Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2014 July 21

= July 21 =

$23.6 billion jury award in tobacco lawsuit
A Jury awarded $23.6B to a widow of a smoker who died from lung cancer years ago. This is surreal. If this goes through the plaintiff's attorney stands to get a third of this money, almost eight billion dollars. I wonder if the jurors had their marbles in place. It seem some people have no concept of large numbers. Perhaps many cannot count beyond a hundred. What are the internals of such a trial? Who suggested such a crazy figure? I wonder what did this man do in real life that made him worth so much money? Thanks --AboutFace 22 (talk) 00:36, 21 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I read about that case, very quickly. Presumably, the attorney for the plaintiff is the one who suggested the amount of damages (money) that should be awarded.  I read that such an enormous amount is illegal and unconstitutional.  (I will try to find a link to that article.)  What I suspect happened is probably something like this.  The plaintiff's lawyer said to the jury: "Let's look at the profits that the tobacco company made during the period of my client's lifetime.  That comes to $ XXX billion dollars.  I think a fair amount is to award my client a mere 1 percent of that tobacco company's profits.  That amounts to $ XXX billion dollars.  After all, this tobacco company made these profits by killing all of these smokers, my client included."  Or some such.   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:48, 21 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Also, by the way, you have to take account that this award consisted of two types of monetary damages: compensatory damages and punitive damages. The first award, compensatory damages, is money that is supposed to make the client "whole" and compensate him for all of his injuries, medical treatments, lost earnings, etc.  (This relates to your question: I wonder what did this man do in real life that made him worth so much money?)  In this case, that amount was rather small.  I think it was around a million dollars or two or so?  The second award, punitive damages, is money that is supposed to punish the wrong-doer (defendant) appropriately so that the company won't repeat this wrong again.  It is based on a "punishment" that will appropriately hit the defendant in the pocketbook to such an amount that will deter him from wrongdoing in the future.  This award amount has nothing to do with the value of the plaintiff's life or his lifetime earnings.  And, in this case, the punitive damages award was the bulk of the overall award.   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:59, 21 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Source: As to what motivated the jury to make such a large award, this isn't a forum, and we shouldn't engage in speculation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:54, 21 July 2014 (UTC)


 * AndyTheGrump, the original poster asked a legitimate question. Namely: what are the internal legal machinations that could account for such a bizarre award?  (In other words: how and by whom and why did such a bizarre dollar amount get placed in their heads, such that they thought it was appropriate?)  That is not asking for speculation.  That's a legitimate question for this Reference Desk page.   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:59, 21 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Asking if "the jurors had their marbles in place" doesn't look like a legitimate question to me. Or at least, not one that can possibly be answered without speculation. Of course, if you can prove the contrary by citing reliable sources on the subject, feel free to do so... AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:07, 21 July 2014 (UTC)


 * The purpose of this Reference Desk Help Page is to help people with their questions. Asking if "the jurors had their marbles in place" is simply another way of asking exactly what I stated above ("how and by whom and why did such a bizarre dollar amount get placed in their heads, such that they thought it was appropriate?").  I am sure that you knew that.  Also, the original poster did not simply ask: "did the jury have their marbles in place?".  Rather, he (or she) used that wording in the context of the rest of the wording in the post.  Which – at the end of the day – amounts to a legitimate question.  I think we should be encouraging, not discouraging, people from coming here and asking legitimate questions.  Thanks.   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:15, 21 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Actually, the original poster never asked "did the jurors have their marbles in place?" The original poster merely commented (not asked): "I wonder if the jurors had their marbles in place."  And that statement was couched in amongst all the other legitimate questions:  (1) What are the internals of such a trial?  (2) Who suggested such a crazy figure?  (3) I wonder what did this man do in real life that made him worth so much money?  All three very legitimate questions.  The "marbles" comment was not a question; it simply placed the actual questions in context (i.e., that the original poster was quite surprised at such a verdict).   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:33, 21 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Back to your original question: The compensatory damages were a mere $16 million dollars.  Thus, the punitive damages were $23.584 billion dollars.  Clearly, the "punishment" award was the great bulk of the total award.  In this case, the jury felt that the plaintiff's life (medical expenses, lost earnings, etc.) was valued at $16 million dollars.  He was a rather young guy (age 36) and presumably had 50+ more years to live, had he not died ("at the hands of the tobacco company", according to the plaintiff).   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:26, 21 July 2014 (UTC)


