Humanities desk
< February 12	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 14 >

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.

February 13

Government and market economy

What is the proper role of the government in a market economy? Or else, ideally, what should the government do? I'm trying to justify the "invisible hand" concept from the Wealth of Nations, but there doesnt seem to be anything that refutes it. or maybe, is it not thr right thing for the government to do if it wants to keep its economy stable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.214.204.3 (talk) 00:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is really a matter of opinion. Different economists and people with different political positions would argue for different degrees of government involvement in the economy. Anarcho-capitalists would argue that the government has no proper role in the economy. Radical libertarians would argue that the state has no proper role beyond guaranteeing the sanctity of contracts and perhaps safeguarding the integrity of the currency. Social democrats, who generally favor a limited place for a market economy, nonetheless believe that the state has a legitimate right to intervene in the market in almost any way needed to safeguard the welfare of workers and those without property. Most fall somewhere between social democrats and libertarians in backing a more or less limited role for the state, generally involving some regulation of markets. Some also support minimal intervention in the market economy to provide for the social welfare of the less advantaged. Marco polo (talk) 01:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)

This is an opinion question and there's no one correct answer. I would say government should get involved to address the problem of collective action. For example, say there's a product everyone uses. It can be produced in an environmentally unfriendly manner for $5 or a friendly manner for $10. There is no other difference between the two products. Call the first Product A and the second Product B. If one person switches from Product A to Product B, the effect on the environment is too small to measure. But if everyone switches, the effect is enormous.

Let's say, theoretically, 100% of people support the use of Product B and are willing to pay more for it. But without government getting involved, there's no rational reason for anyone to switch to Product B. That's because no one's going to be the sucker who's going to pay double for something when his or her individual purchase doesn't make a difference. I'm willing to contribute to environmental friendliness by paying more, but only if everyone else does. Even if the companies that make the products all support Product B, they're not going to produce Product B because there won't be a market for it. This is where the government has to step in and mandate the switch to Product B. That way, there won't be any free riders who will keep using Product A to save money at everyone else's expense.

Of course, in real life no situation is that clear-cut. There are some people who will buy expensive, environmentally friendly products to make themselves feel good, not really considering the drop-in-the-bucket nature of their personal contributions. And, as we all know, there's never 100% unanimity in anything. But the collective-action problem does manifest itself often in politics, in issues of taxation, labor relations, land-use and other environmental regulation, safety rules and what not. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mwalcoff's answer is good, but controversial: small government advocates and anarchists generally think this is one of the things governments should not do. Their reasoning behind that amounts to the fact that the market mechanism would solve the problem. In the example, once people realise the total environmental damage done to them per product produced is, say, $6, they effectively "earn" a dollar if they buy the other product.

More uncontroversial government roles are alleviating information asymmetry, for example, making people realise the environmental damage done to them is in fact $6. A more real example include the mandatory "risk warnings" on high-risk products my government (Netherlands) has. Another relatively uncontroversial thing the government steps into is factor immobility (it's a shame Wikipedia doesn't have an article, see [1] if you don't know what it is). Finally, competition law is another important aspect of government intervention into the economy that's relatively uncontroversial, in the sense that people agree something has to be done here, but don't agree on what that should be. A combination of the information asymmetry and the collective action problems plays a role there. User:Krator (t c) 12:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but in my example, it makes no perceivable difference to the environment whether Person X buys Product A or Product B. If, on the other hand, there are only 10 consumers of the product, each contributing 10% toward the environmental impact of the product's use, each of the consumers is more likely to contribute to the solution. That's because the buyers may think their purchase actually has an influence on environmental quality. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ello Friends

Ok...i love wikipedia and the internet, however im kinda stuck i was looking for hot new things on john adams that most people dont hear about can anyone point me in a direction or give me some pointers!? My Thanks to all!

Respectfully Inutasha De Fallen —Preceding unsigned comment added by Inutasha De Fallen (talk • contribs) 01:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Listed in the "References" section at the bottom of our article John Adams, is the following book:

McCullough, David. John Adams. (2002). Best-selling popular biography, stressing Adams's character and his marriage with Abigail over his ideas and constitutional thoughts. Winner of the 2002 Pulitzer Prize in Biography.

