Humanities desk
< March 9	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 11 >

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.

March 10

Bram Stokers Dracula was lost and found in a barn in Pennsylvania

Hi, I am looking for a good accessable reference to that effect. I see no reason why such an interesting story would not be readily sourcable from reliable publications if it were true. It appears on the Bram Stoker article, not on the Dracula article, and reference is light and from old books only. Surely anything interesting about literature like that is well documented somehwere or it is suspicious. ~ R.T.G 00:07, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I am querying the barn or how the manuscript got there not its contents or anything. ~ R.T.G 00:09, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wall Street Journal reference - http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122514491757273633.html - and the whole story seem quite credible to me. WSJ is considered a Reliable Source around these parts. It sounds as though it is a draft, one of several Stoker worked on. It's not that improbable that a draft might get lost and turn up years later. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:18, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See also http://www.amazon.com/review/R1GOUL90T3ZWII and http://www.nypl.org/audiovideo/evening-dracula which also mention the Paul Allen manuscript. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:20, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The manuscript of the NYLibrary night doesn't return a hit for "paul allen" and the Amazon review isn't a reliable source. The Wall Street Journal is a respectable publication but it differs significantly with the current source that it does not claim it to be the original manuscript and differs in number of pages etc. That's probably a useable reference but I am still dubious. I will refer those argueing the worth of the story to this. If I see any UFOs I will let you know. That's what it sounds like to me. Thanks for finding that even though I am still slating it. ~ R.T.G 00:49, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The first paragraph of the NYLibrary article has a sentence "and to Seattle to spend two days with the guarded manuscript (Microsoft billionaire Paul Allen is the owner)." I won't quibble with the amazon article not being n RS, but at least it shows the story has legs. The WSJ article is one of the sources referenced in the Bram Stoker, so I'm not easily able to understand the point you're trying to make. The other - Latham, Robert. Science Fiction & Fantasy Book Review Annual, Greenwood Publishing (1988) p. 67 - also appears highly kosher. But you believe what you want to believe; your prerogative. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:29, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

this, this and perhaps this tells as much of the history of that manuscript as I could find, which isn't much. Perhaps only John McLaughlin and the anonymous seller know where it actually was found, or maybe only the anon knows. Often "discovered" works like this have had a dubious history and sellers are none too willing to explain how they came in possession of them. Several news reports mentioned a barn but located it variously in New England, Pennsylvania or Massachusetts. meltBanana 13:45, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to argue with the Wall Street Journal and also one other ref from the BBC, which doesn't mention the barn, but with them all differing on particulars and Christies not showing the listing in their old lots... and the fact that almost all other publications haven't touched it... it must be the twiglet zone. ~ R.T.G 01:12, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WWI photograph identifications

I've uploaded some photos to Commons, and need help identifying the subjects for better descriptions &categorisation, and eventual use in appropriate WP articles.

Trench mortars

Can anyone identify these trench mortars from WWI? (Captured by NZEF soldiers and displayed in London at the end of the war.) I suspect they are Minenwerfers, of varying calibres. Gwinva (talk) 00:29, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The ones in the back pointing to the ground look to me like 25 cm Minenwerfer. The one in front seems to be a Skoda 75 mm Model 15 mountain gun, used for anti-tank defense. But I am not an expert on WWI artillery. --Dodo19 (talk) 08:46, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tanks

I also need help identifying these WWI tanks, seen here during a victory parade in London. Allied tanks? Or captured German ones? (The parade was made up of allied troops and their spoils of war, see plane below). Gwinva (talk) 00:56, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the British Mark V (from the photo in the article anyway). The Germans didn't have a whole lot of tanks in World War I. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:47, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) If I'm reading our article correctly, the two raised cabins on the front one show that it is a Mark V series tank. The rhomboidal shape of the second one indicates that it's another British tank, and the one in back looks like a French Renault FT-17; but my poor old eyes can't see enough to make positive IDs on those two. Deor (talk) 02:55, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In this flickr discussion about this very photograph, one person is "reliably informed" that the front one is a Mark V male and the middle one a Mark V* female. Does this mean they can mate and make little baby mark v's? Another participant thinks the one in back is a Medium Mark A Whippet. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:47, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ayup, the one at the back is indeed a Whipet - very distinctive hull. Skinny87 (talk) 07:31, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now I feel stupid. I uploaded the photo from the Flickr Commons page, but never read all the comments; the early ones were not promising, so I never bothered reading the rest. (I tend to ignore most internet comment sections since they are rarely as informed as the ref desks). Thanks for the confirmation. Gwinva (talk) 07:41, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You realize of course we'll have to charge you three times the standard RD rate. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:35, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How about just double - my first question remains unanswered; in addition, I'd like to claim my member's discount. Gwinva (talk) 06:09, 11 March 2010 (UTC) [reply]

