Humanities desk
< September 24	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 26 >

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.

September 25

Interpol under the Nazis

I've just discovered to my suprise from browsing Wikipedia, that Interpol fell under the control of the Nazis after the Anschluss, and that the notorious Heydrich was its president.

Question 1: did Interpol actually operate as a proper international organisation during this period?

Question 2: were there any other major international organisations that this happened to, and what happened to them during WWII? --rossb (talk) 05:45, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I find nothing about Interpol in Google News archives for 1 1939-1945, and perhaps with the U.S. up to December 1941. Google Book search has some snippet views which suggest US connection with Interpol in 1939 and 1940, but the context implies that Google Book scanning has once again grossly misstated the year of the document, and they allow no view of the title page. Google books very often gets the year wrong on the documents they scan. The Wikipedia article on Interpol says little about their activities from Anschluss in 1938 through war's end. Most book (sadly, only snippet views) suggest that it was inactive during the war. Actual library research would be needed to see if the FBI sent information requested by the Nazi Interpol between 1938 and December 1941. Edison (talk) 15:39, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Web sites offer some more information, of uncertain reliability, so presented subject to confirmation: Trivia library says per "The People's Almanac (Wallechinsky and Wallace, 1975-91) that the US joined Interpol in 1938, after the Anschluss. This is confirmed by numerous book sources. The joining was recommended by Treasury Secretary Cummings 2 weeks after Anschluss, so it was not a matter of reluctantly continuing a long-standing cooperative effort. (The Final Solution was crafted in Wansee at Interpol headquarters in January 1942under the direction of Interpol head Heydrich). I could not find evidence of any US cooperation with Interpol from 1941 until 1947. An article in "The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Modern World" (2008) says the organization was "dormant throughout World War 2." Conspiracy sites love to speculate about Interpol postwar sympathy for Nazis, and for secret blackmail files from Interpol HQ which disappeared at war's end. Edison (talk) 15:52, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. Paul Dickopf, a former SS member, was President of Interpol from 1968 to 1972. [1] (although probably not a very reliable source). 99.166.95.142 (talk) 16:05, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You might like reading: Deflem, Mathieu. 2002. "The Logic of Nazification: The Case of the International Criminal Police Commission." International Journal of Comparative Sociology 43(1):21-44 google cache version.—eric 03:25, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interpol's own history page [2] indicates the organization ceased to function as an international organization in 1938 and began rebuilding in 1946. Weepy.Moyer (talk) 12:38, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Legal usage: "in witness whereof"

What is the literal meaning of "in witness whereof"? The phrase is explained in dictionaries as coming from the Latin phrase "in cujus rei testimonium". It often occurs as the beginning of the concluding clause in legal documents. Does it literally mean "as evidence of what (is stated above)" or "in the presence of witness" or something else?

A very literal translation of the Latin would be "this is evidence about the thing of which (details are given above)". The testimonium clause (as it's known) provides whatever information is necessary to prove that the document is authentic; this may just be the signatures of the parties, or it may include details of witnesses to the signature, corporate seals, etc. Tevildo (talk) 10:34, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More literally perhaps is "in witness of which (thing/matter)" which is essentially the same as "in witness whereof". Adam Bishop (talk) 01:55, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Evidence" is perhaps better than "witness" as a translation of "testimonium" in this particular case. Any legal document can have a testimonium clause; it doesn't imply that the signature has been attested by a third party, or that the person who signed it was on oath, or any other more formal procedure that "witness" might imply. Tevildo (talk) 11:41, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

