Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2010 February 16

= February 16 =

When did the majority of western women become stay at home housewives?
when did women LEAVE the workforce?

i mean they were farmers in agrarian times and the industrial revolution forced them into factories so when did they become housewives? --Gary123 (talk) 00:11, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Just a little bit of knowledge I happen to have: in the 17th century, a stay at home wife/housewife was a status symbol in regions such as the Netherlands. User:Krator (t c) 00:34, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, it was a luxury for women whose husbands were affluent. That's why it was such a big deal for women not to work in the USA in the 1950s, when there was resurgent prosperity. The idea of women pursuing a career, as opposed to simply working to bring money in, is a relatively new concept. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→
 * P.S. Thorstein Veblen famously explored how having women not work could be a status symbol in 1899 (before feminism had ever made much impact) in his work on so-called "Conspicuous Consumption" (a term he invented). AnonMoos (talk) 13:59, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

In the middle ages and renaissance in Europe, a great deal of production went on in the household, so that while rather few married women had formal salaried "jobs" in the sense that we would understand today, they were frequently very busy overseeing all the affairs of the household, including the animals, cloth production, and in fact probably the majority of economic activities other than plowing and other heavy agricultural fieldwork. It was in the nineteenth century, with the rise of industrialization and mass production, and much economic activity moving out of individual households into centralized factories, that upper-class women and many middle-class women were separated from most practical productive tasks, and a kind of cult of decorous lady-hood sprung up. AnonMoos (talk) 02:24, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * If I'm being facetious here, I could say it was 1945 in the UK, when British women were expected to stay at home and replenish the population. During my family history researches, I haven't found many examples of non-working women before that date, for the reasons given by AnonMoos above. But then I don't have any upper or middle class ancestors! --TammyMoet (talk) 12:29, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Just to make clear, in the UK its now unusual for a married woman not to do part-time or full-time work, and has been for some decades. 78.147.202.148 (talk) 12:45, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Unless they have a young child. Lots of women give up work for a few years when they have children (or, in some families, the man does). --Tango (talk) 13:33, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Boy, it'd be nice to have actual statistics, rather than just anecdotes... I'm not sure I'm sold that the majority of women in Western countries are housewives. Unfortunately our housewife article is virtually empty of statistics and citations, and quick Googling didn't turn up much. Alas. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:12, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * They aren't now, but women going out to work is considered a modern thing, which suggests there was a time when it was unusual. We also know that women used to work just as much as men before industrialisation. That means there must be a point where women stopped working (excluding housework, of course). --Tango (talk) 15:41, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Tango -- A significant number of married women going "out" to work at formal jobs with salaries is mainly a modern thing. Before the 19th century, married women did a lot of economically important work, but it was usually within the household... AnonMoos (talk) 15:48, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * In the UK before the 1960s, it was expected that when women married they would leave their employment. My mother worked for Shellmex-BP in London as a teleprinter operator and her job was terminated on her wedding day in 1956. My aunt lost her teaching job on marrying just prior to WWII but was able to take it up again for the duration of the war. During the war, younger women were expected to either work or join-up, but mothers were exempt. The professions were closed to women until a few pioneers in the early 20th Century. WWI saw many women enter the workplace for the first time in their lives - but only "for the duration". Being a housewife was a much harder job than today and most middle-class families would have employed a maid to help (the weekly wash would have taken them both a whole day of hard labour). Some good reads here,, . Alansplodge (talk) 18:46, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * It should be possible for anyone curious enough about the employment of U.S. women over the years to get pretty good statistical data from the compiled census data from 1880 through 2000. The questioner's assumption that earlier most wives worked is difficult to verify, and statistics for the women in the workforce in colonial days or in the early 19th century may be more anecdotal than reliable. Artisans' wives were likely to help with the cottage industry; farmer's wives cooked and cleaned in general, as well as gardening and tending animals, including milking. Relatives or poor girls might be hired or made to work for board. A plantation lady spent hours on domestic management of the servants. Statistical data are available from the U.S. Census, which, starting with 1880, recorded "the Profession, Occupation or Trade of each person, male or female," and the number of months they were unemployed during the census year. Earlier censuses had only recorded the occupations of enumerated males. 