Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2011 October 12

= October 12 =

Upholstery for royal sittery
I remember watching a show about very upper-end (frankly, royal) upholstery that was produced generation after generation and meant to be used to repair furniture which was centuries old. Such as chairs at Versailles and Buckingham Castle and so forth. The show may have been on PBS, but I think it was on the Ovation Channel carried by Time Warner Cable in Manhattan. Can anyone both name the type of fabric and, especially, provide a link to the provider or originasl video? μηδείς (talk) 04:50, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I suspect that you mean Buckingham Palace. Alansplodge (talk) 11:31, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Damask, probably. Here's a provider of damask for upholstery at Buckingham Palace. - Nunh-huh 11:50, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

LOL, Buckingham castle...yeah...palace. Damask is not the word I am looking for. These were simpler fabrics, although Damasks might be included. There was a simple "English" name like "standard" or some such that was used. The cloth was noted for running to hundreds of pounds for the square yard. It was noted for its quality and the fact that the patterns were retained over the centuries to ensure continuity. For example, one could say "I need the Louis Quinze print" to fix a tear in a three century old chair and the right cloth would be in stock. μηδείς (talk) 12:12, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Brocade? --TammyMoet (talk) 12:16, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I am not looking for a specific type of weaving or fabric like tweed or corduroy per se but rather standard patterns of whatever high-quality type that have been maintained for the specific purpose that they will be available to replace worn material with an exact match over time, in the same way that China patterns enjoy a long vogue, so that one can invest in expensive dinner sets without having to replace the entire set because the pattern is no longer in production if just one plate breaks.μηδείς (talk) 12:23, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Isn't this amenable to reverse engineering? Particularly as you're talking about a luxury market of veblen goods (in capital) or feudal ostentation ala Louis XIV's strategy of "dazzle by underlings so they don't rise up" (in pre-capitalism).  Reverse engineering in the contemporary era would be fine for restoration.  For the pre-modern era, you might look into the economics of Versailles, which supported craftsmen on a long term (well, three generation) basis.  Prior to Versailles as a system, you'd want to think about the continuity of female or religious domestic production, as in the "oeconomy" of the home-producers.  Most feudal households maintained a continuity of economic function that would make even the longest lasting capitalist corporations envious.  You'd also want to look at the "lay" orders of religious in the Low Countries.  A key site of economic production, leveraging their position in the trade networks of Europe.  I know this doesn't go directly to your question about maintaining long production cycles of specific cloths, but it does explain that prior to the factory system, production units were much longer lived being based in households and communities. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:27, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The problem for any search seems to be that there is no simple distinctive key word. My hope was that someone here had seen the show which was almost certainly produced by or in conjunction with the BBC.  I can imagine Ozwald Boateng or Princess Michael of Kent being interviewed.  Perhaps regarding the renovation of a palace.  The segment in question dealt with a shop in London which specialised in these kinds of luxurious and very standard traditional patterns (imagine, say, Burberry Tartan then take it up a few notches in quality and down a notch in gaudiness) kept in production unchanged for generations (believe since at least the 18th century) to service noble estates.  The fabric proprietor showed rolls of the different cloths, specifically one in red and gold, explaining the exclusive tradition.  I do believe the fabrics were produced in the Low Countries.  The word standard keeps coming to mind, but whatever it was it was a common English word being used in a very specific sense and it wasn't a word I am familiar with like print or bolt from every-day seamstressing.    μηδείς (talk) 02:48, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I suggest you contact a GLAM information professional at a museum of science and technology. If you lived in NSW or Australia, I'd suggest the Powerhouse Museum.  Asking to speak to their curator of fabrics might be the best way forward.  Seems to be] the context you're dealing with, but I'm not able to find the concept of a standard beyond the idea of the "pattern" in a Jacquard. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:21, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I think the Met is a great idea. μηδείς (talk) 10:38, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Ancient Roman math
How did the Ancient Roman use Roman numerals to do bookkeeping and calculate volumes, curves for arches and water flumes and other structures like the Coliseums or did they bring in Arabs or Greeks who had better tools to make such calculations? --DeeperQA (talk) 07:53, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I can't answer your question directly, but there are ways of doing multiplication. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 08:02, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Romans used the abacus to do calculations. Sleigh (talk) 08:49, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Using various forms of abacus, which are ideally suited to Roman numerals. Note that these are not like the toy abacuses you see for children today, which are good for nothing but basic counting and tallies: these abacuses have units, 5s, 10s, 50s, etc, and can be used to calculate complicated problems very quickly, once you're trained. There was a long-running dispute between whether the Roman-numeral based abacus method, or the Arabic-numeral based algebraist method, was better, with dualing calculations. In the end, Europe went with Arabic numerals and written calculation. Note that this wasn't an obvious choice: a portable abacus can be more convenient than a sandtray for writing calculations in, and both methods can be done mentally to an extent. 86.163.1.168 (talk) 08:55, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Note that Arabic numerals as we known them only date from around the 9th century AD, so they wouldn't be much use for the Romans. Greek numerals may seem slightly simpler than Roman numerals, but they still don't use positional values or zero in writing large integers, meaning modern math isn't much easier. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:02, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Which Romans? Byzantium Fifelfoo (talk) 09:45, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe the golden age of Colosseum (sic for amphitheatres I guess) and aqueduct building was over before byzantine times. --Saddhiyama (talk) 18:00, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Two excellent sources on Roman technology that I'm aware of, that are easily accessible in English online, are works by Vitruvius and Pliny the Elder. The former, an engineer by trade, is probably more likely to give you the kind of information you're looking for. Our article is a good one and includes lots [too many, perhaps] of links to external sites where you can read his books. Pliny, who famously died in the eruption at Pompeii, an event recorded by his nephew, the arguably more famous Pliny the Younger, was more interested in nature, but as an admiral and a scientist recorded a fair bit about technology in passing, from what I remember. --Dweller (talk) 09:28, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't forget Frontinus, who wrote the fascinating work De aquaeductu on the state of the aqueducts of Rome. The Latin text of the book can be read here and the English translation here. --Saddhiyama (talk) 18:00, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

