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

May 1

Is it possible that North Korea torpedoed Deepwater Horizon?

Hi. There is an ongoing discussion here. Could the news reports be true, or is this some kind of prank? If this is possible, should these reports be included in the article, or is there some other explanation for this? Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 02:05, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

There are no "news reports". The websites this story is appearing on belong to "alternative news", survivalists, and other sundry nutters (The EU Times is a white supremacist and conspiracy theory website, by the way). Apart from anything else, the US government doesn't have the power to order a "news blackout" on anything (indeed, if it tried, that'd be a massive story in itself). And I'm failing to see how the best way to clean up an oil leak is to drop a nuclear bomb on it. The whole thing really is a load of rubbish from the best "make stuff up that appeals to your worldview" school of internet journalism. FiggyBee (talk) 02:59, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

The US government has absolutely had successful "News Blackouts" see Kidnapping of David Rohde for a recent example (true, that was the slightly more competent New York Times doing most of the work, but still, proof of concept). Still, in this case, I think "unlikely" is an understatement. Buddy431 (talk) 05:20, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed that this is pretty rubbish. The whole story is ridiculous on a number of levels. The idea that Obama needs/wants to drop a B83 on the oil slick is charmingly crazy. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:56, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

A US conservative commentator with a wide audience seems to think Obama blew up the rig for political purposes.[1] 69.228.170.24 (talk) 22:01, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, we all know about Mr. Limbaugh's long-standing commitment to journalist ethics. (eye roll) --Mr.98 (talk) 23:13, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I heard it was PETA so that they could get lots of photos of oil covered pelicans. Googlemeister (talk) 16:23, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Holy Roman Empire

In a decree following the 1512 Diet of Cologne, the name was officially changed to Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation (German: Heiliges Römisches Reich Deutscher Nation, Latin: Imperium Romanum Sacrum Nationis Germanicæ) ^[5].

Why?174.3.123.220 (talk) 03:04, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

See Imperial Reform. During the late 1400's and early 1500's a series of reforms was undertaken to reorganize the HRE. These were undertaken in a series of Diets (Congresses or conferences) including one in Worms and one in Cologne, and another in Augsburg, likely even more. The most important effect of these conferences was the formalization of the Imperial Circle. You'll notice that the circles never included the non-German lands. Even prior to these reforms, the southern third of the HRE had was de facto independent from it. These reforms, and other political events at the time, basically made de jure what had already been going on in practice for years. Partly because of their exclusion from the Circles, and thus the real power in the HRE, the Italian territories and the Swiss Confederacy withdrew from the HRE. Also around this time, the Holy Roman Emperors stopped going to Rome to be crowned. After the early 1500s, all further emperors were only "Emperors-elect" as none actually went through the crowning process. The change in name was a recognition of the changing nature of the HRE, from a central-European state stretching from Italy to the North Sea, whose emperor was crowned by (and thus received official sanction from) the Italian pope, into a state that was an almost exclusively German kingdom. There were also some political concerns regarding non-German princes standing for election to the HRE; IIRC there was serious consideration given to Henry VIII of England possibly standing for such a position; Henry's Spanish cousin became Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor; he also had ties to the French royal family. The addition of the "Of the German Nation" may have been to make clear that the HRE was a strictly german state. Charles V specifically divided up his lands, giving his younger brother Ferdinand (pending election) the HRE, while giving the rest of his lands to his son Philip. Prior to becoming emperor, it should be noted that Ferdinand was alread Archduke of Austria and King of Bohemia, thus already "in" with the Germans, while Philip was not. --Jayron32 03:40, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

So your saying that Ferdinand already had Austria (german), while his son did not, so Ferdinand was German, or, ""in" with the (g)(G)ermans"?174.3.123.220 (talk) 04:43, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Sort of. Its complicated, because European nobility and royalty was essential extra-national; that is outside of the normal concerns of citizenship and nationality. After all, the Hapsburg dynasty, of which Charles himself (and his son Philip) was a member, was essentially south German (today: Switzerland, see Habsburg Castle). However, Charles immediate parentage was a Spanish mother and a Burgundian father, Charles himself was King of Spain before he became Emperor, though his early life was spent in Ghent, Flanders today in Belgium, but then part of the lands ruled by the County of Burgundy. So just look at what one might consider Charles' nationality: He's Swiss-German/Flemish/Spanish/French/Burgundian yada yada yada. The same would hold true for his brother, Ferdinand, and his son, Philip, only even more complicated. Ferdinand was granted the HRE in large part because, as ruler of two of HRE states, Austria and Bohemia, he was far more familiar with Central European politics, and likewise the main players in central Europe were far more familiar with him. Philip was something of an unknown quantity; he had been raised, like his father, in the Low Countries; and had little experience working with the mess that was HRE politics. It was a rather pragmatic solution to Charles's succession. Given his massive personal empire, if he passed the entirety on to only one person, it would have likely upset the Balance of power in Europe.

By the late 1400's, the HRE was fast becomeing an inefficient state. All around it, other countries were being organized into strong, centralized nation-states (a new concept for the late middle ages), while the elective and surpa-national nature of the HRE made it somewhat of an anachronism. France was coming into its own, consolidating itself out of what had been basically a bunch of semi-independent duchies. England had just gotten over the Wars of the Roses, and was now a highly centralized state under the Tudors. Russia was formed out of a bunch of independent states and stopped paying tribute to the Mongols. Modern Sweden was on its way to becoming a major power, after the dissolution of the Kalmar Union. The HRE could not have survived in that environment, which is why the Imperial Reform became necessary. Like in the rest of Europe, the reforms represented the earliest attempts at a nascent "German nation", and to keep the Empire in control of the German states that made it up (hence the organization of the Imperial Circles). For an example of what happened to a country that didn't undergo such reforms, see Free election and the Partitions of Poland. --Jayron32 05:43, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with the last sentence. Poland was partitioned because the reforms there went too far – it was too democratic, too tolerant and too centralized. — Kpalion^(talk) 12:35, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

The European Union is the Holy Roman Empire without the crown and sceptre, and Papal blessings.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:11, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

No, not really. Not unless one wants to appear smarter than one is by making reference to an earlier supra-national state, even though such metaphor really doesn't hold up to deeper scrutiny. --Jayron32 13:36, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I am not trying to appear like anything other than what I am, and what we all are-namely Wikipedia editors. Don't try to ascribe possible motives for other people's personal opinions; of which we are all entitled to own, however they might run contrary to yours.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:48, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

You are right. That was rather snarky of me. I apologize for doing so. --Jayron32 15:00, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

That's OK. I should also apologise for making a flippant comment, after you had gone to the trouble of explaining in accurate and concise detail, the intricacies of the Holy Roman Empire. I'm sorry.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:25, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

It was't a completely stupid statement, Jeanne, but from an exclusively territorial point of view, the EU goes too far north and not far enough south to be the new Roman Empire. Now if it didn't accept the Pols, the Czecks, the Scandis and east Germans, and if France had retained Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia, Lebanon and Syria, if Italy had retained Lybia, England had retained Egypt, if we accepted Turkey, and finally if the scots declared independance from both Britain and the EU, we could talk :-)--Lgriot (talk) 04:15, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Aren't you confusing the Holy Roman Empire with the Roman Empire, Lgriot? As for the HRE/EU comparison, I'd say that one thing they have in common is that they both were/are sui generis entities that defy any classification. And that's about it for similarities. — Kpalion^(talk) 12:30, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Oops, I read far too fast Jeanne's statement, and missed the word "Holy" completely.... Just made a fool of myself. --Lgriot (talk) 00:58, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

No, you didn't make a fool of yourself, you just made a mistake; which we all do in our lives. We are human beings, after all. Anyroad, it's no big deal. Both the Roman and the Holy Roman Empiries occurred centuries ago, and the EU is a modern reality.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:03, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Lame duck PM?

American here. Curious but ignorant. I understand that a new UK parliament will be elected next Thursday (or most of it, anyway). Hypothetically, let's suppose there's a hung parliament in which the Tories are the largest party. On Friday morning, what is everyone's status? Given the hungness of parliament, it would seem impossible to instantly christen anyone "prime minister elect". Instead, I suppose there must be negotiations between the parties. During this period, I would assume that Brown would remain PM out of pure inertia, but does he? When is the precise moment that one person stops being PM and someone else starts? 129.174.184.114 (talk) 03:20, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

A Hung parliament is rarely called in Westminster system of democracies. They are known as minority governments instead. The party with the most seats still wins, and its leader the Prime Minister-elect, simple. As to when does this person becomes the PM officially, that's when he/she is ceremonially appointed by the sovereign (the Queen) or governor general and his/her cabinet is sworn in. --Kvasir (talk) 03:42, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

That is simply not true. A hung parliament is a parliament in which no party has a majority - that is the name that is almost always used for that situation in a Westminster system (the term "balanced parliament" has been used by some small parties that want a hung parliament in the UK). That can result in a minority government, but it can also result in a coalition government (or a new election). Having the most seats doesn't make you PM. The current PM remains PM until they resign (or are forced out by a no-confidence vote, which won't happen for a couple of weeks at least). --Tango (talk) 15:48, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

It's happened. See United Kingdom general election, February 1974 which resulted in a hung parliament and caused a bit of a constitutional crisis and led to a complex batch of coalitions and resignations, ultimately resulting in a second election that same year (United Kingdom general election, October 1974). It was a bit of a mess. American myself too, BTW, so I'll leave it to a Brit to fill in the rest of the details. --Jayron32 03:46, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

What I'm wondering, and apparently the OP as well, is whether there's a slice of time when there is no prime minister at all, and what potential problems does that pose, if any? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:56, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I doubt it. Normally the incumbent stays in office till the new PM comes on board. In the case where a PM dies in office, there would be a slice of PM-free time, until the palace was advised and, presumably, the deputy leader of the party was called to be appointed either acting PM or the next PM; but that might depend on whether they're likely to win a party room ballot for the next leader, and being the current deputy leader is no guarantee of that. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 04:03, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Just on the general question of when one person stops being PM and someone else starts: In the case where the opposition clearly wins the election, the current PM advises the monarch to commission the Leader of the Opposition to form a government. She calls him to the palace, they "kiss hands", and he's now the PM. The former PM's commission is withdrawn. Same deal when the current PM loses the support of his/her own party; he advises the queen to commission whoever it is who now has majority support. The meetings between the queen and the people concerned are held in private, so the precise moment of transition is never recorded, at least not officially afaik, but the new PM might glance at his watch at the time and make a mental note. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 03:58, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, if I'm hearing you right, the PM stays the PM until the monarch has handed the job over to the new one in a private session. So there is no time when there's no PM except maybe for a few seconds in the queen's office. Also, presumably both of them kiss the queen's hand rather than each other's hands, yes? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:01, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

They're one-on-one meetings with the Queen. First, the current PM meets her and tells her to call the next guy. He leaves. Then she calls the next guy, they meet and kiss hands, and he emerges PM. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 04:06, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

We're assuming they actually kiss hands, since it's not recorded, right? I've got this mental picture of King George telling Winston Churchill, "Let's don't, and say we did." I'm guessing the previous PM actually remains the PM in case the new one dies suddenly on the way into the office (after the queen hollers "Next!") ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:12, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Oddly, enough, whaa on kissing hands. FiggyBee (talk) 04:16, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

The old PM remains PM after leaving the Queen, until the new guy meets her, and only then does he replace the old guy. If the new guy falls under a bus on the way to the palace, the incumbent PM would, I imagine, be asked to remain in office until the party concerned could sort itself out and elect a new leader. I have a fantastic mental picture of a party leader hopping on to a red double decker bus to go to Buck Palace to become the Prime Minister; but losing his footing while getting off, and getting run over.-- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 04:49, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It should also be noted that the Government (that is, what us Americans call "the Administration"), is distinct from Parliament. Transitions from one PM to another do not necessarily occur at elections. In practice, the Government would need to have control of a majority of the seats in the House of Commons; if it did not it could not effectively govern since it couldn't pass any of its legislation. In the aforementioned February 1974 election, the Conservative Party retained the government, and Edward Heath the PM position, despite not even having a plurality of seats in Parliament. The Government couldn't do anything, hence Heath's resignation, and Wilson taking over as PM and calling new elections. Recently, Gordon Brown assumed the office after the retirement of Tony Blair, the transition occured without any election. In the UK, elections can be called at any time, but normally run on a 5 year cycle. If a new PM becomes necessary between elections, there's just a handing off of the position without any election at all. Again, this is my American perspective, so someone from the UK can feel free to correct or elaborate as needed. --Jayron32 04:22, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Seems pretty good to me (another non-Brit, but I know a thing or 2 about machinery of government procedures in a Westminster system, and how things are done in the "mother of parliaments"). -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 04:49, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

As a Brit, just a couple of points. The reference to having "control of a majority of the seats" is a slight oversimplification - there isn't necessarily a formal coalition between parties, but there would need to be agreement that the other parties would support the legislative programme that is set out at the start of each parliamentary session in the Queen's Speech - delivered by HM, but written by the PM's party ("My Government will...") The PM would not necessarily stand down if they lost a subsequent vote, unless that vote had the status of a vote of confidence, in which case they would. In theory HM could then call on the leader of one of the other parties to try to form a government, but in practice there would be likely to be another election. And, in relation to elections, they can only be "called at any time" within an outside limit of 5 years. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:35, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

The guidance from the Cabinet Secretary is that the incumbent can be invited to form a government is no clear alternative exists. Until such time as that invitation is made then the incumbent remains. What that means in the event of a No Overall Control outcome continuity is maintained, in theory.

In practice there will be some negotiation both openly and behind the scenes to establish either a coalition or a confidence and Support agreement delivering an overall majority. Once that is established the leader of that will be invited to form a government.

ALR (talk) 07:45, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

An important point not really addressed in all of the above is that the Prime Minister was for much of its history barely constitutionally recognised and still is to some extent merely the No. 1 minister in parliament who is deputised to act as the spokesperson and goes and tells the monarch what her government is doing and thinking. This has obviously changed a lot and the PM is far more like a president than he ever was but it is still not as precise a role as the US president for instance. A close analogy to the current PM being run over by a No. 9 bus is the assassination of Spencer Perceval after which there was not a clear designated successor and it took almost a month without a PM before one was appointed. There is no real requirement for a continuity of PMs, really there just has to be one when the monarch needs to consult with parliament. meltBanana 17:19, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

The situation was quite different in 1812 than today, however. The monarch in 1812 still had actual executive power (rather than symbolic power) so the apparatus of state of the United Kingdom could still operate in the absence of a PM. Since the PM has gradually come to, more and more, assume a more "Executive" role in the UK government as the Monarch's powers have gradually reduced, a month long vacancy to the office may not be tolerable, unless another official in the government would take on the role of the office without its official sanction (a sort of Acting PM). --Jayron32 18:30, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Another issue is that it's not always clear who the successor is, when the incumbent dies or resigns. Look what happened in 1963 when Harold Macmillan resigned suddenly. The Conservative Party at that time did not feel it necessary to descend to the tawdry practice of actually electing a leader. Rather, one was expected to simply "emerge", statesmanlike. (A bit like Wikipedia's protocol of gauging how a consensus has been arrived at, without ever going to a vote.) Macmillan was gone, and his successor was not clear. The Queen could not be seen to be engaging in politics, but she needed a Prime Minister, and she needed to know whom to commission, but the party could not yet tell her. After considerable but hurried discussion, including with Macmillan himself, the Queen invited the Foreign Secretary, the Earl of Home to become PM. This was a problem. It was not an absolute constitutional requirement, but a practical requirement, that the PM be a member of the House of Commons. Home was a member of the House of Lords. He took advantage of the newly instituted procedure of disclaiming his peerage to be able to sit in the Commons (as Sir Alec Douglas-Home). That required him to win a seat, and fortunately there was a Scottish by-election in the offing, which he stood for and won. Between disclaiming the peerage and winning the by-election, he remained PM but without being a member of either house. Somewhat analagous to the case of John Gorton in Australia in 1967-68. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:26, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

"Lame duck PM" - I'm doubtful that newspaper reporters do attitude surveys to find out what the public is thinking. Rather, they just cook up a (more or less credible) dramatic story that sells newspapers and glues eyes to tvs. So the the public opinion story that they spout is just their own invention, put together by the luck of the draw. 89.242.97.110 (talk) 10:58, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

They do, but the surveys are frequently deliberately skewed to give them the result they want to report. For example, I'm on the Yougov panel, and there was a hilarious poll shortly after the first leaders' debate asking how much you agreed with "these criticisms of Nick Clegg", and how much "these problems caused by a hung parliament" worried you. There were no options to say "I think these are a load of bunk" or "actually, I'd quite like this to happen" or "this is extremely dodgy reasoning". It's not about the luck of the draw, it's about the media creating the story they want to report, trying to control the political system. For example, Murdoch. 86.178.225.111 (talk) 14:08, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Source of quotation: "Dance like no one's watching"

Over the last few months, I keep running into a quotation on people's Facebooks, or email signatures: "Dance like no one's watching, Love like you've never been hurt, Sing like no one's listening, Live like it's Heaven on earth". And I keep seeing it attributed to Mark Twain, of all people. That doesn't sound remotely like Twain to me, but there's stuff all over the Internet that says it's him. My primary question (which I hope is answerable) is who actually originated those lines (if it's Twain, I'd like to know when/where he said/wrote it). My secondary question (which I figure isn't answerable) is, assuming it's not a Twain line, where did the notion that it was Mark Twain get started...but I know that's a longshot. Anyone who can help source this quotation, though, will really help me out, psychologically. :-) Thanks! 71.197.145.28 (talk) 04:35, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

It's likely unfindable. I first heard it attributed to Satchel Paige of all people; I still doubt it was him. This is a case where the noise level swamps the information level. The internet is full of false attributions, and the false attributions are often more believable than the real ones. Its likely the quote is to some marginally well known person, but Mark Twain, Will Rogers, Ben Franklin, Oscar Wilde, or Winston Churchill are all far more interesting, so the quote gets attached to THEM, and then the falsehood gets spread around the internet. Then it becomes impossible to use Google to find the truth, since the more interesting falsehood becomes so pervasive, it overwhelms the search. What I have found in these cases is look for whoever the quote is assigned to, and then eliminate ANY source that assigns it to one of the people I listed above. Chances are, if one source gives the quote to some obscure person rather than the people above, THAT is the real source of it. --Jayron32 04:52, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Some sources (including Wikipedia, but it's unsourced) suggest William Watson Purkey. FiggyBee (talk) 05:06, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

The self-expressive value attached to dance dates the idea post 1975; the vulgarism "dance like" for "dance as if..." confirms the late date.--Wetman (talk) 05:08, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

According to this very unreliable source, it's William Purkey (the poster claims to have e-mailed him himself, and posted the reply). Buddy431 (talk) 05:10, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, since he's still alive (80-plus), the most obvious thing to do is ask him. That wouldn't prove he said it, but it could be an indicator. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:28, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

This link[2] is similar to the one Wetman posted except it has additional info indicating that Purkey excerpted it from a song by Susanna Clark and and Richard Leigh. That catch there is that the article about the song, "Come From the Heart", refers back to Purkey and others. And Purkey's answer on the blogs doesn't come right out and claim that he wrote it. So it may be one of those things that's hard to pin down. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:35, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone for their help -- I guess it's hard to have a final answer, but at least this is better than thinking Mark Twain wrote such a maudlin piece of sentiment. :-) 71.197.145.28 (talk) 06:02, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Also Elliot Reed. SGGH ^ping! 11:31, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Finite afterlife

Are there any religions in which the soul is believed to have an afterlife, but this afterlife is not infinite? 129.174.184.114 (talk) 06:33, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

See Reincarnation. — Kpalion^(talk) 06:48, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) In Hinduism, the "soul" gets reborn or "reincarnated" after death. This cycle repeat a (possibly) finite number of times before the soul reaches moksha. Gabbe (talk) 06:48, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

What if the "afterlife" actually occurs backward in time, so that a person after death is reincarnated as another individual who was born before the original person? ~AH1^(TCU) 18:55, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

That's a novel theory. Of course, it's possible when one considers that time is relative. I also have a theory that the afterlife is really just a fantasy we create and people as we choose. We die, go to a different dimension, yet our soul which is just a mass of transformed energy, creates our own personal heaven in any time period we want. A bit like solipsism.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:21, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, a novel theory, that novel possibly being Slaughterhouse-Five. Then there was a B.C. strip where Peter tells Curls he believes in reincarnation. Curls asks him to explain. Peter tells Curls that when you die, you come back as a lesser being. Curls remarks, "Looks like this is your last trip!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:39, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Jewish eschatology is a very murky and ill-defined matter, but one very general principle is that every dead Jewish person will be bodily or spiritually resurrected when the Messiah turns up. It is for this reason that traditional Judaism buries its members with their feet facing towards Jerusalem (because the amount of time it would take them to turn 180-degrees after an eternity of waiting would cause real problems...) and frowns on cremation and organ donation, since it impairs the body. ╟─TreasuryTag►sundries─╢ 15:05, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Cult of Padre Pio

Des anyone know why Pio of Pietrelcina is so venerated, especially in southern Italy where I live? Here people pray directly to him, have his photo on their walls and in their cars, his statue is everywhere, people go on pilgrimages to see his grave at San Giovanni Rotondo-which has become a shrine. In fact, you see more images of him than Jesus! Would this not constitute idolatry? He is said to perform many miracles-in life and in death.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:45, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

On whether it's considered idolatry to venerate saints and their icons: the Second Council of Nicaea restored the veneration of icons, and this change continues in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, in particular 2129-2132. Protestants generally don't agree - see Idolatry and Christianity#Protestant criticism of the use of images. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 09:53, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but in southern Italy, the worship of Pio has surpassed that of Jesus! He was allegedly visited by demons, had the stigmata, and continues to perform miracles. I believe the last Pope might have had something to do with the high level of adoration he receives.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 10:35, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Not unconnected with the fact that as far back as 1947 (!), Padre Pio told the then Father Karol Wojtyła that he would one day "ascend to the highest post in the Church". -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 10:49, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah....I wasn't aware of that fact! Well, that partially explains the cult following Padre Pio (he is still called Padre rather than San) has here. Also, southern Italians are generally by nature, superstitious. Religion is Sicily is a mix of folklore, tradition and faith.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 11:51, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that Padre Pio surpassed Jesus. I think it's just a matter of intercession. In Italy, expecially in Southern Italy, is a common practice to devote a community (in the simplest case a city) to a particular patron saint or a kind of Madonna. Naples is very strongly associated to San Gennaro, so local people tipically pray him to intercede to God for them. It's the same for Bari (San Nicola), Palermo (Santa Rosalia) and so on. This is more evident in Southern Italy probably because of their more showy way of convey their religiosity. Some other saints have a more national popularity, like San Francesco. Padre Pio is however a particular case. He's very popular in all Italy, not just in Southern Italy, but more or less everywhere. Pictures of him are found in a lot of houses or public places. He's popular both among traditional religious people and less-traditional ones (modern teenagers). I've seen even tattoos of him! I don't know the real reason for this, but it could derive from his charismatic personality, his miraculous life, his strong commitment with poor/simple/common people, media coverage... --151.51.60.165 (talk) 11:47, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

You explain it well. Yes, southern Italians enjoy flamboyant pageantry which is evidenced in their processions. Look at Saint Agatha in Catania as another example to include with the ones you have mentioned. Yet, Pio being a Franciscan was very austere in his mien and attire, not in the least showy.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 11:54, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Also, the incorrupt body. Rimush (talk) 18:30, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Saint Padre Pio, had so many miracles attributed to him that, only a few years ago, there was no lack of evidence in his case for canonisation. His bi-location occurances were immence. His saintliness is reminisant of Saint Anthony of Padua. There is no jealously in Jesus; to honour a Saint in His Name is to Honour Him. If you view this from outside it does look strange, but if you were ever at the process of investigation in the process of Canonisation and the investigation of miracles, you would think again. MacOfJesus (talk) 01:33, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Padre Pio was always a controversial figure in the Church. My problem with his miracles is this: If he was/is so powerful, why can he only cure afflicted people and not prevent natural disasters which are so prevalent in Italy such as earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, landslides, floods? He's also strangely absent on Italian highways over any given weekend which sees a lot of fatalities, especially involving teenagers.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:58, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not aware anyone's ever claimed he had any personal power, Jeanne. Whatever he did or was said to have done, is presumably attributed to the intercession of the divine, not to his own personal capacity to produce miracles. He no more chose to be the vessel through which such things occurred, than I chose to be born in the Land of Oz. If I may say so, your point is rather redolent of the centurions taunting Jesus at the cross ("He saved others, let him now save himself"), and this isn't the place for such soapboxing. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 11:24, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I am not soapboxing Jack, so please indulge me and assume a little bit of good faith on my part. I was merely saying that miracles should be wrought when they are needed and not just manifested in the guise of the stigmata, tears of blood, moving statues, etc.. I have said the same things to Catholic priests and they were not offended; rather it gave them the opportunity to flaunt their impressive knowledge of theology.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:09, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't offended (neither am I a Catholic). But an argument such as "miracles should be wrought when they are needed and not just manifested in the guise of the stigmata", etc, is rolled gold soapboxing. It has nothing to do with the spread of knowledge via the asking and answering of questions, but everything to do with the expression of your own personal views about when miracles are and are not appropriate. That's something you might perhaps take up with God. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 13:31, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

It would be important to understand the Gospels here. The Gospels referred to the miracles as the "signs". When Jesus cured the 10 lepers only those were, who asked, were cured. (Lk 17, 11+).

MacOfJesus (talk) 19:33, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Also, this is explained well in Lk 4, 16-30. Particularly verse 25-30, where Jesus explains it far better than any of us can, and got an immediate reaction, talk about soapboxing in; vs:28-30!

When Father Pader Pio came to the sick, in bi-location, it was Jesus who willed the miracle, and brought them about.

Then again it is true for Saint Catherine of Sienna, who said: "For those who do not believe no explination is possible, for those who do none is necessary!"

MacOfJesus (talk) 19:41, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Opposition to proportional representation

Another UK politics question. I've read that the most stubborn opponents of electoral reform are the Conservatives. If this is true, why? It's often been pointed out during the run-up to the election that Labour benefit greatly from the present electoral system, such that even if they were to come in third in the popular vote, they could still remain the largest party in parliament. It seems like Labour are the real beneficiaries of the status quo, so why are the Tories the ones who are most opposed to changing it? 129.174.184.114 (talk) 06:38, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

First of all, the Tories fear that proportional representation will lead to a Labour/LibDem-coalition taking over the country indefinetely. Secondly, are all politicians necessarily acting out of self-interest all the time? Isn't it at least conceivable that a political party stands for something they believe in even though it is detrimental to them as a party? Gabbe (talk) 07:12, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, the official Conservative rationale is that "the current system results in stable governments and keeps out extremists".[3] Gabbe (talk) 07:18, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Neither Tories nor Labour are particularly supportive of PR, because under the present system they've swapped power at regular intervals for about 90 years. PR makes it less likely that will happen.

Labour have recently suggested that they'd implement it, but only after it became pretty clear that they're unlikely to win the election outright.

The arguments are less about who is in charge, but how much power they have whilst there. PR is more likely to create smaller majorities, hence less opportunity to force through initiatives. It should lead to more challenge and scrutiny in the house.

ALR (talk) 07:50, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

The flip side of which is that it leads to less punishment for politicians for being rubbish (since all parties are always to some extent in power), and greater job security for them. 86.21.204.137 (talk) 13:32, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

To be honest five years is pretty fair job security already. But it does depend on the system in use, some PR mechanisms do tend to disassociate the individual from the elector, some don't. The former would, as you say, remove the scrutiny from the individual, the latter wouldn't.

As observed below though, successful PR needs more than just changes to the voting system. Boundary reviews and reform of the upper house would be important as well.

Of course increasing voter turnout would make a difference, since one of the main criticisms of the FPTP system is that in conjunction with voter apathy any governing party doesn't have a real mandate. There was talk this morning of the Tories having a majority on 37% of the vote, so about 20% of the electorate.

ALR (talk) 15:36, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

For a ranty, but certainly conservative opposition to proportional voting, see Australian conservative columnist Janet Albrechtsen http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/proportional-vote-a-disaster/story-e6frg6zo-1225859052791 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.142.181 (talk) 10:45, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Some guy on TV made an interesting point, for a change, that PR means voting for the party rather than the individual MP, with the party rather than the electorate choosing who the MP is. Another concern is that nutter fringe parties like the BNP can get a toehold and a big propaganda platform. 92.29.142.124 (talk) 12:14, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

In Israel apparently, fringe parties get to dictate government policy in return for support as part of a coalition. "Because forming a coalition involves smaller parties, it often means that groups at the periphery of Israeli politics acquire disproportionate influence.[4]" Alansplodge (talk) 12:46, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. The problem of how to bring about proportional representation without breaking the link to the constituency, and particularly without creating an entirely party-led political system, is non-trivial. Those people who suggest it is a simple, black-and-white issue show their lack of understanding of the current system. Personally, I think it will have to be accompanied by simultaneous reform of the House of Lords, to have any chance of incorporating both ideals. The filtering out of extremes is also not to be sniffed at, although people disagree on how ethical that is. You often have proponents of PR arguing that we should bring it in so that the Greens get representation, neglecting to mention that any system that gives the Greens representation has to give the BNP at least as much: in my experience, the same audiences who believe the system should represent the Greens' votes tend to believe the BNP should be banned. 86.178.225.111 (talk) 13:06, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

92.29.142.124 -- Classic proportional representation has been unable to make any headway in the United States because a very large number of voters here would consider voting for a fixed party list instead of an individual candidate to be bizarrely outlandish and completely unacceptable. There are some electoral experiments here, but with things like preference voting, and mainly confined to city councils etc. AnonMoos (talk) 12:06, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

When you say "Labour benefit greatly from the present electoral system" (and that it disadvantages the Conservatives) that's true, depending on how you define "the present electoral system". The Conservative's problem is not due to the vote-counting system, but due to the boundaries of constituencies. Currently Conservative-voting constituencies tend to contain more electors than do Labour-voting ones. This is due to the ongoing movement of the population out of urban centres into suburbs and dormitory villages, and the Boundary Commission lagging in redrawing the boundaries to match. (ref). So what's in the Conservatives' interest is an acceleration of the redrawing of the boundaries, not a change in the voting system. A first-past-the-post voting system comparatively favours large parties, and particularly those like the Labour Party and the Conservatives in England, where their votes are sufficiently geographically contained that they win constituencies outright (and disfavours parties like the Liberals, who garner a substantial vote but one that is distributed over many constituencies). Consider for example the United Kingdom general election, 1979: the Conservatives gained 53.4% of MPs with 43.9% of votes; if a full PR scheme had pertained then, they'd have to go into coalition with the Liberals (or at least deal with them) as a Lib/Lab pact would have fielded more MPs. The boot is on the other foot where the Conservatives don't enjoy a large, geographically-coherent vote. In the 2007 Scottish Parliament election the Scottish Conservatives won 16.6% of the constituency vote, 13.9% of the region vote, and have 13% of the MSPs; I don't know their vote % in the United Kingdom general election, 2005 (I think it's about the same) but they only gained 1 seat, 3% of Scottish MPs. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 13:17, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

BNP but not Greens on TV in UK

Why have the BNP suddenly been on TV a lot and are even giving Party Election Broadcasts? Why arent other parties like the Greens being given an equal voice? 92.29.142.124 (talk) 12:17, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

The rough calculus of representation on TV is that gaining elected representatives gains a party more access to TV. The election of two BNP MEPs in the recent European election (which brings their representation there to the same as the Green Party) explains their increased prominence. The Green Pary's Election Broadcast was shown on all five terrestrial channels last Tuesday(ref). I don't know whether it's fair to say that the BNP is given a greater voice than the BNP Greens, and such a claim would need a proper study of broadcasts. By way of example, list of Question Time episodes shows Caroline Lucas has appeared three times on the programme, Nick Griffin once. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 12:28, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

As for Radio 4's Any Questions, we don't have such a complete archive. This list (which covers 2007-mar2009) shows Caroline Lucas present three times, and no appearances by Nick Griffin. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 12:48, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

(ec) ?? They have! Links to all the PEB's are on the BBC Website. Nanonic (talk) 12:28, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

(after ec) :It has something to do with the number of candidates standing. This site [www.broadcastersliaisongroup.org.uk/docs/Criteria_May_2005_GE.doc] claims that "Broadcasts are allocated to the main parties and to parties standing in at least one sixth of seats in each nation. Parties standing in one sixth of the seats in at least one nation will be entitled to a GB-wide (or UK wide) broadcast instead of national broadcasts if they are standing a sixth (104) of the total available seats in England, Scotland and Wales." If you read further down you will find the numbers and how they were allocated for the 2005 election. --TammyMoet (talk) 12:32, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

It was by this metric that the Natural Law Party gained a Party Election Broadcast in at least 1994, a copy of which is here. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 12:37, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Overseeing a small amount of house renovation

Here in the UK I would like to get someone who could for a house a) decide what renovation work was needed, and then b) check that the builder had done all the work required and to a good standard. What would be the job title(s) of that, so that I can search and find someone locally? Thanks 78.151.115.180 (talk) 16:10, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Architect or surveyor. Kittybrewster ☎ 16:20, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

In the US that would be a "contractor", but I don't know if that term is used in the UK. You asked about "renovations". Unlike "repairs", which are necessary, to me renovations means updates to add to the house or make it more stylish. As such, that's more a matter of opinion than a factual assessment, so the homeowner really should make the final decisions. StuRat (talk) 04:20, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Here in the UK, where 100+ year old houses are commonplace, renovation can often include virtually rebuilding something uninhabitable or derelict that's been unoccupied or unaltered for the last 50 years or more, and bringing it up to modern standards. 92.29.62.241 (talk) 17:53, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm in Canada, but I'd expect the terminology here to be the same as the US. The contractor is the person who actually does the work. If you want someone to assess what work is needed or how well it was done, that'd be a home inspector. They are usually used when a house is being sold, to call attention to any problems that are not obvious to the buyer, but you could hire one any time you wanted. --Anonymous, 05:09 UTC, May 2, 2010.

I'm thinking of the case where the contractor hires subcontractors for various pieces, like electrical work, plumbing, and carpentry, and checks on each. StuRat (talk) 11:32, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

The relevant professional institute in this case, who can offer someone to give independent advice, would be the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, who run a service here which should be able to help. Or, more simply, you just ensure that anyone you find locally is an RICS member. There are also similar organisations responsible for advice on architectural services (RIBA) - here - and planning services (RTPI) - here - should you need them. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:41, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking it could be an architectural technician maybe. 89.242.97.110 (talk) 10:46, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

No - that is someone who prepares drawings on behalf of a professional architect. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:16, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

OR here: I specifically asked an architect to come and look at the various things I was considering having done to my house (in the UK). At the end he said "So what do you want me to do? I could draw you some plans if you wanted." I wanted what the OP wanted, and had wrongly supposed that this would be an architect. I haven't found the right thing yet. --ColinFine (talk) 11:56, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Years ago I employed an architectural technician for the same purpose, although that project didnt go through. I read on the internet in the last day or so that two professional bodies only allow them to work with architects, but there may be independent ones, as I think I went to see one a couple of years ago. 92.28.253.63 (talk) 15:02, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

You would want a general contractor (or in the UK i think they are called "main contractors") specifically for residential work. 206.252.74.48 (talk) 14:08, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

The idea is to get someone independant of the builder or contractor, to avoid being ripped off and get good quality work done. 92.28.253.63 (talk) 15:02, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Which is the point of a general contractor. They oversee the sub-contractors that are usually sub-contracted out to perform the required tasks. Its the responsibility of the homeowner to find a trustworthy one. Livewireo (talk) 16:55, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Please see the previous comment. 92.28.253.63 (talk) 18:15, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

To what extent does a Building Control Officer do this I wonder? I've never got involved with Building Control yet. 92.28.253.63 (talk) 18:15, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Not at all. He is working for the Council and will merely ensure minimum standards (structural, fire, etc) are met. Kittybrewster ☎ 20:52, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

November 22, 1963

During the interval when John F. Kennedy was killed until the moment Lyndon B. Johnson was sworn in as president on board Air Force One, who had control of the government, or was the nation like a ship without its captain? I was wondering who had command of the USA's enormous nuclear arsenal in the interim.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:35, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

When Kennedy was shot (and thus "disabled") Johnson became acting president, per Article Two of the United States Constitution#Clause 6: Vacancy and disability; this didn't need to wait for Kennedy to be formally pronounced dead. The 25th Amendment hadn't been passed yet, so you might run into arguments about what "disabled" means. The nuclear football article says that one goes with the veep, for precisely this contingency. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 18:06, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but did Johnson have full executive powers before his swearing-in? There was a great urgency to get him sworn in as Air Force One was flying back to Washington with Kennedy's casket on board. If he had the powers of president, surely it could have waited until he had flown back to Washington. I do know that both the USA and the Soviet Union went on maximum nuclear alert following the formal pronouncement of JFK's death.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:12, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the urgency was on Johnson's part. The swearing in, along with the iconic photograph thereof, with Jackie Kennedy present, was at Johnson's own request to give the appearance of continuity of government. The reality that he had full executive power the instant the bullet hit the back of Kennedy's head was one thing, he and all of the major players in government may have fully understood that. However that does not mean that the general perception that no one was actually in authority did not exist. That the general perception may have been false isn't relevent. It still existed, and the hasty swearing-in ceremony was specifically orchestrated to eliminate it. The entire ceremony and the events surrounding it are described at First inauguration of Lyndon B. Johnson. --Jayron32 18:24, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Oath of office of the President of the United States covers the legal ground here, to some extent. Beyond that, you'd look to jurisprudence to determine what "full" means and when and to whom it applies. There is negligible applicable jurisprudence, so the legal specifics fall into the "no-one knows for sure" category. The double-swearing-in of President Obama confirms the belt-and-braces approach taken in this regard; they did the second oath not because they thought it was necessary, but because they couldn't be 100% sure it wasn't. What happens in practice in times like this is down to patriots acting in good faith and let the courts decide later. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 18:24, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

So the minute the fatal shot entered Kennedy's skull, Johnson henceforth became The Main Man. Like You pointed out, Jayron, the American public wouldn't necassarily have been aware of this, which is why the schools all let out early that day, etc. Also, there was the general belief that a coup d'etait had occurred. Wouldn't you say the urgency on the part of LBJ was a bit tacky, especially as Jackie's suit was covered with the blood and brain matter of her husband. Oh well, finesse was never Lyndon's strong point.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:33, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

One article I read said that Jackie said at the time "Photograph me as I am at the swearing in, so they can see what they've done." I see no basis for your criticism of Johnson on this point. At that instant people in the U.S. wanted to be sure someone was ion charge of the Executive Branch and that there was a Commander in Chief of the military. Nothing whatsoever would have been gained by waiting an hour, a day, or a week for the swearing in. Edison (talk) 01:40, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

On the contrary, it is very important, in a time of national emergency, to not only maintain order, but to maintain the appearance of maintaining order. These are not identical concepts, and tacky as it may have been, it was likely an necessary step in keeping order after the chaotic events of November 22. --Jayron32 18:46, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I hadn't realised that just after the assassination, Secret Service agent Youngblood actually sat on Johnson! Also seeing as the plane was still in Love Field Airport when he was sworn-in, wouldn't that make Johnson the only US president ever sworn-in on Texas soil? Strange, seeing as he was a native Texan.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:50, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

If you weren't alive and aware of the news in 1963, it's kind of hard to explain what it was like. It was a lot like 9/11/01 in that there was a lot of uncertainty about what was going to happen next - or maybe worse, as there hadn't been an assassination of the Prez since 1901. As noted by others here, the swearing-in of LBJ was done to make the statement that the USA was still in business and operating. The high-alert was because, frankly, a lot of the citizenry immediately assumed that either Cuba or the USSR (or both) were behind the assassination. Regarding LBJ being the only Prez sworn in in Texas, probably so. When Presidents have died, usually a local judge swears in the Prez wherever he happens to be, and as soon as practical. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:23, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

For another example, Calvin Coolidge was sworn in in his father's Vermont living room, following the death of President Harding. Pretty sure Coolidge is the only president sworn in in Vermont as well. --Jayron32 01:04, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Of course I was alive when JFK was killed. I was 5 years old, but I can remember the news bulletin interrupting my favourite programme with the news from Dallas saying Kennedy had "been shot", yet a local newsman opined that it "really meant he was dead". When I told my mother, she went into a panic. Everybody did assume that Castro was behind it. I also remember seeing Ruby shoot Oswald in the stomach on live tv. My family always thought there was a conspiracy behind it. Those days when the nation stood still, I can see vividly in my mind. I was just unsure about the interval between the shooting and the swearing-in of LBJ. My brother was sent home from school after the assassination and was told to "go straight home"!!!!!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:14, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

The JFK killing spawned dozens of intriguing and contradictory conspiracy theories. Even at the time, I was certain that Oswald was at least a part of it, and I've become convinced over time that Oswald very well could have done it alone. One interesting thing is that LBJ told Walter Cronkite, some time after leaving the White House, that he had never fully rid himself of the suspicion that there was foreign influence in the assassination. He wouldn't name any names, of course. It seemed so tragic, yet LBJ was able to invoke the memory of JFK to get great civil rights legislation passed. That would be his legacy if it weren't for that little fly in the ointment called Vietnam. Anyway, as with 9/11, and the attempt on Ronald Reagan in 1981, there were swift moves to present the appearance of the government running smoothly in spite of the fear and panic. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:34, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

All things considered, the transistion of power to LBJ went very smoothly. He also managed to win the 1964 election. Yes, he did pass great civil rights legislation; however, at the same time, an extremely high proportion of black Americans were dying in Vietnam. That factor has to be taken into consideration when we evaluate his tenure in office.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:29, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Why in the past decades has there been violence against missionaries working in Turkey?

I've tried to locate reliable source materials to help me better understand Turkey's distrust of missionaries and was hoping you could recomend some resources. I realize the country is proudly nationalistic and protective of their culture and way of life, also aware of the historical connection between missionarly work and colonialism, but I have not be able to figure out why recently there has been such a assault against missionaries.

Thank You —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.79.37.12 (talk) 18:01, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

A 98-99% Muslim country wouldn't be to fond of Christian missionaries, I would think. Rimush (talk) 18:28, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

That actually has nothing to do with it. Turkey is an enforced secular country; the government goes through great pains to stop lots of public displays of any religious nature, muslim included. Secularism in Turkey discusses this, especially the section Constitutional principles which explains some of the rationale for the hardline stance against public religion, and Impact on society which has the relevent statement "The Turkish Constitution recognizes freedom of religion for individuals whereas the religious communities are placed under the protection of state, but the constitution explicitly states that they cannot become involved in the political process." They take this very seriously in Turkey; the freedom of religion is an intensely individual right in Turkey; Turkish women (to some controversy) are generally forbidden from wearing religious headgear, for example. Turkey is an interesting case, on the one hand its society is very religious; only 3% profess to having "no religion at all"; on the other hand, the state is very deliberate about maintaining Turkey as a "secular" society. Prosyltism of any sort is likely met with problems not because Turkey is muslim, but because of the sort of enforced secularism that exists there. --Jayron32 18:43, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm sure the violence against missionaries comes from state forces seeking to preserve the secular nature of an ultra-religious country. It all makes a lot of sense. Rimush (talk) 18:46, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Um, I am not sure you fully understand the nature of Turkish society here, and your flippant rejection of the above explanation isn't really necessary. Whether you wish to accept it or not, it is possible for a nation to be majority muslim and still respect freedom of religion. There may well be individual conflicts between christians and muslims in Turkey, but the fact remains that Turkey's stance on secularism vs. religion cannot be ignored here. It is also a problem for muslims in Turkey, for example the Headscarf controversy in Turkey was specifically a muslim-only issue... --Jayron32 18:52, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I can flippantly reject anything I want, especially because I don't base my knowledge of Turkish society on official crap and Wikipedia articles based on official crap. Rimush (talk) 19:20, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Then kindly enlighten us on this wonderful source of knowledge your knowledge of Turkish society is based on. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 20:04, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Rimush, you can rationalize your attitude any way you like, but basically you're arguing out of an Islamophobic perspective: i.e. one that equates all of Islam with radical, violent, fundamentalist Muslims. You could just as easily claim that all Christians hate abortion doctors (because a few radical, violent, fundamentalist Christians shoot abortion doctors), and that perspective would be just as prejudicial. You could spend a year in Istanbul as a Christian missionary without running across anyone who disrespects you because you're Christian, even though 99% of the people in Istanbul are Muslim. You seem to get your 'knowledge' of Turkish society by extrapolating from FOX news, and that is not a particularly credible perspective. --Ludwigs2 20:05, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Since I don't live in the US (anymore), I don't watch FOX news. I'm not an islamophobe, I just know from experience how prejudiced majority religions can be. Sorry if I've acted like a jerk, I'm a bit irritable right now. Rimush (talk) 20:49, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

not to worry; it was probably just miscommunication on all sides. --Ludwigs2 21:40, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

(e/c) Turkey has (historically) had a deep divide between cosmopolitan areas (Istanbul, Ankara, and etc), which are largely westernized and have the same kind of semi-secular approach to religion that most Christians have (i.e. they are Muslims by birth and culture, attend services weekly, but live largely secular lives), and rural regions which are much more deeply Muslim. Driving from western to eastern Turkey would give you the same kind of culture-shock experience as driving from New York City to a small town in Missouri of Louisiana, and an Istanbul Turk would be just about as likely to get his a$$ whupped in eastern turkey as a Manhattan intellectual would in Mobile Alabama. Further, over the last 15 or 20 years there has been a movement in Turkey towards the creation of an Islamic political presence. Politics in Turkey is secular as a matter of law, similar to the separation of church and state in the US, and the rise of Islamic-leaning political parties has created a lot of political and social tension. Christian missionaries in such a situation would be tempting targets - clearly representing the corrupting European cultural influences, reminding everyone of centuries of warfare and oppression, and lacking the kind of personal sympathy a native Turk or Muslim would receive. Imagine an ex-patriot South African holding a public talk about the virtues of Apartheid in Watts or Harlem. Even the people who didn't want to kill him outright would shake their heads and figure he deserved whatever he got. --Ludwigs2 18:58, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Then he'd still be a patriot to the old South African model. Maybe you're talking about an expatriate. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 23:49, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

To focus on the element of missionary in this land...Saint Paul and Saint Barnabas were the first. Saint Paul was stoned, flogged a few times, and left for dead! This was in his first missionary journey in Asia Minor, now Turkey. However there is a Christian presence in the land and not a few shrines and holy Christian places.

Let's face it: no ones likes being preached at! MacOfJesus (talk) 01:08, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Then why do so many people go to church?!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:31, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

To receive Jesus. A good sermon is not necessarly a good "preaching at". The film; "Pollyanna", remember?MacOfJesus (talk) 21:33, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Are court-ordered psychological evaluations privileged?

An odd question that occurred to me: When a court (in the US and - I believe - the UK systems) orders that a defendant undergo a psychological evaluation to determine if they are competent to stand trial, is the conversation between the psychologist/psychiatrist and the defendant privileged? Normally an analyst (or any doctor) cannot reveal the contents of interactions with patients except in extreme and well-defined cases (immediate and credible threats of harm to self or others, usually), but I don't know if that applies to a court-ordered diagnostic session. For instance, if a defendant were to confess to the crime during a court-ordered competency hearing, could the analyst (willingly or by insistence of the court) testify to the confession for the prosecution?

This is not a legal question - I'm not an analyst (or a criminal ). I'm just curious if anyone knows any relevant case law. --Ludwigs2 18:34, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

As far as I know (which only covers the UK!) courts don't order pscychological evaluations. If a defendant is not fit to stand trial, his lawyer will summon psychiatrists to so testify (it's in his interests for their findings to be made public), and the Prosecution may summon counter-experts.

I'm not 110% certain though. ╟─TreasuryTag►ballotbox─╢ 18:39, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't know UK law very well at all. in the US it probably varies state by state, but I know that the court can order an evaluation. I'm not sure of the details, though, and either way I don't know if it answers the question. I guess it boils down to this: when an analyst is only asked to determine the defendant's competence (whomever asked him to do so), does privilege apply? I imagine the legal question would be something like "does the defendant have the same strong expectation of privacy in a competency review that s/he does in a normal therapeutic environment?" --Ludwigs2 19:05, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Again, I can only speak for the UK, and in response to, "When an analyst is only asked to determine the defendant's competence (whomever asked him to do so), does privilege apply?" I would guess the answer to be yes, with the provisio that if they were commissioned by the defendant themselves, the defendant would waive privilege because he needs the evidence to be used in court. ╟─TreasuryTag►ballotbox─╢ 19:07, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

After Googling on this for awhile, it seems to be that in the US, court-ordered mental evaluations are generally not considered privileged. To consider them such would obviously make it impossible to order them. The point of the therapist-patient privilege, in any case, is so that in therapy sessions the patient can reveal intimate and embarrassing information for the purpose of their own therapy. The point of the court-ordered mental evaluation is not therapeutic. A patient being evaluated for competency is probably told up front that it is probably not going to be confidential. One could imagine that specific details might be confidential (though I find this unlikely), whereas the ultimate diagnosis ("the person is competent/incompetent to stand trial") would not be, though my Googling around US law discussions about this doesn't seem to draw any such line (probably because it is going to be somewhat arbitrary and would make it pretty hard to parse out the limits of cross-examination). But this is not legal advice; I get the feeling there is a very detailed, state-by-state amount of case law associated with this particular question, and it is thorny. --Mr.98 (talk) 19:59, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Hunh. well, having thought it through a bit more, it occurs to me it might be a moot point. Competence is not exculpatory - no one will go for it unless there is already overwhelming evidence of guilt. It just shifts sentencing from a penal confinement model to a medical confinement model. Nothing a defendant could say in such circumstances would serve to convict him more, so the legal issue may not have ever arisen. thanks for the responses though; very interesting. --Ludwigs2 20:29, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Treatment or non-treatment is the deciding general rule in the United States. Fifty states may have varying rules. Details in cases are all impt. Rarely do the same facts present themselves in later cases. 75Janice —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75Janice (talk • contribs) 23:56, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Modern missionary practices and criticisms

I've been able to locate a wealth of reliable materials about the connection between missionary work and colonization as well as abuse scandals in the 19th and 20th century but have had difficulties locating materials covering contemporary approaches to Christian misionary work. I'm looking for materials which focus on contemporary motives, practices, criticism and support of missionary practices. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.137.141.110 (talk • contribs) 19:29, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

You might find these links to be helpful.

• The Nature of Mission
• Why Are People Leaving Traditional Religions?
• Russia—lawful or unlawful? "Results of expert studies reveal significant discrepancy on view of Christian literature"
• Forum 18 Latest News (Forum 18)

-- Wavelength (talk) 22:48, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Greek austerity protests

There are currently some extremely large protests going on in Greece against the planned austerity program that is being required by the IMF and other Eurozone countries. Do the trade unions, etc., that are encouraging the protests have an alternative plan? Or do they not believe the situation is as severe as the government says? Or what? --Tango (talk) 20:09, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

It's just politics. They know that fiscal deficits have to decrease. But austerity hurts poorer people worse and leftist groups (unions and parties) are trying to rally up support among the working and lower-middle classes by pointing out that they (ie the workers) are going to pay for the current administration's mistakes. If anything, they may achieve less onerous requirements from the IMF and Germany. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 20:36, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

hindues

what do hindes believe about peace? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Parts918 (talk • contribs) 20:52, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

See Hinduism#Beliefs for a discussion about core values of Hinduism. To answer directly, from my understanding as a non-Hindu, is that there is nothing in Hinduism that is directly against all warfare, for example one of the themes of the Bhagavad Gita, an important Hindu epic, is set in the background of a war, and the main character is Arjuna, a general, who ponders the whether it is better to act in war (and thus, perhaps die and kill a great many people) or to not act, but then he subverts his duty, because as a soldier, his duty is to fight. In this way, it kinda mirrors Hamlets "To be or not to be" speech in some ways. The Gita is a dense text, with LOTS of themes, but one of them ends up being that a core value should be to both discover one's purpose in life, and then to act positively towards that purpose. Since Arjuna is a soldier by purpose, it is his duty to act purposefully (see Karma Yoga), and to lead his troops into battle. Anyhoo, I am getting a bit off course, but from the Gita, it seems clear that core Hindu beliefs do not preclude warfare, nor to they mandate peace all the time. --Jayron32 21:22, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

This is your second rather broad question about various religions. It would probably be best for you to read the article about the religion that you're wondering about and then come back here with more specific questions. That way, we don't just reiterate what the article already has to say about a particular topic. We're more than happy to help but would appreciate a little help from you by you reading the applicable articles. Dismas|^(talk) 21:51, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

See also Ahimsa#Self-defense.2C_criminal_law.2C_and_war--70.31.57.240 (talk) 21:57, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

May 2

negative eugenic practices in the united states

Is it true that Protestant church leaders were in support of Involuntary sterilization and other negative eugenic practices in the United States? I've heard this claim but can't find anything substantial in support or against it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.48.66.195 (talk) 01:21, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

You may want to read Involuntary_sterilization#United_States. --Jayron32 01:26, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Some religious groups embraced eugenics, many opposed it. Eugenics was broadly popular amongst what we could consider to be both conservatives and liberals in its heyday. It doesn't easily fall along simple ideological or religious lines. Catholics were officially opposed to sterilization of any kind and the only really significant religious opposition that I know of. --Mr.98 (talk) 02:54, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

The article on involunatary sterilization has a fairly brief section on the united states which doesn't really touch upon the full breadth of the act. Especially considering that it covers a period from 1917-1981 which resulted in over 65,000 people being sterilized. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.48.66.195 (talk) 05:25, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, it is just a very brief summary, but there are many manuscripts about the history of American eugenics that one can find either through your local library or Amazon. I think the book that would probably help you out the most is Christine Rosen, Preaching eugenics: Religious leaders and the American eugenics movement (Oxford University Press, 2004). The abstract states that:

Preaching Eugenics tells how Protestant, Catholic, and Jewish leaders confronted and, in many cases, enthusiastically embraced eugenics—a movement that embodied progressive attitudes about modern science at the time. Christine Rosen argues that religious leaders pursued eugenics precisely when they moved away from traditional religious tenets. The liberals and modernists—those who challenged their churches to embrace modernity—became the eugenics movement's most enthusiastic supporters. Their participation played an important part in the success of the American eugenics movement.

Which is interesting. It looks like a well-researched and scholarly book. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:48, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't know whether any church bodies ever officially endorsed it, but during the 1920s a form of eugenics-lite was very mainstream in the United States, so it's not at all surprising that some individual religious leaders would follow along with such opinions. Of all the decades of United States history, the 1920s was the decade when it was most "scientifically" respectable to be racist etc. -- the Kallikak thing was very well-known, as were the results of the U.S. Army WW1 intelligence tests, etc. AnonMoos (talk) 00:12, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

mourinho's unbeaten home record

I have moved this question to the entertainment desk, the proper place for sport-related questions. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 08:16, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

The EU and Greece

The possibility of EU to collapase now seem realistic by many in Europe and outside. Even so, it still seem to be very far from happning. My question is, however, what will happen with European countries debts if the EU countries, or part of them, will return to use their original coins? What could be the political and social implications for Eastern European countries like Poland and Hungary, which are now part of the EU? --Gilisa (talk) 08:49, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

First, the EU and the Euro are different things. Not all EU countries have the Euro, and some non-EU countries use the Euro (some with official agreements, some without). There is little to no chance for the Euro to be dropped. But if countries leave the Eurozone, their debt will be pegged to certain currencies (most likely Euro, but possibly Dollars or even other currencies), and will have to be served in that currency or the equivalent. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:03, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

The possibility of an UE collapse is extremely far-fetched and it is mostly used by the media to sell their newspaper/gain the attention of the viewer to sell some TV commercials. Flamarande (talk) 16:07, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm just wondering what will happen if this radical scnario come true. What will happen with the $ ? Will it rise? Or maybethe opposite? What role will China play? What will happen with countries which export to the EU under the EU trade agreements? --Gilisa (talk) 10:25, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and the Ref Desk is not the place for speculation. --TammyMoet (talk) 10:58, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm truely surprised by what you are telling now. Anyway, many times the Ref Desk did deal with such issues.--Gilisa (talk) 11:35, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

First Iceland, then Greece. Who's next? If the EU does collapse, the US will be there to do a "told ya so dance" on its grave. (While China takes notes for future reference.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:32, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

The EU isn't going to collapse. The Eurozone isn't even going to collapse. Greece is a fairly small part of the Eurozone - as long as France and Germany are ok (which they are), the Eurozone, as a whole, should be fine. Whether Greece can stay in it or not is still to be decided (it seems likely that they will). --Tango (talk) 15:17, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

And Iceland is not even a part of the EU or the Eurozone. Flamarande (talk) 16:07, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the following answers your question, but if a country enters into an agreement to make payments in euros and subsequently changes its home currency, it must still honour the terms of the agreement it entered into. Does that help? Zain Ebrahim (talk) 14:47, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

On devaluing the Greek currency

I have a related question that I've been wondering about, so I'll ask it here. It has been said (by many people) that one way for Greece to get out of its current problems would be the leave the Eurozone (which would probably mean leaving the EU too) and then devalue its new currency. How would that work? If people knew the new currency was going to be devalued, why would they convert their money to it? They could just transfer all their savings to a bank in another Eurozone country that was keeping the Euro. The currency would be nominally devalued, but it wouldn't actually achieve anything because nobody would be holding the new currency at the time. --Tango (talk) 15:17, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

But in order to buy anything in now-non-Euro-using Greece, where they live, they would have to keep converting those Euros back into the new currency which would be the only legal tender there. The additional inconvenience and costs of all those extra bank transactions would likely outweigh any one-time cost of converting to it in one go at the outset. In theory, devaluation isn't supposed to have much effect on internal prices, hence Harold Wilson's famous 1967 assurance that "the pound in your pocket" had not been devalued (yes, I know that's a slightly inaccurate paraphrase of what he actually said): in practice, depending on the country's import/export balance and doubtless other very complicated stuff, it probably does somewhat. This and related questions really need answers from qualified economists. Hello? 87.81.230.195 (talk) 15:53, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

To leave the Eurozone and replace the Euro with a new currency would be economic, financial, and political suicide. The only country that could pull it of would be Germany (and perhaps France). Flamarande (talk) 16:07, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Legal tender is largely irrelevant. Legal tender is something which you have to accept in payment of debts. You are allowed to accept other things and you are allowed to refuse legal tender if there isn't a debt (eg. when you buy something in a shop - the exchange of goods for money is instantaneous, so there is no debt involved). If the Greek people want to carry on using the Euro and the shops only accept Euros, they would be allowed to unless some new laws are passed. The bank transfer is a one-time thing anyway - after the devaluation, you can transfer it back. Only money you hold denominated in the new Greek currency at the time of the devaluation would be devalued. --Tango (talk) 22:45, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

<OR>I don't know the first thing about the mechanics of a currency change but I guess there would be some kind of exchange ratio applied to the values of Greek denominated assets. So a share in a Greek company would go from 10 euros to 10X Greek dollars. A bank deposit in a Greek bank would also be a Greek asset as will non-financial assets like land. I don't think the holders of these assets will have any choice in the matter. Then the exchange ratio should be set so that capital markets don't go haywire after the change. As time passes, euro notes and coins in circulation will slowly decrease.</OR> As mentioned above, this is a very unlikely scenario. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 23:29, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that is roughly how it is done. You do have a choice about whether to keep your money in a Greek bank, though, which is my point. The idea isn't just to change back to a Greek currency, but to devalue that currency, which comes after everything you describe. It is best not to have your assets denominated in a currency you know is about to be devalued and it is really easy to move your assets out of Greece while it is in the Eurozone, so why would anyone keep any significant assets denominated in the new Greek currency until after the devaluation? --Tango (talk) 01:15, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

It looks like people have been taking their money out of Greek banks [5] but I don't know if they're worried about the currency changing or if they just don't have faith in the banking system there. As for non-cash assets, it would be hard to sell them at a fair price right now. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 09:00, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

You can't devalue non-cash assets, so they don't matter - devalue the currency and the price just increases to compensate. --Tango (talk) 15:24, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

We're talking about Greece hypothetically leaving the Eurozone - this would increase uncertainty which would affect all Greek assets. Also, as the currency weakens there would be more uncertainty around inflation, sovereign credit strength and growth - these will cause risk premiums to increase which will affect all assets. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 15:44, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Tango, would you consider a bond, or a bank account to be a non-cash asset? If so, they are easily devalued by simply changing (reducing) the value when the instrument is converted to cash. DOR (HK) (talk) 04:17, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm probably abusing terminology, but I'm thinking of "non-cash assets" as being assets that don't have a predefined cash value, eg. land, shares, houses, etc.. Things like bonds and bank accounts have predefined cash values that you can decree have a certain value in the new currency and then devalue that currency. --Tango (talk) 16:55, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Maybe the terms you’re looking for are fixed asset or tangible asset. DOR (HK) (talk) 02:25, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Supreme Court case on copyright

Resolved

 – The astounding speed of the Reference Desk continues to irritate me.

I remember reading that there was a US Supreme Court case in which one party argued (for whatever reason) that copyright is an intrinsic right like freedom of speech, and the court said no, copyright is an artificial construct created for the benefit of society. Any cites? (If we do find a cite, we can use it to source the following {{citation needed}} in the philosophy of copyright article: "Consequentialism or instrumentalism is the legal foundation of copyright law in the United States.") « Aaron Rotenberg « Talk « 09:01, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the US constitution makes it clear in Article 1, Section 8 that it's not a natural right (at least according to the constitution), but that congress may make laws to protect it. I'd say its much more natural that I'm allowed to repeat what is in my head, and that's the way society worked until very recently... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:09, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Right, but I'm looking for a reliable source that explicitly spells it out rather than implying it from a unstated negative. Yeah, I know I'm nitpicking given that it's in the freaking Constitution, but still, it would probably be considered OR here on Wikipedia to derive this from that sentence without another source to back it up. « Aaron Rotenberg « Talk « 09:22, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I googled ["supreme court" copyright "natural right"] and it found this: Common law copyright. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:33, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Google-foiled again! (Seriously, it's not like I didn't search.) Wheaton v. Peters was probably the case I was thinking of. Thanks! « Aaron Rotenberg « Talk « 09:42, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I think you are asking about the case Wheaton v. Peters though it looks like the article about it is pretty thin. You should read Lessig's book Free Culture which you can download under a Creative Commons license if you don't want to buy a printed copy. It discusses the case at some length and is suitable for secondary sourcing on the issue (of course there are other secondary sources that disagree with Lessig and should also be represented). 69.228.170.24 (talk) 16:45, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

First israeli Ambassador to the UK

Who was the first israeli ambassador to the United Kingdom? --89.12.138.13 (talk) 10:59, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Diplomatic niceties meant that the first diplomatic representative of Israel in the United Kingdom was not formally termed an 'Ambassador'. Dr Mordecai Eliash was appointed in April 1949 as 'representative of Israel'. On 13 May 1949 he was raised to the status of 'Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary'; he was not formally an Ambassador. Dr Eliash was born in Ukraine but educated in Britain; he died in post on 12 March 1950. His successor, Eliyahu Eilat, was named to the same post and on 20 October 1952 was raised to the status of Ambassador. Sam Blacketer (talk) 12:13, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Women's magazines

I've been flicking through a couple of women's magazines, and there are lots and lots of photos of people, but almost all of them are of women, less than 3% or 4% are of men. Why is that? 89.242.97.110 (talk) 11:02, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, since they contain articles about women, and ads tailored to them, it would makes sense, wouldn't it ? Showing women's clothes on men would look a bit odd, as would a man giving a testimonial on how "Playtex has products for my light days and my heavy days". StuRat (talk) 11:20, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

As a general rule, women's magazines concentrate on things that interest women, while men's magazines concentrate on things that interest men. Of course there are exceptions :-) Astronaut (talk) 11:38, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

...ummm. It would seem quite reasonable then by Sicilian standards that there should be more men in woman's magazines than women since men are supposed to interest women better. even in these modern times of homosexuality... or would that be womosexuality?71.100.1.71 (talk) 12:05, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

There the diff is that men mainly get turned on by visual imagery, while verbal imagery does it for women. Hence the scarcity of porn made for women and romance novels written for men. StuRat (talk) 12:14, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Are you sure this isnt just trotting out stereotypes? 89.242.97.110 (talk) 12:24, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Because all women are secretly bisexual  ;) 82.43.89.71 (talk) 13:07, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

As a woman let me answer this. The ads in women's magazines which feature beautiful girls and women are selling products; the subliminal message being, buy these products and you will become like the women you see in the pictures. It's the same with billboards and tv commercials.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:17, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Video illustrating the different approaches to advertising. 86.178.225.111 (talk) 13:56, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

If you want to see blatantly sexist ads come to Italy.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:08, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I remember, when I was in Verona, there was a giant intimissimi billboard, blindingly illuminated at night, right where the road made an unexpected turn and a major side road merged. I always suspected it was sponsored by a body shop ;-) --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:02, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

LOL, it probably was! Actually you probably noticed that there are just as many ads for cars in Italy as lingerie. The car is as revered in modern Italy as the cat in ancient Egypt.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:49, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

A better comparison is Sports Illustrated, which has relatively few articles and photos about women, with one minor exception in February. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:30, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

There are different values at play. A man does not necessarly say he wants to be beautiful, or want anything to enhance his beauty. In the clothes trade; approx. five times more womens' clothes are sold than mens'. Maybe men live on a different planet? MacOfJesus (talk) 00:39, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

The lure of beauty in advertising works for men as well. Haven't you seen handsome men advertising cologne or aftershave? There are quite a few male models now; at least in Europe where in some of the countries (Italy, France for example) men pay as much for their clothes as women and are twice as vain about their appearance. I happen to reside in the former nation.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:45, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

In my experience men's clothes are very much more expensive than women's clothes, which may account for women spending more as they get better value for money. For example the cheapest man's made to measure suit that I could find a few years ago cost £500, with £1000 being a more likely price, while a woman could buy a LBD for £10. 92.28.253.63 (talk) 10:44, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure the £10 little black dress is available in mass-market chains like Primark, while the equivalent to the made-to-measure suit could be many hundreds of pounds. Astronaut (talk) 13:36, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Women do not need made to measure, at least for most dresses. The typical dress does not require fitting for leg- or sleeve-length, nor jacket-length. I do not like having to wear suits, I do not like having to pay for them, I'd wear a £10 LBD instead if I could avoid getting arrested. 92.28.253.63 (talk) 14:53, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Even so, you're not comparing like with like. Primark also sells cheap men's suits for a lot less than £100, though, just like the £10 dress, it might be ill fitting and be poorly made of inferior material. On the other hand, if you shop at Armani, men's suits and women's little black dresses both cost hundreds of pounds, but are better fitting and are made of superior materials. You get what you pay for. Astronaut (talk) 17:07, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Real men go for comfort, not looks. 71.100.1.71 (talk) 09:51, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

According to.......?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 11:22, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Marks&Spencers' Stores have so much more womens' clothes than mens'. This is a good "yard-stick" as it is a "middle-of-the-road" store. Yes there are a few men models. But the gap between the man and the woman is perhaps very large in the modern world. MacOfJesus (talk) 21:42, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

As a medical friend of mine likes to regularly remind me, there's a vas deferens between men and women.  :) -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:47, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Oui! oui! MacOfJesus (talk) 22:53, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

What I was thinking of is: If you ever studied ancient languages you find that there is not the difference given to male and female as the modern languages do. MacOfJesus (talk) 23:49, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

monarchy power

What monarchs throughout the world can still say "Off with their heads!" and have their henchmen to that very thing and not be charged with murder? 71.100.1.71 (talk) 12:02, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Very few true monarchies exist in the world. Only a few Pacific nations, as well as Swaziland in Africa, are still officially ruled by a king. There are also similar sultunates and sheikhdoms in the Middle East. Beheading powers? Unlikely to be that way, but I suppose they have control over any major executions. 2D Backfire Master ^{Serious? Nope.} 12:05, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Saudi Arabia comes to mind. It's an absolute monarchy (see: Politics of Saudi Arabia) and is one of few countries that still carry out executions by beheading (see: Capital punishment in Saudi Arabia). Sentences are given by sharia courts, but the Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques (i.e., the king) has the right to grant pardon – or not. — Kpalion^(talk) 12:22, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Granting pardons isn't the same as condemning to death. Pretty much all the countries with capital punishment allow a single person to grant pardons, sometimes a President, and sometimes a king or queen. I'm not aware of any nations where this person still condemns someone to death. StuRat (talk) 12:40, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

It's not the same thing, sure, but I can image the Saudi king being asked, "Do you want to pardon this convicted adulterer/sorcerer/human rights activist?" and answering, "No way. Off with his head!" — Kpalion^(talk) 15:23, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes, I think you may be drifting into the realms of fantasy here... ╟─TreasuryTag►stannator─╢ 15:25, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

2D Backfire Master: Not sure what you mean by "Very few true monarchies exist in the world". Maybe your concept of a monarchy is the medieval, Hollywood-enhanced, absolute monarchy, where the king's word was law. The modern-day monarchies such as those of the UK, the Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Spain et al are not remotely like that, but they are still undoubtedly "true monarchies". -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 13:48, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Of course, the US President authorises assassinations by the CIA. ╟─TreasuryTag►Tellers' wands─╢ 13:51, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Don't confuse executions with acts of war. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:27, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't have said that that CIA assassination was an act of war, for two reasons: 1)What's the war? 2)It was targeted, and specifically done because of the individual person—Obama didn't just say, "Go kill terrorists." ╟─TreasuryTag►duumvirate─╢ 15:03, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

"The War on Terror". Or "World War III", as some call it. Assuming the Guardian story is true (and I don't know if that source is reliable), this would go along with American traditions of trying to gun down enemy leaders (Yamamoto [sp?], Castro, Diem [sp?], Saddam, etc.) As we all know, sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:33, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I've always wondered what this "[sp?]" thing stands for. "Can't be bothered to look it up", perhaps? — Kpalion^(talk) 16:49, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict with Bugs)I think 71.100's asking for cases where a leader can unilaterally decide to have someone killed, not that beheading is the specific way it's done. Under this criterion I don't think Saudi Arabia would apply: if King Abdullah decided to have someone publically killed just because, I don't think people would just let it happen. I would imagine that North Korea would fit this definition, though in practice it's hard to know what goes on in there. In fact, most dictatorships probably fit the bill. Would Muammar al-Gaddafi get away with it? I suspect that he would. Perhaps Omar al-Bashir of Sudan, though in his case he's got the International Criminal Court out to get him. If we count assassinations, then the list surely includes almost every world leader, though that's a case where the people try to keep the connection secret, that is, they probably would be arrested for it if people knew about it. Buddy431 (talk) 15:40, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay, what I am asking is about overt rather than covert acts of a monarchy. 71.100.1.71 (talk) 15:44, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Look at this list: List_of_monarchies#Absolute monarchies. Those which are listed as current absolute monarchies are: Saudi Arabia, Swaziland, and The Vatican. So, presumably they could order executions. There are also numerous subnational monarchies listed, some of which may have the right to hold executions. That list doesn't include North Korea, which is an absolute monarchy in all but name. There are many other totalitarian governments, too, such as Burma/Myanmar. There may be a fine distinction to be made about whether executions ordered by leaders of those nations are "legal", but I don't distinguish based on that. StuRat (talk) 16:03, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Also note that there are areas beyond the control of the central government, like the Tribal Areas of Pakistan, where the local leader, whatever he calls himself, may very well order executions. StuRat (talk) 16:11, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Overt assassinations by the Vatican? Even in the 16th century popes tried to keep their murders secret. — Kpalion^(talk) 16:49, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Too much Dan Brown me thinketh.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:38, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay, so you're an English layer living in a country with a history of any soldier walking the street being able to run a blade through your gut for most any reason and so you have no problem with Monarchys being able to say "Off with their heads!". I can dig that but wouldn't it be more lucrative for you if they were required to hire you to represent the condemned first? 71.100.1.71 (talk) 21:00, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean English lawyer?! Which modern country allows their soldiery such unlimited power and yet has English lawyers as residents? I cannot think of such a place offhand, so pray enlighten me as you've sparked my curiosity.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:39, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

No, I mean an English person trained somewhere as a lawyer possibly either England or Italy who is living in Italy now and who has become accustomed to the idea that death at the hands of anyone above a slave with any political standing whatsoever is perfectly acceptable owing to the history of the region. 71.100.1.71 (talk) 08:54, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

This discussion has completely disintegrated into the realms of the absurd. IMO, it's pointless and a waste of our time to respond further on this thread.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 10:50, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Er, wow. Roughly how long ago is your imaginary English person living? The short answer to your original question is that there is nowhere in the world whose government is defined as a monarchy AND whose head of state could reasonably get away with ordering a summary execution. Those of us who live in monarchical nations do not think of monarchy as being defined in terms of power over individuals, and generally speaking, have not done so for some centuries. AlexTiefling (talk) 19:23, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Caliphate of Córdoba

Who captured it and how long did it remain a Muslim state? What important Kings ruled this Caliphate? Goat999 (talk) 12:12, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Have you read Caliphate of Córdoba? Gabbe (talk) 12:23, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

censorship in China

I few years back a little known seller of electric bicycles employed an online forum to help buyers help each other. Today the site has thousands of users and the company has distributors in Canada and Brazil and dealers in the US. However, while the forum hosting service is located in Detroit the web site deletes any topic if a comment or question about quality or warranty support in reference to Communist China is made or raised. Just how extensive is censorship in China and what is really happening behind the scenes? Is China preparing to overthrow the world and is it just trying to keep it a secret for now? 71.100.1.71 (talk) 13:02, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Have you read Censorship in the People's Republic of China? Gabbe (talk) 13:21, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

(ec) How do you know topics are being deleted do to "censorship in China" and are not instead being deleted for simply being off-topic? It would be helpful if you told us which seller or manufacturer you were talking about. As for China secretly plotting to overthrow the world ... I would say that is an extremely unlikely scenario. Astronaut (talk) 13:23, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

It's not hard to find electric bike forums or manufactures and due some original research of your own if that is what you have in mind. Not overthrowing the world was the common assumption due to historical "trinity" of Confucianism, Taoism and Buddhism behind Chinese Philosophy. But then the Chinese were force to endure opium and now Communism, which has lead to the point of America being shocked at the creation of atomic weapons, extensive underground works started back in the '50s, the more recent shooting down of Satellites and now prevailing and extensive censorship, western Philosophy does not and cannot tolerate. 71.100.1.71 (talk) 14:32, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

China's internet censorship has nothing to do with whether or not "preparing the overthrow the world." The odds are that the site deletes discussions that are of this nature because failing to do so would get their site blocked in China which would hurt their business. Much of China's censorship is, ultimately, self-censorship: it's the site owner or ISP censoring, not because the government has gone to them in that instance and said "censor," but because they are afraid that if they push the line, then the government might get involved. The effect is that ISPs and site owners are often pretty conservative—maybe even more conservative than the law requires—because they don't want to attract negative attention. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:38, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

So the people of China live in fear of their government and saying so will get your comment deleted. 71.100.1.71 (talk) 14:42, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

The ISPs are afraid of being fined, yes. --Mr.98 (talk) 18:22, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

News flash #1: China is not a democracy. News flash #2: China is an important business partner of the US. Economics trumps all. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:53, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

So Americans live in fear of business and if they say so business will delete their comments? 71.100.1.71 (talk) 16:33, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Try living with no income and let us know how it works out for you. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:48, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

It worked fine so long as I had enough quartz to make fire to roast palmetto bugs and other tasty treats for lunch. In fact I've found a way to increase my standard of living by inviting the Marsh Arabs to forsake Iraq and Iran and to join me here as soon as they dare. 71.100.1.71 (talk) 17:21, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

71.100, you have to give us links, and not ask us to just google electric bike manufacturers to see what you are talking about. Otherwise we have to speak in grossly inadequate generalities, as Bugs has had to do above. A counterpoint, by the way, to Bugs's generality (which on the whole I would certainly agree with) is Google's recent withdrawal from China as a result of their decision to no longer censor searches as requested by the government. This is a story about an interesting Google story listing how many requests Google receives per country for handing over user data or removing content — China is off the chart, and not listed because such requests are considered state secrets. Comet Tuttle (talk) 02:26, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

If you go asking questions about 'communist China' I'm frankly not surprised your comments are deleted. If I ran a forum I'd probably do it myself outside perhaps a soapbox board and not because I give a damn about what the Chinese authorities want. If you politely ask legitimate questions about warranty support, while I wouldn't consider condone deleting such comments, some companies do, again nothing to do with the Chinese government (some of them have little or no connection to China). Nil Einne (talk) 02:18, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

When was the women of Korea unveiled?

I have been told that women in old Korea, especially upper-class women, lived confided to their homes and was forced to cover themselwes with a veil if they left the house during the day. When did this end? And how? I have the impression that this was still the case in 1905, but not in 1945, is this correct? When could Korean upper-class women show themselwes on the streets of Seul without a veil? I have read a poem by a Korean woman, who describes how she is allowed out of the home for the first time: this was from 1920. I hope someone can answer, I would be grateful. --Aciram (talk) 13:20, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

It is spelled Seoul in English. Before the late 19th century is was uncommon for Korean women to be economic actors. A small minority of women played an active role in society and even wielded political influence. These people included female shamans (mudang), who were called upon to cure illnesses, tell fortunes, or in other ways enlist the help of spirits in realizing the wishes of their clients. Despite its sponsorship of neo-Confucianism, the Choson Dynasty had an office of shamanism, and female shamans often were quite influential in the royal palace. The female physicians who treated female patients (because male physicians were forbidden to examine them) constituted another important group of women. Sometimes they acted as spies or policewomen because they could get into the female quarters of a house. Still another group of women were the kisaeng. Some kisaeng, or entertainers, were merely prostitutes; but others, like their Japanese counterparts the geisha, were talented musicians, dancers, painters, and poets and interacted on nearly equal terms with their male patrons. The kisaeng tradition perpetuated one of the more dubious legacies of the Confucian past: an extreme double standard concerning the sexual behavior of married men and women that still persists.

Women were primarily raised to become mothers, their education prepared them to take care of their families and homes. As the country began to open its boarders women were given more opportunities to receive fomal education and generally given more rights then were previously afforded them. As for the use of a veil, I'm unclear to what you are refering to. It is possible you mean the Ssukae Ch'ima, whch is a type of cloak that women commonly wore in public for warmth. The hanbok, a traditional dress, serves as the outer layer of a outfit which consists of several different items of clothing. Tradtional dress is still worn today, though usually reserved for special occassions as it is both bulky and quite expensive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.48.66.195 (talk) 21:26, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Here is an image of the veil, I do not know what it was called: http://ieas.berkeley.edu/images/cks/kang11_women_hood.jpg. As far as I have understood the matter, upper-class women was not allowed to show themselwes in public, and if they did so, they must cover themselwes in a similar manner to Islamic women. This was done for moral reasons, I have been told.

They were also to have been confined to their homes, and did not participate in a gender-mixed social life, but were only allowed to show themselwes to other women, and to men they were related or married to. I have read, that in 19th-century Korea, women rarely show temselwes on the streets of Seol at all during day time: at eight o'clock, a bell rang, signaling that the streets was reserved for women; and at twelve o'clock, it rang again, signaling that the women should return home. When did this custom stop? In 1905/1910?

Here is a link about this : http://ieas.berkeley.edu/cks/k12/kang1_paper.pdf. It is very interesting, but it does not say when these customs was abolished. Here is a chronology : http://ieas.berkeley.edu/cks/k12/kang2_laws.pdf. , but it stops at the 19th-century, and gives no answer as to when in the 20th-century the customs described there was abolished.

When did upper-class Korean women start to mix with men in social life, and when were they allowed to show temselwes in public, on the streets of Seol, without covering up with a veil? I have the impression, that all this changed somwhere in the 1920s? The poem from 1920 describes how a woman lived isolated in her home untill "times changed" and the changing new customs of society allowed her to leave the house. How did this come about, and when did it become common for women merely to show themselwes in public? In the 1920s?

I understand that the question can be complicated, and you are very helpfull. I am ignorant in this, and I find it very interesting, so I am very gratefull for all information.--Aciram (talk) 10:35, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

The net mention a sort of feminism called Sin Yosong "The New Woman" of the 1920s : http://doi.wiley.com/10.1111/1468-0424.00110 --85.226.46.138 (talk) 18:10, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Royal women of old Korea

As upper-class women of old Korea was expected to live in seclusion, how was the role of women at court? Was the queens, the royal women and their lady-in-waitings excepted from seclusion, or were they also prevented from having any contanct with men? --Aciram (talk) 16:16, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm assuming you asked the previous question? There really is no short answer for your question and "old Korea" dosen't help to explain what time period you are asking about. The Korean medieval kingdom was founded in 2333 BC. The country has a long and rich history and gender roles as well as the position of women has changed throughout the centuries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.48.66.195 (talk) 21:33, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

No, this question is about the women of the royal court in particular, not about Korean women in general, as my previous question above. But, of course, you are fully correct: I should have specified my question more. My question here concerns the period of 1392-1905. Was the queens, the women of the royal family and their lady-in-waitings excluded from a gender-mixed social life? Did they have contant with men at court, or were they only allowed contant with men they were related or married to, and otherwise limited to female company? I have came to understand that upper-class Korean women was generally not allowed contanct with men outside the family, was this so? But perhaps the customs at the royal court was different? Was royal women limited to only female company, or did they show themselwes in a gender-mixed company at court? --Aciram (talk) 10:49, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I looked at "A New History of Korea" by Ki-baik Lee but there was almost nothing relevant there... AnonMoos (talk) 12:24, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

One so-called legal name at a time in USA?

There is a myth among US notaries public, which can be found frequently repeated on notary discussion boards such as http://www.notaryrotary.com/ (use the Notary Talk tab). The concept is that a person may only have one legal name at a time. As a consequence, a person who changes his/her name (such as a woman who gets married) can no longer sign anything using the old name (for example the woman might have owned property under the old name, but now can't sell it because she can't sign the deed). Does anyone know of a definitive source that indicates if there is any truth to this myth?

I used the phrase "so-called legal name" because I'm not convinced such a thing really exists, despite the careless manner in which certain executive branch officials act as if it did (especially motor vehicle officials). Jc3s5h (talk) 17:16, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

We do have an article on Legal name, though it's rather thin. It does point out that the US follows the common law process of name change by non-fraudulent use. The latter article references legal decisions Lindon v. First National Bank and In re McUlta. The last is probably relevant, with this quote from the decision: "A name is used merely to designate a person or thing. It is the mark or indica to distinguish him from other persons, and that is as far as the law looks." In the name change article, it is noted that for some states "Some jurisdictions require that the new name be used exclusively ..., while others have no such requirement ..." (Ellipses are references to court cases and laws). This indicates that some confusion may be jurisdictional in nature. Notaries public are usually certified for a particular state, so making broad generalizations for the US in general based on an individual's experience may be troublesome. -- 174.21.225.115 (talk) 19:17, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Comparative chart and article

Does the Wikipedia have a comparative chart for religions similar to the one at Big Religious Chart? 71.100.1.71 (talk) 18:05, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

That is an information chart not a comparative chart, concentrating on "the facts", and in alphabetical order. I think that if Wikipedia attempted this it would be edited and deleted to non-existence! MacOfJesus (talk) 00:10, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

At Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2010 April 7#Table for comparing religions - similarities and differences, I said "Someone might start the Wikipedia article Table of beliefs and religions", and someone said "That would be very hard!"--Wavelength (talk) 03:39, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Roman Catholic Festival - Feast of the Dead

Requesting information about the Roman Catholic Festival, the Feast of the Dead.75.132.5.103 (talk) 18:14, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

See Day of the Dead and the associated articles: All Saints and All Souls' Day. Astronaut (talk) 18:17, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) See All Souls' Day and related articles: All Saints, Day of the Dead, Zaduszki, and Samhain. — Kpalion^(talk) 18:19, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

This would be known as All Souls Day (November 2), in the English speaking world, in the Catholic Church. Three special Masses are outlined in the Liturgy. MacOfJesus (talk) 23:46, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Young David in I Samuel

Did David kill the lion and bear before or after he was anointed by the prophet Samuel? I have searced many sites and reference books to no avail. 66.56.22.96 (talk)

The text (I Sam 17:34-37) is not clear on this point, given that David continued to shepherd for his father after he was anointed. See [6] for a reasonable translation. --Dweller (talk) 19:13, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Obeying the Talmudic commandment, "Thou shalt not giveth up thy Day Job." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:39, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Jehovah witnesses

what do jehovah witnesses believe about jesus christ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Parts918 (talk • contribs) 23:05, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Yet again, you can find the answer to your question in the article Jehovah's Witnesses. Please read the articles before coming here with very general questions. If there is some part of the article you do not understand, or need clarification on, please feel free to ask. --Jayron32 23:07, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Also, their official website (http://www.watchtower.org/) has articles in 399 languages and its own search function for articles in English.

-- Wavelength (talk) 01:08, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

[The website http://www.watchtower.org/ is obsolete, but Wayback Machine has archives of it at https://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.watchtower.org/. Today the official website is http://www.jw.org.

—Wavelength (talk) 03:32, 30 December 2014 (UTC)]

double standards

Why is it, that if I saw someone being attacked and robbed/raped on the street and managed to fight off their assailant, I'd be hailed as a hero.

Yet if some country's government threatened sanctions and even war on an extremely oppresive and totalitarian regime unless they gave up power, they'd be laughed out of the house, and labelled crazy warmongers (and not even by their own citizens either, by various foreign ministers of other countries)?--92.251.185.162 (talk) 23:57, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

That's an extremely leading question, and not necessarily a true premise. Got any specific examples in mind? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:07, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

The fact that such countries exist —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.251.185.162 (talk) 00:40, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Name one. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:43, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

From the legal perspective: there is a general assumption that a government has a monopoly on violence within their country (in fact, it can be used as part of the definition of statehood). The laws of most countries include a right to defend yourself and others, but that is by the choice of the government and doesn't usually apply to violence sanctioned by the government. International law does not include a right for one country to defend the citizens of another country from their own government. --Tango (talk) 01:24, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

But then the Q is why international law seems more concerned with the rights of governments than the rights of citizens. I suspect it's because international law was largely written by the brutal dictators, not by their oppressed citizens. StuRat (talk) 20:19, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

An exception to Tango's last sentence is when the crime of genocide is being committed by that government, at which point the UN's mandate includes sending in troops to stop it; but our Rwandan Genocide article illustrates an example of all other countries minding their own business despite this mandate. Comet Tuttle (talk) 16:47, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, the UN basically makes international law, so it can make exceptions to it (although I think you only need the Security Council to authorise such an invasion, you need the General Assembly to make new laws). Countries can't unilaterally intervene to stop genocide within another country. --Tango (talk) 19:10, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, sure they can. Who, exactly, would have sent in their military to stop an invasion of Rwanda to stop the genocide, on the general stance of upholding the sovereignty of Rwanda, or on the general stance of upholding "international law"? Comet Tuttle (talk) 22:34, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Another example involves NATO's involvement in the Balkans during the '90s. There, a group of countries (NATO members) decided to conduct bombing campaigns without the permission of the United Nations in order to stop internal (sort of... the soveriegnty situation was/is complicated in the Balkans) violence. We can also reference Sudan's Omar al-Bashir, who was slapped with an arrest warrant by the International Criminal Court for war crimes in Darfur. Countries obviously don't have carte blanche to do absolutely anything at home, but looking at these incidents, it's clear that it takes a lot of sh*t to get others to intervene. In the case of al-Bashir, I think it's safe to say that the warrant is little more than symbolic, indicating how hard it is to nab leaders for what they do to their own people. Buddy431 (talk) 23:45, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, if we're being honest, countries can and will do whatever is in their interests and that they can get away with. NATO, working together, can get away with pretty much anything (the only way anyone can stop NATO militarily is with nukes, which they won't use until mutual destruction is the best option, which would be a very extreme situation). Economics can play a part (even though China's military is no match for NATO's, they could do a lot of harm by refusing to trade with the West), but that usually does a similar amount of harm to both sides unless there is a big size difference, and nobody is bigger than NATO. The only thing that stops NATO from invading everybody is that they don't feel the gain would be worth the cost (and I suppose a few of the politicians might have some morals; stranger things have happened... occasionally). --Tango (talk) 02:02, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

the only way anyone can stop NATO militarily is with nukes - tell that to the Mujaheddin in Afghanistan (twice), or, for comparable asymmetric situations, the Viet Cong, or, for a classical reference, Go tell the Spartans! In other words, while few or none can stand up to NATO in a stand-up fight, there is little evidence that that matters nowadays. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:50, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

NATO was involved in Vietnam and Afghanistan??? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:30, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Mr. Schulz is just referencing other instances where the side with the stronger military didn't win. But yes, NATO is involved in Afghanistan: International Security Assistance Force. Whether they "win" or not remains to be seen. Buddy432 (talk) 15:03, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

The reason for the difficulties in Afghanistan and Vietnam is that the opponent wasn't the country but rather a certain group of people within the country. If NATO/the US/whoever had been willing to cause massive civilian casualties, they would have had no difficulty winning. As I said, it is a matter of cost-benefit analysis. The cost of victory (ie. lots of dead civilians and the terrible reputation that would result) was deemed too great, but it was far from impossible to achieve. --Tango (talk) 16:59, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

The idea that the US was unwilling to cause massive civilian casualties in the Vietnam war is remarkable. I think most would say the death tolls described in Vietnam War casualties (which omit the casualties in Cambodia and Laos) are indeed massive. The US persevered until much of its military refused to fight & very many pilots refused to fly bombing missions. It refrained from using nuclear weapons. That's about it.John Z (talk) 07:47, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

May 3

Handing out titles of the Peerage of England - how was land involved?

I have read peerage of England, and similar articles about peerage in the UK, and I have looked up some of the oldest peerages like the baron de Ros. But I don't understand how some of these peerages are decided. For example I assume, that before being "Earl of Someplace", you needed in the feudal system to some have authority over "Someplace", for example, own a large part of the land, or have barons in that land that are your vassals, and that themselves own a fair amound of land. So when a peer was getting a title, would that peer be given some of the crown lands in that area? Woudl the barons be told that the new peer is now their new local reporting line? Would the recipeint, instead, be given this peerage only if they already owned significant amount of land. Also, is there a time where the land became totally unrelated to the title? Thanks for any pointers. --Lgriot (talk) 01:37, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

• One of the first peerages that was viewed as a personal honor rather than something linked to territory was created in 1388. See History_of_the_Peerage. Nowadays there is virtually no link to land for peers in the peerage of the United Kingdom, and only minimal linkage in terms of affecting peers in the peerage of Scotland (for example, a peer must be domiciled in Scotland in order to legitimate his bastard children by subsequent marriage to their mother, and feudal baronies exist in Scotland, though they are not peerages). Modern territorial designations tend toward places with personal associations rather than placed once or currently ruled (e.g., Lord Mountbatten of Burma). - Nunh-huh 02:03, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

[edit conflict] All I can answer is your final question — yes, there surely was such a time, but I'm not sure when it was. You can consider John Jervis, who was created Earl of St Vincent (c. 1800) even though St Vincent is in Portugal, not in England. Nyttend (talk) 02:05, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

You'll be interested in the article Victory title.--Wetman (talk) 04:30, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Ross-of-Bladensburg. The family crest could be considered offensive to Americans. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 01:13, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

As I understand it (which may not be spot on), peerages and similar constructs in other regions of the world were originally designed as political/military/economic structures. basically, a ruler would lay claim over a particular region of land which was too extensive for him to defend and monitor directly, and so he would select people to take control of various regions (local defense against invasion, organization of production, tax collection, etc), often as a reward for loyalty, and allow them to build small military forces from the local populations. it's the same idea as a colonial governor (except that a colonial governor generally works through some pre-established local political system, and doesn't raise his own troops but is supplied with troops by the crown). part of being a peer, of course, would be the construction of fortresses, keeps, and residences, and these structures would (de facto) belong to the peer and his heirs, leading to some fairly extensive land-ownership in noble families. --Ludwigs2 06:34, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

As I understand it, some peerages were created when William the Conqueror gave lands to the generals who fought alongside him in the Norman Conquest: an example of this would be (my direct ancestor) the Earl of Hastings. So the land followed the favour, rather than the favour following the land. --TammyMoet (talk) 07:54, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

The British Isles were subject to a form of feudalism called bastard feudalism. Our article on the subject is a bit weak, but here's how it works in simple terms. In other countries during the early and high middle ages, local nobles (dukes and counts and stuff like that) were semi-independent from their king. They technically owed fealty to the king, but in general each duchy or county ran independent from the kingdom or empire they were nominally part of. Indeed, such fiefdoms often had a history that was as old, or older, than their parent kingdom, for example the Duchy of Burgundy and the County of Burgundy, fiefs of France and the Holy Roman Empire respectively, can claim decent from the Kingdom of BurgundyOver time, one of two things happened: either the kingdom became centralized, and the duchies/counties lost their territorial connection (as happened in France in the 15th and 16th centuries) or they didn't, and the kingdom/empire lost its own true identity, becoming mostly ceremonial (as happened in Germany under the Holy Roman Empire). In Post-conquest England specifically, however, there may have never actually been a strong connection to territory, since William the Conquerer really erased most of Englands political structure. Under the Normans, titles were always handed down as political favors rather being strongly held to the land. While there may have been some territorial connection to English titles (for example, the right to levy taxes or conscript people into military service) there were never really feudal "sub-states" in England the way there was on the continent, hence "bastard feudalism." --Jayron32 12:27, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

While England certainly never had semi-independent duchies such as Brittany or Burgundy, the Welsh Marcher lords possessed a lot of personal power, and often ran their domains like rival kingdoms. In fact, it was said that the "King's writ did not extend beyond the Wye".--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:58, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the exception was where there was an active threat and a strong "warlord" figure was required, the Prince-Bishops of Durham were another example. Elsewhere, the barons' lands were deliberatly fragmented, which is why the Duke of Devonshire lives in Derbyshire hundreds of miles away. Alansplodge (talk) 14:09, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Reginald Grey, 3rd Baron Grey de Ruthyn was such a warlord, also the de Braose and Mortimers were powerful Marchers.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:18, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for all your answers, amazing. I have a couple of questions, however:

1. So in England, even in the earlier times, no land was handed over when a title was given, it was just the title itself. If you happened to own land, it woudl help for your status in that region, but if not, it is up to you to decide to buy some or stay away from that region. Would some cash be usually handed over to help buying land?

2. The victory titles are amazinga nd a proof that title had really nothing to do with the land: so when the Earl of Ypres was given his title from a foreign place, was the French asked their opinion before giving this title? There could be some issue, like maybe they had planned to use the title for one of their people (well it was a republic, so unlikely in this case, but still, asking permission would be nice...) --Lgriot (talk) 04:40, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Ypres is a Belgian town not a French one. — AldoSyrt (talk) 18:46, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Regarding #1: Not exactly. There may have been, in the early days, some land-based rights with some titles. Additionally, there were some nobles (Marcher Lords) and Counts Palatine), which were given some autonomy because of the important positions they held on the frontiers of England. However, within a century or so, even those rights disappeared or became moribund. England certainly had Manorialism, whereby a noble often was granted an estate he could use for personal income; however this is not the same thing as feudalism, especially as it existed on the continent. With the examples of the Marcher Lords aside, England never really had a situation like in France or Germany, whereby an actual territory, or large swath of the kingdom, was granted to a family to rule personally, in perpetuity, in exchange for military commitiment. THAT is what is meant by feudalism. The King gives a province to a Duke or a Count and says "You get to rule this land, collect taxes, etc. In return, when I need you to, you have to raise an army and fight for me" That level of feudalism didn't really exist in England. Nothing akin to the Duchy of Normandy or the Duchy of Burgundy ever really existed in England, with the exceptions noted above. --Jayron32 05:08, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

The Percy family of Northumberland had a lot of power, land, and retainers; in fact, they were often a thorn in the side of the English monarch, even as late as the reign of Elizabeth I And let us not forget the warlord Richard Neville, 16th Earl of Warwick, who was undoubtably the most powerful person in 15th century England.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:25, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Being a powerful noble, with lots of estates and lots of money and lots of pull doesn't necessarily come about via feudalism. Elizabethan times are decidedly post-feudal, even on the continent. --Jayron32 20:14, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

The earls of Northumberland, nonetheless, were powerful warlords in the north, and the first de Perci came to England with The Conqueror. Another case of land-rich nobles, is in Scotland where the Gordons of Huntley owned vast estates in northwestern Scotland which made them practically kings of the Highlands according to author and historian Antonia Fraser. The point must be made that Henry VII abolished the tradtion of nobles retaining private standing armies. A biographer of Barbara Villiers opined that had the nobles possessed private armies in the 17th century Oliver Cromwell would not have been able to defeat the Royalists. Of course, we are now moving well away from the era of feudalism.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:46, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

On point No 2; probably not. Mountbatten of Burma was granted his title in 1946 just as the Burmese were gaining independance, having sided with the Japanese in their efforts to be rid of us, and would have almost certainly (in my view) politely declined. Alansplodge (talk) 12:01, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Not all Burmese by a long chalk sided with the Japs, and even the Burma National Army ended the war fighting alongside the British against the Japs. Mountbatten was rather notable for being very understanding of Burma's pressing desire for independence - and of Burma's decsion to leave the Commonwealth. DuncanHill (talk) 20:22, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for your amazing contributions. --Lgriot (talk) 07:59, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Wife of George VII of Imereti

George VII of Imereti and his family

Ok I came across this picture of King George VII of Imereti and his family, his wife and son. Does anybody have any idea who the women is supposed to be because George VII had four wives: Rodami of Kartli, Tamar of Racha, Tamar of Guria and an unnamed daughter of George VI of Imereti. Also is the boy his son George IX of Imereti or another son?--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 02:54, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Any substantive identification will begin with the site where this wall painting is located. The particular wife will only be identifiable if her name is connected with his as patroness of the particular church. No clues are to be found in the strictly conventional representation. --Wetman (talk) 04:27, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

It might help if you found a date of birth for the son depicted in the picture. Try Charles Cawley's Medieval Lands. He uses primary source records, and his dates are very accurate.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:31, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I hadn't realised George lived in the 18th century. Cawley stops at the early 16th century as he only deals with medieval royalty and nobility. I had assumed from the picture that George lived earlier. I'm afraid I cannot help you, QEIILS.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:10, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm confused. The article says George lived in the 18th century, yet the painting allegedly dates from the 16th century! Perhaps it's not of George VII but rather an earlier Georgian king, and thus needs to be removed from the article.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:14, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't she look a lot like Ketevan of Kakheti or is it just how Georgian artist portray any queens in those days? And the date thing makes a lot of sense. It seems the French Wikipedia and Georgian Wikipedia uses the same picture. --Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 00:57, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm convinced this painting pre-dates the 18th century. Anyway, QEIILS, thanks to your question here, I was inspired to create an article yesterday on a medieval Georgian consort: Anna of Trebizond. Thank you!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:19, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

More people recognized Ronald McDonald than George Washington

I remember someone in a documentary surveyed random people in a metropolitan area, and more of the people surveyed recognized Ronald McDonald than George Washington. Does anyone which documentary that was, and/or any reliable sources citing the event? 71.54.237.176 (talk) 04:24, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

It sounds like a scene from Super Size Me in which Morgan Spurlock shows children pictures of Ronald McDonald, and they all recognize him, but none of the kids recognizes Jesus. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 06:19, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Where did they get pictures of Jesus? Maybe it just wasn't a good likeness.DOR (HK) (talk) 04:24, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

(ec; great minds think alike) Perhaps you're remembering the film Super Size Me, where little kids all quickly identified Ronald McDonald, but were less sure about Washington, Jesus, etc. —Kevin Myers 06:24, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I saw a programme where it was opined that if people saw Jesus and Elvis walking on opposite sides of the street, they'd flock to Elvis instead of Jesus. Therefore it doesn't surprise me that more people recognised Ronald McDonald.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:26, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

(talk) 08:52, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

That probably wouldn't be true for Abraham Lincoln (who has a significant presence in children's TV programming). it's just a function of commercialization. RM is goofy and brightly colored; GW is fairly boring by comparison, and not very much use in getting kids to pester their parents into buying them unhealthy crap. to my mind, there should be a federal law barring commercials from children's television. it's one thing to try to convince an adult to buy something (adults - at least putatively - have the cognitive skills to make up their own minds), but kids are just to easy to manipulate. --Ludwigs2 06:41, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yeah, but what will fund the children's TV shows? Unless you're suggesting that children's content should only be restricted to public television. 24.189.90.68 (talk) 07:29, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, no one would recognize Jesus if they actually saw him (presuming that he doesn't have a chorus of angels or something to back him up). Just saying. Buddy431 (talk) 07:21, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I remember seeing a tv show where they tried to reconstruct what Jesus might have looked like using forensic anthropology techniques (based on similar people from his asserted region of birth, family career, presumed social class, etc.). The model they came up with was a fairly short (by modern standards) but likely heavily muscled semitic Jew; fairly far from the emaciated semi-nordic jesus that's usually portrayed in Christian images. Though of course, the halo and the walking on water are kind of give-aways. --Ludwigs2 08:03, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

That's in contrast to the occasional story about someone seeing the face of Jesus or Mary in the pattern on a grilled-cheese sandwich. How they can recognize something when no one knows what they looked like, is anybody's guess. Meanwhile, I would suspect that very few images of Ronald McDonald have turned up on sandwiches. Unless someone put a sticker on the bun. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:56, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I do remember the scene from Super Size Me, which we were shown in school back in eighth grade. I was thinking there was another documentary, or maybe a news program, as well that did it with adults. I'm thinking something like that was done on Fox News in New York City. Anyways, thanks. 71.54.237.176 (talk) 08:33, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

What Spurlock did in SSM wasn't new. The same study has been done numerous times on various scales using Jesus, G. Washington, Abe Lincoln, Barney the purple menace, Big Bird, Elvis, etc. Dismas|^(talk) 08:49, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I would guess that outside of the USA this would definitely be true and probably so amongst adults. As you don't specify which country you're asking about, the odds are pretty likely that it's correct. But there is a teensy chance you're assuming we know you mean the USA. --Dweller (talk) 09:05, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, the OP did mention George Washington specifically in the section title. GW is more of an American icon than an international one. I don't think it's that unreasonable to assume the OP is asking about/from the US. Dismas|^(talk) 09:15, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

You never know about these surveys. If the question were phrased as Ronald McDonald vs. "The Guy on the Dollar Bill", the results might be different. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:52, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

He is actually quite difficult to recognise. He's a grumpy-looking bloke in a wig, much like most other men in portraits of the era. --Dweller (talk) 08:42, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

He's easily recognisable to Americans of my generation; not only because his face graces the dollar bill, but on account of his portrait having decorated many a classroom wall! Along with Abraham Lincoln, he is clearly one of the most recognisable American president to those of us born before the Reality Television generation.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:07, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, does being of "the Reality Television generation" (whatever that means) make it difficult to recognise Presidents? Or is it just that they have different portraits on their classroom walls? You're in danger of sounding like a grumpy old woman, Jeanne. ;) Also, I'd point out that being able to pick a portrait and knowing something about history aren't the same thing at all. I know who the first two Prime Ministers of this country were, but I wouldn't necessarily be able to pick a photo of them. Conversely, I wonder how many people who can identify "The Guy on the Dollar Bill" actually know anything about George Washington? FiggyBee (talk) 09:35, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I haven't a clue about history at all, FiggyBee. It never was my strong point, alas. In fact, I don't even recall who the last US President was. It must be my advanced years catching up with me.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 11:43, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Hehe, I didn't mean to suggest that you know nothing about history, Jeanne. But I'm still not sure what "the Reality Television generation" is, or why they can't recognise George Washington. FiggyBee (talk) 12:21, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I will enlighten you as to the Reality Television generation. It's the current generation of teenagers, my kids included, who watch every single reality programme there is, regard the personalities as stars; yet know absolutely nothing about politics, books, history, geography, science, art, the cinema, etc. A lost generation who have become, alas, globalised as they are not confined to any particular nation or continent. One could also term them The Pokemon Kids.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:30, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

But it is the way of teenagers not to be interested in such things, Jeanne; were you interested in politics, books, history, or geography as a teenager? Were your classmates? I really don't think that those born in the 90s are going to turn out any less informed or any less political than those born in the 80s, 70s, 60s or before. Also, speaking from personal experience as a hander-out of how-to-vote cards, the younger generations certainly don't have a monopoly on political ignorance or apathy. FiggyBee (talk) 12:56, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually I was; even as a child, I would devour encyclopedias, history bios, historical romances, study the globe. At the same time, I also listened to the Rolling Stones, David Bowie, and did astrology charts and read Anton La Vey's books. I collected costume dolls and voodoo dolls. I was an odd teenager.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:45, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I figured, hence "Were your classmates?". :) Anyhoo, people have been complaining since Plato's time about the yoof of today being idle know-nothing miscreants. But people change over time, and the pokemon and reality television will hopefully be replaced, or at least supplemented, by something more substantial as they mature. FiggyBee (talk) 13:55, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

When I read Dweller's reply I thought he was talking about Ronald until I got to "portraits of the era". It has to be said that Ronald McDonald, as a corporate mascot, is designed to be easily recognisable - you could show someone a picture of Ronald McDonald's left foot and they'd still pick him every time. It's a little unfair on poor old George, who was only human, and didn't go in for distinctive facial hair like Lincoln. FiggyBee (talk) 09:22, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, just imagine what GW could have achieved if only he'd worn enormous red shoes. Or grown shaggy sideburns. --Dweller (talk) 16:02, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

An Ashokan Farewell

Is there anywhere online where there is free sheet music on the actual website for a solo violin for this song?? thanks!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iluvgofishband (talk • contribs) 16:33, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I love this piece. :) If you Google Image Search it, a lot of results come up. (I can't really read sheet music, but I suspect you'll find what you need easy enough.) ^Avicenna_sis @ 16:50, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't know the piece, but this result from Avicennasis's search should be easy to play on the violin. If you want a longer or more complicated version, have a look at the other results in the search above. 86.178.228.18 (talk) 19:23, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

It has a sample on the article - Ashokan Farewell, and the full piece is easily found on YouTube. :) WHAAOE ^Avicenna_sis @ 20:29, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Having listened to the sample, I'd say start with the simple example and remember it doesn't have any ornaments marked on. Once you've got the feel of that, you can ornament it yourself based on listening to the track, or find a more detailed score that someone else has added ornaments to: I think ornamenting it yourself would be quite rewarding, and leave it open for you to play several times through, making each repeat slightly different. I personally find adding slides, for example, quite fun. 86.178.228.18 (talk) 20:06, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

The tune appears in abc notation at The Fiddler's Companion, which also has instructions for converting the abc format to standard music notation. I'm not a fiddler, so didn't take the step to do that. --- OtherDave (talk) 13:47, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Estate agents aggregation websites for finding property

What websites have different houses on them that are not found on rightmove.com please, particularly for south-eastern england? There are different property search websites, but many of them just have the same content that you get for rightmove. Thanks 92.28.253.63 (talk) 16:42, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I usually find Primelocation.com to be a useful complement to rightmove.com. --TammyMoet (talk) 18:40, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Copyright of FTSE index figures

Am I correct in thinking or recalling that the daily published FTSE index number is not protected by copyright because it rapidly becomes common knowledge and is available from a large number of sources? In the same way that news does. Thanks 92.28.253.63 (talk) 16:51, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

You are probably in the UK, but I will chime in that in the US, the daily published FTSE index number would not be protected by copyright, not for the reasons you mention, but because, as this section of our US copyright article states, "no matter how much work was necessary to create a compilation, a non-selective collection of facts ordered in a non-creative way is not subject to copyright protection." In the US. By the way, the reasons you cite are 100% invalid for determining whether something is copyrightable — any popular book or YouTube video would lose copyright protection if your criteria were used. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:07, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

The same principle applies in the UK. There could be database rights on some of the detailed figures, I suppose, but not on the simple index closing rate. Copyright doesn't apply to facts, just to the presentation of them, and there is only really one way to present a number so it isn't copyrightable. --Tango (talk) 19:16, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Does that mean that if someone put on their website a dozen different financial figures each day, out of the thousands published daily, then they would not have any copyright problems? 92.28.253.63 (talk) 19:24, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Maybe. People can publish things like stock indicies values and generally be safe from copyright infringement. As noted above, a simple number is not itself copyrightable. You cannot wholesale copy the specific presentation of those numbers, so, for example, you can't copy the entire financial section of the Wall Street Journal; but just reporting numbers that are previously reported elsewhere are generally not copyright violations. If you have genuine concerns, however, you should contact an intellectual property lawyer. If you act on any advice given at Wikipedia, and are later sued for copyright infringement, it's your own problem. PLEASE do not take ANY action based upon this conversation. None of us are copyright lawyers, so this idle conversation should not serve as advice on how to act. --Jayron32 19:48, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Especially since the idea that all numbers are uncopyrightable is wrong. If the numbers are generated through a proprietary and creative formula, for example, or compiled through non-rout methods, they can be copyrightable. (Even if they are random by definition!) Lots of "data" is copyrightable if it is formed by means of a process that is deemed to be creative—it goes from being "data" to being a compilation. It is tricky and if you were going to be doing this yourself you'd definitely want to consult a lawyer first. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:53, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

African American

shouldnt there be a link in this article in the section civilrights movement to lynching. i mean, the lynching played an important role in this movement.....? --Corduroycouch (talk) 17:53, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

There's a link in the section before it that says something about "racially motivated violence." If you think it needs elaboration, by adding a short clause, such as "racially motivated violence, such as lynching." then you should feel free to boldly add it. However, if you wish to discuss such an addition, the appropriate place to discuss changes to an article is at the article's talk page, in this case Talk:African American. Raise the question there, and see what people's response is. --Jayron32 18:10, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Heuristics for doing difficult and complicated things?

Lets say you want to, for example, start a new budget airline company - WikiJet. You know no more about the industry than the average man in the street.

One heuristic I've heard of is "break big projects down into small steps". The problem is, you don't know what the small steps should be.

A heuristic I've thought of myself is writing a plan like early explorers drew maps of the unknown: Version 1 of your plan/map is very vague, but after you've approached and explored the problem and learnt more, you draw a refined Version 2 and discard Version 1. You repeat this for Version n. (Edit: you'd also need an Exploration Plan added to it as well).

What other heuristics would be useful for this situation please? 92.28.253.63 (talk) 19:46, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

If you are talking specifically about starting an airline or other company, generally founding a company generally always follows the same basic procedure, starting out with developing a detailed business plan, obtaining initial investment from venture capitalists, organizing an executive board of some sort to oversee the establishment of the company, etc. etc. If you are talking in more vague terms, such as "how to do any complicated task you can't do by yourself", in general then you may be talking about Management, there are lots of management models, the Management article discusses a few of these. --Jayron32 19:54, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

That classic routine approach is all very well where you have a lot of knowledge of what is concerned, my point is I'm looking for useful heuristics where you do not have that knowledge. 92.28.253.63 (talk) 20:43, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

It seems pretty simple then: 1) Find someone who DOES know what to do. 2) Ask them to help you or do it for you. At some level, you need to either educate yourself or find someone who actually knows... --Jayron32 20:50, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

You are using methods for "tame problems". Either nobody knows, or you don't have access to those few people who may know. Stavros is not going to tell you. Have a look at the PDFs references in the Wicked problems article. I speculate that the business multi-millionares are people who can solve wicked problems. 92.28.253.63 (talk) 21:59, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

This is related to Wicked_problem#Messes_and_social_messes where much of the problem is lack of knowledge. 92.28.253.63 (talk) 21:59, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

If you don't know how to approach a problem, and you refuse to find someone who does know how, or cannot, then it seems that you would have to approach the problem in a way resembling the scientific method: Make some assumptions about a small portion of the problem, conduct a small scale experiment (or project) to try to disprove the assumptions, refine them, then repeat until you're pretty sure that you have some good findings. Then move on to a subsequent small portion of the problem. This sounds like your map approach. By the way, for what it's worth, that "wicked problem" article is quite weak and I'd nominate it for deletion. Comet Tuttle (talk) 22:32, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

How do you propose using the scientific method to create a budget airline from scratch? I would think it would be of no use at all. 92.29.62.241 (talk) 18:09, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Another example problem could be "How do you make a billion pounds?". I dont think your suggested approach would work for that. 92.28.253.63 (talk) 23:14, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

With enough skill and luck, it would. Entrepreneurship isn't that different to the scientific method - you try lots of different things, ditch the ones that don't work and improve the ones that do. --Tango (talk) 02:04, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

You're glossing over the difficulty in the phrase "try lots of different things", as if each thing you do is easy. Each thing, like starting a new budget airline, is not easy but complicated and difficult to do, and that's what this question is about. 84.13.41.146 (talk) 22:54, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

"Wicked problem" is an interesting concept (and so is "mess"), and the article has 20 references. How do you mean, weak? Granted there's a lot of vagueness, but you could say the same about concepts in psychology or epistemology or many other fields. 213.122.67.216 (talk) 10:51, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

You have to do lots of research and thinking. There aren't any "heuristics" for it, you just have to do a lot of hard work. --Tango (talk) 22:27, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

It is somewhat similar to software engineering. And the methods of software engineering (Waterfall model, IBM Rational Unified Process, Microsoft Solutions Framework etc.) generally recommend to start from the goal. In other words, you are supposed to find out if you know what you want ("What do I mean by 'airline'?"). After solving this problem (it is not necessarily easy) you will probably know something to work with ("So, I need some airplanes... Now, where can I get an airplane?"). However, if you start from a very general goal (or from one similar to "Go there - I don't know where, bring back that - I don't know what." from a Russian fairy-tale), you shouldn't be surprised if you fail to find any solution. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 23:34, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth I have a couple of mnemonics which I use when teaching a quick and dirty guide to project management: SCHEMES (space, cash, helpers, equipment, materials, expertise, systems): and hopefully, if you follow that, you won't be left with OSINTOT (oh shit I never thought of that). There are plenty more mnemonics on www.businessballs.com. --TammyMoet (talk) 08:25, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Hear hear. Starting from the endpoint and working backwards is always the best way to work out how to do something (although you have to resist the temptation to actually do anything until you reach the start). After you've worked it out backwards, you start moving forward with the "small steps" you have worked out. The downside of this is that when you hit an unforeseen OSINTOT, you either have to start over, or else try and make two endpoints - the desired result and your current state of affairs - meet in the middle. FiggyBee (talk) 12:36, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Another possible heuristic that I've just dreamt up is using the historic- or organic-growth method. For example the Microsoft company grew from some comparatively simple software, but added extra modules or cells to do particular functions, and the original cells are also modified and updated, or sometimes killed off. Like the way plants or animals grow from one cell into a complex organism. 92.29.62.241 (talk) 18:09, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that's a very useful or accurate analogy. Organisms grow in a way that has been established by aeons of trial and error. What you're trying to do is create something new in a intelligent way (Organic growth is a business term, but it refers to something entirely different). Microsoft's development is more a case of "building on success", and I think is only really something that's possible at the forefront of technology (and anti-trust suits); it's something you can chart with hindsight, but not something you can plan into the future. FiggyBee (talk) 18:44, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Galaxy.com was at the forefront of technology, and Google was a late-comer. 84.13.41.146 (talk) 23:46, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Embryos grow according to a plan (including feedback loops and logic and hormonal gradients and so on) encoded in their genes. I believe there is or was a theory that embryos go through the stages of evolution in their development. Your task is to design the plan (plus implement it). See Recapitulation theory and Evolutionary developmental biology and Modularity (biology). Perhaps a heuristic for vague problems could be: decide what the modules are - what they do, how they interact with each other and their environment. Then for each module, consider its sub-modules in the same way. Then the sub-modeules of the sub-modules, and so on. Requirements analysis is interesting. The serious book Goal Analysis by RF Mager has procedures for un-vaguing goals and the techniques may be adaptable to this situation. 84.13.41.146 (talk) 23:03, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Is there a list of common heuristics anywhere? 84.13.41.146 (talk) 22:54, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

a term for ivory or bone jewelry

I was looking through antique chinese jewelry today in Ebay, and I came across a new descriptive term for bone or ivory carving, which was "vivid" as a material description - not an editorial description, i.e. "Handcraft Carved Vivid ox Bone Cat Jewelry box 81" - these sites have almost no real data on what , how big, etc. a product is - what struck me was the term "vivid" seemed to be used to describe the material itself.

Any ideas on this? (the "cat" refers to the images of cats on the box, not that the bone is from a cat.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.11.198.4 (talk) 19:59, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

What does "Handcraft Carved" signify? Not machine-carved? Then, how has "handcraft" become an adjective replacing "hand-"? In "Cat Jewelry Box" does "Cat" modify jewelry, as in "cat jewelry", such as a cat might wear? Or box, as in "cat box"? In Ebay descriptions, the use of words reflects the culture and educational status of the seller as much as anything.--Wetman (talk) 20:07, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Over time how has ......

over time how has a guy determined if a girl is beautiful or not?? i mean 500 years ago they would have had a different concept of beauty... right??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iluvgofishband (talk • contribs) 20:02, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

See Beauty, especially the historical section, and Physical attractiveness. To answer your question: Less than you may think. There is some individual variation among people as to what they find attractive, but spread over all of humanity, certain trends develop among what people find beautiful. In other words, yes, there are differences, but less than you would think. --Jayron32 20:13, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

The portraits of Catherine of Aragon from 500 years ago (when she was about 20) are still pretty hawt. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:50, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Ew, you call that hot? People weren't very attractive back then... I would dread getting married. 24.189.90.68 (talk) 21:56, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

She looks pretty good (albeit a bit matronly) in the more realistic paintings. In contrast, the one heading the article suggests that "official portraits" were done by guys whose regular line of work was designing playing cards. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:48, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

It seems there are two things that result in someone being considered beautiful/attractive. There is a sense of inherent beauty, which is mostly related to health and fertility. Then there are cultural things related to status. These days we generally think of a tan as being attractive. In Catherine of Aragon's time, for example, they found pale skin attractive. This is due to a change in the economy. In the past, most working people worked outside and had tans, so being pale meant you didn't have to work. These days most jobs are indoors, so having a tan means you are wealthy enough to spend recreational time outside. --Tango (talk) 22:33, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Umberto Eco recently wrote two books on the subject from the perspective of art history - the titles are pretty self-explanatory: "On Beauty", and "On Ugliness". TomorrowTime (talk) 22:27, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Another big difference has been the shift from a preference for portly figures to a preference for very thin bodies. The reason is similar to the change that Tango has described. Centuries ago, a portly figure was evidence that a person was well off enough to eat well. Today, voluptuous has become overweight, partly because everyone (in rich countries) can eat as much as they wish, so a thinner build is a sign of 1) enough education to know how to stay thin and 2) enough free time and money to work out. Marco polo (talk) 23:14, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

See The Human Face. It's a four part BBC series presented by John Cleese. Being presented by Cleese, it's obviously humorous but it's also quite informative. Basically, the idea of beauty hasn't changed much over the years at all with the biggest exception, according to the series, being in skin tone of caucasian people. Fair skin used to be considered attractive because the wealthy weren't out tending to crops in the daytime sun. In more recent times, tanned skin has gained a preference because now those with money could afford to go to sunny destinations for their holidays. But as far as facial features goes, the same things are considered attractive now as they were hundreds of years ago. Dismas|^(talk) 00:34, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

This sounds like a fairly Euro-centric view of things, though. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:15, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Catherine of Aragon was never considered a beauty; neither was Anne Boleyn, for whom King Henry broke with the Church in Rome in order to marry. Women who were deemed beautiful in the 16th centuries include Mary, Queen of Scots, Diane de Poitiers, Ana de Eboli, Lucrezia Borgia, Elizabeth Bathori (who went to drastic lengths in order to preserve it). Another thing, up until the the 1920s, straight hair was considered unattractive.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:13, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Also: long necks, e.g. [7]. Putting this all together I arrive at an image of a rotund, giraffe-necked woman, with translucent white skin that the veins show through, as the perfect ideal of medieval European beauty. I doubt my method is valid, though. 213.122.67.216 (talk) 11:07, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

In mid-15th century England, an extremely high forehead was a symbol of beauty; in order to achieve this, women plucked their hair at the brow as can be seen in the portrait of Queen Elizabeth Woodville.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 11:35, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Beauty is an evolutionary concept. No doubt cultural influences modify it, but in general terms, if you're predisposed to mate with someone who makes viable offspring, your genes are more likely to continue in the gene pool. If, for some reason, you like to mate and not bear children, your genes will be at a disadvantage. This leads us to universals in terms of human beauty. Symmetry is incredibly useful: it demonstrates you don't have some flesh eating disease on your right/left side. There are other things too. Hip/waist ratios appear to be widely similar, despite cultural differences, as do other indicators. What all of these seem to have in common is reproductive success. That shouldn't really be surprising. Shadowjams (talk) 10:23, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and one might observe that as soon as the need for large families had diminished in the western world, slim, boyish hips became fashionable for women and teenage girls.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 11:41, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Although there are some ubiquitous traits in the perceptions of beauty, it's possible for some quite extreme variations and non-natural modifications to become culturally accepted as 'beautiful.' For instance, check out Lip plate. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 16:21, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Kant and kairos

According to a book I'm reading ("What Matters Most" by James Hollis), "as Kant pointed out two centuries ago, time exists solely as a construct of the mind, expressed in linear form, sequentially, as chronos and vertically, meaningfully, as kairos." I'm interested in reading more about what Kant meant by this "vertical", "meaningful" conception of time, but can't seem to find any references to it. Does anyone know where Kant talked about kairos? -- noosphere 23:38, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps the Critique of Judgement. There is no excuse for a modern book to not footnote such references. Of course, Kant came to the party a few thousand years after the Greeks discovered time had several meanings. Zoonoses (talk) 02:09, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, it's not in the index of Critique of Pure Reason, in which Kant treats the nature of time in considerable detail. Kant generally used German not Greek terminology, so I wonder if Kant used the Greek word at all, or just a concept similar to what Hollis understands by it. --82.41.14.1 (talk) 23:03, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

May 4

Simeon Sakskoburggotski

He served four years as prime minister of Bulgaria from 2001, after reigning as Tsar of Bulgaria from 1943 - 1946. Our article claims he is "one of the few monarchs in history to have become the head of government through democratic elections". It does not provide a source or examples. Does anyone here know another example of a monarch who abdicated or was forced out of power only to be democratically elected some years later? Xenon54 (talk) 00:13, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Stanisław Leszczyński, for one. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 01:26, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Are you sure? What democratically elected office did he serve in after being ousted as King? He was ousted twice, after the first time he was given some minor principality, and after the second he spent his time as a pensioner in France hanging out in salons. I think you are mistaken. --Jayron32 02:32, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I suspect the office being alluded to is "King of Poland", for he certainly was a monarch who was elected king, resigned the crown and was later elected king again. He is certainly a monarch who became the head of government through election. Twice. The only thing to cavil about is whether the definition of "democratic" necessarily implies "popular". - Nunh-huh 02:44, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. He was elected King of Poland. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 02:48, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Being an elected monarch is not a democratic election. They are different concepts entirely. Lots of monarchies are elective in nature, it doesn't make them democratic. In general, the elections are restricted to a small number of nobles (for the Holy Roman Emperor it was seven, see Prince-elector). In the case of Poland, the election of the Polish king is covered in Free election; it was restricted to the noble class, which was a tiny sliver of Polish society. Additionally, those standing for election needed to be of the noble/royal class themselves, sometimes Polish, and sometimes foreign. It's isn't democracy, its just elective kingship; i.e. the nobles choosing from amongst their own kind who would be king. --Jayron32 02:54, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

It probably depends on your definition of democracy. Was Athens in the 5th century BCE democratic, if it excluded everyone except free male citizens who had done their military service and paid there debts on time? Was 19th-century United States a democracy, if it excluded women and slaves? Is modern United States a democracy, if it excludes minors and non-US citizens? The nobility in pre-partition Poland acounted for about 10 percent of the population, much more than nobilities in other countries at that time, and more than just a "tiny sliver" of the society.

As for Stanisław Leszczyński, his first election was a complete sham even by 18th-century standards. A small bunch of nobles were rounded up in the election field surrounded by Swedish troops and told to vote for Charles XII's protégé. Stanisław was a mere imposter, an anti-king at that time. It was his second election, this time under France's Louis XV's protection, that was actually genuine and reflected the popular support that he had gathered by then. His second reign didn't last long though, as he was ousted as a result of the War of the Polish Succession. It was after the end of his second reign that he was given the Duchy of Lorraine as a consolation prize. That said, I'd say it's at least a stretch to claim that his case was similar to that of Simeon Saxe-Coburg-Gotha. — Kpalion^(talk) 11:06, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

In 2001 the media in Bulgaria were sometimes mentioning that this case was a precedent in the world's history, but Bulgarian media are not to be always trusted because journalists here are brightly distinguished by their remarkable lack of professionalism. Some googling helped me find this - a Bulgarian website quoting a publication by Reuters of 16 June 2005, a few days before the parliamentary elections of that year. Here's what the first sentence states:

"The only former European monarch to be elected a Prime Minister ought to be a favourite for the elections on 25 June thanks to a policy that has been defined by observers as the most successful since the collapse of the Soviet Union-supported communist regime [in Bulgaria]. Instead, he is struggling to survive politically." This writes Reuters today, commenting the upcoming elections.

Please note that this is a self-made English translation of the Bulgarian translation of the English language publication by Reuters, so it is surely not accurate enough (I couldn't find the original publication in the archives of reuters.com). The most important, however, remains that Reuters refer to Sakskoburggotski as the only example of a European monarch to have done what Xenon54 specified, and mention nothing about the rest of the world. --Магьосник (talk) 03:14, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I assume we're ignoring the numerous instances of elective monarchies? Other than that, I think Simeon's situatuin is unique. I know that Archduchess Walburga of Austria (a direct descendent of the last Austrian monarchs) is an MP in Sweden, but that's not quite the same thing. Gabbe (talk) 08:51, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

"one of the few monarchs in history to have become the head of government through democratic elections" would also cover someone like Napoleon III who was elected President of France, then later seized power and declared himself Emperor (except I guess he was head of state, rather than head of government). Warofdreams talk 00:50, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Cases of democratically elected leaders who later undemocratically clung on to power are common. We're looking for cases where it was the other way around. — Kpalion^(talk) 08:26, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

That's not what the quote given in the relevant article specifies. It simply mentions that the individual became head of government through democratic elections, and was a monarch. No mention of the order of these events. Besides, very few heads of government have declared themselves or been declared to be a monarch. Warofdreams talk 10:31, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Pope's apartment

In the article about Pope, it is stated that a dead Pope's apartment is sealed. How long has this tradition been practiced and for how long are the apartments kept sealed? How old are the oldest sealed papal apartments left? 87.108.22.140 (talk) 08:01, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

The Papal Apartments are reopened (and redecorated) on the election of a new Pope. FiggyBee (talk) 08:49, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. 87.108.22.140 (talk) 08:55, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. The Papal Apartments article says that there are privately-owned apartments in Vatican City. I am surprised that there is any real estate not owned by the church/state in Vatican City. Where can I learn more about this? The Hero of This Nation (talk) 15:22, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't say any such thing. It uses the term "private apartments" to refer to the areas in which the Pope lives, as opposed to "state apartments" where he works, accepts visitors, etcetera. The current Pope's private quarters are relatively modest, compared to the areas of the palace occupied by Pontiffs in earlier times. FiggyBee (talk) 15:35, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Thanks. The Hero of This Nation (talk) 21:11, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

When did the medieval day begin?

Does anyone happen to know when the day actually began for medieval Europeans? Was it at midnight like it is for us? Or perhaps sunrise or noon? I am curious because sometimes a birthdate is given as two different dates, for example 7/8 December. I would greatly appreciate any answers. Thanks.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:01, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

See for example the final paragraph of Julian day#History. Gabbe (talk) 13:06, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

It says the day began at noon. I had suspected Julian days (or the medieval day) didn't begin at midnight. This would mean that someone born let's say 6 April 1357 could very well have been born on 7 April, but if his or her birth had occurred before noon, it would have been recorded as 6 April. Thank you so much, Gabbe. This explains why Mary, Queen of Scots is given two different DOBs (7/8 December 1542).--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:21, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, in her case, I think it has more to do with disagreement among biographers. See [8], [9] or [10] for example. Gabbe (talk) 14:36, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I believe the consensus among her biographers is that she was born 8 December, despite Leslie having claimed the 7th. Mary, herself celebrated her birthday on that date.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:33, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I doubt the average person was thinking in technically defined astronomical days, though. For most (even educated) medieval people, like most modern people, I expect the day started when they got up in the morning. One thought; clocks were rare and inaccurate even in the late middle ages, so perhaps such double dates arise from midnight births when no-one could tell exactly what day it was? FiggyBee (talk) 13:31, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

That's also a plausible theory which I have considered. A woman who went into labour late on the night of 7 December might actually give birth in the morning of the 8th; however, it would be recorded as the 7th. There's the 20th century case of George Harrison, when the opposite happened. During the confusion brought about by the bombing raid which was going on at the time of his birth, the nurse wrote down the correct time of 24 February 1943, 11.45 PM; however, it was registered after midnight so they wrote it down as 25 February!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:38, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

That story is given the lie here, Jeanne. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:42, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

It was John who was supposed to have been born during an air raid, anyway. (But probably not.) Adam Bishop (talk) 20:56, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

According to Albert Goldman in his bio of Lennon, the latter was born at 6.30 PM 9 October 1940 during a heavy bombing raid on Liverpool, and the babies were placed underneath the hospital beds for protection. This could be easily verified, I'm sure. As for Harrison lying about his DOB in order to obtain a better chart; well, he was wasting his time as he only managed to get an erroneous one. Astrology is based on precision. I was lucky to have had a doctor who was extremely precise when it came to recording my time of birth. I was born at 10.59 PM and it says this on my birth certificate. Most doctors or midwives would have just rounded it off to 11.00 PM!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:14, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

The Julian day is not a medieval concept (as you can read in the "History" paragraph linked above). Days did not begin at noon, they began whenever the sun came up, if you're a regular peasant or whatever. If you're a monk and your day depends on praying the Liturgy of the Hours, then your day probably begins at midnight or 3 am (or 6 am maybe...it varies and probably also depends on the sunrise anyway). Adam Bishop (talk) 14:31, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Adam Bishop on this, except that according to our article Day, in medieval Europe, the day was considered to begin at sunset, as it does in Jewish tradition. It is probable that a medieval event recorded as occurring between or on the cusp of two different dates would have occurred between sunset of the first date and sunrise of the second date. Marco polo (talk) 14:57, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

It's also possible it began at Prime, which means first hour. We have the example of the Battle of Agincourt which occurred on 25 October 1415, recorded as the feast of St Crispin which falls on the 25th October. So in this case they didn't date it from sunset.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:03, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Marco, you are referring to the Florentine Calendar which was only used in Italy. Hmm, that would explain why I have seen Lucrezia Borgis's DOB as 19 April 1480 when all the encyclopedis give it as 18 April 1480. This is very confusing though because if we haven't got the hour of birth, we don't know whether they were born 18 April before sunset or 18 april after sunset (making it really 17 April.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:15, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

For the purposes of prayer (as Adam mentions as one case) then Prime would probably be considered the beginning of the day (I believe Prime means the period from the beginning of the day to an hour later, rather than a specific time - hence "first hour" not "hour one"). I think there is some variation in the definition of Prime, though (it can be the first hour after sunrise, or after 6am, depending on whether you like the times to be consistent from day to day - of course, the latter only works if you have a half-decent clock). The length of an hour also changes under some definitions as the length of daylight changes so that there are also 12 hours of daylight. --Tango (talk) 15:21, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Prime as used in liturgy means the first hour of daylight. The use of the term prime does suggest that some considered the day to begin at sunrise. However, Italy was in some ways the hub of medieval Europe, so Italian practice would have been influential. In such a situation it would make sense to give two dates for an event that occurred at night. (One date would apply if the day were reckoned to begin at sunset, the other if it began at sunrise.) I'm not sure how the date of the Battle of Agincourt is relevant. The battle happened during daytime, so it would have had the same date regardless of whether the day was considered to begin at sunset or sunrise. As for the birth of Lucrezia Borgia, if you have seen both 18 and 19 April, that would suggest that she was born after the sun set on 18 April but before it rose on 19 April. Marco polo (talk) 15:32, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Then Mary, Queen of Scots was likely born between sunset of 7 December and sunrise of 8 December. It was noted by contemporaries that she celebrated her birhtday on 8 December. Things are beginning to fall into place now. OK, what about the Byzantines. In an article I recently created a contemporary source said the daughter of the Emperor was born around April 6, Good Friday 1357. Well, I checked and discovered that Easter fell on 9 April in 1357, making 7 April the date for Good Friday. Wouldn't that indicate that the girl was born sometime between sunset 6 April and sunrise 7 April?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:45, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Seems plausible. Marco polo (talk) 19:16, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate everybody taking their time to answer my question. Thank you fellow Wikipedians!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:29, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Talent<->Denarius exchange rate

Around how many denarii was a Greek talent worth in the Classical era? 64.179.155.63 (talk) 14:13, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

If our articles Attic talent and Denarius are anything to go by, a talent (which was 26kg of silver) was 2340 days' wages in Greece in 377 BC. A denarius was one days' wages in Rome in a period several hundred years later. Thus, very crudely, a talent was worth 2340 denarii. On the other hand, if you want to talk about how much 26kg of silver would have been worth in later antiquity, the answer will be greater. In 211 BC, when the denarius was introduced, 26kg of silver would make 5777 4.5 gram coins. By the end of the Roman Empire, the actual silver content of the denarius was negligible. FiggyBee (talk) 14:31, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

On the other other hand, if you want an actual ancient Greek coin, the drachma was the Greek equivalent of the denarius, and they'd probably be considered roughly interchangeable by traders. FiggyBee (talk) 14:35, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I suspect the OP is asking because of the Bible story "Parable of the talents". The article discusses contemporary equivalents for 1st century AD values for those monetary amounts, quoted to the OED. --Jayron32 14:44, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

flea in flea market --- what does it mean?

What does "flea" in flea market mean? I would appreciate an etymological explanation. Thank you very much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.202.161.139 (talk) 16:35, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

The flea market article's history section has some theories. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 16:39, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

The "flea", comes from the "second-hand" bit, meaning you could be buying more than you bargened-for! Caveat emptor, clear? MacOfJesus (talk) 23:23, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Times Square bomber + Freedom of Information

Why would reporters state (at the end of this article) that Faisal Shahzad became a citizen and that's what helped investigators seize him because they had a recent photo and were able to have witnesses identify him with it? It's like the CSI effect, allowing criminals to get around police? Don't the police give reporters information but then tell them that, in the hopes of not blowing future cases, such details should not be published? DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 16:37, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Your question carries with it the assumption that the information that the assistance lent by the person's citizenship application is information of the sort which the police would prefer not to be published. But it is just an assumption. A rule of thumb, when dealing with the press, is not to tell them things that you do not wish to see published. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:42, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

If you're asking, do police consider this kind of thing before telling things to reporters, the answer is yes, definitely. They can and will tell reporters some things but tell them not to reprint them if they think it will harm the investigation. If you're asking, in this instance, does revealing the "methods" of the investigation harm future investigations, that is not necessarily clear, but presumably the police did think about this before releasing the information. If you're saying, "won't this lead to terrorists in the future not becoming citizens"—maybe, sure, but I'm not sure a one-off case is a good basis on which to try and make future policy. The 9/11 hijackers, for example, did not become citizens—it's not like all foreign terrorists up until this point have become citizens first and been caught because of it, and this one fact will change things significantly. Note that in this case, 1. the photo thing only mattered because the guy's bomb didn't blow up, 2. there were VIN plates that he didn't know about under the engine block, and 3. this sort of thing is only helpful after the fact anyway (it is not preventative). Personally if I were inclined to worry about information given out, I would worry about other things, like making it clear that he had the wrong type of fertilizer, for example, which is a clear sign to wannabes in the future to pay attention to that sort of thing more closely (I personally think it would have been better if they had just said it was an amateur job that wouldn't quite have worked and left it at that, without getting into the specifics). But the reasons they release things (or things get out whether they want them to) are often complicated and it can be hard to figure out what the right balance is. Attempting to draw lines of secrecy around everything potentially threatening can itself be a hinderance to law enforcement and preventative measures. --Mr.98 (talk) 21:48, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

The more I look at the article, I think it's worth noting that this is all information that was filed in open court when the filed charges. I'm not sure how much they could have limited explaining how they knew it was the right guy; that's necessary if they are going to charge him, I am pretty sure. Now maybe they could have gone to the press there and said, "please don't tell anyone how we knew," but that probably wouldn't have been super effective in today's media environment, and it would all be there in the public court records anyway. There are some instances where the government can invoke secrecy overs its "sources and methods" to keep this stuff out of the public record, but they are controversial and generate a lot of unwanted publicity on their own. --Mr.98 (talk) 22:11, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Why would the police release this information? Well, in doing so they are saying "Look - the procedures we follow as a nation when admitting people to citizenship serve to protect you." They are doing it to reassure. DuncanHill (talk) 21:51, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Eh? I'm not sure that follows. I see it as more of a, "look how clever we are, taking things from one source to another and using them to quickly figure out who it was." On the other hand, I'm a little confused as to how they knew to show his picture to the car guy in the first place. --Mr.98 (talk) 21:56, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

As part of the United States immigration process, applicants are fingerprinted. Additionally, CIS will have recent passport/green card photos on file. caknuck _° needs to be running more often 05:00, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's a secret that when you go through the immigration and citizenship process, you send photos of yourself to the government. And certainly police departments know not to tell reporters anything they don't want to see in print. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:03, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Safe deposit boxes after death

I recently received something in the mail from my alma mater, telling me that if I wanted to bequeath them something, I shouldn't keep my will in the safe deposit box: apparently many U.S. states prohibit anyone from opening a safe deposit box after the owner's death unless there's a court order. Two questions — (1) why would such a law be in place? I can't see why the law would more carefully protect a safe deposit box than other property of a deceased person. (2) If no will has been found, but someone suggests to the probate court that the will could be in a safe deposit box, why wouldn't it be normal for the court to order the box to be opened? Nyttend (talk) 21:41, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Death presents a great opportunity for theft and with a document like a will in which things divert to the intestate heirs in the absence of a will you want to be sure yours is preserved in a manner where records of all sorts are generated when it is disturbed. 71.100.1.71 (talk) 22:51, 4 May 2010 (UTC).

Yes, but obviously many people don't keep their wills in safe deposit boxes. I'm not asking for advice on what to do with a will; I'm simply curious why the law might restrict access to safe deposit boxes in a way that it wouldn't restrict access to a dead individual's other possessions. Nyttend (talk) 04:23, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Depositing anything in a bank box (normally) is an act of a single person's will. A very private one. There is no counter-party (as is the case of bank deposits), no brokers (stock purchase), no state registrars (houses, cars) no witnesses of any kind. "Other property" is safeguarded by contracts and/or public records; contents of a bank box are not. The bank does not know what the client holds there (and if it does, it's a whole different deal). The only way to find out is to open the box. The uncertainty, the absence of written evidence, the ease of misappropriation (as well as the bankers' CYA reflex) compelled the lawmakers to provide added safeguards - court orders, witnesses etc. Joint lease of a box (normally by spouses) makes the whole affair easier for the banks and the legal system (survivor normally retains unlimited access) but may backfire to the owners (cf. "Casino"). NVO (talk) 10:06, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

You'd usually leave the will with your executor. DuncanHill (talk) 10:25, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

dried up river beds

The place in Southern Iraq where the Sumerians built the first city, is this where the two rivers that dried up passed nearby and where desert now stands and if so were the presence of these rivers the reason the first cities were established here and if so was it due to trade via the rivers or agricultural development? 71.100.1.71 (talk) 22:46, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean Tigris and Euphrates? Gabbe (talk) 22:54, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

The city in question is likely Ur, located in modern southern Iraq. At the time, Ur was a coastal city, located at the outlet of the Euphrates. It is now many miles inland, owing to silting in the Tigris-Euphrates delta, and also many miles from the Euphrates, owing to the river drifting across its floodplain, a common occurance for large rivers. The site was abandoned by 500 BC, likely for both of these reasons. --Jayron32 23:11, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

You may not be aware that dried-up river beds are often referred to as Wadi. The Thames River in London has the same problem of silt deposits. MacOfJesus (talk) 00:31, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

There are 2 additional rivers that once flowed into the Gulf, as satellite photos revealed some years back. They are dry but their channels are still observable. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:37, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

You may also be interested by our article on the Sarasvati River. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 16:15, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

May 5

Law of Consanguinity in the Royal Families of Medieval Europe

It seems like throughout the Middle Ages it was a sin to marry any cousins even 6th cousins at times, so European had to go out in every direction of Europe to find a sutiable non-related bride ie. Anna of Kiev and Henry I of France. But then it seems like in later times it became okay as long as you get the Popes permission. How royalties of Europe transact from that anti-incest/inbreeding to marrying first cousins by the 19th century? Also this was the case in Western Catholic Europe but was it the same in the Byzantine East because their seem to be some intermarriages there also?--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 00:53, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

What is your source for it being illegal to marry 6th cousins? Your common ancestor with a 6th cousin would typically be someone that died about 100 years before you were born - you are very unlikely to have any idea they are your 6th cousin. --Tango (talk) 01:01, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

This is completely wrong; read about Spanish kings. [11] Shii (tock) 01:20, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

In canon law consanguinity was prohibited up to the fourth degree - but only after the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215 (long after Anna and Henry I). Before 1215, it varied a lot, from one degree to seven degrees. Our Affinity (canon law) article has some info about this. Generally four degrees was the limit even before 1215, though. But in reality it was all political. If you thought you could get away with it, you could marry your first cousin, with special permission from the church. The church, of course, could at any time annul the marriage as incestuous, if you got on their bad side. And there was always a political reason to marry far outside your family, like Anna and Henry. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:41, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay maybe it wasn't sixth cousin I read it somewhere. This is too truth because I'm talking about Europe before the 1400s or 1300s, so the Habsburgs wouldn't apply. And I never got these political marriages between countries that are so seperate like the Grand Duchy of Kiev and the Kingdom of France. Wouldn't political marriages be more beneficial for it was between neighboring countries? --Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 03:24, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Not necessarily. There can be many good reasons, such a facilitating trade, why such a marriage would be organized. After all, if French merchants get a monopoly on certain trade goods coming out of Kiev, and visa-versa, it could be a very useful treaty. --Jayron32 03:34, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Right. Also, in this particular case, Henry already had a couple of dead wives, and was hardly a king at all, he controlled only the Ile-de-France. Who would want to marry him? He's lucky he got Anna, really. Adam Bishop (talk) 03:57, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Having a wife within the prohibited degrees, was also a convenient way to later get rid of her if she failed to provide children, or he desired to marry somebody else.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 05:10, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Henry VIII tried to use her marriage to his brother to get rid of Catherine of Aragon, but the Pope wouldn't go for it, mainly because her nephew was Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 18:41, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Exactly, otherwise the Pope would have granted the annulment. In point of fact, Henry VIII was related to all his wives, through their mutaul descent from King Edward I of England. Historian Antonia Fraser outlines this in The Wives of Henry VIII.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:45, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Changes in human morphology

I recently took a college course on Herpetology and found the notion of amphibians being able to change their phenotype in order to become cannibals very interesting. This usually results from a aquatic environment low in resources. I'm not much of a writer, but this gave me the idea for a story in which humans somehow take on a similar form during times of starvation and forced cannibalism (like the legend of the Donner Party for example). Like cannibalistic amphibians, the humans' jaw structures would enlarge and their teeth would elongate to allow for eating larger prey. This could be used as an alternative explanation for vampirism, lycanthropy, and zombiefication. No demons, just science.

Now, I know that mammals lack the ability to change their phenotype of their own volition. My question is whether there has ever been studies on short term changes in human morphology, particularly the face? I know there has been studies in the past on why couples look like each other, but what about large populations of mixed races? For instance, I've noticed that Black Europeans have a distinct look to them that is unlike Black Americans. I realize there is probably a fair amount of intermingling, but that can't account for all the Black Europeans that I have seen. I have even seen this in the features of 2nd generation Chinese. Some of my friends have softened features compared to their parents and relatives living in China. Is there something that causes a person to take on the features of the surrounding group in order to facilitate better social integration?

If there has been such a study, I would like to explain that the change in cannibalistic humans is an extreme version of this. Sort of like a defensive survival strategy that is locked in our DNA. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 01:31, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

The big difference between second generation imigrants and first generation imigrants is that the second generation grew up in the environment. Thus, as you note, the second generation Chinese Americans will have grown up in America, and thus had a very different diet, especially during their developmental years, than their parents did, growing up in china. Do not discount what 20-30 years of eating different foods will do to your appearance. --Jayron32 03:02, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

(ec)All our knowledge in genetics and studies on facial features shows that there isn't anything that causes the social environment to change the facial features, your bones don't "try to look like your friends' ". I guess what you are observing in your friends compared to their parents is maybe a better balanced diet during childhood, and a better medical attention, which could help people having better skin. Or maybe they are just younger! --Lgriot (talk) 03:08, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Appearance is partly a matter of perception. Clothing, haircut, manicure have bearing on appearance. Behavior also would contribute to the perceptions others have of you. I agree that diet would also have bearing on appearance. Bus stop (talk) 03:19, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I never really thought of diet. I guess that would account for my Black European example as well. The brief article I read about couples looking the same stated it was caused from them sharing similar experiences. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 03:31, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Ghost -- I think you might be oversimplifying evolutionary theory. Adaptations based on mutations are only selectively passed onto subsequent generations if they are helpful and aid those who possess them to live longer/mate more. If humans were faced with a choice of cannibalism or death, and they chose cannibalism, beneficial mutations allowing said humans to better adapt for such a situation would not occur if humans maintained all of their other social graces, such as eating with flatware, saying "please," "thank you" and "pass the ribs" and altogether desisted from sabotage of each others' lives and meals. If everything were the same but we began to eat human-burgers instead of beefburgers, there'd be no real benefit (and therefor, need) to pass on larger jaws or longer teeth. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 03:35, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I have taken a history of life on earth evolution course prior to my Herp class, so I know all about mutation, genetic drift, and how evolution takes place over long periods of time. This is just a fictional story, so I'm bending the rules of science a little. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 03:43, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Regarding fictional stories which feature human evolution, see Galápagos (novel). And read it; its pretty good stuff. --Jayron32 03:47, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Just read the synopsis, very interesting. I'll have to look that up. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 03:52, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Not a morphological change, but Poul Anderson's "The Sharing of Flesh" (1968) deals with evolutionary changes relating to cannibalism. Essentially, during a time period when an isolated human colony's small population was forced to practice cannibalism to survive, a genetic malady arose that prevented young males from starting puberty unless they got a certain dose of hormones only available by eating human flesh. Under normal circumstances, natural selection would have prevented this condition from being perpetuated but, because of the cannibalism and the small population size, it persisted even as the planet's population and resources stabilized so that cannibalism became a cultural norm for those living on the planet. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 06:52, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

What the H-E-double-toothpicks was that all about? DOR (HK) (talk) 08:47, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I suspect it is an attempt to avoid giving away plot spoilers? It would make more sense if the poster said so (e.g. "Spoilers (highlight with your mouse if you want to see it)." --Mr.98 (talk) 14:13, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

When it comes to your perceived anthropological differences between "Black Europeans" and "Black Americans" I believe the answer is this: Most African Americans are descendants of slaves originally (mostly) from Western Africa in the 15th through 19th centuries. "Black Europeans", on the other hand, are much more likely to be either first, second or third generation immigrants from areas of Africa that were poverty-, starvation-, war-, or drought-stricken during the 20th century, for example Somalia (though this will of course vary widely from one European country to the next). There is much more human genetic variation in Sub-Saharan Africa than anywhere else in the world, so where in Africa one's medieval ancestors lived will have a fairly significant impact on one's biological anthropology. Gabbe (talk) 11:58, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree that what you are seeing is the likely different in immigration patterns. I would also note that the ancestors of African-Americans are from West and Central Africa, and that many are, at some point or another, mixed with either European and/or Native American "stock". The result is that many (perhaps most) African-Americans will look quite different than, say, someone from Somalia or Ethiopia or even South Africa. Africa is a continent of tremendous human diversity (from the towering Maasai to the diminutive Efé), but the over-representation of a few regions in the Americas, as a result of the Atlantic slave trade, often leads to an assumption of homogeneity. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:13, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

One well-known change in bodily function in response to environment is that how much you can sweat partly depends on how hot it was when you were a young child... AnonMoos (talk) 09:29, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

What is the mechanism of that? Is sweating as an adult partially a function of settings the body made to itself when the person was a child? Just curious. Sorry for going off-topic. Bus stop (talk) 14:47, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Presumably, but I don't know much about it in detail. The body is adjusting itself to the climate experienced as a young child, but I don't know the exact mechanism(or whether anybody knows the exact mechanism). AnonMoos (talk) 16:02, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I am not majoring in any science-based degree in school, so I do not always make the most astute observations. Although, I am extremely interested in the subject of evolution.

I guess I could always just come up with a scenario in which a scientist conducts experiments that go bad. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 13:11, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

What would happen if Greece defaulted on their debt payments?

What would happen if Greece defaulted on their debt payments? --33rogers (talk) 07:32, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

The (unhedged) holders of those assets would incur a loss if they bought them when the market believed there would be no deafult. Also, Greece would not be able to borrow at reasonable rates which is especially bad for a country whose government has been used to spending more than its tax revenues. Is there something more specific you want to know? Zain Ebrahim (talk) 08:03, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

First of all it isn't Greece, it's the Greek government. Cases worth of study are Argentine economic crisis (1999–2002) and the 2008–2010 Icelandic financial crisis. Please note that all previous experiences have been with countries which issued their own currency. IMHO no one is really sure. If the Greek government defaults in its debt payments no one is going to lend it more money (would you lend me money if you knew that I was not going to pay you back?). If no one lends the Greek government money it won't be able to pay its public servants. This could lead to a cold stop of most public service. A better comparison could be the ongoing 2008–10 California budget crisis. Flamarande (talk) 08:15, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

See also our article on national bankruptcy (in serious need of improvement, sadly). Warofdreams talk 10:32, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Governments rarely absolutely default on their debt. Instead, they typically reach an agreement with their creditors involving debt restructuring. The creditors, facing the alternative of a total loss, will typically agree to accept a later maturity date and/or a partial loss (a reduction in the principal and/or interest rate on the debt), in return for the government's promise to make good on the restructured debt. In the case of Greece, some commentators, such as this one, have argued that Greece cannot possibly repay its present debt on the promised terms because the austerity plan needed to keep the debt from expanding will cause the economy to contract such that the debt, compounded by interest, will grow relative to the economy such that even the recent financial pledges by other European countries will not cover the country's debt service or other obligations. If Greece does restructure, many banks and individuals, mainly in Europe, will face losses amounting potentially to hundreds of billions of euros.

A partial Greek default by itself would bankrupt few banks or individuals outside of Greece. The danger is that a Greek default or restructuring would further undermine investor confidence in the government debt of other countries perceived as potentially insolvent, such as Portugal, Spain, Italy, Ireland, or even the United Kingdom. The debt of Spain alone is so large that other European governments might not be able to bail it out without putting their own solvency in question. The debt of Italy is considerably larger than that of Spain. A partial default or restructuring by either of these large southern European countries would probably be large enough to cause many European banks to fail, including banks in France and Germany. This would be a serious financial crisis that could potentially lead to a breakup of the euro zone. Marco polo (talk) 15:26, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

--33rogers (talk) 02:14, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Codification of interpolations in Bhagvad-Gita

There is no information/discussion about the codification of interpolations in Bhagvad Gita, which would go a long way in removing many a misconception about some of the contentious verses there in. I have identified 110 interpolations and codified the same in my article 'Mundane distortions in the divine discourse of Bhagvad-Gita' which if published in your site is likely to change the way the world would approach this ancient work. Hope you would like to have it. Regards, BS Murthy.

P.s. The article is submitted here for your appreciation of the same.

Article text collapsed here

Mundane distortions in the Divine discourse of Bhagvad-Gita William von Humboldt who wrote seven-hundred verses in praise of the Bhagvad-Gita averred that it is the most beautiful, perhaps the only true philosophical song existing in any known tongue. All the same, the boon of an oral tradition that kept the divine discourse of yore alive for millennia became the bane of the Gita going by the seemingly mundane distortions it had to endure. Strangely it was Sir Edwin Arnold the Englishman who sought to separate the divine wheat from the mundane chaff by branding s23-s27 of ch8 as the ranting of some vedanti in his century old ‘Song Celestial’. While interpreting the Gita in English verse an attempt was made by the author to identify the interpolations in it and codify the same for the benefit of the modern reader. One way to scent the nature of these, if not zero in on every one of them, is to subject the text to the twin tests of sequential conformity and structural economy. Sequential conformity is all about uniformity of purpose sans digression and structural economy but represents the absence of repetitiveness. The pundits and the plebeians alike aver that the philosophy of the Gita is the practice of disinterested action. In this context it may be noted that while postulating nishkaama karma, the theory of disinterested action, Krishna was critical of the ritualistic aspects of and the mundane expectations from the Vedic ceremonies (s42 - 46 and s53 of ch.2.). Given that the pristine philosophy of the Gita is to tend man on the path of duty without attachment, the about turn in s9-s16 of ch.3 that formulate the procedural aspects of the rituals and the divine backing they enjoy cannot stand to either reason or logic. Such contradictory averments attributed to Krishna wherever occur can be taken as interpolations and the same are delved into in this article. Next on the agenda is the aspect of structural economy and one finds the similitude of a given content in many a sloka in the same or in a different context throughout the text. Obviously, some of them are interpolations but which were the originals and which are the imitations could be impossible to find out for they smugly fit into the overall structure. Whatever, save lengthening the discourse, they do not belittle the same and fortunately not even tire the reader, thanks to the exemplary charm of Sanskrit, which for the 18th Century British intellectual Sir William Jones ‘is of wonderful structure, more perfect than Greek, more copious than Latin and more exquisitely refined than either.’ Identified here are 110 slokas of deviant character or digressive nature that can be taken as interpolations with reasonable certainty. Readers may like to mark these verses in their Gita and then read it afresh by passing over them for a refreshing experience. Besides the interpolations s9-s16 of ch.3, s17, s18 and s24 of the same are clear digressions. Such others in the rest of the chapters wherever they crop up are dealt as follows: Chapter - 4: It should not be lost on one that s11’s return of favour by the Lord is juxtaposing to the stated detachment of His as espoused in s14 of the same chapter. On the other hand, s12 that is akin to s20, ch.7, itself an interpolation, and s13 the contentious chaatur varnyam mayaa srustam - do not jell with the spirit of the philosophy. Why hasn't Krishna declared in s 29 ch.9, ‘None I favour, slight I none / Devout Mine but gain Me true’. Slokas 24 to s32 that are of religious/ritualistic nature seem clearly out of context and character. Prior to this seemingly interpolated body of eleven slokas, the nature of the Supreme Spirit and the conduct of those who realize it are dealt with. Thus, the discontinuity in the text brought about by the body of these interpolative slokas would be self-evident. And s34 that advises Arjuna to seek wise counsel is irrelevant in the context of the discourse fashioned to set his doubts at rest in the battlefield itself. Chapter-5: S18 avers the Omnipresence of the Supreme in Brahmans, cows, elephants, dogs and dog eaters. This tasteless description could be but an interpolation as it ill behoves Krishna’s eloquence and sophistication of expression seen throughout. Incidentally, the succeeding s19 makes it clear that whoever recognizes Him in all beings attains the Supreme State in life itself. S27-s28 that deal with yogic practices and s29, which asserts the Supreme as the beneficiary of sacrificial rituals, are but interpolation for reasons that bear no repetition. Chapter - 6: S10-s17 deal with aspects of ascetic practices which are but square pegs in the round philosophical hole the discourse is and so are interpolations, even going by what is stated in the very opening verse, ‘Forego none if forsake chores / Eye not gain ’n thou be freed’. S41 and s42 are clearly interpolations not only for affecting the continuity of the text but also for what they contain. S41 would have us that those who perform the asvamedha (ritualistic horse sacrifice) would reach heaven to be born again rich. Likewise, s 42 would have us that, ‘or such would be born in learned homes’. Chapter-7: S20-s23 besides affecting the continuity in character of the discourse, would advocate worship of gods for boon seeking that Krishna chastises is s42-s44, ch.2 and that renders them interpolations. Chapter – 8: It can be seen that s5 places the cart before the horse. Besides, s9-s14 too are interpolations going by their content that’s out of context. It is worth noting that s1-s4, s6-s8 and s15-s22, if read together would bear an unmistakable continuity of argument that the interpolations deprive. And s22 is a seemingly concluding statement of the Lord that only through un-swerved devotion the Supreme could be reached from which there is no return (s21). Then appear s23 to s27 which if literally taken would imply that if one dies when the moon is on the ascent he would go to heaven and, to hell if it’s other way round. Needless to say, these slokas spelling superstition in an otherwise thought-elevating treatise are but interpolations which Sir Edwin Arnold dismissed as the work of some vedanti and thought it fit, justifiably at that, not to include them in his ‘Song Celestial’. In this connection it may be noted that the relationship between the state in which a person dies and his imminent rebirth is covered in s14 - s15 of c14, which seem to be authentic. Chapter -9: S7, that contravenes s15-s16 of ch.8, and which echoes interpolative s18-s19 of the current chapter, is an interpolation. Also s15 of is but a digression to facilitate the interpolations in s16-s21 and s23-s25. What is more, there could be some omissions from the original, given the seemingly incomplete exposition of the promised dharma in s2. Further, in s 30 and s 31, it is said that even a reformed sinner is dear and valuable to Him. Then in s 32 it is stated that women, Vaisyas and Sudras could win His favour through devotion, sounding as if they are all in an inferior league. Leave aside the Lord's averment in many a context in this text that the Supreme Spirit lies in all beings, it is specifically stated in s34 of ch.10 that He symbolizes all that is glorious in woman. Given this, and the background of the interpolations, s32 surely is a case of trespass. S33 of this chapter is but a jointing medium of the said obnoxious verse and in itself is patronizing in nature towards the virtuous Brahmans and thus is an interpolation. Chapter – 11: Owing to the improbability of their being, s9-s14, make an amusing reading. S3 states that Krishna grants Arjuna the divine sight required to espy His Universal Form. Of course, the ESP that Vyasa granted Sanjaya (s75 ch.18) might have enabled him to monitor the goings on at the battleground in order to appraise the blind king Dhrutarashtra about the same. Thus, only from Arjuna’s averments could have Sanjaya gathered what he was divining of the Universal Form, which obviously was beyond his (Sanjaya) own comprehension. But s10-s14 would have him describe the Universal Form as though he himself was witnessing the same, even before Arjuna utters a word about it. In this context it is worth noting that the Lord made it clear in s52, ‘Ever craved gods ’n angels too / Just to behold what thee beheld’. Thus, the Universal Form that was seen by Arjuna surely was beyond the scope of Sanjaya's ESP and hence, s9-s14 that picture beforehand what Arjuna would witness later on are clear interpolations. Contrast this with the parallel situation in s50-s51, when the Lord reassumes His human form, but handled differently by Sanjaya. The s29 which seeks to emphasize what was already pictured in s28, albeit with not so appropriate a simile, could be but an interpolation. Chapter -13: One might notice that s10, advocating asceticism to which Krishna is opposed, doesn't jell with the rest, either contextually or philosophically, and thus should be seen as an interpolation. S22, which states that the Supreme Soul lay in beings as a sustainer, consenter, enjoyer and overseer, contravenes its very nature expostulated in s16-s18, ch.15. Besides, as can be seen, it affects the continuity between s21 and s23 of this chapter. S30, akin to s15 is an irrelevant interpolation. Chapter- 14: In this chapter that details the three human proclivities - virtue, passion and delusion- s3, s4 and s19 that deal with the Nature and the Spirit are digressive interpolations. Chapter – 15: S9, s12, s13, s14 and s15 being digressions are clearly interpolations. Chapter – 16: S19 which implies that the Supreme Spirit condemns to hell those who hate Him is an obvious interpolation that contravenes Krishna’s affirmative statement in s29 ch.9 and other such averred in many a context in this text. Chapter-17: S11-s13 that deal with the virtuous, the passionate and the deluded in ritualistic sense and s 23 -28 concerning Om, Tat, Sat and Asat of the Vedic hymns are clear interpolations for reasons the reader is familiar with. However, s7-s10 that deal with the food habits of the virtuous, the passionate and the deluded would pose a problem in determining whether or not they are interpolations. Can eating habits be linked to the innate nature of man in an infallible manner? Perhaps, some future research and analysis might resolve the universality or otherwise of this averment, and till then, it is appropriate to reserve the judgment on these. Chapter -18: One can note that s12 breaks the continuity between s11 and s13 with hyperbolic averments and s56 combines what is stated in the preceding and the succeeding slokas, and thus both are seemingly interpolations. S41- s48 that describe the allotted duties of man on the basis of his caste are clearly interpolations. In essence, the discourse till s40 is about the human nature and how it affects man. As can be seen, the duties on caste lines detailed in the said interpolations have no continuity of argument. As in earlier chapters, the text acquires continuity if only these verses are bypassed. S61 avers that the Supreme dwells in humans and deludes them all by his maya. This is contrary to what is stated in s14, c5, ‘It’s his nature but not Spirit / Makes man act by wants induced’. Thus, s61 clearly is an interpolation as it contravenes the neutrality of the Supreme Spirit in the affairs of man affirmed throughout by Lord Krishna. For those who may like to see how the Gita reads if the above cited 110 slokas are bypassed, the same are summarized as under. Ch. 3: s9 –s18, s24 and s35 (12 slokas); Ch.4: s11 - s 13, s24- s32 and s34 (13 slokas); Ch.5: s18 and s27 -29 (4 slokas) ; Ch. 6: s10-s17 and s41 -s42 (10 slokas) ; ch.7: s20 –s23 (4 slokas) ; ch.8: s5, s9- s14 and s23-s28 ( 13 slokas) ; ch.9: s7,s15-s21, s23-s25, and s32-s34 (14 slokas) ; ch.11: s9- s14 and s29 (7 slokas) ; ch.13: s10, s22 and s30 (3 slokas) ;ch.14: s3 -s4 and s19(3 slokas) ; ch.15: s9 and s12- s15 (5 slokas );ch.16: s19 (1 sloka) ;ch.17: s11- s14 and s23- 28 (10 slokas) and ch.18: s12, s41-48, s56 and s61(11 slokas ).

One may like to read my ‘Bhagvad-Gita: treatise of self-help’ in verse sans the above at Vedanta Spiritual Library or hear the audio rendition of the same at gatewayforindia.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.93.49.161 (talk) 09:22, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your query. This really isn't the place to submit articles in full, so I've collapsed your text into a box to make navigation of the page a little easier. Unfortunately, having looked at it, the article appears to be composed entirely of your own ideas and theories; that is, it is original research, which Wikipedia specifically does not publish. Wikipedia is not a primary source of information, and everything here must be verifiable in a reliable source where it has already been published. If a document is described as something that will change the way the world views a subject, it is by definition unsuitable for Wikipedia. You can find more guidance at Wikipedia:Your first article. Karenjc 11:25, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Dear Sir:

If my article does not qualify to be published, you may consider providing a link to 'Bhagvad-Gita: treatise of self-help' at Vedanta Spiritual Library and gatewayforindia.com. I do see Wikipedia providing many a link to Bhagvad-Gita of various authors and you may note that my work too is backed by the said sites specializing in works on the Indian philosophy. Regards, BS Murthy

Wikipedia is the encyclopaedia that anyone can edit. If the reference you suggest supports an existing assertion or assertions in any of our articles, and can be used as a reliable citation, you are welcome to add it yourself: see Wikipedia:Citing sources for information on how to do this. But Wikipedia is not a collection of links, and links to external sites should be added for a valid purpose. If you have knowledge of any particular subject, do remember that your input in improving existing articles will be welcome. Perhaps you would enjoy contributing at WP:WikiProject Hinduism, WP:WikiProject Religious texts, WP:WikiProject India or WP:Wikiproject Philosophy? Karenjc 15:17, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

B type blood and its arrival in Europe

I am curious as to how and when B type blood reached Europe? The article on blood groups showed that the B type allele reaches its highest frequency (41%) amongst the Kalmyks of central Asia. It's also high in Northern India and amongst gypsies. Thank you.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:37, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Presumably a very long time ago. As you note, if its in Romani people, they've been in Europe since the 11th centure, according to that article. Furthermore, there has been contact between central Asian peoples and European peoples for a very long time before that, Turko-Mongolic people have coming to Europe since well before the birth of Christ; the Kalmyks, being a turko-mongolic people, probably share a common genetic ancestry with groups like the Eurasian Avars and Bulgars and Tartars and the like. --Jayron32 15:28, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm wondering how I managed to get it?! My dad had it as well (so obviously I got it from him), but his parents were from western Ireland, so how could it have possibly ended up there? I see that it's fairly common in eastern European people, yet drops in nations like France and Spain; however, it raises slightly in Ireland (10%) and Scotland (12%). Do you think the Vikings could have something to do with it?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:48, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Before they were in Ireland, the Celts ranged all over Europe. One could imagine that the Hallstatt or Urnfield people, both proto-Celtic peoples, had some contact with some of the central asian people I noted above, or others. There have even been more recent Irish peoples who arrived from other parts of the world. Heck, if a half-Cuban like Eamon de Valera can be a prominent Irishman, one can imagine other people emigrating to Ireland at various times, from just about anywhere. There are the so-called Black Irish, the article on them discusses some of the genetic evidence for their origins. --Jayron32 15:58, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

It's interesting that one of the English queen consorts, Philippa of Hainault was descended on the maternal side from the Kipchaks. Now they were definitely central Asian. It's highly unlikely that my dad had recent non-Irish ancestry unless it was English, Welsh or Scots, considering the relative isolation of the west of Ireland at the time of his parents birth. A possible central Asian origin for the Celts is intriguing.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:07, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Its not really necessary that the Celts ever lived in central asia. Its just required that Celts (or their ancestors) had sex with Central Asian peoples. Any time large groups of people are in contact for extended periods of time, there will be sex between them, and hence an exchange of genes. So we don't necessarily need Celts in central asia; instead we just need some of the Celts from central Europe to have had sex with, say, Avars, who also were nearby. Then, when the Celts are driven to the periphery of Europe by the Latin and Germanic peoples, they carry those central-asian-origin genes with them. --Jayron32 16:16, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

This article has some fascinating maps of blood group distribution. The map of the B blood type strongly suggests an origin for the blood type in Central Asia and/or northern India and its gradual spread in every direction from there. What is interesting to me, in relation to your question, is the distribution of the B blood type in Africa. The blood type is more common in most parts of Africa than it is in western Europe. That might suggest that its spread to Africa occurred longer ago than its spread to western Europe. There have been no large movements of people from Eurasia to sub-Saharan Africa in historic times. Since such a movement would almost have had to pass through Egypt (and since the other possible route, through Ethiopia, seems unlikely given the low frequency of B bloodtypes in southern Arabia and the Horn of Africa), the movement surely took place more than 5,000 years ago when writing developed in Egypt. Within western Europe, the area with the lowest concentration of the blood type (discounting thinly populated areas in northern Sweden) is centered on the Pyrenees. This, of course, is the area inhabited in ancient times by the related Aquitani and the ancestors of the Basques. This strongly suggests that the B blood type arrived in Europe with the speakers of the early Indo-European languages, since the Aquitani-Basque region was the main region not reached in ancient times by this migration. The date of arrival of Indo-European speakers in eastern Europe west of the Dnieper is controversial. I find arguments for a date around 3000 BCE convincing, but others have argued for a date 3000 years earlier than that. Indo-European speakers would have spread gradually to western Europe (except Aquitania-Vasconia) over the next 1000 years or so, intermarrying with existing populations and thereby diluting their gene pool. Marco polo (talk) 16:17, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

What is odd is how all of my kids have it. My mother was A, which fits in with her English and French ancestry, yet my brother is AB. Now, that group is the latest to arrive in Europe. Marco, would you concur with the theory that B type blood originated in the Himalayas?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:21, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

The Himalayas are certainly near the center of the area with the highest concentration of the B blood type. On the other hand, the Himalayas have never been densely populated, for obvious reasons. Looking at the map, it looks to me as if the Hindu Kush is even closer to the center of the area with the highest concentration of the B blood type. The thing is, the area around the Hindu Kush has been a crossroads for thousands of years and probably was in prehistoric times. Central Asia, to its north, has seen even larger migrations sweep across it. So much so that if Central Asia was the region where the blood type originated, we might expect its frequency to have decreased there as a result of the many migrations since that very ancient time. So I would say that the place of origin could have been anywhere between northern India and Central Asia, including both of those two regions. The origin very likely occurred 10,000 or more years ago, so we cannot pinpoint it with any kind of accuracy. Marco polo (talk) 16:39, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Identifying a mislabelled sound file on Wikipedia, probably by Handel

I uploaded the above file to Wikipedia a couple of years ago under the filename "Handel - Organ Concerto - Op. 7 No. 1 - HWV 306 - 3. Largo e piano.ogg". However it has recently come to my attention that the file is not part of the official score for that particular concerto. Camn someone here identify the piece, or point me somewhere on the Internet that can help me out? I tried emailing the organ soloist, David Schrader, but I didn't get a response after a week. I know that the file is in G minor because I have absolute pitch. It ends on the dominant chord of D major, so if it's not an improvisation (which is entirely possible), it must be part of a larger work.

Thanks for any assistance in this matter. Feel free to fix the formatting of the sound file if needed. Graham87 14:54, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I've linked to this discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music and Talk:George Frideric Handel. Graham87 15:03, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

See How to Identify Songs Using Melody - wikiHow. -- Wavelength (talk) 17:36, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, that site has some interesting links! None of them have helped me find the melody so far, however. Graham87 01:28, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Evil

Who was the most evil person in recorded history? --J4\/4 <talk> 16:32, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Evil is impossible to quantify. This question has come up before. Search the archives. --Jayron32 16:42, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Is there anyone who was responsible for more deaths than Hitler was? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:45, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I would also say it was Adolf Hitler considering his genocide of six million people, plus the millions more who died as a result of the devastating war he launched in Europe.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:51, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

And how does that particular case of genocide and war become more evil than any other genocide/war in history? Why isn't Attila the Hun evil? He waged war throughout most of the known world at the time, killing countless people and took on extremely genocidal tactics. Deciding who is "most evil" tends to come down to "who did it most recently" - which is a rather silly metric for measuring how evil someone was. -- kainaw™ 17:03, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

A Google search for "list of evil people" or similar will net lots of results. As a random example [12], Cliff Pickover rates Tomas de Torquemada at number one evil man of all time. Buddy432 (talk) 17:10, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think Torquemada ordered the extermination of six million people, besides there are many people who have never heard of Torquemada, whereas most people over the age of 10 know who Hitler was.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:39, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I think I heard once that Hitler killed 6 million Jews, and Stalin killed 6 million of all races and creeds. But that could have been literary license. However, Hitler makes a good poster child for "Evil", in that there is so much footage of him or of his regime that he's relatively "accessible" as demagogues go. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:50, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

There were also, in addition to the 6 million murdered Jews, the millions of combatants and civilians who died in World War Two, which he was personally responsible for causing.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:12, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Not necessarily. China and Japan were already at war before Germany and Russia started the war in Europe, and the conditions for tension between France and Germany due to the Versailles Treaty would still have existed without Hitler, and likewise between Japan and the English-speaking countries. Certainly Hitler was responsible for the war taking the particular course it did, but if he'd died in a traffic accident in 1930 there very well might still have been some sort of second world war. --Anonymous, 18:27 UTC, 2010-05-05.

(edit conflict)Hitler comes to mind as the most evil because he is both a notable 20th century player and is regarded as evil. If it is death tolls that we use to quantify evil, then this list mentions Mao Zedong's regime as killing 40 million people (this number includes those dying from the Great Leap Forward), Stalin's regime killing 20 million, and Congo Free State (headed by Leopold II of Belgium) killing about 8 million. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 18:35, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

It's extremely frustrating to see RD regulars use the figure "six million" as short-hand for the camps. I absolutely agree that we must "never forget" the six million Jews -- but at least THIRTEEN million people died in the camps (the Jews plus seven million more). It amazes me that people who pride themselves on their general knowledge continue to be ignorant of this fact. 63.17.78.36 (talk) 03:33, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

The debate above, which will never end, illustrates that the question is not answerable because the term "evil" is subjective. Our article Evil, for example, discusses several acts now considered evil which were not considered evil in earlier times; mentions that "evil", to some, means simply "disobeying God"; and contains some criticism of the use of the word itself as counterproductive. Sorry. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:28, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

To the question by Bugs about anyone to have been responsible for more deaths than Hitler was: the article Mao Zedong states that "Mao's policies and political purges from 1949 to 1976 are widely believed to have caused the deaths of between 50 to 70 million people." --Магьосник (talk) 20:22, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Post military-model

Many textbooks decry the military model of management, and from my experience I agree with that. But after the military model is removed, what do you call what should replace it? 78.146.23.126 (talk) 20:36, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

What do you define as the military model?

ALR (talk) 20:42, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Probably command and control, which is the name for the standard management model used by most militaries. There are, of course, many non-heirarchical management models, W. L. Gore and Associates uses a notable one which works quite well for them. Our article gives a basic overview. There are lots of others. --Jayron32 00:49, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

That would be my assumption, but since military organisations, in common with the rest of the real world, don't reflect the textbooks it's difficult to judge. In practice there is a blend of different styles of management and leadership depending on context and situation.

I would say that in my experience the Command and Control model is nowadays rarely used in the military environment, it's much more about what I'd call Mission Command or management by objectives

ALR (talk) 07:37, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Joel Spolsky has a series of articles [13] [14] on this subject, as it applies to software management. Paul (Stansifer) 02:44, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

What I call it is "chaos". Multiple reporting lines make things very confusing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:24, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

HIV/AIDS

See the AIDS article for details.

1. Is HIV/AIDS on a decline throughout the world? 2. Which region of Earth has the highest HIV/AIDS cases? B-Machine (talk) 21:09, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

In absolute numbers or as a proportion of population? -- AnonMoos (talk) 21:22, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Both. B-Machine (talk) 21:38, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

It is still on the rise. This page has a graph. Also see our AIDS article, which includes the graphic to the right illustrating HIV prevalence among the population. Comet Tuttle (talk) 23:28, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

May 6

Probable cause

A police officer suspects someone of having something illegal, but he doesn't have enough proof to establish probable cause. He then asks the person for permission to search his stuff. If the person consents, the officer searches him. If the person refuses, he must be hiding something, so the officer has probable cause to search him anyway. Would this work? --75.33.219.230 (talk) 02:30, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

No. See right to silence. --99.237.234.104 (talk) 02:37, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I have heard a police officer in the United States say specifically that if he asks to search something (say a vehicle) but doesn't have probable cause or a warrant, he can't without permission. His course of action then is to wait until the drug dogs get there and walk around the car. Should the dogs bark, he said that that was probable cause. Falconus^{p t c} 02:56, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Police officers tend to have some tricks up their sleaves in tricking people who don't know their rights. One example is asking "do you know what will happen to you if you don't do what a police officer tells you?" The answer is nothing, but most people don't know this apparantly. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 03:20, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Judge knowingly permitting perjury?

Right now, I'm watching a Law and Order episode in which a witness, fearing for his safety, testifies to a judge privately and is told by the judge to lie in open court: the judge says that the secret testimony is good enough. Would such a situation really be possible in real life under New York law? Nyttend (talk) 02:55, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

UK election polling times

What times of day do the polls open and close in the UK election? --130.216.44.59 (talk) 04:31, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

7 a.m. to 10 p.m. Ghmyrtle (talk) 06:58, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Too Big to Fail

The definition in the article's second paragraph is not accompanied by any citations. Can someone please hunt down a source that either verifies or refutes the claim? 128.59.180.241 (talk) 05:10, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

That sort of issue should be dealt with on that page's talk page, or at the appropriate project page, like WP:FINANCE. Shadowjams (talk) 06:10, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Why was jesus executed?

I'm not talking about the religious reason, he died for our sins, I don't buy that nonsense. I'm just interested in the historical reasons. I read the section on Historical Jesus regarding his execution, and I don't completely understand all of the context. Now I heard he was killed simply for saying he was the son of god, and the jews considered that blasphemy, but that sounds a bit extreme. I know this was back in those days, and it was a different culture, but to execute someone over just that sounds like it's too much. Sedition also sounds a bit odd. If he was planning sedition, and the Romans took it as a serious threat, wouldn't it make more sense to imprison him? If his followers were large enough to be that much of a threat, they would be afraid that they would want to take revenge for killing him in such a public way. Did he do anything that caused people to die in the same way that Shoko Asahara or Jim Jones did? ScienceApe (talk) 05:46, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Whatever -- you might set a better tone for people to persuade people to cooperate with you if you didn't start off by insulting their religion, and leaving the word "Jews" uncapitalized could give people the wrong idea. In any case, the New Testament makes it fairly clear that the Sadducee/High-priestly elite of the time (not "Jews" generally) thought he was a religious troublemaker with grandiose pretensions who could agitate people and/or cause problems with the continually very touchy Roman-Jewish relations. They couldn't execute him because such inferior local "native" authorities weren't allowed to impose the death penalty under the Roman system. So they had to hand him over to the Romans to be executed -- but since Jewish religious offenses were not a crime under Roman law, they also had to present him as a being political rebel. The Roman authorities were more or less aware that he wasn't really a political rebel, but were willing to kill him anyway, partly to preserve their working relationship with the Sadducee/High-priestly elite. AnonMoos (talk) 06:11, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

That's a good summary. It's also worth pointing out that there were a number of "false messiahs" running around, and they often ended up being disposed of and were thus permanently out of the way of both the Romans and the Jewish honchos. The Jesus situation turned out differently, to put it mildly. I think the question "why weren't they imprisoned" is answerable by the deterrence factor. Crucifixion was a horrible way to die, and the theory was that it would make other potential troublemakers think twice before making trouble. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:04, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Voteing

I have registered to vote but have not received anything to confirm this, what do I need to vote, can I take my passport and tell them my address? Will they stop me from voting with out a card? please help I DID register, and really want to vote! Thanx