Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

• Computing
• Entertainment
• Humanities
• Language
• Mathematics
• Science
• Miscellaneous
• Archives

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

• Select the section of the desk that best fits the general topic of your question (see the navigation column to the right).
• Post your question to only one section, providing a short header that gives the topic of your question.
• Type '~~~~' (that is, four tilde characters) at the end – this signs and dates your contribution so we know who wrote what and when.
• Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. Any answers will be provided here.
• Please be as specific as possible, and include all relevant context – the usefulness of answers may depend on the context.
• Note:
  • We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice.
  • We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate.
  • We don't do your homework for you, though we'll help you past the stuck point.
  • We don't conduct original research or provide a free source of ideas, but we'll help you find information you need.

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

• The best answers address the question directly, and back up facts with wikilinks and links to sources. Do not edit others' comments and do not give any medical or legal advice.

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

April 23

online psychopath test?

is there a test I can take online to see if I have the proclivity to be a murderous psychopath (like Hitler, Stalin, etc). Thanks. 84.153.204.118 (talk) 00:30, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

There are probably joke tests that do something like that. However, if you want a real psychological evaluation, you need to see a real psychologist in person. In other words, make an appointment with a properly trained psychologist and ask for a proper evaluation. One should never self-diagnose oneself based on random stuff found on teh itrewebz, and one should also never ask for nor believe any medical advice one gets on teh interwezb either. --Jayron32 00:39, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Also, is "murderous psychopath" a proven diagnosis for Uncle Adolf and Uncle Joe? Or is it just demagogue-haters blowing smoke? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:44, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken, neither Adolf nor Joseph ever killed anyone. It's called personal responsibility. They may have facilitated tens of millions of deaths combined, but I can't account them indecent for their facilitation of death. Perhaps that is just what made sense in the world they inhabited. Vranak (talk) 02:41, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I saw a comment once, possibly an urban legend, that an American reporter somehow once asked Stalin, "When will you stop killing people?" and his answer was, "When it is no longer necessary." Truth or fiction, I expect that was both Stalin and Hitler's view of the situation. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:54, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Selmer Bringsjord worked on simulating psychopathy with a computer, and developed some criteria.[1] I don't know if there is an online test. 66.127.53.162 (talk) 05:02, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

If you're asking the question, you're probably not. Sociopaths (the correct term you're looking for) think that they are more or less normal, and are generally unconcerned about behaviors that society defines as aberrant. from what I've read, they usually think that they are just more honest than most people, doing things that everyone else would do if people weren't such sheep. true psychopaths, by contrast, usually are aware that they are disturbed, and have bizarre behaviors that would make it impossible for them to survive the kind of scrutiny that people in positions of power get. --Ludwigs2 18:46, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Neither Hitler nor Stalin were phycopaths. Hitler, unlike phycopaths, could feel empathy, and he didn't get an pleasure out of killing. He simply believed what he was doing was right. Stalin was immensely paranoid and killed hundreds of people for just appearing suspicious, because he feared them. He was the least of Lenin's politburo, and would probably have been the last of them to become Lenin's successor had he not killed them all except Trotsky. He was terrified for his life from the moment he took power. Yet he believed what he was doing was right a well. He thought communist. gave people a great quality of life, and most of his people led ok lives even if they could have been much better off.--92.251.185.187 (talk) 22:18, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Expulsion of fugitives from embassy properties?

We all know that police from country A are never allowed to follow fugitives into an embassy of country B. However, are there any restrictions at all on country B's diplomats being able to expel said fugitives if they so desire? For example, let's say a person is convicted of murdering French citizens in the USA and (for some crazy reason) flees into the French embassy; is there any reason that the embassy staff wouldn't be allowed to hand him over to the D.C. police? Moreover, let's say that the embassy staff are allowed to hand him over but find themselves physically unable to remove him from the building; is there any reason that they wouldn't be allowed to call in the D.C. police and have them remove him? The closest parallel I can imagine is the Japanese embassy hostage crisis, but our article seems to suggest that the Japanese government didn't permit Peruvian troops to go in with the use of force. Nyttend (talk) 01:46, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• "Physically unable"? I don't get. Obviously, major acts of terror are unique and governments are extremely cautious of consequences. But, apart from a major armed incursion, I cannot see anything that will prevent the embassy guards from seizing the trespasser. "Physically unable" may be the case of a very small embassy (which then needs to call in local police, example: Iranian embassy in Washington, 1963), not the French embassy to the U.S. There are definitely no restrictions on expulsion of seized trespassers. NVO (talk) 06:18, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Countries without capital punishment (like France) typically won't extradite anyone to countries with capital punishment (like the US), unless they are given a guarantee that the extradited person will not be subjected to the death penalty. See also the death of Yvonne Fletcher for one example. Gabbe (talk) 06:35, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I can't find anything that specifically states this in either extraterritoriality or diplomatic immunity, but I'm sure that embassy officials can invite the host authorities in to make an arrest if they wish. Certainly they can waive diplomatic immunity for an individual - see http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2228/whats-the-story-on-diplomatic-immunity. --ColinFine (talk) 07:51, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Gabbe: The French were criticized for being selective in applying their standards [2]. "Guarantees" are fine for unique high-profile cases, not hungry mobs. Perhaps it needs more research. So far all significant recent cases of embassy trespass occured on the territory of a third country (that is, North Koreans storming Spanish embassy in China). I still haven't found cases of North Koreans storming an embassy in North Korea, which would place the diplomats and the trespassers in a far worse scenario. American embassies in similar circumstances give away the trespasser without much hesitation [3]. NVO (talk) 08:07, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Where in those articles does it say that France extradites people who are likely to be subjected to the death penalty? Gabbe (talk) 13:25, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay, French was the first country that came to mind. Take any tiny country that may not be able to have much of any guards and whose entire embassy staff is a few diplomats that may not have much more than a few muscles, and let's have our intruder be a very strong man who is able to resist being carried out of the building. My point was to emphasize that I mean a simple criminal, not someone who was likely to be seen as a potential political prisoner. Nyttend (talk) 12:06, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, in that case the embassy would likely ask the appropriate authorities of the host country for assistance. Gabbe (talk) 13:25, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Side note, but you don't have to reach for the death penalty when using France itself as an example — under French law, France does not extradite French citizens for any reason (see Roman Polanski), whether the penalty is death or a 5 year prison term. Comet Tuttle (talk) 16:31, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

My example was intended to be an American individual. Nyttend (talk) 16:43, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the Irani example; this is a perfect example of what I was asking about — someone goes into the embassy against the will of the diplomats, diplomats call in local police, police arrest, and there's even a court case agreeing with the legality of the situation. Nyttend (talk) 12:09, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

As referenced in the other question below the treaties that apply are the Vienna Conventions on Diplomatic Relations and the two on Consular Relations.

None of those require a countries diplomatic or consular representatives to protect a fugitive and they can be handed over to the authorities.

Embassies and significant consulates would normally have an organic security organisation, smaller consulates or trade missions may not and would depend on the host nation for protection, there is nothing in the treaties that prevents the host nation security or policing force entering the premises.

ALR (talk) 22:53, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Why is it inappropriate for children to sleep with their parents?

Considering that so many children have a fear of the dark, why is it considered inappropriate for children to sleep with their parents? When did this peculiar "moral" develop? It couldn't always have been this way; I can't imagine any parent 20000 years ago leaving their children alone during the night, when predators were everywhere. --99.237.234.104 (talk) 04:40, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

It's not inapproprite for children to sleep with their parents. It's inappropriate for children to "sleep with" their parents. See Co-sleeping for the less icky kind. --Jayron32 05:06, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Are you in North America? Here, it IS inappropriate for parents to "cosleep", even with seven-year-olds. Obviously, it's not more disgusting than incest. --99.237.234.104 (talk) 05:14, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Lived in North America for all 33 years of my life. Never heard that its inappropriate for parents to sleep with small children. It would not be unusual for, say, a seven year old who had a bad dream to spend the night in mom and dad's room. Never heard of that being a problem. --Jayron32 05:19, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I know a woman who was afraid of the dark and slept in the same room as her parents till she got married at the age of 20. I wouldn't consider this normal at all!!!! It's OK for small children up to a certain age, then they need to learn self-reliance, no?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 05:23, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

The OP asked about small children. Yes, at some point, it becomes wrong. I think 19 year olds sleeping in mom and dad's bed every night is probably not looked upon favorably in most Western cultures, but for small children, its probably less of an issue. --Jayron32 05:25, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

My point was had this woman been sent to sleep by herself after a certain age she wouldn't have continued with her neurotic fear. It took place in Italy. Parents need to draw the line at about 8, I think. I slept on my own when I was very small, only sleeping with my parents after a nightmare.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 05:30, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Anecdotally, in Australia, it's common for infants and occasionally toddlers to sleep in the same room as their parents. After that, it's expected that they'll spend most nights in their own bedroom (which may be shared with other siblings). It's not unusual for children to go to sleep in their parents' bed until perhaps 7 or 8, maybe even 10, but they wouldn't admit it to schoolfriends or anything. It would be considered shameful for a school age child to admit doing it. Steewi (talk) 06:03, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I think when people say it's "inappropriate", they mean that it's a social taboo. They don't mean that it's inappropriate in any kind of ethical or judicial sense. So, if you're wondering why it's taboo for children to co-sleep with their parents, I believe the answer is that it seems too close to incest, which is one of the biggest taboos in North American society. This might seem illogical, but taboos are not always grounded in reason and common sense. Gabbe (talk) 06:07, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I think its a combination of the incest taboo (especially for children nearing puberty), coupled with the desire to see children attain developmentally appropriate independence from their parents. Many women who breastfeed keep their children in the same room; often in the same bed, for convenience purposes. However, as childen age, there is an expectation of growing independence; I suspect this has a greater effect than does incest fears, especially for younger children. --Jayron32 06:54, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with this assessment. It's also considered inappropriate for siblings of different sexes to share a room after puberty, although, here in Italy it is done, because most of the houses have only two bedrooms. My teenage son and daughter do have their own bedrooms, however. Being an American, I happen to think it highly inadvisable for different-sex siblings to sleep in the same room after puberty.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:07, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. There's something to be said for keeping desperate people out of situations where their foresight and wisdom isn't fully engaged. Although, people can deal with just about anything, in the last resort. Vranak (talk) 08:37, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Indeed in the Uk with Council houses (Public housing to others?) there are rules around the maximum age different sex siblings can be 'forced' to share a room. That is to say if you are a 2 child family in a 2-bed council-house, if you have 1 boy and 1 girl you will be higher priority for moving into a 3-bed house than a family that has 2 boys. By way of anecdote I shared a room with my brother pretty much up until he left home (he left when I was about 14) and my sisters did the same. Not ideal but needs-must and all that. In terms of 'sleeping' with parents it would seem surprising if at some point in a child's life they haven't ended up in mum & dad's bed because of a bad-dream or whatever...even if it's just until they get to sleep and the dad carries them back to their own bed. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 09:43, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

What I've always heard is that it's inappropriate for the parents to have sex while the child is in the room. It tends to upset even infants who are too young to have any idea what's going on--they seem to think that something bad and violent is happening, and they try to make the parents stop. I've never heard there was any problem letting the child in bed with the parents as long as nothing was going on but sleeping. 66.127.53.162 (talk) 10:16, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Parents should never have sex in front of their children, even if they are just infants. When a baby is sharing the parents' room, the parents need to wait until the child is fully asleep before engaging in sexual activity. This is why kids need their own bedrooms as early as possible. For their own sake and that of their parents' privacy.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 11:37, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Jeanne - while many people might agree with your last statement, until you give some references it remains no more than a personal opinion, and not an answer to the question in reference desk terms. --ColinFine (talk) 12:45, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Why should there be a reference to say that it's wrong to have sex in front of kids?! I would have thought that was just common sense. It's like providing a source when one says that day follows night.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:50, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

With the outside possibility that having sex in front of your children is a good thing (good for the children), a source couldn't be a bad thing. Bus stop (talk) 13:01, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's at all obvious that parents shouldn't have sex in front of infants; the kid's not going to remember it, so what's the harm? And frankly, though it's a minority opinion, there are some who believe that kids should be exposed to sex earlier than they are now. Buddy431 (talk) 13:17, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

For example, Wayne Tucker (A United Methodist Pastor!) doesn't seem to have a problem with it. Buddy431 (talk) 13:21, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

And "Wayne Tucker's" opinion should matter why? Bus stop (talk) 13:27, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Jesus wept!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:28, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

@Bus Stop: I was just pointing out that it's not universally accepted that parents shouldn't have sex in front of their kids, and thus it is appropriate to ask Jeanne for references supporting her assertion that "Parents should never have sex in front of their children, even if they are just infants", as ColinFine did. Buddy431 (talk) 14:41, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that sources are more than welcome. My comment was merely meant to convey that your source was not all that authoritative. It may be hard to get an authoritative source on this, so I give you credit for finding at least something relating to the topic. I did read it. But I am not convinced that the issue is put to rest. Bus stop (talk) 15:31, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Children aren't always exiled from the "family bed" because of some morality-based reason. They are often exiled because they kick and elbow the parents in their sleep, and toss and turn all night. Comet Tuttle (talk) 16:23, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Here is what Dr. Phil has to say about the subject: [4][5] which I found by googling ["dr. phil" children sleeping with parents]. He generally opposes it, and says why, but he also lists arguments for both sides. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:26, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

In North America there's generally a distinction between regular sleeping with the parents and the occasional instance. Regular co-sleeping generally ends around the time nursing is finished, while the occasional run for mommy and daddy's bed after a bad dream or a "sleepover" as a special event is up to the family's discretion until the child reaches puberty. Even then, the case of a mother and a pubescent or post-pubescent daughter sometimes sleeping together would probably only raise a couple of eyebrows. A pubescent boy who still wanted to sleep with mom and dad would face a huge amount of societal pressure to stop, while a pubescent daughter sleeping in the same bed as her father (and the two are alone) might net a call to a children's services outfit. With regards to never having sex in front of an infant, etc. I think this is largely from a position of affluence and circumstance. Certainly poor folks crammed into a single-room tenement still find the time and place to make more little ones, likewise with various non-tenemented peoples such as hunter-gatherers, nomads, etc. Further, long houses have been used for centuries all over the world - and they typically have no interior walls... Matt Deres (talk) 20:45, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

A proponent of the "family bed" on Salon once stated that the parents found it exciting to sneak around and find an opportunity for sneaky sex with one another, when the children normally slept with them. I guess it made them feel like they were teenagers again getting it on the the basement rec room or a parked car somewhere without getting "caught." I expect that most Americans would think it was perverse for parents to have sexual intercourse with children present in the room, and that the judicial system would regard it as inappropriate. Edison (talk) 22:08, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Babies sharing a bed with their parents apparently increases the risk of sudden infant death syndrome (which is a catch-all term for sudden unexplained infant deaths and, in this case, is just a nice name for parents rolling over in the night and accidentally smothering their children). That doesn't really apply from toddlers upwards, though. --Tango (talk) 22:12, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I read somewhere that in premodern societies, in which families and sometimes strangers shared beds (or straw mats), bedsteads were not thought of as places for sexual interaction. Instead, in those societies, people typically had sex in hidden spots outdoors. In colder climates, people would remain mostly clothed while having sex, except for necessary unwrappings or unbuttonings. It is the sexualization of the bed that brings up issues of incest when parents sleep with children. Marco polo (talk) 01:15, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

on all of this stuff you read somewhere. Comet Tuttle (talk) 01:38, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

embassy guard question

Are guards in embassies permitted to carry fully automatic weapons if such weapons are illegal in the country proper? Are there bilateral agreements on these things, or do the laws of the country who "owns" the embassy in play and they can do whatever is permitted in their nation of origin? Googlemeister (talk) 13:26, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I have been to US embassies in three different countries where it is illegal to carry weapons and in all three emabssies the Marine guards were armed.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:30, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

That embassies are "part of" a foreign country and subject to their laws is a myth; the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations protects diplomats from prosecution and missions from intrusion, but it also requires diplomatic missions to obey the laws of the host country. Therefore, whether guards can carry weapons will be a matter of agreement between countries. Note that the convention also requires host countries to provide security, so external security at US embassies is performed by local police, not by US Marines.FiggyBee (talk) 14:42, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

That is certainly one referenced view, but most books at Google Book Search disagree, and state that an embassy is the sovereign territory of the nation represented. See [6], [7], Statement by President Carter in 1980 that embassies are sovereign territory of the country whose embassy it is, [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], Sec of State George Schultz stated the US Embassy in Moscow was US "sovereign territory", [13], [14] states that the Chinese embassy in Belgrade was its "sovereign territory"], [15], [16], [17], [18], but on the other side there is just (seems to go with the argument that the embassy is the sovereign terriroty of the receiving not sending country). Your statement is too broad and absolute, and might better be stated as "according to some sources" or "technically speaking." It is generally accepted that the opposite is true. Edison (talk) 22:00, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and your sole "on the other side" reference seems to be the only one which is actually a legal opinion, rather than a politician or author playing loose with the language. If embassies really were the sovereign territory of their states, then they would be allowed to do whatever they like; never mind semi-automatic rifles, they could put machine guns on the roof and anti-aircraft missiles on the lawn. But they're not. They're allowed to run an embassy, that's it. What's "generally accepted" to be the case by the general public is irrelevant. FiggyBee (talk) 22:42, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I would not call Presidents and Secretaries of State "the general public." Edison (talk) 19:50, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Neither would I. FiggyBee (talk) 21:17, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

US government lawyers have given many opinions which have since been widely disputed, such as saying torture is ok and calling the Geneva Conventions "quaint" and not authoritative, so I do not accept that such writings as the only valid view, when President Carter and Secretary of State Schultz (a Democrat and a Republican) have made statements regarding sovereignty of embassies contrary to the legal dicta. Edison (talk) 19:39, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

As a side note, the officers of SO1, who provide embassy security in London, are among the few British police officers who are routinely armed. FiggyBee (talk) 14:54, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

The Convention requires that diplomatic missions obey the laws of the host country when outside the embassy/consulate grounds. The embassy/consulate is not the property or soil of the host country, so their laws do not apply. Woogee (talk) 20:22, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

No it doesn't. It says;

Without prejudice to their privileges and immunities, it is the duty of all persons enjoying such privileges and immunities to respect the laws and regulations of the receiving State.

That's it. No "unless you call base" caveat. Furthermore, it says,

The premises of the mission must not be used in any manner incompatible with the functions of

the mission as laid down in the present Convention or by other rules of general international law or by

any special agreements in force between the sending and the receiving State.

Doesn't sound very "sovereign territory" to me. FiggyBee (talk) 23:09, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

All embassy guards I've seen use semi-automatic weapons. However, an anecdote that may help: At the U.S. Embassy in Bogata, Columbia, the guards carry semi-automatic rifles. When I was deployed into Columbia, I could only carry a handgun, not a rifle. My shadow, a Columbian guard, carried a semi-automatic rifle. The restrictions on what could be carried by the Marines changed once they left the embassy. -- kainaw™ 15:03, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Although that doesn't answer the original question, whether they were allowed rifles within the embassy by agreement, or because Colombian law didn't apply. I expect it was the former. FiggyBee (talk) 18:30, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

It's pretty much been answered above, the legal position is covered by the various embodiments of the Vienna Conventions on Diplomatic and Consular Relations. These are multilateral treaty arrangements and the details are enshrined in national law.

The basic premise is that the Host Nation grants access and autonomy within the diplomatic or consular facility however the laws of the Host Nation remain applicable unless revoked through local arrangements, either bi-lateral or as a matter of policy. The implication of that is that embassies or consulates will have bar facilities and the like where the HN is ostensibly dry.

The embassy or consulate must be protected by the HN, so what you'll normally see is local security or policing forces outside, national security inside who may or may not be armed subject to the local laws or other arrangements.

The example of London has already been cited, but in the case of the US Embassy the USMC security team are not permitted to be armed in transit to the embassy but may be armed with a sidearm inside. The legislation covering that is the more general HN agreements related to US basing in the UK.

ALR (talk) 23:05, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I also think it's possible that, even if they are subject to local gun control laws, embassy guards/staff may elect to ignore those laws and arm themselves anyway. In the case of Iran after the overthrow of the Shah, for instance, the Iranian government was in collusion with those who took the US embassy hostages, so relying on Iranian government protection would have been/was a serious mistake. StuRat (talk) 20:02, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

It's possible however in normal circumstances would be a serious breach of diplomatic protocol and could reasonably lead to significant operational difficulty for the ambassador and supporting staff. Essentially if embassy staff arm themselves in breach of their countries treaty obligations the Host Nation could reasonably eject the mission.

Diplomatic relations are very carefully managed.

ALR (talk) 20:22, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Indian Reservation

What reservation is the wealthiest in the US? The poorest? --Reticuli88 (talk) 13:34, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the richest, but I believe the Rosebud Indian Reservation in South Dakota is the poorest.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:00, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

A book about the Mashantucket Pequot Tribe, which owns the Foxwoods Resort Casino, is entitled Hitting the Jackpot: The Inside Story of the Richest Indian Tribe in History. —Kevin Myers 14:24, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I believe they are richest per capita, being a small tribe with a large casino. But, do they also have the highest total wealth of any tribe ? StuRat (talk) 14:26, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

They very well may likely be the richest in terms of total wealth as well. Foxwoods is a huge casino that makes massive amounts of cash, I can't find proof that it is the richest ever in terms of absolute cash, but I would not be surprised if it were so. --Jayron32 15:24, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Even poorer than Rosebud may be the Crow Creek Reservation, also in South Dakota — its boundaries are mostly equivalent to those of Buffalo County, the poorest county in the country, while Rosebud is mostly equivalent to Todd County, which is "only" the fifth poorest. Nyttend (talk) 15:43, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Osage County, Oklahoma, coterminous with the Osage Nation Resevation, has a median income of $34,000. I'm not sure how that compares with other reservations. There are quite a lot of mineral rights agreements on the grounds. Woogee (talk) 20:25, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Our article seems to be Reservation poverty - it has several references at the end that you can also check. Best, WikiJedits (talk) 12:57, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

PS re more references - the US statistics sites are baffling me, but perhaps if you are an American you'll have better luck understanding the proper search terms. Here are some starting points:

• The Bureau of Economic Analysis gives personal income rates for a range of areas, but it'll be up to you to determine if any are reservations. You can also look at single counties (also here in a ranked list).
• The US Census Bureau lets you download income data at the school district level. You have to determine which school districts are on reservations, though.
• The Census Bureau also can provide 1999 income for one tribe at a time through tribes are not the same as reservations.
• This looks like the central Census page for tribal statistics.
• US residents can phone: 1-800-923-8282 for help using the US Census site. Best, WikiJedits (talk) 13:30, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

US of A (counties)

How many counties are there in the US including Hawaii and Alaska, what is the average size there of and how is it administered? Thanx —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.172.58.82 (talk) 14:16, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

The U.S. Census Bureau lists 3,140 counties or county-equivalent administrative units in total. Average area of 1200 square miles, population a bit under 100,000. County (United States) does a good job answering these questions. Googlemeister (talk) 14:59, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

As far as adminitration goes, it varies greatly state to state. In some places (New England for example) counties are essentially meaningless. They have no governmental administration, or nearly none, in most of New England. However, in other states, counties are the primary form of local administration, and only the largest cities are given home rule while the county provides services and administration for most people. So the answer to "how are counties in the U.S. administered" the answer is, it varies A LOT from state to state. --Jayron32 15:22, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

In the northern New England states, counties do something, especially in areas that are not parts of towns; however, counties have been entirely abolished (except for the purposes of geographical reference) in the three southern New England states. Conversely, in Hawaii, there is absolutely no government at all except for counties (Honolulu County and the city of Honolulu are consolidated) and the state government. In Alaska, many county-equivalents have no governmental power: the Unorganized Borough is divided into census areas that have absolutely no official purpose except for statistical analysis by the United States Census Bureau. Alaska's boroughs, on the other hand, are also county-equivalents, but they have significant governmental power. Nyttend (talk) 15:31, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

For an example of New England county government, read Part 1 of Title 24 of the Vermont Statutes Annotated; there are many links to subsections, but you can realise that almost all of the subsections are one or two sentences. You'll notice that most of the county officials are either judicial or purely administrative. Chapter 1, which deals with the counties themselves, includes only (1) a list of counties in the state, and (2) a list of the cities, towns, and gores in each county. Nyttend (talk) 15:36, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

It is not accurate that counties are meaningless in most of New England, or even in all of southern New England. Counties certainly have fewer responsibilities anywhere in New England than they do in most other parts of the United States, but there are county-level responsibilities and at least vestigial county governments in four of the six New England states: Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, and my own state, Massachusetts. Connecticut and Rhode Island have abolished county government. In those two states, below the state government, there are only municipal (city and town) governments. However, in those two states (and in Massachusetts) every square inch of the state is within the borders of a city or town. New England towns also cover rural areas. In Massachusetts, county governments are presided over by several elected officials who run a county-level court system, sometimes one or more county-level schools, and repositories of public records, particularly the registry of deeds. I believe that county governments in the northern New England states have similar functions. Marco polo (talk) 16:11, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh, you're right; I'd forgotten that a few (is it five?) of the Massachusetts still have governmental existence. Nyttend (talk) 16:41, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

