November 24

According to the Guardian: Park Weon-sun, a shopkeeper in central Seoul, as people crowded around a TV screen in his shop. "Koreans tend to be more complacent than they should be. I don't think it has yet really shaken them out of their complacency." http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/nov/23/seoul-south-korea-north-korea

According to Bloomberg's William Pesek: "Isn’t it odd that we in Tokyo or folks in Washington tend to fear Kim Jong Il’s missiles more than those residing 35 kilometers (22 miles) away from North Korea?" http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-11-23/black-swans-abound-as-north-korea-lobs-shells-commentary-by-william-pesek.html

I too have also heard that ordinary South Koreans weren't so worried about what North Korea could do. Does anybody else have any other direct anecdotal experiences of this. And if this theory does seem plausible, can anyone explain why there was this "lack of worry" among the public? (Obviously general perception within South Korea may have changed with recent events) 124.149.25.208 (talk) 01:08, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Living in a state of abject terror is usually not possible for most people. People generally go on living their lives because it isn't really helpful to cower in fear all the time. See also the related concept of gallows humor. --Jayron32 01:30, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(EC)I lived and worked in South Korea last year, and I can say that most South Koreans I met weren't bothered at all about the situation with the North. I was there when a computer virus - purported to be from North Korea - hit government agencies (and hence the school I worked at), and no-one was really bothered about it. The situation was acted upon and contained quickly enough. As to why the situation is like this, I can only guess (in fact, I think anyone can only guess), but I will say that it must be remembered that the majority of the present South Korean population has been born since the cease-fire that brought about the present state of affairs with North Korea, so it can be said that that is all they know. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 01:34, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is entirely possible that the 'ordinary South Koreans' are more aware of what is really going on than the world media circus, or at least more used to this sort of posturing, and believe that this will all lead to nothing, as usual: unlike the media, they have no particular need to hype it up. I hope they are right. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:39, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean to imply that anybody in South Korea who did worry about North Korea were "not ordinary". I only used that term to try and distinguish between the public and the politicians/army. Politicians and the army are obliged to worry about external threats. I'm not really interested in their perceptions. Feel free to ignore the term "ordinary" if you feel it makes unnecessary assumptions.124.149.25.208 (talk) 01:55, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that Americans are truly that afraid of North Koreans — for example, I didn't see anyone but myself thinking out loud on forums that the "mystery missile" two weeks ago^[1] might have been a demonstration of sub-missile-?nuke? capability by the North Koreans. Mostly the interest runs more along the line of macho-juvenile fantasy regarding what might be done if/when people have the opportunity to put aside all ethics and restraint. Wnt (talk) 02:41, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree completely on this. I think many Americans are afraid of North Korea. They have nuclear weapons. They are run by a loony. They export WMD technology to other hostile nations. They are within striking distance of tens of thousands of US troops. That's enough to be worried about, without having to resort to conspiracy theories or fantasies. --Mr.98 (talk) 02:12, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with Mr.98's assessment. I am quite amazed that here in Italy, the media is really downplaying the whole situation, which has the potential to turn into a nuclear inferno.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:30, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's far away and in no direct connection to them, that's all. Also, I think Italians (probably Europeans in general) just don't see the nuclear option as quite as feasible (and even if it went that far, it's, as I said, far away and in no direct connection to them). It's the same thing here over the border in Slovenia - no real reporting or general interest in the whole thing. I'm really anxious to know what's going all, since I'm a Japonologist and these thing are happening dangerously close to Japan, but I have to get my news from the Internet. TomorrowTime (talk) 11:55, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the source of the disagreement here is the use of words like 'fear' or 'afraid' and such. Nobody here in the UK was truly afraid of nuclear annihilation during the Cold War era - we really had a lot more to think about, like the economic upheaval of the 1980s, the Falklands War, Prince Charles' wedding, and so on. Same with thee days - no-one is really that bothered about the situation in North/South Korea. We are in the middle of the worst recession since the 1920s, as well as fighting in Afghanistan, and Prince William has just announced his marriage. When North/South Korea comes up on the news, it may spark a little bit of conversation in my house, but only because I have spent my life studying East Asia, and for no other reason. There's too much else going on for people to worry about whether two nations they know nothing about on the other side of the planet are going to go to war. If it does happen - God forbid - and if it does spark into a wider conflict, then there will be cause for concern, but not before. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 12:41, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Nobody here in the UK was truly afraid of nuclear annihilation during the Cold War era". Speak for yourself. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:01, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Why am I suddenly getting a mental picture of Neville Chamberlain? Or, for that matter, the average American during 1939-1941? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:05, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It could be that the Koreans are worried only about an escalation in the long-term regional conflict, while those farther away are worried about a global conflict. The "mystery missle" reported off California was just an "ordinary" jet contrail FTR. ~AH1^(TCU) 23:22, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The press in the U.S. is highly effective propaganda, as demonstrated by the ignorant responses above. North Korea poses no significant threat whatsoever to anyone, except its own people and a few unlucky South Koreans. If South Koreans aren't alarmed, it's similar to you and me not being alarmed when we drive our cars knowing that tens of thousands of people in the US die on the roads each year. The odds are tremendously against any personal harm. But, as lackeys of propaganda, many Americans -- here and abroad -- aren't intellectually capable of recoginizing the difference between a threat and a propaganda campaign. Kim will never, ever do anything (militarily) to anybody outside Korea. Duh. 63.17.78.65 (talk) 12:41, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why so little diplomatic progress?

