Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2009 October 13

= October 13 =

Aging in cartoons
The characters in South Park, Simpsons, Family Guy and just about every other cartoon never seem to get any older. Is there a cartoon in which the characters are aging just like real people?

Gasoline Alley would work. Uncle Walt is pushing 120. PhGustaf (talk) 00:19, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * (ec)The same tends to be true of comic strips, with one well-known exception known as Gasoline Alley, which drew some interest in part because even in those days, it was observed that comic strip characters never aged. The characters in Doonesbury have also aged over time. I think the infants in The Flintstones aged somewhat, at least to the point where they were toddlers. As to recent cartoons or comics, someone else would have to cover that. →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 00:20, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * In fact, by the 1970s, in The Pebbles and Bamm-Bamm Show, the toddlers had grown up to become stereotypically "groovy" teenagers. Malcolm XIV (talk) 00:31, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The characters in For Better or For Worse get older; it's a comic strip, but there are animated cartoons based on it. Adam Bishop (talk) 00:25, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Although I don't follow For Better or For Worse closely any more, the author did reach a point when too many of the characters were reaching natural limits, and decided to start all over again from the beginning without necessarily following the same trajectory. Sort of a twist on Groundhog Day. —— Shakescene (talk) 05:03, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah that was pretty strange. It would have been better to just end it. Adam Bishop (talk) 20:35, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Technically, the characters in Ben 10 age; the sequel Alien Force takes place five years later. HalfShadow (talk) 00:29, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * http://www.leasticoulddo.com announced a few years ago the characters would begin to age, although I've seen little to no evidence of it aside from them maturing in personality. That being said, the South Park characters a number of years back (season five maybe?) "grew" up from third to fourth grade. ~ Amory ( u  •  t  •  c ) 02:08, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I seem to recall that the "the baby is getting bigger" phenomenon in Gasoline Alley was parodied in a publication such as Mad Magazine by showing Skeezix literally getting bigger and bigger, rather than maturing, so that he remained a baby but became gigantic. Edison (talk) 03:46, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The character of the son, Gene, in the comic Arlo and Janis has aged. He is now in college.  Dismas |(talk) 05:44, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Isn't there aging in Peanuts, to an extent? I think Sally started out younger than she ended up being...I seem to remember a few strips doing this "aging babies to some fixed age", but I can't remember anything in specific. Jwrosenzweig (talk) 06:22, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes. There's also Linus and Lucy's young brother called "Rerun", who was born during the strip and slowly aged to around pre-school age and then stopped. He looked like a miniature version of Linus, and wasn't really used that much. But all the Peanuts kids started out a little younger than they ended up being. However, they typically talked like adults would, in general, which was the whole point. →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 13:19, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Peppermint Patty seemed to get younger. She seemed noticeably older than Marcy when she was first introduced. APL (talk) 13:43, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * TV Tropes catalogues this sort of thing exhaustively. Not Allowed To Grow Up is the opposite of what you're talking about, but search the page for "avert". AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 09:03, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Free lightweight bookkeeping software
In case there are any accountants and financial types hanging out here, please have a look at this post at the Computing desk. Thanks. Zunaid 07:58, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Who won the Second Anglo-Afghan war?
ExitRight (talk) 11:35, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You can read the article. The result was a British military victory. Afghans got to maintain internal sovereignty but ceded control of foreign relations to the British.--Shahab (talk) 11:43, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Just wondering why The Great Game article says "The second war was almost as disastrous as the first for the British, and by 1881, they again pulled out of Kabul." I suppose the Great Game article is just plain wrong. ExitRight (talk) 12:37, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Not entirely wrong. The British did lose many men. The linked site has some more info.--Shahab (talk) 13:14, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The OP may be interested in reading Pyrrhic victory which may be the source of confusion. Sometimes the nominal "victor" makes off much worse than the "loser" in a battle or war.  -- Jayron  32  19:39, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That all said, parts of the Great Game article do appear to read a little more like an editorial than an encyclopedia. TastyCakes (talk) 19:58, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

factors of production
with examples explain characteristics of factor of production. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.194.38.5 (talk) 15:16, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * What sort of production and what kind of factors? Falconus p t   c 15:47, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It is our policy here to not do people's homework for them, but to merely aid them in doing it themselves. In this case, you will probably want to read up on the factors of production themselves (not all will have been chosen for you to look at in any details). If you need help grasping the concept of a problem, by all means let us know. - Jarry1250 [ In the UK? Sign the petition! ] 16:17, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

