Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2012 July 24

= July 24 =

Is it Known for a Fact that Obama Will Pick Biden for VP Again?
For instance, have there been any confirmations of "Obama-Biden 2012" campaign buttons/T-shirts/posters being created by the Obama campaign yet? Futurist110 (talk) 01:21, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Yep. Evanh2008 (talk&#124;contribs) 01:23, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much. Yeah, I assumed that Obama would pick Biden again for VP this year but I just wanted to confirm it. Futurist110 (talk) 01:29, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

closed per guidelines. μηδείς (talk) 01:31, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Please always tell us which guide13:57, 20 August 2014 (UTC)13:57, 20 August 2014 (UTC) you think a question violates; don't make us guess. StuRat (talk) 02:39, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * It is not about future events; he is campaigning with Biden as the VP pick at the present time. There's no real doubt. In any case, we don't generally hat crystal ball questions. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:41, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

A Question About Benjamin Netanyahu and Shaul Mofaz
What was the point in Netanyahu refusing to accept Mofaz's demands in regards to a new Israeli draft law? The religious parties still don't have anyone better to back than Netanyahu, and Netanyahu would have had the votes to go along with Mofaz's ideas, since he would have probably been able to get Likud, Kadima, Independence (Ehud Barak's new party), Yisrael Beitenu, and Labor to back it. All those parties combined have a majority of the seats in Israel's Parliament (Knesset). Also, the religious parties remember very well what happened last time when they toppled Netanyahu in 1999--Ehud Barak won the new elections and then made unprecedented concessions to the Palestinians, and then the Second Intifada began when Yasser Arafat refused to compromise and make peace with Israel. Also, why didn't Mofaz get a large boost (or at least any boost) in public support when he made a principled stand and left Netanyahu's coalition over the draft issue? Futurist110 (talk) 01:37, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * This is not a discussion forum. Please try to limit yourself to questions that can be answered with facts rather than opinions. Looie496 (talk) 02:15, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * You might do better to ask Q's like this on an Israeli discussion board. StuRat (talk) 02:46, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * As said above, it's not a discussion forum. Feel free to ask me on my talk page, I know a lot about Israeli politics, and have no issue in engaging in discussion about that in the appropriate forum. -- Activism  1234  04:12, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Futurist, I wrote on your talk page regarding this question. Feel free to check it out and ask any questions you have there. -- Activism  1234  04:29, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Question About the Miss California Gay Marriage Controversy in 2009?
Why was there such a huge outrage among a lot of people when Carrie Prejean said that she opposed gay marriage? I get that a lot of people support gay marriage (including myself), but it's no surprise that there are also still a lot of people in the U.S. who are unfortunately still against this idea. Still, I think that the controversy over her statement (such as Perez Hilton's idiotic and childish response) has been way overblown. I mean, the people of California voted to ban gay marriage in 2008 and most Republicans still oppose gay marriage even today, so her position was by no means fringe or "extreme" in the United States. If you're going to say that they asked her this question due to the Miss USA pageant also being a scholarship contest (or something along those lines), then what was the point of asking such a controversial question like that when one can easily have asked some less controversial political questions, such as "What should the U.S. do to reduce its dependence on foreign oil?" or "What should the U.S. do to fight poverty, both at home and abroad?"? Futurist110 (talk) 01:49, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * This is not a discussion forum. Please try to limit yourself to questions that can be answered with facts rather than opinions. Looie496 (talk) 02:16, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Probably because a lot of gay people are involved in putting on such a show. It's not like a Republican convention, where saying you supported gay marriage might get you booed.  I agree that it's a ctroveonrsial Q, which they should not have asked.  StuRat (talk) 02:42, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

The reference desk does not answer requests for opinions or predictions about future events. Do not start a debate; please seek an internet forum instead. μηδείς (talk) 04:41, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * He asked first why was thre a controversy, NOT for opinionsLihaas (talk) 21:18, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Hardcover vs. paperback
I went to take a book out of the library and couldn't find it even though they had confirmed that it was in house. When I asked the clerk, he responded that it's in the paperback section. When I asked him what the purpose was of separating out the paperbacks from the hardcovers, he said they do that to keep track of things.

