Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2009 August 1

= August 1 =

Why didn't Europeans die from a lack of immunity to diseases in the new world?
Why didn't Europeans die from a lack of immunity to some diseases in the new world in the same way so many Native Americans died from diseases brought from Europe?

For example, it would seem that the same process that made Europeans able to survive smallpox in relatively large percentages while killing many Native Americans should have resulted in some disease in the new world being as fatal to the Europeans.

It seems reasonable that Europeans had developed some sort of immunity (antibodies or genetic selection) to smallpox through generations of exposure while Native Americans had no prior exposure, leaving them much more vulnerable. But why wasn't there some other disease in the New World to which Native American's had become immune that was just as devastating to the European immigrants as smallpox was to the Native Americans?

It just seems that each population, isolated from the other, might harbor diseases that they have developed immunity to, that would be fatal to the other population. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Treetilt (talk • contribs) 00:52, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Jared Diamond talks about this in Guns, Germs and Steel. He gives some good reasons, like the old world having a much larger population (Europe, Asia and to a degree Africa) and, crucially, population density in some parts, which increases the chances that pathogens will evolve.  My opinion, in short, is that while it was entirely possible for some disease to rise in the America's that the rest of the world was very vulnerable after first contact, that simply didn't happen.  For whatever reason, or maybe for no reason at all beyond chance, the diseases in the old world were more virulent than those in the new and the latter suffered for it.  TastyCakes (talk) 01:01, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * ah I almost forgot, if I recall he also mentions living in close quarters with domestic animals (pigs etc) as a habit more common in the old world that encouraged the development of diseases. TastyCakes (talk) 01:06, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * While it does not discuss the disease factor directly, the more recent 1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus has much higher population estimates for the New World based on some new research that was unavailible or ignored for GG&S. Also, you should read Alfred W. Crosby's book The Columbian Exchange (our article titled Columbian Exchange discusses his concepts, but not his book directly) which makes the case, often since repeated, that diseases DID move back to the old world, namely Syphilis, which may have been carried back to Europe by Columbus's crew themselves.  Additionally, without potatoes, you would not have the potato famine, so you could easily consider the famous Irish potato blight to be another disease that came from the new world to the old.  These three books (Guns, Germs, & Steel/The Columbian Exchange/1491) actually compliment each other well.  They disagree on many points, but if you are looking for the three most important popular histories on the effect of colonialism on the New World, these three are probably the great triumverate.  Also, another point not made about why diseases may have not been brought back to the old world; there was no large scale population migrations to the old world.  The movement of people was largely one way (there was some movement in the reverse direction, but not a significant amount) and (the syphilis example notwithstanding) this probably goes a LONG way towards explaining why the diseases also seemed to travel only in one direction.  -- Jayron  32  02:43, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Total speculation here, but consider this: A significant portion of the Europeans died from the Black Death. Those that didn't presumably had stronger immune systems. Maybe that helped in fending off diseases that the Indians might have carried (though not syphillis, obviously). Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 04:29, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I found this Discover article ("The Arrow of Disease") pretty interesting. Basically, the author claims that a lethal disease needs a dense enough population to keep itself going; if say an isolated tribe caught it and was wiped out, the disease would have nobody left to infect and would die out. The Americas just didn't have enough people to sustain epidemics, and Europe did. As an example, he states that "Studies show that measles is likely to die out in any human population numbering less than half a million people." Clarityfiend (talk) 08:30, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Though, just to be clear, there were many millions of people in the New World at time of contact. The aforementioned 1491 notes that NW populations had quite differently constructed immune systems and that this played a large part in the differences of disease spread. Recent events have done nothing to convince me otherwise. Matt Deres (talk) 16:09, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * On Columbus' first voyages to the New World, pigs were released into the wild. Pigs carry many diseases that also affect humans. Many historians now believe large numbers of American Indians died from diseases contracted from pigs before ever encountering Europeans. —D. Monack talk 22:47, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Business question: Joint parenthood for companies?
I seem to have encountered a company that has two parent companies. How does that work? Did they get things wrong and should one be assigned to be the parent (maybe the one forming a taxable entity with the subsidiary) and the other company just be called s.th. else. (If yes, what?) 71.236.26.74 (talk) 02:49, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Could be some kind of joint venture. If not, which company are you looking at? Zain Ebrahim (talk) 07:23, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Formally, a company can only have one parent company, because a parent company owns >50% of the other (at least in Swedish legal defintions, which I work with). However, the parent company may itself have a parent company too, and then the owned company can be said to have more than one parentcompany, even if one of them is acctually a "grandparent". E.G. (talk) 01:29, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Pilgrimages, succession, infighting
What known connections exist between the Pilgrimage of Grace and the Pilgrim Fathers? Any common families, parishes or otherwise? How about the religious background combined with rebellion? Were the new Pilgrims mocking the Catholic ones, or were they heirs to their tradition, just having evolved into a Protestant movement of recusant and/or separatist Christian communities?


 * I doubt it extremely, since the two movements were on opposite sides of the western Christian religious fractures of the 16th and early 17th centuries, and the "Pilgimage of Grace" originated in the north of England, while the Pilgrims tended to come from East Anglia or the south of England... AnonMoos (talk) 16:14, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Wasn't the Pilgrimage an offshoot of the Lincolnshire Rising? That's where Boston is and the home of Anne Hutchinson as well as many of the other colonists, William Bradford being from Austerfield, West Riding of Yorkshire. For instance, the original Pilgrim church is at Scrooby, Notts just next to the West Riding and close enough to Lincolnshire as well.