The hardcover came out in 2001. You can probably get your hands on a copy at your local library. Marco polo (talk) 01:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unless s/he means John Adams (composer). . . --S.dedalus (talk) 05:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One factoid about Adams: when he moved into the newly built White House, his bedroom was on the second floor and the servants were in the ground floor. He ordered a system of bell pulls put in, with wiring concealed in the walls. This was harder than putting in electrical wiring, because the wires had to run smoothly over pulleys through long runs with twists and turns. Then he could yank on the bell pull in the middle of the night and get hot cocoa or whatever comfort he craved. Edison (talk) 14:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pretzels? Nil Einne (talk) 13:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obamicans

Barack Obama just gave a speech in which he claimed there was a growing group of "Obamicans" backing him. In other words, Republicans who supported his candidacy. It got me wondering if this is a term that might become catching, like "Reagan Democrats". What does history tell us about the likelihood of this becoming a more popular term? Is there any other precedent? Wrad (talk) 02:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The only other example I can think of is Mugwump. Lantzy ^talk 06:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And there's Dixiecrat, but I think Wrad is looking for eponyms. --ShelfSkewed Talk 06:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, there are the Jeffersonian and Jacksonian Democrats, although they were not cross-overs in the same sense as the Mugwumps and Reagan Democrats. Obama is unusual (and probably savvy) in that he has explicitly coined a term for his crossover supporters. There is a long tradition in American politics of parties forming organizations for crossover members of the opposing party, and it is generally doubtful to what extent these are spontaneous manifestations of transpartisan sentiment, rather than merely astroturfing. In any case, they tend to have boring, generic names. In the last election Republicans for Kerry sold a lot of bumper stickers, but the idea of "Kerry Republicans" never took hold. Nor do we ever hear about "Clinton Republicans", although a lot of them must have voted for him. Some other notable crossover organizations were Democrats for Nixon, led by Kennedy's fellow passenger John Connally, and Republicans for Roosevelt, which bizarrely consisted mostly of western isolationists: "Dissident Republicans, too, such as Hiram Johnson, Borah of Idaho, and George Norris of Nebraska, [...] if not exactly fellow travellers with Roosevelt, ... were conspicuous nontravelers with Hoover. The "Republicans for Roosevelt" clubs were an important adjunct of the Democratic campaign." There were also Democrats for Dewey and Republicans for Stevenson, both unsurprisingly obscure. Before that, there were Republicans for Wilson and Democrats for Taft. Lantzy ^talk 11:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A google search for Obamicans shows about 450 hits. Wrad (talk) 16:04, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Obamacan" seems to be the canonical spelling, and returns 1,560 hits. Lantzy ^talk 16:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ick. Wrad (talk) 02:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What about Thatcherites? HS7 (talk) 21:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is the definition of a shatterbelt?

There is no wikipedia article on the subject and some quick googling provides no answer. I'm particularly interested in what it means and also how it relates to domino theory. Thanks. -24.82.140.138 (talk) 05:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Saul Cohen, in his 1973 work Geography and Politics in a World Divided, described two-levels of division of the world into regions. Geostrategic regions with global importance, and subcontinental geopolitical regions. There were two geostrategic regions: the trade dominated Maritime World, and the Eurasian Continental World; and ten geopolitical regions. Most geopolitical regions fell under the obvious sphere of influence of one or the other geostrategic regions. One, South Asia, was termed independent; potential a new geostrategic region in formation. Two, the Middle East and Southeast Asia were "shatterbelts", potential areas of competition and conflict. (Taylor, Peter. (1996) "Unity and Division in Global Political Geography." Companion Encyclopedia of Geography. p. 341)

Cohen's definition was: "a large, strategically located region that is occupied by a number of conflicting states and is caught between the conflicting interests of adjoining Great Powers." O'Loughlin, John (1994) Dictionary of Geopolitics defines 'shatterbelt' as "a region that combines internal cultural, economic and political diversity and conflict proneness, with competing external (superpower) involvements without clear spheres of influence."

