Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2008 November 29

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.

November 29

Famous quote

There is a quote out there that goes something like "To men of rationale, the world appears happy. To men of emotions, the world appears sad." Or, it might go something like "The world is a happy place to those with greater rationale, while it is a sad place to those with greater emotion." This is not exactly how it goes, and I cannot remember who said it, but any help would be appreciated. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.48.62.20 (talk) 00:40, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Horace Walpole is credited with "Life is a comedy to those who think, and a tragedy to those who feel" (see [1]). -- JackofOz (talk) 02:02, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! That's exactly what I was looking for!

A shadow detaching from its owner, and turning into an evil being

I remember as a child hearing a radio theatre story about a person whose shadow somehow got detached from its owner. The shadow transformed into an evil being, that turned against its former master. Recently, I read Las luces de septiembre by Carlos Ruíz Zafón, in which this theme is an important part of the plot. Now, Zafón wasn't even born at the time I listened to this, so the theme is certainly older. My question is, in which previous legends/stories/novels has this theme been used, and can someone point to an original version of the story? --NorwegianBlue ^talk 00:48, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

The idea turns up in Peter Pan, as I recall, but I have no idea if that's the original occurrence (I don't think Pan's shadow was particularly evil, just mischievous). --Tango (talk) 00:52, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Check out Living Shadow at tvtropes.org. The oldest example they have seems to be The Shadow (fairy tale), but it's hard not to believe that it's much much older. -- BenRG (talk) 01:17, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

In David Eddings Belgariad and Mallorean series, sorcerors could send their shadows away from themselves but they'd stay under their control for the most part. Eddings tends to use the standard story forms from medieval romance, taking various elements, themes and archetypes from them and writing his own stories so he probably borrowed the idea from earlier writings. Exxolon (talk) 01:30, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I also recall in the Fighting Fantasy gamebook Midnight Rogue at one point you walk through a magical torch's light and your shadow detaches from you and attacks you. You could fight it or try other methods of dealing with the problem. Exxolon (talk) 01:52, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! After reading the synopsis of The Shadow (fairy tale), I'm pretty sure that's the one I heard. The article mentions the story Peter Schlemihl by Adelbert von Chamisso as a precedent. However, in that story, the main character sells his shadow to the devil, and it is the lack of a shadow that leads to misery; the shadow itself doesn't come back to haunt its former master. Zafón explicitly references the Doppelgänger motif in his novel, although Doppelgängers are generally thought of as separate beings, not detached shadows. Another related motif that comes to mind is vampires' lack of a shadow and reflection. I agree that the detached shadow theme is probably lot older than the 1800's. --NorwegianBlue ^talk 12:11, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

In Lord Dunsany's Charwoman's Shadow the detached shadow is not evil as such, but a person who has consented to having his shadow detached can be condemned to hell... AnonMoos (talk) 17:15, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Hate poems

I’m looking for poems which express hatred or rage. Suggestions? Thanks, --S.dedalus (talk) 06:06, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I guess my preferred angry poetry, such as that of Heinrich Heine, lets hatred and rage sublimate into biting sarcasm. I suspect that is not what you are looking for, however, so how about Marina Tsvetaeva? Choosing an unusual object of lyrical hatred, she sounds quite angry in "Readers of Newspapers". ---Sluzzelin talk 07:20, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

If it's that good in English, it must be incredible in Russian. Oy. Antandrus (talk) 15:44, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

death metal lyrics —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.3.145.61 (talk) 07:34, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Robert Browning wrote a famous one to Edward Fitzgerald, that came to mind immediately.[2] "Soliloquy of the Spanish Cloister" [3] is another one by him.

Ogden Nash wrote a humorous one praising hate in general (try searching on "hating, my boy, is an art") but that's probably not what you want.

If folk songs count, "Here's to the state of Richard Nixon" is brutal. 67.122.210.149 (talk) 08:31, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Catullus is unsurpassed; I don't think anyone approaches his ferocity. And if it's an ex- you're after, even better. Unexpurgated translations into English did not even appear until mid-20th century. It's strong stuff. I like the Peter Whigham translation (Penguin) pretty much. Antandrus (talk) 13:56, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Another would be the opening several hundred lines of François Villon's Grand Testament. He'd just gotten out of prison at Meung where he'd been horribly abused, and wasn't too happy about the bishop who put him there. Antandrus (talk) 14:00, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd also suggest the lyrics to "Death on two legs" by Queen, which starts "You suck my blood like a leech/Break the law and you breach/Screw my brain till it hurts" and contains the line "You're a sewer rat decaying in a cesspool of pride". I've never seen a more concentrated flow of vitriol in a poem! --TammyMoet (talk) 14:49, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Wow -- there's a lot. Depending on the exact focus and scope of what you are looking for:

The Iliad, which is, after all, about rage, and still retains the power to shock after almost three thousand years;

Dante, The Inferno, much of which is saturated with hate and rage eternal;

Paradise Lost, many of the speeches of Satan, particularly that splendid condemnation of the Sun, I think in Book IV, where he tells it how much he hates it for what it represents of Divine Light and what he has lost;

Shakespeare is full of good passages: check out Coriolanus, for example his denunciation of the people as they are banishing him, and Timon of Athens, and then the rages of King Lear. Antandrus (talk) 15:14, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I'll suggest O Fortuna as a general rant against fate: "Fate - monstrous and empty / you whirling wheel / you are malevolent / well-being is vain / and always fades to nothing." or, if you prefer a more poetic, but less accurate translation: "Fate, as vicious as capricious / You're a wheel whirling around: / Evil doings, worthless wooings, / Crumble away to the ground." And so on. Of course, it sounds more impressive sung in Latin by a choir, while backed by an orchestra. Matt Deres (talk) 15:15, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Book IV of the Aeneid, when Dido goes nuts and kills herself. Adam Bishop (talk) 15:41, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

If you are looing for something more current, why not listen to any number of jamaican dance hall artists- hate music at its finest! (although i second the catullus vote -he had some serious sass!).82.22.4.63 (talk) 15:47, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Check out the lyrics to Ludo's "Love Me Dead", which includes such lovely lines as "You're a parasitic, psycho, filthy creature finger-bangin' my heart". Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 23:20, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Try Howl by Allen Ginsberg. DOR (HK) (talk) 08:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Otto Nadolski

Dear Editor,

I have recently written a short description of who Otto Nadolski was.

The following thread has been declined, reasoning that the person is not of significance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Submissions/Otto_Nadolski

This is evidently a false judgement, because there is sufficient evidence of the contrary.

1) He is mentioned as one of the most notable professors in wiki page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lviv_Polytechnic also his is the only name still red, asking for further elaboration.

2) He has been mentioned in other Wiki pages in other languages.

3) Sufficient evidence has been given , as he was mentioned in official literature published by the Lviv Politechnic. (see source on proposed article).

4) He was by far of more importance than the other notable professors mentioned on the page, as they were appointed by Otto Nadolski himself.

5) Being three time Rector of a politechnic described as: "Since its foundation in 1844 it was one of the most important centres of science and technological development in Central Europe" deserves sufficient importance to be mentioned in Wikipedia.

I dont know why this evident information is not sufficient for Wikipedia, I therefore suggest reconsidering the article, taking the above into account.

daniel29680 / [email address removed] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel29680 (talk • contribs) 10:46, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

This isn't really the place to appeal such decisions. The main requirement for a person to be notable is that they are mentioned is reliable, secondary sources (something from his own university doesn't really qualify). If you can find a newspaper article about him or maybe something saying he's been awarded a major prize in his field, then he may be notable enough for an article. The guideline for academics is here. If, after reading that, you are confident he is notable and you have sources to verify it, then I suggest you just create the article yourself (you already have an account, so you just need to wait about 4 days until you'll be allowed to create articles), or you can make another request at Articles for Creation detailing the sources you've found. --Tango (talk) 13:08, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

British police operation

Opposition MP Damian Green released too much information embarrassing to the government, so the police was sent to arrest him. The leader of the Opposition, the Speaker, and the mayor of London were told beforehand, but the Prime Minister insists neither he or any other government ministers were informed. [4] Is it usual for the police to brief the lower level politicians but not the higher level ones? 121.72.170.238 (talk) 11:06, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Denials, yes, but isn't there a story which is relevant? Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:53, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on UK constitutional law or practice, but I would say what is suggested her is entirely believable. The problem appears to be your assumption 'lower level politicians' and 'higher level ones'. Okay I'm not sure about the Mayor of London bit but informing the leader of the Opposition is understandable since Damian Green belong to his party so it would likely be considered prudent to inform him that one of his MPs is being arrested. (If it were a Liberal-Democrat being arrested, it seems entirely plausible that the Leader of Opposition wouldn't have been informed, instead simply the leader of the LibDems.) The Speaker is responsible for handling all matters concerning the conduct of MPs therefore he or she should generally be informed if a MP is being arrested. The PM however should have little to do with the arrest and while it may be normal to inform him in very high profile cases, e.g. when people are being arrested for terrorism, it may also be considered prudent not to involve him in any matters concerning alleged wrongdoing by opposition MPs to avoid the implication that the police are helping the government. They do have independence in such matters after all. In other words, your mistake is thinking of lower level politicans and higher level politicians when what you should be thinking about is their role and why they were or were not informed. As said, I'm not so sure about why the Mayor of London was informed, but perhaps because this involved the Metropolitan Police carrying out raids inside London. Nil Einne (talk) 13:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

The Mayor of London is responsible for policing in London, as chair of the Metropolitan Police Authority. The closest precedent is the cash for honours inquiry, but it was only Labour politicians and supporters arrested then[5] so it is hard to apply exactly to the current case. --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 14:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

National Bankruptcies..

