Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

Select a section:

WP:RD/H

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

How can I get my question answered?

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

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

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

December 9

2008 Financial Crisis

I've been spending a lot of time lately thinking about the role of 'asset-shifting' and 'off-balance sheet' arrangements used by regulated banks during the last 6-7 years, as a primary cause of the 2008 Financial Crisis. CDOs in particular, allow banks that face strict capital requirements to bolster their balance sheets and (improve equity ratios) by removing risky assets.

It's pretty obvious that combining 1) low short-term interest rates, 2) government-driven demand (fannie, freddie, deductibility of mortgage payments) and 3) a generally stock market-averse regular public (that chose to invest more heavily in real estate) we can partially explain the real-estate bull run.

It's also a pretty well-established fact that a banking system, unregulated, has a natural tendency to over-lever, unregulated (I suggest that this tendency comes from moral hazard created when banks have the knowledge that the Fed will intervene during periods of weaker economic growth. It really doesn't matter where it comes from in order to support my eventual argument, as long as it exists.)

I'd like to further suggest that the ease with which regulated financial institutions could collateralize and transfer loan assets to unregulated institutions (the investment banks or insurance funds, for example) was complicit in the price run-up. The ability to avoid capital requirements by selling assets allowed the financial sector to keep lending and lending until they reached the bottom of the "credit" barrel.

I'm looking for discussions, perspectives or data that examines the role of the Fed, as an "ensurer of full employment" in monitoring leverage ratios, not only amongst the regulated institutions, but within the financial sector as a whole. Has there ever been an explicit discussion of this responsibility as a means of protecting credit markets generally? Have their been any well-known financial writers that have made a similar claim recently?

[I think you can see where I'm going with this. I blame the regulatory framework entirely for this explosion. From my point of view, a Fed that monitors and enforces leverage ratios at regulated banks, but not with other financial institutions is no longer protecting society; it's only protecting the depositors of those banks.]NByz (talk) 02:23, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're probably familiar with the many Paul Krugman columns saying similar things. UC Berkeley economist Brad DeLong's blog (delong.typepad.com) might also be of interest to you. 67.122.210.149 (talk) 18:51, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Fed is primarily responsible for sound money, not employment. Hence, the old saw about "taking away the punch bowl just as the party's getting started" -- raising interest rates and driving the economy into recession (thus increasing unemployment) for the purpose of reducing inflation and thereby defending the value of the dollar. DOR (HK) (talk) 07:12, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is the role of Yoga in the new millennium ?

role of yoga in the new millennium

Wait, what are you asking...? —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 03:15, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yoga will allow self-righteous new-wave hipsters to feel a greater "spirituality" by participating in something they don't really understand, except that its kinda "eastern" and "exotic" and will make them feel superior to their "less enlightened" fellow westerners who don't practice it. So, basically, its role will be identical to its role in the old millenium. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:09, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yoga is a superstition like many other Hindu superstitions. Advocates of yoga claim through yoga one can "overcome the illusory temptations of sensual existence, discover one’s true self and eventually, after a number of reincarnations, attain nirvana, a state of ecstatic union with the godhead" [1]. So you can see the goal of yoga is nirvana through reincarnation, which is an unscientific belief. Regarding the role of yoga in the 21th century, I will say the only role of yoga will be to help flourish the growing spiritual industry all over the world, the latest manifestation of which is Swami Ramdev. The spiritual industry will advertise, people will be fooled, they will expend money to learn yoga, will buy books and CDs on it, thus yoga will be a good raw material for the booming spiritual industry. You can also read this reference. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 09:40, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, this is a bit harsh, and not entirely correct. There is an ancient form of yaga, Hatha yoga, which is practiced entirely for physical training, particularly to prepare the body for strenuous meditation. --S.dedalus (talk) 17:13, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To bolster sales of lululemon. Cherry Red Toenails (talk) 22:52, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Medieval dress of royal women in the Middle East

How did royal women in the Middle East dress in medieval times? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vikramkr (talk • contribs) 05:19, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Click http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/171379/dress/14021/The-Middle-East-from-the-6th-century. See "The history of Middle Eastern and Western dress » The Middle East from the 6th century" section. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 09:53, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One thing you should remember is that traditionally consorts of middle-eastern Muslim rulers did not have any kind of publicly-visible queen role, but were generally kept strictly secluded from public view. In Ottoman times, the only high-ranking woman who had even a very limited role in official public ceremonies was the mother of the reigning sultan, who would occasionally decorously appear (heavily veiled) on a remote balcony overlooking the men far below, and be acknowledged... AnonMoos (talk) 11:25, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help! Would you happen to know of some websites that have information about this topic? I'm writing a paper and am trying to find a quote from an academic source that gives insight regarding how women of royal stature, in the Middle East, would dress. So, I basically need some evidence that they would dress conservatively. Vikramkr (talk) 19:45, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not medieval but for Ottoman times at their peak, there's a contemporary painting of Roxelana wife of Suleiman the Magnificent. Julia Rossi (talk) 22:59, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For other high-ranking women try Shajar al-Durr, Sitt al-Mulk, Ismat ad-Din Khatun...I thought there was a "Medieval Muslim woman" category but apparently not. (The only one for whom there is any worthwhile info is Shajar al-Durr, though.) Adam Bishop (talk) 13:57, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Local Elections in Nazareth

I know that Israel have had local elections in November this year. Can anyone tell me who got voted in as Mayor of Nazareth? There doesn't seem to be an easy source for this information on the internet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.177.11.162 (talk) 08:56, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to the article for Nazareth, it's Ramiz Jaraisy, but it's probably out of date. Vltava 68 09:27, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jaraisy was re-elected, see http://www.ulai.org.il/Info%20about%20outcome%20of%20elections-16.11.08.pdf . --Soman (talk) 11:12, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient diagrams

There are two diagrams shown during the opening credits of Neon Genesis Evangelion, both with a mix of Hebrew and Latin writing. I've identified one as Athanasius Kircher's "Tree of Life", but what's the other (seen here)? --67.185.15.77 (talk) 09:29, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like just another version of the Sephirot (which is also what Kircher's "Tree of Life" is). Adam Bishop (talk) 09:42, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, looks like a version of the Tree of Life (Judeo-Christian). I do not think you should use a shounen manga - or anime - as a source of knowledge on the history of religion or philosophy, though. There are much better sources for that :) . Enjoy the manga for what it is, and search in the library for what it is not. --Dr Dima (talk) 18:10, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and these diagrams are definitely not "ancient", although the concept of a Tree of life is indeed very old ;) . --Dr Dima (talk) 18:14, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had a suspicion that it was a Tree of Life. Do you know whose version it is? --67.185.15.77 (talk) 09:08, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Found it! Robert Fludd circa 1620. Enjoy. --Dr Dima (talk) 02:03, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obama - Foreign born

Is there a chance that Obama is foreign born? If this is a urban legend, where does it come from? --Mr.K. (talk) 12:27, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure there is a chance (although highly unlikely), but yes it is an urban legend. Check out the Snopes page on this topic.--droptone (talk) 12:37, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The supposed objections to Obama's qualifications lie in the misinterpretation of the definitions of "natural born". All persons born in the U.S. are natural born automatically, the qualifications on the parent exist for those sitations where a person is born outside of the U.S. Since Obama was born in Hawaii in 1961, he's a natural-born American citizen regardless of the age of his mother when he was born, or that he lived for a few years in the Philipines because his step-father's job moved his family there. The claims against Obama's citizenship are particularly rediculous juxtaposed to the circumstances of John McCain's birth, given that McCain was born in Panama on a U.S. Military Base; and U.S. citizenship law does not include military bases as part of U.S. territory for the purpose of citizenship. However, McCain being born to at least one parent who was a citizen makes that point moot. Both candidates in this years election were clearly natural born citizens, and qualified to be president on all counts, despite the fact that neither was "Born in the U.S. to two parents who were U.S. citizens", which has never been the requirement for being a citizen at birth... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 13:11, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's also a chance that we're all just brains in vats, and no amount of evidence can make that chance go away. But if you're going to let evidence convince you of anything, it will surely convince you that Obama was born in Hawaii: he and his family say it's true, he has presented a birth certificate which Hawaiian officials have said is authentic, and outside organizations have found his birth announcement in a 1961 newspaper. If that's not enough, what is? I know I can't document my own birth with any more evidence than that. Can you? --Sean 13:38, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many people have less documentation of birth. I'm adopted, so my "official" birth certificate has been altered to show my adoptive parents as my birth parents (standard practice to keep adopted kids from easily finding out their family medical history). There was no birth announcement when I was born, but I was born in a hospital. I do know my biological father. His family didn't use hospitals, so they rarely got birth certificates. I found this out from the family story of my aunt Early. My grandfather wanted his daughter to have the first family birth certificate, so he sent a post to the hospital to get one. The doctor knew the family and sent the post back with a note to resend after the birth. My grandfather sent it back with the note "Baby born early." The doctor sent back a birth certificate with the name "Early" on it. -- kainaw ™ 13:47, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Asking where an urban legend comes from is like asking why fools fall in love. You can try this mental exercise: how can you be sure you were born where you think you were? Although present at the occasion, you probably lack a clear memory of the events. How do you know the birth certificate is legitimate? In my home town, people relied for decades on baptismal certificates. I've seen a photocopy of the "application for the registration of a birth" for my aunt -- dated thirty years after the event. In the section explaining the applicant's "knowledge of the fact" and circumstances, my grandfather wrote: "I am her father and know the date of her birth." This not only proved Aunt Cassie's age but explained the family tendency toward procrastination. --- OtherDave (talk) 14:25, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course he was foreign born... At least to me and anyone else not in the USA. -- Q Chris (talk) 15:21, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"'Obama too British' case rejected". --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:25, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article is currently Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories ]... AnonMoos (talk) 02:02, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This urban legend is a product of the vast right-wing conspiracy, otherwise known as the GOP. These jokes are easily identifiable by (a) the total lack of any supporting evidence; (b) the total disregard of contradictory evidence, and (c ) the extremely fine thread linking some obscure point of fact to the lie in question. Although, I have to say that Q Chris makes an excellent point! DOR (HK) (talk) 07:18, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Geographical knowledge of Americans

Is it true that 25% of the American population can't find their country on a map?--81.38.153.16 (talk) 12:39, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A) Probably not and B) If it is true, then replacing the word "Americans" with any other nationality will likely lead to similar percentages. Americans are celebrated for their stupidity, but they generally score in the same range as other nations. At certain tests, and in certain years, they score near the bottom of similar nations on certain measures of education, but not every year and not every test. The source of the "Americans are stupid" is probably due in large part to our desire to see Americans and the USA cut down to size for their strong position in the world economy and culture. It gives the rest of the world something to feel good about; "We may not have as strong of an economy or military, but at least we aren't as stupid as those dumb Americans". For the most part, Geography is a poor measure of general intelligence and education anyways. Generally, most geography (beyond maybe, reading a road map) is not useful for most people on a day-to-day basis. It is generally trivial knowledge to know random, unconnected facts about locations on the Earth. One could always argue that proper civic involvement would require some level geographic intelligence; however others have noted that all politics is local. In actuality, the American education system, especially its post-secondary (College and University system) is among the strongest in the world, else one would not see the huge numbers of non-Americans who come to the US just to study. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 12:52, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not true that 25% of the American population can't find their country on a map. The National Geographic-Roper Public Affairs 2006 Geographic Literacy Study found “Nearly all (94%) young Americans can find the United States on the world map" [2]. Here is the full report. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 13:03, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See page 26 of the report. You will find a graph which will answer to your query. Not only the US, 92% Americans can identify Canada also. But they have pitiful knowledge on Asia and Middle East. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 13:12, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And yes American education system is one of the "best" in the world, as Jayron32 suggested above, this is why the United States is the most religious country in the western world, this why most Americans believe in religion. World's "best" education system produces blind believers in nonsense like religion. Oh yes, some Americans also believe humans and dinosaurs coexisted. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 13:23, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is certainly not limited to Americans... Adam Bishop (talk) 14:46, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To respond to OC... that jingoism you display there shows a fantastic lack of understanding of the American culture and of religious belief both in America specifically and in general. As Adam Bishop notes, that some Americans use their religious belief to reject obvious scientific truths is not limited to Americans; and it does not describe even a majority of Americans. Yes, you can find people who hold such ludicrous positions, but that is merely an indictment on the stupidity of those individuals, and not on American culture as a whole. There is no inherent conflict between, say, evangelical Christianity as a belief system and science. There are many many scientists, even evolutionary biologists, who are themselves devoutly religious. I really suggest you read Rocks of Ages by Stephen J. Gould. It is an enlightening book on how science and religion can and should coexist in a fully developed society. Given that I assume OC is a free thinker, and willing to at least read the works of others, he/she may find that their understanding of the role of religion in people's lives is much different than it really is.... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 16:31, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Jingoism"? I think it is you who is displaying jingoism. I have strong objection to the process you estimate the American education system as the best in the world only because people from other countries go there. Russia and China have excellent educational infrastructure. Why people don't go to Russia? Because language is big barrier. My objection came when I saw you simply ignored big players like Russia or China to prove American superiority. Your claim "There is no inherent conflict between, say, evangelical Christianity as a belief system and science" is showing your utter lack of understanding of both religion and science. Religion is belief, science is based on Reasoning. China has the highest non-religious population in the world anyway. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:51, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS many students from other countries are now going to China [3]. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:58, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will recommend you to read Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 17:02, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Because when I read Dawkins, I found it a good read, but lacking on some levels. It certainly does a good job of explaining the "wrong" reasons for believing in God, but I think it does a poor job of completely explaining away religion's role in modern society. For example, it erroneously assumes that rejection of evolution and natural selection and its replacement with the "God made the world on a Thursday afternoon in 4004 BC" is somehow a "requirement" for religion. It is not now, nor has ever been. That there are individuals who are religious who hold that position does not somehow invalidate the religious beliefs of those individuals who do NOT hold that position. Dawkins is entirely on point with his notions that morality is not religiously derived, but (at least in connection to Christianity) the idea that you get into heaven because you are a "good" or "moral" person is also entirely a wrong. I, however, found that Dawkins almost single-minded focus on the evolution vs. intelligent design debate as a basis for rejecting all religious beliefs to be wholly inconsistant. He basically set up "religion" as a house of cards which is predicated entirely on evolution being false. This is such a narrow view of religion. The other main problem with Dawkins book is his notion that God must not exist because the universe is so complex, that a God who created a complex universe MUST be Himself so complex as to be impossible. To make that arguement is to make the same mistake that ID proponents make, but from the other direction. So, yes, Dawkins does a great job of explaining how religion is "done the wrong way" and how NOT to use religion to inform aspects of your life, however when he delves into the absolutes and says, essentialy, that because some people misuse religion it must therefore be invalid, that seems like a weak philosophical position to take. It displays a sort of gross "guilt by association" to say that because some people who are religious reject evolution, therefore ALL religious-minded people are somehow tainted. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:38, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing to do with Dawkins, but I just felt compelled to point out that no one said the American education system is "the best in the world"; Jayron's words were "among the strongest in the world," which is hardly something to get worked up about. Now excuse me, I have to go bathe in snake oil and pet my dinosaur. --Fullobeans (talk) 18:50, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(undent) Just as a spin and quasi-response to Fullobeans, the US is still undisputed king for college level education. One set of rankings by a Spanish group shows the highest non-US university ranked at #25, a Chinese set shows 17 of the top 20 in the US, etc... Where the US falls flat is that it has a "first world second rate" primary and secondary education system. It has great offerings but fails to deliver consistent results. SDY (talk) 19:38, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This ranking - as the name indicates - only measures the web presence of the university, not the quality. It is not amazing that MIT fills the first place. What this university offers for free is amazing. On the other hand, I must point out that MIT is probably a terrible place for being an undergraduate. It looks more like a chicken farm than like a university. Mr.K. (talk) 09:25, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The figure 20% was used in a U.S. beauty pagent question, it was claimed that it was based upon a survey. Not clear on which the survey was, however. (see http://machinist.salon.com/blog/2007/08/30/upton/). In the 2002 version of the NatGeo report (the same as the 2006 version cited above), 13% of U.S. respondents couldn't find US on the map, and U.S. respondents fared far worse than many other countries. However, one should take any survey based upon hundreds of respondents with a fair degree of scepticism (http://archives.cnn.com/2002/EDUCATION/11/20/geography.quiz/). Some other commentary at http://www.rferl.org/content/article/1068259.html . --Soman (talk) 13:48, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an even more scary factoid: 40% of US congressional representatives and senators don't have a passport. DOR (HK) (talk) 07:21, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have you considered that this is a goodwill gesture on the part of the U.S. toward other nations? --- OtherDave (talk) 20:41, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We in the (rest of the) English world forget how *big* America is. The US population is much larger than that of, say, Canada, Australia or the UK. A populous country tends to be inward looking, since a much larger proportion of its trade will be domestic, and it produces a sufficient quantity and variety of anything - be it culture, minerals or people - that there is much less need and desire to look outward. The historical factor that the Commonwealth was a global empire from which the US was increasingly excluded also has an effect.

It isn't appropriate to compare the geographical knowledge or congressmen-passport-holding-percentages of the US to what we are used to - i.e. similar statistics in the traditionally outward-looking Commonwealth countries.

It would be more appropriate, on the basis of the size of the population, the degree to which the economy is domestically driven, and other factors, to compare the US statistics to that of other "large" countries like China, Brazil, or India. I don't know whether we could obtain comparable statistics on those countries, but I trust the statistics quoted above would compare favourably, even taking into account the developing status of these countries. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 22:34, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

India and China are hell of a lot larger in terms of population then the US (over 3 times in the case of China, nearly 3 times in the case of India). Indonesia and Brazil are perhaps fairer comparisons although both are smaller Brazil is still more then half the population of the US Nil Einne (talk) 14:26, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Raid"?