That's good, thanks. -24.82.140.138 (talk) 06:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A brief paragraph on Cohen's "shatterbelt" concept should be edited into domino theory. Anyone?--Wetman (talk) 19:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know that domino theory is the correct place. I've been looking for support for the claim in geostrategy: "while Saul B. Cohen examined the idea of a "shatterbelt", which would eventually inform the domino theory" in order to help answer the question. The cited article (wayback link) is not so explicit: "Cohen identified the Middle East and Southeast Asia as the shatterbelts of the Cold War. It was within these areas that the “domino theory” was thought by U.S. policy makers to operate."—eric 20:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Microsoft Sales

Is there a site on the net where you can view sales/performance of microsoft in different countries? 60.241.113.35 (talk) 05:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely. Like any other company, Microsoft keeps its sales figures secret. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 05:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Microsoft is a public company, which means they're required by law to publish financial reports. FiggyBee (talk) 06:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely - and you'll most likely find what you're looking for somewhere here. Happy flipping. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 08:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but I was assuming the questioner was asking for detailed information on the sales of specific Microsoft products in different countries. A quick look at the financial information provided in the above link gives nothing so detailed, just aggregated information on worldwide income. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 09:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A flip through the latest annual report showed some comments about emerging markets and other such general segments. If the OP was asking for the kind of detail you are describing - then I agree with you: probably nobody would know except Microsoft and their financial advisors. Companies sometimes provide that kind of breakdown in investor presentations and suchlike, but it is up to the practices of each firm. I thought if these presentations were anywhere, they'd be in the investor relations section. Our inquisitive friend might just have to try his luck and trawl through the website. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Inscriptions on Paris building

I wonder if anyone can help me identify a Paris building based on the following? The building in question is to the left of the Panthéon (Paris) as you face it, and on the outside walls, fairly high up but visible from the street below, are inscribed the names of many eminent scientists and authors and philosophers from throughout history. I will try and upload a picture I have somewhere, but if anyone can help identify the building, that would be great! My best bet is that it is some sort of French institute, but I'm having trouble identifying the building on maps of the area. The building in question can be seen on this Google Maps link. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 11:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Managed to find it! From the map at fr:Place du Panthéon (the article was only created last year, after my last attempt to identify this building), I got to fr:Bibliothèque Sainte-Geneviève, and from there to Bibliothèque Sainte-Geneviève. Have a look at Image:Bibliothèque St Geneviève Paris.jpg and you can see the rows of names, though the picture is not good enough to see the names. Maybe I should upload my picture that is a close-up of some of the names. It was interesting trying to recognise names on the wall! Carcharoth (talk) 11:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Police in France

For a project on the emergence of modern forms of law and order I have chosen to look at the development of the French police force from the Revolution of 1789 to the time of Napoleon III. I'm hoping someone here may be able to give me a kick start. Suggestions for an explanatory framework would be useful as well as suggestions on sources. I can give you my email address if you need it. Thank you. James Blair. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.43.13.29 (talk) 13:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you read French, you might try Du Moyen Âge à nos jours: Histoire et dictionnaire de la police by Jean Tulard et al. (2005, Robert Laffont) as a reference. You might also have a look at this nice summary. Probably you are familiar with Michel Foucault's magisterial Discipline and Punish, which is neither a standard history nor focused exclusively on the French police but offers theoretical frameworks which your project should probably at least acknowledge. Marco polo (talk) 18:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The origins of the French police force go right back to the Middle Ages, James, but it was given a new purpose and direction by Napoleon, who turned the National Gendarmerie into an elite force, a model for other police forces throughout Europe in the nineteenth century. He also gave an enhanced role to the so-called 'administrative police', which achieved particular notoriety under the command of Joseph Fouché and later Anne Jean Marie René Savary as arguably the first truly 'secret' force in the history of Europe. Taken together, these forces developed into the nineteenth century as guardians not just of public order but the whole apparatus of the bourgeois state.

In 1896 René Waldeck-Rousseau, a prominent lawyer and politician, was to write of the Paris police Ils veillent pour que nous travaillions-they watch so we can work-which might very well serve as the leitmotiv of the whole French force. It was their duty to keep an eye on les classes dangereuses, the urban sub-proletariat, which was of such concern to the administrators of the July Monarchy and every regime thereafter. They were praised for their effectiveness in Eugène Sue's popular novel of the 1840s, Les Mystères de Paris;

A tapis-franc, in the slang of the murderers and thieves of Paris, means a smoking-house or inn of the very lowest class...liberated galley-slaves, tricksters, robbers, and assassins congregate there. If a crime has been committed, the police casts its net in this receptacle of filth, and almost always the guilty one is caught.

Napoleon III, in his concern for security, made attempts to bring the whole apparatus of the various local forces under tighter state supervision, in what was the first clear attempt to create a modern police state, an experiment that left a lasting legacy of suspicion, uniting liberals, on the one hand, and peasants, on the other, in their hostility towards an alien and interfering power.

I agree with Marco that you are likely to obtain a good conceptual framework from Discipline and Punish. On the empirical points you should look at The Police State of Louis Napoleon Bonaparte, 1851-1860 by Howard Payne, The Police of Paris by P. J. Stead and Gendarmes and the State in Nineteenth Century Europe by C. Emsley. The Army and French Society during the Revolution and Empire by A Forrest also has some background information that might be of use to you. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:31, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Journey from Vienna to Magdeburg in 1889

I would be grateful if a user could please answer the following question. If in 1889, one needed to travel quickly from Vienna to Magdeburg, what method of transport would one have used and how long would the journey have taken? Thank you. Simonschaim (talk) 13:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I imagine by 1889 the quickest, most efficient way of traveling from Vienna to Magdeburg would have been by train. It's over 800 km, so it probably would have taken about two days. —An gr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 16:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly the quickest means of transport at that time would have been the railroad, but rail speeds were not much greater than 50 km/hour even on major rail lines. Even though this is probably faster than the average speed on a rail journey from Vienna to Magdeburg would have been in 1889, we can use this as a starting point for an estimate. The rail distance from Vienna to Magdeburg (by way of Prague, Dresden, Leipzig, and Halle) is 866 km. This would have taken (a minimum of) 17 hours and 20 minutes not including layovers. There would likely have been at least three layovers, probably of more than an hour each. Adding this all together, I think that we can safely say that it was at least a day's journey by train from Vienna to Magdeburg, and probably a few hours more. Marco polo (talk) 16:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Not not much greater than 50 km/h even on major lines" was certainly not true in England at that time: see Race to the North#First and second race. But central Europe is another matter. I don't know about 19th century schedules there. --Anon, 00:25 UTC, February 14, 2008.

But that was a race. I suspect 50 km/h is about right for an ordinary passenger train of the time.

Interjecting to respond to this point alone: Yes, the racing trains were not typical, but they were so much faster than the 50 km/h suggested that it should be clear that ordinary trains must also have been faster than 50 km/h. In England at that time, I mean. But of course the question was not about England. --Anon, 00:36 UTC, Feb. 15.

And of course the train would have stopped in a lot of towns in addition to the layovers for changing trains. I think it's most likely that if you left Vienna on Thursday morning you wouldn't get to Magdeburg until Friday morning or early afternoon. Today it takes all day: if you leave Vienna in the morning you get to Magdeburg in the evening. —An gr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 06:36, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your answers. An associated question is how many trains each day made this journey in 1889? Thank you. Simonschaim (talk) 08:38, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peerages

See the last entries on List of Life Peers. They take a title, such as Baron Smith of Anytown, but the column to the right of that lists somewhere completely unrelated, such as of the town of Anyvillage in the county of Anyshire. What is the connection, how are these places (both!) chosen? Some people (see the page's penultimate entry) even have three places involved; why is this? Thanks, --Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 14:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The third column in that table gives the title itself (e.g. Baron Fraser of Lonsdale) which may or may not include the name of a place. That title is the peer's new name, and in the case of an hereditary peerage (such as the newly created Earldom of Wessex) will also be the name of his or her successors. Sometimes, a place name is included in a peerage title to distinguish it from another similar title which already exists, even if it is in abeyance. In theory, the crown chooses the title itself, but in practice the new peer can ask for the title he or she would like and usually gets it. A place-name which is included in the title may commemorate something quite different from the peer's place of residence - for example, Earl Mountbatten of Burma and Viscount Montgomery of Alamein. Retired members of parliament often use the name of a parliamentary constituency they have represented. The fourth column in the table is the 'territorial' qualification of the title - that is, it attaches it to one or more places, usually the new peer's place(s) of residence. In the Middle ages, a peerage was inconceivable without the ownership of a landed estate, and that designation would then refer to the new peer's estate. Xn4 09:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why is Potter so Popular?

I love Harry Potter, but I was really surprised to know that it has sold the most copies in the world, even more than the Bible, which used to hold that title. Maube it's something about the books that makes them so popular. What do my fellow Wikipedians think it is? I think it's because it's about a seemingly normal boy living in a bizarre world.--Princess Janay (talk) 16:07, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A good story is a good story. There are plenty of books that this could have happened to, but Harry Potter just happened to come in a time when a lot of translators and marketers could distribute it all over. Wrad (talk) 16:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My belief is that the books should well for the same reason The Da Vinci Code sold so well: plot twists. We all love plot twists. 206.252.74.48 (talk) 16:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think a lot of it had to do with them being children's books that don't talk down to their readers and that adults can enjoy too. Those are both very scarce commodities in children's books these days. —An gr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 16:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's a review of of The Hidden Key to Harry Potter: Understanding the Meaning, Genius, and Popularity of Joanne Rowling's Harry Potter Novels here which explains the popularity as JK being a modern extension of the Inklings, and as successful as they were for much the same reasons. YMMV, of course. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I'm highly suspicious of your "most popular book in the world" statement as written. HP has sold around 400 million copies, which is a lot, but I'd bet that per capita Bible ownership in the States is about 1, for 300 million right there. It's inconceivable that Bible sales haven't topped 400 million. It may well be the case that single year sales of HP are the highest in history, but that's an altogether different metric. — Lomn 18:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, the multi-volume nature of HP is neglected. Buying all of HP generally counts as seven purchases; buying all of the Bible generally counts as one. The most popular single volume, Philosopher's Stone, has sold 120 million. — Lomn 18:42, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The issue that always comes up with Bible sales is "which Bible"? Do you count every version of every Bible in every language as just "the Bible" or do you separate it by versions or religions or languages or translations... For example, I have one Bible in King James that only contains Genesis, Psalms, and the New Testament. I have another in NIV that contains both the Old and New Testaments. I have a Tanakh - which obviously omits the New Testament. I have Bibles given to me by Mormons and Jehovah Witness' - which contain differences to the NIV version. I almost got my hands on a Sinner's Bible - just a normal King James version that forgot the word "not" in the phrase "Thou shalt not commit adultry." Now, this leads to a similar confusion over Harry Potter sales. Do you separate it by version/language as well? The U.S. version is not identical to the British version and they are both in what would be called English. -- kainaw ™ 18:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An excellent point. I expect, though, that for most "fair" comparisons, books like the Bible and the Qur'an will easily surpass the circulation of HP. I've avoided trying to nail down precisely what those comparisons would be, but I imagine that it wouldn't be too hard to find a consensus on a rough apples-to-apples comparison. For example, the New International Version claims around 200 million copies, well above Philosopher's Stone. By extension, I'd bet that "Bibles containing the 66-book canon" easily surpasses "total HP volumes". Our list of best-selling books puts aggregate Bible printings around a whopping 5 billion. Also well above HP are Mao's Little Red Book and Don Quixote, the latter a direct comparison (novel to novel) of HP. — Lomn 19:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Mormons (more correctly known as Latter-day Saints) use the King James version of the Bible. We also consider The Book of Mormon to be holy scripture, and some have referred to it (mostly long ago) as "The Mormon Bible," but we do not. At the time of his death, Joseph Smith was in the process of preparing an "inspired version" of the Bible which clarifies many confusing or disputed passages, but it was never completed, and is not used as scripture in the LDS Church. My understanding is that it IS considered scripture in the Community of Christ (formerly known as the RLDS Church). Kingsfold (talk) 13:14, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have a low estimation of Harry Potter, especially in comparison with more classic fare like The Hobbit. The fact that it's so popular is no doubt a reflection of the vast population of middle-class people with middle-class tastes. Vranak (talk) 20:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice Vranak, don't look like an arrogant dickhead or anything. And on the original statement, Harry Potter is the SECOND most sold book in the world. The Bible wins. However the success of Harry Potter can be due to a number of things. Particularly the fact that while it isn't necessarily better than other hit fantasy books of the past, Potter has the advantage of being released while the internet is a very popular tool for Potter's target audience. Blogs and stuff may have contributed to the Potter craze, and no doubt that hype swept across the internet as well as the media. If there's a reason Potter has done so well, it's because communication is so easy now. We're at the dawn of a new age.

