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

August 21

hair care during WWII

Which brands of shampoo contribute to the war effort during World War II? Did any servicepeople use a specific brand? Did any civilians on the home front use another specific brand?69.203.157.50 (talk) 05:02, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Drene, Halo, Lustre-Creme.--Wetman (talk) 05:56, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

The "weekly shampoo" contributed to the "simple, almost waveless coiffures that are becoming a wartime fashion" as of February 19, 1944 in the NY Times. The snippet does not give the brand preferred. A library trip will be required to get the full article. "Kreml" was one advertised brand[1] which kept the "brilliant sheen" for days. In other words, daily shampooing was not happening at home during the war. Without daily shampooing, there was likely less of a need to replace the oils washed out. Halo was apparently a detergent shampoo, hence no "soap film" to dull the hair. Edison (talk) 00:44, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Anselme Lavigne

Who is Canada was Anselme Lavigne? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.154.25.134 (talk) 14:18, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Dollard-des-Ormeaux, Quebec : "One of its original main axes, Anselme-Lavigne Street in the Westpark neighbourhood, is named for a farmer who sold his land to the Belcourt Construction Company."83.100.250.79 (talk) 14:28, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

There is also a park and a school named after him there. He seems to have been the first mayor of Dollard-des-Ormeaux, not just some guy who sold a farm. Adam Bishop (talk) 15:39, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Am I the only one who thought the Lavigne troll was back when I first saw this question? Nil Einne (talk) 21:59, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

There's a bridge named after the guy as well? 87.81.230.195 (talk) 08:56, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Should religion be separated from the Humanities Reference Desk?

To all concerned users of RD/H:

There is presently a discussion on Wikipedia talk:Reference desk regarding the possibility of splitting religion questions away from this reference desk to a Religion Reference Desk. Input from the community of users most affected by / interested in this proposal would be welcome.

Thanks, Lomn 14:33, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Napoleon's burial arrangements

I recall hearing that Napoleon is buried in 7 coffins. Does that mean that he was dismembered with various parts going into separate coffins, or that he is intact and the coffins are like Russian dolls? Googlemeister (talk) 15:05, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Maybe it refers to the bits that were removed at the autopsy? His penis was supposedly removed...here is a Straight Dope article about it. Adam Bishop (talk) 15:37, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

If he was dismembered, I bet they were really small coffins. Like shoebox size. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 15:46, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

The article on Napoleon references moving his body at some point, with no hint that they had to move 7 different things. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 15:48, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

This article I found at random in Google [2] suggests the Russian dolls scenario. I know he's under some big stone thing, as I recall seeing a photo of Hitler visiting Napoleon's tomb. Hitler apparently admired Napoleon, and sought to emulate him (such as by invading Russia during the winter).

Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 15:51, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Hitler invaded Russia in June, near the first day of summer. Where did you get the idea that he invaded during winter? --99.237.234.104 (talk) 19:30, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

He said Hitler emulated Napoleon; he never said he was smart. HalfShadow 17:38, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, when nwinter came around he was still invading... Googlemeister (talk) 20:02, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Ya, the official tomb is Napoleon's tomb in Les Invalides. It certainly seems he's all there... TastyCakes (talk) 17:26, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Able was 'e, ere 'e saw Elba. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:17, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

If you believe the story depicted in the execrable movie Monsieur N. (2003), then none of his parts are at Les Invalides, and the body there is that of an officer named Cipriani. The story goes that Napoleon was spirited away to Louisiana, and died there. In the meantime, he married an Englishwoman, travelled, and even secretly attended his own funeral in Paris. But this has no historical backing at all; I can't even imagine where the myth could have come from. See also my question @ Talk:Napoleon I of France/Archive 3#Monsieur N.. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:55, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

There's another Hitler parallel: The fable that Hitler didn't actually snuff it, but instead fled Germany and moved to South America along with some of his Nazi pals. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:32, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

No survivors of Unit 731?

It is said that no victims (not meaning the victims of plague-bombings) of Unit 731 survived. But several sources on the net cites information about a rebellion within the unit 731 building at Beiyinhe, the predecessor of Ping fan, in c. 1934. This rebellion is cited in Factories of death: Japanese biological warfare, 1932-45 (Sheldon H. Harris) [[3]]. The rebellion, led by a man known as Li, was successfull, and several prisoners of the Unit 731 eskaped and joined the partisans. According to this, these victims, at least, survived. Have they never been identified, never given their testemony? At least, this means that they were actually survivors, unless I have misunderstood the story? I have only read about it here, so perhaps some facts are missing. Were they perhaps captured later, and that's why it is said that there were no survivors?--85.226.47.46 (talk) 17:15, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Historical woman

I am looking for the article on a dead European woman but I cannot remember much. She lived in the 19th or 20th centuries (probably the 20th) and lived a very interesting, wild, libertine life. She is famous for being an author, and lived in Paris at one time. The Wikipedia article has excerpts of some of her letters to various men in it. Sorry, can't narrow it down much :/ Thank you for your help! Mac Davis (talk) 17:31, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like Alma Mahler-Werfel, except she was a composer. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 18:04, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

You could try Category:19th-century women writers and Category:20th-century women writers to start. —Akrabbim^talk 18:38, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I assume Cricket Bugs is referring to Alma Mahler-Werfel. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 18:54, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

True. Meanwhile, I thought every 19th century woman in Paris lived a wild, libertine life; so it's hard to narrow it down. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 18:56, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Colette ? George Sand ? Anais Nin ? There are quite a few persons matching your description. --Xuxl (talk) 20:03, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Maybe Gertrude Stein? Subject of the famous poem, "There's a wonderful family named Stein. / There's Ep, there's Gert, and there's Ein. / Ep's statues are junk, Gert's poems are bunk / And nobody understands Ein." AnonMoos (talk) 01:07, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Probably not whom you had in mind, but Anne_Lister seems to have spent significant time in Paris... AnonMoos (talk) 01:16, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Darn... none of 'em. I looked at every 20th century female author article too. Mac Davis (talk) 14:40, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Djuna Barnes, Natalie Clifford Barney, Romaine Brooks, or Renée Vivien? AlexTiefling (talk) 20:54, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Elinor Glyn? Mata Hari? One of the Mitford family daughters? Barbara Cartland? 78.151.136.177 (talk) 23:17, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Greek orthodox church

I was wondering, are the people that carry out services called priests in Greek orthodox churches? For example, at a Greek wedding would it be presided over by a priest or is there another name? Would they be called "Father <insert name>" or something else when referring to them? TastyCakes (talk) 17:36, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

The answers can be found at Eastern_Orthodox_Church#Holy_Orders.83.100.250.79 (talk) 18:00, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok thanks, so they are priests? Would you refer to them as "Priest <blank>" or "Father <blank>" or what? TastyCakes (talk) 19:53, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

The other ordained roles are presbyter (Gr. πρεσβύτερος, elder), which became "prester" and then "priest" in English, and diakonos (Gr. διάκονος, servant), which became "deacon" in English (see also subdeacon).

I'm not sure - it might depend on whether you got a 'presbyter', or 'diakonos', In english I'm sure "Father ....." is polite in the western church. I don't speak or know greek though - if you're going to a greek wedding you'd better wait for someone who knows the lingo.83.100.250.79 (talk) 20:34, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks alot. TastyCakes (talk) 22:03, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

An old friend is a convert to Orthodoxy and a priest--his Facebook name is "Father ____ _____" so I'd say Father is acceptable (if not preferred), although I couldn't assure you that this would also be true in Greek. I think it's a fairly safe assumption to make, though. Jwrosenzweig (talk) 06:29, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Religious figures are generally pretty genial people, so I'm sure if you asked him that he'd be happy to explain the proper form of address. There's no harm in ignorance if you're willing to learn. Just start out with "Excuse me, Father ___. By the way, is it "Father" or is there a better form of address..." Dismas|^(talk) 17:17, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I would say "Father" is an acceptable form of address for any clerygyman of any faith anywhere. It's respectful, and it's the default form that's widely used. If they actually use a different style, they'll tell you but they won't make a big deal out of it. I've never heard of any clergyman being addressed as "Priest ___". -- JackofOz (talk) 23:21, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Not all faiths: most Protestants take the biblical passage Matthew 23:9 to mean that "Father" shouldn't be used in this fashion. Nyttend (talk) 03:20, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Image - story behind it

Something to do with one of Charlemagne's knights, anyone know?83.100.250.79 (talk) 19:34, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

That's Renaud de Montauban, a.k.a. Rinaldo di Montalbano, trying to survive a fell beast as he escapes the Castle Altaripa, in Legends of Charlemagne. You can read more about the illustration here and the source material here. Search for "Altaripa, which was hung with human heads, and painted red with blood" for this exciting episode. --Sean 20:18, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Great, Thanks - that reminds me of another question I've been meaning to to ask.

Would it be in bad taste to note that he appears to be running away and hiding from it? HalfShadow 02:31, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

He might call it "gaining tactical advantage". :-) And the "in bad taste" question depends on what you mean. If you wonder if it would be in bad taste to say so in person, I'd say it would be an oddly committed chivalro-phile who was offended at the suggestion. If you wonder, though, whether it ought to be said in an article on (or including) the image, of course you'd simply need to find a verifiable source that says so. If it's an accepted interpretation, then cool, and if not, then I guess we'll have to keep our opinions of Renaud's bravery to ourselves. :-) Jwrosenzweig (talk) 06:32, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

"Bravely fled Sir Renaud"? 87.81.230.195 (talk) 06:36, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Brave, brave Sir Robin Renaud. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:08, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure Sir Renaud has a cunning plan, which he is about to demonstrate to the beast. I assume that, and not that he starved to death on a ledge in a dungeon due to fear - since that would not make, in my opinion, a classic story, worthy of retelling from generation to generation...(no spoilers please - I haven't read it yet)83.100.250.79 (talk) 10:36, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

No spoilers? OK, then I won't tell you about the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch. Actually, this illustration looks to me like Brunhilde being frightened by a rodent of unusual size. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 18:32, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

No need, for verily there existeth an article. (Just swallowest thou not all it doth claim.) Clarityfiend (talk) 03:58, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

In an odd coincidence, the article of which you speak is coconut-shaped. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 11:37, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Chanson de geste - adaptations

Are there any adaptations of these sets of stories eg film What about the ley of Roland for instance, I find it difficult to believe that the french have missed the opportunity to convert into film (eg as per robin hood, king arthur etc etc)

Wikipedia doesn't mention any I found, - do they exist? (And if not, why not???)83.100.250.79 (talk) 20:43, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

There's La chanson de Roland, and a TV series, Charlemagne, le prince à cheval. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:08, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

With Klaus Kinski The Song of Roland (film) - sounds vaguely promising.83.100.250.79 (talk) 10:02, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I never thought of Klaus Kinski as the romantic type, which is the way I've always imagined Roland. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:03, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

August 22

Entrepreneurship/business question: the success of iTunes

Why do you think iTunes succeeded? I mean, it seems pretty useless to me. It's certainly expensive (1$ a song is okay if you're just going to get 2-3 songs) and, with all that music easily available for free (though in maybe not-so-legal places sometimes)... I just can't come up with a reason for its success. So, what do you think? Thanks. --Belchman (talk) 01:06, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

The illegal/semi-legal P2P programs are pretty crappy these days. Personally, as someone whose computer might as well be run by tiny gnomes, simple programs like Sharezaa or the like are easier to use than, say, torrents, so I imagine it is the same for other non-technically-minded people. It's much, much faster to grab something from iTunes. I would therefore guess laziness is a big reason. Also, since songs are actually 99 cents, it seems a lot cheaper than a dollar, even though it isn't. So it's the same reason anyone does anything, laziness and ignorance... Adam Bishop (talk) 01:14, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

There are really two questions here. First, why do people buy music when it's available for free? A lot of people either don't feel comfortable stealing, don't know reliable ways to, or are happy to pay in order to support the bands they like. Second, why do people buy music from iTunes rather than other sources? iTunes has obvious advantages over buying CDs: it's more convenient than having to go out and by a physical disc or wait for one to ship, and it also tends to be a little cheaper ($9.99 per album is usually less than elsewhere). As for other digital music stores, I would chalk it up to superior visibility and marketing that comes with being a big company like Apple. The main drawback to buying from iTunes rather than other places was the DRM until they removed it, but I think most people don't care enough. Rckrone (talk) 07:27, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your replies. That's more or less what I was thinking. But, Rckrone, please, don't say that downloading music is "stealing". You can say "illegally copying" if you want to. --Belchman (talk) 14:11, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Isn't illegally copying stealing? DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 15:06, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Not really. You aren't stopping the rightful owner from having it, which is a key component of theft. It is copyright infringement, a completely different law. --Tango (talk) 02:32, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

That illegal downloading is a form of theft arises out of the downloader taking without permission some of the property rights of the owner. I don't think any number of angels dancing on a pinhead obscures that fact. I'm sorry if that is not your world view. --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:38, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Theft is taking with the intention to permanently deprive. When you infringe upon someone's rights they still have those rights, so they haven't been deprived of them. They may have been deprived of the benefits of those rights, but that would be considered damages, not theft. --Tango (talk) 02:49, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

(ec)That's not exactly true. While you haven't stolen the original, you've still stolen his ability to profit from it. So it's kind of "indirect" theft. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 02:40, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

"Ability to profit" isn't a tangible thing than can be stolen. If you are going to extend the definition of theft to include intangible things like that you could end up claiming most crimes are a form of theft, eg. assault is "theft of wellbeing". To say someone has stolen your profits you would have to show both that they profited from it and that you would have got those profits had they not. That is very rarely the case with the kind of thing we are talking about. --Tango (talk) 02:49, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Morally speaking, it's theft. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 02:54, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

My morals don't use technical legal terminology. Things can be "right" and they can be "wrong" (and they can be in a grey area inbetween), words like "theft" do not appear in my moral conclusions about things. --Tango (talk) 03:00, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

No matter how you try to justify it, it's still theft. It's taking something away from someone, be it the object itself, or their rights to profit from it, either way it's theft. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:06, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Looks like some people here are very sensitive about this topic. Maybe they're "selling" their music or they're not particularly brilliant and can't understand some subtleties. Anyway, that's off-topic here and that discussion should be avoided, thanks! --Belchman (talk) 02:43, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

An economist might also point out that itunes is a monopoly waiting to happen. A [natural monopoly] is one where market power comes from the economies of scale inherent in the particular industry. Economies of scale occur when the fixed cost of a business are high but the variable costs are low. In this context a variable cost is one that varies with the number of units the business sells. A digital music store is a perfect example of such economies of scale. It costs Apple tonnes of money to develop itunes and the store, host the downloads and do all the advertising they do. But it costs them next to nothing to actually supply you with a song when you click purchase. The only thing they have to pay for is the additional bandwidth you use when downloading that song. No CD, no case, no labour, nothing. Once they had a large customer base (which was made easier by the success of the ipod) it was almost inevitable that they would succeed.--124.171.182.106 (talk) 16:06, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

It's also the case that in the music industry, digital rights and etc. were tied up for years and years before deals could be worked out. Only a few "buy digital music online" stores actually have catalogs that most people are interested in—basically iTunes and Amazon.com are the two players who have managed to work out the necessary legal mumbo-jumbo in order to secure the rights to sell the music on a large scale. The legal aspects of it almost guarantee that only a few large players are going to be able to break into the market itself—only they will have the negotiating power to keep their costs low so the whole thing can be profitable. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 17:00, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Nice thoughts too, thanks! --Belchman (talk) 17:38, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Truths which are allegedly created by opinions about what the truth is

Maybe this should be on the Linguistics desk, but it's also sort of philosophy-related, and I'm looking at it more from a philosophical point of view than a linguistic one. Is there a term for cases where the "correct" answer to a specific question is claimed to be entirely dependent on what people think the correct answer is? (I don't mean cases where someone says "there's no correct answer" or "it depends on how you define it", because it's being asserted that there is a correct answer — it's just that the correct answer is created by the attempt to find it, rather than existing abstractly. I also don't mean cases where someone says that all truth is a matter of opinion.)