News reports say Pakistani troops in a "raid" arrested Lashkar-e-Taiba "commander" Zaki ur Rehman Lakhvi, who is accused by Indian authorities for plotting November 2008 Mumbai attacks. I find it quite amusing that the leader of an organization, which is closely linked with the Inter-Services Intelligence (it is an open secret) and its leaders are allowed to freely operate in Pakistan, is "arrested" by Pakistani authorities. Is it really a "raid" or just window dressing? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 14:34, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. Is yours a question, or some sort of cheap point scoring? --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:24, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What the heck you are talking about? My question is whether this raid is real or window dressing because it is well known fact in India that ISI is involved in organizations like LeT. If you don't know anything about this, then don't engage in this thread. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:28, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you reread your words you could be forgiven for mistaking it to be a statement of your assertion of the security service's involvement with the raided group, rather than a question. Indeed the question seems to me to be merely a McGuffin to get your opinion on this page. YMMV, of course. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:32, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like a legit question to me. There have, indeed, been instances of the ISI supporting terrorists in Afghanistan, so it seems quite plausible that factions within the ISI also supported the terrorist attacks against India. StuRat (talk) 02:34, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are certainly a variety of factions in Pakistan. The situation is quite complicated there. Unless one of the Ref Desk volunteers happens to be part of the Pakistani government or the ISI (in which case they are unlikely to divulge it), we have no other source of evidence than the news reports. The news reports say that there was a raid. It may be that there was no raid, but we have no way of knowing this, so there is no way that we can answer your question with any assurance other than to say that the available evidence indicates that there was a raid. Marco polo (talk) 02:47, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The raid appears to have been carried out by the military not the ISI. As Marco has pointed out, the situation in Pakistan is incredibly complex. While it may be true that the ISI maintains links to the Lashkar-e-Taiba, something which remains unproven, this doesn't mean everyone in Pakistan has connections to Lashkar-e-Taiba. Actually even if elements of the ISI maintain links to Lashkar-e-Taiba it's likely there are also elements of the ISI which work against Lashkar-e-Taiba. It's a noted fact by many sources that the civilian government probably doesn't have complete control over ISI does and as the various military coups have shown, nor is the military always in agreement with the government. It is entirely plausible that the government and/or military may wish to crack down on Lashkar-e-Taiba even if (and again I emphasise it's unproven) the ISI maintains links with them. Most of the links you provided mention this to varying degrees so perhaps you may want to read them Nil Einne (talk) 13:01, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Was the Peoples Temple a religious cult?

From the article I gather that the Peoples Temple wasn't religious. Surprisingly, I also found out that Jim Jones was an atheist. But when the group moved to Jonestown didn't they ever hold bible studies or didn't Jim Jones ever preach sermons? 124.171.215.119 (talk) 14:40, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't read the article lately, but it is my understanding they were very much a cult. Jones became mentally unraveled toward the end of his life, and he started as a Christian preacher, so I wonder if atheist would be an apt description of him near the end. I suppose the definition of cult is more important than religion in this instance. Pressure to join, stay, give time, money, and effort to the group and to Jones himself were all part of the Peoples Temple. Certainly the way it ended was one of the most powerful demonstrations of cult power and groupthink ever seen in human history. --Moni3 (talk) 14:44, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most definitions of "cult" suggest the term "cult" is only applicable in those situations where religion is involved, see Cult#Dictionary_definitions. However Merriam-Webster online dictionary has a definition of "cult" which states "great devotion to a person, idea, object, movement, or work (as a film or book); especially : such devotion regarded as a literary or intellectual fad". On the other hand Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary defines cult as "a religious group, often living together, whose beliefs are considered extreme or strange by many people" [4]. If we take the definition of Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary, then the Peoples Temple has nothing to do with cult. But if we take the definition of Merriam-Webster online dictionary, then the Peoples Temple was a cult organization. Some people describes the Peoples Temple as a cult [5][6] while some people dispute this claim [7]. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 15:02, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the definition of Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary is more acceptable. Concise Oxford English Dictionary defines cult as "a system of religious devotion directed towards a particular figure or object > a relatively small religious group regarded by others as strange or as imposing excessive control over members". Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 15:13, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The definition of cult is vague, since groups like Scientology and UFO-based organisations like Heaven's Gate (religious group) would fit most people's definitions, despite not being focussed on gods - although they do believe in higher beings than humans (actually in both cases extraterrestrial beings of immense but probably not infinite or supernatural powers). There are similar problems in defining religion; it's more a case of comparison between possible examples than matching an exact definition. --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 12:11, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that Jim Jones practiced faith healing and called himself God, I should think that, yes, you could call the Peoples Temple a religious cult. Regarding the definition of "cult," though, I think "religious devotion" has a very different meaning from "religious group." If a group is religiously devoted to an individual, and that individual convinces the group to adopt militantly atheistic beliefs, then the group would then be an anti-religious group religiously devoted to its leader (and Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo). Since there seems to be an increasing number of controversial, non-religious "self-empowerment"-type organizations that frequently have the word "cult" thrown at them, I suspect the definition of the word is evolving.--Fullobeans (talk) 15:35, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It has some quite contradictory meanings: when used in "this film/TV show/book has a cult following", it's a fairly benign, or even positive thing. A "cult" of the type we're discussing here is universally regarded negatively. I suppose you could write a book about a cult (-ve), that achieves a cult (+ve) following. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:09, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rome

I know this may like homework question but I am sorry because in our history textbook, it doesn't say anyhting about why Roman Republic fall(Ancient Rome). Does any of your articles say about why the Rome Republic fall and what were the reasons? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.30.202.21 (talk) 15:50, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Read this. I will also recommend you to read this book. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 15:56, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We do have articles on the Roman Republic and on the Roman Empire. Some helpful articles to understand more might be found in Constitution of the Roman Republic and History of the Constitution of the Roman Republic.

The classic understanding was that the Roman Republic ceased to exist in 27 AD with the ascension of Augustus Caesar and instantly became the Roman Empire on that date. The truth is that the Republic had been undergoing evolution, and the ascension of Augustus is merely a symbolic change; in reality the process of transformation of the Roman state from a republican one to a monarchical/dictatorial one took place over many centuries, and the rise of Augustus represents neither the beginning nor the end of that process. There were dictators and non-republican forms of government before Augustus, and there would continue to be a role for the Roman Senate for many centuries to come after Augustus.

The "big picture" issue on the change from Republic to Empire was probably its size. A republic was suited well to governing the Roman city-state during its early years. At the rise of Augustus, however, the state was already in direct control of lands as far apart as Palestine and Iberia in the east and west; and of Gaul and Libya in the north and south. The management of such a large empire became impossible to manage under a republican form of government.

As far as specific "pre-Augustus" events that were central in the change from Republic to Empire, look at the populist rule of the Gracchi brothers, the dictatorship of Sulla (especially his changes to the government of Rome), the First Triumvirate, the dictatorship of Julius Caesar and the Second Triumvirate. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 16:15, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paleolithic Age vs. Ancient Egypt, Ancient Sparta, Classical Athens, Roman Republic and Romam Empire

Do any of the articles say about the role and status of women? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.30.202.21 (talk) 15:52, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paleolithic: Read Paleolithic#Social_organization. According to evolutionary biologist Jared Diamond, status of women declined with the adoption of agriculture because women in farming societies typically have more pregnancies and are expected to do more demanding work then women in hunter-gatherer societies. [8]

Ancient Egypt: For the status of women in ancient Egypt, read these references [9][10][11].

Sparta: For status of women in Sparta read this and this.

Classical Athens: For status of women in Classical Athens, read this.

Roman Republic: For status of women in Roman Republic, read this.

Romam Empire: For status of women in Romam Empire, read this online book. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:22, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Illicit Trade in Viagra

Would anyone know why spammers keep trying to sell me Viagra? It's legal (at least here in Canada and the US), so why would I want to buy it from them, and at higher price at that, when I can just get a prescription from my doctor?

Is it a matter of embarrassment? Guys too shy to tell their doctors they have erectile difficulties?

Or perhaps is it a matter of abuse? Guys taking it when they don't really need it, or shouldn't be for health reasons, or taking too much?

I just don't get it. 76.69.250.39 (talk) 16:00, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It may be legal, but the fact that it is heavily regulated (as a prescription drug) keeps availibility difficult and prices high. In such situations, even legal substances have a black market. There is still, for example, illegal moonshine stills and widespread bootlegging in the U.S. even though liquor is legal, and there is an active black market in cigarettes and other tobacco products. Being legal is not the same as being easy to get; I would say that it is both easier and cheaper for me to get a bag of pot than to go through the hoops to get legal viagra. Thus, the black market... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 16:22, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I realize that there exist black markets for legal substances. A pack of 25 cigarettes here in Canada can cost over $10, however I happen to live nearby an Indian Reservation where you can buy a 200 for $6, or 75¢ for 25. But illegal Viagra is more expensive than getting it by prescription, not to mention the fact that you can never be sure what you're getting if you buy it on the black market. You'd have to be a real moron not to go the legal route for this substance. But there's no shortage of morons in this world, which I suppose is the answer to my question. 76.69.250.39 (talk) 16:52, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My guess is that people who are getting it illegally don't actually have the medical problem that Viagra is designed to treat so they couldn't get a prescription from their doctor. A strange distinction for what is in essence a recreational drug anyway, but it's only legal as a way to "level the playing field" rather than as a "performance enhancer." SDY (talk) 17:13, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, those people don't want a level playing field, but want to tilt it in their favor. StuRat (talk) 02:20, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How do doctors test for impotence? Surely all they can do is take your word for it (I can only think of one way to test it and I can't see them trying that...). (Conceiving a child wouldn't generally be considered recreational [and least, not purely], so it could be argued that it isn't just a recreational drug.) --Tango (talk) 23:52, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Impotence can lead to depression, so treating the impotence may prevent the depression. Not a recreational drug. DuncanHill (talk) 02:11, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not purely recreational, no, but I think most of the ads are targeted towards people who have things in mind other than procreation or treatment of unhappiness. "It" doesn't work, and they want it fixed, so the pill does that. Tests for impotence vary, they're right there in the impotence article. SDY (talk) 02:20, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That means it isn't ONLY a recreational drug. StuRat (talk) 02:20, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doctors can test for impotence (or at least determine if the cause of the ED is due to physical problems or psychological problems) by attaching a device to the patient's penis for the night. If you have physical problems then the penis will not get hard during the night, if it is psychological the penis will get hard (see nocturnal penile tumescence. A cheap test you can use if you're worrying is licking two stamps and placing them on your penis. If they have come off during the night (and you aren't a restless sleeper) then your problem is probably psychological. This isn't medical advice either.--droptone (talk) 12:40, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What makes you think the spammers will either send you anything at all (once your check clears), or send you actual Viagra? DOR (HK) (talk) 07:28, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Viagra was recently shown to be a performance-enhancing drug for athletes. In other words it is now a sports doping concern.[12] --S.dedalus (talk) 20:59, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But if so used, wouldn't some athletes, like pole vaulters, risk getting caught ? StuRat (talk) 03:46, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Narrative Poetry and the Real World

(Question by 74.46.126.47 moved here from Reference desk/Language.) Strawless ^(talk) 21:58, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I'm a writer who creates novels in poetry forms; not epics, because they don't follow the format, but novels just in...poem form. So, I looked up narrative poetry, but am puzzled about two things. First, is it better to write these poems as just blocks of text, or split them into indivual poems about conversations, events, etc.? But, more importantly, what resources are provided to get these into the real world? I know of few publishers that deal with this, and fewer contests. What sort of organizations would offer these (specifically contests, which have a better turn-around time)? Thanks! 74.46.126.47 (talk) 20:14, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The usual term is verse novel. I don't know of a prize which is specifically for a novel in verse, but of course such work has been published for centuries in the usual way, which is as a printed book, and still is, as with Vikram Seth's The Golden Gate. No doubt the easiest way to publish your work would be to put it online yourself, but then most writers need to be paid royalties of some kind, or at least to get a one-off payment from a publisher. Strawless ^(talk) 21:49, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I actually just read one the other day. A kids book, but full-length and entirely in rhyme. The publisher is Penguin. Zorgamazoo. Sorry can't help with the contest part of the question. Best, WikiJedits (talk) 00:49, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Legal/sociological terminology question

In the sentence, "The prospect of a prompt fine equivalent to $600 US (at 2005 exchange rate) would help assure preventive compliance, as well as cover costs."

Does the term "preventive compliance" have some particular meaning, or is it (as I suspect) a meaningless combination?

Thanks, Wanderer57 (talk) 23:25, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The translation into plain English is "the chance that you would have to pay a $600 fine means that you won't do it, and if you do anyway we can pay for it." "Preventive compliance" is essentially children eating their vegetables for fear of not getting dessert. The fear of consequences forces proper behavior. SDY (talk) 23:35, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever happened to just using good old "deterrence"... --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 00:06, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The probable difference is that "Preventive Compliance" implies that they will do something (e.g. wear a seat belt), "Deterrence" implies that they will not do something (e.g. not drive 80 in a school zone). That and someone might think nuclear weapons were involved, which is slightly more heavy-handed than a $600 fine. SDY (talk) 00:21, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Preventive compliance" isn't meaningless, but in my opinion it's self-important. The prospect of a fine helps assure compliance (with whatever regulation or policy you're talking about). Negative, positive, who cares as long as they comply? I would take the sentence to mean something like, "A fine of $600 will get more people to comply, and the fines will help cover the cost of (whatever this program is)." This is similar to the speed cameras on roads in my county; the cameras (and the virtual certainty of a ticket) slow traffic, and revenue (from the tickets that get issued thanks to the cameras) helps pay the cost of the camera program. --- 20:52, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Louisiana Purchase

The article for the Louisiana Purchase says it cost about $217 billion in today's dollars. Was it worth it for America? How much is the area covered by the purchase worth to the American economy every year? Thanks 86.7.238.145 (talk) 23:44, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, one site I saw put Iowa (a small fraction of the total purchase) at a GDP of $82.3b in 2001, so I'm assuming the total is >$217b/yr. The purchase doesn't cover state boundaries, so getting exact numbers is difficult. That land includes some of the best farmland in the world, so it was undeniably "worth it." Heck, even Seward's Icebox pays itself off every four years. Check this site for some 2001 data. SDY (talk) 23:58, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to the CIA Factbook: [13], US annual GDP is around $13.78 trillion. I'd expect that most of that is produced on the coasts and Midwest, as that's where most of the people who produce the wealth live. But, we can probably figure at least $1 trillion per year is produced in areas obtained during the Louisiana Purchase, so it pays off something like 4-5 times the purchase price every year. That's a darned good investment. StuRat (talk) 02:08, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

StuRat is pretty close to on-target with his estimate of $1 trillion per year. Using the Demographia 2001 data and estimating the proportion of GDP produced within the original Louisiana Purchase for states that lie only partly within it (such as Colorado and Minnesota), I got a figure of $841 billion. Certainly a good annual return on $217 billion! Marco polo (talk) 02:37, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GDP isn't a useful number, what you need is production minus consumption - there is no point buying an area of land if all the people there end up consuming more than they produce. You need to work out something similar to the current account of the region, that's what it actually adds to the country. --Tango (talk) 14:08, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Current GDP (say, Iowa's) is the product of a host of things, including the land. It also includes all investment, the legal system and a slew of other things that came long after the Louisiana Purchase. To get to the nub of the question, ask what would the US have been like without the Louisiana Purchase ? DOR (HK) (talk) 07:34, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd probably be also worth considering what would have happened to the (now non-US) territories of the purchase. Would it have stayed part of France? Would it have been sold to the British? The Spanish? Would it have become an independent country? What would the international relationship between the US and the country to the west been like? Even if the US loses money because of the Louisiana Purchase, it may still have been worth it in avoiding an even more costly territory dispute/war with "New France". The long term consequences of "what would have happened if ..." hypotheticals are never easy to determine. -- 128.104.112.113 (talk) 16:29, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Manifest Destiny probably wouldn't have caught on, and the nation would have been a lot smaller. If France had colonized it more fully, the US probably would have been less influential than Canada is now: the only reason the US grew so powerful so fast was that it had so little "competition." I disagree that GDP is meaningless-it's not "profit" but it does give an indication of the "production" of the area, especially farmland which people will pay thousands of dollars per acre for. According to our article, the price per acre was about 3 cents, which is more in current money, probably a dollar or so. Just poking around on the web, the cost of an acre of farmland varies from $1,000 to $10,000. Even if only a third of the purchase was usable farmland and the rest of it was worthless, the return on investment was staggering. SDY (talk) 16:35, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are seriously underestimating inflation over the last 200 years. It's most like $400 per acre in modern dollars. The production of an area is meaningless if the people in that area are consuming it all (unless you're assuming the population of the US would be the same as it is now, just spread over less area, which seems unlikely). --Tango (talk) 17:04, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, misplaced a few zeroes there (m and b), 1.5x10^6 -> 2.17x10^11, about a 1.5x10^5 difference, or 3.0x10^-2 goes to 4.5x10^3, about $450. Still excellent return. I totally disagree with "if it's consumed it's meaningless"- it supports the population of the area, which is part of the US, and that population is available to the country as soldiers in time of war, as workers in times of peace, et cetera. By your logic, the world as a whole is worthless since the net production is zero, which I don't find convincing. SDY (talk) 17:16, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The world is worthless to anyone outside the world, just as the Louisiana Purchase is useless to anyone outside its boundaries if it doesn't produce more than it consumes (producing soldiers and workers is a form of production). (In fact, the world has positive net production most of the time in the form of investments, if it didn't there wouldn't be any economic growth.) --Tango (talk) 20:11, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, any $450 an acre growing to an average of $5000 an acre over a period of 200 years is an annual return of about 1%, not at all impressive. --Tango (talk) 20:13, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's merely the appreciation of the principal. You also have not considered the return on investment due to the productivity of that land, as well as non-financial benefits... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 23:58, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But if that food produced on that land was eaten by people in the Louisiana Purchase area then it hasn't benefited the rest of the country, that's the point I've been trying to make. You can't just look at production, you have to look at consumption too. --Tango (talk) 00:03, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The land in question doesn't exist in a vacuum, though (and man does not live by bread alone). If the Louisiana Purchase area consumes more than it produces, then it's producing demand which stimulates growth in other regions of the country (or world). Much of the US population doesn't produce anything of quantifiable monetary value, and yet somehow the country ekes by. --Fullobeans (talk) 00:14, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Except that the people eating that food then go off to work in factories which produce goods and services for the rest of the world... Again, if you eliminate something from the equation, you can make it LOOK like a worse deal than it was (for example, if you ONLY look at food production vs. consumption).

