Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2012 August 28

= August 28 =

The "treasonous act" of Georgy Malenkov
The third paragraph of Georgy Malenkov is far from understandable, talking about a "treasonous act". It's not at all clear (and the only reference is paywalled) what this is: presumably something in the spectrum between some kind of political move and a coup attempt. As actual coup plotters don't get punished with jobs as hydro plant managers (they get jobs as bullet receptacles) I can only imagine it's something nearer the former. Does anyone here know, and crucially have legible sources, what this was, so we can fix that section's flowery hyperbole? 91.125.226.166 (talk) 01:30, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The Wikipedia article Anti-Party Group seems to be better written, the language seems more natural; I suspect the person who put the details into the Malenkov article may have not been a native English speaker. It was definately an attempted political coup or ouster, though it doesn't appear to have had the backing of the military.  It doesn't look like treason, per se.  It is worth noting that Kruschev was not Stalin, and his response to the Anti-Party Group crisis shows exactly how different he was.  Stalin killed his close allies if they got too upity; Kruschev appears to have had little lust for blood even among those who tried to oust him.  -- Jayron  32  01:39, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Correct, there is some discussion at Nikita Khrushchev, a FA. After Beria was killed, for the final four decades of the Soviet Union, if you were at or near the top and lost a power struggle, you might be sent off to manage a power station in Kazakhstan or (like K was, but he was over 70) be given an apartment and dasha and a pension and watched.  Molotov was sent as ambassador to Mongolia, which knew the score and didn't terribly want him because who wants an emissary who obviously doesn't command the support of his own government?--Wehwalt (talk) 11:15, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify something I wrote; I think treason is a bad word to choose. Treason is usually reserved for crimes against the nation, not against leaders of the nation.  Attempting to overthrow a leader and replace them with another leader, but maintain the same system of government isn't usually seen as treason.  Treason is often seen as siding with one's external enemies against ones own government (i.e. Benedict Arnold) and usually occurs in the context of actual war.  Even Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were not charged with or convicted of treason, popularly many people thought of them as traitors, but officially as the U.S. wasn't at war with the USSR, there was not legal standing to charge them with treason, but rather they were convicted of espionage.  Our own article on Treason cites an authoritative source which specifically states that treason involves aiding a foreign government. What Malenkov did was more political manouvering; he didn't aid a foreign government, he didn't try to overthrow the government, he tried to overthrow a person in a position of leadership within the government, which is not the same thing.  While it isn't the same country, the modern Russian law may be the closest thing I can find regarding the cultural or legal attitudes towards treason in Russia/USSR at the time, and our article at Treason uses words like "foreign power" and "external security" in defining treason.  -- Jayron  32  12:57, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that in the UK, high treason could be killing a high officer of state without necessarily intending to alter the system of government. The Treason Act 1351 (repealed in 1998) says; "...if a Man slea the Chancellor, Treasurer, or the King’s Justices of the one Bench or the other, Justices in Eyre, or Justices of Assise, and all other Justices assigned to hear and determine, being in their Places, doing their Offices: And it is to be understood, that in the Cases above rehearsed, [that] ought to be judged Treason which extends to our Lord the King, and his Royal Majesty:." I'm not sure if John Bellingham, the only person to assassinate a British prime minister was tried for murder or treason, but the result was the same. Alansplodge (talk) 12:14, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Me again, it seems that Bellingham was found guilty of murder rather than treason; he was hanged and "his body anatomized". 12:27, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Kurds of Iran
I understand that Kurds of Iraq, Syria and Turkey want to separate but why Kurds of Iran want to separate? Their language, and culture are similar but why would they separate from Iran? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.53.229.90 (talk) 02:11, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, Spanish, Portuguese, and French are all "similar" languages, but if France and Portugal suddenly divied up the Spanish territory amongst themselves, the Spanish wouldn't take too kindly to it. The Kurds are not the Iranians, and have their own culture which, while it is related to Iranian, is not the same, and some Kurds for that reason seek an independent and unified Kurdistan for all Kurds.  -- Jayron  32  03:24, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The puzzle here is how the OP can understand the motives of the Iraqi, Syrian and Turkish Kurds but not the Iranian Kurds, since they are basically the same motives. I have no idea how to solve that mystery. Looie496 (talk) 03:56, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I can easily understand the OP's question in good faith but Jayron has answered it in full. μηδείς (talk) 05:00, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Iraninan Kurds suffer almost the same oppression and discrimination that the other Kurds do. So it's natural that they yearn for self-rule, if not total independance. --Omidinist (talk) 15:21, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