Why is there so little diplomatic progress between the Koreas? Would a citizens' armistice reenactment based on [2] help? Do we have an article on the list of issues which need to be resolved? North Korea#21st century suggests that whether U.S. troops remain may be the largest difficulty. Is that correct? Ginger Conspiracy (talk) 21:25, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is a deeply political question, and one you're unlikely to get answered here in any definitive sort of way. I'd start by suggesting that 'diplomatic progress' doesn't occur because it is in the interest of a lot of powerful entities that it doesn't. As for who the 'powerful entities' are, no doubt this will be debated... AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:33, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there has been some considerable diplomatic progress, actually, though it is often of the "two steps forward, one step back" variety; we often feel during the "one step back" times that nothing good has happened. That is quite far from reality; Korean reunification shows a significant amount of progress, though we are still far from a true "single Korea". The Sunshine Policy covers about a ten-year period of entente between the countries. The past two years or so have been pretty shitty, but it's still nothing like it was in the past, on the balance. --Jayron32 21:54, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It takes two to tango. When one side maintains a huge, expensive army bigger than Russia's, they're not interested. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:34, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you'll find that the military presence is 'huge', and 'expensive', on both sides of the border. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:45, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but only one side is straining itself economically while its people starve in order to maintain a military that contains over 10% of its population. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:56, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

True enough. On the other hand, would they be doing this without the perceived threat from outsiders? Or more to the point, would they be able to justify it to their own population? North Korea may be a particularly nasty dictatorship, but external threats (real or otherwise, though in this case the threat is hardly entirely fictitious) make their nastiness easier to 'justify'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:04, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand seen by the rest of the world as just a Balkans incident? And weren't the soldiers marching off to hell convinced they'd be home in a few months?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:08, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

