Humanities desk
< October 24	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 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.

October 25

The town of Bulembu and the Bulembu clan

A post at the Help Desk[1] requested help in finding sourcing to establish that the name for the town of Bulembu originated with the Bulembu clan of people, who are born with certain gifts that are passed down from parents to children where "bulembu" is the gift. I cross posted this request at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language. -- Jreferee (talk) 04:42, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It seems unlikely. The article on the town says the name comes from the Swati language word spider web; the meaning is the same in the Zulu language, and I cannot find any Zulu word for gift that resembles this. To have a clan named after a spider web doesn't seem at all unlikely. Attributing it rather to a gift may be a more modern face-saving back story, see also folk etymology. That being said, this is Swati, and not Zulu, (although they are very close) and I do not have a Swati dictionary and cannot prove a negative. μηδείς (talk) 16:38, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Bulembu ancestors ended up in the asbestos mines, but I can't tell if the town had the name Bulembu before the ancestors arrived at the mines that existed there. Since the place already had mines, it probably already had a name, which either was Bulembu or changed to Bulembu based on the Bulembu ancestors. -- Jreferee (talk) 04:43, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If the town already had the name, that disproves the notion that the name was about the clan and their inherited gifts. (Not that clans normally take the name of the town they move to, but from nature; for example, there is the Ndlovu clan in Zulu, the word Ndlovu meaning "elephant".) Unfortunately the only siSwati dictionary I can find on line is from a disreputable download site that wants my credit card info.

Editable

Besides wikipedia and rationalwiki, which are the top 5 high traffic editable encyclopedias online? Pass a Method talk 12:27, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Uncyclopedia has to be up there.^{Market St.⧏}_{⧐ Diamond Way} 00:13, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would like you to add my books to your references

Under your title HADRIAN, could you please add my book as a reference: Hadrian and Antinous, their Lives and Times, by Michael Hone, 2013, on line at Amazon.

Under Antinous could you please add my book as a reference: Hadrian and Antinous, their Lives and Time, by Michael Hone, 2013, on line at Amazon.

Under Troy could you please add my book as a reference: TROY, on line at Amazon, by Michael Hone, 2012, on line at Amazon.

All of these works are on sale at $1:00 but can be downloaded for free, proof that I'm not at all interested in money.

Sincere Thanks,

Michael Hone — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.156.243.203 (talk) 13:37, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Hadrian and Antinous book[2] and Troy book[3] seem to be a self-published book. WP:USERGENERATED notes that self-published media are largely not acceptable in Wikipedia articles as Wikipedia reliable sources. Also, they do not seem to qualify for article placement under Wikipedia:External links. -- Jreferee (talk) 14:18, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Would a self-published book by an already-notable author, like for example David McCullough, be considered reliable? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:40, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Adding them as a reference, even if they were reliable, wouldn't make sense if they hadn't actually been used as a source for any of the information in the article. Mingmingla (talk) 15:12, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To answer Bug's question... A lot depends on the reputation of the author and the specific subject matter of the self-published work. We do allow self-published works from established experts writing in their field of expertise. McCullough, for example, has earned respect from other historians for his works on American history and biography. That reputation would qualify him as a subject matter expert to some extent. So, if he self-published a biographical work relating to American History, we would probably not disqualify that book as a source. However, the same would not hold true if he self-published a book on (say) Macro-economics. That is not within his field of expertise. Blueboar (talk) 15:20, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense. As with blogs, self-published works are pretty much only valid for expressing what their author thinks about something... maybe unless said blogs or self-published books have been peer-reviewed and then recommended by said peers. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:29, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why does the US spy on its allies?

What's the point at all? They are not planning attacks on the US, or are lenient with terrorists (maybe Saudi Arabia is an exception here, but, it is a peculiar ally). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boreish23 (talk • contribs) 18:26, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking on yesterday's The World at One, a retired senior British intelligence bigwig (for some reason that episode isn't available for download, so I can't check who specifically) said pretty much:

every government does it, to everyone they can, all the time
no politician (that we work for) ever complained to us that we were giving them info that came from spying on a "friend" like this
before Dr. Merkel complained she should have consulted with the Bundesnachrichtendienst, 'cos they do it too, and she surely gets the product of that from them

-- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 18:51, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As to why they'd bother- countries like the US and Germany are both "friends" (countries are not little girls - they don't have BFFs) and competitors:

it's useful for negotiations (as they're all kinds of talks always going on, including endless trade disputes and treaties)
for commercial purposes (where an intelligence agency passes info on to companies in its country - so if the boss of Airbus tells Angela Merkel how much they're offering to charge China Air for some A310s, NSA can tell Boeing who can just undercut that, without cutting their own throat). Again, the Americans aren't the only ones doing this - it was generally believed that the DGSE bugged the first-class cabins of Air France Concordes, and passed juicy commercial goodies on to French companies (ref, for example, Keeping Us Safe: Secret Intelligence and Homeland Security]] by Arthur Hulnick). An interview with someone from the VSSE about commercial espionage in Brussels is here.

-- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 19:03, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But here's my favourite - as you know, the UK broke the German Enigma cipher and the similar but fancier Lorenz machine - but after the war, they kept their ability to do so completely secret. Why? Because the many independent Commonwealth countries that were emerging from the vanishing British Empire were using Enigma machines or similar rotor devices (commercial German variants, Swedish and American made Hagelin machines, and apparently some actual Enigmas and Lorenz machines the British captured at the end of the war). So up-and-coming Commonwealth countries including India, Pakistan, Ceylon, and various Caribbean states, could all be intercepted without issue. (ref, for example, Empire of Secrets: British Intelligence, the Cold War and the Twilight of Empire by Calder Walton). I think Australia, New Zealand, and Canada were in on the "ULTRA" secret and so this wouldn't work on them. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 19:30, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Finlay, the second paragraph of the article about Enigma you linked to says that the cipher was broken by Poland. — Kpalion^(talk) 07:40, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Finlay's answers are spot on. I would just add the Jonathan Pollard case. There are also the quotes of Lord Palmerston, Charles de Gaulle, and John Foster Dulles that nations have interests, not friends. μηδείς (talk) 19:40, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All countries spy on their allies, if they can. At least I assume they do. Then if they get caught, the spied-upon country will affect as much hurt outrage as they think will benefit them, but most likely they're spying on the other country too. Merkel's biggest gripe is likely to be not so much that Obama can hear her phone calls as that her spies aren't good enough to let her hear his. That is, assuming they're not, which who knows. --Trovatore (talk) 19:42, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The same World at One also had an interview with a guy from a German security company which was in the process of rolling out an add-on cryptosystem for German Government handis, which consisted of an SD-Card with an additional crypto hardware chip (and some software for the phone to use it, I guess). He said that he didn't think Merkel had one of these in the timeframe in question (bet you're ass she's got one now). He said that once she did have the chip, NSA wouldn't be able to intercept her any more (but MRDA...). We can also recall the battle Obama had with USSS+NSA about keeping his Blackberry - it looks like he succeeded, but only because they made him a crap(pier) one. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 20:52, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I remember hearing some years ago an allegation that a company bidding in a telecoms auction had received information about the other bids from the intelligence services of the allied government where it was based. At the time I thought to myself what on earth are they doing getting engaged in commercial espionage instead of tackling terrorism, but now it occurs to me that the intelligence services probably had an arrangement with the company to help them with their spying if they got the bid. So much for allies! Dmcq (talk) 23:44, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, as said above it's not a US thing, and it's not about national security (at least when they are spying France or Germany), but big business. And I wouldn't be surprised if the US catches a German or French spy in the next weeks, just to make the point that others do it too. OsmanRF34 (talk) 12:38, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sweden

Two questions about Sweden: 1) According to the Economy of Sweden article, business is largely private, with only 5% of companies state-owned. But over 50% of Sweden's GDP comes from government spending. So what goods and services does the government supply exactly?

2) Why haven't private companies moved to other countries to escape high taxes? 74.15.138.165 (talk) 19:11, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(1)They have very high tax rates and social spending, this gets taken from and funneled back to private businesses. (2) How do you move a restaurant, a grocery store, a mine, a dentist's office, or a moving company overseas? μηδείς (talk) 19:42, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse this. What goods and services does the government supply? Overwhelmingly services, and those mainly health and education, as in most developed countries. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:23, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is also worth noting that it says that 5% of companies are state-owned. One explanation for the discrepancy in numbers is that significant parts of GDP comes from national, regional and municipal agencies, health organisations and other forms of organi~sations that aren't companies. /176.10.249.240 (talk) 21:00, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with 176.10.249.240, my limited understanding of nations like Sweden is that 5% of companies are government owned, but that just happens to be the largest oil company, airline, energy utility, brodcast tv network, hospital system, insurance company, bank, car company etc. So despite 5% of all companies that tiny 5% represents something like 70%-90% of the GDP of the nation. It would be similar to the Fortune 500 in the U.S. having the top 300 corporations owned by the government, true it is just a very tiny fraction of all companies large and small, but they are the largest and most powerful corporations.^{Market St.⧏}_{⧐ Diamond Way} 00:08, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, your understanding is very limited (and possibly prejudiced) indeed. You have no support for these numbers and as far as I can see your claim is completely false. Swedish stateowned companies doesn't exceed 10% of their GDP. You are mistaking your local propaganda and the description of banana republics with reality. --Saddhiyama (talk) 00:25, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Saddhiyama declares the Swedish Government is "very limited (and possibly prejudiced) indeed."?