 * This isn't the first time a jury has awarded incredibly high punitive damages. These awards get overturned or drastically reduced on appeal. The N.Y. Times article mentions a previous award of $28 billion that was reduced to $28 million on appeal.
 * It is very tempting to speculate that the jury simply misspelled "million". -- BenRG (talk) 01:38, 21 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Very unlikely about the misspelling. After all, they spelt it correctly in the compensation award (16 million).  Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:06, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Joseph Sparado clarified the issue a bit but only partially and I am very grateful. I am a psychiatrist and psychological aspect is what I am after. Is it possible that the jurors were intimidated? Perhaps they were specially selected based on their background? Perhaps the defendant lawyers did not realize that the deck of cards was stacked against them? What else can one suppose? --AboutFace 22 (talk) 01:41, 21 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Interesting that you ask about their being "intimidated". Why do you suppose that?  And intimidated by whom?  Intimidated of what?  I would not suppose intimidation.  My best guesses are as follows.  (1) I would think they were acting on emotion, sympathy, and compassion, far more than on intimidation.  And that factor (i.e., a decision arrived at through emotion, sympathy, compassion, etc.) is exactly why this award is illegal and will not stand.  I am sure that the jurors "felt sorry" that a young guy of age 36 lost his life, a young woman lost her husband, and a few young kids lost their dad.  And I am sure that the lawyer "played upon" their sympathies and emotions.  (2) I also suspect that juries are more inclined to "side with" the small, helpless underdog as opposed to the big, bad, greedy (and faceless) multi-billion dollar corporation.  Akin to siding with David in the "David and Goliath" dispute.  (3) I also suspect – as you theorized – that most jurors do not really understand large numbers.  They can't fathom what that "billion" really means (much less, 24 billion!).  For example, let's say that you asked the average person this question: What is the length of time represented by 24 billion seconds?"  And you gave possible multiple-choice answers: "100 years; 1,000 years; a million years", etc.  I suspect most average people would have no idea whatsoever what the "billion" really means.  And, in answering that question, would simply be taking stabs in the dark and simply guessing.  I also expect that the lawyers capitalized on this quantitative weakness of the jury.  Those are my best three guesses at the moment.  I don't see intimidation as a part of the equation, as I understand it.  Which is why I asked you to clarify about the intimidation aspect.  Thanks.    Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:03, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Needless to say you gave a brilliant analysis. Thank you. I should have phrased the intimidation hypothesis differently. The court atmosphere with a barrage of unfamiliar words may be too much for an average person: a lot to memorize and put together. Thus people may be intimidated by the milieu. I've never been on a jury that is why I am ignorant. --AboutFace 22 (talk) 02:14, 21 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Glad to help.  No, I sincerely don't think that the intimidation aspect (as you describe it) is a significant factor at all.  Definitely not.  Also, some quick answers to your other questions.  (1) Perhaps they were specially selected based on their background?  The answer is absolutely "yes".  The lawyer for the plaintiff picks jurors that (demographically) he feels will be helpful to him and will serve to his advantage.  However, the lawyer for the defendant does the same exact thing.  This is called voir dire.  Basically, both lawyers look at demographics (age, race, income, gender, occupation, marital status, education, etc., etc., etc.) and try to pick the jurors that they think will "side" with them.  (2) Perhaps the defendant lawyers did not realize that the deck of cards was stacked against them?  A lawyer always knows the strengths and weaknesses of his case.  That is Lawyering 101.  At the end of the day, if the tobacco lawyer truly felt the deck of cards was stacked against them, then he would have likely pushed for a settlement of the case, rather than taking the case to trial.  Now, of course, for that to be successful: (A) the plaintiff would also have to agree to the settlement; and (B) the client – the company – would also have to agree.  Actually, I don't think it is necessarily the case that the deck was stacked against them.  When I was reading about that case, many readers (ordinary, average citizens) posted comments such as this: "That guy was smoking for 25 years; he obviously knew it was dangerous to his health; he's an idiot; there is no way he should get a penny, let alone $24 billion dollars".  So, a lot of people out there feel like that.  Those people would side with the defendant (the tobacco company).  So, I don't think it's necessarily true that the defendant had the cards stacked against him at all.    Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:24, 21 July 2014 (UTC)


 * If you take the punitive damages to be enough so "they won't do the same thing again", and here "the same thing" means to sell a product known to cause cancer, then you would indeed need to award multi-billion dollar fines to have any hope of getting the tobacco companies to stop selling tobacco. Also, as I understand it, the citizens of the state were prohibited from forming a class-action lawsuit, which would be the obvious way to go, and the jury may feel that the tobacco companies "bought" the judge who decided on that issue, and wanted to punish them for that action, as well. StuRat (talk) 03:01, 21 July 2014 (UTC)