By the way, astronomers in the Roman empire used a sexagesimal (base-60) notation system, which was closer to being a place-value or positional system than any other numerical notation system in use around the Mediterranean at that time. Not sure whether engineers would have used it (and accountants definitely wouldn't have). AnonMoos (talk) 11:53, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Why did Republicans block Obama jobs bill?
Is there much truth in Obama's assertion that "...they'll have a hard time explaining why they voted no on this bill - other than the fact that I proposed it"? (source: BBC News, 12 October 2011 01:15 GMT) Astronaut (talk) 10:44, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Note to answerers: Please avoid having just a debate over this. Please back up any answers with references. Thanks in advance. --Mr.98 (talk) 11:49, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Look up Jim DeMint's infamous "Waterloo" policy (which oddly is not mentioned on the Jim DeMint article), and peruse this article by Mike Lofgren for the underlying basic general reasons... AnonMoos (talk) 11:59, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * This question is political showboating that should be deleted. The fact is that there is a Democratic majority in the Senate and it is they who did not pass the bill. μηδείς (talk) 12:04, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * As the Senate rules require a vote of at least 60 senators to allow a bill to even reach the point of discussion, and it would have required several Republican senators to reach that number of votes, it is, in fact, correct to state that the Republicans blocked the bill. -- LarryMac  | Talk  12:10, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * News articles on the topic list reasons given by Republicans - e.g. [ and [. The primary argument given is that it is very similar to the 2009 stimulus package, which did not meet all its targets, and the Republicans argue that it was a failure.  You may agree or disagree with this line of argument, but they do not appear to have any trouble giving the explanation, so I would contend that Obama's specific assertion given above is incorrect. [[User:Warofdreams|Warofdreams]] talk 12:33, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * (EC) I'm not from the US but as I understand it while some (2 according to the source) Democratic senators may not have supported the bill, it was a moot point because they needed 60 votes to overide a filibuster and there is not a Democractic 60 vote majority (supermajority) in the Senate so it was in the power of Republicans to filibuster the bill in the Senate and they did so (or technically 2 Democracts and all 47 Republicans). Reading the source above and other US sources   seems to reaffirm my view.
 * Not mentioned in the source, but as I understand it, technically the Democrats in the senate could use the 'nuclear option', as they can change the rules with only a simple majority so can remove the requirement for a 60 vote majority to overide a filibuster. But so far neither party has considered it a wise move as it raises serious issues which go beyond any single bill. Is this what you're referring to? If so, solely blaming the Democractic majority for refusing to change a long standing tradition which was way beyond the jobs bill seems a bit flawed, particularly at this early stage in the process where it seems likely it'll be even more controversial. To be fair, it seems they did make minor use of what can be called the nuclear option recently, which was itself fairly controversial   even though it seems to be of limited consequence in itself and mainly about stopping a different kind of filibuster, using amendments to make a point a delay a bill briefly. But if anything, that just seems to re-affirm the view that the nuclear option is indeed a nuclear option.
 * Of course as I'm said I'm not from the US, so if I'm wrong I welcome sourced corrections.
 * Nil Einne (talk) 12:42, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