However, there are MANY other factors to consider... For example, the extra land reduces population pressures; much of the Louisiana Purchase provided additional lend to settle imigrants, and reduced overcrowding in eastern states; thus increasing perhaps their productivity. The extra imigrants provided labor to work in factories which produced goods for export or for internal use. Even if not exported, the goods (like machinery, cars, etc.) could be used to increase productivity in OTHER parts of the country.

The LP also opened up expansion for western states; it would have been impossible for the U.S. to stake a claim on the Rocky Mountain or Pacific Coast states without a contiguous means to "get there". You must factor in the potential loss of EVERYTHING west of the Mississippi and decide how that should be valued against the marginal cost of the land itself.

Again, if you dick with the numbers, or make unreasonable restrictions on how you "value" the purchase, you can make it look like a bad deal. It wasn't; the U.S. would definitively NOT be the economic and political power it is in the world today. It was the single most important event of the nation's first 50 years, with regard to the long-term prospects of the nation, and trying to calculate its "worth" by simply adding the value of appreciation of the acreage to the net production of food and thinking that the number you get there means anything is a terrible mistake. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 13:13, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I should point out that the current version of the article Louisiana Purchase has been updated with source figures which suggest $278 million is the more accurate number in todays figures for the purchase (although from the source it depends how you calculate it) Nil Einne (talk) 13:27, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

December 10

You just don't give it away for nothing

In previous (United States) Congresses, when just one seat is vacant, has the number required for cloture votes been rounded up to 60 or down to 59? Mathematically, it's 59.4, so I'm not sure which they would do. Thanks! Ab e g92contribs 01:52, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You always round "up". If the "break-even" point for vote was, say 50.1, that means you need MORE votes than that to pass, any less than that point fails. Thus, for fractional "break-even" points, you always round up. In the case you cite, you need absolutely more than 59.4 votes. 59 votes is less than 59.4, so the measure would fail with 59 but pass with 60. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:04, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

abuse in The Sun Also Rises

The Wikipedia entry mentions Jake going through abuse as a child. Does anyone recall where it mentions this in the book? This completely slipped past me when I read it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.232.211.93 (talk) 04:00, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've read that book more than once, and I sure don't remember that. In fact, I just took it out with a click on "rollback". Hope this helps, Antandrus (talk) 04:22, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The WP article doesn't discuss this, but the novel was extensively edited prior to publication with a lot of material about the characters' backgrounds, psychology, etc, excised - due to Hemingway's "iceberg" theory about only revealing a small proportion of the situation and leaving most of it lurking unobserved below the waterline. I can't provide more detail right now, but there's lots published about this. --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 15:12, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quality of health care provision around the world

I vaguely remember hearing a news story about some recent research that measured the comparative quality of national health care provision around the world. The line I remember was that the British system was ranked below that of Estonia. However, I can't find a source for the research. A search of the usually reliable BBC news website has brought up nothing. Any pointers? Many thanks, --Richardrj ^talk ^email 10:41, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a source (WHO). Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 11:18, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but that's not the one. That list dates back to 2000, and it says that the WHO no longer compile such lists "because of the complexity of the task." So it must have been someone else's work. I'll keep looking, --Richardrj ^talk ^email 11:34, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bailout cost

The FT had a blog post comparing the cost of the US bailout to other inflation adjusted US budgetary programs:

Bloomberg has rejigged its estimated total of potential US support to the markets to around $8,500bn from $7,700bn, reflecting the most recent Fed proposals to save the world.

A ginormous sum, by any measure, and one which Barry Ritholtz has helpfully put into perspective.

By Ritholtz’s estimate, the total actual cost of the various bailout programs (including Citi, but not including today’s announcements) exceeds $4,600bn dollars, making it the “largest outlay in American history.”

So large, that according to inflation adjusted numbers provided by Jim Bianco of Bianco Research, “the bailout has cost more than all of these big budget government expenditures – combined”:

• Marshall Plan: Cost: $12.7 billion, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $115.3 billion • Louisiana Purchase: Cost: $15 million, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $217 billion • Race to the Moon: Cost: $36.4 billion, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $237 billion • S&L Crisis: Cost: $153 billion, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $256 billion • Korean War: Cost: $54 billion, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $454 billion • The New Deal: Cost: $32 billion (Est), Inflation Adjusted Cost: $500 billion (Est) • Invasion of Iraq: Cost: $551b, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $597 billion • Vietnam War: Cost: $111 billion, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $698 billion • NASA: Cost: $416.7 billion, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $851.2 billion TOTAL: $3.92 trillion ($3,920bn)

Further, he notes:

The only single American event in history that even comes close to matching the cost of the credit crisis is World War II: Original Cost: $288 billion, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $3.6 trillion

Ritholtz estimates that by the end of 2010, the final bill may scale up to as much as $10,000bn.

Are these estimates correct? What is the explanation of the bailout being more expensive than WW2? Because WW2 cost Europe more as well as had huge personal costs that the US budget of course does not measure? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.43.13.100 (talk) 11:51, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What format is the aid in? If it includes tax cuts, it's questionable whether they should be included in government spending. Similarly, does it include missing tax revenue due to companies losing money and people not working, or the cost of social security payments, etc? It seems to me that the costs of a war would be quantified as something like costs of materiel + wages of soldiers and other workers + repairing war damage + cost of care for veterans. The cost of the economic crisis will be expressed in different terms. If you looked at the cost of WW2 to Germany, the figures would be much higher. --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 12:20, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Bloomberg figure for the bailout is misleading. They arrived at the 8.2 (or 7.7) trillion by adding up all the funds. loans and assets the US government is guaranteeing, but guaranteeing a loan is not the same thing as spending the money. 194.171.56.13 (talk) 13:55, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, a large proportion of that money is loans that will most likely be paid back and shares that will most likely accumulate in value. The treasury may even make a net profit once they close all their positions in a few years' time. --Tango (talk) 14:01, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That may be too optimistic, Tango. I don't think there can be any doubt that the banks owned a lot of stuff that was not worth what it was in the books for (eg subprime mortgages). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.171.56.13 (talk) 15:18, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and the banks have recorded massive losses for those, that doesn't mean they won't pay back their loans from the treasury eventually. --Tango (talk) 16:58, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's interesting to see the comparison, but you have to remember that it's quite misleading and shouldn't be taken seriously. First, it includes purchases of securities on which the government can reasonably expect to make a return. This is not just the purchase of bank preferred stock that the government hopes to go up in value; it also includes large amounts of commercial paper and other short-term obligations, where repayment in full is by far the most likely outcome. Second, it includes guarantees of debt that mostly won't go bad. For example, most banks won't fail, so much of the FDIC's obligations under the Temporary Loan Guarantee Program won't be paid out, even if banks do as badly this time around as they did in the Great Depression. Third, it includes amounts that have been authorized but probably won't be drawn down in any way. For example, it includes the Fed's $540 billion commitment to the Money Market Investor Funding Facility, which was set up to buy commercial paper from money market funds. Money market funds have found the program unappealing, and as of last week not a single dollar of the facility had been drawn down. John M Baker (talk) 06:52, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adding to your list: It also makes more sense to analyze this intervention as a fiscal and monetary stimulus. Only the New Deal and S&L Crisis above are similar in this respect. An intervention designed to 'bail out' credit markets (despite understandable cynicism) is very much like the printing of money or selection of a budget deficit/surplus designed to contribute to short-run Keynesian aggregate demand to smooth-out economic cyclicality. Notice that it's only been since September that significant net job losses have been reported (I mention this to support the idea that credit markets are the 'grease that lubricates the engine' at the center of the economy.) Secondly, a large majority of the actual "paid-out amount" is coming from the Fed's balance sheet. The fed buys back government securities, increasing the money supply. Fed actions can't really be analyzed using the same "costs" approach as, say, an individual or corporation. Fed money is costless in that sense; it can print as much as it wants. The only cost is eventual inflation. With the massive bank deleveraging, however, they can get away (or rather they must inject!) with injecting a ton of liquidity without having to worry about inflation. The last FOMC minutes actually concentrated on deflation as serious concern! Lastly, even the additional Federal Budget deficit (the $700 billion) is being borrowed, primarily from foreigners (China's massive trade surplus sucks up Federal debt!) at very low rates. There have been two days since September when (short-term) T-Bill rates actually went NEGATIVE. Investors are so risk-averse and America-loving that a couple of times they were willing to pay the government for the right to lend it money! With the appreciation of the USD [14] (as a result of the insatiable appetite for US Federal debt) lately, they'll be paying back their creditors with even stronger dollars than they borrowed. The only major threat to America's solvency is if it loses it's position in the world as THE best place to invest. Sorry Obama, that means more ships, tanks and punitive foreign policy.NByz (talk) 21:03, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So are there any estimates of the bailout cost that could be considered more "accurate"? 199.43.13.101 (talk) 10:02, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. It depends on precisely what happens over the next few years, and we can only guess at that. I'm sure people have come up with estimates, but there is an enormous margin of error in them (probably to the extent of making them useless). The final result in 5 years time could probably be anywhere from a $500 billion profit to a $10,000 billion loss. Where in that range it will be is anyone's guess ($500b profit is more likely than $10,000b loss - that kind of loss would require the complete collapse of the economy, in which case it's pretty meaningless to put a monetary value on it). --Tango (talk) 14:33, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, a dollar cost isn't the appropriate way to analyze a fiscal or especially a monetary stimulus. What is the 'cost' of the Fed lowering interest rates? (by providing short-term liquidity, either printing new money or distributing shelf money [this is my own term for money that exists, but the Fed holds to, effectively keeping it out of the money supply or economy generally]) The only cost is inflationary. I say 'inflationary' not necessarily 'inflation', because most of the time it's done when the economy is contracting anyway, so the net effect is just inflation targeting, or the keeping of inflation within the expected range.

Most of the 'money' (excepting the $700 billion TARP) being used here is Fed money. The fed can (and I will argue, has to) inject heavily right now because there is negative bank money creation via the money multiplier effect. Under normal circumstances, when you deposit a dollar in a bank, that dollar is lent out to a borrower (ignoring any reserve requirement), resulting in the 'creation' of an extra dollar in the economy. There is now the claim to dollar you are owed by the bank (you can still get at it because banks carefully track how much short-term liquidity will be needed by their depositors and ensure enough funds are on hand) and also the dollar in the hand of the borrower. Chances are, that borrower is going to deposit the dollar in another bank account, extending the effect further. The more leverage in the economy (via this and many other processes) the more "money" (by certain measures of what money is) exists. When banks stop lending as aggressively - either out of fear, or out of a need to improve their capital ratios - this money creation effect is reduced and the money supply either shrinks, or grows less quickly.

When this happens, it becomes the Fed's responsibility under it's 'inflation targeting' policy to increase the money supply and/or decrease short-term interest rates (which it can only do through intervening in money markets) to avoid deflation. The Fed normally does this by buying up government securities in the open market. Every asset it buys takes another dollar of money off of its balance sheet and injects it into the economy. It's useful to think of many of the Fed's interventions right now as simply an alternative way of injecting money into the economy. There is no real 'cost' to this; the Fed can print an unlimited amount of money to support their inflation targeting goals. In fact, it's just what the Fed is mandated to do.NByz (talk) 23:06, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS, you might say that the 'cost' is to the holders of government securities that would otherwise have been bid-up when the Fed buys them back. With zero-coupon T-bill auctions selling damn near par right now, it's hard to make that argument! NByz (talk) 23:07, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Our common future

I've been trying to find a source to download Our_Common_Future, preferably a .pdf Can anyone help me? In advance, thanks. --93.184.122.12 (talk) 20:46, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article you linked has a link to here, which has the full text. Algebraist 20:51, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Baseball RBI Rules

In the article on Runs Batted In, it says:

The official rulebook of Major League Baseball states in Rule 10.04:

(a) The official scorer shall credit the batter with a run batted in for every run that scores:

(1) unaided by an error and as part of a play begun by the batter's safe hit (including the batter's home run), sacrifice bunt, sacrifice fly, infield out or fielder's choice, or a passed ball, unless Rule 10.04(b) applies;
(2) by reason of the batter becoming a runner with the bases full (because of a base on balls, an award of first base for being touched by a pitched ball or for interference or obstruction); or
(3) when, before two are out, an error is made on a play on which a runner from third base ordinarily would score.
(b) The official scorer shall not credit a run batted in
(1) when the batter grounds into a force double play or a reverse-force double play; or
(2) when a fielder is charged with an error because the fielder muffs a throw at first base that would have completed a force double play.

(c) The official scorer's judgment must determine whether a run batted in shall be credited for a run that scores when a fielder holds the ball or throws to a wrong base. Ordinarily, if the runner keeps going, the official scorer should credit a run batted in; if the runner stops and takes off again when the runner notices the misplay, the official scorer should credit the run as scored on a fielder's choice.

I understand all the rules except for a 2 (in bold). Does anyone know what this means? 216.239.234.196 (talk) 21:26, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This refers to being walked (the Base on balls article explains it well); being hit by a pitch; and to interference by the catcher. Nyttend (talk) 21:39, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are they talking about when the bases are loaded? Does that mean that if the bases are loaded and the batter gets a walk and forces in a run, the better isn't credited with an RBI? That doesn't sound right to me. 67.184.14.87 (talk) 22:20, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wait a second, I get it. I thought the 'unless' applied to 2a. Thanks! 67.184.14.87 (talk) 22:30, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As noted above, if you are walked with the bases loaded (by 4 balls, Hit By Pitch, or catcher interference) you get credited with an RBI. Since none of these events credits the batter with an "at-bat" it is thus possible to get a "run-batted-in" without getting an "at-bat". --Jayron32.talk.contribs 23:55, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are correct. My error was that I misunderstood what I was reading. 67.184.14.87 (talk) 00:46, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Curious. RBI credit without evening having an official at bat! DOR (HK) (talk) 02:34, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is a bit ironic. 216.239.234.196 (talk) 14:12, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What was the composition of the European Parliament by group immediately before and after the Sweden elections to the EP on 17 September 1995?

The European Parliament is subdivided by political groups (e.g. PES, EPP-ED, UEN, ALDE, etc). Each group contains a number of MEPs. These numbers are not stable and vary from day to day as MEPs change groups, resign, are unelected or are elected. For that reason, the European Parliament issued factsheets and press releases periodically to indicate how many MEPs each group had on a given day. Those factsheets are available online, but the ones before 1996 are sparse and/or contradictory.

On 17 September 1995, there was an election in Sweden to elect its MEPs. The results of those elections are available, but they only give the parties that those MEPs represent. They do not give the groups they sat in, nor the effect they had on the group numbers.

So my question I have for you is simple.

What was the composition of the European parliament by group immediately before the Sweden elections to the EP on 17 September 1995?
What was the composition of the European parliament by group immediately after the Sweden elections to the EP on 17 September 1995?

OK, two questions.

