Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2010 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 11

Star Trek: TNG episode "The Inner Light" refers to a Japanese folk story?

In the episode, Picard experiences an entire lifetime, virtually but firsthand. I've heard that this is something of a retelling of a Japanese folk story - something about a man who falls asleep beneath a tree with a similar experience; he awakes to find an ant colony strikingly similar to his memory of his dream. I cannot figure out the name of this tale (it could be a story for preschoolers, for all I know) but I'd enjoy reading it. Any ideas what the name is/how to find it? Thanks! Sopwith (talk) 00:16, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

The first Google hit on "The Inner Light" japanese ants was our article The Dream of Akinosuke. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:38, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Oo. It's always the last place you look. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sopwith (talk • contribs) 00:44, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

The first place I looked was our article The Inner Light (Star Trek: The Next Generation), but I later found it was removed in this edit. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:59, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

One of my favourite episodes. Anyway, I proposed the deleted section be reinstated. Astronaut (talk) 02:50, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

What's the probability that the Icelandic debt repayment referendum could lead to war?

I'm not completely familiar with the Icelandic debt repayment referendum, 2010. But 3.8 billion euros sounds like a lot of money. Could refusal to repay a debt lead to war? ScienceApe (talk) 00:28, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

No way. 3.8 billion Euros is not that much in the scheme of things, for one (compared to the GDP of most European countries it is a tiny thing), and in any case the more likely result would just be lots of negotiations, maybe sanctions, maybe various economic means of punishment/redress. But war? It's not important enough, the money is not large enough, Iceland is not threatening enough, and defaulting on a national debt can lead to numerous things other than war that are easier for everyone involved. (And how would war get the money back?) --Mr.98 (talk) 00:44, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Admittedly two of the countries involved were earlier protagonists in the Cod Wars, which saw some warning shots and mild sort-of-accidental fender-bending between ships, but in the present circumstances anything more than harsh diplomatic exchanges and some tit-for-tat legislation is vanishingly unlikely. Of course, no-one in the governments of the parties concerned will mention the W-word even to rule it out, because to do so would itself be diplomatically unacceptable. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 00:53, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely no chance of war. Iceland could lose access to the international credit market for a time, and the EU or individual European countries might conceivably restrict trade with Iceland, but that is about as serious as it would get. Marco polo (talk) 01:01, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Not a chance -- invading to take that money would cost the invading country far more than it would recover. To give you an idea of how much a war costs, consider that 3.8 billion euros would cover a week and a half of the US occupation of Iraq. I can't find a number for the cost of the Falklands war, but I expect it would be even higher. --Carnildo (talk) 02:08, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

The UK could run into some additional troubles if they tried: Defense of Iceland: Agreement Between the United States and the Republic of Iceland, May 5, 1951 75.41.110.200 (talk) 03:16, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Broader question: What are the implications for the EU if Iceland absolutely will not pay. Yes, sanctions against them, as stated farther up. But what about implications to the EU overall? If any. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:27, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Since Iceland is not a member of the EU, it is not obliged by anything to pay up, nor can it suffer any consequences for not doing so. On the other hand, the EU would like to see Iceland as a full member some time in the future and is likely to avoid making moves which might increase already high levels of euroscepticism among Icelanders. So the EU is likely to see this problem as a bilateral dispute between UK and Iceland, and stay out of it altogether. However, should Iceland choose to pursue full EU membership, this is certainly going to be a major stumbling block for them as individual countries have the ability to block candidates' negotiations (in spite the fact that the European Commission often insists that bilateral issues should be kept separated from negotiations and the enlargement process). On the other hand, if Iceland rejects the idea of ever joining EU, it would enable the EU to take more action and sanctions are very likely (as the EU would have more to lose for not doing anything). As for war breaking out, chances are absolutely zero. The US would probably do nothing to defend Iceland anyway (as NATO agreement is pretty unclear what would happen in case two member countries went to war), which would leave Iceland unable to do anything to defend itself, as they have no standing army of their own. But the question is why on Earth would the British public support such a move, and what would the British do with it once they had it? The whole thing would be pretty idiotic. Timbouctou (talk) 10:23, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

You're talking warfare, but I was thinking more of the economic implications - a possible domino effect if a country won't pay its bills, affecting other countries' ability to pay their bills, etc. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:35, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

A few billion Euros will neither break nor make major European states like the UK or the Netherlands. It looks like they are bickering around the 3-4 billion mark now. The UK and the Netherlands have a combined population of around 75 million, i.e. you are talking about 50 Euro/inhabitant. On the other side, Iceland has a population of 300000 (about as much as a mid-size town) - the sum is nearly half of its annual GDP. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:52, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

It's not really an EU issue, although as already stated it does influence the decision about membership. The implications of any country reneging on it's financial implications are much the same regardless of who they are. Implications for their credit rating, hence ability to raise funds in the future, loss of confidence in their economic model so a disincentive to invest in the country on a commercial basis as there may be doubts about the reliability of the government with respect to commercial activities and obligations.

