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.
I have just been watching a WW1 film about cavalry, and I was wondering, is there an army in the world which still uses troops mounted on horses? I know they were still used in WW2 (the German army actually had more horses than tanks, despite the image of Blitzkrieg that we have). When (if) were horses 'phased out' in western armies for front-line combat? To repeat my main question, does anyone still use them? KägeTorä - (影虎) (Chin Wag) 05:36, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is one of those "proving a negative" type questions that's difficult to answer with certainty, but the answer is ALMOST certainly not. I know most about the Australian Light Horse. Regiments with the name still exist, but they became mechanised and did away with the last of their horses (apart from for ceremonial purposes) around the time of WWII. HiLo48 (talk) 07:06, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Household Cavalry, Royal Horse Artillery. The British army is supposed to have more horses than tanks or helicopters, and reputed to be the last army in the world that is trained to perform a full cavalry charge at the gallop. The Hyde Park bomb (1982) was the last time British cavalrymen died in full armour since the Battle of Waterloo. 86.182.224.136 (talk) 07:37, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia has an article about everything - try Cavalry#Post–World War II to present day which cites several recent examples. A bit further up the page it says that the British Army has been fully mechanised since 1942 - (excluding ceremonial use referred to above); the last British horsed cavalry regiment was operating in the hills of Palestine I believe. Alansplodge (talk) 09:17, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Although to qualify that a little, these are really mounted infantry rather than cavalry in the traditional sense, but they do qualify as "troops mounted on horses" mentioned in KageTora's original question. Alansplodge (talk) 09:57, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I purposefully didn't make a distinction between mounted infantry and actual cavalry. Thanks for the responses. Coincidentally, and quite bizarrely, the first answer mentioned the Australian Light Horse. That was actually the film I had been watching (bit of a B-movie, but anyway).
Until a few years ago the South African Army had a light infantry battalion (12 South African Infantry Battalion) that used a mix of horses and motorcycles for mobility. They were however mounted infantry rather than cavalry as they dismounted when in contact with the enemy and fought on foot. Although the battalion has been disbanded the mounted infantry capability has been retained in the form of the "SA Army Specialised Infantry Capability" unit which also provides and trains dogs and their handlers for the Army. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:01, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What is the origin of the name of the city Manassas in the state of Virginia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gayle clay (talk • contribs) 11:52, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
One mountain gap, where Interstate 66 crosses the Blue Ridge, bears an Indian name -- Manassas. A historical marker at the gap notes that it might have been named for "a local Jewish innkeeper" with the biblical name Manasseh. But there would have been no one to come to the inn when the name Manassas first appeared -- on surveyor John Warner's 1737 area map. The area was not settled until a decade later.
I tend to believe that the name Manassas relates to Massanutten Mountain, the prominent range of the Appalachians to the west, quite visible from Manassas Gap. Massanutten may, in an Indian language, mean peaked mountain, locally pronounced in two syllables, "peak-id."
Other Indian lore says Massanutten stands for three tops, as the mountain has three distinct summits; old field, a reference to former fields on its slopes; or basket, as the Fort Valley separating the mountain from the Blue Ridge might be construed as having a basket-like shape.