My question was meant that Kurds in Syria and Iraq are not Arabs and Kurds in Turkey are not Turks. Why would they separate from Iran? Is it because they are Sunni? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.53.229.64 (talk) 17:49, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Everyone is not somebody else, even if their ancestors spoke similar languages. The Kurds are also not Iranians, which is part of the reason why some of them don't want to be governed from Tehran.  -- Jayron  32  17:58, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Which U.S. Presidential autobiographies are in the public domain (or at least free to read and save completely)?
I only found free copies of Theodore Roosevelt's, Coolidge's, and Hoover's autobiographies online so far. Also, I worked on this article List of United States Presidential autobiographies over the last month or so. Am I missing any U.S. Presidents who wrote autobiographies? Futurist110 (talk) 04:31, 28 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Ulysses S. Grant's memoirs were famous at the time, and would now be free of copyright restrictions. There's an e-text link at the end of Personal Memoirs of Ulysses S. Grant... -- AnonMoos (talk) 04:47, 28 August 2012 (UTC)


 * They're all free to read if you have a public library nearby. Many memoirs are likely availible at your local public library, and if not can be obtained via interlibrary loan. -- Jayron  32  04:51, 28 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, but you can't save them on a computer, unlike the earlier Presidential autobiographies that are now in the public domain. Futurist110 (talk) 05:52, 28 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Are they availible as e-books? I did some spot checking, and there are e-books availible for the Reagan Diaries:  and Keeping Faith by Jimmy Carter: .  I regularly check out free e-books from my library on my Amazon Kindle.  If your library has a similar program, it may be worth asking if they have e-book versions.  You wouldn't get to keep it forever, but it would be free, and such books are usually low enough demand that you could renew them repeatedly as needed for your purposes.  -- Jayron  32  06:21, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Have you checked the Gutenberg project? They will have most of what is in the public domain, here's a few I found:
 * The Memoirs, Correspondence, And Miscellanies, From The Papers Of Thomas Jefferson
 * Lincoln writings, a whole bunch, but no memoires it seems, just letters, telegrams, speeches etc..
 * Grant, Ulysses: both "Personal Memoirs of Ulysses S. Grant" and "The Memoirs of General Ulysses S. Grant" Ssscienccce (talk) 20:13, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * No, I didn't and thank you very much. :) Futurist110 (talk) 01:21, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

