Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2014 June 10

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.

June 10

Why does China treat North Korea the way it does?

I often see reasoning like "North Korea is a horrible place and if it weren't for China protecting them it would have been liberated a long time ago". So, why is China so nice to North Korea? Why doesn't China just invade it and make it a new province saying something about a wrong way of communism that obviously failed in North Korea while the Chinese variant is bringing happiness or whatever. Chinese government is not my favorite kind of government, but diplomats would (or should) probably agree that anything happening to North Korea can only make it better, even if that includes China taking over.Joepnl (talk) 01:25, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Anyone who responds to this (other than to say "I agree") would necessarily be engaging in a debate, and we don't do that here. Even if everyone agreed, this is still not the place. If China did what you suggest, you could legitimately ask "Why did they do that?" and get a referenced answer, but there's an infinity of things they haven't done, and there won't be references for any of them. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 01:34, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia does have an article titled China–North Korea relations, which the OP can read on their own. As Jack notes, however, it's not our position to tell you what you should or should not think about what you read there, but there's certainly some information and some historical context that may help illuminate the ideas the OP is tossing around. --Jayron32 01:47, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I love how both of you predict the future so accurately (see below). Shadowjams (talk) 05:00, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Some things to consider:

1) NK has a substantial military, including nuclear weapons. While certainly no match for China's military, China could expect major casualties.

2) Once China conquered NK, it would then be their problem, including all of it's economic problems. Much like the US invading and annexing Mexico, why would they choose to do that ? StuRat (talk) 03:13, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

See what I mean, OP? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 05:17, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

So predictable Shadowjams (talk) 05:01, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

In the aftermath of the Korean War, the communist Chinese didn't want a US ally on their border, so they had to prop the country up. As time goes by, they have less and less incentive to do so, but can't totally abandon North Korea without losing prestige/face. Certainly, there's no benefit to invading the country; it doesn't have anything China needs that badly, and they conduct a fair amount of trade. WAG warning: One remote possibility is if there is so much mass starvation that vast numbers of refugees flood into China, forcing it to step in to restore order. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:16, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not going to attempt to provide a detailed answer, but the OP may find this artice from stratfor to be of interest. In a nutshell, forcefully intervening in another country's affairs involves significant risks and costs. That doesn't mean China will never do it, but it will give them pause. It's certainly not something to be undertaken lightly, even for a country like China. Remove this bit if it breaches the ban on "debate". 124.181.239.69 (talk) 13:38, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Joepnl -- China invading North Korea would be a large effort and significant risk for an uncertain benefit, as others have said. I'm not sure that the Chinese communist party elite cares too much about the North Korean regime mistreating its people. What the Chinese rulers do worry about is that the NK regime seems to be incapable of getting its act together and achieving some stable level of solid economic development. One view is that if the North Korean economy could be placed on a somewhat sound footing, then possibly the North Korean regime would feel less temptation to over-compensate for a perceived weakness with irresponsible bellicosity, and North Korea would be much less of a source of instability. In the last year or two some in China have become more fed up with the North Korean regime than ever before, but I would not expect any drastic action anytime soon... AnonMoos (talk) 01:54, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

China espouses (with varying degrees of adherence) a policy of noninterference in other countries internal affairs. See Foreign relations of China#Recent foreign policy.DOR (HK) (talk) 02:38, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Although the predictions about a possible debate were right, I did learn a lot from the answers. Thanks all! Joepnl (talk) 01:44, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Hitler and the seven dwarfs

I heard recently that Hitler loved Disney films and that they discovered many of his drawings of the seven dwarfs. My question is, didn't Hitler hate dwarfs and other disabled and "degenerate" people? It seems strange to me that he would like the film if he hated the subject matter — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.10.45.108 (talk) 10:30, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't actually know what Hitler's opinion of people with dwarfism was, but such people are very different from the dwarfs of Märchen (and Disney). Deor (talk) 11:53, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I think Deor is right on the money... Hitler was somewhat obsessed with Germanic mythology (especially the Wagnerian version)... and the dwarfs of the movie were within that tradition (all-be-it in a cute and humorous Disney-fied form)... unlike actual human beings with dwarfism. Blueboar (talk) 14:39, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