Hello Wikipedia,

I'd just like to understand a little more about what it means for countries to go bankrupt.. I understand that all countries borrow form others and that some countries debts are higher than others. When some countries feel that they won't get their money back, they stop lending so there is a 'cash-flow' problem on a national scale. Assuming thats about right (and if its not, let me know!) how likely is it that the UK will soon face possible bankruptcy? (i've just read an article on the Guardian website which suggests its quite likely - which is obvioulsy terrifying!) Further to that, he suggests that joining the Euro would be the easiest escape route - i'm not sure i understand why... (the article is here [6])..

a quick economics lesson would be much appreciated!

Thanks, 82.22.4.63 (talk) 13:13, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I believe the usual term is "defaulting" on their loans, for countries. That simply means they don't pay what they owe, as opposed to "bankruptcy", which is a legal process which makes it no longer necessary to pay all of your debts. Understand that the government of one country doesn't typically borrow money from the governments of others countries, but rather from individuals and corporations and pension funds from all over the world (including their own nation), in the form of government bonds. So, defaulting on those loans harms everyone, not just foreign governments. There may be some benefits to the nation which defaults, such as not having to pay off the interest each year, so being able to apply that money to the regular budget, instead. Also, not being able to borrow money in the future may finally force that nation to live within it's means. I'm not sure if the positives outweigh the negatives, however. StuRat (talk) 15:06, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure of the proportions, but a significant amount of government debt is held by other governments in the form of foreign reserves (eg. China's government holds large amounts of US government debt). It's not necessarily desirable for a country to "live within its means" (it's a rather controversial topic, there are plenty of people the disagree with what follows) - as long as debt increases no faster than the economy grows, the country remains in a strong financial situation with a higher standard of living than they would have had with lower public spending (or higher taxes, or both). Saving up only makes sense if you expect to need to spend those savings in the future - as long as you keep your debt low enough and your credit worthiness high enough so that you can afford to borrow more when needed, there is little need for reserves. It's all a matter of weighing up the benefits of spending more now with the risks of need to borrow more in the future - borrowing in small amounts can easily be the right decision (borrowing in large amounts should, of course, be limited to times of crisis, such as now, and needs to be followed by a surplus to pay it back in preparation for the next crisis). If you are going to rely on borrowing like this (and most countries do - there are very few than run consistent surpluses) then you need to maintain a good credit rating, which means not defaulting on your debts (even though there is no law stopping you from doing so, since you make the laws!). As for the UK, our debt is actually still fairly low compared to other countries in Europe (although it's expected to increase dramatically over the next couple of years). The UK government has been sticking to a target of 40% of GDP (it's failed to stay within that recently, of course), the EU rules are 60% and some major EU countries haven't even managed to stick within that prior to the current crisis (and will presumably go well over now). The UK is going to take on massive debt and that's not good news, but I see no reason to believe it will be unable to service that debt (no-one is looking forward to the tax rises that are going to be required to pay it back in a few years time, but we'll manage). I haven't read the article yet (I will do now), but I don't see how joining the Euro would make any difference (I doubt it's even practical to have such a major upheaval during a recession). --Tango (talk) 15:38, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

The negatives of running a structural deficit (as opposed to only having a deficit when absolutely necessary, like during WW2 or as a result of bailouts for the current financial crisis) are many:

1) Not only must the money borrowed be paid off by future generations, eventually, but the interest must be paid, too. This means that future generations will need to pay more than the current generation gets. Only if the interest rate was less than inflation would this not be the case, and, if that was true, people would be foolish to loan the government money. There is a "taxation without representation" argument on saddling future generations, who have no vote, with our debts.

2) If we always borrow close to the limit of what will cause economic collapse, then we can't borrow much more when we really need it, such as during wars and the current financial crisis.

3) Being dependent on lenders such as China puts us at a political disadvantage, as they can threaten to withhold future loans if we complain, say, when they invade Taiwan or have another Tiananmen Square Massacre. We can, of course, threaten not to pay our current loans to them, but that would make others even less likely to lend us money. StuRat (talk) 17:34, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I take it 'we' and 'us' refer to the United States here? Algebraist 17:38, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

No, it means any Western nation which borrows heavily from others. StuRat (talk) 17:42, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