(ec) :This site has some background regarding the name, mostly towards the bottom of the page. In short, it's not known for certain, but the writer seems o think it's most likely a corruption of a local Indian name. But then there's this explanation as well, though I think the first reference is a better researched. We should probably update our article. Matt Deres (talk) 12:31, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
a map showing the Shenandoah Valley/Blue Ridge area of Virginia. Massanutten Mountain is the long ridge that lies between the two main forks of the Shenandoah. East of Massanutten (and the eastern of the two forks) lies the taller "Main Ridge" of the Blue Ridge Mountains. Manassas Gap, mentioned above, is the gap in the smaller Bull Run Mountains that lies much closer to Manassas, along the border of Prince William County and Fauquier County. The Bull Run Mountains (and that gap) serve as the origin of Bull Run, the creek that ends up at Manassas I'm having a hard time swallowing the idea that Manassas is named for Massanutten; whether they share a coincidental linguistic connection is one thing (and I'm not even sure of that), but other than both being in Virginia, I'm not entirely sure one can see much of Massanutten Mountain all the way from Manassas. Massanutten Mountain is an impressively long mountain, running about 50 miles from north to south. However, Manassas is some 50 miles east of it; and there's several ridges between Manassas and Masanutten itself, notably the Bull Run Mountains (closest to Manassas) and the main ridge of the Blue Ridge Mountains, behind which Massanutten lies. You can see on the map I linked. One may be able to make out the very northern end of Massanutten through some of the gaps of the closer ridges, but it wouldn't be the most striking geographic feature from Manassas. Seems like a folk etymology to me, no better than the (obviously wrong) Jewish innkeeper story. --Jayron32 00:41, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Did segregation in the 1950s America affect Asian-Americans and Asian immigrants?[edit]
Did racial segregation in the 1950s of America affect Asian-Americans and then-recent Asian immigrants? If so, in what ways? Did Asian-Americans and Asian immigrants have to use the "colored" restrictions too? 71.79.234.132 (talk) 16:03, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, they had their own separate problems. Here's a timeline. Should give you some ideas. InedibleHulk(talk) 16:17, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Poor people (in 1st world countries) are poor because they are not aspirational"[edit]
Is this statement true? I read a blocked sockpuppet say "In first world countries such as the USA, UK, Australia, Germany, etc, we generally have well funded schools, support networks, and public support for colleges and further education with loans and grants. So really there should be no excuse for people not to succeed unless they are lazy, inspirational or terrible at making life choices." Is this a valid argument? What about "When we see a 45 year old man working at the Telcos/Walmart check out counter for the past 15 years, he failed at life"? In 1st world countries, should money not be a barrier? InedibleHulk(talk) 20:29, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
At least in the US, many of those things are lacking for the poor. For example, local funding of school districts ensures that schools in poor areas are perpetually underfunded, since those communities lack the resources to pay for their own schools. StuRat (talk) 16:43, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If everyone "succeeded", nobody would be left to work. If you see anyone at WalMart, be glad they're serving you. There's only so much money to go around, and no amount of aspiration is going to change that. If you want super-rich people, you need more who are relatively super-poor. InedibleHulk(talk) 16:49, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with this theory is that, even if everyone succeeds, some will succeed more than others, and then those who have succeeded less can be labelled as "lazy, indigent..." by those who have succeeded more. So such an attitude is at best patronising and at worst incendiary. --TammyMoet (talk) 17:06, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Incendiary sounds nice. I used to work at Behemart, behind both a register and a customer service desk, training other cashiers, pushing carts, and I even tested for management (would've gotten it if the positions I wanted ever opened up). My experience there (though anecdotal) has only cemented the idea in my head that wealth is inversely related to common sense and good work ethic. Most of the "dumb cashier" stories I heard (and still hear) are usually the (far more financially comfortable) customer not having a damn clue how the real world works. Stuff like how a functioning store working for a greedy corporation keeps prices low, that "per lb" has meant "per pound" for Americans since Plymouth fecking Rock, how a near minimum wage employee staring at numbers all day might take two seconds longer to get your change than you'd like, that four items costing $3.99 will come closer to $12 than $9, or that customers breaking all the electric wheelchairs is not the same as me or the store discriminating against the handicapped.</rant>
Wealth and stupidity may not be genetic, but both are inherited, usually together. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:26, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In Australia and Germany, university places are limited. Only the best students can get a place. Sleigh (talk) 17:44, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Some places in Australian universities are open to people willing and able to pay up front. HiLo48 (talk) 22:03, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If the poor in First World countries are ignorant and lazy, it follows that the rich must be intelligent and hard-working. A few minutes' observation in a place where only rich people congregate, such as an expensive tea room, will rapidly disprove the proposition. While the accumulators of material wealth may have used brainpower and effort to amass it, their dependants and heirs need neither. And if money has become the sole measure of someone's success in life, perhaps the First World is not worth living in? --Clifford Mill (talk) 09:03, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"I asked her if she thought it was a good idea to have sex with a man who had repeatedly beaten her up, and from whom she said she wished to separate.
"It's complicated, doctor. That's the way life goes sometimes."
What had she known of this man before she took up with him? She met him in a club; he moved in at once, because he had nowhere else to stay. He had a child by another woman, neither of whom he supported. He had been in prison for burglary. He took drugs. He had never worked, except for cash on the side. Of course he never gave her any of his money, instead running up her telephone bills vertiginously. (...)
What had her experience taught her?
"I don't want to think about it. The Housing'll charge me for the damage, and I ain't got the money. I'm depressed, doctor; I'm not happy. I want to move away, to get away from him."
Later in the day, feeling a little lonely, she telephoned her ex-boyfriend, and he visited her.