He was a big fan of Wagner, of course. The Nibelungs are dwarfs in Wagner's ring cycle, derived from Germanic myth. Paul B (talk) 14:43, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Now I picture Hitler singing "Hi Ho, Hi Ho, it's off to war we go !" StuRat (talk) 20:30, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

He would have loved Sir Peter Jackson's version of the story: The Lord of the Rings of the Nibelung. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:15, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Here the whole story, believe it or not. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 00:13, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Does the U.S also keep a record as to what percentage of Latinos marry Latinos of nationalities different from their own?

If so, what's their most recent estimate? I'm talking about in the U.S for example, Mexicans marrying Puerto Ricans, Brazilians marrying Colombians, Argentinians marrying Panamanians, Ecuadorans marrying Salvadorans, etc. I know that the U.S does keep a record as to what percentage of Latinos marry non-Latinos. Last time I checked, I read that 26% of married Latinos have a non-Latino partner. Willminator (talk) 15:14, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not saying whether or not that data DOES or DOES NOT exist (that is, if anyone has tabulated it), however IF it does, you would find it using the databases of the American Community Survey, which can be accessed here. The way the ACS works, you can't post links to database search results, so even if I found the information you wanted, it is a laborious process to describe how I found it. The best advice I can offer is to play around with the website. It is rather comprehensive and pretty easy to navigate once you played with it for some time. --Jayron32 15:22, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Edit conflict (Help me put it in the correct format): I looked around. I haven't anything yet, but I'm still looking around. IF it the data doesn't exist, then why would the U.S not keep a record as to what percentage of Latinos marry Latinos of nationalities different from their own? Because some of those marriages may be interracial as well.... Willminator (talk) 21:05, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

The question is more "why would they?" --Jayron32 22:33, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Aren't most Latinos in the United States U.S. citizens? That would make them American by nationality... AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:13, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Why would the US do this? I've just looked at the forms one uses to give notice of marriage in Scotland and in Northern Ireland, and they ask for nationality but not for ethnicity. It's my recollection that the one for England and Wales is the same. Why would you racially profile wedding couples? AlexTiefling (talk) 21:27, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

In theory, the answer to the OP's questions is a conditional "Yes". The 2010 US census form (or at least my copy) asks those who identify as Latino what their country of origin is, and has a separate question asking which race they identify as. Individuals' details are confidential until the year 2082, but summary demographic information is probably available. I can't think of any compelling public interest in knowing those details about individuals. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:16, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks - good point about the census. The UK situation is similar. It was the actual getting married bit that I was more puzzled about; do you know what information is gathered in the issuing of marriage licenses? AlexTiefling (talk) 22:20, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

The census likewise is a shapshot of marriage information, so a given couple's cross-ethnic marriage (or not) could be determined from the details. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:55, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

The U.S. keeps estimates of people by self-identified "national origin" and/or "ancestry", by means of what is called the American Community Survey, which is an ongoing survey by the U.S. census that polls a random sampling of Americans on a variety of questions regarding social and economic data. That survey also polls marital status, etc. However, I don't believe there is anyway to cross-reference ancestry of one person with that of their spouse via that survey. --Jayron32 22:33, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

From your description, that sounds more like a poll than literally "keeping a record of" as postulated by the OP. It's also important to keep in mind that each state defines what its marriage records will contain. I'm not aware of any federal minimum standard for such info. For what it's worth, the few samples of marriage certificates (including mine) from my own family tree have no information about race or ethnicity. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:51, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Also remember that licensing marriages is a state (not federal) matter. States, at one time, did record such matters, so as to enforce anti-miscegenation laws, however as those have been repealed, there's no reason for any government (state or federal) to record the race, ethnicity, national origin, or ancestry of the two parties in any marriage, and thus they do not. The only way the OPs question could be answered is for a direct poll to be made which directly asked the national ancestry of the two spouses in a marriage. The only official government poll I know of that asks any questions about ancestry at the level of detail the OP wants is the ACS, but it's a small sampling (not a systematic census). However, it's the only government poll which may have the information; he'd have to explore the ACS data base to find out. --Jayron32 02:06, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I have copies of marriage certificates from several ancestors, all from the 1800s, but all from the north. It's possible that they were more open about posting that info in the south. Of course, a typical birth certificate contains the race or ethnicity. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:04, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