Thank you for any assistance you can provide, Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 21:40, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

and more, Karl Erik Olsson was in ELDR (http://www.europarl.europa.eu/members/archive/term4/view.do;jsessionid=C273E625B568DF757DB7D83A87FFD344.node1?language=EN&id=2068), Jan Andersson (http://www.europarl.europa.eu/members/archive/term4/view.do;jsessionid=459C8F90325F2E9D10D04C8AB350EEFF.node1?id=2107&language=EN) and Axel Andersson (http://www.europarl.europa.eu/members/archive/term4/view.do;jsessionid=3EA5A28693C3BF80FB2663A5BE6CD147.node1?id=2105&language=EN) in PES. Per Gahrton (http://www.europarl.europa.eu/members/archive/term4/view.do;jsessionid=C22004A474B86253CA15B9CACC96D4E6.node1?id=2114&language=EN) was in the Green group. I think there are various EPP MEPs that my superficial google search didn't find. --Soman (talk) 07:13, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Soman: I don't know if you remember me from the marathon discussion on the political groups of the European Parliament earlier this year. Thank you for your hard work, which will come in useful for the European Parliament election, 1995 (Sweden) article. Unfortunately, you have not answered the question I asked: I needed to know the total composition before & after, but what you told me was how it had changed (it's like asking "what's the temperature?" and being told "it's up 5 degrees"). What I was hoping for is something like this:

Date	Notes		PES		ELDR		EPP		UFE		EUL/NGL		G		ERA		EN		NI	Total	Sources
1995-09-15	Before elections in Sweden	217		52		173		54		33		27		20		19		31		626
1995-09-18	After elections in Sweden	216		52		173		56		33		27		20		18		31		626

- but that's not what you gave me. Unfortunately, it looks like this info is just not available on online sources (I may have to email the Parliament itself, and it may not be able to answer!). However, thank you for your hard work. Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 04:05, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Using some of the names found by google earlier, I found this at swedish wikipedia: sv:Lista_över_ledamöter_av_Europaparlamentet_från_Sverige_1995 (which, in retrospect, should have been the first place to look). Comparing the wikipedia article on the 1995 nominees with the 1995 election, we come up with the following:

3
Party	EP group	pre-election seats	post-election seats
(s)	PES	11	7
(m)	EPP	5	5
(fp)	ELDR	1	1
(c)	ELDR	2	2
(kd)	EPP	1	0
(mp)	Greens	1	4
(v)	GUE/NGL	1	3

I've worked it out. The Sweden Europarl site gives this list of the Swedish MEPs. Cross-referencing it with the EuroParl MEP archives and against some reference books gives us this:

The change in composition of the European Parliament due to the Sweden elections was as follows:

Date	Event		PES		ELDR		EPP		EDA		FE		EUL/NGL		G		ERA		EN		NI	Total	Sources
1995-01-06	After enlargement (1 January 1995) and formation of EUL/NGL (6 January 1995) but before formation of UFE (6 July 1995) and elections in Sweden (17 September 1995)	221		52		173		26		29		31		25		19		19		31		626	^[1]
1995-09-17	Change due to elections in Sweden	-4		+0		-1		+0				+2		+3		+0		+0		+0		+0	See below
Date	Event		PES		ELDR		EPP		UFE				EUL/NGL		G		ERA		EN		NI	Total	Sources
1995-10-09	After formation of UFE (6 July 1995) and elections in Sweden (1995-09-17)	217		52		172		55				33		28		19		19		31		626	^[2]

The results by political group of the Sweden election were as follows:

Group		Before election (1995-09-16)		Change	After election (1995-10-09)		See also
	PES	11	Birgitta Ahlqvist;^[3] Axel Andersson;^[4] Jan Andersson;^[5] Reynoldh Furustrand;^[6] Inga-Britt Johansson;^[7] Maj-Lis Lööw;^[8] Kristina Persson;^[9] Bengt-Ola Ryttar;^[10] Yvonne Sandberg-Fries;^[11] Maj Britt Theorin;^[12] Tommy Waidelich;^[13]	-4	7	Birgitta Ahlqvist;^[3] Jan Andersson;^[5] Anneli Hulthén;^[14] Maj-Lis Lööw;^[8] Maj Britt Theorin;^[12] Tommy Waidelich;^[13] Sören Wibe;^[15]	^[16]
	ELDR	3	Hadar Cars;^[17] Karl Erik Olsson;^[18] Karin Starrin;^[19]	+0	3	Hadar Cars;^[17] Hans Lindqvist;^[20] Karl Erik Olsson;^[18]	^[16]
	EPP	6	Charlotte Cederschiöld;^[21] Karin Falkmer;^[22] Holger Gustafsson;^[23] Per Stenmarck;^[24] Margaretha af Ugglas;^[25] Ivar Virgin;^[26]	-1	5	Staffan Burenstam Linder;^[27] Gunilla Carlsson;^[28] Charlotte Cederschiöld;^[21] Per Stenmarck;^[24] Ivar Virgin;^[26]	^[16]
	UFE	-	-	+0	-	-
	EUL/NGL	1	Bengt Hurtig;^[29]	+2	3	Marianne Eriksson;^[30] Jonas Sjöstedt;^[31] Jörn Svensson;^[32]	^[16]
	G	1	Per Gahrton;^[33]	+3	4	Per Gahrton;^[33] Ulf Holm;^[34] MaLou Lindholm;^[35] Inger Schörling;^[36]	^[16]
	ERA	-	-	+0	-	-
	EN	-	-	+0	-	-
	NI	-	-	+0	-	-
Total		22		+0	22		^[16]

I've updated the European Parliament election, 1995 (Sweden) article accordingly. Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 00:49, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Galaxia the Stories Of Ilusion

I added a request for an article how long I need to wait till the article actually appears on Wikipedia is it possible to request it here ? if so there's the material for the article: http://www.mediaminer.org/fanfic/view_st.php/158666

In my view, this falls into the category of articles that should never appear in Wikipedia, for the reason of . . . well, non-notable seems too generous. DOR (HK) (talk) 02:49, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

is this a probe of offending me ? Youre just a Hongkong clerk mind your buisness and do not intefere ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.205.25.63 (talk) 15:22, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is Fan Fiction. Fan fiction virtually never gets its own article in Wikipedia. For a very good reason, too. There are literally hundreds of thousands of short fan fiction stories, Wikipedia cannot afford to write articles about every last one of them. Unless your work is mentioned in professionally published newspapers and magazines it's not going to have a Wikipedia article. Sorry.

(Incidentally, you do realize that "Illusion" isn't spelled like that, right?)

APL (talk) 16:36, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So first I need a Magazine to review this ! Somebody could have tell me earlier and not trying to offend me so Ill find a Magazine than ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.205.25.63 (talk) 18:39, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought of saying something here, but as I'm just an unemployed clerk I won't interfere. —Tamfang (talk) 07:24, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a word or phrase?

When one spends many hours on a boat, especially a small boat, and especially in fairly rough seas, and then one steps off onto dry land, one experiences (sometimes) the continuity of the rocking sensation that one experienced on the boat -- it seems the solid, dry land is tossing to and fro just as the sea did. Is there a name for this phenomenon? Any phrase, or single word to describe it, either from colloquial usage (preferable) or from perhaps scientific or medical literature? Bus stop (talk) 22:59, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Illusions of self-motion#Sea legs suggests this is one of the things 'sea legs' can apply to. Algebraist 23:06, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Great. Thank you. Yes, that is exactly the sort of colloquial phrase I was looking for. And, interesting article. Bus stop (talk) 23:10, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another version of the expression is "losing your land legs". The idea is that have "sea legs" when you are comfortable on the moving boat and "land legs" when youare confortable on land. --Anonymous, 11:05 UTC, December 11, 2008.

And it matches the sensation of walking just after you have gotten off a trampoline. Steewi (talk) 23:36, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or just after you've gotten off, on a trampoline. (Hmm. Note to self: Must try that some time) :) -- JackofOz (talk) 19:25, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think probably "sea legs" is the primary phrase, and that "land legs" is only a corollary to that. And sea legs I think primarily refers to a proficiency in using one's legs, and by implication, maintaining one's balance -- on a ship at sea. Strictly speaking, this is not a term for the sensation one experiences sometimes upon disembarking a seaborne vessel. Maybe "rubbery legs" would be more like it. Bus stop (talk) 20:07, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

British pound sterling vs. EURO

Why is the British pound falling so much and so rapidly against the Euro (I believe it's down to 1.14 today from about 1.50 not so long ago) in recent months? Could it get down to 1:1 or less? - and if this happens, could it eventually necessitate an entrance of the UK into the Eurozone (even if the British don't really want to)? Thanks for info., --AlexSuricata (talk) 23:01, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The value of currencies fluctuate against each other for many reasons, but a likely strong reason for this would be the current economic crisis. The pound is related to the British economy which is about the size of Germany (an Euro member). The euro-zone is related to all of its members, some of whom will be more affected than others in the current economic climate. As Britain is a huge nation in terms of finance, banking and investment the impact of the current credit-crisis is maybe being felt more strongly in Britain (and thus the pound's value) compared to the Eurozone. Yes the Eurozone is being impacted upon too but the scale may be smaller or that area accounts for less business.

Second point - I see no reason why it couldn't get below 1:1 if that is how the currency markets end up valuing it.

Third point - I'm not aware of any rules that necessite the UK entrance to the eurozone, the EU, like the UN and most international organisations has limited power over nations to make unpopular demands unless other countries (within or outside of the organisation) support it. ny156uk (talk) 23:18, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Simply put, Britain is perceived to be relatively harder hit by the financial crisis than continental Europe, because of the large presence of the financial sector there, as well as additional housing market troubles that the Eurozone hasn't really seen. This makes investors move away from pound-denominated investments, as they are perceived to yield lower returns, hence a depreciation of the pound. (source) Some sources say it's just speculation about central bank interest rate cuts, and some of the recent spikes you see are indeed related to the BOE cuts.

There's no necessity of the UK entering the Eurozone as it was a 'necessity' for it to exit the ERM. There's no government or central bank obliged to do anything, but it's certainly more attractive to join the Eurozone for the UK at this moment (see: United Kingdom and the euro), because some of the benefits of having a common currency weigh higher than usual when there's an economic crisis.

There's probably a few weird scenarios that one can cook up that would probably make entry into the Eurozone more or less a necessity, though. For example, if the pound declined to .25, and the UK government somehow needs to borrow a huge sum of money now, expected appreciation (because no one really believes the pound is going to stay at .25) would make the cost of that borrowing quite prohibitive. In such a case, the adoption of the euro would solve the problem. Edit: Actually, this works the other way around. See, thinking of a scenario is quite hard. Edit 2: You could see it the other way around: if the government has to borrow right now, when the exchange rate is believed to be higher than it will be (expected depreciation), it would be cheaper for the government to adopt the euro. User:Krator (t c) 23:35, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The main reason for the sharp drop in recent months is that investors had chosen to hold pounds sterling in recent years because the Bank of England set the interest rate (discount rate) for sterling much higher than the interest rate for other major currencies such as the euro, or even more so, for the very low-yielding yen. Many investors worldwide borrowed in yen (or Swiss francs or even euros) at very low rates, then bought pounds sterling, driving up the price of pounds sterling in other currencies. They made an easy profit by earning interest in sterling at a much higher rate than they paid to borrow in yen (or Swiss francs or euro). This is known as the carry trade. However, in the past few months, the Bank of England has cut interest rates sharply and signalled an intention to cut them further. This has eliminated the profit investors were making from the carry trade and exposed them to the risk of losses. So they have been selling their investments in pound sterling (driving its exchange rate down) and paying off their loans in yen (or Swiss francs or euro). It is also true that the United Kingdom had a severe financial crisis, which has affected it disproportionately because finance (the City of London) plays a greater role in its economy than in many other economies (including that of the United States).

It is certainly possible that sterling could reach parity (1:1) with the euro. However, if it does, it is very unlikely that the UK could quickly adopt the euro, because instability in the exchange rate between sterling and the euro would make the UK ineligible to adopt the euro. In order to adopt the euro, the UK would have to satisfy its convergence criteria, which include maintaining a stable exchange rate with the euro for a period of two years as part of the European Exchange Rate Mechanism, or ERM II. Marco polo (talk) 01:47, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I’m curious why we are so careful not to offer legal or medical advice (or even do someone’s homework!), but giving unprofessional investment advice without any caveat is perfectly acceptable. After all, a questions about why one currency is moving against another is almost certainly primarily for the purposes of investment / speculation. DOR (HK) (talk) 02:53, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It depends who arrives at the question first and how interesting the question is. If it is a sexually orientated medical question there is no shortage of answers but a curious shortage of censors ;-) I agree however that accepting any advice about anything from complete strangers is fraught with danger. It is odd how Wikipedia proudly boasts a "no censorship" rule but is keen to censor views on these help desks - unlike other help fora. I expect the thought police will be along in a minute to whip these comments down because we mustn't rant either. Richard Avery (talk) 08:51, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's general disclaimer says "If you need specific advice (for example, medical, legal, financial, or risk management) please seek a professional who is licensed or knowledgeable in that area". I think the reason we don't have a specific RD guideline about handling financial advice requests (whereas we do have one for medical advice requests) is that requests for financial advice are not very common on the RDs.

Also note that, as it stands, this question is a request for information, but not a request for advice - the questioner does not indicate why he is seeking the information or how, if at all, he intends to act on it. Gandalf61 (talk) 10:47, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I laughed so much when I read the comment: "a questions about why one currency is moving against another is almost certainly primarily for the purposes of investment / speculation". AS the person posting the question in this case, I can say: No, not at all - I wish I had just a few hundred euros to invest, but alas no. I have no intention of speculating, I was merely trying to understand an important economic situation that is affecting us all as a normal person on the street, as I think practically all of us who ask questions here are doing. But very amusing paranoia, thanks for the laugh! Also, many thanks to the people who provided information, especially MarcoPolo who as usual gave me a very interesting explanation that can be easily understood even by an economics dumbo like me - muchas gracias! Alex --AlexSuricata (talk) 10:55, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here are a couple of graphs that illustrate the interest rate differential. First, here are UK Rates [15] with the "repo rate" representing the BoE's key rate. Next, here are Eurozone rates [16].

Under uncovered interest rate parity, the expected change in an exchange rate pair between two countries (with a freely floating currency) must be such that an investor could not profitably expect to borrow in one currency, convert the borrowings to the other, invest for a period of time, and convert back to the original currency. If investors could profitably perform arbitrage of that kind, market pressures would force the currencies to adjust until it was no longer profitable. So if one economy has higher domestic rates than another, there must be an expectation that the lower-rate country's currency will depreciate against the higher-rate country's currency. Because 'uncovered' interest rate arbitrage includes some risk (as opposed to 'covered' interest rate arbitrage, which uses the forward market to instantly lock-in exchange rates.) there will always be some deviation from this exact parity, representing the risk premium. Although this risk premium is especially high right now, parity will still hold to some degree. The further and further from interest rate parity currencies go, the more profitable this sort of arbitrage is.

You can see from the graphs above that UK rates (for all maturities) started off the year absolutely higher, and (except for the ten-year; long term rates tend to be far removed from parity) ended absolutely lower than Eurozone rates. This relative change made holding pounds less attractive than euros, bidding down their value.

Currency speculation is certainly not investment. Currency positions can be used to manage risk or to simulate casino odds. Currency speculation produces no expected return, only a variance, and is not an investment or asset class.NByz (talk) 20:25, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

December 11

Need to contact Arabist

I used the email (tim@mackintosh-smith.com) on Tim Mackintosh-Smith's official website to send him a letter, however, I got a delivery error message. Does anyone know of a valid email for him? I usually contact authors via their publishers, but I figured someone out there might have his contact information already. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 01:07, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's the error message? Not all errors are permanent. If your sure the errors was permanent, try e-mailing the webmaster and telling him? the e-mail is borked Nil Einne (talk) 12:48, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delivery error. I'll try the webmaster then. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 18:56, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Early photoshopping question

I think I've seen this picture before, but I'm not sure; it definitely shows a powerful trio: Stalin, Lenin, Kalinin. However, Stalin looks rather out of place: is this one of the many pictures where he's added in after the picture was taken? The image description includes a link to its source, but the URL is rotten. Nyttend (talk) 03:05, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like a painting to me. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 03:42, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He hasn't been added in, no. It was doctored by cropping (to make Stalin and Lenin look closer), not by adding in people.

As for the "painting" look—many Soviet photographics reproductions from this period have this look. It has to do with the technology they used, I believe, and probably a purposeful style that was in vogue at the time. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 04:17, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I found what seems to be an enlargement of part of the image. It nudges me toward the "portrait" point of view. You'd think those files Lenin has (on Kalinin, maybe) would throw some shadow. Still, I'm no expert; it could be an amateur photographer, like some Comm intern. --- OtherDave (talk) 04:34, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to stalinproject.com (see here) that is indeed a photograph of the March 1919 party congress, but it was "doctored so that only Stalin, Lenin and Kalinin appeared". We can suspect that the three of them were retouched at the same time, which would explain the painterly quality of the image. The site (stalinproject.com) goes on to say that Kalinin was "later erased" from the photograph. I notice the picture credits on that site are to the "David King Collection". No doubt this is the same David King who is the author of The Commissar Vanishes: The Falsification of Photographs and Art in Stalin's Russia (Metropolitan Books, 1997, ISBN 0805052941, ISBN 978-0805052947), which I think you'll find worth consulting, Nyttend. Xn4 (talk) 04:59, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Several examples of this type of photo manipulation, including the "Vanishing Commissar", can be found at Censorship of images in the Soviet Union. — jwillbur 20:05, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly correct on all these fronts, though again, I think the "painting" effect is something indicative of technology in use at that time and place, not manipulation. It's extremely common on Russian "photos" even through WWII for them to have that complete hazy appearance, which again I suspect has something to do with the printing techniques, the paper, etc. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 10:35, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, in my temp-work days I once had an assignment in a newspaper morgue, and found to my surprise that nearly every photograph was blatantly retouched, usually to improve contrast between the subject and the background. —Tamfang (talk) 07:34, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Last Grand Duke of Russia

I know Grand Duchess Olga Alexandrovna of Russia (d. 1960) was the last living daughter/male-line granddaughter of a Russian Emperor. But who was the last Grand Duke? Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 05:41, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are several living claimaints to the throne of Russia. See Line of succession to the Russian throne for more on these... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 12:59, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I take the question to mean the last living son or male-line grandson; I'm rather sleepy and can't answer this now, but it shouldn't be hard for someone that's awake to discover. Nyttend (talk) 01:32, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How should I understand this answer

Galaxia the Stories Of Ilusion

I added a request for an article how long I need to wait till the article actually appears on Wikipedia is it possible to request it here ? if so there's the material for the article: http://www.mediaminer.org/fanfic/view_st.php/158666

"In my view, this falls into the category of articles that should never appear in Wikipedia, for the reason of . . . well, non-notable seems too generous. DOR (HK) (talk) 02:49, 11 December 2008 (UTC) "

Can somebody explain to me what expression "Non-notable seems to generous" Means is this a probe of offending me !! My novel cannot be posted becuse it would be "To generous" ? Is this Wikipedist telling me that I have to give a bribe in order to get an article about my Novel here posted ??? Is Wikipedia corrupt ? Becuse this answer surrelly suggest it !

Can somebody more inteligent explain me the true reasons here's the Material: http://www.mediaminer.org/fanfic/view_st.php/158666 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.205.25.63 (talk) 15:00, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No it's not someone saying you should offer them a bribe. It's someone pointing out that this book doesn't meet Wikipedia:Notability (books) and doesn't seem likely to in the future, neither does it meet Wikipedia:Notability (web) (as it's an ebook). Nanonic (talk) 15:19, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The "generous" quip seems to be that editor's way of rudely suggesting that your book is not only "non-notable", but that it's "very non-notable".

