Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2009 August 19

= August 19 =

Queen Rania of Jordan
Wow, is she one of the politician's wife. Seriously, she went to WEP? I've saw her meeting with Abdoulaye Wade, have she meet other African national leader or just Wade. Becasue WEF participants is at least 5 African politicians at South Africa, or Queen Rania have met all the African politicians. I don't see her wth other African politicians on Google images.--69.229.39.33 (talk) 00:59, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * She is not the wife of a politician, exactly, she is the wife of the King of Jordan, Abdullah II. Jordan is not an African country, and monarchs of modern constitutional monarchies are usually not called politicians, and are often considered "above" everyday politics, although the actual degree of political power they exercise varies from country to country and the reality may differ.
 * Since Abdullah and Raina have been married for over 16 years, she has probably met most if not all of the African national leaders who have visited Jordan during that time. It is likely that she has also accompanied Abdullah on many if not most or all of any overseas visits he might have made to African nations, and similarly would have almost certainly met the leaders of those nations on those occasions. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 11:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * She probably have met John Kufuor.--69.229.39.33 (talk) 03:48, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Found it list of attendees. Simple text google search is effective. They dn't have to been seen on google image.--69.229.39.33 (talk) 04:07, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

(Supplementary question transferred from my (87.81.230.195's) talk page. Please don't do that, 69.229.39.33, I have no special interest in or knowledge of these individuals - indeed I had not even heard of them before your first question).

Is this possible when Queen Rania meets Africa leaders like John Kufuor, the two erson in meet don't have to be post on internet image. Could not posting images of two important person in meet be for a safety issue? Do internet not have to show Queen Rania with Mwai Kibaki together?--69.229.39.33 (talk) 22:29, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It's difficult to see how posting an image of any such meeting happening in any public place would be a safety/security problem: by the time the image appears the meeting will be over, so it could not be, for example, the target of an attack. If all or part of the meeting takes place inside some building that itself should not be shown in case its security is compromised, then those controlling the security of the meeting will not allow pictures to be taken, or if taken for some official purpose, released.
 * I suppose it's possible that if some people have a reason to strongly object to such a meeting, someone could use a picture of it as part of their propaganda, but most such meetings are official and publicly acknowledged events, not secret, so suppressing pictures of them might itself be a counterproductive move.
 * As for your other questions - which seem to boil down to the same question repeated - no, of course "the internet" does not have to have such images posted on it. The Internet is not a single entity run by a particular body, it is the collective name we give to the link-up of many, many different and independent systems which have no overall common "rules" except the purely technical ones that ensure the links are possible. Nor is it an official Journal of record: some individual journals of record may, now or in the future, be placed on the internet; however, it is unlikely that any journal of record has to publish any particular image, as opposed to information in text form. Any image appears "on the internet" only because someone, somewhere has chosen to post it. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 05:55, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