For example, I see a lot of arguments about whether Turkey is a European country. Some say it is and some say it isn't, but some say that "Europe" is just a label and therefore means whatever we say it does, meaning that our own opinions as to whether Turkey is in Europe or not actually shape the correct answer to the question. The argument goes that if everyone considered Turkey to be European, that would by itself mean that Turkey is truly and genuinely European, and that conversely, if no-one saw Turkey as European, that fact alone would mean that Turkey wasn't European, completely regardless of anything else. Thus, the argument goes, you shouldn't really argue about the "correct" answer to the question because the aggregate or outcome of the argument is the only thing which could create such a thing as the correct answer. You could take similar approaches to questions like "is this thing red or orange?", or "is Cantonese a language or a dialect", or really, anything that involves applying labels to things. You could also come up with claims about wants correlating to good ideas — for example, someone might claim that if a country wants to abolish its monarchy, then that in and of itself makes abolishing the monarchy an objectively good idea, but that if the country doesn't want to abolish it's monarchy, then that is enough to make keeping the monarchy the objectively correct choice — that is, the chosen option is correct because it is what was chosen, and for no other reason.

Setting aside the issue of whether this is a valid line of reasoning, is there a term for it? Do we have any articles which cover concepts like that? -- 203.97.105.173 (talk) 10:30, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Self-fulfilling prophecy and begging the question gently approach this subject before backing away in fear for what they are unleashing. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:20, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Huh? Can there be any doubt that "Turkey", "Europe" and "country" only have the meanings people assign to them? Surely Turkey was not a country in Europe when dinosaurs ruled the Earth? --Sean 12:15, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is supposed to rely on verifiability, not TRUTH, and articles are the result of consensus among editors. Therefore, all articles are examples of your thesis. -Arch dude (talk) 14:00, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Insofar as everything we perceive is filtered through our own senses, we can truly not be 100% certain that we aren't just some autistic child imagining the entire world into existance. At some level, we must accept the truth as we sense it, because it becomes impossible to operate in the world if we do not. Insofar as elements of the truth are inventions of the human mind or of human culture, Wikipedia reports those human cultural truths, such as which cultural sphere Turkey belongs to, as best as can be verified by reliable sources. Being an invention of human consciousness does not make something less real than being a rock. --Jayron32 16:21, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't know that there's a term for it, beyond "semantics", but what I call it is the tendency of humans to invent a label that doesn't quite work, and then to argue over whether something fits the label or not. Being in Europe vs. being in Asia is one obvious example. Another is the matter of different races and who fits into them. Religion and politics also come into it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:37, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Probably the term you are searching for is semiotics which includes not only semantics, but every aspect of communication and obtaining meaning through words. --Jayron32 18:25, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

See social constructivism, nominalism, etc... AnonMoos (talk) 21:24, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for all the responses. -- 203.97.105.173 (talk) 10:04, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

And since there are Stipulative definitions it might all depend on what definition of Europe you prefer.Sjö (talk) 18:08, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

We are touching on the rhetorical concept of equivocation, where the two or more different meanings of a word are deliberately or unconsciously confused so as to lead to an apparently logical but actually invalid argument or conclusion. Sticking with the "is Turkey in Europe?" example, the terms "Europe" and "European" can be applied to a strictly geographical area, a political concept, or a cultural concept; the contextual definitions and "boundaries" of the three do not coincide, nor need they — one might (and another might not) consider Turkey geographically (mostly) in Asia rather than in Europe (theoretically capable of absolute definition), politically in Europe (definition subject to treaty date), and culturally partly in both (subject to subjective measurement). Such dishonest or mistaken arguments often also mix in the unspoken, inapplicable concept of mutual exclusivity - why should Turkey not be considered to fall within the cultural spheres of both Europe and Asia?

Such rhetorical misapplications are of course ubiquitous in human discourse, particularly in politics and religion. Consider for example the uses of the words "human" in the "Right to Life v. Right to Choose", and "chance" in the "Anti- v. Pro- Evolution", controversies. (Disclaimer: I'm NOT seeking to foment any discussion of those topics here!). 87.81.230.195 (talk) 11:14, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

War Declarations

I am looking to build a database of official war declarations. It should be for wars between two nations (no coups, no civil wars). Is there already a database compiled, either electronically, or bound (I'd hate to reinvent it)? In addition to UN security council resolutions (such as this), I'm also interested in official declarations, such as these. Thank you. Llamabr (talk) 16:36, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

You certainly have a large task ahead of you. As Declaration of war points out, official declarations of war have been made since the beginning of recorded history (see Epic of Gilgamesh). This site contains declarations of war for the WWII period. That is only one small period of history, though. See Lists of wars to get an idea of how many wars will fit your criteria. I've not seen a collection covering more than a small segment of history. AFAIK you'll be the first to create a general database of this nature. 152.16.59.102 (talk) 06:17, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're right on all counts. I'm limiting myself to interstate wars, since 1800, and with at least 1000 casualties. That reduces the list to around 80. Thanks for the WWII list. Looks like it's an uphill road for me. Llamabr (talk) 12:47, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Focus on premarital sexual relations in Abrahamaic religions

Is there any research or academic opinion on why the three Abrahamic religions have such a strong focus on proscribing premarital sexual relations, and if so, what is it? I would have thought (perhaps naïvely) that, given the pleasurable experience of sex, and the strong biological urge to engage in it, plus its necessity for population growth, that declaring it "sinful" seems illogical and counterproductive - hence my question.

I am aware that this is a sensitive topic, and I sincerely hope that I have not offended anyone with my question - if I have, I apologise. I would be most interested in answers that go beyond "(insert deity of choice) said so", but you are of course at liberty to give me this response if it's a conclusion that research has come to :). — QuantumEleven 18:00, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

There are lots of reasons why premarital sex is a bad idea for social reasons; not the least of which is that in most human cultural situations, having a stable two-parent household presents noted advantages for the children of that household. To discourage irresponsible behavior which may have the unintended consequence of the birth of a child into a disadvantaged situation can only be seen as a positive thing. Remember, there was no birth control pill thousands of years ago, and people who actually sat down and thought about it probably realized that it was somewhat irresponsible to bring children into the world when you are unprepared to actually raise them properly. Just a thought. --Jayron32 18:13, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

That's a good explanation. It's important to keep in mind that the Ten Commandments do not prohibit premarital sex, but only adultery; i.e. "unfaithfulness", and that's what typically rips a marriage apart. Discouraging premarital sex also discourages "shopping around". In fact, despite the official proscription, among conservatives there is a high degree of tolerance for premarital sex of couples that stay faithful to each other in the long haul (the Palins are an obvious example). There's also the old saying about married couples: "The first child can come anytime, the second one always takes nine months." The real issue is not so much premarital sex as it is "faithfulness" - both before and after marriage. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 18:29, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Why would the Ten Commandments be binding upon non-Jews? DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 14:28, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't know about 'binding' but as our Ten Commandments article says "The Ten Commandments, or Decalogue, are a list of religious and moral imperatives that, according to Judeo-Christian tradition, were authored by God and given to Moses on the mountain referred to as "Mount Sinai" (Exodus 19:23) or "Horeb" (Deuteronomy 5:2) in the form of two stone tablets. They are recognized as a moral foundation in Judaism, Christianity and Islam.[2]". The Old Testament of course "refers to the books that form the first of the two-part Christian Biblical canon. These works correspond to the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh), with some variations and additions" and is therefore an essential part of most Christian faiths Nil Einne (talk) 17:44, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

That's fine for a Wikipedia article, based on consensus, but since this is a reference desk where people may enjoy reality devoid of consensus, I thought I'd just toss out (in the sense of "making it known," and not "place in refuse") the idea that, from a Jewish perspective, one cannot necessarily determine why non-Jews believe the Ten Commandments apply to them any more than the rest of the Old Testament. The Old Testament was, as you said, given to the Jews at Mount Sinai. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 18:08, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that's irrelevant to the question. The fact of the matter is most Christians believe the Ten Commandments do apply to them and Muslims follow beliefs similar to the Ten Commandments (depending on your POV, either based on, perhaps even a corrupted version of, the Ten Commandments or a more 'pure' version that wasn't corrupted by humans). Whether or not other people believe they should apply to them is an irrelevant issue since it is Christians and Muslims who determine what applies to them, not anyone else. (Many Christians and Muslims of course do believe that all people of other faiths, including Jewish people are mistaken in their beliefs and should ultimately be brought to the true God i.e. their beliefs, but these views of course are irrelevant when it comes to looking at what Jewish people and those of other religions believe.) Also, while it's been a while since Sunday School as far as I'm aware most Christians believe the entire Old Testament does apply to them. There are a large number of parts which they consider no longer necessary since they were superceeded by their convenant with God via Jesus but that's somewhat different from saying parts don't apply to them. This is mentioned for example in Passover (Christian holiday) "Most Christians simply no longer celebrate the Passover, since it is seen to belong rather to a Jewish or Old Testament tradition which is no longer necessary" and Biblical law in Christianity "Although Christianity by tradition affirms that the Five Books of Moses, also called the Pentateuch, are the inspired word of God, Christian tradition, in this case similar to Jewish tradition, denies that all biblical law (specifically the Mosaic covenant) applies directly to Christians, but different arguments are used to reach that conclusion and there are differences of opinion within Christianity as to which laws, if any, apply. The predominant Christian view is that Jesus mediates a New Covenant relationship between God and his followers". As to why Christians believe certain laws have been superceeded and certain one's haven't been, well you can start a topic on that if you want, but it doesn't seem to concern the question much (ultimately it is their belief, whether or not it makes sense, I mean if we wanted to go further we could ask where did the Ten Commandments come from in the first place). I believe however part of the belief is that the two commandments given by Jesus is a summarisation of the Ten Commandments, in other words Jesus made an explicit reference to the Ten Commandments and the importance of following them whereas it is believed many other laws Jesus directly contradicted or at least ignored as being unimportant. To some extent the apostles come into this as well particularly Peter. Those who don't believe are likely to give more human motives for why they are ignored but I think this discussion is already enough OT as it is. Nil Einne (talk) 21:32, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I didn't mean to drag this away from the original question -- I was merely questioning BaseballBugs' mention of the Ten Commandments + how that is relevant to the two Abrahamic religions of greater representation by population. The Ten Commandments, along with the other 603 commandments of the Old Testament, were given to the Jews via Moses at Mount Sinai. That's how adultery plays into that Abrahamic religion. Gentiles are subject to violations related to adultery via a different pathway, the Seven Noachide Laws. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 21:45, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

There is also the issue of legitimacy. The Abrahamic religions tend to be patriarchal and patrilineal (some might even say misogynistic) - authority, heredity and standing travel down the male line. It's relatively easy to tell who someones mother is, but prior to DNA testing, it's much harder to tell who the father is. Not having an officially recognized father was a big blow to your social status - it's the original meaning of the term bastard. If people are married and only have sex within the marriage, it's easy to tell who the father is, and more importantly, it's easy for the father to be sure the child is his. One way of ensuring that no extra-marital pregnancy happens is to put *strong* prohibitions on all sex outside of marriage, which, given the morals of the day, resulted in eye for an eye type punishments. Having children wait for marriage wasn't too much of a burden, as most in those days married as teenagers* - people didn't wait 'till their late 20's/early 30's like many do now. *(Note to nit-pickers: "teenagers" encompases 17-19 year-olds as well as 14-16 year-olds - my main point is that there weren't many unmarried 22 year-olds running around.) -- 128.104.112.102 (talk) 18:50, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Which accounts for why that one gospel goes to great lengths to lay out the lineage of Joseph as being descended from David - apparently having forgotten that Joseph was (supposedly) not the father of Jesus. The OP talks about "pleasurable", and that's where the religious conflict comes into it. You won't hear religionists talking about "pleasure", but about the need for family stability. The bottom line is that strict religionists consider the primary purpose of sex to be reproduction, and reproduction is supposed to happen only within the proper boundary, i.e. marriage - which is at least part of the reason that homosexuality is hated so much by strict religionists - because it is, by definition, connected only with pleasure, and totally disconnected with reproduction. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 19:00, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

You may also wish to consider the role of concubines. Abraham had Ishmael by his concubine Hagar, before Sarah conceived Isaac. Obviously this pre-dated the 10 Commandments. What had changed between Abraham and Moses to make concubines illegal? --TammyMoet (talk) 19:56, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

