Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2008 December 22

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.

December 22

Origins of the Barca family name

While reading Herodotos, I find quite a few references to the "City of Barca" which was (probably) located in what is now Al-Marj in Libya, near Banghazi. It's reasonable to speculate that Hannibal Barca's ancestors were connected with this city, but Herodotos was writing long before Hannibal's time, or I'm sure the old boy would have digressed for a while.

The only references to the origin of the surname "Barca" (or Barcas) is that it derives from the Semitic root for "lightning" (BRQ) or "Blessed" (BRK).

Is there any scholarship on this name?

Thanks Runtape (talk) 00:56, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

We have articles on Barca and the Barcid family, if that helps. Adam Bishop (talk) 06:57, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I had seen those articles; neither of them addresses the question of the relationship between the city and the family name. Runtape (talk) 07:41, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that the burden of proof that there is any relationship at all is on you. If you have some evidence that there is a relationship, put it in the articles; otherwise it is empty speculation which has no place in an encyclopedia. --ColinFine (talk) 18:19, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

ColinFine, I thought this was a "reference desk" forum, where I could get information about existing scholarship on a particular subject. I'm not trying to prove anything, and I'm certainly not trying to add "empty speculation" to the encyclopedia. If you don't know the answer to my question, then don't try to provide one. But I don't understand your apparently peevish tone in the non-answer that you provided. I apologise if I have misunderstood the function of the reference desk. Runtape (talk) 15:30, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Negative Interest Rate Guaranteed Investment Certificate

Hello. What happens to the GIC interest rates when the rate that the bank pays your savings account becomes negative (i.e. you pay the bank interest out of your paycheque)? Thanks in advance. --Mayfare (talk) 03:37, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd be moving my money, for a start. I've known almost-no-interest accounts, where the charges for operating the account are higher than the interest paid, but I have never heard of an account where the interest "paid" is negative. Why would anyone leave money in such an account? Under the mattress, or in my sock drawer, are both better deals. ៛ Bielle (talk) 04:45, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Because if the bank is robbed, you don't lose all your money. If you leave objects in a bank safe-deposit box, you pay a fee for that, don't you? Well, a negative-interest bank account could be seen as the same thing. And yes, they have existed in some places in the past. --Anonymous, 09:35 UTC, December 22, 2008.

I'd be really pleased to see a ref to a bank that has paid negative interest "in some places in the past." I understand about effective negative rates, but not actual ones. As for safety-deposit boxes, the bank is not using the money in the box to make money for itself, which is the reason for paying interest to depositors. ៛ Bielle (talk) 15:23, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

As an unregistered user posting from a text-only connection, I can't post working external links here, but here's one result from a Google search on "negative interest": everything2.com / index.pl?node_id=1375475 Note the parts about Switzerland and Japan. --Anonymous, 19:30 UTC, December 22, 2008.

A person in the Revolutionary War

Who is a semi-famous in the American Revolution who really influenced the outcome of the war or greatly contributed to its success or really impacted it in some way? I'm looking to research some figure other than Washington, Franklin, etc, the usual suspects. I need to find somebody who isn't too anonymous that I can't research on but that history generally disregards his/her importance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.226.142.63 (talk) 04:13, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I like Henry Knox. He was at the Boston Massacre. His march from Ticonderoga was worthy of a Hannibal and broke the British at Boston. He founded the Springfield Armory. He got Washington over the Delaware. He played very good second fiddle, so to speak, and the average schoolboy might just guess that the Fort is named after him, but that's about it. --Milkbreath (talk) 04:40, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Henry Knox is a good one to meet the OPs requirements, expecially since he was, like, 26 years old on Independence Day, and thus really young as well. Other possibilities:

• Ethan Allen. Everyone knows he led the Green Mountain Boys. What he, or the Green Mountain Boys, did, however, is largely unknown by most casual history students.
• Tadeusz Kościuszko, who was a genuine hero in both Poland and America, and the tallest mountain in Australia Mount Kosciuszko is named after him.
• Benedict Arnold. OK, so everyone knows he was a traitor, but he was fast on his way to being the hero of the Revolution. He's a facinating character study, and well worth the work to research his life, both before and after his treason.
• John Burgoyne. Sometimes, someone is MORE important for being incompetant as his opponents are for being good. The Saratoga campaign was an unmitigated failure, and Burgoyne's ineptitude and poor generalship, both in terms of strategy and tactics, helped lead to the first major defeat of an entire British fighting force, as well as convincing France that, since American victory was feasible, it would be in their interests to join the war.

