Humanities desk
< November 18	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 20 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

November 19

Why a special interest in bacon around January 30, 2009?

[1] shows peaks in searches about bacon for Thanksgiving and Christmas which is entirely reasonable because people who don't usually cook will get out the frying pan (and every other cooking utensil) for those special days, but it also shows a similar peak at the end of January, 2009. I'm mystified. -- ke4roh (talk) 00:19, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to have found the answer to my own question. It was the debut of Bacon Explosion.[2] -- ke4roh (talk) 00:24, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Getting out of the military via wetting yourself?

Inspired by the question above (and not a request for advice at all - my water is held securely, thank you very much). Is it still the case that in the armed forces of the UK and US, that someone can get themselves discharged with a non-prejudicial service characterization *really* easily and quickly if they start intentionally pissing their beds and/or pissing their pants during the day, whilst claiming that they can't help it and that no, they're not doing it on purpose - at all?

I've heard 'this one guy who...'-type stories of this nature told by ex-servicemen from both sides of the Atlantic over the years. Does it still happen? Or have they started cracking down on that sort of thing now? --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 05:06, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

^{[citation needed]}. Do you have any documentation of this practice, or of the "crying and getting kicked out" practice noted above? The "I heard it somewhere from some guy once" is a notoriously bad way to find out true things. --Jayron32 05:23, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah. Sorry - I was trying to clarify if this was actually true (I realize that I may not have made that clear enough in my OP). I had a Google around before asking but I didn't find anything definitive - mostly stuff from people who wet the bed and are worried about enlisting... --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 05:36, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't there easier ways of getting pointlessly discharged? Although I suppose there are people who would rather be thought incontinent than gay... LANTZY ^TALK 07:22, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Before I went through basic training, the Army asked me three pointed questions: Do you do drugs? Are you gay? Do you wet the bed? The last one was a surprise. —Kevin Myers 07:49, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully you were in the Army before the 90s. Googlemeister (talk) 15:14, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, back in the '80s, they asked. The directness with which they asked these questions was what made them so memorable. One wrong look or word, it seemed, and they'd make me sit on the Group W bench with the father rapers and mother stabbers. ;-) —Kevin Myers 15:42, 19 November 2010 (UTC) (Private, ret., ARNG)[reply]

(after ec)Possibly it is/was the case that being discharged from the service for outing oneself/being caught performing a homosexual act/etc. led to a poorer service characterization (than being kicked out for bed-wetting would) which would adversely affect future employment opportunities? Or it was overtly stated on the discharge paperwork that the person in question was a homosexual? --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 07:50, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could people, back at that time, avoid being sent to Vietnam by simply answering 'yes' to the question 'Are you homo' or 'do you do drugs?'. It seems preferable to me, even if it's a lie. Quest09 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:20, 19 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

See Sexual orientation and the United States military#Late 20th century. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:43, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think James Dean avoided military service by identifying himself as homosexual. LANTZY ^TALK 02:55, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When did the 1960s really begin?

Many writers and journalists have stated that the mythical '60s actually began on 22 November 1963 when President Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas. Is this true? As I recall, people in the US did have a 50s mentality until about 1964 when gradually yet irrevocably, huge social, musical and fashion changes began taking place. --Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:29, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the UK at least, the mythical '60s certainly began earlier than that. I would say that one of the first signs of major social change was the lifting of the ban on Lady Chatterley's Lover in November 1960. The rise of the Beatles was also key; they had their first British no.1 hit in February 1963. Or, as Philip Larkin memorably put it: "Sexual intercourse began in 1963 (which was rather late for me) -- Between the end of the Chatterley ban and the Beatles first LP." --Viennese Waltz 07:37, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and didn't Mary Quant invent the mini-skirt in 1962? American girls (the trendy ones that is!) didn't start wearing minis until 1964. Another thing, the majority of Americans were conservative throughout the 60s. The counter-culture really only existed on the West and Northeastern coasts of the United States. Mid-America didn't know it was happening!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:41, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I agree that the majority of Americans were conservative throughout the 60s. If that were true, Kennedy would not have been elected in 1960. His election itself was a big indication that change was in the air. He was young, optimistic and light years away from the old guard epitomized by Nixon. --Viennese Waltz 07:45, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but Kennedy won by a very small margin. Many people were hostile to the fact that he was Catholic! And look at how many conservative Americans sent their sons off to Vietnam, and at the same time opposed the anti-war protestors. I recall the phrase "America, love it or leave it" being bandied about at the same time as "make Love not War" or the more bellicose "Hey hey LBJ, how many kids did you kill today". Of course as I was from west Los Angeles, near Venice, I saw the counter-culture taking place all around me.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:50, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict, responding to Viennese Waltz) That's probably pop culture hindsight bias. Kennedy was popular with young people, but he just barely defeated Nixon, who was only 4 years older. Nixon was reelected in 1972 with a far greater percentage of the popular vote than Kennedy got in 1960. Looking backward, after Vietnam and Watergate and JFK's assassination, it's tempting to underestimate Nixon's popularity and overestimate JFK's. The show Mad Men had some fun with this in the first season, with Don Draper describing one of the candidates in 1960 as a "young, handsome war hero", and referring, of course, to Nixon. —Kevin Myers 08:09, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that "Mid-America didn't know it was happening" — throughout the South, certainly, there was widespread hatred of, or at least contempt for, the hippies. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:36, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Counterculture of the 1960s, by which most people mean when they say "The Sixties" had its origins in the late 1950s with the Beat Generation, which itself had its origins in the San Francisco Renaissance of the 1940s. Other key moments in the life of the 1960s counterculture, at least in the U.S. were the 1960 Harvard Psilocybin Project of Timothy Leary, which did a lot to introduce and legitimize the psychedelic drug culture, and The Beatles on Ed Sullivan in 1964. --Jayron32 07:59, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