What about the Pew Hispanic Center or other Pew Social Trends? I've looked at both of them today as well to see if they surveyed or had any surveys on what percentage of Latinos marry Latinos of nationalities different from their own, but I can't find it. Why wouldn't they record such information either IF they dodn't? Willminator (talk) 03:15, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

If you want to know why Pew does or doesn't do something, ask them. There's an uncountable zillion things that people and organizations haven't done, and most of them people haven't bothered to think why they didn't. I didn't slather hot sauce on my balls last Thursday, and no one thought to ask me why I didn't. So your question is unanswerable for the same reason. However, if you want to know, find the "contact us" link at the Pew's website, and see if they have the data you seek. --Jayron32 03:23, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

It's easy to find information on the U.S census and Pew about the percentage of Latinos who have married non-Latinos, but it's hard to find any information on the percentage of Latinos who have married outside of their nationality group even though they may be interracial and inter-ethnic since Latino is not a race, but an origin thing. Some American Latinos have origins from two or more Latin American countries because their parents come or are descended from several Latin American countries. I don't know why pollsters or demographers would not view this information as relevant. They probably have the information, but they don't seem to want to put it in public. Willminator (talk) 04:10, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

ASK THEM. I have no way to spell this out more clearly. Get the link to the "contact us" from their website. Ask them if they have the information. No one here will know better than them. --Jayron32 04:17, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Last time I contacted the U.S Census and one of Pew Research's experts regarding a different topic, they didn't reply back. I went to Pew Research's experts page and messaged one of their experts that would seem knowledgeable about this. Let's see what happens this time. However, I'm sorry for getting a little bit off topic by mentioning Pew Research. The original question still remains. Willminator (talk) 05:28, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I decided to ask this question on Yahoo Answers as well. So far, the answers that have been provided to me is that the U.S government tends to lump all Hispanic groups together because they view all Latin Americans the same. Could this perhaps be the answer I'm looking for to my original question? Willminator (talk) 17:35, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Are you seriously not even paying attention? No, that's not even remotely the reason. The U.S. government does poll Americans on their self-identified ancestry. The American Community Survey does that, among much of the other data that it collects. You can find how many Americans self identify as having Bolivian or Bosnian or Botswanan ancestry using the website I showed you earlier. The government doesn't, as near as I can tell, keep track of the ancestry of anyone in terms of who marries whom. It's just not something they do at all. So, it isn't unique to people of Hispanic origin. If they did do it, the only way you'd find out is at the American Fact Finder website I showed you above. If you're looking for affirmation that the government "doesn't care about Hispanic people" or some such preconceived notion you've got knocking around in your skull, I'm afraid I lack the power to dispossess you of that ridiculous notion. I'm just going to have to let you be wrong on that. If, however, you actually pay attention to what is being told to you, and learn from it, you'll end up all the better. --Jayron32 19:46, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Then, why in the world would the U.S government keep track of those marriages that are INTERRACIAL and INTERETHNIC? That information is easy to find anywhere, including in that website you sent me. Is it because they for some reason view all Spanish speakers as the same race, culture people, etc. that they don't record which Hispanic group marries into another Hispanic group that they don't keep track of the information if they don't? By the way, WHERE IN THE WORLD DID I SAY THAT THE GOVERNMENT DOESN'T CARE ABOUT HISPANIC PEOPLE!!!! I love you like a human being, but please, Don't put words in my my mouth, JAYRON. And PLEASE, don't lecture me like a child because I am not one, OK? And what are you trying to imply by me "ending up all the better?" Willminator (talk) 23:31, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Let's try this yet again. You keep missing this every time: "Is it because they for some reason view all Spanish speakers as the same race, culture people, etc." No, they do not. I have repeatedly told you this, and you keep insisting, against all evidence, that it is so. Again, if you just want affirmation of your belief that it is so, you can get that somewhere else. The U.S. government does ask people what their specific nation of ancestry is in the American Community Survey. I keep telling you that, and you keep ignoring me. --Jayron32 23:48, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I still don't seem to find the information I'm looking for in the American Community Survey. I'll message you if I find it. I'm not looking for any affirmation about anything here. You might be misinterpreting my questions as that. I'm just simply asking questions. Those are my only intentions. All I have to say is that I'm still thankful for you trying to help me like you do with other people here. I say it's best that we end our conversation about the American Community Survey that way we can be in peace. Willminator (talk) 00:55, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Go here. Click "advanced search" Select the "race and ethnic groups" from the left menu. Select "Detailed Groups" tab. Select "Race and Hispanic Origin". Click the + next to the "hispanic origin" option. Select the blue link to "Hispanic" You can now add the specific Hispanic country of ancestry to any search you wish to do in the data set. Click any country you wish to add it to your search criteria. I hope that helps. --Jayron32 01:44, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Jayron, I think I might have some good news for you now, so let me say just one more thing. I didn't find what I was looking for in the American Community Survey, but I digged this table up deep in my Google search. Could this table answer the question or come close to answering the question I was seeking? The results about a decade old though, so they might be different today. Willminator (talk) 03:38, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