English succession
How do we know that Lambert Simnel and Perkin Warbeck were impostors for real and not that the Tudors used spin doctoring to claim otherwise, such as their suppression of the Titulus Regius and depiction of Richard III as a hunchback monster? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.171.239.21 (talk) 06:34, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

How come during the Wars of the Roses, the rebels of Richard III chose a Tudor, rather than a Somerset aka Beaufort aka Plantagenet (or even a Stafford of Buckingam?) and have him marry Elizabeth of York, or have the Clarence Earl of Warwick marry a Somerset (etc)? What attempts were there to revive this dynasty during the Tudors or at the end of Elizabeth's reign, seeing as there were no more Tudors? What about the de la Pole family? Why not raise them to the throne at her death? What was the point of bringing the Howards into it, when the even older lines could have played a part in the conspiracies against the Tudors? Did the Somersets simply back the Tudors because of Margaret Beaufort, mother of Henry VII?

It seems like there were three parties about the Tudor succession descended from Henry VII:


 * Papist (via jointly Arthur & Henry Tudor, with the same wife): Philip Habsburg & Mary Tudor
 * Puritan (via Mary Tudor): Guildford Dudley & Jane Grey
 * Anglican (via Margaret Tudor): Francis Valois or Henry Stuart or James Hepburn & Mary Stuart

How come the Auld Alliance was allowed to succeed to the English throne (despite Henry VIII's restriction of Margaret's line and although not while the King of France was still living) and that it used the Anglican (Episcopalian) model, whereas the Puritan (Calvinist) faction of Northumberland and Suffolk, English as it was, had no luck? It seems odd that the rulers of England and Scotland were opposite of the national constitutions between them and I don't understand that.

Would it be safe to say, that Ireland held onto the Papist (Catholic) succession, until the time of the Infanta or later? How much coordination did the Irish and English Catholics have in their oppressive circumstances by Protestant persecution, or in pursuit of restoration for Philip and his family? I know that as late as the Spanish Match, Catholics still tried to influence national politics, but when did they give up? Was it because of Cromwell, or did they give up when William III invaded? Did they hold out as long as the Jacobite Risings, or was that merely Scotland? That's something I'm curious about, because all of the religious (and even republican) rebellions Ireland is known for, began in England (just like related Tudor rebellions spawned by exiled Yorkists) and yet, the English are not stereotyped as religious (despite their significant medieval history in that field).

I am wondering why Englishness, Protestantism and political freedom are said to be synonymous (it seems more true for the Dutch, almost all being of one stripe), but Protestantism was forced upon the Commons by a rapacious House of Lords whose sympathies were Lollard, being that the Lords at this time were not long ago of the mercantile crowd and all the "lesser people" than the armigerous and professional types were called ignorant papists who didn't know what was best for them. I find it hard to believe that stereotypes of the establishment can substitute for the common people, although the Establishment I am referencing, is completely Anglo-Saxonist and like to pretend anything Roman or "Celtic" has no business or place in Englishness. How do the people put up with this kind of propaganda and to what degree of brainwashing of this sort is legal? It doesn't sound populist, but the rabble-rousers seem to succeed in stirring the masses to this kind of hate. I wouldn't even say this is merely BNP, but both the Tories and the Liberal Dems, to whatever degree their descent is Whiggery, share this ideology.

The same thing with Scotland; they had nationalistic Catholic rebellions but the people are stereotyped as Calvinist. Why don't the Irish have a Jacobite or even Celtic Irish monarch? How much of Ireland's republicanism owes itself to Cromwell, Washington or Robespierre?


 * Don't feel like trying to follow through all your attempted connections, but as for why traditionally in England "Protestantism and political freedom are said to be synonymous", that's fairly easy: Starting in the mid-16th century, Catholic authorities and rulers committed a series of rather crude and heavy-handed maneuvers which ended up completely alienating the majority of literate urban dwellers in the south of England.  During the reign of Mary, England's interests were subordinated to those of Spain, and "heretics" were burned at the stake.  After Elizabeth came to the throne, the pope issued a declaration (Regnans in Excelsis) strictly requiring all English Catholics to be political traitors in order to be faithful to their religion; and the highest English Catholic leader, Cardinal Allen, schemed and plotted with England's enemies for an invasion of England, and issued amazing bloodthirsty ranting tirades which revealed him to be completely out of touch with the situation within England.


 * By contrast, Elizabeth disclaimed any ability or desire to make "windows to see into men's souls", and executed people only for treason, not for heresy. The result was that by the 1580's, many people in England identified Catholicism with plotting with England's enemies for an overthrow of the English government, with crude and heavy-handed religious persecutions, and with conniving amoral Jesuits and "Machiavels" (in late 16th-century English, the word "Machiavel" meant someone who, as a conscious choice, had absolutely no ethical inhibitions or concern with morality).  Such people were firmly convinced that the coming to power of an openly Catholic ruler in England would be the start of a huge bloodbath in which many many thousands of "heretics" would be burned, and would also mean that England would become weak and subordinate in its foreign policies.


