Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2009 March 10

= March 10 =

Louis H. Sullivan's Charnley House Architecture Influence from Germany
I saw a large Architecture coffee table book a few years ago, that had a photo of the Charnley house, and then a description of German Residential architecture in a upper middle class Berlin Neighborhood in 1860's, that influenced the Charnely House. Does anyone know what area that was? Thanks for any help —Preceding unsigned comment added by Srader (talk • contribs) 01:19, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Arabs in Bangladesh
Are Palestinians the only Arabs in Bangladesh? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.119.105 (talk) 02:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * There are very few Arabs in Bangladesh; note that Arabs are not even mentioned in Demographics of Bangladesh or Ethnic groups of Bangladesh. Nor is Bangladesh mentioned in Palestinian people as one of the main countries where Palestinians are found. My inclination is to answer "no" to your question, because it seems very unlikely that there are some Palestinians in the country and zero of any other Arab nationality, although I have no statistics to answer the question specifically. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:20, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

What nationality?
I'm looking through a set of photos on the Telegraph website, about an increase in security around Tibet. Now, this photo seems to clearly say "Nepal Police", despite the captioning. Based on that, this also seems to be a photo of Nepali police officers. Could experts give an opinion on which of these photographs actually show Tibet (as opposed to Nepal or India)? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 08:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * If it helps at all, the Alt-text of both images refers to Tibetan Buddhists and Nepalese police in Kathmandu --Saalstin (talk) 14:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Further alt-text checking yields the following locations for each photo number: China: 1, Kathmandu: 2,5,6,7,8,9,12, Dharamsala: 3,9,11,13,14, Tibet: 10,15,16,17 --Saalstin (talk) 14:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * There have been several protests in Nepal for Tibetan independence, most of which have been dealt with harshly. So basically, the images are of Nepalese police, in Nepal, but are part of the same clampdowns on protesters as in China. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 16:48, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The Telegraph (UK) says:
 * 1: "A Tibetan Buddhist prostrates himself before the Bouddhanath stupa",
 * 2: "Nepalese policemen stand guard as Tibetan Buddhist monks attend Kora prayers at Bauddhanath Stupa in Kathmandu". --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 16:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I should've been looking at the alt text, not the textual caption. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 21:34, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

was america the first modern democracy?
was America the first modern (17th-18th c.) country to develop as a democracy? or did it follow democracies elsewhere (where?) Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.230.64.67 (talk) 10:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Democracy chandler · 10:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * See also American Exceptionalism. Malcolm XIV (talk) 10:27, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * History of democracy is probably a better link.
 * The path to democracy was a long slow one, from the oligarchies of Venice to the 18th and 19th century democracies which restricted suffrage by race, gender, or wealth, to the present day, so while the USA has a claim, it's hard to say which was the first modern democracy; the United Kingdom (England and Scotland before 1707) had a functioning parliament since the 17th century, but not everyone could vote. The short-lived Corsican Republic founded in 1755 has a strong claim to precede the USA. --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 10:47, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, England's first elected parliament was in the 13th century. And it's worth bearing in mind that "not everyone could vote" also applies to the United States until the 20th century. Malcolm XIV (talk) 11:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

maybe you guys missed it but I said first MODERN democracy, and I meant 1600s-1700s not the middle ages. By this standard it seems the anwer is "yes" (for example your "to the 18th and 19th century democracies" refers, first, to America, doesn't it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.230.64.67 (talk) 11:49, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * If you constrain the terms "modern" and "democracy" sufficiently enough, you can make a case for America being the first modern democracy. But its an "ex-post-facto" distinction, created to give substance to American exceptionalism.  With the exception of universal adult sufferage (which America was NOT the first nation to enact, Norway had America beat by 7 years) all of the aspects of the American Democracy existed in other nations earlier than America was formed, often by centuries.  As noted, the idea of the elected assembly existed in Europe for hundreds of years before the Europeans even knew about the Western Hemisphere, Parliament first met in the 13th century, and the French Estates-General met for the first time in 1302.  Elected executives existed in the Dutch Republic in the 1580's (Stadtholder), and federalism in the same, as well as in Switzerland from 1291.  Nearly every aspect of the American system existed elsewhere earlier.

