivity. Francis Bacon codified the scientific method. If the East lacked such thinkers it would lack such concepts, and remain on the pseudoscientific method of astrology and alchemy. Which it did. μηδείς (talk) 04:13, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

They seem to have made up for lost time. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 04:32, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Of course--that's the nice thing about being rational social and speaking animals. You can learn from and trade with others. The disjunct knowledge in Chaldean astrology and Arabic alchemy was huge--just not rationally explained or ordered until Newton and Lavoisier and the concepts they formulated.

The West learned great largely practical things from India and China. The East gets our science, business models, and sometimes even Spinoza's notions on political freedom. Remember the Goddess of Liberty in Tiananmen Square--a copy of a French gift to a daughter of Britain as the incarnate protectress of mankind. μηδείς (talk) 04:48, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

From what I remember of the book (I sold my copy a few years ago) this subject is discussed at some length, and I suggest you re-read it. I think what he was saying is that the cultural differences have become hard-wired into the brain in some way, and yes he does provide some evidence for this. But it's in there somewhere. --TammyMoet (talk) 12:29, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Computers are hard-wired - hard-wired to be flexible. People aren't hard-wired, are even more flexible. We could text Nisbett's proposition. Take a random sample of academic journal papers on physics, anonymise them so readers can't tell the ethnic origin of the authors. Physicists classify the papers according to the types of argumentation used. Can they they guess whether the authors are from Europe, North America, eastern Asia etc.? My money is on not. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:29, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Isn't texting a proposition what usually gets politicians into trouble ? :-) StuRat (talk) 22:41, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

LOL. We could test it then text it. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:50, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

It is possible that different gene pools might have different ways of thinking. For example, if independent thinkers were regularly killed off in a given society, I'd expect those genes to not be passed down, and for independent thinkers to become more rare in later generations. StuRat (talk) 22:41, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Genes code for proteins, not ideas. There's no evidence for oriental culture being hardwired into brains by genes, and no conceivable mechanism. There was a study that said people who grow up using Chinese characters rather than alphabets process things different visually. But that's nurture, not nature. The notion that the Eastern is exotic and needs to be explained is also a form of self-blindness, like a person insisting it is not he who has an accent, but people from all other dialects who do. μηδείς (talk) 02:05, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

So you're saying genetics has no effect on the development of the brain ? Nonsense, it's a major factor, along with "nurture". StuRat (talk) 13:29, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, duh. Genetics is why humans think differently from rats. At least, most of us do. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:52, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. For a specific example of a gene which effects how humans think, there's the FOXP2 gene, which, in humans, controls the ability to use language properly. StuRat (talk) 15:32, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Is that really the right way to put it? I mean, DNA codes for eyeballs and sensory neurons. — Melab±1 ☎ 22:33, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Genes only code for RNA, which either translates to protein or regulates other genes which produce proteins. Cells differentiate into different types according to the proteins they produce and how the proteins and protein-produced products of other cells affect them. (HUmans have something like 200+ cell types) There are no genes for eyeballs. Just genes for proteins used in eyeballs, genes that produce stimuli that induce cells to become eyeball-protein producing cells, and genes that regulate these genes, in complex hierarchies. Brains are produced this way, and they are complex enough networks that they can learn. At no point is there a gene for irony or philately. μηδείς (talk) 02:06, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Surely this discussion of genetics is a red herring ? I don't think that Nisbett is arguing that there is any fundamental genetic difference between "Western" brains and "Asian" brains. On the contrary, he is saying that cultural differences (i.e. "nurture") lead to fundamentally different ways of thinking and conceptualising in Western and Eastern societies. You may or may not agree with this, but in either case it is clearly nothing to do with genetics. Gandalf61 (talk) 16:19, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis may be relevant here. -- Jack of Oz 16:37, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Also world view and cultural relativism. ZMBrak (talk) 19:55, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the "rats think differently from us due to genetics" argument is silly. They have lesser capacities than us. They don't "think differently". Humans may differ in hormone levels for trust or aggression, and some may be slower or faster in picking things up. But there is no genetic difference accounting for concepts. Triangle, mortgage and water all mean the same thing regardless of genetics, and there is no genetic difference that causes healthy people to disagree on the product of 4 X 4. Healthy human brains have the same capacities, and there is no evidence that a genetic difference in brains amounts to a difference in human culture, nor a mechanism by which such could be the case. Its like noting the difference between humans walking and snakes crawling is genetic, and then suggesting riding on Segways rather than doing hopscotch is also genetic. μηδείς (talk) 22:03, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

This sounds more plausible than physical relativism produced by genetics or cognitive relativism produced by language. He probably meant in the way that two different religions have different cosmologies, which isn't a wonky topic to begin with. — Melab±1 ☎ 22:33, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

New towns in the United Kingdom, Scotland specifically

Alright, so places like Glenrothes and Cumbernauld are considered new towns.