A bit. It simply states how many Mexicans and Puerto Ricans and Cubans (and only those three ancestry groups, other groups are lumped into bigger categories) marry inside and outside their cultural group (endogamous vs. exogamous), but what it doesn't do is say how many people who self-identify as Colombian married people who self-identify as El Salvadorean, which is what you seem to have been asking about. --Jayron32 12:08, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

That was an example of what I'm trying to ask of Colombians marrying Venezuelans, etc. I just wanted to know what the percentage was of Hispanics who married outside their subgroup. This seems to be the closest thing I found relating to my question, but I agree that it doesn't completely answer my question. I'll keep looking for a better survey. For now, peace! Willminator (talk) 14:17, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Why do so many cultures around the world hate the Jews?

Why do so many cultures around the world hate the Jews? Is there a reason for the global-level of hate towards Jewish people? I mean, hating Jews isn't isolated to one country or culture, it seems to be universal. 219.148.47.124 (talk) 18:45, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Our Wikipedia article on this subject is racial antisemitism. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:56, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

There's perhaps a bit of a but of plurium interrogationum going on in the OPs question. The presumption that a "culture" hates Jewish people is problematic from the start. Certainly, individual people hate Jewish people, and those individual people tend to find each other rather easily. It's difficult to answer a question with a completely false presumption to start with. There is not a "global-level hatred" of Jewish people per se. If there is any general issues to be noted here, it isn't Jewishness that is the issue, it is statelessness that is the problem. The article titled Stateless nation notes some of the problem; but for much of history (the two millennia or so between the Jewish diaspora and the Israeli Declaration of Independence) Jewish people lacked a homeland. That statelessness affects people groups throughout the world, and the problems faced by the Jewish people (which are not to be minimized, as such) are also felt to varying degrees by other stateless cultures such as the Romani, the Uyghur, the Hmong, the various displaced aboriginal peoples from North America and Australia, and any of a number of other people groups. --Jayron32 19:47, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I didn't mean that the whole world hates Jews, as in every single person. I meant that hate for Jews is seen all around the world. It isn't isolated to one country, it seems to have convergently evolved everywhere. It is a global issue. And I wondered why. Why is hating Jews so ubiquitous? 219.148.47.124 (talk) 19:57, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

patronizing answers are not helpful --Jayron32 01:56, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
(10) They know all the best lawyers, tailors, and diamond cutters. (9) Hollywood, which they run, is now worse than Bollywood. (8) Who else can schedule a one-day funeral? (7) Who else writes their Holy Books in the Klingon alphabet? (6) Just see what happens if you ask for a chicken sandwich with cheese in a Kosher deli. (5) Who else are allowed to wear beanies in formal indoor settings? (4) Who made Steve Gutenberg a star? (3) Who wrote the two most influential books of the 20th Century, The Bible and Atlas Shrugged? (2) Christians have to eat Matzoh once a week. Jews once a year. (1) They are God's chosen people. Who else you gonna hate on? μηδείς (talk) 15:58, 10 June 2014‎