Hope this gives you some choices... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:56, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

My favorite is the Francis Marion ("The Swamp Fox"), a master of military intelligence and asymmetric warfare. Next favorite is Henry Lee III ("Light-Horse Harry"), the father of Robert E. Lee. Neutrality^talk 07:28, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and John Paul Jones. The naval aspect of the Revolutionary War is all too often ignored. If you like sailors, Abraham Whipple was fascinating: A privateer before the war, he was actually a prisoner of war before being paroled and returning to the farm. Neutrality^talk 07:41, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, Haym Solomon - a Polish Jew who played a great role in the Revolution despite the fact that he had arrived in New York as late as 1775 and died at age 45. He used his fortune to bankroll the Patriots, and was an American spy - captured by the British twice, he once escaping after being sentenced to death. Neutrality^talk 07:44, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Good choices above. There are dozens to chose from, really. My pick would be Joseph Warren, but there's also General Steuben, Nathanael Greene, John Hancock (everyone knows his name, but they don't remember what he did other than on 4 July 1776), John Glover, John Dickinson, etc. There are a lot of Brits to choose from too, if your project allows for that approach. Arguably the most important Brit during the war was someone few now remember by name: George Germain. See also Category:Women in the American Revolution and Category:Native Americans in the American Revolution. It might be fun to do a report on someone like Margaret Gage. —Kevin Myers 15:34, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

How about some of the instigators of the war ? To start, there's Thomas Paine, famous for his pamphlet "Common Sense", and Patrick Henry, famous for "Give me Liberty, or give me Death!". StuRat (talk) 18:23, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

There was a guy who was the U.S representative in Holland , a friend of John Adams and probably a friend of Benjamin Franklin, commissioned by the Continental Congress, who helped in obtaining loans for the fledgling U.S. from Holland I'm not sure he has an article in Wikipedia, and I can't recall his name at present, but he was an unacclaimed individual who our early leaders said was very important in the American Revolution.He was very helpful to John Adams. circa 1780 in Holland. Edison (talk) 00:37, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Henry Laurens? The only American ever to be held in the Tower of London. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 02:42, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

The guy I'm thinking of was not Laurens. He was European, a merchant, and fluent in several languages. I recall researching him and finding several references when there was a brief article up for speedy deletion many months ago, but I do not recall if I fixed the article. Edison (talk) 03:21, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Wow. It took no little search to find the man I referred to. It was Charles Dumas, friend and pre-war correspondant of Benjamin Franklin [1], Swiss journalist based in Holland, and secret American operative designated by the Continental Congress. See [2] , [3] , [4]. In 1775 Dumas devised the first U.S. diplomatic cipher [5]. Appointed U.S. agent at The Hague 1776 [6]. Dumas was Charge d'Affaires in the Netherlands while Adams was at London [7], [8]. He does not have a Wikipedia article. Should he? Edison (talk) 04:32, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

It certainly seems so, if more than passing references to him can be found. The only biographical sketch of him that I could find is this two page account, which, when combined with the references above, is a reasonable start. —Kevin Myers 07:54, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I found him listed in Who Was Who in the American Revolution, and so re-created the stub (and I mean stub) Charles W. F. Dumas. —Kevin Myers 08:51, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Why were Hoovervilles tolerated?

Today, police are sent into similar encampments, the occupants are displaced, the structures (such as they are) are dismantled, and the contents taken to the dump.

So why is the response different today than 75 years ago?

As our Hooverville article states, "Authorities did not officially recognize these Hoovervilles and occasionally removed the occupants for technically trespassing on private lands, but they were frequently tolerated out of necessity." Gwinva (talk) 08:27, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

The reason is that you can only dismantle them if the population in such places is small. When they get to Great Depression proportions, authorities risk starting a revolution by doing such things. Zimbabwe is a current example where they go ahead and destroy them anyway, even though a large proportion of the nation lives their. This process is destroying the economy of the country, as the black and gray markets which thrived in such areas were the primary economic engine of Zimbabwe. StuRat (talk) 18:04, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. There are legal questions, and then there are the pragmatic questions. Lets say that you are a police force of a few hundred people. Do you want to deal with a crowd of 5000 when you ask them to "move along". Bad idea, and even if you get them to move, its bad PR. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:04, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I searched newspapers from 1929 through the early FDR years. There were articles about "hobo camps" where "Wandering Willies" made their home, which might be the camp of 8 or 16 unemployed men. There might be a knifing, or someone found dead from homemade alcohol, and the local police would arrest them for vagrancy and close down the camp. Weeks later, it might be inhabited again. There was not the widespread burning them out or destruction by the forces of law or even local landowner vigilantes reported. Then there were "Hoovervilles" which got sympathetic treatment from the 1932 papers, which noted the presence in misery of hundreds of unemployed families. There seemed even less argument for destroying the camps and sending the inhabitants elsewhere. Edison (talk) 00:33, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

See Bonus Army. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 02:45, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Andrew Parker-Bowles

Was his first marriage annulled? Kittybrewster ☎ 10:32, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

This: [9] says it was. --Leif edling (talk) 12:59, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

EC and spam blacklist problem. I can't seem to find a RS on this. Of the non RS, some say yes http://www. freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1345608/posts?page=9#9 (spam blacklist)[10], some say no [11] [12] Nil Einne (talk) 13:03, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Zero sum in world economy?