It's a little more complicated than that. Every Massachusetts county still exists as an administrative district, and each has elected officials whose election district and whose area of responsibility correspond to the county boundaries. Each of these countywide elected officials (for example, the Essex County District Attorney) presides over an office that could be called a piece of county-level government. (The state government provides funding and handles payroll and other such services for these offices.) What most Massachusetts counties apparently now lack is a county government that acts as an umbrella for these various county offices. In every statewide election, voters in Massachusetts also have to vote for county-level officials, whether or not their county has an umbrella county government. So even though most Massachusetts counties now lack a county government per se, they have not ceased to exist as political units. Marco polo (talk) 19:29, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Strangely enough, no U.S. counties seem to have a Count in charge, unless coincidentally. Edison (talk) 21:31, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Ah, but they almost always have a Sherrif (Shire Reave), which comes from the older English word for county, Shire, as in Hertsfordshire, Hampshire, Berkshire, etc. and still appears in such terms as Shire town. In England, which has counties, they also have never had Counts either. While Sheriffs were the chief civil servants in charge of running a county, Earls were the nobles who ruled Counties as fiefs. --Jayron32 01:16, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

However, the wife of an earl is a countess. Go figure. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 01:34, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, that's because when the somewhat Frenchified ex-Scandinavian Normans (who had relinquished their own original term 'Jarl') took over England from 1066, the system of Earldoms (from the Anglo-Saxon 'Eorl') was too entrenched for them to rename the rank with its continental equivalent of Count (from the French 'Comte', itself from the Latin 'Comes'). The wives of Earls had had no specific title beyond being addressed as "Lady" (from Anglo-Saxon 'hlǣfdige'), so when the need or desire for one arose, the existing and fashionable (because Norman) 'Countess' was adopted. In the latter period of Roman rule, what would later become England did have the rank of Comes, as in the Count of the Saxon Shore, but this fell into abeyance. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 17:49, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Then there is the county which children (under 16) are forbidden to enter … ---Cam (talk) 05:19, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

award for entrepreneurs

a few days ago, i asked a question about existence of any award for businesspersons. since capital gain or earning a lot of money in a legitimate way is a skill, why there is no recognition for this skill? While authors receive awards for writing skill, journalists receive awards for journalistic skill, actors receive awards for acting skill, why businesspeople don't receive awards for business and money-making skills??? --Gortpok (talk) 17:07, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I think various organizations give out a "Small Businessman of the Year" award. And you don't even have to be a dwarf to apply. StuRat (talk) 17:12, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

In the UK, there is The Queen's Awards for Enterprise[19]. Alansplodge (talk) 18:06, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Is it not the general idea that amassing wealth, prestige, and power is an end in itself? So why on earth would there have to be any additional recognition? It would almost be obscene if the US Treasury handed out yearly awards to Mr. Bill Gates, on account of his 'winning ways'. He gets enough esteem as is. Vranak (talk) 18:37, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

See Deming Prize, awarded to business for "quality" improvement. Edison (talk) 21:27, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I was awarded the Business Woman of the Year 2007 by a local newspaper. Woo hoo! I thought. However, I soon found that it was a scam for them to got thousands of pounds worth of advertising out of me for the next 12 months, none of which actually got me any new clients or extra business. So for what it's worth, I'd say that any of these awards aren't worth the paper they're written on. I might be biased of course! --TammyMoet (talk) 07:49, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

April 24

Blue porn

Why Indian people call porn films "blue film"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sonic The Xtreme (talk • contribs) 00:34, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Removed duplicate question --ColinFine (talk) 00:42, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

For the same reason as English speakers elsewhere call them "blue films" or "blue movies": because one of the meanings of "blue" is "indecent; obscene" (OED). The earliest example quoted is from a dictionary of slang from 1864. --ColinFine (talk) 00:42, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

What's the etymology ? StuRat (talk) 05:09, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

According to references at the article Blue law, the term "blue" to refer to "immoral" may have been invented out of whole cloth by Samuel Peters, who first used the term "Blue law" in 1781. He claims the term had existed since Puritan Colonial times, however later historians and etymologists have found no evidence of this, instead falling back on the conclusion that he invented the usage himself. --Jayron32 05:18, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

We've had this exact same question before. I still think my answer was best! [20]--Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:18, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

When you underexposed the (pre-digital) film involved, because the budget was as small as possible and hence did not include using movie lighting, it would get a blue tint. Hence blue movies. 78.148.48.230 (talk) 09:53, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I doubt this statement. I have developed a lot of film, and I hev never seen underexposed film look blue. Do you have a reference for underexposed film looking blue? Edison (talk) 19:48, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

It refers to early colour film not made anymore, not the modern stock. It probably includes forcing up the ISO in the lab, not just standard processing. 78.151.140.244 (talk) 09:56, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Neither Shantavira nor this IP have provided sources for their answers, and it's citationless conjecture like this that leads to those "everyone knows" facts that everyone gets wrong. Vimescarrot (talk) 12:05, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

EO has some theories:[21] The one about "blue books" meaning "books of questionable character" might well be the joke W.C. Fields was making in Poppy: "Perhaps you've read my book on the evils of wagering?" (Mayor) "No." (Fields) "It has a blue cover. Perhaps that will recall it to your mind!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:18, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. In Chinese, or HK at least. Pornography is associated with the colour yellow (黃)[22]. --Kvasir (talk) 15:58, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Try http://ask.yahoo.com/20031003.html 89.243.213.182 (talk) 17:05, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

A fit of swearing is said to "turn the air blue".--Wetman (talk) 17:38, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Germanic Rome (Modern Rome) versus Ancient Rome

In most legal jurisdiction in the US which have many laws starting with concepts and notions based on ancient Egyptian and Roman law, most of these concepts and notions have been updated with revisions from Germanic Rome following the Germanic "Migration" and now in the US have been updated to fully reflect modern thinking. An example would be laws prohibiting culpable negligence versus laws which support codes of silence. On occasion, however a judge not trained sufficiently in the law will revert to the old (ancient) thinking or standards and make decisions which do not support modern thinking or updates but which instead reflect ancient law. (My solution BTW is to publish the law in the form of a polychotomous key so that such occasions can be quickly corrected or prevented from occurring at all.) What Wikipedia articles cover this topic of judges appearing to be in complete compliance and support of the law by only supporting and being in compliance with ancient thinking and laws? 71.100.1.71 (talk) 04:59, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

In America and the UK, the relevent concept is Common law, which holds that judges and courts may act on legal prescedent and tradition. The opposite concept is that of codified law, for example Code Napoleon, which is the French legal system established in France by Napoleon, and adapted throughout much of Europe. The two systems often work together by varying degrees, for example there are no purely "common law" legal systems in the world, and insofar as judges and juries are required to interpret legal codes, there will be some common law elements in codified systems. But as ends of the legal system continuum, those two systems would be a good place to start thinking about these things. If you want historical legal systems, you could start with the Code of Hammurabi, and also look into the article Early Germanic law which lists many such Germanic law codes, as well as Roman law, which never fully disappeared, but was instead adapted locally after the fall of the Roman Empire. --Jayron32 05:14, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, these articles will help reveal why this problem exists but I am also looking for articles which already recognize the existence of this problem and discuss prior solutions which have been tried to dissuade revolution and terrorism beyond incorporating a political system which entrusts elected officials to adapt the law to change. 71.100.1.71 (talk) 06:08, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

First off, I really don't know what you mean by "ancient Egyptian law" having had a significant influence on modern legal systems in the English-speaking world. Roman law has had a certain influence, but its influence is generally considered to be much less on the development of Common Law systems than it was on various forms of continental European law. In the 19th century, people such as Frederic William Maitland (as I seem to remember) had romantic theories about how the Common law preserved the spirit of early Germanic tribal quasi-democracy (as opposed to Roman despotism), but I'm not sure how that's held up in modern scholarship... AnonMoos (talk) 05:22, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Jayron's reference above to the Code of Hammurabi is what I meant by "ancient Egyptian law". 71.100.1.71 (talk) 05:56, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

71.100.1.71 -- Hammurabi was Mesopotamian, not Egyptian, and no one knew about his law-code for probably at least 3,000 years before 1901 A.D., so obviously it did not have a direct influence on the development of English Common Law. The Code of Hammurabi has some interesting parallels with provisions of the so-called "Laws of Moses" found in the first five books of the Bible, but I strongly doubt whether it exerts any significant influence on the decisions of judges today... AnonMoos (talk) 07:28, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Disruption

I'm afraid it is s wasted distinction for the purpose of the question. 71.100.1.71 (talk) 10:01, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

If you don't care much about fact, then this whole discussion would appear to be fairly pointless... AnonMoos (talk) 10:57, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

It is a fact that water is a compound made from two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen but not relevant to this discussion. You can measure the coastline of England in miles or inches depending on how precise you want to be. If you do not need to be more precise that miles then you have wasted valuable time on measuring it in inches. If the discussion is about the difference in modern and ancient only and you are trying to disrupt it by pealing off about the difference between Egypt and Mesopotamia then move your comments to the discussion page and anyone interested can follow them there. In short... Grow up. 71.100.1.71 (talk) 14:08, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately for you, you seem to be somewhat impervious to disconfirming evidence in your idée fixe determination to find support for your pet little theory that the dead hand of ancient laws from thousands of years ago is the most determining factor in 21st-century Common Law legal systems (something which would appear to be false). If you don't want to listen to any answers which don't perfectly agree with what you already thought, then some might wonder why you asked the question in the first place. AnonMoos (talk) 15:20, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I still don't understand your question. US judges are bound to follow the law and the Constitution. Can you cite an example of what you mean by a US judge using "ancient thinking" as the basis for a ruling, rather than the law? Comet Tuttle (talk) 06:23, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I cited an example in the question. 71.100.1.71 (talk) 10:03, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Your "example" was totally vague. Could you point to a single actual court case as an example? Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:09, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Intended to be totally vague since the reference desk does not give legal advice. 71.100.1.71 (talk) 23:14, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

It happens all the time - that ancient thinking is part of the law. When there isn't a statute to cover a particular situation the courts will rely on common law, which is usually very old (not always ancient, per se, but often at least based on ancient principles). --Tango (talk) 06:53, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

In English law, (if I recall a rather cursory module of a course many years since), judges are allowed to fall back on the principle of Natural justice. However this can only be used if there no statute, precedent or common law principle which bears on the case. Alansplodge (talk) 07:45, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

The problem with allowing this to be done in America is that we have immigrant judges from Italy, France, Germany, Poland, the Middle East and Asia all of which would have the right to fall back on completely different foundations. 71.100.1.71 (talk) 10:06, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Please supply a concrete example of an actual court case so we aren't all just waving our hands discussing vague possibilities. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:09, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Kioa v West is the (Australian) case cited in the WP article. Alansplodge (talk) 19:46, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

The "polychotomous key" (aka decision tree) is 1.71 (aka User:Pce3@ij.net)'s solution to the endemic corruption of the legal system[23] (as well as being the basis for a religion and philosophy [24]). However, the reason we have human lawyers to argue cases and judges to decide them is because there's no way the written law can take every possible circumstance into account; you could spend 50 years compiling a billion-page decision tree of common and statute law, but it'd only be out a week before a case comes along which doesn't fit it (or someone comes along who disputes the meanings of words in one of the steps). On the other hand, judgements in our current system are bound by precedent and subject to appeals, which keeps the whole system fairly consistent and fair. FiggyBee (talk) 15:28, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I would not go so far as to call A Method for Simulating the Process of Logical Human Thought a religion or philosophy. Instead it is a demonstration of how logical human thought can be replaced by computerized multiple state equation reduction and the background for doing that and the resulting implications for those who put their faith in money or logic versus putting their faith in God.

What you are saying is that ignorance of the law (the impossibility of knowing the law versus intentionally avoiding its knowledge) by those charged with obeying it is a legitimate reason versus an illegitimate excuse. Thank you. 71.100.1.71 (talk) 23:33, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Again, could you provide an example of a US court case that highlights the issue you are trying to ask about? (We don't give legal advice, but it's fine to give legal information.) Without an actual US court case to look at (since you are discussing the US), I still don't know what you're writing about. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:47, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

The best I can do is to tell you that the judge did not know statutory or case law. Statutory law requires a person who knows of a potentially dangerous circumstance not keep it to themselves but to inform those who may have a vested interest in seeing to it that any potential danger is eliminated which they can not do unless they are so informed. An example is a person who leaves vicious dogs unattended next to a sidewalk that children use with only a short fence to separate them from the dogs. In the event of a child being mauled a neighbor knowing about this and failing to inform the parents might be guilty of culpable negligence. Even a passerby might be charged with culpable negligence if he did not ask the children where they lived and then informed the parents. An errant judge on the other hand who did not know the law might hold that ratting on the dogs owner in absence of the fact which the law allowed was an act of slander. 71.100.1.71 (talk) 16:44, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Homeless people in UK

In a forum someone said

A large percentage of those in the UK are ex forces people. People who joined up at 16 and have spent their whole lives with a solution to every problem. In return they have put life and limb on the line.Society stopped caring about them the day they stopped taking the queens shilling.

Why are those people so stupid that they delibrately stop taking the Queen's shilling and become homeless people on the streets of UK. Isn't the army suppose to train you to be a good person instead of a vagabond? 122.107.207.98 (talk) 08:10, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you read our article on homelessness. Your premise is flawed. Don't believe everything you read in a forum. It's a long time since I saw any homeless people in the UK who might have been ex-servicemen. Also the army doesn't train people so much to be good, as to obey superiors, to survive in a hostile situation, and to kill.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:28, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. Uncritical slavishness and willingness to kill are plainly antithetical to 'being a good person'. Vranak (talk) 14:22, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

There is a high proportion of ex service personnel in both the homeless segment and in prisons, but that simplistic point conceals a high degree of complexity. Some of those ostensibly ex-servicemen will have served for short periods a long time ago, some will have come into the service with a number of societal and cultural issues that may contribute to their situation. Some will have been dismissed for crimes whilst in the service.

Once one starts to look into the detail it's clear that very few will have completed a full career, essentially 22 years. The transitional arrangements at that level of experience are pretty good and you'd tend to find people going into reasonable jobs.

I would agree that society per se doesn't really care about those that serve them, whether military or civilian. There is an expectation that in volunteering people give up any rights to reasonable treatment, but that's more of an indication of a wider malaise than specific to the military.

Essentially very few would choose to be homeless, but circumstances can conspire to lead them there.

All that said some long time servicemen do struggle with the transition to civilian life and that can lead to problems. Civilians don't understand the humour, approach, demand for high standards etc and that can be challenging. For some it means job losses.

One cultural issue that does tend to reinforce this is that one has been trained to be self reliant, and it's common for ex servicemen in trouble to refrain from seeking support and assistance. There are a number of mechanisms in place, both formal and charitable, but frequently they're not known about or the individual prioritises himself, or herself, out on the basis that theyd consume resource that someone else would benefit from.

ALR (talk) 08:43, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

This page has the details[25]. "The percentage of veterans in London's current non-statutory (single) homeless population had reduced from 22% in 1997 to 6% by 2007".

Perhaps it makes more sense to look at the proportion of veterans which are homeless, rather than the proportion of homeless who are veterans. Otherwise, you're sure to see a rise whenever a large number of veterans are released from service, like after a war ends. StuRat (talk) 16:33, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

That's London, not national. Although I would agree that the Legion has done a lot of good work in addressing the issue, but more to do.

ALR (talk) 17:52, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Other aspects of your question have been answered above, but I want to address one incorrect assumption of yours that hasn't been explicitly answered. In peacetime, people usually sign up for the UK's Armed Forces on various fixed-length terms of engagement, ranging in the Army, for example, from 3 to 22 years. At the end of a term they may or may not be offered the option of signing on for one or more of a range of further terms, depending upon the Forces' then current and projected future personnel requirements: many are therefore compelled to leave even if they would prefer to stay in. My own father completed a 22-year term and would have preferred to remain in the Army until the normal retirement age, but was only offered the option of a series of (I think) 3-year terms with no guarantee of renewals: he therefore chose to leave in order to start a second long-term civilian career.

My father was ultimately successful but some, as already mentioned, find the transition to civilian life and employment too difficult to cope with, especially if they develop some mental disturbance (that might stem from their military experiences). I myself knew a former Warrant Officer from my father's own Corps who became a local street person (and who was perfectly unobjectionable and innocuous).

I also find your assumption that homeless people are necessarily not 'good' highly questionable. Many people become homeless from some combination of bad luck, family breakdown and personal problems, but that doesn't make them 'bad'. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 17:27, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

And in the UK a homeless person includes those living in hostels and possibly b&b, and only a minority, I think, are rough sleepers. 78.149.153.174 (talk) 20:56, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

In the US, as a basis for comparison, state employment, social and veterans service offices usually bend over backwards to help appreciative ex-service personnel that they like to find solutions. Some, however, come out of the service with a chip on their shoulder and those are the ones who end up without help and living on the street. Those are the ones who usually end up in prison.

The Lord of the rings

In the fellowship of the ring movie, there is a scene where the Ring utters a harsh chant. Gandalf suddenly stands up and also begins the chant in Black Speech. Thunder crackles as the sky darkens. The Council stare around them in fear and confusion. Is this taken from the book or does it appear in the movie only?

It's in book 2, chapter 2, The Council of Elrond. — Lomn 14:17, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I went through that (long) chapter twice and I can't find that scene...

I've answered over on the Entertainment desk, where the question was unnecessarily cross-posted. Deor (talk) 14:47, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Economy questions - Greece

Please help with 2 questions about the current financial situation with Greece and the Euro: 1) Is it possible to eject Greece out of the Euro currency union? 2) Did the Greek crisis really originate in governmental corruption, in which case is it possible to prosecute responsibles? Thanks for info, --AlexSuricata (talk) 16:16, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

1) I don't know if it's formally possible by EU rules, but all the other members could always withdraw and form an "EU2", which excludes Greece. Of course, to do so would impress all the other members that they will also be abandoned if they ever get into trouble, so would weaken the union in the long run. StuRat (talk) 16:22, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Several newspaper articles have said that according to the current existing rules, it would be almost impossible to force Greece off the Euro unless it also withdraws from the European Union. If Greece still had a separate currency, it could devalue the drachma with respect to other currencies and undergo a short sharp economic shock which would probably leave it in a relatively good position for long-term recovery. As it is, no one seems to know how to put Greece on a sound economic footing without either a huge external bailout, or forcing Greece to go through a prolonged period of such austerity that it would be more like a depression than a recession... AnonMoos (talk) 21:45, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

For #2, see 2010 European sovereign debt crisis. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:06, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Party support for UK identity cards

I do not like having identity cards for British people. I understand the LibDems will scrap them. What will the other two mainstream parties do with them? Thanks 89.243.213.182 (talk) 17:35, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Conservatives are against them - "ID Cards - Labour's Bad IDea"[26]. Labour says "The new biometric ID scheme which already covers foreign nationals will be offered to an increasing number of British citizens, but will not be compulsory for them." They go on to claim that the scheme will be self-financing[27]. Alansplodge (talk) 19:25, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Your link says the Cons will scrap them too. 78.149.153.174 (talk) 20:52, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

This is one of the things I have never understood about the British. I mean, this is a country where every village has more CCTV cameras than China and North Korea put together, but somebody mentions ID cards (which actually would have useful effects, like eliminating identity theft and not having to hunt for a gas and phone bill everytime you hire a car) and everybody's afraid of Big Brother.213.160.108.26 (talk) 23:24, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Identity cards are one step closer to Big Brother as are cameras posted everywhere. It means the government knows who you are. In Italy, identity cards have been required for ages. Once a person turns 15, they are required to have one-or at least have a document on their person saying who they are, with a photo.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:26, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Just because we already have an overbearing and intrusive state, doesn't mean that we should just bend over and standby every time some politician comes up with another cunning plan to waste taxpayers equity. Opposition to both is a defining feature of the libertarian agenda.

In any case, opposition is partly to do with the state imposing yet another requirement on the citizen but largely related to the underlying infrastructure that will use the ID card record to tie together a wide range of information about the individual.

ALR (talk) 07:43, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Now, how exactly would ID cards eliminate identity theft, since most identity theft takes place on-line without any theft of physical documents or cards ? What additional identity theft protection would I get from an ID card that I already get by having a passport and a National Insurance number ? I have always been curious about that claim. I know it was one of Gordon Brown's pro-ID cards arguments, but it makes about as much sense to me as saying "introducing ID cards will save the whale and reverse global warming". Gandalf61 (talk) 16:05, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

We British watch far too many war films. When the plucky Brits escape from their POW camp, there's always a scene where the Gestapo, dressed in their long leather coats, get on the train and call out "Papieren!". We really don't want all that malarky. You don't even have to carry your driving licence here - if a police officer wants you to prove that you have one, he gives you a little form called "a producer" that you can take along to your local police station with your documents at any time within 7 days. Very civilised. Some historical perspective here:[28]. Alansplodge (talk) 17:46, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

If the Nazis has won WW2, the first thing they'd do would be to introduce their own identity cards (or "Nazi cards" to coin a phrase). Think how many people gave their lives to stop the Nazis taking over. But now sixty years later we are welcoming them. On a side note, I think saving Europe from itself (with help from other nations) ought to have earnt us British some privelidges, including not having identity cards. 78.151.102.119 (talk) 16:36, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

It's symptomatic of how the political rhetoric obfuscates the reality of the proposal. The identity card is only a token that allows access to an information repository that should, in principle, contain a single picture of the truth about an individual. In this way using the card should reduce the ability of people to steal an identity using the various items of ephemera that substitute for evidence now. The ID card on its own proves nothing unless it can be validated against the repository.

There are so many claims about what these things could do that it's ridiculous.

Most of the ongoing and informed No2ID debate is around the aggregation of data about the individual, and the ease with which the proposed legislation allows a number of state representatives and quasi-officialdom can demand access to tat record. That level of exposure of ones information essentially undermines the privacy and security argument as we lose control of our data.

ALR (talk) 09:21, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I bet that various terrorist-supporting governments could fake an ID card, so once they start handing them out to terrorists, they will be worse than useless for preventing terrorism. 78.151.102.119 (talk) 16:28, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

However, the point is not the card, but the system that it's a part of.

ALR (talk) 10:43, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

constableville,ny

trying to find any history from the early 1700's to previous and the surrounding cemeteries..who was the founder? are there any ghost stories?

Google is your friend! It's perfect for this kind of thing. Don't give up if you can't find anything straight away, try looking through the next pages or change your search keywords to make it more specific. Try the Wikipedia article too, if you haven't already. It dosen't give a massive amount of information though. There are also many sites documenting ghost stories too, try looking there. Hope this helps. Sorry I can't give you a straight answer, I am not aware of the place. Chevymontecarlo. 10:45, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

can someone explain "everybody draw Mohammed day"?

can someone explain this movement to me? Thanks. 84.153.190.165 (talk) 20:52, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd say it's a reaction to extremist Muslims who threaten to kill anyone who depicts Muhammad (there's a Muslim ban on drawing him). Obviously, they can't kill everyone, though. StuRat (talk) 21:16, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

To be a little more precise, there is a belief by some Muslims that Muslims should not depict Muhammad. Similarly, there are some Christians who believe that Christians should not adorn the church with pictures/statues of Jesus. The extremists take this view to an absurd level and believe that everyone is actually Muslim (even if you don't know it yet) and therefore everyone falls under Muslim law. So, anyone who depicts Muhammad is breaking Muslim law and must be killed. The idea of an "everybody draw Muhammad day" is just to tell the young nutjobs who are behind this idiocy that we don't care what they say. They need to find another means of working out their sexual frustrations. -- kainaw™ 22:26, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Or looked at another way, some people think it's big and clever to deliberately set out to belittle the religious beliefs of others, and also that offending people is the best way to engage them in productive dialogue. DuncanHill (talk) 22:32, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. Consider the brouhaha some Christians made over an artistic show some years back that had a crucifix in urine or some such. Oh, wow, that was different! That was offensive! Total lack of perspective. Meanwhile, as a practical matter, if one is going to endorse "Draw Muhammad Day", maybe one should also wear a T-shirt with the Target logo on it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:53, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Way to go, Bugs! Two sentences that have nothing to do with the original question, followed by an islamophobic joke! Staecker (talk) 23:14, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Direct your complaint to Duncan, since he broached the subject of the inherent hypocrisy of this "draw Muhammad" thing. It's quite alright to ridicule other people's religions, but when your own gets ridiculed, that's somehow different? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:02, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

It can be hilareous to bellittle them. Just look at the Simpsons, south park or borat, all of which are hilareous.-_92.251.163.187 (talk)

Apparently I wasn't clear enough... The excuse that some idiots use to justify their juvenile violence is not a religious view. It is not a Muslim view that everyone is Muslim and everyone who violates some rarely-observed Muslim law should be killed. This is merely an excuse for violence by people who want to be violent for any reason. It is no different than someone claiming to be a follower of Aztec religion and then justifying violence by claiming others are violating Aztec law. -- kainaw™ 00:09, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

See Banned Books Week for a similar idea, a bit more mainstream, and not specifically targeted at a single group. Staecker (talk) 22:48, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Matt Stone and Trey Parker are well-versed in this idea. Duncan, I totally understand what you're saying, but extremists are not people you can reason with. We've tried that with them in the past, and they still throw up a shitstorm. 24.189.90.68 (talk) 00:03, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

You have to be patient with it. I'm talking decades here. DuncanHill (talk) 00:34, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Dan Savage created "Everybody Draw Mohammed Day" as a reaction to the threats against -- and Comedy Central's censorship of -- the most recent South Park episode which included a depiction of Mohammed in its uncensored form. Everybody Draw Mohammed Day will be observed on May 20. See http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2010/04/22/everybody-draw-mohammed-day . —D. Monack ^talk 00:51, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Also see the Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy just a few years ago. --Kvasir (talk) 01:04, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Savage did not create it. He helped popularize it. The LA Times covered this. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:16, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Put in perspective, it's an effort by one group of idiots to piss off another group of idiots by being overtly obnoxious. Nobody knows what Mohammed looked like and nobody is interested in the historical/philosophical issue - it's all just an adolescent ploy to see who can make who whom feel worse. They might as well get down to brass tacks and start taunting each other with 'neener neener neener'. --Ludwigs2 18:18, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

all white canadian place

is there a place in Canada where the population is all white?