Why are places like Westhill, Aberdeenshire and Portlethen not considered the same then?

--Whatdeanerwastalkingabout (talk) 12:20, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

The term is used to refer specifically to those towns that were planned and designated under the New Towns Act 1946 and its successors. There's more information and history at New towns movement, which lists the five Scottish new towns created via this route. The two things that mark them out from other new communities, planned or otherwise, are (1) their creation was mandated by the government using its new statutory powers (here's Cumbernauld's published designation in the Edinburgh Gazette), and (2) each was developed under the control of a specialised development corporation, rather than the relevant local authority. - Karenjc (talk) 13:09, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

OK thank you. It seems that if you compare the population of say Glenrothes with say Westhill in Aberdeenshire, there is a big difference in that the latter is a lot smaller, but both are "new towns" in the sense that they were constructed basically from scratch in the mid to late 20th century and did not really exist except maybe as tiny villages before that.--Whatdeanerwastalkingabout (talk) 14:01, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

As Karenjc said - in the UK the term "new town" usually refers specifically to those towns created through that specific Government legislation, the New Towns Act. New or expanded villages created through local authority or private initiatives, under existing town planning legislation, are - to avoid confusion - not generally referred to as "new towns", but rather as "new villages", "expanded settlements", etc. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:11, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

The article Westhill, Aberdeenshire refers to Westhill as a "new satellite town", similar to Glenrothes for example which is referred to as a "one of Scotland's first post-second world war new towns" in its article. I do understand the difference now, but it's not made very clear.--Whatdeanerwastalkingabout (talk) 15:15, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

That article needs a lot of work - I've just reverted a piece of vandalism there dating from early 2009! I've changed a couple of words there, to clarify it. This is a much better source about Westhill. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:38, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Against "nationalism"?

The organization UNITED for Intercultural Action claims to be against nationalism, amongst other things.

Would the organization therefore be opposed to the Scottish National Party?--Whatdeanerwastalkingabout (talk) 15:29, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Probably not. SNP isn't really nationalist-chauvinistic, so it would fall off the radar of a group like UNITED. There is no commentary about SNP on their website (in total there are 51 hits for 'Scotland'). That said, many people in the organization might be highly critical of the nationalist discourse of SNP, but it's hardly their main target. --Soman (talk) 17:22, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

From reading the article that the OP cites, I get the impression that what they are against is, for lack of a better term coming to mind, what I'll call "aggressive nationalism" -- things like discriminating against non-members of the nation. It doesn't sound like they are opposed to a group wanting self-determination. But if, say, the SNP tried to keep out immigrants or tried to deny certain privileges to people in Scotland based on the absence of ancestors who lived in Scotland, then the organization would probably disapprove. Duoduoduo (talk) 19:54, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Any answer would be speculative, unless they have a explicit policy towards those supposedly discriminated nation trying to get free, which some claim is the case of the Scottish. But being antinationalist, doesn't mean being against nationalism, but being against chauvinism, jingoism and militarism. 22:45, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Scotland Secession Question

If Scotland hypothetically left the United Kingdom next year (or whenever a referendum on Scottish independence passes and is implemented), will Queen Elizabeth II regain the monarch/head of state of Scotland after it becomes independent? Futurist110 (talk) 23:52, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

It would be up to the independent state of Scotland to decide who their head of state is, but the current SNP government has stated that they would retain the Queen as head of state "on a similar basis to her role in Australia and Canada" (source: http://www.snp.org/referendum/faqs/q). It's fair to say that opinion among independence campaigners in Scotland is not united around this proposal. Sam Blacketer (talk) 00:01, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Merci beaucoup for this info. Futurist110 (talk) 04:03, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Hm. I guess she would be Elizabeth I of Scotland. RNealK (talk) 01:55, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