How is it meaningful to keep track of them separately? Why does it matter? Why not, say, keep track of things by saying that every book over 500 pages is kept in a different section?  DRosenbach  ( Talk 01:50, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * It is a matter of shelving. You can fit more paperbacks into the same overall shelving area than you can hard covers. The paperback section can be all the same height, without much allowance for odd sizes (though the large-print is usually a separate section).  Hard covers come in a range of sizes, so the shelves need to be, on average, much wider apart, and you can store fewer books. Bielle (talk) 02:53, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm also assuming that lending library paper-backs degrade rapidly, and weren't acquired for long term use. They're probably higher use items with a short shelf-life due to changes in reader preference, and need to be regularly inspected for degradation and culling?  Fifelfoo (talk) 03:13, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Libraries also commonly shelve large books (folios) separate from regular-size books. Which can be annoying, but is sensible if you have a lot of books to shelve. --Colapeninsula (talk) 08:04, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * My library put them all together when we realized that all the above reasons were just rationalizations for doing something the way it had always been done, but in the end didn't really make any sense. Mingmingla (talk) 14:36, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * There are legitimate reasons for doing things this way: books don't wear as quickly when they are tight on the shelves, thus keeping some books separate can make sure they last longer. Additionally, keeping paperbacks (I'm assuming you're talking about pocket-size paperbacks, not trades) together allows one to lower the shelf heights and fit more shelves in a unit, and thus more books.. eldamorie (talk) 14:48, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Some people will only check out paperbacks and will never enter the hardback section so keeping them separate is a service to that group as well. There may be some who only use hardback but much fewer I think. Rmhermen (talk) 16:57, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Isn't that a disservice? Putting them together would mean those people see them and will find the book they want more often. Having them separate means those people will never see them. --Tango (talk) 21:07, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the Rmhermen's point is there are some people who will never choose a hardback (I guess because of reasons of size and weight) so they don't have to waste time with hardbacks if they are kept seperate. I do agree it isn't a particularly compelling advantage since there are likely quite a few in those group who will choose a hardback if it's the only option and it's the only book they want, sometimes they may choose it if they see and perhaps realise it isn't that heavy or large but may not have bothered to look otherwise. Perhaps more significantly, there must be many more people who don't care that much (perhaps will prefer one or the other given the choice) who will be compelled to search two sections when they are seperate if it turns out what they want isn't in the first section. Note that this will likely cost significantly more time to the user then simply rejecting any hardbacks they say to those small number who will do so due to the need to visit 2 sections. (They can use the catalog, but then so can those who never want a hardback/whatever.) Nil Einne (talk) 05:27, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * There are also libraries that purchase popular fiction mainly in paperback form for practical reasons - there's more call for the book in the first year or two after publication than there will be down the road. So they buy 10 or 15 copies of the book originally in paperback (because it's cheaper) then sell most of them when demand dies down. The library might buy one hardcover copy as well if the book is destined for its permanent collection and if the book has been published in hardcover at all; otherwise they may rebind a paperback copy as a hardcover. My local library does this for some genre fiction - Simenon, Stout, Sayers, etc. - because reprints are only available in paperback. --NellieBlyMobile (talk) 02:53, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Euler diagram of Roman society
I'm having a bit of trouble following the relationships between different orders and social classes within ancient Roman society. It's possible that some of my confusion comes from changes that took place over time, so let's restrict ourselves to the late Republic / early principate. I'll assume that women, children, and other dependent family members share the status of the male head of the household. My best understanding is the following. Have I got this right? The questions I'm particularly uncertain about are: Thanks. --Amble (talk) 02:14, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * An adult man could be a slave or free.
 * A free man could be a foreigner, a freedman (not quite fully a citizen), or a Roman citizen.
 * A Roman citizen could be a plebeian or a patrician.
 * In the late Republican era, all patricians and some plebeians were of equestrian rank.
 * In the late Republican era, all patricians and some plebeians were of senatorial rank.
 * All senators were also equites.
 * Were there patricians who were not of senatorial rank?
 * Were the senators also equites, were they mutually exclusive, or did they partially overlap?
 * Were there senators who were neither patricians nor equites?
 * Were the non-patrician equites plebeians, or did the equites form a distinct class between the plebeians and patricians?


