Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2010 January 28

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.

January 28

Flag Ratios

Which is the most common flag ratio?

Is it 2/3?174.3.98.236 (talk) 01:21, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

This suggests 2:3, at least for national flags. There's a ton of variation, though, and in some cases it doesn't appear to be very standardized. The U.S. Flag article says that the official government specification for U.S. flags is 10:19, but that in practice most sold are a different ratio (2:3, 5:8, or 3:5). The Union Flag is typically 1:2, but a 3:5 varient exists. The Canadian Flag, on the other hand, seems quite standardized at 1:2. The Mexican flag is 4:7, which the article points out is subtly different than the Flag of Italy, which is 2:3. Good stuff. Buddy431 (talk) 02:06, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

2/3 is the most common ratio. This website may be of use to you. I hope this helps. JW..[ T..C ] 02:04, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

How come I didn't get an edit confilct, seeing as I posted after you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Buddy431 (talk • contribs) 02:08, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

The code tries to merge edit conflicts if it can. If both people just add something to the bottom of a section, it is usually easy to merge it, although for some reason it always adds them in the wrong order... --Tango (talk) 02:35, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I wonder why flag makers didn't start using the golden ratio a long time ago. Or maybe they did but it proved inappropriate for some reason. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 09:25, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

That's true. I actually have a similar ongoing question about what is the closest rational number to the golden ratio. (On Math desk.)174.3.98.236 (talk) 07:49, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

With regard to the Union Jack. the ratio 1:2 is used by the Navy (because it's windier at sea and a longer flag flies better) and the Army uses 3:5. Nations that consider thamselves to be maritime powers (eg Netherlands) tend to have longer flags than landlocked ones (eg Switzerland). Alansplodge (talk) 09:52, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

In the case of the Canadian flag, the white part is square, so having the overall flag 2:1 allows the red bars to also be 2:1. Personally, I think 2:1 rectangles are more attractive than golden-ratio rectangles anyway; unfortunately, flags that long need a stronger wind to support than than squarer ones do. --Anonymous, 04:41 UTC, January 29, 2010.

Eating the gross

Like many Westerners, I find the idea of eating eyes (e.g. fish eyes) and noses (e.g. pig snouts) pretty disgusting at a base level. I am aware that there are other cultures relish such things, though, and I am sure that if I were raised in one of them, I would relish them as well.

Here's the question: I don't think anyone taught me that fish eyes and pig snouts were disgusting. There was never any example made of them, I am sure. My just having never eaten them before (or knowing anyone personally who had) doesn't strike me as reason enough to find the idea disgusting. Or is it? Why do I (and others) react in this way—in a way that seems rather primal?

The standard answer is "culture, duh." I am not disputing of course that culture could make me have liked these foods. But can their absence in my culture be the root of my repulsion? It strikes me that such a thing would not be strong enough, by itself. But maybe I am wrong, or am missing something? I'd love any thoughts/links/associations that this brings to mind. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:40, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

It's all in what you're used to. I like lutefisk and hate liver. And I am not Norwegian. Or maybe that's the reason. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:10, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm a white European male, I grew up near a "Chinatown" in a multicultural city, I'm consider myself very adventurous when it comes to food, even proudly so amongst my peers. Pigs ear, fish cheek, chicken feet, giblets, tripe, all sorts of stuff I've never seen anyone eat before. Some of those things had not appeared at all in the culture I grew up in, predominantly eating my mum's European cooking. But fish eyes I agree, I think that's gross, and the kicker: my dad, being a fisherman's son, certainly ate fish eyes! Also my brother grew up in the same culture eating the same food and he isn't as adventurous as me. So, I think it must be an extremely complex issue with various influences and associations not easily traced or deduced! Vespine (talk) 02:12, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Anything that many others eat is probably "safe". It's just a question of taste. Caviar to me sounds every bit as gross as fish eyes. And probably a lot more expensive. But I love oysters, and many folks are repelled by them. The key is, try it once. You might like it, you might not, but it won't likely kill you. And keep something palatable nearby to "wash it down", just in case. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:19, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

"but it won't likely kill you": but it can. Be careful with anything you eat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Buddy431 (talk • contribs) 02:32, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

In one of his programs (I think the series about chickens) chef Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall ranted a bit about (British) people no longer eating all the edible bits of the bird (and then making its carcass into soup), which he thought was a disservice to the chicken. In other programs he's persuaded people to eat offal, something else that the British used to do much more of than they do now. The people in the program, or at least the younger ones, had similar feelings about kidneys than you do about noses. Fearnley-Whittingstall's general theory of meat seems to be "people would eat better meat, and a greater variety of meats, if the lost habits of the past could be regained". But one might argue that old Hugh takes his thesis to something of an extreme. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 02:21, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Eating a dish with the title of "offal" could take a degree of courage. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:30, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

"Scots courage" if you mean haggis, a dish so offal it is illegal to export to some countries. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 03:12, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Having just read the description, it sounds like it could be tasty. Try anything once! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:49, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

from a psychological perspective, a lot of this is learned by experiment and observation. if you have kids (or have been around them) you'll notice that preteens - particularly boys - always go through a stage where they are fascinated by ickiness, and go out of their way to try to gross each other (and any available adults) out. that's a testing phase, where they learn what is and isn't acceptable in the culture. In the US, you don't have to see cooked fish eyes to learn that they're gross - all you have to do is mention them, or anything similar, and get a good giggle as the adults squirm. mention cooked fish eyes in China and no one bats an eye; there are (assumedly) other things that gross out Chinese. --Ludwigs2 07:07, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I object to the word always... Vimescarrot (talk) 12:42, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Always remember to never say "always" or "never". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:52, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I can never remember that, and I'm always sorry for it later. ah, well... as the quiet men in robes often say, rejection of human norms is the conformity of the rebel. If we can't except how much we're like everyone else, we'll never really be any different.

This philosophical moment brought to you by the National Rifle Association in collaboration with PETA; working together towards a world where we can hunt animals for pleasure, humanely.