1890 also requested the "Profession, trade or occupation of each person." The 1900 census requested the "Occupation, Trade, or Profession of each person TEN YEARS of age and older, as well as the months employed." The 1910 census went into more detail on occupation:"Trade or profession or particular kind of work done by this person, general nature of industry, business or establishment in which this person works, whether an employer, employee, or working on own account," and number of weeks worked. The 1920 Census had similar questions. The 1930 census added summary codes to classify the work and the industry. The 1940 and more recent censuses have not yet been released to the public, but statistical summaries should be available from the Census Bureau. The 1930 census might list as occupation "None" for the housewife, and seamstress, stenographer, private secretary, school teacher, nurse, clerk, saleslady for others. I looked at 13 pages for a small farm town from 1900 and of many women listed most had the occupation left blank, but two women had "school teacher" and they each had a woman in the household listed as a "servant" whose occupation was "housekeeper." In the same small town in 1930, there were  women with occupation nurse, clerk in store, clerk in post office, or operator at phone company, but most women still had no occupation listed. So the data was collected and doubtless compiled and analyzed, but it may take some skill to do the proper search among the census summaries to get a comprehensive and accurate answer. Edison (talk) 19:25, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Checking Google News archive, an early article I found comparing "stay at home housewives" to "working wives" was from 1958. "Homemaker" was a preferred term for the "stay at home." Homemakers did not cook and clean all day, but had club meetings, bridge, and coffee klatche. So statistics were presented. A 1964 article said the number of U.S. working mothers increased from 4.5 million to 9 million, amounting to one of three mothers of children under 18, but did not extend the comparison to all wives. A 1982 article said that stay at home housewivers were older and less educated than most adult women and spent less money. It said that52% of America's women worked outside the home (one had to be careful not to suggest that homemakers "did not work.") 60% of "active adult women" worked. A 1989 article said that the "traditional family" with a working dad, 2 children, and a stay at home housewife had decreased to 4 % of households. (Specifying the number of children is perhaps a statistical red herring). Another search for homemaker "working wife" statistics showed some promising results. A 1963 article said that in 1940 couples with both working were only 11% of working couples. By 1950, they amounted to 22% of married couples, and by 1960 to 31% of married couples.  Edison (talk) 20:00, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

The [US] Bureau of Labor Statistics says a record-high 46.79% of the US labor force in Q-4 2009 was women. The downloadable data only go back to Q-1 1948 (the low point, 27.90%), so the obvious more-than-half would have been during WWII, with the drop to below half in late 1945 or early 1946. DOR (HK) (talk) 08:43, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

how is the iraq war significant to the civil rights movement?
i heard the question from somewhere and i cant get my mind off of it cuz i dont know the answer....plz help! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cali7287 (talk • contribs) 00:42, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Comet Tuttle (talk) 00:49, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Considering many people who lived in Iraq under Saddam Hussein didn't have many or any civil rights, the two topics are very much related. Dismas |(talk) 01:44, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * There's also the issue than in America, certain members of certain socioeconomic classes are over-represented in the fighting forces of the Military, while members of other socioeconomic classes are over-represented in the government, both with regards to their representation in the population as a whole. In general, the people who are standing in front of bullets and walking over IEDs in the military tend to be more likely to be poor and from a minority racial, ethnic, or linguistic group; while those in high decision making positions in the Pentagon or in the government at large tend to be more likely to be rich and white.  This has been true for any war the U.S. has fought in the past 100 years, but it is not really much less true today.  So there are cases to be made that there is an inherant civil rights problem that the decision makers, representing largely a rich white population, are sending poorer people with less political power, off to die in a war.  Of course, its not like 100% of the government is white and 100% of the military is of a minority group, but the numbers for each are not in balance with the numbers representing the population as a whole. -- Jayron  32  04:55, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Class, yes, but race, no. Here is a breakdown of US casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Whites make up 74.7% of deaths in Iraq and 79.4% of deaths in Afghanistan as of early 2009.  That is out of proportion to their numbers in both the military and the US population at large.  TastyCakes (talk) 19:31, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That's a common notion that dates back to the Civil War, when anti-war Democrats claimed that it was a "rich man's war, but a poor man's fight". As historian James M. McPherson demonstrated, the notion turns out to be false (poor immigrants were the most underrepresented group in that war), but it remained a powerful emotional argument against the war, however unrelated to the facts. The situation remains true today: whenever I see a study that actually looks at the numbers, like this one, it turns out that the poor are not overrepresented on the front lines, just as they were not in the Civil War. Southerners, as it turns out, are the overrepresented group today, while New Englanders are underrepresented. But none of this has anything to do with civil rights in an all-volunteer military. —Kevin Myers 05:38, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The Civil War claim was based on the fact that it was possible to buy one's way out of conscription. A little more recently, one complaint in the Vietnam War was that it was "the black man fighting the yellow man to defend land the white man stole from the red man." Getting more modern, Colin Powell once said that he joined the Army because he "wanted a job". That would be true of many in the military, and if the south is overrepresented it could be a combination of that along with a stronger sense of patriotic duty. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:23, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Reuben James Burial Place?