ATBLA subject matter, No conflict of interest
(ATBLA is the organization that promotes and Administers the Los Angeles Black Gay pride event that occurs during the fourth of July American independence Day Celebration, the ATB stands for At The Beach which exists as the focal point for the black pride events. The Usual Beach party/ Pride celebration occurs every year for 26yrs now, the non profit organization started a trend for black LGBT which resulted in the formation of an annual black gay pride event across the USA and now being done all over the world today In the summer of 1988, Duane Bremond and a group of friends decided to come together to organize and enjoy a day "At the Beach" on the 4th of July. Every year since, At the Beach (ATB) has grown in participants and in scope. It has become the nation's largest recognized Black lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender pride celebration. 20,000 + attendees over week long celebration 40&percent; of ATB attendees are from out of state Only event in California that brings together thousands of Black lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people Today, ATB is a progressive and socially responsible organization over 20,00 strong. ATB strives to provide unity celebrations as a networking forum for lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transgender of African descent to increase awareness in areas such as health, civic, and community empowerment.)

I Have created the ATBLA information into Wiki not as a representative of ATBLA but as a concerned person because very little information appear to exist on black pride in Wikipedia. Most of the information I have added where actually received from the ATBLA webpage, Social networking sites as you have stated, also from reads on online news source and news articles including but not limited to

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P1-79460616.html http://www.eurweb.com/story/eur15190.cfm And the Los Angeles Sentinel

Bloggs http://simplyfredsmith.blogspot.com/2005/07/atbla-literary-panel.html http://www.jasmynecannick.com/

and personal attendants of a couple of the ATBLA meetings, I may have created the Information under ATBLA because I choose to name it as such since i found no information on the organization on here, no information on Black gay pride and also no information on the international federation of the black gay pride.

This are very important information first because the black pride movement/ events and celebration took root in Los Angeles through the work of the ATBLA and as quickly but over the years become an international event where all cities pick a date to celebrate in their own fashion, ATBLA had giving courage to black LGBT communities, showing them that they can be black and it's ok to be gay, lesbian, transgender and still celebrate their existence.

While writing my article, one of the rules was that I could not put in any URL. So I had to take all the URL's out and stream line my article according to the policy since the original would not post

Please let me know how I can reformat this article so that it can be accepted by Wiki. It's shameful that the black LGBT community is not well represented in Wiki discuss, probably as a result of no fault of Wiki; Possibly because no one has even bothered to talk about it or write about it on wiki or most other medium. The black community in general feels marginalized and have taking a defeatist position "we can't be bothered because we will not be accepted anyway" this is even worse within the Black LGBT community who feels they can't be accepted by the larger black community and worse still by the general public

I have taking up the personal mission to make a change on this issues, please furnish me with more details on how I can achieve this objective of online medium inclusion on the black LGBT. I will be adding more information as time permits on Wiki and other online mediums as I find them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ATBLA (talk • contribs) 17:22, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * This is the reference desk; it's for asking questions which aren't related to Wikipedia. You would do well to address the issues discussed in the prod deletion template on Atbla; in particular it needs multiple independent reliable sources that support your claims. Coverage in newspapers, magazines, radio and tv, academic works, etc.  The description you've given of this organisation would strongly suggest that it'd be covered by lots of reliable publications, so include those mentions.  Reliable sources tells you how. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 17:29, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Take a look at Portal:LGBT (especially the Topics & Categories tab) which may provide links to related topics. The "WikiProjects & Things you can do" tab will lead you to a "requested articles" section; and the 'discussion' tab on each of these pages may be a place to look for other editors to help you with the articles you're interested in creating or improving.  Finally, Finlay McWalter is correct:  This page is a Reference Desk page, where we just answer questions that people have; the WP:Help Desk is a better place to ask than here about questions about creating Wikipedia articles.  Best of luck, and remember, WP:BOLD.  Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:36, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Two masjids in one?
hi there,

does anyone in Toronto have any idea why there are two mosques with the same address? Here is the site: [http://www.thaqalayn.org/mosques.htm|the website shows the the mosques with the same address-120 Bermondsey Rd Toronto, Ont. M4A 1X5]. How do I know which one is which? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.53.251 (talk) 17:41, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It could be a misprint, or it could be two mosques sharing the same building, or with offices in the same building, or meeting in different rooms of the same building. They have different phone numbers so maybe phone one and ask. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:00, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * AFAIK, one refers to the mosque proper and the other to the Islamic center / centre (which, according to the website, also contains Sunday schools and other cultural services for the Muslim community). --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 19:21, 13 October 2009 (UTC).