College question
According to this then there are like 700 students that got admitted but didn't enroll. Why is that? This is probably one of the best college in a nation. Plus if 700 students didn't enroll then that means that would have an extra 700 spots that could fill in. Why don't they accept another 700 students from applicants' pool?65.128.133.237 (talk) 06:08, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure where on that page you're getting your data but there are many reasons why someone might get accepted but not enroll. For instance
 * Got accepted but went to another school
 * Got accepted but couldn't afford to go there
 * Got accepted but decided to take a year off
 * Got accepted but died (let's hope that's a small portion)
 * And just because they didn't enroll, doesn't mean that the university didn't go to a waiting list of people and see if they then wanted to fill those empty spots. It's also possible that the university accepted more than they could handle because they were expecting some students to not enroll.  I know when I started my freshman year, some dorm rooms that normally had just two occupants had to have three due to too many people enrolling.  As people dropped out, the housing situation settled itself.  Dismas |(talk) 06:24, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * (to see the stat, look at the applying section, for some reason I can't give a direct link to it) Lol this is pretty funny how they accepted more than enough because they think there will be some portions that won't enroll. What happen if all accepted students decided to enroll? And they barely accepted people from waiting list though. They only accepted like 13, so that's 13 spots of 700 spots. Why don't they just accept just enough for the university then as students drop out or not enroll "then" they can choose from waiting list. To my understanding, this is a messy procedure.65.128.133.237 (talk) 06:39, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * What's to say that those on the waiting list didn't accept offers from other schools, start there, and then don't want to leave the school that they're attending? It's a guessing game by the school.  They have to figure out how many they can accept, guess at how many will not enroll, guess how many will drop out, etc.  And there isn't just one answer for why someone would not attend.  And yes, sometimes the schools guess incorrectly and have too many students for the housing and class sizes available.  Then it's up to them to figure out what to do next.  I've even heard of some schools putting students up in local hotels just to solve a housing crisis.  Dismas |(talk) 07:05, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Here is a link to a news story I heard about this some time ago. Dismas |(talk) 07:15, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * (EC) I don't know much about how universities work in the US, but it strikes me that amongst other things, you're assuming there's only one period of admission and anyone not accepted but who may be good enough is immediately offered a position on the wait list. I don't see any reason this has to be the case, the admission period may last 2 or 3 weeks. Or perhaps some people are offered admission immediately. Either way, people who are offered admission quickly may also choose to quickly reject the admission (I presume there is a formal procedure prospective students can use of they want to do that rather then simply not enrolling) and so their positions may be offered to someone else without these people ever ending up on the formal waitlist. Of course at some stage people would be told their application has failed and a select number would be offered places on the waitlist.
 * As for the later issue, a waitlist is also messy. As shown by the stats, only about 70% of students even accept an offer on the waitlist which isn't surprising since as good as Stanford may be, not all students are going to want the uncertainty of a waitlist. Also while not stated on that site, I'm assuming that even if you accept a place on the waitlist, you can later withdraw or otherwise don't have to accept admission if offered. And looking at it from a purely statistical POV is probably misleading anyway, there's a fair chance those students who just miss the cutoff are more likely to reject a waitlist place then those further off because they are more likely to have better offers elsewhere etc.
 * Accepting more then you have available under the assumption some will drop out is fairly common practice, Overselling for example is fairly common in the travel industry. While in these cases the reasons are somewhat different (a regular 'place' is generally worth more then something on a waitlist and there isn't always a guarantee you will be able to fill all places from no shows even with a waitlist), as I don't see Stanford will ultimately have trouble filling all the places and there's no direct financial advantage, as illustrated earlier it likely gives them a better chance of accepting the best students. Also, unlike in most travel cases, worst case scenario they can likely accomodate the students at some additional cost and inconvinience. (Note that accepting students from the waitlist is likely far more complicated for the university then simply accepting students normally presuming you don't end up with too many.)
 * Nil Einne (talk) 07:20, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Alright according to my understand and let me sum it up. The reason they want to accept "more" than enough is because they tried to get the best students of those who applied. They afraid that if they don't accept them then chances are those applicants will deny the waitlist right?
 * P.S. Also if you look at the statistics, the reason for not relying completely on the waitlist is hardly surprising. 1,707 students enrolled out of 2,437 admitted. It's difficult to say what percentage of students admitted would have been admitted if they only accepted as many as they wanted for the reasons highlighted earlier. But even if it became say 2000 admitted and 1400 enrolled, you still have 307 or 320 or about 18% of your 1707 or so students coming through via the waitlist, a very messy process indeed.
 * I agree but well perhaps this is the best way to get better students. Everything has its price. So messy is a price they have to pay in this case.65.128.133.237 (talk) 07:47, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The university's goal is to fill all their places, without being significantly oversubscribed, with students of a sufficiently high caliber. They don't actually need to get the very best students - they can't really distinguish between students that precisely anyway. They will know from past experience how many people that are given offers won't end up enrolling (it won't vary too much year by year) so they can oversell quite a bit without too much risk of being oversubscribed. If they end up undersubscribed, then they use the waiting list, knowing that they will probably have to go a long way down the list in order to find people that haven't already accepted offers elsewhere. That isn't a problem though, because everyone on the waiting list is good enough not to drag down the institution's prestige (and they pay the fee, which is the important thing). --Tango (talk) 11:18, 28 August 2012 (UTC)


 * One additional thing: there are two numbers that have a large effect on a college/university's standings in the rankings (e.g. the US News & World Report rankings) that are affected by these numbers, and they are game-able. One is the exclusivity: what percentage of people applied did you accept? You get ranked higher if lots of people apply but you admit very little. The other is the "yield": what percentage of those accepted actually went to your school? You get ranked higher if all of those you accept go to your university. It makes for a tricky game for admissions officers — you don't want to admit people who you are pretty sure will go someone else (it's not for nothing they ask you what other schools you've applied to) or won't be able to pay for it, but you also want to be very selective about who you admit. The people I know who have worked in the admissions field at very highly-ranked universities are very ambivalent about the system — the rankings requirements can produce unusual or unpleasant results (like not letting in highly qualified people because you're sure they're going to go to a better-ranked university) if people are overly concerned about the yield. I have no references for this; this comes from discussions with numerous people who work in university admissions and is fairly common knowledge in American higher education circles. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:26, 29 August 2012 (UTC)