There is nothing to prevent the UK and the Netherlands to put in place some form of trade instrument to achieve a restitution effect, although there is a general view in both economies that barriers to trade are generally a bad thing (tm) and reduced trade barriers are inherently more value generating.

ALR (talk) 10:50, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

There are some good points above, but elaborating on Timbouctou's comment there's the obvious question of why anyone would want to go to war. It's not as if Iceland has an abudance of natural resources which the Netherlands or the UK could claim for restitution. Sure the could enslave the populance or less extreme set up a puppet government which demands high taxes and sends most of it to the UK and the Netherlands but that isn't exactly an easy thing to do in this day and age and liable to be even more controversial then the war itself. Nil Einne (talk) 14:36, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

In any remotely realistic context, Iceland has no military power, while Britain already has the upper hand (with the Iceland bank assets held in Britain and a veto power over further loans to Iceland), so effective means and motive for war are lacking. AnonMoos (talk) 15:38, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I've calculated that this debt imposed on Iceland is on a similar size per capita as the Versailles Treaty's reparations on Germany, which I found surprising. However, I agree that a war about them is extremely unlikely. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 20:59, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

How to deal with Bullies

What is the psychology of bullies and how does one deal with them effectively? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.89.50.196 (talk) 03:12, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Do you have any background you can share--are you a parent? A teacher? etc.--达伟 (talk) 09:51, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Bullies pick on those who are vulnerable or unable to defend themselves. Your options include; become cool so that the bully won't pick on you or risk scorn from those around him who consider you a friend, join a group even a group of nerds will do because strength in numbers, or become physically stronger than the bully and simply show them through physical contact that you can inflict considerable damage to them if they bother you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fire2010 (talk • contribs) 14:07, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

So bullies only respect force? --95.89.50.196 (talk) 15:03, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with respect. But basically yes, bullies will back off from situations they can't win. The whole point of bulling is to intimidate and win, if the opponent is stronger there's no chance of winning and therefore no point. Someone who continues to "bully" when faced with that isn't a bully, they're a jackass and possibly mentally unstable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fire2010 (talk • contribs) 17:34, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Thet may apply to physical bullying or intimidation, but does not cover psychological bullying as I've tried to describe below. 89.242.243.82 (talk) 13:02, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Bullying and school bullying may not be the most complete of articles, but they do cite a couple of studies and offer some external links relevant to the question. ---Sluzzelin talk 15:47, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, this is a complicated topic and one on which a lot of research has been done. While I'm sure anecdotal experience is sometimes valuable here (if we could verify it was from experience and not just derived from television, as I suspect a lot of it is), I think it probably should be avoided... --Mr.98 (talk) 15:50, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

we had a thread on this just recently at Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2010_February_24#Bully_.3D_gang_with_one_person_in_it.3F. From my view, the best way to handle a bully is to make him public. Bullies thrive by being private - they isolate their victims and bully them privately, and then pretend to be nice decent upright people in public. stand up and call them bullies and liars in public, tell teachers, seek out other people who have been bullied and get them to band together, carry signs with the bully's name, sign a petition. The more the bully has to face public criticism for his/her actions, them more freaked out s/he will get. yeah, you'll take some lumps for it as the bully tries to beat you back into private silence, but... --Ludwigs2 16:05, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I've noticed exactly the same behaviour myself - "Bullies thrive by being private - they isolate their victims and bully them privately, and then pretend to be nice decent upright people in public." Why do they bully people in private like that? Whats the point of doing that? Is it manipulation - they want the victim to be either fearful or angry with them in front of other people? If it is, why is that? Are they prima donnas or attention seekers? 78.146.0.232 (talk) 20:58, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

You should really write a book about this, Ludwigs2, or at least write an essay or paper. It would help a lot of people. I'd particularly like to read the sources of where you got this from. 78.146.0.232 (talk) 20:51, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

lol - I probably should write a book, but the question is whether it would end up as self-help or philosophy. most of these ideas come from political science reading. For instance, the notion of enforced privacy comes up a lot is feminist and ethnic studies. You'll see books like "Public Man, Private Woman", or some of the books by people like Cornell West, which go into great detail about how women and minorities are dominated by being forced into privacy, while white males achieve power by being given privileged access to public life. It's why, for instance, blacks were forced to sit at the back of the bus under Jim Crow laws, and why women are forced to wear veils in traditional Muslim regimes. Then you'll get people like Foucault (and a different set of feminist/ethnicist scholars) talking about dominance through isolation and surveillance. it's the 'strip club' effect, where putting someone under a spotlight and effectively stripping them of all privacy reduces them to a dominated cipher. You'll also get some of the later Marxists (Poulantzes for a good example) who talk about how political power is secured in a democracy by hyper-individuating everyone: Keep people locked in as isolated, independent, disconnected individuals, and they are incapable of wielding any political power (since political power is a function of collective action). This is basically all a bully does, a kind of microcosm of dysfunctional politics: he forces people into his private world where he has control over the situation, and tries to blind them from seeing that there's any world outside of his influence that they can turn to. That's why bullies hate snitches more than anything, because snitches force the bully into a bigger world where the bully is the one being isolated and observed.

