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.
There are large numbers of people with PhDs that are regular Wikipedians and I don't believe their are any more advanced academic qualifications, so you will have to tell us how you are defining "qualified" if you are going to stand any chance of getting an answer to that one. I doubt we can answer the first one either - many Wikipedians edit pseudonymously, so there is no way we can find out their wealth or income. I bet there are plenty of millionaires, though. --Tango (talk) 05:07, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, my PhD supervisor (now a head of department at an Australian university) is a fairly regular contributor here on his specialist subject, and I have mentored another editor i know personally who has had numerous books published on the history of southern New Zealand - the subject on which he writes for WP. I doubt they're the only two highly-qualified editors, and I expect there are some editors even more qualified. And undoubtedly many richer. Grutness...wha?20:35, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If college education is "qualification," I have completed more years of college than many editors have been alive. I am certain I am very far from the richest editor. Edison (talk) 05:29, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why do people so often ask for two things to be optimised at the same time? what is the tallest building that is most northerly? Which is the biggest country with the smallest population? Dmcq (talk) 18:51, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm writing an article about a Catholic church that originally had one patron saint but later changed to another. What do we call this process of getting a new patron? Nyttend (talk) 05:11, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Rededication" probably. However, I don't think it is correct to call the saint a church is dedicated that church's "patron saint". Countries, crafts, professions, etc. have patron saints, churches are dedicated to a saint. There is a difference. --Tango (talk) 05:18, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above posts were just trying to clarify English-language usage. In (Catholic) France too churches have a fête patronale for the saint that they are dedicated to. Rededication is your answer unless anyone knows otherwise. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:57, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Many Anglican churches in the UK have had the same dedication since before the Reformation. To what extent each parish follows Catholic tradition is highly variable. The second link I gave suggests that particular church is part of the Anglo-Catholic wing of the Church of England. Alansplodge (talk) 13:26, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Which empire's imperial expansion resulted in the most colonial deaths between 1492-1914? The USA is often shown to be uniquely "evil" because of the extermination of the Indians, and African slavery. A fair estimate would be 2 million Indians and .5 million African dead. So I'm curious to know to what extent this death toll is unique to USA and to what extent it was simply part of the global process of
the birth of capitalism and imperialism. So I would like to know how the death toll of the European empires compares to US settlerism. For the sake of my question, all British actions in the future USA should be counted as part of the US rather than UK stats. Thanks --Gary123 (talk) 07:36, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your question seems designed to denigrate the US as much as possible. Why should British actions count towards the US? (Why should US actions not count towards Britain?) In any case, as Cookatoo says, the Spanish far outdid everyone else. See also Black Legend. Adam Bishop (talk) 08:34, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, I think that, although it had a particular purpose in mind, this wasn't an anti-U.S. question. The enquirer wanted a basis to decide whether there was anything particularly blameworthy or particularly praiseworthy about the behavior of Americans (under whatever flag), as compared with other empires. Were he to assert —without the kind of factual evidence he or she seeks— that Americans were either particularly noble or particularly vicious, then that would be tendentious. The other question to ask, though not in justification or absolution of persecution, is about the behavior of the native (non-European) empires existing before 1492. Attacking native savagery, to the extent it existed, is no license to persecute ("if we hadn't arrived, then they would have..."), but whitewashing such savagery as existed is just to engage in denigrating Europeans by idealizing or giving license to non-Europeans ("had racist Columbus never appeared, then..."). —— Shakescene (talk) 08:57, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the premise is wrong. Who "shows the US to be uniquely evil"? However, what is true is that the US expansion happened rather late in history, and that its treatment of the native people and slaves is in particularly stark contrast with the enlightenment principles expressed by its founding fathers. All men are created equal, with inalienable rights including life and liberty....--Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:29, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First off, the "colonial empire" of the United States was the Philippines, Puerto Rico, Guam, Hawaii, etc. and was mostly acquired ca. 1898 and either given independence or given statehood within the U.S. about 50 years later (except for a few islands, most of which are quite small and not very populated), and had only one really bloody episode before 1914 (the suppression of the Philippines uprising). If you're talking about the period when areas of the current day U.S. were part of somebody else's colonal empire, then responsibility for any such atrocities would appear to fall mainly on the British, French, Spanish, or Russians, rather than on the U.S. government (which didn't yet exist or had no authority there at that time).