Image highly disturbing.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Please, see Wilhelm Frick, German Nazi. The second picture, where he's dead. That image is highly disturbing!!!!!. Is that image necessary or important?. It's a corpse!, only a morbid person enjoys with that image!. What do you think?. Thanks for your time, good luck. Ahmed987147 (talk) 20:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say Talk:Wilhelm Frick is the appropriate place to discuss that, not here. —An gr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 20:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, forgive me. Ahmed987147 (talk) 20:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relax, you are forgiven. You are free to remove it yourself, you know. --Milkbreath (talk) 20:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agreed with Ahmed. It's gone now. Faithfully, Deltopia (talk) 20:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It has been returned, I am happy to say, and for justifiable encyclopedic reasons. There are similar postmortem pictures of other Nazi leaders, including Julius Streicher and Joachim von Ribbentrop. It is simply unacceptable to start censoring pages because we do not happen to like what we see. Would anyone care to remove this picture for me? It is just so disturbing! Clio the Muse (talk) 00:26, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I have removed all three. I am not highly disturbed by the illustrations but I cannot see any encyclopedic value in them either, just bad taste. --Anonymous, 00:30 UTC, February 14, 2008.

I'm not comfortable with the image being removed. We have pictures of anusses, anal-rimming diagrams, a full article on a dirty sanchez and all sorts of other things in the name of being "encyclopaedic", but a small, grayed out black and white image of corpse is suddenly worthy of censorship? I believe there is a wikipolicy on this sort of thing, but I'm not sure where to find it. My vote is to restore it, pending a good check into wikipolicy. Rfwoolf (talk) 01:43, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I refuse to enter into an edit war over this, but we now have carte-blanche for anyone and everyone to remove illustrations they disapprove of. Are the photographs of dead Nazi leaders somehow more distasteful than those contained in the page on The Holocaust and Lynching in the United States, to take but two examples? I sincerely hope an administrator will take note of this discussion and restore the censored images. I think it best if I raise this on the RD talk page. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:59, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand now, If we remove all disturbing images we will not have nothing. These images are the true. It's OK. Kisses to all. Ahmed987147

(talk) 02:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are pictures of anuses, etc., but they are in the apropriate articles. As for disturbing images on the Holocaust and Lynching entries, well, they are about a disturbing topic. I don't think anyone would object if those images of the Nazi leaders were shown on a page entitled 'fate of Nazi leaders', or 'deaths of famous Nazis'. AllenHansen (talk) 18:05, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Okay, then where is the appropriate discussion page, please? --Anon, 00:39 UTC, Feb. 15.

Talk:Wilhelm Frick. Sandstein (talk) 06:38, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but that's for the specific page. What about the policy issue? --Anon, 24 hours later.

WP:VPP. Sandstein (talk) 18:44, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Greeks" moving out of (present day) Greece and being replaced by Slavs in Middle Ages?

Hello,

I've been doing some reading on the history of the Slavs and Greeks in the Byzantine Empire, but I still haven't found everything I'm looking for :

1. Apparently the Byzantine Empire lost control of most of what is now "mainland Greece"(which is quite ironic) and according to [2] (including a map) Slavs populated large parts of Greece, even in the south. But how drastic was the demographic shift? Let me put it this way : is it possible that at one point, present-day mainland Greece was populated by more slavic people than by Greekspeaking people?Or is this still extremely unlikely?

2. I remember a Wikipedia article claiming that for a long time, there were Greeks in Asia Minor than in "Greece proper" itself, but now I can't find it anymore. Can anyone help?

Evilbu (talk) 20:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. We really can't know the answer to this question because of the lack of reliable statistics from ancient or early medieval times, however, based on a perusal of our content, I doubt that Slavs ever outnumbered Greek speakers in Greece. If you look at the map in the South Slavs article, and if you read our article on Byzantine Greece, you see that the Slavic occupation was concentrated in the mountainous central and western parts of Greece, which have always been relatively thinly populated. The fertile valleys and plains along the Aegean appear to have remained largely Greek-speaking. These areas were also the sites of the largest towns, which would have remained Greek-speaking because the Slavs had a distinctly rural, and even pastoral culture.