I'm sure there are many, mainly towns with tiny populations, do you want us to list them all ? StuRat (talk) 21:19, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

This might sound nit-picky, but define place. Do you mean town, neighbourhood, province, region? My parents house is all white. The Canadian census results can help. Statscan results for % visible minority 24.83.112.118 (talk) 22:31, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

black and white people together

Is there a place in US where the population is only black and white?

Perhaps you could explain what you're getting at, rather than asking little questions bit-by-bit? You might get a more useful answer. FiggyBee (talk) 21:24, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes. There are many small towns which have populations that are all the same - black, white, chinese, hispanic... whatever. What is the real question? -- kainaw™ 22:19, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Or does the questioner mean, "Is there a place where every person is either black or white, as opposed to a member of some third category, like Asian or Native American? 129.174.184.114 (talk) 23:10, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Sundown town might be helpful, unless you mean Black-and-white. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 08:13, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

If you want a community with only whites, check out Monowi, Nebraska or several of the villages of Darke County, Ohio. If you want a community with both whites and blacks but no mixed-race and no individuals of any other race, check out Palestine, Ohio. Nyttend (talk) 00:44, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

A weirdly specific question regarding the Byzantine empire...

I know Justin I was Justinians uncle, but was he his maternal uncle or paternal uncle? 83.250.239.198 (talk) 22:18, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

According to our article on Justinian, "His mother was Vigilantia, the sister of Justin" - so maternal. DuncanHill (talk) 22:21, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Given Roman tendencies to adoption, divorce, and remarriage, he may well be his maternal uncle, paternal uncle, father, brother, and cousin twice removed ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:52, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Ahh, thanks! I don't know how I missed that! 83.250.239.198 (talk) 00:26, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Were Roman families typically this way outside of the nobility? After all, both men came from a poor family of commoners. Nyttend (talk) 00:36, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

"Eastern" and "western" religions

Why is one variety of Abrahamic monotheism considered "western" whilst another is "eastern"? Aren't they both Asiatic imports? How can either be considered "western"? 129.174.184.114 (talk) 23:08, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

All the three Abrahamic religions are Eastern mystery cults. Neither wants to admit it. More seriously, Christianity today has little to do its origins 2000 years ago, and much of the evolution of current mainstream variants did happen in the west. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:15, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

This is how it seems to me. Indeed, Christianity (particularly the Roman Catholic variety) seems ironically to be the least "western" of the bunch, given its flirtation with polytheism (in the form of the trinity and the intercession of saints) and its peculiar, almost Vedic attitude to sexual purity. In comparison with Catholicism, Islam is downright bourgeois. 129.174.184.114 (talk) 00:48, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what Stephen was getting at above, but all three Abrahamic religions are considered "Western" - but this is usually only used in contrast to "Eastern" religions and semi-religions such as Hinduism, Taoism, Buddhism, etc. When compared to other religions, such as those of the Native Americans or sub-Saharan Africans, I think it's more usual to either specify the religion by name or to refer to it as "Abrahamic". See western religion, eastern religion, and East–West dichotomy for more. Other pursuits, such as philosophy, are also typically separated into west and east versions for ease of discourse. Matt Deres (talk) 00:06, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

It is very common to hear Muslim culture contrasted with "the west", especially in the context of political Islam. 129.174.184.114 (talk) 00:48, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I for one have always found this rather confusing. Although I suppose not so long ago Eastern Europe was also contrasted with "the west", which is even more unusual to someone like me, born in the late 80s. --Laryaghat (talk) 01:10, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Better terms for "Western" and "Eastern" religions might be "Middle-Eastern" and "Oriental". StuRat (talk) 00:43, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

"Oriental"? Not so sure about that one, sounds rather archaic. I think ultimately the fact is that regardless of naming, the "east" vs "west" dichotomy is and will always be false. Abrahamic religions, Indian/Dharmic religions, Confucianism and Taoism are ultimately all Asian in origin. The real "western" religions, leaving aside a few modern Romantic attempts at revival, died out centuries ago. --Laryaghat (talk) 00:52, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and that's not even mentioning the category problems that grouping Indian and Chinese religions together creates. The only cross pollination between these two very different traditions was through Buddhism, and even then that was very limited, and was only one way (Indian to Chinese). --Laryaghat (talk) 00:56, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm pondering the irony of Eastern Orthodox being a Western religion. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:59, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

And here in Detroit, I'm both in the Mid-West and in the Eastern Time Zone. :-) StuRat (talk) 20:39, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Really? I'd say you're not in Kansas anymore! DOR (HK) (talk) 02:29, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Christianity always had an eastern wing and a western wing. The Roman Empire eventually split into an eastern half and a western half. The Roman Empire became a Christian state. Islam eventually became the predominant religion in much of the old "eastern" halves of Christianity and the Roman Empire (though not the further north-eastern). It is entirely reasonable to maintain the original "eastern/western" distinction when broadly addressing Islam and Christianity. No one considers it absolutely literal -- it's historical short-hand, like "Dark Ages" and "Middle Ages" and "Renaissance" and "Enlightenment" and so on. Short-hand is useful to avoid quibbling when broadly addressing a subject; when the subject is analyzed more closely, such short-hand is often abandoned for more particular (and usually academic if not obscure) terms.63.17.40.87 (talk) 01:15, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

the 'Eastern/Western' dichotomy is a code phrase for 'European/Asiatic' (or more precisely for for 'civilized/colonial'). 'Western' religions are those derived from the mainstay religions in Europe during the scientific and economic expansions of the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries - they are infused with a lot of scientism, and generally take a pragmatic, Calvinistic approach (a strong division between the divine and temporal worlds). 'Eastern' religions are the major religions found in colonized regions that could not be easily displaced by 'Western' ideology - they tend to be more mystical, with little to no separation between spiritual and secular domains. The Roman Catholic and Roman Orthodox faiths fall in between, mostly because they were already in existence in Europe for half a millennium before the colonial era started, and had to adapt themselves after the fact. They have strong mystical roots (the divine is far more present in catholicism than in the various forms of protestantism, through miracles, saints, intercessions, and etc.), but have lost most of the beliefs in the direct apperception of the divine that you can find in middle eastern and asiatic faiths. That has to do with the concentration of divine authority in the papacy, and the consequent political and economic machinations of the Church. --Ludwigs2 18:41, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

United Kingdom General election, 2010

In the very unlikely even that the liberal democrats, tories and labour party all had exactly the same number of seats in the house of commons, how would any of the parties go about forming a government? or would another election be called --Thanks, Hadseys 23:29, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

In that case, two of them would likely try to form a coalition government. It's the prerogative of the queen to appoint a prime minister, but she will only do so for one who has a reasonable chance of getting a majority in the house of commons. See British Constitution#Prime_Minister_and_Government. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:48, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

It wouldn't take much for one of the three to gain enough support in the minor parties to establish a coalition to form a minority government. SNP and Plaid are the most likely, both of which would sell out very quickly.

More likely would be two of the major parties forming a coalition, although there are fairly significant longer term issues there as no major party is homogenous. LibDems could find a split between economic liberals and social liberals regardless of direction, similarly the Tories would probably implode, probably sacrificing Cameron on the way. Analysis that I've read would suggest a three way split; ultra-right, economic liberals and eurosceptic.

ALR (talk) 08:14, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:41, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

If anyone's interested, that would require around a L:24/C:30/LD:37 share of the popular vote.- Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 08:19, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

The United Kingdom general election, February 1974 was the last time there was a hung parliament (ie. one in which no party held a majority of seats in the House of Commons). That time, there was a new election within a year. Prior to that, the last general election with a hung parliament was the one in 1929. While coalitions are common in continental Europe, they are rare in Britain (at least in Westminster). As such, it's hard to give a definite answer as to what would happen if there was a hung parliament in the current election. Gabbe (talk) 09:17, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

It's not necessarily the case that the parties would form a coalition. There could be a minority government by one or other of the parties, relying on gaining the support of sufficient other MPs from other parties to pass particular pieces of legislation. They would only resign if they lost a vote of confidence. The other point, in relation to the initial question, is that, if there were an equality of seats, Gordon Brown and Labour would stay in power as the incumbent unless or until a point was reached when it became clear that he could not command the support of a majority of the House of Commons to form a government - so, probably for a few days at least. But, as others have said, it's all hypothetical at the moment. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:33, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

PS - Much more information here and here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:43, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Something pretty outrageous would happen: The parties would have to talk to each other. For an exact three way split it would be most likely that two of the parties would try to negotiate a coalition (i.e. agree on a joint manifesto). A minority government is more likely if one party is just a few seats shy of an overall majority. Both cases have happened in the Scottish Parliament inthe last 10 years (arguably) without ill effects. The current minority government there is remarkably stable.213.160.108.26 (talk) 23:05, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

In Canada, the convention is that in case of a tie involving the current governing party, that party gets the first chance to form a government. That does not necessarily mean they need to work out a coalition with one of the other parties. All that has to happen is for a majority of the new parliament not to agree to throw the governing party out right away. Currently, the Conservative Party forms the government of Canada even though it has less than half of the seats in the House of Commons. Shortly after the last election, it looked like the other three parties were going to agree to toss them out, but after the prime minister temporarily closed parliament to buy himself more time and the opposition Liberals changed leaders, the prime minister managed to get the Liberals to support his budget and thus remained in office. At any time parliament is in session, the opposition parties could force an election with a no-confidence vote, but to date they have not done so, apparently feeling they are not in the best position now for an election. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:39, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

April 25

Are laws banning same sex marriage sexist rather than homophobic?

So, just an idle thought, but it occurs to me that laws against same sex marriage are essentially discriminatory on the grounds of gender. In a more general sense, of course, all homophobia has its root in sexism, but these laws are actually pretty explicit in their motivation being gender based discrimination. They say that, for example, it is illegal for a man to be the spouse of certain people purely on the grounds that they are male, rather than any other characteristic.

In the most literal reading, the laws actually do not discriminate on the grounds of orientation at all. If they did they would allow two heterosexual males or two heterosexual females to get married, and conversely ban gay people from entering into any marriages at all regardless of the gender of their spouse.

Is there some kind of flaw in this reasoning? Has this argument ever occurred to people lobbying against these laws, so they could use existing anti-sexism legislation to overturn them?

I know this is rather silly, but I'm curious as to why this argument isn't more commonly heard : ) --Laryaghat (talk) 00:00, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Because trying to make the argument that two heterosexual people of the same gender want to marry each other is enough to make any anyone laugh their ass off. If the same-sex marriage law worked that way, it be would ridiculous and confusing to say the least. Now they would have to be on the lookout for gay couples passing as straight, and that would be a riot in of itself. 24.189.90.68 (talk) 00:15, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Your argument doesn't go anywhere more than arguing about discrimination based on sexual orientation. Genders are not equal. They never have been and, without a lot of help from science, never will. A man can sue for the right to conceive a child and give birth, but it doesn't mean it will happen. Is that an argument about biology or sexual discrimination against men? The main issue is that proponents of same-sex marriage assume that everyone against same-sex marriage is homophobic. That is a wildly false assumption. Trying to change it to an assumption that everyone against same-sex marriage is sexist is just as false. -- kainaw™ 00:17, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

The main issue is that proponents of same-sex marriage assume that everyone against same-sex marriage is homophobic. That is a wildly false assumption. It is a question not of assumption but of definition. If, as I and many others do, one regards same-sex marriage as a matter of equal rights, then it is not at all unreasonable to label as "homophobic" a person who opposes same-sex marriage, since such a person opposes the extension of equal rights to people because they're gay. It might be unflattering and impolitic to describe these people as homophobic, but it isn't a "wildly false assumption". It isn't as though "homophobic" means "evil". People may be homophobic to varying extents, and for various reasons. 129.174.184.114 (talk) 01:19, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Again, that makes that assumption that the only reason to oppose same-sex marriage is based on sexual orientation. You are regarding it as a case of equal rights. Someone else may regard it as a matter of insurance status or tax status. You are imposing your view of the issue on everyone else and forcing their view to warp into your view. Then, you stereotype all those who have a differing view into one group. -- kainaw™ 01:42, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

It appears to me that we're discussing two separate issues: the question of the validity of marriage, and the question of the equality of homosexual and heterosexual relationships. A person whose objection to same-sex marriage is part of a general objection to marriage is not necessarily homophobic. Many people, gay and straight, object to marriage in principle. But if a person objects to same-sex marriage while supporting heterosexual marriage, s/he must believe that there is some essential, hierarchical difference between homosexual and heterosexual relationships, and that the latter is worthier than the former. This, in my view, is homophobic. In what sense is this "stereotyping"? I am simply defining my terms and attempting to apply them consistently. 129.174.184.114 (talk) 02:01, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Also, how do you successfully out what you believe to be a closeted gay person seeking to marry a person of the opposite sex? Would every couple that wants to get married have to undergo some kind of periodical surveillance to prove that they're completely straight? 24.189.90.68 (talk) 00:24, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I think you are confused? This was exactly my point, these laws are obviously not about orientation at all, otherwise those problems would naturally arise - but I am certainly not advocating that laws that do discriminate on the grounds of orientation replace the current sexist laws!

Just to reiterate after the above irrelevant attempts at trolling and confused comments, the thing I'm wondering about most is an answer to the second question: Has this argument ever occurred to people lobbying against these laws, so they could use existing anti-sexism legislation to overturn them?

And, if not: why not?!

thanks : ) --Laryaghat (talk) 00:33, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Dude, you're breaking my brain here. No, these arguments have never been used in the US as far as I know, and I really can't imagine how. 24.189.90.68 (talk) 02:10, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't make sense to view these laws through the lens of sexism. They are perfectly symmetric among the two genders. Any person is allowed to marry someone of the opposite sex whether they are a man or a woman. There is no double standard based on gender.

It also does make sense to view these laws through the lens of gay rights. Even though there's not explicit exclusion of people on the basis of their sexual orientation (e.g. "gay people can't get married") it's pretty obvious that the law forbids gays from marrying the people they would want to marry while allowing straight people to. The intent and practical implications of laws matter, not just the way they're worded. Rckrone (talk) 07:33, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Saying that these laws don't actually target homosexuals is like arguing that post-civil war poll taxes, literacy and comprehension tests, residency/record-keeping requirements, and Grandfather clauses weren't designed to disenfranchise African Americans because nothing in their legal wording.

Similar discrimination occurs in adoption agencies where one has to be married to adopt (thus barring homosexuals). I recently heard of a Muslim woman who was denied in her attempt to adopt because she didn't allow the consumption of bacon in her house. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 08:09, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree 100%, and I should have made clear I know the real intent of laws against same sex marriages is one of discrimination against gay people. I was just curious if the fact that (in the most pedantic sense) the laws are sexist (make distinctions based on gender) has been used by anyone to attempt to remove them from law. --Laryaghat (talk) 16:59, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Stefan Lindskog, then chairman of the Swedish Bar Association, wrote an op-ed in Dagens Nyheter on 18 June 2005.[29] In it, he argued that it would be wrong to change Swedish marriage legislation from "one man, one woman" to "two adults". His reason was that it would still leave "marriage" as an institution between two people in an intimate relationship. In his view, marriage is simultaneously two things: A religious arrangement and a legal contract. While the former can obviously be narrowed to "one man, one woman", he saw no reason why the latter should be limited to two people in a sexual relationship. That is, he saw no reason why the law should ban four people from getting married, or two brothers, or just two people who didn't have any intention of having sex with each other. Instead, he argued for marriage legislation which was not only neutral with regards to the sexes of the people involved, but also the number of them and the kind of sexual relationship (if any) they had between them. He noted that calling this "marriage" (äktenskap) would seem to outlandish for many people, so he suggested the term samlevnad (roughly "co-habitation") for this new legal institution to replace legislation regarding marriage. A number of political groups (such as Feminist Initiative and Young Greens) in Sweden have since began arguing in favour of this. Gabbe (talk) 08:26, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I get what OP is saying; the anti-gay marriage laws are about gender rather than orientation because it's impossible to prove orientation. And even if two heterosexual women or men wanted to get married for some reason, they couldn't because the law discriminates against gender, regardless of orientation. As for the main point of OPs question; I'm almost certain this has occurred to the people lobbying against these laws, but as you can see from this thread people are likely to get confused easily (or deliberately if it suites their agenda). Personally marriage should have nothing to do with gender at all; it's just two people who want to be together. 82.43.89.71 (talk) 10:52, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Marriage is not needed just for "being together". You can already do that, in any combination. And "spiritual" same-sex marriage (or polygamy, for that matter) is nothing new for liberal-minded ministers. It's "legal" marriage (and more to the point, the attendant legal benefits) that are at issue. In the broadest sense, it's got to do with traditional thinking vs. non-traditional thinking. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:57, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Laryaghat is absolutely correct to imagine that such an argument could be made, at least under the US Constitution. However, same-sex marriage advocates have tended to argue in terms of state constitutions and Federal Due Process, rather than attempt a Federal "Equal Protection" argument ... and they have been successful. Gender is considered an "intermediate" or "heightened" scrutiny issue in Equal Protection cases, while preference/orientation is a "rational basis" issue; conceivably, one could argue that allowing women to marry men but not allowing men to marry men, and allowing men to marry women but not allowing women to marry women, amounts to gender discrimination and therefore deserves heightened or "inermediate" scrutiny analysis. 63.17.40.87 (talk) 02:08, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Christianity and Evolution

What percent of Christian people in the world believe in, or at least accept the possibility of, evolution? —C Teng^(talk) 01:25, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't know of any statistics for the whole world, but the article theistic evolution has statistics for various Christian denominations in the United States. In addition Catholic Church and evolution points out the Catholic church teaches that evolution is not in conflict with the religion - if we assume that all or most Catholics accept their church's teaching, then this indicates a great number of the world's Christians accepting the fact of evolution. --Laryaghat (talk) 01:56, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

The same article points out other Christian denominations that are fine with evolution. Most mainline Protestant groups are. I know several Christian scientists — scientists who are Christian, not followers of Mary Baker Eddy — whose daily work would be useless without an old earth and evolution. They see the Bible stories as precious myth rather than truth. PhGustaf (talk) 02:08, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

In actually numbers, since there are 1.15 billion Catholics that as mentioned above in theory support evolution, and that Catholics are roughly half of all Christians, the percentage could be at least 50%, and possibly higher. Aaronite (talk) 04:24, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

You could read Level of support for evolution, which is fairly thorough. In short, the answer depends on what you mean by "Christians" and what you mean by "believe in (or accept the possibility of) evolution". In Europe or Latin America, evolution is not so widely politicised as it is in the US. Gabbe (talk) 08:05, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

In the UK I imagine that about 99% of christians believe in evolution, and probably similar figures for other religions. 78.151.140.244 (talk) 10:07, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

So, is it probable that the USA is the only country where evolution is a political issue? Astronaut (talk) 13:31, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Almost certainly not, because not everyone who has a problem with biological evolution is Christian. Many are Muslim, for example, and Islamic creationism suggests that the teaching of evolution in Muslim majority countries can have very political overtones. Buddy431 (talk) 15:26, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

See also Hindu views on evolution, which are also very interesting, and can be political like everything else. I like the idea that the scientific age of the earth is far too young! Adam Bishop (talk) 23:46, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

In the US, Turkey, and a few Eastern European countries evolution is a political issue to the degree that large percentages of the population expressly oppose it. (In Turkey is an Islamic thing, in East Europe I imagine it is an anti-Communist Catholic thing.) There is a study in Science that looks at this fairly closely, cited in the article linked above on the "Level of support." The study however does leave out some fairly large regions of the world (most of Asia; Africa; the Middle East). --Mr.98 (talk) 01:13, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm curious, what Eastern European countries do you have in mind? And what Catholic countries are there in Eastern Europe anyway? — Kpalion^(talk) 14:31, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Kpalion: Before the Fall of the Berlin Wall, the then-Communist nations of Central Europe were often referred to as being in Eastern Europe, since the Iron Curtain made the East-West dichotomy more useful than the east-central-west-south-north mishmash that we've all gotten used to in the era of the Euro. So, the Catholic countries in "Eastern Europe" would refer to Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, Slovenia, and Croatia. --M@rēino 18:50, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

And in which ones of these are there large percentages of the population that oppose the teaching of evolution? — Kpalion^(talk) 20:06, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

It's in the article I mentioned. Poland, Latvia, Bulgaria, and Croatia in particular have pretty high rates of Creationism+significant doubt of evolution. Again, I don't know what's the full explanation, but my suspicion is that it is a backlash to when materialist philosophy in general (which includes but is not exclusive to evolution) was associated with repressive Communist governments. But it is just a suspicion. (And I see in checking more closely that they are not all Catholic—many are Eastern Orthodox, which is a somewhat different thing. In fact Eastern Orthodoxy might be the more compelling argument given the other countries on the list, like Greece. Maybe it is not an anti-Communist thing. Anyway... this is an answerable question, to be sure!) --Mr.98 (talk) 00:01, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't find it the first time I looked there, because these countries are not mentioned in the text of the article, only in a graph. I'm quite surprised, shocked really, that there are so many creationists in Poland. I wasn't aware of it even though I've been living here all my life. Perhaps this is because it's not much of a political issue, so people just don't talk about it. It also makes it unlikely that it's a backlash against Communism; maybe it's just a matter of inadequate education.

I cross-checked the statistics and found a 2006 report by TNS OBOP (one of the leading survey research organizations in Poland, so a reliable source). Let me quote some of the data (hopefully, it may be useful to C Teng too). Note that the data is broken down by the level of religiosity and attendance, but not by denomination (the assumed denomination is Roman Catholic). They conducted a poll on this topic only once, so we can't tell if it's changing. Sample size: 1005; margin of error: ±3.1%. — Kpalion^(talk) 11:29, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Group	Percentage of people who answered that...
	People evolved in a long biological process	People were created as they are now	Hard to tell
Total	53	30	17
By education
Primary	37	37	25
Vocational	45	34	21
Secondary	57	28	15
Tertiary	60	25	15
By religiosity
Believing and regularly attending services	46	36	18
Believing and occasionally attending services	57	24	19
Believing but not attending services	70	16	14
Not believing in any religion	85	6	9
By political party preference
Self-Defense (radical agrarian)	19	61	20
Law and Justice (conservative)	39	41	20
League of Polish Families (nationalist; its leaders are known creationists)	44	27	30
Democratic Left Alliance (post-Communist; only major party to openly challenge the Church)	66	15	19
Civic Platform (Christian liberal)	71	21	8

Why is St george the patron saint of Tamworth ?

Having read your article relating to st george i have found out that st george is the patron saint of Tamworth, i would like to know why he is the patron saint of tamworth and any related information ie when did st george become patron of tamworth etc.I hope you can help me.

Saint George is the patron saint of Aragon, Catalonia, England, Ethiopia, Georgia, Greece, Lithuania, Palestine, Portugal, and Russia, as well as the cities of Amersfoort, Beirut, Fakiha, Bteghrine, Cáceres (Spain), Ferrara, Freiburg, Ljubljana, Pomorie, Preston, Salford, Qormi, Rio de Janeiro, Lod, Barcelona, Moscow, Tamworth and the Maltese island of Gozo, as well as a wide range of professions, organizations, and disease sufferers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.20.116.87 (talk) 10:16, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Tamworth is part of the Catholic Diocese of Armidale. [30] This link has contact details. They don't mention the patronage of St George, but they could likely find the information if you follow the contact details. Steewi (talk) 01:41, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Are we talking about Tamworth, Tamworth, New Hampshire, Tamworth, New South Wales, Tamworth, Ontario or Tamworth, Virginia? Alansplodge (talk) 08:20, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I can't see where in the St George WP it says that he's patron of Tamworth, but I'll take your word for it. The ancient parish church of Tamworth in Staffordshire, England, is dedicated to the Anglo-Saxon St Editha who was married off to a hairy one-eyed Viking there. The church was an important religious "college" before the Reformation - not quite the same as a college today. A Chantry was established in the church dedicated to St George, and it was supported by a "guild of St George"George. We don't seem to have a page about medieval religious guilds but I suppose they would have been similar to a modern Confraternity. The chantries were abolished at the Dissolution, but in 1882, a chapel was restored in St Editha's church dedicated to St George[31]. The main inn in the town is called The George, but seems to be named after King George IV of the United Kingdom[32]. A branch of the Royal Society of St George is active in the town[33] and the local council strongly promotes St George's Day celebrations[34]. St George seems to be held in high regard in Tamworth, but sorry, I can't find any reference to him being their Patron. Alansplodge (talk) 17:22, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Forecasts of interest rates

Is there a webpage anywhere that provides up to date forecasts of interest rates in the UK? Yield curves imply future interest rates - I'm not saying that the forecast will be accurate. I could do the calculations myself, possibly including adjusting by various theories about yield curves, but I'd rather just look at a webpage.