 * StuRat, I generally agree with your comment. However, I want to delineate an important distinction.  You (essentially) said that the crux of the case is: "the tobacco company sold a product known to cause cancer".  I think that is oversimplifying the "real" issue in this case.  In the link provided above (by AndyTheGrump), it says: "Cynthia Robinson claimed that smoking killed her husband, Michael Johnson, in 1996. She argued R.J. Reynolds was negligent in not informing him that nicotine is addictive and smoking can cause lung cancer."  So, the real issue that was being litigated here is not that the tobacco company was selling a product known to cause cancer.  The "real" issue in this case was that the company knew it was dangerous, but they did not pass that knowledge on to its customers (the public).  The widow would be claiming that the company should have made these risks known (and they were negligent in not doing so).  Her (winning) argument is: "my husband should have had all that information at his disposal, so that he could make an informed decision about whether or not he would choose to smoke".  So, the tobacco company did not violate the law by selling cigarettes; they violated the law by not disclosing known dangers.  An important distinction, I think.  Back to the punitive award: the award is designed to punish the company, not to dismantle the company.  Again, an important distinction.    Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:35, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * There have been warnings on cigarette packs since the late 1960s. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:53, 21 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Baseball Bugs, do those warnings really go back that far? I thought they were much more recent?  I was guessing maybe the 80's?  Also, didn't they used to allow cigarette commercials on TV, but then they disallowed them?  (I am referring to the USA.)  In any event, what do the cigarette package warnings have to do with this jury award?  You lost me.    Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:08, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 1966, as noted in Tobacco packaging warning messages. By 1985 they were saying cigarettes cause cancer. These warnings are typically used as a defense by the tobacco companies against these kinds of suits. Surprisingly, that fact seems not to have been made in this case. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:53, 21 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks. But, that is where you are losing me.  Where in that article does it mention anything at all about the cigarette package label warnings?  It does not mention them at all.  (Or did I miss it?)  Since it does not mention it, that does not necessarily mean that the arguments were not presented in this trial.  It simply means that the article is silent about this detail of the trial.  Therefore, the argument may well have been made at trial; the article simply did not discuss that specific detail.  No?   Also, do you know anything about the TV commercials question that I had asked?  Thanks.    Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:46, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I am likewise mystified. I think more research is needed, to discover how the plaintiff successfully argued that the warnings on the packaging were somehow inadequate. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:59, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Reading between the lines, I think their argument was that the warnings don't go far enough, as they don't talk about the addictive nature of the product, and that Reynolds engaged in some kind of conspiracy to hide the fact of that addictiveness. Never mind that Surgeon General Koop, at around the time the deceased took up smoking, was declaring nicotine to be as addictive as illegal narcotics. Another hint is that the Reynolds appeal will be based on precedent, i.e. that the award is extremely excessive, rather than on denying the issues of addiction and conspiracy. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:08, 21 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I would suspect that the plaintiff's argument concedes that the label warnings do in fact exist, but that they are insufficient. I can't imagine that the defendant did not bring this issue to light.  The defendant's argument is likely: "The federal government specifies very clearly what warnings we are required to offer our consumers, and we fully complied with all of these requirements."  And the plaintiff's retort was: "Yes, but even so, that was insufficient and negligent."   Also, do you know anything about the TV commercials question that I had asked?  Thanks.  Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:15, 21 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Cigarette ads were banned from TV in the USA starting in 1971. There's a lengthy article on this general subject, Tobacco advertising. Over the course of time, other forms of tobacco were banished from the airwaves, one by one. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:29, 21 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks. That is what I was looking for.  Thanks.   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:33, 21 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I had overlooked that part of the question. :) It's worth pointing out that there were many clever and creative TV ads for these noxious products. You can find a lot of them on youtube if you want to take a somewhat dark (tobacco-stained) nostalgia trip. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:37, 21 July 2014 (UTC)


 * My reasoning was:


 * 1) The jury had to be aware that, based on the age of the deceased, he would have had adequate warning of both the cancer risk and addictive nature of cigarettes.


 * 2) Therefore, they did not believe the company guilty based on that, but, in a form of jury nullification, they found them guilty anyway, and added a huge punitive award, since they believe that selling an addictive product known to cause cancer should be stopped, despite the law permitting it. StuRat (talk) 15:38, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, it might be jury nullification, but it might also be that they decided the company had actively engaged in a conspiracy to hide the additional dangers of the product, i.e. its addictive nature. It's also possible that they made that ginormous award on the assumption that the appeals process will whittle it down to something that's still significant but less likely to bankrupt the company. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:42, 21 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree with most of what you say. And that is exactly why the award will not survive on appeal.  "They" (the jury) gave the award for "all the wrong reasons" (legally speaking, that is).  And, believe me, these facts are not lost on the defense lawyer and/or the defendant company.  Thanks.  I will check out some YouTube videos.  They must be something to look at, in hindsight and in retrospect.    Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:54, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

