Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2014 April 13

= April 13 =

Why should a company care about its own share price?
Why should a company care about its own share price? If the company has sold shares, it can only benefit from a high share price if it sells more and it could only make money on its own shares if it buys them low and sells them again later? What motivation is there to pay dividends? --129.215.47.59 (talk) 00:27, 13 April 2014 (UTC)


 * If the price goes too low, many bad things happen:


 * 1) They may be the target of a hostile takeover, where another company tries to buy a majority of their shares, to gain control of the company. The dissatisfied current owners of the shares may be willing to sell, if it seems like a bad investment, and the other company might be wiling to buy them, if they seem like a bargain.


 * 2) Your company will be very limited in their ability to raise cash by selling stock. Also banks may be unwilling to lend, knowing this.  So, a cash flow problem could turn into bankruptcy.


 * 3) Bad press may make customers unwilling to buy your products, as they are worried that you may not be there when they need service, want to return the item, etc.


 * 4) The shareholders, dissatisfied with the return on their investment, will demand a change in management. Paying dividends can stave off this pressure, so companies with little stock growth often offer those. StuRat (talk) 00:36, 13 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Add to this: managers are very often paid in put options too. It's in their interest that the price gets as high as possible. OsmanRF34 (talk) 04:38, 13 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I think you mean call options. Typically, managers have the right (but not the obligation) to buy stock in the company at some designated price on some future date. It is therefore in the managers' interest to ensure that the company's stock price is as high as possible on that date, so as to maximise their reward (which they get by exercising the options on the appropriate date, buying the stock at the designated price, and then selling it in the open market at the (hopefully) higher price). The reasoning behind this is that it aligns the interests of the stock-holders and the company management: both want a high stock price. RomanSpa (talk) 08:13, 13 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Right, it's call options. OsmanRF34 (talk) 13:59, 13 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Interesting and valid answers above, but unless you are Mitt Romney, you don't think corporations are people. What does a "company" want? In some sense (not perfectly, but accurately enough) what the company wants is what the shareholders want. They do, after all, own the company. So ask why the shareholders would care about the share price (you could reasonably argue that that is all they care about). Then ask how the shareholders influence the decisions of the directors. One good answer has already been given: they give them call options (or some other such stock bonus) so they have an incentive directly. Then their motives are aligned with those of the shareholders. But the shareholders could also call a meeting and fire the directors, so the pressure from the capitalists should usually amount to the same thing.
 * Then there is a separate question of the motivation to pay dividends. Remember these go to the shareholders, so that should be easy to work out. However, there are of course reasons not to, since they want to pump money back into the business to stave off competition. But read the article dividend for more interesting stuff. IBE (talk) 09:44, 13 April 2014 (UTC)


 * In my experience, working for corporations, periodic earnings become THE most important thing. That fact drives every significant decision, one way or another. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:36, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

129.215.47.59 -- Before the 1930s, often very little financial information was available about publicly-traded companies, and people without a speculative mindset often bought stocks more in the expectation that previous dividend patterns would continue in future, than to take advantage of stock price changes. In more recent times, the "shareholder value model" has been the business-school orthodoxy for the last three decades or so, with increasing criticism in the last few years... AnonMoos (talk) 10:08, 13 April 2014 (UTC)


 * To piggyback on what Anonmoose is saying: It is the responsibility of the employees of a company to make as much money as possible for the owner(s) of the company. That is, whoever owns the company wants the company to be worth as much as possible, either in terms of the overall value of the company, or in terms of how much money it can make for the owners.  It doesn't matter whether a company has 1 owner or 1,000,000 owners, those owners have the right to expect that the people working for the company act in the owner's best interest.  The company management has what is called a fiduciary responsibility to the shareholders; that is the management is required to take the best interest of the owners in their decision making (again, for a publicly traded company, these are the shareholders, but don't sweat the terminology.  Shareholders are owners).  The fiduciary article cites several court cases in the U.S., UK, and Canada which uphold the basic principle that company managers/directors/trustees/etc. have a fiduciary duty towards the shareholders.  -- Jayron  32  21:53, 14 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Note that the situation is a bit different if the company is over 50% owned by one party. In that case, they may like having the stock price vary both up and down, so they can sell stock when the price is high and buy it back when it goes low, hopefully always retaining majority share, so the other shareholders can't gain control of the company.  However, if they intentionally cause the share price to drop so they can buy it cheap, then this form of stock manipulation may be illegal, depending on the jurisdiction. StuRat (talk) 16:30, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