What novel was this?
I remember reading a novel where the main subject gets shipwrecked on an island of dwarfs (they shot him with tiny arrows), and later goes to an island of giants. What was its title? 67.165.107.70 (talk) 04:00, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * That looks very much like Gulliver's Travels by Jonathan Swift. olivier (talk) 04:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That it is. Steewi (talk) 04:06, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * At the risk of waxing pedantic, I'd like to point out that the Lilliputians whom Gulliver encounters aren't anything dwarves. People with dwarfism are very short, true, but they certainly aren't tiny -- it's just that their proportions are different from those of average people. The Lilliputians, by comparison, were actual miniature humans, "less than six inches" in height, with the proportions of an average person. A dwarf could still hold numerous Lilliputians on the palm of his hand. (I realize that the original poster's first language may not be English, which would easily explain his choice of words, but, you know... pedantic.) -- Captain Disdain (talk) 09:29, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Some of the confusion may arise from popular media like the Fleischer cartoon which depicts the Lilliputians as dwarf-like. This is a little off the track, but biologically speaking you would not find 6-inch humans with the same proportions as normal humans. Just as you would not find Brobdingnagians in human proportion. There's a term for this, but I don't recall what it is. Of course, Swift's work was intended to be a satire, not a biology textbook. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 11:46, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * What we have seems to be at Square-cube_law... AnonMoos (talk) 14:15, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * To illustrate Captain Disdain's point: In Brobdingnag the Queen's dwarf stood only thirty feet tall (short in comparison to the regulars, even dwarfed by the nine-year old Glumdalclitch) and tormented Gulliver out of jealousy for being the new short sensation and rendering the dwarf unspectalularly normal-sized. ---Sluzzelin talk  15:41, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, the Lilliputians are a twelfth our height, while the Brobdingnagians are twelve times our height. B00P (talk) 00:30, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That makes conversions simpler if you are using the base 12 imperial measurements. Googlemeister (talk) 13:39, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Order in the next ten minutes!
Quite often a commercial or infomercial will offer a special deal if you call within the next ten minutes, the next twenty minutes, before the end of the infomercial, etc. Does anybody know if they actually enforce these time limits, or is it that it's just a ploy and they give the special offer to everybody? Would they really keep track of every time the ad happens to be aired on every network? --Lazar Taxon (talk) 05:49, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * In the US, it is usually a recommendation (check the fine print) due to this.--droptone (talk) 11:00, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That doesn't seem to be in the slightest related to the question - which was about ordering in the next 10 minutes, not delivery in the next 30 ???83.100.250.79 (talk) 12:39, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Mea cupla, I misread the question.--droptone (talk) 15:50, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the OP is correct - they just offer the "discount" to everyone, as it is actually their official price. It's an encouragement to get you to actually order (quickly, without thinking it through) due to the amazingly über-great deal you'd get (a whole other set FREE?!?!?!?) rather than just ignore it.  You're more likely to just jump the gun and buy it if you think it's time-restricted. ~ Amory ( user  •  talk  •  contribs ) 13:07, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * And if we assume that the "discount" is in fact the standard price, it's worth recasting the offer. Rather than "$19.95, and get a second one free!", the ad should be viewed as "$10 per with a minimum order of $30 (factoring in shipping charges)".  This should be contrasted with buy-one-get-one offers at reputable brick-and-mortar stores.  For example, if my local grocery is advertising two-for-one on chips, I also retain the option of buying one at half cost.  &mdash; Lomn 13:17, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * In other words, if they are pressuring you to buy in the next 10 minutes, it bears further investigation as to the fishiness of the deal. Googlemeister (talk) 13:31, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * One way to answer the question is to find out if advertisers are given exact air times for their commercials. If they are not, then it is highly unlikely that they have a person monitoring the television to start a stopwatch, especially if there is regional variation in the airtime of the commercials.--droptone (talk) 15:50, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I've always taken those ads with a grain of salt. They never say "Only those who call in the next 10 minutes will get the special price".  So, if you call within 10 minutes, you're OK; and if you call later than that, you get exactly the same deal.  It's a ruse to get people to act quickly, by pandering to their assumptions about what the English language actually means. --  JackofOz (talk) 21:01, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Words to Live B y: If someone offers you a deal on Monday that will no longer be good on Tuesday, it wasn't any good on Monday, either. B00P (talk) 00:36, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Often the commercial offering the 10 minute deal goes on for 30 minutes, with the deal included. They also repeat nightly ad nauseam with the same 10-minute offer. I live fairly close to the shop outlet of one such As Seen On TV outfit, and the shop prices seem to match the advertised 10 minutes price; sometimes they are "just out of" one or other "extra free gifts".
 * There are two versions of "two for one" in Australia. "Buy one get one free " means you pay for one; you are not forced to take the second. "Usually $3 now 2 for $4" means you must buy 2 to get that price; buy only one and they charge the $3 single price. So of course for the extra buck everyone buys 2 and they shift more stock (possibly high enough to trigger an even bigger bulk purchasing discount for themselves). - 125.63.157.224 (talk) 15:02, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Relations
Ok, does anybody know the closest relation term form William I of the Netherlands and Francis II, Holy Roman Emperor. The closest I got was third-cousin onced removed; they both descend from Augustus the Younger, Duke of Brunswick-Lüneburg.--Queen Elizabeth II&#39;s Little Spy (talk) 11:19, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Give me until this evening (BST) and I think I'll be able to get you a definitive answer. AlexTiefling (talk) 12:18, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * If you can, can you tell me Philip the Good and Elisabeth, Duchess of Luxembourg's relation.--Queen Elizabeth II&#39;s Little Spy (talk) 12:33, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Francis and William were third cousins, I believe, as they were both great-great-grandchildren of Louis Rudolph and Christine Louise. They were so distantly related that their relation is unnotable. Surtsicna (talk) 12:36, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I've just checked my database, and my calculations agree with yours. Philip the Good and Elizabeth of G&ouml;rlitz were second cousins once removed, since they were both descended from the blind king of Bohemia. AlexTiefling (talk) 21:00, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks both of you. I didn't see that William was also descended from Louis Rudolph.  Also I need someone confirm these others Dukes of Luxembourg.  Maximilian II Emanuel, Elector of Bavaria and Charles VI, Holy Roman Emperor were second cousins.  Maximilian II Emanuel, Elector of Bavaria and Philip V of Spain were first cousin once removed.  Right?--Queen Elizabeth II&#39;s Little Spy (talk) 01:23, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Two more questions unrelated to these others but it about Luxembourg. What happen to the list of Counts on the list wikipedia has?  Was it edited over.  Also why was Charles the Bold numbered Charles II when he was the first duke of Luxembourg with that name.  I changed it but I not sure if its correct. --Queen Elizabeth II&#39;s Little Spy (talk) 01:23, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Social responsibilities
1-I would like to know the exact definition of the social responsibilities? 2-types of social responsibilities with explanation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Damn king (talk • contribs) 11:48, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you be more detailed in your question? As it stands now, this looks an awful lot like a homework assignment, which we do not answer. ~ Amory ( user  •  talk  •  contribs ) 13:10, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Not to mention that it's so vague, the OP seems to think we can read minds. The social respnosibilities in reference to what? Those of professional teachers, politicians, everyday citizens, who? This makes it look even more like homewwork, as it seems that the OP ishiding the context on purpose.