(edit conflict) Did you read even a word of my answer? When I said "it isn't Jewishness that is the issue, it is statelessness that is the problem. The article titled Stateless nation notes some of the problem; but for much of history (the two millennia or so between the Jewish diaspora and the Israeli Declaration of Independence) Jewish people lacked a homeland. That statelessness affects people groups throughout the world, and the problems faced by the Jewish people (which are not to be minimized, as such) are also felt to varying degrees by other stateless cultures such as the Romani, the Uyghur, the Hmong, the various displaced aboriginal peoples from North America and Australia, and any of a number of other people groups." what I meant by that was "it isn't Jewishness that is the issue, it is statelessness that is the problem. The article titled Stateless nation notes some of the problem; but for much of history (the two millennia or so between the Jewish diaspora and the Israeli Declaration of Independence) Jewish people lacked a homeland. That statelessness affects people groups throughout the world, and the problems faced by the Jewish people (which are not to be minimized, as such) are also felt to varying degrees by other stateless cultures such as the Romani, the Uyghur, the Hmong, the various displaced aboriginal peoples from North America and Australia, and any of a number of other people groups." I hope that clarifies the issue. --Jayron32 20:23, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

You might as well ask, why do haters hate? Jews are a readily identifiable group who display characteristics that set them apart from those around them. They have been such a group for thousands of years, holding onto their culture through troubles and disasters. Babylon, Egypt, the Inquisition, the Holocaust and a thousand others, the Jews who survive now are the survivors of the survivors of the survivors. There will always be those who resent others and blame them for their own troubles, and the Jews are a ready target. But they are just human beings, like all of us, as are those who hate them or any other group. To hate Jews - or Chinese, or redheads or those who speak with an accent - is to hate yourself, and the answer lies within. Look into your heart and ask why you hate another person, and there is the reason. --Pete (talk) 20:21, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

• See also Economic_antisemitism and Medieval_antisemitism. (my vague understanding follows, see the articles for more detail) There was a period in Europe when Christians were not allowed to loan money for interest, i.e. usury, due to how they interpreted their religious laws. But economies of the time had a need for money lending and other monetary services. Jewish people had no such doctrine against monetary services, and some made good money by doing a job that Christians thought was a sin. As you can imagine, this engendered some bad feelings towards the Jewish people. Of course in the modern day, many self-identified 'Christians' only follow religious dogma when it is convenient, and many financiers of all faiths regularly abuse people with financial instruments... SemanticMantis (talk) 20:52, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

• The 10-point reply above (at 15:58) appears to have been made almost 3 hours before the OP asked their question (18:45, same day). -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:45, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

You know, I didn't find that the most striking thing about that reply. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:51, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Medeis re-added the comment and made a typo in the timestamp. It was actually 19:58, just one minute after the IP's second comment. And it's fair to say that Medeis was satirizing some Jewish stereotypes. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:25, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

The stereotype about attitudes toward Jews, as expressed by the OP, is encapsulated in this line from Tom Lehrer's 1965 song about National Brotherhood Week: "Oh, the Protestants / Hate the Catholics / And the Catholics / Hate the Protestants / And the Hindus / Hate the Moslems [sic] / And everybody hates the Jews!" And turning that stereotype around, after Obama was elected, Don Rickles told one of the late-night talk-how hosts, "The next president will be one of ours, and we'll declare war on everybody!" (Presumably the same "everybody" cited by Lehrer) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:25, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

"Brothers and sisters are natural enemies! Like Englishmen and Scots! Or Welshmen and Scots! Or Japanese and Scots! Or Scots and other Scots! Damn Scots! They ruined Scotland!"