Obviously, this was unnecessary, but it was not a request for a bribe. Or a suggestion that you need to be more generous or anything like that. APL (talk) 16:18, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So in other words Im too poor right say it!! First thing read the Material then comment ! Don't think Ill stop trying that easilly ! First i suggest you should read it than you can say is it notable ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.205.25.63 (talk) 15:27, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please calme down, getting all upset isn't going to make a difference. Notability, for the purposes of Wikipedia, is not something that is inherent in your own novel; please read the links that Nanonic provided, which detail very precisely how notability is defined for Wikipedia. The original comment by DOR (HK) is regrettable, and could have been phrased much more civilly, so, to the extent that I can, I apologize for that. --LarryMac | Talk 15:39, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to reading about what books are considered important or "notable" enough to be mentioned in an encyclopedia, please also read Wikipedia's rules about Conflicts of Interest. In general, You are not allowed to add links to books you have written yourself.

And finally, please refrain from doing things like this. This is uncivil. APL (talk) 16:18, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What do you define civil ? So Im not allowed to do so I should be quiet I do not belong to the "Civilisied " World and as such been said I have no regrets I still consider you should read it And decide for yourself those this match your taste first as of that article i thought that would be Awesome but seeing the reply of an "civilisied" wikipedist I feel only disquist hm interesting how can an Encyclopedia gather information if its not allowed ! If my town page does not exists I cannot create it (Why do you think i gived a link Don't you think I could have made an article my self !) First of all Im interested in your opinion on my Novel If Im not allowed it is like Im not allowed to gather Information !! Isnt that going against the principity of the Encyclopedia which is gathering information this is how this look in reality I gaved you a source a material for you to look and decide can it be used in this encyclopedia and yet you decided to do nothing So is that what your rules say ! ??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.205.25.63 (talk) 19:16, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be compounded problems here. 84.205 either does not understand English well enough to know the difference between, for example, the meanings of the words "civility" and "civilization", or the non-financial meanings of the word "generous", or he is seeking out conflict by reading offense into the words of others where no intended offense exists. Wikipedia policies such as WP:N are difficult to understand for new users since "notability" takes on a different quantifiable meaning at Wikipedia that does not exist outside of Wikipedia. However, I am not finding this dicussion terribly productive, given the numerous instances that 84.205 has refused to assume good faith of others... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:27, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(After Edit Conflict) -- You know, a couple people have pointed the policy guidelines to help you understand this, but you still want to take every comment as some kind of insult. That's not going to help the situation. You also seem to want to continue to make assumptions about what Wikipedia is and how it operates. Perhaps a review of About Wikipedia would be helpful. In a nutshell, and copied directly from that page - "Wikipedia content is intended to be factual, notable, verifiable with external sources, and neutrally presented, with external sources cited." We have already tried to show you the criteria for "notable". It is not for any of us, as Wikipedia editors, to read your novel and form an opinion, because that would constitute "Original Research" which is (as noted on the About page) not permitted. Other, external sources would have to do that, publish their own findings in reputable source, and then possibly an article would be created. Those are "our rules", and you are encouraged to read the provided links for more specific details. --LarryMac | Talk 19:35, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To possibly clarify even further: Wikipedia is not intended to be a collection of all the information in the world. We do not have an article about every book ever written, we never will, and we don't want to. Instead, we have specific rules about what can have a Wikipedia article, and what can't have a Wikipedia article. Please read the links which have been provided in this discussion, and you will see for yourself that your book does not fulfill our requirements. It might be a very good book, but that doesn't matter, because our requirements have nothing to do with being good or well-written. This is nothing personal against you; this is about rules that have been decided on by hundreds if not thousands of people, working together over a period of years. There are many places on the internet where you can publicize your book, and I wish you luck, but Wikipedia is simply not one of those places. I'm sorry if you've found this process confusing or upsetting. And incidentally, "civil", as used here, basically means "polite", and we have a rule about that, too. --Fullobeans (talk) 20:05, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You Offended me so Ill offend you but let me make a comment here Im not a number but s human being you offended me calling me a number ! a simple courtesy should allow you to go to the link and adleast check the authors name !! Second Youre rules are like water they can be changed be glad you stopped me for now but you won't be able to do so in 2012 ! whpipe yourself you know where with these rules Youre not collecting the information so what are you doing you lazy Bubms ! writing propaganda ! Everything you so work for and belive will end in 2012 Ill make it end than (the hysteria from that prophecy will help me ever wondered how many people belive this stuff) see you in 2012 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.205.25.63 (talk) 20:17, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See you then! --Tango (talk) 20:20, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is the first time I've really missed BJAODN, or however that was spelled .... --LarryMac | Talk 20:29, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"I am not a number—I am a free man!" Deor (talk) 21:48, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

quoi? --Fullobeans (talk) 22:40, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is this the right forum for this... --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 22:37, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

84.205.25.63,/ I’m sorry if I offended you; my comment was out of line and inappropriate. However, it does appear that you really wanted to be offended, at least in your persistence in coming back and rehashing the same points over and over.

Other people have explained what kinds of works are likely to be included in Wikipedia, and that authors are unlikely to be successful in promoting their own material here, so I will bow out of that discussion. Oh, and for the record, I did read your work, but couldn’t follow the story after the first page.

By the way, what was the threat about 2012 all about? DOR (HK) (talk) 09:29, 12 December 2008 (UTC) PS Thanks to LarryMac and others for covering my back.[reply]

It's the end of the world!!!. Or not. --LarryMac | Talk 13:24, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well something will end in 2012 thats certain don't worry nothing will happen to you ....The world will end in 2012 meaning the world as we know is coming to an end ! You see it in the news the financial crisis thats overflowned the world well Im living in the only country not affected by the finacial crisis (meaning our economy is not affected but our foreign deals suffered a bit) (Im from Poland) in 2012 Poland and Ukraine will host EUEFA Soccer tournament (If were able to ready everything on time) our economy might become one of the biggest if not the biggest economies in the world (replacing althought only for like few years the USA in the first place ) Buts that trivial ! In Eu currently there's no borders EU is becoming a super federal state that might be able to compete with the US however I think US at some point will want to merge it into its own alliance (All the members are already members of US lead NATO) If Russia will Join the EU and than EU will merge with the American union the first step of Globalisation will be ended ! Also some current institutions are loosing power (Like The church)and will have to move aside and not intefere with politics being simple faith organisation ! IM NOT SAYING IT WILL HAPPEN Exactly in 2012 but in my opinion than it will be quite visible thats something of this sort is happening ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.205.25.63 (talk) 15:13, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The US economy is 34 times the size of the Polish one - it's going to take more than a minor recession and a football tournament to make a dent in that! --Tango (talk) 17:14, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way I got what I wanted an apology from the first person that offended me so Ill leave it at that ! Try to read all the chapters and you should follow however I guess it can be good if you post things you didn't get they might be trivial (remember its a little bit grotesque especcially the way character narrates and its also an satire as well !) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.205.25.63 (talk) 15:18, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That would indeed be a trial. Like DOR (HK), I couldn't get through the first page. You need help from a native speaker with spelling, grammar, punctuation, style and flow. I promise you it will go nowhere without this. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:54, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Im not a native speaker I just want a clear answer is the plot understanable by the way Im Polish and could use some grammar tips first of try to read more than one chapter than You'll be less confused ! By the way this was a direct Polish translaition and it is a trial I can guarantee you that if you force yourself threw the first three chapters the story will be much easier to understant also Watching an Anime show would be great this story and the way I wrote it its inspired by the Anime now answer me did you understand the plot becuse the plot is here the most important if you're looking for characters information you need to read the whole 10 chapters ! Also try reading Dziady if you get a chance you might be able to understand the style better sorry for all the troubles ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.205.25.63 (talk) 18:30, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Expecting your readers to "force themselves" to read your works is asking the impossible. If it doesn't interest them, it doesn't interest them, and there's no power on Earth (short of a re-write) than can change that. It's not like they're set texts at a university or school that people have no option but to read. In the real world, most people adopt the John le Carré philosophy: As a reader, I insist on being beguiled early or not at all, which is why many of the books on my shelves remain mysteriously unread after page 20. But once I submit to the author's thrall, he can do me no wrong.

I'd say le Carré's an over-achiever; there are books on my shelves that I never got past page 2. In some books, you're lucky to have anyone even finish page 1. It's the writer's job to make the writing so interesting that the reader can't put the book down. In that sense, the only "forcing" that goes on is the writer forcing the reader to read because he's written the story in such an irresistible way. For that, you have to be able to stand in the reader's shoes and imagine what it would be like if you were browsing in a bookshop, picked up the book, and glanced at page 1. You've got a way to go, but with help, I'm sure you can do it. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:50, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

obviously youre right in both I need help thats why Im here I need your ohnest Opinion did this interest you or not did you get the plot also there are some people who like my way of writing and thus who do not understand ! Im not to sue about Le carrie but there are some books and storylines worth to force yourself "Master and Margaritha" "Solaris" if you didn't read any of these two than you can have troubles im still in opinion that my novel is well written but I could use some grammar opinions also were you intrigiated by the plot or the story ? if not this is not the title for you Jack —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.205.25.63 (talk) 23:54, 13 December 2008 (UTC) I dint mean sue but sure !!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.205.25.63 (talk) 23:57, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking from the humble position of a person who only speaks one language, I think I agree with Jack. In order to make this a workable piece of English fiction, you'll need help from a native speaker. Definitely more help than this reference desk (in all it's terrible and condescending glory) can provide. Publish in Polish. If it's successful, you should have no trouble hiring a someone who can devote the time to translate it. Then you can sell it to these capitalist American pigs and extract the last last vestiges of their once-mighty empire.NByz (talk) 05:51, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Simple Eplanation : Unless a newspaper or magazine talk about your story, Wikipedia will not have an article on it. That is how Wikipedia works. APL (talk) 04:13, 16 December 2008 (UTC) <Sure, a little over-simple, but this guy is obviously not a master of english, and assumes everything he can't understand is a personal attack.[reply]

But Ill still make you post it one way or another and come on talk loudly so people can hear you its impolite to talk quiet when in company XD:) IM BACK

the word Egypt

Is there any reference or encyclopedia that might state that the word Egypt, means an stat of slavery ?--Lookinforgod00 (talk) 23:10, 11 December 2008 (UTC)Michael r. lewis--Lookinforgod00 (talk) 23:10, 11 December 2008 (UTC)raymont260@msn.com[reply]

Well, Egypt#Etymology makes no mention of such an origin - it says the word comes originally (via lots of steps) from "Hat-ka-Ptah (ḥwt-k3-ptḥ), meaning "home of the ka (soul) of Ptah", the name of a temple to the god Ptah at Memphis." --Tango (talk) 23:22, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While (as far as I know) Egypt does not mean "slavery', The Bible frequently uses the word Egypt as a metaphor for slavery, as the Israelites were slaves in Egypt and were delivered out of there by God. Jeremiah 34:13 is an example randomly chosen out of many. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:08, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That one looks more literal than most metaphors. —Tamfang (talk) 07:44, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Contribution to Arab Nationalism

I know that Lebanon, Syria, Palestine and Egypt have people who have contributed to Arab Nationalism, but what about the North African countries, Mauritania, Djibouti, Somalia and the Gulf area? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.129.114 (talk) 03:09, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know nothing about this topic, but I do know how to click on every single Wikilinked name in an article. Doing so over at Arab nationalism brought up: Ahmed Ben Bella (Algerian), Habib Bourguiba (Tunisian) and, of course, Muammar al-Gaddafi (Libyan), but nobody from the countries you mentioned. Hopefully somebody can come up with a better answer, but, if not, you can always read through the Wikipedia articles for the countries in question, which often link to even more helpful things like List of Somalis. --Fullobeans (talk) 04:09, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Early Arab nationalism was mainly motivated by resentments against European predominance and/or Ottoman rule, and was formulated by those who had enough exposure to European cultures to be influenced by 19th-century Romantic nationalism in Europe (so it's conspicuous that the two most prominent pre-WW2 theorizers, George Antonious and Michel Aflaq were both Christians, though the majority of Arabs are Muslims). Such areas as Mauritania were rather isolated from modernist intellectual currents within the Arab world (they had nothing corresponding to the American colleges in Beirut and Cairo, for example).

By the way, the Arabic language has two quite distinct and separate words for "nationalism": wataniyya وطنية and qawmiyya قومية . The Wataniyya version (which means loyalty to one's home region or country) has certainly achieved some modest practical successes, but in the case of Qawmiyya (i.e. pan-Arabism), the painful contrast between the grandiose broad sweeping claims and bombastic rhetoric usually associated with it vs. its obvious lack of specific concrete achievements was a significant destabilizing factor in middle-east politics for decades (though this now seems to have been mostly superseded by religious fundamentalism). AnonMoos (talk) 10:24, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

December 12

Line of succession for President Elects?

If Barack Obama were to be unable to take over the Presidency on Inauguration Day (perhaps due to implication in the Blagojevich mess), who would be inaugurated instead? Does the standard line of succession apply even before the new Prez takes office? Garrett Albright (talk) 05:12, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See President-elect of the United States#President-elect succession. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 05:39, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aha! I had read through United States presidential line of succession before posting, but didn't think to look on the President Elect article. Maybe a link to the latter article should be made on the former? Anyway, the article says…

In cases where a President has not been chosen by January 20 or the President-elect "fails to qualify", the Vice President-elect becomes Acting President on January 20 until there's a qualified President.

This implies that Joe Biden would become both Acting President and presumably would be sworn in as Vice President as well. But if Obama were unable to return to the office, who would be a "qualified President?" Would that mean Biden, or would it have to be someone explicitly elected to the presidency again (we'd have to have another election)? Garrett Albright (talk) 05:56, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Such provisions are generally untested, and therefore ambiguous until they are tested. For example, the first VP to assume the office of President was John Tyler. Before he styled himself "President" and not "Acting President" it was somewhat ambiguous as to whether a Vice President who took over for a dead president actually became the new president, or served as the acting president until the next election. The current situation (the VP becomes the actual President) is largely because that's how Tyler personally handled it, and no one ultimately objected (there were objections, but everyone pretty much backed down). Thus, by precedent and not statute, the VP became the actual President. The Twentieth Amendment to the United States Constitution and later Twenty-fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution clarified the situation by essentially confirming established practices.

As to what would happen in the specific case of the death of a President-elect, it depends on when and how he is no longer availible to serve.

If he is permanently unable to serve (dead) and such a situation occurs before the electoral college meets to vote, the college members would be free to choose whoever they wished. They would likely elect Biden, and also would likely elect whoever Biden chose as VP to replace him.
If the same situation happened after the electoral college has already elected the president, then the VP-elect becomes the President-elect(under the 20th ammendment), and upon assuming office, will nominate a new VP (under the 25th ammendment)
If the president is only temporarily incapacitated, then the VP is first sworn is as VP, and serves as "Acting President" until the President-elect either recovers, at which point he will be sworn in and assume his elected duties, or becomes clearly permanently incapacitated (dead), at which point the VP is sworn in as ACTUAL President, nominates a new VP, and yada yada.
If BOTH the president-elect and VP-elect are unable to assume the office, then the Speaker of the House becomes president. Since the House of Representatives convenes on January 3rd, and the President is not sworn in until January 20th, the House essentially gets to select the new President from among its own members. Presumably, they would elect a putative "speaker" on January 3rd, or shortly thereafter, who would be who the House wants to be President, and then elect a new speaker on January 20th (or shoryly thereafter) for who they really want to be Speaker.

Any situation, however, involving both the simultaneous loss of the President and Vice President is entirely untested and likely to cause problems. The most recent law of presidential succession, which provides that the Speaker is second in line after the VP, may be unconsitutional, since the constitution requires that all successors to the president must be "officers" of the government, a term used elsewhere in the Constitution to refer ONLY to memebers of the Executive branch (i.e. cabinet members). Since it has never come up, the courts have never had to rule on the constitutionality of this law, but if it did you can bet your boopy that it will become a major legal battle... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 06:30, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've wondered about that myself because it seems to me that allowing a member of the legislative branch to assume an office in the executive branch because of death (no less) seems to be a violation of seperation of the branches (which the Founding Fathers went out of their way to avoid). If this is a law passed by Congress rather than a Constitutional amendment, I think it would be unconstitutional, but obviously that question is left to the Supreme Court by tradition. 216.239.234.196 (talk) 13:45, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does the speaker become President or Acting President? --Tango (talk) 10:41, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its entirely untested, so any answer would be speculation; however most sources that discuss it that I have read indicate that only the VP can become the actual President; any other official that assumes the office will only be "Acting President", even if both the VP and Pres are dead. Its really a semantic point, since the "Acting President" does not have any defined powers that would be different than the actual "President", or he may have no defined powers at all, and would just be a figure head. The constitution and applicable laws are quite vague on this. Or the Speaker could just do what John Tyler did, and demand to be sworn in and become President; it worked before and I don't see why it would be any different in that circumstance. Regardless, it would be a major "constitutional crisis", much like what you see happening in Canada right now... Expect a major mess if that ever happened. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 15:04, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Speaker would remain (Acting) President for the remainder of the current term, yes? So they are President for all extents and purposes, I guess. Usually as "Acting" position is only held until a permanent replacement can be found, but I don't think the US calls special elections to replace presidents. --Tango (talk) 15:10, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't kid yourself. if both Obama and Biden were dead, Nancy Pelosi, who is constitutionally qualified to serve as president, would be the president, with no "Acting" in the title. There would be no constitutional crisis at all. On the other hand, if either or both were expected to make a recovery, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates would be Acting President until superceded. Again, no cisis. B00P (talk) 15:41, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Secretary of State precedes the Secretary of Defense. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 01:00, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In that particular case where the Speaker is from the same party as the deceased Pres and VP, you're probably right. Nobody important would complain about it and the crisis would be minimal. If the House is controlled by a different party to the presidency, then there would almost certainly be a legal challenge. Why would the party that is about to lose the presidency not try and prevent it? (Unless they decide to actually do what is in the country's best interests at a time of, what is likely to be, a national crisis, but who seriously expects that?) --Tango (talk) 16:21, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, anybody can claim a legal challenge, even if they are in the minority party. I would not expect the situation to go smoothly. I would expect a formal legal challenge to come from somebody, and for the Supreme Court to expedite the case and to make a ruling in short order. They may very well hold that the law is consitutional, and that the Speaker could become the actual President. But there are no assurances that they will reach either of those decisions, since the statutory guidance is so ambiguous. Since the courts cannot rule on a point of law if there is no legal case, the law stands, but there is a real possibility that someone may challenge it, should the provisions of the law be acted upon. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:06, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The minority party could challenge, but would they really care that much if the new president if the Speaker from the other party or a cabinet secretary from that same party? Either way, they don't get a presidency. If the House is controlled by a different party to the presidency, they the Supreme Court would be deciding what party the new president comes from, which is a much bigger deal and you can expect a far more thorough challenge. --Tango (talk) 18:51, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Humlebaek landing 1700- inconsistent Wiki entries?

