Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2010 January 27

= January 27 =

Registered Agent
What states DO NOT require that you have a registered agent or physical location open for business located within the state? Most publications say "almost all states" or "most states", so which states are the acception? If I have a business in California and am qualified with SOS office in all fifty states, which states will I not need to use my registered agent for? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.43.168.68 (talk) 00:21, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * You should consult legal counsel on this issue, including the question whether you really need to be registered in all 50 states. John M Baker (talk) 15:53, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Communism
My history textbook says that there are currently only 5 communist countries: China, Cuba, Laos, North Korea, and Vietnam. However, I thought that Iran was also communist. --75.34.66.67 (talk) 01:05, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * While its arguable which countries were or are communist, I think its very hard to make a case for Iran. Iran currently is a weird mixture of autocratic republicanism and theocracy. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 01:12, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Autocracy, republicanism and theocracy are all systems of government. Communism is more of an economic system. If you use one of the more relaxed definitions of communism, you could have a communist state that used any of those systems of government. --Tango (talk) 01:20, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Iran is not Communist. See Iranian Revolution for more understanding about what type of government they have had in place since 1979—it explicitly rejects both Communism and liberal capitalism. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * But I thought that communism is the same as totalitarianism. --75.34.66.67 (talk) 01:23, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No. It might be said to be a type of totalitarianism, but not all totalitarianism is Communism. --jpgordon:==( o ) 01:28, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You're wrong both ways. Totalitarians Hitler and Mussolini were not communist, and many communists are not totalitarian. See e.g. Italian Communist Party. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 01:31, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The IP's comment has a curiously familiar ring. Regardless, in a multi-party state like Italy, or anyplace where there are free elections, they can't espouse totalitarianism or they wouldn't draw flies. But when one party rules with no opposition, regardless of whether it's communist or fascist, you're at great risk of getting totalitarianism. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:36, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If you want to be strictly correct, there are no communist states. By definition, a communist state is one without any social or economic class divisions, and also no government (known as a Withering away of the state).  The goal of modern "communist parties" is to bring about a future communist state.  Communist party-run countries come in two flavors: So called "Marxist-Leninist" states, modeled after the Soviet Union, and "Maoist" states, modeled after China.  Generally, the so-called "communist" states in Europe, Africa, and the Americas tend to be "Marxist-Leninist" in nature, while those of Asia tend to be "Maoist" in nature, with the notable historical exception of Mongolia, which under the Mongolian People's Revolutionary Party was clearly aligned in the "Soviet"-type of communism rather than the "Maoist"-type.  During the 1990's, in the wake of the collapse of the Soviet Union, most single-party communist states begrudgingly became multi-party systems, though many such states (Mongolia and Albania come to mind) still live under the strong influence of their communist parties, even if they are no longer single party communist states.  In fact, the list the OP comes up with at the beginning, while simplistic in its understanding of what "communism" is, is roughly right, in that those 5 states are probably the only 5 remaining single-party-communist states left.  But as noted, communism still has a strong presence in many multi-party republics.  The OP is, of course, completely wrong about Iran.  There were some very early, abortive attempts to establish a communist state in Iran, see Persian Socialist Soviet Republic.  This was never a significant event in the history of Iran, and communism never really got a foothold there.  -- Jayron  32  02:48, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * One other note on the above good discussion is that it's probably a stretch to claim that China is much of a communist country anymore. (Totalitarian, yes.)  See "Socialism with Chinese characteristics", a euphemism if I've ever heard one.  (That article needs plenty of fleshing out with a description of the actual situation on the ground, though.)  Comet Tuttle (talk) 05:45, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * In what way is China still a communist country? Billionaire capitalists owning factories and abusing peasants and workers, with the aid of the army to suppress rebellions? How is North Korea a communist country, when it is a hereditary absolute monarchy? Edison (talk) 06:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * North Korea never was a communist country (except in that ham-handed American way of lumping everything from state socialism to Marxism under the rubric/epithet 'communist'). North Korea is a classic socialist dictatorship (e.g. an autocratic society with a single-party government that ostensibly tries to destroy class distinctions in society.  China was once a bit closer to communism - as far as I can tell it used to be a sort of regional syndicalism overlaying the traditional Chinese political structure (rural/agrarian communities bound together through a remarkably strong central bureaucracy).  China's been going through it's version of industrialization, however, and commercial centers like Shanghai and Beijing have developed a noteworthy capitalist class and strong democratic movements.  I suspect over the next 20-30 years it will shift away from marxist philosophy towards some sort of communitarian democracy.  who knows, though.


