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

March 15

Requirements for a philosopher.

Are there any special requirements needed to become a proffessional philosopher? Like personal aspects,a talent in academics, or a generally high IQ or EQ? Matthew Goldsmith 02:52, 15 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lightylight (talk • contribs)

The only real "requirement" is that you find someone willing to pay you. "Professional philosopher" isn't really a common occupation. Short of finding a crazy rich guy to be your patron, you're really talking about being a university professor in a philosophy department. That's probably the closest thing to being a "professional philosopher", but it's going to encompass a lot of professional duties that are outside the bounds of ruminating on the meaning of life -- education, bureaucracy, finding and funding graduate students, that sort of thing. For that particular sort of post, you probably need a Ph.D. in philosophy. There are plenty of other day jobs that will allow you the time and means to philosophize, but again, you won't really be a "professional philosopher", and they'll all come with their specific requirements. — Lomn 04:03, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

A professional philosopher? Get a PhD in philosophy and a professorship, and write influential works. You should probably learn what Analytic philosophy and Continental philosophy are also.AerobicFox (talk) 04:08, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Simply having a PhD in philosophy does not make one a philosopher. You must have to create influence and write best-selling books. Only then you will be recognized as a philosopher, even without formal education in philosophy. Noam Chomsky, a philosopher, is a professional linguist. Ayn Rand, a philosopher, was a Hollywood screenwriter. --Reference Desker (talk) 06:00, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think there's any formal requirement that the books you write be best-sellers before you can be considered a philosopher. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 11:17, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

And I don't think Chomsky is a philosopher. Some of his works are about linguistics, and some are essays about politics. 212.169.184.176 (talk) 12:40, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy identifies him as philosopher. You may don't like his views, I also don't like his views. But that is not a reason to discredit him as a philosopher. Being a philosopher does not mean what the person is saying is correct. Karl Marx was also a philosopher. --Reference Desker (talk) 14:06, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Marx had a PhD in philosophy. Chomsky is a linguist who has written extensively about philosophical issues. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:10, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Chomsky is considered a major player in the field of philosophy of language. There are lots of ways to do philosophy without having a degree in philosophy. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:47, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Chomsky studied philosophy and linguistics in his youth. As Mr.98 points out, there is such a thing as philosophy of language. In any case some of Chomsky's work has broader implications for philisophy.--82.152.205.201 (talk) 20:21, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think there's any formal definition of "bestseller", so that's OK. 81.131.21.241 (talk) 19:24, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

You could become a medical ethicist or bioethicist: someone who advises on ethics in a medical or research context; this job involves making philosophically-guided decisions about the nature and meaning of life and death. This requires either training as a doctor and studying additional ethics courses, or coming from a background in philosophy or law and taking a further qualification in medical ethics.[1][2][3] --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:46, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I studied philosophy, so hopefully I can help. :) in terms of skills, the main thing you probably need is an analytical mind - philosophy (especially, but not exclusively, in the empirical tradition) is about logical analysis. You take a problem, or a proposed solution, and examine it to death. You also need to be comfortable with doing a lot of reading in depth, and to be good at expressing your thoughts (although remembering some of the stuff I read, the extent to which this is true is debatable). It helps if you can recognise how your own biases affect your thinking, and thus you can potentially allow for this in what you do. Otherwise, I think it would be difficult to pin down some precise skills - it is primarily about your ability to think, and,most importantly, to think about abstract topics. (My wife, for example, has never been able to cope with thought experiments, whereas I've never had a problem accepting the premises for the sake of the logic).

A degree is going to be pretty much essential, at least if you want to go into academia, and you have choices there - working in a philosophy department (tricky, as there are far fewer places than there are people with philosophy doctorates, so you have to be very good), working in a related field where you combine philosophy, analytical skills, and subject specific knowledge (applied philosophy includes this, or, for example, cognitive science, AI, various humanities - there are a lot of possibilities, although you won't necessarily be a professional "philosopher" as such), or move into an areas such as bioethics (per Colapeninsula) - I considered that at one point, and it is an interesting path. Keep in mind that philosophy covers everything from metaphysics to philosophy of mind to philosophy of religion, with a great number of fields in between (eg epistemology, formal logic, ontology, aesthetics, ethics), so while some are only really useful in a philosophy department (I loved metaphysics, but you don't get to apply the bundle theory in more practical fields), others are useful elsewhere (ontology/epistemology in knowledge management, formal logic in computing, philosophy of mind in AI, philosophy of religion in theology). - Bilby (talk) 14:44, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

But if you do not get the grades to do a PhD and then are lucky enough to get a university teaching job, then at least you will be able to deal with the misery of your unfulfilling job at McDonalds, or if you are lucky at a call centre, philosophically. 92.15.23.213 (talk) 20:17, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the ability to read a lot of long boring navel-gazing philosophy books without falling asleep. 92.15.5.217 (talk) 14:48, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I would think a willingness to drink hemlock would be on the list. That tends to weed out the wannabes. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:58, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

You are all wrong... to become a "professional philosopher" all you need to do is attempt to make your living from philosophy... Of course becoming a successful professional philosopher is much harder. Blueboar (talk) 15:23, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Maybe that's why so many philosophers don't give up their "day jobs" at McDonald's. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:33, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Wow,deeply profound stuff there,Bugs.Hotclaws (talk) 07:22, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Socrates was a "wannabe," Bugs...? WikiDao ☯ 19:21, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

If you are a pedant, then this is the job for you!! You'll have fun writing ten volumes on some minute point that nobody else would ever bother about. You'll be thrilled to argue with other pedants about all the excrusiating detail of some entirely imaginary concept, free from consideration of such trivialities as "evidence" or "usefulness". 92.15.23.213 (talk) 19:56, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

And by the way, the debate on this page is a very good example of analytic philosophy :) ..... don't take this to seriously though, folks, I seem to get flamed when I'm not being completely on topic. It's been emotional (talk) 02:03, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I've signed up for a program to become a philosopher king. But right now I'm still stuck at dining philosopher since someone keeps taking my fork... 75.57.242.120 (talk) 02:25, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

As a linguist, Chomsky may recognize that with the reversal of the word "philosopher," you have nearly created an antimetabole. It appears that some are born philosophers, some achieve the status of philosophers through a PhD, and some have philosophy thrust upon them. 24.38.31.81 (talk) 13:25, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Just for a moment of seriousness in all the fun and games, the original distinction was between technical proficiency and seminal ideation: Philosophers were those who created new ideas that changed the way other people thought about things. Unfortunately, philosophy has always been disliked (philosophy is by its nature anti-conventional and infuriates people with an investment in the status quo), and the modern world has become very technically oriented, so most PhDs (literally 'doctors of the philosophy') are truly unphilosophical people who excel at sophisticated techniques. If you want to be a 'professional' philosopher, you should either get yourself a PhD in philosophy and find a nice university to call home, or acquire a taste for strong coffee (and strong beer, if you lean towards phenomenology), and find a nice cafe to call home. Either way, sit yourself down in front of a computer and start writing, and don't stop until you (a) change the way people think, or (b) die.

No bets on which comes first. Life is never easy for the philosophically-minded. --Ludwigs2 18:23, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

A) There is a sense in which every person is a philosopher. In this sense, we recognize that each person has valid, and unique ideas and wonderful intellectual contributions to the world. This sense should be encouraged, because it recognizes the potential of each person, which is very humanistic. B) There is a sense in which only PhDs in philosophy, who have published in writing, ideas which have been validated by other academic philosophers in a peer review are philosophers. This sense should be encouraged, as it preserves the integrity of the field of study and furthers the use of credible methodology such as the requirement of the use of valid reasoning. There is a full range of senses which lie in between these two. Greg Bard (talk) 21:10, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Biography: Famous last words

I am still looking for any biographical work available on last words of famous personalities, does anyone know of any such? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Winston Williams (talk • contribs) 04:31, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Terry Kath: "Don't worry, it's not loaded". --Jayron32 04:43, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Tarzan: "Who greased the grapevine???" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:27, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

This same question was asked within the last week or two on one of the ref desks. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:24, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Bugs, it was the OP that asked that time as well. Apparently they still haven't seen the answer that they're looking for. Dismas|^(talk) 06:37, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Aha, we're into rerun season now. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:38, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

A search of "famous last words" on Amazon gives a number of hits, some of which seems relevant to the OPs question. --Saddhiyama (talk) 08:51, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

And which were pointed out last time as I recall. 130.88.162.13 (talk) 09:44, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Here's the archived discussion: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2011 March 4 ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:02, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Searching on Google for "famous last words" produces a lot of lists of them. Using the same phrase on Google Books produces many books with that title, many available to "preview". 92.15.5.217 (talk) 12:50, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

If memory serves, each of The Book of Lists has a list of famous last words. (At least one of them definitely does. I think more than one does.) The list is only 10 or 20 long in each case. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:03, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

There are quite a few to be found on this site: http://www.corsinet.com/braincandy/dying.html. Also, you may want to look up "last words" in wikipedia's sister page wikiquote. There is a list in progress there too. --DI (talk) 10:21, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Adherents of Sikhism

Not all Punjabi people are Sikhs, but are all Sikhs ethnically Punjabis? I have checked the articles Sikh and Sikhism and the best thing I could see is the following unsourced statement in the last paragraph of the Sikhism page:

Since 1968, thousands of non-Punjabis have taken up the Sikh belief and lifestyle primarily in the United States, Canada, Latin America, the Far East and Australia. These first and second generation Sikhs are of various ethnic backgrounds and include Caucasians, Blacks, and Chinese.

However, I am looking for something in the Indian/south asian context. ќמшמφטтгמ^torque 13:01, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Sikhism is indeed a Punjabi religion, and the fact of its concentrated geographical location has been used by them in the UK to argue that discrimination against them constitutes racial rather than religious discrimination. Been trying to find a reference for this, but I've gotta go work and have run out of time. Maybe more later! --TammyMoet (talk) 15:10, 15 March 2011 (UTC) I wonder if this site will help? http://www.sikhiwiki.org/index.php/Main_Page --TammyMoet (talk) 19:23, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

A number of Americans of European descent have converted to Sikhism, so the answer to the question is, no. Corvus cornix_talk 19:50, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

The questioner wanted to know whether in South Asia Sikhs are ethnically Punjabi. My impression is that TammyMoet is right. I think that Sikhs are quite likely to run businesses that operate in different parts of Asia (and indeed Europe, north American). If they then move to a different region they would after a couple of generations not be Punjabi. But being Sikh they might still be considered ethnically Punjabi. Complicated. Need to hear from some Sikh editors. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:00, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

See this article. A famous legal case that meant, like Jews, Sikhs were not only seen as a religious group but an ethnic group. Thanks--SH 12:38, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Apparently there are a few Pashtun Sikhs (e.g. see [4]), although opinion divides on whether their ancestors converted from Islam, or whether their ancestors were ethincally Punjabi, but in generations of living in Pashtun-majority areas, their communities have come to identify as Pashtun. Warofdreams talk 16:25, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for all the answers. I think I can summarize by saying that an overwhelming majority of of Sikhs in South Asia are Punjabis (perhaps 90% or more) while there is a small non-punjabi Sikhs being Pashtuns, etc. I also found Sikh Rajputs who are ethnically Rajputs. ќמшמφטтгמ^torque 03:17, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Book about white European conscripted in to the Imperial Japanese Army

I am trying to find the title of a book. But my memory is a bit fuzzy on it, and im not even sure wikipedia has a article on it. Its about (I think) a white British (could be any other caucasian european) child born in japan who gets conscripted into the Imperial Japanese Army (could have been navy) because he was born in Japan. He go's through training under racism and abuse but is discharged before having to fight (I think).

I thought it would be easy to find but with such a fuzzy discription... If this sounds familiar to anyone, could you point me in the right direction?--SelfQ (talk) 20:57, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Not exactly a fit for your description, but fits the 'feel': Empire of the Sun? Made into a fine, if upsetting, film. 86.164.66.59 (talk) 22:13, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I have seen it. Good film, but its not the one I am looking for. I real sure on the "white guy conscripted and trained", just all the details around it are to fuzzy for a search. The terms are to broad for a google search sadly.--SelfQ (talk) 23:42, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

What time period is it? (It's not something like Shogun, I assume.) Adam Bishop (talk) 07:34, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

You are correct, it was during world war 2. So 1930/1945ish --SelfQ (talk) 09:57, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

WWII started in September 1939, almost in the '40s. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 19:04, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

The IJA was fighting in China well before 1939. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:04, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Sure, but SelfQ said it was "during world war 2". The Second Sino-Japanese War is not normally considered a part of that conflict, is it? -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 21:10, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

It could have been during the war in china. like I said 1930/1945. I am not sure when the large scale conscriptions started. Also, if this might help, I remember the cover of the book was a kind of orange/beige colour and had his photo on it (in uniform I think).--SelfQ (talk) 23:15, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

March 16

How to get reinbursed from City of Los Angeles for tired

How can I get reimbursed from the city of Los Angeles for damage to my tires due to potholes and bumps and cracks in the road? This has happened to me several times, the most recent time being on Wilshire blvd in the city of Westwood where all the high rises are. I was driving east and there was a crack in the ground which I couldn't avoid. I went over it, and my car made a noise so loud, I thought my windshield was going to crack. I noticed two bulges on my tires, one on the front passenger tire, and one on the rear passenger tire. The bulge is on the sidewalls and there is part sticking out, I guess its from the steel belt in the tire becoming damage. How can I get reimbursed for this? I can't believe they won't fix the road in such an affluent area, the road is damaged in several parts and has been like this for years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.169.33.234 (talk) 06:37, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest contacting the LA Department of Transportation. Their contact details are here. --Viennese Waltz 08:45, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I can't give you legal advice, but I've never heard of anyone winning money from their city for the damage to their tires caused by poorly maintained roads. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:10, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I have (well not personally). It's apparently pretty common, no law suit, just file some paperwork. Ariel. (talk) 03:49, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

How did you or your friend go about doing it? Do you have a link to the paperwork by any chance? Thanks! And thank you to everyone else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.169.33.234 (talk) 03:10, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Average full-time salary v. per capita GDP

This http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10150118 shows that the UK has a higher average full-time salary than Luxembourg, yet under the "Economy" tab it shows that the per capita GDP for Luxembourg is higher than that in the UK.

How can this discrepancy be explained please? And which is the better figure for summarising the prosperity of the average person? Thanks 92.29.117.90 (talk) 11:52, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

UK has more part-time workers and more inactive people (not in work, not looking for work), probably also higher unemployment (not in work, looking for work). The GDP rate is a marginally better measure of prosperity because it takes account of the inactivity rate. But money isn't everything in live. There are also "quality of life" indicators that could well be better in Luxembourg (access to green spaces, crime rate...). Itsmejudith (talk) 12:10, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, comparing the numbers in our List of countries by labour force and List of countries by population, the opposite is true. In the UK, the labor force makes up a larger share of the population (50.5%) than Luxembourg (42.8%), so considering that factor alone, incomes in the UK relative to GDP should be lower than those in Luxembourg, since the UK's per capita GDP is divided among more salaries than in Luxembourg. While it is true that the UK has a higher unemployment rate, this is not enough to counterbalance its relatively larger labor force. Using the numbers from our List of countries by unemployment rate, I find that 46.6% of the UK's population is employed, versus 40.7% of Luxembourg's population. Using these numbers alone, we would expect average salaries in Luxembourg relative to GDP to be higher than in the UK.