Is the sum total of all financial transactions in the world a part of a zero sum system? Is there any scope for wealth being "created", or is it all just changing hands? If wealth is being created, what exactly is the economic source of it? In the current scenario of global economic downturn, there must be some people who have gained from it, as the wealth everybody is losing must be going somewhere. --Leif edling (talk) 10:58, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

careful, you're only asking about currency, not wealth. see money supply. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.27.179.199 (talk) 11:03, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I am asking about wealth, actually. So, from this above answer, do I consider that all the brouhaha is only about there being a lack of "currency" and not that thousands of investors are actually losing chunks of their wealth out there? My main question is that if wealth can't be destroyed or created (as in a zero sum scenario), where is all the dough going? If someone is losing, someone must be gaining. --Leif edling (talk) 12:54, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

It isn't a zero sum system. Wealth can be absolutely totally and completely created or destroyed. Even currency can be created or destroyed though there are more rules about that. Dmcq (talk) 13:22, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

In terms of destroyed, a recent science desk question comes to mind. If we destroy the entire world (ignoring the imposibility of that) most would agree we have destroyed most of the world's wealth Nil Einne (talk) 13:26, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

The article on wealth has a section on it being non zero-sum but some people treat it as zero-sum for short periods. Dmcq (talk) 13:29, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

A good example of trying to understand this point is the Great Depression. It's ludicrous to suggest that what happened in the early 30s was some sort of zero-sum game, obviously the entire world got a lot poorer (regardless of how you define wealth). It's not like there was a small group of people that became unimaginably wealthy by stealing all the resources of everyone else. Some people might have gotten richer (not many, though), but there's no chance in hell that it even came close to compensating for the number of people who became poor. Same thing with the current recession we have, a whole lot of rich people have lost a whole lot of money, but it's not like it's been moved elsewhere. It's just gone. Belisarius (talk) 17:32, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

While it's true that many jobs on the modern world simply "move money around", there are some which still produce wealth. Agriculture is one, where the intrinsic value of the food produced is (at least in a good year) far more than the money put into producing it. Manufacturing is another, where the intrinsic value of the items produced exceeds the money put into producing it. Mining and energy production are other examples.

Services are more questionable, with some producing wealth, and some just moving it around. I'd ask "Is the world better off after this service has been performed ?". Garbage collection is a good example where the answer is clearly yes, the world is better off if the garbage is collected and disposed of properly. The gambling industry is an example where the answer is clearly no, the only wealth collected by casinos, winners, and governments (in the form of taxes) all comes from the losers, so no wealth was created. Many other service industries sometimes produce wealth, and sometimes don't. A good teacher can increase wealth indirectly by helping to produce productive workers. If a doctor fixes up a person so they again become a productive worker, that can create wealth indirectly. On the other hand, if a doc keeps people alive indefinitely in a coma, that doesn't create wealth at all. For lawyers, it would appear that lawsuits only move money from one person to another, but they do have the potential to reduce the destruction of wealth by people who would otherwise kill each other or destroy each other's property if they couldn't settle things in court. Similarly, police and firefighters don't create wealth, but can prevent the destruction of wealth. The military, if used to deter attacks, can do the same. StuRat (talk) 17:50, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think lawsuits simply prevent people from harming each other. They also (ideally) help ensure contracts work (without the legal means and presuming the other party is unwilling or unable to take matters into my own hands there's little recourse other then to be more careful next time) and people who may be producing little (fraudsters etc) don't get to hoard wealth while those who may make more lose it etc etc. In other words they help to prevent the destruction of wealth and help to protect the creation of wealth (the same can be said of the police and firefighters obviously.) The legal system in a certain country may be out of control but that doesn't mean lawyers are worthless. And of course lawyers also help the police and help ensure the police are doing their jobs properly. Nil Einne (talk) 18:03, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for answering. It also occured to me that for creation of wealth, maybe we could also take mining of minerals which are exchanged for money as a means of cerating it, or rather digging it out! --Leif edling (talk) 01:32, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Services don't simply "move money around." In fact, the only function that simply moves money around is the government's taxing and spending. When you think you have identified money moving around, look on the other side of the equation and ask what value is received by the person who is giving up the money. Wikiant (talk) 02:33, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say all services just move money around, only some, like gambling. Do all the losers feel they've gotten their money's worth there ? I also gave some cases where this can be true of other services, like if someone brain-dead must be kept alive by doctors due to the law. Would the family paying for this feel they are getting their money's worth ?