I discussed the case with the doctor who had recently arrived from Madras, and who felt he had entered an insane world. (...) He asked me what would happen next to the happy couple.
"They'll find her a new flat. They'll buy her new furniture, television, and refrigerator, because it's unacceptable poverty in this day and age to live without them. They'll charge her nothing for the damage to her old flat, because she can't pay anyway, and it wasn't she who did it. He will get away scot-free. Once she's installed in her new flat to escape from him, she'll invite him there, he'll smash it up again, and then they'll find her somewhere else to live. There is, in fact, nothing she can do that will deprive her of the state's obligation to house, feed, and entertain her." (...)
I asked the doctor from Madras if poverty was the word he would use to describe this woman's situation. He said it was not: that her problem was that she accepted no limits to her own behavior, that she did not fear the possibility of hunger, the condemnation of her own parents or neighbors, or God. In other words, the squalor of England was not economic but spiritual, moral, and cultural. "
"By the end of three months my doctors have, without exception, reversed their original opinion that the welfare state, as exemplified by England, represents the acme of civilization. (...) They come to realise that a system of welfare that makes no moral judgements in allocating economic rewards promotes anti-social egotism. The spiritual impoverishment of the population seems to them worse than anything they have ever known in their home countries. (...) 'On the whole', said one Filipino doctor to me, 'life is preferable in the slums of Manila.' He said it without any illusions as to the quality of life in Manila."http://www.city-journal.org/html/9_2_oh_to_be.html
In the past few decades, a peculiar and distinctive psychology has emerged in England. Gone are the civility, sturdy independence, and admirable stoicism that carried the English through the war years. It has been replaced by a constant whine of excuses, complaint, and special pleading. The collapse of the British character has been as swift and complete as the collapse of British power.
Listening as I do every day to the accounts people give of their lives, I am struck by the very small part in them which they ascribe to their own efforts, choices, and actions. (...)
It is instructive to listen to the language they use to describe their lives. The language of prisoners in particular teaches much about the dishonest fatalism with which people seek to explain themselves to others, especially when those others are in a position to help them in some way. As a doctor who sees patients in a prison once or twice a week, I am fascinated by prisoners’ use of the passive mood and other modes of speech that are supposed to indicate their helplessness. They describe themselves as the marionettes of happenstance.
(...)
Another burglar demanded to know from me why he repeatedly broke into houses and stole VCRs. He asked the question aggressively, as if “the system” had so far let him down in not supplying him with the answer; as if it were my duty as a doctor to provide him with the buried psychological secret which, once revealed, would in and of itself lead him unfailingly on the path of virtue. Until then, he would continue to break into houses and steal VCRs (when at liberty to do so), and the blame would be mine.
When I refused to examine his past, he exclaimed, “But something must make me do it!”“How about greed, laziness, and a thirst for excitement?” I suggested.“What about my childhood?” he asked.“Nothing to do with it,” I replied firmly.
He looked at me as if I had assaulted him. Actually, I thought the matter more complex than I was admitting, but I did not want him to misunderstand my main message: that he was the author of his own deeds.
Another prisoner claimed to be under so strong a compulsion to steal cars that it was irresistible—an addiction, he called it. He stole up to forty vehicles a week, but nevertheless considered himself a fundamentally good person because he was never violent towards anyone (...)
Now the generally prevalent conception of an addiction is of an illness, characterized by an irresistible urge (mediated neurochemically and possibly hereditary in nature) to consume a drug or other substance, or to behave in a repetitively self-destructive or antisocial way. An addict can’t help himself, and because his behavior is a manifestation of illness, it has no more moral content than the weather.
So in effect what my car thief was telling me was that his compulsive car-stealing was not merely not his fault, but that the responsibility for stopping him from behaving thus was mine, since I was the doctor treating him. And until such time as the medical profession found the behavioral equivalent of an antibiotic in the treatment of pneumonia, he could continue to cause untold misery and inconvenience to the owners of cars and yet consider himself fundamentally a decent person.http://www.city-journal.org/story.php?id=1371Asmrulz (talk) 13:21, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Oh, Lord," sighs the Junior Apostle (the Senior Apostle is away in Jerusalem), "many are widout jobs, many are widout mudders and farders, many are widout homes. We pray thee, Lord, to find dem work, to find dem homes, to bring comfort to dem dat are widout mudders and farders."
The shootings were much on the mind of the congregation, for the victims and perpetrators alike could have been the sons, brothers, or consorts (I hardly dare speak of husbands anymore, for fear of being thought implicitly intolerant) of the women who now sobbed their impromptu prayers facedown on their pews. (...)