True enough, but on the other hand, many people see this potential war as just sable rattling by proxy between China and the US, and a similar war like that a few kilometers to the west started, went on and finished without drawing the rest of the world into WW3. The fact that neither the US or China would at this time gain anything by a full out war (rather loose a lot) makes people think that this will not escalate. Weasel wording aside, I personally am still concerned this doesn't blow out into full scale war, even if it does remain localized. TomorrowTime (talk) 17:09, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Korea is not Vietnam. A full-scale war between North and South Korea would be hard to corral.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:36, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How long did it take for messages to travel between America and England during the 18th century? --75.33.217.61 (talk) 02:46, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've found one reference which gives 7 to 12 weeks from England to Philadelphia [3]. I guess at much the same coming back? --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:52, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mail moved on packet boats. See Packet trade.
Sleigh (talk) 04:31, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The 1800s are the 19th century. Packet boats with scheduled departures followed the Napoleonic Wars (which played havoc with shipping).--Wetman (talk) 23:38, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It could vary significantly depending on whether a ship had favorable winds or not. And of course it took further time for information to get from the main port cities (Boston, New York, Charleston) to less maritime locations. AnonMoos (talk) 04:44, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to Boatner's Encyclopedia of the American Revolution, "it normally took an 18th-century sailing vessel a month to cross from America to England and twice that time to return. (Westerly winds prevailed.)" He then notes that there are examples of faster and much slower trips, due to weather. This was particularly important in political, military and economic matters because people were often acting on information or orders that were at least a month old. —Kevin Myers 08:00, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't that delay a factor in the outbreak of the War of 1812?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:15, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You may be thinking of the Battle of New Orleans, an American victory about 2 weeks after the peace treaty had been signed. Tobyc75 (talk) 17:56, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's more likely a reference to the Orders in Council dispute. The British repealed the orders, hoping to improve relations with the US. Not knowing this, 2 days later the US declared war. Whether prior knowledge of the repeal would have changed the outcome is open to question. —Kevin Myers 19:17, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's it, Kevin.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 05:54, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To illustrate the unreliability of travel by sailing ship, have a look at this[4] New York Times article from 1912. On 12 June, a steam liner off the West Indies found a sailing barque which had left Pensacola on 27 February - 14 weeks previously. The crew had been living on one biscuit a day for 40 days. The captain of the barque took on 6 weeks' stores with which to finish his voyage to Montevideo. Alansplodge (talk) 15:12, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have noted that while American's are pretty much divided as to whether or not Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone in assassinating Kennedy, most Europeans I have met are firmly convinced he was part of a conspiracy. I am curious as to whether the Americans who believe he was guilty and acted alone tend to be politically right-wing or left-wing?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:24, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on which conspiracy you place him in. Was he part of a Soviet/Cuban conspiracy to bring down America? Or was he part of a rightist conspiracy to bring down a popular, young, leftist President? The article John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories is a fairly comprehensive list of the more popular conspiracy theories; some appear to appeal to right wingers, and others appear to appeal to left wingers. Take your pick. --Jayron32 07:31, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's BS, Jayron. Soviet/Cuban conspiracy theories disappeared, rightfully, decades ago. Your answer is strawman-based. Almost no one, right or left, believes anything other than it was Oswald alone OR it was a US-based conspiracy. As for right vs. left, "wine and cheese" left-wingers toady to the establishment line (provided by half-wit journalists), while "my country right or wrong" right-wingers can't believe that any theory associated with the 60s and 70s can possibly be correct, since that was before Reagan saved us all from the hippies. 63.17.78.65 (talk) 12:50, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well another factor is regional. In Texas, where I lived for two years most people believed the US government to have been behind it. They tended to be right-wing.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:49, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Off hand, I would say those of us who don't believe in conspiracy theories -- of all kinds -- tend to be the politically middle-of-the-road, normal, reasonable, thoughtful, balanced sort of folks. DOR (HK) (talk) 09:06, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You mean you don't believe that Oswald (real name: Elvis) was working for Haliburton to kill JFK because he was a space alien hired by Communists to write Shakespeare's plays and turn America socialist? You must be part of the coverup! —Kevin Myers 09:14, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly question Oswald's sole guilt therefore I must be abnormal, widely-veering-off-course, unreasonable, thoughtless, unbalanced! Actually, I am all of those things; however, I do draw the line at Elvis Presley, Martians, and the ghost of John Wilkes Booth!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 10:14, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect, most Eurpeans are not interested in LHO and have no opinion about him although they may know what he did. 92.15.15.224 (talk) 11:40, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How would they know what he did?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:48, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For those alive at the time it was reported in the news, for others it is part of the general historical knowledge that all but the most ignorant would be expected to have. 92.15.15.224 (talk) 14:05, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to a 2003 Gallup poll, "Republicans are almost twice as likely as Democrats to believe Oswald acted alone (28% vs. 16%)." This is after the publication of the Posner book and other anti-conspiracy efforts of the 90s. (For what it's worth I'm a Democrat who doesn't believe in a conspiracy.)--Cam (talk) 14:08, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, my parents were both Democrats and they believed in a conspiracy (from the moment Ruby shot Oswald in the stomach on live television).--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:12, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I only have anecdotal evidence, but I'd concur with the IP above. As a European who knows many others knowledge of what he did is fairly widespread but conspiracy theories are both broadly uninteresting to us and those who do know in my experience don't believe it. Prokhorovka (talk) 17:33, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm only judging by the considerable number of European people I have met in my lifetime, as well as the myriad documentaries about the JFK assassination which are still produced for television viewer consumption.