It is kind of a rambling, sorry, but I sympathize with the company. They have been thrashed and thrashed again in the past. So many lawyers have made fortunes suing them. What is their guilt? I am not a smoker but looking objectively, tobacco is a cultural phenomenon in this county. They inherited a product that sold well and a business and it all goes back hundreds of years. Are they guilty of not warning people? The warnings are regulated by the law and I am sure they complied. Many risks of tobacco had not become known until about 25 year ago. Even in the early 90th doctors smoked openly in the hospital halls. The life expectancy in 1900 was 50 years so the tobacco related death drowned in all other causes. The cases of lung cancer and emphysema were not that prominent statistically. It all became apparent late in the century after Surgeon General began to stir emotions. Smoking declined rapidly partially through awareness but more through taxes. A pack of Marlboro, I was shocked, costs $10.00 now. And what about a personal responsibility? Shall Lauren Bacall sue RJ. Reynolds for Humphrey Bogart's lung cancer and death? To a significant degree it is all in the genes. Not everyone gets addicted to tobacco. Not everyone even dies or gets sick after years of smoking. --AboutFace 22 (talk) 21:13, 21 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I hear what you are saying. The problem, in this particular case (from the defendant's point of view), is that the time frame does not go as far back as you cite.  Yes, back in the 1940's and 50's and 60's, far less was known about smoking and its dangers.  I believe that I even read that some doctors actually used to suggest or recommend smoking to some patients.  But – as you state – in the more recent past, more of the risks of smoking became known.  The smoker in this case was smoking from age 13 to his death at age 36; this was from 1973 to 1996.  During that time frame, the risks were well known.  In a post above, another editor even mentioned that it was the early 1970's (1971) when cigarette commercials on TV were banned.  So, all of these facts (essentially) work to the advantage of the plaintiff and to the disadvantage of the defendant.  Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:33, 21 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Also, in this case, the deceased smoker started smoking when he was just 13 years old. That's quite young.  And, presumably, he became addicted at such a young age.  It's quite possible, in this case, that the plaintiff made a big deal of the smoker's youth.  And they probably alleged that the tobacco company appealed to impressionable youths, who did not/could not know any better.   I imagine that his age came up as an issue in the trial.  A 13-year-old cannot be expected to make decisions in the same way that an adult would.  The plaintiff likely argued that once the smoker reached adulthood – and had the ability to make better decisions – it was too late; he had already been addicted for some 7+ years.    Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:42, 21 July 2014 (UTC)


 * There was a period of decades after which the cigarette companies knew it was addictive and caused cancer, and lied about it. Also, they did things like manipulate the nicotine level to cause addiction (you get a stronger than usual batch, then after smoking the normal amount of those, you are more addicted and have to smoke more after it drops back to the normal level).  Then there is their attempt to cause addiction in kids, by fighting to keep cigarette machines legal, so kids can buy them, and using advertising themes like Joe Camel which appeal to kids.  Finally, saying they "complied with the laws" isn't the whole story, as their lobbyists controlled what was legal and what wasn't.  For example, they didn't have to disclose all the additives to the cigarettes, because they lobbied to prevent it.  (One of the additives forms ammonia when burned, and I am allergic to ammonia, so that one really bothers me in cigarettes, but it's not in pipe tobacco, which therefore doesn't bother me at all.) StuRat (talk) 23:07, 21 July 2014 (UTC)


 * That reminds me of this story from decades ago. A cigarette company learns that this one particular guy has smoked more of their brand through the years than anyone else. They decide to give him an award of some kind. They call the guy's house and tell the wife about it. They want to come out the next morning. The wife says, "Better make it later in the day. He doesn't stop coughing until noon!" ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:18, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Needless to say, tobacco is evil. It causes all sorts of problems, it creates physiological dependence that dominates your life even before you got cancer or emphysema. Sure the tobacco companies CEOs and other executives were torn apart in those days. You must preserve a business, but on the other hand... I remember a congressional hearing whereas a senator asked an executive of a major company if he believed the cigarettes were not addictive. He said, yes, under oath. It was a horrible moment. He then had legal troubles for months because their own research clearly showed and documented that he was lying.

You must recall a wave of tobacco related lawsuits when the settlements were in billions. It was a decade back or so. The punitive damages went to the states ostensibly for anti tobacco education. To begin with education never worked. Nobody bothered to prove with a test run. So, the states misused the money, most likely hired hundreds of new bureaucrats and that was it. This is what I am talking about. People should leave the tobacco makers alone. This business is too old to tinker with. Fighting smoking should be done on individual level. And now we have the e-cigarets in the picture. What could be more confusing?

