Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

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

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

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

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

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

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

April 7

Sexual assault

I've been looking through the state's sex offender database. There are a number of entries where, under the convictions, it lists "VOP" and then there isn't a date of conviction. What does VOP stand for? Dismas|^(talk) 02:54, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I found some that do have a conviction date. So that doesn't seem to help. Is it Violation of Probation? Dismas|^(talk) 02:57, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Might it help for us to know which "state" you're talking about? Which country, even? -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 03:09, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm usually better about that. I'm in the US state of Vermont. Dismas|^(talk) 05:12, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Violation of parole, maybe? --Richardrj ^{talk email} 05:30, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Good guess. It's "violation of probation", according to this. —Kevin Myers 09:26, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Names for Different Positions in Companies

I've been given a research assignment, but I'm not sure if I'm doing it right, (and my boss isn't helping to explain it when I ask him questions). I need to find the Chief Human Resources Director and the Chief Research Officer for a few different life sciences companies. What are some other names for these positions? Is the "Chief Director" of Human Resources also the "Vice President" of Human Resources? Thank you for your help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.16.95.123 (talk) 10:01, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and I would expect the name would change with the size of the company, from Supervisor or HR, to HR Manager, HR Director, HR Chief, VP in Charge of HR, and President in Charge of HR. StuRat (talk) 10:48, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

It may be that some of the companies in question use the older term 'Personnel' rather than 'Human Resources'. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 11:31, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

And "research" is often paired with "development", as R&D. StuRat (talk) 13:32, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Table for comparing religions - similarities and differences

Is there a table available anywhere that 1) has the religions as columns (such as Christianity, Judaism, Islam) and the religious texts as rows, to show which texts are common to more than one religion? 2) Similarly, with kinds of beliefs as rows - things like one god only, heaven, and so on? Thanks 78.149.173.243 (talk) 11:01, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Like this? I Googled "comparison religions" and that's the first thing that came up. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:44, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

See The Association of Religion Data Archives. -- Wavelength (talk) 14:55, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Mr 98s link is relevant to Question 2. Wavelengths link is an index to a large site - where can I find a table please? 78.149.173.243 (talk) 14:58, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I have been unable to find a table on that website. I apologize for any inconvenience. -- Wavelength (talk) 15:36, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

See this page. -- Wavelength (talk) 17:15, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Belief Comparisons of the World's Religions has religions in rows and beliefs in columns. -- Wavelength (talk) 17:45, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

As to the first question, I don't think a table would be useful or easy to find, because few of the more prominent religions have holy scriptures in common. When several religious groups share some of their holy books, they are more commonly considered sects of a single religion. The case of Christianity, which managed to incorporate the entire holy scripture of another religion and yet to become clearly distinct from that religion, is more of an exception than a norm.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 20:11, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

See The Book of Mormon and the King James Bible (which has no table). -- Wavelength (talk) 21:54, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

See Biblical narratives and the Qur'an (which has no table). -- Wavelength (talk) 22:51, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Comparative religion has a link to The God Contention - Comparing Religions, Faiths and Worldviews (which has religions in columns).

-- Wavelength (talk) 23:18, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Someone might start the Wikipedia article Table of beliefs and religions, based on information gleaned from the official websites of various religions. -- Wavelength (talk) 01:00, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

That would be very hard! Most religions (and many religious denominations) aren't unified under one earthly organization to have an official website. Even Scientology has practitioners who are not organizationally affiliated with the Church of Scientology. It's also very hard to chart out what religions believe. For example, Christian doctrine (typically) asserts that Christianity is monotheistic. But the Qu'ran may assert that Christianity is polytheistic. Paul (Stansifer) 04:30, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I found a collection of links to official websites. -- Wavelength (talk) 16:18, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Those are the websites of local organizations, of which there are multitudes. (And even the larger organizations don't necessarily correspond to theological boundaries.) For that matter, plenty of religious people don't have an official organization larger than their congregation (see Baptist and Congregational church). Even when there is a large organization that actually does assert a doctrine, many of the people who belong to it consider themselves free to disagree with it, and their beliefs and practice shouldn't be ignored. I guess what I'm trying to say is that there are many large groups of people with common beliefs who are strongly opposed to trying to delineate who is in and who is out. Therefore, finding out what they believe is something like an anthropological challenge. Paul (Stansifer) 18:55, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

See Religions Summary - Compares Major Religions. -- Wavelength (talk) 21:45, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

If the original poster is asking for the purpose of examining different faiths and choosing one to adopt, he or she might be able to speed up the process by praying for divine guidance in the matter. -- Wavelength (talk) 18:15, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Ah, but should they pray, meditate, or go look in the woods for some tablets that only they can decifer ? StuRat (talk) 18:39, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Name for economic concept ?

I would like to describe an economic/regulatory concept, then have you tell me the name, and point me to any articles we have related to it. First, let me start with some examples:

1) Ships are allowed to register in any nation, so choose the nation with the lowest fees and least regulations.

2) In the US, credit card companies were originally required to abide by the laws where each customer lived, which led to fairly restrictive laws against usury (absurdly high interest rates). Then, a decision was made to allow them to operate across state boundaries, and to apply the laws from their home state to wherever they did business. This led to them all moving to where they could get the best terms, which seemed to be Delaware. Thus, they were able to charge much higher interest rates than before the decision.

3) Free trade allows businesses to relocate to where the taxes, wages, benefits, and environmental regulations are lowest, effectively forcing all those items lower everywhere.

So, there are two parts to this economic concept, that competition will result in businesses (and consumers) choosing the "lowest common denominator", but also that every other nation or state will then be forced to lower it's standards to compete. So, do we have a name for this concept ? Do we have any articles ? StuRat (talk) 17:06, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Generally, the economic term associated with moving around to find a more advantageous environment is "mobility," as in "labor mobility." You might use the term "jurisdictional mobility" to refer to behaviors like those you list. A related concept is regulatory shopping, where parties have some choice in regulator, although that's not necessarily associated with physical location. -- Coneslayer (talk) 17:15, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Race to the bottom. Hipocrite (talk) 17:16, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Recent work in location theory, a branch of economic geography, addresses these issues. Marco polo (talk) 17:53, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I, too, would say "race to the bottom". (Side note: Flag of convenience is phenomenon #1.) Comet Tuttle (talk) 20:17, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

It strikes me that you're starting from the assumption that this phenomenon is an economic concept in the first place. My interpretation of what you've described is that it conflates a number of issues. Each of the things that you describe contributes to strategic choice for business leaders.

Essentially the cost of regulation is a cost to the business, but leaders need to make a decision about whether they are aiming at cost leadership, quality or a Niche market. Businesses aiming at a cost leadership position may choose to reduce the cost of regulation, but have to balance that with the cost of relocation and service delivery at range. The type of service delivered is apposite, in the example you mention there is little cost of distance.

Your extension to that assumption is that regulatory authorities, governments, will also make choices about their cost of regulation as a means of attracting business to trade. That can be done in two ways, minimise the regulation or maximise the efficiency of the regulatory framework.

Add to that the customer facing element, your assumption is that the cost leader will also price gouge. In the customer facing sphere not every service provider will take a price leadership position.

Put simply, the concept you're after is competition, but you're then applying that to the strategic environment.

ALR (talk) 08:05, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the answers so far, looks like some good stuff here. StuRat (talk) 14:50, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Your third point is different from your first two. As a country devlops its lower sectors will typically move abroad while higher sectors flourish. for example during hte Industrial revolution there was quite a decline in agricultural production in the affected countries. Nowadays western countries are losing their manufacturing industries but have a booming services and R&D sector with ridiculously high GDPs. This counters the impacts of your first two points greatly.--92.251.166.223 (talk) 00:26, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree. Lots of services are also leaving the high cost nations, for low cost nations, such as India. This includes "high end services" like computer programming and maybe medical diagnosis. Growth rates are also much higher in low cost nations such as China and India, leading to an evening out of GDP. StuRat (talk) 00:34, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

There is a fairly standard product/ service lifecycle, with development and early delivery generally being a high cost activity and as the product or service matures delivery becomes commoditised. In terms of production the cost of production and the cost of movement start to reach an balance where the cost of production becomes the marginal component of the overall cost structure. In the case of services where information is a key component the low cost of international communications tends to lead to that stage in the lifecycle very quickly. The two examples that you mention; software and diagnosis, are both commoditised, essentially low cost low return services, the total cost of the service to the client needs to take into account those elements insourced and those outsourced or offshored. In the case of software development, in my experience, the majority of creative, architecting and design work takes place physically close ot the client, the grunt work of typing code can be outsourced.

In all honesty the cost of regulation is a very small component of the pricing structure anyway. Even if production is in an economy where the controls mentioned are quite light the regulations around the point of sale tend to apply anyway. A pertinent point in the information arena would be the difference between US and European privacy regulation, government clients in the EU cannot use certain US based providers unless the infrastructure is removed from the US and housed in a compliant region, which impacts on cost. Another example would be manufacturing in China, the products have to comply with the environmental and toxicity regulations of the consuming economy, so despite the relative laxity of these regulations in the China consumer marketplace manufacturers have to comply with higher standards to sell into North America and Europe.

There is an argument that these retail based regulations can form an implicit trade barrier that gets around the agreements that form the World Trade Organisation, but that has only been successful in a couple of cases where the regulations were clearly discriminatory and not founded on rigorous evidence.

I'd also note that there is a difference between rates of activity growth and rates of economic growth. Whilst the examples that you cite have reasonably rapid growth in their market activity their revenues aren't reflecting that in GDP growth.

ALR (talk) 11:10, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. This chart shows that China's GDP growth is the fastest, by far, and India's is about 4th: [1]. Regarding your point about environmental regulations of the consuming nation, that only applies to the product, and most pollution occurs in the water, air, and earth during manufacturing. Similarly, disposal of products containing toxic substances can involve shipping them to a nation with lax laws, where they won't have to worry about proper disposal. StuRat (talk) 11:33, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

It's entirely up to you to disagree, but it appears that you're picking on very specific points and not really addressing the whole of the discussion.

The point of my last paragraph was that rates of GDP growth in developing countries don't really reflect growth in economic activity. Anyway, that's a very minor point in this discussion, when you seem to b asking a question about management decision making at the business and national level. There are a number of reasons why GDP growth is quite rapid in a developing economy, because small changes have a large effect, whereas in more mature economies the same stimulus will have a much more muted effect. To usefully use that chart we'd need to ask a number of questions about the situation in country, for example Ireland shows a very significant increase as well, but a lot of that was the injection of European Union subsidy to fund infrastructure development, that did support some economic generation, but their economy has fallen quite significantly as the EU funding ended at around the same time as the global economic downturn was really kicking in.

With respect to pricing structures, that does depend on what we're talking about being manufactured. The cost of environmental regulation is only a small part of the cost of a product. In my experience the biggest cost driver is usually headcount, closely followed by the capital cost of infrastructure and the cost of finance.

Generally if I'm advising a professional client about an outsourcing or offshoring decision the main issues to think about are cost of personnel, cost of finance, cost of transport and the cost of control. Countries generally don't try to compete on the cost of their regulation, except in the financial services area where mobility can be quite high, although as we've seen the industry as a whole tends to be a little conservative. Dubai was emerging as a financial hub but when things got difficult and they looked vulnerable then there was a consolidation on London, New York and Singapore.

Anyway, as I see it your initial question has been answered, there is no specific economic theory that pertains to what you described. There are, however, a range of commercial and business operating theories that govern decision making.

ALR (talk) 14:33, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

After a brief WikiBreak, I might point out that free trade would be the economic condition that would most discourage companies from relocating business abroad. It is generally harder to work abroad than at home, and in many cases, more risky. Exporting is far easier and safer. DOR (HK) (talk) 02:55, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Hemidemisemiquaver

Please see Wikipedia:Reference desk/Entertainment#Hemidemisemiquaver. -- Wavelength (talk) 18:30, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

effect of monopoly power on price discrimination

In The Armchair Economist, Steven Landsburg considers why popcorn costs so much at the movies. He explains that the obvious answer is wrong, that is, cinemas don't charge because they have a captive audience. This strategy wouldn't work, because patrons know the price of popcorn anyway, and can include it in the cost of going to the movies. He suggests instead that this is an example of price discrimination - poor people will be happy to just see the movie, richer ones will pay for the enhanced experience of movie plus popcorn. The problem, in his estimation, is that this only works if there is a monopoly, so the retailer can set prices. Otherwise, a competing cinema could simply charge a bit less for the popcorn, and the same price for the movie. He uses the analogy of wheat pricing - farmers can't charge $2 a bushel for regular customers and $1 a bushel for senior citizens, because in the perfectly competitive market of wheat production, a rival could easily start selling for $1.90 a bushel to everyone, and take most of the market, minus the senior citizens.

I don't quite get this argument. I know it would work if there were no fixed costs, but everyone knows the cost of just opening a business is so high that it can run at a loss for several years as it recovers the cost of equipment. In the wheat example, if someone were to start giving a seniors discount, the assumption is that the sale price for each bushel is still above its marginal cost, but there is no assumption that $1.90 a bushel would be above the average cost, because this would depend on many factors, including the number of bushels sold. Competitors would drop their prices, destroying profits, and the one who started the price war might be the first to go bankrupt.

Can anyone tell me whether price discrimination in the form of expensive popcorn depends on monopoly power? The article on p.d. states that high fixed costs are a cause of price discrimination, even in the presence of competition, but it doesn't give any further details. Are the fixed costs for running a cinema unusually high, or is the cinema market best seen as mono/oligo-polistic? Thanks, It's been emotional (talk) 19:15, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

First, as I understand it, movie theaters only get a very small portion of ticket sales, and there is also an oversupply of theaters, such that most of the seats are empty for most showings. Thus, the theaters need to charge a lot for concessions to make any money. Therefore, no theater can offer cheap popcorn, or they would go out of business (there are exceptions for theaters which show non-first run movies, etc.).

Now, price discrimination is certainly more effective if you have a monopoly (or price fixing), but still works without it. Just offering the convenience of getting the popcorn there versus waiting until they get home or smuggling some in makes some people willing to pay the high prices, to avoid the inconvenience. StuRat (talk) 19:34, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I once read about this at howstuffworks.com -- theaters make almost no money off of the movies and almost all of their money off concessions. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 03:22, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I think the way to think about this is to consider a movie theater that has a counter that sells popcorn, but the movie theater also contains 2 competing, non-colluding popcorn vendors that are not owned by the movie theater. These vendors would compete in the normal fashion and popcorn prices would fall dramatically; and this was only possible because the movie theater abandoned its monopoly on the selling of popcorn within the theater. Comet Tuttle (talk) 20:25, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

But maybe movie theaters don't assume that their patrons are completely rational. Factoring in the cost of popcorn before going to a movie sounds like a great example of something that people don't do, even though rational choice theory says they would. After all, marketing sweepstakes to sell soda and stuff make no rational sense: you'd prefer that the cost of the soda just be lower, rather than have a big contest with all the administrative overhead that entails. Unless you actually are aware of the relative popcorn prices of multiple theaters in your area, and think about that ahead of time, I'd say that each movie theater has its own sort-of monopoly on concessions by virtue of being aware of some simple cognitive biases. (By the way, why isn't there a rationality (economics) article?) Paul (Stansifer) 21:16, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

To that last question, clearly the economists have finally come to the realisation that there is no such thing --Polysylabic Pseudonym (talk) 07:24, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Price discrimination is difficult in markets with considerable competition for a number of reasons. In a perfectly competitive market the long-run price will equal the marginal cost of production. So if a firm was to price discriminate they would either need to sell some goods at above the market price (which would lead to nobody buying them) or below the market price (which would be lower than marginal cost, so they would be losing money on each sale. Obviously the assumptions of perfect competition are unrealistic, but they provide some insight as to why competition makes price discrimination difficult. Cinemas exhibit the common attributes of a natural monopoly, that is low marginal costs (getting another person into a cinema costs nothing but the price of printing the ticket and perhaps a bit more cleaning time) and high fixed costs (cinemas are expensive to build and maintain). It would stand to reason then that there is fairly limited competition in the cinema market of any area (and indeed in alot of places there is only one cinema within close proximity, often with many screens). This kind of price discrimination is similar to, say the Star Wars edition of Monopoly. Sure, it costs them a bit more to make and license it, but basically you are charging people a tonne more for the same thing. Popcorn costs almost nothing to make but they charge huge prices for it. It is effectively a method for a monopolist to capture a greater sellers surplus by selling tickets at a price that is below the price that would normally maximise their profit then making up the difference by selling popcorn to all those who can afford it. It doesn't exactly fit the textbook definition of price discrimination, but in a way, they are charging some people more for (essentially) the same service based on their willingess to pay.Jabberwalkee (talk) 09:33, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Also note that there is a huge price discrimination in the price of the movie, itself. That is, you can pay some $10 per person in the US to see it as a first-run release in a movie theater, or wait a couple months and have your whole family see it for under $1, at home, via Netflix, often with "extras". So, some families may be willing to pay 30 times or more to see it in theaters, but there's just so much more they could get away with charging before large numbers of people would choose to watch at home. StuRat (talk) 11:57, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

business law

i am 13 years old and i would like to know, what does a business lawyer do? thanks x —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pagedanny1234 (talk • contribs) 20:46, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

The exact nature of their work will vary somewhat from one country (and system of laws and legal codes) to another. We have an article, Commercial law, which provides an introduction. If you wish to read more, many subtopics of business law are listed at Index of business law articles. See Contract, Tort and Corporate law. You might find Intellectual property and Property law interesting. Tax law is a specialty. In many countries, preparation for a career in business law requires Law school following a four year college undergraduate degree, then usually have to pass a Bar exam before being authorized to practice law. People with many types of undergraduate degree enter law school, but Pre-law is a particular course of preparation for later law study. Business lawyers (in the U.S.) may or may not go to court, in large firms, where there are specialized litigators. In very small firms or solo practices, one lawyer may do business law one day, and criminal law the next, defending someone against charges, but specialization is common. Edison (talk) 21:12, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Lots of business lawyers don't work in regular law firms or appear in court, but they work for an ordinary company (or own or run the company) and they take care of protecting the company from legal problems. They make sure that the way the company hires and fires people is legal, that the company complies with all the complicated financial reporting regulations and environmental regulations. And they write, read, argue about, check, and occasionally agree to contracts that the company gets into - they make sure that the contracts are favourable for the company (and yes, again that the contracts are legal). So if you were the business lawyer for a car company, you'd write the contract with the tire supplier, and you'd worry about what happens if the tires you ordered don't come on time (who pays for the delay - you built all those cars, but you can't sell them because they've got no tires), or about what happens if the tires explode and the car tips over on the freeway killing the people in it. You'd worry about what happens if the dealer staff go on strike, or if the delivery company sends the cars to the wrong dealers. And you'd worry about what company gets paid what, and when, and how much they don't get paid if something goes wrong. And because a lot of these things are negotiable, the business lawyers often take the lead in the negotiations. A really good, and really easy to read and understand, book about this subject is Mark McCormack's What They Don't Teach You at Harvard Business School. Although a lawyer by profession, McCormack worked as an agent for lots of very successful golfers and other sports players - he negotiated the sponsorship deals they had with sportswear companies. And he took care of clearing up if problems happened - what happened if a player was injured and couldn't show off the company's clothes on the golf course like he'd agreed to, or if a tennis player found that his sponsor's racquets didn't suit his style of play and wanted to change to another brand. Much of it isn't about lawsuits or threats of lawsuits, but about how he dealt with all the different companies and people and agents, and how he managed to fix things up so everyone got a deal that they were reasonably happy with. You should be able to find What They Don't Teach You at Harvard Business School at the library - in addition to being easy to read for normal people, it's also nice and short. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 21:52, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree it's an interesting read, but I didn't think of it as particularly pertaining to a law career. It's been a while, though. I agree with Finlay McWalter: in my experience, most of the work that's done by a business lawyer who works at a company is about contracts. The lawyer spends a lot of time reading these very long documents and imagining ways to poke holes in the logic. It's analytical work and requires some imagination and the ability to concentrate for a long time on detail that many others find mind-numbing. To randomly pick a contract, here is a software licensing contract between AT&T and the University of California (found on Groklaw). This is a really short contract (I'm surprised it's only 8 pages). Probably a general business agreement was reached between the business managers at AT&T and at the UC — those managers may or may not have been lawyers — and then the business lawyers employed by each side hammered out all of the details, and this contract is the result. Business lawyers do a lot of other work, but I think contracts must be far-and-away the most common employment for them. Comet Tuttle (talk) 22:54, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

As someone a bit older, who is one of those [in a vague way], I'd suggest you figure out what you like to do. That's the most important. When I was 13 there's no way I would have known I'd want to be a lawyer. I wasn't in my 20s until I had that thought. Instead, figure out generally what it is you like. A good indication is, when you have free time, what do you like to do?