www.Government.SE: The state as a company owner
The Swedish state is an important company owner in Sweden. The Swedish Government Offices manage 55 companies, of which 42 are wholly owned and 13 partly owned. These companies represent substantial values and are large employers. Furthermore, they are ultimately the common property of all Swedish taxpayers. The state therefore has a considerable responsibility to be an active and professional owner.

Before you spread your confusion of my words with others (who said "banana republic" & wikilinking that helps the OP answer this question?) you can improve your "very limited knowledge indeed" of Guidelines, AGF, CIVIL & publicly accessible websites on what the actual Swedish government claims, as you put it in a way that helps not answer the question: "local propaganda" & all. Looking forward to your hyperbolic congratulations for my responses where I don't defer to others knowledge, or only ad hominems are what you like to contribute?^{Market St.⧏}_{⧐ Diamond Way} 06:41, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Back to sourced info, your assumption that those 5% represent 70-90 % of the GDP is incorrect. Swedish GDP in 2012 was 3 549 billion SEK, and the aggregated turnover in the state-owned companies was 354 billion SEK, approximately 10 % of the GDP. Significant parts of the GDP comes from organisations in the public sector that are not companies, but not s much as you might think. 80 % of the GDP is produced by businesses, the rest as services from the organisations that 176.10.249.240 mentioned. However, a lot of those businesses are working for the government, building infrastructure, running schools or providing health care. (Sorry about the all-Swedish sources, current sources in English are hard to find).Sjö (talk) 08:35, 26 October 2013 (UTC

The source I provided does lack percentages which I would be interested in, but the general tone made it pretty clear. BTW no one said 70-90% was Sweden, this might be lost in translation but the context above was "nations like Sweden", given you're math this may be semantical & if thats the case then GNP (which by my google searches is a number larger than Sweden's GDP?) or government dependent companies might be better terms but the larger point remains. When I plug the numbers you provide in with only 80% it is roughly 13% but I still remember something here that seems missing. If there is information that sheds additional light on this I would be very interested learning more since some of my google searches are coming up pretty bare on specific numbers of either direct or indirect percentage of economy though all the information of the Wallenberg family that kept popping up was a interesting side trip.^{Market St.⧏}_{⧐ Diamond Way} 10:09, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also found this government website as well The Swedish state is Sweden's largest company owner and employer. Fifty-seven companies/concerns are managed through the Government Offices, 43 of which are entirely state-owned, and 14 partially state-owned. A total of some 190 000 people are employed at these companies. also wikipedia has an article on List_of_government_enterprises_of_Sweden#Wholly_owned which lists the largest Pharma, power utility, Iron Ore miner, rail & road networks with monopolies on TV networks, airport services and liquor stores.^{Market St.⧏}_{⧐ Diamond Way} 10:35, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so my next question is: how has business done so well in Sweden despite high taxes? Higher taxes reduces the profitability of business, so shouldn't business be doing worse than it is now? And what do you mean when you say taxes get "funneled back to private business"? Thanks. 74.15.138.165 (talk) 23:58, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is a popular economic theory but there are also a lot of believers in Keynesian economics especially where government controls and expenditures are encouraged for their view of economic success.^{Market St.⧏}_{⧐ Diamond Way} 00:11, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is you're only looking at half the equation. The money the government takes in taxes hopefully doesn't all end up in the politicians' pockets, but actually is put to use to help the economy. So, good roads, airports, and ports, a well educated, healthy work-force, good fire and police services to protect the business's assets, etc. Third world nations tend to have very low taxes, but the total lack of all these government services makes their economies pathetic by comparison.