 * North Korea hasn't even had Marxism-Leninism as its principal guiding ideology for a long time. Under the older Kim, Juche largely supplanted classic Communist ideology, while under the younger Kim Songun has been pushing aside Juche to some degree.  AnonMoos (talk) 14:16, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Iran is a self-styled Islamic republic. It has some strong republicish institutions, but in recent years the Islam-based branches of government have been expanding their control over the political system.  liberal republicanism is pretty much a fading memory there.  -- Ludwigs 2  09:07, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't agree with that last part. Iran was a lot more theocratic shortly after the Islamic revolution under Khomeini. Power has devolved to the secular side, but even that secular side is a far cry from a free society. However, compared to most of their neighbors, Iran has a much more diverse and open political landscape. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:30, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Which Bank?
In this picture you can see Scotiabank on the right, excellent city center in the middle, but a bank on the left has it's name obscured. What is this bank?174.3.98.236 (talk) 04:02, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * And the building beyond to the right says "SALVATORI". This is in Port of Spain, a city in Trinidad and Tobago, right? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:19, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it is Frederick Street. The Excellent City Centre store is on 3-5 FS. Scotiabank is at 1 FS. So our bank, by my reckoning, is 7 FS, or perhaps 7-9FS. But I cannot get to a name yet. --Tagishsimon (talk) 04:22, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Here's a writeup about the Salvatori office building which was at Independence Square and Frederick Street, if that helps any. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:23, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * this page lists major banks in Trinidad & Tobago. My best guess is First Citizens Bank. -- Jayron  32  04:25, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * And here is a list of First Citizens branches, one of which is in Independence Square. -- Jayron  32  04:27, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Trouble is, their branch in that neck of the woods at 62 Independence Square does not match the Excellent City Centre at 3-5 Frederick Street. But it is the only ~ns bank I've found for POS. Oh - and the font doesn't match, and what is the green sign all about ... seems to say express? --Tagishsimon (talk) 04:30, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * How old is the picture? That writeup I posted above says something about the building being demolished in 2006. Unfortunately, Google Maps is inadequate at this point. I wonder why the OP wants to know? Maybe it's driving him nuts and he's bringing us along for the ride? :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:34, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * this site lists the Excellent City Centre at Independence Square and NOT Frederick street. Maybe the ECC has entrances on both thoroughfares, and as such, would have an address BOTH on Frederick and Independence Square?  -- Jayron  32  04:38, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Google Maps shows 62 Independence Square just north of Frederick, seemingly a couple or three doors away from the former Salvatori Building, as with the photo. So presumably that's Frederick in the picture. I'm no expert on cars, but they look 1990s or so. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Googling ["independence square" "port of spain"] and then looking for images, this one shows that general street scene looking the other direction: You can see that same building, with the current version of the First Citizens Bank logo, so I think that's got it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:56, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Holy shit. Three people just worked together as a team to idetify a building located thousands of miles away from any of them for an anonymous IP address. Seriously, I think I am going to cry.  I don't know if its out of joy or depression.  -- Jayron  32  05:01, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It would be nice to get at least something resembling an acknowledgment from the IP OP. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:30, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The wife always puts it in perspective by singing "Too Much Time on My Hands". :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:04, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It being a tad chilly in the midwestern USA, some of us just wish we were there. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:05, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Using that same image search, several pages in you can see the old bank logo, that green thing someone was pointing out earlier. I can't directly link to it for some odd reason. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:19, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Swazi Cultural Costume
How do you make the mahiya?174.3.98.236 (talk) 05:43, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Re edits
i have admitedly cotroversialy added to a number of discussion pages, even to my intial discredit in math rangeing somewhat against the dictum

First and formost as a psycologist i would like to apeal to you to allow the more stabbaly voiced original coments on the self harm page and the black comedy page.

these allow for the disting pointing to the word gaisha and originaly contianed reference to bdsm cross referenced to two films john wiliams `femail trouble` and `secutery`

wist the monica of bdsm may be in apropriate i would suggest it posible that the article i would like to reference a clasiscs reference to womanhood And found in the edit traces of the login firmbelevolence or abhorentlygood.

to save your dismisal. The article took a romantic view of marage as salavery placed title to woamn and paraled this with good service and in contrast untalented prostitiution

Once more apealing for a more direct solution to the isues of self harm, whair pornography of bdsm in my opinion apeals in many ways to misoginist deviance rarther than femail rights, thoug in this regard i state, without qualification the rythem method many women practice is based on cutting and as such has pertinant refernece. i can tell you this from the perspective of a cathloic boy who first asked to study psychology then asked to be grouped into the womans RE class.

I leave this matter in your hands.

Sincerly Ben Dewhurst.

Further referneces brodcast in past six months 'The surgery' BBC advice show.

Alass no classics student. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.161.151.70 (talk) 06:22, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I have added a header to your question to differentiate it from the material above. I have also removed your email address.  Replies to RefDesk questions are made here, not by email, and publication of your email address on a highly visible site like Wikipedia can leave you open to nuisance email from spammers.
 * This is the first and only edit made by your IP address, so your previous contributions may have been made while logged in under an account, or your IP address may be a dynamic one. From what I can gather, you have contributed what you term "controversial" material to several articles, which may have been removed by other editors.  Contributions to Wikipedia are welcomed if they are verifiable and neutral, but please note that Wikipedia is not a primary source and does not publish original research.  If your contributions relied on your own theories or ideas, unsupported by any reliable published sources, then they will probably have been removed for this reason.  This applies to all editors, no matter what their background or academic expertise.
 * The best place to discuss potentially controversial changes to an article and seek consensus for them is on the talk page of that article. Regards,  Ka renjc 11:21, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Aha, I think I've found the edits in question: you were editing as 86.142.216.142. Your edits were indeed mainly to talk pages rather than articles, and that's the right place to suggest improvements if they are controversial.  Or you can be bold and make the changes yourself, if you are sure they satisfy Wikipedia's editing policy.  This is a page for questions about the humanities generally; I'm afraid the volunteers here have no more say than any other editor on what goes into individual articles.  By the way, you can sign your comments (on talk pages, not in articles) by adding four tildes at the end of your comment, like this:  ~ .  This will produce a signature and datestamp that will help other users identify your contributions and communicate with you more easily.  Regards,  Ka renjc 11:43, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Since your question here shows a rudimentary grasp of English, maybe your contributions would be better received at the Wikipedia of whatever is your first language. DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:48, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