True, the Beat Generation did play a large part in laying the foundations for the cultural explosion that erupted when the Beatles' BOAC plane landed in New York in 1964. We also need to mention the influence of early rock pioneers such as Elvis and Buddy Holly. It must be pointed out that the Beat Generation was a movement in California and New York, not middle America.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:14, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The sixties counterculture was a movement largely confined to the coasts. If you look at statistical figures, the coverage of the movement blew its size out of proportion. It was very culturally significant, but never really represented a large proportion of the population, or even a large proportion of the youth population. --Jayron32 16:27, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey guys, the 60s happened outside the USA too. HiLo48 (talk) 09:16, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I already made that point in the very first response to the OP. --Viennese Waltz 09:45, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And with respect to "middle America", I'm not that certain that they arrived there yet... ;-) --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:44, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Without meaning to sound Anglo-centric most journalists who document the 60s (as opposed to 1960s) describe it as a phenomenon which occurred on a British-Californian axis. The comments in the video documentary British rock affirm this.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:50, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From my 80s teen perspective, we consumed "English" music without ever differentiating between British and US bands. It's very interesting that nearly all classic "big" rock bands are British - The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, The Who, Queen, Dire Straits, Status Quo, Pink Floyd. On that level, I can only remember The Beach Boys and The Doors from the other side of the Atlantic (and of course, both are from California). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:57, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There was also the late great Janis Joplin from Texas. And let's not forget The Turtles!!!!!! It ain't me babe, I said no no no it ain't me babe.... And the Monkees! (Now how could anyone forget them and how they helped define the 60s!)--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 10:01, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, a quarter of the Monkees was English! -- Arwel Parry (talk) 12:17, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Interesting observation, but the American contribution to rock 'n' roll should not be slighted. (In fact, it originated here.) It's just that more of the contributors tended to be known as individuals rather than bands -- Elvis Presley, Chuck Berry, Buddy Holly (and even though he was ambivalent about the label let's not forget) Johnny Cash. --Trovatore (talk) 10:05, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Let me add Ritchie Valens, The Big Bopper, Little Richard and Jerry Lee Lewis to the list.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 10:07, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On the band side, I'll stack Jefferson Airplane, The Eagles, The Mommas and the Poppas, and Creedence Clearwater Revival up against the British-invasion bands any day. --Trovatore (talk) 10:15, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now this is where you and I must needs part company. None of those bands can compare to the Beatles, Rolling Stones, Kinks, Animals, The Who, Cream, Blind Faith, Yardbirds, Small Faces, Troggs (whew I'm running out of breath), Gerry and The Pacemakers, etc. etc.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 10:18, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, come on. I'm a fan of The Beatles and The Who myself, but the Stones? They have nothing to compare to Victim of Love or Don't You Want Somebody to Love. --Trovatore (talk) 10:24, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gimme Shelter,Satisfaction, The Last Time, Bitch, Sway, Paint It Black, Have You Seen Your Mother, Baby, Sympathy For the Devil, I Am Waiting, Cool, Calm, Collected, Off My Cloud.........etc etc etc etc. Actually while we are on the subject of the 1960s it might be worth pondering on how the 60s would have progressed had JFK not been shot in Dallas.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 10:33, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I just don't like 'em much. Lyrics and melodies both too simple and repetitive. Worth listening to every now and then in a mac-and-cheese kind of way. --Trovatore (talk) 10:39, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On reflection, the Stones did have at least one good song, which was Ruby Tuesday. Shows the potential was there. So why did they keep turning out mindless crap like Satisfaction and She's So Cold? --Trovatore (talk) 21:42, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FRINGE, I think! Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:53, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would you call brilliant songs like Let It Loose, Rip This Joint, Faraway Eyes, Shattered, Tell Me, Blue Turns To Grey, Stray Cat Blues, Moonlight Mile, Start Me Up mindless crap?????!!!!!!!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:04, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blind Faith! The Troggs!! Gerry and the Pacemakers!!! Come on - they were certainly regarded as little more than a joke in the UK.... But it is true that, in the early to mid 60s, the only US band to have anything like the same status in the UK as the British bands were The Beach Boys. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:48, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then there were the balls-out hard rock British bands of the late 60s-early 70s such as Led Zeppelin and Deep Purple! These were far bigger in the US than Britain, though.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 10:58, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Were they? They were pretty big in the UK as well. Off out now... happy to continue this discussion at another time. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:00, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No one has mentioned yet, the 6 yr economic cycle coinciding with the end of the post war recover period. The lower social/ economic classes for the first time since the war, found they still had money in their pockets after they had paid for food and rent. This is what drove the visible changes. The references to music etc. are just the tags your brain cells are using as place markers. Similar phases of music styles could be found for any era. This phases are the results and expressions of any era -- not the causes.--Aspro (talk) 10:49, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The 60s officially started in 1962 when the Rutles released their Hold My Hand/Number One single. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.171.56.13 (talk) 14:25, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What a love-fest going on here, I love it!