1) The interest must be paid, certainly, but there is no need to ever pay back the principle. You just take out new debt to pay off the old. As long as the economy continues to grow fast enough that interest payments as a percentage of GDP do not become too high, there is no problem (if you hit a recession, you have a problem, but it's just a temporary one - once you come out the other side you have to pay back some of the debt to get back to affordable levels, but after that you can continue as you were). 2) Absolutely, I believe I said as much. 3) There is a problem when a foreign country owns a significant amount of your debt, it's true. Ideally most of your debt is held domestically and the rest is mostly spread between friendly nations. --Tango (talk) 18:54, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Two comments on point #1: First, the interest (minus the inflation rate) on a perpetual loan will eventually total more than the principal. Second, I still say that the principal will either one day need to be paid or the country will be in default. A global depression, for example, will eventual occur so that the money is no longer available to borrow in order to "rollover" the debt, meaning the principal will need to be paid off under the worst possible circumstances. StuRat (talk) 19:15, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand your first point, what is the significance of the total interest paid becoming greater than the principal? As for your second point, in a depression there is less money to go around, certainly, but people will generally want to lend what money they have to (reliable) governments since it is safer than investing in anything else (barring gold, perhaps) during a time when businesses are struggling to survive. Have governments had problems borrowing money in depressions in the past? (I haven't studied the subject in any depth.) --Tango (talk) 19:44, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

My point is that, while it's immoral to borrow $1 and make your grandchildren pay back $1 (adjusted for inflation), it's both immoral and stupid economics to borrow $1 and make your grandchildren pay back $30 (adjusted for inflation). I don't believe we had anywhere near the level of debt we have now, before the Great Depression, so borrowing money wasn't quite the issue it is now. For those people with money in a depression, there are many fantastic opportunities, like buying up failed companies and cheap prime real estate, so government bonds would be a rather poor choice. StuRat (talk) 04:17, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

In order to compare cash flows at different times, you don't want to adjust for inflation, you need to discount by the risk-free rate, which is generally taken to be the interest rate of government bonds. If you do that then I think you end up with the amount being paid back being exactly equal to the amount borrowed in the first place. (I'm assuming the risk-free rate is constant, which isn't true, but it will do for a rough impression.) Buying up failed companies is only good if you're an expert on rescuing failed companies, most people aren't. Buying up cheap real estate is only good if you are happy to wait a long time for the depression to end and property values to increase, people that want more short term investments will and do turn to treasury bonds. --Tango (talk) 13:44, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't get your argument at all. If money is borrowed, and interest is paid on it continuously (over the rate of inflation), and the principal is never paid off, then the portion of those interest payments above inflation is money the government loses each year. The only way this could be good economics in the long run is if the government invests that principal in some way that grows faster than the interest rate minus inflation. And government rarely makes good investments. StuRat (talk) 16:57, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

That investment is the economy, if economic growth is greater than interest on government bonds minus inflation (or, not minus inflation, depending on how you measure growth) then even if you pay the interest by borrowing more, your debt as a percentage of GDP is still decreasing (allowing you to borrow more to cover a budget deficit). It's when economic growth drops (such as now) that you have a problem, but over a long enough time scale you can be pretty confident it will average out to a decent growth rate. --Tango (talk) 17:19, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I challenge the assumption that borrowed money is wisely invested to cause the economy to grow. If the government is limited to only spending money it actually has, then it's apt to make wiser decisions about where to spend that money than if there is an unlimited supply of money available due to heavy borrowing. An "open treasure chest" leads to wasteful spending. StuRat (talk) 19:12, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

(Rm indent)

@Tango: I think another way to illustrate the theoretical problem of future generations funding current expenses is that the future generations bear the risk of rolling over the debt at higher interest rates. If the current administration stuffs up (gets downgraded for example) then future administrations have to bear the burden. Of course, the current generation can also improve the situation and leave the future generation better off but the fact is that there is always the risk that it might get worse.

@Sturat: I don't believe much of the spending is wasteful wrt to future generations. It can even be argued that the money spent on wars leave future generations better off. The problem is that the future generations aren't involved in the decision making but still bear the risk as explained above. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 06:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Part of the debate turns on the definition of debt used. The figures quoted above exclude various liabilities which might reasonably be included, such as the Private Finance Initiative. The largest government liability excluded from official figures is the enormous bill for unfunded public sector pensions. The government supposes that this liability amounts to GBP 650 billion, broadly the same as the official figure for debt, but others suggest higher figures. The Institute of Economic Affairs are quoted as coming up with a figure of GBP 1200 billion or thereabouts. So, yes, the official figure for UK debt is relatively low, but there are good grounds for thinking that it is a nonsense. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:00, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Do other countries not fiddle the books in the same way, though? --Tango (talk) 16:03, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the US certainly does. The party in power always says the debt is tiny and the opposing party says it's huge. StuRat (talk) 17:45, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Putting aside the theoretical discussion of government debt, which I think Tango has covered quite well, and turning to the present case of the UK, as discussed in the Guardian article, I believe that there is indeed some risk that the United Kingdom (and ultimately the United States, for that matter) might eventually face a debt and currency crisis. The reason why this is a real possibility is that the debts of the United Kingdom (like those of the United States) have been expanding at a dramatic and accelerating rate as the government rushes to bail out an enormous and disastrously insolvent financial sector. Because the British financial sector is larger as a proportion of the total economy (GDP) than that of the United States, the government's debt-financed assumption of the financial sector's bad debts threatens investors' faith in the ability of the British government to repay its debts.