Reuben James was an early American naval hero. He saved the life of another naval hero, Stephen Decatur. Children were named after him, as were ships (there is still a USN ship is named after him). Does anyone know where he is buried? He died in Washington,D.C., and I suspect that he may be buried there. Any help would be appreciated! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Salamanca34 (talk • contribs) 00:48, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * In 1900, the Secretary of the Interior advised the author of a book about James to consult the Navy about details of his career. Nothing I found at Google Book Search had more information about where he was buried after he presumable died in Washington D.C. You might check where military veterans who died in Washington D.C. in 1838 were buried and look for the last names "James." Edison (talk) 01:46, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Reuben James claimed to have saved Decatur many years after the fact, when some of the witnesses were long dead. Our article on him doesn't mention the controversy that he may have taken the credit for another man's deed. The last biography of Decatur I read concluded that we can never be sure if it was really James or Daniel Frazier who saved Decatur. James was not famous in his lifetime; he was an obscure person when he died, and his place of burial may have been lost by the time writers made him famous. He doesn't appear to be listed at Find A Grave. If you do find out where he's buried, please be sure to add it to our article. —Kevin Myers 06:10, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Inge Bongo
This [http://saharanvibe.blogspot.com/2009/09/ali-ben-bongo-ondimba-succession-story.html brown site said Inge Bongo is in California (quote in golden-orange) but what part? los Angeles? orange? Is she off the I-405 I-605 I-710 I-210 us 101? It just said in California now. I wonder if Sylvia Ajma Valentin have been to California?--69.229.36.56 (talk) 01:14, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Her LinkedIn site says she lives in the "Greater Los Angeles area." I imagine she doesn't advertise her whereabouts for security reasons. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 05:30, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

When was AD year numbering first used?
Does anyone know what year the AD year numbering first started in? Did the council of trent change the current year number? Other sources claim that the year number has been continuous since the council of Nicaea. There seems to be very little information about it. It seems to me that almost no one used the current AD count until at least the 12th century, and by the council of trent there were several different numbers floating around. Would it therefore be correct to say that the current 2010 year number has only incremeted exactly since about 1550?--Dacium (talk) 01:34, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * A more common dating terminology in ancient times was "In the 10th year of the reign of His Majesty Ignoramus III." Something had to happen to make the passage of time since the (supposed) year of the birth of the Messiah to be more important than how many years some tyrant had begun to rule. "Anno Domini" was used on a coin of 1220, in the reign of King Waldemar II of Copenhagen, per . Edison (talk) 01:52, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * See Anno Domini for info about this system, which was devised in 525 AD. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:06, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * It was invented by Dionysius Exiguus in the 6th-century A.D., but the vast majority of people (other than a few scribal types, mainly monks) had very little awareness of it in their daily lives until well over 500 years later... AnonMoos (talk) 02:13, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * This is the kind of question whee the earliest attested usage wins. Dionysus Exiguus (c500-560) sought to break the marking of the passage of time, for Easter occurrences, away from temporal rulers (tyrants such as Diocletian) to Jesus, and in 525 AD he proposed to the Pope that Anno Domini be used as the dating scheme, per . Venerable Bede used "A.D." in A.D. 731 in "Ecclesiastical Tables." "B.C." only came to be used by scholars in the 17th century. Edison (talk) 02:36, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It was used in the Anglo-Saxon charter from 736 at right. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:38, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I've seen it in papal documents from the eleventh century. More often they just used the regnal year of the pope/king/duke or whoever else, although sometimes they use both forms. Sometimes medieval documents aren't dated at all, which is loads of fun. But that's just for letters and chaters. The places where anno domini dates are used most, I think, are annals and chronicles, especially if they are listing events that happened hundreds of years earlier. Adam Bishop (talk) 04:32, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * If "BC" was only used beginning in the 1600s, what did people use before that? Is it simply that they didn't have precise enough dates for that period, so they didn't have any need for "BC"?  Nyttend (talk) 05:18, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The Anno Domini article is not exactly definitive, but it suggests a couple of possibilities. One is that a different term (such as Ante Christum) was used. Another is that Anno Mundi (year of the earth, as reckoned by literal Bible interpretation) was used. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:26, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe, but there were numerous different calculations of that date, so it would have been very confusing. Possibly they used the dating used by ancient people themselves: Olympiads, AUC, consulships &c. Peter jackson (talk) 11:11, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Generally they didn't care about "BC" dates, and events that mattered to them took place vaguely "in ancient times" (whether real or not - the Trojan War, Alexander, stuff like that). The beginning of the Historia Brittonum counts the number of years since creation for certain events from the Bible, the Trojan War, Brutus' travels to Britain, and Caesar's invasion, and it ends up saying "accepit Iulius imperium Brittannicae gentis xlvii annis ante nativitatem Christi, ab initio autem mundi vccxv" (57 BC or 5215 Anno Mundi). So BC was, sort of, in use. The Byzantine calendar was always Anno Mundi; Anna Comnena, for example, wrote in the 6600s according to her understanding (which was not exactly the same as the AM used by the Historia Brittonum). Adam Bishop (talk) 14:38, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I wonder if they started using the BC approach for the simple reason that they could not agree on which Anno Mundi they were living in, but all (or most) agreed on which Anno Domini they were living in? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:51, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Of course, "BC" works as an abbreviation for "before Christ" only in English. Did Germans, French, Dutch, Italians and the rest use their languages' equivalents of "before Christ" and come up with their own abbreviations?  --   Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   20:31, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll take a guess here that the language of scholarship was Latin, and meanwhile the average citizen didn't spend much time concerning himself with it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:39, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, but there is certainly medieval literature in those languages that deal with the ancient past, the Roman d'Alexandre for example. Offhand I don't know what they did with the date, if they did anything at all (the Roman d'Alexandre doesn't seem to mention it). Adam Bishop (talk) 23:59, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * (In response to JackofOz) At least in French, the typical usage ("av. J.-C.") does mean before Christ. German, on the other hand, uses AC from the Latin. Thegreenj 22:48, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Tri-lateral War?