Hi,

Charles XII landed with an Anglo-Dutch-Swedish force on Zealand at Humlebaek in 1700.

In the Swedish Wiki, it says with 4300 men. In the English Wiki, with 8000 men. Both surely cannot be true. Where are the sources for this information, I would like to know as much as possible about the landing.

Thank you, Julian Roche —Preceding unsigned comment added by Julian Roche (talk • contribs) 06:58, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your best bet is to raise these concerns on the talk-page of the entry that is correct. Or 'be bold' and make the changes yourself. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 09:13, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Talk page route suggested above is good. Another move you can make: go into the article's History in both language versions, find which editor wrote the text in question, and leave a message on that editor's Talk page with a link to your query on the article's Talk page, and check for responses. (If you need help with this, please provide the link to the page; I couldn't find it.) If you get no response, see if there's a Wikiproject related to the topic where you can canvass support. I would, however, advise against changing the page content until and unless you have a verifiable version from a citable source, and be sure to note it in the edit summary (and on the Talk page too, for others to follow up in either or other languages as may be necessary). --Deborahjay (talk) 12:19, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia articles in different languages are usually not translations. They are written independently. Charles XII of Sweden#Early Campaigns says: "Leading a force of 8,000 and 43 ships in an invasion of Zealand, ...". Humlebæk or a date is not mentioned. It is about the total force attacking Zealand during July and August. sv:Karl XII#Danmark says 4300 men landed at Humlebæk on 25 July 1700. I don't see an inconsistency. Are you referring to another English article? The sources I examined (mostly in Danish) vary a little on the exact numbers but agree that only a part of the total forces landed at Humlebæk on the first day. By the way, I live in Humlebæk! PrimeHunter (talk) 22:06, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Liberation of the Netherlands in WWII - by whom?

I am having difficulties finding information on the liberation of the Netherlands in WWII. Was Market Garden the operation or was that just the start? Did the troops simply move on into Germany or did some stay behind? And who then, and did they do any more iberating? And what about the south (Limburg)? Which troops marched in there? In other words, simply put, who liberated the Netherlands and when? Of course there will be no simple answer to this, but I am mainly trying to get some idea of how many British, Canadians, Americans, Poles and even Moroccans and Mexicans (it seems) were involved. DirkvdM (talk) 14:18, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you find Netherlands in the Second World War#The final year yet? From a quick reading, some parts of the south were liberated following Operation Market Garden, but the bulk of the country was later liberated from the east by the Canadians. Some areas were not liberated until the final German surrender. DuncanHill (talk) 15:14, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have read that section and looked at Market Garden and some more as well, but those don't fully answer my questions. Oh, I now see that 'Wesel and Rees' (towards the end of 'the final year') is a link to Operation Plunder. But that states that those were UK and US forces, whilst the text in 'the final year' claims they were Canadian. Or do I misread that? And still, the story is qualitative, not quantitative. I would specifically like to know how many soldiers were involved in the various operations, and from which armies. There are several separate bits of info, but no complete overview, as there is for many other battles. DirkvdM (talk) 16:34, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian forces are often lumped in with the British army in the literature. Apparently, they made quite a lasting impression - I occasionally see mentions of warm memories and feelings harbored by the Dutch even now (at least in Canadian newspapers). (P.S. "Iberating" would have taken place further south.) Clarityfiend (talk) 23:06, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Netherland were liberated by Polish forces surving under the command of allied forces UK,USA,Canada and so they were part of armies of these countries but in fact The Netherlands and Denmark were liberated by Polish armed forces ! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_Army_in_the_West read here ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.205.25.63 (talk) 19:15, 12 December 2008 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_1st_Armoured_Division#Belgium_and_the_Netherlands read this one as well--84.205.25.63 (talk) 19:20, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I don't doubt that some of the troops liberating the Netherlands were probably Polish, a great many were Canadian, and some British. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:14, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Humphrey

Anyone heard of an American child actor named Thomas Humphrey, or know anything about him? This picture from the Deutschen Bundesarchiv shows a little boy that's apparently such an actor in Hollywood, although (1) the caption is in German, so I can't be sure of its meaning, and (2) there's no article on such a person, either in English or in German. Nyttend (talk) 23:55, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The caption just says: "Thomas Humphrey, the new Hollywood movie star, refreshes himself with a bit of ice cream after work." Well, I think Sahnetüten is actually some kind of whipped cream in a cone, but whatever it is, it doesn't help answer your question. --Fullobeans (talk) 00:24, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not that it matters, but I believe that should be "Hollywood's youngest movie star." I too am drawing a blank in online searching, though a look at the list in 1931 in film suggests that we may be dealing with a bit player in something like The Champ or City Lights, or perhaps one of the Cagney gangster films. That is, if he didn't happen to be an Our Gang wannabe or in some other of the many shorts being cranked out at the time. "Filmstar" indeed, harrumph! Deor (talk) 14:56, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

imdb has no record of a Thomas Humphrey as an actor. There is a Tom Humphrey who has been an art director since 1998, a Tommy Humphreys with one role in 2000, and a Tom Humphrey with one uncredited role in 1956. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 01:04, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

December 13

Jack-gnat and jelly-tray

In reading The Rainbow, I came across the terms "jack-gnat" and "jelly-tray". I have searched online to find the meanings of these two terms, and while I have found instances of them, I have not been successful in finding definitions for them. Neelix (talk) 01:45, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Jack-gnat" appears in the "Explanatory notes" at the end of the book, online here. It is defined there as "a small gnat". The word does not appear in the current Oxford English Dictionary online. I suspect he made it up and borrowed the "jack" from "jack-snipe", but I would not be at all surprised to learn that it is in everyday use in some dialect or other of English. "Jelly-tray" is also in the notes, although it too is not in the OED, and means "an early duplicating method, using impressions made on a prepared gelatine surface". This is for real; see Hectograph. --Milkbreath (talk) 04:23, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I checked all ten entries for jack in the OED. One of them might be what we are after, the man's name 'Jack' used to mean the common man, as opposed to a gentleman: it's at least possible that Lawrence meant 'the common or garden gnat'. It makes sense, in context. Xn4 (talk) 04:27, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jellytray seems to be guessable from its use in The Rainbow: "At the table a thin man in shirt-sleeves was rubbing a paper on a jellytray. He looked up... and stripped the paper off the tray, glancing at the violet-coloured writing transferred..." This is happening in a teachers' room, and 'jellytray' seems to me to be a printing device, perhaps a simple form of stencil duplicator? Xn4 (talk) 04:38, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From the OED: "Jellygraph An appliance used for multiplying copies of writing, etc., of which the essential part is a sheet of jelly. Also attrib. Hence jellygraph v. trans., to copy with a jellygraph; jellygraphed ppl. a." The instances offered by the OED include one from Keep the Aspidistra Flying (iii. 58): "They ran an unofficial monthly paper... duplicated with a jellygraph". Xn4 (talk) 05:17, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! That answers my questions. Neelix (talk) 13:52, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Legend has it that some house-guests of Bruce Pelz once remarked in the morning that the gelatin they found in the fridge was bland; they had eaten his hecto. —Tamfang (talk) 08:10, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Extremely weird request

I know this sounds weird but is there any way I can find a list of all the U.S. presidents by order of birth dates? Preferably those born between July 23rd and August 22nd? --Crackthewhip775 (talk) 02:28, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's not weird at all, at least not by our standards. We have just such a ready-made list, List of United States Presidents by date of birth. Just click on the "Date of Birth" icon in the table and it will list them in the order you want. -- JackofOz (talk) 02:38, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --Crackthewhip775 (talk) 02:57, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What a great list, and how odd that the only two to share a birth date should be one after the other (or vice versa) 86.4.188.125 (talk) 10:38, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I'm reading it right, they're just listed in that part so we know they add up to the right number; it says right below the only ones to share a birthdate are 70 years apart. Or, did you mean something else?Somebody or his brother (talk) 13:25, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think Friend 86 misread "18th" and "19th", which refer to the century they belonged to, as "18th and 19th President". -- JackofOz (talk) 21:32, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why is there a "Century" column?! Can't readers be trusted to work that out for themselves, if they give a hoot? —Tamfang (talk) 08:13, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's also an "Age at Ascension" column. I know the presidents are above mere mortals .. but ascension? -- JackofOz (talk) 05:01, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Look at that! Now I know another useless think, Presidents Polk and Harding are the only two to be born on the same date! Thank you, birthday paradox! 195.58.125.95 (talk) 21:36, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hitler quote

I remember reading somewhere that Hitler made fun of America's military and lack of weaponry, something along the lines of "what are they going to fight us with, refrigerators and automobiles?". Could someone help me with the specifics on this quote like the exact wording. Thanks. Coolotter88 (talk) 03:08, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was an exchange between Goering and Rommel, according to World War II by C. L. Sulzberger. I have no idea how reliable that is. Adam Bishop (talk) 07:39, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is that a classic case of underestimating the enemy? Julia Rossi (talk) 22:11, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Both Hitler and Japan made the same mistake, they looked at the United States' military, at the time, which was quite small, rather than look at the industrial capacity of the US, which was huge. This might have been the proper way to look at a potential enemy which could be quickly defeated, but the geographic isolation of the US and the size of it's population ensured that it would survive any war long enough to convert to full war-time production. Indeed, neither Germany nor Japan had any plan to invade the US mainland any time soon. Thus, the industrial capacity of the US was what was really important, and failing to realize this was rather short-sighted. StuRat (talk) 03:09, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Japanese seem to have hoped that following the Attack on Pearl Harbor the Americans would be demoralized and leave the western Pacific alone, rather than devoting much energy to battle (based on the strong US isolationist sentiment this wasn't a totally stupid belief). Therefore they underestimated American resolve rather than American industrial or economic strength. --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 15:29, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, their understanding of psychology was even worse than their military assessment. I believe the US vote to declare war on Japan was nearly unanimous (one pacifist voted against). StuRat (talk) 23:10, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, that one "nay" vote was cast by Jeannette Rankin, who was the first female member of the House of Reps. She's an interesting figure, in that she served only two seperate terms, from 1917-1919 and from 1941-1943; thus she made history twice; during her first term she was one of 50 Reps to vote agains WWI; and in her second term she was the ONLY Rep to vote against WWII. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:34, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Olde euphemisms and dysphemisms for menstruation

Hi - can anyone provide euphemisms and dysphemisms for menstruation that might have been current, or precede, the European renaissance?

Thanks,

Adambrowne666 (talk) 03:16, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The King James Version of the Bible would be reasonably close to the Rennaissance, I think, as the term would have been in use for a while. It uses "the manner of women." The example I'm thinking of is dealintg with Sarah, and childbearing age, not menstruation specifically. However, since the two are connected, I think "the manner of women" would be viable.Somebody or his brother (talk) 13:16, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One very old term, dating back to Old English, is "monthly", usually seen in the plural, "her monthlies", "the monthlies", etc (in Old English spelled monaðlecan or monoðlican). The OED's earliest attestation is from 1150 AD. The term is still sometimes heard. Joyce uses it in Ulysses. Another old term is "the flowers", which is first attested in 1400. It comes from the French fleurs, a corruption of flueurs, "fluors", which is also a term for the menses. Related terms are "effluvia" and "fluxes", the latter of which was used as early as the fifteenth century. A more recent term is "catamenia", which only dates back to the eighteenth century, and comes from the Greek for "monthly". Lantzy ^talk 10:56, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great stuff; so, how would fluxes be used - 'she was suffering from her fluxes'? - 'she was in her fluxes'? Adambrowne666 (talk) 13:04, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, you'd say the flux - 'she suffered the flux'. Sometimes it was expanded to 'red flux' or 'bloody flux', and these terms were also used for dysentery. Lantzy ^talk 17:19, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, speaking of "monthtly", we have a women's magazine here called Australian Women's Weekly (or just Women's Weekly for short). Originally it was produced weekly, but in 1982 they decided to make it a monthly publication. Consideration was given to calling it "Women's Monthly", but for obvious reasons that idea was not adopted. One writer said "the most obvious new name would be too gauche, even for Australian tastes". Indeed. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:12, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is Pranayama ?

What is PRANAYAMA ?what is the meaning of pranayama ,objects of pranayama.GEENA SAJITH (talk) 03:59, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Something of this is revealed at Pranayama. Xn4 (talk) 04:08, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seating in the British House of Commons

I often notice that MPs in the house are scattered around on the benches during debates. Perhaps this is because the benches are full for things like PMQs, and then some MPs leave when it is over, and those that remain do not bother to shuffle together. I know there are not enough seats in the house for all of them, so that precludes a proper seating plan, but is there some sort of guide to where MPs should sit, say, by region? --Rixxin 12:28, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Different parties have different areas to sit (Government on one side, Opposition on the other, roughly speaking, there is sometimes some overflow depending on numbers, and the opposition benches are split between the different minority parties), and senior members of the party (cabinet ministers/shadow ministers) sit on the front bench, others sit further back (hence the name, "backbenchers"). Beyond that, I don't think there is a system. --Tango (talk) 14:34, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MPs reserve seats by placing a prayer card in the frame which is behind each seat at the start of a session. They then have to be in that seat for prayers. Some MPs - in particular Dennis Skinner - make a point of getting there early and taking the same seat each time, but most just see where is available and convenient. In theory, MPs can sit wherever they like - there is no restriction in the standing orders - but if a backbench MP tries to take a frontbench seat, or one in an area usually used by another party, this is seen as messing about, and they are liable to be more or less politely thrown out of it. Warofdreams talk 02:47, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you get this from an article on WP? If so, which one?--Rixxin 11:31, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Just based on personal knowledge. The essentials are confirmed by the BBC, here. Warofdreams talk 19:14, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I might add this to an article, as there's a citation for it. Thanks for the answer, by the way.Rixxin 21:17, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

So, why aren't there enough seats for all ? StuRat (talk) 03:03, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From a practical point of view, because the House of Commons (like, indeed, the House of Lords) has kept its medieval size and arrangement although the number of its members has slowly grown, over the centuries, with the unions of the crowns and with parliamentary reform. From another point of view, because it has suited parliament to keep things the way they are. Of course, the Commons can accommodate all of its members for voting purposes, when it has to. Individual seats are not essential. Xn4 (talk) 06:04, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The story often related about why the House of Commons has so few seats is that when it was re-built after the destruction in World War II, Winston Churchill and others specifically wanted it to be small, so that MPs would be more engaged more actively in debates in the House. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 07:21, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When the proceedings of the House of Commons were first televised, there was a fascinating phenomenon which became known as "doughnutting". Under this little wheeze, MPs would make a point of sitting close to the MP who was making a speech, so that they could be seen on the television. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 12:04, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AIDS Statistics

Does anyone have any sort of statistics for the number of US citizens that visit Africa for buisness, missions work, or pleasure and contract HIV/AIDS while there? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.161.25.62 (talk) 18:57, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Historic Brazilians

I want to do my NHD project on historic Brazilians, but I don't know any.

71.199.240.221 (talk) 19:27, 13 December 2008 (UTC)What would be a good NHD project idea that is Brazilian?71.199.240.221 (talk) 19:27, 13 December 2008 (UTC)What is a good website (besides Wiki) to research him/her71.199.240.221 (talk) 19:27, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't know what an NHD project is, click the link below.

[17]

Please hurry: this is do next Friday!!!