If there is no such page, is there anywhere I could download, for free and reliably and without copyright issues, up to date data about UK yield curves so that I could provide such a webpage myself? Thanks 78.151.140.244 (talk) 10:22, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Here ya go: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Yep, that's an interest rate forecast custom made for people who aren't concerned with accuracy. DOR (HK) (talk) 02:36, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Ordnance Survey OpenData

Query here that may qualify as geography; please respond there! ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 10:50, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Genealogy of Nawab Family of Baroda

(moved from Help desk) Does anyone knows anything about the Genealogy of Nawab family of Baroda. I want to know what happened to the family? They have left no mark or trail after India's independence? In 1500 A.D. descendents of Hazrat Imam Hussain, the grandson of the Holy Prophet , migrated from Arabia to Herat. The first descendent who arrived in India from Herat was Syed Abdullah. The fifth in descent from Syed Abdullah was founder of th Nawab family of Baroda, Quazi Syed Nuruddin Hussain Khan. He was employed in the court of Delhi , and was honoured with the title of Nawab Bahadur , and made KHAN ( The Chief), as well as Quazi by the Emperor of Delhi. Like his ancestors he too was a literary genioud , and his persian MSS are still preserved in the British Museum and elsewhere.

In 1780 A.D. Quazi Syed Nuruddin Hussain Khan was on his way proceedng for pilgrimage to Mecca the British employed him at Surat. In 1789 he was deputed along with an English officer as Native Agent in th Peshwa's court at Pona. His services were also appreciated by tAnand Rao Gaikwad, the Maharaja of Baroda who made his sons the NAWABS OF BARODA.

P 48 " Representative mn Of the Bombay Presidency" by John Houstou, Pub by C.B. Burrows; by Hist Pub Co 1897, Philadelphia Pa U.S.A.

I have read somewhere that during Anand Rao Gaekwads regime in Gujarat,the courts of Poona and Baroda were in eminent danger of breaking out into open wars, the Nawab Saheb Mir Nurudin Husen Khan Bahadur's tact and prudence averted the catastrophe. A faithful promise to " protect his family forever" was made by Britishers and Gaekwads. He was also gifted villages of Haldra and Perub in the viscinity of Surat, Gujarat.

There are so many questions unanswered about whatever happened to the family. I am so eager to know:

1. Where are all the properties gifted to them by erstwhile families of Gaekwads and Britishers?

2. Where are all the descendants of this family?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ferozebakshi (talk • contribs) 11:58, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I suspect this book might be helpful. Genealogy of Nawab family of Baroda, 1800-1943 A.D. inclusive was published in 1943. I can’t find anything definitive for the period before 1800 or after 1943. Bielle (talk) 15:09, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

any way to develop rapidfire speech?

so for whatever reason I need to read something out loud much faster than my mouth physically moves. I feel it is absolutely a physical, muscular thing. I mean I speak fine, I'm talking about RAPIDFIRE speech, as far from normal (say 60 wpm) typing as 120 words per minute is (which I can do). Are there any exercises that could develop that? here is an idea of what I mean: [35] 84.153.190.165 (talk) 12:08, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

No idea but adding "Tachylalia" and/or John Moschitta, Jr. to your searches might help. Moschitta held the Guinness world record for fast talking until the category was eliminated (according to our article). Dismas|^(talk) 12:32, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. Actually this is a good example in that all of it is VERY clear. I would like to be able to sometimes blurt out something close to that fast (to keep up with a realtime source when I'm lagging behind). If I don't get it out fast enough I would miss the next thing that the realtime source says, since I will be saying the last thing. I want to emphasize that we're talking about about saying one sentence with that speed. (Imagine the last sentence: I-want-to-emphasize-that-we're-talking-about-saying-one-sentence-with-that-speed. I just tried to say that, but couldn't, as my mouth muscles don't move fast enough. It feels like slurred speech when you're too drunk to enunciate: your muscles just don't obey your brain to speak faster). Any ideas? 84.153.190.165 (talk) 12:51, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Maybe you could drop the vowels in your script and just read out the constanents; or record it, speed it up, and digitally lower the frequency so that you do not sound like Pinky and Perky. 89.243.216.99 (talk) 14:04, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, electronic time-compressed speech is frequently used in advertising, to get more info out in a short period (and maybe to not give you enough time to consider the offer logically). It's also sometimes used in songs. I suspect that the opening theme to Jane and the Dragon uses this technique...just try to sing along sometime. StuRat (talk) 14:39, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

See Category:Auctioneering. -- Wavelength (talk) 15:17, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your help guys but this isn't for a recording. I would like to sputter something out fast in a live, real situation. It doesn't have to be very long, just enough to make up for lagging behind a speaker. I was hoping there would be specific muscle exercises, I vaguely recall policy debaters putting a pencil in their mouth while talking to practice speaking faster, unfortunately I don't know the specifics or any more. Oh well. 84.153.201.183 (talk) 18:35, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

In case you're wanting to become the guy who speaks the rapid-fire disclaimers at the end of some types of TV ads (no longer limited to political broadcasts) - forget it. Those are pointless exercises in human speech, and human activity for that matter, as they're totally lost on most people. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:25, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Policy debate in the U.S. practices this style of speech. It's probably the most useful link for what you're trying to do. Shadowjams (talk) 08:07, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

If you want to know how to actually do that, the first and best method is to put a pen in your mouth (hold it between your teeth) and wrap your lips around it... then read as fast as you can. You'll spit a lot. It will strengthen the muscles around your lips. That's the primary practice method. Time yourself. The problem that you'll have is that very few people will be able to understand you, unless you have access to a quality debate squad at a nearby college. It's easy to get sloppy, you need someone to tell you when you are. I debated in college [if that wasn't already obvious]. That was the method everone used. It worked. The interesting thing was that the fastest among us actually quite comprehensible, even to those that weren't accustomed to it. The fastest policy debaters blow away auctioneers. It's truly something amazing. Shadowjams (talk) 08:31, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Wow, you know your government is in trouble when this is a requirement. Googlemeister (talk) 20:37, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I remember seeing on tv that there was some bill in the US Congress supported by the majority party and opposed by the minority. So in order to slow down passage, the minority demanded a rule that is usually waived, requiring the whole bill (several hundred pages) to be read in Congress out loud. They thought it would take several days, but the majority party brought in a speed-talking guys and calculated he could do it in one day. The guy got started and after an hour or two they saw he was actually going through with it, so they gave up, stopped him, and had a vote. 06:29, 29 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.228.170.24 (talk)

I guess the skill could be useful for simultaneous translators, sportscasters, etc. too. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 06:29, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Recent lack of credit card balance transfer offers, UK

As someone who is stoozing some of my mortgage debt, I have noticed the lack of offers coming through my letterbox to transfer balances at 0% interest this year. Is this just me, or have other people found the same thing?

Perhaps the credit card companies have begun exchanging data on the fact that I've never used any credit card for years, except for transferring balances. I have four or five unused credit cards at a nil balance, and I'd also appreciate if anyone has any tips about persuading these unused cards to make me an offer of a zero percent balance transfer rate when I ring them up. I do not want to get any new credit cards as it may affect my credit rating for a new mortgage I'm hoping to need. Thanks 89.243.216.99 (talk) 12:42, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

See credit crunch. Cheap credit isn't a readily available now as it was before the crunch. While you hear about it more in reference to mortgages and business loans, it applies to credit cards too. --Tango (talk) 13:38, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

The files kept by credit reference agencies do include information about the level of use of any credit cards you have. Having unused credit will adversely affect your ability to obtain further credit. Why? Because there is no evidence of you using the creit available to you, and it is evidence of responsible use that is being looked for. DuncanHill (talk) 16:52, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

On the other hand, having maxed out (or nearly maxed out) your available credit will also harm your credit rating. --Tango (talk) 21:26, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Maxing out your credit card doesn't necessarily hit your credit rating. If you max it out then pay it off reasonably quickly you will be OK. People might do this for a holiday or car purchase. The negative patterns they look for are creeping up to a maximum, particularly on day to day purchases then staying around there. -- 213.38.213.226 (talk) 09:36, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

In particular late payments and defaults (not making a payment at all) will impair your ability to get more creedit. The basic credit report will have a list of types and amounts of credit, followed by a string of numbers. For example: "NatMidLloyds Credit Card £5,000. 0 0 0 1 0 0 X". This means that you have a credit card with NatMidLLoyds Bank, with a maximum credit of £5,000. In the first three months you made payments on time. You then paid late, paid on time for a coupple more months, then defaulted. (n.b. It's a while since I was doing these, I daresay formats have altered or been misrembered, but the essentials are there). DuncanHill (talk) 10:46, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Billy conrad

Did William 'Billy' Conrad rape his mother as in the Immortal Technique song? Google dont cut it when u ask it that question. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.221.40.3 (talk) 13:12, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Immortal Technique's best known song, "Bin Laden", supposedly includes the line "Imagine if they shot at you, and was rapin' your moms". Is it possible "Billy Conrad" is a mondegreen for "if they shot at you"? Or are you talking about a different song? FiggyBee (talk) 22:22, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I attempted to remove this as a potential blp violation, since there is no context as to who this person is or is not, but I was reverted. I always thought WP:BLP was policy, but apparently not. Woogee (talk) 22:45, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

BLP is policy. The question is a question about a song lyric, not a statement about an identifiable living person (the only William Conrad we have an article about is not living; if my theory about the lyric is correct then the original poster's "Billy Conrad" doesn't exist at all). Perhaps if you want to discuss this further we should take it to the talk page? FiggyBee (talk) 23:32, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Gold Olive Branch on the Moon sculptor

So I am creating a page about Art on the Moon (find it here, but be warned it is very rough), but after doing a bunch of research I still can not find out who actually sculpted the gold olive branch that Neil Armstrong left on the moon. Any help would be great.--Found5dollar (talk) 13:51, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I've never heard about this before. Where can I read more about it please? 89.243.201.152 (talk) 19:03, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

The items Armstrong left are described in this book, which calls the olive branch item a "gold olive branch pin". Sorry that doesn't help Found5dollar, though. We have a page, List of man-made objects on the Moon, but it specifically excludes the commemorative and personal objects. Best, WikiJedits (talk) 20:09, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Found5dollar, you might try the NASA History Division website. If you can't find the info, they have a phone number and email. Best, WikiJedits (talk) 20:15, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Didn't find those two before... i'll keep on investigating there...--Found5dollar (talk) 02:34, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

So it was just an unofficial thing, and something very small as well? 78.151.102.119 (talk) 16:51, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

No It was official, and it is small becasue weight is a big concern in Spaceflight. If you are intrested about other artworks check out Apollo 11 goodwill messages and Fallen Astronaut... or you can just wait untill i finish my article!--Found5dollar (talk) 22:47, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Are authoritarians such because they have discontinuous minds?

This article by Richard Dawkins http://www.animal-rights-library.com/texts-m/dawkins01.htm describes discontinuous minds: people who see things as being one thing or another rather than being on a graduated scale.

1) Could this explain how authoritarians think? They think people are either the same or completely different, rather than being a diverse range.

My own speculation is that authoritarians are on average less intelligent, and they have to put things into categories rather than on scales because their minds/brains only have a limited bandwidth. 2) Any evidence for that view? Thanks 89.243.216.99 (talk) 14:01, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I dispute your assertion that "authoritarians are on average less intelligent". Stalin, Hitler, and Lenin, to name a few, were quite intelligent. 76.230.148.6 (talk) 14:15, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

They may have run authoritarian systems, without being authoritarians themselves, since they had no-one to obey. Stalin used to be a bank robber, and bank-robbing is not what authoritarians do. 89.243.216.99 (talk) 18:24, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

It's probably the reverse - that authoritarians are smart enough to realize that "the masses" only see things in black and white, and they get popular support by appealing to whichever half of the masses has the majority view and/or the most guns. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:20, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

The people you are describing do not seem to be authoritarians, as authoritarians follow orders and do not question or initiate things themselves. 89.243.216.99 (talk) 19:38, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

On the contrary. If you find someone to be acting in an untoward fashion, then it's only your mind that is 'discontinuous'; i.e. it can't handle the reality of other peoples' MO. Vranak (talk) 17:23, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Please elaborate what you mean. 89.243.216.99 (talk) 18:24, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Well... let's take the prototypical dictator, Adolf Hitler. From the tone of your question it seems like he's a 'discontinuous' character, am I correct? Not quite thinking in terms of everybody's best interest? That's the sense I get anyway. Vranak (talk) 19:48, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I think you have misunderstood the question. 89.243.216.99 (talk) 23:21, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, the premise in the question is wrong-headed, that's all. Vranak (talk) 13:43, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

What I was thinking of was right-wingers like racists and bigots, Theory X people. 89.243.216.99 (talk) 19:38, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be seeing people as being authoritarians or "normal people", rather than a diverse range. :) FWIW, Richard Dawkins is certainly an authoritarian and a bigot, but that doesn't make him all bad, and it certainly doesn't make him unintelligent. FiggyBee (talk) 20:46, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Thats a very glib thing to say. Its like saying that (choosing someone at random) President Obama is (chosing something at random) undountedly a fully paid-up member of the Doncaster Train Spotter's Association, and has a phobia about dormice. 89.243.216.99 (talk) 23:21, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

How so? Professor Dawkins is well known for thinking his own world view is the unequivocally correct one (which makes him a bigot), and should be imposed on everyone else (which makes him an authoritarian), although admittedly not to the same degree as many other so-called "militant atheists". FiggyBee (talk) 00:26, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Figgybee, please keep your ignorance to yourself. To think your worldview is the correct one is to have an opinion, not to be a bigot; or are you saying that everyone in history who had strong opinions was a bigot? Billy Graham? Margaret Thatcher? Abraham Lincoln? Jesus (who said no one comes to father but by him)? And there is no example anywhere of Dawkins "thinking his own world view ... should be imposed on everyone else," unless you believe that everyone with an opinion about what should and should not be taught in schools is an "authoritatian." Should schools teach that jumping off a building and flapping your arms will enable you to fly? If you say "no," I guess you're an "authoritarian." Dawkins is neither a bigot nor an authoritarian, by any definitions of those words: Can someone else, with more energy, please address this? What is WRONG with anti-athiests that they project their own intolerance on anyone who disagrees with them? 63.17.40.87 (talk) 01:55, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not an "anti-atheist"; I have no problems with people being atheists, Christians, Hindus, or for that matter with people being white supremacists, libertarians, communists or Islamicists. On the other hand, Richard Dawkins does have a problem with other people having beliefs different from his (he has suggested, for example, that religious education is child abuse, and that tolerance for religion begets terrorism), and - in so far as he is an influential person in our society - that bothers me. But this is getting a little off-topic, don't you think? FiggyBee (talk) 03:46, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

It's possible to be an atheist and to think that Dawkins is insufferable. Pretty much anyone who makes a big deal about being an atheist turns out to be an insufferable jerk. It's as annoying as any religious militancy. Adam Bishop (talk) 12:45, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Of relevance may be Richard Hofstadter's The Paranoid Style in American Politics. There are a number of people who have posited that authoritarians (and those who support them strongly) are accustomed to seeing the world in black and white. I am not sure it holds in all cases; it seems a little too simple to be true. In the 1940s and 1950s though there were a lot of studies into what made people susceptible to fascism, and I believe conceptual rigidity (which is fairly similar to what you are saying Dawkins is describing) is one of the "classic" traits. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:01, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Its a pity that the links to the essay from the article no longer work. 78.151.144.28 (talk) 09:14, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I think the "discontinuity" concept you're describing is usually called ambiguity intolerance. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 06:16, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

More about North Korea

Assuming North Korea presents itself as a "democratic people's republic", following the socialist ideology, but really is a totalitarian dictatorship with an ironclad political hierarchy, ruled by a small, stagnant elite, then how well does the country admit this internally to its own citizens? Suppose a common worker in North Korea seeks a post in local government, something that I've come to understand he/she doesn't have a snowball's chance in Hell in ever achieving. Does he/she get told "Well, all that grandiosity about following the socialist ideology is just a show we put on for the foreigners. If you're not related to Kim Jong-Il, forget about ever coming here." or "Sorry, your qualifications seem all OK, but you're just not the person we're looking for"? JIP | Talk 17:47, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I doubt if there's even a mechanism by which they could apply for the job. Such jobs are likely filled by appointment, without any formal application ever having been filed. (One thug just asks another thug friend for the job.) StuRat (talk) 18:19, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

In a more general sense, is it the case that North Korea being a totalitarian dictatorship instead of an idealistic socialist society is well known and openly admitted inside North Korea, but attempted to keep secret from foreigners? Or does the political elite try its best to harbour an illusion among its own people that they would ever stand a chance in becoming involved in local politics? JIP | Talk 19:21, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

They probably do claim to be a democracy within the country, too, but the residents know better than to actually press for such things. Basically, the government isn't fooling anyone any more, inside or outside the nation, but that doesn't mean they drop the pretense. This does pose an interesting question: Why bother keeping up the pretense when it has become so transparent ? Force of habit, I guess. StuRat (talk) 20:31, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

North Korea no longer claims to be "socialist" per se -- the national ideology is Juche, which was invited by the Kim family to justify their rule. IIRC, North Koreans need special permission to read anything by Marx. I know this doesn't directly answer your question, but it's probably not useful to think of N. Korea as the USSR in miniature. I don't know the Ref Desk rules/guidelines for outside links, but here is an article from "Foreign Policy" that is about North Korean state ideology: http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/02/22/north_koreas_race_problem 24.106.180.134 (talk) 21:17, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Juche wasn't solely the creation of the Kim family. Hwang Jang-yop had a bit to do with it, too. DOR (HK) (talk) 02:41, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Nepal - what kind of republic?

It's now a republic, but of what kind? Presidential? Semi-presidential? Parliamentary? I ask because we need to update this image, which still shows Nepal as a monarchy. 19:51, 25 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.174.184.114 (talk)

The interim constitution seems to establish a parliamentary republic with a nonexecutive president. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:47, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I would also but Nepal in orange in the map. However, the role of the president is a bit in limbo. The initial intent was a rather ceremonial position, but once the presidency was created, the president himself extended his office and began to act against the prime minister. --Soman (talk) 02:11, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

April 26

Death of Asclepius

How was it possible for Asclepius to die, since he was a god? I was always under the impression that the gods in Greek mythology (unlike at least one god in Norse mythology) were immortal; was he not really a god, or was I incorrect? Nyttend (talk) 02:11, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

His mother Coronis was mortal, so he was only a half-god, like Heracles or other heroes. Also, Zeus killed him, which would probably work even for a god (did Zeus ever kill another god? I can't remember). Adam Bishop (talk)

He offed his old man, so apparently Greek gods were not off-limits to insurance salesmen. Anyone who watched the original Star Trek would know this. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:11, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

countries that are not labelled as Socialist, but pretty much are... can anyone help me find examples?

I am trying to explain to some of my younger family members that the way the label "socialist" is being used by our (US) media is a misleading buzzword. They are being taught that socialistic programs like health care will lead to loss of freedom to the point of near slavery for goodness sake. They are learning that it is totalitarian dictatorship. Can anyone help me by giving me examples of countries today, that even if they are not labelled as Socialistic, still have a largely socialistic society? And citizens are not slaves?? Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yannelli55 (talk • contribs) 02:46, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Socialist is used by different people in wildly different ways. If a country with universal health care is socialist, as it seems you and your family think, then that covers "nearly all industrialized countries except the United States". Algebraist 02:55, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Darn those socialists, forcing everyone to be able to afford to see a doctor. Health care compared#Cross-country comparisons is an interesting chart - see if you can spot the outlier! FiggyBee (talk) 03:17, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Insofar as socialism implies "Government provides services that people could pay for themselves, but that is instead provided for by the government using taxes" then every western democracy, the U.S. included features some level of socialism. After all, consider Social security, Medicare, Medicaid, public education, U.S. Mail, etc. etc. So basically, any country, the U.S. included, could be labeled "socialist". It's a largely meaningless word that, depending on who is using it, can be used as a compliment or a perjorative. List of sovereign states would probably be enough. --Jayron32 03:13, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Your family members are confusing socialism with a welfare state. "Socialism" means state ownership of the means of production. The only really socialist country left is North Korea and maybe Cuba. On the other hand, every modern country, including the United States, has some degree of a welfare state, and, as mentioned before, every wealthy country save the United States has universal health care, including Canada, the UK, the Netherlands, Australia, New Zealand, Denmark, etc. None of those countries are Stalinist dictatorships, as far as I know. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 03:24, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

That's another very distinctive opinion on what socialism means - and it doesn't make a lot of sense to say that, for instance, a fascist or feudal state which owns the means of production is therefore socialist. The classic Marxist view is that socialism means workers' control of the means of production, probably but not neccesarily involving control of the state. Under such a definition, North Korea is about as far from socialist as you could get. Warofdreams talk 13:45, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

So according to the logic of what the OP's younger family members are being taught, because universal health care leads to totalitarian dictatorship and slavery, and every other wealthy industrialised western country except the USA has universal health care, then every other wealthy industrialised western country except the USA is a totalitarian dictatorship that enslaves its own citizens. I wonder what would happen if the OP made that argument to their younger members? Of course, then there's the drawback of a possibility of them accepting it as true without criticism or doubt. JIP | Talk 05:29, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I've never understood what is wrong with social services to begin with. Why is it the Americans oppose subsidized services so much, at least according to the news we here outside the US? Canadians, and surely Europeans, often wonder why the "greatest nation on Earth" seems to care so little about its residents. Aaronite (talk) 17:09, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

The United Kingdom, Germany, and France are three examples of countries often called "socialist". None of those three countries is a totalitarian dictatorship. The problem is that "socialism" is a word that has been badly abused over the years, until now it is nearly meaningless. "Nazi" is short for "National Socialist", and of course the USSR called itself a socialist state, too. I concur with both Mwalcoff and Warofdreams above. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:43, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

To elaborate on this and respond to the OP, France has a Parti Socialiste, which is in fact more of a centre-left party (and one of the two main political parties in France). François Mitterrand, a Socialist Party candidate, has been elected twice as President (in power 1981-1995), and the Socialist Pary also has been the governing party between 1995 and 2002. When Mitterrand was first elected in 1981, some thought he was going to enact collectivist policies, but this has never been the case. --Alþykkr (talk) 02:26, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Definitions . . . would you include an economy that has very good and very cheap medical care, subsidized by government and freely available to all? How about the same for education? Congratulations! You've selected Hong Kong, one of the least socialist places on earth, as a candidate for being labelled socialist! DOR (HK) (talk) 09:35, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

about: article titled "Hidden within Technology's Empire, a Republic of Letter "

Would someone can be kindly to tell me when and where the above titled article by Saul Bellow was published. And if possible, please tell me the core idea about the article.

There is also a sentence in the article: " God was willing to spare Sodom for the sake of 10 of the righteous." ,what does it imply? thanks. 赵霞 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 赵霞 (talk • contribs) 04:20, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

See Sodom and Gomorrah. In Genesis 19, God plans to destroy Sodom and Gamorrah for being completely sinful towns. However, since Abraham's nephew Lot, who was himself righteous, lived there, angels were sent down to tell him to basically GTFO so he and his family would be spared. God cut a deal with Abraham, such that if Abraham could find 10 righteous (i.e. good) people living in Sodom, he would spare the entire city. Abraham could not, so Lot packed up his family, and bugged out. Except that Lot's wife looked back on the burning heap that was Sodom, and was turned into a pillar of salt for it. That's the basic story. --Jayron32 04:33, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

To answer the question about the article's first publication: According to this, it was first published in The New York Times on October 11, 1999. I have to admit, though, that I haven't been able to find any evidence of it by searching the NYT archives for "Bellow" in a time range that includes that date. Deor (talk) 13:36, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I found many copies online. Try this or this or this. Zoonoses (talk) 18:21, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Dahmer's grandmother and father

Hi, I'd like to know if they are still today. They are known because he was with him in many interviews, and his grandma lived with him during some killings. --190.178.177.225 (talk) 05:07, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Jeffrey Dahmer's the relevent link, I think. Buddy431 (talk) 06:26, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Ideas for presentation on teamwork

In a few days, I'm going to have a 20-minute job interview, for which the interviewer requested all the interviewees a 2-3 minute presentation on what teamwork means to you. I'm totally stuck on how I'm going to do this. I was told that there is no right or wrong answer so I'm encouraged to be as creative and respectful as possible. I was also told that my presentation can be a short poem/song, statement, or story, and if I want, I may bring an artifact such as a picture, photo, or any other appropriate object that could assist me in sharing my idea of what teamwork means to me. Some ideas as to how to rock this would be appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.68.120.162 (talk) 05:13, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Can you think of some specific past instances where you were on a team that had a successful project? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:39, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

The classic argument for teamwork is that each member can use their greatest assets while relying on the skills of others to cover for their deficiencies, and simultaneously learn from each other to patch up those weaknesses. StuRat (talk) 08:04, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

"Teamwork gives me the opportunity to do all the work and have others take credit for it, a privilege normally only granted to my boss." :-) StuRat (talk) 08:01, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

It might be useful to reflect on some of the models of team dynamics and use that as a framework for your own response. That allows you to give the presentaiton structure and pin your own experiences on something reasonably understood. Meredith Belbin authoried a fair amount on team roles, Kurt Lewin talks about leadership style and John Adair has the Task/ Team/ Individual model.