 * So, if a university decides to massively encourage applications through direct marketing from everyone around the US and to accept the candidates with the poorest academic performance, but who still can pay, would that make the university raise in the rankings? OsmanRF34 (talk) 12:11, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I was accepted as an undergrad at the three colleges I applied to; obviously I only went to one. μηδείς (talk) 18:06, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Most Significant Event Since the Industrial Revolution Which Doesn't Involve Nuclear War
Which is the most significant event in world history since the Industrial Revolution which doesn't involve nuclear war? This is a bit of a subjective question, but have there been any articles or anything about this? Personally, I'd say the accidental crippling of the future Kaiser Wilhelm II's hand during his birth, since that led to his forceful personality, which in turn greatly helped cause WWI, which caused WWII and the Holocaust, and which caused the Cold War. Futurist110 (talk) 07:23, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Um since there hasn't ever been a nuclear war, I don't get why you need to specify 'which doesn't involve nuclear war'. Are you asking about fictional events as well as real ones? Nil Einne (talk) 07:30, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the inhabitants of Hiroshima and Nagasaki would disagree -- Q Chris (talk) 10:49, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you replying to me? Your reply isn't indented as such but it appears to be. In any case, I wouldn't personally considered the attacks as horrific as they were, a nuclear war. They were nuclear attacks by one side one another during the convential (non nuclear) war. As only one side was involved in the nuclear part, it was not a nuclear war. In the same vein, if someone goes nuts and destroys most of the world with nuclear weapons but no one responds, at least with nuclear weapons, that wouldn't be a nuclear war either. If India drops a single nuclear weapon on Pakistan and Pakistan drops one on India (one happens in response to the other, let's no worry who starts it to avoid controversy), that would be a nuclear war. Since the OP mentioned WW2, I presume they're using the same definition. Nil Einne (talk) 18:27, 2 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Well subjectively I would say it was my birth ;-) Dmcq (talk) 08:35, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Because some events like the Cuban Missile Crisis could have caused or triggered a nuclear war if they were handled in a different way. Futurist110 (talk) 01:11, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * But the fact of an event not becoming a significant event doesn't make it a significant event. You might as well say the lack of extraterrestrial contact was the most significant event in the human species so far — think of what could have changed had it occurred! Ditto the lack of invention of time machines, the lack of a cure for all diseases, and the lack of Jesus coming back and Rapturing everyone. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:18, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you replying to me? Your reply is just as confusing as Q Chris's because you're replying under Dmcq's but the text of your reply seems to refer to mine. In any case, I still don't get what you're saying. If you're trying to say you want to exclude all events which are significant because they may have caused a nuclear war if handled differently, as Mr.98 said, events aren't usually significant primarily because what would have happened if handled differently and it also depending on how far you want to go, you might as well exclude most of the WW2 and the Cold War because either could have involved a real nuclear war. Nil Einne (talk) 18:27, 2 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Invention of the Pill. HiLo48 (talk) 08:47, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I would have to say the invention of the areoplane which forever chsnged warfare tactics, not to mention the means of transportation and communication.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:55, 28 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Genetics. The problem with lists like this, though, is that nothing happens in isolation. Each invention feeds on previous discoveries. As discussed at length in James Burke's TV series' called Connections. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:08, 28 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Computers and, in particular, the internet have changed the world enormously. We're often described as living in the "information age" now, as opposed to the "industrial age" (which started with the industrial revolution). Global politics and wars tend not to have that much impact on the world in the long-run (how much is your daily life affected by who is running the country?). Technology has a massive impact, though. --Tango (talk) 11:22, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree. I am old enough to remember when finding out about a subject could be a very involved task and you hoped you had a local library which was up to it, so I'm with those who say "the personal computer" and access to information through it.  Wikipedia is a reflection of that.  It may or may not survive in its original form, but it's too darn handy for humanity to ever throw away having a database of knowledge.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:26, 28 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Another problem with this question is that "since the Industrial Revolution" is a bit vague: the Industrial Revolution lasted for somewhere around a century, and it's not clear whether we should include that period or not. Since earlier events have had longer to have an effect, it might be reasonable to assume that the answer is close to the start of the time period in question. 81.98.43.107 (talk) 12:06, 28 August 2012 (UTC)