I propose that The Sixties began in 1960 and ended in 1969, with a fuzzy boundary of +/- several years at either end depending on too many factors to list. I'd also say the period '67-'69 was roughly the "heart" of the era. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 14:52, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Without trying to sound like a curmudgeon, I predict that future historians will decide that "The Sixties" never happened, i.e. that it wasn't a particularly distinctive decade, as heretical as that sounds now to Baby Boomers. Less controversial, perhaps, is my belief that the 1860s and the 1760s were the far more important "60s" in American history. Peace! —Kevin Myers 15:22, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As a professional historical curmudgeon, I would just like to point out that the popular conception that the important things in the 1960s were fashion and music and counterculture in general is probably misguided and nostalgic. I would rate the deep changes brought about by the Civil Rights Movement in the United States as being far more important than those things. I think the Vietnam War, and the fact that it became incredibly unpopular even amongst the mainstream "squares" by the end of the decade, was far more transformational than Woodstock or a few thousand hippies taking acid. I would also argue that a lot of the things we currently ascribe to the 1960s actually became "big" in the 1970s. I'd heavily recommend Nixonland for those interested in a more rounded, less "peace and love" view of the period. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:00, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another great account of the sixties is Warhol's book Popism: The Warhol Sixties (Martin Scorsese called the book "A vivid re-creation of a great time to live and a great time to die.") P. S. Burton (talk) 08:41, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The peace, flowers, and love aspect of the 60s probably ended in 1968, when everything became more politically-charged, violent, and less "All You Need is Love". I call this revolutionary period from 1968 to 1972 the "Easy Rider Era", with the Yuppies having supplanted the hippies.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 21:13, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I reckon the '50s ended on July 2, 1961, when Ernest Hemingway blew his face off with a shotgun. By default, that must have been when the '60s started. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 18:18, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The 1960s were before my time but "The Unravelling of America" by Allen Matusow is a good book about their history. 69.111.192.233 (talk) 08:02, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To me these are the defining moments (political, social and cultural of the 1960s) which I've tried to place in some sort of chronological order. Feel free to criticise my choices: 1. The election of John F. Kennedy in 1960. 2. The erection of the Berlin Wall in 1961. 3. Cuban Missile Crisis. 4. The Civil Rights March on Washington DC in 1963. 5. The invention of the miniskirt. 6. The Profumo Affair in the UK in 1963. 7. Assassination of John F. Kennedy on 22 November 1963. 8. The British Invasion of rock bands such as the Beatles, Rolling Stones, etc. in 1964 9. The escalation of the Vietnam War in 1965. 10. Colour television. 11. The Six-Day War in 1967. 12. The availabilty of the Pill in 1967. 13. Assassinations of Martin Luther King and Bobby Kennedy in 1968. 13. Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968. 15. The student riots across Europe in 1968. 16. The first man on the moon in July 1969. 17. The deployment of British troops in Northern Ireland on 14 August 1969. 18. The festival of Woodstock a day later on 15 August 1969. 19. The Rolling Stones free concert at Altamont in December 1969 which spelled the end of the 60s and blew the cover off its myth.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:38, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With the greatest possible respect, that seems a highly US/UK-centred and culture-specific view. The African independence movements - set off by Ghana in 1957 - were hugely important internationally, as were events like China's "Cultural Revolution". "The invention of the miniskirt" doesn't really rank as high, in my view. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:53, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course the miniskirt was important. It served as the first manifestation of women celebrating their female identity and their sexual liberation from the restrictions imposed for centuries by men. The Pill was another.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:11, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was important to young women in the west. Not to older women, or men (at least, not directly), or people in other cultures. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:18, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The 60s saw women working outside the home and young girls thinking of careers other than becoming a housewife. It was watershed decade for feminism and women's sexuality.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:25, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but you could argue that was as much due to people like Betty Friedan and Germaine Greer as Mary Quant. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:30, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Two other events I had overlooked were China's Cultural Revolution and Telstar, the first communications satellite.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:27, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The only accurate answer is Jan 1, 1960. Attempts to define a cultural era are obviously massively oversimplistic. But if I were to name a date for this "era" to begin, it would be May 17, 1954 with the Brown v. Board of Education verdict. Also see Southern Christian Leadership Conference. Wnt (talk) 00:44, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Albanians pro-American