As a practical matter, very few people in the legal profession will ever describe their practice as "business law". The better distinction would be "transactional" and "litigation". If you like business, then take economics or some business version as a major. Pre-law is a waste; you don't need to know anything about the law before law school.

I'm analytical. I like computer programing, math, but I also like history and philosophy. Certain areas of law are perfect for that. Tax law, ERISA, etc. There are plenty of technical areas for lawyers that are incredibly rewarding intellectually. If that's something you're interested in, then you should go for it, but I wouldn't expect you to know it right now. The worst thing you could do is to make up your mind now, and never change it. Instead, right now, you should figure out what you like, what you do intellectually when you're bored. Those are the things that you'll want to do day in day out. Shadowjams (talk) 07:53, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Heir whatsoever?

An heir general is the heir according to male-preferance cognatic primogeniture and an heir male is the heir according to agnatic primogeniture, but what does heir whatsoever mean? For example, it is said that the Dukedom of Hamilton descends to the heirs male of the 1st Duke's eldest daughter and, if they all die out, to nearest heirs whatsoever of the 1st Duke. Who exactly would become Duke of Hamilton if all legitimate agnatic descendants of the 3rd Duchess die? Would nearest heir whatsoever mean geneaologically closest descendant of the 1st Duke (something like proximity of blood?

What does heir whatsoever mean anyway? Surtsicna (talk) 20:47, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

The peerages were created with remainder to the heirs whatsoever of his body, which means that the titles can be passed on through both male and female lines.

This is what I've just read in a Wikipedia article. It suggests that heir whatsoever is actually heir general? Is that true? If it is, the Dukedom of Hamilton would pass to the heir general of the 3rd Duchess after the death of her last legitimate agnatic descendant, right? Surtsicna (talk) 20:55, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

There's a nice explanation here - it means the same as "heir", and was originally used in documents to more clearly distinguish this, general, use from other classes of heir. Judging by the eighteenth and nineteenth century legal texts referring to disputes over the term, it singularly failed in this aim. Warofdreams talk 10:42, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

The way I read that last quote is that in this particular case "whatsoever" means "both sexes included", and "of the body" means "direct descendants only". "Whatsoever" seems to mean simply that "something that usually goes without saying does not apply". Could it be then that "nearest heirs whatsoever" in the Hamilton stipulation means males are not preferred, as opposed to "heirs general" among whom males would indeed be preferred? I should note that I am not a lawyer and most certainly not an expert in English or Scottish inheritance law.--Rallette (talk) 10:41, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

April 8

sales etiquette

can someone please link to general, international advice for how a salesperson is supposed to behave with customers in an upscale retail setting. I assume the specifics would be slightly different from country to country, but maybe there are some basics that are universal. I don't mean general obvious advice like "don't be a douche. don't lie." and so on. I mean very specific, "etiquette" or "protocol" type advice, as specific as specific table manners advice. I don't seem to be able to find that, if it even exists.

Does no one write these things down, is it just oral history/training or what?

Thank you. 84.153.190.242 (talk) 13:53, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

One thing different in an upscale setting is that you shouldn't mention the price unless asked, although this may vary by nation. Upscale places also may offer freebees, like coffee, so be sure to do that if available at you store. Any salesperson should also know how to gauge the customer's response and react accordingly. Ask "May I help you ?", and, if they say "no" or "I'm just looking", say "OK, I'll be over there if you need anything", then leave; don't hover or stare at them. StuRat (talk) 14:10, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

hey thanks a lot! Maybe you would have more luck than me digging up an even more comprehensive (several pages) link? Thanks again for your input. 82.113.106.35 (talk) 14:54, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Kiss, Bow, or Shake Hands is an international etiquette book for business people which may be useful. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:26, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

As an ocassional customer of "upscale" places I prefer it that the sales assistants let you look at the stuff without approaching you, and only when you catch their eye do they approach and ask you if you need any assistance. I would not like being challenged by an assistant as soon as I walk in the place. 78.144.248.81 (talk) 20:58, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm the same way. However, I think most people would feel ignored if nobody asked them if they needed any help. StuRat (talk) 00:20, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

To generalise what 78.144 says, the key (similar to being a butler, waiter, etc.) is to know what's expected when without having to have it vocalised. That is, to recognise the small signs that say "I have a question" or "I'm ready to buy this one" or "I'm just looking". What those signs are will differ from place to place, however, and from person to person. When I worked in a jewellery store that was pretending to be upper class (and really wasn't), they had a lot of mandated customer service policies that replaced the principle and actually ended up annoying customers more than helping them - things like hovering near customers, greeting them and offering help before they've had a chance to look.

Ideally, you would be able to see a customer coming and make a good guess as to whether they'd like to be personally attended on and have you nearby, or if they'd rather you were invisible until they were ready to ask a question. It's these judgements that are the most likely to be useful in a truly upper-class establishment. I don't know of any contemporary manuals, but reading some older manuals of how to be a butler or lady's maid might give some clues as to what people might expect (though not all of it should still be the same - use your own judgement there). Steewi (talk) 00:22, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for all of your answers, very helpful. -op 84.153.199.127 (talk) 09:24, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Slightly aside from etiquette, knowledge of the goods or services on sale is crucial. The more I pay, the less tolerance for ignorant sales people I am able to generate. DOR (HK) (talk) 03:05, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

The OP ought to do what sales assistants do in most places in Britain - they wait at the payment till for people to process the payment. Often they wander around fiddling with or primping the merchandise, and when you ask them are ready and quick to assist in a helpful and pleasant manner. Since they (hopefully) respond to the customer quickly they must be keeping a discrete eye on them, without making it obvious. 78.146.107.183 (talk) 20:20, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Motorcycles

In westren countries there are very very heavy motorbikes, like Harley Davidson, that weigh as much as 300 kg, or even more. If the machine falls on its sides, it must be impossible to make it stand it up. How do they stand it upright ? Is there any mechanism to make it stand if fallen ?  Jon Ascton  (talk) 14:01, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

You don't have to lift it clear off the ground. To merely pivot it up using the wheels as fulcrums and the body as a class 2 lever requires much less strength than that. Perhaps someone else will run the numbers for you. StuRat (talk) 14:04, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

you are right, but certainly Harley Davidson also has a mechanism for dead-lifting it back up to the ground if someone rides it clear off the edge of the earth? I assume in that case it would kind of hover slightly below the surface of the earth, but off its edge. You would have to dead-lift it in that case. 82.113.106.35 (talk) 14:51, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand. Do you mean the motorcycle is in a ditch ? StuRat (talk) 14:55, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Not sure about the "Western" part as a Honda Goldwing is just as big a bike as a Harley Davidson Electra Glide (and the Yamaha Royal Star Venture and the old Suzuki Cavalcade). Our touring motorcycle makes no mention of righting them once fallen but there is no special equipment on the bikes - just brute strength of you and your buddies. Rmhermen (talk) 15:36, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Motorcycles (even heavy ones) are surprisingly easy to right when they've fallen - I've done it a couple of times myself. If they fall in such a way that there is no solid ground under the wheels, you simply drag them along the ground laterally a foot or two until you can leverage them up. bad for the bike: it floods the carbs on older machines and plays hell with the paint job, but not difficult. If you happen to drive it all the way off the edge of the earth, however, you have to hope that it will fall near one of the feet of the World Turtle, who will (generally speaking) aid you by lifting it up to the surface again. If you miss the feet, the bike will get wedged in against the bowl of the sky and interfere with celestial motion for a time (and you'll need to get a new bike). --Ludwigs2 15:45, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

online newspaper subscription?

Are there any general coverage newspapers or newsweeklies that I can download online or receive by email? Free is preferable but paid is ok. I do not want a news web site like nytimes.com where I click around between articles and read them while connected to the net. I want to receive the entire day's stories in a single download or email, that I can read offline and save for later reference, like a subscription to a printed paper or magazine. Thanks. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 16:04, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Although not the whole thing, just a boiled-down summary, you may be interested in the Guardian's daily email service. You have to register with the Guardian's website to receive the emails. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 16:16, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I guess that's a start, but I really want the whole shebang, not a boiled down summary. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 17:06, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

There is a daily news email available here http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/email/news I'm not sure how downloadable it is, but you can apparantly get a weekly digital version of the Guardian Weekly if you also subscribe to the print edition, which can I expect be sent almost anywhere in the world. http://www.guardianweekly.co.uk/?page=digitaledition Not general coverage, but The Economist website says you can subscribe to a digital (weekly) edition. http://www.economist.com/printedition/ 78.144.248.81 (talk) 21:06, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks; unfortunately it looks like the Guardian digital edition is online-only (read in browser with a flash plug-in). I'm looking for an edition that I can download in one go, and then read completely offline. No more than 5 minutes of internet access per day. Also I don't want a printed copy, though I guess I could possibly find another taker for it. I can't really tell what the story is with the Economist, but I'll check into it further. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 21:29, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Here's another option from the Guardian: [2] a downloadable 10-page pdf summary of the day's news. Can save it to your PC or print it out. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 21:33, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, that looks great! I missed this earlier. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 08:07, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

It sounds like you need an RSS reader. Almost all online news sources produce many RSS feeds which can be downloaded all at once and then read on any RSS reader program. An advantage of this system is that you can read many different news sources, blogs, and other web sites in a single feed that you can then read offline. I use Google Reader myself for reading online and on my iPhone. What device do you want to read newspapers on? Desktop, laptop, smartphone, netbook, iPad? You might want to ask on the Computing desk about specific software to use for your situation. —D. Monack ^talk 21:52, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, thanks, that is interesting. I'd be using a laptop. I had the impression that RSS normally only delivered headlines and short summaries of stories, but I should check into it further. Looking at nytimes.com's rss page, it's indeed like that, and the NYT has quite a few feeds (probably close to 100 of them), but maybe I could set up something to crawl them and download all the stories. It looks like it would take some hackery to get the fullsized images from the stories (the RSS includes thumbnail urls). I was really hoping for a daily one-click zip archive or a large pdf or something of that nature. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 23:43, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

immigrations

i am american citicen that has been used by illegal woman for papers my question is how can i talk to immigrations unless you illegal they will not talk to you i tried everything, just want to be heard it happens alot and no one cares

thank you very much Tony Taylor —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.190.246.99 (talk) 18:14, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

This page has contact information (including a toll free phone number and service center physical addresses) for US Citizenship and Immigration Services; or you could contact an immigration lawyer if you need to talk to someone who will be knowledgeable and on your side (since you'll be paying this person for their service and time). Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:30, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

What does mean "being used ... for papers?" Did you marry her and she divorced after she got the papers? It looks like a difficult claim to prove and may even be legal...--88.6.154.49 (talk) 19:03, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Maybe the OP was a victim of identity theft? --Jayron32 19:42, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps this or that, as well. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 20:27, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I, for one, wouldn't help get someone deported even if I knew how. —Tamfang (talk) 03:07, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

You're sure you're American? Woogee (talk) 02:50, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

US Government budget

Where can I find the budget for a specific US government agency (in this case the Storm Prediction Center). All I can find at this point is NOAA's budget, and it doesn't say which agencies get what portion for what purpose, etc. It seems to be called a "blue book", and it details "initiatives" or something like that, along with some description as to what NOAA/the National Weather Service are and do. I need the specific numbers for the Storm Prediction Center (if this can be found), as it has come up in the good article nomination that the article contains very little on the budget, etc side of the agency. Thanks in advance, --Ks1stm (talk) ^{[alternate account of Ks0stm]} 19:59, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Overview/ appears to be a good place to start. caknuck _° needs to be running more often 00:36, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Abrahamic religious texts

I understand that there are people such as Abraham who are common to both the Bible and the Qur'an. So what decided that some of the writings about them were included in the bible, and other writings about them were in the Qur'an? Why wasnt there just one pool of texts? Thanks 78.144.248.81 (talk) 21:03, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean the Jewish "bible," which is called the Torah, or the Christian "bible," which is called the New Testament? Bus stop (talk) 21:06, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I mean the bible. I think that article is stretching it to say that there's a Judaism bible, when it's not even called a bible, and I've never heard of that usage before. Thanks. 78.144.248.81 (talk) 21:22, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

78.144.248.81 — the so-called New Testament is considered "the Bible" by Christians but not considered "the Bible" by Jews. At the very least there is nuance involved in using the word Bible with respect to both Judaism and Christianity. And in purely practical terms the theological differences are considerable. The New Testament of Christianity is supposed to supplant the so-called Old Testament of Judaism. Clearly we are talking about differentiation. Bus stop (talk) 22:42, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Almost every bible I've ever seen included the Old Testament as well. Is the word "bible" a Hebrew word even? 78.144.248.81 (talk) 23:00, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

78.144.248.81 — even the term "Old Testament" is a Christian term. And "Bible" need not be a Hebrew term if used by English-speaking Jews. Bus stop (talk) 23:42, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

"Bible" is a greek word meaning "a collection of books" (as in "bibliography"). FiggyBee (talk) 03:28, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the article Canon is just a dab page to some concepts; the article Biblical canon applies specifically to Judaism and Christianity; but the principle is applicable accross all religious faiths, as varied as Islam and Hinduism. The process of deciding which writings are "in" the Canon and which are "out" is a long historical process. Sometimes, scholars specifically set down and decide which writings to include. See Synod of Hippo and Luther's canon for some specific articles on how the modern Canon was established for Christianity. See Development of the Jewish Bible canon and Masoretic Text for the same in Judaism. --Jayron32 21:13, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Are you sure that the full range of all the texts was available to choose from? Texts could have been unavailable and unknown at the time the 'canon' was chosen for various reasons. 78.144.248.81 (talk) 21:26, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Whatever grievance B.s. is hinting at, I suggest that this is not the place. —Tamfang (talk) 01:50, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Greivance? No, I can assure you that you are misunderstanding what I am saying. Disagreement maybe, not grievance. Allow me to clarify. The "bible" is not only the Christian bible as the OP argues above. Again: an English-speaking Jewish person need not use only words in Hebrew. Christianity too is written and spoken in a variety of languages. No one expects a Christian to confine his language use to only one language. Why wouldn't Jews employ an English word such as "bible" too, to refer to their Torah, or their Tanach? Bus stop (talk) 01:55, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you (against the OP) that the Jewish scriptures can properly be called "the Bible". But my comment is on your first comment here; the text concerning Abraham (in Genesis) is part of the Hebrew Bible and part of the Christian Bible, so by asking "which bible" you raised a non-issue. —Tamfang (talk) 03:56, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

The OP only mentioned Abraham as an example (in his original post). The so-called "bible" preceded the Qur'an chronologically. The three sentences of the OP's original question aren't presented super-clearly, no offense to the OP intended. The OP's last sentence inquires as to why there wasn't "just one pool of texts." That is tantamount to asking why there isn't just one religion. My response was only trying to introduce some uncontroversial elements. The discussion did get a little bit hairy in subsequent exchanges, I will admit. I am not unaware that in the majority of instances, in American English at least, "the bible" is intended to refer to a Christian text. The argument got slightly heated because I wanted to make the point that Judaism has as much claim on an ordinary and nonspecific English word as "bible" as does Christianity, even if in practice this is a fairly rare usage. And you seem to agree about that. So, I'm happy with that outcome. It is my hope that the conversation was only productive. It certainly was not my intention to raise the heat any more than was unavoidable in order to interject a point that I had in mind. Bus stop (talk) 13:07, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

There's a somewhat parallel discussion going on in one of the other ref desks, possibly the Language desk. "Bible" does come from the Greek words for "book(s)", originally meaning "papyrus", originating from an ancient Phoenician city named Byblos, which was an exporter of papyrus. "Bible" in English has come to mean the sacred or authoritative writings about a topic. Hence "Holy Bible" for what Christians call the Old and New Testaments combined; "Bible" is also an English term used by Jews to refer to their version of what Christians call the Old Testament; and the term is also used for any other (possibly self-styled) authoritative source, e.g. The Sporting News used to call itself "The Bible of Baseball". Complicating matters is liber, the Latin word for "book", from which we get "library", which is arguably equivalent to what the generic version of "bible" is. In fact, in Spanish, for example, librería is not a library, it's a bookstore; whereas biblioteca means "library". The English equivalent for "a collection of books" is "bibliotheca", but that's not a commonly-used term. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:43, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

(Not an expert in Islam, so feel free to correct me.) The Bible is a compilation of several different texts written by different people at different times spanning several centuries. The Qur'an was basically composed by one person (the Prophet Mohammad) at more or less one point in history (across the span of his life). Other writings about Abraham, etc. aren't "included" in the Qur'an because it's not a compilation of disparate sources. It doesn't "include" anything but the Prophet's writings. Staecker (talk) 21:33, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. How did the Prophet Mohammad and the writers of the Old Testament both know about Abraham? What was the common source? 78.144.248.81 (talk) 23:02, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