A more likely explanation is that in Luxembourg, personal income is a smaller proportion of GDP than in the UK. A country's gross domestic product consists of personal income plus what can generally be called "business income," including profits. In Luxembourg, businesses may tend to have a larger proportion of foreign owners than in the UK, such that business income (including profits) generated in Luxembourg is distributed to shareholders in other (mainly European) countries. Also, Luxembourg is one of Europe's leading financial centers, particularly for private banking and reinsurance companies. This means that Luxembourg's GDP includes interest and other financial earnings distributed in Luxembourg to wealthy individuals and insurance companies elsewhere (particularly in Germany and France), so that this component of GDP does not show up in incomes within Luxembourg. The City of London is an even more important financial center, but given the vastly greater size of the UK's economy and population, it is less important to the GDP of the UK than Luxembourg's financial sector is to that country's GDP. Of course, some of Luxembourg's financial income is diverted by taxes and enhances the standard of living of Luxembourgers without adding to their personal incomes. Marco polo (talk) 15:48, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Elizabeth II

Hi. Assuming Elizabeth II lives long enough, when, after her diamond jubilee will be her next and what will it be called. Will it be her 65th and be her platinum? --Thanks, Hadseys 12:28, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Read Platinum Jubilee. It seems that it is celebrated at 70. Flamarande (talk) 13:09, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

.. though the statement as it hypothetically applies to the British Monarchy is challenged as uncited on the talk page. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 16:22, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

If they did decide to celebrate her 65th, it would be her "Blue Sapphire Jubilee" (at least that is the proper anniversary name according to our Wedding anniversary#Traditional and modern anniversary gifts article) Blueboar (talk) 22:56, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Since the longest reign so far is that of Queen Victoria, who lasted 63 years and therefore only made it to her Diamond Jubilee (see List of longest-reigning British monarchs) it's a bit hypothetical, but it's certain there will be celebrations of all major anniversaries. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:13, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

They'll wait until it's 70-yrs, I assume. GoodDay (talk) 14:38, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Brad Pitt?

Hi, I was wondering why Brad Pitt is considered to be one of the world's most attractive men according to the wikipedia article.

I know the most common answer would be facial symmetry and eyes but it appears that his left eye is noticeably wider than his right eye: http://nadinejolie.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/Brad-Pitt-Meet-Joe-Black.jpg

Another thing I've noticed is that his jaw kinda protrudes and his forehead is big although square.

When people call him the world's most attractive man, is the title coined loosely or is it his seriously good looks which I've never understood.

http://www.bigbradpitt.com/UserFiles/2009/3/9/BRAD%20PITT%20%20STARS%20LOSE%20OUT%20AS%20DUBAI%20PROPERTY%20MARKET%20CRASHES.jpg

http://static.igossip.com/photos/MeetTheFamous_Brad_Pitt_88381_1223694170_brad_pitt_bnews1392_1392_995_14_jpg_And_x_395_And_And_y_553_And_crop_y_And_nw_395_And_nh_553 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.85.5.121 (talk) 17:57, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

That's in the article because that's what sources say about him; it has nothing to do with what we and other editors think about the matter. If you disagree, I suggest you take it up with Entertainment Tonight. --Ludwigs2 18:09, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

The article you want is Physical attractiveness, which is a pretty good article ... although it does not directly address Mr. Pitt. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:25, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Angelina Jolie + Jennifer Aniston = ultra attractive man. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:31, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Gwyneth Paltrow too! Adam Bishop (talk) 07:33, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

You also have to remember that there are attraction factors beyond 'looks'. He is...highly successful (a trait many, both men and women find attractive)....wealthy...plays (or has played) a variety of 'personalities' etc. All these factors will have an impact on his perceived attractiveness. In reality a 'nobody' cannot be the most attractive man in the world as they need a certain level of 'fame' in the first place, so the 'worlds most attractive' was always going to be a famous person. Personally I believe that the most attractive people in the world are the ones you pass in the street i.e. not in perfect light, airbrushed and professionally styled/made-up. ny156uk (talk) 21:24, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't know. I just can't visualize Steve Jobs or Warren Buffett as a hunky babe magnet. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:56, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

No, but neither was Henry "Power is the ultimate aphrodisiac" Kissinger. Matt Deres (talk) 15:08, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Schwarzen Orden

I was watching La Question humaine recently and one of the characters was said to come from a family "nostalgic for the Schwarzen Orden". It was perhaps clumsy subtitling or my Google-fu is weak, but I haven't been able to trace the reference. I am about 90% certain that the original French phrase used was "L'Ordre Noir", which seems similarly unknown to Wikipedia (en and fr) and to the higher reaches of Google Search. Anyone know what this name refers to? Cheers, Skomorokh 18:22, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Just a WAG, but my searches turn up, perhaps, the Order of the Black Eagle, in German the Hoher Orden vom Schwarzen Adler. Shwarzen Orden would mean almost exactly "Black Order", so I'm uncertain about which Black Order it is refering too. There's Black Order (James Rollins) a novel which appears to have some sort of Nazi connections, and there's also The Black Order Brigade, another novel which has connections to Spanish facism. --Jayron32 18:26, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I think this might be related to Black Sun (occult symbol) - a semi-mystical Nazi cult purportedly run by Himmler during the third Reich. I can't tell from a quick perusal whether this was a real thing or one of the paranoid fantasies that attaches itself to Nazi lore. I don't suppose that would matter from the perspective of a movie, though. --Ludwigs2 18:37, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to you both for the responses. It's definitely to do with 20th-century German right-wing politics, but Order of the Black Eagle does not mention post-Wilhelm political connotations, and Black Sun (occult symbol) doesn't seem exactly right as the character is later described as un enfant de l'ordre, suggesting to me at least that it is an institution... Skomorokh 18:56, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

A search at Google Books for 'L'Ordre Noir' and 'SS' suggests that they are identical. See for example the reference on the first page (second book) to 'L'appellation consacrée d'« Ordre Noir» pour désigner la SS'. It may be a specifically French nickname for them which doesn't get translated into other languages much. L'ordre noir: histoire de la SS, for example, is a French translation of a book by Heinz Höhne, called in the original German Dem Totenkopf: die Geschichte der SS (The Death's Head: The History of the SS). --Antiquary (talk) 19:40, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

[edit conflict] According to this page, "der schwarze Orden" was a kind of nickname for the Nazi Schutzstaffel (SS). More generally, in German political terminology, political parties are identified with colors, and parties with a "Christian" orientation (such as the Christian Democrats of today) are traditionally identified as "black". Also, the flag of Prussia was black and white, featuring a black eagle, so black has a strong connotation for Germans of "conservative". A reference to "the black order" could be a reference to the good old days, when kaisers and führers imposed order from above. (Because German has grammatical case, der schwarze Orden would become den schwarzen Orden if it were the direct object of a verb, or dem schwarzen Orden if it were the indirect object or the object of some preposition. Another possibility, inconsistent with a connection to the SS, would be the plural die schwarzen Orden—"the black orders".) Marco polo (talk) 19:54, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Most ethnically mixed places in the world

Any list of world's most ehnically mixed places in the world ?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.31.252.236 (talk) 22:40, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

The closest I have found with a quick search was Ethnic groups in Europe#By country. However my guess for the most ethnically mixed place in the world would be one of the major US cities (New York probably). Blueboar (talk) 22:49, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

It depends in part of the scale of "place" - the most mixed district of a city may not be the same as the most mixed city overall. On the city scale, the odds are high it will be one of the major First World cities - this article makes a case for London, noting that NYC or Toronto are plausible other candidates. By the time you get to ranking them against each other, however, the odds are that fine distinctions in how you define diversity will sway the answer! Shimgray | talk | 22:59, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

It depends on what you mean by "ethnically mixed." More than 800 languages are spoken in Papua New Guinea. If we consider each linguistic group to be an ethnic group too, that's a lot of diversity. If you are referring to North American perceptions of racial categories, it's hard to get more diverse than Markham, Ontario, which in 2006 was 34% white, 34% Chinese, 17% South Asian, 3% black, 3% Filipino and also lots of Middle Easterners, Koreans and Latin Americans. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:07, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but the level of mixing between groups is very relevent to the OP's question. In Papua New Guinea, for example, it is not very ethnicly diverse since the language groups/ethnicities do not intermingle in any real sense; they are isolated to their own geography. Likewise, a city like Markham may not be terribly diverse if the racial groups don't actually intermingle within the city; that is the Whites all live in one quarter, the east asians in another, the south asians in another. When I think of a diverse place, I think "If I walk through the place, how many different people groups will I see intermingled". An arbitrary geographic area like a city could have many groups represented, but if you walk through one neighborhood and see nothing but white people, and walk through another and see nothing but south asian people, then I wouldn't define that city as terribly diverse. As noted, major World Cities like New York or London are likely to feature not only a large number of ethnic groups, but also a high degree of intermingling between the ethnic groups. --Jayron32 02:04, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

From what I have read, Houston, Texas is the most ethnically diverse city in the US. From our article:"According to the 2010 Census, Whites made up 50.5% of Houston's population, of which 25.6% were non-Hispanic whites. Blacks or African Americans made up 23.7% of Houston's population. American Indians made up 0.7% of Houston's population. Asians made up 6.0% of Houston's population while Pacific Islanders made up 0.1%. Individuals from some other race made up 15.2% of the city's population, of which 0.2% were non-Hispanic. Individuals from two or more races made up 3.3% of the city's population. People of Hispanic or Latino origin made up 43.8% of Houston's population." Pastordavid (talk) 02:13, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I would agree with Houston as a good suggestion, but I do wish Americans would stop regarding a sloppy description of skin colour as an ethnicity. Clearly what's important is self identified backgrounds of all those monochrome people. Where in Africa or Europe or elsewhere do they say their backgrounds were. HiLo48 (talk) 06:49, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Why self identified? Surely their actual backgrounds are more interesting? APL (talk) 13:23, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Because there is no such thing as an "actual" way to concretely identify the concept of "race" or "ethnicity" which is more accurate and useful than self-identification. Race and ethnicity are socio-cultural constructs, purely so, and so the best way to know how someone interacts with their society and culture is to ask them. If someone identifies as "African-American", it is because that they find themselves meeting the definition of the term in the early 21st century United States. After all Dave Matthews is technical an American from Africa, but I wouldn't say that he likely self-identifies as an "African-American" in the same way that, say, Snoop Dogg does. While, under a certain definition of the terms "African" and "American", Dave Matthews is most definately more African, that particular definition isn't useful in understanding the difference between how Dave Matthews fits into American society and culture, as compared to how Snoop Dogg does. So the concept of honest self-identification; that is if people honestly assess how they fit into societies definition of race, ethnicity, and culture, we can use that assessment better than any other "technical" definition to understand what race is all about. Of course, someone could be a prick and fill out "Wookie" under the "race" blank in the census form, but I wouldn't count that as meaning anything... --Jayron32 18:28, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Los Angeles is very much comparable with Houston, and arguably more diverse because of its larger Asian population. Some suburbs of Los Angeles such as San Gabriel, California are even more diverse, and probably compare with Markham, Ontario. Marco polo (talk) 02:28, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

If language is a mark of ethnicity, then London is among the most diverse, with over 300. [5][6]. Similar claims are ,and for Toronto [7] and New York. Gwinva (talk) 02:41, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean by place? Continent, country, city? Here are some quick facts:

• Africa is the ethnically most diverse continent in the world. [8]
• With 500 to 600 ethnic groups, Sudan is the ethnically most diverse country in the world. [9]
• Sacramento, California is the ethnically most diverse city in the US. [10]
• Toronto is the ethnically most diverse city in Canada. [11]
• São Paulo is the ethnically most diverse city in Brazil. [12]
• Mosul is the ethnically most diverse city in Iraq. [13][14]
• Kabul is the ethnically most diverse city in Afghanistan. [15]
• Yunnan is the ethnically most diverse province of China. [16] --Reference Desker (talk) 04:44, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

As already noted by Mwalcoff, Papua New Guinea, which has over 700 native languages, is linguistically world's most diverse country. --Reference Desker (talk) 06:07, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

A vote here for Amsterdam. Living in London myself with an Irish family on one side, a Jamaican on the other and within a few doors of Somalis, Indians, Poles, French, Turks and several that I'm not sure about, I think we have to be in the running. Alansplodge (talk) 17:31, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I can vouch that Vancouver, Surrey, Richmond, and Burnaby (British Columbia) have vast swaths of various immigrant groups. Toronto too I believe, and I suspect Calgary and Montreal too. You may notice a trend here. Vranak (talk) 00:14, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

March 17

The Definitive Moby Dick film/miniseries?

I'm currently 1/3rd of the way through Moby Dick and have begun looking forward to watching an excellent film or mini-series about it, if there is one. I know Patrick Stewart was Ahab in a miniseries, and he's pretty awesome, so that seems like a decent place to start... but I thought I'd ask here first. Is there one movie or mini-series (there have been many) that is exalted above all others? If they're all mediocre, I'd rather steer clear entirely and not sully my memory of the tale! The Masked Booby (talk) 00:48, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Visual representations strip Moby-Dick to its plot elements. The germ of Melville's mythic tale was the actual experience of the whaleship Essex, sunk by a sperm whale in 1820. It's recounted by Nathaniel Philbrick, In the Heart of the Sea: The Tragedy of the Whaleship Essex, 2001. --Wetman (talk) 03:22, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

John Huston's Moby Dick (1956 film) is generally well-regarded, and it involved many striking talents (in addition to Huston, who many feel had a good understanding of Ahab's personality, Ray Bradbury wrote, Orson Welles cameoed, and Gregory Peck is ok in the lead). It is well worth watching, but it's not very relevant to exploring the themes of the novel. As Wetman suggests, the essence of the book doesn't really lie in the dramatic plot, but in Melville's encyclopedic approach and the detailed discussion of oil refining and whale pizzles. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:45, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. That book must hold the world record for the over-use of exclamation marks! Also useful if you want a very long-winded explanation of why a whale is actually a fish and NOT a mammmal. Alansplodge (talk) 17:47, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Got through that part 2 days ago, made me laugh. The Masked Booby (talk) 22:31, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I was quite enamoured of Star Trek: The Next Generation back in the nineties, and Patrick Stewart in particular. However, I was left distinctly unimpressed by the Moby-Dick production with him in it. The source material is of course quite good mind you. Vranak (talk) 00:12, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

World's Most Attractive Man?

Sorry Brad, but this guy's the Full Monty

After viewing the question asked on Brad Pitt, I wondered who else is cited as one of the world's most attractive men on wikipedia. I know that Aishwarya Rai and Angelina Jolie are cited on the women's side but I don't see many titles similar to that on the men's side. I also wanted to know if Brad Pitt had/possesed the perfect face.