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:36, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's not much money to be made in denial of conspiracy theories, although such a book can effectively shoot down (so to speak) the conspiracists' stuff and severely cripple the market for it. After a rash of books about the "Bermuda Triangle", someone investigated the claims in more details and proved that every one of the so-called mysteries had a reasonable explanation and/or was distorted by the promoters of those books. One thing that was demonstrated in Oswald's situation was that someone of his pretty-good rifle skills would indeed be able to squeeze off two more rounds in the 6-to-8 seconds following the first shot. In short, it was possible for Oswald to have pulled it off all by himself. The JFK conspiracy stuff has somewhat faded over time, along with the UFO mania, as new conspiracy theories have come along that have more currency, such as 9/11. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:24, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd think that in the UK, it is mainly people on the right that are attracted to conspiracy theories, though I'm not sure how you could reliably test this. By and large, such theories tend mostly to be concerned with issues that effect the theorist, or at least with issues they think affect them, and the circumstances surrounding the killing of JFK doesn't really matter that much to most of us here this side of the pond. Personally, I think Lee Harvey Oswald shot JFK, with a Carcano rifle fired from the Texas School Book Depository... AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:54, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I 'd have to concur with Baseball Bugs that interest in JFK and Lee Harvey Oswald has indeed waned since 11/9. I brought up the issue because half my life has been spent in Europe and virtually every single (European) person I have spoken to about the JFK assassination believe it to have been a conspiracy hatched from within the US Government.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:26, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At the time it happened, most of us figured the USSR and/or Cuba were behind it - as did LBJ, apparently. In one of his final interviews, with Walter Cronkite, he admitted that he had never fully rid himself of the notion that there was foreign involvement. It was politically important to be sure that Oswald acted alone, as such an accusation leveled against a foreign government would have made JFK's own international crises seem like a picnic by comparison. Another problem was that the Kennedys themselves pulled the wagons into a circle (for good reasons, as we now know), and that had the unfortunate side effect of fueling the theories further. There was also the squeamishness of the media in their portrayals. Abraham Zapruder's famous film did not come into the public arena for like 10 years - and as I recall, the Kennedys opposed it even then, understandably so, it being a "snuff film". Although Life Magazine published a number of Zapruder frames soon after the event, they left out the bloodiest ones, which showed his head being blown apart. The idea that the US government was behind it doesn't really hold water - but a significant number of Europeans have no shortage of reasons for hating the US, so they will often embrace anything that seems to justify it. In fact, embracing a particular conspiracy theory says more about the one embracing it than it does about the theory itself. There is also no shortage of folks who I think would prefer that there were a conspiracy, because the idea that one solitary individual could change the course of human history is very unsettling. But the bare fact is that it was possible for Oswald to have done it by himself, and no solid evidence has emerged to contradict the lone assassin theory - and is less likely to as time goes on, as most of the principles are long deceased. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:58, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking of how to put it, but I basically agree with what BB is saying here. From my observation, there is no lack of people over here in Europe who see the US government as an ominous overpowering puppet master who doesn't flinch at even the most extraordinary conspiracy - JFK might be a bit dated, but try asking otherwise perfectly reasonable and intelligent people about 9/11 and you'll be shocked at the number of "It was an inside job, obviously" replies you get. Part of it is due to being outsiders and being able to see (and sometimes feel) the ugly side of US foreign policies, I suppose. What I find surprising is how many people fall for conspiracy theories that are specifically geared at Americans and engineered to tickle specifically American fears, though. TomorrowTime (talk) 12:12, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As far as Democrats vs. Republicans embracing conspiracy theories, it depends on the paranoias of a specific era. Maybe some of you recall Hillary Clinton referring to a "vast right-wing conspiracy" during the impeachment proceedings. Meanwhile, in the 1950s, there was talk of a "vast Communist conspiracy", which in fact the right wing still holds to, except now they use terms like "socialist" and "liberal" as synonyms. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:01, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I believe it is entirely possible for one individual to change the course of world history (look at Hitler), and as in the case of loser Mark David Chapman, an insignificent, drab non-entity was able to eliminate the iconic musical giant who bore the name of John Lennon. It's not the mere fact that Oswald was a nobody who managed to kill a somebody; rather it was the logistics involved in the assassination, of which I was always suspicious, especially after having visited the TSBD in 2006.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:30, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hitler had lots of help. The issue with these assassins essentially is that no one was paying attention, or at least insufficient attention (as with the Columbine massacre and other such events). What did you see in 2006 specifically that raised questions? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:45, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Out of interest Jeanne, where in Europe have you lived? I wonder if our different experiences are national variations? Prokhorovka (talk) 10:44, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To answer BB, it was the trajectory from the window, as well as the relative distance from Oswald's sniper's nest to the stairwell (haVing wasted precious seconds carefully hiding his rifle between boxes). In answer to Prokhorova's question, I have lived in England, Ireland, and Italy where I am residing now. But I have friends from all over Europe including the Czech Republic, Romania, Russia, Germany, Austria, Moldavia, etc.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 10:51, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The trajectory was practically straight down from the sniper's viewpoint. Hard telling how long it took him to exit the building, but given the shock and unexpectedness of the whole thing (to everyone except the assassin), I expect he would have had time to beat it before someone decided to lock down the building. But do you know how much time elapsed between the shooting and the building lockdown? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:02, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