The NRA started out as an environmental group in the 1930s that was dedicated to saving the rare Blue Eagle. Then new management came along, and the organization decided it would be more fun to shoot it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:46, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I've never really understood squeamishness about things like snouts, cheeks, and offal. All good tasty stuff, and for health-freaks liver and kidneys, with their low fat content should be ideal. I suspect that there is an element of snobbery in refusing low-status meats like these however - insisting on "the best cuts" shews that you have plenty of money, while the rest of us plebs can make do with the umbles. There's an old saying that "you can eat every bit of a pig except the squeak", and it's true. DuncanHill (talk) 01:03, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Federalism, Banking, etc

How have the two become stated by American Republicans and even Democrats, that they are "Conservative"? This doesn't seem historically accurate. 70.171.236.188 (talk) 01:52, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Political terminology doesn't make much sense. It usually makes some sense when it is first used, but then the meaning gets warped and extended and the word is applied to new situations and then it doesn't make any sense at all. Try not to worry about it and just think of them are arbitrary names for ideologies. --Tango (talk) 02:32, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the greatest American example of political terminology changing over time is the fact that "Republicans" were the party of Lincoln (anti-slavery) and "Southern Democrats" were extremely pro-segregation / anti-Civil Rights movement... whereas now, most minorities (except Cubans) in America identify very strongly with Democrats - a complete 180 degree switch. 218.25.32.210 (talk) 02:42, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Herbert Hoover personally presided over the split between the Republican party and African-American leaders and organizations, and FDR sealed the Black-Democratic alliance, leading to an awkward period of almost 40 years when both Blacks and Segregationists were significant components of the Democratic party... AnonMoos (talk) 04:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure that terms such as "conservative" have much consistent meaning over 220 years, but there has been a fairly consistent differentiation in U.S. politics between a Hamiltonian orientation and a Jeffersonian orientation... AnonMoos (talk) 03:52, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Why has human nature changed so much?

It seemed that the generals and political leaders in ancient times cared a lot about fame and glory: they strived to have the largest empires, the best cities, and the most glamorous buildings just for the sense of accomplishment that this gave. It's puzzling that today, no developed country is willing to devote significant resources to human spaceflight. The first mission to land a man on Mars or build a moon base would surely be considered one of the greatest achievements of the human race; a thousand years from now, high school history students will learn about it from their textbooks. I can imagine that many Roman emperors would do anything to achieve that much fame. Why is it that no leader today is willing to pursue this glory?

This is not an argument for or against human spaceflight; I'm not saying that the pursuit of glory is always noble (sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't). I'm just curious: why the change in human nature? --99.237.234.104 (talk) 03:18, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Because planning and implementing a mission to Mars (or a lunar base) would take longer than a typical term in office. Politicians in a democracy only care about things that will happen before the next election (ok, so maybe that is overly cynical, but it's not far off). The leaders you talk about were generally leaders for life. So, I don't think it is a change in human nature, it is just a change in form of government. --Tango (talk) 04:07, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I've thought about that, but your explanation assumes political leaders care only about maintaining power. The Roman emperors did of course care a lot about staying in power, but a lot of the time, constructing expensive buildings only wrecked the economy and did little to increase popular opinion (or military power). I suppose, though, that a U.S. president couldn't take all the credit for a 16-year project whereas a Roman emperor could.

That said, I'm not sure it's impossible to start constructing a moon base within 4 years. The Apollo project took less than 10 years, and that was with 1960's technology and zero prior experience in going to the Moon. --99.237.234.104 (talk) 04:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I think you've got it with the credit thing - if the glorious Mars landing happens under the next guy's watch, he'll get the credit for it, so what is the point? I don't know what Kennedy's motives were for starting the Apollo programme, since he set the deadline after he would have served his maximum of two terms, maybe he felt the early stages would be glorious enough to be worth it, or maybe he was just rounding up and intended to get it done before his 8 years were up (remember, he wasn't seeking glory for the sake of it, he was doing it to show that the US was better than the USSR, so it's a little different anyway). As for building a lunar base in under 4 years - you are absolutely right, it would be possible. It would be very expensive and risky, though. The American people were willing to accept that cost and danger during the 60's because of the cold war. I don't think the people of any developed nation now would be so willing. --Tango (talk) 04:48, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

The ancients knew their time on Earth was limited and they knew their limited role on it. So they went a little nuts and did what they felt needed to be done. Now, there's no impending twilight in a man's life (at least not widely). Either that, or it's just simply how the world evolved. First you're picking clams out of the sea in Africa, then you're slaughtering Muslims in the Crusades, then you're playing XBox live with some n00bs. Vranak (talk) 04:34, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

The space program began in the Eisenhower administration, was given a kick-start by JFK, and then advanced under Johnson and Nixon. There were specific reasons it was done, having to do with national priorities. There's no pressing need to send men to the moon or Mars now, when robotics have advanced to the degree they have. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:37, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Robotics certainly hasn't gotten to the point where humans are unnecessary. Humans are still much more flexible and intelligent problem solvers than machines. Take the Spirit rover, as an example: first it had to deal with low levels of sunlight caused by dust settling on its solar panels. Then it got a rock stuck in its wheel. As of now, it's spent the last several months trying to free its wheels from some soft sand. Imagine how easy it would be for a human to fix all of these problems. Dust on the solar panels? Brush it off with your gloves. Rock in the wheel? Bend down and take it out, all in two seconds (mission control took days to fix this problem). Wheels stuck in sand? If it's a human-sized vehicle, push it, lever it, start digging out the sand around its wheels, make a pulley to pull on it, or disassemble it and reassemble at a convenient spot. I haven't even mentioned the fact that Spirit takes days to get anywhere or make detailed measurements of its targets, things that a human could do in five minutes.