Has there ever been a war with three or more sides to it all duking it out over something? 69.77.247.18 (talk) 02:53, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The Bosnian War of the 1990s was a three-way war between the Serbs, Croats and Bosnian Muslims, with the Croats and Muslims eventually uniting. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 03:47, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Also, in the aftermath of the Russian Revolution there were many armies fighting, especially in the Ukraine, where you had the Bolsheviks, anti-Bolshevik Russians, Ukrainian nationalists, Ukrainian anarchists, Poles, Germans, etc. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 03:57, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Another example is the Congo Crisis of the early- and mid-1960's, in which three separate coalitions fought one another for control of the Congo. Laurinavicius (talk) 04:07, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * There were a 3-way civil war in Mexico in the early 20th century, & a 4-way one (Catholics, Protestants, Muslims, pagans) in Uganda in the late 19th. Peter jackson (talk) 11:13, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Many wars have more than two parties, but usually they split into two alliances. An example of this is the alliance between the UK/France/USA/etc. and the USSR in WWII. They weren't on particularly good terms with each other but joined forces to fight a 3rd party that they both considered to be a greater evil. --Tango (talk) 01:09, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

The Poggle who had no toes
Help. Does anyone have the words for the children's poem The Poggle who had no Toes. From memory he went to see against his mother's wishes and lost his toes as she told him he would. My grandchildren want all the words. Many thanks in advance. Kathy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.35.207.114 (talk) 04:00, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Here you go, Kathy. --   Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   07:12, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It was really a Pobble all along. Had me racking the old memory banks for a while. Alansplodge (talk) 18:18, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Anna Cirksena
Does anyone know for sure if this picture is of Anna of Holstein-Gottorp or Anna of Oldenburg? They were both Countess consorts of Ostfriesland, and I checked the other language articles and they seem as confused as the English one.--Queen Elizabeth II&#39;s Little Spy (talk) 04:26, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Confusion isn't helped by the fact that the House of Holstein-Gottorp is a branch of the House of Oldenburg. Peter jackson (talk) 11:15, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * According to the article on the recent restoration of the mid-18th century portrait group of members of the Cirksena family from Schloss Aurich, the painter depended for some largely on his imagination anyway. --Wetman (talk) 17:57, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Government response to 1990 recession
I'm looking for a (preferably online) article that addresses the U.S. federal government's response to the early 1990s recession, and the effectiveness of that response. I've found plenty of information on the causes and characteristics of the recession, but I haven't had much luck finding anything much about the government's response.

Thanks. 74.105.132.151 (talk) 04:35, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * It's rather infamous that the Federal Reserve Bank refused to loosen the money supply in 1992 to help George H.W. Bush (a manipulation that had been seen several times in the past); at the time, Bush attributed his loss to Clinton largely to this... AnonMoos (talk) 12:12, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * In fact, the Fed cut rates from 6.91% in January 1991 to 2.92% in December 1992, and given that the economy grew 3.3% in real terms in 1992, that would appear to have been a pretty successful approach. DOR (HK) (talk) 08:51, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * How much were the rates changed from Jan 1992 to Nov 1992? Whatever recovery there was was too little too late to save GHWB... AnonMoos (talk) 11:04, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The Fed cut rates in September 1991 (50bps), November 1991 (50 bps), December 1991(50 bps) and July 1992. ADD: By the way, the recession was from July 1990 to March 1991. DOR (HK) (talk) 02:21, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * However, see Early 1990s recession...AnonMoos (talk) 13:46, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Napoleon, Oldenburg, and Russia
The Duchy of Oldenburg was formerly a County, whose line died out in 1667 and after passed to Denmark. Why did the distant Empire of Russia gave up his territories in Holstein-Gottorp for a piece of land that they only held for less than a year? And why was the would Russia's relation with the Empire of France turn sour because Napoleon annexed it in 1810. Oldenburg was seperate from Russia by Prussia and many other countries and could not have been a seriously reliable ally to the Russians. It is mostly because the rulers of Oldenburg and the Emperor of Russia were cousins. --Queen Elizabeth II&#39;s Little Spy (talk) 05:44, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I thought the relations between Napoleon and Russia turned sour mainly because Napoleon insisted on incorporating Russia into his "Continental System", and because he took lands in the Balkans and eastern Europe wholly for France instead of divvying them up with Russia... AnonMoos (talk) 12:21, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Carbon economics
