Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

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

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

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

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

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

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

December 20

9/11 attacks

People seemed to have been utterly shocked that 9/11 happened; the US started two wars at least partially due to the attacks. Plane hijackings happened all the time, and terrorist attacks happened all the time, so why was it so shocking and unbelievable that a terrorist would one day hijack a plane and crash it into a building? Also, the death toll numbered only several thousand, which pales in comparison to the number of people who die every single day. (Even if we exclude natural causes, Katrina, the 2004 tsunami, the Sichuan earthquake, or even the Afghanistan & Iraq wars caused just as many, or many more, victims.)

I'm sorry if I seem uninformed; although I was born before 9/11, it's one of my earliest childhood memories, so I wouldn't know if people at the time somehow thought a plane couldn't be hijacked and crashed into a building. The few thousand people who died seem insignificant compared to the technological advances, natural disasters, environmental issues, etc. that happened during that time, all of which affected nearly the entire world. --99.237.234.245 (talk) 03:46, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

"One of your earliest childhood memories"? You write remarkably for, at most, a fifteen-year-old. --Trovatore (talk) 06:09, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm 13, but thanks for the compliment. I'm not the best writer in my grade, or even in my class; maybe you only notice the 15-year-olds who have awful writing skills because they stand out, whereas those who can write well blend in? --99.237.234.245 (talk) 09:41, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

See failure of imagination. Basically, while it was certainly possible for terrorists to fly planes into skyscrapers, quite simply, few had thought of it ahead of time, as it had never happened before. Also keep in mind that the U.S. had had very little experience with Islamist terrorism before 9/11. The biggest such attack before 9/11 was the first World Trade Center attack, which killed six people. On 9/11, a lot of people thought This doesn't happen here, just as they did after the JFK assassination in 1963. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 03:59, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Fixed your link. --Anon, 04:48 UTC, December 20/10.

There are two ways to answer this question. One is to look at the actual differences between 9/11 and other hijackings or terrorist attacks. The other is a more impressionist account which will maybe give you more of an idea of what things were like back then at the actual time.

What was gob-stopping about the attacks were their orchestration. The first plane was what we might call the "normal attack." Like Oklahoma City. Like the Madrid bombings (for an American). They were something you heard about after the fact. "Hmm, that's awful." Then, as you were watching, came the second plane. It was clear that it was no minor operation. It was clear that it was no accident. It was Hollywood, but real. It involved plumes of flame coming out of gigantic buildings. It was looking and seeing little things falling out of the windows — people. It was a panic: what would come next? More planes? Then, the Pentagon. One after another after another. In real time. While you were watching. Not something you read about after the fact. A massively coordinated attack. Not just one guy driving up a truck and setting it off. Not just a few radicals hijacking a plane and then forcing it to fly to Cuba. A group of people clearly conducting suicide attacks with airplanes with stunning results. Major landmarks engulfed in flame and smoke. Unknown numbers dead. (We didn't know the death toll on the day itself. It was not uncommon to assume it was in the tens of thousands — the number who were in the Towers on an average morning.)

I was on the other coast. The bomb squad was deployed to my university, pre-emptively. People walked around in a daze. We went to classes and couldn't think of anything to say. What would come next? There was total uncertainty. Total vulnerability. Who was attacking? Why? Would other cities be targeted? I had recurrent dreams for weeks about mushroom clouds rising above San Francisco. Everybody was nervous. There were cops everywhere and guardsmen with guns and Hummers on all the bridges. And yet, everyone was incredibly polite, patient, and empathetic to other people you saw. We were all in this together; we were all hunkering down.

None of that excuses or explains the wars, certainly not from a rational level. It only begins to approximate what might be a formal discussion of how people deal with assimilating threats. Automobiles kill thousands a day, we shrug and accept it as a fact of modern life. But when thousands die at once, for political reasons, with everyone watching, it becomes something else. Something much scarier. We don't feel in control. The wars were, in a very basic sense, an attempt to re-assert and to re-gain control. I wouldn't argue they necessarily did that or were rational means towards that end. Indeed, we've learned that control is a difficult thing to get, and many have argued that the wars resulted in as much of a loss of control and security as they may have gained. That's a separate question from the psychological effect. The reason one feels the way one feels in such situations is not a rational one. It is not something you can reason your way out of very easily.

I didn't know anyone who died; I was thousands of miles away from New York, D.C., or Pennsylvania. But even over there you could feel that something really tremendous had gone on. It was still a major event in my life, and the lives of all of my friends. You woke up one day and suddenly felt completely out of control. I'm not happy with the military response to it, and wasn't happy with it even at the time, but that's a separate issue. --Mr.98 (talk) 04:14, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Wow, that account was extremely interesting. My own experience is as different as it could possibly be. I saw the attacks on TV, but I didn't know that it WAS an attack; I thought it was just an accident. I also didn't see people jumping from buildings, didn't sense any nervousness around me, and didn't see any increased security. I don't remember hearing about the Afghan war, and didn't know the Iraq war was related to this until 5-6 years after 9/11. All of this was mostly because I was 4 at the time, and partly because I was in Toronto, which is in some ways farther from NY than the American west.

I'm curious: to all the Americans here who remember 9/11, did you suspect that it was the beginning of a military attack? I'm guessing you didn't know who the attackers were at the time; who did you hope/fear they were? How many more planes did you think were coming--1? 5? 100? Did you ever feel your own life was in danger? --99.237.234.245 (talk) 04:49, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm Canadian, from Toronto, but I was in my 40s at the time, so I remember it very well. In fact I'd say it was the worst day of my life. As soon as we knew that multiple planes had been crashed, it was obvious that this was some sort of terrorist attack. Islamic terrorists were the best known at the time and therefore the most likely suspects, but they had never achieved something that big. No terrorist attack ever had. If it was Islamists, then there was no particular reason to expect a military followup; they didn't have the capability to mount it. What was entirely possible was that there would be more terror attacks. A few days after the attack I happened to experience a local power outage and I immediately wondered if it was a terrorist attack (although I correctly guessed that it wasn't). If they'd attack the US, why not Canada? And Toronto is Canada's equivalent of New York...

As to the number of planes involved, remember that air travel in the US was shut down within hours of the attack. It did not seem likely that there were a lot more. That afternoon a co-worked said there were 8 planes involved -- 4 had been crashed and 4 were reported hijacked. I immediately wondered if they had counted the same ones twice and I was right about that.

--Anonymous, 05:02 UTC, December 20/10.

I was 11 at the time, and it was my 2nd day of school. I'm from Connecticut, and I went to school in New Canaan, which is basically across Long Island Sound from New York. We heard about it, and we all immediately realized that some entity was attacking us; I didn't get the impression of a military attack, but some people I spoke to (including a couple of my teachers) did. And as a side note, we took I-95 back that day because the Merritt Parkway was jammed. I-95 is right down by the coast in spots, and we could see the smoke from across Long Island Sound; that's when I knew this was a terrorist attack, because the Twin Towers weren't militarily significant but were a landmark whose destruction would burn itself into people's minds. To me, it was obviously psychological, and no government would order an attack that blatant on the US (if anyone remembers, our standing in the world was significantly better) and seriously expect to get away with it. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 07:40, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I was 24 at the time. When I heard of the first plane, it was still just a rumor and I figured a small private plane may have struck the tower. Such things have happened before. I was in college at the time, and just went into a class on film, so we were watching a movie for 2 hours. When I finally got out, the worst of the attack was already over. I was seeing replays of the second strike, and they were just finding the film from the firefighters who happened to catch the first strike while filming a training video. By that point, it was pretty clear this was a terrorist attack, not a military operation. There was some concern that other powers might take advantage of the disruption to attack, but that seemed unlikely with our entire military force on highest alert.

I took the rest of the day off from my classes to watch the news unfold. There was a lot of confusion when it came to the plane that crashed in Pennsylvania. And a bit of a panic over a couple planes that weren't properly answering their radio, or which had mistakenly turned on their "hijack" automated signal. I saw the WTC7 building collapse live on TV.

The sad thing is, when I found out it was real, my first reaction was to think, "It finally happened." See, Stephen King had written a story back in 1982 called The Running Man. At the climax of the story, the protagonist flies a plane into the skyscraper that houses the company that's trying to kill him. Ever since I had read that story, I wondered when someone would actually try it. But the sheer scale of the attacks was staggering. I expected that some day someone might fly one plane into a building. But four was just astounding. I don't think I'd ever heard of multiple planes even being hijacked simultaneously like that. No one was prepared for what happened, because the normal hijackings we'd seen all involved the hijackers forcing the plane to land, or trying to fly it out of the country. This... this was just unprecedented.

For several days, I was still worried about regular bombings or other terrorist attacks. With the airlines grounded, a repeat attack wasn't possible, but a car bomb or suicide bomber was still a possibility. Luckily, nothing else happened. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:10, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

As to why the attacks were not anticipated: well, in principle they were. It had been reported that Islamic terrorists had planned to crash a plane into the Eiffel Tower, and (as mentioned in another thread above) Tom Clancy had written a novel featuring an airliner crashed deliberately into the Congress building. But people anticipate all sorts of unlikely scenarios without expecting them to happen. It was peacetime, a time to relax after the Cold War; it was the strongest country in the world; the attack was intricately planned (coordinated simultaneous hijackings) in a way that previous terror attacks had generally not been; and it involved a weapon never actually used before. There was plenty of reason to be surprised. --Anonymous, 05:08 UTC, December 20/10.

I'm an American living in Italy. As I numbly watched on my television screen the planes crashing into the Towers, I realised that hundreds of people, like myself, had just ceased to exist as they were instantly consumed in balls of fire that appeared mesmerisingly diabolical to my unbelieving eyes. My mind also registered that it was the dawning of a new, bleak, and frightening era. Mankind, on 11 September 2001, had passed the point of no return.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:38, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps not all of mankind, but at least Americans. It was certainly a wake-up call for a lot of them. HiLo48 (talk) 07:44, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

11 September was not an attack against America, it was an attack against everybody. The USA just happened to be targeted that day. We are all potential targets. The new millenium began the instant the first plane entered the North Tower heralding the violence and bloodshed which has been spreading like an ugly red stain all over the globe since.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:52, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's not that bad. Vastly more people were killed in World War I, for example. This seems like the dawn of a new era or whatever because we're living in it, but in the grand scheme of history it's not that big of a deal, at least in terms of bloodshed. Adam Bishop (talk) 08:06, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I suspect a lot of folks elsewhere who have experienced repeated war on their own soil before didn't see it as quite that extreme. If you are referring to what some would describe as the American administration's military overreaction to the attacks, that's yet another slant. HiLo48 (talk) 08:10, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

In most terrorist attacks before that, the terrorists tried hard to save their own lives, except maybe one person at a time in Israel that was clearly confused or absolutely desperate. This was the first time that a large number of people agreed to end their own lives in order to achieve a terrorist act. It is a small aspect of the psychological impact, but it changed the game for anti-terrorist measures, because it meant that they can acheive much more, being close to or inside the device they use. It also calls for pre-emptive action, because you can't punish them after the events. --85.119.27.27 (talk) 08:54, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

The use of planes full of people to crash into buildings full of people forever changed the dynamics of international terrorism. There's no safety anywhere. Terrorists can attack a train, crash an airliner into one's workplace or neighbourhood, blow up discoteques and hotels. An innocent shopping trip downtown can end up with a person's body parts being shovelled from the main street.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:13, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Wow Jeanne, your description is extremely vivid. It certainly doesn't feel like a new era to me, perhaps because I have no memory of the "old era", but wasn't the Cold War much more terrifying? I don't find it worrying that terrorists might bomb the subway I'm taking--I'm much more likely to die crossing the street anyways--but I would be terrified if a superpower could destroy civilization at a moment's notice. How about events like the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the Rwandan genocide, or the genocidal war fought in Europe in the 1990's? --99.237.234.245 (talk) 09:41, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

People who lived through the Kennedy Assassination and the Vietnam War say that they weren't too shocked by 9/11, because they had a thicker skin. (That's what my parents told me.) I, however, was only 21 on 9/11. So, I was incredibly shocked and outraged by those events. I began to see the world in a very hostile light. The behavior of some countries (like Germany) leading up the war in Iraq only re-inforced my view of the world as full of enemies of the United States.--Best Dog Ever (talk) 10:22, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I do think there was a different reaction from people more used to terrorism than Americans are (or were) - I'm British, and pIRA terrorism was a regular feature of the news as I grew up. Actually watching the events live on TV was horrible, an editor above described the realisation that the tiny specks falling from the towers were people - that was the moment it changed from watching some surreal nightmare into something much more real and much more disturbing. A few days later, as I recall, I had a long chat in the pub with a Spanish chap about the American reaction that we had seen or heard. I think we both felt - as people who had grown up with the reality of pIRA and ETA attacks in our own countries that some Americans seemed to have been living in a kind of dream, insulated from the realities of terrorism. That's not intended as any kind of criticism (though I could go off on a long one about NORAID and American funding of pIRA terrorism), just that for people who have grown up with the constant knowledge that we are potential targets, it was hard for us to understand the feelings and reactions of people who have lived safe from such threats for such a long time and then been struck by such a massive attack. DuncanHill (talk) 10:56, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, German was the first nation to offer condolences and aid to the US after the attacks. It was only when we went to war with Afghanistan (and later Iraq) that they took a more critical stance. They certainly don't deserve to be called "enemies." — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:26, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

9/11 was shocking to me for the following reasons:

1. They blew a huge hole in the Pentagon, killing a general and 124 others. Our military headquarters apparently didn't have anti-aircraft defenses??
2. The savagery of the events was deeply disturbing. People were burning to death on TV and then committed suicide by jumping out of the buildings. Flight attendants had their throats slit with box cutters on the flights. To top it all off, these were all innocent people. They didn't do anything to the terrorists.
3. The passengers on board one of the flights fought back upon hearing it was a suicide mission. It was deeply moving to me when I heard of their bravery.
4. Palestinians rejoiced in the streets upon hearing about the attacks. It shocked me because I realized that they were incredibly evil people who hated us for no valid reason whatsoever.
5. They almost destroyed our Capitol building. That is the most important building, symbolically, in Washington D.C.

The reason it didn't shock you was because you were too young to understand how unusual these events were. If you were older, you would have been shocked. There were large-scale terrorist attacks when I was young (like the Oklahoma City bombing), but I didn't care, and I don't think about that attack today often.--Best Dog Ever (talk) 10:02, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm still shocked when I see my fellow Americans unable to understand why the Palestinians celebrated. There is no question that the US support for Israel makes us seem at least as evil to them. Ginger Conspiracy (talk) 11:36, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I said I see no valid reason for them to celebrate the attacks or to hate us. We do give both Israel and Egypt aid as part of our obligations under the Camp David Accords that Jimmy Carter signed. We also use our aid to Israel as leverage to compel them to negotiate with the Palestinians. We also give the Palestinians about $400 million a year in aid. So, it was very confusing to me when I saw the Palestinians celebrating the 9/11 attacks. We came very close to giving them their own state a year earlier, but Yasser Arafat walked out of those meetings, thus condemning his people to eternal conflict. The Palestinians wouldn't have it any other way, despite their insistance to the contrary.--Best Dog Ever (talk) 03:52, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

If only validity wasn't subjective. Ginger Conspiracy (talk) 03:42, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

This is a fascinating discussion. Not for the obvious responses of those who were alive at the time, and who understood the significance of the event at the time... but for the question. I'm old enough for 9/11 to have been a distinct event that I understood the significance of as soon as it was clear it wasn't an accident... or understand the wider implications... but young enough to have never seen Kennedy's assassination, or even remember the Challenger disaster.

If you weren't alive on that day, or weren't old enough to appreciate it's significance... please don't denigrate the very real and very accurate reactions of the people that were either there, or watching. It was an incredible tragedy and a world event. I received a call from a friend telling me to turn on the TV... and at the point the second tower was hit it was painfully clear to me, and everybody else I talked to at the time, that it wasn't an accident. The second tower was the very clear indication that this was something different. Shadowjams (talk) 10:53, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm British, and only discovered what was happening when I came back home with my kids at 3pm local time (10am New York time) and they turned on the TV. My older daughter, now 19, vividly recalls the moment, and me saying: "This is important, and will be one of those things you will always remember when you're older". Aside from horror at what was happening to all those poor people, some reactions here were more complex. Rightly or wrongly, along with the undoubted outrage and sympathy there was also curiosity as to whether, for example, American attitudes to issues like the Provisional IRA and the Northern Ireland Peace Process would alter now that the US had seen its own innocent citizens terrorized and murdered on a large scale by fanatics with a political agenda. There was also unease about how intelligent and effective the US response would be now they had been awakened with a vengeance, and I have to say that concern has been borne out, to a degree - for example, the ongoing throwaway characterisation of opponents as "incredibly evil people who hate us for no valid reason whatsoever". I suspect any country that experienced dreadful events like 9/11 would see it in black and white as "the point of no return" and "an attack against everybody", but in truth I think non-Americans see it more as a natural progression on what had gone before. The world gets smaller, information travels further and faster, and dangerous, angry people have more opportunities to do greater and greater damage in the name of whatever Big Truth obsesses them. Suicide bombing was nothing new in 2001; the September 11 perpetrators just thought bigger than any previous ones had done, and got lucky that their unfortunate victims did not see them coming. The globe was already stained bright red by violence and bloodshed before 2001, and in plenty of countries the inhabitants had understood for years that a trip to the shopping mall might possibly end in a body bag courtesy of someone seeking to right a perceived wrong by butchering his neighbours. It's just that such events were not plastered all over Western media, and did not fundamentally affect the way we live our lives in our own countries as 9/11 and its aftermath have done. Perhaps that's the most crucial difference. Karenjc 11:43, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I was in my second last year of high school in Australia and remember seeing it on the morning news. At first I thought the images related to a new movie. When the full story unfolded, I think I agree with Karenjc's view - that while the event was shocking, and it would have been unimaginable had it happened in Australia, it did not strike me as particularly surprising to have occurred in the US. It seemed like the culmination of a natural progression resulting from American foreign policy (in a loose sense - not just deciding who to side with or which countries to invade, but the sort of general international attitude). Given the increasing scale of attacks on either side - including the embassy bombings just a couple of years earlier, it seemed like a reasonably natural development. Plus, I had some memory of attacks of comparable magnitude in the US, like the Oklahoma bombings. Although this was bigger, it was not so much bigger as to be truly unimaginable. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 12:01, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Time to reread Eric Hoffer's The True Believer. Bus stop (talk) 12:13, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