RNealK, I think your guess would be wrong. She is Elizabeth II in every Commonwealth realm, despite being only the first Elizabeth in all but one of them. The days when the same person was, e.g. Charles I of Navarre and Charles II of Naples and Charles III of France and Charles IV of Sicily (a made up example), are long gone. -- Jack of Oz 04:04, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Another question, would the UK want that its monarch continues as head of state for Scotland if the Scots go ahead with independence? --Soman (talk) 02:02, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

The UK would have no say in the matter. After all, her role as the Head of State of the various (16 I believe) sovereign states she reigns over are all independent of each other. The UK has no say over what Australia, Canada, Jamaica, or really any of the other nations do or don't do in that regard. Her role as the Queen of Canada is not subservient to her role as the Queen of the UK, and likewise should Scotland secede, and retain her as Queen, her role as Queen of Scotland would not in any way be subservient to her role as Queen of the UK. --Jayron32 02:06, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Ok, good point. But the Queen herself could potentially decline to remain queen of Scotland if they go for independence? --Soman (talk) 05:36, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

As elsewhere, she would be guided by what her government(s) say on the matter - she would not act independently. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:41, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It's extremely unlikely that she would decline. She has a holiday cottage in Scotland. Dbfirs 07:43, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

What would it take to install her as head of state in the US and restore some order to the financial affairs of those former colonies? Edison (talk) 12:53, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

A revolution. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:47, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Maybe not. Foreign investors, such as Britain, are buying us, piece by piece. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 16:57, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

You don't get to be head of state of a country by buying the country or any part thereof. Hypothetically, (almost) the entirety of the USA could be bought by foreign investors, but this would have no ramifications for the U.S. Constitution. -- Jack of Oz 18:01, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

When you buy a country, you buy its politicians too. That opens the door to amendments which could change things dramatically. Not all at once, of course. Step by step. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 18:16, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

This is a crazy diversion and I'm tempted to hat it. Even if the USA became a Commonwealth realm with the Queen (or her successor) as head of state, that would mean a wholesale dismantling and redesign of the structures of governance, a massive project that would take at least decades to implement. The Queen would still be exercising no more personal influence in the direct governance of the USA than she does in her existing realms - and that is virtually none. The US President has FAR more power than the Commonwealth Monarch ever has. Were the current ludicrous financial situation to arise under a Queen of the United States, she would be even less successful than Obama has been in resolving it. But then, she wouldn't even be trying to resolve it, because it's not her place to be getting involved in such matters (although I'm sure informal discussions would be held behind closed doors with people in high places). Mind you, in any rational system other than the one the USA has at present, such a ludicrous circumstance as a shutdown of the entire government would never have happened to begin with, but that's another story. -- Jack of Oz 19:04, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

"the entire government" isn't shutdown, in fact not even a majority of the federal government is shut down. All Constitutionally obligated duties of the federal government continue to operate & near full staffing. Besides that when you speak of the U.S. there are really 50 (or 53/4) "governments" that are pretty independent, so independent that the Feds & them regularly sue each other. _{⧐ Diamond Way} 21:53, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

There was some talk on the radio about this a week or so ago; one of the weaknesses of the U.S. system is that, by being locked into scheduled elections, there is no mechanism for a "hung government" or a Motion of no confidence. In parliamentary systems, when the Government fails to pass legislation of consequence, or becomes deadlocked and cannot operate, they typically dissolve the government and hold elections right away to establish a new government. There is no mechanism for this in the U.S. --Jayron32 19:26, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