German perspective on the bombing of Dresden

Why do Germans always give Dresden as an example when they want to be seen as victims of the II World war? It was doubtless a massive bombing, but so was the bombing of other German cities like Cologne or Hamburg - which even caused more casualties.--Quest09 (talk) 12:36, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you actually care to have the German perspective rather than just anglo-american stereotypes, it would help to phrase the question less agressive/arrogant. Don't think you care though. 195.128.251.40 (talk) 22:44, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly because it was not seen as justified by military objectives-- it was a city pretty much devoid of industrial or military targets. An example of "terror bombing".Rhinoracer (talk) 13:03, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dresden is a great example of "the Allies committed atrocities, too." Killing civilians was the primary goal. There are of course other instances of this, but Dresden sticks out in particular because it had been previously unbombed. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:10, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Germans started the war. The bombing of Dresden was ill-advised. But not nearly as ill-advised as starting the war. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 15:25, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How does that help to explain why the Germans cite Dresden as an example of Allied atrocities? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 19:29, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It has to do with them being in denial about being the ones who caused it. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 19:52, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As they say on the playground, two wrongs don't make a right. There is no question that Hitler was responsible for starting World War II (or that he was put into a position to do so because of the way the European powers wrapped up World War I). But whether that means the Allies had a right to commit war crimes is unrelated, as is the question as to whether the German people themselves weren't ultimately victims of the whole thing as well. One can, in fact, lose the moral high-ground, quite easily. --Mr.98 (talk) 21:57, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When you start a war, you bear the consequences of it, and sometimes it can be bad. This reminds me a little bit of those who think we shouldn't have bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki. They're wrong. Japan started that war, and our A-bombs ended it. Maybe we shouldn't have bombed Dresden. But these things can happen when you start a war. The cause of the bombing of Dresden was Herr Hitler himself. He is to blame for it. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:29, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no "right" answer to the question of whether Hiroshima and Nagasaki "should" have been obliterated or not - one either supports it or not. Once we start pointing fingers at the instigator and blaming them for all subsequent events in the war, that argument can be used to justify all manner of things; such as the outrageous incarceration of American citizens of Japanese origin in WW2, or the same thing that happened to Australian citizens (British subjects, actually, at that time) of German extraction in WW1. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:34, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dropping the big ones on Japan was a good military decision. It ended the war. It saved the lives of many thousands of Allied forces who would have had to conduct a D-Day style invasion otherwise. Yes, America interred Japanese-Americans. They basically imprisoned them, and released them when the war was over. The internment was not a good thing. But they didn't send them to the gas chambers. Some guy named Adolf did that stuff. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 01:34, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My point, Bugs, which you seem to have missed, is that one's judgement on the moral propriety of emphasising Dresden is not relevant to answering the question of why Germans like to emphasise Dresden, as opposed to other bombings. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 20:05, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the opinion of a number of terrorists, as their enemies started and continue a war against them their terrorism to oppose the war against them is justified. Most people don't agree with this view but I guess you're one of the few that does. Or to go back to the WW2 theme, in the opinion of some Nazis, their actions against Jewish and other people were justified for amongst other reasons, because these people were effectively at war on Germany and out to destroy Germany and the German people. While there's mostly unanimous agreement that these claims were false propaganda and it's unclear how many actually believed the propaganda, it's likely some did. Regardless, most people agree the horrific atrocities committed against Jewish and other people were not justified even if they were at war with Germany. Again I presume in your opinion this is wrong. If neither of these describe you view point then perhaps it's best that you concede that clearly most people including you agree that not every action in response to a war is justified. This doesn't mean that the events are comparable, that's irrelevant to my point. Nor that Hiroshima and Nagasaki and Dresden were wrong or right, as JoO says that's not something you can given definite answer for nor is it something relevant to this question or the RD. Nil Einne (talk) 16:27, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've been reading Wikipedia since before Baseball Bugs joined, and I can't remember the last time I saw him do anything constructive, for all his voluminous contribution of pithy comments to RD, ANI, etc. Oh well, I guess the attempt at humour keeps some people happy. --192.193.116.137 (talk) 16:24, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further to what Rhinoracer said, Dresden was also seen as a beautiful, cultural city, while Cologne and Hamburg were much more industrial. I think along with the civilian casualties, the destruction of such a nice place for no apparent reason struck a chord. TastyCakes (talk) 15:33, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be contradictory evidence as to whether Dresden was really devoid of industrial or military targets. See Bombing_of_Dresden_in_World_War_II#Military_and_industrial_profile. 99.166.95.142 (talk) 16:06, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article does provide some helpful stuff such as Bombing of Dresden in World War II#British (remember this was during the war) as well as of course Bombing of Dresden in World War II#Post-war debate. Nil Einne (talk) 19:42, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(I'm the OP). It is incredible how a question gets kidnapped. Yes, it being perceived as a cultural city and a non-military target could be an explanation. However, was is like that? Was n't Cologne also a cultural city? Was the devastation of Hamburg perceived by the Germans as "well, we deserved that, at least Dresden is intact?"--Quest09 (talk) 16:26, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dresden tends to draw attention because of the severity of what happened, and its percieved lack of necessity. Dresden was not primarily an industrial city, nor was the bombing contained to the industrial areas. Plus, the resulting firestorm was brutal and made things far, far worse than a normal bombing campaign would have. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:31, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

National Debt - someone is laughing somewhere

OK, so the UK national debt is the princely sum of £175 billion. And the US also has a massive national debt.