really, the best advice I can give on the matter is to remember that a bully might beat you up, but can only control you to the extent that you allow yourself to be absorbed in his world. treat a bully like a head-cold - something unpleasant and unavoidable, to be ignored while present and forgotten when gone, or laughed about with friends - and the bully will cease to have any real power over your life. build the world you want to live in, don't accept the bully's world as a given. That takes a lot of practice, though... --Ludwigs2 21:57, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

On reflection I think its more a matter of secrecy rather than in private. They want to enjoy hurting the victim without getting in trouble themselves, so it has to be kept away from people with power who disaprove of bullying or people who may "rat" to such people and be believed. In my experience adult bullying is often linked to people who are incompetant at their job or have some other secret to hide and find it easier or prefer to stage-manage things rather than do a good job: they reward and like loyal people "us" who they think will support the impression the bully is trying to give to those in power (eg by lip-service etc), and they isolate disparage and discredit "them" who they think will not do that. I think they try to lower the victim's self-eateem enough so that they will not complain, and also to discredit the victim so that the victim will not be taken seriously by those in power. If they think that someone that they cannot manipulate has power over them, then they suck up to them and try to manipulate the impression they get. In my experience bullies often may only bully when they have an audience of the in-group "us", because they want to seem powerful or as a hero in their eyes. With no audience, they sometimes behave normally. Another thing they do is make the victim fearful of or annoyed with the bully, so that the audience (who are not aware of the hidden 'grooming') get a manipulated view of the victim. They also like to make their victim feel ashamed of being a victim, so that they will keep it a secret. It does not help if those in power get self-esteem from being "strong" and believe that only the "weak" are victims.

Isolating the victim seems to be a common modus operandi of bullies and serves several functions: they do not want the victim to have friends who can back-up or witness what the bully does, they do not want the victim to get power by joining up with others, they want to reduce the victims self-esteem and discredit them by turning them into a 'loner', and so on. It also lifts the esteem of the "us" or in-group to have a despised "them" out-group individual - the in-group are pleased and grateful that it is happening to someone else, not themselves. 78.147.136.183 (talk) 13:49, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Of course, bullies can also be encountered in adult life, whether in a family, social or professional context. I nearly resigned twice from my last job because a newly appointed supervisor began bullying me (and others) and our similarly new manager refused to take action despite my (and others') complaints. In the end both were effectively dismissed at the request of our client/host management for other (though not totally unrelated) reasons. In properly run organisations, there should be a grievance procedure to turn to, although in the case described it was blocked by the very individuals concerned. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 16:32, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

How do you deal with bullies? By peaceful protest. As Ludwig said, make sure everyone knows what they're doing, but don't return cruelty with cruelty. It's hard, you'll suffer for it, but peaceful protest is the best way to turn people against the bully. Of course, that's a long-term system. Short term, you may still get beat up/harrassed and have trouble getting people on your side. In a school-environment, you also have to be careful your own protests aren't seen as harassing the bully, or the whole thing will backfire badly. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:36, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Seems to me I read someplace that Gandhi conceded that passive resistance would not have worked against the Nazis. Sometimes the method used in Romania becomes necessary. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:13, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, we're referring to bullies here, not homicidal idealogues. So I don't think that's a problem. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:03, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

In practical terms it would be helpful to keep a diary where you record what the bully said or did, and when and where they did this, and who was present. You could secretly record or video the bully on a mobile phone, although I expect most of the time they do not do anything bad so you would be lucky to catch them in the act. Organisations should have clear anti-bullying policies, a code of conduct for staff, and a designated independant and impartial person to whom complaints can be made without fear of reprisal. Discuss the bullying with friends - do not keep quiet about it due to shame, which is exactly what the bully wants - and join up with other victims if you can to jointly complain about the bullying. 78.146.52.206 (talk) 11:59, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I would strongly recommend against "secret recordings," as that could get you charged with a crime. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:03, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I do not think writing down what someone said or did would be a crime anywhere except perhaps North Korea. Secretly recording someone might be in some countries - I do not think it is in the UK as it is often used in investigative TV. I expect the latter depends on the reason you are doing it. I understand that public interest is a defence against the strict libel laws in the UK. 89.242.243.82 (talk) 20:35, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Difference between straight male and female's reactions to homosexual people who have crush on them