the political and spiritual persecution to me for Chinese and HK people


PS:All attached photos and files will be sent once u get me back. == —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fionliang (talk • contribs) 14:23, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi. This is a reference desk. We answers questions here. It isn't a place to post your story. I didn't see any questions in it, and we can't give you legal advice on how to proceed. We cannot rescue you out of China. I suggest you get a blog or some place more appropriate for posting such things. This is not the place. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:40, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I've got a bridge to sell you. 66.65.139.33 (talk) 08:26, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Economic theory explaination for the earning power of bankers?
1) How does economics explain the unusually large earning power of bankers? Issues I can think of: 2) what skills etc do they have that are worth millions and cannot be done by younger people for less money? 3) Are they on some sort of % commision basis of their deals - if so exactly what deals are they? 4) Is the high remuneration because they are inside a 'walled garden' where lots of money sloshes around which is not thought of as being so precious as it is outside? 5) Are they 'partners' and hence get a share of the profits which normal employee do not? 6) Have bankers total remunerations just been exaggerated by the media, and your average bank employee dosnt get paid much more than comparable non-banking jobs? Serious answers only please. 78.146.106.225 (talk) 14:55, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The theory that explains it is the same theory that explains all free market prices -- demand and supply. The demand for bankers is high (likely due to the increase in the importance of financial transactions), and the supply of bankers is low (likely due to the increasing knowledge required to be a successful banker). If the high-paid banker's job could be done equally well by someone who would require less money to do the job, then the stockholders would insist on the bank hiring the lower priced person. If the stockholders are not pushing for the lower priced person, then there is some reason (perhaps not immediately obvious to you) that the higher priced person is preferred. Wikiant (talk) 15:02, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * ...not to further any conspiracy theories, but, of course, much stock is in practice held by funds (operated by bankers) and small stock owners (who often do not care to vote, but rather follow the suggestions of their bank on what to do). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:15, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd dispute this; personally I'd argue that the wage these bankers receive isn't tied to their marginal product. I'd suggest tournament theory as an alternative model; however that's just a stub at the moment; the basic idea is that high renumeration is paid to a few at the 'top'; with the other 'competitors' - read workers - vying to take this prize.