"We thank Thee, Lord! We thank Thee, Lord! We thank Thee, Lord!"
(...)
"But we are all sinners, Lord. Therefore we pray for forgiveness. We do not always follow Your ways, Lord; we are proud, we are stubborn, we want to go our own way. We think only of ourselves. That is why there is so much sin, so much robbery, so much violence, on our streets."
I recalled the faces of the young men in the prison now accused of murder: their hard, glittering, expressionless eyes—young men who recognized no law but their own desire of the moment. The old lady described (and explained) their radical egotism in a religious way.
Murmurs of assent were heard everywhere. It wasn't the police's fault, or racism's, or the system's, or capitalism's; it was the failure of sinners to acknowledge any moral authority higher than their personal whim. And in asserting this, the congregation was asserting its own freedom and dignity: poor and despised as its members might be, they were still human enough to decide for themselves between right and wrong. And they offered hope to others, too: for if a man chose to do evil, he could later elect, by an act of will, to do good. No one had to wait until there was perfect justice in the world, or all the circumstances were right, before he himself did good.http://www.city-journal.org/html/6_3_oh_to_be.html
Interesting testimony, though dated and overlong, but totally invalidated by the writer's obvious ideological bias (or do I mean blindness?). Though London has its problems, they are minor compared with the massive disparities in the United States. --Clifford Mill (talk) 11:11, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And those are relatively small next to the disparities in India or China. At the end of the day, no matter where we live, the biggest problems are the ones directly affecting us. If you literally went blind, that'd be much worse than reading that 4% of drone victims were with al-Qaeda. Is that bias? Is bias always bad? InedibleHulk(talk) 14:56, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's good news. Not sure why you want me to read it. If it's about the "failed at life" thing in the OP, I didn't actually ask the question. Just rephrased it when it was deleted for being asked by a sock. Sorry for any confusion. All the replies under my name were me. There was actually another follow-up question I deleted outright, for lack of the right words. But the gist stayed the same without it. InedibleHulk(talk) 21:58, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I want to know how do the public at large in the western world (USA,Western and Eastern Europe ,Russia ,Australias and also the African countries perceive Rabindranath Tagore ,what is the level of popularity is he viewed as a superhuman entity or is he seen as one of the greatest exponents of world literature.In Bengal he is worshipped like a God.It is said that YB Yeats played a key role in translating The Gitanjali. Was Bernard Shaw critical about Tagore. What was his opinion regarding this man and his creations in public and private.How does the British and American public seen and sees Tagore and his work.I am a Bengali and find his works and songs not at all appealing. I find most of them artificial and arousing morbid emotions.Most of the Bengali people will frown upon me and mock me as uncultured and that i am imbecile lacking the mental capability to relish such great creation. I want to know the global assessment and how did the men in the British government appraised him in private .Were those men his fans.pardon for reposting i initially posted this question in language section but there volunteers say that this page is more appropriate.Did Tagore really deserve the Nobel prize in literature or it was out of wartime poltical consideration.Thanks.117.194.236.113 (talk) 17:52, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would guess that the majority of people in the U.S. don't know who he is, and that some of those who have vaguely heard of him might not distinguish him from Ram Mohan Roy. I don't remember having read anything by him, but he's probably not any less meritorious than the mostly obscure Scandinavians who dominated the Nobel literature prize during its first decades... AnonMoos (talk) 18:20, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I just listened to Amar Shonar Bangla, and I think I speak for Canada when I say once is enough. Monotonous, but worse, because there are two voices. The lyrics are probably a little better in Bangla, but they're almost as boring as the tune in English. No offense to your the nation, just the anthem. I like your the flag. InedibleHulk(talk) 18:43, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That he is Bengali does not necessarily mean that he is Bangladeshi -- West Bengal has almost two-thirds the population of Bangladesh... AnonMoos (talk) 20:28, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose. Amended. Does West Bengal not have a flag? InedibleHulk(talk) 20:36, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
West Bengal is a state in India and so shares the same flag as the other states and India as a whole