Also, if taxes are properly used, they can create the necessary conditions for the creation and preservation of wealth. Education, roads, airports, police, firefighters, etc., all need to be supported by taxes to work well. If we just take a look at one area, there were volunteer fire departments before the professional (tax supported) fire fighting services were created, and a lot of wealth was destroyed, that could have been saved, because the volunteers weren't as effective. StuRat (talk) 15:51, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Although I don't consider gambling exactly a "productive" industry, one should note that it is considered entertainment rather than investment. Ideally the losers were exhilarated by the prospect of maybe winning money and enjoyed playing the game. Even if casino advertising certainly doesn't stress that difference if you look at it closely they are actually more honest about why they take your money than a stock broker. If you invest money in a company you are betting on company making money and either paying a dividend (interest) or generating an increase in their stock price (resale value). You base that expectation on past performance and projections presented to you. If they don't (as we are currently being shown) you are no better off than someone who bet on a losing horse. You don't even get the satisfaction of having done a good deed you'd get if you had given the money to charity or the entertainment of having spent time playing a game. "Owning a part of the company" is a myth, because if there is neither dividend nor resale value then the "value" of the company is usually also not there anymore. And guess what the CEO of a company would tell you if you went and told them you were unhappy with the way they run the company.76.97.245.5 (talk) 21:02, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Subcarpathian elections in the 1920s

When editing Autonomous Agrarian Union, I have encountered to sources giving identical electoral results for two separate elections, http://zakarpattia.net/zakarpatska-ukrajina/historie/ceskoslovensko.html says that the party got 21,161 votes in the 1923 municipal election, whilst http://granik.org/history/index.php?s_id=39&&c_id=52&&m_id=793 says the party got 21,161 votes in the 1924 parliamentary election (Subcarpathia didn't elect MPs in Czechoslovak National Assembly until 1924). Neither ref is perfectly WP:RS, but which is correct? Is there any good, RS, reference to the election results of 1924 parliamentary polls in Subcarpathia? --Soman (talk) 13:26, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Is it possible the election was in 1923 but the elected people didn't take office until 1924 ? (That's how it works in the US, as we need to allow the "lame ducks" time to haul all their bribes out of town before the next batch of corrupt politicians arrives.) StuRat (talk) 17:26, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

No, this doesn't appear to be the cause of confusion. http://zakarpattia.net/zakarpatska-ukrajina/historie/ceskoslovensko.html mentions two separate elections, 1923 municipal polls and 1924 parliamentary polls, but identifies the result 21,161 votes for AZS as the 1923 municipal polls and gives no results for parliamentary election. One of the links gives the wrong info, the question is which one? --Soman (talk) 22:17, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Afghanis as Desi?

In your article "Desi", you said the term refers to a person of South Asian heritage, from either India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal, Sri Lanka or Afghanistan. How Afghani people are "Desi"? Yes, it is true they the same clothing as their Pakistani counterparts, their languages Pashto and Baloch is also spoken in Pakistan, but none of their cuisine dishes are related India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka. If I don't understand it, please make me understand. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.55.241 (talk) 17:17, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmm? I'm pretty sure most Sri Lankan cuisine is quite different from most Pakistani cuisine. For that matter India is very large with quite a number of cultures. North Indian cuisine can be generally quite different from South Indian cuisine. You might want to read our article on Indian cuisine. I'm not familiar with Afghan cuisine but it wouldn't surprise me if at least parts of it (e.g. those on Pashtun areas) are more similar to e.g. some parts of Pakistani cuisine (e.g. ditto) then the same parts of Pakistani cuisine is to e.g. Sri Lankan cuisine. I also read from Bangladeshi cuisine that beef is a staple part, something obviously not the case for many Hindu's in India and many vegetarians in India and Sri Lanka. P.S. If you read the article carefully, you'd find it's predominantly a word used by some South Asians to refer to themselves. Therefore what matters to these people is surely their ethnic and cultural identity which for some is similar enough that they consider themselves all South Asians or Desis. The fact that the word usually refers to food for some other people and that Afghani food doesn't seem to be what one would consider 'desi food' is of little relevance and in any case, the same could probably be said about a lot of South Asian food. Nil Einne (talk) 17:48, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