"We" in Islam
I was reading a Wikipedia article re: Iblis (devil) and there was a quote from the Quran: "It is We Who created you and gave you shape . . ." Quran, sura 7 (Al-A'raf) ayat 11-12

Who is/are the "We" being referred to here? 99.250.118.116 (talk) 00:29, 13 April 2014 (UTC)


 * That's similar to the Bible (Genesis 3:22):


 * And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever."


 * My explanation is that polytheism was still mixed in with both religions when they were new, and all those texts were not excised out. StuRat (talk) 00:51, 13 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Accuracy of translation from the original texts might be of interest here. HiLo48 (talk) 00:54, 13 April 2014 (UTC)


 * The polytheism bit doesn't quite jive with "Follow what has been sent down to you from your Lord, and follow no friends other than He", from the same part. "He" and "We" are consistently used differently there. Doesn't seem like a translation error. Of course, there are those who swear the Koran must be read in Arabic (aloud) for it to be truly true. Could boil down to that, but there's probably a simpler answer. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:25, 13 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm no theologian, but from reading 7:35-36, it seems "We" are the Messengers, relating to others God's signs. "My message" thus becomes "Our message". InedibleHulk (talk) 01:33, 13 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Perhaps We are a Council, as in 7:59-60. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:42, 13 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Surely the Qur'anic use is the Royal We. We ourself use that around here all the time. μηδείς (talk) 01:52, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Possibly. Hadn't heard of that. 7:103 on suggests We are not the capitalized Council, but sent forth Moses, a "Messenger from the Lord of all Being", to the Pharoah's Council. Noah was a similar Messenger. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:54, 13 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Your link led me to Divine Council, then to Heavenly host. I think I'm going with "Them". "We" certainly sound like an army in this sura, and the "Angelic combat" section likewise describes booting Satan. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:59, 13 April 2014 (UTC)


 * We also confessed to committing the Plagues of Egypt. Were those guys identified in the Bible or Torah? InedibleHulk (talk) 02:13, 13 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Ah. Just plain God. But it could be that God caused the plagues something like Bill Clinton bombed the Serbs. Or how Santa makes all those toys. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:15, 13 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Some Googling has led me to believe that the specific angel speaking here is Jibra'il. Mikha'il fights with honour, Izra'il kills, Israfil plays the horn and Jibra'il writes it all down. Something like the Ninja Turtles, if Raphael was replaced by April. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:41, 13 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I didn't know it when I wrote it, but Raphael (archangel) was replaced by Israfil in Islam. Weird. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:54, 13 April 2014 (UTC)


 * The two verbs in Arabic (we created you/we gave you shape) are both plural, if that helps (they both have -na at the end, well actually they have -nakum since the plural object "you" is also attached to the verb). The angel could be referring to more than one entity in this case, but yes, Arabic also has Royal We when Allah is speaking (Surah 2 for example). Adam Bishop (talk) 09:57, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It's definitely intrigued me. The more I read about it, the more I'm convinced the general consensus on God actually doing things is mistaken. In all three books, the "mystery" of the Elohim is a lot less mysterious if one simply credit's God's crew for everything instead. Part of me figures pride goeth before a fall, and it can't be that simple, after all these centuries. But then again, the Trinity "mystery" and some of our own Manual of Style Talk Page wars were deceptively easy, too (Use a hyphen or a dash; someone will always fix it later.).