 * The idea of a Stuart monarchy in Ireland and a Hanoverian monarchy in Britain may sound nice in the abstract, but it ignores the geopolitical realities of the early 18th century, which meant Ireland could not be independent of England unless it was strongly allied with (an effective protectorate of) a major continental European power, while an England which was unable to prevent Ireland from becoming a hostile power base could only be a weak England without a strong navy... AnonMoos (talk) 23:30, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

That response in the first two paragraphs is straight out of a Whig textbook. No offence, but I was hoping to find something more intuitive than the usual statist, toeing-the-line propaganda. Catholic behavior at this time could have been no different than Protestant, except in how they deal with Church vs State issues. The Catholics were essentially into spiritualised politics (theocratic, Papist), whereas the Protestants were defined by political spirituality (secularist, Imperialist). In a sense, it was much like Guelphs and Ghibellines, mixed with Avignon Papacy, Lollard and Hussite (Anglican and Lutheran) and possible Cathar influences, among the Calvinists.

Anyways, it simply astounds me that for instance, whereas so many martyred themselves under Henry VIII, Edward VI and Elizabeth, Protestant propagandas use Mary alone to wipe out all favour for Catholicism, although John Foxe also included Sir Thomas Oldcastle as vitriol in his polemics, possibly also with Wat Tyler in mind. I've been reading about the Catholic restorationist revolts and the demography behind it. It seems striking that many of the former Catholic rebel families (e.g from Cumberland, Westmoreland, Lancashire, Cheshire, Derbyshire or the Dales) became Quaker under the Stuarts, rather than Puritan (but those in Lincoln apparently went this route), although many, especially the more well to do, either could pay off their recusancy fines or they decided to convert to Anglicanism, as it appears that the Nevilles and Percys had eventually done. In any case, it is far from as cut and dry as your reply would indicate. I'm looking for more insight and intuition than the stereotypical Tory celebration of the (Whig) Establishment (or is that Whig support for Toryism? What's the real difference between Episcopal and non-Episcopal Protestants, when the Catholics are treated like scum for not joining the liberal bandwagon?), but not some Labour nonsense either--not that you offered any of the latter.

About Ireland, I was referencing the transition to republicanism in the 20th century. Surely, by this time, the Irish could have possibly had a united island under a separate, more palatable monarchy with relations to that in London and be tolerated by the British establishment, as a peace settlement. It might invariably lead to a succession in British favour, which the Scots already experienced, so perhaps that is why they avoided the monarchy. But I don't see why they wouldn't elect a chief of the O'Neils or O'Briens or whatever, rather than even the Butlers or Fitzgeralds, considering all of their Gaelic worship. The Irish could even enact a no-British clause in the succession, much as the British monarchy is forbidden to Catholics, or how the succession acts of Henry VIII barred Margaret Tudor's Scottish line. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.171.239.21 (talk) 07:37, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Black Legend & Bloody Mary (folklore) bogeyman stories carry little weight with me and I wonder how the general populace of that time, either neutral or pro-Catholic, could be led by the nose from the dictations of the noveau riche "nobility", except through strong-arm, pogrom tactics by this new elite. How many thousands of Catholics need to die for a complete purge? The same with the blood of Margaret Pole, Countess of Salisbury. Yet, this is an "acceptable and enlightened" response, to gut the soft underbelly of Englishness, in favour of what..."Germanness"? Advancing foreign German nobodies is supposedly more nativist than retaining the established French dynasties, well integrated into the population?

You know, it's a catch-22 to be English and Catholic. To express pride in Englishness, it is invariably disconnected from the stereotypical Englishness the world has known since Victoria and any clash with the Protestant version, is considered unpatriotic. One could just as easily point to the Tudors' destruction of the old royal family, the nobility and church all as fifth columnists who were committing treason ever since Owen laid his head in Katherine's lap, then passed the Throne to the Auld Enemy in Edinburgh. All of this was treason and yet the Spanish Armada alone conjures up all kinds of hatred from Protestants, who pride on the Establishment's cutthroats such as Cromwell and Walsingham, feeling they are entitled to a blank check on the sufferings of Catholics and cornering the market on Englishness. I'm happy that Wikipedia usually takes both sides into account, but my early schooling made no distinction between deceptive bias and truth. 70.171.239.21 (talk) 08:27, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Whatever -- Elizabeth I may not have been any more moral or virtuous than Philip II, Gregory XIII, or Cardinal Allen, but she was sure the hell a lot more politically astute than they were when it came to the domestic situation within England. The prominent Catholic leaders of the 1570's and 1580's seemed to place all their bets on a future invasion of England, and so had no real contingency plan B for what would happen if the invasion failed, and also no realistic consideration of what the repercussions of their actions would be if the invasion did not succeed.  The result was that in 1603, English Catholicism was in much worse shape than it would have been if they had never made all their elaborate plans and menacing threats -- and I don't think one has to be a Whig historian to recognize this fact... AnonMoos (talk) 13:38, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, what about prior example of various factions seizing the throne? The Lancastrians and Yorkists did this habitually, in and out of England, sometimes in Ireland, Scotland or France, etc, so was the memory of domestic turmoil so vividly unsettling, that there was no willing native contender to take the Crown in the name of Catholicism, apart from Reginald de la Pole and his relative who died at Pavia in 1525? I'm wondering who else could have assumed power, apart from the vacillating Norfolk, with more claim to royal descent (e.g. pre-Tudor lineage) and Catholic beliefs? Was it Courtenay alone? Did all of the other Plantagenet heirs simply go along with the Tudors after the beheadings of Margaret Pole and Buckingham? What's the present status, or what was the prevailing religious sentiment for the Somersets of Beaufort? They seemed to have dropped off of the radar after Bosworth, only the latent Yorkist factions seeming to have problems. 70.171.239.21 (talk) 22:12, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