Cool, thanks. Sometimes states or provinces have their own. Not a big fan of tricoloured flags. InedibleHulk(talk) 13:18, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I love his poetry and I've had his collected verse in my library for many years. I don't know his plays. I can't speak for Australians in general, though my suspicion is that he'd be regarded as a minor footnote who's best known - if he's known at all - for returning his knighthood after the Amritsar massacre. I don't remember ever hearing anyone quote him or even refer to him Down Here. Except, I did patronise an Indian restaurant in Canberra a couple of times, named Geetanjali. It's been there for at least 25 years, and I can't imagine the staff have never been asked what Geetanjali means. Whether this has played any role in bringing Tagore and his works to the consciousness of the effete diners of the national capital, I could not say. -- Jack of Oz[pleasantries] 20:57, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This question was also raised at the Language Ref Desk, where the OP was advised to raise it here. There are some other replies over there. -- Jack of Oz[pleasantries] 22:38, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The guy is virtually unknown in Russia. I recall that Vladimir Nabokov referred to "a person called Tagore" as one of "the formidable mediocrities" from the early 20th century, alongside John Galsworthy and Romain Rolland. --Ghirla-трёп- 11:34, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, he was fairly popular during Soviet times (for political reasons), I own a Russian translation of his poetry . 216.239.45.130 (talk) 06:28, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
He was often published, like scores of other exotic authors from Soviet-friendly countries, whose names are totally forgotten. Which does not mean that he was either popular or even read. --Ghirla-трёп- 06:56, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In French, a couple of his books - the novel Gora and some poetry collections - are available in popular paperback editions, making them accessible without having to frequent a university library or a specialized bookshop. That's better than for most authors whose heyday was a century ago, but that's still a long way from being considered a universal classic like Dostoevski or Ibsen, and even further from being thought of a super-human entity. --Xuxl (talk) 11:51, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've read a translation of Gitanjali, which I must say I found insufferably dull. But it was just a translation. He is supposed to have got the Nobel because of the recommendation of Yeats. He's one of those people that most 'educated' persons have heard of, but I don't think he's widely read in the West. Since he won the Nobel prize in 1913 I don't know what "wartime political consideration" would have been relevant. Paul B (talk) 11:58, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relying on just one listen of one rendition of one song, and a national anthem at that (national anthems and especially their arrangements are not usually considered the epitome of the musical and poetic arts), is not a serious way to see if you might like something Rabindra Sangeet. How about you check this ten song Rabindra Sangeet collection or if you're not in the mood or leisure to listen to all ten of them how about checking out a couple of them, for example this one? If you'd then like to explore this style there are tens if not hundreds of offerings on YouTube (just type "Rabindra Sangeet"). I believe that Tagore only composed the melody (arrangements, instrumentation, etc. depend on the actual performers) and that orally, that is he did not notate it. Songs were notated by people who had learned the song from him or from someone who had learned it from him. I don't know but I believe that every single one of his poems was actually meant to be sung, which does not mean that melodies for every poem are extant. I also believe it is probable that although he did not himself notate those melodies the associations of a given melody to a particular rag go back to him. I got those details a few months ago from a web site dedicated to Rabindra Sangeet but unfortunately I did not bookmark it and I don't seem to be able to find it right now in a hurry. Therefore use this information with caution and doublecheck it. Contact Basemetalhere 19:40, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You never get a second chance to make a first impression. InedibleHulk(talk) 19:48, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How you went about it is not Tagore's fault. It's not as if he'd failed to wear a nice suit and tie at a job interview. Contact Basemetalhere 20:14, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, life's unfair. Not blaming the guy. InedibleHulk(talk) 20:22, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The original idea was an attempted monetary valuation of the reputation and established contacts and business relationships of a firm, considered as intangible assets, but it appears to have become more complicated... AnonMoos (talk) 20:36, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I heard a story recently that illustrates the importance of goodwill nicely. During the Great Depression the manager of a Ford Dealership refused to repo cars from people who couldn't pay. The owner fired him for this and repossessed the cars, ignoring the importance of goodwill. After the Depression ended, the customers were able to buy cars again, but wanted nothing to do with that Ford dealership, which went bankrupt. The fired manager went to work for a new Buick dealership, and all the customers followed him there. (Of course, the Ford and Buick dealers might be reversed in another town.)