While the debt of the UK as a percentage of GDP is currently modest by comparison to other developed nations, the scale of the financial sector's insolvency is unknown and could amount to trillions of pounds. If the British government were to try to finance this, it would alarm investors. Apparently, investors are already alarmed, because they have been selling sterling assets at such a rate that sterling has lost a quarter of its value in just three months. If investors were to lose all confidence in the creditworthiness of the UK, its currency could plummet and/or become nonconvertible, as the currency of Iceland did for a few weeks recently. The only way for the government to fund its debts might be for the Bank of England to print pound notes, or their electronic equivalents, and use these to buy government bonds. This would further unnerve holders of sterling assets, who would see their value diluted by the expansion of the money supply without corresponding economic growth. This would add to the downward pressure on sterling and would lead to sharply higher prices for imported goods and a risk of destabilizing inflation. None of this is certain to happen, it must be emphasized, since no one can predict the future.

The author of the Guardian article argues that it would be prudent for the UK to adopt the euro now as a way to avoid a run on sterling. If the UK were to join the euro, the scale of the euro zone's financial insolvency would probably be much smaller relative to that of the total economy, since the financial sectors of the euro zone's other economic powerhouses, Germany and France, are much smaller in relative terms. Investors are less likely to be anxious about the solvency of the euro zone as a whole, especially when the euro's main competitor, the US dollar, somewhat like the pound sterling, faces a greater relative risk of a crisis of confidence.

What the article's author neglects to point out is that EU members seeking to adopt the euro are expected to participate in the European Exchange Rate Mechanism for two years before adopting the euro. That is, they are required to keep their currency closely pegged to the euro, generally by limiting their budget deficits and raising interest rates to limit current account deficits. These policies would make it impossible for the British government to continue its bailout of its financial sector, or to attempt economic stimulus on a larger scale than the less-stricken euro-zone countries. So the author's suggestion that adopting the euro would be an easy way out is misleading. Marco polo (talk) 23:06, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

(ec with your last paragraph) I think what you describe is unlikely, but it certainly isn't impossible. However, joining the Euro wouldn't help - if the UK government's creditworthiness drops to levels where it cannot reasonably borrow money, and it can't print money since it has surrendered monetary policy, what would it do? It could raise taxes up to a point, but it would quickly reach the peak of the Laffer curve, and after that it would be left with no choice but the dramatically cut public spending. Joining the Euro would increase confidence in the currency, but that doesn't mean there would be confidence in the UK government's ability to pay its debts. At the moment, the yield on UK 6-month government bonds is 1.14% [7],compared to Germany's 1.93% and the US's 0.42% (same site), which suggests to me that investors are pretty confident in the UK government's ability to pay its debt in the short term (the yields also factor in the risk of other investments in that currency, so it's not a perfect measure - I'll see if I can find some credit default swap numbers, which would be better). --Tango (talk) 23:28, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Tango, I think that the low yields on short-term bonds in the US and UK do not so much reflect investors' confidence in governments was they do investors' lack of confidence in other asset classes and the rate at which the Federal Reserve and the Bank of England are flooding their systems with liquidity. All of that cash has to go somewhere. According to this article, the UK money supply is expanding at an annual rate of 15%. According to this source, US M3 (broad money supply) is expanding at a year-over-year rate of well over 10% (albeit decelerating). Meanwhile, according to this source, euro-zone M3 is growing at "only" 8.7% (admittedly still quite high relative to economic growth). Meanwhile, the discount rate is now higher in the euro zone than in either the US or the UK. Investors need some compensation for holding a bond rather than cash. They need more compensation for a German bond because of the higher interest available for a euro cash investment. The only way that I can explain bond interest rates so much lower than interest rates on bank accounts is the fear of people and institutions with high net worth of depositing funds in excess of government guarantees in possibly failing banks. Maybe that fear is greater in the United States and the United Kingdom than in Germany. Of course, this is speculation, but in the world of finance, especially today, there is much that is not transparent. Marco polo (talk) 02:15, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Credit default swaps are a far better way of comparing percieved risk of default, but I can't find prices for them (I found a price of 88 basis points for UK debt on the 24th Nov in a Bloomberg article, but couldn't find anything to compare it to). However, I wasn't meaning to suggest that them being low meant they were percieved as low risk, but rather that the UK yields weren't higher than the German yields which is what one would expect if the UK were a higher risk than the Euro zone (it could just mean that private UK investments are a higher risk relative to UK government debt than private German invests are relative to German government debt, though, which is why it's all difficult to compare). --Tango (talk) 13:44, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Given the number of questions about national bankruptcy, should we start an article? Warofdreams talk 00:46, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Pakistan