ALR (talk) 09:24, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Why is pedophilia so reviled?

Not a troll question, so please try to keep this on topic. I mean, wanting to have sex with small children is certainly a deviant behavior, but there are lots of sexually deviant behaviors that are pretty tolerated. And certainly I can understand why actually having sex with a minor is illegal, but I don't understand why "merely" fantasizing about it or advocating for it has such a stigma attached; it's not like we have a ton of control over our sexual urges. The reason I ask was because of this thread at ANI: evidentially, Wikipedia has a policy of blocking known pedophiles on sight, even if they are editing within the usual guidelines. This attests to how powerful the aversion to pedophilia is: we tolerate editors with all sorts of politically incorrect views, deviant personalities, and even those who have been convicted of actually doing something illegal. What is it about pedophilia advocacy in particular (as opposed to, say, Holocaust Denial) that gets people so riled up? Buddy431 (talk) 07:25, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Because children need to be protected against those deviants who wish to use them and subsequently harm them for their own base gratification. Children are defenseless members of our society, and the onus is on us as adults to keep the pedophiles as far away from them as possible. There is no culture on this planet which advocates pedophilia nor has there ever been in the history of mankind.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:32, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

That very much depends on the definition of pedophilia. In ancient Greece, "the cradle of Western civilisation", there even was a recognised structure for homosexual relationships between mature men and boys. See Pederasty in ancient Greece. And girls were usually considered to be of marriageable age at 14 through the middle ages and to at least the enlightenment. So at least the range of accepted (and perceived as useful) behaviour was a lot larger than it is now. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:45, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

The fact it was done does not make it any less exploitive. Modern law in general holds that minors are incompetent to make adult decisions. By it's very nature, pedophilia is always exploitive. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:48, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that anti-pedophile hatred is any worse than the historic hatred of other "sexual perversions". Just last century in the US, those engaging in inter-racial sex were lynched in the Southern US and homosexuals were given shock treatments to "cure" them. StuRat (talk) 07:58, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

And masochists were punished by refusing to beat them. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:02, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

In response to Jeanne Boleyn, just recently there was a news story about a 12 y.o. girl divorcing her 80 y.o. husband. These marriages are allowed at least in some places still. Dismas|^(talk) 08:06, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

A big difference to other "deviant behaviors" is that most of those are "Safe, sane and consensual". Children are not judged capable of giving informed consent. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 08:11, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

My great-grandmother was 13 when she married her 23 year old cousin. Girls normally married in their teens before the 20th century. I believe we're confusing two separate issues: consensual under-age sex and pedophilia which involves small, pre-adolescent children.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:19, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

It's reasonable to say that the percentage of the population that thinks marrying at 13 is a good idea, has dropped significantly since the 19th century. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:28, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Her mother was also about the same as her when she married. I think girls matured very quickly in those days. At 12, they could run and manage a house, cook, tend lifestock, and by then were old enough to bear children and thus keep the family line going (which was the reason behind all the medieval nobles marrying as kids), so if a decent man wanted to wed their daughter, the parents accepted him. Remember all those westerns where they showed very young girls with a sizeable family and schoolteachers no older than 14? The teenager as we know it today is a 20th century invention.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:57, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Girls actually matured more slowly then, at least physically. The age of onset of menstruation has been dropping steadily. The main reason is dietary, as today's high fat diet seems to bring it on sooner. StuRat (talk) 01:34, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Everyday life was much different then. We are used to being relatively safe and secure, with medical attention available if needed. Making kids "grow up fast", working and having them marry and produce lots of kids themselves, had as much to do with survival as anything. There was a reasonable expectation that disease would kill some of the kids before they reached adulthood. And if someone became physically or mentally disabled, they became basically a burden on the rest of the group. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:32, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Infant mortality remained very high until about 80 years ago, therefore if parents wished to continue their line, it behooved them to marry off their children as early as possible. The other night on Italian TV, there was a Sicilian lady in her 60s who said she was forced to marry at 12!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:52, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

That situation made young marriage necessary, and hence it was socially acceptable. Nowadays it is neither necessary nor socially acceptable, at least in the English-speaking world. I would imagine it might still be necessary and/or acceptable, in other societies, especially maybe in third-world countries where, again, survival is at the top of the list of needs. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:14, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Surely the point is that we do, or should, have control over our sexual urges, Buddy? Labelling and shunning everyone who finds children sexually attractive because they might attack children is a little like labelling and shunning every heterosexual adult male because they might attack women, in my opinion. I also don't think that our current social attitude towards paedophiles (that they're monsters who should be locked up, killed, destroyed) is very helpful; it means that young people who do find they have sexual feelings towards children can't talk to anyone about it for fear of being judged. If you treat people as monsters, they will become monsters. Two more points; One, there's an element of the witch hunt in "pedo panic" - if you don't loudly denounce them, perhaps you are one. Two, it's a nice way of ignoring the fact that most children who are sexually abused are not abused by a roving monster, teacher or priest, but by a family member (who probably doesn't self-identify, and probably wouldn't be psychiatrically diagnosed, as a paedophile). FiggyBee (talk) 08:26, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

You've touched on the core reason that pedophilia is so exploitive: It's a power situation. Be it a relative or a neighbor or a priest, the adult is in a power position over the child. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:32, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Yet we must realise that children often tell lies to attract attention, and are encouraged by their parents to elaborate, often themselves putting words into their mouths. So when a priest, neighbour, relative, teacher is accused of molesting a child, we must tread very carefully, evaluate the evidence without becoming a roaring mob out for blood. Many innocent lives have been destroyed by the lies of children.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:37, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

While I hear what you're saying, Jeanne, the fact remains that innocent lives have been destroyed by the actions of those who are supposed to support and protect them. And that is indefensible in any "society". --TammyMoet (talk) 09:06, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Exactly, which is why we have a strong moral duty to keep pedophiles as far away as possible from children. I personally know two cases of child molestation. One was real, the other a vicious lie. One girl I knew told me she was fondled by a neighbour for years, and she never told anybody; on the other hand, I knew a man who committed suicide after being wrongfully accused of molesting a 7 year-old girl, who later retracted her accustion and admitted her parents put her up to it. By the time she told the truth, the man's head had already been severed by the express train on the track where he'd laid his head after being subjected to abuse and threats from his neighbours.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:12, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

That tragic case is a different type of exploitation of kids. Was anything done to the parents? That kind of thing parallels the infamous Salem, Mass. witch hunting, and more recently the infamous case of the California day care center that was wrongly accused. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:43, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Nothing was done to the parents. It was a great tragedy as I knew the guy very well and was a lovely human being. So sad, and yes it does parallel the Salem witch huntings.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 10:36, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Seems like a wrongful death suit or something could have been filed. But you never know. I recall a story from my hometown of a school principal who was accused of molestation, and he committed suicide before he could be brought to trial, but it was pretty clear that he was guilty. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:28, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I believe the basic idea is that the sorts of adults who would liaison with children are morally corrupt, and that they'll damage the sensitive souls of vulnerable children in the course of their predations. Vranak (talk) 13:40, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Simple answer: Culture and Society. They set the rules of Morality not nature. Nature is Amoral. Society tends not to let people hide behind "i can't control how I feel" because they can control how they act - whether that is acting out a fantasy (in their head) or acting out the fantasy in real-life. Neither are accepted by my culture/society (save for small factions who are shunned), but i'm not going to pretend that that's always been the case (historically) or will always be the case. It's currently a huge taboo (maybe even the biggest in my culture) and I can't personally see that changing. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 13:51, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

That's a good summary. The whole point of civilization is to try and corral our "natural" tendencies for the good of the group, and sexualizing kids is considered to be bad for the group. You're dead-on with controlling how one feels vs. controlling one's actions. What we hear from churches, for example, is that being homosexual is not the problem so much as is acting on it. What someone is feeling, especially if it's at odds with society, is between that person and God, so to speak. But when they act on, then it becomes between them and society. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:26, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Without going into too much wild speculation, here's a list of reasons I'd think as answers to the original question (not taking sides as to whether they're right, wrong etc.) : 1. There seems to be, in Western culture at least, a general assumption that children are innocent beings. This may stem from a Christian view of children combined with recent (i.e. second half of the 20th century) changes in perceptions about children. Thus, it seems unacceptable to expose children to things that are considered "unclean", including sex, but also violence (Eros and Thanatos as Sigmund Freud put it - the life drive and the death drive). Freud also thought children were not "innocent" but in fact, polymorphic perverts, which given his description of this ("seeking sexual gratification outside of normally accepted bounds") is interesting. But you'll note that again, this view doesn't seem to apply only to sex - one could for instance ask why children forced to serve in wars (i.e. military use of children) is generally considered as scandalous, but grown-ups forced to serve in wars is much less criticized. 2. In connection to the above argument, there could be one towards the negative influence such experiences (whether war/violence or sexual relations with an adult) could have on the mental development of a child, and on his own ability to function as a social being in the future. 3. There is the idea that children are helpless, thus, getting them in a sexual relationship either by force or by influence/convincing constitutes an abuse of a position of control/power (by the adult) on a weaker person (the child). This is probably the reason that has the most to do with the legal condemnation of pedophilia. In many jurisdictions, cases of pedophilia carry an even higher sentence if committed by someone in a position granting authority on the child (i.e. parent, teacher, etc.). Expanding on that argument, pedophilia could be seen as a treason, or a breach of confidence, by adults, who are (in this view) supposed to protect the children and help rear them, not use their "superior" position to take any kind of advantage (sexual or otherwise) off them. 4. I am not knowledgeable in the history of pedophilia, but I strongly suspect that, as stated above, this taboo gained strength in recent years, as conceptions on children evolved (towards more protective behaviour, regarding all kinds of things perceived as exploitive or "unchildlike" - child labour, etc. etc.). Also, conceptions on other previous taboos evolved too (homosexuality for instance), so perhaps there is some kind of "taboo balancing" going on here - a society defines itself by its norms and notably by what it refuses outright (its taboos); since previous taboos are no longer used, others are bound to arise or be strengthened. 5. From the biological/evolutionary perspective, I'd guess there might be an argument that it is considered unnatural (consciously or not) to try and have sex with a person despite this person not being old enough to actually reproduce with. --Alþykkr (talk) 01:35, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Child molestation, and the combating of it, are not new. Back in the 50s there were pamphlets warning kids not to accept rides from strangers. Those items omitted what horrible things might happen to an abducted child, but their very nature was sufficiently spooky to instill some caution. A lot of things were in the closet then, and there's a lot more public consciousness about the whole problem. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:43, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

This horrific crime: Wineville Chicken Coop Murders haunted parents in California for decades; yet it was hushed up until Clint Eastwood made a film based on it (Changeling).--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:25, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

This might get complicated if cultural relativism is brought into the mix as it was during Socratic circles (a kind of group discussion) on morality in my English classes. ;-) Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 01:48, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Problem is, I don't see how any taboo can be discussed without bringing cultural relativism in. According to Claude Lévi-Strauss, the only universal taboo is incest, and even that is not true. For instance, did you know that sexual relationships between a (consenting) brother and sister are legal in France, but can and have even recently been punished with jail in Germany ? This despite the fact that arguably, France and Germany are culturally quite close. Each society, each time period reacts differently regarding a given behaviour. This does not make arguments against pedophilia any weaker or stronger, they just have to be considered within a frame of reference, just as physical phenomenons are.--Alþykkr (talk) 02:00, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Cultural relativism isn't really as large an issue here as one might think. parents (as a universal) have a deep seated desire to protect their children so that the children reach adulthood. at its basic level, this is genetic: genes only survive if the child reaches breeding age (12-14 in humans, at minimum), and given the intricacy of human culture, the age for 'successful' breeding (in which a child can enter into a safe, productive life for the welfare of itself and its own offspring) is constantly advancing. in the modern world, having children before the age of 20 practically guarantees second-class citizen status, though in earlier eras - for numerous reasons - children could effectively marry and begin adult life earlier. threats to the welfare of the child (and in particular sexual assault, which can damage the child's ability to produce offspring or engage in healthy relationships) are despised on a deep emotional level in every culture, and are only circumvented in highly structured ways - for instance, the traditional practice in some middle eastern and indian cultures to 'promise' a female child to an adult with sufficient status in the community (or another child from a family with status); such practices guarantee that the girl will be attached to a family that can provide for her needs. pedophiles (by their nature) separate the child from the adult supervision of the family and interfere with the child's welfare without providing any guarantee for the child's future security or safety - there is nothing more likely to inflame anger in any adult human than that. The only place cultural relativism plays a part in in the age of effective adulthood: technological cultures tend to feel that a child is not ready for successful relationships before the child has mastered a broad range of skills that will ensure it can compete and advance itself in a technological world; agricultural societies tend to hold that a child is ready for successful relationships when it has mastered the more basic skill-set that allows for commercial production. --Ludwigs2 05:39, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Hungarian language

How did the Hungarian language managed to survive the Indo-European invasion? I mean, Hungary is not a remote place at all - unlike Siberia or, to some degree, Finland. --Belchman (talk) 13:31, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

• According to Hungarian language#History, it wasn't spoken in what is now Hungary until the end of the ninth century. At the time of the Indo-Aryan migration, it had only recently diverged from the other Ugric languages and, while the location where it was spoken appears to be disputed, this would have been to the east, probably near the Urals, and away from or on the margins of the spread of the Indo-European languages. Warofdreams talk 13:53, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
• (ec)It didn't have to. The Magyars are the invasion and only settled in what is today Hungary during the 9th century. See Hungarian prehistory and History of Hungary. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:53, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. --Belchman (talk) 14:47, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

As far as I know, the only native language still spoken in Europe that pre-dates the arrival of Indo-European is Basque -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:29, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

That's true for Western Europe, but the Uralic languages may well have evolved in what is now European Russia, and are still spoken in parts of Europe, and the South Caucasian languages (and quite possibly the Northeast and Northwest Caucasian languages) appear to have developed pretty much where they are still spoken, and that area is sometimes considered European. Warofdreams talk 22:57, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Philosophical debate

My professor and I have been arguing about the nature of consciousness and God. He believes that subjective things (beauty, love, meaning, etc) and consciousness cannot exist without a higher power that transcends both body and mind. Whereas, I feel that these things can exist (I'm no Materialist) without any higher power. I'm not looking for any answer (that'd be like asking how many angels can dance on the point of a needle), but rather I'm asking to be pointed to any philosophies that agree with my point of view. My professor suggested Naturalism (philosophy), but I didn't really get all of it.

I guess I'll just have to keep lmaoing thanks!  ?EVAUNIT^{神になった人間} 13:44, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Plato springs to mind. Theory of forms or some such. Absolutely impenetrable, dense logic, but have a look anyway. Vranak (talk) 14:24, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I take it your professor is a philosophy teacher? Why don't you throw some scientific logic his way. Love, at it's primal level, is just a form of insurance that the next generation will survive. Animals that follow the K-type survival aspect focus all of their energy on very few offspring, while R-type have excessive amounts. Because the former has put so much energy into making their offspring, they must nurture the children to insure their own "fitness" (spread of genetic material) is increased. The latter do not stick around. If we are not talking about children, primal love is the attraction that potential mates have for each other. This may sound dry or emotionless, but this is how nature is. You have to remember that man is an animal and is subject to the same drives as such. How it expanded from its primal to poetic form I am not sure of. There are probably some psychology majors on here that might be able to explain this.

I think this debate hinges on whether the teacher is willing to look at this from a non-religious perspective. I would go on, but I must leave at the moment. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 15:41, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

"How it expanded from its primal to poetic form I am not sure of".... This is where the soul comes into it, whether one is religious or not. How else do we explain the difference between man and beast? The creators and the devourers? The builders and the destroyers?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:10, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

This is a prime example of why I said that a person has to be able to look at this from a non-religious perspective. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 17:52, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Who said belief in a soul has to involve religion?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:45, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Jeanne. I have a soul but am not religious. I don't really buy the whole love is a means of survival, either. My love for another is more than just instinct. I just don't see why my having a soul must mean there is an afterlife or higher power.  ?EVAUNIT^{神になった人間} 18:48, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

It's not necessarily the "soul", as such; it's the Big Brain. It's the power of detailed reasoning and problem-solving. The power of language. That's what has enabled us to survive and simultaneously to plot to kill each other. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:49, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

But what is it that sparks the creative genius such as Da Vinci, Mozart, Michelangelo if not the soul?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:57, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

The Big Brain has many and varied capabilities and talents, and we're only just beginning to understand a little bit about how the brain works. No small part of it is "visualizing". The old joke is that Michelangelo carved David by chipping away "everything that didn't look like David." Edison said invention is 10 percent inspiration and 90 percent perspiration. A composer might have an idea, a tune in his head, and he has to write it down and work it over, countless times, until it seems good enough. That's all part of the "craft". Computer programmers can visualize the end result and then write the code to get there. It's hard to explain a given talent to someone who lacks it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:10, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

This is really a Kantian argument, so you should look at some of the people who argue against Kant (you might start with some of the phenomonologists, existentialists, and related schools). the problem (boiled down) is that aesthetic values are not inherent in the object being observed - there's no way (for example) to invent a mechanical tool (an aesthometer, for a word) that uniformly measures aesthetic value. The question then becomes - where does aesthetic value lie? philosophically, you either have to deny that there is such a thing as aesthetic value (which leads you down the road toward nihilism), place aesthetic value outside physical reality (which leads you towards religious ideation or towards philosophical abstractions like Plato's ideals or Hegel's geist), or place aesthetic value as an emergent property of some sort (which will drop you square in the middle of any number of post-modernist, post-structuralist, or critical-theoretical theories). rough roads to follow, all... --Ludwigs2 19:00, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

There are some who believe our brain creates our own reality; namely, that nothing exists outside of our thoughts. Physical reality is merely an illusion conjured up by ourselves.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:05, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Our article on the latter is Solipsism. Basically. Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:51, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Based on the philosophy on Solipsism, then one can conclude that infants, animals, and sociopaths are all solipsists to varying degrees.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:27, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

OP, start by examining this odd concept of “a higher power that transcends both body and mind.” Who first came up with such a notion? Could it have predated culture or civilization? I would argue not, on the premises that it is only in a surplus (wealthy) society that some workers are able to be released from productive (hunting, gathering) work long enough to develop things like social organization, religion and philosophy.

Once you’ve agreed upon a reasonable point at which this mythical higher power first occurs, then discuss why it was not possible for beauty, love, meaning, etc to exist one moment before that exact point in time, but it was possible one moment after.

Try not to laugh at the good professor’s expression when you spring this one on him. DOR (HK) (talk) 09:44, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I never thought about it like this before. Good point : ]  ?EVAUNIT^{神になった人間} 16:41, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

actually, the Marxist approach won't get you any traction here. if the prof knows anything about religion, he knows that you can find references to 'higher powers' of some sort well back into the earliest written documents and oral traditions (the Bahgavad Gita, the Tao Te Ching, early tribal mythos like Genesis). There's good anthropological evidence to think that even hunter/gatherer societies had rudimentary religions (at least, it's fairly clear they had totems and fetishes).

and really, all I'd need to do to shoot down this argument is to point out that the worship of higher powers is different from the existence of higher powers. If a higher power exists, it will exist whether or not people have sufficient leisure to worship it - it wouldn't just 'first occur' when people have the time to notice it. --Ludwigs2 17:07, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Then how can one argue for or against it? You're right, Ludwig, that whether or not people believe in it does not concern whether or not it actually exists. How frustrating xD ?EVAUNIT^{神になった人間} 18:25, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

If a higher power/supreme being does exist, then it behooves us mortals to pay it due homage, no?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:33, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

It's not a decidable issue. the best you can do with a topic like this (which is what most philosophers - secular and religious - end up doing) is to apply a reductio ad absurdem type argument: determine what qualities a divine-ness would need to have in order to be the source of aesthetic values, and then extrapolate from it using logic to see if the result still looks like the divinity originally presumed. But people have been doing things like that for thousands of years and still haven't excluded the possibility of a divinity, so.... --Ludwigs2 20:45, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

why do words change? why is there lexical change?

I'm just really curious why words in a language (such as English) change over time. Is this the result of man's contact with other people? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.202.161.139 (talk) 15:17, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Its a VERY complex question that cannot be answered sucsinctly. You'd need to, at minimum, take an introductory course/read an overview text on the basic principles of linguistics first. Sometimes, languages assimilate to each other, where there is an invasion of one people into another area. For example, when the Norman French invaded and took over England, the language known as the Anglo-Saxon language evolved into the English Language. Sometimes, the conquerers impose changes on the conquered, but other times the invaders assume language from their subjects, for example the Norman French people's themselves lost most of their native Scandanavian language in a very short order, likewise the Scandavian Rus people adopted the local Slavic language and gave their name to Russia. Sometimes, languages change over time for no explainable reason, they just sort of evolve randomly, as in the Great Vowel Shift in English, or the development of regional accents in various parts of the English-speaking world. --Jayron32 15:34, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm unclear from the article, how historians know that "the great vowel shift" occurred. The paragraph trying to explain it is loaded with fact tags, and really doesn't answer the question anyway. We have audio recordings from the early 1900s which can tell us some differences, e.g. the word "record", which was once pronounced to rhyme with "cord", but now (in America, at least) rhymes with "curd". But there are no recordings from 500 years ago. So how do they know? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:13, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Some persons who lived through the Great Vowel Shift wrote about it, such as how in his youth he pronounced "mice" as "mees." Edison (talk) 18:50, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

See Language change. -- Wavelength (talk) 16:03, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Google Books has some interesting discussions of linguistic change in English. See [36]. The look at Shakespeare rhyming "nature" and "creature" and hypothesize what sound the "a" and "ea" had. In the present day U.S., there is supposed to be an ongoindg shift in which "hog" (previously pronounced "hawg" is coming to be pronounced like "hahg." Edison (talk) 01:43, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

As well as Internal reconstruction and comparative method. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 00:12, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Even inside an isolated culture, we should expect language to change. Consider the word "set", which tends to posses over a hundred dictionary definitions. No one specifically teaches their children all the definitions and shades of meaning of every word (partially because the task is impossible), so the surprising thing is that language drifts as slowly as it does. Language Log has a discussion of change in the definition of "redact", to pick one arbitrary example. Paul (Stansifer) 16:23, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

(and, of course, Language Log has a discussion about the multitude of definitions that every simple-seeming word can has. Paul (Stansifer) 16:37, 26 April 2010 (UTC))

I like to think of language as being a reasonable model for the theory of evolution, in that language becomes localized just as plants and animals do over time. The Romans imposed Latin on areas they conquered, and it evolved locally into several distinct languages. I like to say that if Rome had television 2,000 years ago, maybe the whole world would be speaking Latin by now. As it is, English (a partial descendant of Latin) is becoming more and more the global language - thanks in no small part to the spread of English media. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:07, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

The problem with the idea of paralleling language evolution with biological evolution is that the latter results in organisms that are suited to their environment while the former does not (changes are often random). It is also unlikely that television would have spread Latin any more since television does very little to affect people's language. It is more likely that English has spread due to the widespread British Empire. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 00:12, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Paul, it's interesting that you chose 'redact' as an example. That's a word I had never in my life heard before I came to WP. I still don't use it, because it's ugly and there are other words that perform the same role. But others have surely picked up on it and use it with abandon, and it has to some extent replaced other words. That's come about through people copying others (I can't imagine more than one person could have dreamt it up ab initio). That's the main way language changes: it starts with one person, and others copy them, and so on - for all sorts of reasons (peer, local jargon, cultural, etc). -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 18:07, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Just as an aside, Wittgenstein would say that people are a lot less concerned with language itself, and a lot more concerned with the ability of language to get things done. for a silly example, no one in a community really cares whether the word is pronounced 'Poe-Tay-Toe' or 'Poe-Tah-Toe' so long as they don't get hash-browned turnips with breakfast. However some small random shift might occur, it can rapidly become entrenched in a given community because people will naturally want to be using the same sounds to mean the same thing (even if its not quite the same sounds the last generation was using). --Ludwigs2 19:06, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

@Jack - I don't think there are words that exactly cover redact. Censor, for example, has a connotation of removing sexually explicit topics, while redact has connotations of protecting privacy or other legally sensitive areas. Unless there's another synonym you're thinking of... Matt Deres (talk) 20:24, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

The typical example is "email address redacted". What's wrong with "email address removed"? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:13, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Given the EO definition,[37] I'm not so sure "redact" is being used correctly here. I wonder if it's supposed to be an antonym for "enact"?[38] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:17, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Correct or not, that's just how it happens. To answer Jack's question: The reason in this case seems to be that it is less blunt and sounds more official, which adds legitimacy to the removal, and makes it sound more polite. — Sebastian 21:26, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Not to me it doesn't. My completely OR hunch is that this word is not in general currency outside of online forums, and those who do not participate much or at all in such forums would be unlikely to encounter it. So the first time they ever do, it has quite a blunt impact, because it's redolent of edicts and renderings and excisions and executions. That's certainly how I first perceived it, and it has obviously strongly coloured my attitude to it. I don't see it as either more or less polite than "remove". As for legitimacy, I can't think of another example where doing something requires a different word when done for an official reason than when done for an unspecified reason. That sounds like jargon for its own sake, to me. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 22:45, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

That's word change in action, Jack. As & when enough people consider that its new, and to you, mistaken use is the orthodox, then so shall it be. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:56, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with "email address removed", it's just that it's slightly less exact. Removed is pretty neutral - if we were talking about material removed due to an edit conflict we could say just the same thing, for example. However, when we remove a person's email address it's a redaction because it's semi-official (our guidelines say you shouldn't post an email address) and it also serves to protect a person's privacy (due to spam crawlers). In other contexts (like The Smoking Gun website, which is where I first encountered the word), the material is very definitely not literally "removed" - it's blacked out with a magic marker. :) Matt Deres (talk) 22:19, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

English has dramatically changed over time. The words in the language are multiplying. Text messages use a handful of abbreviated or shortened words. How about in other languages? Is there also change in their words?

Semantic change is common to all languages, and lexical borrowing occurs with linguistic contact. New words may also be coined when new phenomena come about. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 00:12, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

English varies not—thou art speaking the identic Tongue as thy Forefathers a Milliard years ago. --198.103.172.9 (talk) 14:55, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Why is there so much Euroskeptism?

Ok everyone I've ever asked has agreed free trade and travel in Europe is a good thing. Why is there so much euroskeptism? What powers does the EU have that people believe it shouldn't have?

On a related note why does the EU do stuff like restrict banana sizes?--92.251.155.38 (talk) 18:11, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I think you've begun to answer your own question. Some people feel that the EU adopts too many unnecessary regulations, such as restrictions on the shapes or sizes of bananas. Probably a more profound reason for euroscepticism is the concern that EU institutions are not very democratic and that EU bureaucrats are insulated from democratic control. As such, some feel that the EU represents a weakening of democracy in their countries. Finally, people in some countries, particularly the UK, feel that the EU threatens national sovereignty. This is not exclusively a British concern, but public opinion in other EU countries tends to be more accepting of an erosion of national sovereignty for the sake of common EU goals. Marco polo (talk) 18:40, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Many here in Italy believe it's a form of Communism in a different guise.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:48, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

It seems that many in Italy know very little of Communism and even less about the EU. Flamarande (talk) 21:52, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

There is an official Communist party in Italy, but they receive little support in the South (where I reside). Italians know about the EU whenever they open their wallets and see that the Euro doesn't buy as much as the lira did. The wages didn't increase but prices doubled. For example with lira a nice pair of shoes cost 100,000 Lira (roughly 50 Euro); now the same pair (although probably not made in Italy anymore) costs over 100 Euro (more than 200,000 Lira). Thank you Brussels, thank you Europe!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:59, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

The rise of prices is not the fault of the Euro but the direct responsability of the seller, re-seller, and the supplier (who raised their prices). AFAIK the Italian lira had a huge amount of inflation and I wouldn't miss it at all. Flamarande (talk) 17:36, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

You are right about the suppliers taking advantage of the switch from lira to the Euro. The positive thing about the former is it had more purchasing power in Italy than the latter; however, against foreign currencies, it was practically worthless. I went to Ireland in 2001 and my lira bought me very few Irish punts.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:47, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I've heard a lot about the erosion of sovereignety but what difference does it make where decisions are made so long as they are the right decisions? It's not like the EU can force anything on the UK.--92.251.155.38 (talk) 19:33, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

By what criteria are they the "right" decisions? Especially if the citizens have little or no say in the matter. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:38, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

The right decisions are ones people want done. If the EU was fully democratic (Which isn't isn't really) what does sovereignity in some small areas matter? Basebugs you live in a country that is far more centralized than the EU ever will be.--92.251.163.37 (talk) 22:36, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes and no. There is a lot of stuff that's state-based rather than federal. The line between state and federal may seem blurry, but it's there. "What the people want done." How much input does the EU accept from "the people"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:22, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

None.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:02, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Somewhere, the ghosts of Napoleon, Hitler, etc. must be smiling. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:07, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes and the Duke of Wellington and Lord Montgomery are turning in their graves.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:18, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh, come off it! The EU is neither a network of French client states nor a thousand-year German Reich. And the European Parliament is directly elected. If you want to talk about the lack of input of "the people" a source acknowledging this and highlighting the powers of other, non-elected, branches of the EU would be a better argument than the raising of those ghosts. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 16:15, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Calm down, ARTF, I've no intention of conducting a seance to invoke the spirits of those doughty departed soldiers, Wellington and Montgomery.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:35, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

(Edit Conflict) Speaking from a middle-aged UK perspective, most people here have no problem with the free trade aspects which, including the harmonisation of sales taxes and the eventual elimination of the need for customs duties, were the main selling points of the European Economic Community that the UK (including myself) voted to join in a nationwide referendum held in 1975. Nor did/do we have any quarrel with the EEC's unstated but generally understood aim: to prevent future conflicts between France and Germany by tieing their respective manufacturing-heavy and agricultural-heavy economies into symbiosis.

However, the subsequently created European Union and its uncontrollably burgeoning bureaucracy and quasi-national characteristics have been introduced piecemeal by politicians without any referenda or other explicit consent of the (UK) general populace. Since both political parties with any chance of forming a UK government have broadly supported these - and indeed in 1975 had deliberately obfusticated their plans for them - there has been no way of introducing significant opposition to them into the UK Parliament.

General resentment at these impositions is coupled with specific resentments at various Europe-wide measures that cut across traditional cultural practices (such as weighing foodstuffs in imperial rather than metric units). Added to the apparent remoteness of the European Parliament and other EU institutions (which are generally under-reported by the UK Press, particularly in their positive aspects), these factors make the EU often appear to be an unnecessary and expensive imposition of foreign hegemony, of the kind that the UK has historically resisted.

Re 92's remark: over as diverse a geographical, economic and cultural range as the current and future EU, one solution is not necessarily most appropriate everywhere, and as a compromise may not be optimal anywhere. And as far as I am aware, the EU most certainly can force things on the UK - the right of single-member veto is being steadily withdrawn from more and more areas of legislation and policy. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 19:46, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Alansplodge (talk) 09:38, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

If you take a look at our article European Union law, you will see that it takes precedence over national laws. That is, the EU can force things on members such as the UK by overruling members' laws. Marco polo (talk) 20:05, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

What are the rules about a member country deciding they don't want to be in the EU anymore? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:15, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

See Withdrawal from the European Union. Gabbe (talk) 21:44, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Have you read our article Euroscepticism? — Sebastian 21:27, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Just because you believe in free trade does not mean you have to support the EU. In fact if you do believe in free trade then there are arguments against the EU from a free trade position: the CAP is one of the most illiberal policies in Europe. Free trade means the absence of import taxes for protective purposes, it does not mean creating a vast bureaucracy for political union, a process of turning many states into one country, i.e. a Zollverein, which is the opposite of free trade.--Britannicus (talk) 21:40, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

IMHO there are more arguments in favour of the EU from a free trade position. Remember that the vast majority of "protective import taxes" between the UE members have been removed. Flamarande (talk) 21:59, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

And what powers does the EU have that people believe it shouldn't? Is it simply the current conduct and format of the EU or are they just against any sort of European government?

Also, why does the BNP expect Ireland to ceed to most of its sovereignity to a sort of federal UK parliament, yet oppose any sort of proposal to create a sort of federal EU? Sorry I'm stil none the wiser from above.--92.251.163.37 (talk) 22:41, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Dear 92.251, dont worry you are not the only one. Most people defends what they percieve as being their own best interest. The interest of the people in the BNP is for the British centralised government to control as much as possible. Giving away control to the EU diminishes their own control, just like giving away control to a local authority in Northern Ireland. It is selfish in a way or it can be considered self-protective, but it should be expected from most people to think in that manner. --Lgriot (talk) 01:00, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Very strange. I posted a reference to Gold-plating last night (UK time), about the 2nd or 3rd response. I don't see it above. What happened to it? Can't see it in the Edit summary. --TammyMoet (talk) 11:25, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

There are a number of reasons, from the fairly prosaic nationalist perspective to a more sophisticated objection based on the effect of relative prosperity on the overall effect. Much of it is driven y a lack of understanding of the relative responsibilities of the EU and the constituent nations. It becomes easy to blame Europe for failings of the national government. There is also some difficulty caused by the need to reconcile common and civil legal systems in implementation, and of course the approach to the constituent nations to implementation.

One of the main issues in the UK is our implementation of the directives, tending towards a very literal approach to the directives and embedding a number of principles of English law. some implementations tend to be a lot more laissez faire in their approach. There is also some fairly strong, and probably legitimate, criticism of the Britih Government for not addressing restrictive practices elsewhere, really just a question of the directives not being enforced uniformly through the union. The British right can be both prohibitionist and protectionist at times, particularly when faced with protectionism elsewhere.

There are issues around relative competitiveness, and the implementation of common economic policies, and the common currency exacerbated that, as illustrated by the example from Italy above. In agreeing to participate in the Euro the Italian Government committed themselves to fair competition, and given the relative inefficiency in the Italian industrial base that led to increased relocation of industry and increased costs, hence hitting the consumer in the pocket.

EU governance does need some serious reform, it's unwieldy and with so many constituent countries decision making is both protracted and inefficient, too many vested interests with the Common Agricultural Policy being a good example. The CAP is bad for the EU and bad for most of the constituent countries, but France and spain are net beneficiaries and are resistant to the kind of change needed.

ALR (talk) 11:51, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Hear, hear, end the CAP as swiftly as possible and let the forces of the free market regulate the prices of agricultural products. Flamarande (talk) 17:41, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

How did some Native Americans migrate to the Bahamas?

How did some Native Americans migrate to the Bahamas? It took an Ice Age to get them in the Americas. What did it take to get them to the Bahamas? Was it advancement in technology? Meaning, did they go by boat? How did they migrate there? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tommyr134 (talk • contribs) 23:19, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Our Paleo-Indians article mentions several times that they used boats while migrating, yes. Comet Tuttle (talk) 23:41, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

This article looks at contact between Florida and the Bahamas. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:49, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Humans can build boats without much trouble, but how did animals that are too big to travel on floating debris get to islands, like orangutans? --198.103.172.9 (talk) 14:37, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Sea levels have varied widely over time - what are islands now were, in many if not most cases, parts of the nearest continent at one or more stages in their geological history. See Sundaland for one example, relevant to orang-utans. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:47, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Language Variations

And also I noticed that there is variety even in the same language. I realized not all Americans have the same American English. There are regional or cultural differences in their own language/dialect. Why do people have language variations, too? (This is actually like a follow-up question I posed about language change.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.202.161.139 (talk) 23:39, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

See our Accent (linguistics) article, and its sub-articles. Comet Tuttle (talk) 23:43, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Localization. "Soda" vs. "Pop", for example. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:19, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

One reason for the differences in American English is that different parts of the United States were settled during the 17th and 18th centuries by people from different parts of the British Isles. For example, eastern New England and the Tidewater areas along the Chesapeake Bay and the coastal Carolinas and Georgia were settled mainly by people from East Anglia and southeastern England whose speech had already become non-rhotic by the mid-18th century (if not earlier). By contrast, the Middle Atlantic colonies and the interior (foothills and Appalachians) were mainly settled by people from the west of England and Scotch-Irish from northern Ireland who retained rhotic accents. Over time, vowel shifts took place in some regions but did not necessarily spread to others. So, there never was a uniform American English, and this group of speech varieties has continued to change unevenly over time. Marco polo (talk) 01:21, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

This gets into the issue of the boundary between a language and a dialect. If you have a speech community where speakers of one half of the region undergo one small change in their speech while the other does not, it doesn't affect mutual intelligibility. But when these small changes compound, you get greater and greater differences. Although contact mitigates these differences, circumstances can arise where the speech communities consider themselves separate; there is no objective criterion for what this cutoff point is but even without such a point, there is still dialectal variation. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 06:12, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Every person has their own idiolect. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 04:27, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

There is a standard American accent. There are also distinctive accents such as the Bostonian and New York; then let's not forget that Californians speak completely different from people of Detroit. Their slang is also unique, derived in part from surfer jargon with Mexican and Oklahoman influences.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:50, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

That's all true, yet a person from any part of the USA would almost never be mistaken for English, or vice-versa. Great Britain, the "home" of the language, has an astonishingly wide variation in English accents, as was very entertainingly demonstrated in Pygmalion and My Fair Lady, so it's not at all surprising that other anglophone countries also exhibit wide variation. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 07:51, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

The reason that there are so many different accents in the UK is that 1,200 years ago, the country was divided into numerous seperate kingdoms. Eastern England was inhabited by Angles, southern England by Saxons. There are also influences of other languages; the Yorkshire and Cumbria dialects have many Norse words in it. Add Welsh (language), Cornish language, Gaelic and Lallans; the result is some very distinctive variations. Alansplodge (talk) 08:13, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Prof Higgins claimed to be able to tell which London street someone grew up in, from the way they talk. That may be somewhat hyperbolic, but the variation is still far wider than just the broad groupings you mention, Alan. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 08:23, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I was trying to keep it simple. There are certainly still minor differences in accents from different parts of London (although even Londoners might struggle to detect them), and that may well have been much more distinctive when people would spend their whole life in the same street that their forebears had lived in. Today there is a greater difference between generations in London; pensioners talk the sort of Cockney that you might hear in an Ealing comedy, whereas most teenagers speak MLE. Nationally, regional accents, especially rural ones, are seriously waning. In my uncle's small Cornish town, you are far more likely to hear a Southern Received Pronunciation accent than a local one. People are infinitely more mobile now and have TV and radio to listen to. Alansplodge (talk) 09:22, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Even siblings can speak differently from one another.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:31, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

As I mentioned in the previous discussion, it's very unlikely that TV and radio have anything to do with the current leveling of dialects. You'd think it would, but it's my understanding that this has been shown to not be the case. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 23:31, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Knight, Death, and the Devil question

Ritter, Tod, und Teufel, aka Der Reuther

I just have a question about the painting of albrecht dürer ritter, tod und teufel (der Reuther)Knight, Death and the Devil (the Retuher). my question is why does it say (The Reuther)??? thank you!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.94.186.130 (talk) 23:56, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Knight, Death, and the Devil suggests that Dürer referred to the work as "Reuter", meaning simply "Rider". The filename of our image - File:Duerer - Ritter, Tod und Teufel (Der Reuther).jpg - includes Dürer's informal name in parenthesis. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:11, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

April 27

Why are people (namely, the majority of Americans) content with being ignorant?

Anyone have any insight? While I do find it occasionally amusing, I also find it equally as frustrating (I am American). -- 06:55, 27 April 2010 161.165.196.84 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.165.196.84 (talk)

Why do ref. desk posters often make broad sweeping categorical assertions, and phrase their "questions" in such a manner as to suggest that they aren't really interested in answers? -- AnonMoos (talk) 07:24, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

My apologies for the ambiguity and as you said, "categorical assertions." I am very much interested in an answer. You see, I am surrounded by co-workers, family, and acquaintances who have explicitly expressed their lack of interest and non-willingness to pursue truth in matters; and although trite, the term conformist comes to mind. My government sanctions the authoritarianism these people (the conformist masses, the majority). I find it troubling to know that the nescient masses are casting the "winning votes". Overall, I just want to know why people are ok with being ignorant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.165.196.84 (talk) 07:52, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Are ignorant people even aware of their ignorance? -Pollinosisss (talk) 07:44, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

It's not just Americans; a recent BBC documentary sent a Member of Parliament to live with a single mum - not only did she not know what an MP was, she didn't know what Parliament was either! Alansplodge (talk) 08:02, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Jesus wept!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:44, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Pollinosisss, some ignorant people are indeed aware they're ignorant. They're the ones Donald Rumsfeld was talking about with his "known unknowns" (not to be confused with known knowns, unknown knowns, or unknown unknowns). In fact, pretty much everyone falls into all 4 camps in respect of different things. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 08:18, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I always thought that was one of the most sensible things I've ever heard said by an American politician, and all the more surprising for being said by Rumsfeldt. He didn't mention "unknown knowns" though - are these the things that you thought you didn't know, but got right anyway in a pub quiz? See Unknown unknown. DuncanHill (talk) 10:00, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I saw someone else quite recently making that point about "unknown knowns" not being mentioned. This person suggested that they represent things that people don't even think of finding out about because it never occurs to them that the information is available. For example, say that 40 years ago there was technology to do THIS without THAT ever happening, so people have been doing THIS for all that time and have gotten used to the idea that THAT is impossible. Then someone invents a new technology to do THIS more cheaply or conveiently, but doesn't even think about providing a way to stop THAT. How to stop THAT has become an "unknown known". The writer named a specific example, I think something to do with computer networks, but I'm afraid I've forgotten who it was or what the example was. --Anonymous, 21:10 UTC, April 27, 2010.

If they lack interest in all matters, that's anhedonia. If, as seems more likely, what you are observing is a lack of interest in the matters you want to talk to them about, that's finding you boring. There is no moral obligation to be interested in everything, nor is it a sensible or practical policy. 81.131.39.242 (talk) 19:36, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Look at your "ignorant" friends. Then look at yourself. Which are happier? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:05, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

As an American, I resent the question. Actually, I find it to be a really stupid question. But I will just make this one comment: I wonder how much richer the world would be without the contributions of ignorant Americans such as Thomas Alva Edison, the Wright brothers, Samuel Morse, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, Henry Ford, Neil Armstrong, Eliza Lucas, Cyrus McCormick, Levi Strauss, J.C.R. Licklider, etc. And let's not overlook their contributions to music, literature, the cinema, sports, telecommunications......--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:23, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

That's 11 (plus "etc") out of, very conservatively estimated, 450 million eligible ones. Not a particularly ringing endorsement ;-). I don't think this is restricted to the US - everywhere in the world I meet people who not only don't know what a Schwarzschild radius is, or the Acts of Paul and Thecla, or in what context Deus vult became prominent and what it means, or what a Ionic bond is, or how Birds evolved, but that don't even want to know this. I'm totally flabbergasted as to why someone would not want to know this stuff... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:53, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I could have named more (hand on heart), but I just gave the few which immediately sprang to mind (11 out of 450 ain't bad). The thing is about American inventors is that one isn't sure whether the inventor was American or his invention was patented in the US, thus the Americans being given credit by default. Bell, Baird, Oppenheimer, Einstein, Von Braun all fall into this category. I notice how some Europeans are always ready to leap into the let's bash America gang, yet forget it's an American who has given us the means to insult each other with plenty of cyber space between us. I would love to know what a Schwarzschild radius is but it wasn't deemed necessary to know under the dreaming spires of Surf City High!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:11, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

11 out of 450 million. Einstein didn't do very much work after emigration. And no, Al Gore did not really invent the internet ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:09, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Million?! I never learned how to count that high, Stephan. By the way, who is Al Gore?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:24, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Al Gore is the inventor of the algorithm. Michael Hardy (talk) 20:23, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I thought he was an athlete. Hmm, didn't an Al Gore run in some sort of race a while back?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:13, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

161.165.196.84, could you specify which kind of "truth in matters" your co-workers are not interested in or not willing to pursue? Could you perhaps give some examples? Moreover, when you narrow it down to "the majority of Americans", is this because theirs is the only ignorance you've experienced this closely, or are you comparing with other cultures which are, in your experience, less ignorant? I'm not sure I understand your question beyond an often repeated cliché I have found to be untrue in my own experience. (I'm not American) ---Sluzzelin talk 08:34, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

The saying "one mans rubbish is another man's gold" comes to mind. The lady that doesn't know what an MP or Parliament is...does it stop her functioning, does it stop her living the life she wants to lead? Not likely. Yes it's a pity that more people aren't interested in politics, but we could argue it's a sign of how stable political life in the UK is. But it's irrelevant - it's like people that laugh at others for not knowing where country Y is on a map...what on earth does somebody need to know that for if they've no interest in the place? So it's in the news because a war is going on? That's a tragedy but having huge knowledge on the subject is hardly 'relevant' and not knowing the details may make me ignorant but what does that matter? What i've found is that everybody i've ever met has something that they are very knowledgeable about - be it politics, football, celebrities, embroidary, joinery or a million other things. People quickly learn about things whent hey need to - how many non-parent 20 year olds have good knowledge about raising children? Very few - but how many will be very knowledgable about it in 10-15 years when they're married with 2 kids? Necessity - i'll learn it when I need to... 194.221.133.226 (talk) 09:05, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Hope springs eternal in the human breast......--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:08, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

It is in some part the Dunning–Kruger effect. --Tagishsimon (talk) 10:10, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I think this is present in all cultures. I've lived in a few areas of the US and traveled to Europe a few times now. In each place I've found people who aren't interested in various things that I am interested in. They don't really care to learn about these things because they have no use for the information. A good example is computers and the elderly. Many older people don't know anything about computers and don't have any need to. So, they remain ignorant of the entire field. As a person's exposure to various things narrows, they care less and less about things outside their sphere. This may be more pronounced in Americans vs. Europeans since the Europeans have so many different cultures around them. They hear many different languages on a regular (possibly daily) basis. Many Americans on the other hand only hear English from day to day. Dismas|^(talk) 10:24, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I have noticed in the UK that there has been an increasing cultural shift against people being educated and knowledgeable. They are seen as uncool, swots, spoffs, etc. There is definitely peer pressure not to be "too smart". I have heard that the same is happening in the USA. I don't know why this is though -- Q Chris (talk) 11:02, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Asking questions is more important than finding answers. The well-formulated question is an answer, of sorts. If you are looking for ignorance, you can find it everywhere. Ignorance can also be feigned. Fun is the one thing that money can't buy, to quote the Beatles (She's Leaving Home). But after all, she was meeting a man from the "motor trade." How quaint. Bus stop (talk) 11:28, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I believe John Lennon wrote that song when he was in his pissed off and jaded Nowhere Man humour. Believe me, if I had money, I could find many ways to have fun. One cannot have fun if they haven't plenty of paper notes nestled in the wallet. To quote an American television evangelist: "You need some money, honey!"--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:01, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm curious as to what kinds of "fun" you would do if you did have more money? 78.149.181.41 (talk) 19:11, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Paul sang it, so most likely he wrote She's Leaving Home. Although all compositions were credited as Lennon-McCartney, most songs were predominently written by just one of them, and usually that person sang the song on the album, unless they gave it to Ringo, in which case, I'm not sure who wrote what. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:18, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Don't tell me Ringo Starr didn't write Octopus' Garden?!!!!! I'm shattered.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:25, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

For an interesting historical study of the purported American interest in exclusively pragmatic knowledge, see Richard Hofstadter, Anti-intellectualism in American Life, which won the 1964 Pulitzer Prize. It is a pretty interesting study (by one of the grand old masters of American history) of American aversion to the ideas of expertise and learned knowledge. It is fairly controversial and today most historians think he is a bit too sweeping and definitely a product of its time (Hofstadter was lefty and considered McCarthyism and Eisenhower to both be the result of latent anti-intellectualism). But it's an interesting read and a serious book. It is also exceptionally well-written and a joy to read. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:23, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

No thanks. Sounds like a bunch of useless, fancy booklearnin' to me. Besides, Hofstadter is dead, and I don't take no stock in dead people. —Kevin Myers 13:56, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

The only ignorance I perceive is your arrogant presumption that these wayward Americans ought to spend their time contemplating something other than what they already do. Vranak (talk) 14:10, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the original poster was being arrogant about what people should be studying (although s/he was unnecessarily stereotyping Americans as a whole). I think it's legitimate to ask about the origin of the attitude that "fancy booklearnin'" is something undesirable. I've met many people (not just in the United States) that mock education, and I've never really figured out why. --198.103.172.9 (talk) 14:32, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Well then, I direct him to anti-intellectualism. Vranak (talk)

You can learn more about education in the United States from the following sources.