One should also consider that the actions of every biblical character are not always supposed to be as "positive" role models. After all, in the Hebrew/Christian scripture, Ishmael was not the son God was talking about when he promised he would bless Abrahams decendentants as a chosen nation. Even King David, arguable the most important hero of the entire Old Testament, possibly excepting only Moses himself, does LOTS of stuff which is not supposed to be repeated by good boys. The deal with Isaac being the son through which the nation of Israel is born is that he was the legitimate son born within wedlock; it's a pretty obvious lesson even in the Pre-Mosaic Hebrew world. Trust in God, believe he will keep his promises, and even if you are in your 90's he will grant you the son he promised to be the father of His nation. Ishmael was NOT similarly blessed because Ishmael represented Abraham's own attempt to solve his problem outside of God's plan. Just because someone does it in the Bible does not mean it's OK... --Jayron32 20:10, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

In Judaism (I cannot speak for Christianity), Abraham's legacy was not not established through Ishmael because he was born out of wedlock. Concubinism was and is legal from a biblical standpoint -- any modern hesitation is purely rabbinical in nature. To support this, Judah's lineage through his daughter-in-law Tamar, namely Zerah and Pharez, are not only considered legitimate while being out of wedlock, but also from a incestuous relationship! However, in Jewish law, the Torah itself is considered a closed book and cannot be understood without rabbinic commentary, the elaboration of which is perhaps too long-winded and off-the-topic for includion at this juncture. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 14:22, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Tangential to the original question but relevant to some of the comments is the argument put forward by Erich Fromm (and I'm sure by others) that churches find that sex tends to be something that challenges their control over their members, so they often demonise it or make it dirty or shameful. --ColinFine (talk) 00:06, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Exact, that's the point. And it is expecially true for Abrahamaic religions, that is, war religions, created to bring people to killing and being killed, which works so efficiently when done in the name of God. (It is an old story, making love is somehow an obstacle to making war). --pma (talk) 20:59, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Some very good comments so far, touching on why it is proscribed. I wish to add, also, as a subpoint to the idea of waiting for marriage. Where one has faith that a loving, merciful God knows what is best for a person, the idea of "shopping around" means that one is not putting faith in that deity to provide that special someone. As an example, Solomon - who had all those concubines and wives - was a very noteworthy Hebrew king. He supposedly wrote Song of Solomon to the one person he met whom he really, truly loved; but someone he'd met only after "shopping around" and finding all that other stuff. If I were to put my preacher clothes on, I might say, "Imagine if he'd waited. he might never have suffered throught he depressiona nd sadness shown in Ecclesiastes, where he seems to have searched through so much, to find only emptiness."

That is what a lot of Abrahamic religous people are saying when they speak of waiting. Sex is so awesomely incredible when it's witht he right person. And, God has provided that one person who is just right for the believer, out of His love and grace.Somebody or his brother (talk) 02:51, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

As a point of academic priorities, and as touched on above by BaseballBugs, premarital sex was not biblicall prohibited and remains as such -- any prohibition of the like is rabbinic in nature. As such, any followers of Reform or Karaite Judaism should, de facto have no qualms, per se, about premarital sexual relations, as they reject rabbinic Judaism. While premarital sex would be a rabbinic prohibition, niddah laws would still be biblicall applicable. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 14:26, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I think you have made a mistake in your original assumption: you think because it is a pleasurable experience that it is illogical to make it a sin, but it is theologically logical, arguably even necessary for religion to do this. Name any experience that directly leads to pleasure which is not a sin? I don't mean "helping someone gives you a nice feeling", I mean an action or experience which is done for the sake of pleasure. Victimless crime and concerning yourself with what consenting adults do behind closed doors is a classic preoccupation for religion. It's not just "premarital sex" which is a sin, any sex which does not have a chance of directly causing pregnancy is a sin: oral and anal sex, also masturbation is a sin, contraception is considered as bad as abortion, and also precisely why women during their period are considered unclean and untouchable, because they are unlikely to conceive. Genital mutilation at its core is also based on the same reasoning. Sex is not a sin only when it is used as a tool to procreate. All the big three religions are all totalitarian in this way, they forbid the experience of ecstasy unless it is "thought God". If you are interested in critical analasys of religion I can recommend 2 books, End of Faith by Sam Harris and God is not Great by Christopher Hitchens both are a good read. Vespine (talk) 22:25, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the reason is simple: Judeaism had to "compete" with other religions/faiths and this was just one way to "set themselves apart" from their contemporaries (and adding that "God said so" adds to the validity of the "new faith."). Also, since both Christianity and Islam find their roots or foundation in Judeaism, it only makes sense that some aspects would be carried over. Just some thoughts.

What is a "scripture reader"?

I have translated Settle-Carlisle Line for the German wikipedia, but am stuck with the sentence The Midland Railway helped pay for scripture readers to counteract the effect of drunken violence in an isolated neighbourhood. There may be no direct translation for "scripture reader", but without knowledge of the meaning of these words I cannot even paraphrase them. BTW: am I right to understand that the Midland Railway paid only part of the salary of these people? --Telford (talk) 19:13, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that the reference is a bit vague. I take it to mean that people were brought in to read from the Bible, as an organized activity, to try to keep the men occupied during their spare time, and keep them away from the booze. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 19:18, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it is likely an idiomatic term, which the direct translation fails to fully capture. It could mean anything from actual people paid to read directly from the bible, to priests or ministers or deacons or religious missionaries or anything else. A native German speaker may be needed to parse the original language and give a better translation... --Jayron32 20:14, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Based on a google search, a scripture reader was someone paid to read edifying passages from the Bible to poor people in their usual habitat. Here is an example. -Arch dude (talk) 21:18, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Option: "Die Midland Railway beteiligte sich an den Kosten für Bibelelesungen, um Alkoholmissbrauch und Gewalttätigkeit in den isolierten Wohnlagern der Bauarbeiter vorzubeugen." If those readers were clerics you may want to use the term "Laienprediger". I assume that the relevant church - possibly the RC church, as many of these railway workers were Irish - covered a part of the expenses. Grüße aus Wien.--Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 21:15, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

PS: Sorry, that is a bit muddled. "Laienprediger" does not mean that the readers were clerics, it implies that the laymen, apart from reading from the Bible, also interpreted the scriptures in an associated "sermon". --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 06:47, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

If "laienprediger" means like it sounds "lay preacher" then that could be a good term (assuming it doesn't have too many specific connertations in german).

I'm fairly certain that the "scripture readers" were not ordained priests. That's born out by people on the web (of catholic extraction) saying that their grandfathers were scripture readers. It seems possible to me that they may have come from one of the newer faiths, specifically the evangelical - though not necessarily true.83.100.250.79 (talk) 00:10, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Cum Natura Humana

I'm looking for the text of a papal bull that begins (and therefor titled) in those words. It suppose to be given by pope clement V. Every detail will be helpful, a complete version in Latin or (best) in English will be most helpful. 95.86.95.18 (talk) 20:03, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Our article List of papal bulls has 12 entries for Clement V, none of which carries the title you specify. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 20:29, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Using google and typing "Cum Natura Humana papal bull" into it, I get these results: [4], includes several Google Books links which idicate it was a bull of Clement VI (not The Fifth) and this one in particular: [5] on the life of Clement VI notes that Cum Natura Humana was a likely forged bull, but that the bull itself supposedly provided much of the justification for the sale of indulgences. In general, a good first step in any search for information is to type the exact text of what you are looking for into Google, or play around with it for 5-10 minutes to see if any good results come up. --Jayron32 20:35, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

As an aside, there appears to be enough source material out there to create an article about Cum Natura Humana based solely on that google search up there. It appears, though a forged document, to have still be a significant one in the history of Christianity. Even important forgeries are quite notable... --Jayron32 20:38, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

This google search: [6] turns up some interesting leads for the text; here is a set of footnotes which cites it directly and gives a way to find a text version should you be so inclined. --Jayron32 20:44, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

This is probably not what i'm looking for. In july 6, 1348, as wikipedia itself states, clement VI (my mistake: not V) declared a certain declaration about the jews (it was the first out of two during the black death plague). I have a reason to suspect that this declaration or the other is the Cum Natura Humana. 1348, as I said, and not the 1350 papal bull about the jubilee. 95.86.89.60 (talk) 23:10, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Googling confirms the existence of a 6 July 1348 bull enjoining the Black Plague-associated extrajudicial killing of Jews, but I don't find a name. Two sources you might check: the L'Histoire article that is footnote two in Antisemitism in Europe (Middle Ages), to which a sentence describing the bull and killings that took place notwithstanding its proscription is sourced; and Norman Cantor's In the Wake of the Plague (ISBN 978-0060014346)—a paper on the impact of the Black Death cites "Pope Clement issued a papal bull to stop the killing of Jews" to page 154 of that work, a page that is apparently not amongst those accessible via Amazon’s “search inside” function. 99.154.82.172 (talk) 00:04, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I just wanted to mention that if you are going to create an article on this, the standard way of writing about these things is to capitalize only the first word, so it would be Cum natura humana. (And if there are more than one beginning that way, as is sometimes the case, then it should be disambiguated by the year.) Adam Bishop (talk) 03:32, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

You may want Quamvis perfidiam, issued Sept. 26, 1348. I found an English translation here. --Cam (talk) 06:46, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

do you have also the original latin verison? --ישראל קרול (talk) 13:54, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I haven't been able to find it in Latin online. It is apparently available in the book Acta Salzburgo-Aquilejensia by Alois Lang (1903). --Cam (talk) 03:26, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

August 23

Internal heirarchies in Venetian guilds

Can anyone tell me how Venetian artisan guilds were structured in the 16th Century? were they democratic? who was the head and what was his title? I'm especially interested in the glassmakers.

Thanks in advance Adambrowne666 (talk) 00:51, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Double-checking with some of my renaissance books; They were somewhat democratic, but the Venetian guilds were relatively weak. Very subordinate to and regulated by the government (as opposed to the guilds of Florence, for example). There was the general assembly (capitolo general, all members not in debt to the guild), the the guild council (banca, "bench") They elected a leader called a gastaldo (bailiff) by ballot. The gastaldo was a bit of a figurehead (not unlike the Doge himself), with the council having most of the power. The council members initially elected their own successors, but this was changed in 1531 due to widespread nepotism. After that new council members were elected by an electors (zonta) elected by the general assembly, where relatives of the outgoing council members were ineligible for election. The glass-blowers (and to a lesser extent, the ship-builders) were of course more regulated than most guilds, too, due to their strategic importance. Most infamously the glass-blowers were supposedly banned from leaving the island of Murano without permission, and banned from leaving Venice under penalty of death. --Pykk (talk) 00:17, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Perfect, thanks heaps, Pykk Adambrowne666 (talk) 12:43, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Since popping over to Europe to save the day with the help of a smart, gorgeous sidekick isn't a viable career option . . .

I'm fascinated by the universe of symbolism, but the profession of "symbologist" is just something Dan Brown made up for his hero Robert Langdon. Is there anything like that really out there in the academic world that would allow me to explore how humans throughout the ages have used, abused, and been impacted by symbols, openly and otherwise? If there is, what would it entail exactly? Is there some field of study that would encompass both "symbology" and folklore, another interest of mine? In folklore I'm interested in the underlying meanings, the symbolism as it were - what the stories really mean to us, what our need is for stories. I want to know what our need is for stories and symbols. What kind of field could I go into, where I could study not only our stories and our symbols, but why it is that they have such power over us? - Future Symbologist? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.104.139.75 (talk) 01:06, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Excluding symbols as per crosses and strange marks .. in the field of folklore etc the study of symbols and underlying meanings, (and reason for telling the tale) has been done (see Folklore , Folkloristics amongst others) - specifically the study (Literary analysis redirects) of motifs and elements in stories has been done.. Even so far as to the classification of stories into various fundamental types in a endless variety of ways.. and the psychology thereof..

In fact the study of the study of literary analysis is a subject in itself - it's that popular :)

When I say 'done' I mean "a lot of it" (and not necessarily "done to death") - there's no doubt that this subject has many academics working on it.. Don't let that put you off. I'm sure I've missed out many relevant links and key words, which others will fill in.

As for study of the symbolism of symbols and their use - I'm sure there's a name for that, and people who do it. But I don't know what it's called. Though wikipedia does : see symbol , Archetype (also relevent to literature/folktales) , specifically Symbology, and Semiotics. (Iconography you should probably look at too.) (There's a lot to read - I told you it was popular!)