Girlfriend trouble
my girl after cheating on me came and told me and apologised what does that mean? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.217.2.7 (talk) 17:47, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * This is not a discussion forum. This is a reference desk.  Your question is not asking for a reference.  Please rephrase your question or use one of the millions of discussion forums available on the Internet. --  k a i n a w &trade; 17:49, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Either she regrets what she did, or she may be feigning apology. You have to determine if she's serious and promises not to do it again, and whether you think the two of you have a realistic future together. You have to figure out whether you are compatible and able to work well as a couple over the long term. --68.175.44.30 (talk) 18:14, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Without knowing you and your girlfriend personally, it would be a bad idea for us to give specific advice. Just think about how you feel, and let your heart, rather than societal values, determine what you try.  Being a reference desk, this is really not the type of topic we are designed/able to handle.  Best of luck, Falconus p  t   c 20:06, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I personaly think if you yourself are an honest and faithful person and you were in a relationship which was understood by both of you to be exclusive then cheating is a deal breaker. Vespine (talk) 22:57, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Not only that, but coming and telling him about it is throwing it in his face. He should dump her ASAP. After seeking professional advice. We are not therapists here. →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 23:14, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

What happened to the Okies?
Hi, I've been reading and thinking about The Grapes of Wrath and I was just wondering about the actual history of that era. In a few places in the book Steinbeck talks about how the Californian corporations were trying their hardest to ignore the hungry migrants, and how in doing that they cemented their own destruction, because mass hunger is going to come out somehow. In fact, in the same chapter where he explains the title of the book (he compares the grapes that the corporations grow and then throw away in front of the hungry migrants to the grapes of wrath in the Bible, and how the corporations are therefore "ripe for destruction") he implies that some kind of upheaval against the corporations is inevitable. So... what happened, anyways? I don't remember hearing about any famous upheaval in California at that time! I do know that a lot of the Okies persevered, eventually became prosperous, and settled comfortably in California. My best guess is that World War II in 1939 ended the Great Depression, so the migrants got their food and were happy, and the cause of the impending upheaval disappeared. Am I right? Jonathan talk 18:23, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * You might check out History_of_California_1900_to_present, though unfortunately the article jumps around quite a bit. What you're really asking about is California labor history. I don't know it extremely well, I'm ashamed to say (as a native Californian), but my understanding is that yes, World War II changed the dynamics of labor quite a bit, not so much that the Midwesterners "got their food and were happy" but that they were able to move out of the agricultural sector (and replaced instead by Latino migrants, who were not happy and did not have their food... see César Chávez). --Mr.98 (talk) 18:57, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * On your question, "What happened to the Okies?", I don't have much to add. Their situation tended to improve when the demand for labor, particularly in California's factories and shipyards, soared during World War II.  They got decent-paying blue-collar jobs and/or bought land of their own, and many of their children went to college and got white-collar jobs.  Many of them populated the suburbs that sprang up around California after the war.  On your embedded question about what Steinbeck meant, remember that in the 1930s, the Russian Revolution was recent memory, and communist and socialist movements seemed to be gaining strength in Europe and to a lesser degree in the United States.  Some people felt that there was a real possibility of a socialist revolution in the United States unless conditions changed.  One of the main reasons that Franklin D. Roosevelt won election and re-election as president during the 1930s was that his New Deal seemed to many the best hope for the United States to avoid such a revolution.  As long as masses of people were out of work and hungry, a revolution seemed to remain a possibility.  While the New Deal and the slow economic recovery after 1937 helped, the war really turned things around.  Marco polo (talk) 19:22, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * There was a General Strike in San Francisco supporting the 1934 West Coast waterfront strike, and even a General Strike in Oakland as late as 1947 (starting in Capwell's department store). In 1934, Upton Sinclair, author of The Jungle and a founder of the Intercollegiate Socialist Society in 1905, won the Democratic nomination for Governor leading the EPIC (End Poverty in California movement), and nearly won. The labor militancy was not very successful in transferring from the cities to the fields at the time (see Steinbeck's In Dubious Battle or Carey McWilliams's Factories in the Fields), but it was no more unreasonable at the time for Steinbeck to think that massive social upheaval was likely than for others to assume the opposite (and in fact they didn't). ¶ As for the original question, when I was taking the 1980 Census in Berkeley and Oakland, I found that those born after 1940 (black and white) tended to be born in California, and those born before were often from the South. Henry Kaiser sent recruiters throughout the South to attract workers of both races to the wartime shipyards, cement plants and steel foundries of Oakland, Alameda, Vallejo and other Bay Area cities. In the 1960s and 1970s, southern Alameda County (San Leandro, Hayward, Livermore, Pleasanton, Dublin and Fremont) was stereotypically, Democratic, white, working-class or lower-middle-class and socially quite conservative, electing conservative District Attorneys like Edwin Meese and conservative sheriffs like Frank Madigan, who would clash with the radical students and activists of Berkeley. (See Free Speech Movement, Vietnam Day Committee and People's Park.) In the Central Valley itself, essentially Southern white working-class attitudes were reflected by Johnny Cash and Merle Haggard (who first gained fame with his "Okie from Muskogee" and "Fighting Side of Me", but later asked "Are the Good Times Really Over for Good?"), and in Southern California, the very conservative State Senate President Hugh Burns and Los Angeles Mayor Sam Yorty were elected as Democrats, not Republicans. —— Shakescene (talk) 09:06, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yorty? He wasn't "very conservative" until after WWII. He was strongly pro-union, and supported by the CPUSA; it wasn't until they refused to endorse him for mayor in 1938 that his politics started moving right. He was much more a populist than a conservative. --jpgordon:==( o ) 17:52, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