• Dumbing down (sic)
• AMERICA WON'T WIN TILL IT READS MORE And instead it's reading less. Yet reading is strongly connected to communicating, thinking, imagining -- the skills any country will need to compete globally. - November 18, 1991
• Dumbest Generation {sic}
• the deliberate dumbing down of america {sic}

-- Wavelength (talk) 14:48, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I must point out at this point that Wikipedia editors probably are probably not the most... neutral... group of people to be asking about ignorance and education. These are people who believe so strongly that knowledge is good and ignorance is bad that they are willing to dedicate a significant portion of their lives to building a free encyclopedia. So if you want insight on why some people don't care to learn more, this probably isn't the place to be looking for it. If you know people who aren't interested in learning, ask them about it. But I can pretty much guarantee that you won't find many people like that here. Buddy432 (talk) 15:23, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

You can do a Google search for "dropouts give reasons" and select the first result (blacklisted). -- Wavelength (talk) 16:20, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with this sentiment -- however, I find it preferable to know too much, then forget most of it, than to never learn anything to begin with. Vranak (talk) 15:35, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Marketers have been extremely successful at enticing consumers, both young and old, with entertainment and food and clothing and travel and electronic devices. Satisfaction of the physical senses has become emphasized to such a degree that many people are addicted to "feeling good" and maintaining "high" self-esteem. Some businesses have been profiting enormously while society and the economy in general have been negatively affected. Parents and teachers need to learn how to interact with students in a balanced way, in order to reverse the problem. In many cases, parents and teachers themselves need remediation for their own deficiencies. -- Wavelength (talk) 16:50, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

There seems to be a thing about America being the land of stupid, I just read an extract of Stupid White Men by Michael Moore. I've found it tends to be Moore-type, or if you prefer, Lisa Simpson-type, people, usually Americans who say this kind of stuff. Yet often in internet discussions (although never in real life) I get an "omg you're a european you're the kind of person who says these things". No I'm not. Plenty of people, notably British people, have a history of good-natured insulting of other countries. I should know I am Irish.--92.251.201.128 (talk) 17:05, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

See http://www.gamepolitics.com/2008/12/10/fcc-commissioner-terms-wow-leading-cause-college-dropouts.

-- Wavelength (talk) 18:32, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I found that in a classroom full of about 25 undergraduates no one knew who Euclid was or what Euclidean geometry is. I told them that

• Until recent years, all secondary-school graduates knew those things;
• From medieval times, when Euclid's books were one of the four elements of the quadrivium, until fairly recent years, everyone who claimed to be educated was presumed to have read at least a little bit of Euclid;
• That in the 18th century, Immanuel Kant used Euclidean geometry as a famous example in epistemology (of the "synthetic a priori");
• That in the 19th century, non-Euclidean geometry was first developed, and surprised people;
• That in the 20th century, Albert Einstein showed how to apply non-Euclidean geometry to physics.

This resulted in a written comment from a student saying I shouldn't include such historical material in a math course. He gave what he thought was an argument that would convince me—if only I'd thought of it before he'd called it to my attention this could all have been avoided. I quote verbatim: "Who cares?".

True story.

I told the class that I was completely blindsided by the question and I presume the answer to that question is everyone except the person who wrote it. (They didn't know who it was; neither did I.) I didn't tell them that people who don't care about that stuff don't belong at a university, but maybe I should have. Michael Hardy (talk) 19:50, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Though, I will say, as someone who thinks history is important, the "who cares?" (or, as I usually hear it, "so what?") is not the worst question. Usually an undergrad who says that is really saying, "what does it get me to know that?" I don't think it's necessarily a bad question to ask; most people (including myself) don't believe in contemplating our navels or counting angels on the head of a pin. Even those of us who like ideas for their own sake generally like them because they are meaningful to us in some kind of practical way. I think there is definitely a good argument to be made that knowing who Euclid was and what Euclidean geometry is (and its history) is a useful and good thing to know about for the modern undergrad. I mean, you might have given them more of an argument, but from what you've presented above, all you've given them is, "people in the past thought it was important." That's good enough for some, but I don't think it's a sin that it's not good enough for all. I think what you have in mind, but have not said explicitly, is that "things that people in the past thought are important should be considered somewhat important by us today, because we are intimately connected with that past," or something along those lines. Obviously that won't resonate with all undergrads (some are certainly dullards), but I suspect it is something of what was looked for with the "who cares?" line. I mean, one of the things I like about dealing with "so what?" students are that they do force you to articulate the reasons someone should care about this, even though you (the person who has signed on to this for their life's work) take that fairly for granted at this point. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:18, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Here are some more related links.

• Distraction
• Unable to focus? Welcome to our distracted society's attention deficit
• Review - Distracted - Anxiety & Panic

-- Wavelength (talk) 20:18, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I've heard good things about the book Idiot America: How Stupidity Became a Virtue in the Land of the Free by Charlie Pierce. Gabbe (talk) 20:26, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

See Decline of Education and Morals. -- Wavelength (talk) 20:48, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Cicero made similar complaints 2000+ years ago, so nothing is new. 78.149.181.41 (talk) 19:13, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Mesopotamia versus Egypt

Some claim that reference to the Garden of Eden is to the marsh area in Southern Iraq where reed houses stood before the relatively recent ruin of the marsh at the hands of Suddam. In light of other reed based communities, such as the far distant Eros of Peru, isn't it more likely reed houses originated in the Nile Delta or Lake Victoria and spread elsewhere to places like Iraq or was Iraq free of crocodiles which made origin more possible or likely there? Plain vanilla with chocolate chips (talk) 08:35, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

As you're talking about a purely fictional area (Garden of Eden), what's the problem? Wouldn't God have made vegetarian crocs? --TammyMoet (talk) 09:57, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

The question is whether reed houses may have originated in Africa rather than the Middle East. Plain vanilla with chocolate chips (talk) 11:44, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

In any case, if you look at the geographical description (such as it is) of the location of Eden in Genesis 2:10-14, and assume that the word "Cush" doesn't have its most usual Biblical meaning in this passage (because if it does, all bets are off), then it seems more likely that hilly northern Mesopotamia was actually intended (i.e. near the sources of the Tigris and the Euphrates), rather than flat swampy southern Mesopotamia (which is where the Tigris and Euphrates join, but not where they flow from).

As for reed houses, they are a case of taking advantage of locally-suitable building materials in often rather widely geographically separated areas, so I really don't think that a diffusionist explanation would be generally helpful or appropriate in most cases here. AnonMoos (talk) 13:30, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Some years back, the was a Scientific American article about "Eden". It had been discovered via satellite that there are two dry riverbeds flowing into the Persian Gulf delta, in addition to the active Tigris and Euphrates. That neither proves nor disproves that that area was "Eden". The article went on to speculate that "Eden" was an allegory about nostalgia for "the good old days" when people lived off "God's bounty" (hunting and gathering) instead of the labor of farming. Knowing what we now know about where hominids came from, "Eden" might well be Africa. But it's always risky to try to pin down locations given in the Bible. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:18, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that it would be possible to locate where Eden was, because all descriptions of its location were before there was a catastrophic worldwide flood that covered the entire earth. Think about what water did to the Grand Canyon, and extrapolate. Also, the entire human population was sailing about for at least a couple of months and since they did not have ships previously, I doubt they would have the navigation skills to know where they were when they landed. Googlemeister (talk) 18:20, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

It's not particularly true that "it's always risky to try to pin down locations given in the Bible" -- there are probably hundreds of Biblical placenames whose localizations are well-established and uncontroversial. AnonMoos (talk) 22:18, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Historical Macbeth Versus Shakespares Macbeth

What are the differences and similarities between Historical Macbeth and Shakespares Macbeth? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cut3kitty (talk • contribs) 08:46, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

These articles should help you. See Macbeth of Scotland and Macbeth.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:48, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Worship of dogs

This has descended to a clearly inappropriate conversation
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
It seems that A King of England threw the dog he was holding at the head of the colonists about to embark for America when they asked the King for a Bishop and said "Here, Here is your Bishop~" and ever since Americans who are descendants of the original colonists from England have kept and worshiped dogs. Do Americans really think that Dogs are divine and should be cared for and fed and respected and worshiped like the Indians worship the cow? Plain vanilla with chocolate chips (talk) 11:55, 27 April 2010 (UTC) Yep.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:14, 27 April 2010 (UTC) Divine, no. Cared for, fed, and respected, generally yes. Worshiped, no. -- Coneslayer (talk) 13:15, 27 April 2010 (UTC) I don't think the OP is interested in anything but trolling.Rhinoracer (talk) 13:28, 27 April 2010 (UTC) Key to your comment is you "don't think." Purpose for the question is not to troll but I think your answer is. The background for the question is that there is a sect of Shiites(?) in Iraq who have a drawing of a snake at the entrance of their temple with a hole at the bottom the drawing through which the snake is supposed to have come and they worship evil but many people think they worships snakes, whereas in the US some communities handle snakes and they may either worship evil or the snake, but I don't know which. Plain vanilla with chocolate chips (talk) 13:50, 27 April 2010 (UTC) I actually worship both snakes and evil, so what does that make me? By the way, your username is making me extremely hungry.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:53, 27 April 2010 (UTC) You're picture is giving me goose bumps, making me breath deep and sweat so I think you might be a temptress or maybe just have parts that are hard to resist. Plain vanilla with chocolate chips (talk) 14:05, 27 April 2010 (UTC) You don't make any sense at all. --Saddhiyama (talk) 13:52, 27 April 2010 (UTC) Our little troll is presumably trying to draw some obscure connection between Yezidis and snake handling... AnonMoos (talk) 14:34, 27 April 2010 (UTC) If you want an impressive-sounding Greek word to dress up your somewhat empty rhetoric, it would be cynolatry Κυνολατρεια. P.S. Christians don't worship their bishops (many Protestant denominations don't even have bishops)... -- AnonMoos (talk) 13:35, 27 April 2010 (UTC) Wiktionary actually has an entry on "cynolatry": wikt:cynolatry... AnonMoos (talk) 13:42, 27 April 2010 (UTC) I actually worship cats, but then again my ancestors hadn't left England yet when the King went ballistic with the poor wee canine.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:36, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Use of the word "Kamikaze"

I know that people use the word kamikaze for japanese attacks during WWII. But can one use the word for non-japanese attacks during WWII? Or should one simply use the word "suicide attack"? Even when the don't die? Grey ghost (talk) 14:56, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that any other combatant in WW2 developed the use of suicide attacks as a systematic deliberate strategy approved at the highest levels. Do you know of any such case? -- AnonMoos (talk) 15:07, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

The French word for suicide bomber is "kamikaze" (well, in Quebec anyway). I don't think I've ever seen it used like that in English, though. Adam Bishop (talk) 15:09, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

The Germans had plenty of semi-suicidal and some suicidal units. Rammkommando "ELBE" was a unit that rammed allied bombers in the air. They were expected to bail out however, and most did. Kampfgeschwader 200, the Luftwaffe's special operations wing, had a suicidal Leonidas Squadron who were supposed to pilot manned versions of V1 bruise missiles packde with explosives into Allied bombers.--92.251.140.201 (talk) 19:03, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Beware the "bruise missile." Edison (talk) 21:24, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean taran? Gabbe (talk) 15:29, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

See Kamikaze (ride). I certainly hope people won't die on this amusement ride. --Kvasir (talk) 17:20, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Geography question

In the historical perspective which structure is arguably the most famous religious facility on the earth?? Excluding the Vatican ofcourse —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.93.87.212 (talk) 15:08, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Weren't the Pyramids religious in nature? Great Pyramid of Cholula may be the answer to your question. Did you mean only religious structures currently in use? Bus stop (talk) 15:11, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I would go for the Hagia Sophia in Istanbul (the largest Christian church in the world for more than a thousand years) and the Kaaba in Mecca. Alansplodge (talk) 15:26, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It depends entirely on how you define well known or most famous. Those which would be instantly recognizable by hundreds of millions of people would probably be:

• The Masjid al-Haram, the mosque surrounding the Kaaba, a pre-islamic building which itself houses the Black Stone. According to Islamic tradition, the Black Stone was sent by god to show Adam and Eve where to build a temple to worship Him. The Kaaba is that temple, and as such all Muslims pray looking at the Kaaba 5 times per day.
• The Al-Masjid al-Nabawi is the second holiest mosque of Islam, as the site of Muhammad's burial under the Green Dome.
• Jerusalem's Temple Mount is home to both the Dome of the Rock, an important muslim site, and the historic location of all three central Temples in Judaism.
• Not knowing why you would want to exclude the Vatican, but certainly St. Peter's Basilica may qualify as well recognized.
• Other christian sites easily recognizable to many people include:

• St. Paul's Cathedral
• Notre Dame de Paris
• Cathedral of Notre-Dame, Reims
• Saint Basil's Cathedral
• The Church of the Holy Sepulchre is highly venerated in Christianity, but not physically recognizable by many people.

• The Hagia Sophia was once an Orthodox cathedral, and later a Mosque, and is quite well known.
• The Salt Lake Temple is the home Mormon temple, and has a famous structure as well.
• If you count ruins of historic religious buildings, then perhaps the Parthenon would rank up there as well.
• If you count geologic structures considered holy, then Mount Fuji may also rank highly.

Just some ideas to consider. You may also want to look at List of significant religious sites for an overview of these and other religious sites. --Jayron32 15:35, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Stonehenge would arguably qualify, though there are differing opinions about its purpose. Gabbe (talk) 15:46, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

The Vatican is unquestionably the richest, most influential and the most famous religious structure on the planet.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:50, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I think OP wanted to exclude the Vatican not in the sense of not having it on his/her list but because he/she had already thought of it as obvious. --Joe^Talk_Work 18:39, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

The Cross??--Shantavira|^{feed me} 16:23, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

The Vatican [sic] is not unquestionably the most influential and famous religious structure on the planet. List of religious populations quotes an estimate that there are 1.5 billion Muslims, whereas our Catholic Church article quotes a Catholic Church claim that there were 1.115 billion Catholics as of 2007. It's hard to estimate how much influence each church wields beyond its members. But religious Muslims face the qibla to pray five times a day, and I daresay maybe a slim majority of Catholics pray once daily; I think that because of this, it stands to reason that the Muslims are more often thinking about the Kaaba and the Masjid al-Haram than Catholics think of the Vatican palace. Comet Tuttle (talk) 20:42, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Muhammed initially had Muslims praying toward the Temple Mount in Jerusalem as the Jews, but when he was rejected by the Jews, he changed the position of focus to Mecca.^{Prager, D; Telushkin, J. Why the Jews?: The Reason for Antisemitism. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1983.} So you can say that the Temple Mount, site of the two Temples in Jerusalem influenced both Jews and Muslims alike, and when you consider that Christianity is a splinter of Judaism, the Temples also greatly influenced them, albeit in a negative manner. The fact is that Judaism is the only thing common to all three Abrahamic religions. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 03:43, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Going to the Orient, some famous and easily recognisable religious structures are

• Ankor Vat
• Temple of Heaven
• Potala Palace

--Kvasir (talk) 17:08, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

To me the question is highly subjective. For example, I live in Italy, so I automatically thought of the Vatican.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:15, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Our stats for number of adherents to various religions are here: Religions#Largest religions or belief systems by number of adherents. So far answers here only suggest Ankor Vat from Hinduism, with 1 billion adherents, so let me add a few more: Jagannath Temple, Puri, Rameswaram the holy island, Kedarnath Temple in the Himalayas, Dashashwamedh Ghat and Kashi Vishwanath Temple in the holy city Varanasi and the sacred mountain Kailasa. In these cases, the spot may have more fame than the structure itself (you asked about structures); many Hindu temples have been built and rebuilt on the same location for millennia. Best, WikiJedits (talk) 11:25, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Psychology and careers

I begin with a fictitious scenario representative of real life. Two brothers are in a class of university students who are beginning their first year of Psychology, and the professor asks all the students to state their reasons for studying Psychology. One of the brothers states that he wants to learn how to manipulate people into buying products and services they do not need, so that he can make a huge profit. The other brother declares that he wants to learn how to help people overcome addictions, trauma, and other psychological problems.
After they both graduate and become psychologists, the first brother opens a fast food restaurant, eventually with hundreds of outlets in dozens of countries. He eventually becomes a multi-millionaire. His brother opens a weight loss outlet, with physical training and psychotherapy to help people who have become addicted to fast food. He develops many interpersonal relationships.
Where can I find statistics in numbers or percentages (preferably both) of university students in Psychology having various motives for studying that subject, and also statistics in numbers or percentages (preferably both) of Psychology graduates having various careers based on that subject?
-- Wavelength (talk) 17:36, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
[I am revising the heading from "Psychology and sales" to "Psychology and careers". -- Wavelength (talk) 17:37, 27 April 2010 (UTC)]

Hi Wavelength, for some reason google is only returning me American material - I hope this will do. Here are a few factoids that popped up for career stats:

*University Scranton says: "the National Center for Education Statistics (1993) reports that 20 percent of psychology baccalaureate recipients work in social services or public affairs, 21 percent in administrative support, 14 percent in education, 10 percent in business, 10 percent in sales, 9 percent in service personnel, and 5 percent in health professions. An additional 3 percent find themselves working in computer science and an equal percentage in biological sciences."

*(National Center for Education Statistics)

*St. Olaf College (PDF) says: "'In 1999, fewer than 5% of 1997 and 1998 psychology BA recipients were employed in psychology or a field related to psychology.... two thirds were in forprofit business settings, usually the sales/service sector.... Most find jobs in administrative support, public affairs, education, business, sales, service industries, health, the biological sciences, and computer programming. They work as employment counselors, correction counselor trainees, interviewers, personnel analysts, probation officers, and writers."

*Indiana University says: "This study conducted by the National Science Foundation, found that 70% of the1994 psychology baccalaureate recipients were employed by 1995. Only 23% went on for further graduate study. Sixty-four percent are working outside the area of science."

*(National Science Foundation)

*Allpsychologyschools.com (?) says: "about 25 percent of undergraduate psychology majors nationally go on to graduate school and become a psychologist, or go to medical school and start a practice as a psychiatrist." Sonoma State University adds: "about 1/3 of those with a Master's degree in psychology find work in the field."

*One more possible useful link: American Psychological Association: surveys. I'm no good at searching the academic literature in this field, but Wikipedia:WikiProject Psychology members might be able to help here. Best, WikiJedits (talk) 11:13, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, WikiJedits, for diverse statistics in answer to the second part of my question. -- Wavelength (talk) 19:50, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

When did involuntary sterilization practices in the US end?

It can be debatable whether the practice has ended, although no documented cases of state funded and regulated surgical sterilization in the past several years exist there is still the practice of chemical castration of sex offenders.

I realize this may be a difficult thing to pin point a exact date for. I believe, and I could be wrong about this, that sterilization of the 'mentally unfit' ended in the 70's. I have heard and read about coerced sterilization practices which continued until the 80's.

Any help would be appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeanne boleyn (talk • contribs) 17:47, 27 April 2010

See Compulsory sterilization#United States. -- Wavelength (talk) 17:57, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Also, while the mentally impaired may sign forms to permit "voluntary" sterilization, there's always the question of whether they were pressured into it and if they really understood what they were doing, that is, whether they gave informed consent. StuRat (talk) 18:06, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

My reading of the literature suggests there is no "magic date" by which all of them had to end, I don't think (there is no court case that rules it illegal or anything like that; the closest you get is Skinner v. Oklahoma which says you can't sterilize criminals just for being criminals). It was a state-by-state sort of thing; I doubt there are good records of exactly when it went into total disuse. Note that chemical castration does not sterilize, and its purpose (and effect) is not eugenic. I would look into whether things like federal laws regarding Medicare put constraints on informed consent regarding sterilization in the 1970s—I seem to recall that they do. --Mr.98 (talk) 22:05, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Ashes in cremation

It is illegal to buy or sell human body parts (I imagine). What about cremated remains (the "ashes")? Are there any restrictions on that sort of thing? For example, if I had the cremated remains ("ashes") of, say, John Lennon or Elvis Presley (or whomever) — and they legally belonged to me — could I legally sell them to someone? That is the type of example that I am talking about. Thanks. (64.252.65.146 (talk) 22:06, 27 April 2010 (UTC))

I don't believe it's even illegal to buy and sell human body parts, although it is regulated. Human skeletons are frequently sold for classroom use, for example. StuRat (talk) 22:13, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Are you sure that they are "sold" (exchange of money)? I guess I always assumed that the dead person donated them (gave permission before death) ... no? (64.252.65.146 (talk) 22:24, 27 April 2010 (UTC))

In the US, at least, I would expect any laws covering that subject would vary from state to state. For further fun information on the general topic, though, read about H. H. Holmes, a 19th century serial killer who sold his victims skeletons to medical schools. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:20, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

If you have the legal right to human remains (as an heir to the deceased person's estate or legally appointed executor), a clear provenance (to avoid the impression or act of fraud), and local laws do not otherwise prohibit, then sure. Heirs are entitled to dispose of the body as they see fit. It would generally be considered to be In Bad Taste, however, and would most likely result in other interested parties filing legal claims against you to nullify the will and deprive you of any legal power or access to the estate (and I personally would not want to be in the position of explaining to a judge why I should still be entitled to a share of the estate after trying to sell my beloved uncle's ashes for cold cash). --Ludwigs2 22:29, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Heirs are entitled to dispose of the body as they see fit. That can't be true? What if the person were not cremated? We would normally bury the body in a cemetery. Are you saying that the heirs can sell that body? Can keep it in their living room? I can't imagine that the heirs are entitled to dispose of the body as they see fit. And if that's not the case, then why would a dead body (the corpse that we would normally bury in a cemetery) be treated differently than cremated ashes? Thanks. (64.252.65.146 (talk) 22:52, 27 April 2010 (UTC))

Given that the will is usually read sometime after the funeral, the disposition of the body has to have been previously agreed upon in some way. Typically someone will invest in a cemetery plot or vault to be used after they're gone. Once the body is in the ground or the tomb, the law takes over and you can't remove the body without a legal process. Cremation results in a sterile end product, but laws would almost certainly have something to saw about the disposition of the ashes. Try googling "cremation laws" and see what turns up. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:39, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

actually, I believe the legal heirs probably could exhume the corpse, if they so desired. at least, the legal heirs have the right to authorize an exhumation (in the US, for instance, police don't need a warrant to exhume a body if they have the permission of the legal heir). Next of kin can give permission for organ donation if someone dies suddenly; next of kin can authorize the donation of the body to science; next of kin could probably store the body in their wine cellar to perform cult rites under the next full moon, so long as they reported the death to the authorities and satisfied all concerns laid out under civil health codes. once you're dead it ain't your body no more - yet another reason to treat your relatives nicely while you're still alive... --Ludwigs2 00:13, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Possibly, regarding exhumation; I'm just saying there's a legal process to go through; you can't just go out to the cemetery with a shovel and do it yourself. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:55, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Damn, there goes my weekend plans! --Ludwigs2 04:27, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I could sell my kidney if I wanted to, no law against that even if people would think me a dickhead.--92.251.185.187 (talk) 22:30, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Your IP address suggests you're in Ireland, in which case there most certainly is a law against it (as there is in the UK, the rest of Europe, the US and most of the rest of the developed world). FiggyBee (talk) 23:11, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I used (30 years ago) to work for a small chain of Scottish academic bookshops which, in addition to textbooks, could also provide (real) human skeletons (whole or half) for medical students. Sadly, the university my branch served taught only pre-medic courses whose students did not need their own skeletons (if you know what I mean), so I never actually sold one. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 23:29, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

The applicable articles in this case would seem to be organ donation and organ trade. And yes, any sort of monetary reimbursement for organs is illegal in most developed countries. Dismas|^(talk) 23:39, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Human skulls are sold for artist's use. The memento mori type of still life painting sometimes includes the depiction of the human skull. This is a good example. Also see Skull (symbolism). Bus stop (talk) 01:09, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

In England & Wales there is no law requiring the executors to dispose of the body. If you want to keep it in a lead lined coffin on the kitchen table, you can do so. Kittybrewster ☎ 08:52, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Could you hire a taxidermist to prepare the corpse as a decoration? Googlemeister (talk) 13:50, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Returning to the original theme of ashes, I'm fairly sure that in line with Ludwigs2's suggestions, at least in the UK they become the property of the next of kin, who can retain or dispose of them (subject to Health & Safety and other laws, such as littering!) however they choose. My mother, who came from County Durham, kept her parents ashes in our successive family homes (we moved a few times) elsewhere in the UK and abroad for many years before she was able to arrange through relatives to take then back to Durham and inter them in family graves. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 14:47, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

So, in the USA, can a person (such as the next of kin) keep a dead body just laying around in his home, provided that all health laws are followed (e.g., the officials are notified of the death; the body is embalmed and does not pose a health hazard; etc.)? If not, then what prevents this? If so, then what prevents people from, say, burying loved ones in their back yards? Thanks. (64.252.65.146 (talk) 15:21, 28 April 2010 (UTC))

Disposition of corpse

My above question (Ashes in cremation) actually made me think of yet another question. If a family is poor and cannot afford to bury someone in a cemetery — or if a deceased person left no remaining family — who is "in charge" of the corpse? And what is done with it? Just curious. (Also, I am referring to the USA.) Thanks. (64.252.65.146 (talk) 00:18, 28 April 2010 (UTC))

A quick google search suggests that state laws usually make disposing of indigent corpses the responsibility of the county (who usually have a standing arrangement with local funeral homes to do burials or cremations at or near cost). See [39] for the relevant Texas law, for example. FiggyBee (talk) 00:36, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

The bottomline is, in most developed, industrialised countries, the disposition of human body is regulated and licensed to certified and qualified agents like an undertaker. Private burial in one's property without proper documentation is generally forbidden for legal and health reasons. It generally arouses suspicions otherwise. --Kvasir (talk) 02:22, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