It's possible that robots will eventually improve to the point where human spaceflight is completely useless for anything other than glory, and it's possible that this will happen soon enough to make investing in human spaceflight unnecessary. I don't know enough to say whether any of these two possibilities are realistic. --99.237.234.104 (talk) 05:30, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, robots aren't better than humans, they are just far cheaper (and safer). It's a matter of value for money and, as with any value-judgement, people disagree on what the values of robotic and manned missions are. I think the real place for humans in space is with long term missions - if you want to mine water on the moon and turn it into rocket fuel, for instance, you're going to want to do that for years and that is going to involve maintenance. Maintaining technology is something best done by people. A 90 day science mission to Mars (which is what Spirit was planned as - well, 90 Martian days, anyway) shouldn't require much maintenance (and I think all the problems you mention happened after the initial 90 days), so humans weren't required. I think the same is going to be true of most science missions - human spaceflight will come into its own when we find something else worth doing up there. --Tango (talk) 06:03, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

This has strayed far from the original question, but note that you could send out several hundred robotic spacecraft for the cost of one Manned mission to Mars. Comet Tuttle (talk) 06:13, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting robotics are better, but it's as Tango said, they're more economical and they're much better than they were in 1975. The conspiracists like to think that Apollo was faked and then ended before it could be found out. The real reason the moon missions were truncated is that the public had lost interest and weren't willing to fund it anymore. People have forgotten that even then a good segment of the public thought Apollo was a waste of money. And there's still really no good reason to send men back to the moon. Getting back to the original question, basic human nature really hasn't changed all that much. Read some of the advice Confucius gave people thousands of years ago, and see if it doesn't read like a modern self-help book. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:46, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I just wanted to note that before Rome was an empire, it was a republic whose leaders had term limits, and they usually didn't really do anything noteworthy. They were mostly concerned with military victories that would get them a nice pension and maybe a cool nickname, or retirement as governor of a sunny province. As Augustus said, he found Rome a city of mud and bricks and turned into one of marble. Previous leaders never really had an opportunity to undertake massive construction projects, they just weren't around long enough. The one exception I can think of is Appius Claudius, who built the Appian Way. (And who are the most notable republican Romans, anyway? The ones who declared themselves dictators for life, of course.) Adam Bishop (talk) 09:04, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

A full-scale ongoing manned space exploration program is extremely expensive, and is not the kind of thing which a leader of a democratically-ruled country can unilaterally decree into existence in order to leave a glorious personal legacy. During the second half of the 1960's, the U.S. and USSR were in a kind of national prestige race to be the first to the moon; this was good for the U.S. space program, in that it made available a lot of money which otherwise might not have been available, but it also meant that the program was very narrowly tailored to Kennedy's goal of sending a man to the moon before 1970, and so did not leave a very good foundation for continuing manned spaceflight after the Apollo program was cancelled... AnonMoos (talk) 10:53, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

A few things. One is that your extrapolation of what human nature "used to be like" is fairly romantic and probably wrong. Second is that expensive projects that don't have immediate benefits are a hard sell in a democracy. Even in a dictatorship, at some point the rubber hits the road—the USSR couldn't afford to endlessly spend on space, either. Third—a base on the moon or Mars. OK, it sounds kind of exciting at first. "A new exploration!" But what about two months later. "Well, guys, it's real nice... there's a rock over here... another over there... and, uh.. yeah." It loses its romance pretty quick and suddenly we're spending how many millions to keep a couple people on a few fairly empty rocks. Interesting to geologists, no doubt. But the political glory fades fast. Such is the story of the US foray into space... space travel was exciting in the 1960s and early 1970s. But by the 1980s and 1990s it was pretty dull—school teachers in orbit, oh boy. So I think rethinking what the "glory" is meant to accomplish in this case is worth doing. Who are we trying to impress, exactly? And why? --Mr.98 (talk) 22:05, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Slightly more comfortable in the near future but maybe catastrophic in the far future is the preferred way of thinking today. Maybe that "primitive" thinking of the past that society is more important than the individual had evolutionary reasons? Will there be a Darwin award for nations who destroy themselves by throwing away everything that worked (boo, it's too conservative and outdated) and introducing social innovations the long term effects of which are not only not fully known, but speaking even slightly critical about them being a taboo? --131.188.3.20 (talk) 01:18, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I assume you're talking about China, or certainly someplace other than the USA, as the USA has lots of internal critics. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:29, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Two things I would point out. Firstly, people including leaders still care a lot about fame and glory. Burj Khalifa and 2008 Summer Olympics come to mind. National pride etc are common reasons given for supporting building big buildings, hosting international events, supporting sporting teams etc. And it isn't only in developing countries either. However in modern democracies, there does tend to be greater citizen involvement in such decisions and given it is taxpayer i.e. their money, less support and more criciticism of government initiatives which don't seem to the populance to give any real benefit other then an oppurtunity to show off. To some extent, many developing countries seem themselves as playing catch up so are more willing to spend the money for fame and glory. They are also seen by others in a similar light, which likely gave an advantage to Brazil in the olympics race for example. Whereas in developed countries there's a greater imperative that whatever the money is being spent on is seen as worthwhile for reasons other then fame and glory. So for example the Large Hadron Collider and the International Space Station gets some support. As someone already pointed out, initiatives which are extremely long term also have the problem that from a politicians viewpoint, any meaningful results will be long after they're gone and may even benefit their rivals Nil Einne (talk) 08:27, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd add that individual politicians/rulers have less control over the state's budgets in a modern democracy, preventing them from pursuing things for personal glory alone. In place of this, budget decisions are largely made by committee, and committees are less likely to go for ego-stroking megaprojects of dubious value to their constituents (and tax payers). The Apollo program was not justified as a means to glory, it was framed as a national security priority to keep up with the USSR in missiles/aviation/space based technology, and as a way to boost science and technology in the US in general. That Kennedy and others were able to squeeze out titles like "visionary" because of it was just gravy. Countries with more dictatorial governments have less need to justify their expenditures to their populace and so can fritter away more of their GDP on ego-boosting mega projects that more sober second thought would probably nix. Dubai is the obvious example of this, as pointed out above.

Also, the OP is clearly looking at this from one particular set of values and priorities. Sure, space travel and exploration sounds great. But there are just as many people calling for more public investment in high speed rail, health care, education, national parks and so on. As one would expect, the result is a balancing act between all of these things, and the result is probably better than throwing large portions of the government budget at one group's interests. If you think that NASA should get more of the pie, vote for a pro-space candidate. But in practice this vote is not likely to do much; people have a long list of more pressing priorities like (say) their employment or staying out of a war, and consequently politicians don't feel they have a mandate to plow a lot of money into space travel (and, in my opinion, they're correct). TastyCakes (talk) 23:01, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Was the OP prophetic or simply bad luck? [1] :-P (not that I disagree with the decision, and not that I care that much not being an American) Nil Einne (talk) 15:23, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Nazis targets

Jews, gays, gypsies, Bibleforschen (is it right?), etc... but who was targeted first in the Nazi Germany? --SouthAmerican (talk) 03:55, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Could you be more specific in your question? A target in what context? Military? Political? Social? I am not sure I follow what information you want here? Could you elaborate? --Jayron32 04:09, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Law for the Prevention of Hereditarily Diseased Offspring seems to be the first of the laws that allow for what we would consider the persecution of a minority (at least, I can't find any earlier ones). --Tango (talk) 04:13, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

First target was Westerplatte. Vespine (talk) 05:32, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

No Vespine, I am talking of minorities persecutions like Tango says... who was the first group to be targeted. --SouthAmerican (talk) 05:57, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

If you look at this page http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Martin_Niem%C3%B6ller you will see a famous poem which has many forms. Perhaps one of the variants has the information you're looking for? --TammyMoet (talk) 09:34, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

"The first Nazi concentration camps ... were intended to hold political prisoners and opponents of the regime." The Nuremberg laws of 1935 and 1936 were "primarily directed against Jews" but other 'non-Aryan' people were subject to the laws" [2]. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 10:12, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

We have a page on that: First they came... In all the versions he mentions the communists first (a historian's supportive take on this is here). We have to decide what is meant by "targeted": does it count if oppressive laws are passed against a particular group, or only when they are sent to a camp? Marnanel (talk) 14:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witnesses as well, although since Nazism is so un Christian, why stop at them ? They also went after the physically and mentally impaired. I believe the famous preacher Niemoller kicked up a stink, forcing the Nazis to back down on killing such people. The Russian Christopher Lilly 12:00, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

What's "Bibleforschen"? TomorrowTime (talk) 13:38, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Bibelforscher seems like it would be bible researchers. de:Bibelforscher redirects to Bibelforscherbewegung, in English the Bible Student movement. However, no mention is made of the Nazis in that article. Following a schism, part of the Bible Student movement became the Jehovah's Witnesses. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 15:06, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

The Nazis targeted the Jews primarily and originally. The first major law they passed was the Law for the Restoration of the Professional Civil Service, which kicks Jews out of the civil service (which was a large body of professional jobs in Germany, including lawyers, teachers, etc.). The Nuremberg Laws explicitly stripped Jews of their citizenship. The policies against other groups come primarily later, years after the Nazis started targeting the Jews. This is not to say that the other groups had it easy. But the Nazis made persecuting the Jews a special policy of theirs, something they started from the very beginning (1933), something that, in retrospect, unsurprisingly led to so many millions killed. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:48, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

It is impossible to say who was targeted first, because the political ideology of the Nazis included both the eradication of political opposition as well as the Jews. But I would say that they targeted Socialists, Communists and Social Democrats first, because it was part of the struggle of the Nazis to gain ultimate power both in government but also on local level where they often physically expelled leftist strongholds from city quarters etc. When the Nazis had gained that power, following further cleansings of political opposition, including the moderate right, they concentrated on the Jews and other minorities like the ones mentioned by the OP. --Saddhiyama (talk) 18:47, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

From my quick research online, it appears the very first oppressive thing the Nazis did (through their control of the state) was to ban outdoor Communist demonstrations a couple of days after Hitler became chancellor. The next day, they put a three-day ban on Vorwärts, the paper of the Social Democratic Party. As mentioned above, it didn't take them very long to start oppressing others. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:11, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I would personally put their political persecutions in a different box than their "identity" persecutions. People choose whether to be Communists, etc. The Jews didn't get the choose being Jews (not under the Nazi's definitions, anyway). Neither the Roma, or the homosexuals. There is also something of a moral difference here—political parties oppressing other political parties is fairly standard, especially during times of strife, but the Nazi approach to the targeting minority populations was seen as fairly extreme even at the time. --Mr.98 (talk) 02:01, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

From the earliest (1918-20) days, the key themes were anti-Bolshevist, anti-Communist, anti-WWI war reparations; pro-nationalism and pro-workers social welfare. In the second phase, anti-Semitism – blaming “international Jewery” (i.e., Britain and the USSR, later to include the US) – became key themes. The French occupation of the Ruhr region in 1923 earned that country special attention. From there on, it basically became a party opposed to everyone but itself. DOR (HK) (talk) 09:28, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

are couples that have anal sex more likely to stay together?

are heterosexual couples that have anal sex more likely to stay together than ones that don't? 82.113.106.100 (talk) 10:13, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Especially if they get their tube of K-Y mixed up with their tube of SuperGlu. This discussion reminds me of this story that Drew Carey told:[3] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:40, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Couples that are compatible with each other are more likely to stay together. Some compatible couples have anal sex and some incompatible couples have anal sex. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 10:30, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Can't see how this would be a factor in any way, though intrigued as to whether the OP is using this as a carrot to persuade someone (or is that just my cynical mind mis-reading the OPs intentions?). 194.221.133.226 (talk) 11:05, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Sounds that way to me too. I think the "if you love me, you'll do this for me" approach in itself leads to breaking up rather than not - if you really love your partner, you wouldn't force her to do things she's uneasy with. TomorrowTime (talk) 13:41, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Two words: Farrah Fawcett. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:49, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

uh... I hope that's a reference to the burning bed, otherwise it's a really disturbing non-sequitor. --Ludwigs2 19:37, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, you want me to spell it out for you, fine: Farrah died from anal cancer, which, according to the news reports at the time, is typically associated with anal intercourse. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:27, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't know that. ok. --Ludwigs2 01:47, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Although as was explained to you last time you brought this up Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2009 September 12#Is sex protection needed in the following situation? there's no evidence she ever engaged in anal intercourse and it is only one of a number of risk factors so it remains a poor example as it was last time. Nil Einne (talk) 08:16, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

"if you really love your partner, you wouldn't force her to do things she's uneasy with." How do you know the OP is a man? You know, some women are into that sort of thing. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:21, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

And even if they are a man, there are still even more possibilities still out there.--Mr.98 (talk) 03:49, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Ya learn something new every day. If I see a prediction that the Cubs are pegged to finish in the second division, this image will seem fitting. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:04, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Health insurance

Why do most of the US-americans oppose health insurance? Which reason make the opponents think that is something this bad that it must come from the Nazis? It is a good thing? --Loi —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.211.75.218 (talk) 11:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Don't know that many people "oppose health insurance", but some are more suspicious of governmentized medicine than corporatized medicine, while for others it's the other way around. AnonMoos (talk) 11:45, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Public opinion on health care reform in the United States might help you here, particularly the section on polling results in 2008. An argument made against government-run health insurance is that it's "Socialized medicine", which implies that it's a form of socialism. People who are against government-run healthcare are implying a connection to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) and National Socialism in order to scare people.

In fact, a majority of Americans support the creation of a government-run insurance plan to compete with private insurers. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 12:33, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

From what I read on the Internet, it's indeed just a very vocal minority that's actively against it, while something like 60% (or was it 65%? Somebody correct me) actually support it. The movement against the health care reform is in this way similar to the creationism movement - this too may seem (and indeed, does seem) to a casual non-US observer as a prevailing line of reasoning in the US, when in fact it's really just a vocal minority that actively supports and endorses it. Unfortunately, in the case of creationism by now almost half of the US population is also a passive supporter... TomorrowTime (talk) 13:48, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

The first article I linked gives 62% and 64% in two pre-2008 surveys. It also refers to FiveThirtyEight.com, which has a range of numbers [4]. The number is bound to vary according to who, what and when exactly you ask. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 14:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with AlmostReadytoFly. Public support will doubtlessly vary depending on when and by whom the poll was conducted. It's also important to distinguish between support for health care reform in general, support for government-run health care in general, and the current congressional health care bills. I am in favor of health care refom (as I suppose most Americans are), but I oppose government-run health care (as I suppose most Americans do). It has nothing to do with Nazis or Communists or scare tactics or comparisons to the Creationist movement. I simply oppose the current government's intention to run an industry where it has no constitutional authority to do so. Our president recently remarked, in a moment of perhaps unintentional candor, that UPS and FedEx are doing better than the U.S. Postal Service. Why do many continue to believe that it would do better with health care? Kingsfold (talk) 14:53, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

All the Americans who make things happen have gold-plated insurance and don't see why their taxes should be used to give insurance to the have-nots. Senators never have a missing tooth, you'll have noticed.--Wetman (talk) 14:54, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

But aren't there 59 U.S. Senators that do want their taxes (and ours) to be used to give insurance to the have-nots? The argument for a public option was framed in terms of covering all Americans, but the current plans fall woefully short. Kingsfold (talk) 15:10, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Professor Kingsfold hints at the basic capitalistic argument, or I might say the libertarian argument. If the government creates a business, it will likely be a not-for-profit. Hence its costs and its prices will be lower. Simple economics tells you that the other health insurers will have to lower their prices in order to compete. To keep costs down, those insurers will have to cut people's salaries and/or lay them. The reduction in both corporate and individual income will shrink the tax base that supports the government. The government will have to further extend the national debt in order to make up the shortfall. I should point out, regarding Obama's apparent slam against the postal service (who says he's not Reaganesque?), that you can send a letter across country in about 3 days for 44 cents. Try doing that with FedEx or UPS. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:18, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

44-cent point taken, and I agree with and appreciate your help with the economics; but can we agree that the President was referring to the difference in efficiency and profit? UPS and FedEx have found a way to survive without government subsidization and actually turn a profit, while the Postal Service can't. This is why (in my opinion) the Postal Service should stick with doing what it does best (delivering letters) and get out of the parcel delivery business. Case in point: my wife and I ordered some USPS flat-rate boxes for holiday shipping toward the beginning of December. They finally showed up about 2 weeks ago. (!) This is really my point. Imagine having to wait that long, not for some holiday boxes, but for your perscriptions. Kingsfold (talk) 15:38, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you meant "Professor" as sarcastic or complimentary, but either way, it made me smile.Kingsfold (talk) 18:33, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

The reason that you can't send a letter UPS or FedEx for 44 cents is likely because those two companies don't focus on mail, per se. If they did, I'd bet rates would be even lower than 44 cents, and they wouldn't go up almost every year. Kingsfold (talk) 18:33, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Kingsfold, I think you misunderstood part of my post. Although numbers vary, percentage support for a government-run healthcare option is roughly in the 60s. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 16:01, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

According to what source? Not Gallup, who puts opposition slightly ahead. Not CBS, not The Washington Post, not Rasmussen. Where are you getting your figures? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingsfold (talk • contribs) 18:12, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

All you need to do is compare the current privatized healthcare "system" in the United States with publicly funded healthcare in any other advanced developed country (and every advanced developed country other than the United States has publicly funded and regulated healthcare). In every one of those countries, healthcare costs less in absolute terms and as a percentage of GDP, and in almost every one of those countries, statistics show better outcomes than the United States in terms of things like life expectancy, infant mortality and so on. In other words, publicly funded and regulated healthcare is proven to deliver better results at a lower cost. The reason is that people in public healthcare systems make decent incomes for providing healthcare, whereas in the U.S. privatized systems, corporations maximize their profits, and deliver exorbitant incomes to executives by employing a vast bureaucracy focused on denying and limiting care. As others have said, most Americans would like universal healthcare and are in favor of a governmental role in providing it. As for why such a large minority of Americans are opposed to this, it is mainly a matter of ideological rigidity and deceptive propaganda from the private healthcare industry delivered by the U.S. corporate media. As for why U.S. legislators are opposed to public healthcare despite majority popular support for it, you have to understand that U.S. legislators are completely beholden to moneyed interests for crucial campaign funding. Marco polo (talk) 16:03, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

A conservative acquaintance of mine summarized their stance well: "There is no constitutional right to health care." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:11, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

You can't compare the postal service and FedEx like that: it's illegal for anyone but the postal service to deliver the mail. FedEx and UPS are courier services, not postal services, so you need to compare them on a product that everyone offers, such as overnight delivery or ground-transport parcel delivery. --Carnildo (talk) 01:50, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I prefer to let the President speak for himself: "UPS and FedEx are doing just fine. It's the Post Office that's always having problems." Kingsfold (talk) 03:53, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Following are the assertions above that I don't believe are safe assumptions:

1. "People who are against government-run healthcare are implying a connection to the USSR and National Socialism in order to scare people."

2. "A majority of Americans support the creation of a government-run insurance plan to compete with private insurers."

3. "It's really just a vocal minority that actively supports and endorses (the movement against the health care reform)."

4. "All the Americans who make things happen have gold-plated insurance."

5. "Publicly funded and regulated healthcare is proven to deliver better results at a lower cost."

6. "[Americans' opposition] is mainly a matter of ideological rigidity and deceptive propaganda from the private healthcare industry delivered by the U.S. corporate media."