83.100.250.79 (talk) 01:30, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Off the top of my head - Symbolic anthropology seems to cover most of your interests and more. Nanonic (talk) 01:26, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh and also Philology and inner links. For the study of the folktale side of things I suppose the standard way is to pass all your exams, go to university - probably to study literature (english or otherwise) , picking hopefully a university that specialises in the things you are interested in. There probably are specialised courses and departments as well. Or you could do it in your spare time.83.100.250.79 (talk) 01:50, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

IN a very broad sense, a Semiotician is a studier of symbols, but in a much broader sense than Dan Brown considers for his character. Semitoics is the study of the relationship between the symbolic representation for a thing and the thing itself; it's more of a linguistic study than a anthropological one, but as Semiotics literally means "sign studies", that would also fit the literal job title of "Symbologist". --Jayron32 05:11, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Siege of Petropavlovsk

What exactly was the point of the siege of Petropavlovsk? I get the impression that all British and French forces involved in the battle were in the region before the Crimean War broke out; if so, it seems to me that there would be no good reason to need to eliminate such a small, weak, and isolated Russian town. Nyttend (talk) 03:43, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Presumably because Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky was the home of the Russian Pacific Fleet at the time (they did not yet possess Vladivostok). By the way, did Admiral Price actually commit suicide during the battle? Maybe he didn't feel so great about it either. Adam Bishop (talk) 03:54, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

He had a stutter, and trying to pronounce the name of the place drove him off the deep end. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:00, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Maybe he wanted to give the russians a sporting chance, a truly noble deed.83.100.250.79 (talk) 13:04, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

The British and French squadron were pursuing the 44-gun frigate Aurora across the Pacific from Chile. The battle occurred after Aurora took refuge in Petropavlovsk. There are conflicting sources as to whether Price committed suicide the night before, or after the battle.—eric 15:55, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Pretending that an author is still alive

I'm wondering if there have been any cases of someone deciding to continue writing works under an author's name after that author has died, without telling anyone that the author was dead. For example, an author writes the first few parts of a multi-part series and then dies, but the publishers like how popular it is and secretly get someone else to finish it while claiming that it's being done by the original author. I imagine it would be difficult to do this today, but in the past...? (I don't mean pretending that "new manuscripts have been been uncovered", and so forth — just cases where they actually want people to think that the author is alive and writing away.) -- 203.97.105.173 (talk) 10:03, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

It's not exactly what you're looking for, but I bet there are some who read Robert Ludlum's thrillers who don't know that he's dead, and his name is now used on books by various other writers. See here for details. The same applies to V. C. Andrews. I suppose the most successful cases would be the ones we don't know about, obviously. Karenjc 12:47, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I used to think Franklin W. Dixon was a real person...does that count? Adam Bishop (talk) 13:01, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Paul McCartney, duh. ;-) --98.217.14.211 (talk) 13:38, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Two of the four Beatles are confirmed to have gone to That Great Gig in the Sky. If Ringo goes before Paul, will there be some arguing that the Beatles are all dead? (Though technically they were dead in 1970.) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:09, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Sort of what you are looking for: the Nancy Drew series continues to be published, 79 years after the first book came out, and the collective pseudonym Carolyn Keene continues to get author credit. The first Nancy writer, Mildred Benson, died in 2002. Best, WikiJedits (talk) 14:32, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

L. Ron Hubbard's Mission Earth was a ten novel series, nine of which were apparently written and published under his name after his death in 1986.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:42, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Then there are the five "Books of Moses", the first five books of the Bible, traditionally ascribed to Moses himself, which is funny considering that the death of Moses is described in there somewhere. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 06:24, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Variations of the situation the OP posits are not uncommon. Following the death of the popular novelist Virginia Andrews (as Karenjc mentioned above), further works continued to appear with the cover attribution of "Virginia Andrews^TM" clearly designed so that the casual buyer/reader would not initially realise that these were works by another hand; I believe there are other instances in the same genre. This practice blurs into that sometimes known as "sharecropping", where a still-living well-known author, unable through age, ill-health or other commitments to complete a particular full work on their own, contributes (typically) a plot outline of a novel whose actual prose is then written by a less-well-known or at least more impecunious author who is then billed on the cover as a minor collaborator, e.g. as "by John Smith & Joe Soap": this may continue, or be initiated, after John Smith's death, using further plot outlines written by Smith for the purpose, or his own preserved unutilized working notes; consider for example the still-living Tom Clancy, many of whose fans were/are probably unclear as to who is responsible for what published under his various self-branded franchises.

Not infrequently, as with Fuhghettaboutit's Nancy Drew example, an apparently real author's name was actually a publisher's "house name" or a pseudonymous franchise all along, and thus the death of the original principal writer(s) need not affect the continuance of the operation: a variation of this is the formerly very popular mystery writer "Ellery Queen", a name which began as the collective pseudonym of two specific collaborators (a quite common practice in itself, see for example David Eddings or Dan Brown, both names of the male halves of spousal collaborations), but which later also included novels by other writers, including Avram Davidson and Theodore Sturgeon.

Although many writers, for various respectable reasons, publish books under one or more pseudonyms exclusive to them, the copyright notice in the indicia on the verso of a book's title page will usually attribute it to that pseudonym or even to their real name; if instead a book's copyright is attributed to its publisher or to an unrelated company name, it may be an example of one of the above authorship-blurring practices: not always, however, because some authors find it advantageous for tax purposes to form a limited company and assign the copyright to that. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 10:27, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Not quite what you're looking for but, L. Ron Hubbard is still writing novels despite having "deliberately discarded his body to conduct his research in spirit form, and was now living 'on a planet a galaxy away.'" Must make it hard to type. APL (talk) 16:57, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh. This was already mentioned. APL (talk) 16:58, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

A book I'm reading currently, Ripley Under Ground, is about a group of artists who, when a successful artist friend dies, pretend he is still alive and forge more of his paintings. A lucrative business. Not quite an author, but it's the same idea. -- EA Swyer ^Talk _{Contributions} 11:30, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I thought that artists were never successful until they died. Googlemeister (talk) 14:44, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for all the answers. -- 203.97.105.173 (talk) 10:53, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

When "Martin Ross" died Edith Somerville went on writing books and insisted Ross's name remained on them as she was helping in a spiritual way. Somerville and Ross which is sort of what you were looking for..hotclaws 18:48, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

How best to spend £1000000 to increase the sum of happiness the most?

When I die, I want my money to be used with the objective of making the greatest increase in happiness or the greatest alleviation of unhappiness. Accordingly I've been thinking of leaving all my money to Oxfam, a UK charity that works in the developing world. But is there any better way of achieving my objective? £1000000 is just a convenient figure for my wealth upon my death - the actual figure could be less or hopefully more. I assume that, for the sake of arguement, that giving £1 worth of value each to a million (third-world) people would increase the sum of happiness more than giving £1000000 to just one person. Sorry, I think it would be spent most effectively among humans, so I'm not thinking of bequesting a cat's home. 78.149.186.253 (talk) 13:44, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

As a glib non-answer - to increase the happiness of others - a good idea might be to not accrue and hoard vast sums of cash - since it doesn't grow on trees - but appears to originate in other peoples pockets??83.100.250.79 (talk) 13:52, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

But by hoarding money, he's making it more scarce, thereby increasing the value of everyone else's money. EamonnPKeane (talk) 14:08, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Money does grow, although not always on trees. Consider a desert island scenario - I build a chair out of drift-wood. I sell the chair to someone for £1. Both our wealth increases - I have not stolen a £1 out of their pocket. Enjoying the wealth during my lifetime - a very brief period compared with eternity - gives me the motivation to create more chairs or other goods or services of value. If I did not make the chair, then the standard of living of the desert-island population would stay the same or decrease. If everyone made a chair for themselves only, then the benefits of specialisation and differing skills or aptitudes would be lost. 78.149.186.253 (talk) 13:57, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Your analogy gets more complicated given that captains of industry don't live on desert islands, they live in outrageously expensive homes and pay the lowest wages they can get away with, to the people who do the actual work. Regarding bequeathing your money - how do you know it will be well-managed after you're gone? Wouldn't it be better to distribute it during your lifetime, so you know where it's going? If I were in your Oxford shoes, I would do just that - and specifically, I would invest in education in those third-world countries, based on the old theory that it's of the greatest value to teach someone how to improve themselves rather than just handing them something and saying "see ya". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:07, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

While that's true in board strokes it's not always true and it would be better to state it with some qualifier like "many". Not all "captains of industry" are the evil corporate sociopaths you state.--162.84.164.115 (talk) 14:51, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't claim they are evil sociopaths. But if you want to characterize them that way, that's your business. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:56, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Sure on that desert island 1 pound of wealth was created because you spent some amount of time creating wealth in the form of a chair. I assume your buddy on the island earned that pound by doing a similar amount of work. Otherwise one of you is ripping off the other. APL (talk) 13:03, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Some references that may or may not help you:
(1) you might enjoy reading Utilitarianism.
(2) this article argues (though it only looked at Americans) that the greatest happiness comes from having pleasurable experiences rather than acquiring material possessions. So you might consider endowing a fund that sends inner-city kids to summer camp, or provides them with theatre tickets, etc.
(3) This is a rating for Oxfam UK in terms of how much of the money actually goes to the people being helped. You can look up other charities you might be considering on the same website.
All best with your laudable goal! WikiJedits (talk) 14:46, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I've observed over time that the usual argument that "happiness comes from having pleasurable experiences rather than acquiring material possessions" is usually made by those that have material possessions toward those that do not. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:58, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I want to note that giving £1 to a million third-world people will not necessarily lead to much of an increase in happiness. Look at it this way—if some dead guy you didn't know sent you £10, would it mean much to you? Would the happiness by long-lived or significant in your life? Or would it be a quick happiness if anything? Consider instead that some dead fellow invested £1 million in making a new art museum (or whatever) in your local town, free to the public. A million momentary happinesses are not nearly as long-lasting or significant as an investment that will continue to reap rewards for years and years.

Personally, I would want the money put into something that would be used to generate more revenue over time, e.g. an endowment that would lead towards something more permanent. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 16:20, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the £10 is a particularly great comparison since depending on how poor these people are, it could easily be like someone giving you £100 or even more. I do agree however that donating money to a charity of some sort or setting something up for the long term is a better bet. Nil Einne (talk) 21:44, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd try maximising the total happiness the million will produce. However if I invest it for a year it will probably gain value and so help more people in the future. This will happen every year so I guess the best idea is to invest it in stocks and never spend it. :) Dmcq (talk) 22:33, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

A million pounds isn't going to make a significant difference to a large number of people's lives. You can either donate to a big charity and let your money, together with lots of other peoples, do some good to a large number of people or you can do something on your own that will benefit a smaller number of people. An endowment to support a new youth centre in your home town, maybe. --Tango (talk) 22:38, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Or a scholarship. Putting people through a good school may improve their happiness, or at least decrease the possibility that they'll end up really poor. (Try to come up with interesting qualifications for the scholarship. Lot's of scholarships already go to the graduate with the highest GPA.) APL (talk) 13:03, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Microfinance and its "See also" links.--Wetman (talk) 01:36, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

There is no one answer, which is one reason why there are so many charities; otherwise, everyone would simply give to the best charity and the rest would wither. However, a charitable contribution will probably do more than outright gifts to increase total happiness, especially considering that small gifts would incur large administrative costs. You may be best-advised to decide what kind of charitable activity you consider adds the most to the world's happiness, then contribute to one or more well-run charities that support that activity. Warren Buffett, for example, pledged a fortune to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, because he supported its goals and considered it to be particularly well-run. If you have trouble deciding on charities, you could simply contribute to the United Way International, or its local equivalent. John M Baker (talk) 16:16, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

If you give it to me, you will make 1 person very happy, and I will share my happiness with 5 people, who will each share it with 5 people and so on. Thus if you give me that money, you will make all the people of the world happier. Googlemeister (talk) 20:44, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll give you the standard economics answer. Money means the most to those who have the least of it. So, you want to give your money to those who are poorest in the world, and likely to remain poor for some time. Also, you want to avoid giving to charities that take a big cut from your donation for overhead, etc. So, probably, some sort of religous non-profit, dedicated to the poor, who are well known for being honest. Mother Teresa's organization? LK (talk) 14:18, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Has it become honest now that she's gone? —Tamfang (talk) 05:09, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

First give 10 bob to Googlemeister for having the right idea. Next bequeath 990,000 to Wikipedia ("well-run" "non-profit" "dedicated to the poor"). Then use the remaining 9,990 to ensure it gets there soon (another positive effect is that you will have no time to have second thoughts about it). Not only will your largesse be used to educate millions of readers on the marvels of the universe (and so make them happy), it will also ensure that others with a million to spare will have a forum to turn to for financial help. -- Fullstop (talk) 15:37, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Can anyone identify this obscure anti-smoking parody song?

On a New York City radio station, in early 1967 I believe, I heard a humorous upbeat song which I took to be anti-smoking, or at least a parody of smoking.

All I can remember are a few short pieces, as follows:

"You can get killed just as easy by a bus" (i.e. smoke 'em if you got 'em)

"If you watch TV you know, it's the [SOME-thing]* way to go / bringing mentholated puffing joy to us"

• [SOME-thing] refers to some unknown word(s) of two syllables total, I'm guessing it might be "TRES chic" as that would scan and fit the context; also it is an expression unknown to me at the time (hence I would not have understood or remembered it)

I had thought that "mentholated puffing joy" would steer Google to the precise answer, but no such hits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.42.2.70 (talk) 16:29, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Ten Commandments and Gentiles

inappropriate debate closed

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

OP does not appear to want answers to questions, but to debate and condemn. This is not what the ref desk is for --Jayron32 02:16, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

---

Why do some gentiles believe that the Ten Commandments apply to them? DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 21:47, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Your question was answered here and in the Ten Commandments article. What additional information are you after? --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:52, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

While it's good you started a seperate discussion rather then continouing it there I concur that it'll be better if you specify in more detail what you're still uncertain about. Is your question more about why Christians believe the Ten Commandments apply to them but don't generally follow other Jewish/old testament laws even if they accept the entire Old Testament as God's word? If so then I don't have much more to add then what I've already said, i.e. it is their belief most of the laws were superceeded by Jesus and his apostles but perhaps others can clarify more. BTW, the superceeded part is perhaps key, AFAIK Christians generally believe that God sent Jesus his son as the Messiah to save all his people and when Jesus came the distinction between gentiles/Jewish came to an end and all his people should take up this new understanding of the faith (overly simplistic but gives the general idea). There are some parallels in the Islamic faith although things there are also a bit different (obviously they don't believe Jesus was a messiah but a prophet in the vein of Moses etc) e.g. they consider the Tanakh/Old Testament and New Testament corrupted and so the Quran is the only perfect word of God. Also as mentioned in our Ten Commandments article, Muslims do not believe the Sabbath ever applied to them although the Friday prayers have taken their importance. Islamic beliefs does parallel Judaism in a number of ways distinct, e.g. they have similar dietary laws that Christianity lack. However the difference also makes it simpler since for Muslims the Hadith and teachings of others help them to understand what God wants them to do but the earlier texts even though they were the word of God are mostly unimportant. P.S. If you haven't already I strongly suggest you read the articles I linked earlier, particularly Ten Commandments, Biblical law in Christianity and perhaps Old Testament. Nil Einne (talk) 22:30, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

The simple way to put it is that Christians view Christ as "changing the rules" for everyone. Christ represents a new covenant, whereby the "Nation of God" status formerly afforded to only Jews is now extended to those who believe in Christ. See Matthew 10:33, also John 3:16 & John 3:36, and especially John 14:6. Christ represented a fulfillment of the covenents laid out in the Hebrew scriptures, especially Isaiah, and a new covenant offered freely to all humans who would be willing to accept its terms. --Jayron32 00:02, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I was not asking about Christian doctrine as much as I was asking how the Christian doctrine could be defended in the face of Judaism. Reading Wikipedia articles is great, but I won't find my answer there because Wikipedia, as with most sources, takes a pluralistic approach in that "Jews say what they say" and it's right for them, and "Christians say what they say" and its right for them. Judaism and Christianity are mutually exclusive faiths (the Athanasian Creed specifically demands belief in Jesus and promises condemnation in return for failure to comply, while Judaism specifically demands that Jews not believe in Jesus and condemns those who do otherwise) -- and so a pluralistic approach not only fails to respond to my question, it actually undermines both religions, because it takes it all too lightly, basically considering it all falsehood. I just want to know what Christians view as their support for the Ten Commandments being applicable to them. To say that "Jesus said so" is insufficient evidence because Judaism maintains that Jesus was a false prophet. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 01:09, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