"Tanks - Front is I think a Mk IV male, followed by a Mk. IV female (but both could be Mk V) with a Whippet at the back." suggests User:Monstrelet at MILHIST, so we don't quite have consensus. Gwinva (talk) 06:26, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The front tank has a rear turret (like the Mark V here) that I don't see on the Mark IV's.[1][2]. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:31, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

German planes

These are captured German planes. Any guesses? Gwinva (talk) 00:56, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The foreground plane is rather the worse for wear, but the shape of the tail parts appears to resemble that of a Pfalz D.XII more than any other of the German fighters listed at List of military aircraft of Germany#Before 1919. Deor (talk) 03:19, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Planes - front an Albatross DIII Second A Pfalz DIII (I think, hard to tell from this angle)." suggests User:Monstrelet at MILHIST. Gwinva (talk) 06:26, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Father of Beatrix Potter

I just enjoyed the almost painfully beautiful film Miss Potter, in which the father of the author is depicted as being intelligent and sharp, and – more importantly – warm, and, when it really matters, understanding, progressive, tolerant, and even wise. He is able to listen to people, and to take their emotions and thoughts seriously, and he can overlook the narrow-mindedness born from the social codes of conduct of the mid-nineteenth century. How accurately is the film's description of Mr Potter? --Andreas Rejbrand (talk) 01:16, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dekotora

Dekotora

How do they make money? Would their customers pay more money to them? If not, how do they pay for all these additional lights? -- Toytoy (talk) 01:44, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article you link to says, in the first paragraph: "Dekotora may be created by workers out of their work trucks for fun, or they may be designed by hobbyists for special events." It doesn't sound like they are intended to make money. --Tango (talk) 03:31, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Warrington & Co.

Can anyone help me track down Warrington & Co. of 23 Garrick Street, London? They were the publishers of this little guide, and other than the fact that—according to this list—they were engravers, I haven't been able to find any information about them. Said guide (as well as a later version of which I possess a printed copy) is undated, and although the on-line version is tentatively given the publishing year 1911, I am almost certain that it was printed in the first decade of the 20th century. But when exactly? (If the illegible handwritten note on the cover is to be paid any attention, it could be at least as early as 1903.) Waltham, The Duke of 04:24, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can point you to some more Warrington & Co publications at the Internet Archive, fwiw. --Tagishsimon (talk) 05:00, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to this snippet, the Warrington of the company name—in 1897, at least—was one Richard Silvester Warrington, and the business is described as "engravers (printer, die sinker and lithographer)". Their most notable publication seems to have been the annual British Imperial Calendar and Civil Service List (as advertised here). And if the footnote in the second snippet here goes with the text in the first snippet, they appear to have been publishing some version of your book as early as 1855, though early editions seem to be under the title The New Palace of Westminster. Deor (talk) 05:21, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A by the way - according to the London Times of 18 Jan 1900 23 Garrick Street was badly damaged by fire At about helf-past 5 o;clock yesterday morning the premises of Messrs. Warrington and Co., engravers at 23, Garrick Street, Covent-garden, W.C. were discovered to be on fire. The building is a large one of five floors it goes on to say that premises were burnt out and probable cause was entered by burglars. MilborneOne (talk) 19:07, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just another note - in the 1891 Census of Lewisham, London Richard Warrington is described as a Printer & Stationer aged 69 (born 1822 in London), he appears to have died in 1899 aged 77. Also he appears to have married Martha Sarah Swears in Kingston, Surrey in 1849. MilborneOne (talk) 19:13, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry for not replying earlier (long story), but I'd like to thank you all for your efforts, even at the last minute before this section is archived. They have turned up some interesting things, like the fact that they started printing their guide just a few years after the Commons moved into their chamber, even before the Palace was finished. (It makes sense, of course, that they'd include the "New" part of the name, considering that most people would remember the Old Palace; interestingly, the 1866 version of Deor's link does bear a year of publication.) My principal concern when making the question was whether I could hope to locate a successor of Warrington still in business, so that I could ask about the date of the particular guide I have linked to, or perhaps the one I have in my possession (as they are both undated). I didn't really hope to find much, as this seems to have been a small family concern, but one can always hope, right? In any case, I've found out that HMSO started publishing their own guide in 1930 (having purchased a copy of the fifteenth edition, 1994), so I suspect that was the end of the Warrington version. It seems now that the only recourse left to me is to send an e-mail to someone in the Palace itself; since the guides have been published with the permission of the Lord Great Chamberlain, there must be a record of this somewhere. (Finding it, though, is another matter.) Waltham, The Duke of 23:50, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fit For Performance

Are there any roller skates or inline skates fit for performance?174.3.110.108 (talk) 05:37, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your link seems to have answered your question in the positive. Was there something else you wanted to know? Bielle (talk) 16:57, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, no, to be sure, I am almost absolutely certain that these are only for ice skates (including figure skates and hockey skates).174.3.110.108 (talk) 01:29, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Online Dictionary

There was a definition linked to an online english dictionary, in a post maybe a a week ago.