As for point 6, I'd assume that the standard behind-the-counter bank teller is on a comparable wage to other high-street workers. It may be useful for you to make the distinction between your high-street banks and the stock-playing, risk-taking investment banks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roydisco (talk • contribs) 16:17, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * the answer to this varies depending on the economic theory used. personally, I lead towards the marxist explanation, e.g. that bankers belong to a separate class: banker's remunerations are determined by fraternal feelings that tend to magnify over time, whereas most workers' remunerations are based on contractual obligations that tend to get minimized as expenditures.  for example, you'll rarely hear banker's salaries defended in terms of productivity - usually they are defended on the grounds of leadership, economic insight, trustworthiness, or other intangible personal qualities which never apply to workers from different segments of society.  -- Ludwigs 2  17:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I frequently hear banker's salaries defended in terms of productivity. Bankers earn their banks 100's of millions of dollars/pounds/whatever, so they get a few million for themselves (or whatever the numbers may be). That argument is very common. The more common argument, though, is simply supply and demand - bankers get paid a lot because otherwise they would go to other banks that are paying more. Whether you like it or not, we live in a capitalist society and that's how it works. No further explanation is necessary. --Tango (talk) 17:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The key point made here that I don't think was made clear is that the high-paid bankers (or CEOs or company Presidents) do not get to that position by making decisions that lose a lot of money. They have some skill such that when placed in a situation along with many others, they came out with more profitable solutions.  They are usually rather old because it takes time to prove that the decisions made in the past are actually profitable.  As a company, it would be rather silly to replace a person who has been proven over 20 years of service to make timely and profitable decisions with a young kid who claims to have a lot of promise and a much lower salary.  It isn't the company that depends on the decisions, it is the employees and stockholders.  Stupid decisions hurt a lot of people.  The person who makes the top decisions needs to be proven.  People who have the experience and history of making good decisions will go to the highest bidder.  So, the companies that pay the most get the best leaders.  An anecdote to demonstrate the point: TWA didn't want to pay a lot for a CEO.  They hired Carl Icahn.  He bled TWA for everything of value that it had, left the company, continued to reap huge value out of the company, and forced it into complete bankruptcy.  If they had paid more for a CEO, it is highly probable that TWA would still be a leading aviation company. --  k a i n a w &trade; 17:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I recall reading an article a couple of years ago that showed that CEOs who win awards subsequently perform worse than they did before the award. Does anyone know what I'm talking about?  I couldn't find it with a quick Google search, but I'm pretty sure that I'm not just imagining it.  It was legitimate research; some guy actually looked at the performance of executives before and after they gained recognition, though I'm not sure how large his sample size was.  Anyway, the point is that I think a lot of what makes a powerful executive attractive to a company is not so much his track record but his reputation, which are not necessarily directly corrolated.  Stock prices will rise when a company hires a well regarded CEO, regardless of whether he's the best choice for a company. Buddy431 (talk) 21:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That could be explained by regression towards the mean, which occurs in many similar situations. 78.149.231.228 (talk) 01:37, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * These answers are surprisingly narrow in scope. Of course bankers' salaries are largely a matter of supply and demand, and certainly in the present economic environment banks and therefore bankers are able to generate incomes out of proportion to people in most other occupations.  Is that because banks and bankers are more productive than other economic agents?  I doubt it.  Instead, you have to consider what it is about the present economic environment that makes such outsize incomes possible.  If you examine this carefully, you find that government regulations and policies guarantee banks and bankers privileged access to money, particularly at present. Interest rates held below market levels by central banks through such policies as artificially low discount rates and quantitative easing. Regulations guarantee privileged access for large investment banks to cheap central bank funds, and allow investment banks to make use of these cheap funds as leverage in risky and speculative investments, such as the carry trade, that generate large returns. Further, governments offer an implicit guarantee to banks that encourages and supports these risky but lucrative practices through such policies as Too big to fail.  So bankers' salaries are determined narrowly by supply and demand but more broadly not in a free and unregulated market, in which banks would have to compete for talent with, say, engineering firms.  Instead, they operate in a highly protected market such that nonfinancial enterprises cannot compete for their talent.  This highly protected market allows banks to bid for talent at rates that are out of proportion to other economic sectors.  Marco polo (talk) 02:14, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I recall from the news that the bankers paid millions a year are partners of the bank. In that situation, in a group of equals, then you would want another partner to be paid as much as possible in the hope or expectation that you would be paid a similar amount. So normal economic rules of supply and demand (which appears only to apply to employees and not this situation) may not apply to the Übermensch of banking. Are such banks, I wonder, owned by shareholders or just by the Partners? 78.149.231.228 (talk) 02:03, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The largest banks are publicly traded, but most shareholders accept the recommendations of management, and shareholders generally have little direct say about compensation. Certainly bankers, like anyone else, expect to be paid as much as their peers, but I do think that supply and demand apply.  However, see my explanation above for why the demand curve is so high in this industry.  Marco polo (talk) 02:20, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * "Partner" in this context is just a title with very little meaning. There are hundreds of them at most big investment banks, they are the most senior people (with varying ranks within the partners) and they will have profit-sharing rights and things and will almost certainly own a large number of shares (or at least options), but most of the bank will be owned by pension funds and other institutional investors, the same as any big public company. --Tango (talk) 03:03, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I’m with Wikiant: simple supply and demand is the basic answer. There is a very high demand for executives who can bring in billion dollar profits (deals such as IPOs, M&As and LBOs), but very limited supply (the younger people mentioned don’t have the contacts, experience and knowledge to do the job, or else they would). Hence, those who have track records of being able to generate such profits (and not lose their bearings in the process) can command extremely large compensation packages. Those packages have typically been a base salary (sometimes only US$250,000) plus bonuses in the form of cash and / or stock options. The total can be tens of millions of dollars, for a very successful executive. And, money is money, whether it is inside a ‘walled garden” (??) or not.DOR (HK) (talk) 02:40, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the ready supply of money is relavant: I imagine that staff costs would be a small insignificant proportion of your costs in a financing deal of some kind if you do a lot of them. Its an interesting point of Marco Polo's that banks have priveledged access to much lower interest rates than other businesses. Given the ready supply of cheap money, and that high remuneration may not affect profits much (I speculate), then those who decide the salaries and remuneration have an incentive to raise those of others as high as possible so that their own income can be put at a high level by comparison - I forget the word used about trade unions who used to make similar comparisons for their workers. So in short, is the high remuneration a result of the privelidged access banks have to money at low or zero interest rates? 89.242.92.249 (talk) 13:47, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I would say yes, in combination with the workings of supply and demand. Marco polo (talk) 19:15, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I expect the real answer is that banks are clever enough to be able to calculate that its in their interests to motivate staff greatly, and that they will pay their staff any amount of commission if it results in a little extra revenue for the bank per deal, and a lot of extra deals as well. Even if the staff commission is a tiny fraction of a percent of the amount of the deal, it is still lots of money. And banks do have access to lots of money - its cheap to them. 78.149.174.141 (talk) 18:53, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I've been reading that a similar thing happened in Nelson's day. Captains who got their prize money from capturing four or five enemy ships could afford to buy an estate in the country. 92.24.73.102 (talk) 22:34, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Port Elmina
I'm interested in learning who Port Elmina, in Ghana was named after and the woman's history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.181.194.32 (talk) 16:28, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It was named after the Elmina Castle, originally titled São Jorge da Mina (St. George of the Mine) by the Portuguese and before that the settlement was known as A Mina (the Mine). The mines in this case referring to the Gold mines of the Gold coast. Nanonic (talk) 17:26, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Name my poison: question about alcoholic beverages
(What follows may sound like a wind up, but it isn't.) I've never really liked any alcoholic beverages and for social reasons I'm trying to "find my poison". I've tried several kinds of wine, which to me all tasted awful (imagine drinking motor oil) and Baileys, which was marginally more potable simply because I like sugar and dairy.