 * Thank you, OP-IP for getting me interested in archangels. Still plenty left to discover on them. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:57, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Not really relevant to the Quran question, but for a general overview of the current state of scholarship of Elohim, et al., see James Kugel, The God of Old and How to Read the Bible. Evanh2008 (talk&#124;contribs) 22:34, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * They sound interesting, from the Amazon overviews, but the prices are personally a bit steep (oddly, both are worth more used than new). If I ever live somewhere with a good library again, I'll check them out. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:15, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Ever try Half.com? I find their prices are often better than Amazon's, at least for the obscure kind of stuff I read. Here's Kugel on Half.com. Evan (talk&#124;contribs) 00:02, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, much better. Even if I don't grab the books, I'll remember the site. "On Being a Jew" seems a deal, at 75 cents. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:09, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

The Rosary
Just today, I saw a copy of the painting entitled The Virgin of the Rosary by Bartolomé Esteban Murillo. A copy of this painting is in the "Gallery section" of his article. It is the one in the second row, third column. See here: Bartolomé Esteban Murillo. The painting shows the Virgin Mary and baby Jesus, holding a set of rosary beads. Now, every set of rosary beads that I have seen contains a little medal of Mary. And it occurred to me that people say the rosary in prayer and devotion to Mary. So, as I looked at the painting, it struck me odd that Mary herself was holding a rosary. Is this an anachronism? Some form of "poetic license"? Or would there be some viable reason that a person living at that time (as Mary) would have a rosary? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:39, 13 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Sounds similar to the pattern of Jesus and Mary being painted as Europeans, rather than as the Semitic people they were, when painted by Europeans StuRat (talk) 00:45, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * According to Catholic beliefs, Mary continues to exist after her Assumption to heaven (rising to heaven), and she can continue to appear to mortals, for example, as Our Lady of Lourdes. By that logic, she may appear to people holding a rosary, or be portrayed that way.OttawaAC (talk) 02:30, 13 April 2014 (UTC)


 * According to the legend of Our Lady of the Rosary, it was Mary who gave St Dominic a rosary in the first place, in the year 1214, about 12 centuries after she died was assumed bodily into Heaven. That one probably didn't have a picture of her on it, but later people have chosen to include one.  The picture is not a fundamental or intrinsic part of the Rosary.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  02:41, 13 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Indeed. Any painting of "Our Lady of the Rosary" is going to show her with a rosary, because it is depicting a Mary who has already been assumed into Heaven encouraging/teaching the praying of the rosary. It is not going to be a painting of Mary during her normal lifetime. I would also add that I have seen many sets of rosary beads which had a medal depicting someone or something other than Mary, and indeed sets of beads with no medal at all. There's a bit of a trend for making rosary 'beads' by knotting a single length of cord, for example, and these knotted cords have no medal at all. 86.146.28.229 (talk) 16:03, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * There are virtual rosaries on line or as apps,some do and some don't have pictures of Mary on them.Hotclaws (talk) 10:24, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. But, it seems like these above answers are "missing the point". OK, after she was assumed, I can see that she might "appear" or be pictured holding a rosary. But, in the painting mentioned above, she is holding the baby Jesus. Hence, the event being pictured happened (more or less) around the years 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 AD or so (assuming the baby Jesus is about 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 years old). This is well before the time she was assumed into heaven. Hence, my question about it being anachronistic. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:14, 15 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't think you can deduce from the age of baby Jesus that the picture is depicting an event during the early life of Jesus, or even any particular event at all. I'm sure there have been other (claimed) apparitions of these sorts of things where Jesus was a child or a baby.  There's a lot of symbolism in these apparitions, e.g. Mary is sometimes shown standing on crescent moons and stars, but that doesn't mean it's meant to depict her wandering around interstellar space.  What's the crescent moon all about? An eclipse, perhaps?  Why not a full moon or a half moon?  Sometimes Jesus appears with his heart open and rays streaming out of it, and Mary sometimes has 7 daggers stuck in her.  It's not photographic or historic, and shouldn't be analysed forensically like a crime scene or an actual moment from the life of the person.  It's all symbolic.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  20:49, 15 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Indeed. When St Anthony of Padua is shown holding the child Jesus, this is not meant to imply he was a time-traveller. When saints are shown holding small model churches, this is not meant to imply that they had excellent crafting skills. Many apparitions and visions over the centuries include or feature the child Jesus, even before we look at the symbolism. (The crescent moon is because it's really hard to make any other sort of moon look like a moon if you're sticking to simple symbolic artwork. I have seen statues of Mary standing on the top half of a proper, crater-y moon, so it can be done. But, speaking as someone who corralled a class of children into making a sun and moon and stars, on sticks, to parade with, you quickly start sticking rays on the sun and making the moon a crescent shape.) 86.146.28.229 (talk) 13:17, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, all. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:40, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