90 seconds had elapsed from the third shot to Officer Baker meeting Oswald on the 2nd Floor. There's a big oak tree blocking a clear view from the sniper's window (It was already there in 1963).--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 11:46, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably the officer didn't try to detain him. 90 seconds I could see. It wouldn't take all that long to go down 4 flights of stairs. Interesting point about the tree. I wonder if it had leaves on it and how tall it actually was - and how Posner got around that problem. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:27, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The tree was not in the line of sight when the shots were fired. These points have been raised and refuted endlessly elswhere. This is not the place to do it yet again! —Kevin Myers 13:36, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like the trees at that point were only about 1 story high, which might have given him enough clearance. The crux of the conspiracists' many questions is the underlying assumption that they can demonstrate it was impossible for Oswald (or anyone) to have done it alone. And the counter to that is to demonstrate that it WAS possible. Which doesn't prove he did it, but undercuts a conspiracists' core premise. It's also important to remember that the whole situation was absolute chaos. There hadn't been a succesful assassination attempt in 60 years, and people were running around like decapitated chickens. So it's no surprise that the facts were hard to pin down. It can be hard to pin down the particulars of a traffic accident, never mind an assassination. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:50, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with BB. There's no way to know, it's all opinion and speculation.

I personally think that it was a CIA/military op, using mobster assets, with a couple of hitmen from Marseilles doing the actual killing from the sewer, and two "Lee Harvey Oswald"s, (the one who shouted out "I'm just a patsy", and was then shot on TV, actually having been just a patsy). WikiDao ☯ (talk) 15:02, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and definitely the Freemasons did it, too. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 15:15, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget the theory that it was done by 3 or 4 different guys, each of which had been issued just one bullet. That's the "Barney Fife Single Bullet Theory". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:19, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...And don't forget Opus dei, the Illuminati, and the shape-shifting lizards. Does Wikipedia really need another "who shot JFK" thread? Probably time to put this one to bed...

I don't know, Opus dei...? Doesn't seem too plausible. There are no modern-day Illuminati, and do you mean to say JFK wasn't a shape-shifting lizard? Agree it's end-of-story time now... WikiDao ☯ (talk) 15:40, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Who says there are no illuminati lurking about? One thing that nobody has ever been able to answer is how Oswald managed to get out of his sniper's nest within that 90 second time frame? Did he take a running leap over the stacks of boxes containing books or push them aside, then back in place? Have you seen the stacks as they were that day? I have and they look very heavy and hard to move.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:03, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jeanne, now your real agenda is coming through. You want everyone here to believe it was a conspiracy, and you're adducing argument towards that end. That wasn't your original question, which was whether the Americans who believe he was guilty and acted alone tend to be politically right-wing or left-wing. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:08, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not accuse me of having a hidden agenda. My original question was sincere. I am interested in the political leanings of those Americans who question his guilt and vice-versa. I rarely beat about the bush and I grab issues by the balls. Had I wanted to discover whether or not other editors believed it to be a conspiracy, I would have framed my question in that manner. --Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:33, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, my apologies, Jeanne. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:06, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Accepted.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:19, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

On the topic of OCA, I was wondering if there is no consideration paid to differently exposed economies (industrial exports, oil exports, agriculture, etc). Mundell's model in the OCA article does not seem to raise this concern, but I'd think that the different economies of eg Norway (if it was in the Eurozone), France and Ireland would react differently to, say, an oil crisis: Norway would likely profit, others not so much. As I understand Mundell's theory, any loss or disturbance in one state is cushioned by capital mobility to the other members of the OCA. Consequently, gains must also follow the same rules. If the state owns (or partly owns) eg the oil industry, how much capital mobility is there really? Can we attribute differing levels of capital 'permeability' to profits made in different types of corporations, such as part or wholly nationalised ones?

The way I see this (and I am asking whether I've understood the matter correctly!), with anything less than ~100% labor and capital mobility, there will not be any efficient 'cushion' the way Mundell speaks of it. Therefore, arguing for or against a state's level of compatibility with an OCA, you would include the factor of how their GDP is exposed; what the country creates or makes wealth out of, setting them apart from others. In industrial economies which are tied to geographical dispositions (eg raw materials not found elsewhere), this is very relevant.

Is there an updated model that discusses GDP exposure?

Furthermore, I find it very interesting how America provides an illustration for labor and capital mobility (the rust belt and migration of jobs to other states). Would I be correct in stating that as far as Mundell's model goes, the only 'imperfections' of America's OCA are due to either natural resources, or, and I believe more prominently, differing state legislation?