Traditionally organic materials have been reduced to ash by burning. Such burning is a major contributor to greenhouse gas emissions, especially emissions of CO2. Through application of heat in the absence of O2, CO2 gas is sequestered by conversion of such organic material to BioChar. Through application of hot, pressurized KOH such organic materials are reduced to ash and base compounds with the result of even less expenditure of energy and no greenhouse harm to the environment. Is the cost/return of each processes what prevents industry from moving to the third from the second and from the first? 71.100.8.16 (talk) 12:39, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Where does this magic 'hot, pressurized KOH' come from that requires no expenditure of energy and no greenhouse harm to the environment? Nil Einne (talk) 19:26, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I.E., compared to open burning (harm to atmosphere) and very high temp for BioChar. (potasium hydroxide bath only needs 160 deg F compared to 800 to 1500 deg F for biochar.) 71.100.8.16 (talk) 21:10, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * If I've understood correctly, surely the issue is that generally the purpose of burning organic material isn't to reduce it to ash. 128.232.241.211 (talk) 21:37, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * In any case, even if the purpose is to reduce it to ash it hasn't been clearly established that producing and perhaps using this hot, pressurised KOH isn't going to result in more harm Nil Einne (talk) 18:47, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Ludwigshafen memorial installation, 28 October 2008
I'm looking for information about a group in Ludwigshafen am Rhein who on 28 October 2008 mounted this memorial installation on a city street, marking the 70th anniversary of the expulsion of German-born Jews of Polish origin to Zbaszyn across the Polish border.-- Deborahjay (talk) 09:00, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Ludwigshafen's municipal site says that 166 students from Ludwigshafen dedicated a handkerchief with the names and ages for each of the 166 people who were deported from Ludwigshafen on 28 October 1938 during the so-called "Polenaktion". (Marcel Reich-Ranicki was one of the 17,000 nation-wide deportees). The installation was organized by the Arbeitskreis Ludwigshafen setzt Stolpersteine (Task Force "Ludwigshafen places stumbling blocks"). ---Sluzzelin talk  10:50, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Côte d’Ivoire: Population Pyramids
In the population pyramid on Côte d’Ivoire at U.S. Census bureau (link) that fewer people than would be expected was born between 1960 and 1965. This is just after the independence, and according to several sources I’ve read, mainly in Swedish, at the same time as a great economic growth in the country. How come that fewer people were born in a time of economic growth and just after the independence? Caspian Rehbinder (talk) 15:09, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Were people too busy making money to have sex? --TammyMoet (talk) 15:58, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The pyramids don't seem to indicate that. They indicate a big jump between the number of people currently in the 45-50 age group and the 40-45 age group. That suggests an increase in birth rates, or perhaps survival rates, in about 1965. --Tango (talk) 16:22, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * But if you compare the births with what seems realistic to expect, they are fewer than they should be. This is especially easy to see if you look at the 1980 pyramid: the curve breaks and contunies straight down for a few years, to continue like it should with those born 1965–1970. Caspian Rehbinder (talk) 13:55, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * If you want to know about birth rates, you need to find the birth rates. Population pyramids don't show birth rates, they so population sizes. Population sizes are affected by more than just birth rates. --Tango (talk) 21:38, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know the answer to the question, but one factor to take into account in analysing demographics statistics is emigration, which can affect the population pyramid. As a hypothesis, perhaps the years of transition after independence in 1960 led to a reduction in maternal and infant health services, and increased infant mortality. (Some colonial powers pulled everything out with them, and infrastructure collapsed.) Or perhaps a lot of young adults emigrated in the 1980s. BrainyBabe (talk) 15:41, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Or perhaps those people died in war or epidemic? -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:36, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Why are people so sexually minded on the internet, but not in real life?