One might be able to make a case that it was the first country with an elected executive AND elected legislature AND universal adult sufferage all at once, but that only happened in 1920, and other countries (which later reverted to dictatorships) would meet all three criteria a few years earlier. --Jayron32. talk . contribs 12:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * "First modern" makes no sense unless there was significant gap during which there were no democracies (which I don't believe there was), otherwise the first modern democracy is just the first one to occur during the the period you define as being "modern". --Tango (talk) 13:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I see where you're going with this. But during the middle ages there WAS a gap, it seems, at least to read the responses.  Or are there 1400s and 1500s democracies America was fashioned after?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.230.64.67 (talk) 14:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no gap in the history of democracy in, for example, the United Kingdom, the Venetian Republic or the Dutch Republic between the Middle Ages and the "Modern" period. If you genuinely want an informative answer, please read the articles referenced above; if you just want an argument, take it elsewhere. This is not the place to start discussions or debates. ˜˜˜˜ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.251.196.62 (talk) 14:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * At the time of the American War of Independence Britain had a well established functioning parliament. "No taxation without representation" was not a complaint that nobody had representation, just that the American colonies didn't have enough. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Did the American colonies have any representation in parliament? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Not directly, I don't think. Whether they needed direct representation in order to have some form of representation was a topic of active debate at the time. Most Americans obviously believed they did; Parliament itself seemed to be on the fence about it. --140.247.251.34 (talk) 16:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * No Taxation without Representation mentions virtual representation. Our article actually tells people to "google search 'declatory act imperial representation' "  Jeez. . A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The recent democratic experiment that was in the forefront of American consciousness in the 1770s was that of Pasquale Paoli in Corsica.--Wetman (talk) 14:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm surprised no one has mentioned female suffrage (in case that was the 1920 reference). It seems that no definition of 'modern' democracy could stand without that. The USA was of course, behind NZ and doubtless a few others..81.140.37.58 (talk) 17:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Short answer to the original question: No. None of the democracy articles mention the Tynwald, possibly because elections only began in 1866. You could argue that the US is still not a democracy, as many people are barred from voting. 89.242.99.255 (talk) 17:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Barred from voting in the US? Like who?  Children, felons and those too lazy to go vote?  12.216.168.198 (talk) 17:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I've heard that anyone convicted of a crime in the US is banned for life from voting, which I understand in some neighbourhoods makes up a large portion of the population. On this side of the pond, criminals are only barred from voting while in prison - once released they can vote again. 78.146.23.195 (talk) 01:29, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It really varies quite a bit between the different states, and misdemeanors usually have no effect... AnonMoos (talk) 01:34, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Non-citizens, too. (Some of them, anyway - I'm not sure about the US, can non-citizen residents vote at all? Local elections, maybe?) --Tango (talk) 17:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

The range of political systems [in the period c.1650–1789] was far greater than most textbooks allow. In the "Age of Absolutism", absolutist states actually formed a minority. Between completely decentralized, constitutional, and republican confederation of Switzerland at one end of the scale and the extreme autocracies in Russia, the Ottoman Empire, and the Papal States at the other, great variety flourished. Europe’s republics were represented by Venice, Poland-Lithuania, and the United Provinces; the constitutional monarchies at various times by England, Scotland, and Sweden; the absolutist monarchies by France, Spain, and Austria. The Holy Roman Empire, with monarch both elected and hereditary, fell somewhere in between the republic and the constitutional monarchies; Prussia which operated constitutional structures according to an authoritarian tradition, fell somewhere between constitutionalism and absolutism. Even greater variety can be found among Europe’s Kleinstaaterei – the hundreds of petty states which the younger Pitt would once call in exasperation "the swarm of gnats". There were miniature city-republics like Ragusa, Genoa, or Geneva; there were miniature principalities like Courland; ecclesiastical states like Avignon, and curious hybrids like Andorra. &mdash; Kpalion(talk) 18:07, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I have trouble with the term "universal adult suffrage", because the term "adult" is itself widely open to interpretation. Is that 21 ?  Or 18 ?  Or something else ?  In former times, people much younger than that were able to marry and form households.  And how about those outside the normal mental aging process ?  Can the mentally retarded be considered to never be "mental adults", and thus barred from voting, at any age ?  And does a genius who obtains a college degree at age 12 also deserve the right to vote then ? StuRat (talk) 18:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I think what the phrase really means is "suffrage not dependant on race, gender or wealth" - plenty of other factors are considered, so it is rarely completely universal. It's not a good term... --Tango (talk) 18:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The U.S. didn't actually have fairly uniform unqualified white male adult suffrage across the various different states until Andrew Jackson's time (or until after the Dorr Rebellion in the case of Rhode Island). AnonMoos (talk) 19:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what "modern democracy" particularly means, but the U.S. was the first geographically large-scale democracy (i.e. whose electoral base was not confined to a single city-state or a small geographic area) whose electorate also extended significantly beyond a relatively small economic elite. Obviously it built on the then limited example of British parliamentarism, as well as the colonial experience in North America, with some allusions and influences from the early Roman Republic and ancient Athens. AnonMoos (talk) 19:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * You can't choose to limit democracy by excluding those countries or states whose geographic size happens ro be smaller than America. As others have said don't try to limit the definition to fit the answer you want. Tmol42 (talk) 19:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Dude, what are you angry about? — Ed 17  (Talk /  Contribs)  19:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Whatever, dude -- I don't particularly understand the original question, and I frankly doubt whether the original question really has any very precise meaning to be understood, so I chose to limit the parameters to something which actually has a definite answer. And I didn't say anything about states "smaller than America"[sic] -- I was referring to entities much larger than a city-state, a Swiss canton, or a Netherlandish province... AnonMoos (talk) 19:24, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Of course you bar non-citizens from voting. Otherwise, what is to stop the US from sending 10 million people to Alberta during elections and vote to secede from Canada and join the US so that the US gets all that oil?  65.167.146.130 (talk) 19:28, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * First, provinces don't have the right to secede any more than US states do. Which is not to say that it would not be allowed in the presence of bona fide popular support, as Sweden did with Norway.
 * But as long as non-residents are not allowed to vote, immigration controls would block any such strategy.
 * Since we're talking about Canada, I should also note that non-citizens were allowed to vote until 1975 if they were Canadian residents who were "British subjects", which basically means citizens of any place in the British Commonwealth. (That's more a measure of the gradualness of Canadian independence than anything else.  Canadian citizenship didn't even exist as a distinct category until 1947.)
 * --Anonymous, 17:00 UTC, March 10, 2009.


 * I'm a resident in New Zealand, but not a citizen. I regularly vote in elections here. The idea of prohibiting residents from voting seems very strange and undemocratic to me.- gadfium 20:29, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * In many parts of the U.S. during much of the 19th century, foreigners who were permanent residents (and so presumably on the path to naturalization) were allowed to vote in local and municipal elections (but not in statewide or federal elections). This was elminated largely towards the end of the 19th-century as part of the wave of reforms aimed at diminishing the power of city political bosses (and also because at that time recent immigrants were skewing heavily towards eastern and southern Europe).  It was one of several "Progressive" reforms of the period which don't necessarily always seem truly progressive with modern hindsight... AnonMoos (talk) 04:40, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

It's worth noting here, perhaps, that the Founding Fathers of the United States didn't really think in terms of founding a democracy; they sought to create a republic. Advocates of republicanism worried that government by democracy might become a "mobocracy" or a tyranny of the majority. It's been argued that Thomas Paine was the only Founder who advocated democracy in the modern sense of the term. But by finally getting rid of lords and kings and other medieval leftovers of a deferential society guided by hereditary rule--a process already begun in Britain--the Founders created the conditions for democracy to emerge. —Kevin Myers 21:41, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * We'll have to work hard to define the words "modern", "country" and "democracy" to allow the US to be the first. They were slow to offer universal suffrage, for a start.  And, as  pointed out above, they still restrict voting to citizens, where most democracies allow residents to vote. They were not the first modern republic, and their democratic method was based on the systems already in place in Europe.  They did not invent democracy, nor were they the first to implement it.  However, the US were the first to introduce the US constitution.  Gwinva (talk) 22:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * "Most democracies allow residents [rather than only citizens] to vote" is not what it says at Right of foreigners to vote, although that article could use a summary section with some actual statistics. --Anonymous, 02:36 UTC, March 12, 2009.


 * Well, no shit... But they were not the first to introduce a "constitution" in the sense of a single governing document that outlined the organization and role of the government. The Constitution of San Marino was laid out in 1600.  The Zaporizian Cossacks wrote one in 1710, though it failed to go into effect when they failed in their bid for an independant Ukrainian state.  Corsica had one in 1755, which established a fully republican form of government.  Once again, the U.S. wasn't the first, though we certainly brag like we are.  --Jayron32. talk . contribs  22:23, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, sarcasm doesn't work well in text form. I was merely trying to show that to make the US the "first" we'll have to narrow the definition down until it applies, well, only to the US. Gwinva (talk) 01:33, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Doh! Sorry about that!  --Jayron32. talk . contribs  04:52, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Lots of monarchies (which had some sort of assembly) and republics are listed as shining examples of democracy preceding the U.S. What percentage of the U.S. citizens were eligible to vote in 1789 (considering lack of women's suffrage, and the exclusion of any other categories, such as slaves, felons and those failing literacy tests or not paying a poll tax? By the same measure, what percentage of British subjects in the UK were eligible to vote? Same question applies to other predecessor democracies at the founding of the U.S. under its then and present Constitution? The article Parliament of Great Britain says "Candidates for the House of Commons stood as Whigs or Tories, but once elected formed shifting coalitions of interests rather than splitting along party lines.  At general elections the vote was restricted to property owners, in constituencies which were out of date and did not reflect the growing importance of manufacturing towns or shifts of population, so that in rotten boroughs seats could be bought or were controlled by rich landowners, while major cities remained unrepresented." See also Rotten and pocket boroughs and Old Sarum (UK Parliament constituency), an uninhabited hill which belonged to the Pitt family, and whose owner was entitled to send two representatives to the House of Commons until 1832. The recognized right to openly buying the right to a seat in the national assembly was not a good exemplar of democracy. Edison (talk) 22:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Britain was a relatively shining example of a persistent representative form of government able (after 1689) to impose certain limits on arbitrary executive power, but before 1832 the whole representative basis of parliament was extremely erratic and slipshod, and until 1867 and later, very few people would have claimed that Britain was already a democracy, and rather few people among the political elites even thought that democracy was a good thing... AnonMoos (talk) 01:16, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