I don't even care to argue the merits of these arguments here. I'm simply stating that the assertions above are not necessarily grounded in fact or evidence (or, at least none was cited). My initial comment on this topic was an attempt to clarify that it is possible to oppose government-run health care purely on principle. Again-- I'm all for health care reform, but let's apply some common sense and actually FIX what needs to be fixed. Kingsfold (talk) 18:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Survey results can be misleading, depending on the way the question was asked. If the question was, "Should government fund health care?", 60 percent might say yes. If the question was, "Do you want your taxes to go up to fund health care?", the percent might be lower. It's vaguely similar to the abortion issue. A majority might say they oppose, yet Roe v. Wade sits there, 35+ years later, only narrowly challenged. Even when there was a Republican monolith in Congress, nothing was done legislatively to address this issue that was supposed to be so important to the GOP platform. That's the current dilemma with this topic. Everyone says something needs to be done, but not everyone is willing to do what it takes. The overall point being that surveys don't necessarily square with the realities of public policy. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:36, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. But I don't see any citations to any recent polls that say that 60% of Americans favor government-run health care. To me, this topic is as much about presenting verifiable data as the very merits of the argument. Anyway. I've said too much here already. Thanks for stimulating a few extra brain cells today. ^_^ Kingsfold (talk) 19:07, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Kingsfold, you have made as many assertions not grounded in evidence as others have. I can easily provide evidence for the assertion I made, which is number 5 in your list above. This report is the factual basis for my assertion. Can you explain—considering the fact that publicly funded and regulated healthcare is proven to deliver better results at a lower cost—how opposition to public healthcare is based on anything other than ideological rigidity, self-interest (on the part of the healthcare industry), or ignorance, perhaps as a result of deception? Marco polo (talk) 19:12, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

The Kaiser poll from this month doesn't say this, but does say that 54% agree with the statement, "It is more important than ever to take on health care reform now." This is of course quite an ambiguous statement. The trouble, as this fivethirtyeight.com article shows, is that the opposition is demonstrably based on false information about the current bill, which has been eagerly spread by the Republican Party. When the individual elements are polled, the bill suddenly becomes popular. Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:20, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Many Americans hold the dogma that government is bad. 67.243.7.245 (talk) 23:50, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Kingsfold, you are wrong on the sourcing of point 2. I started off by pointing to the sources (the sources of the linked article and FiveThirtyEight), which you misread. I pointed this out, which you then claimed to be unsourced. As an aside, the polls you cited ask about the current plan rather than a public option.

Point 1 I will concede is a personal judgement (OR), but if you care to look through the past year's current affairs media for the times when Obama is called a socialist or a Nazi, the use of the scare phrase "socialized medicine" and (for example) the time when Barney Frank had to defend the reform plans as not being the start of a new holocaust, I think you might see it's not a baseless judgement.AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 08:05, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

It is my perception that great swathes of the American people have a very tentative relationship with their own best interest. Anything novel and unproven is taken to be a Bad Thing, and is vehemently rejected. It's the standard response to that which is not understood. Moreover, people living in the nether regions of human experience are not the most trusting or faithful group, much less towards a Democratic administration, so they cast a jaundiced eye at whatever hare-brained scheme the new colored President is hatching. Vranak (talk) 09:55, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Philip Pullman's Sally Lockhart novels

I thought it was here that there was a story about a Victorian girl who was being trained up to take over the job of a vicious monkey/servant who slaved for an old old person. I seem to be wrong. Can you help please? Kittybrewster ☎ 12:07, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Found it. Tzaddik's monkey. Kittybrewster ☎ 12:21, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Socialism and the United Kingdom

1) Am I correct in thinking that there is no serious dispute within Britain that the United Kingdom is technically a socialist state and has been for some decades? (After all, the Labour party used to sing "We'll keep the red flag flying" at party conferences). 2) Since watching the US controversy about improvements to their health-care system, where "socialism" or "socialised medicine" has been used by some as bogeymen to try to scare off people, do Americans realise that Britain is a socialist state? 89.242.92.249 (talk) 16:14, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

On your first question, you are wrong on both counts. The UK is not "technically a socialist state" and there are all manner of opinions on the matter. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 16:17, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Though your IP resolves to the UK, I've got to comment that the term 'socialist state' isn't used at all in the UK as far as I know. I'm sure you could have an interesting conversation with someone about it, but as your question is about popular beliefs and values, the answer would be: no one thinks about their government in terms of being a 'socialist state' or not in the UK.

On the second point, I think it's important to realise that terms don't translate that well and that comparing different countries' use of them is nonsensical. To be short, I don't think any U.S. politician would care how the term 'socialist' is used in the UK when they compare the two countries. User:Krator (t c) 16:23, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm aware that the term "socialist state" is rarely used in the UK, but the Labour party describes itself as a "democratic socialist party" for example. 89.242.92.249 (talk) 16:35, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

(e/c):No, you are not correct. I suggest you read Socialism. The Labour Party was indeed founded on the basis of socialist principles, and to some extent still retains some of them over a century later, but when in government has generally been motivated by pragmatism rather than ideology. What some Americans regard as "socialised medicine", is, by my understanding, a mixture of state and private funding which is broadly common across many (probably most) European countries. If some Americans do think that Britain is a "socialist state", they have been very seriously misled by their education system and media. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:24, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

The Socialism article says itself that "The Labour Party is a democratic socialist party". So the Labour party is wrong about itself? That article seems to include a lot of what I would have thought of as communism rather than socialism. 89.242.92.249 (talk) 16:32, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

The single adjective 'democratic' can change a lot of the meaning of the word 'socialist'. In my country there's a party that calls itself liberal socialist, with economic policies of the Milton Friedman kind. User:Krator (t c) 16:35, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) (again) - There is a very big difference between what the Labour Party would historically have liked to achieve, in theory, and what has actually been achieved on the ground in Britain towards those goals. A "democratic socialist" party does not achieve socialism overnight or by diktat - it achieves what it can, when it can, through the democratic process. "Politics is the art of the possible." Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:40, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Almost no-one here in the UK would agree that we live in a "socialist state" according to the definition of socialism used over here, which is broadly the one that appears at the beginning of the socialism article. However, there are many words that have different meanings in British and American English, and it looks as if "socialism" is now one of them. Gandalf61 (talk) 16:45, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I think you are greatly mistaken, most Labour Party voters would agree that we aim for what is described in the second paragraph of the Socialism article. Otherwise why would they vote for the Labour Party and put it in power currently and regularly in the past? That 2nd paragraph seems to be the policy of both the main parties. Due to less political militancy than in the past, perhaps nobody puts labels on things anymore in case it frightens off a few voters. 89.242.217.38 (talk) 21:36, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