 * The set of related technologies that aids communication in the modern world is probably the most significant recent development. The current age is often called the "Information age", but I have heard the term "Communications Revolution" to describe it also; to mimic earlier terms like the Agricultural Revolution and the Industrial Revolution.  I'd argue it wasn't computers per se that changed the world so drastically.  Certainly, computers were a necessary prerequisite, and the changes would not have occured without them, but it is the way we use computers, specifically to aid in communication and sharing of knowledge and ideas, that is the revolution.  When computers were used as overpriced combination calculators/typewriters/video games (pretty much all they did until the 1990s) they had a much less profound effect on the world.  The two advances of the internet and the cell phone have had a profound impact on more people in a shorter period of time than the computer did without those technologies.  Entire parts of the world are bypassing land line phone technology; the fact that people in underdeveloped nations are using cell phones and the connectivity they provide via the internet is simply astounding.  What I have seen in my own lifetime as a result of these technologies, not necessarily for the few rich countries and their citizens, but the changes this has brought to the bulk of the world population, would mark it (IMHO) as the greatest development of the last 100 years.  -- Jayron  32  13:14, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Without a doubt, penicillin. Other candidates would be modern sewage and water systems (influenced by the germ theory of disease), the invention of trinitrotoluene.  Penicillin cured so many diseases though and led to our modern system of antibiotics.  Today, most of our efforts in developing nations are to bring modern sewage and fresh water systems, modern medicine, and exploitation of natural resources (through blasting).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.38.31.81 (talk) 14:10, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Good ones as well; let me add to that vaccination. You don't need to cure diseases you don't get in the first place. Healthwise, the triumvirate of sanitation, vaccination, and antibiotics have improved life expetency unlike anything else, and they are all modern developments.  -- Jayron  32  14:16, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Depending on your definitions, modern sewage systems may not be "since the industrial revolution". The London sewerage system, which I believe was one of the first modern sewerage systems, certainly of its size, was started in 1859. That's after some definitions of the industrial revolution (the first sentence of our article gives an extremely precise period of 1750 to 1850) but not if you include the Second Industrial Revolution. --Tango (talk) 19:29, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

The Assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria which led to WWI which precipitated the Russian Revolution, the Fall of the Ottoman Empire, the devolution of the British Empire, the rise of Arabic nationalism, the humiliation of Germany and the partition of Austria-Hungary which led to WWII, and the Cold War and communist revolutions which resulted from the Russian Revolution leading to the Holodomor and the Cultraul revolution in which perhaps 60 million people died, as well as the Korean war, Vietnam War, the Cambodian holocaust and the rise of Saddam Hussein, as well as the Balkan wars of the late 20th century. Can't beat that. μηδείς (talk) 18:03, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Meh. World War I was coming whether someone shot the Archduke or not. Europe was a powderkeg waiting to explode, the spark was coming from somwhere, the specific trigger was probably ultimately insigificant in how it all went down.  History would have likely been much the same had no one assassinated him, there would have been another excuse for the dominos to fall.  -- Jayron  32  18:05, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * WWI might have not happened if Kaiser Wilhelm II did not have a crippled hand, since that might have led to a more stable and less reckless personality, which in turn would have made Germany's foreign policy in the pre-WWI era (1888-1914) much smarter, which would have drastically decreased the odds of another large-scale European war breaking out. Futurist110 (talk) 01:14, 29 August 2012 (UTC)