Unfortunately, these days big companies seem to screw the customer over any way they can, like banks that find ways to charge you extra bounced check fees by changing the order they try to cash them. I have to think that the ethical companies will win all their customers in the long run. StuRat (talk) 01:26, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
With that story you hit the interesting ethical question of whether our putative manager used company funds to buy the goodwill of the customers, then unfairly took that goodwill with him when he left. 75.140.88.172 (talk) 02:41, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No funds were required to not repo the cars. Of course, the company would have rather had the payments, but repossessing cars during the Great Depression would have been rather pointless anyway, as there wouldn't be customers to sell them to. We recently had a similar issue in the US housing market, where banks repossessed houses, which had the effect of depressing property values, including other homes owned by the bank, and may well have decreased the bank's profits. Economic upheaval alters the normal rules, and doing "business as usual" isn't always the best option. StuRat (talk) 03:08, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Stu, I know you're trying to help by guessing, but what you're talking about is not what goodwill accounting is about. The article is poorly written, but fairly clear on this: it refers to the overpayment (over the nominal value of the place) done during a corporate acquisition. Matt Deres (talk) 13:26, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. So what's the name of the concept I described ? StuRat (talk) 03:21, 22 October 2014 (UTC) [reply]
It is actually very simple, although frequently explained badly. Say you buy a company. You will almost certainly have to buy it at a premium to its actual market value. That premium is the 'goodwill' element. 86.176.124.43 (talk) 03:20, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
By "actual market value," .43 means the market value of the company's underlying assets. The classic example is the purchase of a retail store. Let's say you pay $500,000 for a store. The inventory is worth $300,000, and the equipment and fixtures are worth $75,000; the lease is at a market rate, so it doesn't have a value. What is the other $125,000? That's considered "goodwill," a name that derives from the theory that the additional value of the store is due to the favorable opinion of customers. The formal definition under generally accepted accounting principles is "[a]n asset representing the future economic benefits arising from other assets acquired in a business combination or an acquisition by a not-for-profit entity that are not individually acquired and separately recognized"; see the master glossary (free registration required) to the Accounting Standards Codification. John M Baker (talk) 16:16, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This article[1] claims that two Chisso executives were sentenced to prison terms for their role in the Minamata disease disaster. However I can't find find any mention of this in both English and Japanese versions of the Minamata disease article. Did this really happen? WinterWall (talk) 20:49, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is mentioned in the ja:WP article with citation. See 1988年. They were sentenced to two years in prison with three years' suspension of sentence. So they didn't go to jail. Oda Mari (talk) 10:07, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I read a story a while back somewhere. Apparently it was a true story about - I believe - a WW1 battle in Africa, probably in German East Africa between British forces and German forces, who were both suddenly attacked by a native tribe in the middle of the battle. The British and Germans temporarily halted fighting each other and joined forces to fight the natives, after which they resumed the battle. Does anyone know which battle this was? KägeTorä - (影虎) (Chin Wag) 21:12, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Australian and Turkish troops joined forces against a feared attack by Arab irregulars on one occasion towards the end of the Palestine Campaign: [2] I'm not sure if any fighting actually occurred though. Nick-D (talk) 09:29, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I KNOW this is stupid. I'm pretty good at reaserching things on the internet. Can't find the answer to this.
I KNOW it's stupid but it's a challenge if you're up to it.
My wife made a comment about how she 'can't live on air'. It sparked a memory of what is most probably a fairy tale. Grimms or whatever. As badly as my memory serves me, the image it conjures up is that of a woman trying to scam a rich old man who makes him believe that she can eat air and survive on that. Seriously this is from my childhood and I'm 60 years old now but the neural connections brought up this image of a woman outside of a window pretending to eat air.
I know it's not that important but it would prove to my wife that I haven't completely lost it by making this claim.
I don't know if you can help me but if you can I would be very grateful.
Never heard of any fairy tale in the Western tradition (there are plenty of Asian ones), although to this day there are people who make a living through this claim, Ellen Greve being the most famous. We have quite an extensive page on the topic at Inedia. Mogism (talk) 00:02, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
See Inedia - also known as breatharianism. It is of course utter nonsense, though enough people have taken it seriously for a few to have starved themselves to death. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:06, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose it might be possible to live on air (and the micro-organisms in it), provided you had the machinery to process huge quantities of air, filter out the toxic items, and collect the nutrients. StuRat (talk) 00:19, 19 October 2014 (UTC) [reply]
Here's a discussion of his long period of imprisonment without food:[3]. StuRat (talk) 03:10, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The closest thing that I see after a quick look at the WP article on Aarne-Thompson classification system is #1430: "Air Castles." This site lists some tales falling under that classification. I tried a google search <"folk tale" ("live on air" OR "eating air" OR "ate the air" OR "eat the air") site:pitt.edu> and the only one that came up was "The Princess Who Loved Her Father Like Salt," which wasn't related. The story seems familiar to me, but I can't place it. --some jerk on the Internet(talk) 12:45, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved