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.85.5.121 (talk) 01:26, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Remember, this is the Reference Desk. Many blogs and forums are accessible on the Internet.--Wetman (talk) 03:15, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Though I've no reliabe source for this, I'm the 'most attractive man on Wikipedia'. GoodDay (talk) 14:40, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

In the entire world, I'd have to say BurtAlert. BurtAlert (talk) 14:45, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I haven't seen an article named anything like List of attractive men on Wikipedia, because such a list would not be encyclopedic. People Magazine is one magazine that does make a business out of assembling such lists, though, and here is their 2010 list of the Most Beautiful People. (I see the Old Spice guy made the list this year, and Mr. Pitt did not.) Comet Tuttle (talk) 16:57, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

IMO, the best looking man alive today is Antonio Banderas; however the most georgeous man of all time has to have been Montgomery Clift. George Chakiris was also pretty tasty, ditto John F. Kennedy, Jr. Brad Pitt isn't even in the running.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:20, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Muhammad's Promise to St. Catherine, is this true?

I have read this and tried to research it in google but all that pops up is blog sites and no hard evidence that this document is true or real. If anyone can find some real hard evidence that this is true please let me know.

Info: In 628 AD, a delegation from St. Catherine's Monastery came to Prophet Muhammed and requested his protection. He responded by granting them a charter of rights, which I reproduce below in its entirety. St. Catherine's Monastery is located at the foot of Mt. Sinai and is the world's oldest monastery. It possess a huge collection of Christian manuscripts, second only to the Vatican, and is a world heritage site. It also boasts the oldest collection of Christian icons. It is a treasure house of Christian history that has remained safe for 1,400 years under Muslim protection.

The Promise to St. Catherine:

"This is a message from Muhammad ibn Abdullah, as a covenant to those who adopt Christianity, near and far, we are with them. Verily I, the servants, the helpers, and my followers defend them, because Christians are my citizens; and by Allah! I hold out against anything that displeases them. No compulsion is to be on them. Neither are their judges to be removed from their jobs nor their monks from their monasteries. No one is to destroy a house of their religion, to damage it, or to carry anything from it to the Muslims' houses. Should anyone take any of these, he would spoil God's covenant and disobey His Prophet. Verily, they are my allies and have my secure charter against all that they hate. No one is to force them to travel or to oblige them to fight. The Muslims are to fight for them. If a female Christian is married to a Muslim, it is not to take place without her approval. She is not to be prevented from visiting her church to pray. Their churches are to be respected. They are neither to be prevented from repairing them nor the sacredness of their covenants. No one of the nation (Muslims) is to disobey the covenant till the Last Day (end of the world)."

The first and the final sentence of the charter are critical. They make the promise eternal and universal. Muhammed asserts that Muslims are with Christians near and far, straight away rejecting any future attempts to limit the promise to St. Catherine alone. By ordering Muslims to obey it until the Day of Judgment the charter again undermines any future attempts to revoke the privileges. These rights are inalienable. Muhammed declared Christians, all of them, as his allies and he equated ill treatment of Christians with violating God's covenant — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tabbiecat85 (talk • contribs) 07:05, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's real in the sense that there is such a letter displayed in the monastery itself, but it is probably not authentic. It may have been created around 1009 when the Fatimid caliph started destroying Christian churches (including the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem). I'll find some references for this... Adam Bishop (talk) 07:26, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Wow, we really do have an article about everything, Achtiname of Muhammad. There isn't much detail about the authenticity, but there are a bunch of links and sources you could look at. Adam Bishop (talk) 13:26, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

A split Libya

If today's UN vote to authorise the use of military force against Ghaddafi is approved, this will halt the dictator's advance in Cyrenaica. Nevertheless, it appears foreign intervention would be limited to defending the rebels, without actually attacking Ghaddafi-held territory with ground troops. If this came to pass, and neither side of the conflict would be able to defeat the other completely, what are the odds that Libya could end up split in two, like North and South Korea after the Korean War?--Leptictidium (mt) 07:52, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Let me check in my most reliable cristal ball, I'll get back to you. Seriously, your guess is as good as ours. 20% ??? But what do I know? --85.119.27.27 (talk) 12:10, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Until about 100 years ago, Libya was two countries (three, actually); Tripoli and Cyreneaica were, Since roman times, seperate lands. (The lightly populated Fezzan didn't become organized until much later). The unification of Libya didn't occur until the formation of Italian Libya in the years following the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. In that way, it is very much like Iraq in the sense that it was formed rather arbitrarily as a unification of otherwise distinct territories imposed by an outside power. 2000 years of old traditions die hard, so I would say that it is quite likely there is significant social pressure to split. The reason Gaddafi's power base is in the west (Tripolitania) is because his clan, the Qaddadfa, are from that province. The reason the rebels have an easier time in Bengazi is that is part of Cyrenaica, which was historically distinct from Tripolitania. It's not random that the current uprising has split along those lines. Now, what this means for the "odds" of a split actually happening; I don't know. But there is an answerable historical question we CAN answer regarding why a split may happen, if it did. --Jayron32 12:24, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

That's a good clear presentation.--Wetman (talk) 20:41, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

To my surprise, military force was indeed authorized today. Comet Tuttle (talk) 22:56, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

And Gaddafi announced a ceasefire - again, to my surprise. here--TammyMoet (talk) 12:56, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

History of Stari Bohorodchany & Bohorodchany

I suppose that there was once only one Bohorodchany, which was renamed Stari Bohorodchany when the new Bohorodchany was founded nearby. My question: is this true, and when did the name-shift take place? (The relevant sources are in Polish, so I can't check them myself.) Ratzd'mishukribo (talk) 09:42, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Are these Polish sources online? If you could provide links, I can take a look and see, if they answer your question. — Kpalion^(talk) 12:45, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! [17] p. 287

I'm sorry, but this source doesn't say whether the village of Stari Bohorodchany is actually older than the town of Bohorodchany. I also tried looking at some Ukrainian and Russian online sources, but to no avail. Ukrainian Wikipedia (no reference) only says that the first written mention of Bohorodchany dates back to 1441. — Kpalion^(talk) 14:05, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the try, though. Anyone have any other sources? Ratzd'mishukribo (talk) 22:49, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Tsunami victims

How do they so quickly identify the dead bodies in such numbers? Kittybrewster ☎ 10:27, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

An observation here: I know a UK policeman who worked in Thailand after the tsunami there, and he was there for months trying to get positive ID on the dead bodies they had in their cool storage. When he came home there were still bodies unidentified and unclaimed. I read on the BBC news site yesterday that some authorities in Japan were publishing names and addresses based on papers found on bodies, rather than any other form of positive ID such as by a relative or DNA analysis. --TammyMoet (talk) 13:44, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Many bodies go unclaimed and unidentified, though if someone you know lived in the earthquake zone, and you never hear from them again, then they probably died, even if no one ever positively identified their body. I saw a documentary on the 1976 Tangshan earthquake, a disaster of such horrifying proportions even the most recent quake pales in comparison. Even ignoring the political problems of getting an actual death toll, so many people died in that quake that even getting an accurate count may have been impossible. It was complicated by the fact that entire social networks were killed off; there were thousands of people for whom literally everyone they know would have died, plus given the scale of death in that quake (reliably something around a quarter of a million people, though maybe more), positive identitication of each individual body wasn't a major concern. So I am not sure that every body or even most may end up being positively identified. Impromptu and ad hoc morgues may be set up for some number of weeks after the event to make attempts at identifying bodies, but after some time, they probably just give up. --Jayron32 15:48, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

The Yen isn't making much sense. Why does it get stronger after the disaster?

I thought historically, a nation's currency gets weaker after a significant disaster happens. Isn't this true, or just a myth?

Either way, how did the recent triple-whammy (and the worst earthquake ever in Japan's recorded history) cause the Yen to strengthen instead of the expected opposite? What does it do differently that the other nations' currencies wouldn't when disaster strikes them? --70.179.169.115 (talk) 18:58, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps the dollar is just getting weaker faster? Googlemeister (talk) 19:05, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

A day or so after the tsunami it was mentioned there's wide expectation many Japanese companies particularly insurance companies are going to have to buy Yen to use it to rebuild and make payments. I suspect this has already happened to a great extent (and in fact was at the time). A simple search for 'yen stronger' find plenty of discussions [18] [19] [20] [21] Nil Einne (talk) 20:02, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

The main reason is that Japanese investors (including insurance companies) are liquidating foreign investments and bringing money home to address losses. Selling foreign investments means buying yen, which drives up its price. Marco polo (talk) 20:17, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the point made by Nil Einne and Marco polo. I wonder if there's an opposite effect too. The Japanese are much less likely to invest in foreign markets. If liquidating assets means buying Yen, then not buying assets means not selling Yen. The increase in the value of Yen is caused by supply-and-demand. Liquidating assets increases the demand, not investing decreases the supply. These effect only happen because Yen is a desirable currency, of course. — Fly by Night (talk) 20:25, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

How can I short the Yen and take advantage of this situation? Googlemeister (talk) 21:03, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

See Foreign exchange market, but I advise against this, because it is unlikely that you have special information about "this situation" that all the other currency traders in the world lack. Comet Tuttle (talk) 21:22, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

You don't always need special information. You make the mistake of assuming the market always reacts in a rational manner, but people are not always rational. Sometimes, the market acts as well informed as a herd of stampeding cows. Googlemeister (talk) 12:54, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I guess I'd better get on this, because apparently the wiki reference desk is miles ahead of wordwide currency markets... you can push whatever "rational theory" of the market concept you want, but if you truly believed that your wiki answer reflects instincts uniquely better than the sum of millions of people with billions of dollars riding on the line... then you'd be a billionaire by now. Market actions aren't irrational simply because they don't have 100% of the information available. And if you find somewhere where that's the case... you should invest heavily. There's something amazing about people working in their self-interest... and it's not all just based on whims. Shadowjams (talk) 08:15, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

The yen is like the ultimate "safe" currency. When something happens that makes investors shy away from risk, the U.S dollar goes up and the yen goes up even more, while the euro usually goes down. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:53, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Maybe Japan will be buying a lot of Chinese resources to rebuild. Vranak (talk) 00:09, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

The yen is probably overvalued at this point, but as the losses mount, there is no reason why it can't become more overvalued. I agree that in the medium to long term, the yen is likely to fall relative to the renminbi, if not the dollar and euro (though they both have their own problems), but timing is everything in foreign exchange trading, and the right timing is very hard to predict. Marco polo (talk) 01:51, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

The People's Republic of China (yuan) and Japan (yen) are lenders to the world. The Japanese have high personal savings.
Sleigh (talk) 14:13, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

You are aware the yuan is pegged to the U.S. dollar. Just checking. Shadowjams (talk) 12:12, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

By the way, an "overvalued" currency isn't always a good thing. It means exports are more expensive and it can drive currency based arbitrage. As people we hate to see our money buy less, but from a larger economic perspective, sometimes that's not a bad thing. Shadowjams (talk) 08:21, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

The logical, rational thing for markets to do would be to drive down the value of the yen vis-a-vis other major currencies. However, it is important to remember that markets can remain irrational much longer than you can remain solvent. DOR (HK) (talk) 05:00, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Ismailis from Uganda

Were the Ismailis from Uganda during Idi Amin Indians or Pakistanis? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.16.129 (talk) 19:16, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Remember, most immigration was pre-partition! Our article on Indians in Uganda notes that most immigrants were Sikhs and Gujaratis, which makes it hard to predict exactly which side of the modern border they came from. Expulsion of Asians from Uganda goes into a little more detail, and notes that some went to both Pakistan and India after expulsion. Shimgray | talk | 21:54, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Ismailis in Africa

How many African nations have had Ismailis, both Pakistanis and Indians, working in the continent? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.16.129 (talk) 19:22, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Our article Asians in Africa may give you some limited information and further links to explore. It seems likely that all former African colonies of the British Empire (see also Evolution of the British Empire) would be included, because Indian sub-continental traders, storekeepers, etc, flourished and settled in the Empire worldwide (hence ultimately recent troubles in Fiji). The same may have been true of non-British dominated areas, since by their nature traders will always seek to extend their markets and operations. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.165 (talk) 01:01, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Causal diagram of acquiring religious faith

Is the diagram on the right correct, http://www.flickr.com/photos/gserafini/394989988/ or could anyone with a religious faith say what's wrong with it please? And maybe draw or describe a correct one? Thanks 2.97.215.199 (talk) 23:35, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

The diagram is neither correct nor incorrect. It is a cartoon, a joke, something to amuse people, something to make people chuckle. It will succeed in amusing many people, particularly people who don’t care much for organised religion. It will also offend many people, particularly people who participate in organised religion.

On Wikipedia we always strive to present a neutral point of view. See WP:NPOV. The diagram does not represent a neutral point of view so it won’t attract much interest. If you are genuinely interested in matters related to religion, or matters related to irreligion, you will find a lot to interest you on Wikipedia, but please don’t imagine everyone who reads Wikipedia will have the same views as you. Dolphin (t) 01:31, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Faith is not exclusive from new ideas.

But the path of the righteous ones is like the bright light that is getting lighter and lighter until the day is firmly established.

— Proverbs, 4:18

Reversely, Science does not always welcome new ideas. Although slightly cliché, I would suggest setting aside 2 hours one Saturday and watch Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. Although being a Christian, I myself did not completely agree with all his findings, as you too should see is possible with modern science. Schyler! (one language) 02:49, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

That's not about new ideas being rejected. It's about repackaged, very old, totally unscientific ideas being rightly rejected. HiLo48 (talk) 03:02, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

If you want to make the diagram correct (or at least funny for the right reasons), you should change the headers from 'science/faith' to 'reasoning people/ideologues'. people who use the kind of reasoning style on the left use it when they think about science or faith, and the same for people who use the reasoning style on the right. --Ludwigs2 02:56, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Our article seems to differ, and quotes the following review: "Full of patronizing, poorly structured arguments, Expelled is a cynical political stunt in the guise of a documentary." If you are genuinely interested in finding out how people acquire faith, and how they lose it, you could look to literature in theology, sociology, anthropology, and elsewhere. If you merely wish to acquire it yourself, it isn't our job to offer guidance. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:00, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

The right-hand diagram is not so true of all "faith" per se ("normal" religious faith, for example, may well be tested at times, may be acceptant of other faiths, may grow over time, etc.) -- that kind of rigidity of belief is more a defining characteristic of specifically Fundamentalist "faith" (in all its many modern varieties). WikiDao ☯ 03:13, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I know it comes up all the time, but the relevent reading here is, of course, Stephen Jay Gould's treatment of the issue Rocks of Ages, where he rightly argues that science and religion operate in different aspects of people's lives, and needn't necessarily be in conflict. I like to think of it this way: Using, say, the Bible to answer questions suited for scientific inquiry is a bit like attempting to drive a hex bolt with a hammer; both science and religion are tools for understanding how we fit into the world, just as both hammers and wrenches are tools for driving fasteners into wood. Just because the hammer does a lousy job of driving the hex bolt into wood doesn't mean that the hammer is useless or a bad tool. It just means that you aren't using it right. Indeed, a person has a very incomplete toolbox if it doesn't include both hammers and hex wrenches... Likewise, I find that (for me) both science and religion work well in my life because embrace them both fully, but I don't ask the hammer to do the hex wrench's job, if you get my metaphor... --Jayron32 04:08, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