The Oakies became the parents of the surfers and hippies. DOR (HK) (talk) 02:14, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the insight! I suppose the real question I was asking was why wasn't there a major revolution in the United States in the 1930's? And I think the answer was that such a revolution was quelled by a bunch of factors, mainly World War II, FDR, and the end of the Great Depression. Jonathan talk 22:36, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * That's a huge and very common historical question of the type that can never be fully resolved. The New Deal is part of it, so is the older, very broad question of American exceptionalism. Many argue how much the Roman Catholic Church and socially-conservative evangelical churches, with a genuine working-class or poor-farmer following, played in damping social revolution in one of the more observant of the Christian nations, and one without a strong, corresponding anti-clerical or disestablishmentarian tradition. Yet others look at the structure, purpose and ideology of the labor unions (compare Samuel Gompers, Industrial Workers of the World, Congress of Industrial Organizations, craft unionism and industrial unionism) or at what is seen to be the entrepreneurial, pioneer, independent spirit of American working-men, or at the balance between industrial, agricultural, clerical, technical and small-business occupations. And the divisions between races, and among different white ethnicities, certainly made forming a uniform proletarian. anti-capitalist phalanx far more difficult. (See, for example, New York Draft Riots, Thomas E. Watson and the Southern Tenant Farmers Union). An important, but hard to measure, role was played in the miscalculations and strategic errors of the Left itself, which opposed the New Deal and ran candidates against FDR's Democrats well into, and sometimes past, the 1930's (see, e.g. New York City mayoral elections), thus isolating themselves from a labor movement that had to protect its members' interests in the existing world by supporting friendly major-party politicians. In 1906, the German sociologist Werner Sombart wrote a classic study, Warum gibt es in den Vereinigten Staaten keinen Sozialismus? or "Why is there no socialism in the United States?" in which he said that revolutionary dreams had been shipwrecked on the "shoals of roast beef", i.e. the actual and perceived relative prosperity of American workers, who would have less cause for discontent and more to lose from upheaval. (This ignores the fact the U.S. had one of the bloodiest histories of labor struggle.) Sombart also adduced as an explanation the egalitarian ("Tocquevillean") history and ideology of the U.S., and the absence of hereditary class distinctions and class-consciousness. For counter-arguments and alternative arguments, see, for example, Seymour Martin Lipset and Gary Marks, It Didn't Happen Here: Why socialism failed in the United States (Norton, 2000, ISBN 0-393-04098-4), Michael Harrington's Socialism (Saturday Review Press, 1973, ISBN 0-8415-0141-6), Christopher Lasch's The Agony of the American Left, Daniel Bell's Marxian Socialism in the United States (Princeton, 1967) or Irving Howe's Socialism and America. And I have glossed over a wide array of other possible arguments, from both my left and my right, probably better expounded by those whose own views are closer. —— Shakescene (talk) 06:50, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