You do write really well for a 13-year-old, 99.237.234.245. As to your question "why was it so shocking and unbelievable that a terrorist would one day hijack a plane and crash it into a building?", what do you think the reaction to something happening on the same scale now would be? How do you think you personally would react to something like that if it happened now? WikiDao ☯ (talk) 12:17, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I remember reading in the 1980s reading about disaster exercises that were conducted in London; the scenario was that an 747 had crashed into Kings Cross Station - London's biggest transport hub. But it doesn't matter how well you prepare for things, you can't protect yourself against every conceivable threat. Alansplodge (talk) 12:54, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't shocked that something like that could be done, but was shocked to see it happening anyway. I had been living in New York City and only just moved to Seattle a few months before 9/11. I had lots of friends in the city, some living or working quite close to the towers. I had been to the top of them more times than I can count, and had seen them basically every day for years. I first heard about the attack while driving home after dropping my wife off at the airport for a flight. As it turned out, she boarded the plane but it never took off. And no one I knew in New York was killed--although some people I know knew people who were. And some of my NYC friends spent the day staring out their apartment windows, watching the smoke and then the collapsing towers. Others were caught in the dust clouds and chaos. So... no, it's not like I once believed something like that could not be done, rather it was shock over seeing a place I knew so well destroyed like that, coupled with concern for friends who could have been affected. These days, the image that comes to mind most often is, strangely, the atrium with the palm trees in it near the base of the towers. I had been in there so many times and seen music recitals there, and randomly wandered into orchid shows and all kinds of odd things. It was a beautiful place that meant a lot to me--so seeing photos of it in ruins was powerful. Later I visited the city and ground zero. The atrium had been repaired, but there used to be a pedestrian walkway bridge from it to the towers, and the place that used to be the entrance to the walkway was just a large window with a view toward the utter destruction of ground zero--a giant hole where once there had been giant towers. Anyway, I definitely understand why the towers were targeted. What other pair of buildings could be destroyed like that and cause as much shock to as many people? Also, in response to some other comments in this thread--it did not surprise me that "something like that could happen in the US". Nor was it hard to understand why some people would do such a thing. I did worry that day that my government's reaction would be overblown knee-jerk vengeance. And as it turned out my government's reaction was even more blindly vengeful than I feared. The best thing for me was that just a week afterward my wife and I took a long-planned week long road trip through the wilds of British Columbia, camping in the forests far from any news source. Thanks to that, we managed to *stop* thinking about 9/11 within a couple weeks. Pfly (talk) 13:20, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I marvel that many Europeans here presume that my American citizenship has blinded me from the threat of terrorism which has plagued the earth for many decades now. I lived for many years in Ireland during the bloody and tense conflict known as the Troubles. I experienced many bomb scares in Dublin's city centre; in fact, I worked in Talbot Street, site of a UVF car bomb which killed and maimed many people-mostly women-only a few years previously. Had the same group decided to do a repeat performance when I worked there, I could have been killed and my American passport and accent would have done nothing to protect me. I have often visited Northern Ireland, including the harrowing bomb site in Lower Market Street in Omagh where a lovely teenaged lad was killed (among 30 other innocent shoppers) in 1998. I happened to be at the Tower of London on 5 September 1975 when there was a bomb warning. It turned out to have been a hoax; however, the one miles away outside the Hilton was not. I was lucky not to have been blasted apart by an IRA bomb at the age of 17, with the British papers showing my photo and commenting on the irony of how my paternal grandparents had been Irish. In early 1982, my Dublin boyfriend and I took a long walk from Dundalk to Newry on the main A1 road, which had been detoured due to a bomb scare. We had tarried a while at the picturesque Ravensdale Woods, not far from the spot where Captain Robert Nairac had been tortured and killed. Anthony and I were lucky not to have been abducted by roving members of the Glenanne gang, who operated in that area. Luck. It's the only shield one has against the shrapnel, flames, and powerful blast waves of the terrorists' bombs. Yes, I am American. One who has never been blinded to the reality of the violent world we live in. Not since the Sunday morning of 24 November 1963 when I watched Jack Ruby step forward to fire a pistol into the stomach of Lee Harvey Oswald. The 11 September attacks was not the advent of terrorism, it just brought more people into the line of fire.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:43, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I want to suggest again that a "failure of imagination" is a rational way to talk about an emotional blindside. We can all say, "Oh, sure, terrorists might set of a nuclear bomb someday in the future." But we never think that day will be today, and we never really can guess how we'll feel about it. Even more mundane things catch one off guard. I had a cat which I really only half-way liked. One day he was hit by a car. I had of course imagined previously what it would be like to experience the loss of this cat. I never would have, or could have, imagined the shock, trauma, and grief that came on the day it actually occurred. It was really horrible and for weeks it completely laid me low. It was a hollowness and a depression, it was a perfect description of the traumatic event, I had nightmares about it for months, and so on. I'm not a terribly sentimental person, but it really hit me. I bring this up as an analogy between anticipation and reality. Emotional things are disconnected from logical things in ways we often can't anticipate, even if we try to. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:14, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I know what you mean. When Nodar Kumaritashvili died during a practice run hours before the opening ceremonies of the 2010 Winter Olympics, I was crushed, much more so than I was on 9-11. I'm 30 now, 21 back then, but the whole immediacy and local nature of each tragedy made each feel different. I live in Vancouver, and the anticipation for 8 years of us getting the games, after much debate and protest, finally making it work. Boom, guy dies. It was crushing.

On the other hand, the US had a bad rep foreign rep, even then, with bombing the Al-Shifa pharmaceutical factory. Was an attack a complete surprise to me? No. Was that particular method and location? Yes. But to me it most certainly did not feel like an "attack on all of us" or a war against the West. It was an attack on the US. Later attacks in London were against American allies, not the UK in particular, since Blair was a major Bush supporter. Aaronite (talk) 18:01, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Coupled with the personal loss of your cat, knowing that it was gone forver from your life was also the harsh concept of the sudden brutality and indiscrimnate manner of death. A chain of events leading to the cat's decision to cross the road at the fateful moment a car was traveling along-and in a flash the cat ceased to exist when seconds before it had been sentient. Same with the victims of a terrorist bomb. An impulse to walk down a certain street, pass the wrong car the moment the timer goes off, and all the hopes, dreams, thoughts, feelings, memories they ever had are forver blasted out of their minds. To be replaced by nothingness.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:25, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Don't forget that there was a briefing document which not only named Bin Laden specifically as a potential threat, but even suggested ways in which he might attack the United States. It wasn't failure of imagination, it was just lack of preparedness. Corvus cornix_talk 20:52, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

It might be difficult for a young person who has lived most of his life in the post-9/11 world to understand how different the mindset was before the attacks. I remember visiting the Capitol when in high school. You walked through a metal detector, put on a name tag that read, "VISITOR," and then you were free to explore (with members' areas off-limits, of course). I was walking around the corridors trying to find the rotunda when a security guard approached. He said, "You want to see the rotunda? Follow me." He led me through a side door, said, "Here you go," and left. The rotunda was completely empty -- it had already closed. For 15 minutes, I was all alone under the dome with all the statues and paintings. Finally, another guard stopped in and said, "Um, you know this is closed, right?" after which I apologized and left. Could you imagine them letting a nameless civilian walk around the rotunda by himself today? They might shoot him on sight. The last time I visited Washington, the Capitol looked like a fortified military compound, blocked off by concrete barriers. It was very sad to see. Back in the pre-9/11 era, Americans simply didn't think about terrorism that much. Sure, there had been the first WTC attack, and the embassy and USS Cole bombings, and some media had reported about this Saudi billionaire named bin Laden who wanted to attack America. But terrorism was something that happened in other countries. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:50, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I had a similar experience more than 30 years ago that illustrates what's changed, and how much innocence has been lost. One cold night in December, I think it was 1976 or 77, I went wandering around Capitol Hill with a camera and a tripod taking night pictures of the Capitol and Mall. I was set up on one of the west terraces, the only soul out there, when a Capitol police officer approached. We exchanged small talk about the cold, and he mentioned that tripods weren't allowed in the terrace. Since he and I were the only people who could possibly trip over my tripod, he observed that he'd take a walk around the building and I shouldn't be there when he came back around. Given that it takes 45 minutes to go around the Capitol, that wasn't a problem for me. Would never happen now. I still have a slide of the dome I took that night. Back then, you could just walk in the Capitol during visiting hours and look around - no metal detectors, no nothing. It isn't possible anymore to stand on the Capitol terrace alone in the night and contemplate the city. A great deal of security (the real kind), freedom and public participation in civic life has been lost, and we all knew it conclusively on 9/11. Acroterion _(talk) 04:27, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

One more pair of thoughts from me. A lot of the "lack of imagination" discussion seems to be talking about policymakers rather than "the people." There are some people in our government (and elsewhere) who spend all day long thinking about obscure and potentially unlikely military threats to the country. They consider lots of possible enemies and make a job out of being worried about things that could happen far in the future. Some of these people certainly did think that extremist attacks on US soil would continue; some of them even thought that airline security might be a weak point. None of that matters when discussing the popular effects of such things. The grand majority of the people at any given time are not worried about such things. There is a huge difference in talking about whether the government analyst was unprepared for such an event and whether the "man on the street" was. They are apples and oranges.

The other thought. 9/11 was different from Oklahoma City (at least my experience of it) because 9/11 felt like the beginning of lots of attacks. It felt like the work of an organization, not a lone nut. It felt like a Pearl Harbor before a war. It didn't feel like the end product of a series of events, but the beginning of more events. That is, I think, what a lot of people mean when they say they felt like they were "at war". Oklahoma City was a tragedy, but it didn't feel like a beginning. Now, as it turns out, the "war" was rather understated. Whether this is because of US intervention in the Middle East or not is something future historians will no doubt argue over. (Another way to put it is that American intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan channeled a lot of violence into those regions, to the benefit of the mainland US, which got by with almost no serious terrorist violence afterwards.) But in terms of understanding the mindset of the times, I don't think it was uncommon for people to wonder if this wasn't going to become the "new normal," the "way we live now." It didn't, thank goodness, though in trying to guarantee that we ended up creating far more violence for far more people, in the long run, but that's no new story... --Mr.98 (talk) 00:23, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

To epxand on something Karenjc said, the guys responsible for September 11 were amazingly lucky. None of the big attacks since then have been that big, and most of the time they are either foiled or just don't work properly. Is this because security is so much better since 2001? Probably not; terrorists are just not that good at terrorism, and when a group gets all of its smartest people together and then gets them to kill themselves during an attack that they were only able to carry out because they got lucky, how could such a success be repeated? Adam Bishop (talk) 04:58, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Having read a bit about how and why the towers collapsed (and ignoring the conspiracy theories), it seems to me highly unlikely that the people behind the attack intended to bring the towers down--I sometimes wonder whether they were as shocked as I was when both towers collapsed. What would the general reaction have been if the result was "merely" fireballs over a few floors of the two buildings' 100+ floors? It would have been shocking still, I think, but much less so, and much more quickly passing. As for the feeling of the event being the "beginning" of something--I had that feeling too, and even wondering in passing whether my new home city of Seattle would have a plane crashing into it. I quickly decided this was highly unlikely, but there was a period of perhaps 30 minutes when it felt like everything was uncertain and anything could happen. Within a few hours though, for me, it no longer felt like anything more was possibly about to happen. I can see why some people felt like a war had begun, but I felt nothing like that myself. Within hours I felt that the attack was over and that any "war" to follow would be largely initiated by the US. However, I had the luxury of living in Seattle instead of New York City by that time. For the people who did live in NYC, at least the ones I knew, the sense of dread, of the not-unreasonable idea that another attack could occur at any time, remained strong and in the forefront of one's mind for many weeks, even months. Finally, in terms of a "new normal", as it has effected me, the most annoying aspect has been an enhanced border security with Canada. I grew up in Buffalo, right on the US-Canada border, and I frequently drove to Toronto. The border crossing was a relaxed affair. You needed no more than a driver's license, for the driver at least, and for passengers a simple statement of citizenship. Even the driver's license was often passed over, with the customs people just asking your citizenship and intended length of stay--taking your word for it. Crossing the border here in the Pacific Northwest was almost as lax when I first moved here around May 2001. But shortly after 9/11 border security was tightened and remains so. I haven't crossed over into Canada for years now--but the last I knew a driver's license would not suffice--you'd need a passport or something equally strong. Perhaps things have been relaxed a bit, I'm not sure. Either way I find it highly troublesome that the US-Canada border become significantly more difficult to cross since 9/11 (I won't say "more secure", since it is still trivial to sneak across, if you really cared to do so). Having grown up as an American in the shadow of Toronto, I felt this desire to "strengthen the border" to be like, metaphorically, an ostrich sticking its head in the sand. When Americans actually fear Canadians you know something is horribly wrong, I reckon. Pfly (talk) 11:40, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh, well, the terrorists came through Canada, don't you know! Crossing the border has been the most different thing for me too...once in 2002, we even had our car searched by the customs clerk and a soldier with a rather large gun. And now we need a passport. The US consulate in Toronto also now looks like a fortress, and I guess another annoying thing is that the level of American jingoism has vastly increased in the past nine years, haha. But this is true in Canada too. Our soldiers in Afghanistan are protecting our freedoms and paying the ultimate sacrifice, and all that. Adam Bishop (talk) 16:37, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Interesting stories. My parents and I tried to visit the White House a few years ago as Canadian citizens. Needless to say, none of us were allowed in because we weren't American citizens, even though my parents were permanent residents of the US and had visited the White House before.

As for crossing the border, as of a few weeks ago, you need a passport or an Enhanced Driver's License to cross into the US. I imagine the same applies to crossing into Canada. --99.237.234.245 (talk) 04:28, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I lived downtown Manhattan but saw it on TV. We assumed it was an accident for about three minutes. I knew the blink sheik had a major court date scheduled but I was positive someone had a heart attack as the Empire State building had a similar incident. Within a few minutes, the news said that an aviation expert said it was a jumbo jet. We knew it was an attack. People were eerily calm around me even though family members were trapped. Looking back, I was in denial.75Janice (talk) 22:53, 21 December 2010 (UTC)75Janice

Some mention should be made in this discussion of hindsight bias and the historian's fallacy. Most everything seems obvious and likely after it has happened; only in retrospect do events like 9/11 or the attack on Pearl Harbor seem predictable and unshocking. The challenge of understanding past events is that it's tempting to read history backwards—to succumb to the belief that people in the past should have seen the future coming. There is simply too much information, and too many contingencies, to know what lies ahead. There are always a few Cassandras around, to be sure, but their voices are awash in a chorus of warnings of looming disasters that never materialize. Don’t forget the Jeane Dixon effect: we only remember the predictions that came true, not the many more that didn’t. —Kevin Myers 06:44, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

How many prisoners are atheist?

Ricky Gervais claims here that ... "75 percent of Americans are God-­‐fearing Christians; 75 percent of prisoners are God-­‐fearing Christians. 10 percent of Americans are atheists; 0.2 percent of prisoners are atheists." How close is he to the correct numbers? Llamabr (talk) 17:05, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

According to Religion in the United States, he's pretty close. 76% of Americans are Christian as of 2008 (see chart at bottom). There are conflicting numbers in various places in the article on Athiests, I see numbers anywhere from 1.6% to up to 15%. I don't see info on prison population there, however. --Jayron32 17:12, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

And how do you know that they fear God? Is being Christian enough for that? 80.58.205.52 (talk) 17:18, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Good question -- I don't know quite what it means to fear god, or how to measure it. But I'm more interested in the population of prisoners, mainly in the USA, who are atheist. Do prisons collect this information? Or is there a survey? I know comics are not generally required to cite their sources, but I'm mainly interested in evidence for that last number. Llamabr (talk) 17:37, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

(e/c) Fear of God is a special form of belief in God.

There is also the Demographics of atheism article, which generally suggests that socioeconomic factors and especially levels of education and intellectuality affect belief in God.

The point seems to be that "fearing God" is not an effective crime deterrent. But it's more just that the more professional, educated, and intellectual you are, the less likely you are to be God-fearing and the less likely you are to be a convicted criminal. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 17:42, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Remember that "fear of God" is not about being scared. It's an old use of the word fear, a deep reverence that goes beyond mere respect. --Trovatore (talk) 19:45, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, though in common usage it might easily be taken more "literally", too, by some of those who practice it. Our Fear of the Lord article also discusses this variety of religious experience. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 19:54, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

In the UK, according to a Home Office report, about 60% of prisoners identify as Christian, and 30% as having no religion. Of that 30%, 1% (i.e. 0.3% of the population) claimed to be either atheist or agnostic. About the US, I have no clue. Marnanel (talk) 17:56, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

When you are fed this information that atheists are much less likely to be sent to prison than Christians are, it appears that you are supposed to come away thinking "Gosh, atheists are much more likely to be moral people than Christians are". Perhaps atheists are more likely to be moral people than Christians are, for all I know. But there are a number of rather large holes in such an argument, starting with the obvious point that morality and legality are orthogonal, and moving on to the slightly more subtle point that atheists are likely, at present, to be middle to upper class and white, and the working class and racial minorities are over-represented in the prison population. Marnanel (talk) 17:44, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Atheists don't usually (let's forget the angry Youtube teenage atheist population for the purpose of my point for a second, shall we) identify themselves with the grouping - they don't go around saying things like "us atheists are this or that", whereas Christians tend to do just that. So I think the intended message is really the other way around. It's not "atheist are more moral people than Christians" it's "Christians aren't nearly as moral as they proclaim themselves to be". It's just a rebuke, arguably flawed, as you say, to the daily bombardment of atheists with the misconception that there can be no morality without religion. TomorrowTime (talk) 21:41, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. I'm not sure that thinking of atheists and their educational background as epiphenomenal really undermines the argument. It changes its scope certainly: "well educated and middle class people are both likely to be atheist and law-abiding". But that seems to just support the original argument, or at least helps to undermine the issue of whether being christian is valuable because it makes the world a safer place, etc. Though my original question was really just about statistics. Thanks. Llamabr (talk) 17:50, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Here apparently are the stats he is quoting. meltBanana 18:26, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Another possible interpretation of the statistics is that being sent to prison makes you more likely to become "God-fearing". I know it would put the fear of God in me! Dbfirs 19:09, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

We even have an article on There are no atheists in foxholes for a similar claim. ---Sluzzelin talk 19:13, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

There are, of course, atheists in foxholes. But I have seen evidence that some religious groups recruit heavily in prisons. Nation of Islam, for example, and Scientology, if I recall. All of which means that careful attention would have to be made in conversion rates. We've had similar discussions on here before; see here for some parsing of the statistics.

I think it is clear that most people who self-identify as atheists or agnostics have higher levels of education, and generally higher socioeconomic status. That alone would account for most discrepancies in incarceration. It's also certainly obvious from said statistics that being religious does not keep one from committing crimes or even being a horrible person. That also seems fairly intuitively obvious as well, and is the reason we have an elaborate system of civil justice to try and keep people in line well above and beyond any religious sentiments. Anyone who has spent any time around real human beings knows that they have all sorts of clever ways to justify behavior that is strictly against the tenets of their religion. That doesn't make atheists inherently virtuous or the religious inherently wicked. --Mr.98 (talk) 19:37, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

This, combined with the gang mentality in prisons, means that few people can avoid religion in prison. Joining a racial or social group is necessary in prisons for protection against rivals, and joining a group that is heavily influenced by a religion (Christianity, Islam, etc.) would be difficult to avoid. Plus, the trauma some people feel at being put into prison makes it more likely to cling onto a belief that says you can be forgiven for your deeds. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:34, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

And if I ever went to prison, I'd find the religion that gave you the most breaks (good food, time off etc) and stick that one down on the form. Nanonic (talk) 22:04, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I think that would be the Church of the New Song (what? no article‽) Marnanel (talk) 23:29, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

A prison visitor told me some prisoners started going to church,Bible readings etc because of boredom and because they hoped to get in the staffs' good books.An ex-prisoner told me you asked for a Bible,not to read but because the thin paper was excellent for hand rolling cigarettes.Hotclaws (talk) 02:15, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

How do you scape nihilism?

Does anything have meaning? What is the matter of hitting someone in the head with a hammer, he is only a water + carbon? Is hedonism the only way out of hedonism? 80.58.205.52 (talk) 17:10, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

You have morality and ethics. --Jayron32 17:12, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, I understand the rules, but why should I follow them?80.58.205.52 (talk) 17:20, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Because humanity depends on it. If people didn't follow some rules, then we ourselves suffer. If you expect others not to hit you in the head with a hammer, then it seems reasonable to establish that as some sort of general rule. --Jayron32 17:22, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

• But here you are, starting with an axiom that not anyone share: "humanity has to survive". Not every one in the planet shares this view. The Voluntary human extinction movement, for example, wouldn't agree with you. But there are also less radical cases, when it comes down to decide what to do with your life: is drinking beer and watching TV more virtuous than reading or painting or acquiring culture? Quest09 (talk) 17:34, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

If you break the rules, you get red-carded out of the game. Or are penalized in some other way.

BTW, a person is more than just a bag of chemicals. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 17:30, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

So, I a only have to follow rules if I believe I'll get caught. And about the bag of chemicals. Are we more than that just because you say that? But even if you are right, an ant is also more than a bag of chemicals too. Should I worry about treating one? Quest09 (talk) 17:34, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

A dead body is just a bag of chemicals, and I mean that in a directly observable way and not "metaphysically" or anything. Living people are not. Consider your own subjective experience. What is it like? Is your subjective experience right now in any way like "just a bag of chemicals"? Without knowing for sure, I expect that, like mine, it isn't (even if it is obviously and strongly tied to a biochemical substrate).

There are other reasons to follow rules, the best way is to understand why they are there and what they are for and choose to follow them on that basis.

A living ant is more than a bag of chemicals, too; it would be a shame to have to kill one for no reason. ;) WikiDao ☯ (talk) 18:00, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

My personal belief is that "should" statements are really commands disguised as statements of fact. When somebody says, "You should follow the rules", this is really just a polite way of saying, "Follow the rules". So I will say it: Follow the rules. Looie496 (talk) 17:37, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you have the illusion that you are more than a bag of chemicals. That makes you feel better about yourself. Actually, you - and me - are bags of chemicals with electric processes going on. Quest09 (talk) 18:37, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Isn't that cool, though? How does that happen, you know?

Getting interested in finding answers to questions is one practical way to "scape nihilism". There are a lot of other problems like this that might also be interesting to consider. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 18:48, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

People tend to feel better about being compelled to do something if they feel they had a choice in the first place. "It would be better if you chose to follow the rules" sounds better than "If you don't follow the rules, we lock you in a small room with a rapist." They actually both mean the same thing, but for some reason people feel better being told the first thing. --Jayron32 17:46, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

You are right about that. Indirect request are more effective. However, that doesn't say how you should choose what to request. Specially, when you leave the obvious behind: do not kill, do not rape, how do you fall into an abyss of emptiness? Quest09 (talk) 18:43, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, having worried long and hard about this question for a couple of decades, I think it does come down to a kind of hedonism. I think morality is emergent from some kind of basic urge, which is probably something like curiosity. This makes the whole thing pointless, but fortunately since the basic urge is universal, we don't care. I also entertain the possibility that the urge in question may be cultural, and that members of extremely different cultures such as, say, Aztecs, may have functioned on some different basic motivation. (Some societies just don't seem to seek knowledge with any great urgency.) Also note that the urge itself, whatever it is exactly, the thing which fundamentally drives us to action, is not one of the world's most important ideas; the quality of being fundamental shouldn't be confused with the quality of being meaningful or useful. Oh, and the meaning of life article is always quite reassuring, in a woolly sort of way. 213.122.7.36 (talk) 18:44, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Assume nothing has any meaning. There's no ultimate right or wrong. Nothing has inherent value. From that place sure, there's no reason why you shouldn't do anything, but there's no reason why you should either. From that place, why would one take any action whatsoever? So, try it. See the pointlessness of every possible action you could take. Don't do anything at all. Don't daydream, don't eat, don't think about anything. Why should you do such pointless things? See how long you can keep up that level of not-doing. How long before you find yourself doing something anyway, like thinking about something, or feeling bored, or wondering what that sound was, or wanting a drink of water. Ten seconds? Why do you do things? Do you chose to do the things you do, or do they just happen and you act as if you chose? Who are you anyway? Nihilism is a way of thinking about reality, not a way of being. Thinking about reality is already taking action. Nihilism says "you" are meaningless, yet you cannot help but do things. Why? That's the question that led me from nihilism to meaning-within-pointlessness anyway. Sorry I can't be clearer. Pfly (talk) 21:00, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Nihilism is the belief that nothing you do matters. There are no morals because morals have no meaning. The way out of this is when you actually experience a situation where your decisions have an impact on someone else's life. Maybe it won't matter to "the big picture," but being able to help a person get medical treatment that saves their life can change your outlook. Or having someone else do the same for you. There may not be an objective morality, or an objective "meaning" to life, but humans are social creatures, and our interactions with society matter in that way.

To put it another way, if nihilism were correct, anarchy would be the proper mode of civilized behavior. However, it turns out that this isn't the best way for a species to survive, or even for an individual to prosper. Individuals tend to find purpose through the interaction with others, especially when forming a social support structure. It turns out, once you look just beyond your own life, nihilism itself has no meaning. But interacting with others in a constructive manner can create meaning for your life. It may not "matter in" the long run, but it can matter to you & those around you. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:45, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Have a look at Existentialism. For further reading, see: Nishitani, Keiji (1990). The self-overcoming of nihilism. SUNY Press. ISBN 9780791404386. Retrieved 20 December 2010..Smallman12q (talk) 23:20, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I feel I should point out that "anarchy" as a political term does not necessarily imply disorganisation or chaos. Quite the reverse in some cases. Marnanel (talk) 23:34, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and also existentialism and nihilism ought not be conflated. Roughly, nihilism is the notion that there is no meaning, whereas existentialism is that you must create your own meaning. Not the same thing at all. --Trovatore (talk) 01:55, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Er, that's what I said. I hadn't considered my solution to be existentialist, but I suppose that applies. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:42, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually I was mostly responding to Smallman12q. --Trovatore (talk) 22:09, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

The idea that meaning is discovered through deeds is central to Logotherapy, and is countered by The current Achewood strip. 81.131.17.87 (talk) 04:41, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

The Achewood character's mistake was making a choice of deeds that did not mean much and had trivial outcomes. 92.15.0.200 (talk) 22:22, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Utilitarianism has always seemed a superior agnostic-compatible ethic and world view to me. Ginger Conspiracy (talk) 06:28, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I recommend the 1977 book Ethics: Inventing Right and Wrong by J. L. Mackie. Gabbe (talk) 17:28, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

There are two issues that are often conflated in these discussions: your personal rationalizations for shy you do what you do, and the reaction of others around you if you start doing things that are socially unacceptable (like going on a kill-crazy rampage). The first of those is completely within your control, the second not so much. You might be interested in the book The Social Construction of Reality. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:17, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Or perhaps Of The Social Contract, Or Principles of Political Right.Smallman12q (talk) 22:59, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Slave

I noticed in many older works of literature (such as Shakespeare) you will see the use of 'slave' as an insult, implying that the person is low and powerless. But this begs the question, whose slave? 24.92.70.160 (talk) 18:43, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

If you are noting that a slave is relatively "low and powerless" in position relative to that slave's owner, that is a correct understanding of the relationship. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 19:01, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Ginger Conspiracy (talk) is a slave to improving the encyclopedia 19:03, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be a slave belonging to a particular person, or to a person at all. In the belonging-to-someone category, as WikiDao suggests, you're about as powerless as you can be, since you are owned by another person and subject to their will. Slaves have been mistreated throughout history. I don't have to know an individual slave, or the individual owner of a tobacco farm or cotton plantation, to see a slave as at the mercy of his surroundings.

Slavery existed in Shakespeare's time, and for centuries afterward. Even if it had not, it had existed in the past, and made vivid metaphors:

• You are all recreants and dastards,and delight to live in slavery to the nobility... (Henry VI)
• Of being taken by the insolent foe and sold to slavery, of my redemption thence... (Othello)
• The very instant that I saw you, did my heart fly to your service; there resides, to make me slave to it... (The Tempest)

In the first example, "slavery to the nobility" isn't a fact so much as a description of a certain kind of behavior. In the third example, Ferdinand is expressing his willingness to give up his own desires for another's.

As Robert Burns wrote:

Is there, for honest poverty,

[anyone] that hangs his head, and a' that?

The coward slave, we pass him by

We dare be poor, for a' that...

One interpretation: if you are ashamed of yourself because you're poor, then you're treating yourself as someone of no worth and no will of your own--as a slave. --- OtherDave (talk) 20:54, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't know that the question has been fully addressed, partly because perhaps it wasn't posed as well as it could have been. Slave as an insult doesn't just mean "low and powerless"; it has something of "low and treacherous".

But the gold sun of freedom grew darkened at Ross, and it set by the Slaney's red waves

And Wexford, stripped naked, hung high on the cross, with her heart pierced by traitors and slaves

Possibly slaves, being desperate and having little to lose, were thought to be especially likely to behave treacherously? --Trovatore (talk) 02:21, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I ought to point out that nobody would have thought of themselves as a slave in Tudor England, although many workers were indentured to their employers in conditions resembling slavery. The slave trade had been proscribed in 1102 - see Slavery in Britain and Ireland. Slavery was later allowed in the colonies, but African slaves brought to Britain were the subject of legal battles throughout the 18th Century; "Soon as a man sets foot on English ground he is free." was a judgement from 1763. Alansplodge (talk) 22:27, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

In Shakespeare's day, 'slave' did not refer to chattel slavery (the absolute ownership of one person by another), but was a more general term referring to people who were for one reason or another not completely free. for instance, serfdom was a form of slavery - serfs were farm laborers bound to a particular estate or region and not allowed to seek work elsewhere, but beyond that basically free to do as they liked. in Shakespeare's time, slave would have meant someone trapped in a particular position in life and obligated to do an assortment of menial tasks, often someone surly, resentful, vindictive - think DMV employee or any other low-level government worker and you'll understand the kind of people Willy was referring to. --Ludwigs2 00:47, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Reference the WP article on Serfdom; "In England, the end of serfdom began with Tyler’s Rebellion and was fully ended when Elizabeth I freed the last remaining serfs in 1574." However, everyone would have known about real slaves, just as we know about slavery today without actually having any. Additionally, if you lived near the coast, there was a risk of being abducted into the Islamic slave trade by Barbary Corsairs. Alansplodge (talk) 23:28, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Christmas Day for Jewish families

What do Jewish families (in Europe, North America, Austalasia etc) tend to do at home on Christmas Day? I'm curious. Is it just like any other day, or do the kids still get Christmas presents, or do they eat better, have a Christmas tree, anything like that? I'm aetheist. Thanks 92.15.27.229 (talk) 18:59, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Nittel Nacht contains some slightly relevant material. In 2010 Christmas Day falls on the Jewish Sabbath. This could have bearing on the activities. Bus stop (talk) 19:04, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It probably varies greatly from family to family. Some may celebrate Christmas as a sort of "civic" version, much as they would celebrate "Thanksgiving" or "Fourth of July" in America. Others may do nothing special (after all, what do Christians do on Yom Kippur?). There's a regular cultural meme out there about Jewish people going to Chinese Restaurants on Christmas day (being that neither Jewish nor non-Christian chinese people tend to celebrate it). The meme predates the Internet by a long way; googleing "jews chinese food christmas" turns up lots of hits: [1]. --Jayron32 19:05, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

See especially "Kung Pao Kosher Comedy"[2]. PhGustaf (talk) 22:21, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

About the same thing that Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindu, Scientologists and Raelians do on Festivus. Ginger Conspiracy (talk) 19:07, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Where where you on Christmas Day? Bus stop (talk) 19:13, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I have a number of close Jewish friends, and I've never heard of Nittel Nacht before. I don't think it is observed much in the United States. Jayron32's answer is the most accurate, to my knowledge. In the United States, some Jews celebrate a secularized Christmas with a tree, some ignore the holiday altogether and treat it as a meaningless secular holiday. Maybe they will sleep late, get together with friends, or pursue a hobby. And I have known Jewish friends to order Chinese food on Christmas. Marco polo (talk) 21:34, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I doubt that Nittel Nacht is observed anywhere in 2010. My guess is that this article, referenced in our Nittel Nacht article, is incorrect when it says, "While there are still some Orthodox groups that observe Nittel Nacht, these are not widespread customs among modern Jews." Bus stop (talk) 22:08, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Given that many secular locations in the United States close on the holiday (due to having majority of their employees being Christian), some Jewish families just stay at home and enjoy a day together. Some movie theaters do remain open, as Christmas is a big money-maker for them, so that's an option. And, as Marco polo pointed out, Chinese restaurants tend to be open since many of them are not Christians. Also, going to a public park is an option, if the weather is agreeable. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:59, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I find this a fairly interesting and informative article concerning the supposed association between Chinese food and Jews. Bus stop (talk) 22:54, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

The joke, as noted above, is that Jews "celebrate" Christmas by eating at Chinese restaurants and going to movie theaters, since those establishments are often open on Christmas. Some Jews volunteer at hospitals and places on 12/25. Others offer to take the place of co-workers scheduled to work a holiday shift. Of course many Jews have friends or relatives by marriage who have Christmas parties they might attend. And there's always a mid-major college football bowl game or meaningless NFL game to watch on TV, if you're not into the non-stop White Christmas marathon or fixed shot of a fireplace. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:55, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Also, note that in large parts of northern Europe, as well as (I have been told) the "Scandinavian" parts of the US Midwest, Christmas is mainly celebrated on Christmas Eve, the 24th, and so many "Christians" might not spend all of 25th with their families either (though of course, there are often family happenings on the 25th as well). Jørgen (talk) 08:28, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EP1gNYU27Tk Ginger Conspiracy (talk) 06:59, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Eternal Hell, yet Resurrection of the dead too

Various christian schisms

According to Christian doctrine, bad people roast in hell for eternity, yet everyone will be resurrected too. How are these two contradictory things resolved? Thanks 92.29.124.17 (talk) 22:45, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Easily. There is no such thing as the Christian doctrine - different sects have different doctrines. In early Christianity, resurrection was understood to be bodily resurrection, and would happen before judgement day, so that all can be judged. I don't think the idea that people go to heaven or hell directly after death is in any of the better thought-out Christian strains - it seems to be mostly just folklore. Hell in particular is not very well-attested in the bible, anyways, at least in the original texts. It's often an artefact of translation. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:04, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

The idea of judgement (sometimes just interim judgement) that immediately follows death (rather than some conscious or unconscious waiting period until the final Day of Judgement) is "particular judgment". Indeed, it's not clear which modern denominations believe this, but I'm not sure that it's regarded as downright false either. 87.115.159.188 (talk) 01:29, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Out of interest, what makes you think that the resurrection of the body is incompatible with eternity in hell? Do you also think it's incompatible with eternity in heaven? Marnanel (talk) 23:18, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

If you ask me (the indent suggests otherwise), I don't. But it is incompatible with the current "granny is in heaven" belief, while granny's body is indeed in a casket 6 feet under. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:21, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's not really incompatible, at least if you use heaven in a broad sense to mean a place of reward. The notion of a reasonable chunk of evangelical, dispensationalist, pre-millenarian thought seems to run roughly like this: If you die before the Day of Resurrection, your soul winds up in a place of reward or punishment, though not its final place. For the wicked, it can be called Hell, but it's not the Lake of Fire. For the just, it's a nice section of Hades called Paradise or perhaps the Bosom of Abraham.

Then on the Resurrection Day, you get restored to your body and physically resurrected and judged. The righteous are then transformed into their spiritual bodies and ascend to Heaven in the strict sense of the word, whereas the wicked are tossed into the Lake of Fire. --Trovatore (talk) 03:02, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I seem to have forgotten about the Rapture. I'm not exactly clear on how that relates. Are the raptured also resurrected? I don't think they can be, because they aren't dead in the first place. Do they re-descend to Earth to take part in the General Judgment? --Trovatore (talk) 03:09, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Which Christian doctrine? Smallman12q (talk) 23:24, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I was asking 92.29, who seems to think they're incompatible; I didn't get the idea that you (Stephan) thought they were. (As Smallman12q may be pointing out above, it's rather difficult to understand what people mean by "Christian doctrine" when a belief may be held, sometimes unthinkingly, by a large proportion of those who profess and call themselves Christians, but not be supportable from any church's official teaching, or the Bible, or any of the creeds.) I'm not terribly sure what light the graph is supposed to shed on the question. Marnanel (talk) 23:38, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

See http://www.multilingualbible.com/ecclesiastes/9-5.htm and http://www.multilingualbible.com/ecclesiastes/9-10.htm.

—Wavelength (talk) 02:55, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

There is little general agreement among Christians regarding the End of Days. Revelation and Daniel and such "apocalyptic" books like that, which deal with the End Times, and largely impenetrable and extremely hard to extract meaning from. Even among hardcore theologians, its a topic of great consternation. --Jayron32 03:19, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

By the way, the specific article is Christian Universalism... AnonMoos (talk) 03:35, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Indeed there is contention among theologians on this topic. Inherent immortality of the soul is a doctrine associated with Platonism and was adopted by Thomas Aquinas when attempting to codify Christian Theology well after the first century apostles had died. The idea of bad people going to one place and good people going to another is even older. This concept of Divine judgment is also associated with the semi-semitic Greeks. In the Bible one theme comes to the fore.

That of a resurrection of the "righteous and unrighteous" will occur ([3]). 2 Thessalonians 1:7-9 states that the unrighteous one will undergo "everlasting destruction." It does indeed mention a flaming fire, but this can either be literal or figurative; fire can symbolize destruction. Furthermore, King Solomon tells us in Ecclesiastes chapter 9, specifically verse 5, that the dead are conscious of nothing. It does not say the dead are in heaven and hell.

No matter how you slice it, Sola scriptura is not an acceptable argument, and you must have faith and not be indecisive on this matter. It is either one or the other. Weigh the arguments for either point of view and see which stands up to scrutiny. schyler (talk) 05:40, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

If the bible was a witness statement, it would get thrown out of court for contradicting itself so much. 92.29.126.195 (talk) 10:52, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

There's also the question of what constitutes good and evil.Smallman12q (talk) 23:01, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Ooh, its just like Dungeons & Dragons. 92.24.188.27 (talk) 15:07, 21 December 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.29.126.195 (talk)

December 21

Semi-semitic Greeks

Someone above here wrote "This concept of Divine judgment is also associated with the semi-semitic Greeks." Are semi-semitic Greeks a cultural concept acknowledged outisde this page? --85.119.25.27 (talk) 09:01, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

(Have no idea what User:Schyler meant.) Greeks in ancient Greece were not usually Semitic at all, but in the Seleucid realms, Greek-speakers and Semitic-language speakers often lived in close proximity. There were a lot of Aramaic-speakers who were somewhat influenced by Greek culture, but without losing their basic non-Greek identity; I would call them "semi-Hellenized Syrians"... AnonMoos (talk) 09:26, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

specific type of sobriquet

What's the word for the adjective found in titles such as Louis the 14th, Ivan the Terrible, etc? — kwami (talk) 03:32, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I suspect there are different terms for the two things. "Terrible" is just a nickname, at least that's the word used to describe it in List of monarchs by nickname. He was Ivan IV. That's his Monarchical ordinal. 81.131.17.87 (talk) 04:14, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

They're not exactly nicknames. You can't just call him "Terrible", as you could if it were a true nickname. It's part of his title, even if an informal title: "Alexander the Great", "Z the Younger", etc. The reason I want to know is because AFAIK this is the only place in English where "the" occurs after a noun, rather than at the very beginning of the noun phrase. It would be handy to be able to say, "the must occur at the beginning of a noun phrase, with the exception of Xs". Which word could I use for X? — kwami (talk) 08:23, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

What's the difference between "Ivan the Terrible" and "Joe the plumber"? In traditional grammar, this would be an "appositional phrase"... AnonMoos (talk) 09:31, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but I know there's a word for lexicalized appositional titles like that. I just can't recall it. — kwami (talk) 10:06, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Maybe epitheton necessarium? ---Sluzzelin talk 10:22, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

"Epithet" sticks in my head, though it's too broad. But it wasn't a Latin phrase either. Maybe I'm just misremembering. Maybe it was something broader like "royal epithet" or some such. — kwami (talk) 10:28, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

"Royal epithet" gets a few ghits, but not as many as I expected. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 10:49, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Maybe the difference that AnonMoos asks about is one of notoriety: Ivan the Terrible and Richard the Lionheart get capitalized because (a) they're big shots, (b) it helps distinguish them from the other Ivans and Richards, and (c) the descriptor is a kind of informal title. To refer to "Fred the electrician" is to differentiate one ordinary person from others--I'm talking about the electrician, that guy named Fred, not the carpenter whose name is Jack. As Sam Wurzelbacher's 15 minutes of fame unfolded, he became a capital-p tradesman, Joe the Plumber. --- OtherDave (talk) 11:38, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

The List of monarchs by nickname page, cited above, suggests that our word is cognomen, though that word also has much wider applications. We may still need something more specific. --Antiquary (talk) 18:28, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Politics

I have heard that some Christians realized that democracy was necessary because human nature was evil. Human nature is evil so checks and controls on government are necessary. Human nature is evil so power must be distributed or else freedom will perish. In the words of James Madison, "If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither internal or external checks or controls on government would be necessary.". This was America's Christian heritage.

America is not officially or legally a Christian country. It is officially and legally a secular state. It was not founded or established as a Christian nation. It was founded and established as a secular state. Church and state are separated in America. Right?

If so, how come I have heard all that? If so, then how do you explain all that? If so, then how do you explain that statement by James Madison?

What do non-Christians think about that? What do supporters and defenders of separation of church and state in America think about that? What do people who do not believe in America's Christian heriatge think about that? What do people who do not believe that America was founded and established as a Christian nation think about that? What do people who are arguing against the belief and idea that America has a Christian heritage and was founded and established as a Christian nation think about that? What are their answers to all that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.174.63.234 (talk) 06:49, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Didn't we already establish that Madison was not necessarily talking about specifically Christian angels? Also, democracy predates Christianity...so I don't know what you're asking. Adam Bishop (talk) 06:59, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

The Vatican is (allegedly) very Christian, but not very democratic. And a lot of democratic countries are anything but Christian. HiLo48 (talk) 07:07, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Most of your question can be answered with "You heard wrong." and since your premise is wrong your conclusions are too (meaning non-Christians, and others don't need to think about it). Additionally human nature is good, not evil. Ariel. (talk) 08:10, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Three things. First, the Founding Fathers where the product of a Christian culture, even though they were themselves (mostly) not Christians. Though, admittedly, it's difficult to untangle which elements of that culture were due to Christianity, and which were already or independently present and merely claimed by Christianity. (Like the idea that people wouldn't know they weren't supposed to murder or steal if it weren't spelled out for them in the 10 C's, even though the 10 C's encapsulated existing morality.)

Secondly, there is a concerted effort among some in the US to rewrite history to present the US as a Christian nation, the Founding Fathers as Christians, etc. Just watch Fox News. There's a lot of junk amateur history out there making such claims.

Finally, Christianity (and other religions) constantly evolve to reflect the culture around them. For example, charity hospitals were a secular idea. Churches actually tried to legally stop the establishment of free hospitals on moral grounds: if God has determined that you are to die, it is immoral to save your life, as that would thwart the will of God. (The same logic led many churches to refuse to install lightning rods.) Once the hospitals were established, however, the churches started looking like Scrooges, and they followed suit so as not to tarnish their image. Then the theology adapted: trying to save someone's life became godly work (God's going to have the final say anyway), and now hospitals are such a huge part of church charities that most people assume that they were a religious idea to start with. (Thus the intended irony in the question, "How many hospitals were founded by atheists?") It's possible that a similar change in thinking took place re. democracy: Christianity was, originally at least, adamantly opposed to democracy, as how could the sheep herd the flock? Also, it tends to be the smaller denominations which have most fully embraced democracy and the separation of church and state, as they would have the most to lose in a theocracy. — kwami (talk) 08:44, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Saying the Founders were "mostly not Christians" requires specifying what you mean by Christian. Certainly several of them were hard to pin down as to their exact spiritual beliefs, but they tended to be more "Christian" than any other named position, unless you count "Deist", which is pretty non-specific.

The four names you'd probably come up with first would be Washington, Jefferson, Adams, and Franklin, right? Washington was officially an Anglican. Jefferson made his own bible, with nothing but the sayings of Jesus in it. Adams retorted to his critics, Ye will say, I am no Christian: I say Ye are no Christians: and there the Account is ballanced. Yet I believe all the honest men among you, are Christians in my Sense of the Word. Franklin, well, it's just hard to tell. Next would be Thomas Paine, who seems to be the first case where you'd clearly say non-Christian, and then Alexander Hamilton, who probably was Christian. --Trovatore (talk) 10:38, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

"Christian" is a pretty broad category, but what Kwami probably meant is more like, "most of the Founders would not be recognizably Christian according to the modern religious Right's definition of the term." On the whole they were largely Deists, as noted, and their philosophies were more firmly rooted in the Enlightenment than they were the Bible. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:04, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Or according to the definition of the term used by most churches of the period, as well. Nyttend (talk) 02:43, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Washington attended church as a civic duty, but refused to take communion. When told he needed to take communion if he was to attend church, he stopped attending church. He was very private about religion, however, and it's hard to know what he believed. Jefferson cut out everything he thought was "dung" from the Bible, leaving little but many of Jesus' sayings, which he obviously admired. But he considered Jesus a man, not God. He thought we'd all be Unitarian by now, because a free, educated people couldn't possibly believe in Christianity. Etc. Paine wasn't just not a Christian, he was an atheist, and was imprisoned for it. — kwami (talk) 08:46, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I just looked through the Thomas Paine article, and unless it's severely mistaken, he was no atheist. Or I suppose he could have been at some times and not at others. --Trovatore (talk) 22:45, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

-- Treaty of Tripoli, negotiated under George Washington, passed unanimously by U.S. senate, signed by John Adams... AnonMoos (talk) 09:36, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

What do I make of it as an atheist? That the Abrahamic God is as much a myth as the Roman gods are. The ethical message of religion is good and valuable though. Why not pick over any other lengthy book instead of the Bible - the Harry Potter books for example - if you want to kill some time. 92.24.188.27 (talk) 14:51, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Is that a fact ?

I was watching the second episode of Warehouse 13, the other day, and it was about those who robbed banks using sound - kind of an X files for the 2000's - and one of the characters noted these robberies occured on Fridays. This jogged something in my memory about whether or not most bank robberies occur on Fridays, and if so, why ?

Also, I was looking up Dazed and Confused and the Shawshank Redemption and checking out the ananchronisms. Why is it film makers tend to be lax with such mistakes, as well as those of continuity ? I realise that scenes are filmed over many different days and edited a lot later, but I thought they would have people to make sure no mistakes are made. It is also interesting that there are people who seem to have nothing better to do than carefully watch movies to look for mistakes - but at least it is informative. Finally, why is it Chicago is referred to as Shine Town, and Boston as Bean Town ?The Russian Christopher Lilly 06:56, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Fridays are often pay days. So it would make sense that the bank would get a delivery of cash on Thursday afternoons or Friday mornings.

And films do hire people to keep track of continuity. It's not an easy thing though since scenes are often shot out of order. If several scenes take place in the same location, all those scenes will be shot one after the other. This saves them from having to rent the same location more than once. Dismas|^(talk) 07:04, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

You must have added the Chicago/Boston questions after I replied... I've never heard Chicago referred to as "Shine" town. And I'm rather familiar with the city, having spent many years there. What I think you're hearing is "Chi-town". The "Chi", rhymes with "shy", is short for Chicago. Where the nickname came from, I don't know. Dismas|^(talk) 09:15, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't just rhyme with shy; it's pronounced shy. I'm not sure why. --Trovatore (talk) 10:03, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I guess it would technically be a homophone. My bad. Dismas|^(talk) 10:49, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Maybe a play on "Shite Town". No offence. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 10:45, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Seems unlikely, given that the word is almost unknown this side of the Pond. --Trovatore (talk) 10:47, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I've also hard "Chi" pronounced with the harder "ch" of "change", or even "Chicago". As far as Boston, this reference is linked from the infobox where "Beantown" is given as a nickname. It has to do with baked beans and molasses. --LarryMac | Talk 16:31, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm confused by the question, which anachronisms are you claiming occur in those films? Corvus cornix_talk 21:25, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I think that the expression "Chi Town" derives from the use of "CHI" as the railroad code for Chicago's main train station Union Station. Back in the days before air travel, these codes would have been familiar to travelers. To me, the expression "Chi Town" sounds like something that originated in the Jazz Age, but this is speculative. Marco polo (talk) 21:33, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I can't hear it without thinking

By the time we reached that Shy Town, them bears was a gettin' smart

They'd called up reinforcements

From the Illinoize National Guard

Just your daily Uhrwurm, no need to thank me. --Trovatore (talk) 21:49, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

The Chicago White Sox have long been known as the "ChiSox" by headline writers, pronounced "chy-sox" and possibly also "shy-sox". "Chi-town" is pronounced "shy-town", as noted, and for some time, and not likely to be anything other than a G-rated reference. Note also that C.W. McCall said "Illinoize" instead of the proper pronunciation "Illinoy". Lots of slang in that song. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→

Google [chi town] and lots of varied references come up. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:12, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Just to provide a minimum age for "Chi", consider this song parody by Ring Lardner done in 1919/1920 in reference to the Black Sox scandal:

I’m forever blowing ball games,

Pretty ball games in the air.

I come from Chi.,

I hardly try,

Just go bat and fade away and die.

Fortune’s coming my way,

That’s why I don’t care.

I’m forever blowing ball games,

For the gamblers treat me fair.

So, it's at least 90 years old. Matt Deres (talk) 14:56, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank You all for your responses - as for the question about the anachronisms in Shawshank and Dazed, these can be seen in the section on goofs and fun things on their respective IMDB pages - I even recall seeing an ancient Samurai movie set in 1600's, in which power lines could clearly be seen in the background. It seems a shame that those at least making historical films do not have control over what goes in - surely they should be more careful. I would suggest it would be easier if one was setting it longer ago, like medieval, because then you know what to avoid, but setting a movie say thirty years back, that is still in modern times, and people may not be sure what was around then. Even All the President's Men, which may or may not have anachronisms in it, was made only three or so years after the events - at least in terms of filming - but even then, they could make the mistake of putting a 1975 model car in a movie set in 72, but there you go. The Russian Christopher Lilly 05:00, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I saw a Western one time with jet con trails in the sky. Corvus cornix_talk 23:09, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Any personal information about bordyguards of the russian Tzar Nikolay II, at least in the period of 1890-1905?

195.144.198.155 (talk) 07:10, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Any personal information about bordyguards of the russian Tzar Nikolay II, at least in the period of 1890-1905?195.144.198.155 (talk) 07:10, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

There's this discussion at ancestry.com. Make of it what you will (seems like half of the responders claim to be related to someone who was one). The first answer says there were six of them, which seems a bit inadequate to me, considering the unrest. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:57, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Irish mythology - boy with long fingers

In the Peter Carey novel True History of the Kelly Gang, there is a scene in which a young Ned Kelly rides across the country at night with another boy, a messenger sent by his master. The boy is an uncannily adept rider and when they eventually reach their destination and are sitting around drinking the boy keeps reaching up and touching the rafters of the house, though Kelly later decides he must have been tired and unfocused, because the roof was metres above their heads. Later he hears a story about a foreboding "CHILD" born back in Ireland, which was pale and had very long fingers and spent most of his time knitting, and who eventually flees into the night after a priest confirms his suspicions that he may not be entirely human and will thus go to Hell. Is this based on a particular Irish legend? Google and Wikipedia aren't turning anything up. 58.161.196.194 (talk) 15:37, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Quite possible. People with mental conditions were often treated with great fear and superstition in the past. Long fingers (Arachnodactyly) and a tall, thin appearance is very noticeable in people with the condition called homocystinuria. So now days, recounting such a tale (if it does indeed discribe such a person) would be less well tolerated and perhaps references to it- hard to find.--Aspro (talk) 16:37, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I think you may find Pooka and Changeling interesting. 128.148.38.146 (talk) 19:31, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Good find 128.148.38.146. Homocystinuria is even mentioned in Changeling#Neurological_differences. Also, although I have never seen anyone with this condition ride a horse, I can well imagine that it would strike an experienced horseman as notable, that their extra flexibility made their riding more graceful. Ned's description immediately suggested the overall similarity but I draw a line at being dogmatic based on what I read on this reference desk. Yet, I repeat it does seem very possible based on what I have seen myself. --Aspro (talk) 19:46, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Allegations against Julian Assange

Why does Sweden's judicial system assume that the accused is guilty until proved innocent beyond a reasonable doubt? --75.28.52.27 (talk) 22:43, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't. --Soman (talk) 22:45, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Then why are they able to order his arrest without a prima facie case? --75.28.52.27 (talk) 22:56, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

In the US, anyway, you can be arrested on suspicion of something. Presumably they think they have enough evidence to get an indictment. That doesn't mean they'll get a conviction. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:04, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you read Arrest, which covers the situation in England, where he was arrested. This situation is complicated in that he has been arrested under an European arrest warrant for questioning over allegations of offences in Sweden. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:16, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Aha, another benefit of the existence of the EU, although Assange probably doesn't see it that way. He should have fled to Switzerland or some other non-EU country. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:51, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

How is it an advantage to prohibit the extraditing state from evaluating the evidence against the defendant to determine whether the charges are politically motivated? It also prevents the British courts from ensuring that Assange will receive due process and won't be subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment. --75.28.52.27 (talk) 23:53, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I thought Sweden was supposedly ultra-liberal and soft on criminals? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:55, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

They've apparently agreed to drop their charges against Assange and extradite him to the US if charges are filed against him in the US. --75.28.52.27 (talk) 00:28, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source for that? If so, it ought to go in the Julian Assange article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:31, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

All EU signatories (as I understand it) have subscribed to the same general principles of human rights, which minimizes concerns about inappropriate treatment in a different state - it's pretty much the same reason why it's generally fairly easy to extradite a prisoner from one US state to another. I think Assange's concern is not about extradition to Sweden in itself, but rather that Sweden's laws may make extradition to the US easier than Britain's laws, and he doesn't want to go to the US where he might face indefinite imprisonment without trial or harsh interrogation methods under terrorism laws. --Ludwigs2 00:28, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

As a general rule, protections for criminal defendants are better in the US (and other common-law countries such as the UK) than they are in civil-law countries (which I assume includes Sweden). The indefinite-detention thing applies to people who are not recognized as criminal defendants, those the military claims are "unlawful combatants". I want to be clear that I don't agree with this last policy, but it's not likely to apply to Assange. --Trovatore (talk) 01:43, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

The "FOX News" perspective on Assange is that he has conducted acts of espionage against the US in a time of war, without any legitimate connection to foreign government or military organization. That puts him firmly in the 'unlawful combatant' category, at least by their standards. Now I doubt even the US government would be brazen enough to try to hide someone of Assange's notoriety away in Guantanamo, but I have no doubts he'd get incommunicado confinement akin to that suffered by the small number of terrorism suspects currently held on US soil.

If he's willing to do the crime, he has to be willing to do the time. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:32, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

And since he has yet to be charged with any crime, much less convicted, there may well be no 'time' involved. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:36, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I can see BB turning himself in at the Iranian embassy to be tried for blasphemy, or sodomy, or wearing an inappropriately coloured hat in March (or whatever pointless laws they have). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:41, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, there may be no time involved. The justice system will decide that. Meanwhile, I'm not seeing anything in google about Sweden dropping charges, but one funny story that's all over the place is that Assange is griping about leaks about himself.[4] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:46, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

What's weird about this? Individuals have a right to privacy. If states have it or should have it is a very different question. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:51, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Double standard. Hoist by his own petard. No sympathy. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:30, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

It's a correct double standard. Individuals should have more right to privacy than states. --Trovatore (talk) 01:37, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

The courts will decide. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:55, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

If they decide otherwise, they are wrong. --Trovatore (talk) 02:33, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

-- Jack of Oz [your turn] 05:44, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

See (Jefferson, 1776), (Madison et al, 1789), and (Schulz, 2010), just uptext. People are born with inalienable rights. States only enjoy a very limited number of right by the consent of their citizenry. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:15, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

So, we can now say with certainty what a court will decide, can we? This rather relegates courts to rubber stamps, doesn't it? But what if they *shock, horror* make a different decision? We can apparently specify exactly what they should have decided. But what good is that if we haven't got the power to make them change their decision? Can we appeal to a higher court? Or are we the higher court, if we can dictate to them what to decide in the first place? It's a load of old cobblers, and all this armchair lawyering seems way too close to breaching our policy of no legal advice. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 09:46, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

You confuse the concrete question of whether Assange can be prosecuted and convicted (for the leaks) with the philosophical question if people have different rights than states. And, of course, the moral question if he should be prosecuted and convicted. All three are independent - people have been persecuted, convicted, and killed, in ways that violate local laws, human rights, and basic morality. In perfect state, that would not happen. In a decent state, it happens rarely. But to come back to the discussion at hand: There is no more hypocrisy in leaking government secrets, but protecting people's privacy, than there is in paying taxes, but objecting to being robbed. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:07, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I originally wrote a much, much longer and more detailed reply (on wikileaks not Assange who's largely irrelevant here) but decided not to post it here (will post on anyone's talk page per request preferably on my talk page) because this discussion is extremely OT. But I would point out that wikileaks hasn't just leaked what most would call government secrets. Note I'm not saying Assange is hypocritical nor that he isn't entitled to privacy (my opinion is of course irrelevant anyway), simply that putting this as government secrecy vs individual privacy matter is a little simplistic. For starters where do companies and private groups fit in to that? And when does a details on an invidual become 'fair game' because they are related to the government? Nil Einne (talk) 22:53, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

By the way, it seems pretty clear that if Mr. Assange had agreed to get an AIDS / sexual disease test (as he was requested to do on several occasions), the matter would have never escalated into the sphere of criminal law at all... AnonMoos (talk) 06:58, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

If AnonMoos made this thing up (AIDS tests), he should be censored, but has he?--Radh (talk) 10:49, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

What does that mean? Have you actually read any news stories on the course of events? If you have, then you might have noticed that the women were actually more interested in excluding the possibility of STDs than in pursuing rape allegations when they first contacted the police... AnonMoos (talk) 11:40, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Little about this saga is 'pretty clear'. It has been claimed by those supporting Assange that a wish for a STD test on him was an issue. That isn't the same thing as saying actually it was though. We just don't have enough information (as opposed to speculation) to draw conclusions - and that isn't our job anyway. We'll just have to wait for facts, from reliable sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:49, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

?? AFAIK the info about the HIV test (and condom usage) isn't coming from those that support Assange. [5] In fact the more extreme of Assange supporters seem to suggest it's just Sweden (or perhaps sometimes just the women) working on behalf of the CIA and refuse to accept he could have done anything wrong. Assange himself doesn't seem to be happy with the alleged leaked details on the case so far (and has claimed it's the work of the Swedish prosecutors) [6]. I've never liked commenting on these sort of things because of BLP reasons (I'll be fine if this whole thing is removed) but I've also never liked potentially misleading claims. (If the info contained in the allegedly leaked allegations so far is correct AnonMoos may be correct although I would go further and say that from the allegations in the alleged leak the HIV test itself may not have arisen if a condom was used as allegedly requested by both women.) Nil Einne (talk) 19:53, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

There seems to be a great deal of doubt as to who actually leaked (!) the information referred to in the Guardian article you linked, Nil Einne. In any case, we are speculating here, and that isn't Wikipedia's purpose. I think we should stop. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:14, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

To quote Mr.98: "Bad questions can still provoke good answers, but there is no excuse for posting bad answers to any kind of question. Ref Desker, regulate thyself.". Please do not post opinion with no reference. Royor (talk) 06:29, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Icebox of Canada

I read the article about International Falls, Minnesota being the Icebox of U.S. I was wondering if Canada has its own Icebox of the Nation. Do you know which one? Also, I want to know which place of U.S. is the hottest city in the nation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.95.106.110 (talk) 23:25, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

This sounds like a job for User:CambridgeBayWeather; I'll drop a note on his talk page. Deor (talk) 23:30, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I've heard tell that an old settler named Ole, whose house was near the US-Canada border had a survey done to find out for sure which side of the border he was on. When Ole learned that his house was in the US, he said, "Vell, dat's a relief, 'cause it gets mighty cold in Canada, ja, sure, you betcha!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:54, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, the place that came immediately to my mind was Snag, Yukon. It seems to me that at one time long ago it was commonly mentioned on some weather report I used to watch, but I don't have anything more specific. However, Wikipedia says it holds the record for North America's lowest recorded temperature. --Anonymous, 00:15 UTC, December 22, 2010.

Death Valley traditionally becomes the hottest place in the USA in the peak of summer, though I doubt there's much of a city there. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:18, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

According to this site,[7] the winner is Phoenix, Arizona, which once hit 122 degrees Fahrenheit. The Phoenix article states that Phoenix is the hottest populated area in the US. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:23, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, I doubt that's true. It's probably the hottest major city. But I think Lake Havasu City typically has hotter summers than Phoenix. For that matter, "populated area" could be stretched to include Furnace Creek. --Trovatore (talk) 21:54, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Snag is usually cited as the coldest recorded temperature in North America but that's only if you don't count Greenland. Shepherd Bay an old DEW Line site is supposed to hold the record for the coldest wind chill at -73.9. Somewhere like Alert, Nunavut has a yearly mean of −18 °C (0 °F) and only two months of the year where the mean is above 0 °C (32 °F) and of course there 41/2 months without sun. However, for real cold in winter you want the Yukon. Temperatures in the −40 °C (−40 °F) to −50 °C (−58 °F) range that might stay for an extended period. But of course the simmer temperatures are better there than in Alert. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 01:18, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

December 22

Diaries

What diaries are freely downloadable to read? Written in English or translated. I'm already aware of Samuel Peyps. The more unusual the better. Thanks 92.29.124.188 (talk) 00:37, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

The Bolshevik Myth (1920-1922). Available at the Anarchy Archives. ---Sluzzelin talk 01:29, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

92.29.124.188, you (or another answerer) might be prepared to spend time searching in Category:Diaries.

—Wavelength (talk) 04:36, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

The Journal of a Disappointed Man and London Journal are two. 92.29.126.195 (talk) 11:20, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Are you discounting fictional diaries? I was thinking of Charles Pooter. Marnanel (talk) 14:33, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

The diary of Samuel Pepys is available at Project Gutenberg. Corvus cornix_talk 23:17, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Third sentence. 92.29.125.87 (talk) 23:39, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

One might find some in Category:Blogs.

—Wavelength (talk) 16:13, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

If you liked Peyps, you might be interested in his contemporary fellow diarist John Evelyn. P. S. Burton (talk) 16:28, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Where did you get the idea I like Pepys? I find the great bulk too much to read and its not as if he was having any sort of adventure. 92.29.122.99 (talk) 19:06, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

The Bible in modern prose

Is there any translation of the Bible in modern english and in prose, available online anywhere? I'd like to read Ecclesiastes in particular. Thanks 92.29.124.188 (talk) 00:45, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

www.biblegateway.com has just about any translation you want. The two I would recommend are the New International Version (NIV) which is a translation into modern English, and "The Message", which is an idiomatic paraphrase version. Biblegateway has both of those, and several other. --Jayron32 01:24, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Not to soapbox, but The New World Translation is easy to read. It can be read here. schyler (talk) 01:59, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah but then you only get what Jehovah's Witnesses think it means. How about the New Revised Standard Version? Adam Bishop (talk) 03:24, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

That's arguable, but not inviting. schyler (talk) 03:52, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

The Message (Bible) is a looser, more idiomatic paraphrase or the Bible. It's not as literal of a translation as the NRSV or NIV, but attempts to retain the basic meaning while using more natural language. Buddy431 (talk) 03:31, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Is The Message available online, though? (We have an article on dynamic and formal equivalence, which explains the issues.) Marnanel (talk) 14:31, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

The New World Translation is the Jehovah's Witness Bible. I remember when it was translated to conform to Witness teachings. The doctrines came first, the New World Translation after. No one on the translation committee was qualified or educated, other than being a Jehovah's Witness. Schyler probably logged witnessing time just now. Of course, if you want to read the Jehovah's Witness Bible, there is none finer. 75Janice — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75Janice (talk • contribs) 04:22, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Every thesis generates its own antithesis. schyler (talk) 04:30, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I didn't realise that Jehovah's Witnesses were Marxists... AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:34, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

They aren't, but the nice thing about being a Jehovah's Witness is that you talk people from all different walks of life. And can thus make an informed decision about which is best. schyler (talk) 04:43, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

You can compare different translations at http://www.multilingualbible.com/luke/2-14.htm.

—Wavelength (talk) 07:40, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

And let's not forget the modernest of them all: the Conservapedia translation - perfect for those times when you are annoyed because capitalism or free gun ownership is not explicitly lauded in the Bible :) TomorrowTime (talk) 11:12, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

The New American Bible, first published in 1970, is available online (site is that of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops). --- OtherDave (talk) 14:21, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

The other page which I was trying find is http://biblelexicon.org/luke/2-14.htm.

—Wavelength (talk) 15:27, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

The article Gloria in Excelsis Deo shows Greek and Latin texts for Luke 2:14.

—Wavelength (talk) 00:51, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks so far. What I find irritating is the numbered verses, which makes it slow to read. Is there a modern translation without them? 92.15.26.185 (talk) 16:35, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

The numbered verses are necessary for those who want to compare translations. Without them, there's no way to tell if the author of the new translation is just making stuff up by blending together verses that should be separately identified. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:02, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

There's the LOLCAT Bible .... Corvus cornix_talk 23:19, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I take it as a big sign of hope for mankind that the English->LOLCAT translation is a lot further down the line than the English->Stupid "translation" on Conservapedia. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:38, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

[The website http://www.watchtower.org/ is obsolete, but Wayback Machine has archives of The New World Translation indexed at https://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.watchtower.org/e/bible/index.htm. Today the official website of Jehovah's Witnesses is http://www.jw.org, and The New World Translation is indexed at http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/binav/r1/lp-e/nwt/E/2013. The book of Ecclesiastes is indexed at http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/binav/r1/lp-e/nwt/E/2013/21.

—Wavelength (talk) 21:53, 30 December 2014 (UTC)]

Israel demographics

If Israel kept settling in Palestinian territory until they had all of it In a one-state solution, would Jewish people be a majority of the electorate of the single state? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.159.230.233 (talk) 01:52, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Define "Palestinian territory". Do you mean the areas currently administered by the Palestinian authority, or do you mean the entire British Mandate? Bear in mind that a significant portion of the British Mandate is uninhabited or nearly-uninhabited Arabian desert in the western part of the modern Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. Nyttend (talk) 02:41, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Well they're not settling in the desert, so obviously the question is about the West Bank - but it is still unclear, because if they "had all of it", what does that mean? Adam Bishop (talk) 03:06, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Nearly two hundred thousand Israeli Jews live in one desert city alone; why do you say "they're not settling in the desert"? Nyttend (talk) 05:48, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

They're not settling in the "nearly-uninhabited Arabian desert in the western part of modern Jordan"... Adam Bishop (talk) 05:51, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

And Beersheba is not a new settlement, nor even in Palestinian territory, unless you think all of Israel should be given to them, which I suppose some people do...Adam Bishop (talk) 16:23, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Though of course Beersheba was a a wholly Arab city before 1948. Nowadays, the few Arabs still living there aren't even allowed to worship in their own mosque. DuncanHill (talk) 09:36, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

But the point still stands that tons of Jews settled there after the First Aliyah. Before the First Aliyah, there were very very few Jews living in the lands later included in the British Mandate; wouldn't all of the other inhabitants (even as far south as Beersheba) be considered Palestinians? There's nothing in the original question that would require us to say "Turkish territory" or "Ottoman territory" if the question were referring to the entire Mandate-to-be. Nyttend (talk) 13:00, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Jewish settlement in Beersheba started after the removal of the Arab population in 1948, not in the first wave of settlement you referred to. DuncanHill (talk) 10:10, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Currently, the Jewish and Arab populations of Israel and the West Bank are about equal: a bit under 6 million each: [8], [9]. In Israel Proper, there are about 7.6 million people, including about 5.8 million Jews and about 1.6 million Arabs. There are about 300,000 Israeli (overwhelmingly Jewish) settlers in the West Bank. See Demographics of Israel for the population breakdown within Israel proper, though it appears to lack data about the occupied territories. The article Demographics of the Palestinian Territories is less comprehensive, but still informative. Arabs have a higher birth rate than Jews in Israel and the Palestinian Territories, so it's likely that the Arab population will surpass the Jewish population in the near future, if it hasn't already. Within the state of Israel, Jews still have a very large majority, and will probably maintain that majority for a good deal of time. Buddy431 (talk) 03:28, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Yet it seems to raise the concern of some quarters. Read Demographic_threat#Israel. Flamarande (talk) 17:55, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, is that a self-strike, or did someone else strike 75.159.230.233's text? Ginger Conspiracy (talk) 01:37, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

You can check the edit history just as easily, or with just as much difficulty, as the case may be, as anyone else here. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 19:17, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Dollars Spent

how much in dollars has the us spent in fighting terrorism in total, including both wars and the tsa, dept of homeland security, and other such expendiatures, per person who has actually been killed by terrorism in the last ten years? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.20.235.154 (talk) 04:33, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Excellent question. I bet it's much more than the $7 million per-person actuarial value of life that the FAA uses. Ginger Conspiracy (talk) 05:21, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

To get any sort of meaningful result, you need to also consider the number of people killed in those two wars (on both sides of the conflict). Also, the fight against terrorism is presumably not to protect the already dead, but to protect people who would otherwise be killed, so you need to consider how many lives were saved. I imagine both numbers are hard to estimate. --99.237.234.245 (talk) 05:36, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

There are a couple of issues with this question. The first is taking the government at its word that what it is doing is fighting terrorism. For example, the Bush administration painted Iraq as a fight against terrorism even though it never demonstrated a link between the government of Saddam Hussein and any terrorist attacks on U.S. civilians. Also, U.S. government actions do not seem to have been effective in reducing terrorism. In fact, the "war on terror" seems to have produced an increase in terrorism. (See, for example, this source.) Obviously, the "war on terror" also led to the deaths of many thousands of troops and civilians. If you were to reword your question, how many dollars were spent for every life that was saved, the answer would be that the money did not save any lives. Rather, the money caused many deaths. Marco polo (talk) 16:18, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

But the "war on terror" has been rather successful in moving the fight with terrorists outside the US. The article you linked to is also rather biased, by doing things like excluding the 9-11 deaths and those in the Arab-Israeli conflict. It's also a bit outdated, being almost 4 years old. Violence in Iraq has gone down since then. Of course, there probably has been in increase in terrorist attacks, outside the US, but this is expected when you start to fight bad people. By comparison, there was an increase in attacks by Nazi Germany on US forces after D-Day, but does that mean it was a bad idea ? StuRat (talk) 16:41, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Was the fight with terrorists ever really inside the US? Adam Bishop (talk) 17:02, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Read Domestic terrorism in the United States. Flamarande (talk) 17:58, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Adam, sure. Remember the second largest terror attack ever in USA was Oklahoma City. To stop people like him you've got to work inside the US because that's where they're from. APL (talk) 19:17, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm reasonably sure that both New York City and Washington DC are inside the US, so yes. Is it your position that the 9-11 attacks weren't terrorism ? Or are you complaining about the word "fight", since that day was so once sided ? StuRat (talk) 06:24, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, I suppose I misinterpreted what you said. I thought you meant that there had previously been a lot of terrorism inside the US (of the Islamic variety, since the "war on terror" isn't focused on domestic terrorism). Adam Bishop (talk) 08:14, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

What I meant is that the US didn't want 9-11 type attacks to become a regular thing. So, in addition to increasing airline security, they also went on the offensive in Afghanistan and Pakistan, where al-Qaeda had it's bases, at the time (they've since moved out of Afghanistan). This helps protect the US in two ways, by reducing al-Qaeda's ability to launch major operations, and providing a "lightning rod", meaning that Islamic extremists have the enemy right at their doorstep to fight, so don't need to travel halfway around the world to find a target. By definition, this puts US and allied troops in harm's way, but it is to protect US and allied civilians, so seems like a reasonable practice.

Iraq is more complex. There weren't any Islamic terrorists there (except for anti-Israeli ones) before the invasion, but some may have moved there, as a result, to fight US and allied troops. That's good, but, on the other hand, the invasion may have radicalized many Iraqis into becoming Islamic terrorists, which, of course, is very bad. I don't think this is as much of an issue in Afghanistan and Pakistan, though, since in those nations anyone leaning in that direction was likely already radicalized prior to the US invasion (and air attacks, in the case of Pakistan). StuRat (talk) 17:14, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

True Cross

Q1 Do the Muslim sources relating to the Battle of Hattin mention the fate of the True Cross captured on the battlefield?

Q2 Would medieval Islam have viewed the True Cross as a relic of Jesus, a Muslim prophet, or as idolatrous?

I appreciate the second of these questions is somewhat calling for speculation - I'm hoping there's a parallel or something in the sources that'd help make it more factual. Thanks. --Dweller (talk) 12:13, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

In the Qur'an, Muhammad revived the old Gnostic/Docetic Christian heresy that Jesus was not crucified, but rather a Helen-of-Troy type eidolon appeared to be crucified, so it's hard for me to imagine positive Muslim reaction to a claimed true cross relic... AnonMoos (talk) 12:26, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I think that Muslims would see the veneration of relics as idolatrous. Marco polo (talk) 16:02, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I think that you're mistaken. The Muslims seem to venerate the Black Stone and at least some streams of Islam have a tradition of venerating the relics attributed to the prophet Muhammad. Read relics of Muhammad. Flamarande (talk) 16:14, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I stand somewhat corrected. However, according to this source, veneration of the relics of Muhammad is controversial in Islam and has been condemned by some Muslim clerics as idolatrous. Surely, relics of lesser prophets such as Jesus would be more likely seen as objects of idolatry. As for the Kaaba, Muslims see it as an image or symbol of God. Idolatry is the veneration of objects representing people, animals, or false gods. Veneration of images or symbols of God is not idolatry. Therefore, for Muslims, veneration of the Kaaba is not idolatry. Marco polo (talk) 16:37, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

It seems to be a problem of Iconoclasm. Notice that most Muslims don't believe that Jesus was crucified at all (the cross was therefore not regraded as a true relic anyway - valuable for political purposes for negotiations with Christians but little else). Flamarande (talk) 16:48, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

No one really knows what happened to it after Hattin; according to Baha ad-Din and the Old French continuation of William of Tyre's chronicle, Saladin still had it four years later during the Siege of Acre, and when Saladin and Richard were negotiation the surrender of Acre, one of the terms was the return of the cross. (Another one of the terms was supposedly the marriage of Richard's sister to Saladin's brother, although that's really unlikely to be true.) This negotiation didn't work out, because they also agreed to a prisoner exchange, and Saladin didn't have the right number of prisoners, or something...basically Richard did not find the relic particularly important. The Old French chronicle also says that it was among the terms of a treaty offered by al-Kamil to the crusaders at the Siege of Damietta during the Fifth Crusade. Saladin was pretty smart and I'm sure he would have realized its symbolic value, but his successors were not so thoughtful, and I'm not sure if al-Kamil ever had it, or if the crusaders really got it back. That relic was relatively small though, and was encased in a large golden cross, so it wasn't like they were carrying around a big chunk of wood. There were also other pieces, because according to the same Old French chronicle, there was another relic of the True Cross being carried around at other times during the Fifth Crusade. There were also much larger bits of a True Cross relic in Constantinople, which were dispersed throughout Europe after the Fourth Crusade. So the one lost at Hattin was not the entire True Cross, nor was it the only relic of it, and it was important enough to be used as a negotiating tool, but not important enough that they wanted it back above all else. (I'll have to check on these primary sources a bit further, maybe Baha ad-Din or the OFC are more specific...this answer is summarized from the University of Wisconsin History of the Crusades.) Adam Bishop (talk) 16:15, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Allegedly, there is enough wood from the True Cross to launch a full Helen worth of ships. Also, many saints have unusual numbers of bony body parts. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:28, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

The French writer Charles Rohault de Fleury published a study of the True Cross, Mémoire sur les instruments de la Passion de Notre Seigneur Jésus-Christ, in which he showed that all the surviving relics of it added up to less than a third of the wood that would have been needed to construct a three or four metre cross. We have something on this at True Cross#Dispersal of relics of the True Cross, where however the figures don't seem to agree with each other very well. The one-third figure is the one normally quoted. None of this implies that I have any confidence in the authenticity of the fragments, but the problem isn't with the amount of surviving timber. It's not only saints that had an unusual number of body parts, by the way; our Holy Prepuce page is an eye-opener. --Antiquary (talk) 19:57, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Is Baha the source for the story about the iced rosewater Saladin served to Guy of Lusignan (and specifically not to Reynald of Chatillon)? Are there other Muslim accounts of Hattin? --Dweller (talk) 16:19, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

There are a few Muslim accounts. I forget if Baha ad-Din mentions that water story, but it is definitely in one of them, I think Imad ad-Din al-Isfahani; it's remarkable how much the Old French chronicle and Imad ad-Din agree on the details (Imad witnessed it, and presumably the Old French author heard it from Guy himself, or Guy through Balian of Ibelin maybe). Adam Bishop (talk) 16:29, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Here is Baha ad-Din's account of the negotiations during the Siege of Acre (there is a newer translation, but it's not freely available online!) Baha does mention Hattin, and the water story too, here. Adam Bishop (talk) 16:37, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

• A1) The fate of the True Cross captured in the Battle of Hattin is AFAIK unknown. It seems to been have kept by Saladin for future advantages and asked for by Richard Lion-heart but never returned to the Christians.
• A2) Most Muslims don't believe that Jesus was crucified at all. Read: Islamic view of Jesus' death. Therefore the True Cross was probably regarded as as a false relic, "venerated by these foolish ignorant Christians".

These things are mentioned passingly by Amin Maalouf in his book The Crusades Through Arab Eyes. Flamarande (talk) 16:41, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, and Maalouf has the advantage of being popular and widely available in bookstores, but I would suggest not reading him too closely...he's not an historian, and although the basic details are usually fine, he embellishes them with his imagination far too often. A similar, but better, book is "Arab Historians of the Crusades" by Francesco Gabrieli, which has long translations of relevant passages, with no imaginative filler by Gabrieli. For Hattin specifically, a good summary of the Muslim sources is in "The Age of the Crusades" by P.M. Holt. Ibn al-Athir also mentions the battle, but he was writing about fifty years later. Abu Shama probably mentions it too, but he was probably copying from Imad ad-Din. Adam Bishop (talk) 16:50, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to dispute your opinion (I only have Maalouf's book). However I must point out that Maalouf's book is a good summary for the lay person and that he also gives quotes from the old sources (granted, in a rather short fashion). Flamarande (talk) 17:28, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Ah, Dweller, here is the account of Hattin, the loss of the Cross, and the water story, from the Old French chronicle. Adam Bishop (talk) 03:01, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

What happens if pieces of the True Cross are placed within the Holy Grail? Ginger Conspiracy (talk) 01:39, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

You get the message "The True Cross cannot be contained within such trappings." But don't forget to #name the True Cross to "true". Marnanel (talk) 19:35, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Why would someone need wikileaks?

Why does it matter if Wikileaks exist or not? The actual leaker (possibly Bradley Manning) could simply have saved the information into several pen-drives and send it to several newspapers. So, why you need the middleman? The effect would be almost the same? Quest09 (talk) 13:42, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Mainstream newspapers would not release huge amounts of data like wikileaks does. They might not release anything at all for fear of reprisals from the US government. Wikileaks seems not to care about how upset people get, and does not need to maintain standards of objectivity and respectability the way that a conventional newspaper does. Staecker (talk) 13:57, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Several newspapers, notably the Guardian, are in fact doing so, but are editing for what they apparently believe are reasons of national security and so on. Marnanel (talk) 14:36, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there's a difference in philosophy. Both Wikileaks and mainstream newspapers feel that some secrets should be exposed, but Wikileaks goes further in thinking that governments shouldn't have any secrets at all. I'd go with highly limited secrecy, myself. In the case of the US, without secrecy the Vietnam and current Iraq wars likely wouldn't have taken place, as they couldn't be justified without deception. On the other hand, WW2 would likely have been lost if there was no ability to keep secrets, and perhaps the Afghan war would be lost, too. What I really think is needed are some draconian punishments for those who declare something a state secret not to protect the nation, but to cover up wrongdoing on their part. StuRat (talk) 16:36, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

. Can you point to reference that says that the Wikileaks philospohy is that no secrets should be permitted? I haven't seen anything that indicates they feel that "legitimate" military secrets (like troop movements) or "legitimate" trade secrets (like not-yet-patented inventions) should not exist. In fact there's some (weak) evidence to the contrary, like WL asking the pentagon for assistance removing sensitive specifics from some of the documents they intended to leak. APL (talk) 19:12, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikileaks does support secrets. Assange suspended Domscheit-Berg because Assange suspected he was leaking secret information about Wikileaks. -- kainaw™ 20:07, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

A large part of it is about governments much more oppressive than western ones. (Even if their US documents make a bigger media splash around here.) If you lived in China and had some dirt on the Chinese government, the newspapers most likely to care could not be trusted. A third party you could trust to anonymously leak your documents would be useful. APL (talk) 19:12, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

@OP, consider this. You have got hold of information that you think should be made public but you also know that releasing it will make powerful and ruthless people very very cross. What are your options and which might be the safest one? Hint: a determined investigation could trace where and when a pen-drive was bought, and eventually who bought it. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 22:26, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Not if he was careful. If he didn't leave fingerprints or DNA on the pen drive, and bought it with cash, far from home, well in advance, then there may be no record of who bought it. The store might have had his image on a security tape, but that was likely reused/erased within a week. StuRat (talk) 17:00, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

The best-laid schemes o' mice an' men Gang aft agley and there are plenty of ways that scheme can go wrong. You named a few big "if's". Add these: the unusual travel and purchase can have witnesses; the illicit data must be stored (risky) somewhere for downloading to the pen, or the pen brought (risky) covertly to the database; an ordinary person has no network of servers arranged for immunity to authorities and will probably need to distribute multiple pens before seeing the information take effect; he may be unaware that pens often carry manufacturer's data and traces of supposedly deleted files; not only the pen but also its packaging, envelope and stamp can be sources of evidence such as DNA, and posting it can be witnessed. The whistleblower may not realize that something in the data is incriminatory, such as a fact that only one person could have known. It is in Wikileaks' interest to take care that their contacts do not incriminate themselves. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 23:56, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Please see http://www.webstock.org.nz/blog/2010/the-blast-shack/ Ginger Conspiracy (talk) 01:42, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Although an interesting read, the above is really just commentaries about Assange, his motive, the leaks' possible implications to world diplomacy, etc. It does not answer the question "Why does it matter if wikileak exist or not?" Royor (talk) 08:13, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I suggest watching TED's Julian Assange interview and judge for yourself. Royor (talk) 08:21, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I read this news item "Wikileaks defectors to launch Openleaks alternative". Their plan (not well described in the OpenLeaks article) is to automatically send the information you want to leak to a newspaper, and then if they don't publish it within a time window, keep sending it to all the other newspapers, offering each one a chance at an exclusive. Seems like it would at least save the leaker a lot of work, and perhaps provide some security too (since they only have to send the information off once). 213.122.23.52 (talk) 08:27, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

compare sensory overload of aspies with epileptic seizures?

--59.189.217.245 (talk) 15:24, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

• No, it's at a completely different processing level. DS (talk) 15:40, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Not without analogous affects, however sadly. Ginger Conspiracy (talk) 01:41, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

surely there are similarities? and differences? like how does it feel like for the aspie/epileptic? how does it look like to someone standing next to them? causes are similar, like flashing lights and certain sounds, right? --59.189.217.235 (talk) 02:30, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

There are some people with the misfortune to have both a spectrum disorder and epilepsy. For those who don't, the same sorts of things may cause seizures, but it's due to entirely different processes. Our article on epilepsy describes what causes epileptic seizures, and there's no real need to post it all here. As to spectrum disorders (I say that because many autistics have the same sorts of issues with this), what exactly causes the sensory incorporation issues isn't fully known; however, it's not the same thing of epilepsy. When they have overloads, it may look similar to an epileptic seizure, but it's not caused by the same things. Also remember, not everyone on the spectrum has sensory overload issues; using myself as an example (I'm PDD-NOS), I have the exact opposite problem in that I'm extremely unresponsive to noises and sensations. It's good for concentration, but not so much when someone is calling my name because I often don't respond. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:38, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

incidence among different cultures of regularly utilizing the other insertion during heterosexual amorous activities

I am looking for detailed data regarding the incidence of regularly utilizing the other insertion (i.e. as in homosexual coitus) during heterosexual amorous activities among different peoples/cultures throughout the world. In other words, what is the incidence in the United States, in Portugal, in Poland, in Japan, etc etc, for all the countries of the world, of regularly the other insertion during heterosexual amorous activities?

For example, in the United States, our article says "According to Columbia University's health website, Go Ask Alice!: "Studies indicate that about 25 percent of heterosexual couples have had [the other insertion] at least once, and 10 percent regularly have [the other insertion]" so, that article indicates that for the United States the regular incidence of the other insertion is 10%, and I would like to know this for every country. Thank you for any data like this you may be able to find! 88.182.221.18 (talk) 20:07, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean by 'the other insertion?' -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:09, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I mean as in male homosexual coitus, except I am interested in the incidence of regular practice of this in heterosexual amorous activities as practiced in different countries, i.e. this incidence percentage per country. My quote makes the data quite clear for the United States, that is the exact data I am looking for, but for every country: incidence of regular utilization of the other insertion in heterosexual amorous activities, by country. 88.182.221.18 (talk) 20:13, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Anal sex. Note to questioner... Wikipedia is not censored. -- kainaw™ 20:11, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

That's right, except I want to be clear that I am not interested in percentage of heterosexual couples who have ever utilized this form of amorous insertion, instead I am interested in the incidence of regular utilization of the other insertion during heterosexual amorous activities. By country. I think we all understand the question now. Now we just need someone who can find this data to post it, and I can mark the question as resolved. 88.182.221.18 (talk) 20:13, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Why is anal sex being referred to as "the other insertion"? Is there special significance to that particular wording in contradistinction to the locution "anal sex"? Bus stop (talk) 20:25, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I will instead answer the question you implied: 'Is there something inherently homosexual about anal sex?' The answer is no: everyone has an anus (with the exception of a very small number of people with very serious health problems), and anuses can be stimulated to provide sexual gratification in anyone, gay or straight, male or female. Anal sex is not a homosexual sex act. In fact, homosexual sex is pretty much the same as heterosexual sex, consisting of a variety of different ways to stimulate the genitals- despite the rather comical obsession with anal sex of some anti-gay activists, which I suspect has less to do with gay people's real sex lives and more to do with the sexual fantasies of the bigots. Frankly, I'm a gay person, but I'm pretty sure that James Dobson spends way more time thinking about anal sex than I do on an average day. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:27, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I never referred to homosexual sex until I saw that a respondent was confused by my terminology. I only referred to homosexual sex to make it clearer what the other insertion could possibly be. As to why I refer to it this way, it is to remain detached and scientific. I don't care who thinks what about the other insertion, in homosexual or heterosexual couples. The only thing that interests me is the incidence of regular practice of this among heterosexual couples of different countries. I think the qustion is quite clear, it has no religious nor moral or ethical implications, and it has nothing to do with homosexuals, since my question explicitly only concerns heterosexual couples. Thank you for any hard data you might have in relation to this matter. 88.182.221.18 (talk) 20:34, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

(ec) regular utilization of the other insertion - sounds repulsive when it's described in such a hyper-clinical manner. Reminds me of a case a while back of a woman who was brutalised and murdered. Some amateur commentator in my earshot was saying "How shocking! They not only raped her, they also committed homosexuality on her, and then killed her". I wondered what on earth they were talking about with "committed homosexuality on her", until I read news reports which revealed that the litany of abuses included her being sodomised. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 20:33, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

And how were people so sure the OP was asking about anal sex, as opposed to oral? Marnanel (talk) 20:34, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

"amorous activities" is another ambiguous phrase: 'amorous' indicates love, not specificially sex. An insertion during amorous activities might mean inserting toast into the toaster for one's sick spouse, for example, or the presentation of flowers inserted into a vase. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:35, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Because I specified it further by saying that it is the normal means of coitus between homosexual men, further you can search for my quote of a Wikipedia article in the original question I posted, and you will see that that is what I'm referring to. Anyway, as the OP I can confirm that I am referring specifically to, regularly, putting it in the pooper. 88.182.221.18 (talk) 20:36, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

There's no need to blank the whole thread, especially if you still cannot bring yourself to ask the question. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:42, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

88.182, how are you so certain that anal sex is the "normal means of coitus between homosexual men", and why does your source on the matter not also tell you of its incidence among opposite-sex couplings? Marnanel (talk) 20:39, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I just assume that it's the normal means of coitus among homosexual men, I guess I could be wrong. My source on the matter does tell me the incidence among opposite-sex couplings: 10%. However, my source only gives this number for the United States, and I would like the same number for the rest of the world's countries. 88.182.221.18 (talk) 20:56, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

[10] suggests 1/3 of gay men do not have anal sex (and later confirms what you may guess that 2/3 do). However it says nothing about frequency and simple maths will tell you if only 2/3 ever have it, you need 3/4 of those who practice anal sex to do so regularly for the majority of gay men to regularly have anal sex. Our article anal sex unsurprisingly has a bunch of figures for both and does mention 10% as the number of heterosexual couples who regularly have anal sex from one source. It also suggests the practice is increasing among gay men. It doesn't however say it's the 'normal means of coitus between homosexual men' Nil Einne (talk) 23:26, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

what percent of women in different cultures regularly practice anal sex?

This is a different question compared with the above one. Now I would like to know what percentage of women in different cultures regularly practice anal sex? I would prefer to know about as many countries/cultures as possible. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.182.221.18 (talk) 20:53, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Correct me if I am wrong, but I think it is the same question, essentially, as the one above. In what way is it a "different question"? Also, can you please tell me what your "source" is for your "10%" figure, given above? Bus stop (talk) 21:07, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

The source appears to be our utilizing the other insertion during heterosexual amorous activities anal sex article, under the "prevalence" section. And this question is different only in that it now states clearly what the OP wants to know, without all the needless beating around the bush. TomorrowTime (talk) 21:53, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Uncited studies calculate that a woman has anal sex every 2.4 seconds. That's 36 000 times a day and she is getting sore. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 22:10, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

There is a source in our article. (Missed TT's anwser above...) And a bunch of other figures (well none of them specifically on regularly) besides which highlights the point that such figures are likely to be rather unreliable. The source in question doesn't seem particularly great given it's not clear where the figure came from. BTW our article does have a figure for South Korea and France, these aren't regularly but one presumes if the South Korea figure is accurate (big if) it must be significantly under 10% regularly unless there's a way for 10% of women to regularly have anal sex but a smaller number to ever have it. Nil Einne (talk) 23:34, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Why is no one addressing digital insertion of a woman's finger into a man's rectum during intercourse? That's a form of "the other insertion" as well. Corvus cornix_talk 23:29, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

"digital insertion of a woman's finger" as opposed to analog insertion? AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:17, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah.  :) Corvus cornix_talk 00:23, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

As is anal-oral sex, or at least it usually is. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:49, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Myths, superstitions and reality

I am wondering if there are some myths or superstitions some people had in the past that were actually backed up by science (not discovered at that time)

That's a bit broad and difficult to answer. However, many superstitions originated in trial-and-error and were later confirmed as sound habits by scientific research, if that answers your question. TomorrowTime (talk) 23:07, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

One classic example is probably the idea of rocks falling from the sky (meteorites), which was completely rejected by scientists in France, at least, during some periods... AnonMoos (talk) 00:13, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Could you possibly expand on the last one? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.86.167.133 (talk) 00:27, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I saw it in several books I read in past decades. but I don't remember details now. Here's a quick Google search: france meteorite denial -- AnonMoos (talk) 00:40, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

that was very helpful, thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.86.167.133 (talk) 00:45, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Another example might be some of the things people thought caused disease, before microbes were discovered. "Bad air" and "bad water" were among them, and these were essentially correct, in that they carried airborne and waterborne microbes. StuRat (talk) 06:04, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure about that - the bad air in marshy districts was not the cause of malaria, and I don't think anyone made the connection with bad water until it was discovered to be the cause of cholera by Doctor John Snow at a contaminated public water pump. 92.24.186.101 (talk) 11:17, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

In the malaria example, the warm, moist air around a swamp allows mosquitos to live and transmit the disease, and also brings the stench of rotting vegetation with it ("swamp gas"), so there's still a grain of truth in "bad air" causing malaria. In a wider sense, air that smells bad may mean there are feces, decomposing bodies, or rotting trash nearby, all of which represent potential sources of disease. In the modern world, "bad air" may also be a sign of industrial pollutants, which can also harm our health. This might have also been true back then, say in a coal mine, where coal dust was harmful (as well as causing the occasional explosion). StuRat (talk) 17:27, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Some folk remedies or herbs could come within that scope, such as digitalis (poisonous), or the bark used by some before aspirin. 92.24.186.101 (talk) 11:17, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I saw a documentary about some doctor who suggested that if surgeons washed their hands they'd kill fewer patients, who was roundly condemmned by his peers and, I think, ended up going mad. I forget all the details though. --Dweller (talk) 11:29, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

We remember: Ignaz Semmelweis. --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:33, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

In general, many superstitions, myths and urban legends have an element of truth. Whenever these things happen, they notice things that could be explanations to what happen. For examples sometimes water will make you sick. Sometimes it's true, but it's not the water itself that made you sick, but the bacteria in them. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 14:14, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Humid Continental Climate North America

Which major cities and minor cities of North America has humid continental climate? My friend and i are deciding to go to these places for summer vacation and winter vacation for the sake of baseball, basketball, hockey and football? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.149.85 (talk) 23:23, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Humid? Florida, although right now it's been cool, but it is warming up, in particular Tampa/St. Petersburg and Miami. Houston and New Orleans, though it gets chilly in NO in the winter. But why humid? San Diego and Los Angeles are, in general, though not right now, pleasant year round, and you can't call them humid. Corvus cornix_talk 00:28, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Corvus has mentioned places with Mediterranean or humid subtropical climates. The questioner is asking about humid continental climates. The linked article lists a number of places in North America that have this climate. Marco polo (talk) 02:16, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, but you guys mixed it up. I want a proper list like for example the canadian cities that has the humid continental climate are Toronto, Hamilton, Ottawa and Montreal and etc. The american cities are Cleveland, New York, Chicago and Indianapolis and etc. like that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.149.85 (talk) 04:45, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

So in other words you're demanding that somebody here write an article for you. Corvus cornix_talk 18:12, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Gift wrapping

Hello. Where does the tradition of gift wrapping come from? You article is not much help. 24.92.70.160 (talk) 23:36, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Please accept our apologies for the sad state of gift wrapping. It is shameful for an article to have an empty External links section. I extend my humble apologies on behalf of myself and my fellow wikipedians. Please see http://mymerrychristmas.com/2006/historyofwrap.shtml -- Thank you. Ginger Conspiracy (talk) 01:51, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

The article linked by Ginger Conspiracy is almost right. However, the first recorded instance of gift wrapping was considerably earlier than the 19th century. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:46, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

December 23

how old was Paris Hilton in the sex videos?

how old wsa Paris Hilton in her sex videos? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.234.207.120 (talk) 01:18, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

The article on Paris Hilton says she was born in 1981 and the tape was done in 2003. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 01:44, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Christina of Denmark

Who was the first Danish monarch who was descended from Christina of Denmark?

Charles III, Duke of Lorraine. Ginger Conspiracy (talk) 01:54, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Charles III, Duke of Lorraine wasn't a Danish monarch. Did any of the descendants of Christina children Charles and Renata married into the Danish Royal Family.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 02:39, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh I'm sorry, you meant a monarch ruling Denmark, not merely a monarch of Danish extraction. No, it looks like there were no such descendants. Ginger Conspiracy (talk) 04:04, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

That would be the default interpretation. Would you expect, for example, a list of "German monarchs" to include Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom? I doubt anyone would. "Monarchs of German extraction" - now, that would be an entirely different matter. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 05:36, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

What would be the health effects (and effects on mental alertness) of the following diet for an obese Chinese-Singaporean?

2 main meals per day, 1st around noon, 2nd around 6pm. 1st would be a Chinese soup dish, such as wet wonton mee, fish soup with rice, fish noodle soup or bee hoon soup. 2nd dish would be a Chinese rice dish, such as fried rice, Hainanese chicken rice or charsiew rice with roasted pork. Less healthy food (nasi lemak, Hokkien mee, Western fish/chicken with rice) would be one of the main meals up to twice per week. Unhealthy treats (KFC, zi cha seafood) once per week to once per fortnight.

Breakfast at 8am would be a bun, such as a hot dog bun, or bread with a filling such as jam, peanut butter or margarine. In each of 3 intervals (between breakfast & 1st main meal, between the main meals, after 2nd main meal) drink 1-2 glasses each of water, fresh milk and soya bean milk. On some days, have fruits (bananas, grapes or an apple) or snacks (biscuits/cookies) in between meals. Chocolate as snack is limited to once per week.

Lifestyle: apart from a 30-minute jog on some mornings (or a 45-minute light workout at a fitness corner) plus going out to buy food (or to meet friends, twice per week), mostly sedentary. Aspiring professional writer taking private A-Levels, must spend 4 hours per day studying & 3 hours per day writing. Main leisure activities (besides exercise & meeting friends mentioned above) are reading, listening to music and online time (up to 2-3 hours combined). Also breathing exercises, daily Christian prayers, reflection sessions, some Chinese relaxation techniques (like tai chi, still learning), combined 30-60 minutes per day.

Above diet plus lifestyle will last 2 months. Following that, need to start an 8am-5pm job (must travel far), balancing that plus studying for A-Levels plus writing aspirations will reduce leisure time and certain foods may not be available (e.g. can't bring fresh milk to work).

Any and all advice is greatly appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.8.225 (talk) 02:59, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid that we cannot give any advice regarding this sort of thing. Losing weight is the sort of thing that is best handled under the advice of a doctor or nutritionist. --Jayron32 03:20, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry but Wikipedia is not the place for medical advice - perhaps you could ask for a referral to a dietitian from your family doctor? Royor (talk) 08:40, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Least famous US president

I realise that this question is rather sweeping and the answers will be largely based on personal opinion, but which American president has attracted less scholarly attention and is the least-known to average, reasonably educated people? Thanks.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:59, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Your question brings to mind the "Mediocre presidents song" from The Simpsons episode "I Love Lisa" (see this video, about 3:45 in): "There's Taylor, there's Tyler, there's Fillmore and there's Hayes. There's William Henry Harrison, 'I died in thirty days!'." Gabbe (talk) 09:23, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Sporcle has a quiz to name all US presidents. Rutherford B. Hayes was the least guessed, with 54.2% across over 3 million attempts. (28% named all presidents). Chester A. Arthur was the next lowest. (For full details, see here.) Some people game it, and there is to some extent a self-regulating (international although US-biased) sample, but I think it's a fair indicator. For people unaware of Sporcle, you merely have to name their surname; Andrew Johnson's figure is thus inflated by LBJ. - Jarry1250 ^{[Who? Discuss.]} 11:38, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

My top five would be Chester Arthur, Hayes, Van Buren, Fillmore, and Polk.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:28, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

To me, many of the earlier presidents (not Washington, Adams or Jefferson) are rather obscure, like Arthur, Hayes, Taylor, Tyler, Polk, Van Buren, Fillmore. Harrison is probably more famous for being the first US President to die in office than anything else... Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 14:11, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

There are really two parts to the question as asked: "least famous" and "attracted less scholarly attention". So the right answer has to be an obscure president of comparatively little interest to scholars. Some presidents are barely known to the public today but are still of scholarly interest, like Van Buren and Polk. So they're out. William Henry Harrison would still be of some significance had he never become president; a new scholarly biography of him came out in 2007. He's out. Maybe Benjamin Harrison, Fillmore, Arthur, and Hayes are the "winners". —Kevin Myers 14:28, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

When I was a freshman in high school, Millard Fillmore was kind of famous for being obscure (presumably the reason why the "Mallard Fillmore" comic strip was named after him), though I don't think that Fillmore's presidency was the most uneventful or do-nothing... AnonMoos (talk) 15:11, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone agree with me that the most boring president and First Lady were George and Martha Washington?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:08, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

No. At least, not until you define "boring" in relation to someone who's been dead for about 200 years. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 19:13, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

The answer is obviously David Rice Atchison. Greg Bard (talk) 19:34, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Another candidate would be Cyrus Griffin, who was the final President of the United States in Congress Assembled. --Trovatore (talk) 02:57, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Google Ngram: 1 2 3 4 has a relevant opinion on this, and seems to agree with the above - can't get all in one picture, but Harrison (whom I'd never heard of) seems to be very low, at least. (of course spelling confuses the picture here - people with more names probably rank lower as sometimes names are abbreviated). The Ngram rankings (incidence in books written in English over the last centuries) is very interesting - particularly at the top. Jørgen (talk) 20:12, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Certainly Franklin Pierce deserves some points in this category, as he is the only President to seek renomination in his party and be rejected. But every President has something going for him, or against him, one way or another. Check out the Pierce portrait and see if it reminds you of someone. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:07, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

You don't consider Theodore Roosevelt at the 1912 US presidential election in this category? (Not consecutively, though.) - Jarry1250 ^{[Who? Discuss.]} 09:32, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

No, although there are some similarities. He had already served two terms, and had stepped aside for Taft in the 1908 election, to his ultimate regret. He sought the GOP nomination in 1912, but they went with the incumbent, Taft. TR ran as a third-party candidate and did better than Taft did, but Wilson won the election. At that point, the GOP might have wondered what they were thinking when they went with Taft, who really didn't even like the job of President. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:22, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Jørgen, that's brilliant. I heard about the Google tool but hadn't used it yet. I've narrowed down the "leading" candidates in the last 60 years here. (The end results are the same over a longer time period, but the graph is easier to read with a shorter time span.) If I haven't overlooked anyone (I did this too quickly to be sure), the "winner" is....drumroll...Chester Arthur. Second place goes to James Garfield, and third goes to Millard Fillmore. In fourth place is Franklin Pierce, since our fifth place winner, William Henry Harrison, has seen a slight increase in the last fifteen years. Benjamin Harrison, in sixth place, has been falling steadily for years. If you still have stock in B. Harrison, sell! —Kevin Myers 23:21, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

By the way, this new Google tool doesn't yet handle middle initials very well. It's difficult to get an accurate reading on the graph for presidents who are almost always referred to with their middle initial, like James K. Polk. A graph with "James K Polk", "James Polk", or "James K. Polk" will show him below Millard Fillmore, but an advanced Google Books search reveals that this is not accurate. Polk is way down there, but not that low. This means that Chester A. Arthur and James A. Garfield are probably underrepresented in the graph I linked above. So, pending further anaylsis, my money is on Fillmore. —Kevin Myers 01:14, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Among many, Pierce is considered more of a failed or actively bad president than an obscure one, though Buchanan kind of overshadows Pierce, since the results of the political trend which Pierce and Buchanan represented didn't fully manifest themselves until Buchanan's term. AnonMoos (talk) 01:33, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

More bad than obscure, possibly, but still pretty obscure. There's a wonderful little book called Barefoot Boy with Cheek that plays on this. The hero, Asa Hearthrug, is put up for freshman class president by his fraternity; they then sequester him and handle all his PR. The campus newspaper quotes him in a statement (actually given by the fraternity) as saying he was a "dark horse — like Franklin Pierce". The report continues "your reporter was unable to determine the identity of Franklin Shrdlu". --Trovatore (talk) 01:52, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

The legal historian John Phillip Reid (that red link will be blue someday), in honor of the only president from his native state, puts completely spurious, joking references to Franklin Pierce in the "Acknowledgement" sections of his many books, such as quotes from non-existent monographs penned by Pierce. Other members of the "Franklin Pierce Society" apparently do the same, a playful nod to Pierce's obscurity and irrelevance. —Kevin Myers 02:26, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, but some who think that Pierce was significantly motivated by pique or spite in making some poor decisions which ended up hastening the coming of the Civil War might not laugh as heartily... AnonMoos (talk) 12:40, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Too soon? —Kevin Myers 15:58, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Nope, just that there's a difference between an asshole with power and a harmless buffoon... AnonMoos (talk) 14:08, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Fillmore seems to be the consensus. Benjamin Harrison was pretty much worthless as President, and only got the job because of the quirks of the electoral college, as Cleveland actually got more popular votes than Harrison. Ben Harrison might, in fact, be best known for being bookended by Cleveland's two terms in office. James Knox Polk would have been better known had he served more than one term. He was a pretty effective President, regarded as "near-great" by historians. He had the good sense to quit while he was ahead, and in fact he died only 3 months after leaving office. Taylor was pretty good in his short term also, but fate intervened and he died. His successors Fillmore, Pierce and Buchanan collectively were disastrous, as their blinders-on approach helped to hasten the inevitability of the Civil War, which Lincoln was stuck with. Franklin Pierce and Barbara Pierce Bush had a common ancestor, and in some photos, Pierce looks startlingly like George W. Bush. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:00, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Can't go by what historians think. They tend to be cheerleaders for government and the power of the presidency. Why, some of them actually like Andrew Jackson, if you can believe that. --Trovatore (talk) 10:17, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Polk was instrumental in expanding the borders of the USA significantly, and among his other accomplishments was the creation of the Department of the Interior, which eventually came to manage the national park system. Now, you may not agree with those things having been done, but he had significant impact in shaping the nation we know today. As far as Jackson is concerned, he was basically a rube; an interesting and highly flawed character; but I do like the story about the guy who failed in his attempt to assassinate Jackson, and then had to be protected from Jackson himself, as the old buzzard began whipping the would-be killer with his cane. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:54, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

James K. Polk has an excellent They Might Be Giants song about him, which is disqualifying for this category. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:09, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Chester A. Arthur gets my vote as having been the most forgettable, and historically neglected US President. I cannot even recall his First Lady's name!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 11:39, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Christian and Frederick

Did all the Kings of Denmark delibrately name all their eldest sons Christian or Frederick alternatively? Isn't it also interesting how even though sometimes eldest sons didn't always succeed a Frederick always followed a Christian and vice versa, for example Christian, Prince Elect of Denmark and Ferdinand, Hereditary Prince of Denmark died before they could break the tradition. Who was Frederick I named after? His maternal grandfather Frederick I, Elector of Brandenburg or a saint?

I am not sure that information is known. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:58, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

UK almond sugar cookie recipe

I'm trying to find a UK recipe for almond sugar cut-out cookies but haven't had any success yet. I'm not sure if they're done here in the UK or what they may be called. They are like [11] or [12] and are popular in the States. My mum (living in the States) has sent me her recipe, but I've tried baking without American "cups" and "sticks of butter" before and it's a nightmare. Any ideas on the UK equivalent and where I can find a recipe for them? 195.27.52.146 (talk) 12:54, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

well, if you want to convert an American recipe, you could use the tables at <http://www.tuscanrecipes.com/cooking-tips/measurement-conversions.html>, so the first recipe would be:

1 cup butter = 225 grams

1 1/2 cups sifted confectioners' sugar = 170 grams

1 egg

1 teaspoon vanilla extract = 5 ml

1/2 teaspoon almond extract = 2.5 ml

2 1/2 cups all-purpose flour = 280 grams

1 teaspoon baking soda = 5 ml

1 teaspoon cream of tartar = 5 ml

1/4 cup granulated sugar for decoration = 55 grams - Nunh-huh 13:42, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

That site provides custom volume to mass conversions for specific items, taking their density into account. For items which have variable density, like whipped cream, they don't do the volume to mass conversion. StuRat (talk) 16:52, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Those recipes didn't have a stick of butter listed, but you did ask about it. A stick is 1/4 pound, which is 4 ounces, or about 113.4 grams.

I have a simple suggestion. Why not ask you mum to send you a set of US measuring spoons and cups ? It would cost under £10, shipping included, and would allow you to cook following US recipes, without the requirement that you convert recipes and deal with round-off error. StuRat (talk) 16:46, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Round-off error is much smaller than the error associated with measuring things like flour with volume measures like cups and spoons. In the list of pros and cons, round-off error doesn't really feature at all. Personally, I'd only go with the cups and spoons if I absolutely couldn't use scales, like if I were hiking: weighing is so much easier, more accurate, more reliable, and less messy. But then I have electronic scales I stick the bowl on, and have even taken to weighing sufficiently aqueous liquids: so much less hassle. Use the conversions people have given (all recipes has a feature that will do it for you, doesn't it?) then write it down or copy and paste it into a document so you don't have to look it up next time. If you desperately want to use the volume measures, you can buy measuring cups in the UK fairly cheaply in any appropriate shop (I'm pretty sure Lakeland sell them) even unto 'cup' measures. No need for shipping them across the ocean. 86.163.0.221 (talk) 01:32, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

They've probably already crossed a couple oceans to get there from China. StuRat (talk) 05:46, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Which country has some 30 odd cities/towns with the same name

I am just looking for a country which has some 30 odd towns/cities with the same name. Would appreciate any help —Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.83.211.172 (talk) 15:40, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I thought the United States might qualify, but it seems not: the commonest names are Salem and Georgetown, each of which occurs in 22 different states. (To confirm my results, use a database of zipcodes, and type

cut -d, -f2-3 zip5.csv |sort|uniq|cut -d, -f1|uniq -c|sort -gr|less

into a Unix prompt.) Marnanel (talk) 15:50, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Newton is supposed to be the commonest place-name in England the UK - our article lists well over 30 (though some where it's only part of the name); I'd guess this is not a full list. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 15:57, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

There are 30 Franklins in the U.S. -- kainaw™ 16:01, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

See List of the most common U.S. place names.

—Wavelength (talk) 16:16, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Every U.S. state has either a city or neighborhood named "Riverside."Greg Bard (talk) 16:31, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I have no memory of a Riverside in Hawaii. Google maps doesn't locate one either. -- kainaw™ 16:41, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I googled [hawaii riverside] and several entries came up. It seems to be an informal reference to places along a river in Kauai, maybe not a "neighborhood" as such. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:41, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Dover could be one of the possibilties —Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.83.211.172 (talk) 18:20, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

When I downloaded a copy of its database in 2004, the US Geographic Names Information System had 82 different names of "populated places" in the United States that either occurred at least 60 times or were used in at least 30 different states. Most of these would presumably be unincorporated villages or perhaps neighborhoods, rather than bona fide "cities and towns". In this table the first column of numbers is the number of instances of the place name and the second is the number of different states. The table is sorted on the product of the two numbers.

   217   39     Midway           |    60   30     Belmont
   208   39     Fairview         |    62   29     Edgewood
   125   46     Riverside        |    64   28     Harmony
   166   31     Oak Grove        |    61   29     Mount Vernon
   108   43     Centerville      |    68   26     Spring Hill
   149   28     Five Points      |    84   21     Forest Hills
   110   34     Bethel           |    56   31     Riverdale
   123   30     Pleasant Hill    |    51   34     Newport
   115   31     Mount Pleasant   |    50   34     Arlington
    96   36     Union            |    68   25     Green Acres
    98   35     Liberty          |    63   26     Buena Vista
    95   36     Pleasant Valley  |    51   32     Summit
    91   37     Greenwood        |    65   25     Woodlawn
    94   35     Oakland          |    60   27     Springdale
    91   36     Salem            |    47   34     Clinton
    79   37     Glendale         |    69   23     Hopewell
    81   34     Georgetown       |    48   33     Clifton
    83   33     Lakeview         |    52   30     Wilson
   108   25     New Hope         |    47   33     Hamilton
    80   32     Lakewood         |    47   33     Farmington
    85   29     Pine Grove       |    44   35     Lincoln
    79   31     Concord          |    61   25     Westwood
    84   29     Oak Hill         |    72   21     Antioch
    60   40     Franklin         |    41   36     Marion
    70   32     Sunnyside        |    47   31     Woodville
    66   33     Springfield      |    44   33     Kingston
    66   33     Lakeside         |    69   21     Friendship
    62   35     Fairfield        |    44   32     Ashland
    72   30     Highland Park    |    41   34     Florence
    93   23     Shady Grove      |    43   32     Jackson
    89   24     Pleasant Grove   |    41   33     Milton
    84   25     Shiloh           |    40   33     Eden
    68   30     Oakdale          |    39   31     Dover
    60   33     Glenwood         |    37   31     Vernon
    75   26     Cedar Grove      |    63   18     Stringtown
    66   29     Riverview        |    35   32     Troy
    67   28     Spring Valley    |    33   33     Chester
    66   28     Wildwood         |    64   17     Sherwood Forest
    66   28     Hillcrest        |    33   32     Auburn
    54   34     Greenville       |    34   31     Clayton
    63   29     Highland         |    32   31     Warren

--Anonymous, 21:00 UTC, December 23, 2010.

I understood that one of the reasons The Simpsons live in Springfield is that most states of America have a Springfield, so it meant that no-one could be sure that the jokes were aimed at them. HiLo48 (talk) 23:13, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Or the opposite, in the sense that there are references to various things that are near "a" Springfield (such as Lincoln's tomb, in one episode), allowing "their" Springfield to be all of them rolled into one. I'm kind of surprised not to see Washington in that list, as many states have a Washington (Ohio has two of them). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:17, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Washington lists around 40 locations in the US which have "Washington" in their name. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:27, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Washington really makes his mark in townships and counties; sse Washington Township (241) and Washington County (30). —Kevin Myers 00:09, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Car wagon full of Iron Crosses

I have heard a story that during WW2 Russian captured German train and found out that it was full of Iron Crosses. Anyone heard more about this? 79.185.217.168 (talk) 16:11, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

No, but what would be the least bit surprising about a shipment of medals from one location to another ? StuRat (talk) 16:26, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

It would be fairly surprising if it was full of them... AndrewWTaylor (talk) 16:38, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Not if they took them of their dead, washed the blood off, and gave them to the next sucker hero. StuRat (talk) 17:22, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean medals like these at the Russian Army Museum in Moscow?--Aspro (talk) 17:19, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

forgot to include website:[13]. Caption reads ...large showcase full of Iron Crosses and German small arms captured from a railroad truck ...--Aspro (talk) 17:28, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay, a railroad "truck", that makes sense. A "train full" would be an awful lot of medals. According to the article (where the information is buried in the section on the "Grand Cross" variant), the Iron Cross would be 44 mm square. I don't know how thick it was; let's say 6 mm. If a freight train car had an available space of say 7 feet × 7 feet × 30 feet, that would hold about 3,600,000 medals if they were just tossed in loose -- a total close to the whole number of them given out during the whole war. Even with a sensible amount of protective packing, you could probably get several hundred thousand medals in one train car. Make it a whole trainload of medals and you're back to unreasonably large numbers. --Anonymous, 21:21 UTC, December 23, 2010.

Is a picture where my face is on my copyright or intellectual property?

i'am wondering if Is picture where my face is on my copyright or intellectual property? I have a problem with someone posting picture with my face on social network without my aproval and he doesn't want to remove it. So in case that picture is my copyright or intellectual property i can demand from social network to remove it, in other case i don't have any options left? thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dedamraz123 (talk • contribs) 16:23, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

The copyright belongs to the person who took the photo. Your face is your business if and only if you are in a business where your face is such. For example, celebrities can sue if their "likeness" is used - but not just any use. It is only in certain cases, such as using Brad Pitt's face on your store window to try and get people to think he likes your store. -- kainaw™ 16:37, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

You don't own copyright over your own face. You may own personality rights in some jurisdictions. You ought to look into the privacy policy of the social networking site, as they likely have some means of petitioning to get a photo removed. But your legal options are pretty limited. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:51, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

And just some (unsolicited, possibly useless) advice - if some jerk is having fun with posting your picture around, he is much more likely to continue doing it if you huff and puff about it - I've seen that happen a gazzilion times. I realize it can be humiliating and infuriating, but the best thing might be to just let it go. TomorrowTime (talk) 17:20, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

It could be a case of stalking, which is a criminal offense in some parts of the world. Pressing charges might be an option here. If the poster is just a troll, believe me, they are not very diligent and get tired very quickly. If the latter is the case, wait a couple of weeks and inform the web-site admin that they should remove your pics. Normally it is against the ToS to post pics of other people. Quest09 (talk) 18:14, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

If your face has become an internet meme, it will probably be endlessly reposted all over the place forever, or at least for a number of years. On the positive side, this makes you into a kind of celebrity because of your funny face, and if you show up on forums and say "that's my face, you know" you're likely to be feted for owning it. 213.122.23.52 (talk) 06:37, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

It's illegal to photograph people without their permission in every civilised country, unless you're in an obviously public place.--178.167.245.37 (talk) 22:58, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

How money affects performance

For example, for being a good athlete you have to train, but the quality of your nutrition, your shoes and trainer also make a difference (so more money is an advantage, but not enough). In the academic field is the same story: you have to study by yourself, but money helps. Can we calculate how much does it help? Wikiweek (talk) 18:03, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

This is totally personal experience here, but I believe money does not help performance per se, it is just a condition for it, equally to air, water and many other resources. Sometimes too much can even be a drawback. But as a matter of fact, at some time you'll have it, and will be able to perform. Always having money only changes the timing of the performance, not its result. Quest09 (talk) 18:17, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Argh, it's not long ago since I read an article on a recent research that proved that money vs. performance do not correlate equally (i.e., more money does not necessarily mean more performance), but I can't find it now. Anybody know what I'm talking about? TomorrowTime (talk) 20:27, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Similar to the lines of thought above, as an example, I can add that there are people in the field of photography that made amazing pictures with a quite cheap camera (namely the Holga). A good camera could cost several thousand dollars, but with this obviously flawed camera, some photographers were able not only to take amazing pictures but also to win prizes. Having a 10,000 SDLR on your hand would not have been an advantage. See more about it here: [14].Mr.K. (talk) 15:22, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Geography question --

Which port city has same name as a capital city in some other country (not the capital of the country). Looks like lot (as many as 30) many cities in the "other country" have the same name

Any help will be appreciated —Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.83.211.172 (talk) 18:25, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

First one that comes to mind -- hope this isn't too much of a stretch -- is Cairo, Illinois, which is a river port (and of course Cairo is the capital of Egypt). Antandrus (talk) 18:31, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Santiago de Cuba is a port city, and Santiago, Chile is a capital in another country. ---Sluzzelin talk 19:28, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Two other possible candidates: Freetown (capital of Sierra Leone) and a couple of Freetowns, as well as Georgetown (capital of Guyana) and number of Georgetowns.

I'm guessing you'll be donating the 100$ to wikipedia? TomorrowTime (talk) 20:29, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Who is the Supervisor's supervisor?

In a particular township of a county in Michigan I am trying to work with a Twonship Supervisor, however he is most uncooperative. It turns out this elected Township Supervisor is also the sexton for the cemetery where my mother will be buried. He says however, before my mother can have a gravestone, he has to move the existing family gravestones that have been in place for decades. The family cemetery Lot is broken up in 5 grave spaces. One is occupied by the cremains of my father, while the other two are occupied by my grandparents. He has agreed that my mother's cremains can be with my father's in space # 4. He says however the existing gravestones for my father and grandparents are on the wrong end of the grave and MUST be moved first (apparently at their feet instead of their head). He has asked for me to cover these expenses. I told him I had no control over the mis-placed gravestones and should NOT have to pay for the movement of the existing gravestones. My first question is concerning a possible conflict between his position as the Township Supervisor (where the cemetery is located) and him being the sexton. Is that valid and legal and right? He seems to be making up the Rules as he goes along to put money in his pocket. The second question would be: Who would HIS supervisor be and who does he report to?--Doug Coldwell ^talk 20:54, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I hate to say this, but this sounds like the sort of thing you would need a lawyer for. Lawyers (and not random strangers on the internet) are trained to handle grievences such as this. This doesn't mean you intend to sue the person or take him to court, but a lawyer can still advise you on how to properly proceed in this case. --Jayron32 20:59, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

That was my first reaction as well (lawyer), my understanding of townships in Michigan is that the Township Supervisor is the highest township authority. The Cemetery Sexton for the township cemetery is also an official township position--I expect yours must be a smaller township. I would assume there's a regularly scheduled meeting of the township board; I would get on the agenda of the next one to discuss/clarify the request--certainly you should not be financially liable for errors the township made prior in burying your family's remains. (I recall responding earlier--and you've now got more information.) If you then fail to reach resolution then you likely need to sue the township to correct the township's cemetery's error and reimburse your legal expenses provided you win the case. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 21:07, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I would expect that legally the township is subordinate to the county. A bit of light reading, if a bit dated, here. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 21:14, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

And the county is subordinate to the state, which is subordinate to the federal government. I would expect to find some laws at the state level specifying what financial obligations, if any, relatives have for paying for such things. Also, if you can dig up any of the contracts from the original burials, those would be helpful. StuRat (talk) 05:41, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Just a minor correction. While the counties are always subordinate to the states, the states are NOT so to the federal government. There are certain things which are not the jurisdiction of the federal government at all, which the federal government is constitutionally restricted from interfering with on the state level. In other words, the states have a limited sovereignty on some matters, and is not "subordinate to" the federal government on these matters. On the other hand, counties and townships ARE subordinate to state governments, and are not sovereign in any way. The manner in which townships and counties relate to each other, and to the state government, is unique to each state. --Jayron32 05:46, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but it didn't seem particularly relevant to this Q, so I simplified my answer. StuRat (talk) 06:58, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

The implied question would almost warrant a separate section, as the concept may be confusing to non-Americans, and even to many Americans. The states are subject to the federal, where specified in the Constitution. This is why there was signfiicant controversy about the 14th Amendment, as it had the potential for allowing the federal government to get its mitts into a lot of areas where it previously had no jurisdiction. I think those who would oppose the 14th Amendment nowadays would be a much smaller percentage, as equal protection has come to be an American expectation. It not only helped fulfill the theoretical moral claims that America has always made about itself, but also has made us a stronger and better nation through diversity. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:37, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, excellent advice.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 00:14, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

December 24

Property taxes

Once a year I get a letter from the government saying what I owe in property taxes, and I send them a check for this amount. But how is my property tax calculated? It is explained on the letter and in a pamphlet that comes with the letter, but I sent the letter filled out with my payment and I lost the pamphlet. 24.92.70.160 (talk) 01:27, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Where do you live (City, not just State or country) - every place calculates it differently. Ariel. (talk) 01:32, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

The questioner geolocates to Wisconsin, USA. To my knowledge, virtually every jurisdiction in the United States calculates property taxes as a percentage of the property's assessed value. The percentage varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and sometimes within the jurisdiction from one type of property to another (e.g., residential versus commercial). Also, a given property may have taxes assessed by different jurisdictions, such as the county, township, school district, fire district, and so on. The assessed value is theoretically supposed to represent the property's market value, but some jurisdiction assess properties at some fraction of market value, and/or conduct assessments so infrequently that the assessed value has little relation to the market value. Finally, some jurisdictions offer abatements or other tax reductions to some classes of taxpayers, such as people over a certain age. Really, the best way to get your question answered with any precision would be to contact your local tax assessor or tax collector and ask for another copy of that pamphlet. Marco polo (talk) 02:26, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Hindu girl speech

Does anybody know who is this girl? [this video] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.53.228.230 (talk) 02:04, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

cold in summer and hot in winter

Which northen nations tend to have cold summer seasons and which southern nations tend to have hot winter seasons? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.53.228.230 (talk) 03:23, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Areas that have colder summers in the Northern Hemisphere are those that lie a) closer to the poles (and thus have a polar climate) and b) areas that are close to the western coasts of North America, because ocean currents tend to carry cold water from Alaska down towards them. Hence, Mark Twain's quote "The coldest winter I ever had was the summer I spent in San Francisco). Areas that have hotter winters in the Southern hemisphere are those which lie closer to the equator. In the southern hemisphere, there's very little land in the temperate zone (most of it is either Antarctica or near the tropics). --Jayron32 03:28, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Although, to be fair, Twain didn't say that. Matt Deres (talk) 21:20, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

There's one other I can think of -- areas at very high altitude in the northern hemisphere. Tibet, for example, has large regions averaging over 5000 meters elevation, with cold summers indeed; the portion of Siberia directly north of Tibet, higher latitude but lower elevation, is much warmer in the summer. The capital of Tibet, Lhasa, at 3490 meters (11450 feet) is actually in one of the lower and warmer parts of Tibet in the summer. Antandrus (talk) 03:47, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

The temperatures in the San Francisco Bay Area tend to be cool in the summer because the heat of the California Central Valley draws fog through the Bay and cools off its environs. The warmest time of the year tends to be September. Corvus cornix_talk 19:30, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Hereditary monarchy

When did England and Scotland cease to be elective monarchies and became hereditary monarchies? --Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 04:35, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

It is likely that England was functionally hereditary from the earliest undisputed kings of unified England. I see nothing in the articles of Egbert of Wessex or Æthelwulf of Wessex or Alfred the Great to indicate that their kingships were not hereditary; indeed those articles seem to indicate that the kingship was passed via will from a king to his sons, like any other hereditary property or right. Earlier kings of England may have been elected as "Great King" or Bretwalda by the other Kings in England (for example, all of the kings chose to elevate one of their number to Bretwalda) but I am not sure that position is really considered to be an equivalent to the later, hereditary "King of England". Likewise, it looks like the Kings of Scotland passed the throne hereditarily from the time of the MacAlpins, it was frequently disputed among branches of said family, but it does not look like there was any elective element to the Scottish throne. The Scottish hereditary system was based on a a system known as Tanistry, which is different from primogeniture, but it is still an hereditary and not elective system of passing on the kingship. By the time of the House of Dunkeld, the influence of England and continental Europe introduced proper primogeniture to the Scottish kingship. --Jayron32 04:51, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Just because the throne was passed within the same family doesn't mean it was hereditary, the nobility just tends to pick sons or close relatives of the last king. The Merovingians, Carolingian, and Capetians kings of France were all elective till the reign of Philip II of France. The Anglo-Saxon kings were all elective but I was wondering if William the Conqueor introduce hereditary monarchy or did he still continue with elements of the old Anglo-Saxon custom of elective monarchy. Also does anybody know if Ancient Near Eastern monarchies (Egypt, Mesopatamia, Persia) were elective or hereditay.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 05:20, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Except that the articles I cite specifically note that, for example, Egbert willed certain parts of his Kingdom to various sons. It doesn't say that this was confirmed, or voted on, by any nobles. He just willed it, and his sons inherited the kingships. On the contrary, I don't see any evidence that the Anglo-Saxon kingships were elective, from the time of the House of Wessex forward. --Jayron32 05:33, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

In a sense, one could say that the British monarchy is currently "elective" in that the monarch does not get to choose his/her successor, it's a process defined by law, i.e. by the "will of the people" as expressed via Parliament. And also, in theory, the monarchy could be abolished or otherwise modified by law. Not that that's likely to happen anytime soon. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:26, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Harold Godwinson was the last King of England to be elected by the Witenagemot or Witan (a council of nobles) - there's a lot of information on the election of English kings in this article. Although he had royal blood, Harold would certainly not have inherited the throne if primogeniture applied. He was the best man for the job. William I of England did away with many English institutions including the Witan, which he replaced with the Curia regis, which didn't have any elective powers. Alansplodge (talk) 11:29, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I think that you're exaggerating the importance and true power of the Witenagemot. It wasn't a case of "the Witenagemot decided to ignore primogeniture (or has the power to do so)". Edward the Confessor simply had no sons or daughters and that's why Harold (the Queen's brother and by far the most powerful noble of the realm) inherited the throne. And the Witenagemotit wasn't a English institution but a Saxon one (there's a diff - English culture comes only later with a fusion between the Saxons and the Normans) Flamarande (talk) 18:45, 24 December 2010 (UTC) PS: Happy X-mas to you all.

I disagree with your terminology. The word "England" comes from the Angles. Anything Anglo-Saxon can legitimately be called "English". The Normans have nothing to do with it. --Tango (talk) 20:20, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I believe that you're underestimating the Norman impact and legacy in English culture. The Normans were only the last wave of invaders (like the Saxons before them) which merged with the Saxons and slowly produced a new culture which inherited characteristics from both sources. Read: Norman conquest Flamarande (talk) 03:32, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. Hence the name of the language Old English, sometimes called Anglo-Saxon, and not to be confused with Old Saxon, which was a language spoken in Northern Germany around the same time. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 23:05, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

But Old English changed with the arrival of the Normans: "During the centuries of French linguistic dominance a large proportion of the words in the English language had disappeared and been replaced by French words, leading to the present hybrid tongue in which an English core vocabulary is combined with a largely French abstract and technical vocabulary." Flamarande (talk) 03:32, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Which belies the cooperative spirit implied by his nickname, "William the Concurrer". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:57, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

The succession of William the Conqueror was pretty up in the air for several generations, as primogeniture was not the method of succession. William's eldest surviving son, Robert Curthose, should have been his successor, but he got passed over by his two younger brothers. Then there was the matter of whether Empress Matlida should have succeeded her father, she got passed over for her cousin, Stephen of England, but then Margaret's son, Henry II of England, succeeded Stephen, instead of Stephen's surviving son, William I, Count of Boulogne. And then there ws the War of the Roses...Corvus cornix_talk

Of course, these were still hereditary questions; contested successions arise from different interpretations of inheritance law, and do not mean that the monarchy was not heriditary. --Jayron32 20:31, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

what is the difference between a muslim and a jude?

both believein one god which has no son named jesus.--91.14.189.78 (talk) 13:31, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

See Islam and Judaism. They are not the same. Notable differences: the roles of Mohammed and Ishmael. Staecker (talk) 13:36, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

on which side is god in the war between them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.14.189.78 (talk) 13:46, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Why do you assume God is on either side? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:39, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

What war is that? But you can look up Mark Twain's "War Prayer"... AnonMoos (talk) 13:52, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Conveniently at Wikisource:The War Prayer... AnonMoos (talk) 13:55, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Gracious Lord, oh bomb the Germans, / Spare their women for Thy Sake, / And if that is not too easy / We will pardon Thy Mistake. / But, gracious Lord, whate'er shall be, / Don't let anyone bomb me. Marnanel (talk) 18:47, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Jews are at war with Muslim as much as Christians are at war with Muslim: only in the head of some people. The conflicts among them are mostly limited to certain very limited number of states/institution. Quest09 (talk) 14:19, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

The central texts between Judaism and Islam differ. See Hebrew Scriptures and Qur'an, respectively. schyler (talk) 17:25, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

This seems like a good time to cite this stanza from Tom Lehrer's "National Brotherhood Week":

Oh, the Catholics hate the Protestants

And the Protestants hate the Catholics

And the Hindus hate the Moslems [sic]

And everybody hates the Jews!

In a similar vein, Don Rickles commented after Obama's election that the next American President would be a Jew, "and then we'll declare war on everybody!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:54, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I love how this question has turned into a poetry recitation. Marnanel (talk) 19:15, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

If you think about it, though, Islam and Judaism are very, very similar religions, much closer to each other than either is to Christianity. I think that goes to show you that much of what we think of as "religious" conflict is really not about religion at all. Heck, Protestants and Catholics share the same religion, yet they've fought supposedly religious conflicts in Ireland, the Balkans and lots of other places. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 20:05, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Not correcting the sentiment of your statement, just your data - there aren't all that many protestants in the Balkans. The three religions from the old adagio about Yugoslavia (six states, five cultures, four languages, three religions, two alphabets, one country) are Catholicism, Islam and Orthodox Christianity. TomorrowTime (talk) 10:49, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

However, Hungary showed a tendency to turn Protestant, before the Hapsburgs intervened in the counter-reformation... AnonMoos (talk) 14:19, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Mhm, and the parts that were under the Hungary part of Austria-Hungary do have a protestant population, but it's negligible in the context of the Balkan wars. TomorrowTime (talk) 15:17, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Muslims consider Jesus to have been merely a prophet, hence part of a continuum from Judaism that "culminated" in the Quran, just as Christians consider their religion to be a "fulfillment" of the Old Testament. It seems to be human nature to attach too much importance to earth-bound things. How many battles have been fought over the "right" way to baptize, or the "right" way to observe communion? Ugh. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:43, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

... or even which end to crack an egg! Dbfirs 09:36, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Evaluating worth of murder's memoirs

Hello all-- how would an archives evaluate the worth of a murder's pre-murder memoirs? The fellow self-published 500 copies of a book, circulated them around Brampton, Ontario, detailing the love lost regarding a falling out with his wife. At this point, he was in divorce court, and she was trying to get restraining orders against him, I believe. He had recently done partial demolition of the family house by tying a (really long) chain around the second floor, and driving away.

Did I mention he was the City planner?

Anyway, after the book was circulated to neighbours, the libraries, even police. Soon after, he published a sequel, mailed it out, bludgeoned his wife on the sidewalk and waited peacefully to be arrested. The book, well it arrived in the mail (to less locations) after this was all over the headlines, even The National Enquirer.

The case isn't really all that well-known, despite the headlines then, and the fact his parole hearing in 2008 was covered by The Toronto Star, Canada's highest-circulation newspaper, albeit not a true national paper.

How does one figure a value for this item, a book by a murder, pre-murder, directly foreshadowing the horrendous deed to follow? -- Zanimum (talk) 14:08, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Since it is doubtful whether any of the books has been sold before, the only real method of finding out its value would be to put it up for auction. My guess would be that it is not worth that much, since 500 copies on a local scale is fairly high, and if the case is not that wellknown, there wouldn't be enough celebrity-value to generate outside interest. But to be honest, it is difficult to ascertain precisely concerning books, because there may be two or more collectors out there that are looking for precisely this item (book collectors are an odd bunch, I should know since I am one), and that would of course drive the price up at an auction. --Saddhiyama (talk) 15:10, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

What is the present educational canon?

What is the present educational canon (by the way, where is the article educational canon?). Who can claim being educated? What has replaced the Trivium (education), and Quadrivium? Quest09 (talk) 14:32, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

These days most schools and collages just seem to 'train' people in what they need to know in order to be productive employees, rather than educate them in order to bring out and develop their talents and understanding. Thou shalt labour and consume and pay ye taxes.--Aspro (talk) 14:45, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean by collage? Collage? College? Was that a spell, a typo, a Freudian slip, a sign that you are uneducated, or was that on purpose?Quest09 (talk) 16:42, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

It was probably trying to be helpful. schyler (talk) 17:21, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

The well-rounded individual should be an intellectual "collage", yes? :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:38, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

By "ye", I have to assume you mean either "the" or "thy", but I can't work out which. Not "ye", anyway. Marnanel (talk) 18:59, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

If any educational canon existed now, you would expect to find some common content between all bachelor's degrees, but there is none. When there was consensus on an education canon, teaching it was the work of the university. Now high-schools are expected to bring a person up to the level where they're ready to specialise. Of course there is also the thorny problem that education tends to decay into training, leading to a lack of education as such and (in Merton's phrase) "the mass-production of uneducated graduates". Marnanel (talk) 18:56, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

It's kind of like a dog chasing its tail. At one time, the universities were the realm of the wealthy, who could afford to become "well-rounded". A high school education was considered good enough for the masses. Over time, it was no longer good enough, as more and more businesses demanded college graduates. Of course, being college-educated demanded higher wages. So now all the good jobs have gone overseas, and college graduates have to be prepared for a lifetime of working at places like Wal-Mart. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:03, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes: the painful issue of the income gap is a relative problem, not an absolute one. We can't expect to solve the problem by making everyone into graduates, on the grounds that graduates earn more. (They might as well hand everyone a million pounds, on the grounds that millionaires are wealthy people.) But having said that, it doesn't explain why these graduates would need to be trained people instead of educated people, or both trained and educated. A society where everyone had studied (say) the Trivium and Quadrivium would not be any more equal, but would at least have the advantage that everyone had been taught to think clearly. (Though it may well be that the powers that be are not interested in having the masses taught to think clearly.) Marnanel (talk) 19:10, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Thinking clearly is all well and good, but people need to have productive skills too. It used to be that people that went to university wouldn't actually have to work for a living afterwards (except perhaps as clergy). Now, university is expected to prepare people for jobs, so we need universities to teach more useful subjects. The trivium and quadrivium, as they were taught in those days, aren't actually very useful for any occupations. --Tango (talk) 19:59, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Its a case of trying to have your cake and eat it too. There are still only 24 hours in a day, and only 365 days in a year. And yet, we expect people who graduate university/college to have a working knowledge of Shakespeare, be able to do differential and integral calculus, know the inner workings of the human body, speak a second language, AND receive enough training to have a skill to earn a living with. Unfortunately, the average person just doesn't have that kind of time and/or money to learn all of those things. So which is the average person going to value more, things that make them a "better person", or things that put food in their children's mouth. --Jayron32 20:28, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Quest09, by canon, do you mean curriculum?—Wavelength (talk) 06:24, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Geography /History question

Which fort (built as part of a series of forts during a war) is a part of a large metro and home to one of the largest objects in the world

Would appreciate any help —Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.83.211.172 (talk) 14:57, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Kremlin, Metro 2, Tsar Bell ? --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 15:21, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

If you manage to get one of us to give you the correct answer, rather than researching for yourself, and you win the $100 prize, will you donate it to Wikipedia? Karenjc 19:12, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh look, the answer to the previous question (port city which has the same name as some other cities) was Albany. TomorrowTime (talk) 13:53, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Albany is a port? Then I guess Stockton fits the question, too. Corvus cornix_talk 20:08, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Torontonian Enclaves

Turkish and Azeri

Which neighbourhood of Toronto has the most Turkish people in the city and which neighbourhood has the most Azeribaijani people in the city? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.17.95 (talk) 15:29, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Southeast Asians

Which neighbourhood of Toronto has the most Southeast Asian(Thai, Burmese, Filipino, Laotian, Vietnamese, Cambodian, Malaysian, Indonesian) people in the city? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.17.95 (talk) 15:31, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Eastern Europeans

Which neighbourhood of Toronto has the most Eastern European people in the city? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.17.95 (talk) 15:54, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Before we answer these (again...and again), can we be sure that you will actually look at the answers this time? You must have asked these questions dozens of times already. Adam Bishop (talk) 18:34, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Toronto Social Atlas: [15]. 174.88.169.182 (talk) 19:21, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

No I am different OP. My name is Jay. I think you referring to another person. By the way, the website you mentioned does not help. Their numbers and maps does not help.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.151.17 (talk) 04:07, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Why not? For instance, this map for the Azerbaijanis shows the highest concentration in 2006 around what looks like Bathurst(?) and Steeles. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:04, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

International Phone Call

How do I call an Inn in Sakskobing Denmark from Texas? The number I have for them is listed as 45-5470-7***. Thanks Wikipedians! schyler (talk) 17:49, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

011-45-5470-7***. Marnanel (talk) 17:56, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

What time in Texas would it be a good time in Denmark to contact the inn? schyler (talk) 18:28, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

The better question would be, what local time in Denmark should the call be made? Then subtract 7 hours from it, and you'll have the optimal Texas time to call. Denmark is UTC + 1, and Texas is UTC - 6. For example, in Texas it's currently about 12:30 pm, and in Denmark it's currently about 7:30 p.m. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:34, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

True, I was struggling with how to word my follow-up question. Thanks for the help Bugs. schyler (talk) 18:40, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

In short, right now might be a good time to call, depending on circumstances. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:49, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Las Vegas "comps"

How much gambling would a person have to do to get 5 FREE nights at Bally's? Would all that gambling have to have been done at Bally's or is there an exchange method where gambling in another casino can somehow be exchanged and turned into FREE nights at Bally's? Does Bally's own other casinos?--Doug Coldwell ^talk 18:20, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

In your situation, I think I would take the winnings and make a generous donation to your Township Supervisor's election campaign fund, and make sure he knows about it. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:33, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

In this case, it was my sister that got the 5 FREE nights at Bally's. Since she lived in Michigan and just recently went to Las Vegas to collect on this, I was wondering how she did it.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 18:55, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

What's with the FREE as opposed to free? )It looks like some of the ways people render the tetragrammaton in English text. Maybe we should have FREE to mean "free as in speech" and free to mean "free as in beer".) Marnanel (talk) 19:04, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd have thought it'd be the other way around. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:25, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I was impressed when she told me she received 5 free nights at Bally's. There are some casinos in Michigan, which she goes to, however I didn't think casinos would exchange free night stays. She is known to be quit a gambler - so bottomline, how much gambling did she have to do to get 5 free nights at Bally's in Las Vegas - especially when she is not known to have gone there? How would one have pulled off a trick like that?--Doug Coldwell ^talk 19:11, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

That's funny Marnanel. Very witty. schyler (talk) 20:03, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Here's a novel idea. You could ask her... --Jayron32 20:23, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Too obvious. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:25, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

The answer was: Because I'm such a nice person! I'm even nicer, however they never comped me, although I used to go there all the time. Go figure.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 20:46, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Let's crunch some numbers. I'm finding a low rate of $39 per night for Bally's, so let's say $200 minimum for five nights. This guide says you get comped 20-40% of your expected losses. For a typical amateur playing blackjack, the casino would have an edge of a couple of percent. Assume 3% and the casino gives back 30%, in which case your sister would be expected to place bets totaling $22,222 over the course of her stay. Mind you, the casinos are slumping a bit and I think a big new casino opened recently, so they're probably more "generous" than usual (ho ho ho), so your mileage may vary. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:18, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

O.K. thanks.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 23:29, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

There was another aspect to your question, which is that your sister got comped before actually arriving in Vegas, right? This could be explained by the fact that Bally's is owned by Caesars, which in turn owns a bunch of other casinos with a common comping system. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 00:21, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

That answers that.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 00:25, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Letter from America

I'm looking for a transcript of a program of the radio show Letter from America. It was from sometime in the 1980s, and it contains an anecdote about the presenter getting in a taxi in New York which was driven by a Russian. The Russian guy doesn't have great English but they start talking. Eventually they start talking about the radio, and this leads on to freedom of speech. The Russian guy says how back in the USSR radio was more restricted, but over here [i.e. in the USA], you can (actual quote) "say good things, say bad things, say anything". He says he likes Reagan. He says there is "what you call it?" "freedom". Where can I find a transcript of this online?--178.167.238.152 (talk) 22:15, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Here's a link, so people will know what program you meant: Letter from America. StuRat (talk) 22:44, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

December 25

Is there any confirmation about XAT 2011 pattern?

Actually XAT included general awareness section only once in 2005 and didn't do it again. But this time there are rumors that they are going to give 60 questions pertaining to general awareness each carrying 60 marks. How veracious are those rumors? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.23.47.135 (talk) 01:30, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Is this a question about the XLRI Admission Test? If so, I'm afraid Wikipedia has no access to any privileged information about it. You'd do better asking the institution itself directly about the format of the test. Karenjc 14:26, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

the Catholic Church and Santa Claus

Has the Catholic Church ever officially admitted that Santa Claus is a fabrication? 87.91.6.33 (talk) 11:16, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Saint Nicholas of Myra seems to have been a historic person. Our article on Santa Claus should provide you with the - partly pagan - development of the "legend". --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 11:37, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I think the Catholic church just sort of irritatedly ignores Santa. They do however, at least here in Slovenia, endorse St. Nicholas day (6th Dec.), which is less consummery and more in line with the old traditions. TomorrowTime (talk) 13:49, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

The elaboration of Santa Claus folklore occurred mainly at the hands of Dutch and U.S. Protestants, so not sure why you seem to want to blame Catholics... AnonMoos (talk) 14:05, 25 December 2010 (UTC)