As a postscript, since Gould is a scientist, I thought I should also being a religious leader's perspective on the same issue. A pithy quote from Cardinal Caesar Baronius sums it up well "The bible teaches us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go". --Jayron32 04:13, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Where the diagrams say "Get an idea" it should be changed to "Get a clue". Bus stop (talk) 04:26, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

This comes up all the time because you mention it all the time, my dear Jayron, and then I reply by mentioning Dawkins' book where he says Gould's book isn't very good. Third time, I think. In particular, the concept that religion isn't any of science's business can be used to evade questions that might be answered by scientific experiments, such as "does prayer actually do anything". I will concede that philosophy isn't any of science's business - I reckon science is a subset of philosophy, and trying to address philosophical questions with measurements and calculations gets you Hegelism. 81.131.69.96 (talk) 04:35, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

And once again I'll bring up how Dawkins book is mostly colored by anger and resentment, and doesn't actually make much of a cogent arguement against religion as much as make a cogent arguement against itself by its own dismissive attitude. It's not that Gould argues that religion isn't any of science's business, for example the prayer experiment seems to me to be a perfectly solid one. The issue is that people like Dawkins charactize (or rather mischaracterize) the role that religion plays in the life of the faithful by ignoring that role as a real, valid, and useful thing for faithful people. The God Delusion is nothing more than a series of strawman arguements where Dawkins makes claims about what religion is and then shoots those claims down. Fine, if he was actually right in his premises, I might find myself agreeing with him. Indeed, his other books of similar vein, especially those in defense of evolution, are quite good, insofar as he doesn't then occasionally use them to take shots against the religious. But his stance on religion is only a self-serving defense of his own (and his ilk's) irrational and unsupported prejudices. --Jayron32 04:55, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Jayron - Since you're attacking a living person, I feel I need to say that I think you've got that round the wrong way round. It's religion that is, by definition, irrational. To believe in any sort of spiritual being requires a suspension of rational thought. Best you learn the real meanings of such words before you go throwing them around as insults. My use of it is only an insult if you fail to understand my point. HiLo48 (talk) 06:40, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

It's irrational in the sense that he starts with the premise that the personal God does not exist, then builds a case of evidence using strawman arguements and selective use of evidence to back that up. It's rather ironic that he uses the techniques he criticizes in the Creationists himself in his critique of God. He doesn't start from his evidence as an uninterested observer and arrive at a conclusion, as scientific inquiry is supposed to work... --Jayron32 16:55, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Sitting here at my computer, looking around me right now, I see absolutely no evidence of gods. Why should that not be the perfectly rational basis of a starting premise? HiLo48 (talk) 22:49, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Dawkins isn't exactly seething with anger about religion - he comes in for a fair amount of mischaracterization himself. You may remember he doesn't object to deists (who believe in a non-intervening God), and has a nostalgic soft spot for the C of E. 81.131.69.96 (talk) 05:05, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

It sometimes seems to me that the reason that Richard Dawkins is an atheist is that he can't imagine a creator more intelligent than himself. There are good reasons for doubting any 'faith' (or at least, as an atheist, I believe that there are), but Dawkins explanations for the 'causes' of religion are facile. As I suggested earlier, there are good scholarly debates on the topic (including one from anthropology which refuses to accept that 'religion' is a universal human concept anyway), and if one is interested, there is much to learn on religion as a phenomenon. There is also the possibility of personal experience. Either way, it is a path one needs to chose oneself. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:08, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

See, I thought anti-rational memes (assuming that's what you're talking about) were a great explanation. You get an idea, the idea says "ignore other ideas", and the consequence is that the idea entrenches itself and can only be evicted if the other ideas creep up on it ninja-style. To me this explains several forms of human weirdness - not just religion, but phobias, prejudices, superstitions, political tribalism, and unshakable positions in general. (Though of course it's rude to assume somebody is being dogmatic just because you don't like their opinion, an easy trap to fall into.) By "creep up on it ninja-style" I mean "address it with meta-theories", though I'm not sure which of these phrases is the most meaningful. 81.131.69.96 (talk) 05:18, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

The main problem with 'memes' is actually closely related to the criticisms of the 'ultra-Darwinian' approach in general (also evident in evolutionary psychology) - it treats 'evolutionary units' (genes or memes) as discreet autonomous entities. In regard to genetics, this is dubious, and in regard to 'memetics' it is just plain ridiculous - everything that we have learned from the social sciences in the last hundred years or so demonstrates that 'ideas' do not exist in isolation, and cannot be understood except in relation to each other (for instance, Dawkins is only aware of being an atheist through contact with 'religion' - there is no 'atheist meme',. but that doesn't prevent him - or me - from being one). People are more complex than such simplistic models suggest... AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:34, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Fair point. I'd defend Dawkins against accusations of evo-psych, too (how many people read the title of The Selfish Gene and decided it was about a gene that makes you selfish?) ... but let's leave it there, since that's way off topic. 81.131.69.96 (talk) 05:48, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Didn't you mention Hegel back there somewhere? Sounds like the Thesis, antithesis, synthesis process might be well-applied to this (apparently long-standing) debate. How to resolve Religion and Science...? I think Jayron's hammer and hexbolt analogy is a good one. WikiDao ☯ 15:42, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

See #criticism_of_hammer_and_hexbolt_analogy. 81.131.18.141 (talk) 18:39, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Is this a serious question? Some people hate religion, so they invent negative charactitures of religion in an attempt to ridicule and harm it. The author of this has no respect for religion and openly practices mocking adherents of various faiths for his own personal amusement. No doubt justified to him because someone else who was religious did something wrong themselves, or because they believe disrespecting others is a good way to solve differences.AerobicFox (talk) 06:05, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

"Some people hate religion", eh? As a high school teacher that reminds me of the kids who declare "All the teachers hate me." I don't hate religion. I feel sorry for a lot of the people who have been conned by all the crooks and con-men who push religion. I feel sorry for all those convinced that the religion they were born into is the right one, while in total ignorance of all the other religions and possible philosophical positions out there. I'd like to see evidence of this alleged hatred. HiLo48 (talk) 10:56, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I interpret the question as "in what specific ways does this negative caricature diverge from the reality"? 81.131.69.96 (talk) 06:16, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

The questioner may be interested in the many articles on philosophical positions which reflect the view set out in the diagram - Rationalism, Secular humanism, etc. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:43, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Refocus on diagram

Nobody has answered the question yet. If you have religious faith, how could the diagram on the right be improved? Thanks 92.15.2.23 (talk) 11:26, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

The left half of the cartoon presents a formal description of the Scientific method as an algorithm but it is misleading to suppose that encompasses all that is Science. It omits essential elements such as curiosity, inspiration, abstraction, pursuit of elegant systematisation, and serendipitous discovery. The right half is a strawman criticism of the Abrahamic religions, specifically them as the symbols for Judaism, Christianity and Islam show. The message of the whole cartoon is that ideas can only be evaluated and improved by Science and never by Faith, and by implication that Faith can only stifle discovery. The OP asks what is wrong with it.

• Religion is not limited to Abrahamic religions (that is a typical Western view and the OP has an IP address in England). There are also the Dharmic religions and a long list of others.
• The criticism is oblivious to the consistent internal logic of religious belief systems which also provide for evaluating new ideas, although novelty is not usually revered for itself as much as in Science.
• An effort to understand the Universe is not the monopoly of Science.
  

A quotation ascribed to a Buddhist leader(?) is "If science finds that something in Buddhist teaching is wrong then Buddhism must change." The cartoon misses its mark dealing with that statement. To draw a new diagram, consider that religion like science looks for a transformation, but it is a transformation of a man's relationship with the Universe, not his ability to manipulate it. The diagram could be like this. I think a song expressed our relation to the Universe succinctly: Good morning starshine, the Earth says hello. You twinkle above us. We twinkle below. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 11:53, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't mind if a diagram (or description of a diagram) is limited to one particular religion or religious sect. When I was a young schoolchild at a religious school I spent a lot of time drawing religious diagrams as well as reading a lengthy religious source-text. I'm aware that the diagram on the right could be an over-simplification: I'm asking for a more realistic version.

The only snippets from the above which relate to the diagram are "Faith is not exclusive from new ideas" - I assume that means new ideas come from somewhere, source unstanted. "...Religious faith, for example, may well be tested at times, may be acceptant of other faiths, may grow over time" - would like details of what happens after this testing succeeds or fails. There is a "consistent internal logic of religious belief systems which also provide for evaluating new ideas", details not given but implies that only internal consistency is required, not any reference to reality. In summary of this paragraph, new ideas come from other religons. If (am I right?) they are consistant with the existing dogma they are accepted, but checking with reality is not required. Thanks 92.15.2.23 (talk) 12:12, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

We have an (unsourced) article on Crisis of faith (which could probably use some expansion and wikification, too). A box for that could be put into the right-hand "Faith" diagram somewhere. The arrows leading from it would be towards either a renewal or strengthening of faith on the one hand, or the rejection of faith on the other (maybe a box called "Find a new faith" after that – there is always some faith required, after all, even if your belief system is "Science," insomuch at least as not all experiments can be replicated by all scientists;). WikiDao ☯ 16:03, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

The serious answer is that you cannot make a realistic, true version of this diagram: the idea is malformed. The diagram on the left summarises the scientific method, not science itself, which is why a flow diagram works. There is no religious method in any meaningful sense: there are many religions, and millions of people in the world who take a variety of approaches to religion. You cannot make a single diagram of how people come to or derive a religion, because there is no single answer: different people have different experiences. You cannot make a single diagram of how people develop their faith, because there is no single answer. You cannot make a single diagram of how people are informed by religion, or inform their religion, because there is no single answer. So, if you want to be anything close to reflecting the real world, the basic idea is flawed. 86.164.66.59 (talk) 13:44, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Thus spake Postmodernism. ;) WikiDao ☯ 16:10, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I should clarify that the "internal logic of belief systems" is only "internal" to observers who are not similarly persuaded. A belief system IS reality to the believer. Evidence that this might not be so causes him an uncomfortable crisis of belief. Examples are a scientist seeing a saint walking on water, or a catholic discovering that the same miracle is being performed by a moslem. I think both observers would prefer to conclude that what they saw was a hallucination, which is possible within both their belief systems because it can be ascribed to a cause e.g. alcohol or Satan respectively. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 14:03, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Faith and rationality sounds like an appropriate article. 81.131.18.141 (talk) 19:02, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I hate it when it is said that something cannot be studied rationally or causaly - that is always a ploy to retain power and avoid being found-out. 92.28.241.202 (talk) 14:36, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

To go back to the original question:

May I suggest:   1./ Someone I've come to respect and love / trust tells or reveals to me something.
                 2./ I then test this ground I may now stand on as: It is not everything I can believe or 
                     rely on.
                 3./ I may end up believing in what I don't / cannot fully understand.
I can give examples of this.   Do remember that a believer can also be a scientist, one does not exclude the other.  MacOfJesus (talk) 22:48, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

::The best example of this process is: John Chapter 6:  22- 71, particularly verse 57 and the conclusion 67- 71. MacOfJesus (talk) 12:06, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I noticed that some entrants have a very narrow view of faith. The faith of a Christian is in a Person primarly not on things/objects or material facts. Nicean Creed, Apostles Creed, for example. MacOfJesus (talk) 10:49, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

March 18

focus on the value of a job rather than employment in general

have any politicians or philosophers written anything on employment regarding the actual value of a job in society? i find there is a focus keeping unemployment low but if there are no good jobs out there, what good comes out of people working? telemarketing, door men, greeters, people dressed in costumes outside wings restaurants. while these people are employed, their jobs arguably do nothing constructive and only exist because they push money from one business to the other without actually generating a product or service. any wiki articles on value of work and the positive sides to unemployment (if there are any true benefits)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.58.149.102 (talk) 00:20, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

There are two quite different concepts you might be asking about:

1) Does the job provide workers with self-esteem ? That classic government "busy-work" jobs like moving a mound of dirt, then moving it back, day after day, might be an example of rather futile jobs. However, even then the exercise, fresh air, and having somebody only pay you when you show up and work can do wonders for morale. Obviously a job where you feel you accomplish something is better, though.

2) Does the job create wealth for the society as a whole ? Here some jobs are clear-cut wealth builders, like agriculture, construction, and manufacturing, as almost everyone considers themself wealthier when they have food, a house, and a car. Services are trickier. Some make you feel wealthier, like having maid service, and a doctor, while others do not, like having telemarketers hounding you. Which goods and services can be exported for cash to improve the balance of trade is another, related issue. StuRat (talk) 01:14, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

(Edit Conflict) Well, the most obvious good is to the people themselves ('society' is composed of people), because they can, more often than not, live better on a wage or salary than on what (society-funded) Government welfare/benefits may be available, and beyond material advantages usually enjoy enhanced personal self-respect and satisfaction by supporting themselves through providing even optional services to others (though I would exempt telemarketers from the latter point). I disagree with your "without actually generating a product or service" since - some charitable activities aside - no business pays people to do things not of expected eventual financial value to itself.

Secondarily, there is a good to the economy as a whole, because every person employed will (beyond various complicated benefits thresholds depending on locality) be able to make a net contribution to the tax base and thus help to fund their society's costs, rather than being a net drain.

Your deeper query verging towards national level economic theory is beyond my scope, but you might find something of interest at Productive and unproductive labour.

To obviate possible ad hominem arguments, I should disclose that I myself currently am, following redundancy, entirely dependent on benefits. 90.197.66.165 (talk) 01:39, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

To translate that last sentence for Americans: "He's been laid-off and is on Unemployment Compensation". StuRat (talk) 07:51, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

You might find the McJob article interesting. Astronaut (talk) 16:06, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

These jobs are forms of advertising, which is itself a form of persuasion and ought to be a form of rational argument and therefore beneficial. (Forms of advertising which use anti-rational methods, like deception and the bullying variety of hard sell, tend to be outlawed.) So I suggest that most of the criticism of advertising lacks merit, and it does good by encouraging discussion of the value of one product over another. You mention "there is focus keeping unemployment low", though, which puzzles me. Whose focus? (The perils of the passive tense!) Usually this kind of phrase refers to government policy, and usually governments don't employ people to dress up as chickens, so something about your question doesn't seem to add up. 81.131.16.236 (talk) 21:14, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

They might, indirectly, say by lowering minimum wage so that KFC can hire more dancing chickens. As for deception in advertising, that seems to be completely legal in the US, unless the deception rises to the level of an outright lie. Even then, they may still make more money from the lie than the minimal fine they get, if any. Have you seen the pictures of fast food in advertising ? It bears little resemblance to the actual "food". Advertising rarely tries to convey facts, but typically tries to confuse people into buying a product that it isn't in their interest to buy (if it was, ads wouldn't be needed). The only thing good I can see in ads is that some of them are funny. StuRat (talk) 23:03, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Camus' Myth of Sisyphus is tangentially related to what the OP wants. Sisyphus was condemned to pushing a rock up a hill for eternity - a pretty meaningless activity - but Camus concludes "one must imagine Sisyphus happy". 129.67.186.200 (talk) 19:16, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

If someone is willing to pay you to do something, it must be worth something to them at least. And if it's worth something to them, it is almost certainly creating value for them.124.148.51.38 (talk) 00:58, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Why don't Arab leaders like Gaddafi ?