There are things we cannot change. You cannot undo tobacco damage. There is another issue I want to mention. It has been a belief for years that vitamins are antioxidants and they prolong life. Paradoxically it is just the opposite. They shorten your life by 2-3 years. I know why but this is not a place to go into it. If this is the case who will you sue? The plaintiff attorneys can sue only themselves over it. Thanks --AboutFace 22 (talk) 00:31, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * This clip shows seven tobacco CEOs declaring under oath that they believe that nicotine is not addictive. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 07:58, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * That's an attempt at plausible deniability. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:23, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Imagine what would have happened if American troups in WWI or WWII in the trenches were told that Ron Wyden would take away their smokes? Tobacco companies probably felt they were making major contribution to the victory. Life is full of such dualities. --AboutFace 22 (talk) 13:45, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * What has Wyden got to do with anything? Whatever, if it was known in 1917 or 1941 what cigarettes can do to you, it's not unlikely that the Army would have banned them. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:23, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore would be the case you're interested in, as would remittitur. Strangely, in all the rambling above I don't see any reference to these two obvious responses to the OPs actual question. Shadowjams (talk) 04:17, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

American civil war ten years before
Could the North have won the civil war, had it begun ten years earlier? Let's assume President Taylor had not died and vetoed the compromise of 1850? As far as I know, the north won because it was much more industrailzed and had a more intact infrastructure. But ten years before? --89.14.95.24 (talk) 12:56, 21 July 2014 (UTC)


 * As it says at the top of the page: "We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate." AlexTiefling (talk) 13:16, 21 July 2014 (UTC)


 * The possibly answerable question in there is what was the degree of northern industrialization in 1850 vs. 1860. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:38, 21 July 2014 (UTC)


 * There are a lot of possible interesting questions about the United States in 1850, but that's not one of them. In any case, the book The Impending Crisis by Hinton Rowan Helper was a politically notorious work largely based on comparing the results of the 1850 census for North vs. South... AnonMoos (talk) 14:40, 21 July 2014 (UTC)


 * One possibility is a two-part war, with the first ending in a draw, and the 2nd, some decades later, resulting in a northern victory. This would be similar to the Revolutionary War, and the War of 1812, where it had taken two wars to effective defeat the British.  Note that the South would be expected to decline after the first draw, as many nations would refuse to trade with them.  It was one thing to continue to trade with a nation which had slavery in one portion (the US), but recognizing and starting trade with a new nation (The Confederacy) that was entirely engaged in slavery, would be quite a bit more unpopular.  StuRat (talk) 15:47, 21 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Hence the brilliant political stroke called the Emancipation Proclamation. Initially it didn't do anything, but it effectively nullified any possibility that the UK would come to the aid of the south militarily, despite their trade partnerships in the textile industry. Getting to the OP's core premise, how likely is it that Taylor would have vetoed the 1850 bill? He didn't seem like a guy who was keen on rocking the boat. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:58, 21 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Taylor may not have liked to rock the boat, but Tyler and Harrison didn't mind, resulting in a "tippy canoe". StuRat (talk) 16:39, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

A request for an original research prediction by Wikipedia editors would indeed  be inappropriate. But I wonder if the timing of various major wars and the effects on the outcome has been a topic of "official war games" or scholarly books or papers? Like "If Leader X had waited 5 years to launch a certain war, historical events or trends A, B and C  would have greatly aided or impaired his goals." If such research has been published by reliable sources, then it can be the basis for appropriate answers to "what-if" questions. It would be the analyses and conclusions of experts, not of us Wikipedia editors.That said, if such scholarly and authoritative American Civil War war games exist, they are hard to find, buried under mounds of hobby or recreational board games and online games about that war. But I know that it happens that on occasion famous battles and decisions of generals and leaders and fortuitous events are analyzed to see what effect alternatives would likely have had, with our 20/20 hindsight. Edison (talk) 02:19, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

The American Civil War was one of the first industrial wars, and the outcome was pretty well predicted by the comparative economic strengths of the North and South. A Civil War starting in 1850 would probably be similarly industrialized, in which case looking at historical numbers would give an answer. Wikipedia doesn't have much in the way of regional historical statistics ("early history" tends to stop before 1850, while "later history" starts after the war), but the ones I have found indicate that the South might have been even worse off: for example, between 1850 and 1860, railroad construction in the South took place faster than in the North. --Carnildo (talk) 02:30, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Outback Steakhouse
Outback Steakhouse is a US-based chain of restaurants that bills itself as an Australian-themed restaurant; its frequent advertising on TV and through venues such as the Outback Bowl (a US football game) make plenty of Americans aware of it, and probably most of us assume that it's based in Oz. Are there restaurants that fill a reciprocal position? I'm thinking an Australian-based chain, prominent in Australia, that bills itself as a US-themed restaurant. Places like McDonald's don't count, since they really are US-based. Nyttend (talk) 19:58, 21 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Somehow I doubt it, because there are so many actual American restaurants there, the locals probably want less American food, not more. Also note that Outback doesn't really serve Australian food.  Try ordering some Vegemite or roo/croc meat there and you'll just get a dirty look. StuRat (talk) 20:32, 21 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Is vegemite sold anywhere in the US? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:52, 21 July 2014 (UTC)