There is some conventional wisdom (or maybe it's just a cliché in some circles) saying that the US is the world's second-oldest democracy, with Switzerland as #1. 207.241.239.70 (talk) 03:09, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Some might say that there was no real Swiss national government (democratic or undemocratic) until 1848... AnonMoos (talk) 04:40, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

First female dentist
Who was the first female dentist? --85.226.44.201 (talk) 11:41, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * In America, Lucy Hobbs Taylor. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 12:47, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * And Europe? Perhaps Amalia Assur?--85.226.44.201 (talk) 13:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

why would blondes be "dumb"?
I don't get where the stereotype comes from, any ideas? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.230.64.67 (talk) 12:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I think it's probably more that "dumb" people dye their hair blonde - blonde is, for some reason, considered prettier than other colours and "dumb" people are more likely that other people to care about fitting into pretty stereotypes. "Dumb" in this context tends to mean "naive" more than anything. --Tango (talk) 13:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't really think the dumb blonde stereotype has anything to do with dying hair. Our article Dumb blonde offers some information on it, but doesn't really get into its origins. Tomdobb (talk) 15:29, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * In modern culture, the "blonde bimbo" stereotype was exploited by Hollywood in the 50s (if not earlier). Once you start a stereotype, selection bias will keep it going.  No matter how many smart blondes or dumb brunettes a person meets, only the dumb blondes are noticed, which continues the stereotype. --  k a i n a w &trade; 15:34, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with the hair dye cause. Another factor is that very few people in the US (where I believe this stereotype originated) have naturally blond hair.  Therefore, of all those people who have blond hair, a large portion have dyed it.  If people who dye their hair are more concerned with appearance than developing their intelligence, then this could, indeed, mean that the average blond has a less developed intelligence.  This would not, of course, apply to that portion of the blond population which is naturally blond.  Another factor is that some of those women who dye their hair blond may actually be intelligent, but may choose to act stupid, as this goes along with the image of themselves they are trying to project.  And, finally, some intelligent, naturally blond women may opt to dye their hair darker, if they feel this is necessary to overcome the stereotype of having people think of them as stupid.  This would further deplete the blond population of intelligent specimens. StuRat (talk) 18:28, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * After the fun I had writing Long hair, I'm tempted to try a hand at the Dumb blonde article. Wrad (talk) 18:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * After a little bit of research, the best I could come up with was that the modern stereotype seems to stem from the book Gentlemen Prefer Blondes and its subsequent movie version. Tomdobb (talk) 18:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That would have been my guess. The modern stereotype seems to have been popularized by Marilyn Monroe, who was probably influenced by the dimwitted showgirl type played so well by Judy Holliday. Gracie Allen probably helped established the stereotype too. —Kevin Myers 21:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I would be extremely interested to see some numbers or research to back up this "hair dye" theory. I don't agree with it at all, but I do see Kainaw's explanantion as more valid. 10draftsdeep (talk) 21:29, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The "dumb blond" stereotype was in newspapers by 1927, when the Chicago Tribune said " A large beautifu and dumb blonde was visiting on the set." In 1938 the Chicago Tribune said "the day of the dumb blonde is done" The Los Angeles Times in 1941 said in a story "Mr. DWG and the B. but D. Blonde, "A large beautiful and dumb blond was visiting on the set." The Los Angeles Times in 1941 said"The strictly Dumb Blonde days are slipping into history." There are a number of cites from the 1920's and 1930's referring to the stereotype. Edison (talk) 22:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The hair dye theory is mostly anecdotal - most dumb blondes I've met have been dyed blondes. --Tango (talk) 00:01, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That sounds like OR to me, but since I live with a very intelligent natural blonde I guess I would be guilty as well if I stated my experience. cheers, 10draftsdeep (talk) 00:47, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Even if a person's hair is naturally blond when she is young, doesn't it typically turn brown by the time she is an adult, requiring chemical assistance to keep it as "blonde" as it was in the teen years? Edison (talk) 15:36, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Sometimes, not always. Some adults are naturally blonde. --Tango (talk) 16:31, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Dow Jones
I've just been reading Dow Jones Industrial Average, and it seems to me that the Dow Jones is an almost completely meaningless measure of the market. A stock split should never be able to affect an index, since it's nothing more than an accounting fudge to make things more convenient, yet it will affect the Dow Jones Industrial Average - the scaling is adjusted to prevent any immeadiate effect, but from then on the DJIA will have a different value than it would have done without the split. To give an extreme example, assume two stocks, each worth $1/share with the scale factor set at 2, so the DJIA is 1. Now one of those shares has a 100:1 split, making it's price $0.01/share, in order to keep the DJIA at 1 the scale factor is adjusted to 1.01. Now the price of the other stock goes up to $2 (while the other stays unchanged), the DJIA is now 1.99. Had the stock split not happened the DJIA would have been 1.5. Am I misunderstanding something, or is the DJIA really such a meaningless number? --Tango (talk) 14:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't quite get the scaling factor of 1.01. Can you explain that ?  Here is what I would expect would happen both ways:

WITHOUT THE SPLIT/BEFORE RISE | WITH THE SPLIT/BEFORE RISE - | --- Stock A = $1.00 × 0.5 = 0.5  | Stock A = $1.00 ×  0.5 = 0.5 Stock B = $1.00 × 0.5 = 0.5  | Stock B = $0.01 × 50.0 = 0.5 ---  |                          ---                         1.0   |                          1.0                               | WITHOUT THE SPLIT/AFTER RISE  | WITH THE SPLIT/AFTER RISE | -- Stock A = $2.00 × 0.5 = 1.0  | Stock A = $2.00 ×  0.5 = 1.0 Stock B = $1.00 × 0.5 = 0.5  | Stock B = $0.01 × 50.0 = 0.5 ---  |                          ---                         1.5   |                          1.5


 * So, either way, the DOW would go up 50%. Perhaps you are thinking they scale the entire DOW up or down, due to a split, when I would assume they only change the weighting factor on that particular stock.  See weighted average. StuRat (talk) 18:07, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * If I'm interpreting Dow Jones Industrial Average correctly, they really do scale the whole thing. The average isn't weighted. That's what seems to make it meaningless. --Tango (talk) 18:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Your calculation is correct. But note that it is quite an extreme example. The DJIA contains 30 large companies and you won't expect their stock price to double very often. But it does show that using price-weighted indices to establish trends are not very useful in volatile times. Some other drawbacks are the unrepresentative sample and additional weight given to high-priced stocks. But if you assume that people who trade in this index understand its divisor fully (I believe they do) then it is useful (to them) - it's useful to use to bet on the companies in it. But using it to measure the health of the economy is wrong. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 18:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Yet many people use it for that purpose. It's commonly reported as the standard measure of what is going on in the US markets. --Tango (talk) 23:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * While it's reasonable to use it to show short-term changes in the market (say over the last year), it's not nearly as good over the long term (say 50 years). StuRat (talk) 15:09, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, since it is easy to keep track of the changes to the divisor, I have seen studies that showed trends of the DJIA after adjusting for any changes - but not anywhere near 50 years. It's normally included for interest, in addition to one of the other more diversified indices. Also, it is useful to know how the DJIA performed on a certain day/week for an idea of the performance of the large companies on that day/week. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 18:13, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

It matters less whether a measure is accurate, than whether it is consistent. The measurement may be flawed, but if the flaw is consistent then the changes in that measurement can be trusthworthy. 194.221.133.226 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:15, 11 March 2009 (UTC).
 * But it isn't consistent - a minor accounting change can change the measurement. It isn't that the data isn't trustworthy, it's just that it is meaningless. The average all the per share prices, scaled by a certain amount definitely is that number, but who cares? --Tango (talk) 16:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Just becuase it is less than 100% logically consistent, it doesn't mean it is meaningless. See fuzzy logic, for example.
 * The US seems to be very good at patching up something anachronistic which really doesn't work very well and keeping it spinning for *years*. Like the whole floor trading business, for example. And Imperial measures. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 21:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

IMMIGRENT VISA


WHY IS A IMMIGRENT VISA CALLED A GREEN CARD WHEN IT IS ACTUALLY YELLOW IN COLOR —Preceding unsigned comment added by BIGDADDYSCHUCKWAGON (talk • contribs) 15:48, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