What are the reasons? Functional, ethical? For example the way people are said to behave on Chatroulette according to articles I've read. 89.243.72.5 (talk) 15:57, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree with your premise. Sex plays a major role in real life. --Tango (talk) 16:06, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * First, let's make sure the phenomena you're describing is real. What are you comparing?  Do you hang out with 80 year old rural priests in real life, and big city teenagers online? APL (talk) 16:09, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Assuming the premise has some validity, a lot of it has to do with safety. You can't catch the clap from the internet. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:16, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * And anonymity. Social mores and taboos much more easily fall by the wayside when everyone is wearing a mask. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:29, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Related to that, lack of consequences. You can't say "tits or gtfo" if a girl walks into your IT lesson without expecting a slap. Vimescarrot (talk) 17:39, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, parents won't find out what you're doing online. Vimescarrot (talk) 17:40, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * At least for many of this generation, but when we become parents I rather suspect i'd stand a much better chance of being able to find out. ny156uk (talk) 21:33, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Surely you jest! In 20 years, Quantum computers will be so complicated that no one over the age of 12 will be able to learn how to operate them. Googlemeister (talk) 21:36, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dogger. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 09:24, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Maybe its something to do with the internet-terminal being within private space. 89.242.101.230 (talk) 00:13, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Meaning of "progressive" as an adjective in music
I have seen several styles of music, very different from each other, that have the adjective "progressive" added to their names. I don't know what they have in common to be called that way. So, what does "progressive" mean in a musical context? --Belchman (talk) 16:18, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Per the article at Progressive rock, Progressive rock bands pushed "rock's technical and compositional boundaries" by going beyond the standard rock or popular verse-chorus-based song structures. I think that can be generalised in any genre to encompass those who go beyond the standard forms. However, note that not all those who go beyond conventional forms are labelled progressive. The label is applied to musical genres such as rock and metal and, err, that's about it. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:24, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * (ec) As with many music genres and subgenres, the definition can be quite fuzzy, with a large dollop of Humpty-Dumpty-esque "it means what I want it to mean." Still, you could start at Progressive music which is mostly a disambiguation page (albeit with "disputed" and "OR" tags), and the various articles linked from there, such as Progressive rock.  -- LarryMac  | Talk  16:26, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Zingh empire
Where can I learn more about Emperor Tirus Afrik and the Zingh Empire? (Don't say Google). The Hero of This Nation (talk) 16:23, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, Google says you need this book: "A History of the African-Olmecs: Black Civilizations of America from Prehistoric Times to the Present Era" by Paul Alfred Barton. Your local library may be able to help if you don't want to own a copy. You see, even Google has its uses ;-). Alansplodge (talk) 18:13, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * ..although theories about the relationship between the Olmec people and African civilisations are considered highly WP:FRINGE- see Olmec alternative origin speculations. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:54, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * By the way, something about that book blurb and the article about the Washitaw Nation makes me think it would not be considered a reliable source here on Wikipedia, for what it matters. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:45, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * An article on the Zingh Empire would be pretty cool though. There must be sources that discuss the concept and its problems...maybe it wouldn't be as big as the Atlantic article, but it would still be interesting. Adam Bishop (talk) 18:50, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * There is some more speculation about the "Zingh empire" and the Olmecs here - "According to Blisshords Communications, one of the oldest empires and civilizions on earth existed just north of the coastal regions into what is today Mauritania. It was called the Zingh Empire and was highly advanced. In fact, they were the first to use the red, black and green African flag and to plant it throughout their territory all over Africa and the world. The Zingh Empire existed about fifteen thousand years ago...." However, I don't think those views are shared by the majority of archaeologists.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:54, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * See Pre-Columbian Africa-Americas contact theories. Woogee (talk) 22:02, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Murder rate by income level
What is the probability of being a victim of murder or assault if you are a an average middle class American? National average or average for a state or region is OK but it needs to be divided up by income level or social class. I've scoured the net and various statistics databases and I simply can't find anything which isn't an average across all income levels in a given area. Does anyone know where I can find this data? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.239.246.106 (talk) 16:43, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Search databases with the keywords /murder victim income quintile/. There's a bunch of links on Google but I don't have time to go through all of them now. Google Scholar is a good place to start. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:01, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * From what I'm seeing, it's possible this kind of information isn't tracked. The US Bureau of Justice Statistics has statistics for property crimes (theft) by household income, (see pdf file, table 5) but they don't appear to track this information for violent crimes. This article (also a pdf file) contains several scatter-type graphs where homicide rates are plotted on one axis and income levels on the other, but does not give the exact numbers I'm guessing you want. Two more places you might look at: The US Census Bureau crime rate statistics and the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) Series. Hope you get a better answer soon, WikiJedits (talk) 22:38, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