The majority decides whether a cloture vote is held. The politically safe failed cloture vote was brought intentionally by the Democrat leadership, knowing that it would fail, so that Republicans could be described as "do nothing". But it is reported that had the cloture vote passed, enough Democrats who voted for cloture would have voted against the bill itself to prevent its passing. "Sen. Jim Webb, D-Va., had said earlier that although he intended to vote in favor of ending the Republican filibuster, he did not intend to support the bill if it reached a final vote." μηδείς (talk) 18:27, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Nowhere did your article report that "had the cloture vote passed, enough Democrats who voted for cloture would have voted against the bill itself to prevent its passing". Please don't cite sources to support your statements if the sources do not, in fact, support your statements.  --140.180.26.155 (talk) 20:50, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Indeed. The source does say Jim Webb would not have supported the bill, and since the motion to end cloture was 50-49 a naïve reasoning may lead one to believe this means it would have failed. However per the BusinessWeek source as well as simple math, there was still one missing vote which was a Democratic senator. The Fox News source does not say this missing senator would have opposed the bill nor does it say any other senator who supported the cloture vote would have opposed the bill. Therefore without any evidence to the contrary we can only assume the tally would have been 50-50 if the cloture vote had passed which I believe means VP Joe Biden gets to cast the deciding vote, and there's no evidence to suggest they would have voted against. In other words, no evidence has been presented which demonstrates the bill would have failed, if the cloture has passed.
 * In any case, AFAIK no evidence has been presented here to suggest the reason for the Republican voting against cloture was because they believe the bill would have failed (so it was a waste of time or whatever). Or to put it a different way, as things stand, there's no evidence to suggest the senate Democrats have any hope of passing the bill even if all 53 come together, sing Kumbaya and reach complete unanimity to pass it.
 * In the end, all this speculation is just plain silly. You can't say the Democrats are at fault, for what may or may not have happened if the Republicans (and 2 Democrats) had did something they did not do and were never going to do anyway. Even if evidence does emerge it would have failed, the original statement "it is they who did not pass the bill" is clearly wrong, "they" never got the opportunity to "not pass" the bill because of something the Republicans and 2 Democrats did. Now if the Republicans had supported cloture, and the bill had failed, μηδείς would have a point, but that's not what happened.
 * Edit: Just noticed the BusinessWeek (actually AP) source which I provided earlier, but not the FoxNews source μηδείς provided, says Joe Lieberman opposed the measure although it doesn't explicitly say he would have vote against it. This does suggest it may have failed 49-51 but as I said above such speculation is silly. We can't be sure what would have happened if something else had happened which didn't happen. I also note even if the bill had come to vote and failed, the most accurate summation would not be 'they who did not pass the bill', but 'all Republicans and 4 Democrats (or 3 + 1 independent who supports them) who did not pass the bill' (or whatever the tally was). And just to be clear, I'm not arguing that stopping the bill was wrong, simply pointing out what we actually know, and what actually happened.
 * Nil Einne (talk) 21:52, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually, the article to which I linked did, when featured on Fox News' front page, indeed originally say that fewer Democrats would have voted in favor of the bill itself than voted for cloture. In any case, all reports about this bill have said dead on arrival and that it would not have been passed even on a Dem majority. No source indicates it had majority support for passage. μηδείς (talk) 22:14, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * But the Senate is a complicated place — you don't know how many votes until you actually vote on it. Which the Republicans have made clear they don't want to do. So I do think that saying the Republicans have been the ones to stall it is correct. There's no wiggling out of the fact that they've decided to filibuster it rather than put it up to the vote. Presumably enough of them are afraid it could actually get passed that they're unwilling to take the chance. --Mr.98 (talk) 22:21, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Having played the late VP candidate in our high school's mock presidential debate in 1984, I can say I understand the mechanics of the legislature. The point is not that the Republicans "blocked" the bill but that the Democrats brought it up when they knew cloture would fail, regardless of reports that the bill itself would have failed in both the Senate and the House.  The proper question here is not why the Republicans "blocked" the bill, but why the Dems brought it up for a vote knowing (see Whip (politics) ) it would fail.  The answer is the politically risk-free base-appeasing opportunity to blame the Republicans for not voting for a hugely unpopular bill without having to  risk a backlash at its having been passed.  μηδείς (talk) 23:14, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Just as a note I found several sources suggesting there was one more Democrat who said they would have voted against it, but again, no real difference to my point. I agree with Mr.98 obviously although the Republican POV (of not wanting to risk it) is understandable. From what I read the other 2 people who said they would vote against it are not facing re-election and either way, anyone can say 'I would have done X' when you know few are going to remember or care (which applies both ways); or as a trick. And most Democrats senators would be laughing at their Republican counterparts if they had let it through only for those who said they would vote against it to turn around and say 'hahahaha, you believed that crap?' and passed it. The Republicans clearly didn't want that so didn't risk it, helped by 2 superflurous Democrats, even though letting a few Democrats help really kill the bill may have been better for them. Then again suggests both Obama and the Republican senate leader want gridlock because they believe it will serve either to improve Democratic numbers on congress or to stop Obama getting re-elected, so perhaps both parties got what they wanted. As I said earlier though, what happened happened, regardless of the reasons or what may have happened in other circumstances. Nil Einne (talk) 23:06, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