(The original poster posted after me about a week ago, so this link may have appeared several days afterward.)

I am curious which dictionary this was. I am not sure if this was on the humanities desk, or language desk, or possibly entertainment desk.174.3.110.108 (talk) 05:59, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe this? 24.189.90.68 (talk) 06:37, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This question was also asked on the Language Desk and has drawn some answers there. --Anonymous, 22:27 UTC, March 10, 2010.

Principality of Neuchâtel

When did the County of Neuchâtel changed into a Principality? The article says "With increasing power and prestige, Neuchâtel was raised to the level of a principality at the beginning of the seventeenth century." But does any one have an exact year and date?--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 06:42, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From searching the French Wikipedia, I found that Henri II d'Orléans, Duke of Longueville (6 April 1595 – 11 May 1663) was also Prince of Neuchâtel. Henri d'Orléans (1568-1595) was Count of Neuchâtel. That gives a range of 1595-1663. I'm looking for more. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 07:34, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eureka! 1648 or 1643. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 07:43, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why people cry when they are happy

I never cry when I'm happy. I smile or laugh. I only cry when I'm sad. Why do some people cry? I can't really understand them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.68.120.162 (talk) 07:57, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to Crying:

"To cry is to shed tears as a response to an emotional state in humans."

Being happy is an emotional state. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 09:38, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Compare Berserker Tears, for emotions other than joy and sadness...Okay, it's only a trope, I've no idea if this happens in real life. Although the article does have a (short) "real life" section. Vimescarrot (talk) 11:41, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find it in a really short Google search, but I recall hearing on TV a theory that adults cry when happy, because it's a reminder of a special time in childhood when they really believed "fairy tales could come true" and that there would always be happy endings." Adulthood causes one to realize that isn't always true, so one sheds tears (as I do at times) at times one of those "happy endings" does occur. (Actually our whole family is that way :-) We often joke about wondering who will be the first to get choked up at, say, a wedding toast when we talk about how wonderfully happy we hope the couple will be, etc.)Somebody or his brother (talk) 13:39, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good explanation. Grown men cried at the end of Field of Dreams - both on and off the screen. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:11, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

People cry for all sorts of reasons other than sadness. People cry out of relief - say they've been worrying about a loved one and found out they are ok, they cry because of joy (they're watching their child stand up infront of people and take the vow of marriage - see DTF955 above, they cry because they're frustrated. It's pretty normal to cry at anytime where your emotions are highly-charged/on edge. Crying is an outward expression of intense feelings - that feeling can be for a number of different reasons. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 14:37, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tears of anger and/or frustration are very common in small children and not-so-small adults. It is not just strong emotions in themselves but also an inability to find another. socially acceptable, outlet for them that often results in tears. Bielle (talk) 16:54, 10 March 2010 (UTC) outlet for them.[reply]

Tears of gratitude come to my eyes embarrassingly often.--Wetman (talk) 21:51, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See this post from the Science desk archive: Emotional Crying. Jay (talk) 11:24, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why do people cry when they are sad? We don't really know (there are plenty of guesses, though)... --Tango (talk) 02:18, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Canada's role in producing energy for the world

Is there a website about Canada's role in producing energy for the world? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.117.7 (talk) 14:36, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This page from the US Department of Energy has quite a lot of information. --Normansmithy (talk) 14:39, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a Canadian website here: http://www.energy.ca/users/folder.asp --Kvasir (talk) 15:38, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the data section of the BP Statistical Review of World Energy, you will find authoritative and detailed information on national and world-wide energy. [[3]] DOR (HK) (talk) 02:14, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reason for the POETICS list protest of Billy Collins's appointment?

Articles on the Poet Laureate Consultant in Poetry to the Library of Congress and POETICS list both state that members of the list protested the appointment of Billy Collins to Poet Laureate, but neither offers a suggestion of their reason for doing so. I've tried to follow all the citation links, but none seem to readily offer an explanation for the protest. Does anyone know (and/or have a good reference we can add to the articles)? JamesLucas (" " / +) 15:53, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These two posts kind of sum it up, popular, easy to understand, mediocre, quite possibly politically conservative, oh and actually makes money, poets hate that.