How would the straight guy feel toward a homosexual male who has a crush on him? The same goes for women. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.68.120.162 (talk) 03:37, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I suspect it depends entirely upon the indiviidual. The reactions will range from smiling acceptance of a compliment to rage, and everything in between. Bielle (talk) 03:43, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

The typical straight male might well wonder what's wrong with himself, that a gay male would find him attractive. How likely is that scenario, though? How many straight males are attracted to lesbians, for example? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:44, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

How likely? Very likely. What visually distinguishes a lesbian from a straight woman? Or a straight male from a gay male? Leaving aside totally inaccurate stereotypes of how different people dress and behave, the answer is - nothing. Some of the lesbians I've known are forever fending off advances from men. A straight man could easily be attracted to a lesbian without knowing she's a lesbian. A gay man could easily be attracted to another man without knowing whether he's straight, gay or indifferent. Some of the sexiest men on the planet are, unfortunately, irredeemably straight, but that doesn't stop gay men from being attracted to them. And these days, it's much more likely that a man would feel somewhat chuffed that another person finds him attractive, regardless of the sex of that other person. Doesn't mean he's going to jump into bed with the guy, but equally he wouldn't get all defensive and uptight about it. It is, after all, a compliment, and not some sort of threat. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 07:14, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

To a "traditional" straight man, being attractive to a gay man could raise questions in his mind about his own masculinity. However, attractiveness is hard to figure. I always thought Rosie O'Donnell was kinda cute, although I would have had 0 chance with her. Meanwhile, I never have been able to figure out what's supposed to be so hot about Paris Hilton. Meanwhile, Rosie supposedly had a thing for Tom Cruise, a guy with such broad appeal that even lesbians find him cute, evidently. It can be complicated. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:09, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

One wonders how typical straight man might be defined in this context? Attraction is in itself a one way relationship, although as individuals we may attempt to stimulate an attraction from another we have no clarity around how that effort might stimulate attraction in others.

The root of the question seems to be more oriented towards how one might react to being found attractive by another from outside the expected frame of reference.

It might be useful to consider that one might identify another as attractive without being attracted to, inasmuch as the characteristics are recognised but do not stimulate the response. In any case the range of behaviours amongst ostensibly gay men is extremely wide, in the same way that the range of behaviours in ostensibly straight men is also wide. To an extent it also depends on how the attraction is evidenced, a comment is a very different thing to a physical expression of the emotion and even that ranges from benign to explicitly sexual, some of which are acceptable, some aren't.

Reflecting on the comments above, and my own view, it doesn't bother me, I'm flattered and somewhat bemused that anyone finds me attractive. I have friends who are lesbian and I find extremely attractive, we have a bit of a laugh, flirt, tease one another but recognise that it's unlikely to go beyond that. Of course I've had comments from people who saw that and didn't realise my friends sexuality about what the rest of my night might have been like. I'm also quite comfortable with a little flirting with gay friends, and again it's recognised that it'll be no more than that. Of course I've not always been that comfortable.

ALR (talk) 11:17, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

The full range occurs in both situations. I've had good reactions and bad (I'm male). Contrary to some people's expectations, the same reactions can be seen in a woman's reactions to a lesbian crush on them. The bad feelings seem to be primarily a bit of disgust, because they can't help picturing the possibility. Some people are fearful that something might happen, or that the other will force themselve on them, or insecurity over their loss of masculinity/femininity. Of fear of being associated, or that someone thought they were gay. Steewi (talk) 06:15, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

For the extreme reaction, see The_Jenny_Jones_Show#The_.22Same_Sex_Crushes.22_controversy and Gay panic defense... AnonMoos (talk) 15:30, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I believe it's usually insecure straight male would feel threatened by romantic crush from gay male. Straight male celebrities generally welcome a gay male fan base, for example. --Kvasir (talk) 18:43, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

How hard would it be to say "I'm flattered, really, but I like the girls." I heard a female trainer at a health club say this to a guy who was a new member. Couldn't a straight guy just as easily say it to another guy who seemed to be hitting on him?" And contrariwise, mutatis mutandis for all possible juxtapositions of preference? Edison (talk) 01:30, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

It's not that hard, really, but reality implies that some people find it quite difficult. Steewi (talk) 01:43, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

It would be difficult if one was not flattered, as that answer would be insincere-to-dishonest. More to the point, still polite, would be something like, "I'm into women. Thanks anyway." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:02, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm wondering why a straight man who might be flattered by the attentions of a woman, would be something-other-than-flattered by the attentions of another man. He might not be interested in doing anything about it in any case - because he's married or in a relationship, for example. But that doesn't stop the sense of pleasure in knowing that someone else finds him attractive and sexy. Why would he alter his feelings depending on the sex of the other person? If the other person simply said "I like you and want to be your friend", that would be entirely acceptable no matter what the other's sex was. But if the proposal (possibly unspoken) is something rather more intimate than that, the man still has control over the situation, and can choose to either let it happen, or not. I don't get why a sense of offence, or worse, self-doubt, would enter into it. Unless one really did come from an antediluvian school of morality. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 07:36, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Cultural conditioning, stigma, fear of the unknown all kinds of reasons.