Thank you! 88.90.16.74 (talk) 10:48, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have read the article on the surname Griffin. I am seeking information as to whether or not the Irish Griffins are descended from the Welsh who arrived with Strongbow? The surname Griffith is obviously Welsh whereas Griffon exists in France. Most Irish Griffins come from the deep southern counties of Ireland (Cork, Kerry, Clare), and there are no Scottish or Ulster equivalents to Griffin. I therefore must conclude it has a Welsh and possibly earlier Breton origin. Thank you.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 11:32, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have you seen this site? It says that "Griffin was a very popular choice of personal names in medieval Ireland; it had been introduced to the country by Bretons who came over with the Normans in 1172. At this time too, a clan with the surname Griffin settled in Ireland. There is no doubt however, that the great majority of Irish Griffins are really O¹Griobhtas of Gaelic stock who merely anglicized their name during the seventeenth century." Any use? Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:38, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thank you. My surname is Griffin. I have two separate lines of Griffin as my paternal great-grandmother was also a Griffin. I would opine that the name, O'Griobhta originated in Brittany.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:25, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That seems a little counter-intuitive and contrary to what that site (and others) suggest - that although bearers of the name "Griffin" came from Brittany (and elsewhere), there was already an O'Griobhta clan of native origin existing in Ireland, some of whom later anglicised their name to Griffin. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:48, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that nobody seems to know when these Gaelic Griffins settled in Ireland and from where did they come? Were they Celtic, pre-Celtic? And how would one know whether or not their ancestors were Bretons or the earlier Gaels?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:41, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which countries are net lenders, and which are net borrowers? Thanks 92.15.15.224 (talk) 13:59, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't read the details, but someone else asked a similar question on Yahoo Answers here and got a surprisingly well put-together answer. Vimescarrot (talk) 14:16, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose its difficult to distinguish between a lender and an investor. 92.15.15.224 (talk) 15:29, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to change the actual source (i.e. reality) behind our clock articles, as until you flip back to zero, obviously it makes sense to count "10 p.m.", "11 p.m.", "12 p.m." before getting back to 1. It doesn't make sense that 12:48 at night should be "AM" when you are at 12, which is like 10 or 11. It should become AM after 12:59 PM, by which I mean in the middle of the night. So, I would like the change this. How could I do that? 84.153.199.218 (talk) 15:15, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AM means before noon (and after midnight) while PM means after noon (and before midnight), which is why the hour after midnight is 12:00 AM to 12:59 AM (not PM). In fact, clocks and telling time use a simple "modulo 12" counting system, with 12 taking the place of 0. Please don't edit Wikipedia articles to reflect how you think things should hypothetically be (as opposed to how they actually are)... AnonMoos (talk) 15:23, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, you'd have to change how the world standard works, not just Wikipedia. Don't think that's going to happen. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:51, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Um, I specifically said I would like to alter REALITY, not just the wikipedia article. It's very simple. It makes more sense to flip between AM and PM when you flip from 12:59 back to 1:00 again. Let me put it another way. It would be as though we flipped the tens digits at 8, then continued to 9 anyway. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 19, 10. Does that make sense? No: because the tens digit is flipped, but you still count one more. That's exactly what happens. 1 AM, 2 AM, 3 AM, 4 AM, 5 AM, 6 AM 8 AM 9AM 10AM 11AM 12PM 1PM. Obviously the flip should happen when you flip from 12 to 1. How do I change the world measurement system to reflect this? THanks. 84.153.199.218 (talk) 16:25, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that clarification. In order to change observed reality, you'd need to sell many millions of people on the good sense of your illogical views. I sense your need for a regular pattern, but sadly it is not provided by ack emma nor by her cousin pip. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:29, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not entirely unheard of. One or two people managed to convince half of the world to change the time on their clocks - not just once, but twice a year, every year - just because someone thought we should should have more leisure time after work. Mitch Ames (talk) 05:34, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