Let none presume the hallow'd way to tread,

by other than the noblest motives led.

If for a sordid gain or glitt'ring fame,

To please, without instrucing, be your aim,

To lower means your grov'ling thoughts confine,

Unworthy of an art, that's all divine.

Calliope: The Heroick Muse - Catherine Trotter Cockburn

meltBanana 02:18, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing that digging. JamesLucas (" " / +) 18:52, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

becoming millionaire

what is the easy way to be become millionaire? --Houndhog (talk) 17:00, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

become a billionaire and give most of it away--Jac16888 ^Talk 17:02, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a very good question for us. If we knew, why are we not all millionaires? One way to become a technical millionaire or billionaire is to buy some currency from Zimbabwe. I bet you could buy a ZIM$1,000,000,000 for very little on ebay. For a more serious answer, the majority of millionaires either inherited their $, or they started their own business. Few who are working at a salaried position will end up with millions. Googlemeister (talk) 17:24, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, you missed your chance at Zimbabwe money. See Zimbabwe#Economy. --Anonymous, 22:31 UTC, March 10, 2010.

Some bankers and footballers are employees who become millionaires. 78.151.126.97 (talk) 17:28, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, though the majority of both those employment opportunities have only a fairly low % involved actually becoming millionaires. Googlemeister (talk) 19:30, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gearing. Borrow a lot of money to buy an asset(s). Do something (which could be just waiting several years) so that the asset rises in sale price by a million currency units, and then you are a net millionaire. Becoming a gross millionaire is easier - simply borrow a million currency units. And the easist way to borrow a lot of money is to buy property (British english) or real estate (American english), since the property gives security for the loan and hence lenders are more willing to lend. People usually start borrowing smaller amounts, get a capital gain, then use their capital gains plus any savings as the deposit on increasingly larger borrowings. 78.151.126.97 (talk) 17:28, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's a Wikipedia page about this: Get-rich-quick scheme. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Normansmithy (talk • contribs) 17:51, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly the easiest... but however most unlikely way to become one is by winning a Lottery. This method avoids the legal hassle of inheritance or dealing with wills... and the time and risk of investing large sums of money. But as they say, "you can't win if you don't play". 10draftsdeep (talk) 18:48, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

looking at your user name, I'd suggest finding yourself a nice, rich widow and becoming a boy-toy. the world's oldest get-rich-quick scheme... --Ludwigs2 20:08, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"She may very well pass for 43, in the dusk with the light behind her." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:58, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whomever says "You can't win if you don't play" is an idiot. You are not required to purchase a lottery ticket to win the lottery. You merely need to be in possession of a winning lottery ticket. Many people win money from the lottery without playing. Purchasing a ticket does not increase your odds of winning any significant amount. -- kainaw ™ 13:47, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gearing is a good answer, but it is important to point out that it can result in you losing $1m in exactly the same way. Since you don't have $1m to lose, you would be bankrupt. Generally and loosely speaking, your return is going to be proportional to your risk - if you want a really high return (relative to your starting capital) then you need to take really high risks. Gearing is the simplest way of doing that. --Tango (talk) 22:19, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you can go bankrupt, then you escape your debts. So your net worth, after being bankrupt, can only be zero at its lowest, but unlimited in the other direction. If you have little or no assets thjen you can afford to take extremely high risks. When you have something to lose, then you have to be more cautious. 78.146.0.232 (talk) 20:34, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Declaring bankruptcy doesn't just reset everything. You usually have to pay as much as you can for the next few years and basically can't borrow any money - that includes things like using electricity and then paying for it at the end of the month. You have to either get someone to stand as guarantor for everything or pay for it in advance. Even after your bankruptcy is discharged you will have a terrible credit rating for many years, if not the rest of your life. Bankruptcy involves losing a lot, it doesn't doesn't involve losing everything. --Tango (talk) 22:41, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with Googlemeister's assertion that it's hard to become a millionaire working a salaried position. My grandparents were millionaires upon retirement (granted, that's two people's income). They both got college degrees and worked good, but not extremely high paying jobs, invested wisely (and to some extent, got lucky in how they invested), and lived well within their means. I suspect that my dad, an engineer, will be a millionaire when he retires: he's always saved a large portion of his income and invests it prudently. Depending on what field I go into, it's quite possible that I'll become a millionaire too (especially with a moderate amount of inflation that will likely occur over my working years). So I'd say the best answer is: Get a university degree (at least 4 years, perhaps a graduate degree as well at some point) in a field with relatively high paying jobs (technical fields especially, but I'm sure there are others), and save a good portion of your income by investing it in a smart manner. Buddy431 (talk) 22:14, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. If you include people's pension pots (which you certainly should - they are assets) then a lot of people have very high assets when they retire (which they spend during their retirement, of course). Buying a house and slowly paying off the mortgage is one of the best ways of investing in addition to your pension fund - the interest is often tax deductible, you don't have to pay rent and house prices typically increase a decent rate over decades. --Tango (talk) 22:19, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