The Arab League apparently voted to ask the UN for a no-fly zone over Libya: [22]. I would have expected them to want to protect national sovereignty above all else, since they may be in a similar situation if revolution spreads in their direction. So, why did they vote that way ? StuRat (talk) 01:25, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

This article says that they made the move because they fear their people's reactions if they don't appear to stand for the people and against tyranny. Marco polo (talk) 01:46, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

My personal sense is that other Arab leaders kinda tolerate Gaddafi for various politically and economically expedient reasons, but that they also know what others know; that he's batshit insane and that if things went bad, the more rational and clear thinking Arab leaders wouldn't hesitate to throw him under the bus if necessary. In terms of the dictator continuum, hes definately on the Kim Jong Il side of it, if you catch my drift. His relations with Egypt, for example, have always been quite tense, even flaring into open warfare for a short time in the 1970's. His Islamic Legion was a HUGE destablizing effect on his neighbors, the Sudan and Chad, and I'm not sure other arab leaders are terribly proud of what's gone on in those countries under his influence. The entire Darfour mess has been greatly exacerbated by the Islamic Legion directly. If you read through his article, his closest allies read like a who's who of the batshit insane dictators of the last 40 years, without regard for religion or location. He had close ties with both Idi Amin and Slobodan Milosevic, and I'm not sure either endeared him to the rest of the Arab world. If you read Muammar_Gaddafi#Ideology, it contains the statement "Gaddafi is known for his extremely erratic statements, and commentators often express doubt whether he is being sarcastic or just incoherent. Over the course of his four-decade rule, he has accumulated a wide variety of eccentric and often contradictory statements." That probably captures him well. As recently as 2009, he's blasted other Arab leaders in the Arab League, see [23] where he insults King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia. He's not been a great support of Pan-Arabism, but instead has been one of Pan-Africanism, see United States of Africa of which he is a big supporter. So, in summation he's a) batshit insane dictator without a coherant political philosophy b) he has historically bad relations with other Arab states, and has been an obvious destablizing effect on his weaker neighbors. There's bound to be a point where the other Arab states have to say "enough is enough." They may have reached it. --Jayron32 03:06, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Gaddafi was a great supporter of Pan-Arabism, until he realised that other Arab states would not permit him to have a leading role in any meaningful union. Only then did he switch to advocating African unity. Warofdreams talk 12:18, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

In other words, it's transparent that Gaddafi is a great supporter of Gaddafi and little else; yet another reason that no one, even those culturally close to him, are coming to his defense in his hour of need. He's spent decades making his bed, and now he's finally having to lie in it. --Jayron32 16:46, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

It's worth noting that many Arab and Muslim countries supported the 1991 Gulf War, including Syria, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and Pakistan. Solidarity only goes so far when you've someone like Gaddafi or Saddam in your midst. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:37, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

He also looks like Michael Jackson. Honestly, why would someone like him? He's also a openly sponsor of terrorism, and no, Arab leaders do not endorse that. 80.58.205.34 (talk) 10:41, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Let's not forget that he has also been openly dismissive of the Palestinian cause (and has treated Palestinians in Libya very poorly) and that is also seen as a very negative point in other Arab countries. --Xuxl (talk) 15:01, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

But that was only after the other Arab states spurned him, as Warofdreams and Jayron mentioned (like when he tried to latch onto the Egypt-Syria union). He was greatly concerned with the Palestinians in the 60s when the Libyan monarchy didn't care... Adam Bishop (talk) 20:28, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

In the late '70s/early '80s everyone thought Ghadaffi was a dangerous lunatic. Then, once he consolidated power and had little to fear (and after Lockerbie died down), no one seemed to worry too much about him. There was a bit of a reassessment in the West; lots of folks thought he was a dependable player who could be useful as an intermediary. Now that his power is threatened, he's a lunatic again.

I'm not saying he's not a bad guy. Just that he's a lot more trouble when his power is uncertain. So if you're going to pose a threat to that power, you'd better make sure you finish the job.

It reminds me a bit of a Hugo-winning story, Time Considered as a Helix of Semi-Precious Stones, where there was a law-enforcement agency that tracked, not criminals' nuisance value per se, but the first derivative of that nuisance value. Established hoods they left alone; they went in after the up-and-comers. Ghadaffi was an established hood for a long time. --Trovatore (talk) 01:44, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Woman as husband's legal property

I believe I have read that traditionally in English law, a married woman was the property of her husband.

• Am I mistaken? Was she his property or something else?
• To what extent (if any) was she his property?
• Since exactly when has a woman not been her husband's legal property? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.24.76.175 (talk) 07:01, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

There is relevant information at Wife selling (English custom). Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:39, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

It may not answer your question directly, but still: Before the Married Woman's property act in 1882, a woman's property was passed to her husband when she married [24]. Though this does not mean that the woman herself was the property of her husband in a literal sense, it goes a long way in suggesting it.--DI (talk) 07:42, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I recommend reading the article on coverture--DI (talk) 08:39, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

and see Married Women's Property Act 1870 and Married Women's Property Act 1882.--Wetman (talk) 12:01, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

75.24.76.175 -- She was not his property in any meaning of the term comparable to chattel slavery or similar, but the woman's legal identity was submerged in the husband's legal identity -- see Coverture. (As for "wife-selling", that was actually an unrecognized and illegal method of divorce.) -- AnonMoos (talk) 06:40, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

BABY FACE NELSON

Hello - please find below the correspondance I have been having with yoursleves about "Baby Face Nelson" - any comments on this would be greatfully appreciated - thanks

Dear Frances Hornal,

Thank you for your email. I'm glad you enjoyed the article on Baby Face Nelson, and I appreciate your sharing your memories of the stories you were told in your youth.

I'm afraid, though, that the authors of the article don't actually work for the Wikimedia Foundation. Articles on Wikipedia are written by the public; anyone may volunteer, although there are certain policies in places to try to keep articles accurate and unbiased. This particular article is the result of collaboration between dozens of people, who have been working pretty steadily since 2005.

Wikipedia does, though, have a place where volunteers may be able to see if they can find something similar to the stories you were told. It is a web based forum staffed by volunteers, called the Reference Desk <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk>. Though there is no guarantee that they can provide an answer, they are pretty good at research. If you tell them your story and ask them if they can look into it, they may be able to tell you if they can find anything to confirm it.

Yours sincerely, Maggie Dennis

02/17/2011 14:37 - Frances Hornal wrote:

Hello - after reading your interesting article on Baby Face Nelson - I would like to let you know the stories we have always been told as children

My Grandfather (Charles Leith) whose mother was (Jessie Leith nee Robertson) had a sister (Mary Ann Robertson) who came from the small Island of Bressay on the Shetland Islands, Scotland - Mary emigrated to Either America or Canada in the late 1800's - she married a eastern European at some point and she was the mother of Baby Face Nelson - I also believe that Mary and Jessie's mothers maiden name was NELSON and that is the name Mary and her Husband took as having a foreign sounding name in America in the early 1900's was not an advantage - we actually have a photo of young Mary and the likeness to the pictures you see of Baby Face is striking. I just thought you might be interested and wondered if you had ever heard of anything resembling this story before

- thanks

Best Regards

Frances Hornal

-- Wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org --- Disclaimer: all mail to this address is answered by volunteers, and responses are not to be considered an official statement of the Wikimedia Foundation. For official correspondence, please contact the Wikimedia Foundation by certified mail at the address listed on http://www.wikimediafoundation.org —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.45.152.74 (talk) 09:29, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello Frances. I'm not exactly sure why the letter you received from the Wikimedia Foundation sent you here. This is a reference desk for general knowledge queries. If you have a particular question about Baby Face Nelson which is not covered by the article, feel free to post it here. If the biographical information you gave in your letter can be verified by independent sources, feel free to add it to the article – it sounds like it could be an interesting addition. Best wishes, --Viennese Waltz 10:11, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I've refactored your email to remove the annoying ">" characters inserted by your email software and which were interfering with my ability to read your email clearly. I've also removed your contact details. Unfortunately, this page is highly visible across the internet and is a natural target for spam-bots looking for contact details so they can subsequently deluge you with unwanted emails. Astronaut (talk) 15:06, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

The place to address your question is really Talk:Baby Face Nelson. However, I can imagine people will ask for proof that your great-aunt really was the mother of Baby Face Nelson - preferably proof that has been previously published in what Wikipedia defines as a reliable source. Astronaut (talk) 15:45, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Is there a name for this fallacy?

Other questions on the same theme got me thinking about this one. A certain Australian politician, who shall remain nameless, came up with one of the most inventive pieces of reasoning in recent years. Someone wanted to give poorer families four times as much money for child support as rich families, and the said politician opined that they were saying the children of poor families were four times as important as those of rich ones. I admit it may not have been exactly that, but it was definitely along those lines, and involved the judgement that a policy allocating four times as much money for some set of newborns implied an attitude towards the value of the children themselves. Is there a name for it, and are there any other good examples of such farcical thinking? It's been emotional (talk) 09:48, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Probably a Hasty generalization. See List of fallacies and browse for yourself and see if there's one you think fits better. Schyler! (one language) 14:12, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I think it's an example of affirming the consequent. There is a valid principle that if something is viewed as more important, then it will get more money -- but it is incorrectly being used in reverse. Looie496 (talk) 17:25, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and specifically, he's ignoring that relative need is also a consideration when allocating money. For example, if you allocate more money to repairing bridge A, which is in imminent danger of collapse, than bridge B, which is in excellent shape, that doesn't mean bridge A is more important, just that those repairs are more urgent. StuRat (talk) 18:19, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Another fallacy seems to be that he is only considering one source of child support (the government), while the rich kids presumably have other sources, such as their families, making the total amount spent on them more than the poor kids. StuRat (talk) 18:21, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd simply call it politics. He no doubt lives in and gets voted in by a relatively wealthy demographic, so he is pandering to the greed of those voters. Remember that politicians don't necessarily believe what they say. They say what they think the most important part of the the audience (to them) wants to hear. That's politics. HiLo48 (talk) 20:36, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, yes it's definitely just politics, on a practical level, but as far as naming it theoretically, I think it fits pretty well with affirming the consequent. Of course we are imposing a logical structure on a rather way out populist comment (though I think perhaps too populist even for his followers), but I expected that would be required. It's been emotional (talk) 01:52, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, affirming the consequent looks like a good descriptor. I like it especially because it doesn't require the person presenting the argument to necessarily believe it. He could simply be hoping that enough of his electorate believed it. (Now, all I need, as a fellow Australian, is to figure out who that fine, caring politician was.) HiLo48 (talk) 02:07, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

The fallacy that best describes this reasoning is the fallacy of division. I.e. just because something is composed of constituent parts does mean that all the properties of the parts are also properties of the whole. The attempt is to make a statement on the importance of particular persons based on the groups they are in. The concept of human worth and tax dollars doesn't work that way.

I'll give you a perfect example: A flat tax is immoral, not fair just because it is supposedly equal. A rich person is able to light their cigar with a dollar bill, whereas a poor person needs the dollar bill, and it is a meaningful unit (e.g. a known and measurable percentage of the poor person's monthly rent). The dollar bill simply doesn't have the same value to a rich person and a poor person. Therefore it is immoral to have a flat tax. The property of value doesn't apply equally in the two cases. This is why we have the concept known as equity.Greg Bard (talk) 04:45, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

You know... adding "therefore" doesn't really prove your argument as well as you seem to think it does. Hyperbole doesn't help either. The underlying point you're making, badly, is that there's a marginal value of money... that human happiness increases much more quickly for those first few dollars than it does for the latter ones. That argument has merit, and parameters, and is open for debate. Another question I ask... is the Australian government "giving money" to rich families, who are presumably paying taxes for that money? I realize complex tax systems do this all the time, but are we to be especially astounded at this version of it? Shadowjams (talk) 12:22, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

A less-than-perfect example, more of an argument against the fairness of a per capita tax than that of a flat tax. A flat tax doesn't take $1 from the beggar and $1 from Croesus. That is, a flat tax doesn't take equal amounts from people, it takes equal percentages of their income, which already factors in the ability of the rich to afford to have more taken from them. - Nunh-huh 05:07, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I don't like the term "flat tax", when they really mean a "flat rate tax". The first should really mean a set fee everyone pays, while the second clearly means that the percentage tax is the same. A true "flat income tax", say where everybody paid $10,000 in taxes each year, is so absurd that nobody even considers it (you would have millions of people unable to pay, have others driven to starvation and homelessness by it, and the government wouldn't get nearly enough income to operate, either). A "flat rate income tax", on the other hand, could work, especially if you had large personal deductions (which would effectively make it a progressive tax). Note that, if we are talking about taxes other than income, then a true flat tax may be possible, such as a fixed fee to register your car or pick up your garbage. StuRat (talk) 20:02, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, a flat rate tax also places a disproportionally high burden on the poor. At first glance, it sounds really fair, since everyone pays the same amount, say 10%, so if a person has a $20,000 a year income, they pay $2,000 and if someone makes $2,000,000 per year, they pay $200,000. Except that expenses don't necessarily scale with income. If someone is making $20,000 per year, and the minimum they can live on and still meet all their obligations for food and rent and utilities; is $19,000, then even the flat-rate tax screws them. They're short $1,000 per year, which is a huge portion of their income. The person making $2,000,000 per year is living no where near the limit of survival, indeed the 10% of their income makes a much smaller impact on their standard of living than does the person making $20,000 per year. The flat rate tax therefore places an undue burden on the poor people, and lets the rich people off comparatively light. Progressive tax schemes place a higher burden, in terms of tax rate, on people who can absorb the higher obligation without substantially reducing their standard of living. In the example I gave, the flat tax rate would cause the rich person to, say, purchase one less new Maseratti that year. That exact same tax rate causes the poor person to be evicted from their home, or to go hungry. That's why it doesn't work. --Jayron32 00:03, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but with a high flat tax rate and a high personal deduction, you can make a flat tax rate, for all practical purposes, into a progressive tax rate. Consider a 50% tax rate with a $20,000 personal deduction:

INCOME   TAXABLE INCOME   TAX     EFFECTIVE RATE
------   --------------  ------   --------------
 $20K          $0         $0.0        0.0%
 $25K          $5K        $2.5K      10.0%
 $30K         $10K        $5.0K      16.7%
 $40K         $20K       %10.0K      25.0%
 $50K         $30K       $15.0K      30.0%
$100K         $80K       $40.0K      40.0%

So, you could have a simple, yet still progressive, tax system. StuRat (talk) 10:43, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok the point here is that fallacy of division is the more appropriate fallacy, rather than affirming the consequent. I see that I have struck a nerve with the argument on the immorality of a flat tax. The more simple argument for the flat tax is that rich people do not merely owe more money in raw terms (which a flat tax accommodates as observed above), but rather they owe more of a percentage because the society and economy that our tax dollars supports makes it possible for them to ever be rich and stay rich in the first place. They owe more to society than poor people, not the same because they have more. We don't pay a flat insurance rate do we? No, rich people pay more to insure their property because they have more value to insure. So too with preventing a collapse of society by paying our tax dollars. It prevents them from losing everything, and they have more to lose. Greg Bard (talk) 20:58, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Prohibition-five?