No real objection to hatting. The question just came from frustration with a Congress which is down to about 5% approval and a government which appears incapable of managing its nation's financial affairs, and wondering about another approach to governance. Edison (talk) 19:33, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I was only half-serious (which, for me, is very serious indeed :)). A weakness of the Commonwealth system, at least insofar as it applies in the United Kingdom, is that there is no separation of Church and State. But what they lack there, they make up for by having separation of State and Government. The Queen is the Head of State, but the Prime Minister is the Head of Government, and if anyone is to be cast in the role of the "Ruler of the Country", the PM fits far better than the Queen. In the USA the Head of State, although not formally a part of the Congress, is heavily involved in governing. Another huge difference is the Speaker of the lower house. The US Speaker is a major player in any political goings on, such as at present; but in the Westminster system, a person who is charged with making the lower house run smoothly must act impartially at all times and must never engage in public debate on political issues (even though they are party politicians back in their electorates); for a Westminster Speaker to be engaging in the sort of rhetoric we've seen from Boehner lately (and his predecessors in earlier times) would see him/her quickly replaced, because that would be seen as a massive conflict of interests. Not so in the USA. -- Jack of Oz 19:53, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Just a nitpick - the Speakers of the UK House of Commons are not "party politicians back in their electorates" - once elected Speaker they stand for re-election as "Speaker" rather than a representative of the party they came from, and by convention the other major parties do not put up rival candidates in the Speaker's constituency, though fringe parties and independents do stand: see Buckingham (UK Parliament constituency)#Elections_in_the_2010s for the line-up in the current speaker's constituency at the last general election. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 15:06, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Yet the Speaker is the one that 'speaks'(rhetoricalizes?) on all spending bills in the U.S. system, it would be similar to somehow preempting Obama's ability to call a military strike despite him originating all 'defense' matters. From what I am aware of for the British system, David Cameron is basically the equivalent of our Speaker of the House where the Monarch is the branch of government represented by our President, the particulars are somewhat different with the U.S. "executive" also being "Commander in Chief" but the simplest comparison is monarch=president, speaker=prime minister.

It was also stated above that the U.S. doesn't have no-confidence votes, and yet the Speaker being the equivalent to Prime Minister is subject to no-confidence votes at any time & for any reason whenever the house chooses to vote him/her out, see Newt Gingrich having his party maintain the majority in the general elections yet losing his Speaker post within the House in 1999, similar to Margaret Thatcher's 1990 debacle where the Party kept control but got rid of its leader. _{⧐ Diamond Way} 04:19, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

October 14

Percent of the world's urban population living in slums

I am looking for an authoritative source to answer the question, what percentage of the world's urban population is living in slums? Thanks if you can point me to a credible reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.173.50.210 (talk) 13:22, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

First, define "slum". Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:24, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that will be tricky, as people living in "slums" in the developed world are far better off than what are called "slums" in the third world. In the developed world, they are likely to have indoor plumbing, enough food, etc. StuRat (talk) 13:25, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

But, this source says "One billion people live in urban slums, which are typically overcrowded, polluted and dangerous, and lack basic services such as clean water and sanitation." I doubt if you would be able to find a much more precise source. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:24, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

From their description, it sounds like they mean third-world slums only. StuRat (talk) 14:20, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

This downloadable report - authoritative and as up-to-date as you are likely to find - has a mass of information, especially in the appendices at the back. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:00, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks all for your input. From the last link, provided by Ghmyrtle, I can find this number: 32.7% people living in 'developing regions' are the 'proportion of urban population living in slum (per cent)'. That number helps me, though a global number would help me more. As for defining slum, it suggests 'population living in household that lack either improved water, improved sanitation, sufficient living area (more than three persons per room), or durable housing. Again, thanks for your input Wikians... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.173.50.210 (talk) 15:19, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Lack of "durable housing" could mean all mobile homes, RV parks, and campsites would be considered to be slums, as would any tents used by nomadic people. StuRat (talk) 15:26, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Mobile homes are considered durable housing. Tents and rv's are only considered slum housing if their original purpose - moving frequently and easily from place to place - has been subverted and they now serve as permanent housing. Slums are built to last but of non-durable materials (although they will tend to transition to more durable materials if the occupants are allowed to stay in place for an extended period of time). And there are definitively slums in the first world: a lot of camps occupied by Romani people in or near major European cities are built exactly like their third world counterparts: cardboard, sheets of corrugated steel and other scavenged building materials such as old door and window frames, with no or only jerry-built connections to the power grid and other utilities. Those stay in place until forcibly demolished. So the percentage of persons who live in slums in the first world, while small, is not zero. --Xuxl (talk) 09:48, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Why are negative attitudes about adultery so widespread?

Why are negative attitudes about adultery so widespread? 164.107.102.151 (talk) 16:05, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I can think of several reasons:

1) Disease. An adulterous spouse may bring a venereal disease into the marriage.

2) Passing on one's genes. If the husband doesn't have any children because the wife is constantly impregnated by others, he won't pass on his genes.

3) Inheritance. If a man wants to pass his resources and possessions on to his children, he needs to know which ones are his. If he is prevented from helping his own children, this makes him less likely to pass on his own genes successfully.