At the risk of provoking boring political debate, it should be pointed out that some political pundits have said that this was a bill that no one ever thought would pass. Obama proposed an unpassable jobs bill, it's said, so that he could focus his 2012 presidential campaign against a "do nothing" Congress. What we're seeing now is not a serious attempt to pass legislation, but political theater. Whether or not you agree with this assessment, some folks see it that way. 71.72.156.36 (talk) 00:17, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I noted that above except that I also noted some sources like suggest both Obama and the Republican/minority leader prefer the current state of affairs as they both believe it will serve their purposes. Nil Einne (talk) 03:40, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

best selling living poets
I can't believe I can't find this easily online. Who are the best selling living poets, and how many books do they sell (on average) each year? Harley Spleet (talk) 10:46, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Whoever the best selling recording artists are. They don't sell books, they sell CDs or songs on iTunes. Sleigh (talk) 11:03, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * This is a good question. I'm sorry I don't know the answer, but Sleigh's answer is obviously not what you're looking for. The Nobel Academy obviously distinguishes between songwriting and poems.... Spleet has a very fair question. Shadowjams (talk) 11:22, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, Sleigh's is the exactly correct answer. It's a bizarre sort of elitism that confers the title poet only to obscure artistes whose claim to fame is lack of popular recognition.  I would go with Pink Floyd for Dark Side of the Moon or Fleetwood Mac for Rumours given that Michael Jackson and Elvis Presley and most of the Beatles are dead. There's also The Rolling Stones' and their Sympathy for the Devil of course.μηδείς (talk) 12:01, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * If we want to stick to people who self-identify as poets, I think Bob Dylan would feature pretty highly. Warofdreams talk 12:13, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh come on RD, we can do better than that. It's pretty obvious what kind of writers the OP is looking for, and it's not rock stars.  Dark Side of the Moon, Rumours and so on are not books, which seems to have escaped Medeis' notice, and I'm not sure Dylan self-identifies as a poet either.  Even if he does, that doesn't settle the issue of whether he should be considered one for the purposes of this question.  I don't know the answer, but I would have thought that, in the English-speaking world at least, people like Seamus Heaney, Carol Ann Duffy and Simon Armitage would be up there.  I wouldn't count Pam Ayres as a poet either, although Wendy Cope may qualify. --Viennese Waltz 12:22, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, yes, when I said Sleigh's answer ("Whoever the best selling recording artists are. They don't sell books, they sell CDs or songs on iTunes") was exactly correct, I obviously overlooked the part about not selling books. μηδείς (talk) 19:38, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * So, if we're excluding Pam Ayres, we're looking for the best selling unpopular poet whose words aren't set to music, right? Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:29, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yup. And we'd better exclude Julia Donaldson, many of whose books are poems, but for the fact that they're, err, not. --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:03, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * There's a useful summary of Dylan's self-identification as a poet, or not, here. Warofdreams talk 12:36, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, but his words are meant to be accompanied by music. I'm a huge Dylan fan, and I think his lyrics are wonderfully poetic, but that doesn't make him a poet.  Besides, the OP is looking for books, not records and CDs.  Maybe Dylan's collected lyrics is a best seller, but it's not his collected poems, is it? --Viennese Waltz 12:57, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm a bit surprised that nobody has mentioned Maya Angelou yet. (Knows little to nothing about any poetry outside of Robert Frost and Flander's Fields >)  Dismas |(talk) 13:11, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I just want to say that I don't think it should matter terribly much whether an individual "self-identifies" as a poet. We all should be competent to evaluate whether or not an individual is a poet on our own. Such an evaluation would obviously focus on the material—not on the person. I don't think the individual in question—in this case Dylan—should be understood to have any special insight into the question being pondered here concerning whether or not the material being evaluated is poetry. Bus stop (talk) 14:54, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I would have expected the "best selling,"(in terms of dollars earned), living poets to be writers of insipid but popular inspirational verse, like the late Helen Steiner Rice, of greeting card fame. Or they might write childrens' poetry, like Dr. Seuss or Shel Silverstein (both of whom died in the 1990's). I would not expect them to be be poets whose work is admired by critics, but aimed at the highbrow reader. The 30th edition version of Silverstein's "Where the sidewalk ends" is #263 in Amazon sales, and #2 in "children's poetry". As a matter of fact, his poetry books are  7 of the 10 best sellers in children's poetry at present at Amazon. The highest placed living writer of children's poetry is Joyce Sidman, who has published 11 books of poetry since 2000.  But then I discovered that at Amazon, in the list of best selling books of poetry Tomas Tranströmer, a living "serious" poet, (whose name I can't help reading as "Thomas Transformer") is the author of 4 of the top 10 books at present, so he sounds like a good bet. If you are looking for total career sales as well, he published new works from 1954 through 2004, so there were lots of opportunities for poetry lovers to purchase his work over the years, besides his work being translated into 50 languages. Poetry in translation seem of dubious interest, in general, at least the old fashioned type which rhymed and scanned. For blank verse, a Google machine translation would probably be as much fun to read as the original in many cases.  His "The Great Enigma: New Collected Poems" is presently #135 among all books at Amazon.  Edison (talk) 15:22, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Just to throw a spanner in the works regarding poetry and music, John Betjeman was the English Poet Laureate, but also had his poems set to music (or formed part of musical works) on several occasions. Does that mean he wasn't really a poet? --TammyMoet (talk) 16:51, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Also Jewel published a book of poetry which apparently sold very well but less on its quality as poetry and more on her fame as a singer. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 17:18, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Speakings of spanners, most if not all of "Shakespeare"'s plays have been the basis of opera libretti, and many of his sonnets have been set as songs. Does that mean he wasn't really a playwright, or a poet?  --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  19:30, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * WOW guys. I'd have thought it would have been obvious from my question that I meant poets in the traditional sense (there's an article on wikipedia about it - poet, if you're interested). I can't work out if μηδείς is a massive troll or just wrong all the time, but no, I don't think it's elitist to say that Fleetwood Mac aren't a poet. Let alone the fact that there's four of them (even Wordsworth & Coleridge had separate names when they released Lyrical Ballads!). I guess I could have better phrased my question: How can I find a list of best-selling poetry books written by living people, but I didn't think I'd have to be so specific. Thanks to all the people who have genuinely been helpful, but I'd have expected a bit better from Wikipedia than a load of people squabbling with eachother - it's a bit like arguing with a turing test machine at points. Thanks for the Duffy / Heaney / Armitage / Angelou suggestions - that's helpful. I suspect Transtromer is so high up the list because he's just won the nobel prize for literature, and a load of English-speaking journalists have been urgently brushing up on him so they can write articles. Which sort of leads me on to my question. I know it might be sligtly too much to ask, but if anyone can find a list that answers this (modified) question, I would be very grateful.