The Jewish and Christian canons were both well known and largely fixed in their modern forms when Islam was founded. The core texts of Judaism, the Pentateuch were fixed in their modern forms thousands of years before Islam (other parts of the "Old Testament/Hebrew Bible" weren't fixed until much later, say 8th-10th century AD). The core texts of Christianity, the four Gospels, were fixed and largely accepted several hundred years before the foundation of Islam. By the 7th century AD, when Islam was founded, Christianity was the state religion, or at least the dominant one, over a wide area of Eurasia and Africa, including Ethiopia, most of Europe that was currently, or had formerly been, part of the Roman Empire or its successor states, many Mongol states, etc. etc. The Arabian Peninsula and Mesopotamia (the Arabian homeland) was almost completely surrounded by lands where some form of Judaism or Christianity was the dominant faith; plus Mesopotamia was the homeland of Abraham himself (Ur of the Chaldeans), and stories and traditions related to Abraham and his descendants survived in the area even among non-Judeochristian groups. There was ample opportunity for Mohammad and his people to be well versed in the Judeochristian traditions, even if they themselves were not part of it. --Jayron32 04:20, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Muslims believe the Qur'an to be the word of God, not of Muhammad who is merely a messenger. Only messages received from Muhammad are in the Qur'an as earlier scriptures are considered suspect and corrupted by mankind. —D. Monack ^talk 22:09, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks- that's what I meant. I shoul've said Muhammad "wrote it down", not that he composed it. Staecker (talk) 22:29, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Cross posted to Wikipedia:Reference desk#Is there really such a thing as the "Jewish Bible"?. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 22:15, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Islam as a faith generally recognizes the texts and traditions of Judaism and Christianity as imperfect or apostate revelations of God's truth; that is they were The Truth when God revealed them, but because of misinterpretations and historical changes to that Word, either accidental or on-purpose, those revelations were corrupted, and so the texts, while divinely inspired are not valid to base one's faith on. In other words, there are elements of Gods truth in the Jewish and Christian texts and traditions, but they are not the full truth. The only full truth, and thus the only valid text on which to base one's faith, is the Qu'ran. They do not deny the historical truth of those texts (i.e. Abraham, Moses, Jesus were all real people) nor do they deny the importance or even devoutness of those key figures (they were devout believers in God; considered to be important Prophets which revealed aspects or elements of Gods truth), but they do not need to follow the earlier, imperfect prophets because they now have access to the perfect text, the Qu'ran. So, it is possible for them to both recognize the importance of pre-Qu'ranic texts and religious leaders, and also believe that, since Mohammed and the Qu'ran, there is no need to follow those texts and leaders, because the real deal now exists. --Jayron32 04:06, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I have to disagree about it being cross posted, since they are different questions, although they are both about religious texts. 78.144.248.81 (talk) 22:35, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it should have been "cross posted" without consulting with the person originally posting this question here. Bus stop (talk) 22:57, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I mostly agree with what Monack and Jayron have said above, but I have a few quibbles. The Jewish and Christian Bibles share an account of Abraham (and of other figures mentioned in the Jewish or Hebrew Bible, which—with the books placed in a different order—Christians call the Old Testament). This account was first written down between about 700 and 500 BCE, in Hebrew. This written account drew on earlier oral and possibly earlier written texts. Scholars differ on the details of the sources of the Hebrew Bible, including how old the original oral texts (i.e., sagas or legends) might be. According to tradition, the account of Abraham in Genesis was written by Moses, but serious scholars do not accept that Moses was the author.

More than a thousand years later, Muhammad became a religious leader in Arabia. According to Muslims, the Quran consists of messages from God spoken by Muhammad. Muhammad did not write these messages down. He proclaimed them, and his followers then memorized them and wrote them down to become the Quran. Non-Muslim scholars would suggest that Muhammad would have been exposed to Jewish and Christian beliefs and even writings and that these may have influenced the material in the Quran. In addition to Jewish and Christian sources, Muhammad would have been exposed to Arabic oral texts. Since a number of Arabic tribes claim descent from Abraham through his first-born son, Ishmael, these would probably have included oral texts about Abraham. It might well be that there was in ancient times a common pool of legends about Abraham, though it might also be that those who claimed descent from Abraham through Ishmael (ancestors of some Arabs) had one set of legends, and those who claimed descent through Isaac (ancient Jews) had another set. Even if there was once a single set of legends about Abraham, those legends were committed to writing in the Jewish Bible long before Muhammad proclaimed the Quran. So, if Arabic legends influenced Muhammad, they would likely have undergone some elaboration or reinterpretation in the course of centuries of oral retelling. Marco polo (talk) 16:36, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

If there's one thing more certain than another, it's that Muhammad never read any written Biblical text, whether Jewish or Christian. However, he did have conversations with some of the Christians and Jews who were accessible to him in the Hijaz (not always Christians and Jews that were most knowledgeable about and orthodox in their own religions, apparently). This purely oral mode of transmission explains why Muhammad conflated Biblical narratives with much later folkloric and midrashic elaborations of Biblical narratives, and why he did such things as having Haman of the Book of Esther work with the Pharoah of the Book of Exodus to build the Tower of Babel of the Book of Genesis, or apparently confusing Mary mother of Jesus with Miriam sister of Moses (calling Mary ابنة عمران، أخت هرون) despite the fact that the two women lived over a thousand years apart, etc. etc.. He also apparently sometimes talked with Samaritans, since it's quite difficult to imagine how Muhammad ever would have gotten the very strange idea of accusing Jews of worshipping Ezra as the son of God except by accepting at face value wild Samaritan accusations against Judaism.

When the Qur'an is looked at from the point of view of historical content, it really doesn't contain any solid history (as opposed to commonly circulating folklore like the Alexander Romance) that would have been beyond the memories of Muhammad's father's generation. Many knowledgeable Jews and Christians will concede that the Qur'an contains a number of solid precepts of morality and many impassioned ethical injunctions, but they find it to be a rather strong let-down or anti-climax when they compare such things as the account of Solomon in the Bible vs. the account of Solomon in the Qur'an (to take one example): the Bible contains a detailed history, with many personal names, place names, and detailed recounting of events, not omitting various criticisms of Solomon (see 1 Kings chapter 11). By contrast, the Qur'an contains a purely folkloric legend about Solomon's occultistic powers in conversing with ants, a fantasy which floats free of any connection with history. Many Jews and Christians also have not necessarily been too impressed by the fact that where there are any differences between the Bible and the Qur'an, the traditional Muslim indiscriminate blanket answer was always that the slightest potential discrepancy between the Qur'an and Jewish or Christian texts signals that the Jewish or Christian texts must ipso facto necessarily be "corrupted"... AnonMoos (talk) 18:01, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

"Many knowledgeable Jews and Christians" meaning, of course, yourself. Your comment is informative, but your tone is too inflammatory for the Reference Desk. I'd add, following your style, that "many atheists" find such arrogant comments by "many Jews and Christians" ridiculous, given that all of their own holy books also contain tons of obvious folkloric material and fantasies. If one has chosen to subscribe to one's own sanctified fairy tales, at least one shouldn't criticize other such groups' sanctified fairy tales for not being science.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 20:08, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

If you are going to go there, you'll have to admit that "many atheists" are too arrogant to accept that some of that material is historical material. There are huge chunks of the Old Testament that are just regular chronicles. Of course God is mentioned everywhere, but so what? That is true of thousands of other chronicles that do not happen to have become religious scriptures. All AnonMoos was saying is that a chronicle of Solomon's reign is different than having Solomon talk to ants. Adam Bishop (talk) 01:43, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Whatever, guy -- I could cite a number of websites showing that I'm far from alone in my thinking, but probably you would consider them to be too "inflammatory". Meanwhile, I would be the first to admit that the Bible contains much legendary or mythological material -- but it also contains much historical material, and it's usually not too hard to tell the two apart. I'm sorry if you found my tone too acerbic, but I presented some mostly objectively verifiable basic facts as a corrective to the rather implausible scenarios which some here seemed to be spinning -- such as the hypothesis of there being thousands of years of traditions in Arabia about Abraham completely independent of Jewish religion and scriptures (which seems to be prohibitively unlikely, given the treatment of other ancient themes in the Qur'an).

The thing is that even when the Bible is more legendary than historical, it presents a consistent internal relative chronology -- where the Antediluvian Age precedes the Age of the Patriarchs, the Age of the Patriarchs precedes the Age of the Sojourn in Egypt and Exodus, the Age of the Sojourn in Egypt and Exodus precedes the Age of Judges, the Age of Judges precedes the Age of the United Monarchy (David and Solomon), the Age of the United Monarchy precedes the Age of the Divided Monarchies, the Age of the Divided Monarchies precedes the Age of the Judean Monarchy, the Age of the Judean Monarchy precedes the Age of the Babylonian Exile, and the Age of the Babylonian Exile precedes the Age of Ezra and Nehemiah. In the Bible, figures from one era are never presented as interacting with figures from other eras in a manner which would violate this internal chronology. So when Muhammad violates the Biblical internal chronology, and has Haman (from the Age of Ezra and Nehemiah) building the tower of Babel (from the Age of the Patriarchs), it really reveals that he has no real grasp of the overall Biblical scheme of history -- as could be expected from someone who had listened to oral narratives of folklorically elaborated versions of selected Bible stories, but never read the Bible as a written text. If one were to read a book where Winston Churchill was depicted as serving under King Richard the Lionhearted, it would be hard to avoid the conclusion that the author either really didn't know much about history, or didn't care much about history and was writing a pure inventive fantasy. AnonMoos (talk) 08:19, 10 April 2010 (UTC) AnonMoos (talk) 08:12, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay, so Muslims believe a "wrong" version of the silly fantastical crap that Jews and Christians believe. So what? A better example would be: If one were to read a book where Sauron was the headmaster of Hogwarts, it would be hard to avoid the conclusion that the author didn't read the LOTR and Harry Potter. 41.213.125.249 (talk) 11:18, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

You're perfectly free to continue to believe that all religions are "bunk" (to quote Henry Ford) -- but such a universal state of pan-religious bunkitude actually has little direct relationship with the question I was discussing, namely whether there's any realistic probability that the Qur'an preserves additional valid historical information and/or surviving ancient traditions about the prominent figures of the Jewish and Christian Bible, beyond what is known by Jews and Christians. On a number of grounds -- logical, historical, and internal documentary -- the most objective answer to this question is that it's overwhelmingly improbable that such is the case. (This answer holds whether or not it's true that all religions are "bunk".) I don't think that one has to be a Jewish or Christian fanatic to recognize the basic fact that the various Biblical texts are slotted in along an internally-consistent timeline, and that the Biblical authors preserved much historical information, as far as was consistent with their particular purposes and motivations (which were not always primarily historical), and recognizing that strict quasi-modern history of the Thucydides type simply didn't yet exist in the world during most of the time when the Bible was written. Conversely, I don't think one has to be a biased anti-Muslim bigot to recognize the basic fact that Muhammad was unaware of and/or uninterested in this whole painfully accumulated and elaborated Biblical timeline, so that pretty much anything more than a generation back from the Year of the Elephant fell into a kind of legendary dreamtime, where there was no real chronological structuring (other than a few specified ancestor-descendant genealogical relationships), so that Mary mother of Jesus was free to become the sister of Aaron (the brother of Moses), etc. etc. AnonMoos (talk) 12:33, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

vote pairing

I'm a libdem supporter in a Labour/Tory marginal; is there anywhere where I can vote pair with a labour supporter in a tory/libdem marginal? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.128.31.228 (talk) 22:05, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

There is useful information, and a list of links, on this site, at least covering the principle of tactical voting in the UK. I would have thought it likely that other sites will spring up over the next couple of weeks. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:07, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Do you need recourse to vote for another party - often tactical voting occurs without vote pairing, based on a percieved preference to "keep someone out". If you have a preference between Labour and the Tories, as many do, you may not feel the need to vote pair. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 09:34, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Obviously. But some sites, like the one I linked to, try to give objective guidance in cases where these things may not be clear. For instance, in the small town where I live, the local options are, effectively, Con or Lib Dem, but in the wider parliamentary constituency as a whole Labour get a reasonably high percentage of votes. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:41, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

This is why our preferential system is nice. I can vote 1 for my candidate of my choice, give them their $2 and register my dissatisfaction with the major parties, then vote 2 for whichever of the possible winners I least don't want to be elected. :) FiggyBee (talk) 08:13, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Trying to source a quotation about economics.

It's something I read somewhere a while ago, which makes a point that I'd like to quote in a specific conext, with proper attribution.

The quotation reads, approximately,

"economics is fiction written in equations".

Googling brings up: "http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19926680.100-crazy-money.html". I am a subscriber, so it's probable I read the printed article. The full quote is:

"Put simply, the orthodox economics and finance taught today in universities and business schools cannot be considered a science in any sense (not even a dismal one); it is no more than a fiction written in equations rather than prose"

I no longer have the printed copy, and am a bit disoriented with the web layout. My questions are:

1. to whom should the quote be attributed? Is appears to be Andrew Slater(?)
2. if so, who is Andrew Slater? Is there a the Andrew Slater? (googling sugests there are many Andrew Slaters).
3. Does the quotation have any similar precedents, that did not turn up in my google search, which should more properly be quoted?

Thanks, --NorwegianBlue ^talk 22:55, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Andrew Slater appears to be just some opinionated reader of the magazine. The stuff he writes about economics being fiction is a tired old cliché, though there is truth to it. Economics#Criticisms_of_economics may say similar things (I haven't looked). 66.127.52.47 (talk) 08:03, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

It's from the Andrew Slater who claims to live in Sevenoaks, Kent, UK. Perhaps a phone book from the region would allow you to identify him further. But I doubt he's anyone notable. --Polysylabic Pseudonym (talk) 08:09, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! --NorwegianBlue ^talk 15:56, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Politics

On the extreme left of the political spectrum is communism, and on the extreme right is fascism. However, these two ideologies seem essentially the same. Are they really? If so, why are they considered on opposite sides of the political spectrum? --70.129.184.122 (talk) 23:14, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Our Political spectrum article mentions this very issue at the beginning and explores several more sophisticated attempts at charting different political and social viewpoints on several axes. Comet Tuttle (talk) 23:23, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Because the idea of politics being on a spectrum is extremely limited. It ceases to make much sense at the extremes. It doesn't make a great deal of sense in the middle, really (at the very least, you need to consider more than just one dimension - the political compass is one attempt to do that). The ideologies behind communism and fascism are very different but in practice the states that result are very similar. --Tango (talk) 23:24, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

The problem with the idea of a 'political spectrum' is that it confuses some very different ideas. The only 'spectrum' that people are actually concerned about is a liberal-idealist spectrum (from government that fulfills its obligations to the people being governed to government that despotically abuses the people being governed). Totalitarian state governments always lean towards the 'bad' end of that spectrum, and it really doesn't matter what philosophy such a state espouses, since all it is really interested in is domination, to a massive degree. both 'left-wing' and 'right-wing' proponents are (usually) interested in government that fulfills its obligations to the people, and both try to demonize their opponents by equating their opponents with groups at the 'bad' end of the spectrum. Basically, liberals call conservatives 'fascists' and conservatives call liberals 'commies', and the confusion that creates gives the truly bad people all the cover they need to pursue despotic domination unhindered. kinda sucks. --Ludwigs2 00:03, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean "liberal-idealist" as synonyms, opposites, or what? —Tamfang (talk) 01:35, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I mean it in the sense of 'the ideals of liberalism' - basically the ideal that a government's only purpose is to serve the collective interest and protect the sovereignty of its individual citizens (ala John Locke). Both capitalism and Marxism (in their pure forms) are liberal-idealist: They both advocate for the freedom of the individual within the collectivity (it's just that Marxism portrays capitalism as a despotism of the capitalist class, and capitalism portrays Marxism as the suppression of individual enterprise). Note that the Nazi's were ostensibly socialists, but one of the first things they did when they took power was to purge communists, Marxists and social democrats form the political system. --Ludwigs2 04:01, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

You have to consider both social and economic matters. Both are extremely authoritarian (regarded as right wing), while communism takes part in large scale economic intervention (regarded as left wing). Historic fascists have been slightly left of centre when it comes to economic intervention.--92.251.166.223 (talk) 00:18, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Because most people are moderate, any extreme policy will require similar extreme methods. —Tamfang (talk) 01:35, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Main article is Horseshoe theory... AnonMoos (talk) 02:24, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

What both these ideologies have in common is that they reject "progressive" liberal democracy of the English, American, and French revolutionary type. Communists thought liberal democracy hadn't gone far enough, whereas fascists thought liberal democracy had been a bad idea to start with. Communists wanted to fulfil liberal democracy's broken promises of true freedom and equality, whereas fascists wanted to obliterate all traces of it. So in theory and in inspiration, communism and fascism are diametrically opposed, and that is why they are considered to be on opposite sides of the political spectrum. In practice, what the two movements achieved when in power was very similar in many respects - by rejecting liberal democracy, both produced modernized editions of mediaeval-style despotism. That's why they may "seem essentially the same" or at least similar to many.

Still, there are important differences even between their practical workings as determined by their ideologies: a relatively greater emphasis on science, education and social welfare in communist regimes and on national identity, orderliness and subordination in fascist regimes. The social mobility as well as the social cataclisms have been much greater in communism, which was generally opposed to the old elites in its entirety, than in fascism, which was often supported by them as an antithesis to communism.

Communism has been the more schizophrenic of the two, because it has changed much more in different times and places, often coming close to fascism. Fascism promised to create hierarchical empires and when it achieved pretty much the opposite results in the end of WW2, there was no way for it to convince itself that it had succeeded. Communism promised to create egalitarian republics and as it kept achieving pretty much the opposite results, it kept trying to convince itself that these results were somehow consistent with its original objectives; as a result, a self-professed "communist" today can be anything between an unusually populist fascist and an unusually radical democrat.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 13:45, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

IP 91.148... very nice assessment. --Ludwigs2 04:37, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

We've been through discussions many times before at WP:RDH about the logic behind the political spectrum. There are various different proposals to use other axis than left-right, but somehow none of them has caught root. The problem is sort of the following: I think 'X' is the most important feature in political life. Thus I create a theoretical model where I measure all political actors on how they relate to 'X'. The result is quite self-revealing, the model will show the political party I like favourably, and will show those I don't like in a negative light. As a result, noone else than my own co-thinkers will adopt it.

Depending on how you frame the question, you can link virtually any ideology with another. In some respects, fascism and liberalism have common features than communism lacks, in other respects communists and liberalism hold similar views and fascists don't. Etc, etc... --Soman (talk) 15:31, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

April 9

Traditions About Moving Into A New Home

I was wondering if there are some articles written on this subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raul Miguel Rodriguez (talk • contribs) 02:03, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Feng shui is slightly related — not really on "traditions," but similarly concerning setting up a new architectural space for optimal benefit of the users of that space. Bus stop (talk) 02:17, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Mezuzah. Comet Tuttle (talk) 03:45, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Housewarming party? 83.81.42.44 (talk) 05:49, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

House blessing. —D. Monack ^talk 09:16, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Placing a silver coin in the champagne cork from the champagne you use to celebrate your new home 194.221.133.226 (talk) 10:21, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Digging up your statue of St. Joseph at your old home and placing it in your new home. —Kevin Myers 12:59, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

And if you're having trouble selling your old, pricey house in today's market, replace your St. Joseph, the patron saint of stepfathers, with a statue of St. Jude, the patron saint of lost causes. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:23, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

• 1)Change the locks. Costs under $8 to have a cylinder rekeyed. Previous owners, realtors, various workers may have keys. 2)Notify gas and electric companies, water utility you've moved in, to get meters read and account created, so utilities don't get shut off. People who failed to do these things have had unpleasant surprises. Edison (talk) 00:23, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Those are more like practical things than "traditions". To that end, before moving a box or a stick of furniture in, thoroughly clean the house, make sure everything's working in the infrastructure (plumbing, electricity, etc.) and look for any other potential problems. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:28, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Presents of salt and bread - at least according to It's a Wonderful Life. Rmhermen (talk) 01:51, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

If it's really new, as in, noone has ever lived there before, sacrifice a local animal and bury it somewhere in the centre, useful for good luck and you can see if the animals living there have some terrible disease that might make it actually a good place to avoid. 80.47.202.235 (talk) 11:59, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Housewarming party?..hotclaws 15:26, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Question on epistemology

A common definition of knowledge ("knowing" a particular proposition) is "justified true belief". However, one would often hear something like "I know God exists". Simple analysis shows:

1. It's a belief
2. the one presenting this has justifications for it (in forms of scriptures or cultural values in this case)
3. The truth value of the underlying proposition ("God exists") is arguable (It has yet to be objectively shown to be true or not true)

Are such cases being included as "knowledge" as well (as in "justified belief not yet falsified" instead of "justified true belief")? If not, What exactly is "knowing" in this context? Also please direct me to the readings that are related. K61824 (talk) 05:26, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

You could be asking that in all kinds of ways. Knowledge, leap of faith, Plato's problem, and abductive reasoning all might be starting points. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 08:00, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Alvin Plantinga for one would say that you can know God exists in the same way you know other minds exist. He has other arguments as well, see Reformed epistemology.--Rallette (talk) 09:08, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

The Gettier problem is of interest to your speculations about JTB.--droptone (talk) 13:31, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Epistemology is a topic in philosophy, not an established 'thing'. There are different theories about what constitutes proper 'knowledge' and proper 'knowing', and there is no real decisive statement on the matter. for instance, scientific epistemology works on a 'consensus observation' model - nothing is considered to be 'known' unless it can be collectively 'seen' in a simple procedural manner by multiple observers. many forms of religious and philosophical epistemology use a looser form which allows that something can be 'known' if it is 'understood' by a single individual through a process of introspection and contemplation. Someone who says "I know God exists" probably fails scientific epistemology, but may or may not pass muster in other forms of epistemology (depending on how s/he came to 'know' that). by the same token, someone who says "I know that I exist" also fails scientific epistemology - the perception of self is not something that is accessible to consensus observation. --Ludwigs2 16:14, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

For related reading, see this page. -- Wavelength (talk) 16:43, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

This is a better link for the same book. -- Wavelength (talk) 16:52, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

The author is Martin Rees, Baron Rees of Ludlow. -- Wavelength (talk) 17:05, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Some people interpret the scientific evidence as supporting belief in God. [3] -- Wavelength (talk) 23:27, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Dutch people carrying passengers on bicycles - allowed in England, too?

In the Netherlands, it is either legal or tolerated that people carry other people on the pannier racks at the rear of their bicycles... which of the two is it? And in England, is it legal? I remember seeing kids carrying their friends via those things sticking out of the hubs on stunt-bikes, but not sure whether I also remember the police intervening. --84.13.85.158 (talk) 14:42, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

This page, [4] which I would suggest is pretty definitive, says "Cyclists are not allowed to carry passengers unless their cycles have been built or adapted to carry passengers". UK law. --TammyMoet (talk) 15:11, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

As far as the Netherlands are concerned, the RVV 1990 (our rules of the road) article 58a 2e explicitly allows carrying passengers on the luggage carrier. Unilynx (talk) 22:08, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

In the UK, a document called the Highway Code puts the laws governing road use into straightforward rules in plain language. "Rule 68: You MUST NOT carry a passenger unless your cycle has been built or adapted to carry one..." (Road Traffic Act 1988). Police in Britain have in the past tended to turn a blind eye to cycling offences like this, but are now being a bit stricter; although I get the impression that you're more likely to get a stern lecture for a first offence than be prosecuted. Alansplodge (talk) 22:46, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

@Unilynx: I wonder, does that same set of regulations also define what properly constitutes a luggage carrier? Perhaps they insist that a luggage carrier meet some basic requirements that would also make it suitable as a basic seat (e.g. it's properly secured to the frame, it's not too weak, and it's got bits to hang onto)? -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 23:02, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I can't find any legal definition of a luggage carrier. But I can find some requirements for carrying children younger than eight year: they need to have a proper seat, with support for their back, hands and feet. Unilynx (talk) 20:46, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Hair styling: just what is meant by "strand by strand"? Is such literally possible?

The article Artificial hair integrations doesn't really help. This Youtube video seems to imply that it isn't really "strand-by-strand", but a bunch of strands. I read that a person has about 120 000 hairs on one's head. Suppose one got a crew-cut and proceeded to have, say, a 2 foot long strand of artificial hair glued to every stub of natural hair. At, say, 9 seconds per strand, it'd take about 300 hours--maybe less if a more systematic approach made it faster--and at 1/2" a month growth, would definitely take less than 4 years to grow it. Would it be as good, perhaps better, than natural hair? Could one comb, shampoo, and frequently swim in chlorinated pools of seawater with little or no damage? Would it be as tangle, mat, and dandruff free as natural hair? Thanks.70.54.181.70 (talk) 16:23, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Your edit to change "glues" to "glued" took out another editor's answer to another Q, so be careful with your edits. If there's an edit conflict, it's usually best to go all the way out and start over, to avoid this. StuRat (talk) 16:37, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Wiktionary:strand doesn't say, specifically, that multiple hairs are in a strand, but that's certainly my opinion. It does say a "group of wires, usually twisted or braided" is a strand, and I believe the same def also applies to hair. StuRat (talk) 16:34, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I suppose that my idea is rarely, if ever, tried and thus the more inaccurately describe action is the defining one.Hmmmm.70.54.181.70 (talk) 17:04, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Some good extensions are very good indeed and can be pretty much treated like real hair.They tend to tangle worse than real hair though.The real problem is, however extensions are attached to the clump of real hair, the real hair grows out and sheds.Eventually the extension will fall out or have an ugly lump matting a strand of natural hair together a few inches down from the scalp..Most full heads seem to take about 8 hours and in all honesty need to be redone every three weeks to look natural.A common shortcut is just to put extensions at the back of the head, making the hair seem fuller and longer but leaving the natural hair on top...hotclaws 15:37, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

April 10

imitation of advanced cultures

There seem to be several instances in history where persons or groups have been taught and have learned the ways of a more advanced culture to the degree of being able to imitate that culture and to represent its upholdings. In some cases as good if not better than the descendants of the more advanced culture. In these cases, however, it appears that this is the reason they are given a position to rule so that the new actual descendants of the advanced culture can busy themselves with advancing even further which being mired in and by their past would not otherwise allow them to do. What Wikipedia articles cover this topic to any degree? 71.100.3.207 (talk) 01:15, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Cargo cult may be the most extreme example of the first part of your question. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 01:18, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Having read a little of the article and and scanned the rest what came to mind was the advanced state of health care coverage practiced by other nations and some companies in the US that offered it as incentive versus merely higher pay being the "cargo" behind the great push for universal health care in the USA. I recall hearing that to encourage passage of the health care bill some congregations in the USA, at least prayed for health care passage if not incorporating health care acquisition into rituals (other than those rallies where participants would in unison poke their fists in the air while chanting the words "Healthcare! Healthcare!"). Would this be the same thing? 71.100.3.207 (talk) 01:58, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Err, I don't really see the analogy. The people who want healthcare reform generally understand (to whatever degree) how to go about getting it. The cargo cults do not understand the causal mechanism of cargo drops. Anyway this is a thread derailing and is entirely irrelevant to the original question. Rallies are not the same thing as making fake airports. --Mr.98 (talk) 02:35, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

The second part is roughly what happened to the Germanic tribes who encountered the Roman Empire. Adam Bishop (talk) 01:36, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Can you point me to articles apart from those that cover the intoxicated and insane folly of the Nazi attempt to reestablish ancient Roman rule? 71.100.3.207 (talk) 02:03, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Sure...that's not at all what I was thinking of anyway, sorry. I meant stuff like migration period, Ostrogoths, Visigoths... Adam Bishop (talk) 02:29, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

On what basis does one determine one culture more "advanced" than another? Technology and culture are not synonyms. I would recommend, if trying to deal with this question, look into the differences between "kultur" and "civilization" as they were proposed by the French Enlightenment and, later, German thinkers. A good starting point could be Joan deJean's book Ancients Against Moderns.Heather Stein (talk) 16:55, 10 April 2010. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hfeatherina (talk • contribs)

The technigues such as Kaizen used by Japanese manufacturers were said to be developed from American management practises of the 1950s. Every culture thats been busy and has brought itself to the attention of other cultures has been imitated by them - its more a result of a lot of promotion rather than one being more advanced than the other. Buddism is imitated by a lot of people in Western countries. Examples are British colonial culture and more recently American culture. That deals with the first sentance of your question, I'm not sure I understand or agree with the assumptions of your second sentance, although locals were employed as administators of various kinds in the British empire, and perhaps we gave indepenance to various countries as we didnt want to keep funding the empire and its army. 78.146.60.36 (talk) 08:12, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Scottish Road Sign

What is the meaning of this sign?

[5]

--71.98.64.15 (talk) 01:30, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm just getting an overhead map. Can you describe the sign? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:33, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

For me it showed up as overhead view first and then switched to a close-up of the sign. —Tamfang (talk) 20:13, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Dang, its showing up as a street view for me. If you street view the corner of main street and castle street with the camera panned towards the coast there is a brown sign with an arrow on it and the logo looks like a Celtic design. That is all —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.98.64.15 (talk) 01:39, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Brown signs indicate visitor attractions. That celtic knot isn't a standard road sign feature - it must pertain to the specific attraction. Given Portmahomack is titchy, surely this attraction will appear here - looking at the few option there, I think it's for the Tarbat Discovery Centre. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 01:45, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

The interior of the centre features a knot design motif and a similar design appears on stone items displayed there, such as this one. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 01:51, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

And indeed if you streetview near the south end of Tarbatness Road (much further south than Google places the centre) you see its entrance, which again shows that symbol. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 02:09, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I think this is the sign for the Pictish Trail. There's another one here for the Edderton Cross Slab. Finlay McW is right that the Portmahomack sign is for the (excellent) Tarbat Discovery Centre. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 17:51, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I was hoping that it was directing motorists to the most confusing traffic interchange in Great Britain. Deor (talk) 20:56, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there's a picture of a "Pictish Trail" sign on the download from the page above [6] - scroll down to page 2. Alansplodge (talk) 10:35, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

We have a version of the same abstract knot symbol seen in that PDF file at File:Celtic-knot-insquare-green-transparentbg.svg... AnonMoos (talk) 10:52, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

The white van?

In the article File:The Antelope, Sparkhill.jpg, does anybody know about the white van? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.225.184.114 (talk) 03:48, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I added a link to the photo here for you. -> It looks like an old Toyota LiteAce perhaps (compare [7] for a slightly later model)? Or was there something else about it you wanted to know? FiggyBee (talk) 03:58, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

governing power

As I recall at some point in English history the Monarchy became a virtual relic of the past requiring referral for decision making from the House of Commons unlike in the US where the President retains a modest but highly restricted amount of Executive power dependent upon referral by the Congress. For instance, while the president can order the executive branch to operate more efficiently the President can not abandon entitlements or spend more than authorized by Congress. For England this makes the existence of the Monarchy largely a ceremonial artifact retained as a matter of continuity in the minds of Britishers with their past. I America the Presidency seems to be going the same way even when it comes to immediate power in the presence of the computer age where all but two or three choice have been weeded out. How long will it be before computers completely rule the world due to their ability to handle far more variables than humans? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.100.3.207 (talk) 04:21, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

What have checks and balances of the executive powers of the UK and the US got to do with computers "ruling the world"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:24, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Computers take in the information we give them, process it in the way we've programmed them to, and then spit out something with which we (or the President) can do as we like; they're in no position to rule anything. On the other hand, I guess what you're getting at is that it's getting harder for the President to make unilateral decisions based on available information, since there's so much more available information than there was before modern communications technology. Is that right? If so, I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing. I for one welcome our new robot overlords. FiggyBee (talk) 04:30, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Kent Brockman. StuRat (talk) 04:50, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I see we have some fans of The Day the Earth Stood Still. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:54, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

You must be referring Gort. A lovable character if any. 71.100.3.207 (talk) 05:10, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Take that guy to school with you, and nobody would mess with you. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:13, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll give you an example that is personal and diet related. I have a spreadsheet program that will accept either the amount of CO2 and Oxygen I've burned to determine my TEE or accept body and activity measurements. From there is looks at the nutrients and energy available from various foods and selected for me a balanced diet that will target my desired waist. It is far more accurate than I am at deciding the best foods and amount I should eat so I have turned over my decision making as to the foods and amounts to a computer. I supply the data and it responds with the decision and I'm beginning to loose weight to achieve the target waist line. It is is charge of my diet and no longer me. 71.100.3.207 (talk) 05:06, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Is it holding a gun to your head and ordering you to follow its conclusions? No, I didn't think so. You are deciding based on its conclusions. It's not deciding anything. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:10, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

After edit conflict... its making my dietitian send me smiles instead of pulling out the NAZI flogging whip. Boy, I hate that thing. 71.100.3.207 (talk) 05:18, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Who put the data in the spreadsheet? All its doing is comparing numbers and coming up with the closest match; you could do it (and, no doubt, dieticians did used to do it) on a piece of paper almost as easily as on a computer. FiggyBee (talk) 08:02, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

In the past I relied upon dieticians but found they no longer could compete with the accuracy and reliability of the spreadsheet program. 71.100.3.207 (talk) 03:47, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Your point is not bad. If somebody could code up all the decisions that could ever be made by an airline pilot, for example, it would be tempting to have this ostensibly error-free software fly our airplanes. A major problem with putting our trust in software is that software is just a great big giant list of steps that a human has typed in. It is like an enormous recipe in a cookbook, only it has a million steps in it instead of just 20. Because of this, all software has bugs. (Pedants like me will say that Hello World and other extremely simple software does not; fine; I'm talking about software that people use.) There will inevitably be mistakes that are made, because constructing virtually any useful piece of software is probably more complicated and more tricky internally than the construction of Hoover Dam. For this reason, humans are unlikely to turn over their decision making powers — over important decisions, anyway — to software, which in the end is just a fallible and error-prone list of steps written originally by other humans. Comet Tuttle (talk) 05:16, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I understand that the most recent airliners are already run on autopilot nearly all the time, including landing and possibly take-off. 89.242.144.8 (talk) 11:21, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Modern aircraft can have the autopilot active from takeoff to rollout (providing the landing airport has the necessary equipment), yes. However, an autopilot doesn't mean the pilots are kicking back and not paying attention; there's still plenty to do, and if anything even slightly out of the ordinary happens it's strictly hands-on. Autoland has existed since the mid 1960s, but almost all landings are still done by hand, because it's safer, more enjoyable and easier for the pilots. FiggyBee (talk) 13:25, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Many pilots put their trust in God whenever there is a mechanical problem they can not remedy and certainly in physics. 71.100.3.207 (talk) 05:33, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

There's also the problem that humans are still far better than machines at evaluating and reacting to emergent or unique situations. A computer can only take a set of conditions and respond with a programmed set of responses. It can go through a very large number of conditions, even some very rare ones, and it can do so much faster than humans, but it lacks the ability to think creatively or improvise. So the problem is not that machines can't be programmed to respond to an astounding number of possible situations, its that it can't be programmed to respond to a situation that no one has ever thought of before because it has never happened. I still trust the ability of a human to be able to improvise in a unique situation than a computer would. See 2001: A Space Odyssey for a fictional treatment, but a reasonable one, about what happens when a computer is faced with making human-like decisions. --Jayron32 05:34, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

For not-thought-of-yet- events there is neural networking which operates very nearly to the human brain. The difference is that it can be fed by sensors humans might only dream of. 71.100.3.207 (talk) 06:02, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Speaking as a pilot, any pilot who just "puts their trust in God" when something goes wrong is not someone I want to fly with. The ability to work through complex and unforeseen situations is exactly why we still have very highly trained people flying planes, and not computers. As for "neural networks", perhaps you should read our article? They're little more than a statistical tool. 2001 may have come and gone, but true HAL-like artificial intelligence is still a thing of science fiction (and I can't help but wonder, if a computer is ever created with the capacity to reason as subtly as a human can, with all the nuances, doubts and guesswork that goes with that, whether it won't prove to be no faster or more accurate at it than we are). FiggyBee (talk) 08:02, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Test pilot Chuck Yeager has said there is no substitute for knowing one's aircraft thoroughly, a factor which saved him from disaster on occasion. I also wonder how a computer and/or a pilot "putting his trust in God" would have handled the "Miracle on the Hudson". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:06, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Namaste (The Buddha in me salutes the Buddha in you). --TammyMoet (talk) 16:03, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

"You can fly on a wing and a prayer, if you like. As for me, I'll put my faith in two wings." StuRat (talk) 14:44, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Although manual override is present in many otherwise autonomous sitiatuions (Gout's destruction of man made Earth was certainly cancelled) the point is that there remain a growing number of instances where manual overide takes a bit more doing than just surviving the bites of a few flying bio-mechanical bugs.) 71.100.3.207 (talk) 03:54, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Also see Expert system, which is an attempt to have software act like a human expert would. Is your 1986 Toyota Corolla emitting smoke from the passenger-side air vent, and there is a blinking red light on the dashboard? Just consult the expert system and follow its instructions to fix the problem. (My observation above still holds, about the problem of software bugs.) Comet Tuttle (talk) 14:00, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Citations and copyright infringement

I'd like to cite a non-free work published in the United States. I'd like to cite it on this here English Wikipedia. I assume that citing a few sentences is not a problem, but that citing an entire chapter is. Where is the line between a copyright infringement and a permissible citation? I am in Germany, although that's probably irrelevant. kthxbye 84.46.72.106 (talk) 06:35, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

It's pretty vague; see our article Fair use, and in particular the section "Amount and substantiality". In practice, whether a particular instance is acceptable depends on whether it is challenged and, if it is, on the judge's interpretation of the case. Note, however, that one of the criteria used in establishing fair use is "the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes". That might seem to give a nonprofit educational project such as Wikipedia a little leeway, but in fact excessive copying tends to be frowned on around here. I myself have trouble seeing why any quotation longer than a few sentences would need to be used in a WP article; "summarize the information and cite the source" seems to be the most useful practice for writing encyclopedia articles. Deor (talk) 12:04, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Citing by itself does not have any copyright implications (it just means giving a reference). Quoting does, though. But in most cases, if the amount of the quote is small compared to the volume of the entire work (one paragraph out of a very long book, for example), and it is being used in a scholarly-like way (not just, say, in a novel of yours), then it almost certainly (as much as one can say this) falls under fair use. If you are quoting, say, 50% of a poem, then you're in more problematic territory. If you are doing this for works of fiction, generally speaking publishers want everything bought and paid for, even very small excerpts (because publishers are afraid of getting sued). There is no hard and fast line, though. It is about the accumulation of past case law and the judgment of a judge. But the case law suggests very strongly that in most cases, a few sentences for the purpose of something like Wikipedia is fine. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:59, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, maybe not quite: "in most cases" after all! Copyright infringement may sometimes be hard to avoid without complete rewriting. See: Wikipedia:Close_paraphrasing#Example and maybe: Wikipedia:Copy-paste. (User:Blurpeace pointed them out for me, after I had asked a similar question on irc earlier today).
--Seren-dipper (talk) 17:30, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your helpful comments, links, and the correction – yes, I want to quote, not just mention the title and the author. I am not going to use it in an actual Wikipedia article, and I don't want to rephrase. As Wikipedia content including non-article spaces can be reused commercially, and as the sentences I'd like to quote – while not amounting to a substantial part quantitatively – are not from the book's abstract, but from its conclusive part, I'm going to cut them down to less than I would otherwise like to post. OP = 84.46.46.174 (talk) 22:06, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Penis sizes in statues and paintings

Why is it that most old sculptures (like Italian) have small penises, yet in other works such as paintings there are overly large penises (Pompeii)? Were smaller or larger penises more preferable, or was that opinion divided among everyone? I've read stuff saying a smaller package was better for soldiers, or that smaller penises were intentionally sculpted to not destroy others ego's. And then you see paintings from the same area and time period with monster dicks.

Just curious as to what they thought about penis sizes that long ago (most now think bigger is better). I'm mainly asking for BC Italians, but comparing to other cultures is a definate bonus. 65.4.166.7 (talk) 10:26, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Here's a quote which sums up the Athenian view:

"Large sex organs were considered coarse and ugly, and were banished to the domains of abstraction, of caricature, of satyrs, and of barbarians." -The reign of the phallus: sexual politics in ancient Athens by Eva C. Keuls p.68

-Pollinosisss (talk) 10:54, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

The overly large penis paintings in Pompeii are of Priapus (the article has a few images from Pompeii). Otherwise the Romans (being rather prudish) didn't really paint penises...the Greeks were generally less prudish, but as Pollinosisss' quote says, also not too interested in realism. They also had abstract penis sculptures. Adam Bishop (talk) 11:36, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Human penis size#Historical perceptions has a bit on the matter. You might also want to look at the Straight Dope reference included therein. Deor (talk) 11:48, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I would disagree that the Romans were prudish. The erotic art in Pompeii and Herculaneum, as well as the many erotic passages in the works of authors like Martial, Catul and Ovid tells a different story. It is correct though that most of the depictions of large penises, phalli, was connected to a popular myth that it could ward off evil eye (on many streetcorners in Pompeii you can find phallic signs that had this function), and Priapus was also a general symbol of prosperity, and as such these particular depictions may not primarily have been of a sexual or pornopgraphic nature. --Saddhiyama (talk) 15:10, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

One can be prudish on one point and not another. —Tamfang (talk) 16:14, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

And some individuals can be prudish while others are not - Ovid, definitely not, but he was exiled by Augustus, who definitely was. Adam Bishop (talk) 12:31, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Tail gunner

I was watching a show in which a tail gunner, reminiscing about the Battle of Midway, spoke about having to take care that he didn't shoot his own plane's tail. Then I remembered Sean Connery's character doing just that in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (so it must be true). Nobody was able to come up with a way to prevent this? Did anybody do such a thing in real life? Clarityfiend (talk) 17:49, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

They did, the interrupter gear. Although our article is mostly about firing through one's own propeller, a similar mechanism can be used to retard the firing of a machine gun when it's pointing to a place defined by a template. Black Tuesday Over Namsi by Earl J. McGill says "although B-29 turrets were fitted with mechanical interrupters to prevent gunners from firing into their own wings or tail surfaces [there was nothing to stop them shooting other planes in the same formation]". This says a Halifax had the same kind of thing. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 18:08, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

The B-17 didn't have a gun in a position where it could shoot the tail. The Indian Jones movie plane is a german one (I don't remember what kind). Some other American bombers may have been similarly configured. PvsKllKsVp (talk) 21:06, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

The guy on the show was one of the few TBD Devastator survivors. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:19, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

That's a rear gunner, not a tail gunner. It's just a guy with a 30cal machine gun on a pintle - it's all a rather rudimentary (and you'd have to suspect rather ineffectual) arrangement. So there's little scope for a mechanism that would restrain the motion of the gun or prevent it firing when pointed at something useful. Things are very different on a heavy bomber like a B29, where the turret is electrically operated - it's a heavy, sophisticated machine with scope for adding clever gadgets. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 22:44, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

cars in Egypt

Is there a website where I can find any information about which type of cars does an average Egyptian drive like for example Citroen old or new? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sonic The Xtreme (talk • contribs) 20:23, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I was unable to find any sorry. People arne't replying because they cna't find any either.--92.251.147.169 (talk) 19:46, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

With a little help...

In the discussion of Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band's cover, it states, "At the edge of the scene is a Shirley Temple doll wearing a sweater in homage to the Rolling Stones". I don't get the connection. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:09, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there is a connection as such. Just that there's a doll or photo or something, on the right edge, that's wearing a sweater saying "Welcome the Rolling Stones". Possibly a bit of an inside joke. But I bet there's many a website that goes into depth about it. I'll see if I can find anything. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:18, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Googling ["sgt. pepper" "shirley temple" "rolling stones"] gives a lot of references that pretty much all say the same thing, that it's a doll made by someone named Jann Haworth, apparently a crew member of the photo shoot. Some sources claim the shirt says "Welcome the Rolling Stones, Good Guys", but I don't see any "good guys" dealie there. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:26, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

The "GOOD GUYS" is on the sleeve - the "good" is in red and the "guys" is in white, so it doesn't show up well on the stripes. In fact, there may be something on the right sleeve as well, but it's mostly turned away from the camera. If you do an image search, there are some really large scans on the net (not linked here for copyright concerns). Matt Deres (talk) 02:28, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

April 11

Daughters of Rebekah

Is the International Association of Rebekah Assemblies identical to the "Daughters of Rebekah"? A chapter of the latter organization was founded in Ansonia, Ohio in 1894, but I don't know how widespread this group was; we don't have an article on it, and Daughters of Rebecca is a redirect to the entirely unrelated Rebecca Riots. I notice that there's an external link at the International Association article for a Daughters cemetery symbol, but there's no source given for saying that they're the same group. Nyttend (talk) 01:11, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

A bit of googling would suggest you're right: the IARA is just an umbrella organization for the various DOR groups. This history of the Idaho Rebekahs says the movement began in Baltimore, Maryland in 1851 as an honorary degree whose recipients were known as "Daughters of Rebekah", and was formalized into its own lodge system from 1868. The existing IARA article could use an expansion to clarify its history, plus a redirect from Daughters of Rebekah. I'll see if I can make a start. Karenjc 18:22, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

displacement

Most contries have policies which accept immigrants. In rare cases it seems that native peoples are overwhelmed and at risk of job, resource and political displacement by immigrants due to the very policies which native peoples have allowed. Examples range from displacement of American Indian culture by European settlers and the displacement of workers from Turkey in Germany not to mention the displacement of indentured servants and others by African Americans as the result of civil war. Does the Wikipedia have a list of such displacements? 71.100.3.207 (talk) 03:43, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

The Holly And The Olive?

[8]

Is the left branch Holly?174.3.123.220 (talk) 04:50, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

It looks more like holly than the right branch does. Check out holly. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:53, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Looks more like (a conventional representation of) oak to me, with rounded leaf-lobes and yellow acorns. Holly would have pointy leaves and red berries. —Tamfang (talk) 06:46, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

See "The 1839 National Arms and Seal" about halfway down this page. I have no idea why the modern group uses a white oak (?) branch rather than the original live oak branch, unless it's to distinguish the seal from the current state seal. Deor (talk) 10:07, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

By the way, a properly-formatted link to the image description page would be File:Republic-of-texas.png, and you can look at other emblems derived from the same historic source at File:Republicseal.jpg, File:State Seal of TexasFixed.svg, File:Seal of Texas.svg, or File:State Seal of Texas.png , and a photo of the floor mosaic is at File:Floor of Texas capitol.JPG... AnonMoos (talk) 10:14, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Cargo Cult cooking and manufacturing

Are there any articles that mention the following instances in reference to Cargo Cult as being merely imitations of the real thing?

• Many flea market based hardware vendors sell a drill chuck key that looks like a standard steel drill chuck key but which is poured from pot metal.
• Street vendors sell food dishes that attempt to duplicated food dishes made from the right ingredients in the right proportions but which lack the right ingredients and proportions.
• Costume jewelry.

71.100.3.207 (talk) 05:24, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't know the answer. But if I saw a reference to 'Cargo Cult' in a discussion of any of these I would certainly question it, if not delete it outright. --ColinFine (talk) 09:02, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

None of those are good examples of cargo cults. They are signs of incompetence, fraud, or possibly bad taste, but that is not nearly the same thing. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:09, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Presumably invoking the meaning expressed in the article as "From time to time, the term 'cargo cult' is invoked as an English language idiom to mean any group of people who imitate the superficial exterior of a process or system without having any understanding of the underlying substance". So "Cargo cult programming" is mentioned in the classic Jargon File, and we even have a Wikipedia article on it -- but 71.100.3.207's questions would appear to refer to more simple imitation... AnonMoos (talk) 10:26, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

The people who make a wear costume jewelry do not misunderstand what jewelry is. Cargo cults are not distinguished by their imitations, but by their misunderstandings. So a cargo cult lemonade stand would consist of something that superficially looked like a lemonade stand, with its operators hoping that money would accumulate into a large glass jar they had set out, but sold no lemonade, and was in an area with no possible customers. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:24, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Online poker in the USA

I thought online poker was illegal in the US, so how do the poker sites mentioned (green tick/check) here operate in the US? http://www.pokerscout.com/ Thanks 84.13.169.129 (talk) 10:21, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

We have an article Southern District of New York Action Against Online Poker Players... AnonMoos (talk) 10:50, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

The online gambling companies operate from other countries and sell their services online to US gamblers. They accept international payments using credit cards and online payment systems, and the countries they operate from are happy that they continue. One US law-enforcement technique has been to prosecute managers and owners of these companies as they pass through the US - this was the case for the executives of BetonSports (a British-registered company which operated from various Caribbean countries). A second strand was the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act, part of the SAFE Port Act. That makes it a crime for US companies (like banks and credit card companies) to "facilitate" online gambling by people in the is. It's due to this that Mastercard and Visa have begin to decline charges by such gambling companies. The ongoing US restriction on online gambling has led Antigua, the EU, and I think some other parties to take the US to the World Trade Organisation, where they've won a ruling which says the US laws restrict foreign countries' access to the US gambling market, protecting it for US gambling concerns (chiefly those based in Las Vegas, Atlantic City, and on various riverboats and Native American reservations). I don't believe any of the originating countries will extradite someone to the US based on a request for breach of US gambling laws. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 20:08, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Would it be true to say that the gambling section of the Safe Port Act is merely to project the interests of the established American casinos? Because that's how it seems from this side of the pond. (Oooh, I can hear the CIA file being opened on my internet address). 78.146.60.36 (talk) 08:05, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

From the U.S. legal point of view, gambling is basically a matter for the individual states, and each state regulates gambling how it sees fit within its own borders. (The federal government is mainly involved when gambling crosses state lines, or is mixed with organized crime activities.) To be fully legal in the U.S., an on-line gambling operation would have to be officially taxed, licensed, and subject to regulatory oversight in each and every separate state which it accepts bets from. The U.S. is not about to abandon state-by-state supervision of gambling (which is in part Constitutionally-based) just because of a WTO ruling (which can be easily presented as "pro-vice" within the U.S. political context). AnonMoos (talk) 10:01, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

From what little I know about it, the WTO sees the above as an excuse for protectionism. 78.146.30.179 (talk) 14:23, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

How do some online gambling companies keep on in business in the USA, when the senior staff of one or two foriegn gambling companies have been arrested and imprisoned when setting foot on US soil? Why dosnt the US government close down the ones still operating in the US? 78.146.107.183 (talk) 20:30, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Are there online gambling companies based in the US? Can you give an example? --Tango (talk) 20:33, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

The website at the top of this question says some are still operating in the US. Poker Stars, Full Tilt Poker, Cereus, Cake Poker, Bodog, Everleaf, Merge, Yatahay, WSEX, First Fidelity, Legendz, and Betraiser. I suppose that might or might not imply that they are based in countries outside the US, but still opwerating in the US as the US government is unable to block their websites, and that they cannot extradite the company execs to the US. Or maybe they are operating openly in the US, but the US only imprisons execs from foriegn countries. 84.13.164.38 (talk) 23:29, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Chief Rabbi of Yugoslavia, 1938

...was Dr. Ignaz Schlang, according to the popular Yiddish-language illustrated weekly, Yidishe Bilder (1938, No. 1). The Encyclopedia Judaica (16:874) notes that a Chief Rabbinate was instituted in Yugoslavia in 1923, and that between 1924 and 1941, Dr. Yitzhak Alkalay served in that post, and no mention of any Ignaz Schlang. It's possible that there were two chief rabbis as in today's Israel, but my leads have fizzled out. Suggestions? -- Deborahjay (talk) 12:59, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

It looks like the BCS spelling of the names is Ignjat Šlang and Isak Alkalaj.

On page 27 of this PDF it says: "Before WWII there were many rabbis in Belgrade. The chief rabbi for the Sephardic community was Dr. Isak Alkalaj, and for the Ashkenazi community Ignjat Slang."

I also found this page which calls Dr. Alkalaj the "Supreme Rabbi" (vrhovni rabin) and Dr. Šlang the "Chief Rabbi" (nadrabin). --Cam (talk) 18:45, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

What goes on a person meditating?

What are people thinking at, when meditating? I know that some are counting, but which are the options? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quest09 (talk • contribs) 17:24, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

You'll find some answers (though probably not all of them!) at Meditation. --ColinFine (talk) 17:28, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I actually found none answer. Not even something about the counting.--83.57.70.63 (talk) 17:33, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I think the idea is to suspend logical thought. There are many ways to do this. Counting might be one, since it requires just enough brain power to distract you from complex thought. Repeating a certain word or phrase (mantra) until it loses all meaning might be another. And then there's contemplating a question that has no answer, like "Can God create a boulder so large that not even He can move it ?". StuRat (talk) 17:43, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

One cannot stop thinking. In meditation one tries to reduce fretful thinking and prepare one's state of mind for thoughts that are observed with a degree of detachment, even if with an awareness that they are one's own thoughts, and that their implications are personal. Techniques are supposedly available for escaping from concern with one's material well-being and for seeing with clarity one's thoughts. Bus stop (talk) 17:55, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

that's not strictly true. The goal of meditation is to recognize (viscerally) that thought is a tool not an essential part of your being. In the early stages of a meditation practice, thoughts will always occur: this is because the mind gets bored, and because it's bored it manufactures problems or worries, and thoughts enter to try to deal with the problems or worries that the mind manufactured. For instance, sometimes when I meditate I will suddenly find myself wondering what I'm going to have for lunch - a totally trivial worry that only cropped up because the mind was looking for something to do. there are any number of ways of addressing this, usually by giving the mind something truly simplistic to occupy itself with (like counting breaths, reciting mantras, scanning the body), or by stepping back and examining the thoughts as objects that arise rather than becoming immersed in them. after a while, though (it could be a very long while, if you have a heavy mind), the mind realizes that it doesn't need to have problems or worries, so it stops making them and thoughts stop arising. then you get moments of nice clarity where you are not doing anything except sitting. very refreshing. --Ludwigs2 19:45, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

It depends. There are various methods, like counting. See shikantaza for a method that aims toward not "thinking" at all. But, I think that most people who meditate are mostly thinking about how much longer it will be before they can stop, or, in close competition, daydreaming. Pfly (talk) 09:52, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Percentage of non-white blood in American whites?

European Americans have been living with many different races in the US for a long time, therefore I suppose that miscegenation must have occurred. So, what's the average percentage of non-white ancestry in "European Americans" nowadays? --Belchman (talk) 18:20, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

How could such a thing be known? Bus stop (talk) 18:32, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

If, for the sake of argument, you date the beginning of serious European settlement in America to the Mayflower landing in 1620, that's only 11 generations back. Each current living American, if you go back 11 generations, has 2048 9th-great-grandparents, any of whom might have been of another race, or might have had children by someone of another race, or might themselves have ancestors who were, or who had children with, someone of another race. Your "European Americans" would not be racially homogeneous in 1620 anyway, since interracial relationships appear in written history thousands of years before the colonization of the Americas. And if you go back far enough, we all come from the same place. "Miscegenation" is ultimately a meaningless term, whether you ignore its offensive baggage or not. Karenjc 19:36, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

We don't know what his political views are so no need to critize them. He could be using this in an anti-racism argument for all we know. Anyway see White_American#Admixture. Human beings have no "races" anyway, there are very very few species that do. Just arbitrary characteristics shared by some groups.--92.251.143.238 (talk) 20:06, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Ahem... I didn't criticize anyone's political views as far as I can see, just offered some statistics and pointed out that "miscegenation" can be viewed as a loaded term, as stated clearly in the lead section of our article Miscegenation. Karenjc 13:45, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm aware that "human races" don't make much sense scientifically, but certain haplogroups and other traits can be traced. For example, I remember reading somewhere on Wikipedia that most Argentines had a tiny bit of Amerindian blood. I don't see how can this be offensive to anyone but a racist, sorry. --Belchman (talk) 20:49, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

And thank you for your replies :) --Belchman (talk) 20:51, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Minor quibble, I'd have said 15 to 16 generations, using a generation length (average age of mother at birth) of 25 years rather than 35. So that's 32768 or 65536 ancestors! FiggyBee (talk) 01:32, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

There are some companies who will carry out a DNA test to trace an individual's ancestry through many generations. The genetic genealogy article might help you search for the kind of companies that provide this service. I have no idea if this is likely, but if one of these companies has tested a statistically significant sample of "American whites" you could ask them directly if they would be prepared to release statistical data to you. Astronaut (talk) 20:39, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

It's unlikely that the for-profit companies would share such data with you. Better luck would be books by population geneticists that look at this sort of thing—Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza's work might have something on this. In any case, this is really more appropriately a Science Desk question, if you are concerned about genetic measurements... --Mr.98 (talk) 01:42, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I guess you are right - I should have posted this in the Science Desk - since people here think that this kind of thing can't be known or would be very difficult - certainly, it would be very difficult if you did a "social" study - but actually it's very easy to discern non-European genes in a European population - obviously, using a genetic study. --Belchman (talk) 10:48, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, even that is difficult, to be honest. There aren't generally European and non-European genes. What there are are certain genes that are statistically higher in pre-defined populations. So you say, "these people, we are going to call them 'white Europeans', and these people we are going to call 'Asians'" or whatever. This is hard to do with modern populations in many cases because from the beginning you are applying non-biological categories your groups (you are screening out people who are not fitting into your 'white Europeans' category cleanly, e.g. people who obviously look half-white and half something else). So it's problematic, because you're inferring historical genetics from modern populations, and then using that as a model for gene flow. It doesn't make it impossible to draw meaningful conclusions, as some on here would suggest, but it does mean one has to be tentative about the conclusions, and to be aware that there are no "pure races" of any sort. What this kind of research can tell you is about probabilistic measures of gene changes in populations... that's profoundly different than saying that it tells you about how "white" or "Black" people have mixed or something along those lines, which is applying very out-dated "pure-type" racial concepts, which don't have any place in biology. It's one of the reason that these "find out your heritage" tests are often quite bunk. They give people a probabilistic account of some of their genetics, which of course people then take and interpret with entirely non-scientific social categories... the whole thing gets very murky. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:50, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I've already said that I know that the concept of "human races" doesn't make much sense scientifically, that's why I used inverted commas in "European Americans"... To clear things up a little, I came up with this question because of this statement from our article Demographics of Argentina "As it is, since Argentines have mainly European genetic admixture, the non-European signal, which is easily discernible at the genetic level, is also easily masked". --Belchman (talk) 16:46, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Define "white" please... Spanyards carried moorish blood, Eastern Europeans - turkic and mongolian bloods, Italians amalgamated all the races of the Empire etc. NVO (talk) 06:16, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Not all European Americans have been living with many different races in the US for a long time. My mother's parents both came to America from Finland in the early 20th century. Researching the genealogy is quick and simple--my maternal blood relatives in America are all Finns--or Swede-Finns to be precise. My paternal side is quite different, having come to American Virginia in the 17th century (as an aside note that "serious European settlement in America" did not begin with the Mayflower landing in 1620--serious colonization in Virginia predates the Mayflower by at least a decade). Who knows what "races" (or, perhaps better, "ethnicities") are involved in my paternal line and took place in America. One reason why the question is not easy to answer is the lack of accurate genealogical data across the board. There are many paternal lines like mine, which go back many centuries in America but despite decades or research by dedicated genealogists contain major gaps. I can trace my line back to about 1780 with certainty. The century of so before that is almost entirely lost in terms of primary sources. Was there miscegenation during that period? Maybe. No one knows. This kind of uncertainty is not uncommon, which would make it very difficult to answer the question with confidence and accuracy. Pfly (talk) 10:22, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Defining what "white" is, is slippery. Even the darkest-skinned native of India is typically considered to be "caucasian". I think what the OP might be asking would have more to do with the basic traditional race groups, which could more generally be characterized as "Indo-European", "African", "East Asian" (i.e. "Oriental) and so on. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:09, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Climate

In the article, British_Asian#Communities, there are cities and searched them for the climate thet have and not all have info about climate. Where can I find info about these cities' climate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sonic The Xtreme (talk • contribs) 21:40, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Here's a link to the article you mentioned: British_Asian#Communities. StuRat (talk) 22:41, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I sometimes use this site; you can use the search to find information about the communities. Intelligentsium 23:55, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

That article seems to sort of slide past the current issue that for various reasons many non-Muslims feel rather dubious at best about being lumped together with Muslims into some supposed single undifferentiated "Asian community"... AnonMoos (talk) 09:48, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

For non-British readers, the term "Asian" in the UK generally refers to those who are migrants (or descendants of migrants) from India, Pakistan, Bangladesh or Sri Lanka. As AnonMoos says, there's a tendancy to lump tham all together[9]. News items these days tend to specify exactly which Asian community they are taking about.

To answer the original question, there's an overview at Climate of the United Kingdom; we're not a big country, so there aren't huge differences but a few generalisations:-

• The further west you go, the more rainfall you get.
• The further north, the colder you get (but the east is usually cooler than the west).
• The higher above sea level, the colder and wetter you get.

That's why Brits tend to go to the west coast for their holidays but take an umbrella (the sea is a bit warmer there too, but not much!). Hope that helps - was there any particular city? Alansplodge (talk) 18:03, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

April 12

most affluent city in sub-saharan africa

Which city in Sub-Saharan Africa, outside of South Africa, has the highest standard of living? -hello, i'm a member | talk to me! 01:41, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Not an authoritative answer, but I would guess Libreville in oil-rich Gabon, which has the highest per-capital GDP in sub-Saharan Africa, followed by Gaborone in Botswana and Windhoek in Namibia. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:30, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Lagos is the most populous city in sub-saharan Africa, and is a huge metro area. Like New York, it would be hard to nail down the character of the entire city in a single concept, but Lagos#Economy indicates it is Nigeria's most "prosperous" city; I would imagine parts of it are quite well off. --Jayron32 06:17, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

List of cities by quality of living, not quite what you asked for, though economy is one factor in the equation, features Port Louis (ranked 77th), even before Cape Town (85th) , and Johannesburg (90th). All three cities seem to surpass any North African city, of which none are featured among the top hundred. Again, this assessment is based on other factors as well, such as environment, personal safety, health, education, transportation, etc. ---Sluzzelin talk 06:43, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Though technically, Port Louis is on an island nation a good distance away from the continent of Africa proper. Sort of similar to stating that the best city in North America is in Bermuda. Googlemeister (talk) 14:30, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Analogically, yes, but is this altogether illegitimate? If we compare Oceania, we realize that a continent is an abstract construct in geography and not narrow physical category...--71.111.229.19 (talk) 10:48, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Oldest card game still played today?

What is the oldest card game still played in unbroken tradition, albeit having changed over time? I assume Tarot is the answer, but are there other candidates? --KnightMove (talk) 01:46, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

The Whist family of trick-taking card games, which includes such games as bridge and spades can be traced to the 17th century games of Ruff and Honours. Other than superficial differences in such matters as scoring, bidding, and determining trump, the actual play of the cards is virtually identical in all of the various forms, so that particular card game family can easily be traced back some 400 years, maybe longer. --Jayron32 03:06, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Some of those "superficial" differences are not so superficial. On the other hand, as mentioned in the article, the original game of whist is still played today, and that is something like 300 years old with no major changes. But according to the article on Tarot, tarock and tarocchi games, that still doesn't come close to the oldest tarot games. --Anonymous, 05:47 UTC, April 12, 2010.

Basset, progenitor of a closely related class of games of which Faro (the popular game in the old West) and Baccarat are related, has been dated to the mid-15th century Italy, which would make it about as old as as the Tarot games noted above. --Jayron32 06:00, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Playing_card#Spread_across_Europe_and_early_design_changes indicates that the playing card arrived in, and spread across Europe, sometime in the late 14th century. So that gives us an earliest starting point. Since Tarot games have been dated to not long after that (early 15th century) that may be the limit. --Jayron32 06:05, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

heritage

who are the bantus of africa,also which communities in africa are directly or indirectly related to the Jews?196.202.194.146 (talk) 07:35, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

You could argue that "Bantus" are essentially who people living outside Africa think of as "Africans", see Bantu expansion and Bantu peoples. For your second question, see African Jews. Jørgen (talk) 07:51, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

The technical meaning of "Bantu" is someone who speaks one of the languages belonging to a specific language grouping which prevails over much of central, southern, and eastern sub-Saharan Africa (but not western sub-Saharan Africa). AnonMoos (talk) 09:39, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

The Lemba are a group of Bantu speakers who claim a history as Jews. Rmhermen (talk) 16:50, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Re indirect relatedness to the Jews, you might find the article Semitic useful. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 21:45, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Albert III of Saxe-Wittenberg, Duke of Lüneburg

I created this article without knowing much, I need some help with some questiions. Was he a reigning Duke of Saxe-Wittenberg? It seems like he should have been since his father Otto was older than his brother Wenceslas I, Duke of Saxe-Wittenberg (Albert's uncle) who inherited the ducal throne after Otto's and Wenceslas' elder brother, Rudolph II's death. One must note that Saxe-Wittenberg didn't have any joint rules or division like its cousin the Saxe-Lauenburgs even if there was more than one son before answering this. --Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 08:59, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

how do I make a work of art that is epic, hyper-novel, groundbreaking, ambitious, engrossing, a world unto itself, without becoming a parody of itself?

When I consider those worlds, like Star Wars, or Lord of the Rings that were extremely ambitious, groundbreaking conceptions of an engrossing, whole world unto itself, what can I do in realizing them that will keep the work from becoming a parody of itself?

Obviously franchises like James Bond have suffered from this for what, thirty years, but even franchises like Indiana Jones, or Back to the Future, suffered from this at their onset, to say nothing of superhero or other comic book ventures.

What positive steps can a person take to keep their work from degenerating into such a parody of itself? Thank you. 84.153.204.187 (talk) 15:04, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that anything that becomes apart of popular culture is open for parody. The only way to keep a work from being parodied is to not offer it to the public in the first place. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 15:45, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I think the poster means something that is considered to be just ridiculous from the get-go. I think a lot of this is in the eye of the beholder. My wife thinks that LOTR is pretty ridiculous even on its own terms (she finds the "richly imagined" world to be ridiculous pretentious). I enjoyed Dune but there's a way in which it puts it on a bit thick too. It's easy to see Star Wars as just being about space wizards who live in the past-future.

When those kinds of works work right, it's not because they have some sort of intricate cosmology behind them. (Any dummy can make an intricate cosmology where the House of Shmurbitts and the House of Florfees have been at war for 500 years, and there are funny Kwoozars and Toolmoos that have their own intricate culture and system of magic, etc.) It's because the larger works resonate it some sort of way with more basic human concerns, needs, conditions. Star Wars isn't good because Lucas has 8 million muppets running around in it, it's good (if it's good) because it contains a nice amount of Jungian archetypes that resonate with a large number of its viewers. LOTR isn't good (if it's good) because there are intricate descriptions of creepy critters, it's good because the writing is (mostly) solid and the "epic quest against evil, even though the odds are pretty impossible" is a strong story. My suggestion is that instead of worrying about the density of the back story, focus on the overall construction of the narrative. Do like George Lucas did: read The Hero with a Thousand Faces, figure out what the inherently human story is you want to tell. The detailed world—that can be filled in later, once you know what is worth filling in. Just my two cents. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:12, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Well-stated. Somewhere there's a wikipedia article that discusses a short list of what could be called "basic story concepts". There are many ways of retelling the same story, and it's not so much the story that matters, it's the presentation. And I would have to say that if a story gets parodied, that's actually a form of flattery. No one parodies something that no one cares about. A parody of Star Wars, such as Hardware Wars, is not a put-down, it's a form of affection. Likewise with Galaxy Quest and Star Trek. Many of those who loved Star Trek (me included) also loved Galaxy Quest. The Indiana Jones movies were an homage to serials, while in some ways making fun of them too. In fact, I would go so far as to say that if no one parodies an artwork, then probably no one much cares about it. As you indicate, you can't control the marketplace of ideas. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:03, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

The more immediate danger is that the goal from the outset, a narrative that is designed to be epic, hyper-novel, groundbreaking, ambitious, engrossing, a world unto utself, is already a parody of market-driven motivation: novelty, for example, itself untrustworthy as an end, not being sufficient in this case, which seeks to be hyper-novel.--Wetman (talk) 17:10, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes. That's trying to "control the market", which generally doesn't work. You put it out there, and it either works or it doesn't. As Dick Clark told Congress during the payola investigation in the late 1950s, "No amount of airplay will turn a dud into a hit." And conversely, a work of art might not be recognized as such in the lifetime of its author. The history of the humanities is loaded with individuals who were not "honored in their own time". There are no guarantees... of either success or failure. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:26, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

To my mind, the thing that distinguishes 'epic' art is that it springs out of complete and sophisticated worldview. Tolkien is the iconic example of this - he was actually interested in philosophical matters of the derivations of language and myth, and The Lord of the Rings was a kind of by-product. rather than trying to craft a story, craft a worldview and let the story make itself. --Ludwigs2 18:41, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

In many cases, these massive properties were created by chance, with someone taking a shot at a story and it catching on, continuing, etc. builds until it becomes epic blah-blah-blah on its own. Think Discworld. That hasn't become self-parody and the writing is brilliant, all after 30-something novels (If anything, they've improved and eliminated much of the silliness from the earlier, more parody-of-other-works novels). Aaronite (talk) 17:37, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Works of art can also come into and go out of fashion. Works of art are not immune to fashion trends. An artist should be aware of the criteria considered important but an artist shouldn't be entirely controlled by what the art world "thinks" it wants. Bus stop (talk) 18:54, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Isnt the way to stop it being a parody is to consistently and persistantly always present your work as something deadly serious? Gearge Lucas has never done a comedy version of Star Wars. If other people parody it, then that's a good thing as its a sign that its well known, and it is further promotion. Take Scientology as a random example - bursting with parodiable and laughably riduculous material, yet consistently presented year after year in a deadly serious manner, with the people involved all acting their serious parts, without sniggering. Similarly in fine art - something that anyone could make in five minutes gradually becomes, by the persistance of the artist, accepted as something of value. 78.146.107.183 (talk) 19:48, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps one approach is to be self-referential about epicness in the title itself (as in A Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Genius), which takes the piss right from the beginning, so reviewers and readers won't think you're actually pompous ... but there will be that little seed of doubt planted in their minds: Maybe it really will be ... I'd better read it now... Comet Tuttle (talk) 00:23, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Just rewrite the Icelandic Sagas but set in Outer Space, and Bingo! you have an epic Space Opera. 89.240.34.241 (talk) 20:09, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Reichsmark Conversion

Is there anyway to find out how much M27.75 from 1925 Germany would be today in Dollars or Euros? Thanks 85.244.195.253 (talk) 16:46, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Because relative prices have changed so much since 1925, there is no way to calculate an exact equivalent to an amount from that date. M27.75 was equal to US$6.61 in 1925. [10] The tricky thing is determining what that $6.61 is worth today. According to this site, that amount is worth $80.90 today in terms of its ability to purchase goods and services. However, relative to unskilled wages, it is worth around $300. That is, since an unskilled worker today might make around $400 a week, M27.75 probably represented a large share of a week's earnings in 1925. Once you decide which present-day dollar value is more relevant, you can convert to euros if you like at today's rate of about $1.358 to the euro, per this site. Marco polo (talk) 18:05, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply... Extremely helpful 85.244.195.253 (talk) 20:46, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

William "Bart" Bush

Cannot find any info on William "Bart" Bush, the Regional Commissioner of the National Capital Region in the Public Buildings Service of the U.S. General Services Administration. I searched Google and Wikipedia with various versions of the commissioner's name. All in vain.Punctilious-one (talk) 18:59, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

google 'William B. "Bart" Bush'. --Ludwigs2 19:58, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Co-signer removal ____?

Co-signer removal ____________________. Can someone fill that line in. I need to know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.176.81.22 (talk • contribs) Moved from Co-signing by Tanner Swett (talk) 20:13, 12 April 2010 (UTC) (UTC)

You need to explain the context. Where did you read this? Is it at the bottom of a legal document, for example, or is it the answer in a crossword puzzle? Comet Tuttle (talk) 20:47, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Homosexuality = Paedophilia? Studies?

According to Secretary of State of the Vatican City, Tarcisio Bertone, "many psychologists, many psychiatrists have proved that there is no relation between pedophilia and celibacy, but many others have proved, and have recently told me, that there is relation between homosexuality and pedophilia". I want to know, are these studies known?, who are those psychologists and psychiatrists? The news is in Spanish because it's breaking news and I didn't find it in English yet. Source --SouthAmerican (talk) 21:37, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Not what you asked for directly, but here's one editorial from The Atlantic about why this argument is a smokescreen, and that "the sin is the abuse of power, and the use of religious authority to subject the defenseless to an adult's sexual gratification," and that "the sexual orientation of the perpetrator is, strictly speaking, irrelevant to the matter at hand". Comet Tuttle (talk) 22:28, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Here's the story in English from Reuters. What a shitty shitty man is State Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone. What a shitty shitty church. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:34, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

• This is not a forum for debate or soapboxing. --Anonymous, 04:40 UTC, April 13, 2010.

In part, at least. For the Church, or anyone affiliated with it, to be defending pedophilia or homosexuality or any other type of sexual behavior, on the grounds that it somehow doesn't violate the celibacy rules, is highly offensive. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:49, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I think the church is defending their celibacy rules from the assertion that they cause priest to engage in homosexual or pedophilic behavior (not defending pedophilia, as you've read it). Buddy431 (talk) 23:00, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

The celibacy rules do not "cause" priests to engage in this stuff. However, the rules might tend to attract the kind of man who has no desire for sex with women. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:13, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Google Scholar is a good place to look for studies pedophilia+homosexuality and pedophilia+celibacy. Of course pedophilia is related to homosexuality, just as it is also related to heterosexuality, so every study is going to make reference to the gender of the victim and abuser but less frequently celibacy part of the equation. You would have to ask him what these conveniently comforting to the vatican, studies are meltBanana 00:53, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

There are lots of ways to slice and dice this, but the research seems to indicate that openly gay men are much less likely to engage in pedophilia than men who identify as straight or heterosexual. It seems plausible that these Church officials are trying to divert attention from their own moral bankruptcy by attempting to scapegoat gay people. Marco polo (talk) 01:38, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Somewhat in concurrence although I don't really want to come across as soapboxing but although the CC likes to bring the issue of homosexuality into it, I've never seen any real evidence that many of the CC abusers can be considered 'homosexual' even if you include paedophiles who are attracted to prepubuscent boys and/or ephebophiles who are attracted to postpubscent boys in the that definition. While it may be true most of the victims are (post-pubsecent/young teen) boys, obvious things like access issues (altar boys etc and the lower acceptance of a teenage girls spending a lot of time with an adult male, even a priest, then teenage boys spending time with an adult male) and perhaps also a lower 'acceptance' of sexual abuse of girls by society (and the corresponding easier ability for the victim to speak out) and the CC, would seem to be big confounding factors that have never been addressed by the CC that I've noticed. (Similar to the way many prison rapists are men who have sex with men but probably don't have a homosexual orientation.) Of course the CC perhaps doesn't even always recognise the distinction given the views of some of their members on a homosexual identity so perhaps we shouldn't be surprised. Edit: To make this less soapboxy, here are some sources touching on these issues [11] [12]. Ironically I'm guessing the CC uses this sort of research to prove their point about how most of the priests aren't paedophiles and how they are only a very small number etc yet ignores the other key point is that there is no link with homosexuality and most don't identify as homosexual... Nil Einne (talk) 18:59, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

April 13

Muslim clothing

What justification is used by European countries which ban Muslim women from wearing the clothing required by their religion? They aren't harming anyone, after all. --70.129.184.122 (talk) 01:13, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Such clothing is not really required by their religion, it's more of a traditional custom. Occasionally someone argues that headscarves and veils should be banned because it violates women's human rights, but more often the reason is apparently simple xenophobia. People fear the unknown, and at the moment Islam is equated with terrorism, so anyone in a veil could potentially blow you up. It's funny, Catholic canon law used to be full of rules that Muslims and Jews should dress differently, so Christians could tell them apart and avoid intermingling with them. And now Europeans want them to be as dissimilar as possible. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:25, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

This is happening in Quebec as well, and the justification is to 'protect' their identity and make sure there is no fraud when requesting public services. And yet, they permit absentee ballots for elections by mail. It's all a big load, if you ask me, but this isn't the place for opinions... Aaronite (talk) 02:29, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

This really only applies (at least in Quebec) to the niqab and burqa where the face is partially or totally covered. And how often do you see that in Europe or North America? Personally I have only ever seen one person wearing a niqab, and never a burqa. It's hardly a big problem, but it distracts people from more important things they probably won't be able to understand anyway. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:43, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

See the articles (and where they lead) listed under Category:Islamic dress controversy in Europe. For Quebec, see accommodation for Muslim headgear Another one at Europe's border: Headscarf controversy in Turkey. ---Sluzzelin talk 02:41, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

We also have Hijab by country, including a short section on Europe. Turkey's always the one that gets me. It's not xenophobia, but rather a clash of internal cultures. And to answer the original question, some people do believe that headgear does harm others. In Turkey's case, Ataturk believed that headscarves prevented Turkey from modernizing. Buddy431 (talk) 04:40, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

We also have Reasonable accommodation (for the Canadian perspective). Earlier I was thinking of sumptuary law, which has some more links specific to clothing. Adam Bishop (talk) 05:10, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

There are different aspects. One is the (somewhat, but not completely, patronising) argument that (most) women would not wear this clothing voluntarily, but only because of social or family pressure. Or, if they wear it voluntarily, it's only because of their cultural conditioning, and they wouldn't if only they knew better (you can see where the patronising comes in ;-). For school teachers, another argument is that teachers should not be an example for lifestyles associated with a strongly non-egalitarian society. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:30, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

See divide and rule, though that's just my opinion. A couple of quotes: Daniel Bacquelaine, the Belgian MP behind the bill there: "Wearing the burqa in public is not compatible with an open, liberal, tolerant society.", and Nicolas Sarkozy: "The all-body veil is contrary to the dignity of women. The answer is to ban it" [13]. I think the case being made by most people in favour of a ban is that wearing the veil is damaging in some way to society as a whole, that it facilitates some kinds of fraud, and that it is something imposed on women that restricts their liberty. Tinfoilcat (talk) 09:24, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Here are some arguments for making wearing a burqa illegal:

1) It hides the identity. This is particularly a problem when women want their driver's license picture to have their face hidden. Such ID is worse than worthless, as anyone can use it and claim to be that person. So, basically those women would have no ID at all. This just doesn't work in a modern society.

2) Terrorism. Suicide bombers wearing such loose clothing can hide a lot of explosives and kill many people. Since the identity is concealed, even a man and/or someone the guards would recognize as a terrorist could get close to their target.

3) Integration into society. In order to prevent a polarized society and eventual conflict, some degree of integration within the new society is necessary. This is the "melting pot" concept. Clothing is one aspect, as are language, customs, etc. Perhaps people who are completely unwilling to integrate into the new culture should be kept out. StuRat (talk) 10:53, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

The OP says "They aren't harming anyone, after all". That point is debateable, since they are harming the woman who has to wear the thing. Women who wear it are excluded from most of society and are effectively owned by men. 78.147.232.11 (talk) 11:59, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

So where does that leave women who choose to wear the veil as a sign of their faith? Astronaut (talk) 13:02, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I have known Muslim women in the workplace who are very strong and assertive, yet wear a headscarf (though not a veil) as an indicationg of faith and modesty, and who would take offense to the idea that they are "owned" by men. And as far as that's concerned, how different is that "ownership" from so-called "submission" practiced by some Christian sects? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:21, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't buy it as part of their religion, as most Muslims don't cover their faces. I believe the Koran only says that "men and women should dress modestly". It's more of a cultural thing, going back to the Arab tribes which predating Islam (along with many other misogynistic practices). That said, many Arab Muslim clerics have tried to incorporate these tribal values into the religion, as this allows them to spread their tribal values to other cultures, as if it was "the will of Allah". StuRat (talk) 13:17, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

The whole religious vs. cultural thing is a bit of a straw man though. The Mr. 70.129 could have just as easily asked "why do they try to ban women from wearing clothing related to their cultural heritage" and the question, and answers, would essentially be the same. Buddy432 (talk) 15:14, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

AFAIK no country has or ever will ban any clothes except those that somehow violate decency laws. Schools on the other hand are perfectly within their rights to ban any clothes they wish. Most have school uniforms, and non-religion items such as hats and gloves are banned. If I made up my own religion and claimed that I needed to wear a hat all the time, I still wouldn't be allowed to wear it to school.--92.251.147.169 (talk)

America doesn't have a government?

Russian President Medvedev said in an interview[14] (comparing his own role in Russia with that of PM Putin),

"But I would say the most important and most complicated decisions I have to take myself. So we have the government which has its own competence. America doesn't have a government. The government itself generates the laws. The government is busy with economics and this is a lot of work, I used to work in the government for many years. I was the first deputy of the prime minister..."

I think he is contrasting the US system of a multi-branched entity called the "government" with the Russian system, which I gather is parliamentary, which in turn I think means what they call the "government" is what we'd call the "executive branch", and it functions like an agency that reports to the Parliament, rather than as an equal policy-making branch in its own right. But I still can't quite make sense of the sentence. What does it mean? Thanks. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 06:11, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

The Federal Assembly of Russia is the legislature, so more or less equivalent to the United States Congress. The Judiciary of Russia likewise equivalent to the United States Judiciary. But the US Executive branch has no single equivalent Russian branch. The President of the United States is both the head of state and the head of government. In contrast the President of Russia is the head of state and the Prime Minister of Russia is the head of government. Perhaps what Medvedev was getting at by saying "America doesn't have a government" was something like, America doesn't have a head of government separate from its head of state. In Russia the president has to work with the "government"--ie, the prime minister, but in the US there is no equivalent "government" that the president must work with in this way. The issues relating to the Russian president and prime minister having to work together--how to deal with disagreements, responsibility, taking blame or credit, etc--do not come up in the US because a single person is both president and "government". I admit I am guessing here, and would like to hear a more knowledgeable response. Pfly (talk) 09:43, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

In a multi-party parliamentary system, "the government" typically refers to a coalition of parties which together controls the majority of the legislature, and thus elects the Prime Minister. In the US two-party system, this would just be called "the majority party", and only gets to pick some lesser offices, like Speaker of the House. So, if by "the US has no government", he means "has no ruling coalition of political parties", then that's quite true. StuRat (talk) 10:36, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

From the context, I think it's clear that Medvedev means roughly what Pfly said. He means that Russia has a government (headed by a Prime Minister) as one institution and a President as another institution, and the two have different responsibilities. In America, there is no government separate from the President, because the President is in complete control of the government. In fact, I don't think Russia is really a parliamentary republic, it's more like a semi-presidential one (as our article says), and the president does have substantial power over the government, albeit less so than in the US. But Medvedev is indeed emphasizing the "semi" aspect of it, and that Putin's authority and sphere of competence are separate from his own. Basically, he is being asked "Which one of you two is the boss?", and he is answering that each of them has his own domain. And this is technically true, although I somehow suspect that Russia is especially inclined to emphasize its parliamentarian aspects when Putin is the PM, and its presidential aspects when Putin is the President :).--91.148.159.4 (talk) 16:29, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Quibble: There are obviously a few parts of "the government" that the US president does not control, like the Federal judges themselves. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:23, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

history - John Wilkes Booth, a white supremacist?

I was reading the colfax massacre article and came across the line "This was enough for white supremacist John Wilkes Booth to assassinate Lincoln". This seemed like a bit of a stretch to me-was he actually a white supremacist?

I'm not asking if he was pro-slavery, his article seems to be pretty adament that he was pissed about the whole freeing the slaves thing, I'm asking if he was actually a supremacist.

Thanks in advance. flagitious 07:45, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I think it would be safe to say Booth was a white supremacist; certainly he shared the widespread belief that the best thing for blacks was life under white rule. From his final letter, printed in the New York times:

"This country was formed for the white, not for the black man. And looking upon African Slavery from the same stand-point held by the noble framers of our constitution, I for one, have ever considered it one of the greatest blessings (both for themselves and us.) Witness heretofore our wealth and power; witness their elevation and enlightenment above their race elsewhere... Yet, Heaven knows, no one would be willing to do more for the negro race than I, could I but see a way to still better their condition."

On the other hand, the sentence in the Colfax massacre article which you quote seems very much exaggerated, implying as it does that this particular decision, giving the vote to a number of black veterans, was the reason for Booth. Accordingly, I shall delete it.--Rallette (talk) 09:29, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any distinction between white supremacists and those who endorse black slavery. If there is such a distinction, it's that the white supremacists would settle for less than total slavery, perhaps just segregation or Apartheid. StuRat (talk) 10:25, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Lincoln himself, viewed from today's perspective, was somewhat of a white supremacist. But by standards of the day, he was liberal, and he absolutely deplored slavery. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:01, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Yep. Booth was a white supremacist. In other words, his views on race were fairly typical for American whites of his era, northern or southern. In our era, we often equate white supremacy with hatred and violence, but in Lincoln's era it could be paternalistic and compassionate. Even many white abolitionists took it for granted that whites were inherently superior to blacks. —Kevin Myers 13:03, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

You have to be careful using modern terms and concepts for historical events and people. Booth was probably fairly typical for his milieu. See Moral relativism. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 13:09, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

"White supremacy" may be a modern term but it's an old concept. In scholarly writings it is routine to discuss "white supremacy" in 19th century America; I'd go so far as to say that you cannot understand Lincoln's era without understanding white supremacy. A typical citation, this one from Don E. Fehrenbacher, writing in the 1970s: "Lincoln in the 1850s did plainly endorse the existing system of white supremacy, except for slavery." Scholars debate the degree to which Lincoln was a white supremacist; with Booth, there's little room for doubt. He was a white supremacist, i.e. his views were fairly typical. —Kevin Myers 14:27, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Fairly typical for a pro-slavery person. Let's not forget that there was a huge anti-slavery movement and sentiment, even though even many of its members may be seen as partly racist by today's standards. It certainly can't be claimed that the average American of the time was pro-slavery as Booth was.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 16:38, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

---

In the political context of the 1840s and the 1850s in the US, giving blacks equal voting rights and full "social equality" was a controversial "advanced" position supported by only a distinct minority of the electorate in most areas (while usually a much larger section of the electorate, even in many areas in the north, would have been vehemently opposed to it). At that time, even many of those who were strongly opposed to slavery on moral and humanitarian grounds, and were thoroughly disgusted by Dred Scott, "bleeding Kansas" etc. were often somewhat uncertain or hesitant about giving full equal rights -- or at least argued for handling one issue at a time (i.e. fighting slavery first), without unnecessarily anticipating eventual future issues which would be controversial and divisive within the Free Soil party or the Republican party at the moment. Lincoln was among the uncertain and hesitant (especially before the war), but he made few explicitly racist statements, except during the Lincoln-Douglas debates (where he uttered what he thought was the necessary minimum of racism to stay a viable candidate in the 1858 Illinois Senate race, in response to the very racist Stephen A. Douglas's accusations of "Black Republicanism"), and it would be grotesque to try to lump together Lincoln with someone like David Duke. AnonMoos (talk) 18:06, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

WTO, World Bank and IMF

What is the eligibility to become a member of the board of the directors of 1. World Trade Organization, 2. World Bank and 3. IMF. --WTLop (talk) 08:17, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

These are international organizations made up of member states. Their dgovernance differs from that of private sector organizations. In the WTO, each of the members is in theory equal. The decisional organ is the Conference of Ministers; there is no inner council (e.g. nothing like the United Nations Security Council) as far as I can tell from the article. The World Bank and International Monetary Fund both have a Board of Governors, whose composition is proportional to the contribution of the various members to the institutions' capital. The governors are nominated by the member states who hold seats on the board (often, more than one country will poll their votes together in order to have enough weight to be able to appoint a governor). So, to answer the O.P.'s question directly, in order to be a member of the equivalent of the board of directors of the WTO, one needs to be the Minister of Trade of one of the member countries. For the other two organizations, one must be appointed by a government which holds a seat on the council of governors. Typically, the governors include former Central Bank presidents (for the IMF), senior aid officials (for the WB) and other former top-level bureaucrats. These are not jobs the man on the street can apply for. --Xuxl (talk) 17:46, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

The Catholic church's influence on pedophilia statistics

I've often heard it said that the abused become abusers. If that is true, then it seems to follow that the pedophile priests that have been in the news of late have been creating abusers. And again, if the first bit is true, has anyone looked into how much the pedophilia problems that we have today have been started by bad priests? Basically, how much are they responsible for? Either world wide or for a single country will do. I'm not really sure how anyone could quantify this or if it has even been looked at but it came to mind yesterday while hearing more about the scandals. Thanks, Dismas|^(talk) 09:55, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

There seems to be a flaw in the logic that "the abused becomes the abuser". If this was 100% true, and each abuser abuses several others, then the pattern of abuse would encompass 100% of society in just a few generations. However, AFAIK, the percentage of abuse isn't going up, although the reporting of such cases is. StuRat (talk) 10:18, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

There's nothing new under the sun. If the abused become the abusers, then there's a good chance the abusers were once abused themselves. That's not to condone anything for a second; but there's still a bigger picture here, which does not have its beginning with modern-day bad priests. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 11:58, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Masturbation

We men are quite good at it. When deprived of sex men always do it. It is rightly said that 95 % men masturbate and 5 % lie ! What about women ? Do they do it as frequently or if at all ? And how do they do it ? Do they also ejuaculate ?(if yeah what ?) Jon Ascton  (talk) 11:07, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Did you not read the article you linked to? --TammyMoet (talk) 11:50, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Once the men are "done", even the ones who are "quite good at it", the women are just getting started. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:59, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I read that just under two thirds (60%) or women masturbate. One third (33%) of all porn viewers are women according to the same source. The source was a sort of educational poster about pornography, which I doubt you would find online.--92.251.147.169 (talk) 19:03, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

For the OP's last question, see Female ejaculation. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:22, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

K.L. Lebenau, 1945

Among a dozen drawings by Abraham Ryza (Lodz, 1920–Los Angeles, 2001) that depict the abuse of concentration camp inmates by SS staff, half are signed (lower right corner) with the initials "A.R.", the year "1945", and the name LEBENAU in block letters. Could this have been the name of a camp, or possibly a misspelling of Liebenau? The I.T.S. lists two camps with the latter name and none with the former - which I'm trying to pin down before checking alternate or variant spellings. -- Deborahjay (talk) 11:38, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

There does seem to have been an internment camp in Laufen-Lebenau, Bavaria. Holocaust testimonies: European survivors and American liberators in New Jersey I don't know whether it is the same facility as the modern day JVA Laufen-Lebenau. Its history dates back to 1862. ---Sluzzelin talk 12:26, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

This [15] source says: "Nach den Aufzeichnungen des Laufener Stiftsdekan und Stadtpfarrer Peter Gries (1894-1977) kam vier Tage vor dem Einmarsch der Amerikaner, das war der 1. Mai, ein "Trieb" von etwa 230 KZ-Häftlingen, alle in erbärmlichem Zustand, aus verschiedenen Lagern in die Strafanstalt Lebenau.", meaning that shortly before the end of WW II some 230 KZ inmates were transferred to Lebenau, a prison in Bavaria close to the border to Austria. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 12:33, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Attica in the Threepenny Novel

In Fewkoombey's dream in Brecht's Threepenny Novel, why does the judge ask about Attica?--188.222.58.219 (talk) 12:12, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Has there ever been an atheist Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court?

20.137.18.50 (talk) 12:48, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Almost certainly. The question is if there ever was an atheist who was open about this on the U.S. Supreme Court. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:40, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, openly. That's what I meant, thanks. 20.137.18.50 (talk) 13:51, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

To elaborate, since most US voters are not atheists, people running for office might want to hide their atheism, lest it hurt their chances of winning elections. A Supreme Court Justice isn't elected, but is selected by people who are (the President and Senate), so might also want to pretend to be religious, to curry their favor. StuRat (talk) 13:50, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

According to our article, Felix Frankfurter was a non-practicing Jew, and regarded religion as "an accident of birth". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:02, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I would venture much farther than StuRat's timid "might". All American politicians claim to be people of faith. Unfortunately, it seems that for many American voters, being religious is a requirement for receiving a vote. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:19, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

"All" is a pretty strong statement. I direct you to List of nontheists (politics and law) which lists a few elected Americans in the mix. In 2007, representative Pete Stark declared that he didn't believe in a higher power. He's the only openly atheist member of the U.S. congress. Buddy431 (talk) 19:39, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

That reminds me of the Tom Skerritt character in the movie Contact. He wanted the committee's votes to be the one in the spaceship pod thing. 20.137.18.50 (talk) 18:56, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

On Killing (philosophy)

Why is it wrong to kill somebody? But please leave Religion and Law aside, because I want to get an answer that even an atheistic outlaw might understand. --95.88.26.239 (talk) 14:07, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, there's the fear of reprisal. That isn't a moral argument so much as a safety one, though. As for moral arguments, "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you" seems to apply whether you believe in god(s) or not. StuRat (talk) 14:19, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Or, put more succinctly and less problematically, don't do unto others what you wouldn't want them doing to you. (Which gets around the fact that just because something floats your boat, it might not others.) --Mr.98 (talk) 15:00, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

(ec)You're asking why it's "wrong" to kill, yet you want to leave religion and law out of it. But "wrong" itself is a moral/religious/legal concept. If you want a practical answer, I would say it's because it's disruptive to society, which is why there have always been laws against it. As far as the moral aspect, let's reverse it and see what you think: What would be wrong with someone killing you? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:24, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Biologically, if you are weak enough that your fellow humans are able to kill you, then it's good if you get killed before you pass your 'weak' genes down to the next generation :) 20.137.18.50 (talk) 14:51, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

So all babies should be killed? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:56, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

That logic doesn't really apply to a social species, like us. In order to act collectively, we can't spend all our resources trying to kill each other (and protecting ourselves from being killed). Imagine if all the ants in a colony were always at each other's throats. StuRat (talk) 14:57, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Lions have some degree of social order (of course nowhere near that of humans) and yet some male lions eat their own children. I'm not being mean-spirited, just hypothesizing. 20.137.18.50 (talk) 15:13, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Don't feed the trolls... --Mr.98 (talk) 14:59, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Throwing food under the bridge is disruptive. 10draftsdeep (talk) 15:17, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Who's a troll ? If you mean Bugs saying "So all babies should be killed?", that sounds like a legit reductio ad absurdum argument against "killing the weak to improve the species". If he's being a troll, then so was Jonathon Swift, with A Modest Proposal. StuRat (talk) 15:46, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I took it to mean Mr. 98 was saying I was feeding Mr. 20, but he would have to clarify that point in order to be certain. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:45, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

And his placement and tabbing would indicate he was responding to me, so I'm thoroughly confused. StuRat (talk) 17:30, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Aha, so we're both thoroughly confused. Maybe that was his objective. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:22, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Let's first make it clear that not everybody thinks it is unequivocally bad to kill people all the time. Even the Bible is usually considered to say it is bad to murder someone, which by definition a non-sanctioned killing. There is plenty of killing in there and allowed by our laws—states can kill, for example, in war, or often via capital punishment. Murder makes a lot of sense to outlaw for a society, because human beings take a lot of resources to develop and arbitrarily offing them leads to extremely unstable social situations. This is likely the main reason that societies disallow arbitrary murder, and the main reason that religions disallow it as well, whether or not they say this up front or not. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:59, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the Ten Commandments item is taken to mean "murder" specifically, and in a bit of circular reasoning, "murder" is "the unlawful taking of human life." When people call abortion, capital punishment or warfare "murder", they are technically incorrect. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:11, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Also, there's the "greater sin" aspect. If someone is threatening your family's life, and you shoot him to death, you may have sinned by shooting him, but the greater sin would be to let him kill your family. That, extrapolated to the national level, is a justification for war. I once heard William Buckley say, "There is no such thing as a 'moral' war, but there is such a thing as a 'defensible' war." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:48, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll reference the social contract, a theory often used to describe the role of government. Thomas Hobbes famously said that without government, human lives would be "nasty, brutish, and short". Because we ourselves don't want to be killed by others, we give up our right to kill on our own. I know you didn't want laws, but there's a lot of philosophy about government. The accuracy of the social contract in describing actual governments is disputed, but it's an interesting idea. Buddy432 (talk) 15:08, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Laws, or the "social contract", are as old as society itself. Putting religion and law aside is called "anarchy". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:11, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

In case I wasn't clear, I meant that the OP didn't want laws used as a justification for not killing people, not that he wanted anarchy. Buddy432 (talk) 15:16, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict with below)And strictly speaking, laws aren't as old as society itself. In many societies, the will of the king/chief/religious leader was enforced pretty haphazardly, without codified laws. The Code of Hammurabi went a long way towards the modern practice of actually having a "rule of law", instead of a "rule of whatever the person in charge feels like". That's one of the criticisms of the social contract: governments didn't really form by people getting together and saying they wanted a government. They formed because people with the most power subjugated everyone else. Buddy432 (talk) 15:20, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

<sign...> philosophical myopia. Look, in the animal world, animals will sometimes kill members of their own species. usually not - animals that fight to the death tend to die off early and fail to pass on their genes, so most animals back down before death - but it does happen. the reason it's acceptable in the animal world is that we're talking about the death of one animal, which is irrelevant to the species as a whole. With humans, though, there are the dual problems of mind and technology. if you kill someone, that will likely not be the end of it. their friends and relatives are likely to come hunting for you, and no matter how big and mean you are, you won't stand up to a wave of angry relatives, not unless you use technology (a sword, a gun, a bomb). so, now what do you do: kill off all the friends and relatives of the first person you killed, to prevent reprisals? kill off all the people of the same race/ethnicity of the person you killed, in case they decide you're going to hunt them, as well? kill off an entire nation, in case the nation decides to take reprisals for you killing one of their citizens? Humans have complex social bonds and emotional attachments, and it's a fair bet that if you kill one human you enrage a notable number of other humans, who will come looking for you, and the whole situation will escalate. You can be a serial killer or a terrorist, killing people at random to make it hard for others to find you, but the former general marks you as the lowest of the low and the latter invites broad reprisals against your own kith and kin, and the technology to hunt down and kill people keeps getting better and better all the time.

If you are a complete loner (no friends, family, or attachments) and the person you want to kill is a complete loner (no friends, family or attachments), and the two of you have a mutual desire to kill each other... then go find a nice corner out in the desert and have at it (because no one cares). otherwise you're not just killing a person, you're cutting into a large and complex social fabric, and the trouble from it won't end. --Ludwigs2 15:19, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

So he's asking why there is a law against it, yes? And I think that's pretty well covered. People freely killing each other could result in social breakdown and ultimately extinction. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:21, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

He is not asking why there is a law against it. The OP clearly excluded any legal explanation. Try to convince a atheist outlaw why he shall not murder. Quest09 (talk) 15:35, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh, OK. Well, I'll keep it simple then: He shouldn't kill because someone else is liable to kill him in return. Unless he's OK with that. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:42, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Maybe put that a little more subtly: if one is killing for a reason or goal (anything from killing for money, power, or love to killing for the sheer fun of it) than one or more aspects of society are going to put a lot of effort -directly or indirectly - into making sure that that reason or goal is in vain. In the animal world, the logic "If I fight with, defeat, and maybe kill X, I will be rewarded with Y" works, because once X is gone nothing obvious stands between you and Y. in the human world the same logic fails, because removing X will generally dredge up a whole assortment of new participants dedicated to getting between you and Y (if only by mounting your head on a stick). Of course, putting it rationally like this is silliness, because most people learn (by the time they are 6 or so) that they depend on the society around them, and that society gives to people that play together nicely and withholds from people who don't. it's only in that 'adolescent rebellion' stage when people hold the erroneous conclusion that they have complete freedom of action (a necessary stage to break them out of family authority into existence in the greater wold, but not a stage that lasts in most). --Ludwigs2 16:24, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

And here's the basic problem: The OP didn't ask for practical reasons not to commit murder; he asked why it's wrong. That's not got to do with practicality, it's got to do with morality, which is a social concept. You may scoff at this, but here's a bit from Love and Death: Sonia (Diane Keaton) wants the two of them to assassinate Napoleon. Boris (Woody Allen), who has essentially claimed to be an atheist or at least an agnostic earlier in the film, objects on the grounds that "murder is immoral". Now, how do you convince an "outlaw atheist" that murder is immoral, i.e. is wrong? It does not compute! The best you can do is to try to appeal to his selfish interests. But does that make it "wrong" to him? No, just "not practical - fraught with consequences." That's different. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:43, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Besides the legal and religious aspect (that you don't care), there is the practical aspect (above) and also the psychological aspect. How would you feel after killing someone, even if you have a reason?--Quest09 (talk) 15:24, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Many would feel bad, some would feel nothing, some would feel good, depending on circumstances and disposition. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:32, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

As for killing causing the breakdown of social order, that's a good argument for why others shouldn't kill, but not so good of an argument for any individual, as a single killing isn't likely to cause the collapse of civilization (although they gave it a good shot with the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand). StuRat (talk) 15:39, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Not so true as you might think. see Hatfield-McCoy feud, or other examples of clan or gang wars --Ludwigs2 16:31, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd argue from the point of view of valuing knowledge for its own sake. Killing somebody destroys knowledge (in the absence of extenuating circumstances, where the killing defends some other knowledge). If we accept that the creation of knowledge is our basic motivation, then that's a reason not only to avoid killing people but also to be cooperative and rational. I find I can get a lot of moral mileage out of this principle. Uh ... oh yes, this is a ref desk. I don't know if there's an appropriate article. Knowledge value, sort of, but it's not much of a read. 213.122.54.206 (talk) 16:38, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

ah, please... reducing people to their inherent knowledge is bordering on a religious/moral/mystical explanation. you might as well just go whole-hog and say that that killing another is tantamount to killing yourself, because you damage the inherent common experience we all share. I don't dislike that argument, mind you, but it is a religious argument, not a philosophical one. --Ludwigs2 16:44, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

• You guys are overlooking the most obvious answer: If it weren't 'wrong' to kill people, everyone would be doing it. Want to take bets on how long the human race would last? HalfShadow 16:50, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes, extinction, as I said. Tribal man realized the need for some order for the sake of survival, hence laws not only about murder but about theft and random violence and adultery and such stuff as that. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:57, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

So, you all seem to agree that killing is only wrong ( - I do not mean morally or legally wrong - ) out of "fear" of reprisals (family, friends, etc...). However, what if nobody cares about Mr. X? Am I (a monkey with a weapon) "practically" justified to kill Mr. X knowing that he's got no relatives or friends??? --95.88.26.239 (talk) 17:21, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

No, whether they have people who care about them doesn't figure into it, for me, but whether they do good or evil does. StuRat (talk) 17:35, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't kill people ... because my crawlspace smells bad enough already. :-) StuRat (talk) 17:38, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Are you a serial killer? why would you want to kill such a person? the (fairly pointed) mistake you're making is assuming that one needs a reason not to kill, but one doesn't need a reason to kill. If this Mr. X is completely outside society, there's nothing he would have that you would want that would require killing him. if he has something you want, then he's not completely outside society, therefore you premise is wrong. If you are presupposing someone who is inclined to kill without reason, then no reason we give will stop him from killing - that kind of person gave up any pretense of humanity, and needs to be put down like a rabid animal. --Ludwigs2 17:44, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Which is why we typically execute serial killers. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:48, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I think we typically just imprison them. StuRat (talk) 17:52, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

In America, at least, they're usually prime fodder for the death angel. It depends on the state, of course. Gacy (Illinois) and Bundy (Florida) were sent to their just rewards. Dahmer (Wisconsin) got life in prison, which turned out to be not very long, as a fellow inmate clocked him a good one. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:56, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

This question is impossible to answer unless we know what stops you jumping off a bridge every day. Why do you want to live? We can then tell you why it is wrong to kill. I could write reams on this subject bu am currently unwilling. Read Reciprocal altruism and Competitive altruism--92.251.147.169 (talk) 18:40, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Too put it simply: in most circumstances, both you and everyone else will be more harmed by you killing someone than by you not killing someone. There are exceptions to this, such as killing someone who is about to kill you and a load of other people.--92.251.147.169 (talk) 18:46, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

---

Kant's Categorical imperative might make interesting reading (though it's explained more abstractly than necessary in the Wikipedia article)... AnonMoos (talk) 18:26, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I think the whole basis of the question is flawed. We're asked to leave aside moral, religious and legal paradigms. Yet, they're the only paradigms where there is such a concept as "right and wrong". In purely practical or utilitarian contexts, something either works or it doesn't, and right/wrong doesn't enter into it. For a person in a great rage, killing someone might work as an outlet for their feelings, at least until they realise that what they've done is irrevocable. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:18, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, the original question asked that only religion and law be left out, not morality. Of course, morality is very much intertwined with the other two, as many people have elaborated so far. Because of this, it is very difficult to pin down a set of morals for any particular atheist anarchist, as they probably vary significantly from person to person. —Akrabbim^talk 19:29, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. The word "wrong" implies divergence from what is "right", or some set of rules. You can't separate this from morality. We often hear people saying so-and-so is "morally wrong", as if there's a single Grand Set of Morals set in stone for all people at all times to adhere to. It does not work that way, and never has. Something may be terribly wrong in relation to a particular person's moral code, but quite ok for another person. Even leaving aside all the religious and legal issues, abortion would be a very good example of that. But is abortion a good example for this question, which is about killing "somebody"? It depends on your point of view. Some say abortion is the killing of a human being, and the whole panoply of rules about the killing of humans inherently applies to it. But some say it does not involve the loss of a human life, so those rules are irrelevant. Who decides who's "right" and who's "wrong" about this question? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:56, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Don't let religion hijack morality please. I will say it again, in most circumstances, both you and everyone else will be more harmed by you killing someone than by you not killing someone. There are exceptions to this, such as killing someone who is about to kill you and a load of other people.--92.251.147.169 (talk) 19:39, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Why would an "atheist outlaw" care about "morality"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:48, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Like most people you seem to think morality is some set religious rules, a sad side effect of the hijacking of morality by religion. Contrary to popular expectations, two people deciding not to kill each other because they are useful to one another is morality in the same way someone deciding not to kill others because they believe killing is inherently evil is morality. Morality is simply your code of conduct: "I will not harm him because he is useful to me" is a code of conduct just like "Killing people is inherently evil". I have no religious beliefs, and although I have no evidence I suspect you don't either, yet both of us have moral codes.--92.251.147.169 (talk) 20:02, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Monomyth

I am looking for any literature that are good examples of the female version of the monomyth. --Reticuli88 (talk) 15:40, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

It's not exactly literature, but how about Xena, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, and Sailor Moon ? StuRat (talk) 15:54, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Reading the linked file puts me in mind of The Lives and Loves of a She-Devil by Fay Weldon. --TammyMoet (talk) 17:31, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

If anti-heroines are acceptable, maybe the Fisherman's wife... AnonMoos (talk) 18:18, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)One of the criticisms of the monomyth is that it's primarily male-centered. The only female example that I recall Campbell using in HWTF is that of Daphne, who "refuses the call" by turning into a laurel tree so that Apollo wouldn't boink her. You might be interested in American Monomyth, which apparantly incorporates a female version more readily. These so-called "Heidi-redeemers" save their community through miricles and manipulation. Not sure of any examples. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 20:02, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Medieval married names

When did women start taking their husband's name as their customary surname in the English upper classes? More specifically, did the wives of the Southworths of Salesbury Hall take the name "de Southworth" as their own as early as the 13th century? —Akrabbim^talk 15:57, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

White people in Africa

Are Zimbabwe and South Africa the only African nations that have significant white population? If not, then which other nations have white people in Africa? -- 16:30, 13 April 2010 76.64.52.208

There used to be significant populations of European origin in Algeria and Kenya... AnonMoos (talk) 16:52, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Angola and Mozambique as well. Many of the Indian Ocean islands considered part of Africa (Mauritius, Seychelles, la Réunion...) have significant European populations. --Xuxl (talk) 17:55, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I thought that the white people were expelled from Angola after independence.--Quest09 (talk) 19:10, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Probably not what you looked for, but people in northern Africa have fairly light skin; I'd call them "white" though not everyone would. The U.S. Census bureau agrees with me, though; they call Middle Easterners "white". This is perhaps the reason some people say "Africa" when they mean "sub-Saharan Africa". Jørgen (talk) 18:32, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Most northern Africans are certainly "Caucasian", though whether you consider that "white" or not is up to you. And WHAAOE: White Africans of European ancestry. Buddy431 (talk) 19:27, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Copyright or restrictions on PDF-scans of old, now public domain, texts?

If I have understood things right, then old journal articles automatically become public domain 75 years after publication.

Now I wonder:
May a scanned (PDF) copy of a public domain text, somehow, still be restricted by some kind of "copyright"?
(Maybe because of the work spent on scanning and making the PDF-file? Or maybe because of the software used?).

In other words: Do I risk breaking some law or regulation, if I spread copies of a PDF file containing an 75 year old text, when I have no idea of who or where this particular file came from? or How about if I charge a fee for my effort?
--Seren-dipper (talk) 16:37, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

It depends on where you live. For Wikipedia purposes, see this link. In the US, it has been ruled by a court (see Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp.) that a photograph of a public domain work is also in the public domain. In Britain, however, the National Portrait Gallery has done everything it can to assert copyright over its photographs of old, public-domain paintings it possesses. See this BBC story. To answer your other questions, you can charge for your effort, sure; but you probably would not be able to prevent others (via copyright law) from copying and distributing your work freely once they receive a copy. The 75 year rule is not absolute; see public domain; it can get complicated (some old copyrights could get renewed in the US for a certain period). For your own liability reasons, if I were you, I would make sure I could prove the journal was in the public domain before I commenced this. Comet Tuttle (talk) 16:55, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Blue food

These photos set me to thinking of doing the same, but with the flags of Scotland and Norway. The trouble for both is the colour blue - I can't think of a blue or blueish foodstuff that is native to either country. The few blue foods I can think of don't match: blue corn, arròs negre, and blueberries are all foreign, and while I'm sure I could find a blue cheese from both countries, it doesn't really seem ideal. Brambles are really more purplish. Can anyone suggest a blue(ish) food that is (at least vagely) Scottish and ditto Norwegian? -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 18:15, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Wild bilberries collected in Norway.

I couldn't think of anything until you mentioned blueberries - apparently what we Norwegian call blueberries ("blåbær") is not the same as what is usually called blueberries in English - but Wikipedia has an article on Bilberry. I don't think these are grown for sale, though, so you'd have to wait until the fall and collect some yourself, though I'd think it perfectly acceptable to "cheat" and use blueberries instead (they are also marketed as "blåbær" in Norwegian supermarkets). Of course you have to take care not to crush them, as they are red on the inside. Except from that, I don't know. Some type of white fish might have a bluish tint but hard to integrate with other food. By the way, those pictures you linked to were really nice, good idea! Jørgen (talk) 18:27, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

[ec] Bilberries are native to both Scotland and Norway. Bluefish and Atlantic mackerel can be caught offshore and have bluish skins. Marco polo (talk) 18:31, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Also sv:Blodpudding maybe (more often seen in Sweden but I think you can argue for a connection to Norway). If you agree it is blue, that is. Or something else with blood in it, like nn:Blodpølse Jørgen (talk) 18:41, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Those olives used in the Greek flag on the WildAmmo site certainly don't look very blue. Deor (talk) 19:26, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Would it be cheating to dye a non-blue native food? Googlemeister (talk) 20:02, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Popularity of the EU within the EU

Why is the EU not that loved in the UK than in other parts of Europe? At first, I fought because they are paying for it, however, Danemark and Holland are also paying and despise that, the index of acceptance is much higher.--Quest09 (talk) 19:14, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Germany pays more than every other country. I don't understand that objection anyway. Why are people from, say, Yorkshire, happy with their money going to the home counties or Northern Ireland, yet not happy with it going to Bulgaria or Lithuania? Personally I'm not happy with it going anywhere, but as I have to pay it I don't mind where it goes so long as it's put to good use.--92.251.147.169 (talk) 19:42, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Your question is not phrased entirely clearly, but if you're asking why the EU is not embraced that enthusiastically in the UK, it has something to do with the legacy of a whole convoluted history; originally the UK refused to unambiguously place Europe above its Commonwealth and Colonial interests, then when it tried to join in 1963 and 1966, it was vetoed both times by De Gaulle. When it finally joined, France had entrenched things so that French agriculture was favored above all others, and the UK had to negotiate the UK rebate with great difficulty in order to avoid paying exorbitantly extravagant sums to subsidize inefficient French farmers. From the point of view of many average people, the EU is a remotely distant bureaucracy which seems to be chiefly concerned with such things as straightening bananas and creating "metric martyrs"... AnonMoos (talk) 20:08, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

William Warham, by Hans Holbein the Younger drawing

I have a William Warham, Archbishop of Canterbury, drawing by Hans Holbein the Younger. And a hand written letter on the back of the frame telling about him. Can any one tell me how many of these drawing's exist.