 * So the fact that it was coming somehow makes it unimportant? Penicillin (and the airplane and everything else) was coming as well.  (Unless you have access to the instant replay tape of history, which shows otherwise?)  This was the pivotal moment of history since the Boston Tea Party, the beheading of Charles I, the nailing of the 92 theses, and Columbus's voyage. μηδείς (talk) 20:08, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It was dramatric, but history is not a series of dramatic moments, it is better understood as a series of complex and interrelated trends and movements. History doesn't exist as periods of bland, uneventful inactivity punctuated by great events. Historical forces are set in motion by large groups of people doing many different things.  Social, cultural, economic, and other "mass action" forces have a far greater effect on history than singular actions and singular individuals.  It doesn't mean that history is deterministic or unavoidable, or that individual events and people don't have important effects, but to declare that World War I would have not happened had the Archduke not been assassinated seems a bit over-reaching.  I'd argue that the assassination was a symptom of the larger sociological events surrounding the war, namely the rise of ethnic nationalism in the old multi-national empires of Europe.  That is ultimately the more important cause of the war: that oppressed ethnic groups within Europe had a growing consciousness about their own situation, and were working towards autonomy against the multinational states that oppressed them.  That's the situation that caused WWI, not an assassin's bullet.  I'd argue there's more weight to be given to men who expressed great ideas that changed how people think about the world, or people who invent or introduce devices that change how the world works, but catching a bullet is not in itself all that significant.  The significant bit for WWI was the growth of nationalism (specifically in this case among the Slavic peoples of the Balkans against their Germanic rulers).  The assasination of the Archduke was a symptom of the greater cause, not the cause of the war itself.  Some of your other examples are actually better for such singular events.  This one, not so much.  -- Jayron  32  22:14, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Let me also clarify a bit. There are many events which change the course of history.  There were also things which, if they were changed, could have avoided World War I.  I just don't see where the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand was one of those events.  I'd say that if the leaders of Europe were more committed towards liberalizing their societies; if they had a greater sensitivity towards various ethnic groups; if all people within those empires were either given a real voice at the table in terms of meaningful representation or actual autonomy or soveriegnty, then World War I could have been avoided.  The death of the Archduke wasn't a cause so much as a part of the War itself.  He's the first casualty of the War, not really a cause of it.  -- Jayron  32  22:23, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

''This is a bit of a subjective question, but have there been any articles or anything about this? ''
 * A bit of an understatement, since this is the quintessential subjective question. We've had a number of opinions above.  The last contributor is insisting their opinion is the only correct one ("Can't beat that", "the pivotal moment").  An earlier editor said their opinion was "without a doubt" true.  Whom are we to believe? Answer: None of them.  Why?  Because they're all opinions.  What's wrong with opinions?  Nothing, per se, but you came here asking for a reference to articles, you didn't want just opinions (although, to be fair, you did start proceedings off with an opinion of your own, about the Kaiser's hand).


 * Well, it's a vain search, I'm afraid. There are any number of places where this exact topic is discussed out there, but they're all precursors of the above, loads of people chiming in with their opinions.  Simply put, you won't find any reference that proves incontrovertibly that any particular event is the most significant, or any particular person had the greatest influence on history, or whatever.  You won't even find agreement about the Top 10.  All we ever have on such questions is opinion, as the above litany beautifully demonstrates.  A few people above gave links, but simply to better identify their opinion.  Nobody has provided any links to the articles you asked for, but that's forgiveable in this case because there aren't any that don't ultimately boil down to the opinions of the authors.


 * Unfortunately, just because all we can find is the opinions of others does not give us carte blanche to provide a whole bagful of our own opinions. Our own Guidelines expressly forbid this.


 * Will I hat this entire thread now or later? --  ♬ Jack of Oz  ♬ [your turn]  22:10, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Instead of just getting random individuals' thoughts, you can always look at a poll of hundreds of random individuals' thoughts! The following is an Amerocentric thing, but it't interesting nonetheless. The most common opinion seems to be "WWII", although there were only 18 events to choose from. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:19, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