84.153.199.218 -- In that case the AM/PM changeovers would not occur at noon and midnight, but instead an hour off from noon and midnight. It would be much more self-consistent and less disruptive to change the hour "12" in clocks and AM/PM timekeeping to "0" (if you could do it). AnonMoos (talk) 16:44, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, because 12 midnight really is 12 hours after noon. It doesn't make any sense for it to read "0 pm" or "0 am" since it is neither zero hours after noon or zero hours before noon!! Of course, the AM's don't have a semantic meaning (what is 1 AM?) but all the same, it would at least make sense to let 12 keep its meaning... I mean, 10:59-11:00 11:59-12:00, 12:59-1:00. At which point would you expect the AM/PM to change? 84.153.199.218 (talk) 16:57, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But you understand me if I suggest we meet at 00:15? 0am is the first hour of the day and makes complete sense (but does not fit your argument very well). All reminiscent of the discussions around the turn of the millennium: did it take place on the 1999->2000 transition, or the 2000->2001? --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:01, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why not get more of the world to accept a 24 hour clock and your quest would be half complete. Dismas|^(talk) 17:08, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little surprised no one has mentioned the terms Ante Meridiem (AM) and Post Meridiem (PM) meaning "before midday" and "after midday" respectively. Taken as such, the two labels actually all make sense (though as mentioned above the numbers don't, semantically). If we consider noon to be midday (which we do), then everything prior is before midday, or Ante Meridiem. That includes midnight as well, because 12 noon cannot be before midday and the clock must contain exactly 2 halves of 12 hours each. What the OP would need to do is change midday to make this work, not change AM and PM. The numbers bear no relation to the AM/PM divide. In other words, 1-2 am is actually the second hour of pre-midday. Think of what we call 1 am in spoken language: 1 o'clock. Or, 1 of the clock. Or, first hour (and x minutes) of the clock. 12-1 am is the first hour, completed at 1 am, etc. It's the same way we name the years. Aaronite (talk) 18:26, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably easier to modify your own personal reality rather than that of the consensus of the rest of our species. Try imagining the measurement of time as a way of tracking your own personal daily journey around the circumference of the Earth. Imagine looking down on the Earth from above one of the poles as it rotates. Imagine a dot on the surface marking your house. At your local noon you are at the closest point of one Earth rotation to the sun. The Post-meridian period is that of your 180 degrees of travel between noon and your local midnight, at which point you are at the furthest point from the sun (we'll disregard the precession of the Earth around the sun for convenience). Ante-meridian is the subsequent 180 degrees traveled as you approach your next local noon. You may then appreciate that midnight is zero-hour as at that point you have zero degrees to travel towards the point of furthest possible distance between yourself and the previous noon and have traveled zero degrees towards your next one. Blakk^{and ekka} 18:39, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little surprised Aaronite did not notice the first response to the OP which did indeed explain the meaning of AM & PM. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:40, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So am I, actually... I was looking for the Latin. My mistake. Aaronite (talk) 21:46, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Essentially, the OP seems to be wanting each new calendar date to start at 1 am rather than at 12 am. That has a certain logical appeal, as months start with day 1, not day 12. But the am/pm thing is still based on noon, which has been defined for the past 2000+ years as 12 o'clock in the day. Under the OP's proposed system, mornings would go from 1 am to noon (11 hours) and afternoons would go from noon to 1 am (13 hours). That's a bit lop-sided. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 22:03, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The choice of 12 is actually rather arbitrary. I think what the OP is proposing is to change the clocks so that 1 represents both High Noon and Midnight, and put 1 rather than 12 at the top of the circle on the clocks, shifting all the numbers back. Its perfectly logically consistant, its just kinda pointless in terms of overcoming the inertia of the prior system. That is to say that it wouldn't be impossible; the calendar used to change years at March 22nd, such that March 22, 1250 would be followed by March 23, 1251. This was because of the connection of that date to the Equinox. This lasted for thousands of years, and was only changed during the changeover from the Julian Calendar to the Gregorian Calendar, which occured in stages over several hundred years; in some parts of the world have only been using the Gregorian calendar for about a century. However, unlike the calendar change (which occured during another calendar change, the need to shift the days due to inaccuracies in calculating the leap year. The change of the start of the year date was kinda snuck in as a "rider" on the more important change) the change to the clock doesn't have a lot of justification beyond change from one arbitrary start time, to another slightly less arbitrary start time. --Jayron32 22:21, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was more often "Lady day" (March 25th) which was taken as the start of the year (though it varied considerably between different jurisdictions). As to why days start at midnight, it's because out of the four quadrant points of the day-night cycle (sunrise, noon, sunset, midnight), midnight is the one where people were generally asleep in agricultural societies... AnonMoos (talk) 04:19, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. Imagine a race where most everyone was asleep at the start. Maybe those who are most capable of carpediemically seizing the day are those who are awake at midnight.  :) -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 04:32, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

March 25 was once the actual vernal equinox, and December 25 was the winter solstice, which is how those dates were chosen for Anunciation Day and Christmas Day respectively. Although the Gregorian calendar fixed one problem, the mistake that had led to those days sliding toward the 21st was never corrected, which is kind of a shame. And just as the first day of spring was taken to be the start of a new year, sunset was taken to be the start of a new day. That last fact is echoed in the many Christmas celebrations that occur on Christmas Eve, as in the old days once Christmas Eve arrived, Christmas was "already there". Christmas Day of course followed it - until sunset. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:46, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Gregorian calendar reform basically tried to change the alignments back to how they were at the time of the Council of Nicea (325 A.D.), not at the time of the beginning of the Julian calendar three centuries earlier... AnonMoos (talk) 23:41, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that in Jewish custom, the new day started at sunset the previous evening. Anyway, the new day starts sensibly at 0hrs 00mins, its just that clocks somewhat confusingly display 12 rather than 0. 18:43, 25 November 2010 (UTC)92.28.251.194 (talk)