Why do supposedly rich nations such as these operate at such high debt levels? And if they are so rich, why are they in debt? Just who is all this debt owed to exactly? Are there countries out there with extemely healthy bank balance sucking us dry with interest payments?

As a rule I never spend what I can't afford, as in the long run you are just doing yourself out of money. Why do governments not apply the same logic?

Running at a loss is not necessarily a bad thing for governments. The reason governments don't operate like a household comes from the theories of John Maynard Keynes which put forward interventionist policies. The page on Keynesian economics explains it all better than I can here. Each countries national debt is owed to each other in a reciprocal system. Check out the page on United States public debt. A large proportion is also owed to the World Bank and private individuals etc.

Cynical and Skeptical (talk) 14:06, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Countries (or more specifically, governments) operate beyond their income because it is politically savvy to offer more services, but it is also politically savvy to offer less taxes. Taxing the hell out of everything is a great way to not get reelected, but so is slashing services (schools, health, pensions etc). Running deficits is usually justified by saying it's a recession or a downturn and that spending more than you have is temporary or even a good thing due to Keynesian economics. A structural deficit is more worrying, because it suggests a country is running a deficit despite the economy being in good shape, and if they can't balance the books then, what chance do they have in a downturn? National debts are usually bad because countries end up spending a good chunk of future generations' taxes on debt payments, rather than providing services. The debt is owed to anyone that buys it, largely private individuals and corporations but also nations. China, for example, owns a large (and, to many, worrying) amount of US T-Bills. TastyCakes (talk) 15:41, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your example is questionable. Most Households have debt. Most home-owners have debt on their home by way of a mortgage. They may also have a personal-loan or other debts.

TastyCakes - if we are lending today on the future taxes of others, what were those in the past doing? Why won't the future just do the same? Lets not pretend national-debt is something new or unique, it is pretty standard and many many countries operate a level of national debt at differing times - potentially depending on where they are in economic cycle. People fear debt, and talk it up like it's the worst thing you can get into, but in reality well structure, well organised debt can be positive. As for "spending on debt rather than providing services" - this is again a gross simplification, it seems to suggests that all 'interest' is lost money without any benefit. The benefit could be early investment of that money into services, the reward could be that the services improve quicker.

I'm weary of those that try to reduce this to a simple debt is bad, balanced is good argument - it is far more complex than that. ny156uk (talk) 15:57, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Complicating matters in the US is that both Republicans and Democrats love to spend and don't think the debt matters. Their only disagreement is what to spend it on. So there ya are. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 15:59, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ny, obviously there are times when governments should borrow money in order to make large expenditures they could not make "in cash" alone. Large infrastructure projects, wars and so on. Likewise, running a deficit in lean years to protect investments expected to pay dividends in the future (education, health etc) is a good idea. But the whole idea behind making this kind of expenditure is that they are not constant - the idea of running a deficit year after year after year is not a good one no matter how you do the math. Obviously generations past ran debts, some of which we are still paying off. What is more worrying currently, in the US at least, is that the level of debt to GDP continues to rise after years of decline following World War 2, and unlike after World War 2 America is looking at unfavourable demographic factors, as it has to provide expensive services (namely medicaid and social security) to a rapidly aging population, and there's no real reason to expect an explosion of economic activity like the one that followed the war (see this article). So yes, the debt is likely to continue rising as a percentage of GDP, and payments are likely to consume larger and larger parts of the government's budget. If I were American I would think it all a worrying situation. Particularly since sooner or later it's likely the US will try to "inflate its way out" of the debt, which would have serious consequences for the real income of its citizens. TastyCakes (talk) 16:21, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What the GOP found out was that "true" fiscal conservatism would get them defeated, so they adopted the Democratic approach of spending and running up a deficit - except they also cut taxes in the process. Hence the deficit ballooned out of control while the GOP ran the Congress. The current "tea party" folks are funny. It's their own beloved GOP that wrought this disaster. We were actually running a surplus in the late 90s, and then we got a monolithic Republican government, and now here we are. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 16:27, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like this discussion has gone a little afield of the OP. I've put the original questions in italics in this response.