Couple that with the societal mixed messages over homosexuality and it could be quite intimidating for an individual. Lots of homoerotic banter and behaviour is permissible as long as it's perceived as banter. There is some form of arbitrary line where it becomes less generally acceptable.

I imagine it's all wrapped up in the slightly victorian attitudes in some western societies to sexuality in general.

ALR (talk) 09:03, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

The extreme case would be that talk show guest who was told by his homosexual neighbor that he had a crush on him, and he ended up shooting him. In general, it's not got to do with "morality"; it's got to do with, "if a gay finds me attractive, I must be gay myself". Which is a rather narcissistic, brainless, George Costanza-like conclusion, but that's show biz. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:30, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not following this. First up, you said that the typical straight male might well wonder what's wrong with himself, that a gay male would find him attractive. Now, you're saying it's a narcissistic, brainless, George Costanza-like conclusion. Does the typical male frequently jump to such weird conclusions, or only in relation to homoerotic matters? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 10:41, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, I admit I'm not being very complimentary to the apparent intelligence level of my stereotypical straight male brethren, and it wouldn't be the first time. :) Realistically, gays don't generally hit on straights; at least where I come from they don't. So it's more of a theoretical issue than a real issue. Which is probably why Seinfeld made fun of it. Not that there's anything wrong with that. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:55, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

It occurs to me that we've digressed from the original question. The original answer, the somewhat weaselly-sounding , "It depends on the individual", is in fact about the best answer there is, barring a citation on the matter, which I'm not seeing here. So let me pose a somewhat better theory than my original comment: Some folks are simply flattered by attention, so they could be pleased regardless of its source. Others are thinking more in terms of opportunities to get laid, so the attention of an opposite-sex person would be of interest, while the attention of a same-sex person would not. (Or vice-versa if the subject is gay rather than straight). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:03, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I've moved my response because it just didn't flow where it "should" have been placed.I think Jack's question is actually more answerable, so I'll try to focus on that. I think there are two related things at play. First, I think a lot of people (of either orientation) seem to think they possess a kind of "gaydar" - they can spot one of "them" at a glance. So, when a straight guy gets propositioned by a gay male, there's probably a feeling of shock where they are forced to consider why they're setting off someone else's "gaydar". The second, related, issue comes from the point that men of either orientation are out to attract something in particular. Even if you're in a committed relationship it is, as you say, nice to know people find you attractive. Part of why we flirt is to elicit that very response. But to a narrow-minded straight male, attracting a homosexual indicates that his "lure" is seriously out of whack - it would be like blowing a duck call and catching a fish. Both these things would cause the narrow one to question his sexuality, which is often a complicated and extremely emotional jumble of conflicting drives. Now place this naturally confused individual in a backdrop of hypocritical puritanism and gay-bashing and I think it's easy enough to see why even a nominally non-homophobic male can get in a bad place. Hopefully, as we work at improving the backdrop, it will become less and less of an issue and make things less volatile all around. 64.235.97.146 (talk) 18:11, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Agent 64, that makes a lot of sense when you put it that way. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:48, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Ave Caesar, morituri te salutant

Comparing the article above and this page.

Which one's right? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 05:07, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Probably not ours. It might be good to ask Haploidavey (talk · contribs), who has been working on our gladiator article for while. Adam Bishop (talk) 05:15, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

My conclusion is, accordingly, that there is no evidence whatever for the much-quoted salute of the gladiators. The only two ancient references, those in Suetonius and in Dio, refer not to gladiators but to naumachiarii, men condemned to die, and even these references are to one specific episode, the circumstances of which indicate that the supposed salute was not even a regular salute of the naumachiarii. Leon, HJ. (1939) "Morituri Te Salutamus." Transactions of the American Philological Association, 70, 46-50. [1].

—eric 06:20, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm working on this article and have a follow-up question (not being a linguist):

Suetonius states "Morituri te salutant". Cassius cites it as "οἱ ἀπολούμενοί σε ἀσπαζόμεθα". The difference in tenseperson is noted in the literature. Can someone who knows Latin and Ancient Greek dissect the 7 words in these expressions word by word for me, and indicate the roots, the prefixes/suffixes indicating their tenses/person, and the names for the applicable tenses? Basically a linguistic dissection of their native meanings. Thanks. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 15:28, 11 March 2010 (UTC) Question corrected - see below. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 19:06, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Not sure what difference in tense you're talking about. The Latin and Greek expressions mean the same thing, "we who are about to die salute you."

morituri--nominative masculine plural, future participle active, from the verb morior, 'die'

te--accusative singular form of the personal pronoun tu, 'you'

salutant--3rd person plural, present indicative active, from the verb saluto, 'greet, salute, pay one's respects to'

οἱ--nominative masculine plural of the definite article ὁ, 'the'

ἀπολούμενοί--nominative masculine plural, future participle middle, from the verb ἀπόλλῡμι, 'destroy utterly'; in the middle voice, this verb means 'perish, die'.