Does anyone know why out of all the nations in Europe, Albania is the most pro-American of the lot?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 10:36, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What evidence do you have for that assertion? --Viennese Waltz 10:38, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The warm reception George W. Bush received in Albania while incumbent, as well as Albanians I've met (quite a few).--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 10:55, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The oversimplified answer: NATO. The Albanians and their brethren in Kosovo would be dead and fertilizing Serb gardens if not for NATO military intervention. Hence all the streets named after Bill Clinton. The Albanians know which side their bread is buttered on. It ain't buttered by Moscow and Belgrade, that's for damn sure. If you owed your very existence to the United States, you'd probably be pro-American too. (Of course, the United States was moved only by altruism...) LANTZY ^TALK 10:59, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Come to think of it, it's an interesting exception to the usual "West versus Muslim" configuration. Where the Balkans are concerned, it's less a matter of Christian vs Muslim as it is Russian vs NATO. Religious loyalties surrender to geopolitical considerations. I recall Solzhenitsyn making some comment about NATO being "exactly the same as Nazi Germany." Even an anti-Communist couldn't help but line up against the old enemy of the Soviet Union. LANTZY ^TALK 11:14, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As of fairly recently, Clinton also has a statue in Kosovo. But yeah, Lantzy is spot on. TomorrowTime (talk) 12:11, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So what you're basically saying it's gratitude. Well I live in Italy and they seem to have largely forgotten how the US savied them during WWII judging by the anti-American sentiment I encounter nearly on a daily basis. LOL. One woman told me we had war in our DNA!!!!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:14, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is holding "Tuscany is Serbia" rallies. To this day, Kosovo is existentially dependent on the NATO powers. The pro-American stance of Albanians has nothing to do with gratitude and everything to do with Realpolitik. The Serbians, on the other hand, are quite romantic. They've been feeling gratitude to Russia for hundreds of years, for purely spiritual reasons, even though Russia has (in the best times) offered them little more than moral support. LANTZY ^TALK 12:29, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly; the Eastern Front of World War I began with a Russian declaration of war on Austria-Hungary in response to their declaration of war on Serbia. Serbia fell anyway, but surely they would have fallen far faster if the entire Hapsburg military had been concentrated on Belgrade. Nyttend (talk) 04:14, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Hm. Well, bear in mind the Albanians are in danger as we speak, while the US intervention in WWII happened, well, during WWII, 65 years ago. TomorrowTime (talk) 12:47, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And as for "war in our DNA", I suppose that's entirely accurate, as long as the "we" refers to homo sapiens! It's pretty rich for an Italian to accuse another nation of congenital belligerence, in light of all their Caesars and Borgias and Mussolinis and what-have-you. LANTZY ^TALK 12:48, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that much of pro-Americanism in Albania can be explained by her anti-American propaganda in Enver Hoxha era. Situation is the same in any other country that has and has had the anti-American progaganda. And vice versa, you have anti-American feelings in countries that have American-backed governments. I think it's a rule of thumb, with exceptions though.--Omidinist (talk) 16:04, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure it really works that way. Yugoslavia had its share of anti-American propaganda (the usual "decadent bourgeoisie West" song and fiddle) and yet there is no real love lost between the people of the succeeder countries and the US. TomorrowTime (talk) 17:16, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kosovo cemented feelings but Albanian gratitude to America goes back to Woodrow Wilson. The European Great Powers had created Albania in the first place after it was divided by the Balkan League, largely to keep it from becoming Serbian, which would give Russia the use of their Mediterranean ports. They later agreed to dismember Albania in the London Pact which they confirmed among themselves at Paris before Wilson vetoed it. So the US is remembered as being responsible for the continued existence of an Albanian state after WWI. Speaking of Italy, it continued the occupation of Albania until it was defeated in the Vlora War but did occupy Sazan Island until after WWII. --JGGardiner (talk) 21:29, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Capital of the Kingdom of Dalmatia