Anyway, if you're trying to compare the deaths resulting from the expansion of British settlement in North America, and the ensuing consolidation and development of the United States (a sequence of events for which "colonial empire" is not the most felicitous description) vs. the deaths due to any of the major 20th-century atrocities (such as Stalinist agricultural collectivisation, Holocaust, Mao's Great Leap Forward, etc.), then I'm pretty certain that there's no real comparison at all. There was no major civilization (such as the Incas, Aztecs, or Mayas) in the British north American territories or the later U.S., and the closest thing to a major civilization there in 1492 had been very significantly disruped by the Hernando De Soto expedition and its aftermath long before the British arrived in the area. Much of the British north American territories or the later U.S. had been fairly lightly populated by the standards of settled agricultural societies, and diseases almost certainly killed off a lot more Indians than any direct actions by British or Americans did. There were a lot of shabby and morally reprehensible episodes, broken treaties, and brutal incidents, but the body count does not really approach near to that of many other wars/invasions/etc. in history.
And slave owners in the U.S. generally couldn't afford to work their slaves to death (which was a frequent trend in the sugar plantations of more tropical zones of the Western hemisphere); here's a quote from the book Ordeal by Fire by James M. McPherson:
"The U.S. slave population increased by an average of 27 percent per decade after 1810 [i.e. after the national ban on importation of new slaves from Africa was enacted], almost the same natural growth rate as for the white population. This rate of increase was unique in the history of [Western hemisphere] bondage. No other slave population in the Western Hemisphere even maintained, much less increased, its population through natural reproduction. In Barbados, for example, the decennial natural decrease from 1712 to 1762 was 43 percent. At the time of emancipation [1865], the black population of the United States was ten times the number of Africans who had been imported, but the black population of the West Indies was only half the number of Africans who had been imported. Of the eleven million Africans brought across the Atlantic, the United States received only five percent; yet at the time of emancipation, it had more than 30 percent of the hemisphere's black population."
If you're really interested in extremely bloody conquests which established a colonial empire, then why not examine the Mongol invasions of the 13th-century A.D.? AnonMoos (talk) 14:20, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly the slaves did not come to the US from Africa on their own, but were captured by Africans, Arabs [3] and Europeans, and transported mostly by Europeans. Britain was the leading slave trade country until the trade by British was outlawed in 1807[4]. Much of the blame for the evils of slavery rests on the purveyors of slaves, as well as on the purchasers and subsequent masters. See Belgian Congo for a discussion of the depopulation of the region caused by enslavement and mass killings in atrocities under Leopold II of Belgium after the Europeans divided up the Congo for their enrichment in the 1880s[5] The period has been called "the Belgian Congo holocaust[6].[7]" The Africans in the Belgian Congo were forced to perform work for the state, dragged to the work site in chains sometimes, for which they were rarely paid [8][9]. The Africans fought against this late colonialization, but lacked modern weapons. Meanwhile the Africans were treated very harshly by white settlers. [10]. Germany in 1904 ordered extermination of the Hereroes of German South Africa. While King Leopold did not order the extermination of the Congolese, his atrocities including rape mutilation, starvation, exposure, and overwork are said to have led to the death of 10,000,000 people, half of the population.[11][12]Edison (talk) 19:43, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, many more were killed in Leopold of Belgium's Congo Free State over a mere 13 years than Indians were killed by British and Americans across the whole of North America during all the period from 1607 to 1914... AnonMoos (talk) 11:58, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, in both North America and the Congo, the majority of deaths (in North America the vast majority of deaths) were due to disease. But in North America this came about through the (mostly) unintentional introduction of Old-world diseases; in the Congo, the population succumbed to indigenous diseases through exhaustion and malnutrition under the colonial regime. The latter seems more culpable than the former. (And of course, neither situation was unique.) Elphion (talk) 19:14, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Even the most authoritarian countries don't keep their scientific research secret, aside from research directly relating to weapons systems. Why not? Wouldn't it make more sense to restrict all science to government labs while taking advantage of foreign science journals, so that enemies can't take advantage of your research?