Rephrased question: '''I was recently having a conversation with a friend about living poets, and whether they can make a living from book sales alone. He suggested that it was very unlikely that anyone is making a living solely from publishing books of poetry, and that poets often have other jobs (bank clerk, librarian, giving poetry workshops, etc). Is there a list anywhere that shows the bestselling poetry books from, say, 2010 (although I'll accept a partial 2011 list)?''' nb: I'm using the word 'poet' in a traditional sense - I don't think Betjeman becomes any less of a poet when he's set to music, but I don't reckon you can put the collected works of Lennon & Mc Cartney down on paper and call them poets - as they're foremost musicians. Not 100% sure about the exact cross-over: both Leonard Cohen and Patti Smith were successful poets before they became successful musicians - I'd accept a hypothetical book by either of them, but not collected lyrics, for the sake of this question.

Sorry for being so picky - I had no idea this would become such a protracted discussion! Harley Spleet (talk) 21:36, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * No need for an apology but if you specifically meant by book sales you could have said by book sales. Not only should you mean what you say, but you should say what you mean.  (Lewis Carroll?)  μηδείς (talk) 22:02, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The OP did specifically say book sales. It's true that they didn't anticipate that everyone would immediately say, "but book sales are not important!", but I hardly blame the OP for that. They did say what they meant; the Ref Deskers seemed to decide that what they said was wrong, in their pedantic fashion, and decided to answer the question how they wanted it answered, not the OP. --Mr.98 (talk) 22:23, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for being a voice of sanity and succinctly describing what happens all too often on the internet. Shadowjams (talk) 03:34, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