σε--accusative singular form of the personal pronoun σύ, 'you'

ἀσπαζόμεθα--1st person plural, present indicative middle/passive, from the verb ἀσπάζομαι, 'greet, salute, welcome kindly'. This verb is deponent, which means that the middle/passive voice has the meaning of the active voice.

I hope that's helpful. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:26, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, you were talking about a difference in person, not tense. The Latin verb salutant is 3rd person plural, the Greek verb ἀσπαζόμεθα is 1st person plural. I suppose it's better to translate the Latin as "they who are about to die salute you," then. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:30, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks (and yes, I meant "person" not "tense"). Two last quickies -

1. "They" or "those"? "Those" probably works better in English but is it equally accurate?
2. What would the plural of "naumachia" be?

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 19:06, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, "those" is equally accurate. The plural of naumachia is naumachiae. Adam Bishop (talk) 20:00, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks all, I think I have my answers for this article now. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 20:18, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Operation Helmand Spider and relation to Operation Moshtarak

I keep seeing Dept. of Defense media and news sources referring to troops engaged in Operation Helmand Spider in Helmand Province. The sources are not clear as to the relation between the 2 operations. Is it related at all to Operation Moshtarak, e.g. a component of it? Thanks. --BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 06:39, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

was Iraq an unprovoked attack like Pearl Harbor?

Was Iraq an unprovoked attack like Pearl Harbor? If so, would Iraq have been justified in nuking two large American cities until America capitulated? 82.113.121.95 (talk) 11:42, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Strictly speculation, not an appropriate ref desk question. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:55, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Ironically, though, if Iraq actually had had nukes to nuke us with, then our reason for invading would have been proven. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:56, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

The first part of the question is not so speculative. Answering it is tricky - just ask Tony Blair about the Dodgy Dossier. And I'd encourage you to ask yourself if Pearl Harbor was 100% unprovoked? --Dweller (talk) 12:13, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

The Iraq invasion was not unprovoked. It had been building to that point for a long time, and Saddam knew it was coming unless he was a total idiot. Hence it was not a sneak attack like Pearl Harbor, which was more like 9/11. Also, the reason given for invading was that Iraq was alleged to be a nuclear threat, so if Iraq had nuked us, that would have proven that we were justified to invade, i.e. that our claims about them having nukes were true. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:29, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

• Hmm. The Dodgy Dossier was based on a claim of biological weapons, not nuclear. And I'm sure that the Japanese didn't believe the Pearl Harbor attack was 100% unprovoked. If you're going to read history, you need to clear your mind of preconceptions and bias. One man's provocation is another man's irrelevance. --Dweller (talk) 12:35, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
• I think you (BB) have the wording wrong. The alleged reason was that Iraq was developing WMDs (including nuclear weapons). Or, to be more cynical, it was alleged that Iraq was developing WMDs to have a reason to invade. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:41, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Whether the invadee can see it coming is not very relevant to the question of provocation, imho. —Tamfang (talk) 16:47, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Our article Events leading to the attack on Pearl Harbor outlines a number of points that would have been considered provocations by the Japanese at that time. --Dweller (talk) 12:49, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

There are three historical questions here. 1. Was Pearl Harbor totally unprovoked? (Depends who you ask.) 2. Was the Iraq War totally unprovoked? (Depends who you ask.) 3. Did Pearl Harbor justify the U.S. using atomic weapons on Japan? (Depends who you ask.) Note that in the latter question, the usual justification for the atomic bombs is not Pearl Harbor (though it sometimes comes up), but instead concerns about ending the war promptly. (Which is itself not necessarily factually true, or even if it was, agreed to be morally justified.) There could be another question: 3a. If the answer to 3 is "yes," would it then have justified Iraq using nuclear weapons? (Which is a tricky leap.) All three of these are interesting questions but ones on which even very excellent historians would and will disagree. Not a one of them has an objective, neutral answer forthcoming—all of them are about fuzzy definitions ("provoked", "[morally] justified") and subtle historical nuance (what is enough of a provocation to justify war?). I'm not sure the Ref Desk is going to do better than the historians on this one—this is just going to be a debate. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:11, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