This is a violation of WP:NONSENSE AltecLansing12 (talk) 15:49, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Not exactly sure why you'd call it a violation of nonsense...Anyway, it is called a green card because the original United States Permanent Resident Card was green. --Onorem♠Dil 15:54, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Agreed (on both points). There are many instances where an item is known by it's former color, such as the pink slip for a car, or the Pontiac Silverdome, which now has a white dome. StuRat (talk) 17:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * And some things are named for colours they've never had; white wine has always been yellow. Neon  Merlin  04:27, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * And it's made from white grapes, which have always been green. StuRat (talk) 06:43, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Eh? Mine's greenish - with tons of green writing and barcodes on the back-side. (See image)

I remember a time when there weren't Yellow Pages in the phone book but Pink Pages. Pity they didn't keep the original name when they changed the colour (the way they kept the original name of the Women's Weekly when it became a monthly publication). It would have spawned regular questions of this nature. -- JackofOz (talk) 19:25, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Monroe Doctrine entry
I removed several instances of vandalism in this entry. If someone could possibly check my work I'd be grateful! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sylviably (talk • contribs) 15:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It looks like you did good, thanks for your help! --Tango (talk) 16:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the info, but this is not the place to ask things like this. You should post a message on the talk page of the article in question. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:22, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Personality development
Reposted from the Language Ref Desk what are the investigate factors which contibute to personality devolepment?--Munnusmail (talk) 13:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * This sounds like a homework question to me - could you explain why you are asking? --Tango (talk) 16:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The article on personality development has some details and links to Sigmund Freud, Jean Piaget and others. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 16:43, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

paying off my credit card (or not..)
Hello, I've been trawling the wiki reference desk to procastinate and the question on Credit card interest rates got me thinking... Basically, it seems that as someone who is in rented accommodation, without a job (yet!) or the possibilty of entering the housing market any time soon (5 years min...), can i just not pay off my credit card bill? I'm in the UK so would just like to know what the consequences would be.. Many thanks, 81.140.37.58 (talk) 17:18, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think we have enough information to help you, since we do not know what other choices you have. Paying off the credit card, if you are indebted, sounds to be a good thing in that you'll be charged less interest in the future. Indeed, that, and less cash in hand, would seem to be the major consequences of paying it off. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:23, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree, if you have enough cash to do so, pay it all off as soon as possible. You will be saving a lot of money from not being charged interest. If on the other hand you mean not make any payments, then that is a bad idea. If you do that then you would not be able to get a loan for a car or a mortgage when you get a job. Besides that, its dishonest. And more practically, you will still end up paying it, you will just have to pay the court fees in addition, and more interest. 78.146.23.195 (talk) 01:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * If you don't pay at least the minimum each month you risk bankruptcy, which is very bad. It's not just mortgages you won't be able to get - you won't be able to get a contract mobile phone, you'll have to pay for electricity/gas/water/etc. upfront (with a pre-paid meter), etc. You don't want that unless it really is your only option. If you do pay just the minimum each month it will take you forever (give or take!) to pay it off and the interest you will pay will be enormous (far greater than the initial cost of whatever you bought on the card). If you are in financial difficulties, seek professional advice - not paying your credit card bill is not a good option. --Tango (talk) 17:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