compound interest + time —D. Monack ^talk 22:56, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of householders (who are merely employees in average jobs) in Britain are at least the equivalent of dollar millionaires due to houses being expensive, particularly in London. 89.243.212.29 (talk) 14:34, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's only really true of older householders. You need to have either paid off your mortgage or have bought your house when it was much cheaper for it to contribute a large amount to your net worth. Unless you have a really high income (or were already wealthy) you can't pay off a large mortgage very quickly, so either of those requires you to be at least middle-aged. Also, the value of the house you live in often isn't counted as part of your net worth for the purposes of the definition of millionaire - see Millionaire#Net worth vs. financial assets. --Tango (talk) 02:25, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The OP did not specify a time limit, and asked "what is the easy way to become a millionaire". Obviously, it is easier to become a millionaire over 50 years than it is by four o'clock next tuesday. 78.149.193.118 (talk) 10:17, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would help a lot to become an accountant and get management qualifications. 78.146.52.206 (talk) 11:27, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lords of Toron

Toron was a fief of Galilee, itself an important fief of the Kingdom of Jerusalem. Lords of Toron, successive Humphreys of Toron, were one of the most distinguished families of that time. But who were they, and from whom did they descend? According to Wikipedia's article on Humphrey I, the founder of the dynasty was related to the House of Hauteville. But this claim isn't sourced. Has anyone heard about this? Is there any source that supports what the article says?

Thanks in advance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trybald (talk • contribs) 17:06, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Humphrey I is one of the many obscure nobodies who jumped on the crusade bandwagon after the First Crusade (Barisan of Ibelin and Hugh of Jaffa are similarly obscure examples). The Foundation for Medieval Genealogy linked in our article says nothing about his origins, nor does Du Cange's Familles d'Outremer, nor the Lignages d'Outremer. I don't know where our article got that info, except that it was taken from the French Wikipedia article, which itself has a "citation needed" note. It's easy to assume that he was an Italian Norman based on his name, but I'll have to dig further to see if anyone actually says where he came from. Adam Bishop (talk) 20:46, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's entirely possible he's a Hauteville, based on what I am getting from following threads from the Hauteville family article. Lots of late 11th century and early 12th century Hauteville's participated in the crusades. Bohemond I of Antioch was a Hauteville (male-line grandson of Tancred of Hauteville), and he was perhaps one of the most important military leaders of the First Crusade. Several of his Hauteville cousins were also prominent crusaders, Herman of Hauteville, his half-first-cousin, died at the Siege of Antioch, for example. Our article on Serlo II of Hauteville has redlinks for his sons, so its possible this line may show up producing our Humphrey of Toron. I mean, Tancred had an astounding number of children and grandchildren; Humphrey of Toron would have been of an age to be one of Tancred's grandchildren; if his connection to the Hautevilles is older than Tancred, it looks like this rather prolific family could include him quite easily. --Jayron32 03:11, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But it's also possible that Humphrey's descendents wanted to give their ancestor a more noble origin, and chose Tancred without any basis, especially since the link (at least according to Wikipedia) was not made until the 15th century. Adam Bishop (talk) 03:25, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

William of Tyre and Fulcher of Chartes don't mention it, there's nothing in collections of charters (Regesta Regni Hierosolimitorum, Cartulary of the Holy Sepulchre), and no modern histories say anything either, particularly Jonathan Riley-Smith's "The First Crusaders, 1095-1131". Alan Murray's "Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem: A Dynastic History" might be a good place to look, but it is out of the library at the moment. Adam Bishop (talk) 18:50, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Ernst August of Hanover

Why does a court in Germany have jurisdiction over an incident that occurred in Kenya? [4] Woogee (talk) 18:54, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Section 7 [of the German penal code]. Application to other types of conduct abroad

(1) The German criminal law is applicable to crimes committed abroad against a German if such conduct is punishable by the law of the place where it occurred, or if no criminal law enforcement existed at the place where the crime was committed.