 * I think patrician vs. plebeian referred to how historically noble your family was, while Senator and knight were present-day honors. AnonMoos (talk) 04:39, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The image to the right is based on my understanding of the classes (from reading Ancient_rome, Social class in ancient Rome, Status in Roman legal system and other relevant articles). So; yes, there were patricians who were not senators; yes, some senators were also equites; not sure if there were any non-equite, non-patrician senators (seems unlikely); yes, equites were all plebians, none of them were patricians. The terms do seem to get conflated a bit, but I think the main confusion is between Nobilis and Equites, because normally knights would be considered part of the nobility, but in the Ancient Roman system they were not. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 04:52, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. The article equestrian order seems to imply that senators were a subset of equites ("Despite these developments, the senatorial elite never acquired an independent existence, but remained a sub-set of the Order of Knights", etc.) and also that the equites were below patricians ("ranking below the patricians").  I'm not sure whether this is just because the article is confusingly worded, or perhaps there's uncertainty from the ancient sources themselves.  It was possible to be of senatorial rank without actually being a senator.  I had supposed that a patrician would automatically have senatorial rank without necessarily sitting in the senate.  --Amble (talk) 06:12, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Only senators and their families (for up to 3 generations) had the senatorial rank. Senators who were not patricians must have been added to the roll of the order of equites (so that means there were no non-equite, non-patrician senators), but it makes no sense to have patricians on that roll. The patricians were defintely not automatically senators, but they were automatically noble. The senatorial elite refered to in the article is those of senatorial rank who were equites, so the patricians of senatorial rank are not a subset of the equite order. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 06:25, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * A pedantic point perhaps, but the singular of equites is eques, not equite. --Nicknack009 (talk) 13:11, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * On the substantive point, my understanding of it is that the patrician/plebeian divide was completely independent of the census classes, which went from senatorial, through equestrian and several other propertied ranks down to proletarian, based on how much property you owned. So it would be, at least theoretically, possible to be a patrician by ancestry while falling into any one of the census classes - a patrician who had no property would be a proletarian but still a patrician - and equally for plebeians. Plus of course your class could change with your fortune, but your patrician or plebeian status would remain the same. --Nicknack009 (talk) 13:19, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I would draw the diagram with the "cives" set divided by a vertical line, with patricians on one side and plebians on the other, and all the other subsets straddling the dividing line. --Nicknack009 (talk) 13:23, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, the "cives" set shouldn't be inside the "liberti" set, as that would imply all citizens is a subset of former slaves. "Liberti" should be partly outside and partly inside "cives" (as not all freedmen at all times had full citizenship status - at some points in history they had fewer rights), entirely on the plebeian side of the divide, and intersecting with all the census classes except senatorial. --Nicknack009 (talk) 13:33, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks. A pedantic point is my favorite kind of point.  I don't think I had used 'equite' as the singular here, but I would have, and now I know better.
 * And thanks to both answerers on the substantive point. I now have two conflicting ideas about whether a patrician could be an eques.  I think that part of the confusion comes from the different ideas of equestrian status that were used for different purposes.  They referred to more or less the same people, even if the criteria were apparently quite different.  For example, Augustus defined thresholds for equestrian and senatorial status based on property as recorded in the census.  The equestrian threshold seems to have been designed to add to the ranks of equites by inviting the participation of sufficiently wealthy individuals from outside Rome.  Based on this book chapter from the University of Michigan, I gather that the property qualification gave people the right to use the style and ornaments of the equites, and to act as equites, and (if accepted by the others) to thereby actually become equites.  It's not clear that an eques who fell below the property qualifications would automatically be excluded, although this did give the censor one convenient justification for degrading disfavored members.  There are clear associations of certain patricians with the equites: for example, Claudius headed the equestrian delegation at Augustus's funeral.  But that may not have meant that he was actually an equite himself.  In my admittedly incomplete search, I haven't found any examples of Romans in the correct time period who were clearly of equestrian and non-senatorial rank.  Perhaps the understanding of equestrian status was sufficiently vague and flexible that such questions are impossible to answer with a simple yes or no?  --Amble (talk) 17:48, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Also: bonus points to Was 203 for actually drawing up an Euler diagram. :-) --Amble (talk) 17:51, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