That was really good advice -Tango sounds just like my dad (in a good way...)! Believe it or not, i never though bankrupcy was rally that bad. But yes, i'll be a good boy from now on...81.140.37.58 (talk) 17:36, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, you are not alone in thinking that, which is one of the reasons bankruptcy rates are so high (the fact that we're in a recession doesn't help, of course! But the rates were high before that.) --Tango (talk) 17:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Even if you are not in financial difficulties paying off your credit card is always a good idea. The interest rates charged by credit cards are some of the highest around, which makes it the most expensive way to borrow money. Always pay off the most you possibly can, and if you find you are running a balance for any time consider taking out a lower interest rate loan to pay it off (unless that might tempt you to run up even more debt, in which case take out the lower interest loan and cut up the credit card). DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The best place to go for advice is an accountant or lawyer. If you can't afford that (I guess you can't) then the Citizens Advice Bureau is the place to go (unfortunately they're swamped right now, so get on the list for an appointment before you're in dire straights). Beware of insolvency practitioners you see advertised; some are professional and have your best interests at heart, others want to rush you into an IVA, take their fee, and leave you with more problems (not that IVAs are intrinsically bad, and they're often preferable to bankruptcy, but they have serious consequences too, and unscrupulous practitioners have been accused of bouncing people into unnecessary IVAs, when they could have negotiated a payment plan instead). Tango's reply, above, regarding the seriousness of bankruptcy (and to a lesser extent an IVA) is quite correct. DJ Clayworth's advice regarding consolidating credit card debt onto a cheaper loan is good advice too, although (especially with the current credit freeze) anyone (never mind an unemployed person) will have difficulty getting unsecured credit for such a purpose. As with insolvency practioners, beware of cowboys who try to sell you consolidation loans; again there are unscrupulous practitioners who sell you expensive loans that make your problems worse. Unfortunately there seems to be quite an industry in preying on the vulnerable overborrowed.  87.115.143.223 (talk) 21:09, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Even if you can't get an appointment with your local CAB, and I believe many are only making appointments with priority cases in these interesting times, it is still worth contacting them. They will almost certainly have a list of recommended alternatives to themselves in the local area, appropriate to your situation. After all, you are not alone. 79.66.56.21 (talk) 23:22, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Why is it legal to join the Ku Klux Klan but not Al Queda?
Both are terrorist groups. Freedom of speech is usually the rationale, but couldn't you apply that to Al Queda as well? 98.221.85.188 (talk) 17:49, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Because real politics is often inconsistant and more complicated than idealized concepts such as "rights". --Jayron32. talk . contribs  18:43, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not even sure it is illegal to join Al Quaeda, but if it is I'd imagine it has something to do with treason and enemy combatants and all that. Both these organizations though are just umbrella terms that cover many smaller groups with similar ideologies. Tomdobb (talk) 18:47, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * This actually is a very good question. This is all purely speculation on my part but it could have something to do with the fact that Al Qaeda is a foreign organization that is for all practical intents and purposes at war with the United States.  Joining Al Qaeda, therefore, could be considered an act of treason.  The KKK is a domestic organization and isn't really at war with the US.  Another difference is that there is at least some political support for the KKK in the US and almost none for Al Qaeda.  The KKK has a long history and at one time, had millions of supporters.  There's also the issue of jury nullification.  In the past, you had situations where all-white juries would not convict KKK members who murdered blacks.  So, if you have trouble convicting someone of murder, you're probably not going to have much luck convicting someone for being a member of the KKK.   Another difference is that there is no sense of urgency to outlaw the Klan.  They've been around for over a hundred years and their power and influence has drastically waned.  Al Qaeda on the other hand became the nation's number one threat on 9/11/2001 and there was/is a lot of fear that they will strike again in a similar fashion. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:07, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Have any cases involving the KKK been prosecuted using the anti-terrorism laws? e.g. has anyone been prosecuted for providing "material support" to the KKK?  SDY (talk) 19:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * In my part of the world (North Carolina), people are routinely charged with "possession of weapons of mass destruction" for having things like sawed-off shotguns, so such a charge would not necessarily be particularly meaningful. --Sean 00:44, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * According to our article on him, Adam_Yahiye_Gadahn has been charged with treason, the first American to be charged with treason since 1952. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:21, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * In 2003, six Americans were convicted for providing material support to al-Qaeda. Granted, I didn't read all 157 pages, but according to the indictment, it doesn't look like being a member of Al Qaida was one of the charges.  Instead they were charged with "Conspiracy to Kill United States Nationals", "Conspiracy to Murder, Kidnap and Maim at Places Outside the United States", "Conspiracy to Destroy Buildings and Property of the United States", etc.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

What about the Nazi party. Isn't it legal to join that too? We were once at war with them as well. 98.221.85.188 (talk) 19:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The WW2 era Nazi party no longer exists. Although various White supremacists identify themselves as nazis or neo-nazis.Tomdobb (talk) 19:47, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I know in parts of the European continent using the term Nazi in an organisation is illegal, but to my knowledge, in the UK it is your actions taken: possibly Incitement to racial hatred or similar. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 19:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * In the United States, the Nazi party isn't illegal (although it is illegal in some European countries). I don't think treason applies given that a) the United States is no longer at war with Nazi Germany and b) Nazi Germany no longer exists.  In the 1930s, there used to be an official American Nazi party called The German American Bund but it effectively collapsed after American entry into WWII on the side of the Allies.  According to our article, most were arrested and placed in internment camps.  Also, see German_American_internment. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Under International Law, all member states are obliged to follow United Nations resolutions against designated terrorist organisations. The UN have identified the Taleban and Al-Qaeda. Thus, membership of these organisations is illegal. See .  (A local site, but I haven't time to google for the UN or US one). Gwinva (talk) 22:23, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The cause and effect do not follow quite so simply. Under the UN Charter, all member states are obliged to implement (some) resolutions. In those states that have implemented the resolution, membership of the organisation may, per se, be illegal.
 * My understanding is that none of the SC resolutions require states to criminalise membership of the organisation per se, only to stop the funding and activities of proscribed organisations - but I'm not fully certain on this point. See also United Nations Security Council Resolution 1373. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:09, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Apropos Nazis: AFAIK, both the KKK and AlQaida would be illegal in Germany, but not as a consequence of curtailment of "free speech" (often misunderstood as such by the uninformed), but because organizations such as these have an agenda to overturn the constitution by unconstitutional means, or have an agenda to/that compromise(s) the basic/inalienable rights anchored in the constitution.
 * The term for such illegal organizations is Verfassungswidrig meaning circa "anti-constitutional", and there is a branch of government -- the Verfassungsschutz, "Constitutional protection (agency)" at both federal and state level -- whose sole job it is to ensure that such organizations do not get a foot through the door. Ideally, anyway. -- Fullstop (talk) 00:36, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I do not think joining Al Queda is illegal unless joining includes making a statement that you will plan or advocates others to overthrow the government. See sedition. The KKK, however, does not oppose the government. --Ephilei (talk) 19:37, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