(2) The German criminal law is likewise applicable to crimes committed abroad if such conduct is punishable by the law of the place where it occurred, or if no criminal law enforcement existed at the place where the crime was committed, and if the perpetrator:

1. was a German at the time of the crime or acquired German citizenship thereafter, or

2. was a foreigner at the time of the crime, was apprehended within Germany and, although the extradition statute would permit extradition for the type of offense involved, was not extradited either because a request for extradition was never made, or was refused, or because extradition is not feasible. [5] (my emphasis)

Ernst August was German at the time of the crime, and the act was punishable under Kenyan law, so the German penal code authorizes prosecution in Germany. - Nunh-huh 19:09, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Woogee (talk) 19:11, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You mean this Ernst August, the father. The one wikified in the question was born in 1983, his son. --Kvasir (talk) 20:12, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, you're right. I linked to the article linked on Current events. I think I'll double check that. Woogee (talk) 21:04, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

in what part, as a percentage, was world war 2 caused by an unjust peace agreement following world war 1?

if you were to express it as a percentage, then in what part was world war 2 caused by an unjust peace agreement following world war 1? thank you. 82.113.121.89 (talk) 19:12, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's an impossible quantification. obviously, the destitution caused in Germany by the terms of the WWI peace agreement was a major factor in the fall of German democracy and the rise to power of the Nazis, but (1) the peace agreement was only unjust in its magnitude, not in its intent and (2) the militant, expansionist, xenophobic mindset expressed in the Nazi party existed prior to WWI (Germany had had a strong nationalist movement for decades), and was only legitimized by the unjustness of the treaty. these kinds of moral/emotive judgements are impossible to quantify meaningfully. --Ludwigs2 19:22, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say that the answer to this question could vary wildly. If you were set it as homework, it is a question designed not to have just an answer of "50%" but an explanation of the importance of the Treaty of Versailles, other factors, and an overall conclusion. Chaosandwalls (talk) 19:24, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If it's a homework question, it is a poor one. As others have said, you can't quantify this. Causal factors in history interact in such a way that it is really impossible to assign a percentage value to any one of them. Even if you could, it would be a subjective judgment without any means of empirical assessment. If I were given this question as homework, I would state that it is impossible to quantify the relative importance of this causal factor and then go on to explain how important this was as a causal factor and what competing causal factors may also have contributed. I would just point out that it was far from inevitable that the Versailles Treaty should have led to World War II. If only one or two historical details had changed, it might not have. For example, if Adolf Hitler had been killed in World War I, the Nazi Party might never have taken the form that it did or have attracted such wide appeal. Or, if a man other than Heinrich Brüning were chancellor and were able to develop effective policies in response to the Depression that addressed lower-middle and working class concerns, he could have undermined both the Communists and the Nazis, saved Weimar democracy, and averted the war in Europe. Finally, the question completely ignores the role of Japan, which, once again, is hard to quantify. Arguably, World War II really began with the Mukden Incident in 1931, which had nothing to do with the Versailles Treaty. Marco polo (talk) 20:17, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The question implies that the End Agreement to 1 was 100% unjust, and the cause of the 2nd was as a result to what %? The question is therefore loaded. If this question was put by a History Teacher, you could ask for it to be reworded. Not implying the first premise to te true or false, I would say the question is 100% true. I think the questioner is asking for a

~~desertation~~, though.

1. The splitting of the country.

2. The bill to pay was draconian.

MacOfJesus (talk) 20:43, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MacOfJesus (talk) 15:21, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Asking for a desertation? I don't think he wants anyone to desert him. Did you mean 'dissertation'? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:49, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I did, well spotted! I find it better to write with pen and paper, sorry for the mis-spell!

MacOfJesus (talk) 21:54, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Percentage of what? Wars either happen or they don't. The war wasn't going to half happen and half not if you halved the causes. Either the causes (all of them, in their entirety) are sufficient to cause a war or they aren't. In this case, they were. I think the closest we could get to a real quantifiable measure of how the unjustness of the treaties caused the war would be to ask how large the reparations bill (which is the main quantity in the treaties that can be varied continuously) could have got without causing the war. That is a meaningful question, but not one we can actually answer (we could guess, but that's all). --Tango (talk) 22:07, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does the question refer specifically to the war in Europe? The war in the Pacific was not caused by Versailles and would probably have proceeded anyhow (I don't think Britain's distraction with the war in Europe was Japan's decisive reason for attacking south east Asia, and the Sino-Japanese war was already underway before Germany annexed Austria and the Sudetenland). --Normansmithy (talk) 12:56, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you date the European war to the invasion of Czechslovakia in 1938, then the Asian war began in September 1931. DOR (HK) (talk) 02:17, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I need some knowledge of Pearl Harbor attack

thread moved here from Wikipedia talk:Community portal

there was 6 japanese carriers, hiru, shokaku, zukaku, akagi, kaga and soryu. Information i am missing is how far those carriers were from pearl harbor? And how did defensive 48 aircrafts did act, were they on carriers and never did fly or were they assisting attacks?