 * It appears that the Vegemite brand is currently owned by an American company. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:00, 21 July 2014 (UTC)


 * It is available from 17 outlets in New York City alone, according to Yelp - vegemite New York, NY. Alansplodge (talk) 21:35, 21 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Have you ever tried it? Is it tasty? It's got me curious. I don't know if they have it in the American midwest. But I'll follow that lead you posted. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:37, 21 July 2014 (UTC)


 * "Is it tasty?" is not a question that has any truth value. I've been eating it all my life, and I love the stuff (in fact, I think I'll go and have some on toast after I post this).  But most Americans I know of who've ever tried it think it's ghastly.  So, it very much depends whom you ask. --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  21:44, 21 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm sure. I'm just curious. I'll try most any food item once. I even like lutefisk, which many Norwegian-Americans (and many others) pretty much hate. Looks like the nearest Vegemite source in my neighborhood is Chicago. Rather than drive there, maybe I can order it online. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:03, 21 July 2014 (UTC)


 * American here, also love the stuff. I do have a bit of xenophilia with respect to food though. Any high brow grocery in the midwest will have either vegemite or marmite in stock (think Trader Joe's, World Market and the ilk) the difference between the two is subtle to the inexperienced (the slogan for marmite is "love it or hate it", and I think that applies to both products). Very salty stuff, the newbie mistake is to use too much. Salty, yeasty, beery type flavor, chock full of vitamins and minerals, made from beermaking waste products, popularized in the Great War, what's not to like? After realizing my local grocer sells marmite for nearly $7/125g, I've decided to order on Amazon. SemanticMantis (talk) 22:08, 21 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Sounds like eating that literally means scraping the bottom of the (beer) barrel. StuRat (talk) 22:12, 21 July 2014 (UTC)


 * According to my country, that stuff should be driven into the sea (though they acknowledge it's not exactly unhealthy). That just makes it seem tastier, though, like cigarettes and beer. Still haven't found it, myself. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:16, 21 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Marmite was banned due to added vitamins and minerals ? That seems odd.  I wonder what Canada has against those.  (I suppose you can overdose on some, and they can be used as a way to market junk food as if it was healthy, like Hi-C.) StuRat (talk) 23:15, 21 July 2014 (UTC)


 * More a bureaucratic thing than a safety one. Something to do with this rule or that. I heard it all neatly explained on CBC Radio, but it didn't stick with me. The basic idea is that the products themselves are not banned. Only variations of them meant for other markets. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:28, 22 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Try it in the following ways: toast with butter, toast without butter, sandwich with butter, sandwich with butter and cheese, dissolved in a cup of boiling water, on a spoon by itself, as a flavouring and salt agent in soups / stews / pies. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:24, 21 July 2014 (UTC)


 * List of restaurant chains in Australia could be a good place to start research.Taknaran (talk) 20:58, 21 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Certainly here in London there are plenty of home-grown "American diners" and "rib shacks" - we also used to have The Chicago Pizza Pie Factory chain, which had little to do with Chicago. Alansplodge (talk) 21:03, 21 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Did they serve Chicago-style pizza? The deep-dish images in that article are what you expect to find at a pizza place with "Chicago" in the name in the US. K ati e R  (talk) 18:54, 22 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Not an answer, but if you're interested in how American culture gets adapted/interpreted/appropriated/mocked around the world, you might like this blurb about American-themed parties in non-USA countries SemanticMantis (talk) 22:11, 21 July 2014 (UTC)


 * "Are there restaurants that fill a reciprocal position?" Australia doesn't produce domestic restaurant chains outside of the US restaurant chain business model, importing the cultural elements wholesale.  Amusingly Sizzler in the US and Internationally, which imported its business model wholesale to Australia, was for a period owned by Australian capital and is currently internationally owned by Australian capital. "I'm thinking an Australian-based chain, prominent in Australia, that bills itself as a US-themed restaurant."  Australians receive American culture from American capital, the market is full and there's no reason or need to reinvent the wheel.  Burger King was for a long time marketed as Hungry Jack's in Australia, due to local intellectual property and local franchisee decisions.  "Americana" is celebrated in Australia as fast food, or tacky US chains.  We get enough US culture shoved down our throats by invidious free trade agreements in media that the US is not "exotic" to us outside of US regional identities.
 * Moreover the Australian restaurant scene operates differently to the US. Australia has a sociologically "flatter" consumption of restaurant meals, with most people consuming a mixture of fast food including delivery, cafe type eating with significant elements of migrant cuisine (Australia has independently received Greek, Italian, Turkish, Chinese, Vietnamese and Thai food; without reference to international food trends).  On top of this there's the Returned and Services League of Australia's / football club bainmarie or bistro.  In capital cities there tends to be "fine dining".  So there's a hole in the market for chains that bill themselves as restaurants.  People who know expensive food access fine dining.  For everyone else, the market has already filled the space that US chains would fit into.  I've only seen the chains in car dependent Australian suburbs btw. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:23, 21 July 2014 (UTC)