"Seagull wine"
I was just reading a BBC puff piece about weird food from around the world, and it mentions something it calls "seagull wine"--supposedly consumed by Inuits, who stuff a dead seagull in a bottle with water and wait for it to ferment. I'm from Alaska and generally familiar with Inuit culture and have never heard of anything like this. Is this a myth or for real? Can anyone find a reliable/scholarly source mentioning seagull wine (perhaps by another name)? Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:26, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds unlikely. Alcohol comes from fermented carbs, not poultry, though poultry has been used as a seasoning.  Do you think you could make beer out of a chicken?
 * The cocktail article might be of interest. PhGustaf (talk) 21:31, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Although beer can chicken seems a likely match, this item sounds more like Inuit Igunaq, Swedish Surströmming or Icelandic Hákarl, which are all -- ahem -- "foods". --Sean 22:26, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Reminds me of garum, although that was not an alcoholic drink. Adam Bishop (talk) 22:38, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Garum lives on, in a way, in Worcestershire Sauce. It does include aged anchovies. PhGustaf (talk) 00:02, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Note: that link is not anything to do with the BBC, it's on the website of the Daily Telegraph; nor is it a puff piece, at least according to this definition Malcolm XIV (talk) 23:00, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Where to live in the world?
Suppose I have approximately $200,000 (US) to live on for the next 15 years. Where would be the best place to live to have that money last the longest or to get the best value. I would need to have accomodations, relatively inexpensive lifestyle, now single, 47 years of age and currently speak only English. I would like access to reasonable civilized items (i.e. banks, resturants, relatively crime free, etc), nice comfortable climate and to able to get there with only a backback or two. There would obviously be a certain standard of living that needs to defined. I am not thinking about living in a Penthouse room in Vegas - where that money could/would last only a short period - but nor am I thinking about a cabin in the Yukon wilderness either. My first thoughts would be somewhere in Portugal or Brazil - but they are picked with no real reason at all - so I am certainly open for suggestion. I am not a criminal running from the law(nor do I intend to be one), nor am I escaping or shirking any family responsibilities - I am just thinking about going somewhere else for a while. Any thoughts or lifestyle suggestions?142.68.42.8 (talk) 20:59, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Someone told me once you could live very happily off a dollar a day in Thailand or Vietnam. I'd think Portugal would be quite expensive(although cheaper than, say, Spain), and Brazil increasingly so...  TastyCakes (talk) 21:08, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * There was a time not that long ago when Eastern Europe was relatively cheap; my wife reports that, on a visit to Prague in 1997 she could get a 5-course dinner at a fancy restaurant for about $5.00; though I imagine that in 12 years the standards of living may have changed considerably. Our article on Prague notes the 12th highest GDP (PPP) among EU cities, but also notes that "the price level is significantly lower than in comparable cities," Which would indicate a city with lots of ammenities by low prices.  Perhaps other Eastern European cities may offer a better shot... -- Jayron  32  21:48, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe the Dominican Republic? TastyCakes (talk) 21:51, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Where are you from? Unless you are very adaptable, you will find some degree of culture shock and discomfort in any low-cost destination. Even Prague, which is a wealthy city by the standards of most countries, has things that are hard to get used to -- the different attitude of the people and the unavailability of familiar foods and consumer products being a couple of examples. You also have to decide what kind of climate is right for you. Prague's climate is similar to Pittsburgh's, with cold winters, whereas Brazil, or most of it anyway, has the intense heat and humidity of the tropics. Living on $200K for 15 years might seem possible now in a low-cost destination, but you have to figure in inflation and exchange rates. Even if you can find work in a country where you don't speak the language, it's not easy to get a work visa or permanent-residence status in most places. (Not that you can't do it, but it can take years of waiting and lots of expense and paperwork.) All things considered, you might want to hold off on retirement until you've got a bigger nest egg, and if you're itching to reduce your cost of living, you might want to consider just moving to a small town in the U.S. where you can get a home for $150,000. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:07, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I've seen homes for sale in the high 5 figure range in rural Iowa. Not real convenient and not much in the way of work, though.  Costa Rica is the typical place fingered for this kind of lifestyle, just be aware that if you leave for too long the squatters can legally take your house (oops!).  I rather liked Argentina when I was there, but finding English speakers outside of the metropolitan areas can be kind of problematic, and don't keep your money in the local banks because the country's economy is not too reliable.  SDY (talk) 23:35, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Cautiously assuming that the current very low rates of interest worldwide persist for some time, $200,000 works out to not much more than $13,000 per year for 15 years. Now, assuming that the US dollar holds its current value (though some financial experts fear a collapse in the value of the dollar), that kind of budget would not buy you a lot of comfort in most places with nice restaurants and a low crime rate.  Certainly, you won't find a comfortable US-like standard of living at that price anywhere.  Thailand used to be appealing, but it is now very politically unstable.  I suppose that you might consider someplace like India, where many people speak English, but you would still face culture shock, a lack of many familiar comforts such as flush toilets with seats, and your digestive system would need to go through a very uncomfortable adjustment.  If you are inclined to consider India, I would recommend one of the hill stations for their moderate climate.  Marco polo (talk) 00:50, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Squat toilets are an advantage to living in third world countries. Bus stop (talk) 20:01, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * You could live like this guy in Texas. Probably not everyone's cup of tea though...  Also, perhaps you could invest a bunch of the money?  If you could get an average of 5% return on that money (which doesn't seem so unreasonable) that'd be $10,000 a year, which I think would be plenty to live off in a lot of places.  Not to mention you might want to do something with your time that brings in some kind of income.  