And in regards to Isaiah, I'd hardly call an out-of-context mistranslation and a completely ambiguous non-specific suffering reference grounds for believing in Jesus. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 01:24, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

You must know that you are now well into troll territory. Given that Christians do not regulate themselves by whatever Judaism maintains, the Jewish view of Jesus has absolutely no moment in the Christian considerations. And so the answer to your question has been well supplied by Jayron32, who cites the relevant new testament coverage of the matter. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:29, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Am I really not allowed to ask a comparative religion question? I live in an insular community and thought I'd use this humanities reference desk, to where questions on religion are to be forwarded, to seek information from non-Jews. Is that being disruptive? This is not being done to inflame or invite conflict -- if it does anyway, am I liable? Is it that I am seeking obvious responses? I don't think so, but if other disagree I suppose I'll have to find another forum to answer this question. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 01:54, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Except you aren't asking for a comparison; you aren't asking "what are the different ways that Christians and Jews view their relationship to the Ten Commandments". What you seem to be repeatedly asking is "By what right do Christians have to claim an adherance to the Ten Commandments"; which is more of a rhetorical condemnation than an actual question for comparison. Furthermore, your question below is a loaded question. You presuppose that Chistians are self-deluded into believing something which is demonstratably false; that in itself makes your questions unanswerable. --Jayron32 02:11, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

OK...I'll accept that criticism. But that was the way in which it was presented to me, so I was merely quoting from my source that raised this question in my head. I'm doing my utmost to maintain a very civil tone and I expect the same from everyone else. If we are all remain off the offense, is there any tension here? But as Judaism preceded Christianity, I feel the question does remain "what right" do Christians have in hi-jacking anything from Judaism. Is is no different than you and I beginning our own program to profess our modified views of something that has been maintained for centuries by another, and claiming that it supersedes the original? DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 02:22, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

To answer your initial question by itself, you may wish to read Biblical law in Christianity, which discusses and links to further detail on whether all, some, or none of it is applicable. You later claim you'll find no answers in our articles, as to "how the Christian doctrine could be defended in the face of Judaism", before calling them "mutually exclusive" - if the latter is indeed the case, then there is no need to defend one against the other, as believers in one will necessarily reject the other. Judaism can maintain whatever it likes, but that will have no bearing on Christians, or indeed anyone else who doesn't follow (that particular strain of) Judaism. --Saalstin (talk) 01:46, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

But when the evidence mounts against claims of Jesus' authenticity, what would a Christian respond? I suppose that is my fundamental question. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 01:56, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Obviously, Christians believe Jesus was the Messiah, and Jews do not. Religion cannot be "proved" or "disproved", because if it could, there would be no debate about it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 02:08, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

What about revelation? DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 02:15, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

What about respecting the admonition at the top of this page"Do not start a debate; please seek an internet forum instead." --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:17, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Christianity regards itself as the "fulfillment" of Judaism. The OP's question is a bit of a red herring, in that all "true" Christians believe the Ten Commandments apply to them. The interesting bit is where someone tried to trap Jesus by asking him which was the "greatest" Commandment, and his answer was that the greatest Commandment was to love God, and the second greatest was to love Humankind. (Paraphrasing a bit.) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 01:53, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

How can Christianity claim to be "fulfilled Judaism" when Jesus is a false prophet according to Old Testament standards. Before he can be recognized, he has already been condemned as violating Deuteronomy 13 in "drawing you away from what the Lord your God has commanded you" -- if Jesus comes to change laws, is he not a false prophet? DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 02:10, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, we're done here. This is the reference desk, not a debating platform. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 02:14, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Bad person, who is a "Bad person"

I mean, is there any definition for "bad people". Or... is it all relative? Hope you understand my poor English, Thank you. --190.50.122.182 (talk) 22:43, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

It's all relative. One man's "bad person" could be another man's saint. Marco polo (talk) 22:50, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

There are some objective things one could say about evil; people who hurt others for the act of hurting them in-and-of-itself, or who act in reckless disregard for others, could be considered at some level to be "bad". There are some grey areas in the middle; would it be evil to hurt someone who was themselves evil? However, intentional or reckless harm brought to innocent people is generally seen as bad in all possible definitions. --Jayron32 23:55, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I won't argue with Jayron on that. However, simply because one person calls another person a "bad person", we can't assume that the person labeled "bad" is unequivocally evil. For example, people often label others as "bad" simply because they have different political, religious, sexual, or aesthetic preferences, even if they do nothing to hurt others. Marco polo (talk) 00:19, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd say it depends on someone's perspective on God. If one believes in God, he believes in absolute truth, and therefore absolute good and evil. If one does not believe in God, one does not believe in absolute truth, and therefore there'd be no definition of good or evil with which another cannot come along and disagree. Bertrand Russel (an atheist) was quoted as saying that the one thing he found most difficult with his atheistic perspective was that the worst thing he could say about the Nazis was that he didn't like them. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 01:15, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

You could equally say that there's nothing that another religion cannot come along and disagree. I'm sorry to say that I find your answer little more than an assertion that morality flows from religion, something many would disagree with. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:35, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I do not assert that morality flows from religion but from God. Otherwise, there is only relative truth, because who are you to disagree with me and who am I to disagree with you. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 02:02, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Morality flows from the need to maintain order in society, for the sake of survival. The notion that morality "flows from God" was a later invention. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 02:06, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually you seem to be saying that objective reality depends on the existence of God, which is just bizarre given His conspicuous lack of it. 81.131.51.80 (talk) 03:36, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, the argument could be made that only an atheist is in a position to be a good person, since the theist's 'goodness' can be understood as mere self-serving submission to the rules imposed by the deity, an attempt to garner profit or avoid punishment; whereas an atheist can do good only for its own sake. LANTZY^TALK 01:46, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

We are all sinners, only some are worse sinners than others. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 01:49, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Bugs, please: I am not a sinner, and there are hundreds of thousands out here in real life who would take strong issue with your opinion. It may even be construed as offensive to make such a statement without qualifying it in accordance with some known set of beliefs. // BL \\ (talk) 02:25, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Standard Christian teaching is that we are all sinners, all imperfect beings. Meanwhile, this is turning into the type of debate that got the previous section closed. I think Marco Polo's answer was quite sufficient given the vagueness of the question. There are those who think Hitler was good and there are those who think Mother Theresa was evil. It's an endless debate. And the reference desk is about trying to answer factual questions, not about fomenting endless debates. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 02:29, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

There is no absolute definition. Peoples definitions change - it is subjective.83.100.250.79 (talk) 12:22, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Please do not use "Standard Christian Teaching" to describe people who are not Christian as "sinners". Thanks. APL (talk) 16:49, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Jayron, wherever you are, how about closing this one also? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 02:43, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, do it. With all respect to believers' feelings, it seems hopeless trying to explain to some of them such a trivial fact, that believing in God does not make their believings more absolute. If I believe in God, my truth is only absolute to me, that is, it is a relative truth again. Example: what if I tell you that God gave me your bike as a gift? --pma (talk) 08:39, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to close the question - all I see is a general failure to address or fully answer the question. The questioner didn't even mention religion by the way.83.100.250.79 (talk) 12:22, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Indeed a key difference between this question and the previous one is that we haven't seen any evidence the OP is trying to start a debate which was the perception I think a number of people had of the previous thread. As in all threads, if other editors get carried away (and this includes me) they should be encouraged to stop rather then the thread closed. While this is a bit of an odd question, I don't think it's inherently unanswerably on the RD and some of the answers have already partially answered the question. Nil Einne (talk)

The meaning of "bad person" is both subjective and relative. The fundamental issue is that there is no universally agreed-upon criteria for what acts and intents are good or evil. The article on morality, and its linked articles, provides a starting discussion of these issues. Religion is one source of morality, but far from the only one. Even once a determination has been reached as to whether an act or intent is bad, it is still a relative determination as to whether the actor is overall a bad person or not. John M Baker (talk) 15:35, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Here's an example for you: Dennis Miller, in one of his monologues from 15 years ago or so, addressing Mr. Simpson as if he were watching the show: "You're a BAD MAN, O.J.!" I hope that helps answer the question. Now, can we close this pointless section? The question has been answered at least twice - that it's relative. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 16:39, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's relative. Neither does Mordechai Becher, and neither did Maimonidies. It may very well be time to end, but this is not an article and we mustn't reach a consensus to offer the OP. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 18:43, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Bad people put too much pepper on their pizza. Bus stop (talk) 17:20, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

No, the bad people are the ones who put fungus on it. Googlemeister (talk) 20:42, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed -- the taste of chitin ruins everything. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 01:23, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Selmer Bringsjord has been working on computerizing evil, if that's of any interest.[7] 70.90.174.101 (talk) 02:32, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

August 24

Success at University for Private and State School Pupils

A-level results have recently come out in the UK and, as usual, there is a lot of talk about the differences in grades between private and state educated pupils and how privately educated pupils stand a significantly higher chance of getting into good universities. However, I cannot find any statistics for how well private and state pupils do once they get to University (in terms of drop out rates and degree classifications). That would seem to be the simplest way to get a general idea as to whether state school pupils are being treated unfairly or whether it is simply that private schools offer a better education. Can anyone else find those statistics (preferably spread over several universities and comparing like-to-like with respect to A-level grades)? Thanks! --Tango (talk) 01:49, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

This is a great question, Tango. After a half hour of searching, I can't find the data you require. Most of the stats available appear focused on the rates of application vs. the rate of acceptance between the school types. The best I can do it direct you to the Higher Education Statistics Agency, who presumably have the raw data to do such a comparison. You could always contact their Information Provision department on (+44 (0) 1242 211133) or information.provision@hesa.ac.uk Rockpocket 07:05, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I also can't find figures for this, but having attended a state school and a prestigious university I would say anecdotally that there isn't a significant difference. You may be interested in this article. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:01, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

There's a HEFCE report from 2003 about this. The full report[8] says that 56% of students from private schools get an upper second degree or better, against 53% from state schools (LEA schools specifically). But if you compare state and private pupils with the same A-level results, the state pupils do significantly better at university. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.172.19.20 (talk) 14:16, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Found it! [9] 25% of independent school candidates get a First Class degree, while 24.5% of state school candidates. Almost certainly equal within the margins of error. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:07, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

But you have to remember that academic distinctions at universities are conferred by a different department from the one that makes the decisions on admissions. From the data quoted above it seems as though privately and state educated pupils do pretty much equally well at universities. But I don't see how that says anything one way or the other regarding possible bias at the admissions stage. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 14:22, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

At my university admissions and degree classifications were both decided by the department a student was part of, so I'm not sure what you are getting at there. If the students do equally well that suggests the admissions process is working. If private students did worse than state ones that would suggest that the admissions process was biased in favour of private students - ie. it was letting private students in when they weren't the best students that applied. --Tango (talk) 15:44, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you all for those links. I'll go and read them now and see if they answer my question. --Tango (talk) 15:44, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

That HEFCE report is fantastic, exactly what I was looking for! (The other links are interesting, but lack the thoroughness I was looking for.) I've just finished reading it and have also found a follow-up study from 2005 ([10]) that I'm going to read now. Thank you all for your help, especially 193! --Tango (talk) 18:39, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, the 2005 study is only a minor extension of the 2003 one (by including people that took gap years). Can anyone find more up-to-date studies on the subject? (The 2003 study is based on people that started uni about 12 years ago, a lot has changed since then.) --Tango (talk) 18:55, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Vasily Zaitsev

I'm in the midst of watching Enemy at the Gates, and I was wondering about the real-life Vasily Zaitsev. What did he do after the war as a civilian? bibliomaniac15 04:00, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Vasily Zaytsev (the article, not the person) says he "managed a factory in Kiev". Heroes of the Soviet Union 1941-45 says he worked at a textile factory in Kiev. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:22, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah, thank you very much. bibliomaniac15 21:20, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Islam in the Kings of Georgia

Were all the Kings of Georgia force to converted to Islam after Luarsab II of Georgia? Did the other members of the royal family converted to Islam or remain Orthodoxes? What religion were most of the last Georgian monarchs and current Georgian pretenders? --Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 05:32, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Teimuraz II and his successors were Christians. All kings between Laursab II and Teimuraz II were theoretically Muslim.--Shahab (talk) 05:53, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Libertarianism and inheritance law

What is the libertarian view on inheritance law? Do libertarians support inheritance law or oppose it? --AquaticMonkey (talk) 13:44, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

They're generally opposed to inheritance (aka estate or death) tax, e.g.[11][12], which shouldn't be surprising as they are opposed to taxes particularly those which interfere with wealth-creation. Or is there some other aspect of inheritance law you are interested in? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.172.19.20 (talk) 14:24, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Have you read Libertarian perspectives on inheritance?? Nil Einne (talk) 15:58, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Generally speaking, there is no tax on estates less than 1 million dollars. The Libertarians are in the position of arguing for the wealthy. It's no wonder they get about 7 popular votes in every election. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 16:37, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

What is the jurisdiction where the "under $1 million is free of estate tax" is true? It's not Canada; that I know. // BL \\ (talk) 21:36, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

It's the US, generally speaking; though I had thought that under the Bush administration it had basically been doubled to 2 million dollars. Tempshill (talk) 03:45, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I'm talking the U.S., and taking state laws into account to some extent. I can't account for Canada. They're a highly socialistic nation, so they probably tax the air that they breathe. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 10:39, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah, Bugs. Always ready with a snappy and wildly inaccurate insult. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:58, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Will we get the $ back when the government dies? I doubt it. Googlemeister (talk) 17:56, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, $1 million is not a tax on the wealthy -- we're not talking about income, but the value a person has saved up over his lifetime. Many middle income wage earners can end up saving this amount or more over a lifetime. But, putting that aside, the larger issue is *regardless of someone's income* whether the state has the right to confiscate money that has been legally earned and on which the person has already paid income tax. Be very careful in answering in the affirmative -- if we claim that the state has a higher right to the fruits of one's labor than does the laborer, we have argued in favor of slavery. Wikiant (talk) 15:31, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

They're not taxing the person that earned the money. (He's dead.) They're taxing the person who gets the money. If the money goes to a non-profit charity there's no tax.