What happened to the British Ambassador in Germany after declaration of war by Great Britain in 1939?
What happened to the British Ambassador in Germany after declaration of war by Great Britain in 1939? --78.148.104.99 (talk) 16:17, 13 April 2014 (UTC)


 * see Nevile Henderson (although that section could use some references). Rgds • TRN 3.svg • hugarheimur 16:23, 13 April 2014 (UTC)


 * In general, keeping ambassadors at their posts in enemy territory makes sense, as they are needed then more than ever, to arrange evacuation of non-combatants, prisoner exchanges, peace talks, etc., although restricting their movement to the embassy and blocking access to others is wise, to prevent spying and sabotage. Of course, this presumes that both sides are willing to behave civilly.  Germany in WW2, despite the genocide, did try to observe the Geneva Conventions with regards to prisoners, hoping to get favorable treatment for their own prisoners in exchange, and win the war of public opinion in nations that could join either side.  As far as the British were concerned, the Nazis considered them to be fellow "Aryans", and thus wanted to get them to give up without much of a fight, much as Austria did, and then join Germany.  Of course, it turned out that the British would have no part of that plan.   StuRat (talk) 16:26, 13 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, I doubt the British saw the German as fellow anything. OsmanRF34 (talk) 17:44, 13 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I couldn't find anything to confirm our article's unreferenced assertion that "Henderson and his staff were briefly interned by the Gestapo". The usually reliable Oxford Dictionary of National Biography's article on Sir Nevile Meyrick Henderson (1882–1942) only says "On the day war broke out, 3 September 1939, it was Henderson's duty to present the British ultimatum at the Wilhelmstrasse, before finally returning to England a few days later". I found Thanks from Sir Neville Henderson regarding support he received from the US Embassy in his trip to Berlin, November 24 1939 when he presumably went back to wind-up the embassy almost three months after the war had started. Alansplodge (talk) 19:57, 13 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I happen to have some anecdotal information about this one; a relative-by-marriage of mine was on Henderson's staff. The bit about the internment by the Gestapo is true - apparently the secret police rocked up at the front door of the embassy very shortly after war was declared and placed everybody they found there under arrest. The embassy staff rushed to destroy secret files before the Germans could take them. As far as I know nobody was put in cells or anything - it was very much an on-site business, almost like house arrest. I think this situation persisted overnight, despite the embassy staff's objections. In due course a diplomatic train was arranged, into which Henderson and all his staff were placed upon their 'release' by the Gestapo; this then headed west without any meaningful stops until it reached non-German territory, which I think was the Netherlands, but I'm not sure. There was considerable awareness among the staff that this was it - that their postings were over, and the world was changing. The events of September 1939 effectively concluded a period of high alert for the embassy staff which had existed since at least the Munich crisis the previou year. AlexTiefling (talk) 21:39, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Seemed to be a bit of fuss at the Dutch border, the London Times reported that they were held up on the German-side of the frontier for long hours on some petty pretext. An it also reported that Britain thanks Holland for the assistance of the Netherlands government in connection of the return of Henderson and his staff. MilborneOne (talk) 19:16, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Insult ?
I wonder, since both Nevile Henderson and Neville Chamberlain were for appeasement, did "Nevile" ever become an insult in England, even briefly ? StuRat (talk) 20:40, 13 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Never heard of it. I'm not sure that appeasement was seen as such a bad thing in the UK, even after the war had started. I don't think anybody wanted a war in 1938 and almost everybody was heartily relieved when there wasn't one. Whether a war could have been avoided by standing up to Hitler is an argument which is helped by generous helpings of hindsight. That extra year of rearmament made a whole lot of difference to us, although it was a thoroughly bad deal for the unfortunate Czechs. Alansplodge (talk) 12:53, 14 April 2014 (UTC)


 * In other words, it Nevile, Neville happened. Ever. Clarityfiend (talk) 14:51, 14 April 2014 (UTC)