How to help
I, like many other people, would like to help the 2012 Aurora shooting victims. Are there any places where financial contributions can be sent?142.255.103.121 (talk) 05:04, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The Red Cross is helping in Colorado. You could donate to them.   RudolfRed (talk) 06:22, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Besides donating to the American Red Cross, has a fund been set up for the victims and their families?142.255.103.121 (talk) 08:07, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * One might consider taking a small step to prevent any future such tragedies by refusing to watch movies, TV programs etc that feature violence. From the article "The attack began ... around the time of the first gun scene in the adjacent theater." The movie's plot is full of violence and bloodshed, and people flock to watch. Is it any wonder that occasionally someone brings that carnage to reality? Perhaps if we as a society stopped supporting violence on the screen, we'd get less of it in the real world. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:58, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That's a pretty POV-ish statement there, Mitch (not to mention irrelevant to the OP's question). Millions of people watch such films all the time and they don't turn out to be mass killers. Maybe campaigning for greater gun control would also help, no? --Viennese Waltz 13:07, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * It is POV, but it is not irrelevant to the OP's first sentence (if not the actual question) - "I ... would like to help". It's true that millions of people watch such films without becoming killers, but the widespread implicit "glorification" of violence may turn a few. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:54, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It is irrelevant, since you've quoted the first sentence out of context. The OP specifically asked for information about ways of offering financial help to the Aurora victims (and, presumably, their families).  If you're saying that refusing to watch violent movies puts extra money in their pockets, please tell me how that works. --Viennese Waltz 14:50, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Being on another continent I've probably missed most of the content, but didn't this guy boobytrap his house? As he'd obviously had have to do that before watching the movie, wouldn't make that the movie irrelevant to the discussion as to why he did it? Unilynx (talk) 17:27, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Sounds perfectly logical to me. There was a lot less violence before movies, and a lot more emphasis on human rights. All ancient and modern history points to this. Much like how there was no sexual abuse at all before pronography became widespread, while now it's impossible to walk down the street before being raped. Egg   Centri  c  20:39, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Surely, you're being ironic? 203.27.72.5 (talk) 07:38, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd say it's a reductio ad absurdum. OsmanRF34 (talk) 11:46, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Community First Foundation - The Aurora Victim Relief Fund looks to be the "official" fund with Warner Brothers donating there and state recognition. Rmhermen (talk) 16:14, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Please note I'm not using this site as a crystal ball or anything like that. But by any chance would Cinemark establish a special fund for the victims and their families?142.255.103.121 (talk) 02:55, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It would be a smart PR move, but we have no way of knowing. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 17:09, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Who were the role models during the Victorian Era?
Today's predominant role models are sports stars, movie stars and singers (as long as you've got (eccentric) talent and a pretty face).

Who were the role models of the Victorian Era?

To me it seems like the royals, the politicians, scientists and intelligentsia in general.

What do you think? 41.247.34.143 (talk) 07:12, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * It depends on where in the world you're talking about. In the UK, military figures like Charles George Gordon (that article has good info on his fame) and before him Horatio Nelson were idolized, and explorers like David Livingston could also be huge celebrities. Charles Dickens was also insanely popular with as many adoring fans as JK Rowling or Stephenie Meyer has today, and the Brontes also had a certain celebrity with people apparently desperate to find out about their private lives; and actors like Ellen Terry were stars.  Royalty wasn't uniformly popular, particularly due to the Hanoverian men; though not popular throughout her reign, Queen Victoria became a national icon late in her reign. --Colapeninsula (talk) 08:09, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I'd also say that politicians such as Sir Robert Peel, William Gladstone and Benjamin Disraeli were celebrities in the modern sense. Whether they were role models is a different matter. --TammyMoet (talk) 08:41, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * In East Asia, the same "immortals" of Confucianism - Confucius, his disciples, and their disciples - stil commanded great respect and attracted emulation in the 19th century. At the same time, as conflicts amongst the nations of East Asia and between them and the Western powers grew, both national heroes of the age and prominent figures in the West became increasingly viewed as role models - these were soldiers, statesmen and writers, for the most part. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:10, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * In the 19th century, people didn't have "role models" but they spoke of "heroes" and "heroines". Military men in particular were held up for emulation, and not just living ones. The British Empire modelled itself on Ancient Rome, so British boys had to read about Roman heroes. In all countries children were taught to admire the national founding figures and victors of battles. As well as those already mentioned, in Britain, schoolchildren were urged to admire the Duke of Wellington, Walter Raleigh, and Francis Drake. Florence Nightingale comes to mind as a heroine. Actors and actresses were also hero-worshipped, and the top opera singers were regarded as divas. Were you interested in one particular country? Itsmejudith (talk) 11:09, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks so much, you all! The United Kingdom is exactly what I had in mind; but having a global view of perspectives are welcomed. Thank you once again! 41.247.34.143 (talk) 14:50, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Late to the party, but that never stopped me. Maybe what I can now add will help future readers who find this question in the archives.