When I was asking this question, I was thinking more in lines of a political perspective. However, if you'd look at it from a technological perspective then the Green Revolution, the invention of vaccinations, the discovery of electricity, and the invention of the World Wide Web would probably come out on top. I don't think that I'm forgetting any major events, but if I am, please let me know. Futurist110 (talk) 01:17, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Obviously the nascence of the Australian film industry. "World history" is a genre of writing, produced retrospectively, primarily by historians. Given the short time frame between 1850 and today; there is no consensus amongst experts. Given that "events" play a very very small role in world history compared to other processes, this question is unanswerable through expert knowledge systems (ie: truthfully) and any answer you're going to get will be populist tripe (ie: bullshit). What was the most important event in feudal Chinese history? What was the most important event in Sydney in 1842? As far as world processes go, the impacts of Imperialism as the highest stage of capitalism have been palpable in the 20th century—but the chief criticism amongst professionals and scholars with the right to comment about these things, is that categories that subsume the totality are specious, as when everything is imperialism, then nothing is imperialism. The problem of claiming historical significance is the same, as soon as a process becomes significant in that it totalises, it becomes insignificant because it is the totality of all things. WWII was less an event, than what the entire world economy was doing for six plus years. Actual histories rarely stray into this territory of specious significance, and instead discuss process, causation, factors of analysis, narrativised occurrences, methods of thinking about contexts and understanding them. If you wanted me to answer from a "history from below" account, then the two most important events since the industrial revolution have been (wow) the industrial revolution: the defeminisation of high income proletarian occupations in the metropole and the feminisation of industries and occupations under imperialism. Bad question—bad answers. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:55, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Both the "it would have happened anyway" and the "Kaiser's magic hand" theories of WWI depend on psychic ability--the ability to tell the future (the future that didn't happen!) in the first place and to read the Kaiser's mind in the second. What we do know is that the Archdukew was killed, that it was a de facto cassus belli, and that the Kaiser intentionally smuggled Lenin into Russia as a war tactic.  The murdered crown prince had a plan to introduce a liberal federal minority-respecting United States of Austria Hungary, which his autocratic father would never have allowed.  Instead we got a century of war.  It takes no psychic and no fortune telling to see what we did get. μηδείς (talk) 01:58, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually there was a nuclear war. Have you all forgotten? Tom Haythornthwaite 21:57, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Shhhhh.... Don't confuse us with the facts... -- Jayron  32  22:00, 30 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Which "nuclear war" are you talking about, Tom? Futurist110 (talk) 01:20, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Depending on the definition of "nuclear" and "war", WW 2 and the Cold War qualify. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:14, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

nazi views on meritocracy?
--203.116.187.1 (talk) 08:43, 28 August 2012 (UTC)Bold text


 * They didn't care for it and were suspicious of experts. Many of the top people got their jobs by being old comrades of Hitler in the Party.  People like Albert Speer were the exception.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:24, 28 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Maybe it just depends on the definition of merit. Adolph's definition may have been different from yours and mine. HiLo48 (talk) 11:40, 28 August 2012 (UTC)


 * What I think you are trying to say is that they valued loyalty perhaps more than performance. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:44, 28 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Like most extremist political movements, the Nazis valued ideology and loyalty very high — often higher than raw talent. For the exceptionally talented there could be made some exceptions. Werner Heisenberg, for example, was not ideologically as in-line with them as they would have liked — he did not embrace so-called Aryan Physics — but his usefulness as a physicist during a time of war (esp. for work on their nuclear fission project) meant his ideological transgressions could be overlooked or even shielded. But in general, any totalitarian party is going to value ideology much higher than raw performance, and may in fact see ideology as an essential part of evaluating performance in the first place. For the exceptionally skilled there is often some maneuverability, but such are rare cases. People on the wrong side of Nazi ideology (obviously especially any of those in the non-Aryan camp) were treated poorly no matter what their talents were or were not. So in that sense, the Nazis were fairly anti-meritocratic, but they wouldn't have seen it that way themselves — they'd have said that ideology was part of merit. I don't think they took any strong explicit positions on meritocracy. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:51, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I think structures of "merit" "race" "purity" and "class" in the early waffen ss could be useful here. GM Kren, LH Rappoport (1976) "The Waffen SS" Armed Forces & Society believe the waffen ss to have been meritocratic.  P Biddiscombe (1999) "The End of the Freebooter Tradition: The Forgotten Freikorps Movement of 1944/45" Central European History discusses the meritocracy of the trenches in relation to late war fascists.  Obviously this meritocracy is limited to Germanic Europeans or their Allies, to male land combatants, and to members of the political right (the true home of the nation).  When Nation is Blood, the link is complete.  The Freikorps movements claim to be meritocratic, in the sense that every person gets a bullet, but the concrete reality is a hierarchical system of class oppression, grounded in gender segregation and blood nationalism.  Every German man a potential sergeant, every Junker a potential general.  We can forgive our European Allies their blood—even if slavic!—as long as they don't have operational control. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:58, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Obviously I'm subsuming the entire Nazi movement behind the populist Freikorps movement and street-fighting mentality. Obviously the Junker backed coup d'etat was disconnected from the street fighting movement. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:02, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Don't stand if you drive?
Is the Segway the only vehicle meant to be driven in standing position? Sitting while you drive is a better idea due to the comfort or because it changes the balance of the vehicle considerably? For long distances is clear, but for city vehicles (think about using it for several stints of 15') I don't see much use for sitting while you drive. OsmanRF34 (talk) 12:52, 28 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Self-propelled scissor lifts are usually operated, including moved, when the operator is standing - of course these are usually only driven tens or maybe hundreds of metres. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 12:57, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * No matter the distance, standing is much more fatiguing than sitting. The advantage of a Segway is a quick dismount, which is probably why you see cops using them. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:59, 28 August 2012 (UTC)