If anybody cares, my personal takes on the three are 1. not "totally" (but that doesn't justify it), 2. not "totally" (but that doesn't justify it), 3. no (but that doesn't mean I think the atomic bombs were totally unjustified/immoral), 3a. I'm not sure that we can talk about nuclear weapons pre-Hiroshima and post-Hiroshima in the same moral terms (there is a city-bombing taboo now that is quite different than it was in 1945, and so using a nuke today must have a much, much higher threshold than it did back then). A classic fence-sitting historian if ever there was one! --Mr.98 (talk) 15:13, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

The question is a prime example of trolling and I can't believe people are actually discussing this. User:Baseball Bug should have ended the discussion when they orginally objected to it. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 17:16, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't see the troll, sorry. I see a provocative question, but I don't think it's trolling. If the poster came back and goaded people on with silly comments, then yes, but the question is not itself inherently trollish, even if it is controversial. --Mr.98 (talk) 17:25, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I reverted the removal. I don't see speculation here. I see one factual question, and one question about its implications. Both are valid questions, if controversial. If it slides into endless debate we should can it, but it's not an invalid question. --Mr.98 (talk) 22:42, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

The question is meaningless as it depends on your definition of "provocation" - the word is so ambiguous and especially so in a historical context, that it doesn't mean much out of a propagandist context. Was Argentina "provoked" into invading Falklands? Was Germany "provoked" into invading Poland? It all depends on whose story you are reading. Pearl Harbor will be labelled as "unprovoked" by Americans, but it could just as easily be described as "pre-emptive" in Japan. The same thing could be said for Iraq. In order to avoid such issues, historians usually distinguish reasons and causes for wars, with the former meaning event that served as an excuse for starting a war and the latter events that led up to the rising tensions and what belligerents stood to gain from it. Contrary to nationalist ideologies (which are pretty much the same all over the world), very few wars were triggered simply by an isolated incident - but almost all of them were started becase one of the parties involved wanted to declare war (because of public opinion and/or the government's viewpoint). Public opinion is more often than not riled up by claiming that the nation is being "provoked". For the same reason, belligerents who occupy a previously foreign territory always claim that they are "liberating it", regardless of what the legal status of the territory is or what the local population thinks of this (you could rarely hear about Argentinians saying that they wished to "occupy" the Falklands or George Bush saying that the US is going into Iraq to "occupy it" - which is also a word describing an ideological construct, just from a different perspective). So labelling something as being provoked or unprovoked is just marketing speak in the business of selling war to the public. Provocation is whatever the person holding a gun wants it to be. Timbouctou (talk) 00:30, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Well-stated. I had been thinking about 1939 earlier. I'm sure Hitler would have argued that he "had to" invade Poland, for any number of reasons. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:14, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Note: There's a meta discussion of this question taking place on the talk page. Buddy431 (talk) 06:28, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

The best I can come up with is that the Bush War was unreasonable, unnecessary, unjustified, irrational, perverse, illegal, unpardonable, groundless, inexcusable, unwarranted, unprovoked, out of all proportion, needless, pointless, excessive, and, most damning of all, avoidable. DOR (HK) (talk) 02:25, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Unless you work for the US State Department, your opinion is not admissible as evidence. Googlemeister (talk) 13:55, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Normative Economics

Where can I find the views of how to achieve economic goals on the website of NDP, Conservative Party and Liberal Party of Canada? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.52.183 (talk) 14:45, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I understand the difficulty in finding this sort of information. The optimal strategy for most political parties is to speak in generalities about economic goals. By making a lot of positive statements and avoiding anything controversial, they provoke a lot of "Oh, that makes sense, this party must be right." and avoid alienating people with specific views along the left-right spectrum. The NDP.ca and conservative.ca sites each have a "Plan" section, although only the NDP site mentions any specifics; it includes several populist statements and few figures. A good way to find out how the parties differ is through the debates. Good debate moderators will try to make the candidates reveal in their responses, how their policies differ by juxtaposing them against an other party. If anyone knows of a good independent and unbiased blog or website that organizes the various parties statements and policies by area of economic concern, I'd be very happy to know about it too!NByz (talk) 20:41, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

http://www.ndp.ca/platform

http://www.conservative.ca/?section_id=5317&section_copy_id=106960&language_id=0

These seem to be the best descriptions on the websites.NByz (talk) 20:49, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

• Can I also recommend directly ringing the headquarters, candidates, or elected members of these parties? Most politicians worth knowing about are always happy to take calls from the electorate, either directly or through their staff, and would almost certainly be pleased as punch to direct you to information about their current policies. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:12, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Spanish Don

Is there a specific way to earn the Spanish/Portuguese title of Don? And who is it that decides this?I've read the Wikipedia article but it doesn't explain the current day process or exact requirements. Thank for any help —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.111.102.76 (talk) 18:27, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