The Lords Fairfax of Cameron
Several generations of the Lords Fairfax of Cameron were born in the United States/American colonies. Albert Fairfax, 12th Lord Fairfax of Cameron, born in Maryland, was apparently finally interested enough in the peerage to move back to the United Kingdom to take over his role as a peer. Albert apparently moved back to the UK in 1917. Am I correct, then, in believing that Thomas Fairfax, 13th Lord Fairfax of Cameron was the first Lord Fairfax of Cameron to have been born in the UK in several generations? Who is the heir of Nicholas Fairfax, 14th Lord Fairfax of Cameron? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * His son, Edward Nicholas Thomas Fairfax, I would think. - Nunh-huh 22:43, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Aha, yes: . Where did you find that information?  Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I looked it up in my database :). But it's sourced to Burke's Peerage, and to the Complete Peerage, vol XIV (addendum). If you need the page numbers, I'll gladly provide. - Nunh-huh 22:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, please, I'm trying to add some information to the Fairfax articles and I need a reliable source. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Excellent, an excuse to use Ottobib!
 * , - Nunh-huh 23:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * And apparently the current Lord Fairfax is no longer a Scottish Representative Peer? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * All Scottish peers were admitted to the HoL in 1963, if memory serves, making election of representatives redundant. —Tamfang (talk) 21:29, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed, whatever happened to democracy eh? ;) --Cameron* 21:32, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * But I don't see his name listed on the link that I provided., Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:20, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

The Panizza musical dynasty
I'm looking for some information about these people. They seem to have been active in Italy in the late 19th– early 20th century. I know of at least 5 conductors with the surname Panizza: Achille, Alfredo, Arturo, Augusto and Giacomo. Depending on which source you believe, Achille, Alfredo, Arturo, and Giacomo all conducted the world premiere of Giacomo Puccini's opera Le Villi in 1884. (The details and cites are all at Talk:Le Villi, so I won't repeat them here.)

This cite refers to Achille being a member of a "musical dynasty", which may account for the confusion about who the actual conductor of the premiere was. But my searches for information about this "dynasty", in an effort to sort out who was who and what the family connections were, have been fruitless. Can anyone help me out? -- JackofOz (talk) 22:47, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Charles Osborne, in The Complete Operas of Puccini, says it was Achille, but he also refers to the opera as Le willis. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Does the New Grove Dictionary of Opera help at all? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * This also calls it Le Willis (1st version only), and has Arturo P. as conductor of versions 1 and 2.  As does the Italian WP (ie Arturo P. / 1st version), but they have a red link for Arturo P. and list Giovanni Bolzoni as conductor of the second version.  --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 23:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Apparently its first performance on 31 May 1884 was as "Le Willis". A bit of an odd title, really.  It was based on a French story called "Les Willis", which was not based on the life of the Major League pitcher Les Willis, btw, but about Slavic fairies or nymphs that go by various names such as Vila, Wila, Wili, or Veela.  In French, it's Willi. Puccini's title kept the French plural "Willis", but used the Italian plural article "Le".  For the revised version which premiered in December 1884, he went for the full Italian "Le Villi", and that's what it's been known as ever since.


 * Then who was a gentleman: Osborne says the conductor was Achille Panizza. OK, but how can we trust him over any of the other sources that say something different?  According to the Le Villi talk page, Osborne did go so far as to deny it was Ettore Panizza, who was only 9 years old at the time.  That's good, but anyone could have come to the same conclusion.  What we're left with is simply an assertion by Osborne that it was Achille. What I really want is something that, rather than simply asserting that it was this Panizza or that Panizza, proves exactly which Panizza it was, and why.


 * Does the New Grove Dictionary of Opera help? I can't say, as I don't have access to a copy.


 * CookeZ: There seems very little doubt that the conductor of the revised version (26 December 1884) was none of the Panizzi but Giovanni Bolzoni, so I'd discount that cite. I'm really only interested in the premiere premiere (so to speak), and to get some more biographical material on the "Panizza dynasty". --  JackofOz (talk) 01:07, 11 March 2009 (UTC)