Is this true that all four major ethnic groups of Pakistan can have followers of Hanafi, Hanbali, Shafi'i, Maliki, Ithna Ash'ariyah, Ismaili Mustali Sulaimani Bohra, Ismaili Mustali Dawoodi Bohra, Barelvi, Deobandi? but for the Khoja Ismaili Nizari, all I know is that they are Sindhi. Which province have the most population of Christians? Which province has the most population of Hindus? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.53.184 (talk) 15:29, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like something which would demand sustained library research (possibly necessitating a knowledge of Urdu) to answer very well. By the way, I suspect that some Deobandis and Barelvis might possibly take issue if you insinuated that they were outside the four madhahib.... AnonMoos (talk) 17:21, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't answer my question about the article.

Bad Company song

I was making out with a girl last night in her bedroom, and in the background she put on some music so other people wouldn't hear; there was a song by the band Bad Company, and the song mentioned the band name Bad Company in the actual lyrics. Which song is this?-Norman the Doorman (talk) 16:59, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

This is really a question for the entertainment desk, but could it be that the lyrics "Bad Company" were from the song Bad Company from the album Bad Company by the band Bad Company? Talk about self references! Fribbler (talk) 17:06, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

The girl sounds enthralling.NByz (talk) 23:24, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Holy crap. Are you 45? Do people still make out to "Bad Company"? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:05, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Why not? Would you rather make out to Fall Out Boy? Adam Bishop (talk) 06:12, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Gawd no, I found that Closer is the best makeout song ever. The chorus generally gets you where you want to go... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:13, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm 22. The girl was about the same age as me, actually slightly younger. And plus she is from Eastern Europe so maybe her country is kinda behind with music a little, but I like Bad Co. too, or at least what I've heard. Hey, I told her I liked My Chemical Romance as well and that nearly puts her off me completely. And I already made out to that particular Nine Inch Nails song with another girl like 3 years ago but this girl is a lot better. Not fat like that other chick back then. And Bad Company is cooler than NIN, even though I like the latter as well.-Norman the Doorman (talk) 21:36, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Do you know that I cannot recall a single time in mumbledy-mumble decades of active sex life where the music made a difference, before or during. Is this just me personally, or is it a male-female thing? I think all of the preceding remarks have been made by males. ៛ Bielle (talk) 05:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, as much as I appreciate the music of John Philip Sousa, it would make a rather odd choice in my sensitivity, so I guess I do think the music can make a difference (but then I'm male ;) ---Sluzzelin talk 09:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Heh, I can just about imagine John Cleese or Michael Palin bonking to Liberty Bell. But then, I can hardly imagine them doing anything at all except in a bizarre way. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

As anyone who has watched Fast Times At Ridgemont High knows, "when it comes down to making out, whenever possible, put on side 1 of Led Zeppelin IV". Hammer Raccoon (talk) 15:15, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Bielle, I'm with you (though I only dimly remember my active sex life). —Tamfang (talk) 21:19, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Where does stereotypical 'gay' behavior originate?

I was curious where stereotypical gay mannerisms and speech originate from? Is the speech and mannerisms a learned behavior? If so, what are the sources? It seems to be completely unique and easily identifiable across ethnic, linguistic and cultural borders. This isn't questioning of homosexuality. But there are friends I know who are referred to as "screaming queens" and others who aren't. They are usually referred to as "effeminate", but I don't see that type of speech and mannerisms as trying to replicate a woman. --70.130.54.91 (talk) 18:26, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

One clue is that it was once fashionable for upper-class men to behave like that, wearing high-heeled shoes, wigs, and perfume, and talking/walking in an effeminate manner, even when they were straight. See fop and dandy. Then there's the modern equivalent, the metrosexual. StuRat (talk) 18:33, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Just because women don't actually act effeminate in the same way doesn't mean that it's not meant to be in reference to some projected idea of that. I find it very interesting how gay males act in a way about what it means to be "feminine" which is more about an inversion of "masculine" than it is anything that women actually do. Similarly I find the "butch" variety of lesbians do very similar things—taking on various "masculine" characteristics that are really extreme projections of the idea of "masculinity" (in particular the uneducated, brutish form). (On the latter point I've always wondered why one would want to do that, as a non-particularly "macho" man I have found the hyper-masculine, thuggish sort of attitude always reprehensible and find it so very odd that lesbians would embrace it for any reason, since it seems entirely opposite to the values they embrace, though I understand these things about identity are complicated.) --98.217.8.46 (talk) 19:03, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I read your question as whether stereotypical gay or lesbian behaviour is genetically or culturally transmitted. I can't answer that question, but acknowledge the fact that that an autosomal gene that predisposes to behaviour that attracts male sexual partners, might have an evolutionary advantage, i.e. that the advantage in female carriers might outweigh the disadvantage in male carriers. If anyone has references to studies that address this question, it would be most welcome. --NorwegianBlue ^talk 22:50, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