In Scrubs, why does the Todd become opposed to high-fiving in the hospital? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.70.250.255 (talk) 13:46, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

In the episode My Full Moon, the Todd bans other people from high-fiving because that's his "thing". Is this what you're referring to? Vimescarrot (talk) 16:32, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

"His thing"? What, like he invented it? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:25, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

No. That expression means it's something that only he does, among his circle of friends/coworkers. Or, in this case, he would like to be the only one who does it, among that group. StuRat (talk) 05:28, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

To clarify, giving high-fives is his "thing", not banning others from doing so. StuRat (talk) 19:18, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.70.250.255 (talk) 21:57, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Ancient language

I know that Sanskrit is Hindus' ancient language and Pali is Buddhists' ancient language, but what about Jains? What is their ancient language? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.53.229.65 (talk) 20:55, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I thought it was sort of Sanskrit or Sanskrit descendants in general, but check out Jainism#Jain_literature, they wrote in all sorts of languages. And also, Pali is one of the descendants of Sanskrit. Adam Bishop (talk) 22:33, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

US Health Care, workers paying for elders?

Dear Wikipedia, I have a question.

I've read up on the US health care debate, and am quite perplexed. I noticed one argument that was not fleshed out for me: Donald Barr, seemingly opposed to the status quo of 2000) claimed that [t]he money paid in payroll taxes into the Medicare Trust Fund is not put aside to pay for the care of current workers when they retire. Instead it is used to pay for care of people already retired. - and that this was problematic. Ie, it was implied that the US system (only) did this; that it would somehow be different elsewhere. Don't all European countries do this? As far as I understand, only your pension (Social Security in the US) is 'paid' by you, the individual, in that your work is a factor in deciding its eventual size. However, all your (European) taxes otherwise contribute to what is (although not entirely commensurate) the equivalent of your own, universal Medicare. This was the book "Introduction to US Health Care". Am I confusing something here?

I appreciate your help, as always. 80.213.11.105 (talk) 21:03, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Note that a practice can be widespread and still be problematic, especially when the problems only appear years later, like smoking. StuRat (talk) 22:14, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Are you confusing something here? I see your reply only tangentially related to my question, unless I misunderstood you. I am first and foremost asking whether the assessment that American taxes to medicare are distributed, or the funds used, differently from other (European?) systems, is correct - see my third last sentence in the main body above. 80.213.11.105 (talk) 23:01, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this appeared to be the argument:

1) US Medicare has current workers pay for health care of retirees.

2) This is problematic, economically, in the long term.

3) Therefore, this problematic practice must not be widespread, but limited to the US.

I was disagreeing with point number 3. StuRat (talk) 19:51, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Europe does not have a general system and not all European countries have universal health care (Germany, for example, does not have it). 212.169.189.21 (talk) 01:07, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Data point: Sweden's system is just like the one described above, i.e. there is no personal fund for your future health care, nor is money put aside for future use by your age group. The taxes paid in one year pays for the health care produced that year, more or less. Sjö (talk) 07:15, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Germany [does not have universal health care] is at best misleading. Germany has a system of public health insurance open to all. Yes, people above a certain income level can opt out, and self-employed people have to explicitly opt in (if they don't buy coverage elsewhere), but overall the system is pretty universal. And if you legitimately cannot afford health care, you still get treated at the same level of care at the public's expense. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:24, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I know of no government in the world that puts aside funds for future health care (though individuals and insurance companies do so). There might be the odd exception somewhere, but almost all governments fund current care from current taxes etc. Perhaps someone knows if there are exceptions? Dbfirs 07:38, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Hong Kong does. The government holds sufficient reserves to pay for healthcare for everyone many times over. The total is about 3.5 time annual payment for all government services, not just healthcare.DOR (HK) (talk) 05:13, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the problem with such a system is that there would be an immediate cost, yet no immediate benefits, and thus the unmet need for health care (which presumably would have driven the creation of the system), would remain unmet, possibly for decades. That's not politically viable. Perhaps a system which gradually transitions from the type we currently have to the more sustainable type might work. StuRat (talk) 22:17, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

"don't all European countries do this?" was a horrible simplification for me to make, making it more likely that the distribution of money be conflated with the general health care policies.

That aside, I think I should read between Barr's lines: Maybe he is saying that the current policies are/were unsatisfactory because of this economical rule as it were. Ie, one should never depend on the workers's tax output to adjust depending on the ratio of workers and elderly to support. Now, that enables me to ask a question: How, in general, do the European welfare states accomplish this? Are they simply good at keeping their medical costs down, meaning the reduced amount of workers paying £££ and the increased amount of elderly people is a problem, but not as big a problem? Or is the movement of funding drastically different, with perhaps taxes amounting to a smaller part of their budgets?

I think I will ask a new question on US health care below, after searching through the archives for a bit. 80.213.11.105 (talk) 11:23, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I believe the nations most successful at containing costs implement price controls. That is, they set the prices that can be charged for medical equipment and procedures, set the pay rates for medical professionals, etc. This means that everyone in the medical field is paid less. The US, on the other hand, relies on competition to keep prices down, which doesn't work, since very few people needing urgent medical care are in a position to shop around for the best price. (Competition does work fairly well for optional medical procedures, provided that all the relevant information is made available to the consumer to enable wise choices.) Once hospitals can no longer pass on their costs, they find ways to save money (hopefully not by cutting anything necessary). Another way to limit medical costs is by rationing, essentially refusing to pay for expensive procedures with little hope of success. Then there's elimination of for-profit companies, such as insurance companies, who all take a "piece of the pie". StuRat (talk) 05:40, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

It is worth mentioning that the US spends the most on healthcare but doesn't get the best care for all that money (see: this Reuters article). The table on Health care system#Cross-country comparisons make for interesting reading. Astronaut (talk) 20:15, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Finance Question about Bond Prices and Compounded Interest Rates

Question moved to "Finance Question about Bond Prices and Compounded Interest Rates)" on the Mathematics desk. -- OP, 68.75.28.230 (talk) 22:13, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Source of national debt

On the news I always hear about countries and the massive amounts of debt that they have. The US in in debt, the UK is in debt, Ireland, Greece and so. If everyone is in debt, who are they in debt to? Postrock1 (talk) 22:41, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

China and corporate and private bondholders, mainly. StuRat (talk) 22:43, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Almost all countries owe other countries money, and almost all countries are owed money from other countries. Other countries have made a debt against themselves. Still others owe debts to organizations that they are a member of, like the United Nations or the African Union. Albacore (talk) 23:04, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Many of the holders of U.S. governent debt are American individuals and institutions. If you own a savings bond, you own a part of the national debt. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:07, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Private individuals mostly. Shadowjams (talk) 08:07, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

To use a specific example, this article offers a rough breakdown of the holders of UK government bonds. In order: insurance and pension funds, then overseas investors, then British banks, then other "financial institutions", then building societies and private investors right down at the bottom.

"Overseas" isn't defined, but looking at the equivalent data for the US, just over a quarter is held by China, 20% by Japan, 6% by the UK, 4% by Brazil, and a long tail falling off after that. Note that this doesn't automatically mean those governments hold the debt, just that someone in that country does; in some cases it might be private financial institutions, in others sovereign wealth funds. Shimgray | talk | 12:32, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

March 19

Being approached by a child street prostitute

What should one do after the fact? Is there any child protection agency, not the New York City police, one can contact? Thanks. 66.108.223.179 (talk) 02:32, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

DCFS possibly. If they aren't the "correct" people to call, then they could direct you to who are. Dismas|^(talk) 03:41, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Contact the police directly - Child Protective Services don't really have the skillset or authority to deal with pimps or criminal activity. they usually step in at the request of police or judges after it's determined that a child needs to be monitored or removed in a given situation. There's no reason not to contact the police (a minor's record will be sealed and/or expunged, so nothing from this will follow him/her into adulthood), unless you think the police are connected to the crime or unwilling to investigate. in that case you should contact a non-profit child welfare advocacy organization (there are dozens of those) and seek out their advice.--Ludwigs2 22:29, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

"Unless you think the police are connected to the crime"????? In a developed country? You are joking Ludwigs, please, please tell me you are joking. Do you not have cross-agency working in the USA? Surely someone can quickly report this to whatever agency is closest to hand and be absolutely 100% sure that it will be pursued? Itsmejudith (talk) 00:05, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

There has been police corruption in some U.S. cities, such as cops taking bribes to ignore certain criminal activity. I would hope that no cop would be so cold-hearted as to let child prostitution slide. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:42, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm still alarmed in that you phrase this in terms of the action of one individual cop. There should be systems in place so that a cop would know that it was imperative not to ignore such a thing. In the UK there has been huge public outrage about child abuse, particularly about social workers not doing their jobs properly, but also cases where the police, doctors and schools have failed to notice abuse. We do have some police corruption; there are currently allegations of spying on behalf of the tabloid newspapers. But if there was the slightest suspicion it could affect child protection, the public storm would be massive. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:58, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Judith: I wasn't really making that implication overtly, but rather trying to address the OP's reticence to contact police, in a scattershot manner. The only reasons not to want to do that are because you don't want the child involved in a police investigation or you don't trust the police. Most cops in the US are moral sticklers about law and order (sometimes to an unpleasantly aggressive extent), but there are plenty of jaded cops - particularly in urban areas - for whom one more child prostitute is a disagreeable-but-insignificant reality of life, and a few bad eggs who are not above turning a blind eye for the right price. The real problem in the US is that police are extraordinarily cliquish and tend to protect even bad cops from public censure. One has to be fairly determined about being evil to get one's fellow cops to take notice. --Ludwigs2 14:10, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

"one more child prostitute is a disagreeable-but-insignificant reality of life". Any other rich country where that could be said? By way of comparison, London is gearing up to the Olympics and people are starting to warn that there will be a massive influx of prostitutes. Police are being asked to get the problem of human trafficking under control. We know that, for example, young women in eastern Europe are tricked into coming to Britain on the promise of jobs, and then virtually enslaved. But no-one is saying that under-18s will be significantly involved. The risk of getting caught is not worth it. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:53, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

That has to do with the peculiar way class distinctions evolved in the US. It's an irony that the US - because it lacks the overt, structured class distinctions that exist in Europe - is utterly blind to implicit class distinctions determined by wealth and poverty, and is much more callous about them. The child of a wealthy family being approached by a stranger is a terrifying outrage that calls for an immediate and strong police response; the runaway child of a poor family ending up as a prostitute is just one of those things that happens to those kinds of people. As an American, I often find my fellow country-people stupid, bigoted, and arrogant; unfortunately, I haven't got the faintest idea what to do about it, and I refuse to resort to the spluttering incomprehensible grunting and growling that passes for political dialog here. fun as that might be... --Ludwigs2 18:24, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

A rather vague question

I remember reading (somewhere) about an inscription that was discovered upon renovation of a large medieval cathedral. I believe it was on the spire or roof. I can't remember what it said, nor where this discovery occurred. I would be very happy if someone remembers what I've forgotten, that is, what was written, where it was, or both. Thank you. Vidtharr (talk) 03:34, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

It would help if you told us when you heard this. Was it recent, or years ago?AerobicFox (talk) 05:01, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I read it within the last two years. As to the subject matter, I believe it had something to do with the construction of the cathedral and how the laborers would never see it completed. Hopefully this helps narrow things down. Thank you. Vidtharr (talk) 05:08, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, medieval cathedrals sometimes took centuries to build - for example, Wells Cathedral took over 300 years to build. A more modern example is Sagrada Família in Barcelona which has been under construction since 1882. It is not surprising therefore that those involved in the early construction phases would often never see the building completed. Judging from a suitable Google search, it seems inscriptions are found during many renovations. Without additional details, it might be very hard to track down exactly the one you are thinking of. Astronaut (talk) 10:52, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

The cathedral that underwent the renovation is in (western) Europe. Google still doesn't seem to be offering any real assistance in the matter. Thank you again. Vidtharr (talk) 17:14, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

My awesome boyfriend pointed me towards this.http://www.salisburycathedral.org.uk/news.php?id=463..Hotclaws (talk) 11:00, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Economics of fundamentalist polygamy

How does a community like Bountiful, British Columbia survive economically? Winston Blackmore has 25 wives and 100 children. I don't think fundamentalist Mormon religion gives the women much opportunity to work. It sounds like a farm designed to produce the most unwanted waste product on the planet - humans. From the documentary I'm watching, they have modern buildings, kitchens, vehicles, own large regions of land. Where does all the money come from? Wnt (talk) 05:24, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

You consider yourself to be a "waste product"??? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:36, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Is there any country in the world that wants people, as opposed to cash (or occasionally, cheap short-term competition to drive down wages in skilled occupations)? Wnt (talk) 08:20, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

That's about as cynical a viewpoint as I've seen, and it doesn't answer my question anyway: Do you consider yourself to be "waste"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:23, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

No idea about British Columbia, but in the 1960s and 1970s some groups in certain U.S. states notoriously manipulated the welfare system. As for a subculture of thriving agricultural population growth, see Hutterites, Old_Order_Amish#Population_and_distribution, etc. AnonMoos (talk) 06:35, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I am by no means an expert on The Latter Day Saints, but I think that some sects believe they must create their own paradise become The Return of Christ. Having many children and a self-sufficient community would be fulfilling the commands at Genesis 1:28 and Isaiah 65:17-25, respectively. The answer to your question is two-fold. First thing that comes to mind is the promise of Jesus at Matthew 6:33:

“Keep on, then, seeking first the kingdom and his righteousness, and all these [other] things will be added to YOU."

— Jesus, Book of Matthew

Additionally, this particular British sect of The Latter Day Saints may adhere to some form of Primitive communism. What is the name of the documentary? It sounds interesting. Schyler! (one language) 13:12, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

They're not British, they're Canadian (although they are originally American). Adam Bishop (talk) 14:53, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

A big mistake on my part. I just read British... does Wikipedia have an article about the group in question and/or the documentary? Schyler! (one language) 16:55, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, Wnt linked to them in the question (Bountiful is the name of their settlement). Adam Bishop (talk) 17:38, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

While women may be discouraged from working outside the home, there's plenty of opportunity to make money while working at home. Farming, weaving, crafts, art, etc., could all be forms of income, although I assume that the husband would go into town to sell them. StuRat (talk) 19:42, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Early human migrations from India

File:Migration map4.png

Map of early human migrations according to mitochondrial population genetics

I don't know what exactly Michael Wood means when he says (in The Story of India)that "all non-Africans on the planet can trace their descent from those early migrations into India. The rest of the world was populated from here -- 'Mother India' indeed.". Early human migrations does not present such a simplistic view. What is the scholarly opinion about this statement. 14.139.128.14 (talk) 06:30, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

While not strictly true that all non-African humans descend from the earliest settlers of the Subcontinent, India does have a role in the early pre-history, see Indus Valley Civilization, which was one of the earliest civilized areas of the world, on par with the Fertile Crescent in terms of being presciently settled and civilized. --Jayron32 12:18, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

As the map I've added indicates (taken from Recent African origin of modern humans), that idea does not accord with the available data. Looie496 (talk) 17:25, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, that map is rubbish when it comes to the early Australian population, unless they were awfully good swimmers. HiLo48 (talk) 19:41, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the map is meant to portray exact routes, and being so undetailed it omits many of the islands still existing, let alone areas now submerged by post-glacial sea-level rises, through which the ancestral Australian Aborigines island hopped, presumably using early boats or rafts. {The poster previously known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.165 (talk) 19:57, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I noticed that when watching the program, too. Perhaps he was referring to the earlier theory that the "Aryan race" originated in northern India and then spread to Europe  ? Unfortunately, many science/biography/documentary shows on TV seem to lack rigorous fact-checking. StuRat (talk) 19:36, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Michael Wood's statement is certainly going to surprise those who settled into the Fertile Crescent, and those who moved from there to Europe or Central Asia. DOR (HK) (talk) 05:21, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Japan: America's second greatest ally in the world?

