:::::::::::I can't understand why people keep bringing up Piltdown Man to paint evolutionists are conspiratorial. Guess who debunked Piltdown Man? Evolutionists, through the scientific process. I could go off on creation science, but I won't. Back to the question at hand...Wavelength, you seem to be going in circles about the Bible. I can't glean a good reason as to why ''I'' should believe the Biblical account of why God permits suffering, and not, say, Buddhist philosophy. Clue me in? '''''[[User:WordyGirl90|<font style="color:#DA3287">WordyGirl90</font>]]''''' 22:20, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
:::::::::::I can't understand why people keep bringing up Piltdown Man to paint evolutionists are conspiratorial. Guess who debunked Piltdown Man? Evolutionists, through the scientific process. I could go off on creation science, but I won't. Back to the question at hand...Wavelength, you seem to be going in circles about the Bible. I can't glean a good reason as to why ''I'' should believe the Biblical account of why God permits suffering, and not, say, Buddhist philosophy. Clue me in? '''''[[User:WordyGirl90|<font style="color:#DA3287">WordyGirl90</font>]]''''' 22:20, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
:You can read about [[vitamin K]] and [[prothrombin]] at http://www.givingbirthnaturally.com/male-circumcision.html and http://www.matavuvale.com/forum/topics/why-circumcise-on-the-8th-day. -- [[User:Wavelength|Wavelength]] ([[User talk:Wavelength|talk]]) 01:51, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
:You can read about [[vitamin K]] and [[prothrombin]] at http://www.givingbirthnaturally.com/male-circumcision.html and http://www.matavuvale.com/forum/topics/why-circumcise-on-the-8th-day. -- [[User:Wavelength|Wavelength]] ([[User talk:Wavelength|talk]]) 01:51, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
::So, You should believe in the bible because the bible says you should. That makes sense to me. [[Special:Contributions/72.2.54.34|72.2.54.34]] ([[User talk:72.2.54.34|talk]]) 23:47, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
== Passports from Cameroon ==
== Passports from Cameroon ==
Revision as of 23:47, 20 August 2010
Welcome to the humanities section of the Wikipedia reference desk.
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.
. I have a photo I took of this same structure at Bang Pa-In Royal Palace, and inside it is a sculpture of a man in military uniform. Is the sculpture inside Rama IV or Rama V? 01:04, 15 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.237.193.83 (talk)
This page[1] says "Phra Thinang Aisawan Thiphya-Art is a Thai-style pavilion with four porches and a spired roof built by King Chulalongkorn in the middle of an outer pond in 1876... This pavilion now houses a bronze statue of King Chulalongkorn in the uniform of a Field Marshal which was placed by his son King Vajiravudh (Rama VI). Alansplodge (talk) 13:16, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Revisionism
Hey, It's me again. Monday is the last debate in our debate club before school starts. The director decided to give us a really controversial one to provoke thought or some other stuff he said. Short version: The debate is whether we should revise things like religious texts and other documents if there is a good chance that they might cause or be interpreted to encourage violence and unrest (probably intended as an aside to certain interpretations of jihad in the Qu'ran), and I'm in the pro-revisionism camp. An argument that I plainly can forsee against me is that if religious texts can be modified then any art should be. How can I counter this, preferably without asserting that the Mona Lisa or Shakespeare's Hamlet should be vandalized/bowdlerized to remove chauvinistic depictions of women/violence or however they're going ot say it? 76.228.198.120 (talk) 01:17, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd go the other route (in for a penny, in for a pound) and say that art itself should be revised if it produces unpleasant social results. that argument was successfully used, at any rate, to produce mounds of truly horrific "Worker's Art" in the Soviet Union and a few other socialist systems (plus some very good stuff, such as the work of Diego Rivera and Frida Kahlo). it's debate, man: go for the jugular. --Ludwigs201:31, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can't one try to draw a firm distinction between religious texts and general works of art? People don't read Hamlet and say, "Oh, that's interesting, I guess I'll go kill my uncle now." It's not a prescription for how to live one's life — or, if it is (and there are such works of art), the penalties are usually pretty minor compared to the religious texts. To me the "art" question is a non-starter — we don't use art the same way we do religion. Even at its most political, art is pretty ineffectual at getting people to do anything. (Insert the cries of a thousand performance artists here, who desperately feel their art is "political" and important and influential.)
A tougher argument would be for political tracts and things that actually do try to incite violence, and have in the past. If you're going to bowdlerize the Qu'ran — a holy text over 1,000 years old and believed by millions of people around the world to be fairly close to the word of God — then what's to stop you from censoring everything that looks even remotely like revolutionary fervor. We might as well re-write the Declaration of Independence while we are at it. Certainly the works of the Founding Fathers — "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants," is pretty explosive stuff! I mean, the tough part of your argument is not art, it's that once you start censoring sacred, historical things, where do you stop? (Is anybody honestly proposing this? It seems to me like a totally silly thing to have to try and argue for, because nobody sensible would agree to it for a minute. But I might not be very sensible, myself.) --Mr.98 (talk) 03:00, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Ludwigs2: I'd argue that this is pure utilitarianism; you're simply arguing we should always strive for the maximum social good, which is hard to argue against. You might also be able to sound very reasonable, if you're allowed to argue this, by conditioning the censorship on results. Do a large scale double-blind (somehow) scientific test of what happens when you bowdlerize text X or Y or Z, and if the censored text X correlates with the sample of people reading it to commit 20% fewer murders, then those arguing against the censorship sound like amoral, bloodthirsty crazies. Comet Tuttle (talk) 06:27, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A form of this has happened in the UK. Our national anthem mentions the crushing of the Jacobite Rebellion, in a verse which is seldom if ever sung nowadays. One might wish to ask why the French still sing about the blood of their enemies running on the floor in their national anthem... --TammyMoet (talk) 09:09, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, almost all anthems follow a pretty predictable pattern: "we love our country, it is the most beautiful in the world, we will die for it in the name of God/the sovereign, we will kill everybody who might even consider invading." Laibach did an interesting album based on this. Incidentally, the German anthem was amended after WWII to abridge some of the Vaterland that was in the old version spread too broadly for comfort.
Not quite. The full old German anthem was inherited by the Federal Republic, but only the third verse ("Unity and justice and freedom...") was ever played on official occasions. Only after reunification did this situation change and the third verse alone did, by presidential decree, become the national anthem. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:37, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A form of this has happened in the UK. Our national anthem mentions the crushing of the Jacobite Rebellion, in a verse which is seldom if ever sung nowadays. One might wish to ask why the French still sing about the blood of their enemies running on the floor in their national anthem... --TammyMoet (talk) 09:09, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
AIUI that vesrse was only ever used in 1745, but nationalistic Scots seem to know all the words. Some people like to make-up their own forms of discrimination. Alansplodge (talk) 10:22, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The blood is running on the floor of the French national anthem? :) The seldom (or actually never) heard third verse of "The Star-Spangled Banner" contains a charming line about how the blood of the fleeing British "has washed out their foul footsteps' pollution". ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 09:22, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's worth caveating that by saying that the majority of people can't remember beyond the first three lines of the national anthem. It's not some vast authoritarian conspiracy.
In the Discworld novels, it's recognised that nobody can remember the second verse of an anthem anyway, so the second verse of the Ankh-Morpork National Anthem "We Can Rule You Wholesale" officially mostly consists of "hner"s - as performed here. -- Arwel Parry(talk)15:34, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The truth is that you can't revise a historical work. A book such as the King James Bible is what it is. You can create a new Bible of your own; you can argue, perhaps with much justification, that your translation is better, or that your interpretation is clearer, or that your ethics are better justified by the entire body of Apocrypha only some of which were used to produce the original; or simply that your ethics are inspired by a clearer understanding of Jesus' true intent. You may be right. But if you say that's the original King James Bible, it would be a lie. If you try to force people to exchange their Bibles for yours, it is censorship.
Thus the energy of the opponents' argument should be helped on toward its logical conclusion: that people should use the historical texts and other sources to create new grand documents of their own, which some day may be respected themselves as timeless classics. Wnt (talk) 17:05, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If a person goes through a stop sign on a city street, he can be stopped by the police. And he can be charged with a crime (or an infraction or a violation). Now, what about those stop signs that are placed on private property? For example, if there is a very large store (let’s say, a Wal-Mart or a Stop and Shop or whatever), they often have huge parking lots. And these huge parking lots often have stop signs placed here and there. However, the parking lot is strictly private property, and not a public city street. So, does the Wal-Mart parking lot type of stop sign have the same legal effect as a city street stop sign? If you drive through one, can the police stop you and charge you with a crime or infraction or violation? I would think not, but I am curious. Are the Wal-Mart parking lot type of stop signs of any legal effect at all? Or do we stop at them, essentially, only voluntarily, and not as a legal mandate? This question refers to the USA, by the way. Thanks. (64.252.34.115 (talk) 01:30, 15 August 2010 (UTC))[reply]
The exact rules of the road vary state-by-state, but as I recall, any unmarked stopping point (your driveway, for example) is an implied yield-right-of-way, or maybe even an implied stop sign. Many stores will have those "fake" stop signs, as a reminder. So the cop could theoretically ticket you for failing to yield right-of-way; especially if, by so doing, you get into a collision with someone who has the right-of-way. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 01:40, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. I googled ["rules of the road" "right of way"] and the first thing that came up was this,[2] from the state of New York, which seems typical of other rules of the road for other states I've lived in. Look about 2/3 of the way down the page. When approaching an unmarked intersection, or from a driveway, you are supposed to stop and yield to both traffic and pedestrians. In your own driveway, you're pretty much in control, but in a public parking area they need to post those stop signs in order to make it clear who has the right of way. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 01:46, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So, in the public parking lot (Wal-Mart) "fake" stop sign scenario ... is it the same type of crime/infraction/violation as going through a "real" (city street) stop sign? And what would give the private party (owner of the Wal-Mart parking lot) the "right" to determine where he "feels" he can place his stop signs? If I were the owner, I can just place these "fake" stop signs willy-nilly, wherever I feel like it? And they have the legal effect of "determining" who has the right of way? That doesn't seem to add up? I am confused. (64.252.34.115 (talk) 02:10, 15 August 2010 (UTC))[reply]
With the disclaimer that the Ref Desk cannot offer Legal Advice. I concur with what Bugs has said here. • If you are parking in a privately owned parking lot, as a 'guest', it may be that you are obliged (morally or perhaps even legally) to follow the rules of the owner. If the land owner has Stop signs, then it would be advisable to heed them for your safety and that of other 'guests' (That perhaps even being a condition of you usage of the parking lot-if you read the fine print on the signs). If you have an accident,and dispute it, then go to a 'civil' court say to sue another driver, (as it was not on a public road) it will not look good for your case if you ignored any sign (even an 'advisory sign' possibly without 'legal' power of Police enforcement. • In NSW, Australia, as per Bugs above, a pedestrian legally has right of way, cars are supposed to always give way to a pedetrian. For example, when a vehicle crosses a footpath/sidewalk, thay are supposed to stop, or at least give way to pedestrians, but this is often ignored. • If you want a 'legal' answer to your query you should enquire of a police offcir or your local Roads Department. • No legal Advice given here, just food for thought!220.101talk\Contribs02:53, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of "fake" I should have said "non-standard", as they often seem to be made-to-order by the store. And as far as enforcement goes, if you violate one going onto a public thoroughfare, yes, you could be ticketed. But as far as stop signs placed strictly to regular traffic within the mall parking lot, that's a good question. I'll see if I can find anything about that. However, I suspect that shopping mall parking lots, being "public accomodations", are subject to traffic laws and regulations to some degree. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 02:54, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"what would give the private party the "right"" - rather, you may ask, who sets the obligations of the private landowner or tenant to maintain safety on their premises? East of Borschov12:27, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I googled ["parking lots" "right of way"] and a bunch of opinions popped up, many of them no more informed than mine. However, this one from The Straight Dope bulletin board might be of interest.[3] It points out various things, of which at least two are important here: (1) The laws vary state-by-state; and (2) Some shopping centers have agreements with the local police that effectively turn the mall lot into public roads. In short, don't make any assumptions, and call your local authorities to find out for sure about your particular community and stores. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 03:01, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, the short answer is that it depends on where you are talking about. In Ohio, yes, running a stop sign on private property is ticket-able. (Ref. Ohio Revised Code, 4511.432 (C), covers some residential dwellings, I forget the code for businesses.) In New York, it's only valid with written permission from an authority. (Ref. New York Vehicle & Traffic Law: Article 39 - § 1640-a.) Some local laws may override these, as well. Avicennasis @ 03:54, 5 Elul 5770 / 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! I guess the following question is also a part of what I am "getting at". Can the landowner just put up stop signs, arbitrarily and willy-nilly, where ever he "feels like" doing so? Or does some authority (the town, a local ordinance, some building permit requirements, etc.) dictate to the owner where he can/cannot put the signs? If his privately owned stop signs have some legal effect, I can't imagine that he can place them willy-nilly where ever he pleases. There must be some oversight, no? Otherwise, as a landowner, I can place a stop sign in the most "odd" places ... and my guests will incur legal liability for my idiosyncrasies? Thanks! (64.252.34.115 (talk) 15:24, 15 August 2010 (UTC))[reply]
In British Columbia, in any place where the public can be reasonably expected to drive, whether public or private property, the Highways act and therefore the rules of the road apply. This doesn't mean the driveway to your house, but it doesn mean parking lots in shopping centres. I suspect (don't know for sure but it seems likely) that this means that, yes, the property owner could put up stop signs all willy-nilly. That said, they themselves would be forced to obey them, so it would be very inconvenient. Aaronite (talk) 17:28, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
prenatal influence
Am looking for info on the school of thought that was around at least as far back as the mid-1800's and used the vocabulary 'prenatal influence' when promoting the theory that a mother's thoughts and spoken words to her fetus could influence who the fetus would become. Dixie Willson (sister of Meredith Willson who created 'The Music Man') claimed that her parents were believers in this theory and that they had read a book titled 'Prenatal Influence' before their children were conceived. Dixie claimed that her parents decided that she would be a writer (which she did become)and that Meredith would be a musician. Am trying to learn more about this theory and it's influence on parents in the 1800's and early 1900's (Frank Lloyd Wright's mother is also reported to have been a believer of this theory <http://books.google.com/books?id=S7ZB90XmTdcC&pg=PA59&dq=frank+lloyd+wright+prenatal+influence&hl=en&ei=d0ZnTN2HOJPqnQflgJ3BBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false> and is reported to have decided before Frank Lloyd Wright's birth that he would be an architect)Jacollison (talk) 01:56, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There exist numerous indications that what fetuses experience in the womb influences their life after birth, although the actual theory of it makes few claims as grandiose as the 'Baby Einstein' pedlars, etc. I personally know little about the history of the theory, but I can help you with recent research into the cognitive science of 'prenatal influences', as you term them. Is this helpful? The Rhymesmith (talk) 06:54, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
However, there was a whole earlier pre-scientific theory of "impressions", that something striking or upsetting which a pregnant woman saw could affect her baby, especially the physical appearance (perhaps in the form of a birthmark shaped like what the mother saw). AnonMoos (talk) 12:01, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to the two who responded so far, but I am really wanting specific information on how the 'prenatal influence' school of thought influenced parents especially in the time period of mid-to-late 1800s and early 1900's. We know that the Willson's parents and Frank Lloyd Wrights parents subscibed to the theory and produced children with the intended careers they had attempted to influence. What writings influenced these parents? Are there other famous/influential people whose parents had attempted to influence their life choices prenatally?Jacollison (talk) 14:56, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In ca. 1900, modern cognitive studies on newborns had not yet happened, and the old theory of impressions was no longer taken too seriously by most educated people (and was probably transmitted more orally than in writing in any case), so I'm not quite sure exactly what you're asking... AnonMoos (talk) 19:00, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
parents who try to influence the child in the womb are not going to stop trying to influence the child after it's born, and parents trying to influence a child in the womb can safely be considered to be a bit obsessive, so it would be impossible to separate out the prenatal and postnatal influences on the child. 2. examination of success cases proves absolutely nothing: statistically, there will always be success cases to point to, no matter how absurd the theory in question.
This will all be anecdotal. 1. failure rates are much more indicative of the power of a theory, but we have no information on people who failed to become what their parents wanted them to become (except that such people constitute the vast majority of the world's population). really, this is 'patent medicine' territory: There's no evidence that children can do any language processing prenatally, and while they might pick up on tonal regularities (vocal emotions, musical compositions, etc.) they just don't have the cognitive structures to do anything with it. about the best you can hope for is that they will be acclimated to certain kinds of stimuli (e.g. if you read a lot of poetry aloud while you're pregnant your child might develop an emotional acclimation to the rhythms and cadences of the spoken word, and might be less resistant to reading and hearing such later in life, which might translate to better study habits...). But things like that are going to be far more profoundly influenced by how you interact with your child during the language acquisition stage. It can't hurt, I suppose, but it's really more for the parents than the child (like buying your baby designer clothes). --Ludwigs218:54, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Re: 'parents who try to influence the child in the womb are not going to stop trying to influence the child after it's born, and parents trying to influence a child in the womb can safely be considered to be a bit obsessive, so it would be impossible to separate out the prenatal and postnatal influences on the child.'. That is a given but I am still not finding the information that i need and want. Who was promoting this school of thought? Dixie Willson reported that her parents read a book titled 'Prenatal Influence'. Who wrote this book? What other authors were promoting this theory? Do we have evidence that other parents of famous and influential people in the mid-to-late 1800s and early 1900's subscribed to this theory and were obsessive in influencing their children pre and postnatally?98.108.40.200 (talk) 23:15, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Abraham Lincoln
On Abraham Lincoln's biography under presidency it states...
the main one is that you will deprive them of a happy, long-lasting marriage of their own. "like father, like son", "the apple never falls far from the tree", etc etc. The truth is you are probably considering divorce because of money issues or other temporary hardships. Without exception every marriage faces that sooner or later. The people who don't know that you're supposed to ride that out are the ones whose parents didn't show them that. They are also the people who end up married five times. Instead of one marriage with five bumps and then a long golden period lasting for decades, they have five marriages ending at the first bump and are miserable for the rest of their lives. But, by all means, call a divorce lawyer: they will tell you, I am sure, the benefits of ditching the person you committed to. 92.230.234.222 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:04, 15 August 2010 (UTC).[reply]
The IP makes a lot of rosy assumptions. Let me make my own: what if the marriage is falling apart because of an abusive spouse? Do you really believe that the children would prefer an abusive parent to a divorced one? What if in their minds, sticking around in an abusive marriage makes them lose all respect for the suffering parent? Worse yet, what if, following the IP's logic, it turns the children into abusive parents eventually? It could be the case, as could the IP's scenario. Truth is, I don't know, and neither does anyone else here. Divorces have their way of having different effects on different people. Quite frankly, this question cannot be answered here - we're just a bunch of random strangers on the Internet and we have no way of knowing how this particular divorce might affect the children. TomorrowTime (talk) 12:45, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is quite a stretch to assume a) that the OP is even considering divorcing their own partner (it could just as well be a homework question in from an "ethics" or "social science" class), and b) that divorce is inherited and always results in unhappy children destined to a life of unhappy and broken relationships. Consider this: perhaps a divorce from an abusive partner could be good for the children. Astronaut (talk) 13:47, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WW1 ended in 1919, the Russian Revolution was in 1917. Did the Russians keep fighting in the war during and after the revolution, or where they not involved in WW1? Thanks 92.29.114.222 (talk) 13:33, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just about the first thing the Bolsheviks did after the October revolution was to sue for peace with the Germans. The revolution was on 14th November (in the Western calender) and an armistice began on 14th December[4]. See the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk. The Germans had put in a lot of work to facilitate Lenin's return to Russia. The armistice on the Eastern Front freed-up an extra 50 German divisions (more than half a million soldiers) to send to France and Belgium. This allowed the Germans to launch the Kaiserschlacht offensive against Britain, France and the US in April 1918. Alansplodge (talk) 14:12, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's why some think it was more of a German imperial sealed-train putsch than a real Bolshevik "revolution" -- an impression that was reinforced by the fact that the Soviets refused to fight Germany, but were extremely eager and avaricious to seize great chunks of territory from Poland after others had accomplished the work of defeating Germany... By the way, the WW1 armistice was in 1918, not 1919 AnonMoos (talk) 18:54, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Another date thing for Alansplodge: The 1917 Revolution took more than a day, but the starting day is usually quoted as 7 November NS (= 25 October OS, hence the Russian terminology "October Revolution". Even if it had happened on the last day of October OS, that still only gets to 13 November NS.) -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 01:22, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Quite right JackofOz, my mistake. AnonMoos makes a good point; IIRC pre-1941 Soviet expansion was focussed on restoring the territory ceded at Brest-Litovsk and Versailles (ie the Baltic States, Finland and E Poland) but postwar (to be charitable) they just wanted a big buffer-zone that was under their influence. The fighting ceased on 11/11/18 but peace was not formally concluded until 28/06/19. (some war memorials in the UK are marked "1914-1919")Alansplodge (talk) 16:57, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
U.S. county borders
Resolved
Hello, I have a couple of questions about the borders between counties in the United States:
Are county borders that "look" (subjective, but bear with me) like they are based on a meridian or a parallel normally exactly aligned with that?
I presume that state governments were the entities deciding on borders between counties, but the article County (United States) does not say what criteria were used for that.
Also, the article does not say how borders are administrated. For example, the border with Canada is defined by the Treaty of Paris, but how does this work for counties? Are there official documents defining county borders and, if so, are these still in force?
As an example to partially answer 2 and 3, see page 40 of New York State's Local Government Handbook (http://www.dos.state.ny.us/lgss/pdfs/Handbook.pdf), which says "The first State Constitution in 1777...recognized the existence of 14 counties that had been established earlier by the colonial Assembly... All of New York’s other 50 counties were created by acts of the State Legislature." --Nricardo (talk) 16:39, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
During much of the 19th-century, many people considered that the ideal size of a county was such that the great majority of farmers in the county could hitch up a horse-and-cart in the morning, drive to the county seat, transact some business there at mid-day, and then arrive back at the farm in the evening, without having to spend a night away from the farm. Of course, a number of factors could prevent this from being achieved in specific cases... AnonMoos (talk) 18:47, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
also (historically speaking) counties were defined pragmatically as regions that could be effectively maintained as a political unit (the name derives from the leader of some such units - i.e. 'Counts'), which usually meant they had to be large enough to be agriculturally capable of sustaining their population and a smallish military force, but small enough to be patrolled effectively by that force. --Ludwigs219:23, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As an aside, the idea that military defense sets the side of a county leads to some interesting simple math. Assume defending soldiers (low alert) are picketed 1 unit apart, and county residents each take up n square units of land, and the fraction of the population on picket at any one time is a ratio m (say 1/30 - 10% military, 3 shifts). Then a square county of side r needs 4r pickets and musters m*r^2/n soldiers, so r = 4n / m (for m = 1/30, r=120 n). Thus a county using this definition should have a constant number of civilians (here 14400) given constant parameters for military spending. Which raises the question: were counties created with approximately constant population? Which would validate the model. Wnt (talk) 17:25, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
However, that's rather irrelevant to the United States, since counties/shires in England lost all real feudal autonomy long before English colonies were settled in north America... AnonMoos (talk) 20:50, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes and no: even though the feudal structure has disappeared, counties are still largely determined for the same pragmatic reasons. for instance, one of the reasons that counties in the western US are larger than counties in the eastern US is that changes in technology (railroads, telegraphs, improved firearms, and etc.) made it possible to have centralized administration for larger areas: thus, trouble with criminals, Indians, Mexicans, or the dreaded Canadians could reach county sheriffs, US Marshals, or military bases far more quickly, and they could respond more rapidly with more firepower. --Ludwigs221:03, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In American law, the county is a subdivision of the state and is controlled by the state. There is no requirement that a state even have counties or other subdivisions, although all do and most call them counties (Louisiana has parishes and Alaska has boroughs). Normally the counties and their borders are determined by the state legislature, which can create new counties or change the borders of existing counties by enacting state laws to that effect. The county borders, in other words, are set out in the state's laws (or, in some cases, in the state's constitution). The counties and their borders are determined in response to political and administrative considerations. The considerations described by AnonMoos are no longer important, of course, but they did affect the creation of many existing counties. John M Baker (talk) 22:10, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this has already been answered well, but since it is a favorite topic of mine I will respond as well, by question number, 1-3:
1. No, I doubt there are any county boundaries that are exactly aligned to a meridian or parallel. The legislation that created any given county might have specified a meridian or parallel, but the actual boundaries were the result of surveys, which always have some degree of error--and in the olden days when most US counties were surveyed the errors were often quite substantial. Sometimes you hear about a county or state declaring that part of another county or state should belong to them because the original legislation decreed such-and-such a boundary but the actual survey was off by so-and-so number of miles. These complaints never go anywhere. What matters is the boundaries as surveyed, not as decreed. The same holds true for countries. A long section of the Canada – United States border was decreed to be the 49th parallel north. The actual boundary today is the one established by survey teams (from both countries) and the boundary monuments they emplaced. According to a blogger who researched this topic, the US-Canada border is defined by 11,501 separate boundary markers--and this for a boundary 8,891 kilometers long. The line segments supposed to be on the 49th parallel are on average about 1.8 kilometers long, and at each marker the boundary bends slightly north and southward. Furthermore, a great number of US sub-national borders were "decreed" in terms of the Public Land Survey System (PLSS), not explicit meridians and parallels. The PLSS system was based on principal meridians and baselines, which were usually defined as meridians and parallels (but again, did not follow them exactly when surveyed). As the surveying moved farther from the principal merdians and baselines the errors increased, in part due to the curvature of the Earth, and in part due to the compounding of errors upon errors as surveyors marked range and township lines farther and father from the principal meridians and baselines. There's plenty of info at the PLSS page. Suffice it to say that most counties in the US, at least after the PLSS system became standardized in the early 19th century, have borders legally defined in terms of PLSS townships and ranges, not actual latitude and longitude. The boundaries of US counties, states, and the nation itself, are the result of cadastral surveys, not the boundaries as decreed in the boundary-establishing legislation. In fact, I'm skeptical that there exists any national, state, county, or city boundary in the US that is "exactly aligned" with lines of longitude and latitude. All this said, county and state boundaries are often said to follow a single precise line of latitude or longitude. Our Colorado article, for example, describes the state's borders as 37°N, 41°N, 102°03'W, and 109°03'W. But the article goes on to point out that the actual boundary today is based on surveys, and those surveys had errors resulting in boundary "kinks". The article says they are "imperceptible", but I'd argue that their perceptibility depends on scale—how close in do you care? The kinks are quite perceptible at close scale, such as the Google Maps link from the Colorado page: CO-UT boundary kink.
2. Yes and no. Many counties were created by territories not states—and territories were were essentially under federal jurisdiction. Usually the size and boundaries of counties were repeatedly adjusted, well into the statehood era, but many of the boundaries today still date to pre-state terrotirial times. For example, King County, Washington was created in 1852 by the Oregon Territory legislature. It's original delineation was larger than today, but quite a bit of its present boundaries still date to the 1852 legislation. Lots--probably most counties in the western US were created in a similar way. You can view animated maps of county formation by state at this website. I linked to the Ohio page, but there's a menu for picking other states. The maps don't tell you how the boundaries were defined/surveyed, but does show how county borders changed quite a lot in earlier times.
3. I'm not sure what you mean by "administrated". The US-Canada border was defined (in part) by the Treaty of Paris (actually it was only vaguely defined and hammer out over many years via many further treaties and agreements). But the Treaty of Paris does not "administrate" the boundary. The agency that deals with the US-Canada border, not in terms of security, customs, etc, but in terms of where the border is exactly, is the [International Boundary Commission, or IBC. I doubt anything similar exists for states and counties, at least the the majority of the US surveyed under the PLSS system. The PLSS system was federal, and generally defined boundaries in pre-state, territorial times. That said, there certainly are official documents defining county borders, but they are not exactly "in force". Borders delineations are not based on documents but on survey markers in place "in the field"--that is, physical markers in the landscape are "in force", not the text of official documents. The surveyors placed boundary monuments and issued detailed reports that defined the boundaries. Unless I'm mistaken, the NGA, part of NOAA, is charged with keeping track of survey monuments of all kinds. The NGA is probably the agency in charge of "administrating" cadastral boundaries in the US—although local issues would be handled locally, using survey marker information from the NGA. But I'm not totally certain about this, and things may be more complicated in reality. Washington state and its counties, as far as I know, do keep track of the survey markers and resulting boundary lines, but they basically use information acquired from the NGA. In any case, most county boundaries have been established for so long, and counties have largely been filled in with parcels based on the PLSS system, there is not a great need to administrate the boundaries. Foe example, I live a block from a county boundary. The boundary runs down the center of a street. Whether or not this street is located exactly where the county-creation legislation said it should is irrelevant. Everyone, including local governments, know the road is the boundary. There's no need for boundary administration. If some boundary dispute does arise, where or elsewhere, and it is important enough for someone, or some organization to spend a bunch of money on, the matter would usually be resolved by having surveyors relocate the old monuments and calculate the boundary segments between them. In other words, boundaries at the county level are not administrated by any permanent agency, but rather by courts as the need arises. The situation might be slightly different and more complex in the pre-PLSS eastern part of the US. I've noticed that some counties lines in states like Tennessee are described as "indeterminate". But in most cases it still comes down to survey monuments.
Long, but very helpful. This all started when I noticed on Google Earth that the northern border of Tipton County, Indiana was not exactly "horizontal". (It's off by about 5 seconds, which is a hundred yards or so.) In my naivety, I kinda assumed that, to use your example, the borders of Colorado are defined in terms of coordinates, instead of by physical markers. So, by "administrated" I meant to refer to official documents containing such coordinates. (Off-topic, but I think the borders of the territorial claims on Antarctica are defined in terms of numbers (degrees). If not, I pity the poor sods who had to survey those.) Thank you! 83.81.60.104 (talk) 19:08, 16 August 2010 (UTC) (OP with different IP)[reply]
Hugo metaphor
I'm teaching foreign literature this semester, beginning with French literature. I need to formulate a metaphor or simile that upper-middle and upper class English-speaking students can understand for the dominance Hugo's work, most notably Les Misérables, holds over French literature. This needs to be a cultured and refined metaphor and NOT something like Victor Hugo's work dominates French literature like Li'l Wayne dominates neo-hiphop rap fusion (or something like that) or like Stephenie Meyer's work dominates the Teen vampire romance genre! I also don't want to use another literary metaphor, so not something like Shakespeare dominates English drama. I was thinking about using a classical music reference (i.e., the loudest or most noticeably part of a symphony/orchestra) but am open to other suggestions. Any ideas? 76.229.157.110 (talk) 18:40, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are we talking American students, British students, students in Australia, South Africa, Hong Kong...? Accessible metaphors are going to vary according to cultural and racial makeup. If you're looking for a metaphor that also captures the sense of his relationship to French literature, that's more restrictive. Beethoven would probably be the closest analogy (he was considered "THE" composer that everyone else was compared to). You could also pick up on someone like Adam Smith (who wasn't prolific, but whose ideas dominate modern economics) or someone like Da Vinci or Michelangelo who redefined their art form. hard to say more without knowing more, however.
From "upper-middle and upper class English-speaking students", I'd assume either American students or that there is some reason social class is relevant. Or is that why they want it to be a 'cultured and refined metaphor'? In which case, I worry. 86.164.66.83 (talk) 20:48, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Simply because comparing Victor Hugo to Madonna (entertainer) or Anne Rice would probably cause France to launch a nuclear strike on the Wikimedia servers in Florida. That wouldn't be so bad in itself, but there's a chance they'd miss and hit Barbados, and that would cut off our main supply of rum. Think of the consequences, man! --Ludwigs221:11, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The IP geo-locates to Wisconsin, US. I've heard "upper class" used to refer to seniors in high school as well as to describe a social class. So the OP's meaning isn't clear to me. I don't see why it needs to be "cultured and refined" since these are still kids, no matter what scholastic/social class they're in. They'd probably understand the Madonna or Beatles reference well and also identify with it better than Michelangelo or Da Vinci. Dismas|(talk)02:51, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This strikes me as very strange. You speak as though Hugo's "dominance" in French literature is akin to something like that of Dante in Italian or Tolstoy in Russian, which is certainly not the case. Les Miserables, while popular, is certainly nowhere near the summit of French literature, as per an academic consensus - as George Steiner has summed the issue - "(Hugo's novels), for all their festive glory, (...) do not really lay claim to adult attention." Flaubert's Madame Bovary more or less invented the modern novel and in that sense is dominant in terms of form in both French prose and that of the world at large. I also can't imagine anyone claiming that Hugo is "more dominant" than Proust or Balzac or even Racine (moving out from the territory of prose). The Rhymesmith (talk) 08:30, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Les Misérables is to French literature and free speech is to American politics, as Bordeaux is to fine wine or Leonardo da Vinci was to just about everything else. DOR (HK) (talk) 09:05, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Les Mis is influential, yes, and near the center of the popular French canon. But I strongly dispute "dominance". (Which, perhaps, was your point, given that none of your examples are "dominant" in their areas.) The Rhymesmith (talk) 19:25, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
August 16
related by marriage
the wife and i have a child her sister has a child that would be cousins, my sister has a child that would make mine and my sisters child cousins,how are my sisters child and my wife sisters child related would that make them cousins horozontaly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rougher bob (talk • contribs) 02:29, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They could think of each other as cousins, but they are not related by bloodline, only by marriage - UNLESS you and your wife have a traceable common ancestor. For example, in the 19th century and prior, marriage among cousins was common. So if you and your wife are first cousins, then your wife's sister and your sister would also be first cousins; which would make your child and your sister's child first cousins to each other; your child and your wife's sister's child first cousins to each other; and your sister's child and your wife's sister's child second cousins to each other. Got that? :) ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 02:42, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your sister's child and your wife's sister's child are not "blood" first cousins in the usual sense (i.e. both descended from a common grandparent). I don't think that there's really a usual or accepted name for this in English, but it might possibly be considered a kind of "step"-cousin relationship (i.e. substituting a marriage link in the first ascending generation in place of common ancestry, which is also the difference between a sibling and a step-sibling)... AnonMoos (talk) 02:49, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In many families they would never meet each other, and not even know of each other's existence. If they regularly meet at your house then they might come to think of each other as cousins, even though "cousin's cousin" is not a "real" (blood) relationship in terms of a "family tree". Dbfirs22:29, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, there's no common blood at all, but there's still a traceable connection, and "cousin's cousin" would be more accurate than just "cousin". Unless we're talking about societies like Australian indigenous communities, where "cousin" encompasses a far wider range of people than merely non-siblings who have one set of grandparents in common. -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 01:36, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, they were close contemporaries, and both were somewhat prominent in London society, so they could well have been acquainted. What reason do you have to think they were more specifically linked? Quiz question? (87.81 posting from . . .) 87.82.229.195 (talk) 11:15, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, actually. Given the vast number of people who've held national political office throughout the world for as long as such records have existed, and that's what's in technical scientific jargon known as "a lot", the instance of husbands and wives being involved is pretty infinitesimal. What I'm waiting to see is a husband-husband or wife-wife pair holding political office. -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 06:08, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not aware of such an instance. Angela Eagle is a former British minister, and her civil partner Maria Exall is a political activist on the NEC of the Communication Workers Union, but they are clearly very different posts. Warofdreamstalk15:07, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure of the details. Philip II was king of Spain and (later) also of Portugal (where he ruled as Philip I). There was a serious Morisco Revolt during his reign. The rebellion was crushed and the survivors were expelled. I presume that they were also expelled from Portugal. Flamarande (talk) 14:36, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weird, it seems that the expulsion of the Muslims of Portugal is one of the unclear historical issues. This book states that the Muslims were expelled by order of Manuel I of Portugal around 1496 (therefore before Philip). Manuel I is more (in)famous because supposedly one of the conditions of his marriage (to a daughter of Isabella and Fernando, rulers of Spain) was the expulsion of the Jews from Portugal. Flamarande (talk) 18:38, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know, but here's a picture of him in the trunk: [5]. It was disguised as a taxi, so something taxi-ish, one assumes. --Sean18:10, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This site [6] says it was a Chevrolet. The link has a clearer picture from the side of the vehicle that could help car buffs identify the make and model, but it looks like an Impala circa 1968 to me. --Xuxl (talk) 20:31, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Depends entirely on the countries involved, but if they allow more than one citizenship then there's usually no restriction on three or more if they qualify. I know someone who was born in Northern Ireland and thus automatically has British and Irish citizenship, who has since naturalised as a Belgian citizen... -- Arwel Parry(talk)17:16, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Citizenship of more than one state (Country) is OK, provided it is not outlawed by any one of the states. It is OK to be a citizen of the UK and Ireland at the same time as both states allow. However, if the third state is one of those who forbid it then you have to pick which one you belong to and delete the others. MacOfJesus (talk) 23:08, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I ask that question is because we have immigrants in Canada where they come from countries that Canada doesn't have an embassy in, like for example, we have people from Grenada and yet Canada doesn't have an embassy in Grenada. How can Grenadines come to Canada, then? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.18.229 (talk) 14:30, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While Canada does not have a resident embassy in many countries, there is always an accredited embassy which handles diplomatic relations with the country in question. In the case of St. Vincent and the Grenadines, it's the Canadian High Commission in Bridgetown, Barbados. Visas are issued in non-resident embassies all the time; if there is a high demand for visas, there is sometimes even a mechanism put in place to facilitate applications, such as a special courier service between a location in the country where there is no embassy and the embassy where the visas are issued. In the case of St. Vincent, the responsible Canadian visa office is in Port-of-Spain, Trinidad. Applicants can download application forms on-line and send these to the visa office through the mail. The web site of the Canadian High Commission to Trinidad and Tobago has more information; see here. --Xuxl (talk) 15:07, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can you identify this picture from my poor description, please?
My girlfriend has a stunning print on her lounge wall, that neither of us can identify. All I can do is say it looks Leighton-esque, as the luxury of the fabrics and skin tie in with Flaming June and other works, but it's not shown on his gallery here, nor in google images.
It's a sultry picture of a youngish lady, in a silvery gown, with a slightly blue sheen, wispy drapes of lace etc, sitting upright on a pale blue and silver banquette, which is visible behind her, and ending to her right. She faces us, although looks to the viewer's left shoulder, and has both arms up, seemingly clasping her blonde hair, which is tied back, behind her head.
All in all it smacks of Lord Leighton and his kin, and is definitely a quality image of that era - but I know nothing more, as I can't find anything like a signature.
Unfortunately that does not match all of the description given. There are lots of paintings that are partial matches. The blonde hair may be most distinctive, as black hair in the paintings is the norm. The blonde hair could indicate that it is a Pre-Raphaelite painting. 92.28.247.204 (talk) 09:09, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If lace is depicted, then lace is only known to have existed from the 14th. century. This would mean it was not something set in Ancient Greece or Roman times which Leighton and other painters are known for. 92.28.255.157 (talk) 19:22, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well many thanks for all the suggestions, but as yet no soap. I've looked through the oeuvres of all mentioned and got nothing. Just as said girlfriend does not currently have a card reader or scanner.
It seems a classical portrait, and if I threw anyone with mentioning lace then I'm sorry - the gown certainly has diaphanous layerings to it. It's a closely cropped upright portrait, something like 14" and 24" tall in print. The classical suggestions continue with a green laurel band on her crown, and a marbled wall behind her, with something looking like a windowframe over her right shoulder. Said arm is at an angle that her right elbow points almost horizontally out of frame.
I shall endeavour to get it uploaded somehow, somewhen.
Closing this. The answer is "that's what they believe." Continuing to insult Hindu beliefs is not what the RefDesk is for. If you created the article, I would hope you have references to satisfy your own question. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite13:22, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
From the article: "The main cause of this problem is of course the religious belief among Hindus that cow is a sacred animal and under no circumstance should be killed." Or is there something else you had in mind? TomorrowTime (talk) 18:55, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When I wrote the article the wording I used was "superstition" (the exact and justified term) not "religious belief" as it is now. Some hindu who felt insulted made the change. By all rights I should change it back (but that will result in a useless edit-war) Jon Ascton (talk)03:04, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see you posted the same thing on the talk page as well. Perhaps a better way of putting your question would be: "Why is the cow considered sacred to the Hindu?", or is this not what you meant? TomorrowTime (talk) 18:57, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am uncomfortable with the wording of the question and, also, the asking of it. Disagreeing with religious beliefs is perfectly acceptable, but there's no need to deride them as "stupid superstition(s)". Given the fact that the user asking the question created the article in question... The Rhymesmith (talk) 19:31, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, Rhymesmith. I made this article, what's more I have A usual scene I see every day. The day I shot this pic only one gaumata was there. Usually there are two or three, it's morning when school-kids have to pass through. Usually one responsible adult has to be "on duty" to make sure they get through unhurt.first-hand experience of the problem myself. In fact the first image (top one) of a cow wandering about is the street where I live. For you it's academic inquiry, for me a practical problem ! When I get out of house, they impose a danger to me. At certain time of the year when the bull are in heat, they fight over cows. I have seen people spent months in hospital ( a cow is several hundred kilograms in weight .) Hence, the strong wording. Jon Ascton (talk)02:11, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand, it's not clear to me (or to Richard Dawkins) why society has decided there should be a mandatory, vocal respect for all religious beliefs, when other sorts of beliefs (including moral beliefs) don't have the same stature. Comet Tuttle (talk) 20:26, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The cattle in religion article mentions the religious reasons. The background for why these came about is here, though I don't know if it's a reliable source; cows were made unkillable because cows were valuable, and had to be saved from ritual sacrifice to save money. So it says. Vimescarrot (talk) 19:35, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Link you have provided is not only not reliable source as you are (thankfully) already aware but its the usual Hindutvaist apologetic propaganda which no one should take at face-value. There are temples exclusively dedicated to cow. Just have a look at this please. The fact is that hindus are mad over the cow ! But educated (should I use that term ????? ) don't want to admit that ! Hindu mind is very complicated. Jon Ascton (talk)02:40, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In which case, they shouldn't be pampered and stuffed with delicious food. Or kept in homes with no rodent problem. Nor bred so they can't leap and capture properly. Nor declawed (frankly, they shouldn't be anyway. D:). Nor given expensive veterinary treatment when they're ill, old and infirm. Clearly, the widespread practice of pampering pet cats has little to nothing to do with rodent prevention. 86.164.66.83 (talk) 01:30, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is, of course, not really the same; horny cats might keep you awake at night, but they're not going to trample you while you're walking down the street. Adam Bishop (talk) 05:44, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merino has tried to imply the normalcy of the hindu obsession by providing a parallel that what hindus are doing is also happening somewhere else in world (African wildcat thing). I have given a link above to this page. There are several videos here where you will find a) Hindu holyman doing emotional appeal (by singing) to give cow more love, as if it were not enough. b) A sadhu giving a very unimpressive lecture in pseudoscience. He is telling us that cow is great because it's products milk etc. can solve "modern" problems like cancer and heart-disease which western medicine cannot. Drinking its urine (yes, many pious hindus do that including one former PM of India ) can save you from many troubles. c) A skit to educate people about importance of gaumata - when you die the angels of death will drag you across a river where a cow is waiting for you to help you cross it so better keep your relations with her fine ! Jon Ascton (talk)08:57, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No ! That won't help anyone. My concern is that people are overly sympathetic with this foolishness. Just imagine how harshly you would have dealt with such superstition in west. Is not India a part of world ? I'd also like to know what do you mean by "prejudices" ? Where are the prejudices ? Or perhaps you don't even know what this term means...or maybe ya afraid that perhaps I'll also switch to ridiculing cat-lovers as I blackguard cow-lovers !!! LOL :) No, I love the guys who love their cats, believe me. Jon Ascton (talk)11:38, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
"I knew he was a Commie because he didn't drink"
Where did the old stereotype that Communists don't drink come from? I thought the Russians were known for...um...warming up on a cold winter day with a shot of vodka, if you get my drift ;) 76.230.150.36 (talk) 19:23, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide us any references to it being used in context? The only place I find it on Google is in relation to the Simpsons. Or maybe in the (purposefully bizarro) bit in Strangelove where General Ripper claims that Communists don't drink water because of the fluoridation conspiracy. The Soviets did have a brief prohibition campaign, and many anti-alcoholism campaigns later, but the reason was because drinking was rampant, not because it was scarce. --Mr.98 (talk) 22:28, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Back in the day, American communists didn't drink water, some said, because, as everyone knows, the commies were poisoning our water via fluoridation; see water fluoridation controversy. The belief was famously parodied in Dr. Strangelove, as mentioned above, and briefly mentioned in an episode of M*A*S*H. —KevinMyers00:32, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That would be most likely what The Simpsons were referencing. Many of their jokes are rooted in old cultural references, and you either get it or you wait for the next joke. "On no occasion will your Commie drink water; Vodka, that's what they drink - Vodka." And so on. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 10:01, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WWII
I was recently listening to a speech given by Hitler in 1939, where he stated quite rightly that it was England that declared war on Germany. What he went on to state is what I would like to question. He said that England attacked Germany but that Germany being a peaceful nation did not retaliate for several weeks. So my question is, who fired the first shot in WWII, and, assuming it was England, how long was it before Germany made a retaliatory attack on England or English forces. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.89.16.154 (talk) 19:54, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Germans fired the first shot of WWII, not on England or France, but on Poland. England and France had told them before hte invasion that if Poland was invaded a state of war would exist between them.--178.167.247.172 (talk) 19:57, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That speech could also have been part of the German follow-up to Operation Himmler. In what seems like an exercise in absurdity to modern mindsets, the German government actually ran a very thorough propaganda campaign to convince people that for some reason the Polish armed forces had attacked Germany, and Germany was just reacting in self-defense. Foreigners were not fooled, but since the German government had a strangle-hold on the flow of news, they actually were able to confuse their own citizens about the truth. --M@rēino20:15, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
France finally told Germany that it would be war if Germany invaded France's ally Poland. Germany went ahead and invaded Poland, and then when the French delivered the declaration of war to the Germans, the Germans excitedly said "Then France is the aggressor." The French diplomat said: "History will be the judge of that." Source: Memoirs of the Second World War, by Winston Churchill, which I recommend as a readable history of the war. But which I obviously don't have at hand, or I would be specific and not use the lame descriptor "diplomat". Comet Tuttle (talk) 20:23, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for treating me like an idiot. I know Germany invaded Poland and was prewarned, and thus England declared war. That was not my question. You input was appreciated but misdirected, I want to know who attacked first between England and Germany, and if England, how long was it before Germany retaliated against England with an attack on English forces. Sorry for the sarcasm at the start but so often I see questions on here that are answered by various people going off on a tangent and discussing vaguely related topics. Thanks again —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.3.145.145 (talk) 21:21, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if you intended to be humorous, but a route is a course or path, whereas a rout is a military victory where the opponent is caused to flee in a disorganized fashion. That said, the goal of the Germans probably was to rout the UK food supply routes. -- 140.142.20.229 (talk) 18:22, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's a rude response considering that you said, "So my question is, who fired the first shot in WWII ...", which will obviously invite people to mention Poland. Back to the question: a German U-boat sunk the SS Athenia just hours after the UK declared war, but perhaps someone will be along to mention something earlier. You might also like to clarify what you mean by "fired the first shot" -- literally or figuratively -- as declaring war on Germany is obviously an act of war. --Sean21:48, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Which by no means demonstrates that somehow the British "started it", which is what the OP seems to be fishing for. The way alliances work is that if you attack one, you've attacked them all. So it was the Germans who fired first, when they invaded Poland. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 03:59, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The question is not, who started it, but rather what were the aims of the sides involved, who the aggressor and who the defender. Today so many years ago: "Never was so many...by so few...." He was referring to all who benefited who live in a free world, (You and me). (We owe so much..to them). (Also, we might add the few that defended China, and the East, often forgotten). MacOfJesus (talk) 18:00, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Federal System
what are three reasons why Canada has federal system and explain why these three factors neccessitate the federal system of government? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.148.30 (talk) 23:58, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to the Wikipedia Reference Desk. Your question appears to be a homework question. I apologize if this is a misinterpretation, but it is our aim here not to do people's homework for them, but to merely aid them in doing it themselves. Letting someone else do your homework does not help you learn nearly as much as doing it yourself. Please attempt to solve the problem or answer the question yourself first. If you need help with a specific part of your homework, feel free to tell us where you are stuck and ask for help. If you need help grasping the concept of a problem, by all means let us know. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite13:24, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Presumably, the teacher who assigned this question discussed the matter in his or her lecture. Check your lecture notes and/or your class textbook. If this is meant to be something you research on your own, then the article linked above containes external links to other works which DO directly discuss the impact on said relationships. --Jayron3206:12, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Odd canal layout near Holland River
At coordinates 44.165,-79.522, just near the confluence of the East and West Holland Rivers, Google Maps
clearly shows a group of canals forming 3 interlinked triangles with 5 + signs at their intersections.
But it does not identify what this place is, and neither does my best print map covering the area, nor
does anything I can find in Wikipedia, nor do the maps on the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority web site.
My first thought was that it was a marina, but in that case where are the boats? Alternatively, it could be
something functional like a sewage treatment plant, but if so, why build it in such an elaborate shape?
What is this place?
--Anonymous, 03:27 UTC, corrected 03:30, August 17, 2010.
How odd. I've looked at the topo map for the area, and it shows the thing, but gives no indication of what's going on other than being in Holland Marsh. I would guess it has something to do with Holland Marsh drainage, a major operation there. --jpgordon::==( o )17:02, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Could it be anything to do with ice harvesting? Some of it looks eroded, suggesting age. The ice would I presume have been transported by boat, hence the need for the interconnecting canals. Or perhaps they were duck decoys, or peat extraction, or gravel extraction or open-cast mining that have flooded, or fish-farming, or reed harvesting, or attempts to grow rice, or seaplane runways. 92.15.7.239 (talk) 09:33, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They are so neatly made as plus signs. It is absolutely astonishing. The cross pieces intersect at what looks like near perfect 90 degree angles. And all of the plus signs are of near identical size. This leads me to think some piece of earth moving heavy equipment made the marks. The arms of the X marks, or plus signs, clearly feed into the narrower canals. Perhaps the plus marks are areas in which a ship can turn, in order to continue down one of the adjoining canals. The angle between the canals might be too acute to allow turning without the widening out provided by the plus signs. I think the waterways were constructed to provide navigable passage for some type of boat or barge. Perhaps the area within the triangles was a source of some natural resource. Bus stop (talk) 16:10, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
From the shape my guess would be a water reclamation project of some sort (where urban waste water is processed before being reintroduced into the environment - they often use multiple pools like that, for different kinds of bacterial processing, and the whole thing has a GOV feel to it), but it doesn't seem to be particularly close to a major city. --Ludwigs219:02, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
According to the internet the Bradford Mattress Factory began harvesting "marsh grasses" to stuff mattresses with, so perhaps the "+"s where where they grew them. 92.28.255.31 (talk) 21:40, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Anglicanism, John Calvin, the Bishop of Rome and George Fox
1) Why isn't this called Tudorism, Henricianism, Edwardism (Low Church), Marianism (High Church), Elizabethanism (Broad Church)? Ought it not be called Wycliffism, Cranmerism or Cromwellianism? Or, is the authoring of the Church owing to Henry II and the Plantagenets, sort of like Frenchmen being kings of England, fighting other Frenchmen for the French throne, as in the relation of Anglicanism to Catholicism? Does Anglicanism have a foreign origin after all, on par with the Puritans and the Catholics?
2) Is it correct to say that Anglicanism stems more from the Classical Celtic Church (i.e. pre-Roman Joseph of Arimathea and post-Roman Arthurianism), from the Mediaeval Anglo-Saxon Church, or the Lollards and University of Oxford? What measure of influence comes from the forfeiture of King John's crown to the Pope and Statute of Praemunire in forming the Anglican Church, along with Richard II's Bohemian (i.e. Hussite?) marriage? Does it have to do with the Avignon Papacy and as a response to Gallicanism, rather than Luther or Calvin, with the latter two being proverbial straws on the camel's back? Is it correct that the Lancastrians were Reformers, from John of Gaunt himself down to Lady Jane Grey's family, whereas the Yorkists were resolute Catholics down to Richard Pole, Archbishop of Canterbury? What kinds of effects did this have on the Tudor family's approach to religion?
3) Is it true that Anglicanism was already pretty much set in stone by the time James VI of Scots took over the Church of England, or was this still subject to fluctuation according to the Puritan movement? How much did the King's Scottish heritage influence the Calvinistic aggression of the 17th century? Does the present Puritan movement consider itself Anglican, even though it is Congregational rather than Episcopalian, or has the Separatist fusion overwhelmed this? Does the English heritage of Congregationalism and Scottish nature of Prebyterianism preclude their merger? Is it true that Puritanism is as much a creature of Cambridge as the former is of Oxford?
4) What kind of developments were specifically Georgian or Albertine and monarchical in nature? Did the government turn the Calvinists loose onto the Catholics instead of try to merge Scotland's religion with England and Ireland? Why? Has the monarch ever had executive or consulting powers in The Kirk? Is it true that Prince Philip wants to disestablish the CoE? What would be the ramifications throughout the Communion and Commonwealth; America? Is it true that America owes more to Congregational or Episcopal Anglicanism? Is it a correct analogy to say that America went the way of the Quakers, Ireland the way of the Catholics, with the Commonwealth resoundingly Episcopalian (Via Media) and Presbyterian (The Kirk)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.111.15.164 (talk) 05:44, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can't answer most of your questions but I have this for you. "Anglicanism" comes from the Latinisation of the phrase "Church of England", the latin name for England being "Anglia". Henry the Eighth established it when he broke away from the Church of Rome and dissolved the monasteries, and appropriated their wealth for himself. It's not Prince Philip but Prince Charles who wants to disestablish the Church of England: he is on record as saying he wants to be the "Defender of Faith" rather than the "Defender of The Faith". --TammyMoet (talk) 08:36, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know, very little of such medieval stuff had significant specific influence on the development and doctrines of Protestantism in England, other than John Wycliffe and Lollardy... In any case, there's no organizationally distinct "present Puritan movement" (in the sense in which you used the phrase). Traditionally, those who consider themselves to be especially Protestant within the Church of England form the "Low Church" wing. Methodism started out as a Low Church movement, but has since become a separate denomination. AnonMoos (talk) 10:50, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No. AIUI, the Puritans grew within and then split from the CofE in the 17th Century, leading to today's Baptists. The Methodist movement started in the CofE in the 18th Century. Whereas the Puritans disliked the formality of the Book of Common Prayer, it was central to Methodism. Alansplodge (talk) 17:00, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I read that the Puritans were harsh Calvinists, whereas the Wesleyans were into more "inspired" religion than the CoE was offering in the dry and boring Georgian period. 68.111.15.164 (talk) 18:09, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was told that the Methodists were unimpressed with the haughty and formulaic nature of the CoE and wanted more authentic religion of and by the people, which seems to me to be like the descriptions for the Baptists and Quakers. 68.111.15.164 (talk) 18:09, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The original "Methodist" movement was within the Church of England, but John Wesley was influenced by the Moravian Church and by Arminian theology (though the C of E wasn't Calvinist at that time). Methodism in the UK became a separate church mainly because the C of E didn't like the enthusiasm and open-air preaching.
OK, the Calvinist and Arminian differences seem to be the key, but I read that the CoE was Arminian and why the Calvinists (Puritans) disliked them, so does this mean that present-day Congregationalists and Methodists don't see eye to eye, or is it that they see eye to eye against the CoE, which doesn't like either of them? By the way, was the CoE ever Calvinist? Calvinists don't like bishops, so I would assume that the CoE was Calvinist under Parliament and Cromwell, but I would assume that Edward's CoE was Lutheran, because Lutherans are not necessarily anti-episcopal. 68.111.15.164 (talk) 03:07, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Church of England now seems to be mainly "Calvinist" (though I'm sure there are still some clergy and members who subscribe to Arminian theology). These minor differences don't cause serious division between denominations (in fact John Wesley worked closely with George Whitfield, even though they disagreed on this exact point). The denominations in England usually work together, but prefer not to give up their own organisations and style of worship. Theological disagreements are surprisingly rare, but there is such a large diversity within each denomination that there is usually a vast overlap in belief. Dbfirs08:15, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What was so much more Protestant about Edward's or Jane's reigns? Please define how they are not typically Tudor; were they proto-Cromwellian (not Thomas, but Oliver)? By the way, was anybody consciously aware that Oliver Cromwell was descended from Jasper Tudor, in the 17th century? Was Cromwell representing the views of his namesake, the Earl of Essex, or Lady Jane? Was Cromwell the fulfillment or intention of Dudley's conspiracy? I noticed how the Dudleys were involved in Holland against Spain, so was the invitation to William III based upon the same clique in Parliament? 68.111.15.164 (talk) 13:09, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Lady Jane was a figurehead for Northumberland's kin. If it may be difficult to see how Elizabethan religion and politics to do with Holland related to the Williamites a century later, then is it a stretch to find a common cause between the Fall of Calais under Mary and due to Philip's demands, with Bess's Anglo-Dutch, anti-French amd anti-Spanish treaty? 68.111.15.164 (talk) 18:14, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I just assumed that it was best to get all of my questions out while I still remembered them, so all of the intelligent people here could feast their eyes on them. 68.111.15.164 (talk) 18:14, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Under Henry VIII, the Church of England was fully separate and schismatic -- rejecting all claims of papal overlordship -- but it wasn't unambiguously doctrinally Protestant. It was only under Edward VI that it became a fully Protestant church. As for the rest, you seem to have an idiosyncratic way of jumping centuries and seeking out conspiracies and/or noble families which you assume played a fixed and unchanging role over long periods -- and all this really doesn't result in any great historical insight, as far as I can see. AnonMoos (talk) 16:52, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain how the Edwardian church was infrastructurally Protestant. Or, was it simply more like the Episcopal Lutherans, just not like the Presbyterian or Congregational Calvinists? I ask these kinds of questions because all of the religious motivations of the various 17th century movements seem to have an inspiration in the 16th century Crown itself. So what's the logical result of Edwardianism? The Puritans? Likewise, what was the same with regard to Marianism? The Jacobites? Then there is the Restoration Settlement, which seems most Elizabethan in practicality. If one wanted to push matters in terms of sequence, you could compare James I or Charles I with Henry VIII. I assume there have been studies linking Tudor and Stuart religion and politics -- there has to have been some continuity, not a clean break. I pointed this out by noting both the Stuarts and Cromwells were of Owen Tudor's blood, just two different branches and apparently two very different points of view on the same things. 68.111.15.164 (talk) 18:03, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Baptists & Quakers
What kind of comparison and contrast can be made between these two? Is it true that they more in common with one another than with the other American colonial (established) religions, the Episcopalians and Congregationalists, that these other two have more in common with one another, when distinguished from Baptists and Quakers? I am wondering about a social origin, because I noticed that they shared Rhode Island 50/50 and Carolina as well, but I'm not so certain about their relations in the Mid-Atlantic, or why they no longer dominate their home regions but have taken to the American interior. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.111.15.164 (talk) 06:26, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They may have certain commonalities of history, in many of their early adherents having similar social origins, in being oppressed in England during the second half of the 17th century, certain organizational similarities, and in stressing what the Baptists call the "priesthood of all believers". However, the overall history and development of the two groups, and their current doctrines and status, are very different... AnonMoos (talk) 10:44, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Both denominations, ruled by their congregations rather than by bishops or presbyteries, suffered discrimination and often persecution in Catholic, Lutheran, Calvinist and Anglican countries alike in the 16th and 17th centuries. They share some common history in 17th-century England and New England. Roger Williams, after being expelled from the Massachusetts Bay Colony (which also persecuted Quakers), founded Rhode Island (1636) and the First Baptist Church in America (1638). He obtained a Royal Charter for the Colony in 1662 that established the principle of religious tolerance. In 1657, according to the (now no-longer published) Rhode Island Almanac, "Rhode Island refused to exclude Quakers on request of Plymouth Colony" (1997 ed., p. 17). Quakers, such as Moses Brown, and Quaker institutions (such as Moses Brown School, founded 1784) have been a small but prominent part of Rhode Island's history since the 18th century. —— Shakescene (talk) 20:23, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One of the main differences is that there are about 100,000 Friends and about 33 million Baptists in America. Seriously. The hugeness of the Baptist movement means that it's hard for the religion (especially its Southern Convention, at 17 million strong) to ever be too far away from the mainstream of the Christian right. As a result of being so central to American life, it ends up picking up things like patriotism that were not necessarily part of its roots, and that Baptists' critics consider unrelated or even antithetical to Christianity. They also have to devote a lot of energy to fighting off violent, hateful people who claim to be part of their movement while violating its basic precepts, which is not a problem that most small denominations face. The Friends are tinier, and so they have stayed more distinct, holding on to things like the Peace Testimony and Testimony of Simplicity that most Friends consider to be very difficult but necessary teachings, but that other American denominations are not as fervent about. --M@rēino19:09, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When I first heard that it was normal for mainstream American churches to have American flags in them, I thought it was a parody of the extreme patriotism/nationalism that feature in stereotypes of Americans. When I realised it wasn't, I was fully hand-on-mouth horrified. I imagine it's very hard for Christians less keen on that sort of thinking to resist, if that sort of thing is commonplace. 86.164.66.83 (talk) 22:59, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The IP says why right there in the post - because it strikes him as a parody. I think this is one of those things that are just different in Europe and the US and we will probably never come eye to eye on them - to many Europeans seeing a nation (any nation) as obsessed with waving its flag just brings up a cringe based in experiences with excessive nationalism from a not so distant history, namely the Third Reich. I'm not trying to diss the US here, I'm just saying to many Europeans excessive flag-waving seems a bit, let's put it this way, tasteless. Excessive being anything beyond official state ceremonies and sporting events. TomorrowTime (talk) 12:47, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That for one. After all, one of images they used in our history textbooks to impress us with how all-encompassing and oppressive Nazi Germany was, was the swastikas around the altar and pulpit in a church. It is difficult to view anything similar outside that framework: the mind always sees the parallel. Plus, while is certainly seems very American to mingle Church and State in this manner (which is why it would be a believable parody), it seems intensely unChristian. To put a national symbol in a house of worship, in the body of a church, to place it by the altar, by the pulpit. The often-quoted "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's..." continues "and unto God that which is God's." The very concept of bringing a national flag into a place of worship seems both blasphemous and frightening, the last of which feelings is almost certainly due to the parallels I can't not see. 86.161.255.213 (talk) 00:29, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So the differences are political and not infrastructural? I would assume that it is just as possible for Quakers to be fighters or politicians, like Nathanael Greene or Richard Nixon, or Baptists can be pacifist or politicians, like Roger Williams or Jimmy Carter. 68.111.15.164 (talk) 03:15, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Baptists are so diverse, being congregationally based and organized into several independent conferences (e.g. the Southern Baptist Convention and the American Baptist Churches USA) that one can't generalize too much, any more than one can for Anglicans, Calvinists or Jews. The New England Baptists descending from Roger Williams can be as liberal as the Southern Baptist Convention is conservative. The latter became much more centralized in the last couple of decades as politically, socially and theologically conservative forces gained ascendancy, moving several important but more moderate congregations to leave; (however, a recent election has halted the process from going further.)
Quaker services are rather different, centered around silent prayer and waiting to speak until moved by the Spirit at Quaker Meeting. The pacifistic element is still fairly strong, although there are Quaker warriors. Many conscientious objectors during "good wars" and bad, are Quakers. The American Friends Service Committee originated, I think, to allow Quakers to serve without killing, e.g. by running military ambulances. Although Herbert Hoover was a Quaker, Richard Nixon had drifted away by the time he became Vice President and President. Although I was a day student at a Quaker school for four years, I didn't learn many of the theological details, on which I wish I could be more helpful. —— Shakescene (talk) 08:52, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so the problem is regional? Otherwise, there should be no visible schism in say, Rhode Island or Pennsylvania where they would come into contact and have their own bodies? I'm not sure about Pennsylvania Baptists even being a presence, but I know the Rhode Island experiment had both, without any controversy between them except in the beginning about where the capital of the colony was to be, in Baptist Providence or Quaker Newport. So, the issue for me to discover, is what the theology and spiritual understanding is between them, in common and dissimilar, rather than political issues. 68.111.15.164 (talk) 18:21, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Confusion with the first few statments of the Tractatus
1 The world is all that is the case.
1.1 The world of the totality of facts, not of things.
and
1.12 For the totality of facts determines what is the case, and also whatever is not the case.
If the world is the totality of facts, and the totality of facts is what is and is not the case, doesn't that contradict the first statement which says that the world is that which is the case? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.96.146.70 (talk) 11:02, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm no philosopher, but if I read 1, 1.1 and 1.12, I understand "The world is everything that not only can be, but in fact is", "the world is every true statement, not every physical object", "because what 'is' means in the first sentence is determined by facts, not by objects" respectively. I don't see a contradiction. The guy is saying that 1+1=2 is a part of our world, as opposed to your dog, which is just some object. 92.230.69.124 (talk) 11:56, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
From the source, summarizing itself, "what can be said at all can be said clearly, and what we cannot talk about we must pass over in silence," so the intent is clearly to work toward what one can, or can't, say as fact. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK17:02, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(Edit conflict)Very crudely, Wittgenstein is defining the world in 1 and 1.1 - as the totality of facts (which I shall crudely gloss as propositions which correspond to states of affairs). The totality of facts is a description of all states of affairs that obtain in the world (which together constitute the world). All states of affairs which are logically possible but do not obtain in the world (the negations of atomic facts) are excluded. The above commentator is inaccurate in that he's using the word "world" in the ordinary fashion, whereas Wittgenstein is defining a logical term which has only a vague (family) resemblance to the conventional usage. I can go into more detail (and much more accuracy) if you'd like. The Rhymesmith (talk) 17:11, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that Wittgenstein basically wrote off the entire Tractatus as a mistake a bit later in life...
but to the point, what W is trying to get at here is the distinction between facts and things. i.e. there is a thing of which it is the case that we call it a dog. The thing may be what bites us, but the fact is 'a dog bit us'. facts are mental ways of organizing the things that present themselves in the world, and for the most part we deal with facts, not things. --Ludwigs203:28, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First-past-the-post system in Canada
Somebody told me that Canada's "first-past-the-post" electoral system fail to accurately represent the political choices of Canadian voters. I asked him how and he said i don't know and but all I know that it failed.
How does it fail to represent the choices of Canadian voters? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.18.229 (talk) 14:40, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Suppose that there are three major candidates, A, B, and Z. A and B are similar to each other (and therefore, many people like both), and Z is from the other side of the political spectrum. One of these two things will probably happen:
A and B will split the vote of like-minded people, giving Z a huge advantage.
People who like both A and B but hate Z will vote for whichever of them is more "electable", rather than which one they like the best.
It's not really a "failure" any more than any other electoral system, but since we have ridings and an unusual population distribution, the results do not always represent the popular vote. For example, in the last election, the Bloc Quebecois won twice as many ridings as the NDP, but with half as many votes. How? Well, the Bloc only runs in Quebec, so there are less people available to vote for them, but more chances to win ridings. The NDP run candidates all over the country, but they usually end up second or third in individual ridings. It can also happen that one party can win a majority of ridings without a majority of the popular vote (as in the 2000 election when the Liberals won 59% of ridings with only 41% of the votes. First-past-the-post has some other general criticisms. Adam Bishop (talk) 15:01, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The winner of the election in terms of forming the government is the party that has won the most ridings; that is to say, the party that has more candidates elected in total for all electoral districts. The government is formed by the party with the most seats, but it does not have to be a majority. This means that, should voters split as the example A, B, Z above, Z could be the least popular party and still win government. Aaronite (talk) 17:25, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Right, and parties that have a smattering of support throughout the country, but no big showing in an individual riding anywhere, end up with no representation. For example, in the 2008 election the Green Party won 4.5% of the vote, but received no seats (note that 4.5% of the total seats is about 14).
Typically, the first past the post system tends to support a couple of major, entrenched parties, in Canada's case this has historically been the Liberals and the PCs (now Conservatives). New Zealand had similar two party dominance until they changed their sytem to proportional representation in 1996. This has resulted in no majorities since - meaning the government has to rule by coalition, or at least cooperation, with other parties. I think there are good argument for both sides of whether that's a good thing or a bad thing. In general, I think the generally held notion that minority governments don't get anything done is a major reason many people support the first past the post system. TastyCakes (talk) 18:05, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
True, but not nearly as fragmented as they would have been by a proportional system. Also, that's a bit of a historical anomaly, whereas in New Zealand there are doubts that there will ever be another majority government. TastyCakes (talk) 19:31, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Canadian's don't seem to want proportional representation anyways, we had a referendum on it one or two elections ago and the proposal was voted down by a rather large margin if my memory serves me correctly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.167.165.2 (talk) 05:26, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there has been a federal referendum about that. We had one in Ontario a few years ago, and there was one in BC in 2005, and in both cases, as you say, the voters were heavily in favour of keeping the first-past-the-post system. Adam Bishop (talk) 07:33, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Part of the problem with proportional representation is that, especially in a federal nation like Canada, local candidates are supposed to represent the local people that send them. In the U.S., for example, there are generally residency requirements for representing a congressional district (though these are rather easy to get around). In a proportional system, the candidates are more beholden to their national party than to local voters. Whether this is true in practice in a first-past-the-post system, it at least in theory should result in better local representation. --Jayron3205:32, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It was mentioned up-thread that FPTP elections tend to favour two entrenched and "opposed" parties, effectively making a two-party system regardless of how many parties are technically involved. (As in the US, where you may choose Democrat, Republican, or throw your ballot in the garbage). Canada is somewhat unique in that respect in that the strange geography and political history allow regionally based parties (such as the Bloc Quebecois of Quebec and, for a few years, the Reform Party of Canada in the western provinces) a chance to win significant numbers of seats. This was dramatically illustrated in the 1993 Federal election where the previously ruling party not only lost the election, but also failed to gain enough seats to qualify as a party any more. The analogous situation in the US would be for Obama to not only lose the next election, but for the Democrats to effectively cease to exist at the federal level - almost completely impossible. Matt Deres (talk) 20:24, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The fallacy that any vote not for a Democrat or a Republican is a thrown away vote is complete bullshit; if you follow that logic to its conclusion, any single vote in ANY election decided by more than one vote is thrown away. If the Democrat wins by 1000 votes in one district, and I voted for the Republican, why is my vote less thrown away than if I voted for the Libertarian or the Green. You can't vote because you expect your guy to win, otherwise no one would vote... --Jayron3201:56, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I favour the Single Transferable Vote myself, but Canada and Ireland show that First Past the Post doesn't always lead to stable two-party systems (for several decades, Canada had a 3 1/2 party system of Liberals, PC's, CCF/NDP and a Quebec-oriented party like the Bloc or Social Credit) and proportional representation doesn't always lead to fragmentation (Ireland's been divided politically, although not ideologically, between Fianna Fail and Fine Gael with the Irish Labour Party and more recently the Progressive Democrats providing a smaller makeweight or counterbalance). The UK, also First Past the Post, had a 2 1/2 to 3 party (Conservative, Labour, Liberal) system between the wars and again since the 1970's; Scotland and Wales have four-party politics with the addition of Nationalists. This contrasts with the sharply two-party FPTP system in the U.S. and the fragmentation of proportional systems in postwar Italy and Israel. —— Shakescene (talk) 09:10, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the argument is often made about FTTP, that even for the second person the vote if effectively thrown away. Even for the first person/person who won, any more then they need to win can be said to be the same, something particularly significant if there is more then one position to fill Nil Einne (talk) 10:10, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Stray cow "problem" in India
The discussion above was closed, prematurely in my view, and on a false understanding of the facts (i.e., on the assumption that the answer is "that's what they believe"). I'm not sure of the appropriate protocol, but it seemed better to start a new section than to re-open the closed discussion.
In actuality, cows in India are held sacred and allowed to roam free for excellent reasons, which are validated but not created by religious beliefs, as shown by anthropologist Marvin Harris. Essentially, cows are sacred because they are extraordinarily useful, and because allowing them to be eaten would result in their slaughter during hard times, to the long-term detriment of Indians. They are allowed to roam free because they get most of their nutrition by scavenging. Harris writes convincingly in chapter 1 of his book, Cows, Pigs, Wars, and Witches: The Riddles of Culture, and a summary of his argument is in an online article, "India's Sacred Cow."John M Baker (talk) 16:01, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One thing that I can assure you is that compassion for animals, which propels the things like prevention of cruelty to animals in west, is last thing on Hindu mind. In India you will often see villagers guarding a cow just hit so badly by a vehicle or train, trembling with pain and sure to die. They are standing at guard, with lathis etc. around her, lest some westernized type vet come and put her to death ! The idea is it should not be killed no matter in what condition it is in ! Mahatma Gandhi writes to have witnessed a stunt in a Hindu holy festival, a cow with five legs ! On inspection it proved a fraud - the people (maybe brahmins themselves ) had grafted a limb they had amputated from a living calf. It was all done for money - what devoted Hindu would refuse a gift of few rupees to such a special cow ? At a separate incident, Gandhi had to fight fiercely to relieve an ailed calf that was sure to die anyway (guess western education had put some sense in him which later evaporated) Jon Ascton (talk)18:48, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Male circumcision has its benefits as well; however one may write of those benefits does not change the (Judaic) religious aspect of said circumcision or make the act, as a covenant, subservient to (being derived from) practical aspects. Religion and "what we know" are best kept apart except to the degree that one comments on the other. One person's superstition is another person's faith is another person's practicality. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK16:39, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) As for the aspect of needing to control human consumption, one only need to point to the desertification of Africa where it is denuded for simple charcoal. The day will come that humanity consumes everything. If just the roaches are left, it will take a while for humanity to re-evolve. If there are any cows left, it might speed the process. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK16:52, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not interested in getting into a religious discussion here, so perhaps I should say just that there are excellent practical reasons for cows to roam free in India. The original post (in the prior discussion) was "What could be reason for such stupid superstition?" My point is, the belief in protecting cows is not stupid and has very good reasons. John M Baker (talk) 17:17, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why it's stupid, frankly. Annoying, maybe. Why do we let cats roam free? Cats are destructive, murderous animals that leaves horrible messes and annoy dogs, yet they need not be licensed and dogs do. That's a stupid thing. Think of a cow as a big stupid cat. Aaronite (talk) 18:33, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Belchman: "Protected" in this sense really means just "protected from slaughter." Harris explains how, in many ways, cows in India are not treated very well. John M Baker (talk) 21:01, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Of course that's not how it happened; I think people must be vaguely aware that at some point in history there was a cat massacre, and are unable to comprehend anything but "the past", so they can't differentiate between the eighteenth century (when there was an actual cat massacre in France), and any other point in the past. The black plague had nothing to do with any of that. Adam Bishop (talk) 07:30, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say dogs aren't dangerous, I said cats are destructive. Property damage vs human attacks, sure, but still, the point I make holds true. Why are roaming cows bad and roaming cats not? Aaronite (talk) 17:52, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I would, if it was signed; I imagine the author is about 15 and that is a high school essay. Whatever it is, it's terrible; it has four errors in the first sentence alone. Adam Bishop (talk) 14:09, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, bulls are dangerous. Cows, too, occasionally kill people, such as H. H. Munro's mother. He was born in Burma, but his mother was killed by a cow in Devon. None of this is conclusive. 81.131.30.187 (talk) 05:57, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, geez... people have held over beliefs for no good reason everywhere
Christians say 'Bless You' when you sneeze because they originally thought that sneezing provided an entry for demons into the soul
Jewish and Muslim cultures forbid all sorts of foods and food combinations without really knowing why
Canadian and British court dignitaries still wear wigs, even though the original rationale (it was common amongst the upper classes as a defense against head lice) no loner applies
Americans dress up their kids on halloween like ghosts and devils, not knowing that it's a pagan 'harvest moon' rite that goes back before the time of Christ. Unfortunately they haven't kept up the orgiastic rites that used to follow.
Right Ludwigs ! Good point. But there is a difference - these Christians saying 'Bless You', Jews and Muslims forbidding certain foods, wig-wearing judges and kiddies dressed-up as ghosts ARE NOT ASHAMED TO DISCUSS THEIR BELIEFS ON WIKIPEDIA Jon Ascton (talk)20:21, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is not just cows we let roam in our roads. Bulls, buffalos, goats, ponies and dogs all roam free here. Stray animals on roads are far down the priority list for people (except for two wheeler riders who end up in hospitals). The local civic administrations have bigger problems to tackle than rounding up cattle and fining people for letting them roam. --Sodabottle (talk) 19:44, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you let roam buffaloes, goats, ponies and dogs etc. but you don't kill muslims and get killed in turn over buffaloes, goats, ponies and dogs etc. I hope you get the point. That was what I was trying to say. Jon Ascton (talk)23:27, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Someone running for state senate office a notable person to write about?
Is someone who is running for state senate office for the first time a notable person to write about? She has also published one book, appeared on The View and is married to a retired NHL hockey player.KatyRominski (talk) 19:11, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
From my reading of that policy, it would seem to depend on how well covered the race is. In most cases, they are not notable enough until they win, but in an especially well media covered race, they might be notable as a mere candidate. Googlemeister (talk) 19:43, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As an inclusionist who isn't particularly keen on the notability rule to begin with, this shows one of its weaknesses. This would be especially unfair if the incumbent state senator had a Wikipedia entry (with link to his or her official or campaign site). On the other hand, there are already too many Wikipedia entries that look like campaign propaganda because most of the people interested in creating them are either supporters or bitter foes of the article's subject. I happen to be organizing a neighborhood meeting next week to hear (non-incumbent) primary candidates for our City Council and state legislature, and know how little information most voters can find. Properly supervised Neutral POV articles on the candidates, without such conflicts of interest, would be very helpful to those voters. —— Shakescene (talk) 20:03, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Politicians who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office, and members and former members of a national, state or provincial legislature and judges.[9]
Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage.[7] Generally speaking, mayors are likely to meet this criterion, as are members of the main citywide government or council of a major metropolitan city. Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article."
In the case of candidates for political office who do not meet this guideline, the general rule is to redirect to an appropriate page covering the election or political office sought in lieu of deletion. Relevant material from the biographical article can be merged into the election or political office page if appropriate.
I said above why I think including state legislators but not unelected candidates for their jobs might be unfair. The View might be considered a neutral third-party source not connected to the campaign, but if the candidate fails notability, perhaps an article about the campaign or the district might pass muster. —— Shakescene (talk) 20:13, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was involved in trying to formulate policies in this area years ago, and we came up with the idea that an article about a race ("New York 27th District Senate election, 2010," etc.) should be created before the articles on the individual candidates, and that the candidates' articles should only be created when there's enough independent and verifiable information out there to make one. What's important in all such cases like this is how much such info is available. Even a high school basketball player can have a Wikipedia article if there's been a lot of media coverage of him, but an "important" person like a major-party state Senate nominee shouldn't have an article without those kind of sources available. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:43, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Turkish Embassy Incident
I was just reading about the incident at the Turkish embassy in Israel and was wondering why Israel has countries put their embassies in Tel Aviv instead of the capital like most countries. Googlemeister (talk) 20:25, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It depends on what cell tower is routing the call. See here and it's sometimes routed to the state police instead of a county sheriff or local department according to here. Dismas|(talk)02:00, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why wouldn't they know you're street address? The phone is registered with the phone company, and for the efficacy of 9-1-1, I'm not surprised (and am pleased) that they know this. After all, mobile-only households are rising dramatically. I'm one of those households. This is the same as you phoning from a landline: they know where you are then, too. Aaronite (talk) 04:31, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the street address to whom the phone is registered may certainly be different than the street address from where the person is actually telephoning 9-1-1 (i.e., the location of the emergency). Right? (64.252.34.115 (talk) 23:11, 18 August 2010 (UTC))[reply]
In the US, they use Mobile phone tracking rather than just the street address your phone is registered to (if any - throwaway mobile phones don't have such an address). This was forced on the cell phone networks, who whined that it would cost them a lot of money to implement this system, that it would discourage future investment in the cell phone industry, etc. Comet Tuttle (talk) 04:47, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
(rant alert) That's because people in their billions have fallen prey to the greatest scam in the history of the world. Once, people would use their phone when it was necessary or convenient to do so. Now, thanks to phone plans, people are charged for making a minimum number of calls/texts a month, whether they actually make that many calls/texts or not; but because they've agreed to be charged for them in return for not having to pay for the phone outright, in most cases they feel the need to then make that many calls/texts, but many of these are calls/texts they would not otherwise have made. Sure, the unit cost of calls has in many cases fallen, but people have been hoodwinked into making far more calls than they would naturally consider necessary, so the phone companies are making massive profits and the hot air industry has gone completely berserk. Imagine the stupidity of having a "lawyer plan" where you're charged for a certain number of consultations with your lawyer every year, whether you actually have those consultations or not. Or a "doctor plan", or a "dentist plan", or a "hospital admission plan". Dumb, eh. I rest my case. (end of rant). -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 06:08, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And a "doctor plan", if you consider that your taxes pay your doctor's salary whether you visit or not (assuming you live somewhere with universal health care). Adam Bishop (talk) 07:26, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have a dentist plan and a doctor plan. I don't pay anything when I go to either of them. If I go at all. What I want to know is how you got from 911 calls to a personal rant about cell phones. Wait. No. I actually don't care. Dismas|(talk)08:03, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I love the idea that people are hoodwinked into making more calls. That's hilarious. I see that all the time. "Gosh, I'd better make a bunch of phone calls I'd otherwise not make, because I need to use up my minutes!" Riiigght. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:45, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Imperial Land Company was a land colonization company incorporated in California in March, 1900 for the purpose of encouraging settlement of the Imperial Valley.
So I'm curious: Was the valley named after the company, or vice versa? Was "Imperial" chosen on a whim, or does it have some historical significance? The Aztecs, or Maximilian maybe. Rojomoke (talk) 07:58, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1900: "Chaffey [head of the California Development Company] renamed the Salton Sink to which he was bringing the empowering waters of the Colorado. The Sink would henceforth be called the Imperial Valley: imperial as in empire, for the million acres of arable land seized from the desert by irrigation were linked in Chaffey's Anglo-Canadian imagination to the march of empire in Canada and Australia in which he had played a part through his engineering and entrepreneurial skills. Imperial: not a kingdom inherited, but an empire seized from inhospitable nature through engineering and water." Kevin Starr (1991). Material Dreams: Southern California Through the 1920s (see footnotes to Imperial Land Company.) --jpgordon::==( o )18:57, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The footnoted source, if you open the link, tells a good story, which the article short-changes, as the query above shows. Couldn't a brief report of the gist of Starr's text be edited into the article Imperial Land Company?--Wetman (talk) 19:42, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I fear this question doesn't belong on the Reference desks at all but I'll ask it anyway. I'm wondering why the words in a fictitious song would tell the story they tell. In the story the song tells, a woman is about to be hanged. She asks the hangman to wait a moment, because she sees her father coming. She asks her father if he has the gold that if given to the hangman will set her free. Her father says no, he has not brought that gold. The same story is told again, this time with her mother's arrival. Her mother also fails to bring any gold. In the third such instance, it is her lover arriving, who brings the required gold. The story thus has a happy ending, for the woman in danger of being hanged. I realize it is just a story. I still find it odd. It seems to convey a message that fits into no category of messages that I know of. Do mothers and fathers not want to see their daughters live? Is it that all want to see someone live, but a lover more so than parents? It is certainly chilling to hear the mother and father say that they have come to see her hanging. Why this particular art form? It may be good art, and it may derive its impact from its stark emotions. I am trying to interpret it, and it occurs to me that it may be good because it defies interpretation. Instead it seems to insist on being accepted for what it is, despite a lack of underlying logic. By the way, I like the song a lot. It stirs up emotions and it is very thought provoking and the delivery is incomparable by John Jacob Niles. I was just wondering if anyone has an interpretation that more or less falls into place without troubling them too much. This is the song. Bus stop (talk) 02:38, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Depends on the age and culture-of-origin of the song, but I'd read it as a (not unrealistic) comment on the place of women in a society. In many traditional societies, parents having to chose between a daughter's life and their family honor would choose honor; a lover would (ideally) not be so conservative on the matter. There are plenty of cultures even today where things like that happen. --Ludwigs203:18, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One thought just crossed my mind. Clearly the "hangman's fee" is bribery. The passion at the heart of the song may be the evil of bribery. The parents may represent continuity more so than the lover, who may represent a break with the past. Yes, the lover pays the "fee." But at the same time the totality of the story may serve to highlight the extreme injustice of bribery in such a life and death situation. It a little bit brings to mind the song Strange Fruit, what with the presence of injustice in the extreme. I find this interpretation interesting because if bribery and injustice is at all an important subject in this song, it is only touched on tangentially — barely hinted at. Bus stop (talk) 04:36, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You don't name the song, but I guess it's The Maid Freed from the Gallows, best known as the Led Zeppelin song "Gallows Pole". It seems that in the early versions the hangman is in fact a pirate, so the evils of bribery would pale beside the evil of him being a pirate, and the point of the song seems to be that her parents and various other relatives don't in fact value her as much as they value a bunch of treasure that they've got, which I suppose could be extrapolated to the message that a lover probably cares about you more than your relatives do. Maybe some idealization of true love is going on there, alongside teenage* rebellion. Perhaps She's Leaving Home has a vaguely similar message. *Yes I know teenagers weren't invented until the 1950s, but even so. 81.131.50.245 (talk) 05:34, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the "a lover probably cares about you more than your relatives do" message does seem inescapable. Thanks for identifying the song.
Ludwigs' interpretation is also provided with support at the article on the song, where it says, "It has been suggested that the reference to "gold" may not mean actual gold for a bribe, but may instead stand for the symbolic restoration of the maid's honor..."Bus stop (talk) 09:24, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you are interested in ovens used for baking food products, Germans during the Nazi period used exactly the same ovens as were used before the Nazi period and as were used in other countries during that period. See Oven. Marco polo (talk) 12:49, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can we use a little tasteful restraint on the "ha ha, genocide" jokes? At least until the "serious" thread has played itself out? --Mr.98 (talk) 12:52, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Bus stop thats not what i ment. I mean i didnt want to ask a new question on blacks being killed in nazi germany or others etc. Baysean (talk) 13:14, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Wikipedians! I was studying with a pastor yesterday over the question of biblical accuracy. He brought up several examples from the Old Testament purportedly containing knowledge too advanced to be known at the time, and thus perhaps divinely inspired. They were as follows:
Isaiah 40:22: "He [God] sits enthroned above the circle of the earth." The minister contended that knowledge of a round earth would be quite improbable at the time of Isaiah. I remarked that there's nothing too earth-shattering about the notion that the earth is a circle, albeit a flat circle. You could come up with that from standing on the mountaintop. We looked up the Hebrew word for "circle" used in this verse, according to Strong's, and it came out as "circle, circuit, compass". I didn't find this argument to be terribly convincing. Any thoughts?
Job 26:7: "He [God] spreads out the northern skies over empty space, he suspends the earth over nothing." I've heard this one before, and it does sound like a far more accurate assessment than what could be available at the time. Anyone know how this should be read? What were the Sumerian ideas of the structure of the Earth?
Deuteronomy 23:12—14: "Designate a place outside the camp where you can go to relive yourself. As part of your equipment have something to dig with, and when you relieve yourself, dig a hole and cover up your excrement. For the LORD your God moves about in your camp to protect you and to deliver your enemies to you. Your camp must be holy, so that he will not see among you anything indecent and turn away from you." Is this a divine knowledge of infectious diseases? It is said that those who did not suffer from Europe's medieval plagues were Jews who kept the laws (haven't fact-checked this). Could you argue that this passage reflects a simple religious rite instead, based on the verse that God must not see anything indecent?
Leviticus 13:45—46: "The person with such an infectious disease must wear torn clothes, let his hair be unkempt, cover the lower part of his face and cry out, 'Unclean! Unclean!' As long as he has the infection he remains unclean. He must live alone; he must live outside the camp." This related to the prior point. First known instance of quarantine?
Genesis 17:12: "For the generations to come every male among you who is eight days old must be circumcised, including those born in your household or bought with money from a foreigner—those who are not your offspring." I have read that eight days old is the first day a circumcision could be safely performed due to the infant's ability to form blood clots. To my minister, this showed remarkable divine knowledge. I commented that maybe you could figure that out through trial and error. But, of course, if we are to believe the account, there was no trial and error—just an initial command to Abraham.
Finally, construction of Noah's ark. I have heard that the dimensions of the ark are in a perfect seaworthy ratio used today to design "virtually unsinkable" ships. Is this true? In addition, God commands Noah to coat his ark with pitch inside and out. My minister stated that until recent times pitch-coating was generally done on either one side or the other, and not until recently was it discovered that coating on both sides creates an air pocket that helps the ship's buoyancy. Is this true?
Thank you all for any help. Sorry this is pretty lengthy, but I just wanted to do some fact-check of these purported evidences. WordyGirl9013:18, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can't help with all of these, but I'm not sure why everyone thinks ancient people were dumb and thought the earth was flat. But even if they didn't know it was a sphere, it was certainly easy to see that it was at least a circular disc - the sun and the moon are also circular, and the Earth leaves a curved shadow on the moon during an eclipse (one Greek scientist reasoned that the Earth must be spherical because the shadow was always curved). As for diseases, well they didn't know about germs or viruses or bacteria specifically, but it's not hard to figure out that you'll get sick if you hang around human excrement. (To use another Greek example, they thought it had something to do with the odour in the air.) The medieval Jews did suffer from the plague, but they were already almost totally isolated in ghettos when they lived in medieval cities, so it wasn't witchcraft or special attention to religious law, they just tended not to be in contact with plague-infected non-Jews. Adam Bishop (talk) 13:49, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is of course possible that these apparent references to advanced knowledge were divinely inspired. As I'm sure your pastor knows, the Existence of God is notoriously difficult to prove or disprove. But there are three more mundane explanations for all the passages that you cite:
1. Anachronism. For example, if you go to the first paragraph of Wikipedia's article on the Book of Isaiah, you'll see that while the book is attributed to Isaiah, who lived in the 700s BC, there are lots of reasons to believe that at least the final version of the Book was written much later, maybe even as late as the 300s BC. So any earthly knowledge learned over that period (like astronomy, navigation, or how to perform a circumcision) could have been added to the text. Many Christian and Jewish denominations officially accept those later edits as divinely permitted.
2. Modern eyes over-interpreting. For instance, just because the Ancient Hebrews were a famously clean people does not mean that they understood microbes or medicine. It could just mean that they noticed that washing yourself does wonders to improve health, which is often cited as why ritual purification shows up in many ancient religions the world over.
3. The ancients are smarter than you might have thought. Heliocentrism dates to the 300s BC, and knowledge of a Spherical Earth is much older, having been traced back to at least the 500s BC, and possibly long before that. The Sea Peoples were building huge, seaworthy ships hundreds of years before Moses wrote the first version of the Torah.
Great point about other religions having ritual purification - thanks! I think it's a common myth that a spherical earth is a brand-new concept...my pastor even started to say something about how "folks in Columbus' time thought the earth was flat", which isn't true. WordyGirl9015:27, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Most nonsectarian scholars believe that no part of the Hebrew Bible was written before about 800 B.C., and many parts were not written down until 400 B.C. or later, though the first written sections may have incorporated accounts passed down orally for some generations. However, the evidence suggests that the ancient oral texts were heavily revised in the 800 B.C.-400 B.C. period and would have incorporated the knowledge of that time, which included the circular (or even spherical) shape of Earth. As for infectious disease and the earliest age for circumcision, I think that those concepts were deducible through trial and error and may have been part of folk wisdom. People had, after all, been around for many thousands of years at this time and would have been able to learn that those who spent time near excrement or sick people tended to get sick and that bleeding could be dangerous if circumcision was attempted on babies younger than 8 days old. By the way, none of this refutes the idea, if one believes in God, that the original insights that led to this knowledge were divinely inspired. Marco polo (talk) 14:40, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's not really the case. It might be plausible to contend that no Biblical book was assembled in quasi-complete form before 800 B.C.; but several books incorporate, or were influenced by, documents which seem to have been written earlier, and a few passages (such as the Song of Miriam and the Song of Deborah) even preserve oral traditions of poems from the pre-monarchy period... AnonMoos (talk) 19:56, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really understand your question. It doesn't take a whole lot of medical training to know that it's better to bury excrement in a hole outside of camp than (as I assume is the opposite) leave it standing in a pile in the middle of camp. nor do any of the rest of those points require divine inspiration. There is, however, a utility in presenting these issues as "God's rules" in non-literate tribal societies - useful social conventions are much more likely to be obeyed and passed down on a 'God says so' basis than on a 'Your beloved leader Jubalcude says so' basis. You might ask your pastor why it is important him/her that these things be seen as divinely obtained as opposed to evidence of human insight; to my mind God has more important messages for the modern world than dictates about toilet training. --Ludwigs215:14, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I tended to also side on possible naturalistic explanations, but I'm afraid if I bring that up again I'll be backed into a corner looking like the overly skeptical who is denying what's put in front of me. My Christian friend who is majoring in philosophy might try to paint me as a over-skeptical David Hume again :P . You all are kind of echoing my thoughts I had during the Bible study...all of these "proofs" don't really throw much weight on one interpretation or another. More thoughts are welcome! WordyGirl9015:27, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You missed my main point: learn the Socratic method! The only way to deal with rhetoric is to make the rhetorician reflect on the purposes of the claim (because all rhetorical claims have a social purpose above and beyond the analytical statement). In this case, it's clear that the pastor wants to convince people of the power and goodness of the bible; however, it's doubtful that these particular claims actually do that, at least not in the simplified way that the pastor suggests. A handful of well-considered questions can make it obvious that the rhetorical device used is not serving the intended purpose without actually calling that intended purpose into question, which is what you want - separate the deeply ingrained spiritual desire from the fairly superficial rhetorical claim and it becomes much easier to dispose of the latter. spend some time reading a few of the Socratic dialogs to see the way he works it. --Ludwigs217:00, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"I have read that eight days old is the first day a circumcision could be safely performed due to the infant's ability to form blood clots."
Do you have any citations for this? It doesn't sound right to me, and after googling, the only stuff I found mentions infants being just as able to get blood clots as anyone else. Ref. Science Daily - Research Urgently Needed To Treat Blood Clots In Children, "The condition, which exists in children ranging from premature infants to the late teens..."
And I am not sure how circumcision practices have changed over the years, but nowadays they are often done within the first 48 hours after birth. Ref. Kid's Health - circumcision, "Routine circumcision is usually performed during the first 10 days (often within the first 48 hours), either in the hospital or, for some religious ritual circumcisions, at home."
The rest I have no idea about one way or the other, so I won't comment on them. :) Avicennasis @ 16:49, 9 Elul 5770 / 19 August 2010 (UTC)
http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/723184 claims scientific information on why the eighth day is best. Also claims that infants are injected with vitamins in order to make up for it. Have not scouted out the source myself...WordyGirl90
The Noah's Ark article brings up a lot of questions about the animals; there's nothing there about the size and shape of the boat though. Also, for circumcisions, if they are done in the hospital it would probably be pretty soon after birth, because if there is nothing wrong with the baby everyone is sent home almost right away. We were in the hospital less than 24 hours when my son was born. They also poked him to take a tiny blood sample, and he clotted up just fine. And of course they cut the umbilical cord, which bleeds and clots as normal. Adam Bishop (talk) 18:29, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
People of faith often find these (and/or similar) arguments comforting, but if they were definitively provable, a) there'd be few intelligent disbelievers and b) we would no longer refer to "faith" or "belief". --Dweller (talk) 18:33, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On the face of it, it's hard not to see these as grasping at straws. Each of these "divine" insights are either based on very questionable interpretation of the literal nature of the text, or are actually commonsensical notions (like don't hang out with sick people if you don't want to be sick) that were well within the capabilities of observant people back then. The "hanging from nothing" does not exactly sound like a physical description to me. As a means of convincing a skeptic, these examples all fall very, very flat. Presumably even your philosophy major friends will admit this and that "bigger guns" are going to be necessary. In any case, there is no sin in being skeptical — or at least, there shouldn't be! Your philosophy major friend should have the guts to face up to the fact that true, intellectually honest religious belief (or practice) is not an easy thing. It's an important lesson and he will not be much of a philosopher if he can't face that head on. To admit such a thing is not incompatible with being a believer in the slightest — indeed, I think it is a lot more reflective of honest belief when you aren't grasping around for very tiny, weak arguments in your favor. --Mr.98 (talk) 19:37, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Bible is not a science textbook."... the things of the spirit of God... are examined spiritually (1 Corinthians 2:14);" Remember Jesus' words at Matthew 16:23: "'Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me, because you think, not God’s thoughts, but those of men.'” Here, the personage Satan is being used by Jesus figuratively (as he often did) to highlight a common mistake of Spiritual Men who all too often try to use the knowledge of men to overcome their spiritual problems. Pray that "YOUR faith might be, not in men’s wisdom, but in God’s power. (1 Corinthians 2:5). schyler (talk) 19:36, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, yes...the question of the Bible not being a science text is pretty well settled. But should it be a 100% true spiritual guide? That is the question. Some of the more repulsive realities, such as the Canaanite genocide, are explained in church as "necessary back then because God needed to preserve His people...this was before the era of Jesus and when God 'changed the rules' a bit." Then, of course, they recoil at Islamic jihad as just plain horrible. I ask them to explain these discrepancies and I can't get an explanation. I understand that a God would almost by definition do things that don't make sense to us...but why am I supposed to pick this God in the first place? WordyGirl9020:39, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Old Testament God is not a modern man (or woman) in the slightest. Murder and death and ridiculous, out of proportionate punishment was the name of the game. Resolution over this fact for modern Christians (those who do not believe in stoning people) is to appeal to the New Testament, which has a lot less of God exhorting his chosen folk to massacre people. But there are many believers (e.g. Orthodox Jews) who accept the very tribal, angry God as is written. As for whether the Bible should be a true spiritual guide — you're getting into heady theological territory. I sympathize with those hard-liners who say that once you start interpreting the Bible to fit the values you'd like it to have, you've probably missed the point of religion, but I'm not a believer myself. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:09, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is of utmost importance to realize that Islam is an Abrahamic religion, like Judaism and Christianity are. It is equally important to take into account how true worship can be compromised over time by paganism, false prophets, and apathy. Joshua chapter 8 details the account of the conquering of Ai... It is a very graphic account ("And all those who fell on that day...amounted to twelve thousand (verse 25)"). However violent and un-god-like this may seem, The Canaanites were even more un-god-like. The land of Canaan practiced many detestable things to Jehovah, including, but not limited to, infanticide, idol worship, polygamy, fornication, homosexuality, and that which is most spoken of in The Bible, Baal worship (see 1 Kings 18:25-46 for an interesting account). It is no more different from God clearing the Earth of the depravity caused by the nephilim during The Great Flood. YHWH is the true god because X...... I cannot give you empirical evidence as to why. It makes me feel good and gives me a purpose, and I never want to go on again wondering; I therefore choose to know for certain (and as you read The Word you will start to see the world as God sees it). That account in 1 kings I cited earlier really is interesting. And, like I said, it is very important to realize how true worship can be corroded over time; one should always examine their beliefs, which you are doing, which is good. One note which is off topic but rather interesting: the connection between the already-mentioned nephilim and Hercules (half-god-half-man, very strong, etc.). schyler (talk) 22:51, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is no more different from God clearing the Earth of the depravity caused by the nephilim during The Great Flood. What did it accomplish? Sin still flourished.
However violent and un-god-like this may seem, The Canaanites were even more un-god-like. Did you just espouse moral relativism? "Lesser of two evils"? Isn't God supposed to be perfect?
I cannot give you empirical evidence as to why. It makes me feel good and gives me a purpose, and I never want to go on again wondering... Umm, then how is this different from me rejecting your religion because it makes me "feel" better? WordyGirl9016:02, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but there is a lot of excessiveness in the Old Testament, at least by modern standards of justice. I mean, turning Lot's wife into a pillar of salt because she happened to glance backwards. That's kind of harsh by any standard. (OK, she disobeyed an angel's command. But a pillar of salt? Rough. Both for her and for Lot.) There are plenty of other examples. You either have to conclude, "well, I guess those people or acts were a million times worse back then than they appear" (which seems to be your answer — though I presume you would not have people slaughtered today because of their fornication, homosexuality, idol worship, Baal worship, etc.) — or you say, "well, God's kind of harsh, but I guess he knew what he was doing." Either one is kind of unsatisfying, you have to admit. (You can also take the hard-liner approach, and say, "well, modern standards of justice must be wrong." But fortunately that is a minority position.) None of which, obviously, disproves God or the Bible or says it is a bad idea. But we can be frank that on a first pass a lot of the sentiments in there are not exactly ones which we really uphold today. There is a reason, for example, that no Western nation's laws resemble in any real way the Ten Commandments with any specificity (you can't murder and you can't steal, that's about it). --Mr.98 (talk) 00:21, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(Edit Conflict) The problem with all these claims of how bad the Israelites' enemies were, is that they all come from the Israelites, who (a) won and (b) were not dispassionate and unbiased recorders: one wonders how the other sides of the stories might have sounded. According to the archaological and related studies I've read, the practices of idol worship and polygamy were not unknown amongst the early Israelites and their forerunners (infanticide I'm not sure about); fornication and homosexuality have undoubtably featured in all human cultures, and Ba'al, which merely means 'Lord' in the related Semitic languages, was a title originally applied to El/Yahweh ('Jehovah' is a false neologism resulting from the combination of the consonants of Yahweh with the vowels of Adonai) as well as to other neighborhood gods, which became the casualty of early interfactional schisms in which the Jerusalem-based priesthood won out against those of the other early Israelite temples. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 00:35, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You say, 87.81.230.195, that the Israelites "were not dispassionate and unbiased recorders". However, the Bible has many examples of their faults and deeds, evidently recorded under divine inspiration. The rebellion by Adam and Eve, the slaughter of Abel by Cain, the jealousy toward Joseph by his brothers, the adultery by David toward Bath-sheba and his murder of Uriah, the case of Jonah fleeing his assignment, the quarrels among the apostles of Jesus as to who was "greatest" among them, and the attempt by John to worship an angel (in Revelation) are recorded. The apostle Paul wrote that worshippers of God in later times could benefit by heeding the bad examples of their forefathers in earlier times. (http://www.multilingualbible.com/1_corinthians/10-11.htm) -- Wavelength (talk) 15:12, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I would assess Adam & Eve and Cain & Abel to be folk-myth figures who even in the context of the myth long predate the existence of 'Israelites' in any meaningful sense, and as such their 'misdeeds' reinforce the message of the Torah rather than detract from it. Similarly, Jesus and John (and the Apostles) were long post-Israelite Judaeans or Jews, recorded in accounts much more recent and entirely different in nature from the Torah: the modern Bible is a post-hoc assemblage of disparate materials, and taking it to be a unified, divinely-inspired record requires circular reasoning only possible to an already convinced believer - I'm afraid your "evidently recorded under divine inspiration" doesn't work for anyone who doesn't fall into that category.
David and Jonah do fall into the broadly interpretable 'Israelite' era, and indeed some of their supposed misdeeds (though not necessarily historical) are reported for didactic effect, but I wasn't claiming that the Torah paints a uniformly glowing picture of its 'own side'. My point (which to be sure is a sidetrack to the original issue) is that in the absence of any concept of historical detachment in its composition, the Israelites' practices and actions are likely to have been even worse that the Torah reports (often in apparently approving terms) and those of their enemies correspondingly less bad. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 19:44, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
True there is the possible perception of 'excessiveness,' but none of your conclusions are true. My standpoint is taken from His Word: "The Rock, perfect is his activity, For all his ways are justice (Deuteronomy 32:4)," "'the thoughts of YOU people are not my thoughts, nor are my ways YOUR ways,' is the utterance of Jehovah. (Isaiah 55:8)." I mentioned examining beliefs, but questioning the activities of The Creator of The Universe is only arrogant. @87.81.230.195: "According to the archaological and related studies I've read" is not reliable citation. True fornication and homosexuality have almost always existed, simply some societies see the superfluous style it stipulates. As for your assertion about The Divine Name, I'll have to look at that. In any case, it is still better than using a title like Lord or God. schyler (talk) 01:07, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Stipulating, on no objective evidence, the existence of a "Creator of the Universe" in terms which pre-emptively disqualify any argument by others about his/her/its real existence might also be seen as arrogance. It's difficult to concisely cite the results of decades of reading around a subject in what is not, after all, a Wiki article but merely a fairly ephemeral Ref Desk exchange, and some may question the validity of backing up arguments about the factuality of a disputed text merely by circularly 'citing' the text itself. As for the superiority of using a (likely human-invented) name rather than a respectful title, chacun à son goût; I'll stick to my "Lord" and "Lady", thank you :-). 87.81.230.195 (talk) 19:44, 20 August 2010 (UTC).[reply]
OK, so you've basically just said, "well, God's kind of harsh, but I guess he knew what he was doing." Or put another way, "it's not about your standards of justice, it's about God's, and if those don't make sense to you, it's your fault, not his." Which is, as I noted, a way out, but it is not very theologically or philosophically satisfying, in my opinion. It is basically an invention to not think about it seriously — it is an appeal to ending the conversation. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:41, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mr.98 sums it up. While we're at it, let's explain away violent jihad as necessary to accomplishing God's goals...whoops, wrong God! I was at a college Bible study and one of my friends said the usual about how Canaan had to be "cleared out" for the Israelites to give them a religious safe haven. I turned to him and said, "But the jihadists need a safe haven too, a world of Sharia law!" He chuckled and said, "Well, they're just wrong." Facepalm. I fully understand the notion of a God doing things that may seem repugnant to the human conscience. But it all depends on what God you pick. WordyGirl9016:02, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WordyGirl90, you began this discussion by asking about "purported evidences" for divine inspiration of the Bible. Has anyone ever offered to you any "purported evidences" for divine inspiration of the Qur'an? Incidentally, what does "Facepalm" mean?—Wavelength (talk) 17:01, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not WordyGirl, but I've certainly had people offer me "purported evidences" for divine inspiration of the Qur'an, just as I've had people offer me "purported evidences" for the efficacy of Traditional Chinese Medicine and "purported evidences" for the existence of aliens controlling the government. I've had people offer me "purported evidences" that we are all reincarnated, that the EU is a Nazi plan to take over the world, that the Bible contains divinely inspired scientific truths, that the Catholic Church plans to kill all the Protestants, that fairies really exist, that evolution is an evil lie, and that Richard Dawkins is knowledgeable about theology (I think I must have a sympathetic-looking face). Forgive me if I require more than "purported evidences", or really enthusiastic people who are very sure they are right, before I upgrade an idea from "some people think this" to "this is likely to be true". Actual evidences would do the job much better. 86.161.255.213 (talk) 17:59, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, the one thing that pretty much all Abrahamic religions agree on is that there is only one God. therefore, there can't be any wrong God, since the Muslim God and the Christian God and the Jewish God must (ipso fact) be the same God. It's not a question of what God you pick; it's a question of how much you're trying to fit God's image into your own preconceptions (instead of trying to remake your preconceptions in favor of God's image). Not many people can cope well with that line of thought, however. --Ludwigs217:29, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Qur'an teaches that God does not have a Son. Jesus states that He is the Son of God and that no one comes to the Father except through Him. Not exactly compatible religions... By the way, I am really enjoying this discussion, and welcome more input! WordyGirl9018:36, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't remember it teaching that explicitly, but it's been a while since I've looked at the Qur'an so I could be mistaken. And in any case, that's more of a semantical ambiguity (what Wittgenstein referred to pejoratively as 'philosophy') than a real issue. I mean, few Christians would go so far as to say that Jesus is the biological offspring of God (since that would have all sorts of disturbing implications), but that opens the question of what exactly Christians do mean by 'Son of God'. The sure fact that there is only one God (which all Abrahamic religions espouse) trumps any sectarian differences about the relationship of one man to that God.
As with all things religious, one can choose to interpret it in narrow, parochial terms or in expansive, universal terms. The fact that historically religions have chosen to interpret these things narrowly and prejudicially does not mean that they were right to do so (particularly when doing so led them to massive efforts of violence and brutality inconsistent with others tenets of their faiths). Men are stupid and violent, and god accepts them as they are; that doesn't make god stupid and violent. --Ludwigs219:39, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We can all ask how much the evolutionary scientists are trying to fit their conclusions into their own preconceptions, instead of being dispassionate and unbiased recorders. For example, Piltdown Man was an evolutionary hoax.
Oh please, do you read the articles you link? Should we also consider Charles Dawson's 'Roman figurine' evidence that historians of the Romans are trying to fit their conclusions into their own preconceptions, instead of being dispassionate and unbiased recorders? Do we count it as a hoax that is part of a conspiracy among historians to pretend that the Romans created cast iron in early Britain, or do we count it as a hoax by an attention-seeking individual? Do we discount the entire discipline of history over this, or do we look at the process by which it was discarded and exposed as a hoax, hoping to ensure we catch similar things earlier?
I did read the entire article Piltdown Man, and I am aware that it by itself does not provide evidence about all evolutionary scientists. I merely said that we can all ask the indirect question which I mentioned. Likewise, I am aware that a figurine forgery does not provide evidence that all historians have promoted pseudohistory. In any case, this has very much to do with the veracity of the Bible. Only the Bible answers the question of why God has been permitting suffering.—Wavelength (talk) 21:25, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can't understand why people keep bringing up Piltdown Man to paint evolutionists are conspiratorial. Guess who debunked Piltdown Man? Evolutionists, through the scientific process. I could go off on creation science, but I won't. Back to the question at hand...Wavelength, you seem to be going in circles about the Bible. I can't glean a good reason as to why I should believe the Biblical account of why God permits suffering, and not, say, Buddhist philosophy. Clue me in? WordyGirl9022:20, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm assuming 137.61 is referring to the only post on the talk page we were linked to ("there"). Here is the question:
"Passports normally have the coat of arms of the issuing state on the front. Why is this not the case with Cameroonian passports? What is this emblem on the passport? It is not the Coat of arms of Cameroon. "
I don't think most countries us a coat of arms. I know, for example, a Swiss passport doesn't. Many other countries use simple designs, such as the Irish passport, the Japanese Passport, and the Turkish Passport. I suspect the "Coat of Arms" or similar depends on the country, and those countries with a strong history in heraldry seem more likely to use such markings. A great gallery can be found at commons:Passport. Avicennasis @ 16:25, 9 Elul 5770 / 19 August 2010 (UTC)
What's on the front of that passport is a (slightly altered, to include both the French and English versions of the country's name and motto) representation of the obverse of the national seal of Cameroon, described in the country's 1972 constitution as "a circular medallion in bas-relief, 46 millimetres in diameter, bearing on the obverse and in the centre the head of a girl in profile turned to the dexter towards a coffee branch with two leaves and flanked on the sinister by five cocoa pods, encircled beneath the upper edge by the French words 'Republique du Cameroun' and above the lower edge by the national motto 'Paix - Travail - Patrie'; on the reverse and in the centre the coat of arms of the Republic of Cameroon, encircled beneath the upper edge by the English words 'Republic of Cameroon' and above the lower edge by the national motto 'Peace - Work - Fatherland'". In similar fashion, the front of U.S. passports bear the obverse of the Great Seal of the United States. Deor (talk) 19:42, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For some reason, Chad has both a traditional heraldic coat of arms, and also a completely separate seal which has no similarity with coat of arms, but instead depicts a girl's head and upper body... AnonMoos (talk) 20:27, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Eugene Peterson's The Message
I have thoroughly enjoyed Eugene Peterson's version of the Bible. In his interpretation of one of the words about the birth of Christ, he uses a word that (I think) changes the meaning of the story. I would like to ask someone who would know the source of his interpretation. Can anyone help me with a contact? 63.131.201.127 (talk) 15:31, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have two suggestions:
You might try reaching Eugene H. Peterson himself through one of his publishers, a list of which appears at the bottom of his article; or,
Please provide me the detail history of the surname OSHAN .....i think its basically origin in west side...Pls do reply this.... i have a friend but i rare hear this caste, so brief expalian with sub caste —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ggauravmahajan143 (talk • contribs) 16:18, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This sentence comes from an article (located here: [11]) about Roger Clemens being indicted for perjury before Congress: "Clemens faces a combined maximum sentence of 30 years in prison and a $1.5 million fine, although current sentencing guidelines would only put him in jail for 21 months if he is convicted." Can someone explain what that means? He faces 30 years as a maximum prison sentence ... but sentence guidelines only call for 21 months. I don't understand what that means. If the guidelines call for 21 months, how does he face 30 years? Can anyone clarify or explain this odd and seemingly contradictory wording? Thanks! (64.252.34.115 (talk) 22:26, 19 August 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Well, then, I guess it's all semantics, right? That is, under the guidelines, Clemens is "facing" 21 months. Even though the law allows a maximum of 30 years, Clemens is not really "facing" this 30 years ... he is only "facing" the 21 months as allowed by the guidelines. Is my paraphrasing correct? Thanks. (64.252.34.115 (talk) 00:20, 20 August 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Or, perhaps stated differently ... he is facing a theoretical punishment of 30 years, but a practical punishment of 21 months. Is that what's happening? Thanks! (64.252.34.115 (talk) 00:22, 20 August 2010 (UTC))[reply]
A better wording might be: "Clemens faces up to 30 years in prison and a $1.5 million fine [if the judge really wants to throw the book at him, he could], but current sentencing guidelines only call for 21 month if convicted [provided the judge doesn't have a reason to really hit him hard, he'll probably just get the recommended 21 months]". But if, for example, a person was suspected of doing a whole lot of nasty things, but all they could prove was that he perjured himself, then the judge might be inclined to give them a sentence longer than the recommended sentence, and he (the judge) would be legally allowed to dish out up to 30 years in jail, plus the fine, in such a case. Buddy431 (talk) 03:42, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yeah. And the vast majority of those appeals are rejected; still, wouldn't you ask your lawyer to look for grounds for an appeal if you were convicted of something? Has nothing to do with actual guilt or innocence. --jpgordon::==( o )20:24, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If the judge gives all of the other convicts in similar perjury cases 21 months and gives Clemens 30 years, Clemens can obviously make the case he's being picked on because he's a high-profile defendant. Similarly, a black guy who got that kind of treatment could claim racism. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:35, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How could Liu Bang justify the building of another monumental palace even larger than Epang Palace, six years after it's burning, which along with Qin Shihuangdi's mausoleum and the Great Wall had claim countless lives during the despotic rule of the previous dynasty?--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 03:15, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The deal with an absolute monarchy is The monarch is the state, and so ostentatious displays of wealth and power mean not only that the monarch is able to build them, but by extension the state is also strong enough. Monarchs across cultures and time have always felt the need for ostentatious displays of their wealth, and by extension the strength of the state they lead. How is Weiyang functionaly different, in this regard, than is Versailles or Sanssouci? Look, despite being involved in numerous expensive wars across Europe, Louis XIV found the enormous amount of money needed to expand a little country cottage into the model royal palace for all of Europe, in terms of its size and expense, it made little sense. After all, one might say if Louis is going to get involved in all of these wars, and if wars cost money, why is he also blowing so much on this rediculous building? In the end its probably the paradoxical truth that the monarch in the weaker position financially needs to build the bigger palace. After all, how better to prove that you are NOT in financial staights than to blow large sums of cash on a huge palace. Its probably the same deal for most of these sorts of palaces. --Jayron3203:53, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have heard a rumour that ABC will let non-Australian users view their live coverage on the webcast here. In the UK last time, the coverage from Sky News Australia was shown on one of the UK Sky News 'red button' selections. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:19, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Leaving Berlin mid-1945 - going where?
Hi,
Something I've wondered since watching Downfall, and gotten more curious the more I read - according to our article, upon the announcement of Operation Clausewitz, "all ministries and departments" left Berlin. According to our article on Hanna Reitsch, in the final days, she left "flying the last German plane out of Berlin". My question is - to where were they going? When I visited the Imperial War Museum a few months back, a plaque read that the Allies had occupied the rest of Germany by this point, so where could Hanna land, and where did the ministries decamp to? And if there was unoccupied territory remaining to which people could and did flee, why was the capital not moved there, as surely it would be better to conduct the war, even its end, from unoccupied territory rather than an encircled, devastated city? --Saalstin (talk) 12:53, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This map shows, in blue, Axis territory in the last days of the war. I don't think Hitler was ever going to leave Berlin; for one, he was either too deeply resigned or in denial. Also, moving an entire government is more difficult than even moving all the people in it. - Jarry1250[Humorous? Discuss.]13:16, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To answer your more specific question about Reitsch's final destination, our article states that Reitsch was instructed to join Karl Dönitz, who was head of the final Nazi "government" in Flensburg. So she probably intended to fly to Flensburg. Marco polo (talk)
Did the intelligence services of the US and UK assist high ranking Nazis in escaping so they could help in postwar anticommunist efforts? Did this extend to safehouses and fake papers, or just looking the other way? Edison (talk) 20:48, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know about the political and military leadership, but a large number of scientists and their research were brought out. I do not know how politically affiliated these individuals were to the previous regime, however. Googlemeister (talk) 20:52, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly the US imported Von Braun and other relatively non-political Nazi rocket scientists, who scaled up the V2 to create the Saturn V and achieve the 1969 moon landing, but I was more interested in German intelligence officers who were in various ways sheltered by the Allies because of their usefulness in fighting Communism during the Cold War. Edison (talk) 22:49, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While watching Saving Private Ryan, after the storming of the beach, you can see many troops and artillery entering the beach in the background. There appear to be a few blimps attached to the landing craft, and I was wondering what the purpose of them would be. I've seen similar images on other war time films over cities, and I assumed they might be used for observation, but it doesn't make as much sense there. My only other thought would be that they could somehow stop arial assaults, though I can't see how. -- WORMMЯOW 13:12, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I read the following statement concerning Shakespeare's Sonnet 12: "The placing of the sonnet within the sequence matches the number of minutes (60) in an hour." What does this mean? I cannot figure out what they are saying. What does the ordering of this particular sonnet as number 12 have to do with the number 60? I am confused. Can anyone offer any insight into this? Thanks. (64.252.34.115 (talk) 14:58, 20 August 2010 (UTC))[reply]
The statement in question appears not in the Wikipedia article but in "Sparknotes.". It does not make much sense, so perhaps you should contact the author of the Sparknotes in question. The number 12 recalls the numbers shown on a clock face. Another crib, Cummings, talks about the mention of minutes in Sonnet 60, which makes a bit more sense. Edison (talk) 15:32, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect this is typical academic over-analysis. I seriously doubt that Shakespeare themed his sonnets based on the order in which he included them in a folio. I mean, I'm sure there's all sorts of mathematical relationships that you can pull out of this: 12 is 1/5 of 60, there are 5 feet in every line of a sonnet, there are 12 lines in the main body of a sonnet... and lo, I count the moments of the days; with metered lines to give the hour its praise. poppycock... --Ludwigs217:43, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The brain is a wonderful pattern matching tool. Over-analysis of the Bard or conspiracy theory (the Bard didn't write anything himself, the greatest lie in literature), it all comes from the same part of the brain! PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK17:53, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved
-- AnonMoos (talk) 19:20, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Please do your own homework.
--Ludwigs2 19:39, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