 * If you're going to try Vegemite or marmite (or yarmite, i've heard of too), i too recommend you spread it sparingly on toast or cracker, as the intense salty-yeasty taste can be surprising. but it can quickly become a favorite. i'd also recommend a thin layer of margarine under ut. Good factoid about the beer waste. El duderino (abides) 08:51, 22 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm curious because I haven't been to Australia, haven't ever seen an authentic "Australian restaurant," and in fact haven't even set foot in Outback. What is there to Australian cuisine other than steak and vegemite?  I understand that kangaroo and crocodile are served, but do most Australians eat those meats very often?  How is Australian food distinct from mainstream American food?  Does Australia carry on British traditions such as Yorkshire pudding and savory pies? Thanks.  Marco polo (talk) 14:26, 22 July 2014 (UTC)


 * We do have an article Australian_cuisine. My experience as an American staying there for ~6 weeks with an academic family, eating at home, take out, and clubs: vaguely similar to food in USA, more curries and Indonesian food available. They do a bit of the meet pie which I associate with UK. Ordering coffee was a bit confusing. I'm sure our resident Ozzies can add more, but thought you might like a foreigner's perspective. Also might be worth starting a new thread if you want more info? SemanticMantis (talk) 15:03, 22 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Speaking as someone born, raised and living in Australia. "Australian national identity" is hotly contested.  Mostly Australian cuisines are modified cuisines from elsewhere (Irish/British, Chinese, Italian, Greek, Turkish, Vietnamese).  Chicken parmies are not Italian from Italy, but are actually pretty damn anglo.  Individual serve meat pies are a snack food eaten in unusual quantities, but this isn't cuisine.  Most people living in Australia do not regularly or even yearly eat roo, emu or crocodile.  "Damper" is an advertising campaign for nationalism.  Australian coffee culture is different, as it developed independently.  In fact, generally, Australian food culture has developed since the 1980s, and is marked by the fact.  "Steak" and "vegemite" aren't part of a cuisine, they're stuff you do at home.  Australian food tends to be less processed than US food, less heavily marketed, the sugar tends to be hidden, agricultural capital tends to be state based (or retain state based marketing).  Few Australians eat Yorkshire pudding.  Many Australians have a meat and three veg mentality, or spag bol, or stir fry, or fuck it, lets get take out nothing's washed in the kitchen.  Fifelfoo (talk) 01:38, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Some of us still call it "take away". I suppose it's a generational thing.  Yet I can't recall ever seeing an Aussie food place billing itself as of the "take out" variety; it's always "take away". --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  00:05, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Some of us still call it "take away," and I should too. Thanks for spotting the americanism and calling me on it. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:52, 24 July 2014 (UTC)


 * You will wish to read this article on early 20th century Greek or "Fish" cafes. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:41, 23 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Another related non-answer: Texas Roadhouse has nothing to do with TX (not started there, owned there, etc), but is marketed as "Texan" steak in the midwest and other areas of the USA. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:05, 22 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, Texas Roadhouse does it least have "Texas-sized" steaks. They offer a 23 oz steak, more than twice the size of Outback's largest 11 oz steak.  Besides size, I'm not sure there's all that much different about Texas cuisine than other states.  A bit more Tex-Mex, of course, but that's just a matter of degree, as you can get that type of food anywhere in the US.  StuRat (talk) 19:40, 22 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Even less related, but I find endlessly hilarious the massive campaign of advertisements/commercials on UK television (are they still going?), advertising something like "proper pizza just like at a real Italian pizzeria" (there's something wrong with that wikilink, can you spot it?). Complete with mouth-watering footage of said pizza, and backgrounds of said pizzeria. Then at the end, a huge caption saying MADE IN GERMANY. (I assume frozen.)


 * This would be like Canadian television having a colossal advertising campaign for "proper American hamburgers just like at a real USA roadhouse", ending with a huge caption saying MADE IN CHINA.