 * The disadvantage is that you look like a raging dork; which is probably also why the cops use them. Criminals doubled over in fits of laughter are easier to apprehend.  -- Jayron  32  13:03, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Old fashioned trams required the driver to stand - see picture on right. I think there was an idea that it kept the driver alert. Gandalf61 (talk) 13:20, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Stephenson's Rocket was an early steam locomotive which required the driver to stand, while it travelled at up to 28 miles per hour (45 km/h) between Liverpool and Manchester. Today some jet skis are driven standing up Gondoliers stand while operating their gondola, as did, historically, the person steering a keelboat, flatboat, or sailing ship. Edison (talk) 14:10, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * In some of those cases, there could be a leverage advantage or other practical need. In small motored boats, at least in some types of them, the driver is usually seated. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:12, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Old fashioned rail road handcars are driven while standing. Dismas |(talk) 19:24, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Again, leverage. "Oh, the Camptown Ladies sing this song..." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:50, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * In the 1960's our milkman drove his truck standing. Quick dismount was the point as he was getting in and out of the truck a number of times per city block.  There was a small seat which folded down and swung out when he wanted to sit.  Zoonoses (talk) 03:18, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * In the same vein, garbage trucks are often driven standing up, at least when collecting garbage on residential streets. It allows the driver to be part of the payload-handling crew. --Xuxl (talk) 08:44, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Also some forklifts. See the image at right. Llamabr (talk) 18:20, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note that all of these vehicles move very slowly. If you are standing and moving at speed, you may fall and much harm may result before you could regain your feet.  Those milk trucks you mention I've seen with a fold-down seat.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:43, 31 August 2012 (UTC)


 * It's pretty obvious why that forklift is standing-room-only: it makes for a more maneuverable vehicle. --Carnildo (talk) 01:45, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Negative painting
What's the "official" term for negative painting? I'm writing an article about a North American archaeological site where pottery with such painting (e.g. they painted everything except the area that's the focus of the artwork was found), but I haven't found an article where this type of painting is covered. I've checked List of pottery terms and the ancient pottery categories, but nothing appeared to be relevant. I could link to Negative space if necessary, but I'd like to link to an article on the style of painting if possible. It won't work to link an article about other archaeological cultures' use of the technique (since that's not North American), or I'd link the Greek black-figure pottery. Nyttend (talk) 22:38, 28 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Is it the handprints you see on this page if you scroll down? --TammyMoet (talk) 08:18, 29 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Tangentially, I don't think black-figure pottery is actually an example of negative painting, as such. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 09:23, 29 August 2012 (UTC)


 * When I saw the question I went to that article, but when I saw the photographs there, I agreed with you... AnonMoos (talk) 14:31, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Tammy, I'm talking about something like the bottom image on that page, just above "George Chaloupka". Turns out that I misunderstood the black-figure pottery production process; I thought that they had a way of manufacturing black pottery and created it by painting the backgrounds in red.  Nyttend (talk) 16:15, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * So, red-figure pottery. Card Zero  (talk) 17:21, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * No; I thought that the pottery started black, and the painting created the red background and the details of the otherwise-black figures, such as the scales in the armor at File:Herakles Geryon Staatliche Antikensammlungen 1379.jpg. But anyway, is there a term for what truly is "negative painting", such as the handprints on Tammy's link?  Nyttend (talk) 21:13, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I meant that red-figure truly is negative painting. In red-figure, the black background is painted. I tried a google books search for "negative painting": the first ten results consisted of six learn-to-paint books and four books or reports about archaeological sites, so I would say yes, it's a real term. Popular in watercolor, where of course you can't paint bright figures on top of a murky ground, due to the transparency of the paint, and the need for the white paper to show through to make a figure brilliant.  Card Zero  (talk) 08:52, 30 August 2012 (UTC)