Hi there. Please read our article on the History of Brazil, and then pick someone that interests you from that article, and read our article on that person. You will find links from there to other web sites. If you have other questions after that, come back here and ask and we may be able to help further. You might even find something of interest to put in one of our articles. -Arch dude (talk) 21:32, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The List of Brazilians should give you a few useful names. Depending on your major interests (art / sciences / politics / etc) you can pick a few from the relevant section and do a spot of research. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 00:23, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As the list is quite long, may I suggest Paolo Freire? His "pedagogy of the oppressed" (adult literacy for the poor) has benefitted countless thousands of people. He is known in his native Brazil and overseas, especially as he and his theories were treated very differently by successive governments in his own country. As you're a student yourself, you may find Freire an inspiring choice that will interest your teacher and classmates. -- Deborahjay (talk) 16:00, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bills

What are some common bills people have to pay for? I have thought of health insurance, auto insurance, internet, phone, cell phone, taxes, electricity, garbage. I am trying to think of things I will have to pay when I move out of my parents house. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.119.61.7 (talk) 21:57, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you're renting there are some bills the owner of the property is responsible for depending on your jurisdiction, that may include garbage or water (but that one is changing in some places). There's contents insurance if your stuff is valuable; and don't forget food bills, clothes and maybe laundry costs if you're making a budget. Julia Rossi (talk) 22:08, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some other posibilities: gas, homeowner's insurance, cable/satellite and some communities have an assessment fee for amenities. Don't forget about any credit card bills. 67.184.14.87 (talk) 23:09, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you include car insurance, you should probably include fuel for the car and maintenance (and road tax and tolls/congestion charges if appropriate). In some places you may need a TV license. If it's not already paid, you'll need water (and sewage, although that's probably comes with the water, unless you have a septic tank). You may need building insurance (although if you're renting, that will be probably be paid by the landlord - it's their building). If you're buying, then there are mortgage payments, if you're renting, then there is rent. You may also want to pay for gym membership, and other similar discretionary expenses. And, the common advice: The first person you should pay on receiving your paycheque is yourself! (Which refers to saving a little of each paycheque for a rainy day and/or pension.) --Tango (talk) 23:20, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I allocate money into lots of different 'pots' (its all one bank account). My pots have names: Car tax, Car service, car insurance, next car saving, car breakdown rescue, clothes, holiday, food, mortgage, house maintenance, building insurance, house contents insurance, landline phone & internet, mobile phone, water rates, council tax, TV license, professional membership, "pocket money", charitable giving, pension, car fuel, electricty, gas, rainy day saving, specific project saving, christmas present fund. Some are monthly, some annual, some erratic. I try to put 10% more than one twelth of the previous annual bill into each pot a month so that when the bill arrives I can pay it. I try to ensure that the grand total of this is less than or equal to my salary. When it isn't I have to adjust something - eg have a cheaper / don't have a holiday - eg make the old car last longer (and longer). -- SGBailey (talk) 00:13, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all of your help! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.119.61.7 (talk) 00:57, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Entertainment can be a major expense for young folks, including music CDs or downloads, movie rentals, the cost of dates (which hopefully means paying for the restaurants, movies, night clubs, etc., as opposed to paying cash to the "dates"), etc. You may also have medical, dental, and optical expenses not covered by medical insurance. StuRat (talk) 02:32, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Depending on where you live, you may have to pay for a parking sticker or a private parking space at your apartment. Other possibilities I can think of are: a monthly pass for public transportation, subscriptions to newspapers/magazines/internet services, and copays for medical visits (although that's not necessarily a bill). Some checking and savings accounts will bill you if you write more than 7 checks per months/let your account drop below $1,541/do any number of other arbitrary things which were mentioned in the fine print of your contract. So always be aware of what the policies are for your bank accounts. --Fullobeans (talk) 05:08, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One that I don't see mentioned above is the cost of cable or satellite TV, if you want more channels than you can pick up with rabbit ears. (However, if you'll be renting, this might be included in your rent.) If you want to have a cat, dog, or other pet, you may have to pay a license fee for that, and you will have veterinary expenses at least for annual immunizations. And pet food, of course. --Anonymous cat-lover, 06:30 UTC, December 14, 2008.

Hitler and Germany's military in WWII

In Hitler's suicide note, he makes the following statement:

"May it, at some future time, become part of the code of honour of the German officer—as is already the case in our Navy—that the surrender of a district or of a town is impossible, and that above all the leaders here must march ahead as shining examples, faithfully fulfilling their duty unto death."

What does he mean? Is he saying that in the Navy code of honor it is better to fight to the death rather than surrender a town or district? I'm confused because the very nature of the Navy is that they're in the water and are unlikely to have to surrender something on land. Or is that why it's part of the Navy code of honor, because it's unlikely to ever happen? 67.184.14.87 (talk) 23:15, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess in the case of the navy, it would refer to surrendering your ship. There are options in addition to fighting to the death and surrendering the ship - you can retreat (if you are already fighting, then it's probably a little late for that) or you can abandon ship and scuttle it (again, if you're already fighting, this doesn't give you a great chance of survival, but you can try and escape in a lifeboat or swim). --Tango (talk) 23:24, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another difference is that there aren't likely to be civilians aboard a ship, so fighting to the death in the navy won't kill them. On the other hand, if the army is holding a town and fights to the death rather than surrender, a good portion of the civilians in that town are also likely to be killed in the cross fire or from aerial bombing. The town itself may also be permanently destroyed. StuRat (talk) 01:54, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But what he's saying in the note is that he doesn't care about that. He's saying that naval officers have a rule to never surrender their ship and similarly army officers should have a rule to never surrender whatever land they're fighting to defend. This "never surrender" attitude of Hitler's is one of the things that helped the Allies defeat him -- generals were forced to fight on when they would have done better to retreat and preserve their forces to fight another day, as the British did at Dunkirk, and the Germans did not do at, for example, Stalingrad. --Anonymous, 06:37 UTC, December 14, 2008.

There's a difference between surrender and retreat. Retreat involves escaping the field of battle, and then you can fight another day. Surrender involves laying down arms and allowing yourselves to be taken prisoner - if you do that, you can't fight again (unless you escape the POW camp, of course). --Tango (talk) 14:39, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hitler's state of mind regarding his order not to break out at Stalingrad have always puzzled me. Previously, I thought that it was a decision based on emotion (where ever a German steps his foot, he shall never retreat) or that he figured that within the context of the whole war, the 6th army would inflict the most damage on the enemy by fighting to the death rather than breaking out. But I think I saw on a documentary on the History Channel that Hitler was trying to avoid repeating Napolean's disasterous retreat from Russia. 67.184.14.87 (talk) 16:26, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and the Japanese and Russians (at times) also had orders not to retreat. This is a poor military strategy in general, as a force that's about to be surrounded and defeated can be far more useful if they escape to fight again later. However, there are some specific cases where it might be an effective strategy. For example, the Japanese defense of islands like Iwo Jima was partially designed to convince Americans that all Japanese would fight to the death, so invasion of the home islands would be too costly. This was meant to help obtain a negotiated peace. However, the Japanese didn't know the US was working on nuclear weapons, or, failing that, was entirely willing to starve the population of Japan to death. Another example was the Alamo, where this was basically a delaying action to allow Texan troops to prepare for Santa Anna. StuRat (talk) 22:59, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would love to watch the commander of a ship march ahead off the deck of the ship into the ocean rather than surrendering. Hup, 2, 3 splash! Edison (talk) 21:35, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bernard Madoff

Not understanding these things, is what Bernard Madoff has (allegedly) done in any way similar to Bernie Cornfeld's scam? Is there any significance in (alleged) scammers being called Bernard? -- SGBailey (talk) 23:31, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My limited understanding is that the only definition around the exact dealings by Mr. Madoff is that the firm was "One big Ponzi scheme." This suggests that he was using money from future investors to pay out past investors, to some degree. Likely this just means that the value of certain assets on the firm's books is significantly less than the sum of the stated value of all of the investors' accounts. I think that is all that we know.

Check out this thread on elitetrader though. Three years ago, an account was created, made four posts on a single thread, including "I heard from a trader on wall st. about a SEC investigation on Madoff for various SEC violations. I'm trying to find out if anyone has heard the same. I have some friends who have big money with Madoff so I thought I try to get some info. No, I don't post here since I only look at the forum. And whoever suggested that I'm starting a "rumor by forum" can kiss my ass. Get a life." and "I actually got some update and found out that it's Spitzer's office doing the investigation not SEC. But I don't know what the scope of the investigation is." and then never logged in again. Spitzer was AG of New York then, and had a big rep as bringing the hammer down on Wall St. He then got Governor, and... well... we all know what's happened since.NByz (talk) 03:28, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ooooh and CNBC's Charlie Gasparino has apparently confirmed that the investigation started in 2005... It seems a new respect might be found for those crazy internet forum rumours... NByz (talk) 03:30, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

December 14

Is there a word for this concept?

"The knowing that another experiences the same as you and/or expresses it."

I think I read this somewhere in rationalism or existentialism related articles, but I can't remember for sure.

Please and thank you. 71.196.67.138 (talk) 07:21, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you looking for "intersubjectivity"[18]? Intersubjectivity involves empathy. Traced from the article Existentialism section the Other and the Look[19] it is part of phenomenology which regards the other as more than another object, rather it is an experiencing entity like oneself. Intersubjectivity extends this simple I-you identification because it is multiple in that it is "the sharing of subjective states by two or more individuals." Julia Rossi (talk) 07:50, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Check out grok. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 01:31, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Inflation adjustment value

Since this RD also includes economics, I'm asking here instead of the Mathematics RD. I need to know how much 100 INR (1978) is worth today in 2008. Please refer to the Reserve Bank of India. The figures are given in gradients of a decade, so I do not know how to calculate 1978 to 2008 values. Could someone please help? =Nichalp «Talk»= 10:10, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you take 100 in 1978 then you need to increase it by the % that the retail-price-index (or equivalent) has increased by and that will give you a reasonably close idea of what 100 in 1978 is worth today. So 100 in 1978 was (using All commodities in your linked table) 185.8 - it went to 281.3 by 1982 when it was re-based. 281.3 is 151% of 185.8 so you need to calculate 151% of 100 which is easy enough (151). Then you do the same from 1982-1994 - 247.8 is 247% of 100. You now need to calculate 247% of 151 (372.9). Do the same for 1993-2008 and you have 215.9 is 215.9% of 100. Then calculate 215% of 372.9 and you should get 801.7. Potentially i've done something wrong but that is how I would calculate it. So 100 INR in 1978 is equivalent to about 800 INR in today's terms. ny156uk (talk) 14:30, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I tried to do the same, but since my knowledge of economics is weak, I'm not sure if such a simple means of calculation is correct, or if there is more to it. Thanks anyways. :) =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:39, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trumpets

Why when a trumpet plays a concert F is it read as a G on trumpet music? Additionally why when a score is in the key of C is the key different on trumpet music? Thanks. 76.187.43.14 (talk) 18:54, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because the trumpet is a transposing instrument. DuncanHill (talk) 19:00, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article sounds a bit circular in its explanation:"Historically, some instruments have come to be accepted (and widely manufactured) with a certain transposition as a standard, and most music written for those instruments would be transposed." I see no particular advantage to having a trumpet in B flat compared to having it play concert pitch, except for the great existing body of music written for B flat trumpet. It does not achieve much toward avoiding ledger lines. Edison (talk) 21:32, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it (although I could easily be mistaken), it dates back to when trumpets didn't have valves, you could just play harmonics. That meant if you wanted to play in a different key, you would need to get a different trumpet. Music would just be written in the key of C and then you would play it in whatever key you liked by picking up the right trumpet. When trumpets with valves were introduced the ones tuned to B-flat when all the valves were open became the most common (I don't know why), but the music is still written in C for those historical reasons. --Tango (talk) 22:46, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are important technical reasons for transposing instruments as well. Read transposing instrument# Families of instruments. In short:

Many instruments are members of a family of instruments that differ mainly in size, such as the saxophone, clarinet, flute, etc. The instruments in these families have differing ranges, with the members sounding lower as they get larger. It is desirable for all members of the same instrument family to have the same fingerings, so that a player can play any member of the family using the same fingerings. As a result, these instruments are transposed based on their range such that each written note is fingered the same way on each instrument.

Does that make sense? --S.dedalus (talk) 23:29, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would make it easier to select the correct fingering for a written note, when a brass player changed from a B flat to a C trumpet, but any moderately skilled trumpeter can play music written in C about as well as music written in B flat. It is an easy transposition, like an F horn player easily playing a part written for E flat horn. But it has the effect of bad ear training, with a B flat trumpeter or a F horn player having different ideas of what pitch a C is. I know it interferes when I switch from a transposing instrument to singing and vice versa. Edison (talk) 00:12, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Latin America hostile governments

Is this true that America overthrew 40 hostile governments in Latin America during 20th Century? Can you list them if possible because you guys don't have an article that shows the list of Latin American hostile government? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.53.74 (talk) 23:47, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CIA activities in the Americas may be a helpful place to start. All governments are hostile to someone, so I'm not sure how the list you're requesting would work... SDY (talk) 23:59, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

December 15

Homelessness in the United States

How many homeless persons in the US actually live on the street? (Meaning: Out of a shelter). Gridge (talk) 00:43, 15 December 2008 (UTC).[reply]

According to Homelessness, as of 2007, "82% of the homeless are not chronically homeless, and 18% are (6% Chronically Homeless Sheltered, 12% Chronically Homeless Unsheltered)." Tastyduck (talk) 00:54, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, if there are about 700,000 homeless in the United States at any given time, as our article suggests, applying this percentage, about 84,000 live on the street chronically. If we add in some temporarily homeless living on the street, I would expect that at least 100,000 homeless live on the street at any given time. (Of course most do not actually live on the street itself. Most find rough shelter in railway or highway underpasses, in derelict buildings, and so forth.) Marco polo (talk) 02:33, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

middle east body count by group

do we have a chart comparing the total body count in the middle east since conflict began there, among the various groups involved? thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.124.213.98 (talk) 01:32, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'll politely answer first, because I fear that you're about to get razzed. Even limiting ourselves to recent history, there have been dozens of major conflicts in the middle east. The Iraq Body Count, is the best source for information on deaths that (allegedly) can be directly attributed to the 2003 US Invasion, for example. The right side of our Iraq War article has information on "Casualties and Losses" (in the infobox).

As for a count of total deaths in Shia-Sunni or Arab-Isreali conflicts combined, it would be pretty difficult to aggregate them all. Maybe if you specify what conflict or time period you're interested in, we'd be able to help further.NByz (talk) 03:22, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

all of these! that's why I said by group. But surely there aren't pages and pages of groups the respective body counts fall into, it must be under a few dozen! Do we have any page like that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.124.213.98 (talk) 07:42, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, going back several thousand years? And by group, do you mean ethnic group, or grouped by war? Maybe List of Wars could help. It's very much an incomplete list, but pretty rigorous for the last hundred years or so (if that's your time frame). You'll have to make some judgement calls. Was the 1997 Turkey-Iraq Kurdistan conflict in the "middle east" or "asia minor", for example. It also doesn't break down deaths by ethnic group or even national affiliation.

Also, a lot of the more recent conflicts in the middle east have produced considerable and consistent "terror"-related deaths associated with more of a "struggle" than a war. The death toll for the conflict over the West Bank and Gaza Strip is slow and steady.NByz (talk) 09:23, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) :Short answer: no. We have Ethnic groups of the Middle East. Look at the length of that page, and then think about how many of those groups must have fought against one another, amongst themselves, and against non-Middle Easterners in the course of the past few thousand years. Trying to figure out a body count for that would be an exercise in futility, seeing as how it's nearly impossible to get an accurate body count even in modern conventional warfare. That being said, we also have List of conflicts in the Middle East. I would imagine you're not wondering about every single entry on that list; you probably have a specific conflict in mind, or a relatively specific region and time period. If you can narrow down your focus a little bit (ok, a lot), we might be able to give you a better answer. --Fullobeans (talk) 09:30, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Considering dropping out of high school in Ontario. What are my options?

I am an eighteen-year-old high school student (born in 1990) in Ontario, Canada. At this juncture I have 12 credits, meaning that I need 18 more to graduate, plus community service hours. This will take four semesters plus online courses and summer school. I am in the first semester of those four and finding school incredibly tedious and frustrating; it's pointless busywork that's detracting from my real education. On the other hand, I recognize that learning on my own in an unstructured environment isn't ideal for my progress.

I have ambitions of becoming a neuroscientist someday. Neuroscience, neuropsychology, neurolinguistics and everything to do with the brain: these are my passions. It's impossible to imagine attaining such a goal if I can't even sludge through high school! I might be more challenged and interested in a university environment, depending on the university and program, but my work ethic and discipline are so lacking that it's naïve to expect myself to be able to do well in university. Obviously, though, university will be necessary if I am to pursue my ultimate goal of working in neuroscience.

My question: Is high school necessary? I'm aware of the GED and mature student programs available at some universities, but the requirements for these seem unclear to me. I believe to take the GED you must have been out of school for a certain amount of time (one or two years), which I haven't, and spending another two years out of school doing basically nothing for my formal education is an unappealing prospect for me. I'm very ignorant as to the nature of mature student programs. What options do these open to me? Is a GED required? Would my education be lesser or opportunities fewer because I didn't go to high school? Would it be possible for me to take courses at a community college or a mature student program at a university without having to do an expensive and unnecessary (for my personal development, not formal credentials) "bridge year"? And would my options be any different if I chose to study outside of the country, say in the US?

I'm hoping to attract someone with a high degree of knowledge or personal experience in this subject, because I am incredibly lost. I'm doing very poorly in school, and the prospect of three and some semesters more of this is daunting. I am clearly not the next Michael Dell; I have no entrepreneurship, just a thirst for knowledge and a dream so outlandish I try not to let myself think it. What can I do?

99.245.92.47 (talk) 04:01, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think before we recommend a solution we need to understand the problem better. You say you have a thirst for knowledge but hate school. So, what aspects of school do you hate ? Is it being forced to study topics which don't interest you ? Is it that the work is too difficult or too easy ? Perhaps you like to learn by doing rather than by reading about what others have done ? Do you like to work with your hands rather than your head ? Do you prefer self-study on the computer to formal classroom study ? We might be able to offer some suggestions here once we know some of these answers. However, most schools have a guidance counselor whose job is to do just this sort of thing, so I'd also recommend seeing what they have to say. StuRat (talk) 04:17, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would see my school's guidance counsellor, except that she's a sarcastic, bitter woman who isn't helpful at all. I don't feel comfortable speaking to her.

My reasons for disliking school are complex, but mostly related to the fact that I feel that my efforts go into a void. I wouldn't mind doing schoolwork if I had any clear idea of my progress or feedback on my ideas; if I were being challenged and criticized by my teachers, instead of just being saddled with an unexplained 91 for a paper I did at 3 AM on the night before. Unfortunately from what I've heard, this situation doesn't change in university. So perhaps I'm stuck. But I want to improve myself, and this seems absolutely impossible.