Was Split or Zara the capital of the Kingdom of Dalmatia? P. S. Burton (talk) 12:23, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Zara as capital
Split as capital

Hm, well, the article in the Croatian wikipedia says Zadar (i.e., Zara, which is the Italian name of the town), and so does this page: http://www.deutsche-schutzgebiete.de/kuk_dalmatien.htm (in German) TomorrowTime (talk) 12:54, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the map you linked with Zadar as capital seems to follow no particular standard for names of cities - on the one hand Zadar is in Italian, then you have Trieste and Ljubljana in German, and Prague is in English. I suggest you harmonize the names in some manner (if the map is your work, of course). TomorrowTime (talk) 12:57, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I am not the creator of the map. Could you help me with the correct english names of the states and the provinces. Since it is a historical map, the names might be different. P. S. Burton (talk) 16:05, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At first glance, the names of all of the territories look fine. The list in that map seems to match the list here: Austria-Hungary#Linguistic_distribution. --Jayron32 16:22, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hm... I'm no historian, I was just commenting on what I noticed. But if we take into account the names probably most commonly used during A-H times (which, to me would make most sense), then I can't find anything amiss other than Vienna and Prague being in English - these should be Wien and... I don't know about Prague - Praha, probably, if its Czech name was used and Prag if the German one was used. The discrepancies I mention higher up fit in with this as well - Ljubljana was in a province where German was the official level language, as well as Trieste, whereas Zadar was further South and I can see how the Italian name could have been used. It also has the Hungarian name Agram for Zagreb, which is again, what the town was called officially at the time. I'm talking about the file with the name "Austria-Hungary map new" here. I don't have any idea how the more northern towns may have been called and if any are out of sync with their official names of the time. Really, someone more competent than me should weigh in on this, I'm really just dispensing stuff that I sort of know here. TomorrowTime (talk) 17:34, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Except this is the English Wikipedia, so maps used here should use the most common name found in English language references, see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English). I see nothing wrong with a map to be used in an English language article using Vienna and Prague and Zara, as these are the most common English names for those cities. Occasionally, multiple names are used in English for the same city in different time periods (c.f. Pressburg and Bratislava) so we may follow that convention, but as far as I know, Vienna is always called Vienna in English, regardless of which time period you are referring to. --Jayron32 17:41, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reasonable enough. But in that case, I'd insist that Zadar is more common in English than Zara, Trieste more than Triest, Ljubljana more than Laibach and Zagreb more than Agram. TomorrowTime (talk) 17:56, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In this vein, Brünn should be changed to Brno, Troppau to Opava, Lemberg to Lviv, and Czernowitz to Chernivtsi. Marco polo (talk) 21:08, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think we have to recognize that there is a difference between say Prague and Vienna on one hand (having established names in English) and Lemberg/Lviv and Brünn/Brno on the other. In the latter case, we should use the name used officially at the time. Zagreb, Zadar, Brno, Opava, etc. do not have distinct English names. --Soman (talk) 16:12, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure they do. Open up the CIA factbook and look up, let's say Croatia and see what the capital is listed as, Zagreb or Agram. I'm not de facto opposed to using the historical names, but I think the map should go full length in one or the other directions - either have all the names in their historical form, or use them as we use them today. Mixing the two just seems sloppy. TomorrowTime (talk) 18:40, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, there is a difference. 'Prague' is a distinct English name. English and French are the only major European languages which uses the name 'Prague' for Prague. In the case of Zagreb, the Croat name is used in English as well. However, that said, I'm not sure mixing different sets of presenting names is a good idea. One idea might be to use the then official names in the map, with current English usage names in brackets. --Soman (talk) 19:34, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good enough. One advantage to that would be to give people a better feel for what towns exactly are being referred to - I'm sure more people have heard of (and would have at least some grasp on the location and importance of) Zagreb than Agram. Heck, I didn't know Zagreb used to be called Agram until a couple of years ago, and I live in the neighboring country. TomorrowTime (talk) 19:45, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For map revisions, see Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Illustration workshop. -- Wavelength (talk) 04:55, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Children of Mary the mother of jesus