ive been collecting some information of carriers, from single net page only: format: (carriers name: attack wave number, name of aircraft(number of that aircraft)

IJN AKAGI:

  1st wave: zero(9), "Kate"(15),"Kate"Torpedo"(12)
  2nd wave: zero(9), "Val"(19)

IJN KAGA

  1st wave: zero(9), "Kate"(14),"Kate"Torpedo"(12)
  2nd wave: zero(9), "Val"(26)

IJN SORYU

  1st wave: zero(8), "Kate"(10),"Kate"Torpedo"(8)
  2nd wave: zero(9), "Val"(17)

IJN HIRYU

  1st wave: zero(6), "Kate"(10),"Kate"Torpedo"(8)
  2nd wave: zero(8), "Val"(17)

IJN SHOKAKU

  1st wave: zero(6), "Val" (26)
  2nd wave: "kate"(27)

IJN ZUKAGU

  1st wave: zero(5), "val"(25)
  2nd wave: "kate"(27)

can somebody confirm these aircrafts in their right places, and which their objectives where? those defensive combat aircrafts seems not be in carriers so where they were? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.64.4.197 (talk) 17:32, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We have what appears to be a comprehensive article on the order of battle of the Attack on Pearl Harbor. Does that cover all that you're looking for? — Lomn 20:00, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pulp-like novels

I'm looking for adventure novels written by Americans in about the 1900s-1930s, that were not serialized, but have similar themes to novels that were originally serialized in pulp magazines, as well as the same cheap, adventurey sort of feel. I'm writing a paper trying to determine the effects of serialization on the way books are written, so ideally I want a few pairs of books: one serialized, one not, that are as similar as possible in other ways (setting, time period, etc.) This is the list of pulp novels I'm considering:

-The Curse of Capistrano (Zorro), 1919/1924
-Tarzan of the Apes, 1912/1914 (already purchased)
-The Man of Bronze (Doc Savage), 1932/3
-The Living Shadow (The Shadow), 1931
-Bar-20 (Hopalong Cassidy) 1907 (also purchased already)

So any suggestions of books that are similar to one above, or just other books that meet the criteria in my first sentence above, would be welcome.
Thanks.
208.252.2.254 (talk) 20:32, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All of the Tarzan books would qualify. The Mucker (novel), also by Edgar Rice Burroughs, was serialized. Woogee (talk) 21:08, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestions. The "Tarzan of the Apes" article says it was "published in the pulp magazine All-Story Magazine. . . .the first book edition was published in 1914," from which I jumped to the conclusion that it was published in installments rather than all at once; was that incorrect? 74.105.132.151 (talk) 21:47, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. Good question. It isn't clear, is it? Woogee (talk) 21:49, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the large majority of US 'genre' novels of this era and quality were serialised in magazines (mostly pulp, sometimes slick) before publication in book form: that was the default publishing model, since it maximised the author's cash flow and income. (It wasn't just downmarket works, either; remember that most of Dickens' and Conan Doyle's novels were also serialised first.) Identifying any that weren't would probably be quite laborious, unless by some lucky chance someone has already done it and published the research. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 01:06, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Damn, time for a new project idea then. Thanks anyway. 74.105.132.151 (talk) 02:18, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think Anthony Hope's books The Prisoner of Zenda and Rupert of Hentzau also fit the bill, but are English rather than American. Steewi (talk) 06:11, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to check out Gladiator by Philip Wylie. First published in 1930 as a hardback book and was hugely influential to later pulps and superhero comics (including Superman). 64.235.97.146 (talk) 14:39, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

George Fielding Elliot wrote (by his estimate) 2 million words of published pulp fiction, both novels and pulp magazines, starting in 1926, before switching to mostly nonfiction military. Federal Bullets, 1936, was a crime novel. See also his novels "The eagles of death" (1930); "The purple legion : a G-man thriller" (1936); "The navy spy murders" (1937). I don't think these were serialized, but I expect some of his detective stories, horror stories, science fiction and western stories were. His pulp magazine writings are harder to find online than thee books, but one Western magazine "Western trails" Vol 14 no. 1 1933 shows up at Google Book search [6] with something by Eliot. "Alias Mr. Death: the Complete Series" By D. L. Champion, George Fielding Eliot, Harold Ward, is available from an on demand printer. It has a 9 part series from "Thrilling detective " magazine and more stories(1932-1939) which supposedly inspired "The Phantom" detective series. Edison (talk) 18:45, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Warren Buffett

Has Buffett been basically managing other people's money for free? Ignoring his relatively modest compensations, wouldn't he have earned much more if his company had been run as a kind of closed end funds?