The other reasons are things like sleep problems, depression and an overabundance of pointless busywork. I'm interested in almost every subject, and have a lot of control over what I study, so it's unrelated to studying topics in which I'm not interested.

An important and relevant note that I forgot to add to my initial post: although I'm making efforts to improve this situation, I am hopeless in math to the point where it feels like a mental disability. This is distressing to me since all the sciences require some degree of mathematical ability, and because I see very clearly from a neurological perspective where my lack of mathematical ability has hindered me in other areas.

99.245.92.47 (talk) 04:24, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote the following before your last post. I can empathize completely with the sleep problems, depression and distaste for busywork along with my highschool and undergrad degrees. The math thing is a problem. Math is something that you have to do over and over. And it's definitely required for any post-secondary science education. I suggest overcoming the problem with planning! Cordon yourself off and force yourself to do it for one hour per day. Then reward yourself with some Fallout 3.... Anyway. My big rant (which actually has turned into more of a "walk down memory lane". Excuse that!:

"Stick in School", "work hard" etc. "In order to enter neuroscience, you're going to have to get a more general undergraduate degree first (probably in biology or chemistry), and undergrad degrees are just as tedious as highschool, except they last 4 years. You have to get used to working through the tedium now."

Now that that is out of the way, I'll tell you how I did it. I am in BC. I hated highschool myself. I couldn't stand being literally required by law to go and sit in a building every day. The only reason I didn't purse some kind of homeschooling option was that I wanted to play for the highschool football team. I had a lot of good streaks going back then. I never went to a class on a Friday in my first semester, and from my second semester on, I never went to a class on a Friday or a Wednesday (and most other days). I learned to play the guitar, program in VB, watched CNBC and learned about financial markets instead. I am extremely grateful for that time; if it weren't for the social protections offered by the expectation that I "be in highschool," I never would have been able to live at my parents house and would have been forced to enter the workforce as an unskilled labourer. Use the time wisely!! If you're going to half-ass highschool, you have to keep your mind sharp.

So what about school then? I suggest treat highschool classes like university classes. The only difference is that you ONLY have to pass in highschool. Your GPA won't matter (as it will in university if you still want to pursue neuroscience when you're done; it'll require entrance into a masters or med school program). Find out all of the assignments, their weight on your overall grade and when they're due. In BC, most of our overall grades came from "provincials" (the big final exams) so just prepare franticly for those right before they start. Depending on your estimate of how well you expect to do on those provincials, make sure to do enough of the assignments and other projects to ensure a healthy (5-10%) buffer above a passing grade.

Next Step? College. Education is so terribly subsidized in this country that their are tons of semi-private colleges offering university entrance programs left, right and center. If I recall correctly, I only had to write a short English exam to gain entry (despite having near 50% in every highschool class). If you don't do Math 12, you may have to write a math exam as well (in BC at least: consult your local community college!). You'll have to prepare for this by March-Aprilish of the year that you'd like to enter. Make sure you know exactly what university you want to transfer to, and what faculty and program you want to transfer into. Do ONLY the classes that apply specifically to that program, and contact the academic advising center at the university to make sure the college classes are still going to be transferable in the next year. Now you have either one, or maybe two (depending on how many classes you need to do the transfer; I did it in two semesters because I was working) semesters where you REALLY have to play it by the book. Do all of the assignments, write all of the midterms. It's tedious, but you need to get yourself into the A average range if the program you're looking at is competitive to enter. The beauty of these college level classes though, is 1) You're not going up against the sharpest tools in the drawer. Profs don't really grade on a curve, but they set up their exams with their students in mind. 2) You're not going to get any guff if you don't attend. Get a job. Find something engaging to do. It'll keep your mind busy in that first year. Once you transfer though, you really have to start sucking up. You have to maintain that A average if you REALLY want to get into an exciting grad program. They don't fool around at this point.

So naturally, this isn't the best plan for everybody. It worked pretty well for me though. I find that I'm the type of person that always needs something practical to do, or be thinking about. The above plan maintains that pretty well. Third and Fourth year university classes actually started getting pretty interesting. If you don't like 'em either, do them part time and work as well. NByz (talk) 04:41, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and "disclaimer disclaimer... medical or legal advice..." blah blah blah. NByz (talk) 04:48, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Consider asking your parents to let you homeschool through the remainder of high school. I homeschooled through high school for similar reasons to what you are describing, and I know many other people who did likewise. You may have many misconceptions about what life as a homeschooler would actually be like. Read or article and contact a local homeschool group before you rule it out. Many colleges are very impressed with the self-direction displayed by students who choose to homeschool (as I can vouch for from personal experience as I am now at a very competitive American university). --S.dedalus (talk) 08:02, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I remember having the same feeling about high school for awhile; I suppose everyone does (I also went to high school in Ontario and our guidance counsellors were also useless). My question would be, are you sure you want to go into neuroscience? I was convinced I wanted to be an engineer all throughout high school, but I hated math and science. Eventually I realized that all the adults, from my parents to my teachers to my guidance counsellors, were encouraging me to do something science-y, probably because they expected I would have a better career in the future. I don't think they did it on purpose, of course. Eventually I realized I wanted to study history, and now all is well. I think many high school students are not yet independent enough to realize what they want to do; maybe this isn't true for you and I don't mean any offense, but that was true for me anyway. Adam Bishop (talk) 09:20, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stopping Foreclosure

Are there any ways other than filing bankruptcy to stop forclosure proceedings?--69.246.23.58 (talk) 04:35, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the obvious answer is to find some way of paying your mortgage/bill, but I suppose you've already been down that path. -- JackofOz (talk) 04:57, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eating animals

All countries have laws to prevent hurting animals. Is the critera for permitting animals to be treated as food set out in any country or is it governed by ancient tradition universally? ~ R.T.G 08:36, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dog meat is illegal in some countries; cat meat doesn't appear to be; the article on horse meat suggests the last abattoir in the USA was closed by court order but is vague as to why and in most countries it is not illegal. I suspect that some Islamic countries may prohibit non-Halal food, but non-kosher food seems to be sold in Israel[20][21]. There are of course numerous laws about animal welfare in most countries, but I can't find any laws against eating animal meat in most places. --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 10:48, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Throwing shoes at the President

Could it have been prevented? I have to admit that when I first saw the incident on the news I was struck by how lax the Secret Service were. The guy managed to throw not one shoe, but two! Am I being unfair? ExitRight (talk) 10:19, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reason the security seemed lax is because there was nothing serious that could have happened to Bush during that press conference. Everyone would have been tightly screened and searched before entering the room. So the guy had nothing else to throw except his shoes. Well, I guess he could have thrown his socks, but they wouldn't have flown as well. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 10:38, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What about the fact that the guy threw two shoes? OK, so I'll forgive the Secret Service for allowing the first shoe through, but what about the second? I would have thought that they could have stopped the second attack if his bodyguards had better presence of mind.ExitRight (talk) 10:50, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't you notice that the first thing most of them did was move towards Bush? This is the what a body guard is supposed to do. You don't (unless perhaps you are very close) run towards a guy with a gun and try to stop him. You jump on the person you are supposed to be protecting and take the bullet. Once you are sure that the person your trying to protect is okay, only then do you worry about the assailant. The other thing is what would you expect them to do? There were like 3 seconds between shoes. They could have taken a flying leap across the room and hoped they didn't hurt someone else in the process and hit their target, but more likely they would have cause a bigger ruckus and injured someone. They could have shot the guy, but shooting someone for throwing shoes is hardly a good look even for the Americans. So instead they did the best thing under the circumstances. Calmly but resonably urgently took control of the situation by moving to protect Bush and then removing the guy causing the problems. The other thing is coming back to the point Richard was making, they would have been prepared and reacted according to the environment. If Bush had been in a riskier crowd, say in a public rally they probably would likely have reacted differently and been more prepared. Quite a few people came in from another room. Obviously they could have filled the room with security guards but having a press conference with a room half full of security guards doesn't send a good luck. Nil Einne (talk) 11:07, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My hunch is that the thrower removed both shoes before tossing the first one, so his being able to throw the second isn't all that surprising. --- OtherDave (talk) 11:45, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Six Billion Others Project

Any interviews with Czechs, Poles, Russians, or German speaking people? 203.188.92.71 (talk) 10:26, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

About what? Wikimedia projects? Nil Einne (talk) 11:08, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, the link here. 203.188.92.71 (talk) 11:50, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is the cultural meaning of a shoe in arabian countries?

We asked in the german Wikipedia ([22]) (and the arabic one) what this and this gesture mean. Which symbolic meaning does it have? has it a historical background? Best greatings --129.70.108.115 09:59، 15 ديسمبر 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.70.108.115 (talk)

For the Bush thing, see above. For the Saddam Hussein statue thing, it looks to me like they're pretending to stomp on him, hardly unique to Arabic culture. Nil Einne (talk) 11:13, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you need special knowledge of Arab culture to understand any of this; it's not as if there are other cultures in which throwing shoes at somebody is a sign of love and admiration. 194.171.56.13 (talk) 11:20, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) I see someone has added it to shoe tossing but it appears to be unsourced crap. (It's been there for a while but it still seems to be unsourced crap to me. For example, it talks about visitors being forced to walk over a potrait of George H. W. Bush, but you don't need to be Arabic for that to be disrespectful to the person you're walking over. See also Talk:Shoe tossing#Disputed.) While I'm not an expert on Arabic culture, the only thing I'm aware of relating to shoes that isn't universal is that you are normally expect to take off your shoes before entering someone's house but this is hardly unique to Arabic culture. Also Muslims do enter mosques and pray without shoes [23] but this too is hardly unique to Muslims [24]. Nil Einne (talk) 11:23, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shoes do have a special significance in Arab cultures. A few years ago, I was visiting a friend's house (a friend who happened to be Muslim), and I was sitting on the couch. I was wearing my shoes at the time. We were talking, and I crossed my legs, like I put my ankle on my knee, showing him the soles. This is a not uncommon posture in western society, but I instantly noticed how my friend reacted, he became almost hostile to me. After a while, he said "Excuse me, could you please put your leg down". I did and asked why and he informed me that showing the soles of your shoes to a person was extremely rude in Arab societies, like flipping someone off in western societies. Needless to say, I never did that again. So while throwing a shoe at someone or stomping on something is rude in any culture, I imagine that it's especially rude in Arab cultures. Like spitting someone in the face or something. 83.250.202.208 (talk) 12:12, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

^ "European Union: Power and Policy-Making" second edition, ISBN 0415221641 Published 2001 by Routledge, edited by Jeremy John Richardson, Chapter 6 "Parliaments and policy-making in the European Union", esp. page 125, "Table 6.2 Party Groups in the European Parliament, 1979-2000"

^ European Union Basics (FAQ), Part 3/8

^ ^a ^b European Parliament archive entry for Birgitta Ahlqvist (incl. Membership)

^ European Parliament archive entry for Axel Andersson (incl. Membership)

^ ^a ^b European Parliament archive entry for Jan Andersson (incl. Membership)

^ European Parliament archive entry for Reynoldh Furustrand (incl. Membership)

^ European Parliament archive entry for Inga-Britt Johansson (incl. Membership)

^ ^a ^b European Parliament archive entry for Maj-Lis Lööw (incl. Membership)

^ European Parliament archive entry for Kristina Persson (incl. Membership)

^ European Parliament archive entry for Bengt-Ola Ryttar (incl. Membership)

^ European Parliament archive entry for Yvonne Sandberg-Fries (incl. Membership)

^ ^a ^b European Parliament archive entry for Maj Britt Theorin (incl. Membership)

^ ^a ^b European Parliament archive entry for Tommy Waidelich (incl. Membership)

^ European Parliament archive entry for Anneli Hulthén (incl. Membership)

^ European Parliament archive entry for Sören Wibe (incl. Membership)

^ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e ^f Cite error: The named reference EPOIStidigare_ledamoter was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

^ ^a ^b European Parliament archive entry for Hadar Cars (incl. Membership)

^ ^a ^b European Parliament archive entry for Karl Erik Olsson (incl. Membership)

^ European Parliament archive entry for Karin Starrin (incl. Membership)

^ European Parliament archive entry for Hans Lindqvist (incl. Membership)

^ ^a ^b European Parliament archive entry for Charlotte Cederschiöld (incl. Membership)

^ European Parliament archive entry for Karin Falkmer (incl. Membership)

^ European Parliament archive entry for Holger Gustafsson (incl. Membership)

^ ^a ^b European Parliament archive entry for Per Stenmarck (incl. Membership)

^ European Parliament archive entry for Margaretha af Ugglas (incl. Membership)

^ ^a ^b European Parliament archive entry for Ivar Virgin (incl. Membership)

^ European Parliament archive entry for Staffan Burenstam Linder (incl. Membership)

^ European Parliament archive entry for Gunilla Carlsson (incl. Membership)

^ European Parliament archive entry for Bengt Hurtig (incl. Membership)

^ European Parliament archive entry for Marianne Eriksson (incl. Membership)

^ European Parliament archive entry for Jonas Sjöstedt (incl. Membership)

^ European Parliament archive entry for Jörn Svensson (incl. Membership)

^ ^a ^b European Parliament archive entry for Per Gahrton (incl. Membership)

^ European Parliament archive entry for Ulf Holm (incl. Membership)

^ European Parliament archive entry for MaLou Lindholm (incl. Membership)

^ European Parliament archive entry for Inger Schörling (incl. Membership)

[2001Richardson-1] "European Union: Power and Policy-Making" second edition, ISBN 0415221641 Published 2001 by Routledge, edited by Jeremy John Richardson, Chapter 6 "Parliaments and policy-making in the European Union", esp. page 125, "Table 6.2 Party Groups in the European Parliament, 1979-2000"

[EUBFAQ3-2] European Union Basics (FAQ), Part 3/8

[MEPBirgittaAhlqvist-3] European Parliament archive entry for Birgitta Ahlqvist (incl. Membership)

[MEPAxelAndersson-4] European Parliament archive entry for Axel Andersson (incl. Membership)

[MEPJanAndersson-5] European Parliament archive entry for Jan Andersson (incl. Membership)

[MEPReynoldhFurustrand-6] European Parliament archive entry for Reynoldh Furustrand (incl. Membership)

[MEPInga-BrittJohansson-7] European Parliament archive entry for Inga-Britt Johansson (incl. Membership)

[MEPMaj-LisLööw-8] European Parliament archive entry for Maj-Lis Lööw (incl. Membership)

[MEPKristinaPersson-9] European Parliament archive entry for Kristina Persson (incl. Membership)

[MEPBengt-OlaRyttar-10] European Parliament archive entry for Bengt-Ola Ryttar (incl. Membership)

[MEPYvonneSandberg-Fries-11] European Parliament archive entry for Yvonne Sandberg-Fries (incl. Membership)

[MEPMajBrittTheorin-12] European Parliament archive entry for Maj Britt Theorin (incl. Membership)

[MEPTommyWaidelich-13] European Parliament archive entry for Tommy Waidelich (incl. Membership)

[MEPAnneliHulthén-14] European Parliament archive entry for Anneli Hulthén (incl. Membership)

[MEPSörenWibe-15] European Parliament archive entry for Sören Wibe (incl. Membership)

[EPOIStidigare_ledamoter-16] ^ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e ^f Cite error: The named reference EPOIStidigare_ledamoter was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[MEPHadarCars-17] European Parliament archive entry for Hadar Cars (incl. Membership)

[MEPKarlErikOlsson-18] European Parliament archive entry for Karl Erik Olsson (incl. Membership)

[MEPKarinStarrin-19] European Parliament archive entry for Karin Starrin (incl. Membership)

[MEPHansLindqvist-20] European Parliament archive entry for Hans Lindqvist (incl. Membership)

[MEPCharlotteCederschiöld-21] European Parliament archive entry for Charlotte Cederschiöld (incl. Membership)

[MEPKarinFalkmer-22] European Parliament archive entry for Karin Falkmer (incl. Membership)

[MEPHolgerGustafsson-23] European Parliament archive entry for Holger Gustafsson (incl. Membership)

[MEPPerStenmarck-24] European Parliament archive entry for Per Stenmarck (incl. Membership)

[MEPMargarethaafUgglas-25] European Parliament archive entry for Margaretha af Ugglas (incl. Membership)

[MEPIvarVirgin-26] European Parliament archive entry for Ivar Virgin (incl. Membership)

[MEPStaffanBurenstamLinder-27] European Parliament archive entry for Staffan Burenstam Linder (incl. Membership)

[MEPGunillaCarlsson-28] European Parliament archive entry for Gunilla Carlsson (incl. Membership)

[MEPBengtHurtig-29] European Parliament archive entry for Bengt Hurtig (incl. Membership)

[MEPMarianneEriksson-30] European Parliament archive entry for Marianne Eriksson (incl. Membership)

[MEPJonasSjöstedt-31] European Parliament archive entry for Jonas Sjöstedt (incl. Membership)

[MEPJörnSvensson-32] European Parliament archive entry for Jörn Svensson (incl. Membership)

[MEPPerGahrton-33] European Parliament archive entry for Per Gahrton (incl. Membership)

[MEPUlfHolm-34] European Parliament archive entry for Ulf Holm (incl. Membership)

[MEPMaLouLindholm-35] European Parliament archive entry for MaLou Lindholm (incl. Membership)

[MEPIngerSchörling-36] European Parliament archive entry for Inger Schörling (incl. Membership)

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

[18]

[19]

[20]

[21]

[22]

[23]

[24]

[25]

[26]

[27]

[28]

[29]

[30]

[31]

[32]

[33]

[34]

[35]

[36]