Just replace Scots with Jews, and Groundskeeper Willie pretty much nails it. Earthlings sure are a contentious people. Especially those damn Scots! InedibleHulk (talk) 07:57, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Does this guy really need an article? InedibleHulk (talk) 08:44, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Because Jews are a minority in so many cultures, and minorities are hated by default. Surtsicna (talk) 09:43, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Anti-semitism almost defies logic. Jews have been hated in societies where they are perceived rich or poor, powerful or downtrodden, religious, indifferent or irreligious, minority, sizable group or even totally absent. There's a good series of short articles about this at the Aish website. The author's eventual thesis, that Jews are hated because they stand for "conscience and morality" is tempting, but I'm not convinced that's true either. Whatever the truth of it, it's very sad. --Dweller (talk) 14:37, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

There's not a single ethnic group on Earth who doesn't claim to stand for "conscience and morality", just as there's not a single ethnic group that actually does stand for "conscience and morality". --Bowlhover (talk) 17:52, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

• Just my two cents, but the way I understand it, as a Jew, is that we were the first very visible minority group. After our expulsion and dispersal from Ancient Israel, we became an unwelcome addition to many cultures. As many people came to embrace Christianity, Judaism was seen to impose itself and its adherents in these other nations that were adapting to the new Christian way of life. This, combined with their insistence that they are a chosen people agitated many Christians. Leaders and monarchs took advantage of this and restricted economic activities that Jewish people could participate in. People were not literate back then, on the whole, and they believed what they were told by their betters. Over the years, this has manifested itself in the form of, the Jews are responsible for the plague, the Jews are responsible for murdering your children, the Jews are becoming very wealthy off your backs, etc. People don't enjoy taking responsibility for their own hardships, and rulers always need scapegoats - so you could argue that anti-Semitism suits both the rich and the poor very well. It gives the poor someone to blame and it prevents the peasants from revolting.

Also, I don't think the, mostly accurate, perception that Jewish people have had, and continue to have, such a disproportionate influence in the world has done anything to halt anti-Semitism. Comparative to their population, they have an overwhelmingly disproportionate representation in journalism, lawmaking, movie production, and even at higher levels of government. In this day and age, the actions of Israel, being a Jewish state, leads many people to believe that Zionism, the politicisation of Judaism, is somehow intertwined with Jewish beliefs. I haven't experienced very much anti-Semitism during my lifetime thankfully, but I will acknowledge that we are a visible, influential community with many traditions that people just are not and haven't been comfortable with over the years. This combined with the perception that Jewish people only look after each other, and that the wealthiest Jewish families, notable the Rothschilds, are the men behind the curtain manipulating global events for the creation of a new world order, are just some of the many and complex reasons why anti-Semitism is such a persistent global phenomenon, although to a much lesser extent today than it was in the past. --Andrew 21:47, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

This is what Sir Peter Ustinov, not a Jew, said about the Jews: I believe that Jews have made a contribution to the human condition out of all proportion to their numbers: I believe them to be an immense people. Not only have they supplied the world with two leaders of the stature of Jesus Christ and Karl Marx, but they have even indulged in the luxury of following neither the one nor the other. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:45, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

• A rather apt summary, I think; couldn't have put it better myself! --Andrew 00:57, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Luke Allan -the author (actually William Lacy Amy)

I found this page on the French website: http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luke_Allan... But I cannot locate it in an English site??? He wrote exclusively in English, I believe. It would be a great start to see this content. I am working on more... I am Doug Frizzle, but not logged in...it's been a while and I will have to find my credentials... 76.11.117.68 (talk) 20:09, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

We have a project dedicated to the possible creation of new articles if you're unsure, it's at Articles For Creation. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:15, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Time Warner and Warner Brothers

Are the two affiliated right now? Time Warner Cable Internet says that the "Roadrunner" mokiner was dropped because they're not related anymore, but Warner Bros. says that it's a Time Warner subsidiary. Nyttend (talk) 22:41, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

This TWC link[1] refers to "Road Runner Web Mail" at some point. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:09, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

WB's overview page[2] states explicitly that they are a Time-Warner company. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:12, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Aha! TWC's overview page[3] states that they separated from Time Warner Inc. in 2009. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:16, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Jack Warner will make you a star! ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 05:29, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing up the confusion; I never imagined that TWC would be separate from TW without changing its name. Nyttend (talk) 01:16, 12 June 2014 (UTC)