It's not for free - he has benefited from the capital he got when he initially sold shares in his company. He might well have made more money had he run it as a mutual/hedge fund rather than a company, I don't know. --Tango (talk) 23:12, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because Buffett doesn't have the simple-minded view that money is merely cash-in-pocket, he hasn't acted to try to maximize cash-in-pocket. He could have, I suppose, but consider that A-class shares of Berkshire Hathaway sell for about $100,000 per share, and Buffett is the single largest shareholder (some 38% of outstanding stock, as of 2005), well, that gets you some idea of what he is worth. The very modest $100,000 (and no stock options or other compensation) salary he is paid as CEO thereof is quite enough to provide him with a very nice standard of living, especially when coupled with his other investment income, and any money he has made from other sources, (fees for speaking engagements and the like). Consider that he pays himself the cash equivalent of a single share in his company per year, and yeah, it does seem like he is essentially working for free; except in absolute terms his salary is just fine, and he recognizes that raiding his own company by paying himself an exorbitant multi-million dollar salary (as would be industry standard for someone of his position and power) would actually hurt his net worth in the long run. --Jayron32 02:52, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just thinking, closed-end funds take 1-2% of assets each year. Imagine Reason (talk) 04:09, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

His initial investments were in fact organized as private partnerships. It wasn't until he took over Berkshire (a struggling textile company) that his investment became "public." (He maintained a large share of the ownership personally, of course!) A smart man like Buffet knows that making money in the corporate world is all about getting higher return than your cost of capital. That means always maximizing your return, and minimizing your cost of capital. Access to public markets provided an invaluable source of capital. If you'd like to know more about his early investments, I suggest Alice Schroeder's "Snowball" from last year.NByz (talk) 03:51, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is it true then, that although Warren Buffett is one of the world's richest men in capital, his actual yearly income is nothing special? 78.146.52.206 (talk) 11:53, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

His salary is not special, but his income, made up mostly by profits from his significant ownership of Berkshire Hathaway, is. 67.243.7.245 (talk) 19:38, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since Berkshire Hathaway does not pay a dividend, it's not obvious that he has an income from the company's profits. He could have capital gains from selling shares, but I don't know if he sells routinely. -- Coneslayer (talk) 20:34, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This question suggests that the OP doesn't understand what Berkshire is, or what the difference is between a conglomerate and a mutual fund. Even the most conservative mutual fund has a fair amount of turnover (selling of positions to buy other positions) every month. Berkshire, theoretically, could continue without ever selling anything, but merely investing the "float" from its insurance businesses and borrowing when necessary to handle short-term cashflow problems. Moreover, mutual funds never have controlling interests in companies, while Berkshire has controlling interests in something like 70 companies. Buffett does not "manage people's money"; he allocates capital derived (mostly) from the management of others (he is famously "hands-off" in relation to the owners and managers of the companies Berkshire owns). As for the hypothetical case of being a mutual fund manager and making a small commission, that amount -- even on the full market cap of Berkshire -- would be vastly smaller on an annualized basis than the actual appreciation of Buffett's Berkshire shares in the long run. Finally, Buffett has "wealth," not (except tokenly) "income." He frequently points out that his tax rates (excluding capital gains) are lower than his secretary's, a fact he employs to support higher estate taxes on the very wealthy. 63.17.60.8 (talk) 04:06, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which OP are you referring to please, and why does their question suggest that "the OP doesn't understand what Berkshire is, or what the difference is between a conglomerate and a mutual fund"? And wouldnt it be unreasonable to expect questioners to know that? You've also said a lot about Berkshire Hathaway but not answered any question. 89.242.243.82 (talk) 12:22, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sexual content in Lolita

Does the book Lolita contain any graphic or detailed descriptions of sexual activities, or are they only referenced during the narrative? If it does contain descriptions, approximately how detailed and frequent are they? No spoilers please, just general answers.--99.251.239.89 (talk) 22:42, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No graphic or detailed descriptions. Deor (talk) 02:15, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's been at least a decade since I read it but I think Lolita at one point mentions how sore she is. And if I'm remembering correctly, that's about as graphic as it gets. Dismas|^(talk) 12:53, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it's not particularly graphic, especially in comparison to the stuff that gets published or televised now without comment, but I recall that there were passages that were expressed rather frankly. Since Dismas has already mentioned Lolita's soreness, I suppose it's not a spoiler on my part to mention that she's not a virgin at the time, to Humbert Humbert's surprise. But no, there's no details about the sexual acts themselves. 64.235.97.146 (talk) 14:47, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]