Given the choice between taxing someone when they earn money through hard work, and taxing someone when they earn money through having a rich daddy, it's a no brainer to me. 66.31.229.247 (talk) 00:00, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

If the tax did not also apply to gifts, you'd have the beginnings of an argument. But, the law taxes (just as if it were an inheritence) money that a person gives to another while the giver is still alive. Hence, whether the person is alive or dead is irrelevant -- the law gives the state a higher claim on a person's labor than the person has on his own labor. Wikiant (talk) 02:29, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

The argument has nothing to do with who is dead and who isn't. The point is that if you get a huge sum of money that you have not personally earned, then you have to pay taxes on it. Better, in my mind, to tax free money than to increase taxes on money that is the result of your own personal hard work. (Keep in mind that we're talking about millions of dollars here. Excluding business or farm related assets.)

If you're angry that the two million dollars you got in free money only worked out to $1,974,000 after taxes, then I'm afraid that I can't imagine myself ever having very much sympathy about it.

The idea that the money has "already been taxed" is a red herring. All money has been taxed millions of times, pretty much every time it changes hands. The question is whether the person who has the money NOW has been taxed on it. 72.10.110.109 (talk) 18:54, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, but if what you say is correct, then the government has the right to tax all gifts (that's money one receives that one has not personally earned). It also has the right to tax the food, clothing, and shelter that one provides for one's children (it isn't money, but it is stuff of value that the children have not personally earned). And, if the government has the right to tax, it has the right to tax at any level. So, it could (I'm not saying that it would, but I am saying that your argument says it has the right) to tax gifts at 100% -- thereby prohibiting you from giving money or objects to anyone. Once more, how is this materially different from slavery? Wikiant (talk) 20:34, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

So you're saying income tax is slavery as well? Nil Einne (talk) 06:52, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the implication of an income tax is that the government's right to my labor supercedes my right to my labor. Wikiant (talk) 13:23, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Falcon

Is a falcon a type of an eagle? Christie the puppy lover (talk) 14:47, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

No. It's in a separate family of birds of prey. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 15:26, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Maybe not authoritative, but definitely informative. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 18:49, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Some biologists consider eagles and falcons to be in different orders, which is one step removed even from family. Eagles are sometimes classified in the same order as falcons (order Falconiformes), but many ornithologists place them in their own order, Accipitriformes. Even if they are both part of the Falconiformes order, they are distinctly different families, as noted above. Eagles belong to the Accipitridae family, while Falcons belong to the Falconidae family. See the articles for Eagle and Falcon for more information.--Jayron32 20:29, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, maybe a simpler answer: No, a falcon is not a type of eagle. But it is a type of raptor, or bird of prey. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:52, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

And the fact that an eagle is not a falcon does not prevent some people using eagles in falconry. Googlemeister (talk) 14:42, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Globalization

I find it rather strange that one of the first book written about unfettered globalization: ("Unfettered Globalization: A New Orthodoxy" by C-Rene Dominique, Praeger, 1999) is not even referenced. Why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.175.31.183 (talk) 20:54, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Can you clarify your question? Who do you think it should be referenced by? AndyJones (talk) 21:20, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

If you own a copy of the book, and feel it contains material that could support statements or assertions in an existing Wikipedia article, feel free to be bold and cite it. See WP:Citing sources for guidance. Karenjc 21:42, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Also, without knowing anything about this particular book, it is often the case that the reason some book is the "first" about something is that the idea is not particularly noteworthy - this can be the case if most or all books about this topic is written by the same author, and is not referenced by anyone else. (Of course, this could also be the case for truly groundbreaking science, and it's hard to tell the difference, but most of the time that is not the case) Jørgen (talk) 11:13, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Original research warning (i.e., I know something about the subject): Be sure to identify the book as fiction, since there is not now, nor has there ever been, anything that could reasonably be termed "unfettered globalization." DOR (HK) (talk) 08:48, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

August 25

taxing in US and EU for website based in India

we are a website based in India. I dont want to mention the name of the website because this question may be seen as an advertisement. we ask members to read an advertisement and answer question and if the answer is correct, give 2.5 cents to members. We want to launch in USA and European Union while we currently do this in India only. What I want to know is that, after we launch in USA and EU, should we pay tax (say VAT or service tax etc) to US and EU government for the amount of ad revenue collected from US and EU? Or since we have no physical presence in US or EU, are we in no need of paying any taxes? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.119.49 (talk) 02:19, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

We cannot give legal advice, you will need to speak to a lawyer or accountant. --Tango (talk) 02:25, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

U.S. Social Security benefit entitlement for a former, non resident, spouse.

Is a former spouse, of 16 years, that has never resided in the U.S., entitled to a portion of my Social Security benefits? We were married in Canada 16 years ago, and after this marriage I never worked in the U.S. All of my social security credits were earned prior to this marriage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pgregor004 (talk • contribs) 03:50, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

This falls under the category of legal advice, so ask a lawyer. DOR (HK) (talk) 03:59, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't know the answer to the question, since I only understand UK benefits entitlement. But, in the UK, it would not be anything like a legal question and few lawyers would know the answer. There are a number of charities expert in benefit entitlement (the Citizens Advice Bureau is one) and they have advisers who could answer the question. I see no reason why someone knowledgeable in US benefits could not answer this. --Phil Holmes (talk) 11:52, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

If you would be unable to afford a lawyer, a Legal Aid Society would help; I'd recomment finding an attorney in an area where they likely see a lot of queris from foreigners. Really, this is an area where even random *lawyers* (like myself) wouldn't know the answer very well. (I gather you looked at the Social Security Administration's website and struck out.)Somebody or his brother (talk) 12:15, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Your first port of call should probably be US Social Security. They should be willing to explain to you your wife's entitlement. If it's a grey area a specialist lawyer's opinion may also be worth having. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:10, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

General interest question: numbers of ministers in governments

I remember some time ago going through the parliamentary history of Slovenia, and one thing I noticed was that the number of ministers in the first post-independance government (i.e. in 1991) was ridiculously high (22 or 23 of them). The number then started falling and has in the last two or three governenments stabilised at around 12 or 13, which is probably within optimal range for any country. My question(s): does anyone have examples of governments in any country with an unusually high or low number of ministers? What are some of the more unusual ministeries? I remember from my history class that ancient China used to have a ministry of the imperial stable and a ministry of soothsaying. TomorrowTime (talk) 06:52, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

The First Whitlam Ministry in Australia, from 5-19 December 1972, had precisely 2 ministers: Gough Whitlam and his deputy Lance Barnard. But it was always meant to be a short-term arrangement. Whitlam later said: "The Caucus I joined in 1952 had as many Boer War veterans as men who had seen active service in World War II, three from each. The Ministry appointed on 5 December 1972 was composed entirely of ex-servicemen: Lance Barnard and me." -- JackofOz (talk) 08:46, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Nice. If I counted correctly, it was two ministers and 28 ministries... TomorrowTime (talk) 10:44, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

You may be interested in this study, which investigates the optimal number of members in a committee such as a cabinet. It concludes that the fewer members, the better. Committees with more than 20 members are highly inefficient, as well as, for some reason, those with exactly 8. At the time of the study, cabinets existed with every possible number of members between 5 and 34, with the sole exception of 8. 81.98.38.48 (talk) 11:25, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

That got me curious about the U.S., as I knew ours had had 8 at some point. If the Vice President is considered, it was in the 1849-1880s era, and if not, the 1880s to 1913, after Agriculture was added. (At that time, Postmaster General was part of it, and Navy and War were separate.)

That is unusual about 8 being so inefficent. I would have guessed even numbers might be a tad less efficient in general because of the chance of a tie with no tiebreaker.Somebody or his brother (talk) 12:07, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

A cabinet is not, in that sense a committee. And efficiency is not as important in a Cabinet as it is in most committees. With a Cabinet the cost of making a wrong decision is extremely high, requiring that lots of people have an input. And the far-reaching consequences of decisions mean that lots of people deserve an input. Plus Cabinets don't actually have to do things - they have civil servants for that. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:56, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

And in reference to the US, the only vote on the cabinet that matters is that of the president. The cabinet is more an advisory committee. Googlemeister (talk) 14:40, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Questions about Georgian royal succession

I see there two lines of claimants to the Georgian throne: David Bagration of Mukhrani, whose the male agnatic heir of the original Kings of Kartli, Nugzar Bagration-Gruzinsky, who the descendant of the very last King of Georgia, from the junior Kakheti line. Right? But the problem I see with this is what happen to the descendants of Vakhtang VI of Kartli and Jesse of Kartli? I think they still have descendants of the female line left, but didn't medieval Georgia pratice the same succession as the UK where women comes after men, and not exclusion of all women (ie. Tamar of Georgia and Rusudan of Georgia). I found that Vakhtang VI's great-great granddaughter, Princess Anna (1798-1889), married a Count Alexander Petrovich Tolstoy (1801-1873), what happen to their descendants? --Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 07:35, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

will this startup work?

I don't want to name my start-up because that would mean it would be advertising. We are doing a get-paid-for-answering-advertisements thing. members must login, then read three lines of ad text and answer a question based on the above text. if the answer is correct they will get 2.5 cents. will this work in USA? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.96.24.196 (talk) 08:22, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

No. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 10:38, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

2.5 cents? Perhaps if your next question is a time travel question, you'll be able to return to a point when 2.5 cents meant something to anyone in the US. I'd say it would be a fairly universal phenomenon for a US panhandlers to throw that back in your face even if you give it to them for free. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 12:34, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

And that half-cent could hurt, due to the two pointy corners. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:50, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Is it only me who longs for the days when a good business idea consisted of making something that might improve people's lives, not finding a way to scam money out of big corporations by making people who aren't interested in their products click on their advertisements? DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:52, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I think you've stumbled across the real reason the OP doesn't want to name his company. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:04, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

will 5 cents work? - the original asker of the question.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.248.69.25 (talk) 14:37, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

If you actually expect someone to participate in something they wouldn't otherwise care about, start at a dollar. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:58, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Even the government in Canada doesn't look for, or refund, amounts of $2.00 or less. Most of America/ Canada wouldn't change web sites for less that $5.00. Of course, if one can do this over and over, very quickly, and make more than minimum wage (about $10.00 per hour), you might get a taker or two, presuming they believed you about the money. // BL \\ (talk) 15:06, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Or offer some tangible benefit, like 5 free iTunes downloads or something like that. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 15:11, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I expect the pay rate would have to equal minimum wage to be interesting to very many people, unless the questions and text were interesting, or there were the intrinsic reward people get from Sudoku, solitaire, or crosswords. If "answering the question" is just clicking a multiple choice, then I could do them fast enough for it to be marginally financially rewarding. It would pay better than editing Wikipedia, in any event. Edison (talk) 15:25, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the thing is, people won't read the questions, just click away as fast as possible in the hope of making as much money as they can. This won't benefit the companies you are advertising and they will not advertise with you because they will think all the questions are being answered by a team of chimpanzees (no disrespect to your people, but if they are clicking randomly as fast as they can, they are hardly going to get any answers right). So, what you would have to do is give them an incentive - get paid only if they get the answers right, but I doubt anyone would be bothered to do it, then, because at that rate of pay, sitting in front of a computer all day reading just to get money is not really worth it. It is tiring and people need to take frequent breaks after a while. People won't want to do it. Sorry. --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 15:59, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I could get a program that will click thousands of times a second for me. If I get 1/4 right, then I can still make thousands of $ a day. I like this idea, but I don't think that I would trust the site to actually send me any $ since there are a lot of scams. Googlemeister (talk) 17:53, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

You might want to check out the Amazon Mechanical Turk. APL (talk) 19:07, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Question The Biggest

What is the biggest event in human history? Jc iindyysgvxc (talk) 08:58, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Why, the contact with our alien friends from Frolix 8, of course. Oh wait, that's not been made public yet...