 * My understanding is that during the remilitarization of the Rhineland Germany was so weak that a combined response from France and England could have easily evicted them, dealing a severe propaganda blow to the Nazi party, and possibly forcing them out of office. StuRat (talk) 13:38, 14 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's the historical orthodoxy now. It may not have been apparent to the Chamberlain or the average Briton in 1938. Alansplodge (talk) 19:11, 14 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I wonder why that wasn't apparent. Were the relative strengths of the militaries of the nations involved completely unknown ?  Was Hitler's plan unclear, keeping in mind that he laid it all out in Mein Kampf (although only an abridged version was released by then) ?  What exactly did the average Briton think was going to stop Hitler, if not them ? StuRat (talk) 13:28, 15 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Democracies don't usually go to war - proper war impacting massively on the country as a whole that is - just because it would potentially be to their advantage in geopolitical terms, or because it would strike a blow against a "bad" regime in another country. Chamberlain's comment that the Sudetenland crisis was "a quarrel in a far-away country between people of whom we know nothing" probably reflected the opinions of many Britons at that time. The Munich Agreement was widely welcomed in the UK at the time - see Neville Chamberlain. I'd suggest most Britons would have reacted to the question "Who will stop Hitler if not us?" in a similar way to how you or I might react to the question "Who will stop Putin if not us?" (which is not intended to make a direct comparison between the two men, to be clear). What did the average American think in 1936? Valiantis (talk) 13:59, 15 April 2014 (UTC)


 * That "far-away" seems demonstrably wrong, to me, as many planes had crossed the Channel by then, and bombers being able to soon make the trip should have been apparent to all. StuRat (talk) 14:09, 15 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, but Hitler was not directly threatening the UK in 1938. Or indeed in 1939 - Britain declared war on Germany, not vice-versa. The comment relates to Germany's grab for the Sudetenland and needs to be understood in that context. There weren't lots of ethnic Germans in the UK that Hitler could use as a pretext for seizing parts of neighbouring countries, so it seemed like somebody else's problem. Arguably it was someone else's problem. In Realpolitik terms, did it profit the British Empire to oppose German expansion on the mainland of Europe?
 * Anyway, you've moved this on from looking for references to debating. Chamberlain said what he said and the evidence suggests many - probably the majority of - Britons agreed with that sentiment (indeed, the sophisticated politician probably believed it less than the populace he was saying it too). The fact that you, with 70 years hindsight, disagree with his assessment is not a topic for a reference desk. Valiantis (talk) 14:31, 15 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I posted a new sub-Q about whether Neville was ever an insult in the UK, and knowing how they felt about appeasement was important to that. Presumably the British public largely opposed appeasement later on, after it became apparent that it just emboldened Hitler to grab more and more.  So, this is the time frame when it might have been used as an insult.  BTW, regarding your earlier Q about Putin in the Crimea, there's nothing the US could do now to evict him.  The only way to have ever evicted Russians from Crimea I can see is to have threatened a nuclear strike back when the US briefly had nuclear weapons, and the Soviet Union didn't, post-WW2. StuRat (talk) 15:17, 15 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Given that Chamberlain died pretty soon after resigning, and Henderson a couple of years later, I think that even without the considerable distraction of the war, most people would have found such a coinage inappropriate. AlexTiefling (talk) 13:10, 14 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Are there any stats for the frequency of newborns getting the name "Neville" before and after World War II? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:32, 14 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Good Q. There certain are fewer Adolfs now. StuRat (talk) 13:17, 15 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Neville has never been an especially common name in the UK, although it was in the top 100 names for babies in England and Wales in the decade ending 1934 . It had dropped out of the top 100 in the next decade but I would beware against assuming any post hoc ergo propter hoc significance to this. Neville is an uncommon but not an unusual name now and having known one or two people with that name, Chamberlain has never crossed my mind in the way Hitler does every time I encounter an Adolf (mainly only in histories!). I suspect far more English people when they hear the name now would think of Gary and Phil Neville long before they thought of Chamberlain! Valiantis (talk) 14:13, 15 April 2014 (UTC)