Jesus had brothers as per mathew 12:46-50.Are they really borned to Mary his mother?If they really His own brothers why not they take care of her after the death of jesus christ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomas Rufus (talk • contribs) 16:47, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on which strain of Christianity you adhere to. In some faiths, notably Roman Catholicism, see Catholic views on Mary, that Mary was not only a virgin when Jesus was born, she was a virgin for life, see Perpetual virginity of Mary. Those faiths take the term "brothers" and "sisters" to refer to cousins of Jesus. Many protestant faiths do not follow the Cult of Mary and do not place as much emphasis on her character as a perpetual virgin, so they are willing to take a more literal interpretation of the passeges that mention Jesus's siblings (or more properly half-siblings); that is that Mary and Joseph had children after Jesus, and these later children are the brothers and sisters mentioned. As far as caring for Mary after the death of Jesus, its hard to say. In the first case, Mary was not an old woman when Jesus died; most accounts have her as a teenager, say 14-16 years old, when Jesus was born, and Jesus died in his mid 30's; that would have made Mary in her early fifties; while people died younger in the past they didn't become older faster, a woman in her fifties was perfectly able of caring for herself as she is today. Furthermore, there is no biblical evidence that Joseph had even died yet, the bible sort of ignores Joseph after Jesus becomes an adult, but it never actually "kills him off". As far as the relationship between Mary and her other children, the bible is pretty mum on that. The only sibling of Jesus that gets more than a passing mention is James the Just, who, among other things, has coverage in the Gospels, in Acts of the Apostles, and as the possible author of the Epistle of James. I am not aware of any direct interaction mentioned in the Bible between Mary and James the Just; though, of course, that doesn't mean there wasn't any. The bible does cover a very limited time frame, and is not comprehensive on the lives of its characters; even Jesus's life is only covered in detail for 3 or so years. --Jayron32 17:10, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It should also bear mentioning that John the Apostle was specifically charged with the care of Mary; John is not counted among the siblings of Jesus, he's the son of Zebedee and brother of James the Greater (one of three important Jameses, and not the James that was Jesus's brother). John was clearly part of Jesus's inner circle, together with Simon Peter and John's brother James. John was often identified as "the apostle that Jesus loved". Perhaps in granting special care over Mary, Jesus was signifying his special role in the Church, much as Simon Peter was given charge as leader of the church after Jesus's death, John was named to lead Jesus's family. --Jayron32 17:32, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it's a popular Catholic teaching that Jesus's siblings were Joseph's children from a previous marriage, thus his step-siblings. However it's perhaps also worth considering that Joseph does not appear at all in the earliest gospel, Mark: Jesus is referred to as the son of Mary and is given brothers and sisters, but no father is mentioned. In the later gospels mention of Joseph is retconned in to the scene where Mark calls him the son of Mary, but he only appears as a character in the nativity narratives in Matthew and Luke, and both give him totally different genealogies. I think it's entirely possible he's a late addition to the tradition, and that the early Christians knew very little about Jesus's family. --Nicknack009 (talk) 18:01, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Greek for "brothers" is adelphon while "cousin" is anepsios. These terms are not used loosely in The Bible, such as at Matthew 12:46 (brothers) and Colosians 4:10 (cousin). These scriptures show the terms are not used indiscriminately. Jesus' brothers (adelphon) were "not exercising faith in him" (John 7:5), therefore these brothers were not his spiritual brothers. John 2:12 splits his brothers from his disciples into distinctive groups. This interchange of "brothers" and "cousins" is "credited to Jerome... and fail[s] to cite any support... in later writings he waivers his opinions and even expresses misgivings" (Insight On The Scriptures, v. 1, p. 370). Why, then, did Jesus entrust the care of his mother Mary to John instead of His fleshly brothers? The answer is that John had proven his faith. There is no evidence to suggest that His fleshly brothers were yet disciples. It was only after Jesus' resurrection that His fleshly brothers began to exercise faith in him (Acts 1:14).
As a side note, the virginity of mary is mentioned insofar as being "until she gave birth to a son" (Matthew 1:25). Also, the reference of Jesus as Mary's "firstborn" indicates she had other children (Luke 2:7). schyler (talk) 20:27, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is of course, an interpretation based on a largely protestant theology. Other strains of Christianity have their own, entirely consistant, theology which comes to a different conclusion about passages refering to Jesus's family. --Jayron32 20:57, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Details of New Testament genealogy and biography are more neutrally considered to be examples of what has been termed "historicized narrative." Adjustments have been made to fit developing dogma, such as the perpetual virginity of Mary, which has taken its cue from the apocryphal Infancy Gospel of James.--Wetman (talk) 23:14, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's also the interesting interpretation that the New Testament as we know it was mostly written, and certainly selected, by the Pauline Church (run by St Paul who never met Jesus-the-man, source of all the 'you don't need to be Jewish' stuff), which was relatively hostile to the Jerusalem Church (set up by Jews who feature in the Gospels). This means Jesus's family are inevitably going to be dissed or made less important, especially if you buy that James the Just was Jesus's brother and one of the early leaders of the Jerusalem Church. But I think this view is probably as speculative as most, for all that it explains why the disciples are portrayed as so hilariously slow in the Gospels. 86.163.213.68 (talk) 23:42, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are we still capitalists?