That's because there ain't no place on an analogue clock (or what we used to call a clock) for 0 hours. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:00, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You could just replace the 12 with 0, so that the numbers go 10 11 0 1 2... The current clock set-up gives the correct/customary number at noon but not at midnight. A better alternative would be a 24-hour clock rather than 12 hour clock, where the numbers go 22 23 0 1 2... Military clocks during WW2 were colour-coded I think, does anyone know why? 92.29.115.8 (talk) 01:50, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if this is what you were referring to but this article from the Data Administration Newsletter says, "[Bentley Priory] had a sophisticated real-time event model with an elegant user interface, which visually mapped the skies above the U.K. The WAAFs mapped this information into color-coded counters on a map table (of the U.K.) of both friendly and enemy aircraft. Enemy planes taking off in France were tracked and plotted in real time. Every 5 minutes the WAAFs changed the color of all the enemy counters, corresponding to the operations room’s clock, also color-coded in 5-minute increments. "--Kateshortforbob _talk 14:07, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering were the line of Saxe-Coburg and Bragança (the descendants of Princess Leopoldina of Brazil) rival claimants to the Brazilian throne to their cousins, the descendants of Isabel, Princess Imperial of Brazil. Also why were they considered undynastic after 1908? I can't tell from any of their articles since most of them are just stubs.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 20:53, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are still descendants of Isabel alive today so why would the issue of rival claimants ever arise? 75.41.110.200 (talk) 03:21, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am having a hard time understanding the current legal status of the OECD's prohibitions against tax havens. It takes several minutes for [5] and [6] to load in my browser. In particular, I would like to know why the United States is not listed on [7] as a supporter. Who in the US could change that? Hillary Clinton? What are the names, phone numbers, and email addresses of the people who work on this for her?

[8] represents a bilateral law enforcement agreement, [9] seems to be a list of bilateral agreements, and there are some new bilateral agreements from 2008-9 in [10]. Do these bilateral agreements represent any kind of progress over multilateral agreements?

What is keeping multilateral agreements from being enacted? Maybe [11] can help answer these questions. Ginger Conspiracy (talk) 21:19, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wan't to read about the colonial history of Nigeria. What would be the best books to start with? P. S. Burton (talk) 22:57, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article History of Nigeria (1500–1800) has some references, including book references, listed at the bottom. No idea if these are any good, but its a start. --Jayron32 00:11, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

YOu also may want to read through Colonial Nigeria, there's a book reference listed for that one as well. --Jayron32 00:14, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The history of the colonial history of Nigeria can be found here and here. schyler (talk) 02:17, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...And humour can be found here. You seem to lack it :) P. S. Burton (talk) 21:38, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the Reference Desk. Perrsonal cracks about editors trying to help here are particularly inappropriate. :) Wetman (talk) 21:49, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did Lenin speak English ? I'm writing a book and it involves the main character meeting Lenin, but I do not want the character to speak Russian. What other languages did he speak besides RUssian ? Thank you a lot. 24.92.78.167 (talk) 23:45, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vladimir Lenin understood several languages, as noted early in the article. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:47, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The only language other than Russian that he could really speak was German. He might have understood a bit of English but couldn't really speak it. Marco polo (talk) 00:23, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to the article he studied "the Classical languages of Latin and Greek, and the modern languages of German, French, and English, but had only limited command of the latter two". He lived briefly in London, and maybe picked up a bit of the idiom there - I've seen it suggested that he attended Speakers' Corner, though whether the idiom of that locale was particularly useful, I'd not like to say... AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:33, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it needs rephrasing, but "limited command" also gives me the impression that German was the only modern foreign language, besides his native Russian, that he could speak well. --Saddhiyama (talk) 01:56, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's the way I read it too. He spoke good German, but only a little English and French. I'd have to check outside sources to be sure but I think this is probably correct. There was possibly as great a proportion of German-speakers in London while he was there as there are now, so maybe he got by without any English, though if he'd studied it, presumably he understood a little?

It might have been a case of understanding English but not sufficiently schooled in it to be able to speak and write it well. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:29, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I remember a story about Lenin saying that he taught himself what he thought was English from books, but found that, after he got to London, although he could read it fine, no Englishman understood his spoken English. I don't remember where I read this though, or how reliable the source was. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:10, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lenin lived for a while in London, where, among other things, he did some research in the library of the British Museum. His "Collected Works" include some letters Letter to the Secretary of the Socialist Propaganda League, TO THE SECRETARY OF THE BRITISH LABOUR REPRESENTATION COMMITTEE written by him in English. One of them he concludes with "I must apologise for my bad English." (I am not sure, though, if the text of this particular letter on marxists.org is Lenin's original English text, or back-translation from the Russian translation, as published in the Russian "Collected Works").

In the delegate's questionnaire Lenin filled in at the 10th Congress of the Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks), he responded to the question «Какими языками вы владеете?» ("What languages can you use?") as follows: «Английским, немецким, французским — плохо, итальянским — очень плохо» ("English, German, French - poor, Italian - very poor"). Soviet biographers usually would say that this was an indication of his modesty, and in reality he was perfectly fluent in the first three languages, and had a good reading knowledge of Italian. -- Vmenkov (talk) 19:21, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]