"Desi" might be more used of these people than by them. I must say I'd never come across this word before, but I have a Sri Lankan partner and we spent a month there last year. My experience is that Sri Lankans are very proud of their Lankan-ness, no matter whether they're Singhalese, Burgher, Tamil or expatriates like Arthur C. Clarke (most Tamil Sri Lankans are perfectly happy with the status quo and don't want a separate state). They absolutely hate it when they're confused with people from other south Asian countries, particularly India, just as New Zealanders hate it when someone assumes they're Australian. We're sometimes collectively referred to as "Australasians" in this part of the world, but we never, never refer to ourselves this way. When it comes to cuisine, though, although all the south Asian countries have their individual specialties, there are sufficient similarities to make a grouping reasonable. You'll find curry, for example, in all these countries. Not that you don't find curry elsewhere, but this region is where the dish originated. I've seen restaurants offering "South Asian cuisine", but I've never seen "Desi cuisine". -- JackofOz (talk) 20:22, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I think that the OP is basically correct. I doubt that Afgans would refer to themselves as Desi. This is a label of identity based on shared cultural heritage, which takes in Punjab and Sind in Pakistan but not the arid plateaus in the west of the country, which like Afganistan have stronger cultural connections to Iran and Central Asia than to the Indo-Gangetic Plain, which is the cultural heartland of South Asia. Afghanistan is often included in western definitions of South Asia because the British aimed for it to be part of their Indian sphere of influence, unlike other parts of Central Asia, which were in the Russian sphere. However, its culture (from cuisine to patterns of agriculture to language) has closer links to the north and west than to the east. Marco polo (talk) 22:06, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I think your supporting my point albeit in a different way. I have no idea whether Afghans refer to themselves as Desi but it seems unlikely to me that the word would be equally likely to apply to all Pakistani's but to no Afghans. Cultural and ethnic divisions (and similarities) often trumph national ones particularly for those who emigrated before those national distinctions even existed. The OP seemed to me to think that all Pakistanis would be equally comfortable with being Desi along with Sri Lankans, but no Afghans, which seems unlikely to me. Nil Einne (talk) 08:20, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I can't comment on how likely it is for an Afghan or Sri Lankan to refer to themselves as desi but I don't know if you're right about "might be more used of these people than by them". While I haven't encountered the word that much, when I have it appears to have been from people who would describe themselves as desi and a search for desi should show a lot of sites and references, most of them seem to be from people who would call themselves desi e.g. [13] and not by people calling others desi. To be frank, it seems a somewhat odd choice to me, people are far more likely to take a word from their language to refer to another people then to take some word from the other's peoples language never used by the people themselves. If there is any word used to refer to South Asians collectively it's more like to be Indian (regardless of origin) or some other more offensive word and not desi. Also in general terms, I would say most first generation immigrants consider their country of origin of great importance and a matter of pride. However it usually takes on less importance to second and third generation ones. This is likely particularly the case in the past where the state of technology (both in terms of communication and transport) etc meant there was far less opportunity to stay in contact with ones country of origin and the lower number of immigrants combined with lower inclusiveness of society meant that people tended to try to fit in rather then maintain a cultural identity. Nil Einne (talk) 07:15, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

In terms of cuisine, I think your missing the point. (I wrote a very long reply but lost it when some scissors fell on my keyboard. IE7 never again!) Obviously South Asian cuisine shares enough similarities that the term isn't meangingless. However as with so many things, it's a bit silly to try and divide it into precise groups. At the borders its too fuzzy. It's quite likely that some parts of Pakistani cuisine is more similar to some parts of Afghan cuisine then it is to Sri Lankan cuisine. And Afghan cuisine does include curries. (This reminds me of race, where genetically we can see, that the precise borders some people like to pretend are there are not.) So to say no Afghan cuisine is not a part of South Asian cuisine but all Pakistani cuisine is, is silly unless we're thinking of a meaningless arbitary geo-political seperation which doesn't make sense for cuisine. In any case, what people think of as South Asian cuisine in the Western world is often quite different from the cuisine of South Asia (nothing unique about this of course) although South Asian cuisine in the Western world does influence the cuisine of South Asia. P.S. As for your point about curries, I would also like to nitpick there. The word curry originated from India, likely old Tamil and curries spread to the Western world largely from India. But older Middle Eastern dishes apparently have similarities to what we now identify as curry [14] which hardly surprises me. (There are some books about the origina of corry that I've seen mentioned which I've never read which may be of interest) I'm not trying to say that Indian curries shouldn't be thought of as an Indian invention but rather so should Thai curries be consider Thai or for that matter other cuisine with a long tradition. There is sufficient cross-cultural influence that it's meaningless to try and say this dish is truly and solely an invention of X but this Y dish isn't because it has influeces from X because X surely has influences too. (Except for Pavlova which is a truly remarkable Kiwi invention with absolutely no influence from Australia or anywhere else.) In any case, what we consider to be representative of X nowadays is often quite different from what would have been X centurites ago (it's remarkable when we think that as far as we known chillies only came in to the so called 'old world' slightly over 500 years ago yet are now so pervasive.) Nil Einne (talk) 08:41, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Searching for an infamous NHL player and coach

Dear Sir/Madam,

I tried searching on Google but it was ultimately unfruitful. I belive that I read this in a book on Google Books.

The player's father murdered the employees of a CBC station because they were diffusing another game than one involving the Toronto Maple Leafs, where his son was making his first appearance in the NHL. The son subsequently had a rather short career and died of a drug-related accident.

The coach was infamous for finding loopholes in the league's rulebook. He once used a forward instead of a goalie during a shootout because it was more effective, and once sent an infinite number of men on the ice because before the rule was altered, only one penalty could be attributed. I believe he was also one of the first to popularise the use of video recordings in professional ice hockey.