It's not a title, like Duke or King or something like that, its a style, the equivalent of the english term "Sir". Basically, a more formal style than "Mr." Its usage depends on whether or not its being used in Italian, Portuguese, or Spanish usage. According to the article, Don (honorific), the most restrictive usage appears to be in Spain, where it is reserved for those of royal extraction, what the French used to call Prince du Sang. Portugal followed a similar practice, but the monarch could also grant it as an honorific to certain individuals. This is moot today, since both Portugal and Brazil are today republics, and the term in those countries now only applies to the clergy. In Italy, apparently, the title of "Don" was afforded to any non-ruling member of the nobility. Again, however, since of these only Spain is a monarchy, the style is only used in an official capacity in that country. --Jayron32 04:21, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Letters in Spain are usually addressed formally as (for example) Señor Don Felipe Gomez, etc. The title Don is still used by older people for professionals of some social importance such as a doctor or a priest. "I have just seen my doctor, Don Alvaro." The first name only being used. Richard Avery (talk) 16:55, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Strait of Gibraltar compared with English Channel in WW2

If the British could stop Axis ships from entering or leaving the Meditteranean by having big guns on Gibraltar, then why could not the English Channel be blocked from Dover in the same way? The Strait of Gibralter is 8 miles wide, the channel is 21 miles wide. 78.146.0.232 (talk) 21:13, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

In effect, the British blocked both seaways, although not only by guns, but also by aircraft and warships. It's harder for the Channel as it is wider, and the opposite coast was in the enemy's hand. Land-based guns and aircraft stationed near Calais can make the Channel much more dangerous for British warships and aircraft. But the Channel Dash was remarkable as probably the only time an axis force passed the Channel - and that by some of the fastest and best-equipped warships of the Germans, with heavy air cover and both surprise and luck on their side. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:48, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. It is not as if the Axis were cruising through the channel with warships frequently. The British had more important things to worry about. And it is not like they did not have any coastal batteries at Dover. Googlemeister (talk) 21:55, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Then of course there's the problem that the Mediteranean is a "dead end" and so can be effectively blockaded at one point; while La Manche is open at both ends, and the western end is considerably wider than at its eastern. Sure, you could stop ships at Dover, but German ships in the Atlantic could approach from the Land's End side much easier. --Jayron32 04:13, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

The only big guns at Dover capable of reaching the far side at the time of the Channel Dash (14-inch guns named "Winnie" and "Pooh") were set-up for shore bombardment rather than shooting at fast warships. Consequently they only made some big splashes when it really mattered. As a result, two better equipped 15-inch guns were installed ("Clem" and "Jane"), but the horse had already bolted. See the Cross-Channel guns in the Second World War article. Alansplodge (talk) 09:51, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Financing high risk business through options etc?

If there was a business project which had a 75% of losing all the money invested in it, but a 25% chance of returning ten times as much money, then would it in principle be possible to finance it using modern financial techniques or instruments? Thanks 78.146.0.232 (talk) 21:19, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I suspect that this is the type of thing you'd want to finance by pure equity (meaning an "ownership interest" be it corporate stocks, a partnership agreement or a VC type ownership agreement) since any debt financing would probably be pretty costly. Once/If it reached the "ten times" scenario, then you could "cash out" some of that equity by taking on debt and paying out the original owners a little bit, leading to a more typical capital structure (assuming it was still a self-sustaining business at the point). In real life, many tech startups are like this. They tend to be initially financed by Venture Capital or Angel investors who demand either a big equity stake or a big convertible debt stake to offset the higher risk. I'm not sure how stock options would come into play here except they tend to be offered to interest and encourage skilled employees to come on board and give it their best.NByz (talk) 21:32, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I should mention that the typical life cycle of a startup company in a high risk field is:

1)Venture Capital/Angel investor/Private individual or partnership until proof of concept

2)Public markets (IPO) or sale to a larger organization after the concept has been proven but before a distribution network or the necessary infrastructure is in place and (also it's usually good to get some debt in the capital structure at this point if there is an opportunity for profit in the near term as interest payments are deductible)

3) Secondary offerings and public debt markets (bonds) as the company gains scale. NByz (talk) 21:37, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

And, not to keep going here, but the expected return of this investment (E(r)) is 250% (10*.25+0*.75). It will be possible to finance any project that has an expected return of greater than the cost of capital at that particular level of risk. It's hard to say exactly what the cost of capital the market will bear for a project like this. The cost of capital for various levels of risk increases at a higher than linear rate (people are risk averse), and it will vary based on market conditions (risk costs/pays a lot when things look bad like during a financial crisis). It will also depend on the time frame (a 10 times return in 10 years is only 25.9% annualized). Sorry for all the technical stuff, I've just been doing a lot of finance work lately.NByz (talk) 22:10, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, although it did not seem technical to me. 78.146.0.232 (talk) 22:22, 11 March 2010 (UTC)