4) Religion. Of course, religious objections to adultery are likely based on the first 3 reasons. StuRat (talk) 16:19, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I've just done some reading of academic articles on this topic - sexual infidelity - and basically in commited relationships (dating or married), cheating partners do a lot of emotional damage, because the non-cheating partner may feel insecure, undesirable, jealous, or whatever. So, emotions are widespread, and cheating is widespread, and cheating causes a lot of emotional damage. So, that means impact on emotions inevitably causes a lot of damage. It makes me wonder if all our moral decisions are based on our emotions (and maybe logical reasoning), though. :P 164.107.102.151 (talk) 17:10, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I rather doubt the last sentence, Stu. There is a little thing called keeping your promises, and when you marry someone and vow to be faithful to them, you're supposed to mean it, and to exercise restraint in the face of temptation. That would apply whether the first 3 reasons were valid or not. -- Jack of Oz 16:32, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

The family is the basic unit of social organisation, adultery threatens it. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:37, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

That's the primary issue. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 16:47, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

• I have no negative attitude toward adultery--just don't let me catch you cheating on me. μηδείς (talk) 21:52, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
  • So as long as you don't know about it, it's OK? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 14:37, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

No one has yet cautioned that not all societies or cultures accept OP's premise. Not even all "western" or even "first world Western European" cultures. _{⧐ Diamond Way} 22:00, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

France is a different animal. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 00:10, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

True, but my larger point was that there are several examples even in the "west" of cultures where this is actually condoned, even some ethno-culture segments within the US & Canada. Just because the majority have these views in some countries doesn't mean that other 'norms' don't exist in prevalence. _{⧐ Diamond Way} 02:50, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Marriage is a contract. Adultery is breach of contract. --Nelson Ricardo (talk) 03:52, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Not in the legal sense it isn't, see No-fault divorce etc. _{⧐ Diamond Way} 04:22, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

While it's not a "standard" contract, it's still a promise for a promise, which is the very definition of a contract. And the no-fault divorce is a recent concept that only exists in some places. The creation of a marriage is a legal process, as is divorce. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 14:36, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Not really. There is a legal marriage, and there is a social/religious marriage. The two don't necessarily overlap; it's quite possible to have a religious wedding without it being a legal marriage (see same-sex marriages in most states of the USA). — The Hand That Feeds You: 14:51, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I have a related question that came to my mind while reading this thread: Which are the 10 most common causes for adultery? Any references for it? I mean, why a man who has been married for 20 years with a woman would want to cheat on her or viceversa? Miss Bono 14:45, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

There can be any number of reasons, but Chris Rock made an important comment on it: "A man is only as faithful as his options." ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 15:22, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

What does it mean Bugs? Miss Bono 15:23, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

What topics are censored on the Chinese internet?

The current Misplaced Pages article on internet censorship in China, and the article on the Chinese Misplaced Pages only list a few examples of censored topics, and they don't include religion. Could someone in China access the English wikipedia article of Gautama Buddha, and would it be the same article? CensoredScribe (talk) 17:45, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

See Golden Shield Project, sometimes called the "Great Firewall of China". Start with the Misplaced Pages article, and do some research outside of Misplaced Pages. There's plenty of information out there; this is a well trodden topic. --Jayron32 19:22, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

utilities forced payments to itself from customers

Is it legal for a utility/water dept. etc. to force a person to pay or else! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.123.136.26 (talk) 21:00, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi, always please sign your posts with ~~~~, thank you! In some jurisdictions it is possible for them to put a lien on the property if the owners name is the same as the name on the utility account. The easiest way they "force a person to pay or else" is that the person will have no water or electricity, etc. after a certain time period. _{⧐ Diamond Way} 21:35, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Some northern US states have laws prohibiting the cessation of heat during the winter. But in general, if you stop paying, you stop getting - and the utility company certainly could take you to court for unpaid bills if they wanted to. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 00:10, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

In such jurisdictions, while utilities may not be able to turn off your utilities, they can still force you to pay through other means, such as putting a lien on your property, or by taking you to court under tort law. --Jayron32 00:58, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

In NYC apartments the heat and water are provided by the landlord, while the electricity comes from ConEd, (in Manhattan, a least), and they will cut it off for non-payment. I knew one tenant who for years ran a cord out his window to his neighbor's to get electricity, and they split the bill. μηδείς (talk) 16:50, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

A free trip to North Korea?!