TastyCakes (talk) 01:52, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Getting a 5% return at current interest rates after taxes and fees would require a pretty high risk investment. You can't take risks when you need to live off this money. --Tango (talk) 08:46, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Putting it in a savings account or government bond would obviously not cut it, so you are correct a higher degree of risk would be there. A mix of stocks and bonds would generate good years and bad years, although history suggests an average 5% return wouldn't be so unreasonable.  You're right about taxes, in such investments the feasibility would all depend on the capital gains tax of the chosen country.  However, I was thinking more of a real estate investment - running a bed and breakfast or something.  That way he generates money to live off of and give him somewhere to live, and probably gets significant tax advantages.  Of course it may not be everybody's idea of retirement.  TastyCakes (talk) 15:10, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Asheville sounds nice to me. Or Madison, Wisconsin. Tastes may vary of course. Vranak (talk) 04:10, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, your English will come in handy there. You'll need another place to spend July-September though. --Wetman (talk) 06:07, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah and Bellingham if you can tolerate two weeks with zero sun during some winters. I live up the road and it's a nice verdant region with pleasant people and good food. Vranak (talk) 15:10, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Balancing prices, creature comforts and low crime may be a difficult task. Somebody up there mentioned Eastern Europe, but that train probably already left the station. I can be specific about my country, Slovenia - there is virtualy no crime, plenty of people speak English and you get all the amenities you want (although due to the country's negligable size, large scale internet businesses tend to ignore us - paypal only recently started offering its services here and even that not in full capacity), but the prices would be harsh on your pocket. I did a little computation, and with your budget and considering 15 years, that would mean having to live off about 800 Euro per month. Now, 800 Euro per month is not impossible to live on here, but you'd be on a serious shoestring budget. And the standard of living will probably keep rising, meaning higher prices and less for your Euro. The Chech republic that was mentioned earlier has a comparable economic situation, and my description probably fits for them, as well. TomorrowTime (talk) 07:44, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Have you considered mobile accommondation? I've heard of people who buy a small yacht and travel the world. The cost of living is apparantly very cheap as you only need to pay for food, which is bought in bulk at wholesale prices. I do not know how much it would cost to run a camper van and tour the world that way. It would be challenging but not impossible to live off that amount in the UK, mostly due to the high cost of 'real-estate' here. If you are already in the US then you could benefit from the comparatively very low cost of housing in many areas. I would not worry too much about culture-shock - for example if you were living in somewhere like Goa, India, which I understand is more Westernised, then the exotic experiences would be make you feel you were having a life, rather than the bland forgettable stuff of Anglo-Saxonville. Rather than being left with nothing after 15 years, I think you may be better to consider how to invest the money for a small income for ever. I've heard that Costa Rica is a nice place to live from at least two different people - from someone who had travelled a lot and also unconnected from a taxi-driver in the UK who had married someone there, approved of the country very much, and as far as I recall was just in England to earn some money before returning. Hopefully the climate is cooler in the higher altitudes. Try getting a list of all the countries in the world and going through them - many will be obvious no-nos. See also Quality-of-life index and compare that with the external links in the Cost of living article. Update: comparing two such lists highlights Wellington in New Zealand, which has a high quality of life and low living costs for expats. 92.29.126.121 (talk) 21:20, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * One thing to factor in is medical costs. By age 62, most people will incur major medical expenses, so you'll either want somewhere with cheap medical care, or with government-provided care. --Carnildo (talk) 00:16, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * No matter where you went, I doubt only being able speak English would still be a big problem after a year or so. You would probably form contacts with locals and the ex-pat community, and have picked up sufficient language skills to get by with most day-to-day things.  Just official letters from the city and national government, utilities, etc, might continue to cause you a few problems.  As for where, my choice would be Thailand for its low cost of living, reasonable standard of living, and nice weather.  Some Caribbean islands might also fit the bill.  Astronaut (talk) 17:44, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Christ myth theory
Merging the ideas of that being discussed now at the Language Desk of "Biblical name meanings" under October 11 with the viewpoint that Jesus of Nazareth did not exist as a historical person as proposed in the article Christ myth theory one might postulate then Jesus was not mean to be a person BUT a concept. Using the meanings already brought up in the Language Reference Desk a conclusion might be that Jesus could be "self-subsisting as salvation" as that is the same as "Jehovah as self-subsisting." Going further perhaps it could mean something like "self existence as salvation." Going further and adding the meanings of "deliverer" and "help" perhaps the concept was meant to be something like "self help as salvation" or as "self help as the deliverer as the savior." Just another point of view I am throwing out that is not a Christian religious point of view and goes somewhat with the articles of Christ myth theory and Jesus Christ in comparative mythology. 216.201.1.6 (talk) 22:05, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Is there a question for the ref desk in there somewhere? TastyCakes (talk) 22:14, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * If you are looking for approval to include that in the articles, you as an editor may do that. Be bold, but remember to cite what you say and make it logical.  Don't worry if someone removes it or changes it; Wikipedia is constantly changing. Falconus p  t   c 23:02, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeh, we need more edit wars in wikipedia - especially the ones instigated by drive-by IP's. →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 23:10, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Enough of this "drive-by" obsession. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. WP:AGF. Malcolm XIV (talk) 23:13, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, but if the edit contains original research as opposed to solidly sourced material, it is likely to be reverted very quickly. Falconus said 'make it logical': that is not enough. What the OP posted above sounds like original research, and so is not acceptable content for a Wikipedia article. --ColinFine (talk) 23:17, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * "Make it logical" sounds like an invitation to "synthesize", which is against the guidelines. →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 23:35, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