Why do supposedly rich nations such as these operate at such high debt levels? And if they are so rich, why are they in debt? Economists have long recognized that a national debt is not such a bad thing, and may even be something to encourage. As Alexander Hamilton put it, "A national debt if it is not excessive will be to us a national blessing." A national debt gives investors a safe place to invest, and it provides the country with a cheap source of financing. It also makes it easier to a country to engage in countercyclical spending during recessions, when the need for government spending is greater but tax revenues are down, and it enables government investing in capital-intensive projects. There are also, of course, less commendable reasons for deficit spending, and those have already been mentioned.

Just who is all this debt owed to exactly? The U.S. Treasury releases ownership information in this table. (I realize that by "us" you probably mean the United Kingdom, but these are the data I have; maybe someone else can translate them to the UK. The principles should be much the same.) As of March 2009, there was $11,126.9 billion of United States federal debt, of which $4,785.2 billion was Federal Reserve and intragovernmental holdings and $6,341.7 billion was privately held. Of the privately held debt, $3,267.0 billion was held by foreign and international holders, with the remainder held by various institutional and individual domestic holders. The biggest foreign holders are China and Japan, which together own almost half of the foreign/international portion. (This includes private holdings in those countries, not just what is held by their governments.)

Are there countries out there with extemely healthy bank balance sucking us dry with interest payments? Well, there are countries that have relatively low national debts, and one of these is China, the single largest holder of U.S. national debt. On the other hand, Japan's national debt is very large, see List of countries by public debt. However, they're not really "sucking us dry," since the national debts of the US and the UK get the most favorable interest rates possible. It's by no means clear who is taking advantage of whom, or even if that's a meaningful question to ask.

As a rule I never spend what I can't afford, as in the long run you are just doing yourself out of money. Why do governments not apply the same logic? The standard answer to this is that governments and households are not the same, but I think they are alike in that they both shouldn't spend what they can't afford. Governments, of course, have much deeper pockets. But a large debt does not mean that it is unaffordable. For example, an individual buying a home typically enters into a mortgage that is much more than his or her annual income. John M Baker (talk) 17:50, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is not so much about the debt as it is on what the debt was spent. If the government borrows and spends on infrastructure, this might be a good thing. This is not dissimilar from an individual borrowing to pay for an education -- the benefit from the education pays for the debt plus more. Wikiant (talk) 18:34, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It may be worth thinking about what happens if you go the opposite direction. What happens if you have big surpluses? Very likely there would be calls to cut taxes to 'stimulate the economy' and/or because the government is perceived as overtaxing as happened here in NZ for several years. Using the surplus to pay off public debt doesn't necessarily help [3] [4] [5]. Nil Einne (talk) 19:33, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think government debt and personal debt are very similar. They can be good, if you only borrow for good investments (like education or a home in the personal case, or education and infrastructure in the government case), provided there is a concrete, realistic plan and timetable for paying off the debt. What is bad, in both cases, is borrowing money for frivolous things (like vacations for families and, for governments, building a brand new stadium when the old one is just fine), and having no plan whatsoever for how to pay it off, but just saying "we'll worry about that later" (or future generations will). The problem with borrowing money in those cases is that it prevents a realistic assessment of the situation and the required belt-tightening. In the examples above, the family could have a "staycation" and the government could stick with the old stadium, perhaps with a few inexpensive renovations. StuRat (talk) 21:27, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Government debt is usually measured in terms of percentage of GDP, which means you can effectively reduce the debt by increase GDP more than you increase debt. That means that borrowing in order to spend on something that will increase productivity by more than the amount you borrow is usually a good thing (although you need to make sure you can afford to service the debt). Borrowing for something that doesn't increase productivity is usually a bad thing (but there are exceptions). It's important to note, though, that it is productivity, not net worth, that matters, so infrastructure isn't always a good investment and there are good investments that don't improve infrastructure (researching a swine flu vaccine, say, wouldn't usually be considered to be building infrastructure but could increase productivity by avoiding so many people taking time off work). --Tango (talk) 21:46, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right. Stated another way, "free money" (money which somebody else will have to worry about paying off, not you) interferes with performing the required cost-benefit analysis. There is a cost to borrowing, whether that cost is borne by the borrower or following generations, and the benefits of borrowing must outweigh those costs for it to be a good choice. StuRat (talk) 12:44, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