 * It was Sir Neville Marriner's 90th birthday yesterday (or today if you're on his side of the International Date Line). He's the most recorded person in history, apparently.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  20:36, 15 April 2014 (UTC)


 * But he was born, and presumably named, at least a decade before the name would have fallen into disrepute. StuRat (talk) 20:50, 15 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I think Jack's point may have been as with the Gary and Phil Neville, Marriner may be someone people will think of before Chamberlain. For the younger generation many of who've probably read Harry Potter or seen the movies, I can't help thinking they will also think of Neville Longbottom before Chamberlain. Even those who've just studied him in history (Chamberlain not Longbottom I presume few are studying Longbottom in history). Nil Einne (talk)

The actual diplomat exchange
Back to the actual post-declaration-of-war events: In his book, Neville Henderson gives a brief account of how the British and French diplomats returned home a few days after the declaration of war. The Germans sent them on a special train to the still-neutral Netherlands (which weren't invaded until the next spring); the German diplomatic staff traveled home from France in a similar way. The process was repeated a few times after more countries joined the war. In particular, some weeks after June 22, 1941, Soviet diplomats in Berlin and German diplomats in Moscow (Dekanozov / Shulenberg)were exchanged at the Soviet-Turkish border. After Pearl Harbor, Anglo-American diplomats in Japan, and Japanese diplomats in the UK and the USA, were exchanged in a complicated operation, via Portuguese Mozambique; the German and US diplomats were exchanged via Portugal. -- Vmenkov (talk) 04:21, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Sources for "North Carolina locations by per capita income"
Sources for "North Carolina locations by per capita income"

Hello, the article that I have mentioned in the headline has a box at the top addressing the fact that there are no sources for the chart. The note seems to be from several years ago, and I was wondering if there is somewhere that I can go to verify these statistics. This question applies to the Eastern United States, specifically North Carolina.

75.177.109.24 (talk) 19:06, 13 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Perhaps there is a table listing all of the counties, but I couldn't find it at census.gov. I did find a map where you can click on each county and look at the figures individually (Here's the one for Mecklenburg County). That last link also has a drop-down menu listing the counties alphabetically, which might be easier (but less fun). For linkage's sake: North Carolina locations by per capita income. It does refer to census.gov, but the external links it gives show data for the entire nation, not for counties in North Carolina. Thank you for caring about accuracy and sources, and please don't hesitate to ask if you need any help. ---Sluzzelin talk  19:51, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Selling weapons to both sides in a war
Can anyone provide me with some examples of when certain governments or arms manufacturers were selling weapons/military equipment/etc. to both sides in a war at the same time? Historically proven examples only, no conspiracy theories, please. :) Also, is there a specific term for this practice? --87.115.30.114 (talk) 22:04, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Iran-Iraq War? Llamabr (talk) 22:27, 13 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Specific term = "Business opportunity" or "Profits". HiLo48 (talk) 23:03, 13 April 2014 (UTC)


 * War profiteering is sometimes used for people who use war solely as a means of profit, and not for any ideological means. -- Jayron  32  00:05, 14 April 2014 (UTC)


 * There can be idealogical reasons to sell to both sides. In the Iran/Iraq case, Iran was sold weapons under the Shah w, but then they had that nasty revolution, and the US then sold weapons to Iraq.  Also, maintaining a balance of power can require that you sell arms to whoever is behind in the arms race, and that frequently changes. StuRat (talk) 03:05, 14 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Two things 1) It's the Shah of Iran, not the Shaw, and 2)The U.S. sold arms to Iran post-revolution as well, indeed at the same time they were selling arms to Iraq. That is, the U.S. supplied both sides of the conflict simultaneously.  Does the Iran–Contra affair ring any bells?  -- Jayron  32  11:10, 14 April 2014 (UTC)


 * 1) Fixed typo. 2) I didn't mention the Iran Contra Affair because that was not for ideological reason, but for practical reasons (to get the hostages released). StuRat (talk) 13:14, 15 April 2014 (UTC)


 * There is, of course, the Shaw of Ireland. μηδείς (talk) 21:58, 14 April 2014 (UTC)