 * If he had said "How many books does the best selling poet sell each year" he would have gotten a different answer. I do believe there is something going on when the first thing to occur independently to the first two respondents is "song lyrics."  Even the answers that don't address what the OP meant to say strike me as interesting.  I myself have bought Plath, Yeats, Keats, Blake, Frost, and Shakespeare as well as Bloom and Paglia on poets.  Unfortunately, they are all dead excpet the last who is a critic not an artist. μηδείς (talk) 23:22, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Excuse me? What is the difference between "How many books does the best selling poet sell each year" and what he wrote?  If he'd written that, you would just have put "But the best selling poets don't sell books! They sell CDs!" and then gone off on your Pink Floyd/Fleetwood Mac riff.  What is "going on" here is that you are not answering the question. --Viennese Waltz 07:28, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * This is rather getting off the point, but that is most certainly different to the question asked at the top of this section. It's same difference as between "how many bananas do the best-selling poets sell each year", and "who are the best selling living poets, and how many bananas do they sell each year?".  The "and" makes it two different questions, which can have different answers. Warofdreams talk 08:40, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree. All the original question makes clear is that the OP assumed we would understand that "best selling" was about books. That turned out to not be the case, but it wasn't a crazy assumption, and if you read the question for what it is (and not as an opportunity to be pedantic), it's clear that's what the OP was asking about. Your example is irrelevant because there is no reason to assume "best selling" and "bananas" have anything to do with each other. If you replace "poet" with "writer" or "novelist" or " essayist" then it becomes indisputable that the assumption is that "best selling" relates to books. Anyway, once again, the Ref Deskers not only have decided that pedantry is the best way to answer questions, they've managed to make the entire thread about their pedantry, rather than about the answers to the questions. I wonder if this is our local idiocy, the way that Yahoo! Answers always devolves into "no way my mum told me so lol" sorts of answers. --Mr.98 (talk) 11:49, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * That's not the way that any of the first few contributors to the thread read the question, so it's hardly indisputable! Warofdreams talk 11:52, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * This isn't the whole story, but the Amazon Best Sellers in Poetry is probably a useful resource in probing this question, at least at the moment. (Unfortunately it's based on what's best selling just this minute, so Tomas Transtromer is heavily overrepresented since he just won the Nobel Prize in Literature.) It's also telling that almost none of them are living. --Mr.98 (talk) 22:25, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * To steer the discussion toward the kind of poets the original poster was probably thinking about, the Poetry Foundation compiles lists of the best-selling books of contemporary poetry, poetry anthologies, and children's poetry. Supposedly the list is compiled weekly using data from Nielsen BookScan, but it doesn't seem to have been updated since Sept. 25. The same data was used to compile the list of the contemporary poetry best-sellers of 2010. This data won't answer the original poster's question directly, but it will answer the question "Who are some contemporary poets whose books of poetry have sold relatively well recently?" --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:01, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Post office at Harlem, Texas
At http://lifeonthebrazosriver.com/Harlem,Texas.htm

the page says that there was a post office at Harlem, TX (address of a state prison farm) from 1888 to August 31, 1907.

Now I can't use that page as an RS. But it could be useful in helping find something that is an RS that can be used.

What RSes could be used to back up this info? Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 11:25, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * A directory or gazetteer of the area, from that period, would be likely to list the post office, and be a reliable source demonstrating that it existed. Of course, it wouldn't show that it was notable. Warofdreams talk 12:11, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not trying to start an article on it or anything. I just want to see if Jester State Prison Farm ever had a post office. WhisperToMe (talk) 15:30, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * http://www.hallettsvillelibrary.org/microfilm_holdings.pdf says that the Halletsville, TX library has "Wheat, Postmasters and Post Offices of Texas 1846 – 1930" - wouldn't a library in a big Texas city have something like this too? WhisperToMe (talk) 15:32, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Try Clarence Wharton, Wharton's History of Fort Bend County and S. A. McMillan, comp., The Book of Fort Bend County. They're referenced from http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/acj01, but that article itself doesn't mention a post office.  The Mark of the Beast (talk) 23:21, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I just found that the Wheat book is online. A search on it comes up with http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~txpost/fortbend.html, which says that there was a post office in Harlem from 1888 to 1907.  The Mark of the Beast (talk) 23:25, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Cool! Thank you very much :) WhisperToMe (talk) 02:35, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Wehrmacht veterans
Do Wehrmacht veterans recieve veterans' benefits in modern Germany? Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty 13:00, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, although those found guilty of criminal activity, including war crimes, could be denied a pension. Here is an English source on this question.  Marco polo (talk) 13:16, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, criminals could get their pension denied, but Germany tried to persecute its own war criminals as little as possible, so not many indeed went unpaid. Wikiweek (talk) 14:25, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * If I may disagree with Wikiweek... Denazification was a much more complicated issue than just Germany (If you recall there were two German states after the second world war, or even more correctly four Occupied Zones) refusing to persecute war criminals. Even states that had much more radical approaches often have no clear-cut positive results of their actions. See Pursuit_of_Nazi_collaborators for examples. History, especially this part, is still a very muddy business, see, for example, the impact that Günter Grass' revelations about his past had. --Abracus (talk) 16:00, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, it was not just Germany or both German states. But the allies denazified, persecuted and prosecuted, as much as they could. Both German states had their problems. The West German government had more shortcomings as many thought before. From Adenauer's Germany and the Nazi Past by Norbert Frei:

the West German side of de-Nazification and the profound contrast to measures taken by the Allies. The latter tried to promote extensive purges, whereas the new West German regime showed far greater leniency, especially through the amnesty laws of 1949 and 1954, and by trying to reduce the number of suspected war criminals singled out for trials." Wikiweek (talk) 21:01, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I've indented the passage as it was breaking my (and possibly others') display. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 14:26, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * For the record, I believe both Wikiweek and Abracus meant prosecute, not persecute. Comet Tuttle (talk) 16:37, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily, "persecute" makes sense in Wikiweek's post at least. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 16:58, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * For all of West Germany's Denazification flaws, they pale in comparison to East Germany, where the Nazis more or less easily transitioned into being the Stasi. --Mr.98 (talk) 22:27, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * What about Austrian and Sudeten Wehrmacht members? Do/did they receive veterans' benefits in their home countries?  The Mark of the Beast (talk) 23:27, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Right, the OP asked for Wehrmacht (German military) veterans, not for war criminals or Nazi supporters which are different topics. Remember that military service was compulsory, hence all available men of the appropriate age were drafted. They received during their military service time an allowance of - e.g. in Germany 50 Reichspfennig (0.5 Reichsmark) - a day, which was just enough to buy some tobacco. After a couple of years in service, perhaps wounded several times, they became war prisoners with very little pocket money or were forced to labor camps. This was the common fate of all men in Middle Europe, independent of the nationality. Most men spent six to ten years (1939 thru 1949) in military service and as prisoners of war (some men were released only in 1955). In the social security system of many European countries (not just Germany) this time was reckoned as public duty and gave some financial benefits in the social security. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 09:34, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


 * @Pp.paul: no, war criminals are not a different topic. It's obvious that Wehrmacht veterans got a pension. The question is if even Wehrmacht veterans who committed war crimes had a right to a pension in their capacity as Wehrmacht veterans or merely the old-age pension like everyone else? And to what degree war criminals who served in the Wehrmacht got a pension as Wehrmacht veterans. Indeed, West Germany could deny payment to war criminals, but was not forced to investigate applicants, so many got pensions, even if they committed crimes. Quest09 (talk) 14:07, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Soldier's wages, veterans' benefits or pensions are probably paid in states who have paid soldiers. Conscription in Germany (up to 1 July 2011) and other European states forced every man into the army. Hence there was no need to pay soldiers, and no need for benefits or special pensions for soldiers, just the "old-age pension like everybody else" for the recruits (draftees) and a pension for the officers (volunteers). Does this help? --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 15:37, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * No, it doesn't help at all. It's simply not on topic. Conscription in Germany is relevant for the period between 1956 up to 2011. There is nothing there about Wehrpflicht veterans. Quest09 (talk) 16:17, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I doubt that some state, even one with conscription, didn't have any professional soldiers. Modern armies are simply too complex to be left completely at the hand of the poorly trained conscripted soldiers. The drafts were (and still might be applied again) simply a form of completing the army. 88.11.244.183 (talk) 16:39, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree - conscription does not mean the summary rejection of all volunteers for not being conscripted. Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty 19:52, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Number related to US veterans' affairs
Working in an archive, I've come across a series of papers (produced in the early 1970s) related to different US military veterans. Most of these letters include numbers in close physical proximity to the names of the different veterans; the numbers are typically of the format letter-space-numeral-numeral-space-numeral-numeral-numeral-space-numeral-numeral-numeral; e.g. they often appear as "C 99 999 999 John Doe". Are these VA file numbers for the named individuals, or are they something else? Nyttend backup (talk) 13:47, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Does the article Service number (United States Armed Forces) help? -- Jayron  32  14:03, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, thanks; I've never heard of service numbers before. Nyttend backup (talk) 14:10, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Milan Kantor married Anne Murdoch
They had five children. incl Michael (married Sylvia), Julie and Eve (married Mark Wootton). What are the names of the two others? Kittybrewster  &#9742;  14:40, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * One of them was named Tom Kantor (1965-2001). I haven't been able to find the name of the fifth child.--Cam (talk) 15:13, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Apparently he was a middle brother which means that we are hunting a male. Did he have a wife or children? Kittybrewster  &#9742;  15:20, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Map of the caves Balankancha
Hello! For the Russian Wikipedia need a map\scheme Balankanche cave, but the license and copyright permission. Even better with the right to free distribution. Please help. Странник27 (talk) 15:04, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * If you have some source data, you can request that a map be created for you at Graphic Lab/Map workshop. -- Jayron  32  18:35, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Cost of Canada Post to tax payers
Does Canada Post receive any funding or subsidy from the government of Canada? Does Canada Post still have to pay tax on its earnings like any other corporation?