 * The Victorians were good at churning out improving literature and morality tales, especially for children. A person such as Grace Darling, the young woman who, with her father the lighthouse keeper, rescued shipwreck victims in a lethal storm, was held up as a model of fortitude and self-sacrifice. Equally eulogised were those of whom even less was known, e.g. The boy who stood on the burning deck (whence all but he had fled). Explorers and Empire builders were a popular category: Cecil Rhodes, for example, who would not be many people's first choice of a role model for their children now. Searching for "Victorian heroes" and "Victorian heroines" should lead you in the right direction. BrainyBabe (talk) 19:21, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I was at primary school well over 50 years after the end of the Victorian era, and a resident of the antipodes to boot, but I was still fed the Grace Darling and Casabianca stories as examples of how to live one's life. --  ♬  Jack of Oz  ♬  [your turn]  20:09, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Another popular morality tale, at least in Wales, was Mary Jones and her Bible. In that case, the talk page is probably more instructive than the article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:35, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Cervantes stuttering
Did Cervantes stutter?--80.58.205.107 (talk) 12:49, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * John Beusterein has written an article with just that title for the bulletin of the Cervantes Society of America. The full thing is available here, though the key sentence seems to be "While I believe that Miguel de Cervantes stuttered, the evidence is scanty". - Cucumber Mike (talk) 13:30, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Presidents wives
How many U.S. presidents wives campaigned for their husbands re-election? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1007:B023:23B0:180D:C3F4:6484:7792 (talk) 13:57, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Most of them since Eleanor Roosevelt, I would assume... AnonMoos (talk) 15:30, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The OP can make their own assumptions, Anon Moos. They came here for something a little more concrete than that.  -- ♬  Jack of Oz  ♬  [your turn]  21:58, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Many of the early Presidential candidates didn't even campaign for themselves. Actively campaigning for the office was seen as impolite; most of the early Presidential candidates stayed at home and let their Parties do all the work.  During the so-called Era of Good Feelings the U.S. was functionally only a 1-Party system (the Democratic-Republican Party) and since many states at that time didn't even use a popular vote to select its electors, "campaigning" consisted mostly of party bosses negotiating and dealing for votes.  The idea that a candidate would "stump" for votes by traveling from place to place didn't happen until the United States presidential election, 1860 when Stephen Douglas undertook the first nationwide stump tour.  Notably, he lost anyways to Abraham Lincoln who never left his home during the campaign.  Such campaigning is called a front porch campaign and as our article notes, as late as 1920, there were successful elections by candidates who didn't actively campaign for themselves.  -- Jayron  32  22:45, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The first First Lady (well, First Lady to be) that I can find record of campaigning for her husband is Mary Todd Lincoln, who spoke to reporters and gave public speeches for Abraham's 1860 campaign. I've seen references to 20th Century First Ladies campaigning (Lady Bird Johnson and Pat Nixon, for sure, and pretty much everyone since Pat, as I personally recall), but I was honestly a bit surprised to see that Mary Todd was so visible.  I don't know if she was exceptional, or if others followed her lead (or, indeed, preceded her)?  Fun and slightly related fact -- Franklin Pierce's wife Jane Pierce seriously disagreed with his decision to run for office, believing that he'd offended God.  Our article doesn't mention, but I'd swear I recall reading somewhere that she actively and openly opposed his campaign, but I can't find it now. Jwrosenzweig (talk) 04:54, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Considering how well regarded Pierce was as a President, I think Jane may have been on to something. She must have known him well... -- Jayron  32  22:57, 25 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Isn't Harry Truman's mother on record as saying that she considered him not much good as a president, and she voted for the other guy? --  ♬  Jack of Oz  ♬  [your turn]  02:49, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Work possibilities abroad for a person with Canadian citizenship
Hi,

I just got Canadian citizenship, and I wondered where I could be allowed (through a quick visa process or with no process at all) to work because an agreement between Canada and another country. I can no longer use the "youth" programs, such as the one between Canada and France or Canada and the UK.