 * Note to non-English speakers, the article "the" is the problem here. It implies the OP wants specific ones, rather than just a definition of social responsibilities, period. I don't know if the person is a native speaker or not, but I have seen this mistake before. it's best to just come out and explain that, though, to avoid confusion.Somebody or his brother (talk) 17:45, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Reasons Behind Structure of Names
In most Western European cultures names are written First Name/Last Name e.g. John Smith. In many Asian cultures (Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Vietnamese) names are written Last Name/First Name e.g. Smith John.

What is the reason behind this difference?

Is there a historical, cultural, or religious reason? Is this the product of two divergent proto-languages? Is the prevalence of the Western European naming convention in other parts of the world (India, Africa, South America) the product of imperialism?

Finally, by world population, which is more common?Havener84 (talk) 13:48, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Some of this is/may be covered at Personal name, or in links from that page. --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:07, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm sure there will be some connection with branching, but such connection will have been masked by borrowing among cultures whose languages do not have the same configuration. As an example of what I'm thinking of, consider that historical Japanese names such as Tokugawa Ieyasu are often read as 'Tokugawa no Ieyasu], with the attributive particle 'no', as though meaning 'Ieyasu of the Tokugawa'. This order (modifier-head) is normal in Japanese grammar, limited in English ("John's story" but not normally "the city's story") and unavailable in French. --ColinFine (talk) 19:07, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * [edit conflict] To answer your questions roughly in order, the reason for the difference is that people in two different parts of the world developed two different ways of ordering names. (Actually, it is more complicated than that. Hungarians independently developed a system in which the surname comes first.)  In the case of East Asia, the practice of putting surnames first probably originated in China in the first centuries CE or so and then spread from there, since Chinese culture was influential in surrounding countries.  In the case of Europe, the convention of placing surnames after given names developed about 1000 years later during the late Middle Ages.  You are right that European colonial powers then spread this convention to the Americas and other regions. Before surnames developed or spread, people had given names and sometimes cognomens or other kinds of appellations to distinguish them from others with the same name (e.g., Jesus of Nazareth).  Still in some parts of the world today, such as Indonesia, Afghanistan, and the Arab world, surnames are far from universal.  Really, I think that the East Asian and Western systems are different by chance.  Some, I think, have argued that the Chinese place more importance on clan or family membership and therefore prioritize the surname by putting it first, whereas more individualistic Westerners place the given name first, but this is hard to prove or disprove.  This difference is unrelated to proto-languages.  The development of surnames came much later than the dates of hypothesized proto-languages.  Also, the Asian naming conventions took root in unrelated languages such as Chinese and Japanese.  Chinese has a similar standard word order to English and German, so syntactical differences don't explain differences in the order of names either.  By world population, the Western pattern is certainly more common.  Marco polo (talk) 19:13, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Plus, there's the deal that not even all of Europe and the Americas has the same system. While most of Northern Europe and especially the Anglophone parts of the world use the simple "First Name + Father's Surname" practice, Iceland still uses the "First Name + Father's First Name + son/dottir" system formerly prevalent in Norse countries, and most of the Hispanophone world uses some varient of the more complex Spanish system.  -- Jayron  32  19:23, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Iceland and Spain do follow the general Western pattern of putting the given name first, which is what the OP asks about. English John Johnson and Icelandic Jan Jansson (or whatever the form is) do not represent entirely independent developments. —Tamfang (talk) 20:53, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * In reference to what Marco polo wrote above about the European naming convention having developed in late Middle Ages, wasn't that, at least in part, influenced by the much earlier Roman naming convention? — Kpalion(talk) 11:26, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * So it's quite non-East-Asiocentric to call it first name and last name -- if they are reversed, they would similarly switch accolades. Given name and surname would be more appropriate, eh?  DRosenbach  ( Talk 17:15, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Then there's the convention in Spanish-speaking countries to include both the father's and mother's name in one's own name. Hence you actually have two surnames. As with Roberto Clemente Walker, for example. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 22:45, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