Does any nation-state have an extradition treaty with North Korea? If so, which one(s) and can you direct me to the text? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.240.77.215 (talk) 23:56, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Looked & looked into this, my initial thought that China would by either formal treaty or default was confirmed. It has long been pointed out that China supplies the vast majority of electricity and food to North Korea, so when Beijing says jump NK pretty much does as it is told, on extradition and all other matters.

Something I found on a site discussion board though was that since the Korean War is still technically at a 'cease fire' and has never formally ended by treaty, North Korea doesn't exist in a manner where it can make formal extradition treaties with other nations. Not certain how true that is but the underlying facts are correct, there is in treaty law still just one Korea. _{⧐ Diamond Way} 02:12, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

That's interesting, but wrong. Both Koreas existed as independent states before the Korean War, and both are individually members in the UN. The US does not maintain official diplomatic relations with North Korea, but it is a generally recognized state, and close US allies like the UK and Turkey do maintain diplomatic relations. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:02, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Are you talking about this in the context of being extradited from NK or being extradited to it? In the former case, in the US, you can be tried even if how you got to the US was not by way of extradition treaty (in other words, if you flee to NK and someone kidnaps you and brings you back, you're still able to be brought into court- lack of a treaty does not necessarily protect you if you are wanted bad enough (or if someone is overzealous)). Ker–Frisbie doctrine describes this. However, given NK's nature, I'd imagine if you could persuade them to let you stay there, you'd probably be safe from being extracted. As for being extradited from to NK, in the US, see Valentine v. United States, it appears that for extradition to take place, the authorization needs to come from somewhere (not simply not be prohibited against), so if you went to NK and committed crimes, you couldn't end up extradited from the US- unless we did sign a treaty, which is unlikely.Phoenixia1177 (talk) 05:15, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the responses. To clarify, I am interested in the scenario where an individual is charged with crimes by the government of North Korea. That individual is not in North Korea. How should he or she modify his/her travels to avoid being detained by North Korea? Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.240.77.215 (talk) 11:15, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

As I understand it, they don't have a treaty with anyone- if they cared enough, they might try to kidnap you (or something). I doubt any major nation would hand you over- if their laws would even let them without a treaty.Phoenixia1177 (talk) 13:16, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

This entire thing is really a legal issue, and it's probably not safe to rely on random responses from the internet. You should contact a government, such as maybe the South Korean embassy, and see what they know about it. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 14:34, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

October 15

Korean peace treaty

Who is North Korea technically at war with? I am guessing South Korea and the USA, but also some other countries? Japan? The whole of NATO? I am asking because I am wondering how many nations would come to the table to sign the peace treaty, if it ever happens. --Lgriot (talk) 08:19, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Since the Korean War was a UN mission, I guess they are technically at war with most of the world... at least the Korean Armistice Agreement was signed on behalf of the UN on one side, and North Korea + China on the other side. WegianWarrior (talk) 08:32, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

But the UN was conducting a "police action", right? I'm not sure any nation other than the south declared war on the north, though I don't know who else the north declared it on. —Akrabbim 14:09, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

It seems to me - reading up on declarations of war after WW2 - that war was actually never formally declared by neither the North Koreans nor the South Koreans. The United Nations Security Council Resolution 82 and United Nations Security Council Resolution 83 on the other hand makes it clear that the Korean War was a Chapter VII operation - a "peace creating" as opposed to a "peace keeping" mission - so I guess the argument might be made that the UN declared war on North Korea (whom the UN considered to be the aggressive part in the conflict). WegianWarrior (talk) 14:50, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

There's a list of all the countries involved in the infobox at Korean War. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:53, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Irish surnames

Can someone list the most common Irish surnames? --not O'- surnames, please -- Miss Bono 16:39, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Top 50 according to http://www.genealogyforum.rootsweb.com/gfaol/surnames/Irish.htm

Boyle Brennan Brown Burke Burns Calhoun Callahan Campbell Carroll Clark(e) Collins Conley Conner Daugherty Duffy Dunn Farrell Ferguson / Fergusen Fitzgerald Flynn Gallagher Hays / Hayes Hughes Jackson Johnston Kelly Kennedy Lynch Martin McCarthy McDonald McGuire Moore Murphy Murray Nolan O'Brien O'Donnell O'Neal / O'Neil / O'Neill Quinn Reilly Ryan Smith Sullivan Sweeney Thompson Walsh White μηδείς (talk) 16:46, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh, thanks. Can you find something like that for names (female and male)? If not, it's ok. Miss Bono 16:50, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

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