I was listening on the radio yesterday about the disaster in Japan, and this host (I don't remember his name) said that Japan has become America's biggest ally after Great Britain. Is this host right? Willminator (talk) 17:35, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Define "biggest". Japan has the second- or third-largest GDP, higher than the UK. They're way down the list of military size. They're pretty high on military spending, but the UK, France, and Germany are all higher. Canada, Brazil, Australia, and others have them beat handily in size. The political aspects don't really have an objective form of measurement, but I don't think there's a clear-cut hierarchy that puts Japan second. — Lomn 18:04, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

By asking if Japan was our "second greatest ally," I was intending to ask if Japan was our second closest friend (Great Britain currently being the first). Is Japan currently America's second closest friend? If not, where would Japan be today on America's friendship scale? I keep hearing President Obama and others saying that Japan is one of our closest allies, which is something I've heard before the Japanese disaster, and is true. The radio host I heard yesterday said that Japan was America's second greatest (closest) ally. That's the first time I've heard that claim, so I'm wondering if that claim is true. Willminator (talk) 18:50, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

That's all rather subjective (opinion). The US does, however, have major military bases there, so that's a sign of their usefulness to the US. StuRat (talk) 19:31, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

So, since it's subjective to rate Japan or some other country as our second closest ally in the world, would it be also subjective to rate Great Britain as our closest ally in the world? Willminator (talk) 19:52, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes. HiLo48 (talk) 20:13, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and I would argue that Canada is, due to a massive amount of trade between the two, and amazingly few border squabbles for two nations which share one of the longest borders in the world, and miltary co-operation such as NORAD and the DEW line. StuRat (talk) 22:09, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Hard to say who is exactly the closest, but the Japanese are definitely in the top 2-3 of the closest allies(in a lot of ways I would consider them the closest). We do have an article Japan – United States relations, but that doesn't outline cultural aspects.AerobicFox (talk) 21:29, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I see the OP asked on the talk page there before coming to the ref desk. 213.122.34.134 (talk) 21:37, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh, please stop now. It's a very silly discussion. There is obviously no precise definition of degree of closeness of alliedness. It's language used by diplomats and politicians, and we know they consciously avoid precise definitions. If we ever really need words here, "A close ally of..." is fine. HiLo48 (talk) 21:38, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I sometimes wonder about this sort of thing. Does Wikipedia have a policy on vacuous statements made by reliable sources? I suppose the thing to do would be to write "Politician X said this", with an implied "(whatever that really means)". 213.122.34.134 (talk) 21:45, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, we could come up with a definition of "closest ally", say the one to which you have the most dollars in trade ? However, as no definition is used universally, there's no way to apply this to establish the "truth" of statements about "closest allies" from politicians. StuRat (talk) 22:05, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Australian politicians like to say that America has no stronger friend in the world than Australia, and it would be undiplomatic for US Presidents to disagree. Julia Gillard spoke to the US Congress recently and went on emotionally about how Americans can do anything; I've never heard her or any other Australian politician tell Australians anything remotely like that, so that's quite some praise. Obama has been scheduled to visit Australia ever since he came to office, but at least 2 visits have had to be put off due to other emerging issues, and I'm not aware there's any visit at all scheduled at present. It's in the "We'd love to come Down Under when time permits" basket, which has a commitment value of zero. So, what that all says about the closeness of the US-Australian alliance, I'm really not sure. We have to be content with Oprah and her excessive (even for her) perorations of naked abject lust for all things Australian. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 00:03, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

It's not a question of affection, Jack. But you know, Japan is our regional counterweight to China. When New Zealand starts giving us trouble, you can bet Australia will be higher on the returned-call list. --Trovatore (talk) 01:59, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

What's a no-fly zone?

I read on the BBC that French jets have begun enforcing the no-fly zone in Libya. I don't quite understand why they have "destroyed a number of tanks and armoured vehicles". Were they trying to prevent the tanks from flying, or is the no-fly zone misnamed? 213.122.34.134 (talk) 20:18, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I guess we should be referring to No-fly zone, but it doesn't suggest that destroying tanks is part of it. Maybe the media doesn't understand either. HiLo48 (talk) 20:22, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

(ec)Any hostile action from ground forces towards the planes enforcing the 'no fly zone' (including just locking on radar) would be met with an immediate response. However, from the terms of the UN resolution I believe it also allows any action to prevent harm to the civilian population short of landing ground forces. Mikenorton (talk) 20:25, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Those Libyans can be very sneaky... best to play it safe.

OK, seriously, the UN resolution that the international community is now enforcing calls for more than just a "no-fly" zone. It also calls for a halt to ground attacks. The French strikes are designed achieve that. Blueboar (talk) 20:27, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Libyan no-fly zone explains, though. WHAAOE! Thanks. 213.122.34.134 (talk) 20:29, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Maybe we can be the first to come up with a better name for this style of operation.... HiLo48 (talk) 20:31, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Let's call it a ten foot pole operation. 213.122.34.134 (talk) 20:36, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, really, the old-fashined term for this is balance of power, where in this case the UN is using its forces to counterbalance the extreme equipment advantages the pro-government forces have over their own people. Balance of power has historically been used as a perverse stabilizing influence - making victory questionable enough so that governments hesitate to engage in conflict.

Plus, that way we can use the ultra cool term: it's a BOP-zone! --Ludwigs2 22:21, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I think confusing names on Wikipedia are a bit of an issue. If anyone else agrees, especially about this one, maybe continue discussion at Talk:Libyan no-fly zone#Rename. HiLo48 (talk) 21:02, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

The mention of preventing tanks from flying made me laugh, but it's worth mentioning that sometimes tanks have indeed been known to fly; see Winged tank. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:38, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Wealth of the Windsor family

If they were no longer paid public money, and had to leave all publicly owned property, how much income and capital would they have left?

From the amount we pour into them, they must realy be on their uppers. 92.24.178.214 (talk) 21:39, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Taking this as a serious question, the Duchy of Cornwall made £16 million last year (all those biscuits, presumably). It makes a lot of difference how the "Windsor" family were privatised; the Duchy itself is automatically in the control of the heir of the monarch. I have a feeling, though, this is another of the monarchy-bashing civil list questions we had a while back. It's impossible to answer. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 22:32, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

The "heir of the monarch" being currently Prince Charles, Prince of Wales. I just mention this because it's become flavour of the month in the media to refer to Charles's son William as "heir to the throne". William does not, however, have that distinction. He's in the line of succession, and in the ordinary course of events he will become heir when his father becomes king, and then succeed his father - in about 30 years time. But his father's still waiting patiently in line himself; he might get to become king when he's in his 70s, the way his mother's going. If she lasts as long as her own mother, Charles would not get to become king till about 2026, when he'll be 78. William would then be 44. He might not get to become king himself till he's about 66. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 23:51, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

...unless Charles realizes that he's quite a good Prince of Wales and steps aside for a young king, retraining his title and the Duchy...--Wetman (talk) 09:54, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

If William were to have children, and Charles stepped aside in favor of him, Charles would no longer be the heir to the throne, and therefore no longer eligible to hold the titles of Duke of Cornwall or Prince of Wales. Corvus cornix_talk 18:25, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

But why would Charles step aside, and why should he? The history of the British monarchy contains no precedent for such a thing (Edward VIII is not a comparable case). The people of the Commonwealth do not want another Richard Nixon. He's been preparing all his life to become king. It's not a popularity contest. The Parliament might just have the teensiest opinion on such a matter, by the way; at law, it's not even Charles's decision. Anyway, it wouldn't depend on whether or not William had progeny. If he were childless, Harry would become heir. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 19:07, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, I completely don't get the Nixon ref. Who was the first Nixon the people of the Commonwealth didn't want, or at least don't want another of? Was it the actual Nixon, who I don't see what he has to do with this, or Edward VIII, whose connection with Nixon is obscure to me, or someone else, or some other kind of metaphor altogether? --Trovatore (talk) 08:26, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I was thinking Edward VIII and Richard Nixon are the only people to have resigned voluntarily from their roles as head of state of the UK and the USA. Just as the USA would not welcome another presidential resignation, the UK and the Commonwealth would not welcome another abdication (or whatever it's called when the heir to the throne decides he does not want to succeed and passes the baton to the next in line). I confused matters when I excluded Edward VIII up front (on the grounds that his abdication as king is not the same thing as the resignation of the heir to the throne from the line of succession), but then implicitly included him as an example of an abdication in more general terms. Don't quite know what I was thinking there. Warning: The foregoing may be no clearer than before, in which case, I'm again sorry. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 11:00, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

There is speculation that Charles might decline to be King if Camilla is not made Queen. Whether that speculation has any basis in fact is another matter. Ultimately the speculation is fun, but pointless... We will find out when Elizabeth II dies. Blueboar (talk) 19:30, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

That doesn't sound right. If Charles becomes king, Camilla or whoever he's married to at the time (barring a same-sex partnership) WILL BE queen. But HE has made the decision, at least for now, that when he becomes king, she will not be CALLED "Queen" but "Princess Consort". It's entirely in his hands. When the time comes, who knows what will happen. If he has to wait another 15 years, there'll be a whole pile of his subjects who've never even heard of Diana, so the whole point of the alternative title for Camilla will have dissipated. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 19:48, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

As Jack says, the wife of a king is a queen. It's part of the definition of the word "queen", really. Where there is some leeway is in what style a particular individual uses. That would be a decision for Charles and Camilla to make (perhaps with the advice of ministers and courtiers). It's the same as the decision for Camilla to be styled "Duchess of Cornwall" rather than "Princess of Wales". She is the Princess of Wales but she doesn't use that title. --Tango (talk) 22:13, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

In these days of gender equality, is it fair the "the wife of a king is a queen", but " the husband of a queen is a king" doesn't hold? Dbfirs 08:52, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

But it's also not symmetrical. That is, Queen Elizabeth II's husband, Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, is not considered to be a "king". I suspect that the reason is that, historically, if there was a king and a queen, the king was presumed to have the most power, with the queen in a secondary role. StuRat (talk) 08:49, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

The Windsor wealth is slap in the face to democracy. They're getting paid for being who they are (royalty). As for the succession? the 16 Commonwealth realm Parliaments decide, not the monarch or anybody within her family. So far, Charlie is still heir-apparent. Legally, Elizabeth II is the heir, as heir means to be in possesion of 'or' in succession to - i.e. Elizabeth II is the 'heir' to George VI. GoodDay (talk) 12:25, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

"The Windsors" are not paid public money. Those in the Royal Family who carry out official duties on behalf of any of the Commonwealth realms have the expences incurred by those activities paid for by the relevant state, just as it is for any other government official. These funds are controlled by the various parliaments; the monarch hasn't held the purse strings for more than two hundred years. (So much for a "slap in the face" to democracy!) How they earn money as private individuals depends on who it is we're talking about; as has already been noted, Charles has the Duchy of Cornwall, the Queen has the Duchy of Lancaster and investments. But, how much the family is collectively worth, in that sense, I've no idea. Just like any other individual, its their private business.

As for Charles: the question of his "stepping aside" in favour of William is hardly worth pondering; he cannot willingly abdicate his place in the succession. He must have the approval of all the parliaments of the 16 Commonwealth realms (plus each of the 10 provincial legislatures in Canada and perhaps the states of Australia) to do such a thing. It's technically possible, but is such a complex matter he'd likely be dead before it was finally done. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 13:14, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Monarchies got go. They're a hypocracy to democracy. GoodDay (talk) 13:49, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Catchy. But wrong, as proven by all the democracies that incorporate monarchy. Plus, history tells us monarchy probably isn't going anywhere; its too flexible to go extinct. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 13:52, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Too archaic, it's gotta go. GoodDay (talk) 14:15, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

You seem to be under the mistaken belief that democracy is some new invention and ancient and modern are inherently incompatible. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:04, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

The queen inherited billions of pounds of investments including billions of pounds of rent-yielding properties in London. The royal family needs to continue to be exempt to death duties to preserve the value of their investments.
Sleigh (talk) 15:08, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Outlook for the USD

What is the outlook for the USD against the other major currencies over the next few months? Thanks. Leptictidium (mt) 23:26, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Probably not too bad, but you never know. Itsmejudith (talk) 00:00, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't mean to be flippant, but with currencies, bond yields, stocks, whatever, you're usually going to have about as many people thinking they should go up as think they should go down. If it were obvious the dollar should be higher, it would already be there. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:55, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Over the next few months the yen will be falling, so the USD will be doing better compared to that. Apart from that it is faring as usual.AerobicFox (talk) 05:30, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Nobody knows. See Efficient markets hypothesis. If they think they know, they are either extremely clever and as a result very rich or, and far more likely, gamblers or charlatans selling financial snake-oil.

On second thoughts I think the best forecast for the USD is its current value, and weighted into the future by the comparative interest rates of the currencies it is compared with. This is what the EMH implies. There must be an article about that but I cannot think what it would be called. Edit: Interest rate parity.

If the OP is thinking about whether to buy foriegn currency now or later, then buying half now and half when needed would reduce the psychological regret. 92.28.241.202 (talk) 13:52, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

@AerobicFox, the Yen won't necessarily fall. Japaneses are bringing money home from abroad. That means selling Euros and Dollar and buying Yens. Quest09 (talk) 18:02, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

That has already been taken account of in the current value of the yen. In other words its too late to anticipate what Quest09 has described. 92.28.241.202 (talk) 19:43, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Not all price movements are speculative. Sometimes people buy stuff because they need it. Speculators would never ever be able to know in advance how much more Yens will be flowing to Japan in the next months. They are just what they are: speculators trying to guess. Of course, economists will provide you a theory about why everything is like a clock in economics...212.169.189.144 (talk) 01:47, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Future movements are already reflected in current prices due to Temporal arbitrage temporal Arbitrage. 92.15.25.108 (talk) 13:29, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Since we are very careful not to offer legal advice, and react in horror at the thought of using these pages to offer medical advice, why oh why do people persist in offering financial advice? Please, people! Leave it to the professionals, and discourage this sort of question! DOR (HK) (talk) 05:26, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

March 20

Were Hitler and Stalin ever photographed together?

See topic. Thanks. The Masked Booby (talk) 01:25, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

No. They never met officially. There are whacked out theories that they may have secretly walked past each other at one point or another, but it would be a huge stretch of reality to assume someone was standing around with a camera waiting to see if they might walk down the hall at the same time. -- kainaw™ 01:30, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Hitler and Stalin never met face to face (and so would not have been photographed together). All contact between Russia and Germany was handled by their respective foreign ministers.... or by their armies.