In Detroit, the indigent get tossed into a big freezer: [40]. StuRat (talk) 04:24, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

and left in it?????? Kittybrewster ☎ 08:32, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I never knew that?! Are you serious, StuRat?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:41, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Well if you actually read the linked article, you'll see why; the county has responsibility for burying the bodies, but their budget ran out. FiggyBee (talk) 09:31, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Let's hope there isn't an electricity blackout. Then what?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 10:35, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes indeed. There'll be plenty of people raising a stink about it then!!! Bill Reid | (talk) 11:21, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

April 28

After 6000 years

There are some who will unwaveringly assert that the world was created from nothing nearly 6000 years ago, while others will assert unwaveringly that it was most certainly not. Anyway, that's not the main point. In 6000 years from now, what sort of historical events would be discussed, let's say, in a classroom of history students? Certainly we have but a pittance of events that have occurred over the past however many thousands of years that are of such seemingly eternal consequence that we teach them in the classroom today. But in the year 8000, what events would be important enough, considering that so many more things would have transpired? Will the Cold War, the Great Depression and people like Babe Ruth really matter in the scope of things? Or will it be that the average man will have heard of George Washington and George Bush but won't know the difference them any more than they do between, say, Socrates and Plato? DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 03:55, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Its hard to say. You can't compare backwards to forwards because of the explosive growth in storage media. 6000 years ago, the only way that knowledge got preserved was via oral tradition, for the most part. Today, almost everything is preserved in a permanent or semi-permanent state all over the world. Information about me, an average nobody, is readily availible in public records, the few times I have appeared on TV or in a newspaper article, etc. etc. We have actual information of literally nobody from anything older than about 4500 years ago, and anything older than about 3500 years ago is basically things like lists of kings inscribed inside of temple ruins and things like that. There's probably more hard, preservable documentation of any random person alive today than there was of kings from the third millenium BC. --Jayron32 04:04, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

See http://multilingualbible.com/1_peter/1-25.htm. -- Wavelength (talk) 04:14, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

The Egyptians and the Mayans had their hieroglyphs; the Sumerian had cuneiform; the Chinese had bone oracle. Yet millenia later many aspects of their culture and history still remain in mystery. Perhaps several millenia later our decendants will be left to ponder over the ruins of the Eiffel Tower or Burj Dubai wondering if they had been religious monuments, or devices to communicate with aliens. This of course is in the realm of science fiction and the Planet of the Apes series presented us such a scenario. George Washington or Julius Caesar will probably become the sort of (semi-) mythical figures like we think of Adam, Moses or Zeus. --Kvasir (talk) 05:09, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

If in 6000 years, our descendants have a copy of Wikipedia, then we can be sure that the names of every professional wrestler and Pokemon of our era will be known to even the most innocent of babes. caknuck _° needs to be running more often 05:50, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that information preservation is at an all-time high so it's unlikely that denizens of the 9th millenium would be confused about anything about our culture or history. More to the OP's question is what events would people of the year 6000 consider to be important. I'd say some imporant firsts have occurred in our time, including the beginnings of space travel, of weapons of mass destruction, and concern of environmental impacts. Of course, FTL travel, planet destroying weapons, and terraformation technology would probably mean that our "firsts" are hardly such. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 05:59, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Well yes, that's assuming no mass destruction had sent human civilisation back to the Stone Age leaving the survivors to reinvent the wheel, let alone how to access Wikipedia from corrupted servers buried under miles of radioactive dust. Consider this well-known quote:

"I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones." - Albert Einstein (1947) [41]

--Kvasir (talk) 06:09, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I think the truth lies somewhere in the knowledge each of us has about our great great grandparents. Names, dates, where they lived, what they did - but not much more. Kittybrewster ☎ 08:44, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Also see A Canticle for Leibowitz. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:55, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Very informative -- thank you all! (Caknuck gets prize for most entertaining response, though!) DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 11:46, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

See http://multilingualbible.com/isaiah/40-8.htm. -- Wavelength (talk) 13:50, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Even if people have access to all the information of today, very little of it will make it to an ancient history 101 course. I think the key events from the last couple hundred years that will still be relevant to people in 6000 years are the end of colonialism, industrialization, globalization, the study of quantum physics, and the beginnings of user-generated content in mass media. I think the people who we remember will be those who personify those events, so maybe George Washington for colonialism, Henry Ford for industrialization, and Albert Einstein for quantum physics (or maybe the Large Hadron Collider and Hubble Space Telescope. As for globalization and user-generated content, I can't think of any one person for that, so maybe we will be remembered in general for that (go us?). People may also remember Adolf Hitler as a personification of evil, just like we think of Socrates as a personification of wisdom and Julius Caesar as a personification of power, although the details of the 20th century wars will be forgotten by all except for academics. I'm not sure what art people will still care about. They may remember that music started to become cooler in the early to mid 20th century and that movies were first invented around then, but I don't know which specific examples they'll have heard of. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 14:45, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I forgot to mention civil rights, especially the enfranchisement of women. That will still be notable in 6000 years, though I don't think any women was famous enough during that fight to be specifically remembered by the general population. --—Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 15:45, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm certain the assassination of John F. Kennedy will be relevant in the future, just as we know about the assassination of Julius Caesar today. I also think the 1960s will be analysed for the amount of change generated over a short period of time (civil rights, feminism, gay rights, sexual freedom, the generation gap, anti-war protests, use of drugs, the fashions in dress, hair and music).--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:03, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

That's somewhat Euro and US-centric. How many of us can recall the details of the death of Genghis Khan, whose empire was more extensive than Caesar's? And Khan was some 1200 years closer to us in history. How much does an average person today know about the 1560s? And that's only less than 500 years ago, never mind what we'll know or care to know in the year 8000. I think our knowledge will be categorised in centuries if not millenia. --Kvasir (talk) 15:32, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, events of 16th century Europe are pretty well documented. We know a lot about the Reformation, the Counter-Reformation, the French Wars of Religion, Battle of Lepanto, defeat of the Spanish Armada, Cortes and the fall of the Aztec Empire, the first English settlement in the New World, the Sack of Rome, Henry VIII his, six wives and his break with Rome, etc., etc.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:40, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I read the initial question as being about what the general public will remember, not what we have records of. Everyone remembers Julius Cesar, but the only people who know about 1560s fashion are people who have studied it. I highly doubt the general public will remember JFK. Julius Cesar founded the Roman Empire, his actions have ripples even through today. JFK's actions were much more limited in scope. Speaking as a non-American, I don't think I learned anything about him during my school years other than the fact that he was assassinated and that he had something to do with a standoff in Cuba. Had there been nuclear war, he might have been remembered for his failure, but as things turned out, I think today's youngest generation is already forgetting him outside of places in the US that are named after him. As for civil rights, I forgot to mention them, and they stand a good chance of being remembered. However, in 6000 years, I don't think that the 1960s will be singled out; we'll remember everything from the beginnings of the fight for women's suffrage in the 1890s through the legalization of gay marriage around the world as one cultural shift. I think that the shift in things like fashion in the 1960s will only be known by people who study that sort of thing, not by the population as a whole. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 15:45, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

The interest in history, and particularly the interest in accurate, empirical history, is somewhat culturally specific. Not every culture has valued this kind of history. Many have preferred more mythological accounts or accounts that glorify the order of the day. So I don't think we can assume that people 6,000 years from now will even be interested in or aware of the events and people of our time. Certainly, a lot of information is stored these days, but how do we know that these records will be maintained into the distant future? Assuming people in the future are interested, we might ask ourselves what we know about the people of 6,000 years ago. Of course, writing did not really exist then, so our knowledge is limited. But what the average educated person knows about that time is not much more than the broad brush strokes: Agriculture was spreading in many parts of the world. The first urban societies were forming in the Middle East. People were beginning to ride horses on the Eurasian steppe. Beyond this, archaeologists can identify specific named cultures from that time, but that is specialized knowledge. So, 6,000 years from now, assuming anyone cares about our time, they may remember that a global civilization existed that was based on industrial production and the consumption of petroleum, that world population had reached an unprecedented (and perhaps unsustainable) level, that the threat of nuclear annihilation loomed, that people had traveled to the moon, and, perhaps, though this might be the concern of specialists, that East Asia had begun to challenge Europe and North America for global dominance. Details below this level of generalization would be the concern of specialists, if they exist. Marco polo (talk) 15:54, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

In 6,000 years, man might already have invented the means to travel to different dimensions in time and space.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:00, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes and human babies would be born with an entire repertoire of human knowledge pre-loaded into their brains and ready to go. --Kvasir (talk) 16:08, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

This thread reminds me of that popular 1969 song In the Year 2525.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:11, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I like your one-sentence summary, Marco polo, that about sums it up. I was being a bit generous assuming that a typical person would remember any people from today. However, I would add to your comment that if people then have a democratic system of government they may remember the 20th Century as the beginning of universal suffrage and the welfare state, and if they have motion pictures as entertainment there might be a 20th Century film clip that everyone has seen and thinks of as an early example of the medium. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 16:16, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Let's hope it is not Southpark or something. Googlemeister (talk) 16:53, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

More seriously, even if we have all this wonderful information, who is to say that anyone in 8k years can read it? English did not exist 8k years ago, and I would be a bit surprised if people would still be able to read it. How many modern Italians can read Latin, or even Medieval Italian? Googlemeister (talk) 19:33, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. As I pointed out earlier about hieroglyphs; cuneiform; or bone oracle, deciphering these ancient languages is now reserved to the realm of academia. --Kvasir (talk) 19:51, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Germans in colonial Louisiana

Why is it that historians, teachers and authors rarely mention the numerous Germans who settled on the German Coast in 18th-century Louisiana? The majority of people with French ancestry also have German ancestors, especially on the maternal line as many Frenchmen took German wives. In fact, Gen. PGT Beauregard is one notable example; he's descended from the Wurtz family. They always mention the French and Spanish, but omit the Germans. Does anyone know why this is the case?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:34, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

It might have something to do with perceptions of all things German during both World Wars. See Getting to Gemütlichkeit: German History and Culture in Southeast Louisiana by Laura Westbrook, e.g. The articles on German Coast and Roberts Cove, Louisiana specifically mention Act 114, passed by the Louisiana state legislature during World War I, "which made all expressions of German culture and heritage, especially the printed or spoken use of the German language, illegal. ---Sluzzelin talk 08:59, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but I was referring to the 18th and 19th centuries. Germans were compelled to Gallicise their names with surnames such as Boftz becoming Poffe, Gabel was Cable etc. It was as if the culture became totally lost and submerged by the dominant French. In fact, on old census records, German farmers were listed automatically as hog-raisers. By the way, the ancestress of Beauregard was Wiltz not Wurtz, sorry for my error. The Wiltz family was one of the prominent familes on the German Coast.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 10:25, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

The article is not accurate as intermarriage between Germans and French took place decades before the arrival of the Cajuns (c.1755). General Beauregard was not a Cajun, neither was his first wife who also had German ancestry.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 10:31, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

how to read the koran

I'm embarking on reading the Koran over the next couple days/week (the copy I have is less than 500 pages including the index)and was wondering what order to read it in. Unlike other "scripture" I've read in the past from what I'm aware of, the Koran was put together mostly in order from longest to shortest stories - as opposed to the "chronological" order of the bible and the book of mormon. I'm not necessarily looking for the chronological order of the stories/books so much as a solid order to read them in. I've started reading at The Creator (around page 300 in my version) but if someone could offer a better method than random chance (which is how I ended up where I did) that would be super awesome. Thanks! flagitious 09:26, 28 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flagitious (talk • contribs)

Note that the "Letters of Paul" in the New Testament are not even not all by Paul, but are also organized by lengths, not chronologically. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:08, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure there is no one right method - you know what will work for you! But here is some interesting reading for someone just starting to look at the book:

*Wikiislam gives the chronological order, should you wish to follow that.

*This blog post discusses how you may get a different impression of the text when reading in chronological order versus traditional order. (Plus recommends a good translation for those new to the book, although I know you already have one.)

*The Guardian's Qur'an blog series offers context and pointers for first-time readers.

Best, WikiJedits (talk) 13:40, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

It would probably be revealing to read the Mecca chapters before the Medina chapters, even if you don't try to read it in strict chronological order (something which I'm not sure is exactly known anyway). AnonMoos (talk) 15:33, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Original source of "I prefer rogues to imbeciles, as rogues sometimes rest" (Dumas)

There's a favourite quote of mine: "I prefer rogues to imbeciles, as rogues sometimes rest." - Alexandre Dumas (fils). I'm trying to track down the original work it comes from.

There are many web pages of author quotes. I've seen the French rendered as:

• "J'aime mieux les méchants que les imbéciles, parce qu'ils se reposent." (seems to be the most common rendering)
• "Je préfère le méchant à l'imbécile, parce que l'imbécile ne se repose jamais." ("because the imbecile never rests")
• "Si je devais faire un choix, entre les méchants et les imbéciles, ce serait les méchants, parce qu'ils se reposent."

None of these indicate the source work, and some credit it to Dumas père rather than Dumas fils. Argh ...

(I also found a Yahoo! Answers page that suggests it was Dumas' response to Victor Hugo saying "The wicked envy and hate, it is their form of admiration.")

Any clues as to the source work? - David Gerard (talk) 11:36, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I have now been told that he didn't write it, it was something he said that was reported by others (and I was given the reference Léo Claretie: Histoire de la littérature française (900-1900): Le dix-neuvième siècle, so now all I need is a copy of that ...). So I can translate it fairly freely :-D - David Gerard (talk) 13:50, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

(EC) Here's one possible lead. I tried your key words (méchants l'imbécile dumas) in google books: (sorry something weird with spaces in URLS is preventing me linking to the search result directly) and the result text for the second hit, La revue des deux mondes‎ - Page 561 says: "Comme on parlait de la méchanceté humaine, Dumas dit : « Je préfère le méchant à l'imbécile, parce que l'imbécile ne se repose jamais". As it's Snippet view only, however, that's all I've got. If you can pinpoint any more details about the journal, someone at Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request might be able to pull the issue and confirm... P.S. after EC - the resource request could probably also find the book you really need. Best, WikiJedits (talk) 13:54, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Excellent, thank you! - David Gerard (talk) 14:11, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

United church of christ

What does the unitedd church of christ belive about god? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Parts918 (talk • contribs) 15:38, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

The church takes the position that God exists. Marco polo (talk) 15:40, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

lol  :-) --HighKing (talk) 15:43, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Is United Church of Christ#Beliefs any help? Karenjc 15:56, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Marsh land in Southern Iraq

What is the current status of the marsh land in Southern Iraq and the Marsh Arabs and why was the marsh land drained in the first place, i.e., did the Marsh Arabs represent some kind of threat? 71.100.1.71 (talk) 15:55, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

The article Marsh Arabs answers your questions. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 16:37, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Can you help me with a sonnet?

by help i mean do one for me in the next ten minutes if possible. PLEASE, its a life or death situation —Preceding unsigned comment added by Special agent 500000 (talk • contribs) 16:06, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Aw... missing your homework deadline isn't the end of the world. --Kvasir (talk) 16:20, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Shall I compare thee to a summer rose By any other name Wouldst thou be less beautiful? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.172.58.82 (talk) 16:21, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Thomas Wyatt wrote lovely sonnets.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:28, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Writing a haiku

Is easier than a sonnet

Whatever the season. Gandalf61 (talk) 16:34, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Whoso list to hunt? I know where is an hind.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:46, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, I think this one's resolved. ╟─TreasuryTag►secretariat─╢ 16:51, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

meta discussion

Why was the question archived? Wouldn't it have been better to just tell the OP that the ref desk doesn't answer homework questions, than lock the thread? For the benefit of the OP if they ever come back here, the standard response that should have been posted; "Welcome to the Wikipedia Reference Desk. Your question appears to be a homework question. I apologize if this is a misinterpretation, but it is our policy here not to do people's homework for them, but to merely aid them in doing it themselves. Letting someone else do your homework does not help you learn. Please attempt to solve the problem or answer the question yourself first. If you need help with a specific part of your homework, feel free to tell us where you are stuck and ask for help. If you need help grasping the concept of a problem, by all means let us know." 82.43.89.71 (talk) 19:08, 28 April 2010 (UTC) "He" was effectively told that, and the "thread" was "locked" – what's your problem? ╟─TreasuryTag►Captain-Regent─╢ 19:09, 28 April 2010 (UTC) My "problem" is with the unprofessional way the it was handled. I don't see where he was told that the Reference Desk doesn't answer homework questions. The only comment relating to homework was mocking the OP; "Aw... missing your homework deadline isn't the end of the world". And I also don't understand why it was archived in this way. Threads here on the reference desk are never archived like this. 82.43.89.71 (talk) 19:16, 28 April 2010 (UTC) Fine. You suggest "locking" the thread: how would you suggest doing that? ╟─TreasuryTag►Speaker─╢ 20:00, 28 April 2010 (UTC) What are you talking about? I'm not suggesting the thread should be locked, I'm disagreeing with the fact that you locked it with the archive templates. 82.43.89.71 (talk) 20:06, 28 April 2010 (UTC) Pardon me; I misread your "than lock it" as "then lock it" – that bit was my fault. However, as for cutting off this really stupid thread (the RefDesk says "no homework" at the top, which the OP should have read) – it was the appropriate thing to do, and I will not be engaging in further discussion about it. If you wish to take this issue further, the ball is in your court. ╟─TreasuryTag►most serene─╢ 20:10, 28 April 2010 (UTC) It's not your place to decide which threads are "stupid" and which aren't. You are not the sold arbitrator of quality on the Reference Desk. I've unarchived the thread since your reasoning isn't just, and I'm collapsing this discussion. 82.43.89.71 (talk) 20:15, 28 April 2010 (UTC) Yes that was my sarcastic way of pointing out that it's a homework question. --Kvasir (talk) 19:58, 28 April 2010 (UTC) Yes, I can see that, but it doesn't explain to the OP that the Reference Desk generally doesn't answer homework questions. And I still don't understand why the question was boxed in an archive template. If you feel the question should be removed for some reason, then post why on the talk page, otherwise leave it be. Locking threads like this just opens the door for anyone to start closing threads they have some issue with. 82.43.89.71 (talk) 20:05, 28 April 2010 (UTC) Oh me neither about locking it. But I just can't resist the humour seeing how desperate he/she was. I'm sure sooner or later our fellow ref. desk users will offer genuine help, whether or not within the 10-minute deadline. --Kvasir (talk) 20:14, 28 April 2010 (UTC) Google could have saved the OP's life...

Alexander the Great

Macedonia has been trying to join the EU, but has been blocked mostly by Greece who feel that Macedonia should be part of Greece. With the current headache that Greece is giving the EU, would this increase the chances of Macedonia becoming part of the EU, or how has it affected MAcedonia, if at all. Also why is MAcedonia rarely mentioned as a potentail member when it is so completely part of Europe while Turkey, is often bandied about as soon to become part. Turkey is Asia, and Islamic, which are not in line with European culture, nothing against Asians and Islamicism, bust that it is Asian rather than European. Or am I completely wrong in my views of Turkey Thanx —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.172.58.82 (talk) 16:19, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Geographically speaking Turkey is one of these countries straddles over Europe and Asia. The Bosphorus is the traditional boundary between Europe and Asia, on which Istanbul sits right on top. Historically speaking, Istanbul used to be known as Constantinople, the seat of the Christian Church before the Great Schism. --Kvasir (talk) 16:28, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and the Byzantine Empire was an important component of European power and civilisation.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:33, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Greece don't want the Republic of Macedonia to be part of Greece, they just want it to have a different name than Macedonia, because that is a Greek region. See the article Macedonia naming dispute for more about this issue. Regarding Turkey or Macedonia being closer to joining the EU: Remember that there isn't a queue. The negotiations with each candidate country go at different speeds and talks have been going on with Turkey since 1987, before the break up of Yugoslavia. Just because they have been talking for a longer time, it does not mean that they will join the EU before Macedonia, or ever. /Coffeeshivers (talk) 16:36, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

The source of the problem is that the area of the ancient country of Macedon covered areas that are today in both the Greek state of Macedonia and the country of Macedonia. The ancient kingdom was undoubtedly Greek, and became the most powerful Greek empire ever under Alexander the Great. However, the modern nation of Macedonia is a Slavic nation, with no cultural connection to the Greeks. The Greeks, who were basically denied their own country for 2000 years, and particularly touchy about their culture, and take umbridge at a non-Greek people taking the name of an ancient Greek kingdom as the name of their country. The Greeks do not begrudge the Macedonians their own nation, or membership in international organizations, or anything like that. They just want them to call themselves something different. --Jayron32 20:21, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

GK question

I am looking for the structure

1. which is arguably the most famous religious facility on the planet (other than Vatican) 2. many view it as "sacred ground" 3. The early mission of this place was to provide shelter for Catholic missionaries and their converts

I would appreciate any help —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.93.90.88 (talk) 16:24, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Are you going to share the prize money with us when we give you the winning answer? Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:53, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I would say the Kaaba is the best fit for the first two, but it has nothing to do with Catholic missionaries. --Tango (talk) 18:13, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Did you look at the "Geography question" section directly above?? -- AnonMoos (talk) 18:18, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

You can scroll up the page, or click #Geography question. -- Wavelength (talk) 18:28, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Based on #3, I would say that its the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem, which, outside of the Vatican or Constatinople or Moscow or any of the other major patriarchates, is the single most important church in Christendom. It sits on what is supposedly Cavalry or Golgotha, that is the site of Jesus's crucifixion, and also purports to sit over the cave where Jesus was buried and rose from the dead. It was the focus of pilgramages by Christians for hundreds of years; when Muslims began to harass christian pilgrims and deny them access to the Church, it provided the impetus for the Holy Crusades. Since you only asked #1 the last time, you got a long list. Putting #1, #2, and #3 together, its most likely the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. --Jayron32 20:08, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

February 1974 Queen's Speech

Harold Wilson led a short-lived minority government following the United Kingdom general election, February 1974. As I understand it, a minority government needs to, at a minimum, get majority support for its Queen's Speech if it is going to even get started. Who did he get to vote in support of it and how? I can't find that information anywhere... --Tango (talk) 17:59, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

"The Tories abstained" says [42] which I think would explain it...? - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 18:04, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Well found. Yes, I think that explains it. I guess they felt a short Labour government was better than another election straight away. Thanks. --Tango (talk) 18:09, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Anthony Wells, an experienced pollster, says "In 1974 the opinion of the Palace was that they would have been very hard pressed to refuse Wilson [a dissolution of Parliament] had he requested one." I take that to mean Wilson didn't request one; I imagine he believed the people would vote against him for the furore of two rapid elections. [Depending on what "they" you meant.] - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 19:20, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

"They" meant the Tories. The Tories could have forced an election by voting down the Queen's Speech, but didn't. That must be because they didn't like the idea of another election. --Tango (talk) 20:00, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

In a million years time

If humans last a million more years (I see no reason why we shouldn't but you never know, a million years is a ridiculously long time), will there still be different "races" or will everyone be similar?--92.251.243.109 (talk) 18:20, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Consider how far we came over the last million years (if you believe in the theory of human evolution, I don't see why our planet won't be dominated by a species different than us, or that human has evolved to the point we would consider a different species today. --Kvasir (talk) 18:34, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Which bit of, "The reference desk does not answer requests for predictions about future events," did you find confusing? ╟─TreasuryTag►assemblyman─╢ 18:39, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)In a million years, we might not even be classified as "human" anymore; our last common ancestor with chimpanzees lived only three millions years ago. So if we aren't even talking about the same species, I think talking about race is a moot point. As for whether our species is homogeneous, I guess that depends on whether we keep increasing the amount of global immigration or become isolated again. And TreasuryTag, you're no fun :P. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 18:41, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

But he has a very valid point. If we engage in this sort of speculation, how could we refuse to speculate on who's going to win the UK general election, or the Australian general election, or who's going to win the 2019 SuperBowl, or where the Olympics in 2064 will be held, or when JImmy Carter is going to die? There are no references for these sorts of questions, and we are a reference desk. We have to apply our rules consistently. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:09, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Identity of Roman statues

How can people be so sure that Roman busts are named correctly? For example those of Cicero or Cleopatra? At some point they were presumably dug out of the earth. Who is to say who they are? They could be anybody. 78.149.181.41 (talk) 19:16, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

You'd be surprised. Many of the urban centers in Italy have been populated continuously since the Roman Empire. Rome, Ravenna, Milan, and Naples have all been major urban centers for 2000 years. Statues of Cicero or Julius Caesar would have always had thousands of people who could tell you "That's Cicero" as locals passed such knowledge down through the generations. Many of these have not been dug out of the earth, but have instead simply been in place and known for thousands of years. In cases where an unknown statue is dug out of the earth, we can often identify by comparison to existing statues. And then there's the fact that, like modern artists, some of the ancient sculptors put big labels on their busts or statues that said things like CICERO or IULIUS CAESAR which would make it rather easy to identify them. For the emperors, at least, we also have coinage that bears their likeness, which can sometimes be used for identification purposes. --Jayron32 19:59, 28 April 2010 (UTC)