Sincerely, Rachmaninov Khan (talk) 18:23, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I am directly familiar with an actual NHL coach who murdered CBC employees, but if you want to read about a truly bizzare hockey incident, the story of Mike Danton is at least as weird (if not stranger) than the story you recount above. Sports Illustrated: [15] did a series of articles about him. Its an interesting read. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:23, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

On the "too many men on the ice" thing, that behavior does not seem to make sense. As soon as the referee notices that there are too many men, play will be stopped as soon as any of them touches the puck. So if the coach was willing to take a penalty, he could put the whole team of about 20 men on the ice, but so what? They wouldn't be able to score. --Anonymous, 19:40 UTC, December 22, 2008.

Roger Nielson did that. He was also the first to use videotape to analyse previous games. I have no idea what player the question is referring to, though; John Kordic was a Leafs player who died of a drug overdose, but I have never heard a story about CBC employees being killed. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:56, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see. He was trying to get play repeatedly stopped, not to score. I suppose the ref could give a delay-of-game penalty in addition, but that would also be a nullity in that situation. Thanks. --Anonymous, 06:22 UTC, December 23, 2008.

Roger Neilson was the coach I was searching for. Thanks.

As for the player, I finally found out that it was Brian Spencer's father. He did not murder CBC employees as I first thought, but he actually held them at gunpoint and was subsequently killed in a firefight with the RCMP. Rachmaninov Khan (talk) 04:16, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Rest periods of work

Quick question about employment in the united kingdom.

I am working 1330-2200 tomorrow evening, then 0900-1800 the next day. I am aware that workers are entitled to 11 hours rest period between shifts, but does this include the time it takes to travel to and from work, as taking this into account, by the time I leave work and get home it will be around 2300 hours, and I will have to get up at 0630 hours the following day to get to work for 0900.

Is there such an allowance for travel or not? 92.3.53.98 (talk) 18:45, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

We're not allowed to give legal advice here. Having said that, I don't think travel time is taken into account in working hours regulations in the UK. You need to ask your trade union about this one. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:45, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it's one of the reasons why dormitory suburbs develop. Julia Rossi (talk) 10:10, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Most employers in countries such as the UK do not tell workers whether to live next to the factory or to live an hours travel or 2 hours travel away. Employees who live near the workplace might resent special consideration such as longer rest periods between work periods being given to those who live farther away. Edison (talk) 17:42, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

If wealth can be destroyed, isn't its creation largely illusory?

e.g. the trillions of dollars of wealth recently lost in the housing and stock markets.

When those markets rose, was the wealth created real or was it an illusion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boomerpdx (talk • contribs) 19:17, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Excellent question, in my opinion. I've been wondering about that myself.Bus stop (talk) 19:20, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

You must be clear about what you mean by wealth. In a real sense, wealth is a function of the subjective value you place on things you own. For example, suppose you have a plot of land that, to you, is worth $100,000 (that is, you would not be willing to sell it for less than $100,000 but would be willing to sell if for $100,001 or more). Suppose that, today, the market value of the plot (the value *other people* place on your land) is $90,000 and tomorrow the value drops (for reasons unrelated to the plot itself) to $80,000. According to the accountants, you have lost $10,000 in wealth. But, according to the economists, you have lost no wealth -- yesterday you had a plot that you valued at $100,000 and today you have a plot that you value at $100,000. Wikiant (talk) 19:28, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Speculation is the cause of illusory wealth, or the representation (and mass hysteria) of significant wealth associated with a product or service that has no real value. Such as the speculation involved in dot com companies that offered nothing more real than actual stores. This kind of temporary wealth is an illusion, and a bust or crash is inevitable because it is not sustainable. This most recent slip is associated with inflated real estate prices far beyond what they were actually worth. This kind of wealth is illusory for those who expect to get paid and don't, and those who receive lots of payment but see it disappear, and perhaps face fines and criminal charges for illegal practices. --Moni3 (talk) 19:31, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

It's better to think of wealth as transitory rather than illusory. Depending on how your welth is distributed, and when you use it on what, will affect how it works for you. For example, let's say that you "cashed out" at the peak of the stock market, and put all of your cash you got from that transaction into a simple, insured, savings account. In that case, the wealth you made on the "rise" of the stock market is still just as useful to you today as the day the market started to tank. The money was made during the "bubble" but it is "real wealth" under the OP's definition because it is still availible to spend.