True... I thought the citing sources would ensure it wasn't OR, but I should have said that outright. Falconus p t   c 23:58, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Sourcing is necessary, but "selective" sourcing can also result in emphasizing a non-standard view of the subject or trying to pull the reader to a non-standard conclusion. Those are not appropriate things to do, but it's a common occurrence and often leads to edit wars: A user will try to use selective sourcing to justify an extreme or personal viewpoint of a subject. That's the encyclopedic version of the old saying, "Figures don't lie, but liars do figure." →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 04:15, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Quick, write a book and get it accepted as conventional wisdom. Then find someone else to cite its arguments in the article. DOR (HK) (talk) 05:25, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Wasn't that the theory postulated by Stephen Colbert? →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 05:29, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I believe that some lazy writers of books start with Wikipedia, and that OR text inserted in a Wikipedia article thus has a good chance of appearing in books from seemingly reliable publishers, which someone might then use to support the Wikipedia statement. Edison (talk) 16:38, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

India and preparations
I'm going to be in India for three weeks in the near future, so I'm taking some time to get a sense of the culture. From what I understand, Hinduism is the only "new" religion to get acquainted with (Christianity and Islam and Buddhism I've got a basic grasp of). That leaves Sikhism, Jainism, and Hinduism, and a little bit of reading on those articles has been helpful, but some more "vague" questions. My general objective is to get enough of a grounding that I won't make a fool of myself, not any real specifics. I have no dream of learning customs, but I do want to get a sense of values.