2. Since Asia Minor has a much larger area and was capable in ancient times of supporting a much larger population than Greece proper (as it still does today), and since Asia Minor was largely Greek speaking by about A.D. 100, it seems likely that there were more Greek speakers in Asia Minor (whether or not they could all be considered ethnically Greek) by some ancient date, possibly something like 250 B.C., in the wake of Alexander the Great. This would have remained the case until the Turks had conquered most of Asia Minor, around A.D. 1200. So for a period of over 1000 years, probably more Greek speakers lived in Asia Minor than in Greece proper. Marco polo (talk) 21:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-modern ethnography is a sticky business. Firstly, states lacked the bureacracy to prevent, or even monitor, migration into their territories - even the mighty Byzantine Empire was impotent to protect itself from the Yugoslav migration. Secondly, ethnicity tended to be based less on physical appearance, and more on language, this was especially true of the Greeks - so immigrant Slav communities that spoke Greek would very quickly become accepted as Greeks. In any case, there's a lot of evidence to suggest that the modern Greeks have very little in common with their ancient counterparts: case in point, the Nuristani people, they claim to be descended from the left-overs of Alexander the Great's army and have over the millenia remained quite inward-looking and self-contained, the Nuristanis have thus inherited the phenotypes for fair skin and hair from the Ancient Greeks, phenotypes that are now mostly missing from Modern Greeks, so, it seems, something must have happened. Ninebucks (talk) 12:55, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

what is the sexiest non-pornographic (non-obscene) picture on the Internet???

What is the sexiest non-pornographic (non-obscene) picture on the Internet. It doesn't have to be someone millions of people have jacked off to, though that may be a good candidate. It's okay if it's not literally the SEXIEST in the whole Internet, just very sexy. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.122.19.82 (talk) 21:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This one Tennis Girl generally is considered to be a very sexy photo from a male perspective. Obviously it will alter if you are asking the question from a male or female perspective. From a female perspective this one (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%27Enfant_%28poster%29) is one that has been considered very popular over the years. Hope this helps ny156uk (talk) 22:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This has got to be in the running. --Milkbreath (talk) 22:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, Milkbreath, some people regard even non-sexual nudity as obscene, even if it's not strictly pornographic. Steewi (talk) 23:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Milkbreath, are you trolling, or you and I just very different people? How is that extreme close-up "sexy"...especially with all those stubbly hairs? It looks very clinical to me.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 02:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. Couldn't resist the opportunity to have a go at the prurient and the puritanical at one and the same time. If you must know, my tastes run to romance, privacy, and immersive intimacy. Porn is for losers. Censorship is for tyrants. Happy Valentine's Day. --Milkbreath (talk) 11:45, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Someone who shares my views? My world is turned upside down. 206.252.74.48 (talk) 13:43, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to avoid this turning into a male drool fest you can have this, the ideal mature man and the sexiest thing on two legs! Clio the Muse (talk) 23:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to disagree, Clio; same criteria, different conclusion[3]! ៛ Bielle (talk) 00:47, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yummy, yummy! Another good choice, Bielle. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The question is not who is a sexy man/woman, but what is a very sexy picture. That one of Sean Bean is not a particularly stirring photo.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 02:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, the eye sees what the eye has means of seeing! Here is another one, slightly better, perhaps [4]. Clio the Muse (talk) 02:37, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May I just say that this is a particularly sexy picture, and one could conceive that it is classical literature.... Zidel333 (talk) 02:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You could say this is a sexy picture - it's definitely enhancing[5]. Julia Rossi (talk) 05:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, what the heck, let's get some more photos of women in here. Say, this one. Wikipedia says it has achieved a level of iconography. --Anon, 05:47 UTC, Feb. 14.

Thank you god, that may just help me get over the guy who finds gynacological images 'sexy' and 'non-obscene'87.102.115.36 (talk) 13:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This has always had a lot to say to both my inner man and my inner woman, not to mention my very "Psyche". -- JackofOz (talk) 06:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm, this one for leather.[6] Julia Rossi (talk) 06:51, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]