Another way to think of this. Lets say you own stock ONLY in a really secure companies that isn't going away any time soon, like say Disney or Pepsi or something like that. Let's say that your stock portfolio has tanked in the past year, losing 1/2 of its value. What do you do? Your brain says "sell my shares" in an attempt to avoid further losses. However, most financial advisors would recommend that you buy more shares. Assuming you don't need the cash right now, you should always increase your buying on the way down. Why? It has to do with the difference between "price" and "value". If you are certain beyond all reasonable doubt that the company you are buying into will survive the current economic downturn, then its price is being depressed because of the general market trends, and not because the company is mismanaged or poorly run or anything like that. In that case, you should look at the stock as being at a bargain; it is currently priced below its value, meaning that in a few years, when the price rebounds, you will make MUCH more money than if you did nothing (i.e. hold and wait) or if you actually sold the shares of the stable company. What does all of this mean per the bubble? Well, during the bubble, prices were MORE than the value of the company, meaning that you were paying a premium for your shares. Assuming you sold at the right time, you would have actually made real wealth which you could be spending right now. Or, if you expected the company to last forever, then "buying on the way down" will increase your stake in a company you expect to be around for a long time in the future, thus increasing your wealth in the future in exchange for temporarily having less cash on hand today. However, you still own something of value (shares of a good company) even if its price is too low. Riding the wave of the difference between price and value is how people make GOBS of cash in the stock market; and as long as you can wait out a low point like we are in right now, you can easily make a lot of money off of this downturn...

The problem becomes when you overspend, i.e. buy more in stocks than you can afford to keep tied up for long periods of time. If you are foolishly counting on stock returns to pay for day to day living expenses, then you are probably screwed... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:46, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I think it's interesting that both of you guys first mentioned the "wealth lost" in dollar (or money) terms. Money is an instrument of savings, yes, but inflation ensures that it's not a very common one. If you chose any unit of measurement other than money (say loaves of bread... hear me out) and used that as your unit of account, you'd find that a lot more "loaves of bread"-worth of wealth was being saved in other things: hard assets, claims to land, claims to ownership of companies (stocks) or debt (bonds) etc. (even 'bank deposits' are just a kind of credit; they're not money in it's pure form). Then I suppose you'd think about how silly it was to measure things in terms of loaves of bread... (as I am right now, of course...) If bread didn't depreciate (go bad), though, in many ways it would be much better for us to pay for these assets with loaves of bread, and then hope to be able to sell them to someone else for more loaves in the future. Bread provides us with a pretty obvious consumption service - money can, at best, be used to light a cigar. But anyway: when prices of these "savings instruments" change in terms of "loaves of bread you're willing to give up for claims to future loaves of bread", it lets us think very rationally about how people's changing tastes, the scarcity of bread, or a change in the social discount (how much stuff people generally are willing to give up now for stuff tomorrow) would affect the number of "loaves of bread" we'd give up for any of those assets: at what rate we'll exchange bread now for bread tomorrow. If we were starving, that rate (this is the "interest rate") would probably be pretty high. This is no different for money. Except the service we get from money isn't nutrition. It's liquidity. Money helps us liquidly convert one asset (savings, consumption or otherwise) to another; despite having no inherent value, it's pretty great that money is generally accepted as valuable for this purpose. I guess my meandering point is, when we say "wealth is lost" (because of a 'stock market crash') it's best not to think of it in terms of money, but rather in terms of the "relative prices" between a general 'consumption' asset, representing consumption now and a savings asset, representing consumption tomorrow. And the best part is, if your life circumstances haven't changed in the last year, it means that chances are that "willingness to trade-off consumption now for consumption tomorrow" ratio hasn't changed for you this year! If you're using an "asset allocation investment approach" (where you switch your portfolio between a majority of fixed income assets as you approach slowdowns, and a majority equity assets when approaching a period of growth), a period of low interest rates (remember, interest rates aren't reflected in Bond prices (low rate = high price), they're also reflected in the interest rate used to discount stock earnings to present value!!) means that stocks should appear especially attractive to you! Just like Jayron says! Buy when the "implied market rate of return" is greater than the rate at which you're willing to trade off present consumption for future, and sell when it's lower. Hmmm... this is starting to sound like investment advice... 24.68.54.11 (talk) 11:59, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

As to the original question and connecting the two; when you bake a loaf wealth is created - if you then throw it in the dustbin wealth is destroyed. There's nothing illusionary about that. Dmcq (talk) 23:18, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

One way of thinking about wealth is to think about it as a physicist would think about energy. Energy cannot, technically, be destroyed—ever. It's always there. It can, however, be converted into less useful forms, and it can be converted into forms that disperse it in a way that it cannot be recovered from as useful work. The second law of thermodynamics could easily be translated into economic terms: there are more ways to spend money than there are ways to earn it. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 21:10, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Women and university

When (in which year) were women in Europe first able to attend university and graduate as B.A./B.Sc. etc.? Are there any countries where they still cannot even nowadays? I checked in Female education, but cannot see this information (perhaps I am overlooking it?). Thanks for info., cheers, Alex --AlexSuricata (talk) 19:50, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I imagine that first a woman attended pretending to be a man, then later women were allowed at one university in one particularly "feminine" field, like nursing, then the number of universities and programs at each were slowly expanded. I doubt if any European nations currently prohibit women from attending universities, as even Turkey seems too advanced for that. However, some universities may be male only, still. StuRat (talk) 21:39, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