Thank you for your help! :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.61.145.4 (talk) 18:07, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You could perhaps seek employment with the Canadian Foreign Affairs and International Trade office (the Foreign Service). You would be employed by the Canadian government, but could actually be working abroad.  I did find this page through www.canada.ca which may have some information if that career path interests you.  Otherwise, I'm not sure that Canada specifically has programs for placing adult workers with foreign companies, you may need to work that out with the immigration office of the country you seek to work in.  Many countries are leery of letting people move therejust to find work; you often need to have an actual job offer before you can secure a visa.  Which is not to say that it is hard or impossible.  If you don't mind teaching, you can often find work abroad as an English teacher, or alternately teaching in an English-language "International School".  Just some more leads to follow.  -- Jayron  32  22:31, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Depending on the OP's age, he may be eligible for various international youth mobility programs. See here for details. --Xuxl (talk) 10:12, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That's amazing Xuxl: the OP clearly said he cannot" use the "youth" programs, such as the one between Canada and France or Canada and the UK." And what to you link to? A "youth" program, such as the one between Canada and France or Canada and the UK. Anyway, OP, maybe you could apply to TN status. OsmanRF34 (talk) 11:37, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry I missed that. Not that advising to join DFAIT was any more relevant, given their lack of recruiting these days... --Xuxl (talk) 13:52, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Transportation of convicts to Australia
When did transportation of convicts to Australia end? 69.62.243.48 (talk) 20:47, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Penal transportation says: "Transportation from Britain/Ireland officially ended in 1868 although it had become uncommon several years earlier." --Tango (talk) 21:17, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * If you want more details on the slow death of transportation, I'd suggest the high level summary available in Connell and Irving's Class Structure in Australian History. This book explains in part how individual colonies turned off transportation, despite the perceived labour shortage in Australia.  Largely this revolves around soft conflict in the incipient Australian bourgeoisie regarding whether Australia should be a settler colony or an extraction colony: ie, what status for the lower classes, formal freedom and penury or formal bondage and penury.  Freedom, and the settler society, won out in part due to the division of land and the capacity for more profitable exploitation of agricultural land with smaller land holdings. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:32, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Greenland colony
Why did Norway and Denmark abandon the Greenland colony for over three hundred years? The last ship to arrive in Greenland from Europe in 1408 or 1420 and the Norwegian and later the Danish totally forgot about their bretherens to the west until 1721. I know there was political turmoil (not really actually, some wars with Sweden and nobles over the Kalmar Union) around this time but wasn't there any mention of the colony or any desire for Denmark-Norway to resupply them or trade with them, especially with (1) the need to replace bishops, (2) to further spread the Reformation after the 1500s, and (3) to compete with other European nations when colonialism spread to the Western Hemisphere.--The Emperor&#39;s New Spy (talk) 23:11, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure that "colonialism" worked the same way among the Norse settlers of the New World (including Greenland and Vinland) as it did among the Southern European explorers and colonizers a half a millenium later. There wasn't so much of a specific state backing for the exploration and colonization of Greenland.  They were basically pioneers who set off to make their own fortunes, and leave their former state behind.  According to Norse colonization of the Americas, the early Greenlanders took some 280 years to formally accept the overlordship of the King of Norway, and it doesn't appear that there were ever more than a few thousand total settlers, nor is it clear that immigration was anything more than sporadic and unorganized.  -- Jayron  32  23:31, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * My understanding is that it is widely thought that the Little Ice Age, which set in somewhere around 1400, had a lot to do with the abandonment of Greenland. The colder weather made it very hard to make a profit there. Looie496 (talk) 02:19, 25 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Being covered with glaciers, Greenland wasn't all that useful of a colony. At best, you could have some fishing and whaling villages there.  So, they really only were willing to invest enough to cement their claim to the island, which might yet turn out to be a great investment, if the glaciers melt and it becomes fully usable at some point, due to global warming. StuRat (talk) 03:38, 25 July 2012 (UTC)