R.I.P. Rosemary Stasek needs article

Former Mountain View, California mayor Rosemary Stasek died in Kabul, Afghanistan of a heart attack at age 46. 99.56.137.233 (talk) 16:27, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for creation. 99.166.95.142 (talk) 16:28, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Source: http://www.contracostatimes.com/california/ci_13417205 99.56.137.233 (talk) 16:30, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

??? Nil Einne (talk) 20:21, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want an article about Rose, you might want to be bold and create it yourself. Otherwise it might not get created for quite a while. Googlemeister (talk) 20:47, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A former mayor of Mountain View, California, who dedicated her short life to helping the women and girls of Afghanistan, was rejected at Wikipedia:Articles for creation for lack of notability. Since when are mayors of cities >70,000 population below the notability guidelines? I wish to appeal! Mr X 2010 (talk) 08:39, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at WP:POLITICIAN - if you can provide references to reliable sources that demonstrate Ms Stasek meets those criteria, the article should survive a deletion request. Tevildo (talk) 11:35, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're incorrect. The rejection clear says the problem is you failed to establish notability not that the person isn't notable. If you have any further questions you should seek help at WP:Help desk however in this case they will just tell you what Tevildo and Wikipedia:Articles for creation tells you which is that you need to establish notability Nil Einne (talk) 16:14, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Money transaction life cycle

What happened in the life cycle of a transaction when company "A" in country "X" make a purchase of let say $10 million from Company "B" in country "Y". I understand a line of credit is established between two banks one from each of the countries and an electronic transfer takes place. Are there any hard curency that exchange hands between the two banks. what roles does the CentralBank/Federal Reserve/Bank National for each of these countries plays if any.

In other words, I in the Cayman Island, purchase $10 million worth of wigets form a company in California, US. The funds were transfered, my account debited. Does my bank in turn trucked, shipped hard curency to the depossitor's bank?

Thank you

In most cases, no it would not. The amount of $ that exists electronically far surpasses that which exists physically. As an example, when the US government loaned Bank of America $45,000,000,000 in bailout money, they did not haul millions of $100 bills to their vaults. Googlemeister (talk) 20:45, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is surprisingly hard to search for info on this, but i remember reading in an Economics textbook that most countries only have a few banks that actually deal with foreign transfers. The other banks then engage the services of these banks to transfer the money for them. If you only have a few banks in each country trading money it becomes very easy to manage the exchange of currency. If Bank A transfers $100 to bank B but bank B transfers $110 to bank A, they only have to move the $10. As Googlemeister points out modern banks use Fractional-reserve_banking which means that they only need to hold a small portion of the "money" on their books as deposits as hard currency. So this makes the process even smaller scale than what you might think. Finally, I believe that in the short term these international banks just use settlement accounts for these transfers. That is, the currency doesn't actually move, they just keep the information that some of the reserves in their vault are not actually theirs. In general I would imagine that currency moves fairly evenly in both ways. Of course there are flows in the long run, but these would be dwarfed by the movements in each direction.~~

Chinese Agriculture Propaganda Photo

I'm looking for a Chinese communist propaganda photo that I saw a few years ago in my high school history class. It was a black and white photo of a girl dancing on top of a wheat field. Apparently the wheat was grown so densely together that you could walk on top of the stalks of wheat. Obviously a little photoshop magic was used. Can anyone point me towards this piece of propaganda?

It is in a book by Jasper Becker.

A description of the photo, as Plate 3, is in above link. We still need the photo itself, however. StuRat (talk) 16:12, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I found that book in my university library. Here is a scan of the picture for anyone else interested.

2 questions

1.In which country did it originate and is it the most widespread name in the world? Saddam Hussein, Barack Hussein Obama, Hussein Bolt... Iraq, USA, Jamaica... Where did it originate and how come its present in so many countries?

2.Another question is more a medical advice then a question, but I would rather not go to the doctor because it might be embarassing. I swallowed an Orbit chewing gum few hours ago. Some of my friends that were there said its nothing and that I shoulndt worry. But another friend told me that I should go to the hospital and have my stomach pumped, because otherwise I could die.

I dont feel anything, but a little concerned because when I go to sleep I might not feel it chocking me. But Im ashamed to go to the hospital unless Im sure its dangerous, this friend might just be winding me up. So should I worry or not?