 * IBM, especially through its German subsidiary, was involved in providing equipment to the Nazis. How much of this was weaponry is disputed (IBM made Carbines and other military equipment), but the company certainly provided machinery. IBM also had a Japanese subsidiary at the time. HiLo48 (talk) 03:16, 14 April 2014 (UTC)


 * GM and Ford? Clarityfiend (talk) 03:22, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I would expect this to be fairly common if the armsmaker was in a neutral country geographically close to both sides. For example, Sweden in WW2. And according to Wikipedia, Bofors sold the same model of anti-aircraft gun to both sides. --50.100.193.30 (talk) 04:03, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Extremely generally, AK-47s come from all over the globe to all over the globe. Either in official governemnt deals or "falling off a truck". Easily the most ubiquitous war weapon, has made countless profit for countless groups. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:23, 14 April 2014 (UTC)


 * If you're looking to get into the profiteering business, you may want to give KBR a shout. They seem fun. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:41, 14 April 2014 (UTC)


 * In Max Hastings' book 'Finest Years', about Churchill, has some details about the profiteering of the Americans between 1939-1941, enforced (by Henry Morgenthau), including fire-sales of British-held assets in the USA; he notes, in particular, a new Cortaulds mill (/factory). My late Godfather always complained that he had been forced to sell his landholdings in Florida, including Cape Canaveral. Unfortunately, Hastings does not go into the matter in more detail, but other agreements, such as the Destroyers for Bases Agreement, were also pretty one-sided. At the same time, the British made available technical knowledge - see the Tizard Mission, and early atomic bomb research, the Americans subsequently breaching the obligation to share that research with the British under the Quebec Agreement. At the end of the war, the Americans launched operations Alsos and Paperclip to scoop up German research.


 * The great profiteerer was Switzerland; having banked Jewish savings before the war, whose owners, helpfully, never subsequently returned to manage their accounts, it licensed and sold war materiel to both sides (eg. the Oerlikon 20 mm cannon). Indeed, if you look at the advertisements for IWC watches, they shamelessly state that they supplied both sides during the Battle of Britain.


 * Interestingly, in the 'Lonely Planet' (I think) guidebook, it states that the accidental bombing of Schaffhausen was, in fact, deliberate; credence might be given to this by the fact that the Swiss were producing ball-bearings in the town (see: Switzerland during the World Wars) and the Americans were trying to interdict the supply of ball-bearings (see: Second Raid on Schweinfurt). 82.214.243.38 (talk) 12:07, 14 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Not just arms; sometimes even troops. During the seventeenth and eighteenth century, it was common for smaller German states to lease out their standing armies to offset the cost of maintaining them during peacetime, in a practice known as soldatenhandel (see, eg, doi:10.2307/40107566). (The most famous example of this is the "Hessian" regiments hired by the United Kingdom during the American Revolutionary War, but it was also common during continental wars). This was treated as essentially a commercial/diplomatic transaction, rather than participation in the war as a belligerent.
 * On at least one occasion (in 1743), this led to a single principality providing troops to both sides of a war. I don't believe they ever came into direct conflict, and this was probably carefully arranged, but even so... Andrew Gray (talk) 22:11, 14 April 2014 (UTC)


 * See also Basil Zaharoff.--90.165.114.237 (talk) 10:26, 15 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Here is a current (2010) view on the industry in Latin America. Of course, it's from War Resisters' International, who may be biased. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:52, 18 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Even more recently (and more biased), it was Global Day of Action on Military Spending three days ago. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:03, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

King Alexander & Queen Draga's Serbian assassins
Where are the list of names of King Alexander & Queen Draga's Serbian assassins - killed June 11, 1903? The quote on the Wikipedia page does not show on p. 202 in THE FALL OF EAGLES. I am searching for the list of names of the assassins. I want more proof as to who this is & where can I find more information: "Норман Перовић, a young Greek Orthodox militant who was in the pay of the Russians,[3]"184.167.108.212 (talk) 23:00, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The Wikipedia article titled Black Hand (Serbia) lists the main conspirators in said plot, though that article has some conflicting statements about the exact founding date of the Black Hand. -- Jayron  32  00:01, 14 April 2014 (UTC)