(after ec) Pick a movie from the 1940s, anything featuring, for example, Joan Crawford, Veronica Lake,Myrna Loy, Mae West or Bette Davis. Watch them vamp their way throughout the movie. (See even the photo on the Crawford article.) These are the models, I believe, for the excruciatingly exaggerated mannerisms for the sexy female. (This is WP:OR through and through, by the way.) I think that when stage actors first came to the movies, they brought with them the same overdone gestures that were useful on stage when the audience might be too far away to see facial expressions or small body movements. Everything from smiles to ambulation had to be "visible" from 15 metres. It took quite some time for the nuances of the big screen to be exploited. And thus, at the time when movies had the most inflence on popular culture, they were displaying these grossly overdone caricatures of female presentation as indicative of star quality. I think that is where the stereotype came from, but as to why it is supposedly worth being copied, I can only speculate that it is its very exaggeration that is its attraction: more female than a female, as it were. ៛ Bielle (talk) 23:13, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

i'm sure its about emulating women actually.. i'm gay and on the camp scale, whilst not a 'screaming queen', i am what you would call 'obvioulsy gay', like I imagine graham norton is off-camera. anyway, i think i started adopting gay mannerisms after meeting my first 'real-life' gay and, whilst basically falling in love with him, thought he'd love me back if i was like him..(he didn't). at that time i regarded this type of self-expression as reaction (in a positive sense) against a conservaive upbringing and as such saw it as an integral part of me (and, to a lesser extent, i still do).

Thats my point of view anyway. If you were to ask, say, my (elder) sisters or some of their friends, they would tell you instantly that i was clearly gay from an early age (someone claims to have outed me when i was 12, whilst i outed myself at age 17/18). If true, this makes me think that perhaps i was only exaggerating what was already there. (Which ties in with the earlier evolutionairy point made earlier). Certainly i was the stereotypical gay child (hopeless at sport etc) but there were plently of others like that at my school who are now resoundly heterosexual, so lets keep this scientific....

I guess my main concern about the 'emulating women' argument is that its quite hetero-centric (the corrollary being that there are woman-gays and man-gays). Lets not assume heterosexual norms are still universally valid for homosexual realtionships!82.22.4.63 (talk) 11:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, you seem to be the resident expert, so here's some follow-up Q's for you:

1) Does it attract you if another man acts "stereotypically gay", with the lisping voice and such ?

2) Does it make it easier for you to identify them as homosexual ?

3) Do you believe you attract men by acting that way yourself (men who would not be attracted to you otherwise) ?

4) Is it all "an act" you put on for others, or would you talk like that when conversing with, say, a dog, with no witnesses ?

5) Could you act convincingly straight if you wanted to ? StuRat (talk) 13:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Oooh the 'resident expert' - i like it! Here goes with some answers... 1) actually i don't think it affects me. There is certainly some considerable anti-camp predjudice in the gay community but i don't seem to roll that way.. (i've been attracted to some camp guys and some non-camp guys)

2)yes, it makes it 'easier', in the same way that crossing the road is 'easier' if there is less traffic, but usually its not difficult to tell if someone is on 'your team' or not. (intra-gay 'gaydar' seems to be quite accurate -there are doubtless more factors at play than just campness).

3)i repulse men so either way i couldn't comment

4) i would say on balance, no. like most people i do nuance my behaviour according to my surroundings. i do not, for example, act the same in a job interview as i do at a party. Having said that, i would hazard that most people who interview me would have an idea that i am gay... so yes -i would talk that way to a dog!

5)i take issue with the term 'act straight' (becuase it implies that gay and camp are synonymous - which they're not (see Brian Paddick/David Beckham)). anyway, to answer the question, no. i've tried both consciously (as a bet at a party) and sub-consciously (whilst growing up) and alas it can't be done (at least by me!).