I can't find anything on the WP article nor google searches. I can find its profits every year, but I'm not sure how much of those profits are subsidies. 142.150.237.60 (talk) 15:16, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Based on what I can deduce from sources such as this annual report, Canada Post does not receive any direct subsidies from the government of Canada, and it pays taxes on its earnings like other corporations. What I don't know is whether there are provisions in Canada's tax code that offer unique benefits to Canada Post. In a few recent years, Canada Post has had a negative tax liability.  That is, it received a net tax refund in those years.  However, in every recent year, Canada Post has had positive net income (or profit), after taxes.  In years when Canada Post has had a net tax refund, that profit has exceeded its net tax refund, so the profit was not entirely due to the refund.  Since Canada Post is a crown corporation wholly owned by the government, any profit it earns is in effect income for the Canadian government in addition to any tax payments made by Canada Post.  Of course, a substantial part of any profit may be reinvested in the business.  However, Canada Post apparently has no net cost to taxpayers. In fact, Canada Post appears to contribute to the government's income, thereby reducing the need for taxes.  Marco polo (talk) 19:05, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much for the help. That answers my question perfectly.142.150.237.62 (talk) 22:56, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Extent of the Hopi / Navajo Nation Reservation in Arizona


I have found conflicting maps of the location of the Hopi and Navajo Nation maps and would like some clarification. Some maps look like this, showing a small Hopi Exclave west of the main reservation:

But others look like this: Map without Hopi Exclave

Which is correct? --CGPGrey (talk) 16:35, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * That is the Hopi enclave of Moenkopi, Arizona, near Tuba City. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 17:12, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Income inequality in the US after 2008?
Why do all the graphs on Income inequality in the United States end before 2008? Dualus (talk) 18:28, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Two possiblities I can think of:
 * 2008 was the last year that the data actually has been published for
 * There is more recent data which exists, but no volunteer has updated the article and its graphics with that data.
 * Those are the best answers I can think of. -- Jayron  32  18:33, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I found the data for 08/09/10, here under "H-1 all races" (3rd down). I don't really know how to update or make images/graphs, but hopefully someone here will. Apparently the rich got richer and the poor got poorer, now how about that. Public awareness (talk) 19:45, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * But that is not even possible under a progressive president and Nobel Peace Prize winner, is it? μηδείς (talk) 04:12, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * In the US there are three branches of government, and Donald Trump is more progressive than the president. The Senate is full of Blue Dog Democrats and won't pass anything without 60% of States where North Dakota and California are treated as equals. And the Supreme Court just recently gave foreign donors and anonymous shell corporations the right to spend whatever they want on political campaigns. The Peace Prize is normally awarded by helping to reduce the combat death rate, not total lifespan. Dualus (talk) 17:31, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * If you click on the image with the old graph in Wikipedia, it will bring you to the image information page, which will tell you who created the graph. If you contact that user on his/her user talk page, and provide them with the new data, perhaps they would be willing to create a new graphic for the article.  -- Jayron  32  20:00, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Ugh, I'm trying to do it myself. I'm trying without success to install gnuplot, there's no executable....ugh. Public awareness (talk) 20:44, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * See Graphic Lab/Illustration workshop.
 * —Wavelength (talk) 16:33, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * If you're running gnuplot, the odds are you're also able to run gnumeric :-). It's not very good as a spreadsheet, but it does allow its graphs (created & prettified the same way as in Excel) to be saved as .svg files - you might find this an easier approach than gnuplot-wrangling. Shimgray | talk | 11:10, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I added Graphic Lab/Illustration workshop. Dualus (talk) 17:44, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Israeli political prisoners
How many political prisoners does Israel have? --70.248.222.85 (talk) 22:32, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * This question might intersect with Reference_desk/Miscellaneous, or not; depending on your definition of political prisoners, perhaps. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:40, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Since nobody can agree who qualifies as a political prisoner (see the article Political prisoner) I doubt there is any universally-agreed answer. Can you be more precise as to your definition - do you mean people convicted in connection with terrorism or political violence, or people imprisoned purely for their beliefs (prisoners of conscience, insofar as that's a meaningful category), people detained for non-violent protest (albeit maybe jailed for contempt of court, trespass, property damage, etc), or some other definition (e.g. people detained without trial)? --Colapeninsula (talk) 23:00, 12 October 2011 (UTC)