Although most people are fascinating by what money can do, isn't it more reasonable to call are social-economical system something like 'informationism'? At the first glance, everything we do depends on information (even earning and managing money). Mr.K. (talk) 17:27, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Information economy? Even so, it's still fundamentally capitalism. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:28, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Captialism means, at its heart, private ownership of the means of production. If the thing produced is "information", if the companies producing that information are privately owned, then its still capitalism. --Jayron32 17:34, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict with Jayron) Capital (economics) need not be a physical good. Information can still indeed still be capital, even if it's not a machine in a factory. Buddy431 (talk) 17:37, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not quite sure I agree with some definitions of capitalism. Indeed, it could mean private ownership of the means of production, but, currently in some societies any one has access to the means of productions (i.e. PCs and the like). There is not a class of capitalist, who control the means and exploit another class, who only own their working force. There is an increasingly class of people how own the machine (PC or whatever) and can be considered workers (by any meaningful standards). That makes our system different to that system, at the beginning of the industrial revolution that Marx described. What is the point of using the same name for that and for this system? Mr.K. (talk) 00:53, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These workers are still private individuals, which is distinct from a planned economy. A criticism of central economic planning is the economic calculation problem. The difference in efficiency between individuals making their own decisions, and a central authority attempting to micromanage these same decisions, could (weasel words) be picked out as a defining difference between capitalism and socialism; of course, western countries exercise a degree of socialism and public ownership of this, that and the other, and I know of no pure capitalisms, unless it's worth mentioning the chaotic Somalia (or perhaps for precision that should be northern Somalia, in the past). ...If you do take central planning vs. individual decisions as the defining difference, then you're quite right; it is all much more about efficient information flow than about amassing great quantities of physical capital. This isn't some new quality of capitalism introduced by the computing age, though. The same observation could have been made in the 19th century. 213.122.60.193 (talk) 13:10, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that the U.S. seems more capitalist than ever before — in the sense that it now feels like useful production comes from capital, rather than coming from labor. It seems like humans, whatever their skills, are a useless waste product unwanted by any country on Earth, except among corporate circles as a ploy to drive wages yet lower. This could be couched in terms of "overpopulation", but the definition of that depends on what resources are available. The fewer hands in which the capital is concentrated, the more the others seem "overpopulated". (Note: by capital I mean not just factories and mines, but fishing quota rights, broadcast licenses, taxicab medallions, invitations to the White House press pool, access to university library subscriptions, and a vast variety of other such intangibles).

The developer of the company Clicks Agent was a teenager working in their bedroom, who sold it for $40M. So I assume it didnt require any capital to start. 92.15.15.224 (talk) 11:35, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Baseless accusations Allegations against Julian Assange