It is probably alcohol itself that I can't stand then. My questions are:
 * To verify this, should I try vodka, given that that is as close to pure alcohol as you can get?
 * Is there any alcoholic drink that doesn't taste like alcohol so much?
 * Should I just keep trying? Is it an acquired taste?

(PS: I know it would be done with the best intentions, but please let your answer not contain words like "peer pressure". I am a 31-year-old project manager and more assertive than John McEnroe (but in a good way!).)

Thank you in advance. 83.81.42.44 (talk) 17:54, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Try: cider and blackcurrant ; Buck's Fizz ; mudslide ; Long Island Iced Tea ; chilled rose wine ; or sweet sherry. I know someone who claims to dislike all alcoholic drinks, except for shots of akvavit from a bottle frozen in a block of ice and eaten with smoked herring (personally I think that's far from a newbie drink, but maybe you have the same biochemistry as my friend). -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 18:05, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I should observe that many drinks are drunk fridge cold (lager, white wine) or freezer cold (many spirits), so if you're experimenting at home it pays to get the temperatures right. And don't drink cocktails that some smart guy at a party claims he knows how to make (the world is full of bozos who make martinis that taste like industrial drain cleaner); go to a decent bar and have a pro do it. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 18:11, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I, of course, haven't actually answered your questions, so:
 * vodka still tastes like alcohol; if the alcoholic tinge itself is the problem, and adding ice doesn't help, then vodka isn't the answer
 * a well made margarita (the grandmother of all alcopops) tastes like nice limeade
 * it's an acquired taste, and there are any number of tastes to acquire
 * -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 18:16, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Sugar tends to hide the taste of alcohol. You should try sweet drinks. That's why you found Baileys more acceptable. However, if you are doing it for social reasons, Baileys is considered a "girly" drink (by far the best thing about Christmas is having an excuse to drink Baileys!). You don't mention beer - what beers have you tried? There are lots of different ones. You should try a real ale, an English-style lager, maybe a Belgian beer and an eastern-European lager, they are all different and you may find one you like. You should also try cider. Or, you should try not giving in to peer pressure, which applies to 31 year olds just as much as it does to teenagers! Being tee-total is pretty socially acceptable, these days. --Tango (talk) 18:18, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * not all alcohols appeal to all people. I find that beers gives me allergies, wines (unless they are very dry) are a bit cloying, and rum just disgusts me.  bourbon or whiskey, though, appeal to me, and there's not much I enjoy more (taste-wise) than a well-made manhattan (which is maybe the best balance you'll find between classy, masculine, and sweet).  but you know, if you've gone this long without getting a taste for alcohol, I'd suggest you avoid developing one.  drinking doesn't add much to life except an excuse.  -- Ludwigs 2  18:29, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You should not yield to convention and just tell people that you do not like alcohol. The current medical opinion is that its bad for you - cancer as well as heart and circulation problems. Yes, I have heard the old cliche that one drink a day does you good, but the newest medical opinion is that its bad even in small quantities. The good stuff in a glass of wine can be got in greater quantity by eating one apple instead, I understand. 78.147.135.237 (talk) 19:09, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, by all means try vodka. But do NOT sip it slowly, and do NOT drink it at anything above freezer temperature (don't worry, it doesn't freeze). If you disobey my instructions, it will probably disgust you, so don't say you weren't warned. Swallow a cold shot straight down in one go - it will warm you in a way that few things can. --  Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   19:40, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Vodka doesn't have a very strong taste. You could try it with coke, lemonade, orange juice or whatever soft drink you like.--Frumpo (talk) 21:07, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * If you don't like alcoholic beverages, why not just not drink them? You'll be the healthier for it -- even doctors who recognize the purported health benefits of red wine accept that it's still better not to drink at all. I would hope that by 2010 it's socially acceptable to have a Diet Coke when out with friends. -- 199.172.169.21 (talk) 22:46, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Moderation in all things, but IMHO it is an acquired taste. All the better, if you took to it too well, it may not be healthy in the long run. That said try Bundaberg Rum. COI statement and Flag waving, I am Aussie. ;) (and I can't stand beer) 220.101.28.25 (talk) 22:55, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * You might also try amaretto sours, which taste more like candy than cocktails, and White Russians if you like the taste of coffee. If White Russians are still too strong, you can order one with no vodka (which leaves you with Kahlua and milk), or just order a Kahlua and cream (assuming your waistline is of no importance to you). - Fullobeans (talk) 00:55, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I've found apple or pear ciders to be the most drinkable alcoholic drinks. The taste is mild, and the alcoholic tang is less salient. While I do agree that it's not important to be a drinker, I'll accept that there are some situations where it can be very beneficial to be able to have something. Steewi (talk) 01:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