E.G. why didn't the Somersets assume the throne after Elizabeth? Wouldn't they have had a prior claim to the throne than the Stuarts, considering the heritage of the Queen Mother Margaret Beaufort and Henry Tudor's claim to power? 70.171.239.21 (talk) 22:15, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia or IRL fights these days
How come whenever it comes to reading about this kind of stuff on say, Wikipedia, there are conflicting accounts about the nature of customs and culture in these countries? I have found that I cannot discover anything about those "Anglo-Celtic" lands without some massive mutual hatreds between ethnic backgrounds, like separatisms...consequently, there is no room for tolerant discussions and if they even exist, they are under begrudging terms. This is immensely disturbing, because in the "colonial" world, people with these kinds of heritages more often stick together at almost all costs, whether it's the Commonwealth or America, although the Irish still like to go on about St. Paddy's Day and Fenian or IRA this or that. Obviously, the Scots celebrate Highland Games and tartans, but their amount of antipathy is an interest in Braveheart. The English and Welsh don't really have any bone to pick with anybody, other than the French, if at all and this usually comes down to arguments at most.


 * If you're basing your idea of what Scots think about stuff on Braveheart, a film made in Ireland by an American raised in Australia and written by someone from Tennessee, and decried by every historian who ever saw it as fictious Hollywood rubbish, then you've been abjectly misled. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 11:26, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm referring to the British Isles diaspora. By the way, it is said that Braveheart influenced the clamour for devolution in Scotland. OMG,I laughed so hard at thishotclaws 00:40, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I read a bit from a 1906 newspaper a while ago where a British person was going around Ireland trying to find out why they wanted a republic. Doesn't Britain have fair laws and aren't people governed justly under the crown he was asking, and the main answer he got back was an agreement that that was so and very possibly their own rule would be worse, but it would be their own government and it would rule according to their own way and not Britain's and that's what they wanted. I think most of this 'mutual hatred' business comes from descendants of people who moved to America at the time of the famine. They set up a famine museum in Ireland so visitors could go and wallow in that sort of stuff just like they cater for blacks finding their roots in Ghana or Nigeria. The same applies to Northern Ireland, the problem there was mainly the lack of any power and self determination for a very large minority and that's what the agreement addressed. Luckily the Unionists in general also seem to have some desire for autonomy so it's all working out fairly well. Dmcq (talk) 10:52, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * What mutual hatred? The Irish and the Brits get along pretty well, in my experience. Obviously there are disagreements in Northern Ireland, but they don't tend to spread anywhere else. --Tango (talk) 22:21, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It spreads like wildfire on Wikipedia! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.171.239.21 (talk) 23:03, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Kronos's palace vs. Valhalla
In Greek mythology, to what extent if any was Kronos's palace in Elysium a parallel of Valhalla? Neon Merlin  06:04, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Both valhalla and elysium are where dead heroes and warriors go - in that respect they parallel each other. The comparison of different myths is called Comparative mythology which may be a useful search term when looking for articles.83.100.250.79 (talk) 17:00, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Greek, Germanic and Indic myths show other similarities (such as a world tree or equivalent), in the same way that middle eastern myths and religions show similarities (eg Flood story) - this suggests that they may have a common origin - however the stories are so different that it's impossible or difficult to link one motif with another between the myths, except to say that 'these seem similar'.83.100.250.79 (talk) 17:09, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Charles I of England's "tyranny"?
How come Charles is said to be a "tyrant" over England, even though his occasion to "tyranny", was wishing to defeat "England's traditional enemies" of Spain and France, as well as enforce "Englishness" upon the Scots by Laud, as well as upon the Irish by Strafford? I wonder what more the Protestant partians could have wanted, except the massacres of Catholics all over England and a top-down suppression of the Catholics who were not beaten into submission by the Tudors, or who felt safe because James's parents were Catholics and they thought he would be more tolerant, until the Gunpowder Plot (in which, of course, Catholic commoners tried to massacre the Protestant Ascendancy). None of this is democratic, but the hateful ideology is promoted and promulgated in the educational system, as the ascent of "progress". Please explain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.171.239.21 (talk) 06:32, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Not entirely sure what that rant is about, but one of the substantive issues people had with Charles I was his undermining of accepted legal norms acording to which Parliament had control over most taxes (and certainly all new taxes). Also, Laud was highly unpopular in England as well as Scotland, and the term "Protestant Ascendancy" generally refers to Ireland, not England.  And I don't know that the "Whig historians" were enthusiastic proponents of the anti-Royalist side in the English civil war (though it's true that they were enthusiastic proponents of the "Glorious Revolution" of 1688...). AnonMoos (talk)