Seriously though, that's a tough question to answer, because "the biggest event in history" is a completely subjective way of putting it. You could go with anything, from the completion of the Sphinx, to the fall of Angkhor Watt or the journey to the moon. Also, as you've been told on another board, please rename the title so it reflects the content of the question. TomorrowTime (talk) 09:20, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

The invention of baseball. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 10:36, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

In addition to "biggest" being subjective, one could also discuss what an "event" is. However, I'll put forward the not-so-recent event of the Toba catastrophe. Jørgen (talk) 11:10, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, BIGGEST. Well, the Big Bang, obviously. Without it, we wouldn't be here. We might be someplace else, but not here. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 11:24, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Captain pedantic wants a word - human history, not pre-history?83.100.250.79 (talk) 11:44, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

So what does "biggest" mean? The "biggest" event was probably the flu epidemic from the late 1910s. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:13, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

How about the domestication of dogs, or something like that?83.100.250.79 (talk) 11:44, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Based on the constant references, maybe the invention of sliced bread? --- OtherDave (talk) 12:17, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Except what was the greatest thing before that? Maybe bread itself? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:23, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

The greatest claim ever made -- national revelation at Sinai. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 12:36, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

"The biggest story since... God talked to Moses!" -- Perry White in Superman Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:43, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

that is, "...since Moses heard voices in his head" --79.38.22.37 (talk) 13:30, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

God did not speak to only Moses at Sinai, he spoke to the entire nation. And then Moses, in Deuteronomy 4:32-3, challenged any other nation to make such a claim. Yet none has ever...quite telling. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 21:41, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

But which came first, bread or beer? Didn't beer get discovered when somebody messed up their bread batter? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 18:39, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

NO. DRosenbach: you believe that he spoke, and you are not god. If you have such beliefs, that's a most respectable feeling of yours, as soon as you keep it for you. Please consider that this is not the right place for such posts. Insisting with this troll behaviour is quite stupid, and in fact quite annoying. --pma (talk) 11:32, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

One key moment in that interview occurred when Moses asked God about His real name, and He answered, "Puddintame. Ask Me again, I'll tell you the same." Moses paraphrased that answer as the somewhat more elegant, "I yam what I yam". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:56, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Later taken up to great effect by Popeye. -- JackofOz (talk) 08:41, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

He's strong to the finach, 'cause He eats His spinach. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 08:49, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

The extinction of the other human species leaving only our own. See Homo_(genus)#Species for a rough idea of the time-line. APL (talk) 16:58, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Jc iindyysgvxc has not explained the meaning of his question, but I assume that what is meant is the largest aggregation of people ever for a single in-person event. For example, it was claimed at Woodstock (probably wrongly) that it was the largest gathering of people in history. Our article on Kumbh Mela, a mass Hindu pilgrimage, says that the 2001 Maha Kumbh Mela was attended by around 60 million people, making it the largest gathering anywhere in the world. John M Baker (talk) 14:03, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

As am aside the most widely viewed sporting event is of course the Fifa World Cup.--Shahab (talk) 15:00, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

For reasons that defy explanation, countless millions find it fascinating. Including deciding the champion by the equivalent of a fungo-hitting contest. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 15:06, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

So far today, Bugs, you've insulted Canada and the most popular sport in the world. Having a bad day? DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:45, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

The average American's reaction to soccer is similar to the average American's reaction to the metric system. Zzzzz... Regarding Canada, I just defer to Canadian Dave Foley's comment that, "We're so liberal we make Castro look like a Republican!" Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 19:55, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I believe the biggest event in human history - the one that affected the most number of people - was definitely WW2. It's called a 'world war' for a reason. I am not talking about the number of people who died, I mean it affected everyone and changed the shape of geopolitics worldwide. --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 19:07, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Can you say that WW2 changed the shape of civilization more then the Mongol Empire, or the Black Plague, or the discovery of the New World? Googlemeister (talk) 20:48, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

You can say, as many have, that at the end of WWII, mankind, for the first time, realistically had the tools for its own total destruction. Which counts for something. --68.50.54.144 (talk) 23:12, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I'd have made that link to somewhere a bit more dramatic. Like mutually assured destruction or World War 3. Doomsday device has a pretty picture. Vimescarrot (talk) 00:51, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Biggest. Event. OK, I get "human history," but the other qualifiers make the question unanswerable without some definitions. But, on the basis of the above, I’d go with WWII. Most of the other events mentioned (e.g., the plague, the Mongols) didn’t even warrant a page 12 story in The Jakarta Post or The Rio Recorder. DOR (HK) (talk) 08:59, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Toba eruption? It happened between 70,000 to 75,000 years ago and, according to the Toba catastrophe theory, reduced the entire human population to about 10,000. — Kpalion^(talk) 15:11, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

The biggest event in human history might have been the addition of sprinkles to ice cream. Bus stop (talk) 15:40, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

How many arts and sciences are there in the world

Can some body confirm that how many arts and sciences are there in the world. Is any such list available anywhere? showing the names of all the arts and sciences. Thanks for the support. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.36.1.206 (talk) 10:34, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Thirteen. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 10:37, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Actaully, it's seven :) TomorrowTime (talk) 10:42, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

When in doubt, go with 42. DOR (HK) (talk) 09:03, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

The box at the top-right of the Science article lists many sciences, and there is a similar list in The arts. However, whether any individual subject counts as a science or an art or neither is a matter of opinion, for example does 'Anatomy' count as a science or is it a part of 'Biology'? 81.98.38.48 (talk) 11:00, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

As far as I know there are more than hundred basic arts and sciences, I was looking for the complete list, which I couldn't find yet..... please past link to any such list —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.36.1.206 (talk) 11:57, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

The question is unanswerable unless & until you can define what a basic art or basic science is. There is no such single definition / definitions change over time / science and art evolve over time. The question is, for all intent & purpose, unanswerable. --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:10, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Even if you could define exactly what was an art or science, you would still have to agree on how to subdivide them. Are Chemistry, Organic Chemistry and Inorganic Chemistry one, two, or three sciences? DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:45, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

A major point would be, that such categories are a function of time and the available tools of an era. Alchemie may have been a science not so long ago, cosmology (unless you count Moses and creationism), genetics or cinematography was nowhere in, say, the Renaissance. It would also be misleading (taking genetics as an example) to compare the scientific construct of Gregor Mendel with the vast knowledge in the field of genetics which we have gained in the meantime. Future times may require dsciplines of environmental engineering, terraforming, The Science of Aliens or other - as yet unknown - areas of research and application. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 17:51, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

It depends on what your classification criteria are, and how you subdivide. There is no objective way to come up with a number. There are massive inter-academic debates about whether a given branch is a field in its own right or a subfield of another. These debates are not new... in their modern form they have been going on since at least the 19th century, but there are very similar debates that occurred during the Middle Ages, the early Scientific Revolution, and so on. (e.g. "Is mathematics a science or just a tool?" is the main question that Copernicus took up in the intro to his famous book, for theological reasons.) --68.50.54.144 (talk) 21:57, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes very true and agreed...... can some one please guide me to an alphabetical list or so containing fields/branches (I am sacred to say them "art" or "science")

Acarology. Actinobiology. Actinology. Aerobiology. Aerology. Aetiology. Agnoiology. Agrobiology. Agrology. Agrostology. Algology. Allergology. Andrology. Anesthesiology. Angelology. Angiology. Anthropology. Apiology. Arachnology. Archaeology. Archaeology. Archaeozoology. Areology. Assyriology. Astacology. Asteroseismology. Astrobiology. Astrogeology. Astrology. Atmology. Audiology. Autecology. Auxology. Axiology —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.36.15.179 (talk) 07:56, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

You mean there's no such science as Aardvarkology? DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:56, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

That list has Astrology not Astronomy, huh?? Vespine (talk) 01:39, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Somebody's being funny. Astronomy would be a "science". Astrology would fall into the "art" category, as with any work of fiction. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 05:20, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Depends on your definition of a "science". The term used to be applied to any organised body of theory and knowledge, regardless of that body's objective factuality or adherence to the (relatively modern concept of) scientific method: Heraldry, for example, was and sometimes is still referred to as a science. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 13:19, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

WWI History question on Misc desk

Hi, your input would be helpful on this question about Hitler blaming Jews for the loss of World War One. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 11:21, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

John 3:16

Why does this Bible reference show up regularly at protests and at sports events? These events rarely have major religious significance. Astronaut (talk) 12:55, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

They're trying to get you to read it and convert you from the Church of Baseball/Football/etc. to Christianity. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:00, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

That's one theory. Another is that they're egotists who want to be seen on national TV, and they're more likely to attract national attention by holding up a "John 3:16" sign than one that says "Circle Me Bert". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:02, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

John 3:16 & Rollen Stewart, FYI. --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:04, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeh, yeh. I remember that looney bird. He went to the slammer, as I recall. I like better this pair of quotes: "Judas went out and hanged himself." "Go therefore and do likewise." Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:07, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It's somewhat of an recruitment slogan for Christians in the US, i.e. believe in our god and our messiah or burn in hell forever. It's popular because it's short and easy to remember, making it somewhat of a catch-phrase. It is mostly used in events where a particular group of Christians feels like another group at the same location should become Christians but have previously shown some amount of hidden or open opposition to this. See also our article about John 3:16. Regards SoWhy 13:08, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Whereas So is merely recruiting for the extreme cynicism party. And most Christians have nothing against baseball or football, so they are not trying to get you to convert away from them. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:43, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

You did notice that I used the phrase "a particular group of Christians" to specifically point out that it's not the normal behavior for Christians? ;-) Regards SoWhy 14:18, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Don't confuse Baseball with The Church of Baseball. For further details, watch the first few minutes of Bull Durham. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:50, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

And read about Rollen Stewart and the perils of taking it all too seriously. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:10, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

The reason that John 3:16 is used rather then other bible verses is that it's seen as a pretty good one-sentence summary of the Christian faith. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:43, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

It's unfortunate for Rockin' Rollen that he couldn't get the message across to himself. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:53, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

DJ has it right. John 3:16 is pretty much the "Mission statement" of Christianity. If you had to ask a Christian why he is a Christian, and he had to answer in 30 words or less, John 3:16 captures it well... --Jayron32 15:36, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Cecil Adams has this pair of articles on the subject of Rollen "Rock'n Rollen" Stewart and his signs. [13] [14]. It's an odd story that turns weird. APL (talk) 16:54, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

It demonstrates that there can be a fine line between religious faith and lunacy. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 20:37, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

viz. Theresa of Avila. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 18:42, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Scholarship abroad

Hello; how can I find (in the web) scholarship opportunities to work as a scientist? Is there a way to make a payed internship before the master's degree? Thanks! 79.8.129.62 (talk) 16:08, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Are you looking to study science, or work as a scientist? And which country are you thinking of? DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:01, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but we need to know 1. where abroad, and 2. what kind of scientist. In each field there are different opportunities, and it no doubt varies in different countries. Many branches of lab science in particular always have technician roles that are often filled by recent college graduates who are building up experience (and some meager income) before applying to graduate study. --68.50.54.144 (talk) 00:05, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I would accept every country; the only request is that the fly should be as cheap as possible (I am from Italy): however, possibly, I would prefer northern europe or, at least, Canada. The field is molecular biology, and I am looking for internship opportunities before fully graduating (now I have a bachelor); it would be perfect to continue with a doctoral position. The matter is that I need to be payed to stay abroad, as I cannot afford to live there. 87.6.123.217 (talk) 07:23, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Usually as a masters' student, at least in the US, if you didn't get a scholarship, you would get a teaching or research assistantship to pay your expenses with. A teaching assistant (TA) would help with instruction of low-level science classes, grade homework and exams, etc. An RA would work on a professor's research projects including doing some technician-type tasks. In mathematics you would more likely work as a TA in your first year or two, and become an RA (which is a better job) after you had advanced enough in your graduate studies to be useful to a professor. In biology maybe it's the other way around--I don't know. 67.122.211.205 (talk) 08:30, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks; do you know any helpful website to get a TA or a RA? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.53.69.131 (talk) 14:28, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Prison riot in Kentucky

There was recently a pison riot in the U.S. state of Kentucky. Is there an article about it? B-Machine (talk) 20:30, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

The first step would be to find a citation for it. Do you have one? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 20:37, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Googling indicates you refer to the prison riot in Burgin, Kentucky. Neither our article on prison riots nor the entry on Burgin has any reference to it. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 21:00, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

The "Burgin prison" seems to have a different name and its address is in Danville. Edison (talk) 02:41, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

It is called the "Northpoint Training Center" and was reportedly damaged beyond repair by the riot. One questions whether it is "in " Burgin because the prison inmate population was far larger than the reported population of the town. Also Google maps and Wikipedia say the address is "710 Walter Reed Rd, Danville, KY‎ 40422" although the Kentucky Department of Corrections says it is at "P.O. Box 479, Hwy 33, 710 Walter Reed Road, Burgin, Kentucky 40310." Someone down there seems downright corn-fused. Edison (talk) 16:37, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

It's covered in our article on the Northpoint Training Center, which despite its name is a medium-security prison. The facility's physical address and its post office box mailing address have different towns, which is not particularly unusual. John M Baker (talk) 18:36, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Ancient Greek Theater

Hello, who attended performances of greek theater in Athens (5th and 4th century BC)? Men and women? Citiziens and metics? Free and slaves? Which agegroups? --92.225.4.240 (talk) 21:46, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I would have directed you to Wikipedia's article Theatre of ancient Greece, but it is surprisingly lacking on that topic. If you do find good sources, the article could use expansion in that direction! --Jayron32 23:47, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

You could try this book, which has a chapter about the audience. Adam Bishop (talk) 13:07, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

August 26

Direct reports VS Functional reports

I work for a joint-venture and their organizational structure uses the terms "direct reports" and "functional reports"

Direct reports seems fairly simple - people below you who report to you in the course of your normal work. However, I don't understand functional reports and my boss - who is ESL - is having difficulty explaining it to me.

Help! (Thank you!) 218.25.32.210 (talk) 00:45, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

In my (U.S.-based) experience, a "direct report" means not only someone who reports to you, but for whom you are the primary supervisor. You typically review this person's performance and decide on salary raises or bonuses -- or at least recommend these to your boss, to whom you are a direct report.

I would take "functional report" to mean the equivalent of a boss/subordinate relationship but without direct authority, personnel/salary responsibilities, and so on. For example, I worked directly for the director of human resource development, but spent a year and a half in charge of developing training for a large software project. During that time, I functionally reported to a vice-president in the computer services department. The VP technically had no direct control over me -- hadn't hired, couldn't fire, didn't control my salary -- but essentially functioned as my supervisor. For example, my "real" boss consulted with the VP in order to write my performance review.

Not to say that this is your situation; just an example of what "functional report" mean in one case. --- OtherDave (talk) 01:14, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

We have the same distinction where I work. I am in charge of a project, and so a number of people take direction from and report to me on that project. However, I do not have the power to grant them promotions or raises or reassign them to a different project. Only my boss, the head of the department, can do that. These people are my functional reports but, like me, my boss's direct reports. Marco polo (talk) 01:17, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, if you were working on more than one project at a time, you could report functionally to more than one supervisor. Marco polo (talk) 01:19, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

OP here - excellent. Thank you everyone, it's crystal clear now! 218.25.32.210 (talk) 01:36, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

The functional report can be referred to as a " dotted-line" reporting relationship, which is sometimes shown on organization charts by, well, a dotted line (rather than a solid one, which would indicate a direct report). At a large loan-processing company with six field locations, each location had a training specialist. The specialist had a solid-line (direct) reporting relationship to the manager of training back at headquarters, but a dotted-line reporting relationship with the manager of the field location.