It was never kept as a secret per se. However, applications of scientific works (meaning, military technology, commercial patents and etc) are being kept secret to different levels. The thing is that you mostly can't keep your scientific work secret by the nature of scientific research which is involved with sharing of information and funding that come from different countries. You can't do good science without being part of it.--Gilisa (talk) 11:06, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking that a country could take advantage of science from the rest of the world, but restrict its own scientific research to dedicated government labs. There wouldn't be many breakthroughs, sure, but any discoveries would benefit the discovering country only, instead of equally benefiting friend and foe. --99.237.234.104 (talk) 11:13, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of research is done in secret, not just weapons systems (cryptography, for example, although that isn't science). However, science progresses much faster when people collaborate. Even if you were the only country keeping your research secret and read foreign journals you would still be significantly harming your understanding of other people's research and your ability to research new things due to not being able to attend conferences, spend time in other universities, exchange students, etc. That means that it is generally a better use of money to do open research than secret research unless there is a specific reason for keeping a particular bit of research secret. --Tango (talk) 11:13, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, this assumes that this is a zero-sum game, or at least a competition. But it is not - by pooling scientific research, both sides are better off. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:34, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly what sort of foreign research would one hope to find in a journal if countries would maintain research secrecy -- they would consist of only the silly letter from the editor followed by advertisements? DRosenbach(Talk | Contribs)13:55, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We can also tell that the countries which benefit more from scientific cooperation are these which lead the scientific community and that anyway they are more probable to convert basic science to technological advantage. So, while they benefit more than other from such cooperation they also have only little chance to lose their advantage because of it. You can take China as a good example for a country with very competitive approach toward USA for instance, but still encourage its scientific community to participate in international research, international conferences, host such conferences and have student exchange programs. USA do the same.--Gilisa (talk) 14:02, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On this note, a junior Soviet Union intelligence officer in the World War days is said to have derived the US Nuclear Program's existence due to the sudden disappearance of any nuclear related articles by US scientists in journals. Prokhorovka (talk) 14:28, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Back to the OP; its because Science does not work this way. Regardless of what you see in the movies, science never happens as one isolated scientist working in a lab by himself. Science works by individual scientists making incremental progress. It's not always intentionally collaborational, per se, but rather lots of scientists all working independently building little tiny additions onto the work of others. Lots of technology is made in secret, but technology is not science... --Jayron3203:55, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think OP's idea of science is based more on games, rather than movies. In computer games scientific research is most often portrayed like this: there is a limited set of discoveries that can be made, and making a certain discovery (say, "internal combustion") before a competing player/the computer makes the self same discovery can bring an edge (you get to make cars while the competition still rides horse carriages). Not really how science works in real life. TomorrowTime (talk) 07:16, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In computer games (say "Red Alert") being scientist meaning being able to solve the hardest questions and to transform theoretical findings to far reaching technological advantage (e.g., time machine) in a very limited time and without any external help needed. Science as it portrait in computer games (which are designed by very skillful humans actually)or in children TV shows is never sisypheaic or gradual and holding a PhD meaning being no less than Einstein.