In theory, there should be a certain ideal tax rate, where the economy does the best, assuming those taxes are put to good use. US Conservatives would have us all believe that the ideal tax rate is zero, but that's absurd. What the exact ideal tax rate is is difficult to determine, but since countries like Sweden seem to have an impressive GDP per person, this suggests they have it about right. StuRat (talk) 00:12, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's a canard, and you've provided no source for your claim, Stu. It is anarchists who want a zero percent tax rate. Limited-government minarchists want a minimal tax rate, sufficient to cover the cost of the courts, the police, the military, and only those functions of the federal government strictly provided for by the constitution. (I.e., not foodstamps, education, public television, etc.). Conservatives include minarchists, but they also include people who approve of some social spending, but simply want to reign it back to a balanced budget. μηδείς (talk) 18:38, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are making the logical error of assuming that no taxes means no government. There was no income tax before 1913, and yet we had a government. Governments can get small amounts of money in other ways, such as leasing out federal lands. And I've seen no evidence of a serious attempt by US conservatives or liberals to balance the budget, which would require both cutting spending and raising taxes. StuRat (talk) 14:54, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And in addition to the indirect benefits for companies of good infrastructure, an educated work-force and so on there are some direct benefits to the Swedish system. E.g. a comprehensive tax-financed health care system means that a company doesn't have to have health care and dental plans to attract competent workers, and the same goes for the retirement system where the employer's contribution generally is low in comparison to the tax-financed part. Sjö (talk) 10:34, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that on the tax front Sweden has sought to improve its move to privatization recently. I found these articles that were insightful here and here. Taxes and the funneling back thing might actually be archaic given article and this one. As far as healthcare this perspective might be revealing (it was for me) here.^{Market St.⧏}_{⧐ Diamond Way} 11:03, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're using the word "improve" in a biased way. "Change" would be better. Several of the private companies involved in care for the elderly have been involved in scandals, and there is a general public backlash against the current government for wholeheartedly endorsing privatization based on ideology rather than financial reality. I can't find sources now, but notable parts of the population answer "no" to whether they want so-called "for-profit" companies to be allowed to bid for public healthcare contracts. On the other hand, if the question is worded differently, most also respond that they don't want any rules against profit being taken from running care facilities more efficiently than the government-owned orgainisations. /176.10.249.240 (talk) 16:42, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Change is fine but my wording would need to be "has sought to change its improved move to privatization", change without "improve" could mean changing privatization to increase state control, despite if it was perceived as an 'improvement' by polls. Your point is important for what its worth, my statement was that a nation could improve something without any consideration of if it was popular. If you do find some links I'd be interested in reading through them, especially any dealing with tax policy and/or tax policy debate.^{Market St.⧏}_{⧐ Diamond Way} 20:47, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also found this from CNBC seems my stats from above was still focused on my college research 10-15 years ago.^{Market St.⧏}_{⧐ Diamond Way} 11:06, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Off-topic and uncivil discussion about American politics