You originally claimed that "there is no serious dispute within Britain that the United Kingdom is technically a socialist state". Let's be clear - that claim is absolutely and transparently wrong. Now you are shifting to a different claim about what "most Labour Party voters" are aiming for. I think that claim is also wrong. Do you have any evidence at all to support your claims ? Gandalf61 (talk) 11:50, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Why have you left out the first five words? Evidence? The votes of all the people who put the Labour party, a "socialist party" by its own description, in government. I think you are using the Straw Man arguement as a witting or unwitting diversion, although I am not an expert on these things. British people dislike capitalism like Americans dislike communism, but not as much. 78.149.174.141 (talk) 18:47, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

(1) Less than 10 million people out of an adult population of 45-50 million voted for Labour in the last UK general election; (2) most people who vote for a political party do not agree with all of its aims or policies; they simply think it is better than the alternatives; (3) Clause IV does not say that the Labour Party is a "socialist party"; it says it is a "democratic socialist party" - significant difference; (4) the people who might positively subscribe to any socialist aims are likley to be members of the Labour Party, which has a membership of less than 200,000; (5) in a democracy, the nature of a country is not determined by the party in government, which usually finds it difficult to implement its more idealogical aims. You are either seriously confused about politics or you are a troll - with the best of good faith, I am tending towards the latter view. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:44, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

None of that was at all convincing - I think you are scraping the bottom of the barrel for "evidence", and in desperation now you are being ad hominen as well. 89.241.39.207 (talk) 12:36, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I also sometimes get a sense that to many Americans "socialist"="communist", a sense I don't get from talking to all but the most extreme right-wing Brits - and get even less from people from France/Germany/Italy etc. --Dweller (talk) 16:56, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

American conservatives (which is what they call themselves even though they often really aren't) use the terms "liberal", "socialist", and "communist" as essentially equivalents. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:07, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

The Labour party doesn't always govern the UK. When the Conservative Party is in power, they don't abolish all the welfare provision. Alansplodge (talk) 16:53, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Labour's actions in recent years include examples such as the scrapping of the 10p tax rate, which make it clear that casting them as committed to socialist principles is a gross simplification to the point of making no sense whatsoever. See also New Labour and Socialist Labour Party (UK). --Dweller (talk) 16:49, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Just because the UK has socialized one aspect of its economy (i.e. the health care industry) doesn't mean that its entire economy is socialist. Thanks to Medicare and Medicaid, the US health care industry is already half socialized (in terms of dollars spent). A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:06, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

The things that suggest that Britain was at least recently a socialist state include: 1) free universal healthcare, 2) free education, including a few years ago free higher education, 3) social security payments without time-limit, 4) public sector housing and emergency accommodation provided to people in need (at least in theory, usually in practice too), 5) higher proportionate taxes for wealthier people, 6) the Labour party currently in power now (and often in the past) which describes itself as a "socialist party", 7) that until not so long ago the Labour party always sang at party conferences the song The Red Flag. 89.242.217.38 (talk) 21:24, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Free higher education was abolished by the Labour Party if I remember correctly. Also since 1945, the Conservative Party has been in power for 36 years and Labour for 27 (OK I know it doesn't quite add-up but you get the point). Was Margaret Thatcher a socialist? I think not, yet she continued with many of the policies listed above (although she did curtail some too!). And Labour still sing the Red Flag - some a bit sheepishly though. Alansplodge (talk) 22:12, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Traditionally, what makes a socialist state socialist is "public ownership of the means of production." Thus Labour governments after World War II nationalized the coal and steel industry. That form of socialism was widely believed to have been discredited by the 2000s, even among officially socialist parties like the Labour Party. When Labour took over the British government in the 1990s, there was no chance that they would nationalize industry like their predecessors did. (In the past couple of years, nationalization has been revived for failing companies considered too important to let fail, such as Citigroup and General Motors.) A government social program is not inherently socialist unless it involves government ownership of something. The Canadian health system is not by and large "socialist" because most doctors are in private practice and even the hospitals are generally non-profit organizations rather than arms of the state. So while Obama can be accused of socialism for the GM rescue, and perhaps for the "public option" insurance plan that he wanted in the healthcare bill, he can't be accused of trying to make America socialist because he wants everyone to have health insurance. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:45, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

To 89.242.217.38: Numbers 2 & 5 are true of virtually every industrialized country, including the U.S. "emergency accomodation for people in need" is sheer common decency, not socialism, and is implemented at some level by every civilized country. DJ Clayworth (talk) 01:29, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I had heard that it was commonplace for homeless people to sleep in cars in the US. I wonder if, by removing the political labels, the politicos are introducing socialist policies under the radar of the voters that they would object to if they knew what the label was. Probably a good thing. 78.149.174.141 (talk) 11:46, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

A better way to phrase it might be that politicos are trying to kill policies that voters would probably agree with if they thought about it by applying the label "Socialist" to them. McCain spent a lot of effort on trying to get the label "Socialist" to stick to Obama. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:23, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Something people interested in politics may be aware of already is how voters base their voting decision (well, most decisions in my experience) on an (emotional) story rather than the facts, as described here http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8474611.stm From a UK perspective, the US doubts about universal health care seems crazy, as we have enjoyed the benefits of it for about sixty-two years. During that 62 years no political party has wanted to change back either - doing so would be electoral suicide. 89.241.39.207 (talk) 12:36, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Going back to the original question, do Americans think of Britain as a socialist country, if they ever think of Britain at all? Or is it just the baubles of royalty and tourism they are only aware of? 89.241.39.207 (talk) 12:55, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I would say the average American thinks of Britain as double-decker buses, Big Ben, funny food, funny accents, Jane Austin novels, the royal family, the Beatles, soccer riots and boring dramas on PBS. The only British politician I'm guessing most Americans would know is Tony Blair because of his speech after 9/11, and most of those people would have no idea he's no longer prime minister. Most Americans don't really know anything about British politics at all and thus would probably be surprised that an officially socialist party ever ran the country since Britain was on "our side" during the Cold War. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:02, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

One of the main criteria of socialism is economic equality. If you look at List of countries by income equality you'll see that by most measures the UK is a less equal society than Japan, South Korea, France, Germany and most of the rest of Europe. Similarly if you look at state ownership of industry, another cornerstone of socialism, Britain has very little - US, French, and Germany railways are state-owned while British are privatised; the French government (currently with a centre-right president) owns or part-owns manufacturers, energy companies (EDF), and many other businesses, while prior to the recent financial crisis, Britain had sold almost everything.--82.41.14.1 (talk) 15:28, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

"One of the main criteria of socialism is economic equality." You just made that up, it's not a criterion at all. "From each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs" would seem to rule it out. 92.24.73.102 (talk) 21:05, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Who owns the copyrights to Alberto Vargas playing cards?