Dotted-line can also mean you have multiple responsibilities, some of which are overseen by your direct supervisor, and some by the person to whom you have the functional relationship. In other words, it's not necessarily a choice between only direct and only functional. OtherDave (talk) ----

Cook vs. Lewis (1951), Canada

plzz guide me about the 'cook vs lewis(1951)' case. it is a case of tortious liablity. this case happened in canada. the case belong to the archive of canada supreme cort. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nutanswami (talk • contribs) 18:44, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Is this a homework question? If so, you need to show you've made an attempt to do it yourself. If not, then what do you wish to know about Cook vs Lewis (bearing in mind that the RefDesk cannot give legal advice)? There's a detailed description of the case here, along with the opinions of the judges who considered and dismissed the Supreme Court appeal against earlier verdicts in lower courts. Karenjc 21:34, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Role and status of women under the Franco regime in Spain

My question mostly lies with the fascist and Catholic women who were on the Nationalist side of the Spanish Civil War. Those women who followed Franco believed in his cause even though he felt they had fewer and very different natural rights as compared to men. Despite this, most of the women of the right in Spain which I have read about fancied themselves feminists in certain respects because they were advancing women's movements within the context of fascism. I am wondering about the more in depth and complicated reconciliations which would have had to take place for the logic of taking away rights to advance female causes to take place. Also, how did these ideas play out with time? Did Franco have to make any concessions to women as his dictatorship drew on into the 70's? Any ideas? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.236.185.56 (talk) 22:21, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

August 27

Malvinas Islands in the South Atlantic Ocean - Territorial platform of Argentina

I was wondering where do you get your information about how the Islands came to be 're-possessed' by England. Since the islands are part of the continental platform and belonged - with the rest of the southern cone to Spain first, then to the United Provinces of Rio de la Plata since 1916, how come England claims to have any jurisdiction (that far from his own territory?) and/or authority? England never had any right over the islands other than by force of its pirates roaming the south Atlantic. And that's how they got the islands in 1933. If you listen to the British, they could own the whole world too. I wish Wikipedia, which I have respected until now, to search and include the other side of the story too. As you present the information, it appears that England has rightfully taken possession of the islands, when even in 1815 they were expelled from Buenos Aires by the locals with boiling water and rocks. They simply took advantage of a peaceful and new country to forcefully steal that what was not theirs. Since they have done that for ages - see the Rock of Gibraltar, Belize, etc. etc. - they probably believe it's their right to continue doing so. But it has been a long time that pirates have been outlawed in this planet and they should recognize it's time for them to go home. Thanks for listening. Please, research more and be fair. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.50.41.189 (talk) 01:43, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

You should probably read Sovereignty of the Falkland Islands. If there is inaccurate information or missing information, please let us know on the talk page of that article. You appear to be labouring under the illusion that everyone should share your opinion. They do not. Please get used to it. You might also look at Timeline of the history of the Falkland Islands, and compare that to the history of Argentina. Clearly claims were being made of ownership of the islands at much the same time that South America was first colonised by Europeans; and that is long before the modern South American states were established. Like it or not, possession is & always has been 9/10ths of the law, and those with the earliest claims are Spain and Britain. Clearly Britain has an interest in maintaining ownership - a perhaps ambivalent interest, I guess. One of the main guiding principles it appears to work under, with respect to its overseas territories, is to listen to what the people of the territories want. And I think it is more than clear that the people of the Falkland islands do not want Argentinian sovereignty and do wish for British sovereignty. Is democracy dead in your part of the world? --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:49, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to ask the OP if he/she thinks that the people who live on the Malvinas/Falklands should be forcibly removed so that the islands can be re-settled from Argentina, or should they be forced to be ruled by a country they don't want ruling them? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 06:21, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

That sounds rather familiar. DOR (HK) (talk) 06:52, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Wow, at cost of £2.778 billion, 255 men, 34 aircraft + 1 Type 42 destroyer from the Uk and 649 men, the downfall of the then government from Argentina, things are still pretty much more or less the same. That is one hefty price tag for defending the pride of a slightly used empire, and a hefty price to pay for national pride (?) and/or surrounding marine resources (?). Wow. Royor (talk) 07:36, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Materially true, though the strategic value of continued control in the area may be thought to be not inconsiderable, and the value of testing one's military capabilities in real conflict from time to time should not be underestimated. But in any case some people, and peoples, also place high values on maintaining principles like justice, freedom and democracy, on maintaining their obligation of mutual defense to their fellow citizens, and on refusing to allow naked aggression to gain sway in the world unopposed. As for the downfall of the then-ruling Argentinian military junta, I was given to understand that many Argentinians (relatives of "the disappeared" for example) were themselves not unpleased by it. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 12:56, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, this has clearly passed into the realm of debate. Nothing to see here. Move along. 'aven't you got no forums to go to? DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:17, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Oldest active law

What is the oldest piece of legislation still in force? LANTZY^TALK 08:32, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

The Law of Gravity. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 08:37, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Otherwise, given the vagueness of the question, I would have to say that laws against basic moral violations, such as murder and theft, would be the oldest. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 08:39, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

What constitutes legislation? Is it only law if it's codified? In which case, much of British common law doesn't count as we don't have a written constitution! And further, does the existence of a written document yet to be officially annulled count as an enforced law? Given cases like this I'm not sure that the question can be given a straight answer. --Leon (talk) 08:56, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

There is far more to law than just constitutions. (And the UK does have a written constitution, just not a single document. See Constitution of the United Kingdom. Some parts are unwritten, I think, but certainly not all of it.) --Tango (talk) 16:29, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Theft is illegal in the UK under (as far as I know) the Theft Act 1968, so although the principle is very old, the law isn't. I'd guess that the earliest still applicable legislation might be found in the canon law of the Coptic or Roman Catholic churches, or possibly the Republic of San Marino. AlexTiefling (talk) 09:03, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Law#History_of_law claims, "The Old Testament is likely the oldest surviving body of law still relevant to modern legal systems. It dates back to 1280 BC, and takes the form of moral imperatives as recommendations for a good society." Other than that, Classical Islamic law around the 7th and 8th centuries included the development of principles such as Hawala which are still applied today, and influenced the development of European common law.

Admittedly these don't seem to me (a layman) so much pieces of legislation as legal concepts. The Magna Carta (a charter) of 1297 is still on the statute books in England and Wales, but I make no claim to this being the oldest. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 09:07, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Some thoughts and guesses:

The common law of England is curious in that it is of indeterminate age: as I understand it, in theory it's just the traditional law of England as received from generations past. (Even though judges make the actual case law by deciding cases.) The common law also contains many things that might be pretty ancient.

The Catholic Church, and of course the Orthodox Church, have some old laws, too. And aside from religious codes, there could be something in some country that's existed continuously as a state for a very long time. Japan, or maybe Ethiopia?

And of course there's China, which has, for example, the hukou system that dates back several millennia, although apparently not on the basis of a particular law or statute. There may well be better examples from China, I'm no expert.

And consider Roman law, which was taken as authoritative across Europe until the 19th century. There might be some law in force somewhere that's lifted straight from Roman law.--Rallette (talk) 09:40, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

The oldest piece of legislation still in force in the UK seems to be the Statute of Marlborough, from 1267. See [15]. Hut 8.5 11:08, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Darn, just before the edit conflict, I was going to nominate the Statute of Westminster of 1275, if only for its thoroughness: it fixed a date for the end of "time immemorial" (September 3, 1189, to be precise). It also established the concept of bail. --- OtherDave (talk) 11:10, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

If you want something you might get prosecuted under, there was some speculation a few years ago that terrorist suspects could be tried under the Treason Act 1351. Hut 8.5 14:49, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

The Guinness Book of Records 1973 gave Ine's Law (897) as the oldest law on the books in England.--TammyMoet (talk) 15:06, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Ine's Law is (currently) a redlink - closest I could find was Ine of Wessex#Laws, though that gives a date of ca. 695. -- 128.104.112.102 (talk) 17:21, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes you're right - have now had chance to check it, was typing from memory before. I didn't think there'd be a link to it. --TammyMoet (talk) 18:16, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

US Civil War

I know this might seem like a ridiculous question, but if the Union (North) had the military might and technology of today's US military and the Confederate (South) did not, how long do you think the war would have lasted? I am debating this with a friend right now --Reticuli88 (talk) 13:14, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

You mean, what would happen if the north had F-22s, aircraft carriers, M1A2 tanks, A-10s and ICBMs vs the south with their muskets and cannons, and wooden sailing ships? Certainly no more then 1 day (assuming that the current infrastructure exists, tanks don't work well without fuel). Less if the north does not mind using nuclear weapons. Googlemeister (talk) 13:18, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

If you want to read about the opposite (South having modern weapons and rolling the North), I would suggest Guns of the South by Harry Turtledove. Livewireo (talk) 13:31, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

The situation in Afghanistan or the conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians shows that overwhelming power doesn't necessarily give a quick victory. But yes I'd guess in that situation with a civil war it wouldn't take very long at all. Dmcq (talk) 14:08, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

In October the First is Too Late by Fred Hoyle, a 1960's Britain juxtaposed to the continent under Napoleon ends the war pretty quickly with a few threats, as I seem to remember... AnonMoos (talk) 14:25, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

That's not to say that it's impossible for the South to mount some sort of guerrilla resistance, with hit and fade style attacks. I just don't see it happening. There was no existing racial hatred, and already the desire for secession and war was far from unanimous. It's difficult to imagine the South continuing to fight against an overwhelming force, especially after their government was knocked out almost immediately. 72.10.110.109 (talk) 16:02, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean by "there was no existing racial hatred"? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 20:33, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I assume 72 means between north and south. --Tango (talk) 20:45, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

That makes no sense. North and south were both largely white (except for the slaves, of course). Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 20:57, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. No racial hatred between the two groups...Because they were mostly the same race. Didn't think I needed to spell that out. 72.10.110.109 (talk) 21:31, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Even guerilla warfare is questionable, I mean the South in this scenario doesn't even have small and powerful explosives or cheap machine guns. But yeah, the war would be over within days, or hours if the South was reasonable and surrendered. The North would advance on all fronts with effectively invincible tanks, while planes would destroy anything they wanted in the South, it would be clear immediately to all involved the North had overwhelming, unstoppable and fast moving power. Prokhorovka (talk) 16:55, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Maybe if Grant or Sherman was leading it. If McClellan were running it, the south could last a long time. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 20:33, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Even McClellan could probably pull off a win with an armored division vs 20,000 guys with muzzle loaders and comparably primitive artillery. The south would have to get creative to destroy a single tank, let alone more then 100 of the puppies. And how would they stop a single B-52 from carpetboming Richmond into dust? (We still use those right? ) Googlemeister (talk) 20:50, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

McClellan would have been telling Lincoln that the South had many more B-52s than the north did. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 20:57, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Turtles and Elephants

The bas-relief from Angkor Wat,Cambodia, shows Vishnu in the centre, his turtle avatar Kurma below, asuras and devas to left and right tugging the serpent to churn the sea of milk - from article Samudra manthan

In Hinduism, Samudra manthan (Devanagari: समुद्र मंथन) or The churning of the ocean of milk is one of the most famous episodes in the Puranas and is celebrated in a major way every twelve years in the festival known as Kumbha Mela. The story appears in the Srimad Bhagavatam, the Mahabharata and the Vishnu Purana

I'm sure I was once taught about a religion which once had the theory that Earth was resting on an elephants back and the elephant was on a turtles back, think there was a snake involved too somewhere, but I can't seem to find anything about it, anybody got any idea what I'm talking about?--217.39.11.37 (talk) 16:40, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Turtles all the way down is good starting / ending point. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 16:47, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I suspect Discworld may be apropos. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:48, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

thats the one, cheers Tagishsimon, and thank you for the interesting article to read ZooM. No idea where I got the idea that it was religious from, never even read a discworld book--217.39.11.37 (talk) 16:52, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Erm Hindu cosmology Hindu mythology would probably predate those - see Chukwa

I'm not sure about a serpent, there is a Midgard serpent in norse mythology though.83.100.250.79 (talk) 17:23, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh there is a serpent see Ocean of milk (usually called sea of milk as well) - the serpent was used to stir the sea of milk, I have no idea what that is all about. The serpent is called Vasuki.83.100.250.79 (talk) 17:34, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Basically, the story as I remembered it, maybe incorrectly, was that the Earth was resting on the back of four giant elephants, who in turn were stood upon the back of a giant turtle, which had a snake wrapped around its legs.--217.39.11.37 (talk) 17:58, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

and I did have a feeling it was Hinduism--217.39.11.37 (talk) 17:59, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

This page has a good image http://www.turtlefan.com/Symbol-tortoises/index.php snake, tortoise, 4 elephants (says the chinese have the same idea via india). Wikipedia seems to say there is only 1 elephant - but I'm not expert enough to know if that needs correcting.83.100.250.79 (talk) 18:45, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Pretty sure the snake is a rope in tug of war contest between two factions of gods, or gods and demons or somesuch. Googlemeister (talk) 20:47, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

RTFA Ocean of milk and Samudra manthan. User:A.Hitler(talk)

tort law(english)

suggest about the law of full reparation in case of loss or damage to the property.this topic belogs to the area of tortious liablity. in context of india the tort law is not codified.indian courts mainly refer to english law in case of tortious liablity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.212.220.2 (talk) 17:51, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

What is your question? --Tango (talk) 19:02, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Pan Am Flight 103 Question

What would happen if the criminal, mass murderer, does not die in 3 months like they said?... will he be imprisoned again? --190.50.118.217 (talk) 19:58, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

No. It would be highly unlikely for the Libyan government to hand him back again so that he can go back to prison in the UK, and it is unlikely that he would be sent to prison in Libya. -- role^player 20:27, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Weird date in a contemporary document

Today I was sat in the Buckinghamshire county record office reading a parish register from the 17th century. One of the dates mentioned in the register is 29th February 1649. According to Wikipedia's article on February 29 the occasion of a leap year taking place every four years was put into English law in 1256. So how could there have been a 29th February in 1649? It was a genuine original document from 1649 that I was reading. -- role^player 20:23, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

You should check and see if there are any other documents with that date. It could be one of those 9's is really an 8. It could also be that whoever wrote it made a mistake. Mistakes happen. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 20:30, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure if it makes a different (and I am not really up to doing the maths) but could it have something to do with the Julian calendar? --Saddhiyama (talk) 20:48, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

As far as I know, the only problem with the Julian calendar is that it had leap years too often, i.e. in every year divisible by 4, which resulted in slowly getting "ahead of" the solar year, which is why the compensated by dropping 10 days from the calendar under the orders of Pope Gregory. The Gregorian calendar compensates better by not having a leap year in years ending in double-0 unless they are also divisible by 400. But 1649 is not divisible by 4. I still suspect it was either a mistake or a carelessly written 8, either for the date or for the year. That's why it's important to see if that's an isolated case or not. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 21:02, 27 August 2009 (UTC)