--Gilisa (talk) 08:34, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Humans naturally take pride in the use of their minds. They will in fact flock to countries where their minds can be put to use. And people are show-offs. They like to interact with other human beings. How would a country put a lid on a barrel full of monkeys people acting-out in full view of one another? Bus stop (talk) 15:07, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think a better way to think about this, rather than the "science=freedom" or "it is a choice between openness and security" ways of thinking, is to see it as being a trade-off involved in trying to keep something secret. You may not be very successful, and you may slow down development of further work, inhibit economic development, and encourage other countries not to give you their info either. (Also, secrecy is neither easy nor cheap to enforce, and requires creating a vast system of clearances, review systems, etc.) So for most science/tech, it doesn't really make a whole lot of sense to try and keep it secret. For some, the trade-off appears more slated towards classification, export control, etc. The appeals to it being about the "open" nature of science don't really jive with how a lot of science is done (a huge amount if classified or at least proprietary and not circulated; top-notch scientists have shown time and time again that they are willing to work in secret if there is a lot money in it for them or if there are appeals to nationalism, etc.). --Mr.98 (talk) 21:22, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In the Wikipedia entry for L. Frank Baum it says "His works predicted such century-later commonplaces as color television, laptop computers (The Master Key), wireless telephones (Tik-Tok of Oz), and the ubiquity of advertising on clothing (Aunt Jane's Nieces at Work)". Specifically where in Tik-Tok of Oz is there reference to a wireless telephone? 212.235.72.223 (talk) 12:57, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mobile phone might be a better description. Wireless phones from even fifty years ago were things you carried around in your car. Dmcq (talk) 14:44, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was recently attending a bondage workshop. There were mostly men tying up women, but also a couple of women tying up men, or women tying up other women. However, there was not a single man tying up another man. Is bondage really more common among women than men, or was this just a coincidence? JIP | Talk13:39, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just speculating, and have no expertise in this area, but maybe the men tying up other men were at a workshop being run by such men, though that wouldn't explain the women tying up women at yours. Nothing on our Bondage (BDSM) page about demographic split though. Prokhorovka (talk) 14:25, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, it could be that the women tying up women were interested in bondage rigging, i.e. tying people up for the aesthetics and art form, not for sexual pleasure. But that still doesn't explain why I didn't see men do the same. JIP | Talk19:18, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, there was a male homosexual leather subculture decades before the term BDSM was first coined. I think that as recently as 15 years ago, heterosexuals interested in Bondage etc. were sometimes envious that gays were often better organized and interconnected than they were... AnonMoos (talk) 14:29, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rest assured that bondage is very much alive and well between men. Some accidental and deliberate finds on the internet confirm it. Steewi (talk) 01:05, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well if the organiser and instruction were heterosexual men, then your question is answered. Heterosexual men are (sometimes) interested in being tied up by women. They are (sometimes) interested in tying women up. They are also interested in women tying up women because heterosexual men find lesbianism - or pretend lesbianism - sexy. They definitely aren't interested in men tying up men, because that is a gay male thing, and heterosexual men find it uncomfortable or at least unsexy. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:52, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the organiser's and instructor's personal interests only influenced whom they tied up themselves. They were entirely willing to accept anyone interested in tying up anyone in the workshop, regardless of sex or sexual orientation. It's just that no men interested in tying up men turned up. Your reply makes it sound like the organiser and instructor decided on the attendees themselves, instead of letting people sign up freely. What really happened is that the attendees were people genuinely interested in learning about bondage, and their preferences about whom they tied up, or who they were tied up by, were their own genuine personal decision, without any regard to the organiser's or instructor's personal preferences. Each person had to sign up personally as either a tier(sp?), or a model, or both. Most people who signed up were couples. Frankly, never mind the fact that I myself am a heterosexual man who happens to find lesbianism sexy, I am offended by your reply. JIP | Talk21:22, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry my reply offended you. I should have made it clearer that it was only a suggestion. Since you say that the organisers did not decide who would participate, the reply just above (just below, because of the reorganising) seems to be a reasonable explanation. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the women who tied up other women, I would like to think that they not only appreciated the art of it, they like to do because it was fun, or they signed up for the workshop for a new experience. Even, some of these woman just participated in the recreation of this activity, with no thought of art.