The first Women suffrage?
Which nation was the first to grant women the right to vote? I know New Zealand is often mentioned (1893), but wasn't that a British colony at the time? Which independent nation was the first?

And, another question: even when it does comes to the right to vote in local elections, colonies, non-independent states etc, was New Zealand the first? I have heard there were areas were women could vote in the 18th-century.--85.226.42.223 (talk) 15:07, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Try Women's suffrage --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:09, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's a good article, but I know articles are always being updated here, so perhaps someone knows more? It doesn't clearly state an answer on either questions: was Sweden (1718) the first independent nation to indroduce woman suffrage? The article only say it is a contestant. And should it also be considered the first nation to grant local suffrage? Or should that be Corsica (1755)? The article doesn't specify. --85.226.42.223 (talk) 15:27, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Probably because definitions like "independent" and "local suffrage" are fuzzy. It is not that it is missing information, so much as ducking the "first" question and not getting drawn into a discussion of what these nebulous terms are. --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you mean nationwide suffrage? Because the US state of Wyoming (which was a territory at the time) granted women the right to vote in 1869, though the rest of the nation did not.  According to Women's suffrage, Australia granted it in 1902, after they were an independent nation (NZ did not become independent until 1907).  Googlemeister (talk) 16:02, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Women's suffrage in New Zealand says that of countries presently independent, New Zealand was the first to give women the vote in modern times.--Shahab (talk) 16:40, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The question of independence is also fuzzy. The 6 British colonies federated in 1901 to create the nation of Australia, but whether it was automatically a new independent nation or still for all intents and purposes a (super-)colony of the UK is very much open to debate.  There is no universally accepted date on which Australia became independent.  Some say it was not truly independent until the adoption of the Statute of Westminster in 1942, backdated to 1939.  Some even say it was not truly independent until the passage of the Australia Acts in 1986! --  JackofOz (talk) 20:54, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Considering that on some issues only the women decided, there's the Iroquois Confederation in the 18th century and possibly as far back as the 16th. B00P (talk) 00:48, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I wonder if Sweden should be considered the first independent nation to grant women local and nationwide suffrage? Sweden had women suffrage during the age of liberty in 1718-1771. --85.226.47.46 (talk) 09:54, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Then there's the question of not just allowing women to vote, but also of allowing them to be elected. South Australia (then still a British colony) was the first place in the world that allowed women to be elected as members. -- JackofOz (talk) 11:01, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Who was actually the first woman elected to a parliament? In Sweden there were women in the local parliaments and city councils in 1907, in Finland in the national perliament in 1917, I think, but perhaps Australia was first?--85.226.44.76 (talk) 13:29, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Someone in Finland in 1905, as far as I know, but Finland was then still a part of the Russian realm, albeit autonomous. When did South Australia allow women to be elected? E.G. (talk) 00:12, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Opportunity cost
Hello good people at the reference desk. I have a question to ask related to economics, and I'm hoping you fine folks could help. It's related to opportunity cost. Now I have read the article on opportunity cost and understand it fully. But my professor of managerial economics has written something about it in a book (published by oxford university press) that I don't really understand. I am reproducing it below and hoping you can explain to me what is meant.

''".... In the above example, economic cost is higher than the accounting cost. Does this always have to be the case? Let' take another situation. Realte Builders has taken earth moving equipment on lease for a period of two years, at a lease rental of Rs. 6000 per year. This rental has to be paid, regardless of whether the equipment is used (or not). The question to be answered is:; How would one cost the machine? A straightforward, accountant's answer would be Rs 6000. However, an economist would not agree with this. The economist would value the machine at its opportunity cost. What would the opportunity cost be? If Relate Builders could sublease it for a year, the lease rental that it would get, say, Rs 3000 per year will be the opportunity cost of the equipment. This is the amount to be foregone if Realte Builders decides to use it itself. It will not be Rs 6000 because that has to be paid regardless of the usage. If they cannot sublease the machine, the opportunity cost would be zero. We now have a case where the accounting cost of the machine is Rs 6000, while the economic cost is either Rs 3000 or nil, depending on whether it can be subleased."''

I cannot understand the last line. At all. How is the economic cost either Rs 3000 or nil? Shouldn't it be Rs. 6000 only (or rather greater, including the opportunity cost of the interest accrued on the sum of Rs. 6000? Many thanks, and apologies for the long question. --ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 15:36, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * If we hang the whole thing on the definition "Opportunity cost is the value of the next best alternative forgone as the result of making a decision", then we can see where your prof is going, and why he is wrong. The next best alternative to possessing the earth-mover, given we have taken the decision to possess it, is to lease it out (hence his 3000 or 0 values - these depend on the market for subleasing the equipment) but we must also consider the additional earth moving costs arising out of not having access to the machine (and this will depend on how much earth moving will be done in the period under consideration, and the marginal cost of alternative earth moving strategies). In short, the value of the next best decision, in this case, is the rental we get plus the additional costs we face. I'm having a bit of difficulty understanding why, even in a simplified example, he neglected to cover the downside costs. But to be clear, the value of 6000 has nothing to do with opportunity cost in the context in which your prof is framing the discussion, though there is clearly a separate Opportunity cost of capital attached to the decision to spend the 6000 on a digger. --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:51, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok so if I understand correctly, the decision to get the earth mover on rent has already been taken. The Rs. 3000 or Rs. 0 figure is the opportunity cost of using the earth mover for building (respectively if it can be subleased or not). For calculating economic cost we ignore the amount already spent due to the decision to take the earth mover on rent - a decision which has already been made. Whereas for calculating accounting cost we take the rs 6000 figure into account. Correct? --ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 16:42, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Our article on sunk costs may help to understand why the Rs.6,000 is irrelevant. DOR (HK) (talk) 01:53, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

How would the Black Plague have impacted Native Americans, Australians?
From the article on the Black Plague, I'm presumng that it didn't reach the Americas, or Australia. My question is, if it had, would the impact have been much different than the other diseases Europeans brought with them? I've often heard that things which weren't as bad for Europeans, such as measles, were pandemics in the Americas. But, my hunch is that it ws really a large combination of many diseases that killed a vast majority of natives - it wasn't any one specific one.

Also, given the travel times of the late 1340s, and the quickness with which that plague spread, I wonder if - provided the lands were discovered before the black Death - ships carrying supplies would have even gotten to the Americas from England, France, etc., before the whole crew perished. (This idea comes becuase it was a discussion on an alternate history board that brought this to mind.)Somebody or his brother (talk) 17:56, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The plague reached Iceland and Greenland, so it's not impossible that it would have reached North America, although by then the Norse were no longer travelling there anyway. I don't know what would have happened, but I don't see why it would have been any less devastating than it was in Europe. Apparently the plague also reached as far south as Cambodia, but at that point there was no contact at all with Australia. Adam Bishop (talk) 18:29, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * What about the sanitary conditions between the two cultures? Wasn't the large population of lower class population in Europe, living in both urban and feudal squalor a significant contributing factor to the extent of devastation?  If so, what kind of conditions were the natives on the undiscovered continents living in?  I know that the population was pretty large before European influence devastated it, but was it comparable to the arguably overpopulated conditions of Europe?  &mdash;Akrabbimtalk 18:53, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Where black rats prevalent in the Americas at the time? I would speculate (since any kind of conclusion to this question would be speculation) that the living conditions of the plains indians with their nomadic ways would have limited exposure to rats and hence disease would have been more limited.  Places like the cities of the Inca or the Aztec would probably have had the same results as European cities like Paris or Bologna.  Non-nomadic peoples who lived in far apart small villages?  I would imagine it as similar to rural villages of Russia but I really don't know.  Googlemeister (talk) 18:59, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, in North America there weren't likely dense enough urban centers to allow for the spread of the plague in the ways it was spread in Europe. However, consider Central America, which had a strong urban culture, and some very large cities, such as those of the Aztec and Mayas.  One could envision that, while plague would have had a hard time taking hold in the Great Plains of North America, it may have been devastating to the urban cultures of Central America.  -- Jayron  32  19:19, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * This may be slightly backwards. By some estimates, the population of North America was sparse because the very first European diseases brought by Vikings and fishermen had already killed off 90% ofthe population before the "first" European explorers ever got here. IF Plague had arrived first, the result would have been the same. -Arch dude (talk) 01:18, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * North America did have a high population, probably much higher than the standard story tends to give it, but what it did not have is urban centers. People in North America tended to live in smallish villages rather than the large cities of Central America.  Remember that by some estimates, Tenochtitlan may have been the largest and most densely populated city in the world at some time; that type of close quarters is exactly what a disease like the Black Death needs to sustain an epidemic.  While there were likely millions of North Americans at the same time, they weren't piled on top of each other in dense cities, they were spread out in small-to-medium sized villages (on the coasts) or lived a transhumant or nomadic lifestyle (in the Plains). -- Jayron  32  01:48, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No the diseases came hundreds of years later during the contact with fisherman and early settlers during the 16th century, not from the Vikings in the 11th. See also Population history of the [[Population history of American indigenous peoples. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 04:02, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks; wow, I didn't realize it reached as far as Greenland and Cambodia. Yes, I hadn't really thought about how spread out and nomadic the Plains cultures were. Probably similar for sub-Saharan Africa, too, I would guess? Although, it does seem to have struck Egypt pretty hard; I'm not sure how far south it went in Africa, either.Somebody or his brother (talk) 20:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * You don't need to have rats to have plague. Any small mammals work pretty well. Hence most cases of plague today in the US are caused by gophers and squirrels and things like that. But yeah, I'm not sure the population density was high enough to sustain a pandemic. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 01:36, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I also wonder whether the native Americans would have tried to kill off all the cats, like the Europeans did for superstitious reasons, and possibly allowed the rodent population to grow. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 11:36, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't recall ever seeing a domesticated cat in any Westerns. Googlemeister (talk) 13:37, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You don't need domestic cats to hold the rodent population down, just various predators - which might not have existed in the cities of Europe, especially after they tried to rub out all the cats. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 13:50, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Aren't house-cats are old-world animals? I suppose they could go after ocelots. APL (talk) 20:29, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm saying that the superstition that led to killing off so many cats may have contributed to the massive death toll among humans - which is poetic justice of a sort. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 11:59, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

(undent) To answer specifically the question about whether it would have been worse, those realities come from the fact that when the Europeans introduced various disease to the Americans, it was the first time anyone in the Western Hemisphere had seen them. Europeans had been dealing with various iterations of the same diseases for the better part of two millenia (for the most part - the Black Death was a big exception) and so had developed levels of resistance, lessening the effects. The Americans had no such chance, and were thus rapidly exposed to new, highly-virulent diseases, and as such had no chance to build up resistances over hundreds of years. ~ Amory ( user •  talk  •  contribs ) 13:44, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The reverse also happened to some degree. Thank the new world for syphilis.  Googlemeister (talk) 15:54, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The black plague reached Australia in the early nineteenth century. The seat of government at Sydney Town was abandoned (except for dockworkers) and was moved to Parramatta. Sleigh (talk) 10:18, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Map of Napoleon's trails
Does anyone have a map of Napoleon Bonaparte's conquests during his lifetime similar to this one of Alexander? File:MacedonEmpire.jpg I've googled for one but tend to just get maps of his empire or specific battle plans. Alientraveller (talk) 18:15, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The maps exist for specific campaigns, such as his russian campaign or his eqyptian campaign. See this google image search.  Its a start.  -- Jayron  32  19:15, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Slightly off subject, Charles Minard's flow chart is a wonderful visualization of the Russian campaign. DOR (HK) (talk) 01:58, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It's not too detailed, but in Colin McEvedy's Penguin Atlas of Modern History there's a map of Europe in 1812, which gives you a reasonable idea of Napoleon's realm at its high water mark... AnonMoos (talk) 16:59, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

white people to have a darker skin tone
Is this possible for white people to have a darker skin tone? Sometimes black people is consider as "Color people" because some of them is not too black. Is Asian consider as white or "non-whites"--69.229.39.33 (talk) 22:53, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Skin coloration is determined by melanin, which is largely determined by genes; see the human skin color article for details. Referring to Asians as "white" or otherwise is a cultural viewpoint; see the Race (classification of human beings) article.  Tempshill (talk) 00:06, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It could well be a political thing - the Taiwanese were classified as "whites" under Apartheid South Africa, while the mainland Chinese as "coloured", even though both belong (almost entirely) to the same ethnic group (Han Chinese). The reason is that South Africa had relations with the Republic of China (Taiwan), and the Taiwanese were frequent investors in the country, whereas it did not have relations with the People's Republic of China (mainland China). --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 00:29, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * In the US, there was actually a Supreme Court case on the question of whether Asians were "white." In Takao Ozawa v. United States (1922), the Court ruled that for the purpose of immigration laws, when they said "white", they meant the more technical term, "Caucasian," and thus Japanese weren't "white". Then, in United States v. Bhagat Singh Thind (1923), when an Indian argued that according to anthropologists, Indians were "Caucasian," the Court then said that when they said "Caucasian," they really meant "white". Good ol' American justice. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 01:20, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think those were both good decisions. The court is saying, in both cases, "we all know what is intended by the terminology, stop trying to game the system". Of course, if were writing the laws the colour of someone's skin wouldn't get a mention, but that isn't the point. --Tango (talk) 01:32, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, it's kinda the point. The decisions basically point to an arbitrariness of the definition, which isn't very good from a legal standpoint, whatever it is. It's basically an equivalent of "I can't define whiteness, but I know it when I see it," which while amusing (in the case of obscenity), is actually pretty problematic from the point of view of the law. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 15:35, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * (ec) Tempshill pretty much explained it. It's all about genes, so one daughter may be a relatively olive color while another can be extremely pale.  It's not to difficult, all-in-all, to have someone who looks to be of African descent actually be about 70% European, or vice-versa.  There have been plenty of cases of this being found out due to genetic testing.  Terms such as "White" or "Colored" or "Asian" are subject to national, cultural, and social inertia, and so are not accurate measures.  They try and group people, when really it's just a very wide-ranging spectrum. ~ Amory ( user  •  talk  •  contribs ) 01:25, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not all about genes - tanning can make a significant different to skin colour, at least for "whites". --Tango (talk) 01:32, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Heh. "No, honey, I swear it wasn't the delivery man/milkman/pool boy/hot guy at the bar, our baby is just got a tan!" ~ Amory ( user  •  talk  •  contribs ) 13:31, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

The pseudo-scientific "race-scientists" of the late 19th and early 20th centuries divided the "Caucasian" race into the "Nordic", "Alpine", "Mediterranean", and sometimes "Semitic" sub-races, with "Semitic" tending towards black in parts of northern and north-western Africa. Also, the Nazis supposedly declared the Japanese to be "honorary Aryans" in the 1930s... AnonMoos (talk) 01:29, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Honorary Aryan. Bus stop (talk) 01:38, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Is Vin Diesel white or black? The line between the two "races" is entirely arbitrary, and even amongst so-called "pure-blooded Europeans" you get very dark skin (e.g. the dark olive complexion that is not uncommon in the Mediterrean region). "Whiteness" is a cultural construct with only limited appeal to actual skin color. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 01:33, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. Science rejected the concept of race as a useful classification some time ago. It is sometimes useful to use race as an easy way to describe certain socio-economic groups, but that's it. --Tango (talk) 01:43, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That is not true that the concept of "race" is entirely scientifically rejected (though it may not be used by scientists in the same way it is used by the average layperson). There are a number of studies that suggest it is an effective, and far from arbitrary, way of grossly classifying our genetic admixtures. The eminent biologist, Armand Marie Leroi argued this case in a New York Times Op Ed:
 * "Race is merely a shorthand that enables us to speak sensibly, though with no great precision, about genetic rather than cultural or political differences. But it is a shorthand that seems to be needed. One of the more painful spectacles of modern science is that of human geneticists piously disavowing the existence of races even as they investigate the genetic relationships between "ethnic groups"."
 * His full reasoning for why "race matters" can be read here. There is also a really interesting special issue of Nature Genetics that discusses this very subject (see here). The accompanying commentary introduces that issue, thusly:
 * "Discourse on the validity of 'racial' categorization in humans is certainly not new and will perhaps continue for generations to come, taking on various forms as new scientific and nonscientific knowledge emerges. Shifts have occurred over time from a purely anthropological or biological debate to conversations about numerous psychosocial, societal, ethical and legal ramifications indicative of the undeniable applicability of the topic of 'race' to virtually every aspect of human existence."
 * In short, the scientific debate continues. Rockpock  e  t  07:41, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Richard Dawkins discusses this very topic in his book The Ancestor's Tale. He calls it the tyranny of the discontinuous mind, in that humans have a hard time accepting that certain things don't have rigid boundaries and we tend to extrapolate boundaries even when no such boundaries exist, including in human races. You can actually read some of the relevant chapter in this Google Preview of the book. Vespine (talk) 02:23, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Dawkins himself is about as white as they come. Race and culture and language and religion are all interesting entities that should theoretically be neutral, but countless humans have used them to put down other humans - including when they get it wrong. Babe Ruth was thought by many to have "Negro blood" in his ancestry, and was often called by race-baiting names, despite the fact his ancestors all came from Germany and were simply darker complected than the average northern European. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 11:16, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Bugs, in what way is Dawkins' own ethnicity relevant to his espousal of the concept of the tyranny of the discontinuous mind, and how do your further observations, valid in themselves, relate to it? I ask because while you may well have some logical argument in mind, I'm unable to discern it. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 08:31, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Just as he ridicules the importance of religion, he also ridicules the importance of race. By "importance" I mean their perceived importance in human culture everywhere. And ironically he is the product of a particularly supremacist culture, which is not his fault, but it's still the way it is. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 11:57, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, I see your thrust, and broadly agree, but while Dawkins' culture of origin - white British-colonial Kenya - can reasonably be described as "a particularly supremacist culture", don't you think that his expressed views demonstrate his transcendance of it? I suggest that your observation "Dawkins himself is about as white as they come" was perhaps over-elliptical and open to adverse misinterpretation. Apologies that this is beginning to veer towards a debate and away from the original topic. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 07:02, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Going strictly for the second half of your original question — at least in the USA, most Asians are not generally considered white. This depends, of course, on the origin of the Asian individual in question: the US Census Bureau's definition of race (which is used throughout the US government) counts Arabs as White, and of course a Russian (by nationality, not necessarily a citizen of the Russian Federation) is White regardless of whether he's from Kaliningrad or from Petropavlovsk.  "Asian" is defined as being "A person having origins in any of the original peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia, or the Indian subcontinent including, for example, Cambodia, China, India, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Pakistan, the Philippine Islands, Thailand, and Vietnam. It includes 'Asian Indian,' 'Chinese,' 'Filipino,' 'Korean,' 'Japanese,' 'Vietnamese,' and 'Other Asian.'".  Sorry that I can't help with the first part of your question.  Nyttend (talk) 03:36, 23 August 2009 (UTC)