 * Then of course there's Werther's Original... --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:10, 22 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I wonder it it's really authentic Italian-style pizza, which is to say, boring. The Americans came up with the idea of allowing you to specify from an endless list of toppings and then pick it up or get it delivered.  If they really don't allow pickups or delivery, and only have 1 or 2 basic pizzas, with no customization allowed, then they are "authentic Italian". StuRat (talk) 19:33, 22 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Pizza says otherwise! It also has more references than you do, although perhaps that's only for now. Maybe we could improve the pizza article with any references you have for this type of pizza? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:08, 23 July 2014 (UTC)


 * They list several basic types of pizza served in Italy, but I didn't see anything about customers being able to add individual toppings or get it delivered. Of course, at this point American pizza has made it back to Italy, so you might find more flexibility in Italian pizza these days. StuRat (talk) 02:00, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Some examples of chains claiming an ethnicity without actually having a direct link to said culture: Taco Bell, Wienerschnitzel,  Arctic Circle, Chipotle Mexican Grill, Au Bon Pain,  Quiznos and of course that Kiwi favourite, Hell Pizza.DOR (HK) (talk) 04:08, 23 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I guess this is turning the question on its head but Outback Jacks is an Australian version of the American interpretation of "Australian food". Back on topic, I've seen a couple of versions of Australian-themed restaurants - Ayers Rock Butcher and Grill in Malaysia; and Didge Steakhouse and Pub in Brazil. Realistically, there is no way of getting a complete list because countries with a diverse community are going to have endless versions of foreign cuisine. Hack (talk) 03:39, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

ISIS Fines for Christianity
Both CNN and BBC news report that the ISIS self-proclaimed Caliphate issued an ultimatum to Iraqi Christians living in Mosul that they must convert to Islam, pay a fine or face "death by the sword." CNN also expresses the words in italics as pay extra "jizya" tax and quotes an ISIS governor's declaration that any family not converting to Islam would be required to pay 550,000 Iraqi dinar (about $470). Earlier The Telegraph reported ISIS promising that Christians in Syria who pay Jizya tax will not be harmed and will be allowed to worship privately, maintain their own clergy without interference and keep their own cemeteries. Is there any material evidence of such a "christian permit" tax actually being administered in ISIS controlled areas, such as documents from an office for receiving payments on behalf of christian residents? 84.209.89.214 (talk) 22:23, 21 July 2014 (UTC)


 * If I can add a question, is this tax annual, monthly, one-time or what? InedibleHulk (talk) 22:30, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I see people can pay in two installments per year. Sounds annual. One thing to clarify, it's not that any Christian needs to pay four gold dinars. Middle-class pay two and the poor just one (about $117). At least in Syria. Shouldn't be a difference though, if it's all one caliphate now. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:36, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * See Jizya. This is not a new idea; it's been around since the Pact of Umar, a very early Islamic document pseudepigraphically attributed to the Caliph Umar, who died in AD 644.  Those with the status of "dhimmi" (non-Muslims who aren't polytheists, e.g. Christians and Jews) are permitted to live in Muslim lands, but among other things they're not allowed to bear arms and are required to pay a tax, known as jizya, to pay for (among other things) extra Muslim soldiers needed to take the place of the unarmed dhimmis in the army.  Nyttend (talk) 23:49, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Same half-half-half scale all the way through, too, it seems. I wish "Western" tax codes were that simple and consistent. Thanks for the link. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:04, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

pig's skin which covers a Muslim, avoids arriving to heaven?
Is there a credible origin / reference for the believing that a dead Muslim who is covered with a pig's skin, he will not enter to heaven? 185.32.179.37 (talk) 22:42, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Like most superstitions, the root source will likely seem incredible to many. Unclean animal may be a good place to start digging. Or Islam and animals. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:58, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * A common myth, see Snopes.com. (I find it odd that many Orthodox Jews—my own schoolmates, for example—believe this myth about Muslims, when Judaism's views of "unclean animals" are extremely similar to Muslims'.) הסרפד  (call me Hasirpad) 23:04, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Plus, the logical conclusion of that belief would righteous indignation against whoever desecrated the body of a co-religionist, whether or not they believed it somehow affected how God judges their lifelong faith and/or good acts. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:07, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * As for the "myth" (Snopes calls it undetermined), Wikipedia's own Moro Rebellion mentions it, and it's one of the few claims in that article with a citation. Depends if you can trust a guy named D.P. Mannix, I guess. Doesn't say Pershing did it, just "Americans". InedibleHulk (talk) 01:41, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It doesn't say that the porcine contact prevented the dead from entering heaven, though, and there are other explanations besides that (like "the Muslims couldn't bury their dead," or "the Muslims felt that their co-religionists' bodies had been defiled"). Ian.thomson (talk) 01:53, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * True enough. I agree with "undetermined" more than "false" in this case. Doesn't help that "defilement" itself has various meanings. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:55, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I was referring to the generalization about Muslim belief (which Snopes does debunk, indirectly) not to the particular incident discussed there. הסרפד  (call me Hasirpad) 02:13, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * All good. Thanks for clarifying. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:25, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Worth considering the Koran: "And never think of those who have been killed in the cause of Allah as dead. Rather, they are alive with their Lord, receiving provision." Open for interpretation, of course, but many take it to mean something like absolution. Touching pig guts doesn't affect jihadis who believe this. Neither does anything. But only Allah can know who truly died in his cause, and not just for war's sake. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:55, 22 July 2014 (UTC)