I have heard from some people that Stuart practices were hardly different to the Tudors', so what was the change? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.171.239.21 (talk) 22:19, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The winner writes the history, it is said. Any leader of a state who is overthrown, will usually get accused of being a tyrant by the successors, if not else so as to excuse their own seizure of the power by force. Even if the new regime does not last long (in this case, Charles I's son was restored to the throne later on) its propaganda can have set the mind of people for centuries to come, true or not. E.G. (talk) 01:39, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Flat caps & baseball (cricket too?) caps
Are American baseball caps an evolved form of flat cap? Would this explain the stereotype that each is a marker for the "common man" (or working class, in socialist parlance)? Are flat caps heirs of those late middle ages and renaissance caps worn by royalty and nobility? If so, what about Quaker use of broad brim hats, by commoners? Is it a sign of defiance to established deference, that they assume a station beyond their birth, by adopting a dandy outfit? I see that the Spaniards seem to have initiated this style of hat, but it was adopted by rulers and nobility across the board in the 17th and 18th centuries, even by pirates and then by cowboys on the American frontier. Do either the flat cap or broad brimmed hat indicate any social status these days, or is it simply well established as South & West European cultural expression? What about top-hats? Are they still worn by anybody? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.171.239.21 (talk) 06:43, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * An important practical purpose of baseball caps (or sometimes brimmed hats, in the early years) was and is to shield the players' eyes (and presumably the tops of their heads as well) from the bright summer sun. I would assume likewise for cricket. As to any alleged social significance, I can't say, but both baseball and cricket were originally middle-to-upper class sports. Baseball was originally played as recreation by businessmen in the New York area. It later evolved into a profession. A lot of people wear baseball caps nowadays - even football players on the sidelines. They still serve the purpose of an eyeshade. Team colors also figure into it. Some people wear their team colors to represent fandom. Others wear them because they are the colors of their street gangs. So it ranges across the social spectrum, I guess you could say. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 07:16, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Farmers wear caps very like baseball caps, but with names of tractor manufacturers or seed companies. They provide less protection from the sun than cowboy (or Quaker) hats. Edison (talk) 12:49, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * True, but wearing cowboy hats on the ballfield is not very practical, as they would tend to fly off when running after a batted ball. Although I remember a Bill Veeck promotion at Comiskey Park, "Mexican Day", in which the White Sox took the field in the first inning wearing sombreros. That, along with their cute little shorts, made for an interesting sight on a supposedly major league ball club. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 17:14, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Tophats are still worn at Ascot,posh weddings,by dressage riders and people in full hunting pink. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hotclaws**== (talk • contribs) 00:43, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Why should baseball caps have any relationship to flat caps? The idea of a hat with some sort of eyeshade is a pretty obvious one, no?
 * On the other hand, I am intrigued by how the baseball cap seems to have ousted the school cap from England over the last fifty years. --ColinFine (talk) 22:42, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * They do look pretty similar. Most other hats with something to shield your eyes have a brim all the way around, flat caps and baseball caps both have just a peak at the front. --Tango (talk) 02:50, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * There were two styles of baseball caps in the early years of the professional game. One was the rounded "school cap" that is similar to the cricket cap. The other is a flat-topped cylindrical or "cake-shaped" cap. Today's baseball cap evolved from the round-topped cap, and the cake-style went out of fashion except for a few teams that revived it in the 1970s (notably the Pirates). Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 03:25, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Traditional cricket headgear is the short-brimmed cap, which isn't too distinct from a flat-cap, but is quite different from baseball cap. See these gents 100 years ago. The Australian cricket team to this day retains a traditional shape in their famous Baggy green. England has sadly gone "modern" in this respect, as with other elements of their flannels. --Dweller (talk) 12:18, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Why is Berkshire Hathaway stock so expensive and who buys it?
Berkshire Hathaway A stock currently trades at $97,000 and B stock trades at $3,180. As far as I can tell the lowest that they have traded in the past 5 years is $73,000 and $2,300 respectively. Not only are these prices are substantially more than the majority of other stocks, they are arguably so high that they exclude many common investors from buying a single unit of either stock. I can imagine that some people would buy a few units of the B stock on the basis that it is a fund and therefore inherently diversified, and that institutional investors can buy large amounts of either stock - but wouldn't it be better if there was a stock split (say 1:1000, so that A stock was $73 and B stock was $3) which would potentially bring in more liquidity due to the higher number of people who can buy into it? I guess that people trade derivatives tied to these stocks too, with a lower entry cost, but there are a lot of people who only buy stock. No doubt, the guys at BH know what they are doing, but I just wonder why the high price serves them well. Does it provide a certain aura of a "serious" stock? I wonder if there has been any public discussion on the decision to keep the price so high, but I can't find any. Any thoughts would be appreciated. Thanks Squashed Star (talk) 10:54, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * At one level, stock is "valued" by the market based on the assets of the company. A good means of approximating the value of a stock is to take the value of all of the assets of the company and divide by the number of shares of the stock.  The "price" of the stock will sometimes vary some from this number, depending on how people "speculate" that the value of the companies assets will change in the future.  However, insofar as a company is not expected to lose shitloads of money, the value of the company will not drasticly drop, so the price of the stock will not drasticly change.  So, that is why the value of one share of B-H is $97,000.  The answer to why it is not split is that there is no immediate benefit to existing shareholders to split the stock; so why do it?  In fact, attracting more investors may have the effect of depressing the share value, or of diluting the voting power of the existing shareholders, so they may not want to do so.  While $97,000 per share is out of reach of most of us, it serves the existing shareholders well, and so long as that is true, there will not be any reason to change that by splitting the stock.  -- Jayron  32  13:48, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your thoughts. You're right that "fundamental" view would value the stock based upon the assets (plus P/E etc) but a "technical" view would suggest that shareholder demand and psychology would set the price. This is why reverse splits can depress the price substantially without any underlying change in value (see AIG for a recent example), a split would typically increase the price, due to people feeling that the stock is "cheap" even though the value of the company hasn't changed. Performing a split would not dilute any holdings, only the issue of more shares could do that, but I do think that (as is said below) this is a plan to limit access to this stock by people who may speculate on it. I guess that BH do not want the volatility that comes with speculation and would rather have more "discerning" investors who are in it for the long term. When Buffet is no longer around I would suspect that there will be pressure to split the stock, to increase speculation and likely push the price up in the short term. Squashed Star (talk) 15:08, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I think that the important immediate cause of the stock not being split is that it obviously does not serve the purposes of the existing shareholders to do so. If it DID serve their purpose, they would have done so already.  Even if my speculations as to WHY they don't split the stock are not correct, the fact remains that there must be some very good financial reasons why the existing shareholders don't see that it is split.  Its not like they say "we could make a ton of money if we split the stock, but we're not going to just cuz".  It must serve their purposes, financially, to keep the stock price at around $100,000 per share, perhaps for the reasons listed below.  Plus, if you read our article on Berkshire Hathaway, it does actually explain why the stock has never split, from Warren Buffets point of view.  He owns 38% of the company, and most of the rest of the board probably owns enough to give the existing board the 51% needed to basically run the company without any intereference from other shareholders.  Plus, seeing as this is one of the most successful American companies in history, I don't think the existing shareholders are complaining about the financial practices all that much.  -- Jayron  32  17:55, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * One effect is that the high price alters the type of investor. Assuming an investor wants a diversified portfolio, only investors whose portfolios are quite large will be able to purchase BH and remain diversified. For example, suppose you would like to invest 10% of your portfolio in BH. I your portfolio is worth $200,000, then it is impossible for you to hold 10% BH as the minimum number of shares you can buy is 1 and that would put 50% of your portfolio in BH. In fact, the only way you could put 10% of your portfolio in BH is if your portfolio was worth $1 million. Wikiant (talk) 14:57, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Unless you buy BRKB. --jpgordon:==( o ) 15:47, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Also note that BH is, as I understand it, a closed fund - they are not looking to raise any more money from offerings. The shares that are outstanding now are all that there ever will be, and if you buy them you buy them from the existing owners. From Buffet's point of view, why would he care if it's more convenient for the holders to divvy up and resell their portions? He has expressed on many occasions that he is not interested in short term investment, he is interested in people willing (indeed, happy) to trust their money with him for their entire life. Such devotion is encouraged by such a high price. He doesn't want a constant, high level of turnover from people buying and selling his fund trying to beat the market. TastyCakes (talk) 21:17, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * See for Warren Buffet's take on the matter. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:24, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Thailand
(moving discussion from an article talk page)

I have a comment/question for experts in this discussion. As an expat in S.E. Asia I notice what appear to be extreme cognitive malfunctions in Thailand. Visiting Cambodia, one is immediately struck by the higher level of intellectual curiosity.

I do not believe this is a racial diifference, but it is too pervasive to even blame on poor education. Perhaps there is an idiosyncrasy of culture which affects cognition.

My question is: Are there studies available to confirm or explain the cognition defecit in Thailand?

Because this comment/question may offend some, I sign myself ... Anonymous —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.128.1.64 (talk) 08:56, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The question smacks of stereotyping. You have some unfortunate experience in Place X and thereafter say "People in Place X are stupid." Just as Siam, without one plea. Edison (talk) 12:46, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * This answer strikes me as a stereotyped answer! You may know nothing of Thailand, but are happy to chirp in!  I've spent many years in Thailand and could give a number of examples of my point.  From experience, however, I know that fewer than three examples would be dismissed as "anecdotal" and more than three would become "ranting".  If you wish, I'll add exactly three examples to this section!


 * I will comment that Thai language, as it is actually used in rural areas, is remarkably ambiguous. Whether this is a cause or effect of a cognitive defecit I'll leave open.  As one trivial example of the ambiguity, I overheard a conversation between a village official running for reelection and a visiting police chief.  The chief asked "How many are running for the office?"  The incumbent answered "as many as want to, but only two will be elected," telling the chief only what he already knew!  They were speaking (ambiguous) Thai, obviously; I've rendered the intended English equivalent here, making a deduction the native-speaker incumbent did not.


 * I cannot find a proper reference for this, but I remember reading (probably two years ago), that Thailand was facing a severe problem of brain drain. Numerous highly educated Thais - at that time - were emigrating to greener pastures, particularly the USA and Australia.  --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 15:26, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I find your assumption that ambiguity must be connected with a cognitive defect (whether as a cause or an effect) bizarre in the extreme, particularly (as in your example) in the political arena. --ColinFine (talk) 22:45, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


 * My phrasing ("Whether this is a cause or effect ... I'll leave open") was intended to include "neither" as an option. (Language ambiguity!)  Picking a conversation between "politicians" was done to demonstrate that ambiguity doesn't apply to just the least educated of rural Thais.  The sentence I rendered in English could have been rendered word-by-word as "They apply how-many person".  As a clearly non-political example, on a visit to the local clinic we were asked "15th inject medecine where"; my wife and nurse ended up both confused and it was while driving home that I realized nurse was speaking of next month, wife of last month.  "Remarkably Ambiguous"?  You decide.


 * I'm afraid that, after these examples, if you still deny rural Thai is more ambiguous than, say, English, then I can't help you. Whether the language ambiguity is related to the cognitive defecits is still an open question.  That's why I'm posing the question here:  I'd like information, not stereotyped reflexive responses that assume I'm a bigot or imbecile.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.123.168.226 (talk) 10:02, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Bohemond I of Antioch
Hello, i have need of sources for these two phrases, written in the voice Bohemond I of Antioch: "he led the whole Crusader army until the conquest of Antioch" and "From Constantinople to Antioch, Bohemond was the real leader of the First Crusade", because in wiki.it there are people who not believe that Bohemond was the leader of the First Crusade. Thank you.--Nicolayvaluev (talk) 14:57, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * You need the opinion of contemporaries: start with this brief translated bit from the Gesta francorum.--Wetman (talk) 22:27, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The Gesta was probably written by someone in Bohemond's camp though. Another source written by a follower of Raymond of St. Gilles would have him as leader of the crusade; the two frequently fought over who got to keep the cities they conquered, and since they were the wealthiest and most powerful of the leaders, and led two of the biggest armies, they both had some reason to claim overall leadership. Of course, there were other armies with other leaders, and if the pope was to be believed, his own legate was supposed to be the real leader. At Antioch things changed, because the papal legate died, and Bohemond remained there while everyone else continued to Jerusalem. At one point, they all elected the relatively less-known Stephen of Blois leader, and a few decades later, some authors claimed Godfrey of Bouillon was really in charge the whole time, since he ended up as the first ruler of Jerusalem. So, in short, the answer is, yes, Bohemond was a leader, and for awhile thought he should be the overall leader, but after conquering Antioch he seemed to think that was good enough and he certainly wasn't the leader after that. Adam Bishop (talk) 00:35, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you both. Unlucky, i didn't find in the Gesta Francorum any reference for the two phrases, i'll looking the opinion of contemporaries.--Nicolayvaluev (talk) 12:33, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thomas Asbridge's book on the First Crusade discusses why certain leaders could be considered, or considered themselves, overall leaders. This page has some info about Bohemond (there is more scattered throughout the book, but at one point before Antioch he was elected as overall commander for one particular battle). Those two sentences in the Bohemond article are remnants of the original article from many years ago, which was copied from the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica (see here). As usual, the 1911 Britannica is inaccurate, and we know much more about the crusade than they did. Adam Bishop (talk) 18:14, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much Adam Bishop, i found in Enciclopedia Britannica the reference for the sentence "From Constantinople to Antioch, Bohemond was the real leader of the First Crusade", now i will look for any reference for the sentence "he led the whole Crusader army until the conquest of Antioch".--Nicolayvaluev (talk) 13:56, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * That was added by an anonymous contributor in this edit. I'm certain that it was inspired by Britannica, since it is part of the introductory summary. I don't think there will be a separate source for that. Adam Bishop (talk) 15:38, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Profit is not a four-letter word
In this video (I'm linking to the correct position), a button (is that what it's called?) appears that has "profit is not a four-letter word" printed on it. What does that mean? The button belongs to Grover Norquist, a neoconservative, if that is of any help. —Bromskloss (talk) 16:31, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * "Four letter word" = profanity. The phrase is a reaction to the belief that transactions are zero sum games. That is, in a transaction between you and me, one of us gains and the other loses. Seen in this light, the profit gained by one side reflects an exploitation of the other side. In fact, in the absence of coercion, transactions are almost always positive sum games. So, the profit gained by one side reflects the benefit obtained by the other. A classic example is the billions of dollars that Bill Gates has made producing and selling Windows. He got those billions precisely because we who use Windows (despite its flaws) value it more than the money we gave him for the software. Hence, his profit reflects the benefit we obtain from the software. Wikiant (talk) 16:35, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Though in many ways Gates is a horrible example. He didn't just get his billions from simple transactions of positive sum games; he created and then exploited a near monopoly, to the point where many feel obligated to shell out a lot of money for an inferior product primarily to maintain compatibility with the monopolistic marketplace. There are far, far better examples out there of people who show that profit is not a four-letter word than Microsoft. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 18:39, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Not to defend Gates, but the idea... If you voluntarilly shelled out money for windows then, de facto, you received more value from windows than you did from the money you shelled out -- that's a positive sum game. The monopoly status (to the extent that it exists, and economists find this debatable) merely alters how the positive sum is split up. Wikiant (talk) 13:10, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, I got the point anyway. (And as a happy Linux user, I stay away from Microsoft products.) :-) —Bromskloss (talk) 18:56, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * In English, for some reason unknown to me (probably coincidence), most swear words are four letters long, so "four letter word" is synonymous with "swear word". Saying that something isn't a four letter word means it isn't offensive or something to be ashamed of. --Tango (talk) 17:26, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Four letters is simply the most common word length in English. The reason swear word are called four-letter words is because their corresponding "polite" words are generally Latin, and Latin words tend to be longer. Compare: shit - feces, piss - urine, cunt - vagina, cock - penis. --Chl (talk) 17:02, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


 * In addition to the above replies, it's knowingly comic, as it's perfectly obvious that "profit" isn't a four letter word. You'll even see this pattern used ironically, when people will say things like "porn isn't a four letter word", when obviously it is. Googling for "isn't a four letter word" finds a bunch more, wherein we learn that work, sell, and love aren't four letter words either. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 17:44, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * We have a four-letter word article, incidentally. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 17:53, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, everyone. I've learnt something. —Bromskloss (talk) 18:56, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I was trying to google Google for a list four-letter swear words but couldn't find such a list! Anyone able to find such a list? (I also tried by just including the words I could come up with myself, but some of them, like ethnic slurs, I really had to look up to check... leading me to believe a real list would be better than I could come up with). Anyone? 82.234.207.120 (talk) 14:34, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Wagner's Das Rheingold
So i watched this opera a few days ago (James Levine with the Met)

I'm wondering something---

Alberich loses the ring to Wotan and then places a curse upon it.

Can anybody just place curses (within the norse-mythology framework of Wagner's world) on anything? Does Alberich have the right to do it because he had the ring? Wotan is the chief of gods, can't he "un" curse it?

I understand that this is fiction, but i'm wondering if there is a logical consistency that audiences (familiar with the old Norse tales) would've understood way back when this was written.192.136.22.4 (talk) 18:03, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I can answer half - curses can't be undone - even by gods - they must run their coarse - it's to do with fate and the concept of living things having will of their own - otherwise we'd have a story about a bunch of gods and their 'robot slaves' :)
 * (Occasionally someone can undo a curse - in folk tales this often relates to romance - eg frog price etc)
 * Also noted that alberich has already cursed himself (renouncing love) to obtain the ring - thus it is his by right, and he can place a curse on it.83.100.250.79 (talk) 19:09, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Norse / Germanic mythology does not have the concept of divine omnipotence. Our article implies that this was an idea of monotheism.  --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 19:28, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Locating an old rail line
I just spent some time Livingstoning it up along an old abandoned rail line near Taunton, Somerset, England. After trawling through a hundred years of gorse bush I found myself on an old line flanked by about 60ft embankments, very steep, which keep it isolated. At the end I found the enterance to a tunnel which has been bricked up (though there is a locked steel door). It is also invisible from the air due to the canopy.

On google earth I can trace from hedgerows, discolourations and slopes in the soil, and what is now some footpath, the path of the old rail line from Chard to Ruishton, but I can't see any further.

Is there any resource that I could ask to work out what the line used to be? Some historical records that would be held by a county council? SGGH ping! 21:45, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If you ask on WikiProject UK Railways talk page they could probably tell you very quickly, as well as being able to answer all your other questions.
 * In general your public library will have lots of books on "disused railways of Somerset" - there isn't a yard of disused track in the UK that hasn't been written about by the fans.83.100.250.79 (talk) 22:13, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Does Chard Branch Line say anything, also if you can give the coordinates on google maps that might help, there's a book listed at the end of that article which might cover it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.100.250.79 (talk) 22:17, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * This site has old Ordinance Survey maps (as should http://www.old-maps.co.uk/, but that seems to be broken right now), which should show the routes of railways.  If you'd been talking about Scotland or very-Northern England, I'd have directed you to http://www.railbrit.co.uk/   (which used to be called RailScot); he's got excellent info about disused railway lines, but for now it seems he's mostly got stuff about Scotland. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 22:17, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Why not order up the Ordnance Survey map for the area?--Wetman (talk) 22:18, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * If the railway was to the west of Taunton, then I think we're talking the Devon and Somerset Railway - the east-west railway showing on this map. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:54, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Divorce Rate among Christians and Atheists
Does anyone know the divorce rate for Christian protestants and atheists in Canada and U.S.? Which group have the highest divorce rate? Sonic99 (talk) 21:56, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * This page gives some numbers which compares several species of Christians, jews, and atheists/agnostics. Two caveats: I'm probably wrong (and I have no evidence for this), but religioustolerance.org might just be operated by the Church of Scientology, and so might not be 100% neutral (I'm just going on a vague memory, and I apologise if I'm mistaken). Secondly, surely some of the effect shown is due to some groups marring more, or sooner, than others. So, even if the statistic shown is strictly correct, that doesn't necessarily elucidate the related question "are protestants' relationships more or less successful than atheists'?". -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 22:09, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Think first, what kind of document would link together divorce and religious self-identification? And then who would have access, to tot them all up for you? Tweaked "numbers" shouldn't be "proving" your pre-set expectations.--Wetman (talk) 22:15, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Religioustolerance.org isn't run by Scientologists; but nevertheless they aren't 100% neutral, and at least for Christianity, often have a childishly simplistic understanding of various controversies. Adam Bishop (talk) 00:37, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Marriage for Christians is habitual and customary, but for atheists...they really don't care either way, apart from the financial benefits, so it is rather more a mockery and asking the question is mockery of marriage, as much as infidelity in any Christian relationship. It is sort of like the effectiveness of deviant sexuality practitioners and the myth of "marriage" on that basis, or putting a European appliance plug into an American electrical outlet.  Some people just don't know what is appropriate or fitting.  70.171.239.21 (talk) 08:52, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The institution of marriage predates christianity, and has meaning outside it. Marriage is an important part of the lives of many atheists. Algebraist 13:12, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Let me see if I understand you correctly, 70.171.239.21. Are you claiming only Christians can appreciate marriage? Are you saying that infidelity is commonplace in non-Christian marriages? Are you equating non-Christian heterosexual marriages with homosexual marriages? Are you even aware of how ridiculously pompous you make yourself sound? TomorrowTime (talk) 19:41, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Countless church weddings end up in divorce. Christianity or atheism has nothing to do with it. Commitment and respect are the keys to success, not being a habit or being customary. And there's another factor: In the old days, people stayed in soured marriages because they felt like they had no choice. Now, they do. Women holding jobs and being able to survive without a male breadwinner has a lot to do with it. As Alan King once said, "Divorce was a luxury, that few could afford." Now, they can. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 19:51, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


 * To say that atheists don't care either way is inaccurate, and silly to the point of stupidity. There are plenty of atheists who are hopeless romantics and have a very idealized idea of marriage, for example. It's just that they don't think that an omnipotent imaginary friend cares about whether people stay married. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 10:37, 3 August 2009 (UTC)