That was fun but where does it leave us? 82.22.4.63 (talk) 16:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I've heard of men saying they are a "straight-acting gay", so my question number 5 seems reasonable, to me. It seems from your responses that you don't really benefit from "camp" style, and can't convincingly change, so that implies that it's not so much a choice to act that way as it is "just part of who you are". Perhaps there's a genetic component to "acting camp" which is linked with male homosexuality, but not exclusively so. For comparison, many blonds have blue eyes, but there are also those with only blue eyes (like me) or only blond hair, so this is the same type of weak genetic correlation. StuRat (talk) 00:11, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure stereotypical gay behavior is identifiable across cultures because gender norms are different from one culture to the next. What stereotypical gay behavior is, at least in this discussion, is the refusal to adhere to what is masculine for men and feminine for women. Not all gay people behave this way. There are gay men who are hypermasculine and profess to dislike twinks and effeminate men. Similarly, there are very feminine lesbians who refuse to have anything to do with butch women. For some gay people their behavior is noticeably more gay when they come out, are younger, and are near other gay people. This may wane as one's identity expands beyond sexuality. I think that is essential to the original question: behavior is an expression of identity, or what one finds admirable. For a man to admire femininity and emulate it instead of desire it is not widely seen or accepted, therefore a subset of behavior that sets some gay men apart. Women who express strength in masculine ways are similarly unique. --Moni3 (talk) 00:57, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't know -- I think it's pretty easy to spot "a gay" if you travel overseas. Even if I don't know the language or the culture, identifying an openly gay man isn't that hard. "They" all tend to exhibit similar mannerisms. (I don't mean 'they' in a dorogatory meaning, mind you.) So if it is learned behavior, where are they all learning it from? Or are social concepts of masculinity (and therefore anti-masculinity) universal across societies? --70.167.58.6 (talk) 06:22, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Womens brains have higher verbal skills encoded in them , as opposed to more visual-spacial skills in the male. These verbal skills give them an almost musical voice, and indeed some studies show that the male responds in a similar way to hearing music. This is to be contrasted with the monotonous speech of the male, particularly in the case of "nerds" (such as myself) or extreme male brain types. Most gay men have a more "female" brain (due to hormonal effects during conception) and this musical speech pattern charcteristic of the female can be detected in them, probably one of the more noticeable characteristics of some gay men, even non-effeminate looking ones.Trevor Loughlin (talk) 04:38, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Thats really interesting (about musical voices) and certainly seems to apply to a number (but by no means all) of my gay friends. StuRat, i think your analogy to blond hair and blue eyes is a valid one. You are also right in that straight acting is used by the gay community but i still find it hideous and, when used by other gay men, to be indicative of the self-hate that sadly affects our community. Its a personal thing of course but these things always are..82.22.4.63 (talk) 16:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

European citizen outside the EU

Can European citizen use the diplomatic representation of any European country abroad?--Mr.K. (talk) 21:06, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, if by a "European country" you mean a European Union member state and if the EU citizen's home country does not have its own diplomatic or consular representation in the country where the person is travelling. According to Article 8c of the Treaty Establishing the European Community:

“ Every citizen of the Union shall, in the territory of a third country in which the Member State of which he is a national is not represented, be entitled to protection by the diplomatic or consular authorities of any Member State, on the same conditions as the nationals of that State. ”

— Kpalion^(talk) 22:22, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

The answer is no you can't. Only if you are a European citizen and there is no diplomatic mission of your country in that country's territory you may use the diplomatic mission of another European Union Member State. My parents were on holidays in Sri Lanka when the tsunami caused by the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake hit, they got away with their lives but lost all of their money, documents and most of their belongings. The nearest Polish diplomatic mission was in Mumbai, India, but my parents they got the same help as the French citizens in the French Embassy in Colombo. Mieciu K (talk) 22:34, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

They are only obliged to help you if there isn't a consulate of your country in the country, but do you know if they would help you even if there was a consulate in the country, just not one nearby or accessible? For example, a war breaks out and you can't get from one side of the city to another, could you just turn up on the doorstep of an EU embassy that's nearby? I would expect so, simply out of humanitarian concerns. --Tango (talk) 00:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

"in which the Member State of which he is a national is not represented" the literal interpretation of this text implies (to express indirectly) that under this specific law they do not have to help if there is "his" diplomatic mission in the same country. You do not have to go to "your" embassy in person usually a phone call is enough for them to organize some sort of help for you. Another story is when "your" embassy refuses to help you. I have recently read a story about a Czech citizen getting scammed out of his money and wanting to return to the Czech republic. The Czech consulate refused to help (citing that they don't help irresponsible people) so the Polish Police officers started a private fund drive and bought this guy a ticket back home. Mieciu K (talk) 00:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Maybe the Czech consular service aren't as nice as the UK one, but my understanding was that your consulate would normally put you on a flight home in that situation and then bill you when you got back home. --Tango (talk) 13:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Of course if you aren't in an EU country you'll be sent back by the local authorities anyway once you no longer have the legal right to stay in that country (e.g. once your visa runs out). You may also be detained, fined or even jailed so it's not necessarily a great idea. And yes, you will be billed once you get home Nil Einne (talk) 14:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)