All you jolly drinkers out there might like this one: That's Spike Jones behind the bar, and the hiccuping guy with the grey derby and the fake mustache is The Man of a Thousand Voices. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:08, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * My partner also hates the taste of alcohol, but he is fond of mojitos. It is a sweet drink, but I don't think it has an overwhelming feminine reputation.  Marco polo (talk) 01:53, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * So the consensus seems to be: get something without too much alcohol and mask the taste with stronger flavors. You could try mead, of which there are many varieties.  Of course, finding it will be a problem in many areas. Buddy431 (talk) 02:22, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Why not get something with very little alcohol if you do not like it? Very very little alcohol - in fact no alcohol at all? 89.242.92.249 (talk) 13:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see why you would have to learn to drink in order to be sociable. If your friends can accept the fact that you don't drink when you all go out together, then I think you needn't worry about losing them or their respect. If they ostracise you because they think you're a wuss, then that's their problem. If you're wanting to learn to drink because of work reasons (i.e. going out with the boss, or whatever), I suggest you learn golf. It's a lot less fun, involves carrying stuff for your boss, and occasionally gives you a fantastic sense of achievement when you pull off the one-billion-to-one odds hole-in-one through sheer jammy luck - not unlike a regular day at the office :) --  KageTora - (影虎)  ( A word...? )  10:25, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * In the UK (and I suspect elsewhere) alcopops were invented for those in your very position. In my youth, it took some time to acquire a taste for bitter and other grown-up drinks. Now you can drink yourself stupid without serving this apprenticeship. Is this an improvement? Alansplodge (talk) 11:41, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Forcing yourself to drink alcohol when you don't like it is nearly as foolish as forcing yourself to smoke tobacco because your friends do. Any bar should have non-alcoholic drinks available for drivers - ask for one of those. 89.242.92.249 (talk) 13:00, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * That's what I do, having discovered I dislike the taste of alcohol, I make a point of not drinking any, it works every time. Though I do occasioanlly have to persuade people that it does actually have a taste and smell, many seem not to have even noticed the fact. 148.197.114.158 (talk) 21:43, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

white and Japanese
The common traditionary interracial among white/asian couples suppose to be white male and asain female but for Japanese tribes I see something a little bit strange. I've never known anybody who is Japanese mom/white dad but I only hear of white mom (female) and Japanese dad (male). Is this just me observational bias or for Japanese still white dad (male) and Japanese mom (female) is nore common. I've never hear that pattern.--209.129.85.4 (talk) 18:03, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Every single time you ask one of these questions, it is always observational bias. You have, in the past, been directed to databases of racial marriage data in the U.S.  You could just as easily look up the numbers yourself based on past data.  Every time you say "I have never seen..." it means you are basing your statement on your personal experience alone.  You are an insignificant (statistically) person, given you are one of 6+ billion world citizens, and one of 330+ million American citizens, so the fact that you have or not experienced meeting some couple with some arbitrary racial mix means nothing, statistically speaking.  It wouldn't be getting so weary if you didn't ask the exact same question, with subtle differences, several times a week.  Oh, and Japan hasn't been a "tribal" society for several thousand years, so you may want to choose your terms more carefully.  -- Jayron  32  18:36, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

The commonality here is that (as a general rule) men are more likely to seek out 'exotic' partners, while women tend to prefer more conventional partners. so, in caucasian areas, men will be more likely to marry non-caucasian women than women will be to marry non-caucasian men; in japanese areas men will be more likely to marry non-japanese women than women will be to marry non-japanese men; and etc. -- Ludwigs 2  18:34, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * . Comet Tuttle (talk) 21:33, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * meh. save that for article space.  if you disagree, then disagree.  -- Ludwigs 2  21:38, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * This is a Reference Desk. We are supposed to provide references for the questioners, not OR opinions backed up by nothing.  Your claim is just as OR as the OP's observation, and without at least a stab at a reference you aren't helping.  Comet Tuttle (talk) 23:52, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Actor Dean Cain's father his half-Japanese ancestry and his father's father is full Japanese ancestry, apparently. I've seen him, on TV. Maybe the OP hasn't. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:56, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Eh, I suspect Jayron has it right, and that it's an observation bias that's getting warped into a slightly scurrilous/prejudicial truth-claim. though for the life of me I can't figure out what the psychological bias is (only that the presentation speaks to bias) - there's no major japanese-American interracial prejudice that I'm aware of.  -- Ludwigs 2  19:12, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I've only hear father being Japanese and mother being white. That is one of my old bus driver who is full japanese and marry to a white wife same as my neighbor and a girl in my high school who was in journalism.--209.129.85.4 (talk) 21:40, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Two is just not a viable sample..hotclaws 22:31, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Concur with Hotclaws. I know of a WW2 soldier stationed in Japan who marrried a Japanese lady and brought her home to Australia. I believe that this was known to happen irrespective of race, if not as common as British war wives marrying American GIs as an example. 220.101.28.25 (talk) 23:08, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I think I've worked it out, the OP has his theory backwards. In the poorer south east Asian countries, I think there undeniably would be a bias. There would be far more white males travelling to poorer Asian countries to find wives, as opposed to white women trying to find husbands. We could argue "why" but I'm quite certain that is not an observational bias. The fact that this effect might be far less in Japan, because Japanese women generally don't need to "marry out" to escape poverty might be what the OP is interpreting incorrectly as a bias there. Japan is a very strange mix of east and west you can't really compare it to places like thailand or vietna,, it definitely has eastern influences but is far more westernised then most other Asian nations. Vespine (talk) 00:17, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Along the same lines as Vespine, I know from being raised as a (British) Army brat that male soldiers stationed in foreign countries in a colonial, occupational or post-occupational situation not infrequently marry 'local' wives; such military forces have traditionally contained a much lower proportion of unmarried females. In the case of the British Army, prolonged presences in Hong Kong, Singapore and (post WW2) Germany have (to my personal observations over 4½ decades) resulted in significant numbers of Chinese, SE Asian and German wives of British military personnel; the same consideration probably apples to the American post-WW2 presence in Japan (and, for that matter, Germany). 87.81.230.195 (talk) 02:24, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Please don't feed the trolls. DOR (HK) (talk) 02:46, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I have a very white uncle, whose first wife was part Maori, part Japanese, and therefore my cousins are white, Japanese and Maori. I didn't think this was unusual. The Russian Christopher Lilly 11:55, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

African American Muslims
Do African American muslims specifically know that they are from a islamic heritage? I figure that there is at least a chance, and maybe a good one, that they are descended from Africans that were Sub-Saharan that had nothing to do with Islam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.36.39.222 (talk) 18:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

They are descended from Africans that were Sub-Saharan that had nothing to do with Islam, correct. -- 89.247.56.36 (talk) 18:22, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * almost all African-American muslims are muslims by conversion. Africans brought to the US as slaves were converted to Christianity (to the extent that slave owners cared about their religion).  One of the effects of the freeing of slaves is a push away from christianity as a 'slave' religion.  this caused a resurgence of African tribal faiths in the Caribbean and a number of African Muslim movements (particularly during the civil rights movement) in the US.  -- Ludwigs 2  18:41, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * How ironic it is that "Islam" supposedly means "submission". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:48, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * well, submission to God's will is a bit different than submission to a slave-owner's will, though I suppose it may not appear that way to an actual slave-owner. The irony would surely be lost on most Muslims.


 * and don't look at me for more - I'm not a dualist. -- Ludwigs 2  19:17, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The slippery part is what the actual will of God is. And Islam has no monopoly on that dilemma. I read something about Malcolm X that explained why he converted, in that Muslims seemed to be free of racial prejudice, at least in his experience. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:25, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * that's interesting; I wonder if he'd still feel the same way? granting that mainstream muslim beliefs are generally a bit more open-minded than equivalent christian beliefs (if only because muslims incorporate christianity as part of their spiritual history), radical Islam - which was largely non-existent in the 1960's - has become a fairly major player, with strong racial statements.  the world keeps keeping on, I guess...  -- Ludwigs 2  19:39, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Hard telling. It can be the "grass is greener..." effect. Someone sees something in one institution that appears to be lacking in another, or vice versa. Paul Robeson famously embraced Soviet Russia, a country so desperate for a decent standard of living that Will Rogers once said, "They ain't got no income tax; but they ain't got no income!" Black Americans have also embraced Judaism and Christianity. Ultimately it has to touch something in someone a certain way, to attract or repel. (Getting too far afield from the OP's question here.) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:17, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * There has also been a great degree of antagonism between sub-Saharan Africans and Muslims in many cases, including slave-raiding by Muslims. Relations between Christian Africans or followers of traditional religions on the one hand and Muslims on the other have often been strained in places like Nigeria, Sudan and Tanzania. I'm sure some slaves were Muslims, such as Abdulrahman Ibrahim Ibn Sori, but my guess is they were a small minority. -- 199.172.169.7 (talk) 22:43, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Very few African-Americans (I mean people of African-American culture descended from slaves) know much, if anything, about their African ancestors. Few records survive, and for most, their African ancestors lived more than 6 generations ago.  Therefore, for the most part, they do not know, and neither do we, whether some of their ancestors were Muslims.   Some of the regions of Africa affected by the trans-Atlantic slave trade, such as Senegambia and upper Guinea, had largely or overwhelmingly Muslim populations, so many African-Americans probably do have Muslim ancestors. Because descendants of Africans brought to North America were largely converted to Christianity and differences in African ethnic heritage were not a barrier to intermarriage, most or all African-Americans probably also have non-Muslim African ancestors.  Marco polo (talk) 01:43, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

"A celebrity is a person who is well known for his well knownness." Daniel J. Boorstin
Does anyone know the source exactly? (book, year, page) -- 89.247.56.36 (talk) 18:20, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I've read several of Daniel J. Boorstin's works, including The Discoverers and The Creators, and I don't remember that quote, or even that type of quote, appearing in his writing. Which is not to say that it wasn't in one of his other books.  He was also a public figure, serving for a long time as Librarian of Congress, so he could have just as easily spoken the quote during a speech or a public function. -- Jayron  32  18:31, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that is from his book The Image, which I once read long ago. 78.147.135.237 (talk) 19:10, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * We have an article, Famous for being famous, which would benefit from an etymology. Comet Tuttle (talk) 21:26, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The exact quote is "A celebrity is a person who is known for his well-knownness." (Slightly different than the one given above.) Daniel J. Boorstin, The Image: A Guide to Psuedo-Events in America (Vintage Books Edn., 1992 [1961]), p. 57. It's searchable on Amazon (but you have to search for the right phrase.) I've updated his Wikiquote page. --Mr.98 (talk) 23:03, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Re: famous for being famous, Google Books has this example from 1907, referring to "an actress famous for being famous". Warofdreams talk 00:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * My first thought whenever someone talks about famous for famous' sake is Beau Brummel. Steewi (talk) 01:05, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * For me, it's that woman. You know the one I mean.  The one whose name I refuse to utter.  --  202.142.129.66 (talk) 01:40, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Nope, never heard of her. DuncanHill (talk) 01:49, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You mean the one that, if you were to stay in a particular hotel in the Capital of France, you may have to inadvertantly refer to her? That one?-- Jayron  32  04:14, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, that one. See, you do know who I mean.  --   Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   09:26, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Cruella de Vil? ;) AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 10:22, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Isn't that what they say about Paris Hilton ? What other use is she ? I guess some can even tell me that. The Russian Christopher Lilly 11:57, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The good thing about most celebs is that they are exemplers of slimness and fitness, and thus encourage the same and the health benefits that come from them. Of course notorious celebs also do a lot of bad unhealthy things too. Yes, I know about anorexia. 89.241.39.207 (talk) 12:22, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Turkish/Afghanistan/Pakistani Anthems
Does anyone know if there is more than mere coincidence that results in the apparent high degree of similarity between the melodies of the Turkish, Afghan (current), and Pakistani national anthems? Thanks for any information. --152.3.128.132 (talk) 19:30, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Click here for the anthems of Turkey, Afghanistan and Pakistan, each with its heartwarming lyrics. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 20:01, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * But does anyone know something about the music/melody of each anthem, specifically, whether the apparent similarity between the three anthems' melodies is concidental or intentional? --71.111.194.50 (talk) 03:48, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Population of German Empire
I'm trying to find the maximum extent of the German Empire, in terms of population and land area, but as importantly a good source for them. Articles, such as list of largest empires contain unproven - if believable - numbers, but I really need an FA quality source, if possible. (Not for an FA, FTR.) This was probably in 1914, and so any population or area from that year - qualified or not - would be great. Some on-line sources omit colonies, which I really need included. Thanks for all your help. 92.20.218.135 (talk) 21:58, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Qualified or not?174.3.98.236 (talk) 01:24, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * This source says 66.9m in 1913 and 67.1 in 1914. I suspect this excludes overseas colonies. This site gives a ratio of population of Germany to population of German colonies of 6:1 Alansplodge (talk) 11:30, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * (EC) The article German Empire that the OP linked to has the information in there, as well as a list of sources. Maybe he/she could take a look through them, if he/she hasn't done so already. --  KageTora - (影虎)  ( A word...? )  11:34, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It does mention a population and area in the infobox but this is specifically "Area and population not including colonial possessions", which I could really do with. (I can't see a further mention in the text.) By "qualified" I meant whether the source said "maximum extent", which I'd imagine it wouldn't (in contrast to simply giving a population and area figure for 1914). 92.20.218.135 (talk) 18:19, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Got one - anyone who wants to add it to the list and/or articles, it is here. 92.20.218.135 (talk) 20:38, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

What protestant sect did the Diggers belong to?
What protestant sect did the English Diggers belong to? --Gary123 (talk) 22:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The Diggers were a Protestant group; they have been described as Puritan, but were in conflict with the more mainstream Puritan groups. This book suggests that Winstanley had spent time as a Baptist and a Seeker.  After the dissolution of the Diggers, he appears to have joined the Quakers. Warofdreams talk 00:35, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * There is some background to these groups in English Dissenters. BrainyBabe (talk) 21:11, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

When did the Chionites begin invading (eastern) Afghanistan?
According to the Zabulistan article the Kushanshas were driven out of (eastern) Afghanistan by the Chionites in AD 420. But I'm sure the Chionites were in Afghanistan earlier than 420. Perhaps the article means that by 420 there were no Kushanshas in Afghanistan. So the question is, when did the Chionite invasions actually begin? ExitRight (talk) 23:56, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * According to this book, evidence suggests that the Chionites were indeed in parts of Afghanistan by the mid/late fourth century. Warofdreams talk 15:26, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your help. ExitRight (talk) 01:20, 31 January 2010 (UTC)