Thanks

1. Try our article Hussein (which is a redirect to Husayn), which discusses where it originated and who it's in honor of. 2. Sigh. At the top of the page, you'll see that we are all forbidden from answering medical advice questions. We are random Internet people and not doctors. If you are concerned, call a doctor or nurse. Comet Tuttle (talk) 21:35, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2. You might want to check out what snopes has to say, particularly the second paragraph. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:06, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. I know its arabic, but I was wondering how come its so present in countries like USA or Jamaica, that are christian and as far as I know Obama, Bolt and others named Hussein arent arabic or muslim.

You may find that Chen is the most common surname in the world.--Wetman (talk) 22:30, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And you may find that Muhammad in its various spellings is the most common given name. --Anonymous, 22:45 UTC, September 25, 2009.

Hmm how did you get that idea? Chen is only the fifth most popular in mainland China used by less then 7.1% of the population (dunno precise numbers but Chinese surname says the 3rd id 7.1%). It's more popular in some other places but the size of the mainland Chinese population and the fact that Li (李) is also quite popular in many of these places makes it difficult to make up for I suspect and our article does claim Li (李) is the most popular surname in the world Nil Einne (talk) 08:31, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barack Obama, Sr. did convert to Islam at one point, according to his article, which may have inspired the son's middle name. As for non-Arabs and non-Muslims having names that seem Arabic or Islamic, I feel the need to scold you for seeming to be surprised that the US is a melting pot. Comet Tuttle (talk) 22:58, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but all people with surname Chan are chinese and all people named Muhammed are muslim. That doesnt explain how come both muslims and christians are named Hussein! p.s. Thanks for that info about Obama,I had no idea that his father was Muslim, I guess thats why Gadafi called him "my son" in UN yesterday.

I just want to point out, per #2, that if a food-like product doesn't say "don't eat this, it'll be really bad for you," it almost surely is not bad for you to eat it, owing to the fact that they can get sued to the dickens. Toothpaste, for example, clearly says "don't eat this, call poison control!" on the side of it, because you can't eat it even though it tastes pretty good. Chewing gum does not. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 01:21, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Husayn is a Muslim saint, sort of like Christians using the name John. Note also that the Jamaican runner is Usain, mot Hussein. Adam Bishop (talk) 01:51, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It took me several readings of Barack Obama Sr. to conclude that it was the President's grandfather, not his father, who converted to Islam and took the name Hussein at the front of his tribal name. The President's father was then given his father's name as his second given name (Barack Hussein). The President's father was raised a Muslim in a Muslim household. According to the article, quoting the president's memoirs, the President's father was an avowed atheist by the time he met the President's mother. Nothwithstanding that, he still gave the President his own full name -Barack Hussein Obama. The President has the name because it was his father's (and his grandfather's) name, and not because of the President's religion or upbringing. (That is awkwardly worded, and I apologize, but I kept confusing father, son and grandson when using pronoun referrents.) I hope I have it right. // BL \\ (talk) 03:27, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As for Mr Bolt, the Jamaica Star interviewed his aunt who gave him his name, though she only remembers that it was "African" in origin but not what it meant. Although there is nothing in the article I could find about Usain's religious background, his second name is St. Leo, but his pet name is "Vijay" which the linked newspaper article says is Hindi for "victory". // BL \\ (talk) 03:44, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All of that sounds about right for Jamaica. Jamaica is an astoundingly diverse melting pot, and it would not be unusual to find African, English, Chinese, Muslim, and Hindu influence at work in the same family. --Jayron32 06:07, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all for answers on 1. question, thats clears it up a bit. As for question number 2, Im still alive :)

Wartime repatriation

A major plot element of The Captive Heart was the repatriation of prisoners of war during World War II. Did such things actually happen? Clarityfiend (talk) 22:00, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know it either, but yes, they did. See this page, for example. Note where it says that only prisoners who were sick or wounded were exchanged; presumably that would have applied to any such exchanges. --Anonymous, 22:52 UTC, September 25, 2009.

They weren't particularly unhealthy in the movie, which is why I was so confused. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:19, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chocolate

What is the difference between warmed chocolate milk, hot chocolate and hot cocao?

Read this:Hot chocolate

Cynical and Skeptical (talk) 23:51, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]