 * According to Jared Diamond, one reason why the Scandinavians didn't survive in Greenland was because they didn't fish. Of course at least 90% of Greenland was ice-covered and useless for supporting the medieval Nordic lifestyle, but in some small favored areas there were microclimates which could at least marginally support some agricultural crops and animals (or the Greenland colony would never have been established in the first place). AnonMoos (talk) 04:24, 25 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I think Jared Diamond must have gotten something mixed up then, because the Norse settlers of Greenland certainly did fish. --Saddhiyama (talk) 08:45, 25 July 2012 (UTC)


 * History of Greenland discusses what little is known about the disappearance of the first Greenland colony who raised sheep and goats and farmed as well as fished. Three hundred years after it disappears from the record, Denmark sent a mission in the hopes that Danes were still living there. They didn't forget about their settlers; the settlers disappeared and nobody looked for them for a few centuries. Rmhermen (talk) 04:20, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I know about all the suggested reason why they didn't survive. I am asking about the European perspective of the story. Why didn't Norway, Denmark, Rome, or the Archdiocese of Nidaros (Greenland's Catholic bishops were ordained in Europe) speak of or contact the Greenlanders in over three hundred years when events like the Kalmar Union, the Reformation, and finally competition and success of other European powers in the area of colonialism/opening up the western hemisphere for profit occurred (wouldn't Denmark want a stake in the colonial race during the 1500s, why jump in when it was pretty much done in the 1700s). Did the Greenlanders when forgotten for three hundred years and all records of them disappeared? --The Emperor&#39;s New Spy (talk) 04:58, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 3000 people who live 3000 miles away, and every once in a while sent a boat with some hides to trade for some pots and pans are easy to forget about. -- Jayron  32  05:21, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * As pointed out above, the History of Greenland article gives sources suggesting that there may have been voyages to the area as late as the 1480s. However, Norway suffered badly from the Black Death in the 14th century; our article on the country says that "Although the death rate was comparable with the rest of Europe, economic recovery took much longer because of the small, scattered population". The article on Danish colonization of the Americas indicates that Denmark–Norway retained a formal claim to Greenland after 1536, and that in the 1660s there were probably whaling voyages to the area.  So, the suggestion that the colony was "abandon[ed]... for over three hundred years" appears not to be the full story.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:39, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The two European settlements on Greenland were isolated from Europe by the Little Ice Age. They died out during the separation. The Europeans didn't know Greenland was in the New World. Sleigh (talk) 12:42, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * A couple of factors may be relevant to the question. Our article on the History of Greenland says, without citing a source, that from the late 13th century all ships were forced by law to sail directly to Norway, as opposed to the prior trade directly with Iceland.  It's not clear to me if the law was for political control, to favor Norwegian trading interests, or for tax reasons, but all seem plausible reasons.  Jared Diamond says in Collapse that by around 1420 the Little Ice Age was in full swing, and the increased summer drift ice between Greenland, Iceland, and Norway ended ship communication between the Greenland Norse and the outside world.  So presumably a combination of the longer voyages required to travel between Greenland and Norway, and the adverse conditions of travel due to increased drift ice, led to a disruption in communication with Greenland and its effective abandonment.  John M Baker (talk) 14:25, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You may be interested in this letter of Alexander VI from 1492 (and footnotes): . Looking for more on Magnus Heinason's supposed 1579 attempt, but no luck so far.&mdash;eric 15:50, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Who is this Matthias and what happen to his mission?--The Emperor&#39;s New Spy (talk) 00:23, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Matthias Knutsson, a Dane, seems he never set out and there is no record as to why. Also Vincentius Petersson Kampe, another Dane, appointed in 1519 (not a bishop). See: Larson, Laurence M. (1920). The Church in North America (Greenland) During the Middle Ages. In The Catholic Historical Review, Volume V.
 * All i found for Heinason was that he may have set out it 1581, approached Greenland from the east and was turned away by ice.&mdash;eric 15:18, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Pope Alexander's letter is fascinating, but it's not exactly surprising that Matthias didn't make it to Greenland. There apparently hadn't been a ship to Greenland in over 80 years, and the voyage was known to be exceedingly difficult and dangerous.  Matthias was poverty-stricken, and the pope gave him no resources, other than encouraging people to do things for him for free.  It would be remarkable if he had made it to Greenland (where, it appears, he would have found no remaining settlers anyway).  John M Baker (talk) 17:25, 26 July 2012 (UTC)