I am looking to get permission to use an alberto vargas pin up girl, but I do not know who owns the particular image. The girl that I would like to use is from the playing cards that Alberto Vargas did in the 50's. Sometimes called the Vargas Vanities. The particular pin up is on the Jack of Clubs. It can be seen here: [5]. Any contact information would be helpful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.253.98.71 (talk) 16:40, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

The Hearst Corporation seems to have the copyright to a lot of Alberto Vargas's work. (I assume this is because they own Esquire Magazine.) Hearst has held a trademark on the term "Varga girl", though my USPTO search seems to indicate they let the marks' registrations expire a few years ago. (The common law trademarks probably survive.) Anyway, Hearst does license out the rights to use the Vargas images. Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:04, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks.. but I think that these deck of cards were done after Vargas left Esquire magazine. Seems that there was a big debacle between the 2, and Esquire keep the "Varga" girls, and Vargas went on to sign works as "Vargas". These deck of cards were signed "Vargas". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.253.98.71 (talk) 21:09, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

HELP: Bond prices

Can you please give me a source where I can get the current prices of various bonds issued by Telefonica, and the exchanges they are traded on? Muchas gracias!! ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 18:59, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

This page at telefonica.com lists their outstanding bonds and their CUSIP numbers, so you could go look up the prices at your favorite financial information site. Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:41, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

O I love you man! This is perfect. I needed similar info for vodafone too - I have the maturities and coupons but not the exchange information (nor cusip numbers). Do you think it is possible to gbet it ? :) ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 20:21, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I really need cusip numbers for Vodafone. There is no exchange information and there are some 40 bonds in all :(

Also which sites give bond prices for CUSIP numbers? I am not able to find any. ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 20:54, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

This page at vodafone.com lists the bonds as at 24th November 2009 but doesn't give much additional info except for value, but it's a starting point...Coolcato (talk) 22:41, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

3 types of interracial marriages

I'm still confuse on 1.5 and 1 and 2 generations. For this I'm still confuse on what the first column "all spouse" mean, and US +US/FR the second and 3d column. Does second column menas when spouse A is US Born when spouse B have one parnt US Born and another one Forign raise. What is US and US born mean. Does this mena spouse who is non-white have both paents born and raise in USA. of course Asian Americans is born at US just have parnt born oversea like me I'm born oversea and came to USA < age of six. Lomn (talk · contribs) point out I'm not clearly understanding the sourcing which causes alot of confusion, and i was just making up ratios when the site don't have it. Just bear with me, my english command still weak it is language delay is a document learning disability it is tough to improve.--209.129.85.4 (talk) 20:38, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I think at this point you need to e-mail the owner of the site and ask. Comet Tuttle (talk) 00:11, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Mein Kampf

What is the legal status of the book Mein Kampf in Germany? --84.61.165.65 (talk) 22:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Seems like someone asked that awhile back. In any case, did you check the article? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:33, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

If I'm understanding Mein_Kampf#Current_availability correctly, it's legal to own Mein Kampf in Germany, but new copies are not being printed. At least not in Germany. But it also states that most German libraries carry heavily commented and excerpted versions of Mein Kampf. I assume that it's legal to publish these versions in Germany? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:48, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm...according to this article[6], apparently it's illegal in Germany to print Mein Kampf even with an accedemic commentary. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:09, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Exactly, because the reason it's illegal is not any anti-Hitler law, it's the fact that the state of Bavaria legally assumed the copyright after Hitler's death and just doesn't permit anyone make copies, in any fashion. User:Krator (t c) 02:43, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

What is the legal status of the book Mein Kampf in Germany in the year 2016? --84.61.165.65 (talk) 07:46, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

As per German copyright law, the entire text is scheduled to enter the public domain on December 31, 2015, just over 70 years after the author's death. This means that the book will be published in Germany just as the rest of the world (unless they change the law). Flamarande (talk) 13:21, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Don't you mean can? Nil Einne (talk) 20:34, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

How many characters are there in Mein Kampf? Don't violate the copyright of the state of Bavaria on Mein Kampf! --84.61.165.65 (talk) 20:02, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Copyright violations for unauthorised sequels

With the death of J. D. Salinger in the news, I'm wondering about the recent legal case involving the guy who wrote an unauthorised sequel and was sued by Salinger for copyright infringement. While it makes sense that US law allows authors to prevent others from using their characters without permission, why would this be a matter specifically of copyright law? I can't understand how it would be an issue of copyright if nothing is copied. Nyttend (talk) 23:04, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

It is copying the character. You can't claim nothing is copied if the character is copied. What you are really asking is: What is the legal definition of "copy" as it relates to copyright law in the United States? -- kainaw™ 23:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

The actual reason is that the sequel would be attacked by the author as an unauthorized derivative work, which, as the article states, is defined in copyright law. Comet Tuttle (talk) 00:09, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

This is one of the ways in which the common explanation of copyright scope—that you copyright expression and not ideas—falls flat. You can copyright ideas, as embodied by characters, even general plots, etc. There are some cases of derivative works of this sort being ruled fair use—like The Wind Done Gone, which was ruled as a "parody" (in the legal sense)—but "parody" is very limited. It is a very murky legal ground, and is where a lot of the "standard wisdom" about what you can and can't copyright breaks down terribly. It was not clear, a priori, what the ruling in the Salinger sequel case which way the courts would go. As it turned out, they went against it... but it's a super fuzzy line. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:54, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

See also Harry Potter and the International Order of Copyright, which may be of interest to you. Nanonic (talk) 08:35, 29 January 2010 (UTC)