1. How religious are the city folks in India, specifically Indore and Hyderabad? 2. How prevalent is Sikhism in the central part of India? The articles seem to imply that it's mostly a northern thing. 3. Are there any other substantial religious groups I'm missing out on?

The other set of questions relates to Indian politics.

1. What are the hot-button items to avoid talking about in pleasant conversation? 2. Is there anywhere I can get a brief overview of recent (i.e. the last ten years or so) history? I know there was a hotel attack and there's been some trouble with Pakistan (something about a new rail line?) but it is literally the other side of the world.

I imagine that they won't expect me to be very savvy on Indian history, but the American equivalent would be coming to the US and not at least recognizing the name of someone like Lincoln or Palin. SDY (talk) 23:04, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Although demographically centred in the Punjab, Sikhs are a noticeable minority in, for example, Delhi.
 * I'd generally counsel visitors to pretty much any country, if they want to have a pleasant conversation, to avoid talking about politics or religion – particularly if (as you admit to be the case) they don't know very much about it. Malcolm XIV (talk) 23:17, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I suggest you look at some of the many articles in Category:India. --ColinFine (talk) 23:19, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Sikhism is pretty uncommon outside of northern India. Jainism is also pretty uncommon in most places, but it has left a huge architectural and artistic legacy, and knowing more about it will help you appreciate some of the sights.  Our articles should provide an adequate introduction.  Your local library should have sources if you want more depth.  By all means, read History of India and History of the Republic of India.


 * I agree with Malcolm XIV that it's best to avoid conversations about politics and religion, unless you have some understanding of local politics and religion and are willing to be impartial and to accept local people's opinions without argument. I have had interesting conversations in foreign countries, mostly about politics, when I take the attitude that "I'm here to learn, and I'm interested in your opinion".  While in India a couple of years ago, I found myself in a train compartment with a group of Indian men who started quizzing me about Muslims in the United States and about my politics.  When they were satisfied that I was friendly toward Muslims (and critical of a certain American president's efforts to rid the world of evil at the expense of the people of Iraq), we had a wonderful and very informative conversation about the position of Muslims in India.  But this kind of conversation takes tact and sensitivity.  Marco polo (talk) 00:26, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Get the Lonely planet guidebook for India. It really is the best and well worth the money. Indians are very religious in general, but they don't expect you to follow their customs. The one that you'll notice most is that you must remove your shows when entering a private residence or a religious building. If you see other people taking off their shoes, follow suit. Sikhs are generally known to be trustworthy in India (kinda like Mormons in the US). If you have to trust a stranger, it's best if you choose a Sikh. LK (talk) 06:26, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Is removing one's shoes when entering a private residence realy a religious thing, though? We do it here in Slovena, but simply for comfort and hygiene. Same thing in Japan. TomorrowTime (talk) 07:27, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

If you are looking for"Hinduism",it can be found in books.Try to find the "Indianness".You can check out Times of India archives for history.But I suggest you go to India with an open mind.Talk about general life not religion,politics and history.Enjoy your stay!!Adi4094 (talk) 09:04, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I just returned from a seven-week trip to India. I read John Keay's History of India, which doesn't go completely to the present but which is readable and good. (Though I got bogged down in the ancient kingdoms part... think that's just my lack of interest.) I also just bought Amartya Sen's The Argumentative Indian which I am most of the way through and would also recommend as a look at social and political issues, mostly recent. I thought the Lonely Planet guide was pretty worthless but it might be the best one out there regardless. And re religiosity - even city folk seemed to be pretty religious. I stayed with three families in Indian cities - one Sikh, one Jain, one Hindu - and there was religious stuff going on in the houses of all of them. Definitely a lot more involved in religion than any Western country I've seen. BTW if you have any questions in preparation for your trip feel free to ask! Calliopejen1 (talk) 12:57, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I also recommend John Keay's India. Any city in India of any importance will have dozens of historic sites, and they really come to life once you have a basic grasp of how this multi-linguistic, multi-ethnic subcontinent developed and emerged.  Also, I will second Marco polo's comments above -- if you can first establish a rapport and level of respect with someone, then I wholeheartedly recommend you ask them about their religion.  Much like how a book on Christian theology can seem a world away from a Sunday mass, there's a lot of details about Hinduism and Jainism that you can only pick up by talking to people who make that religion a part of their daily life.  --M @ r ē ino 17:01, 15 October 2009 (UTC)