US armed forces demographics
I was unable to find information on the demographics in the US military, only that minority groups seem overrepresented. What is the % of Hispanic, AfAm, white, asian, N-Am for the 4 branches of the US military? Looking for both officer, and total. Googlemeister (talk) 16:53, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Only as a start: "West Point's graduating Class of 2009 is nearly 7 percent Asian, 8 percent Hispanic, 7 percent African-American and 15 percent female." 75.41.110.200 (talk) 17:45, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * This suggests whites, blacks and Asians are overrepresented, hispanics underrepresented. It's from 2004 so getting a little dated.  This story looks at how jobs differ between races (specifically whites and blacks) with blacks making up more support staff and whites making up more front line troops (probably also why whites make up more than 64% of casualties).  It notes that some elite units, like the Green Berets and Navy SEALs, are less than 5% black, and that blacks may feel unwelcome or out of place in such units. TastyCakes (talk) 17:50, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * On officers: "Blacks currently comprise 11.3 percent of all active component Army officers." (year 2000) 75.41.110.200 (talk) 17:55, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Ma Ying-jeou and the European Union
Is Ma Ying-jeou allowed to travel to the European Union? --88.76.18.70 (talk) 20:12, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Is there a reason you think he wouldn't be? It says in his article he traveled there in 2006, and his legal situation does not appear to have changed since then.  TastyCakes (talk) 21:38, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

The members of the European Union have no diplomatic relations to the Republic of China. --88.76.18.70 (talk) 22:07, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * That would mean that national leaders would probably refuse to meet with him, or treat his sojourn as an official head-of-state visit; it wouldn't necessarily mean that he would be forbidden to travel. AnonMoos (talk) 22:25, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I think big China has complained in the past when the U.S. has allowed Taiwanese leaders to visit on "unofficial" trips. I would assume Beijing wouldn't be any happier to see Taiwan's president making the rounds in Europe. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:59, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

quake memorial
I know the recovery and clean-up efforts are still going on in Haiti. But will there be a memorial to the victims of the 2010 Haiti earthquake? If so, where can I send a donation?24.90.204.234 (talk) 22:04, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know, but do be careful who you send money to. A number of fake charity scams have come to light, some bad enough to cause the FBI to investigate (eg. see this BBC news report and this CBS news report). Astronaut (talk) 23:04, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The best way to guarantee that your money will be useful is to go with a well-established charitable organisation. Most of them set up funds for a particular disaster recovery. Steewi (talk) 00:06, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

ebook site like Amazon?
I want to buy some non-fiction ebooks. I cannot see any ebooks on Amazon (at least not on Amazon.co.uk). Is there any site that would allow me to search for books, and in particular allows me to make sure that I am buying the latest edition? (I want to buy the latest edition of either ebook or paperbook). Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.242.101.230 (talk) 22:24, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

(after e/c with SineBot)
 * While Amazon has lots of eBooks, I think that they are only compatible with the Kindle readers. (They've also got a desktop version and an iphone version of the software) If you want something non-kindle, you could try Barnes and Noble. APL (talk) 22:32, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Or Waterstones ebook service. I also use archive.org to find copyright-expired quality historic ebooks, fiction and non-fiction, free in epub and pdf formats.  Ka renjc 23:44, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Buying books secondhand via Amazon
Can I be sure that if I choose the option to buy a used, instead of a new, textbook through Amazon, that I will get the same edition as the new book shown, and not some other earlier edition? I'm using Amazon.co.uk. Thanks 89.242.101.230 (talk) 22:28, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You're supposed to get the same version as described in the "product details". If you don't, I'd return it and register a complaint with Amazon. APL (talk) 22:34, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * By the way, go by the "product details" not the photo. I've noticed that they sometimes run the wrong photo. APL (talk) 22:35, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * In my experience using the service in the US, used book sellers sometimes make mistakes in identifying which edition (or volume, etc.) they have for sale. When in doubt, email the seller and verify that they have what you want. I've done this with good results. —Kevin Myers 22:39, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Latest edition of an ebook or paperbook?
Do publishers tend to publish an ebook first, and then a paperbook? I'm wondering if an ebook published in say 2003 is going to be the same edition as a paperbook published in say 2004. Thanks 89.242.101.230 (talk) 22:31, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I have no idea for sure, but my understanding would be something like this: Most books are still printed on offset presses, and even the smaller sheet-fed machines aren't economical for print runs under 500 or so copies. So, I would assume the ebook would be released first, giving the author and publisher time to reflect on the publication as well make any edits or corrections based on reader feedback. (if any changes are made at all, that is.} Avic enna sis @ 03:46, 17 February 2010 (UTC)