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

What's absurd is your claim conservatives want a zero tax rate. That's called anarchism. Conservatives want at least a military to protect us and our interests, Police and courts to protect lives and property, and most even support state-owned roads, schools, and a social safety net, though not all. In any case, that conservatives want zero taxes is an ignorant canard. μηδείς (talk) 00:30, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, whatever the tax rate is, they always say it's too high. Can you find any example of them wanting to raise taxes ? As for wanting a military, when you get to the Tea Party movement and Ron Paul, I'm not even sure that's true anymore. They might argue we should all just buy machine guns to stop any invaders, and stay out of world affairs. StuRat (talk) 01:06, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard of liberals the exact same lament, "whatever the tax rate is, they always say it's too" low. Also Ron Paul is not conservative he is libertarian, but not sure about another editors claim of "crackpot" status lol, tho he's retired now so really not much of a factor.^{Market St.⧏}_{⧐ Diamond Way} 07:25, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rand is picking up where Ron left off. Ron Paul may be "libertarians" about letting businesses do whatever they please, but he's libertarian not about individuals. He's in full support of the war on women. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:52, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be posing the question as if higher taxes were a good thing in and of itself. In any case, Ron Paul's an anarchist crackpot (close to your defend the US with machine guns) in the viewpoint of all but the libertarian left, including the Randians who are indeed for no more than defense spending, the courts and the police. The only common denominator of the various Tea Party organizations is a return to limited, constitutional government. Although people were starving in the streets that year, even a return to 2006 spending levels would cut $1 Trillion off the deficit. All things being equal, of course conservatives and the Tea Party prefer lower taxes. μηδείς (talk) 02:29, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Limited government" is right-wing code verbiage for "letting us go back to Jim Crow laws without federal interference." It's not a coincidence when tea partiers show up with Confederate flags. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:10, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Who are you quoting? And Democratic Party left-wingers are the only ones in news stories I see pro- "Jim Crow laws".^{Market St.⧏}_{⧐ Diamond Way} 07:15, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Who are you quoting?^{Market St.⧏}_{⧐ Diamond Way} 10:09, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And I hasten to add that this "limited government" stuff did not start with the tea partiers. It goes back to 60s when the civil rights laws were passed and the white supremacists could no longer get their way all the time. They used to call it "states rights". Now they call it "limited government". But either way, it's a longing for a return to white supremacy. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:14, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Abolitionists "used to call it 'states rights'" "back to 60s" & would agree with "limited government" when they ~~opposed~~defied 2 federal statutes & a Supreme Court decision, so abolitionists are white supremacists?^{Market St.⧏}_{⧐ Diamond Way} 07:15, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeh, abolitionists like Strom Thurmond and his "States Rights Party" in 1948. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:46, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You mean the [[States' Rights Democratic Party]]? The same "Dixiecrat Democratic Party" that was born from & returned to Barack Obama's party? Glad we agree on Strom Thurmond being in Obama's party for 60 years along with lifelong "left-wing"ers 'Sheets' Byrd & FDR's good pal Hugo Black, online vids of left winger LBJ throwing around the N word in the oval office with such gems as "I'll have those __". Opposed to John Brown & his supporters who actively defied multiple federal statutes & Supreme Court decisions, but the way you put it Bugs, John Brown et. al. was wrong for defying the feds, all those states' rights 'radicals' like Brown. States Rights is like saying 'American' it isn't code for anything, John Brown & Strom Thurmond would have killed each other but both believed in defying federal laws.^{Market St.⧏}_{⧐ Diamond Way} 09:28, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another news story you may have missed is that the old south Democrats mostly switched to the Republican party, as the Democrats pushed for civil rights laws and the Republicans opposed those laws. If you think all John Brown did was "defy the feds", you might want to look into the details a bit more. And even many staunch abolitionists thought he was crazy. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:42, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Most" is in error, most of those elected stayed Democrats despite some switching parties, but as we all know this is already massively off topic so I'll let my previous comments on left wingers speak for itself.^{Market St.⧏}_{⧐ Diamond Way} 10:19, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And my point is that whatever the tax rate is, they want it lowered. If you keep doing as they want, you would eventually arrive at zero taxes. Have you ever heard them say that taxes should never be lowered below a certain rate ? And yes, zero taxes would mean anarchy, but they either don't know this or don't care. StuRat (talk) 03:45, 26 October 2013 (UTC) [reply]

What you're missing is that people don't mind so much when other people's taxes go up, they just want their own taxes to go down. For example, I love high taxes on alcohol and tobacco, because those are things I don't use. In general, though, this is really the corollary to a Dilbert some years ago. The boss says in the meeting, "We need to find out what our customers want." Dilbert responds, "What the customers want is better products, for free." We want government services, but we would be very happy if someone else would pay for them. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:08, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of "we" :), someone of a different persuasion may put it inversely: "The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money" (Thatcher), tho below you seem to extrapolate the "Everybody hates Congress but loves their congressman" saying, which to my surprise is not attributed to anyone (a proverb?) after a very lengthy google search on news, books and sites.^{Market St.⧏}_{⧐ Diamond Way} 07:39, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the approval levels for Congress were low even before last year's elections, yet most of the Congressman were re-elected. Those facts were in all the papers. Maybe you missed it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:42, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another corollary is the misleading nature of opinion polls about the Congress. It's at such a low ebb that you would think the country is ready to vote them all out. But that's the catch: You can't vote out the ones you don't like. You can only vote out yours. And in general the elections indicate that the majority in most congressional districts are perfectly happy with their own reps. It's those other reps that they would like to get rid of. This is why the "term limits" fervor died quickly. The majority in those districts don't want term limits on their own guy - just on all the other guys. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:23, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, Bugs, you are spouting conspiracy theory nonsense about codes, as if you hear the naked-emperor frequency. The burden is on you to prove such accusations.