It seems that the actual sequence, at least in Great Britain, was that, in the mid-1800s, women's colleges were founded, and during the 1870s, they began to be admitted to formerly all-male universities. While other Western European countries may not have had women's colleges, women apparently began gaining admission to universities in a similar 1870s-1880s time range. Interestingly, the United States seems to have been a couple of decades ahead of Europe in this area. Marco polo (talk) 21:59, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I think the first place in Britain where women could get a somewhat "official" degree was Girton College (which was heavily satrized by Gilbert and Sullivan). AnonMoos (talk) 03:08, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

In Ian McEwan's Atonement, Cecilia attends Girton and passes with third-class honours, but cannot actually graduate from the University of Cambridge. This was in the 1930s. By this time women were graduating from other universities in the UK. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:50, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

You might also be interested in mixed-sex education. According to that article, the first university in the UK to confer degrees upon women was the University of London, in 1878. This book says the first European college to admit women was the University of Zurich, in 1865. Denmark was 1875, Belgium was 1883, the Netherlands 1884, and Greece 1895, and Spain and Norway hopped on the wagon at some point before this publication in 1903. This book says that women in France were, theoretically, able to attend University after 1880, but were not prepared during secondary school for the university entrance exams. German and Austrian universities apparently did not admit women until the 20th century, which presumably also covers all of what was Austria-Hungary; there appear to have been exceptions, though, in some universities and departments. In Russia, women could attend lectures beginning in 1869 (although policies were changed from time to time), but could not receive degrees until 1911.

At least one woman in Spain, Doña María Isidra Quintina de Guzmán y de la Cerda, managed to get a doctorate in 1785, and a woman was awarded a medical in Prussia in 1754, but these don't appear to have been routine occurences. According to that last link, women (notably Trotula of Salerno) were studying and teaching medicine as far back as the 11th century, but were increasingly barred from universities in the centuries that followed.

It looks like the US was indeed ahead the curve on this one: the first co-ed universities in the US were Franklin College, which was coed upon its inception in 1787 (but soon closed its doors due to financial problems), and Oberlin College, which began admitting women in 1837. Oberlin appears to have initially offered only a restricted "ladies course," but Antioch College began admitting women on equal terms with men in 1852, and a slew of public and private universities followed suit in the 1860s. Now I guess I should add all that to the Wikipedia article.... --Fullobeans (talk) 08:46, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

There may be examples predating all of the above. According to Female education and Madrasah#Female education there was some definite female involvement in education including the ability to earn degrees (ijazah), and otherwise participation in what could probably be accurately called universities during the Islamic Golden Age. Limited yes, and not without controversy in some instances but definitely there was some. The oldest continuously operating university is University of Al-Karaouine and arose out of a mosque constructed by a female and the second oldest Al-Azhar University was named after Mohammed's daughter. While neither of these were in Europe, it seems possible that this extended to Islamic regions of Europe at the time like at Al-Andalus. According to Madrasah, Daw al-lami has a volume mentioning 1075 female scholars, it wouldn't surprise me if a few were in Europe and had degrees. Sadly whatever the case this early influence didn't continue in many cases either in Europe or many other areas which remained Muslim dominated. Of course presuming you aren't referring exclusively to degrees it's possible there was female involvement in earlier institutions of higher learning in Europe. Nil Einne (talk) 10:44, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

As late as 1897, the (male) undergraduates of Cambridge rioted to prevent women being granted degrees. Newnham College gives the history here, including the iconic photograph of a woman hung in effigy, mounted on a bicycle, symbolising the New Woman they found so threatening. BrainyBabe (talk) 13:23, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Lebanese Political Parties

Which Lebanese Political Parties gets the support from the following communities: a)Shi'a Muslims? b)Sunni Muslims? c)Maronite Christians? d)Druzes? And which political parties are rivals to each other: a)Maronite Christians vs. Maronite Christians b)Sunni Muslims vs. Sunni Muslims c)Shi'a Muslims vs. Shi'a Muslims d)Sunni Muslims vs. Shi'a Muslims e)Druze vs. Druze —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.128.244 (talk) 23:48, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Please see my response below. Marco polo (talk) 02:48, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Lebanese Political Parties II

Which political parties are Pro-Syrian and Which are Anti-Syrian? a)Pro-Syrian Sunni b)Anti-Syrian Sunni c)Pro-Syrian Maronite Christian d)Anti-Syrian Maronite Christian e)Pro-Syrian Druze f)Anti-Syrian Druze g)Anti-Syrian Shi'a Muslim? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.128.244 (talk) 23:53, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Please see our article Politics of Lebanon. Then go to our List of political parties in Lebanon. In this list, you will find links to our articles on the major political parties of Lebanon. Read through our article on each of these parties. You will find most of the information you want. If you need further help, please let us know. Marco polo (talk) 02:47, 23 December 2008 (UTC)