Changed "Baseless accusations" to "Allegations" pending source saying the accusations are baseless. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 01:08, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sweden is generally liberal, so why are they acting like a puppet of the Pentagon? --75.33.217.61 (talk) 21:16, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the Swedish judiciary isn't working on direct order of the Swedish gov't. So, 'Sweden' isnn't really doing anything in this case. There is a prosecutor who has issued an arrest warrant for Assange, that's all. --Soman (talk) 21:21, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And on what authority do you call the accusations "baseless"? Are you on intimate terms with Mr Assange? This is not the place to prosecute a case for either the defence or the prosecution. That's what courts are for. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 22:03, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does Sweden have a "presumption of innocence" deal? I suggest the word "Baseless" in the title be changed to "Alleged" in any case for our purposes here. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 22:16, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no. that accusations are being made seems real enough, I suppose, though I have not been following along too closely about them. What I mean is change "Baseless accusations" to "Allegations". WikiDao ☯ (talk) 22:18, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When a person who is inconvenient to powerful forces, is suddenly accused of an infamous act, it does tend to raise suspicions. On the other hand, I suppose that persons in such a circumstance do occasionally commit infamous acts. The matter warrants careful public scrutiny, but not prejudgment. --Trovatore (talk) 22:36, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. No one on here likely knows the facts of this sort of thing. The other matter not brought up is that sometimes extra effort is made to discover infamous acts for people who it would be convenient to discredit (e.g. Eliot Spitzer, whose takedown was almost surely politically motivated to some degree, though that doesn't make him any more guilty). --Mr.98 (talk) 22:50, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Assange got a lot of exposure after his wiki-leaks. Imagine that his hypothetical victims just saw him on TV and decided to press charged once they knew who he was? Definitely possible = not baseless. Mr.K. (talk) 00:58, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In Sweden, you can give consent, then change your mind retroactively, making it rape. Specifically, if, later, you realize that you wouldn't have given consent if you had known earlier what you knew then, you can then cry "RAPE". That's exactly what happeend to Assange: his women said "If I had known I wasn't the only one in his life I wouldn't have consented!!" Obviously, Sweden is a fucked up place. 92.230.69.215 (talk) 09:57, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

^{[citation needed]} Nil Einne (talk) 15:54, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2010 November 19 84.153.227.35 (talk) 15:57, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not finding any evidence this is legal under Swedish law. The fact that one party has made the claim this happened doesn't make it legal under Swedish law as the OP alleged. (BTW, as we've discussed several times before, rape by deception is a crime in some jurisdictions, there's just no evidence so far it's the case in Sweden, or even that this is what the prosecutors are claiming.) Also I don't see how anyone here knows what happened as 92 seems to imply. I suggest people refrain from claiming something happened in the way they allege without hard evidence if they don't want this thread to be deleted. Nil Einne (talk) 16:01, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe that rape by deception is defined as you state above. According to this definition any form of sexual contact could be construed as rape. A woman could (and they indeed do that) claim: 'I didn't know that you were a complete idiot before we had sex.').Mr.K. (talk) 22:51, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bess, you is my Woman now

Who composed Bess, you is my Woman now? Περσεύς|Talk to me 21:47, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We've no article just for that song, but our article Oh! Carol: The Complete Recordings, 1955–66 credits Ira Gershwin/George Gershwin/DeBose Heyward. Comet Tuttle (talk) 21:53, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) It was written by George Gershwin, Ira Gershwin, and DuBose Heyward, from opera Porgy and Bess. --Jayron32 21:54, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On Royal Titles

So today there has been a big noise about whether or not Camilla will ever be the Queen Consort or merely the Princess Consort. It made me think, though apparently 'centuries of tradition' dictate she should be Queen Consort the current Queen's husband is known as Prince Phillip. Does that mean he is a Prince Consort, and if so was there any special reason for that which may not apply in this case (or indeed, apply this time too)?

Many thanks, Prokhorovka (talk) 23:44, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This question came up, and was answered, here a few days ago during the discussion on Prince William & Kate Middleton. --ColinFine (talk) 00:45, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Britain doesn't have a tradition of "Kings consort" (indeed, they are very rare, see King consort). Because a husband automatically took control of his wife's posessions, the husband of a queen became King jure uxoris (Latin for "By right of his wife"). Philip II of Spain was King of England under this principle. He was not well liked, which is why he is usually omitted from official lists of English Kings. William III of England was named king directly by parliament, specifically to avoid being merely king jure uxoris. After that, all British Queens regant have had "Prince consort" as husband (Anne, Victoria, Elizabeth II). --Jayron32 01:26, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not so. Prince Phillip may be the Queen's consort, but he is not the Prince Consort. That title was last applied to Queen Victoria's husband Prince Albert. It was apparently considered for Phillip back in the 1950s but it was decided not to give him that title. Neither was Queen Anne's husband Prince George of Denmark designated "Prince Consort". As far as I can tell, Prince Albert has been the sole holder of the title-- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 02:39, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all, and sorry for the unnecessary question. Prokhorovka (talk) 15:31, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. There are no unnecessary questions - except maybe if you're a troll, but I see no evidence of that. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 18:13, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hide it well. Prokhorovka (talk) 20:17, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]