Jim Crow doesn't benefit businesses--the railroads and bus companies and national businesses and southern Republicans opposed it, while the southern Democrats imposed and enforced it. Northern businesses had none of it, and my father remembers the foreign-country shock when he visited Democrat-controlled Maryland, where he first encountered it, from Republican, Quaker Pennsylvania. The tea party wants the government off people's backs, out of their toilets, and showers, and cars, and phone calls, and sex life, and religious affiliation, and medical history, and medical choices, and IRS returns, and political opinions, and children's education, and phone calls, and lives entirely.

You aren't providing any links to show where such things you condemn are part of a Tea Party plank or supported by any serious candidates. (Alan "burning cross" Grayson is simply not a reliable source.) I do happen to think sin taxes are okay in moderation to pay for local police, but again, the punitive and prohibitive policy is Nancy Bloomberg's policy, not Ted Cruz's, Sarah Palin's, or Herman Cain's.

The bottom line problem is that none of these criticisms have sources. Please link to where some serious tea party candidate has said they want race laws or anything historically related with the KKK. Instead you'll find support for fracking, a repeal of the unworkable Obamacare, and a return to the fiscal sanity before Bush's and Mc Cain's TARP plan. μηδείς (talk) 06:04, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The tea partiers generally don't say these things in public, but their actions speak for them. If you don't think "limited government" is just another way to say "states rights", then you haven't been paying attention. It's sad that you think fracking is a good thing. But if people start getting sick from its pollutants and cry for help, your "limited government" will say, "Sorry, but we can't help you. Your tea party buddies destroyed the EPA and Obamacare, and made the frackers lawsuit-proof. So you're screwed. Just shut up and die." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:32, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Once in a while, though, Republicans reveal their true selves, like this one bozo:[4] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:03, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yet he was rejected by Republicans, so isn't the true self of Republicans rejection of these positions.^{Market St.⧏}_{⧐ Diamond Way} 10:15, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A cynic would argue that they secretly agree with him, but know that it's bad politics to keep anyone in the Party who admitted such things publicly. StuRat (talk) 15:44, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeh, a cynic... or one who has observed this Republican pattern for many decades. When someone says something publicly that's too close to the true Republican viewpoint, they have to be dumped. They caught Romney dissing half of the Americans, but by then it was too late to dump him. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:31, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Need reference about inspiration of Tolkien

I tried to ask the same question at Portal talk:Middle-earth, but I guess the portal might be inactive for some years, I would also ask it there: Article of Half-elven says:"Like many other ideas in Tolkien's mythos, the notion of half-elves is borrowed from Norse mythology, in which elves occasionally had children with humans." Is there a reference to this(e.g. The Letters of J. R. R. Tolkien), or is it merely a speculation?--朝鲜的轮子 (talk) 22:53, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I read the Letters twice and don't remember anything about them being in any way Norse-inspired. The Letters are available here in pdf form. A search reveals no connections. μηδείς (talk) 00:24, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Really? I think there are quite some results if we search Tolkien and Norse in google and google scholar. Maybe the Half-elf thing is less mentioned than others as an example.--朝鲜的轮子 (talk) 02:24, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I responded to you specifically about the Letters, as you yourself mentioned them. (I was surprised you hadn't found that PDF yourself.) Now that you are challenging me over what's available at google, I am even more curious why you are asking for our help. We don't do debate. You can certainly "search Tolkien and Norse in google and google scholar" and even get back to us if there's something you need explaining. μηδείς (talk) 02:33, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The OP asked for references, and gave JRRT's Letters as an example of where such a ref might be found. It wasn't meant to be restricted to the Letters. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 03:10, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Who said it was, Jack? The OP asked for things such as X, and I gave him X, and he complained. That's his issue, not mine. μηδείς (talk) 21:37, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That PDF file contains a number of OCR errors ("pan" for part, "Homburg" for Hornburg, "Flindustani", etc.), and I'm not too sure that it's legal... AnonMoos (talk) 10:46, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tolkien certainly used the Norse word elf for his elves, and certainly read Norse literature widely, and certainly many scholars have discussed the influences of Norse mythology on Tolkien's fiction: PDF, book, article, book, PDF. However, I can't find a reference to support the idea that half-elven was a specific mythological borrowing rather than a logical consequence of an elf marrying a human. A good place to ask this question would be TheOneRing.net where a great many Tolkien scholars hang out. 174.88.9.74 (talk) 15:28, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Elf is not a Norse word; it is pure English, descended from the Proto-Germanic language, through Anglo-Saxon to modern English. The Old Norse word is alfr, which is cognate, but not the ancestor of the English term. μηδείς (talk) 21:41, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]