As a homosexual man myself, I can tell you why I would not tie up another man (even if he was my S.O.):
You can get beat up
Humans are prejudicial
Gays are probably not interested in signing up in non explicitly gay safe activity (there is no disclaimer in the sign up sheet, advertisement, etc. that says the activity is gay friendly)
Check out also where this event was advertised. If it was not advertised in any stereotypically gay venues/institutions, gays would likely not attend the event.174.3.102.6 (talk) 09:26, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suomi Claus engaging in seasonal SMHad you but waited a month, you would have observed this chap (wearing his customary red combat gear) tying up his reindeer. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 14:33, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In regard to my own reply above, what is a general English-language term for someone who ties people up, regardless of whether he/she does it as an art form, for sexual pleasure, or for any other reason? JIP | Talk20:27, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not aware of any particular term for such an individual. In most cases, bondage also involves Dominance/Submission play (hence BDSM: Bondage/Dominance/Submission/Masochism). The person doing the tying-up is usually the Dominant, also called Dom, Top or Master/Mistress. If it's not explicitly D/S play related, I've not heard of a term for it. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite22:26, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As an addendum, I have to echo what others said above. Gay/bisexual men have dealt with enough problems in such events over the years that most will shy away from an event that is not specifically advertised as "Gay Friendly." Women playing with women does not get as bad a reception among heterosexual couples, so it's far more common in mixed environments. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite22:29, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Terms like VIP and VVIP are mainly used when somebody gives special treatment to certain people they encounter. The use of both terms depend a lot on who that somebody is and which people they can expect to encounter. It appears from a brief search that the term VVIP is mainly used in India and other Asian countries. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:26, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They are both relative terms. How important is "very important" depends on how important a typical person is. Ditto for VVIP. --Tango (talk) 17:37, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Superstar? Are you living in the 1980s? The current standard for referring to someone moderately famous is "Megastar". This inflation of obsequiousness seems akin to the euphemism treadmill - a "sycophancy treadmill" perhaps? FiggyBee (talk) 15:05, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Megastar has redirected to Celebrity since the 2005 creation. The latter makes no mention of "megastar" so we must conclude that a megastar is merely a celebrity. Or the unthinkable: That Wikipedia isn't perfect. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:51, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So far in this century we have called the years two-thousand-something, as in two thousand six for 2006. I'm beginning to hear references to next year as twenty-ten (as well as two thousand ten). Of course, most of us referred (and refer) to years in the last century as nineteen-something, although I remember older people in my youth hark back to, say, nineteen hundred and six.
Not sure quite what you mean but surely it's just a matter of personal preference. Twenty-ten is less syllables than Two-thousand-and-ten so as a form of 'short-hand' it'd make sense for plenty of people to say that. Similarly the next decade is likely to be referred to as the 'teens', similar to how some people refer to the period 2000-2009 as the 'noughties'. My preference would be twenty-ten because it's quicker, but in reality there's no 'wrong' or 'right'. ny156uk (talk) 19:10, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Right. UK: Nineteen-oh-one or nineteen hundred and one; nineteen fifty-one; two thousand and one; two thousand and eleven or twenty eleven. US: (Not sure.) Two thousand one; two thousand eleven or twenty eleven (covered in link above). Pros and cons? Not really - it has a lot to do with what "sounds right", which has something to with what other people say. Length is an issue in some cases, like nineteen [hundred and] twelve, and twenty [hundred and] twelve is in that vein. We will have to see what catches on in entirety - the UK names listed above were, AFAIK, used at those times just as they are now. - Jarry1250[Humorous? Discuss.]21:54, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In Australia and New Zealand the British system is most widely used, though "Two thousand nine" has crept in as a minority use, particularly in the media. ISTR that in the US you can also encounter "nineteen-aught-one" occasionally. Grutness...wha?00:12, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In the UK people, including myself, call the present year "two thousand and nine". Two thousand is a little easier to say than nineteen-hundred or one thousand nine hundred and.... so that may mean that 20xx has a different naming pattern than 19xx. 92.24.170.160 (talk) 20:04, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