That said, there are photographic images that depict them together... all obvious fakes. Blueboar (talk) 01:37, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

There must be photographers in the 7th Circle of Hell. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:16, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Why Libya?

Do any of our Wikipedia articles discuss what exactly motivated the US, Britain, and France to attack Libya? Many governments around the world currently sanction human rights violations like those committed in Libya (countries that come to mind include Sudan, Bahrain, and Yemen), so is it safe to assume that economic or political motivations prompted this attack? If so, what are they? Edge3 (talk) 03:05, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not an expert, but I think that the US, UK, and France were just the best equipped and best prepared nations to take military action. BurtAlert (talk) 03:10, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I think the questioner is asking why attack Libya and not Sudan, Bahrain, or Yemen, which have documented human rights violations. Wikipedia's best evidence are the infoboxes at the top right of the articles. Sudan and Yemen are both republics and Bahrain is a Kingdom whereas Libya was an autocracy (now it is "disputed," according to the infobox). Schyler (one language) 03:24, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

"Autocracy" is not incompatible with republics or monarchies. North Korea is an autocratic republic, for example. It's a bit hard to determine how to classify Libya because some people would consider a head of state that is at least ostensibly elected to be a requirement. However, it's not really clear who the official head of state in Libya is under Gadhafi's regime. Gadhafi himself has never been elected to anything. As far as the original question goes, the situation in Libya right now is more serious than the situations in Bahrain and Yemen, with thousands of lives at stake. And Gadhafi's regime has long been detested by both the West and by other Arab countries, making it easier to get international support for military intervention. ASudan is a little different story from Libya because it is an ethnic conflict rather than a widespread uprising against the regime. There is a United Nations/African Union peacekeeping force in Darfur. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 03:48, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Your cynicism is healthy, OP, but it gets much more complicated. And, it's like asking, "Since the right thing doesn't happen all the time, does that mean the right thing can never happen...?" ;) WikiDao ☯ 03:31, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

A similar but related question is - Why now, and not ten years ago? HiLo48 (talk) 03:37, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Ten years ago the Libyan people weren't desperately requesting it. It would have been a "foreign invasion" then -- and there are only so many "Iraqs" and "Afghanistans" that the world (or even just the US alone) can deal with at one time... WikiDao ☯ 03:46, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

The right autocrats (ones friendly to the west) are already in charge in Yemen and Bahrain, at least. There's no need to replace them. Adam Bishop (talk) 09:44, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

In diplomacy you have to play the cards you're dealt.You can't ask for a more playable hand or a better partner.--Wetman (talk) 09:50, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

You can, however, refuse to play in most situations. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:11, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

The pivotal moment that led to the attacks was when the Arab League voted for it: [25]. As for their motivations, I asked the same question a couple days ago: [26]. StuRat (talk) 10:49, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I've just read this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-12792637 92.28.241.202 (talk) 14:00, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

There's a political dimension to this. Libya is a technically socialist state that has been implicated in terrorist attacks (e.g. the Lockerbie plane bombing), and has been overtly hostile to the western states since the fall of the old kingdom. Bahrain, Yemen, Sudan, Saudi Arabia and etc. are either kingdoms or puppet republics that have had a much more pro-west attitude (mostly because they know which side of their bread is buttered). We in the west tolerate autocrats much better than we tolerate socialists, and have historically groomed these tinpot dictatorships to try to maintain a certain stability in the region so that oil production is not affected.

Blame it on cold war politics, which generally held that it was better to have a controllable devil wrapped in liberal camouflage in places like this, than to actually construct a liberal society and risk that the people might choose socialist or religious fundamentalist governments. --Ludwigs2 14:26, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Britain is a socialist state too. 92.28.241.202 (talk) 15:24, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Read socialism. No, it's not, unless the means of production are publicly controlled. I also doubt that Libya is a "socialist" state in any meaningful name. However, socialism has become a catch phrase for "states unfriendly to the US and not completely laissez-faire", I guess. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:02, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

A lot of the "means of production" are publically controlled, particularly when you consider that Britain is a service economy rather than a metal-basher. For example our "socialised medicine", and that a large proportion of people work for the government.92.28.241.202 (talk) 19:50, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Countries can't be re-identified as "socialist" (or any other term) just on the basis of woolly generalisations like this. There are indeed parts of the UK (e.g. Liverpool) where a surprising percentage of the population are either employed by the government or primarily dependent on state hand-outs. However, that doesn't change the fact that the vast majority of the economy (as a whole) is not government controlled. For it to be a socialist country, it would have to be the opposite way round. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:20, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Qadaffi has managed to build an impressive list of enemies in his 40-plus years in power, both in the east and the west, and it looks like it's payback time, i.e. he's presented an "opportunity" to his enemies, to take some action. People seem to have forgotten that Qadaffi's name was once mentioned in the same tone of voice that later came to be used for Saddam Hussein. Some idea of Libya's image in the eye of the American public at one time can be seen in the 1985 film Back to the Future, where they mention "Libyan terrorists". Not just "terrorists", not just "Arab terrorists", but specifically Libyan terrorists. Than Saddam came along and stole Qadaffi's thunder, so to speak. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:36, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Qadaffi has accomplished to re-build his image from terrorist to acceptable partner, just to lose all respect from the West when it came down to fight the rebels. Strangely, in his present list of enemies, Arabs are well-represented. That helps the West, since no one is going to accuse them of being Islamophobic. Quest09 (talk) 17:55, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I suppose the presence of oil in Libya might anything to do with outside countries' interest in its governance. Operation Iraqi Freedom was purportedly called Operation Iraqi Liberation until someone realized the acronym didn't convey the message they wanted. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 04:49, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

World War 3

I often hear people mention how bad the world will be when World War 3 comes along... But in reality, we're already in it; the war of terrorism. It's world-wide, and causing a lot of damage. Wouldn't you agree that this is in fact World War 3?Accdude92 (talk) 04:14, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I've never seen anyone apply that particular term to current events: the term usually applied is the War on Terrorism, and that's even debatable (many of the current series of conflicts are only tangentially related to terrorism). WWIII was usually applied, up until the breakup of the Soviet Union, to a potentially hot phase of the Cold War, which would have indeed been bad. Acroterion (talk) 04:19, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

No, and to continue to call it a war does the world no good at all. It will be as successful as the war on drugs. HiLo48 (talk) 04:20, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Nope. We're already into World War 7 (I think - I've lost count). Seriously, though, do you think that terrorism is a new phenomenon? Look here for why you are wrong. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:21, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Not new, exactly, just a large issue now... More so than it appeared in the past.Accdude92 (talk) 04:34, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Even that depends on where you are. In Northern Ireland (and probably Spain, and no doubt other places too), it is less of an issue than it used to be. In any case, 'terrorism' is such a vague concept that it tells you little about anything. As for terrorism causing 'a lot of damage', as the OP suggests, I think this is overstating things - look at what happened to Coventry, Hamburg, or Hiroshima, and at the death-camps and other mechanised mass-murder, and ask yourself if things are that bad? No, they aren't - though it suits some politicians (and arms manufactures etc) to suggest it is. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:09, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

You're not the first to think that the War on Terror is a world war. See Norman Podhoretz, for example, who wrote World War IV: The Long Struggle Against Islamofascism (the Cold War is his WW3). Almost everyone agrees now that the War on Terror was misnamed, even George W Bush. But to have called the war by a more accurate name, like the War against Extreme Militant Islamism, would have been even more controversial, so the euphemistic name was used. Whether this conflict is really a war, or really a world war, or really like the Cold War is debatable, and this isn't the place for that debate. —Kevin Myers 05:24, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

This isn't a question, it's an invitation to debate. 87.114.246.141 (talk) 11:01, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Anyway, world war three was the one against Napoleon, they mean world war 6, and I am sure we will only know it was that once it finishes and we can look back and see just what we have actually achieved. Though, Churchill did say the empires of the future would be empires of the mind, and the opposing sides in this conflict seem to be just such predicted mental empires, with competing views, so maybe. 148.197.121.205 (talk) 14:25, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

As far back as 2002 or 2001, Bill O'Reilly (who typically calls it the War on Terror) was saying this was really World War III. The numbering came about because what we now call World War I was called "The Great War" or "The World War" (without a number, obviously) as well as the hopelessly optimistic "The War to End All Wars". Then when a truly world-wide war came along, they tacked a I onto "the" World War, and a II onto the "second" one. It was long assumed that World War III would be a mutually-destructive nuclear war, i.e. what would happen if the cold war went "hot". As Tom Lehrer said in 1965, "If any songs come out of World War III, we'd better start writing them now!" However, history has a way of evolving in different directions than expected. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:48, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

In reality the term World War is more a description about a state of total war between great powers than the scope of such a conflict. There have been only two such conflicts since mechanised warfare was created, and we are not in the third. 130.88.162.13 (talk) 18:22, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

If 20 million people die, you can call it a world war. Otherwise it is just various seperate wars or even compared to WWII, skirmishes. --Lgriot (talk) 10:04, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I guess it all boils down to agreeing on a definition of World War. Without having put too much thought into it, I am tempted to suggest at least two factors that should be present for a conflict to fall into the "World War" category:

(1) An armed conflict between official nations

(2) One or more nations of subsantial economic and military power on both sides of the conflict

Introducing an element of scale (ie. number of casualties and geographic spread) would also be helpful, but at least the proposed two conditions rule out concepts like wars against terrorism, aids, drugs etc.... --DI (talk) 11:14, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

first online legal notice in the world

I am looking for info on When and where was the first online legal notice served that was held tenable by the judge

Would appreciate any help —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.31.252.236 (talk) 19:42, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Quibble: The first online legal notice served that was held tenable (enforceable) by the judge was not necessarily, and I assume was not, the first online legal notice in the world. A giant majority of legal notices are never ruled on by any court, so I expect the first online legal notice was something relatively uncontroversial, like "Copyright (C)1970 by Knuth". By "online", also, you might want to specify whether you are talking about the Web, or on ARPANet, or over dial-up modem BBSs, etc. Comet Tuttle (talk) 20:23, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I am referring to the web —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.31.252.236 (talk) 20:55, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

So not the internet? The internet predated the web by a decade or two. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:16, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Records management - Dutch law

Hi. I have a problem in finding answers to following questions regarding Dutch record and archive law: What information must be registered? (according to law and best practice) What kind of quality is demanded from this registration? What retention period applies? (search for laws or special retention lists) Who uses this information? (for instance: controlling and auditing agency’s)

I should consider those questions in respect to companies such as Energy companies, Telecommunications companies,Banks as financial institutions and public authorities. It is quite hard for me as I speak Dutch only a little. I found some English websites on that topic though,

http://www.dnb.nl/en/about-dnb/question-and-answer/questions-about-banks/index.jsp#faq-2 or http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Archives+and+records+management+in+the+Netherlands.-a057640379 however the don't really go into specifics.

If anyone has some knowledge on that subject or can point me in some direction (I'm not a law student) I would appreciate that. M2tek (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:24, 20 March 2011 (UTC).

Peaceful protesters arrested

http://www.washingtonpost.com/anti-war-activists-arrested-near-white-house-as-they-mark-8th-anniversary-of-start-of-iraq-war/2011/03/19/ABtZbzu_story.html

How can the government arrest peaceful demonstrators? Doesn't that violate the First Amendment rights of freedom of speech and assembly? --70.244.234.128 (talk) 21:47, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

See Free speech zone. As with all rights, there seem to be quite a lot of loopholes. --Mr.98 (talk) 22:03, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

We had this question the last time this happened, and the arrests were for refusing to stop "blocking the sidewalk." This appears to be the issue again this time. Protesters in this kind of case often seek to get arrested for the attention it brings to their cause. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:50, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

It should be noted that just because you are protesting something, you do not also get free reign to break reasonable laws, or in other words merely exercising your right (say, freedom of speech) doesn't grant you the right to violate one of my rights (say, freedom of movement) to do so. Police are allowed to disperse large groups of people who are preventing others from, say, walking down the street minding their own business. People who refuse to comply with a reasonable request (like "Hey, you're all clogging the sidewalk and making it hard for others to get to work. Break it up so others can get where they need to go") can be arrested for doing so. --Jayron32 23:02, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

In general, the trick to making this kind of thing First Amendment compatible is that you arrest whomever is doing it, whatever their political positions. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:54, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

And where do you find pro-war protesters to arrest as a compensation? 212.169.189.144 (talk) 01:06, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

You can find protesters for anything these days. --Mr.98 (talk) 02:13, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Off-topic pedantry, but I can't resist - it's "free rein", not "free reign", being an allusion to horses, not rulers. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 11:34, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

AIMAV

What does AIMAV stand for? It's some sort of linguistic organization. Geschichte (talk) 22:23, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I found a book review from 1971 that says this is a "merciful acronym" for the Association Internationale pour la Recherche et al Diffusion des Methodes Audio-Visuelle et Structuro-Globales. A later abstract says it is the Association internationale pour le developpement de la communication interculturelle, but that doesn't fit the letters. Looie496 (talk) 22:50, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

March 21

Two religious questions: "Come As You Are" and David's baby son going to heaven?

1. Where in the bible does it say "Come as you are?" (Regarding the clothes you wear to church.)

2. King David's son died as a baby as a punishment from God to David. I may have heard secondhand about his son going to heaven, but what verse indicates this?

Moreover, what other verses indicate that children before the age of accountability go to Heaven? What verses, if any, indicate that children could still go to hell? --70.179.169.115 (talk) 02:52, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

On your second question, the Old Testament, for the most part, does not mention reward and punishment in the afterlife. There are a few possible allusions to it in some of the later books (especially the Book of Daniel) but those are disputed. So most likely the question is not treated at all. --Trovatore (talk) 03:01, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

On question 2, after David's son's death, 2 Samuel 12:23 has David saying "But now [that my son] is dead, wherefore should I fast? can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me." It's up to the reader to decide if David's belief that he would "go to" his dead son means [1] in Heaven, [2] in the Bosom of Abraham, [3] in death, [4] in the ground, [5] in Sheol, [6] in Hell, [7] in the Limbo of the pagans, or [8] any of the really limitless other possibilities. Despite this nebulousness, those who wish to believe that dead babies go to heaven have found comfort in this particular verse. Historically, the beliefs regarding the "destination" of dead unbaptised babies have evolved over time—like most "Biblical" beliefs, verses can be picked out of context and interpreted in myriad ways, so that almost any doctrine can be justified, and has been. - Nunh-huh 03:56, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Interesting; I didn't know that. That seems to supersede my answer for this specific question. --Trovatore (talk) 04:44, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

To answer the original questions — (1) The Bible doesn't say this. (2) This question is very much disputed; there's no specific passage that discusses the question in detail. Nyttend (talk) 11:19, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

You are not alone, many people think "come as you are" is in the bible somewhere. Here's a list of passages that are relevant, some moreso than others [27] SemanticMantis (talk) 14:56, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

About kinsmen relations of Vladimir Sviatoslavich the Great to Haakon Sigurdsson

I need help. Please, send to me link to source of info about kinsmen relations of Vladimir Sviatoslavich the Great to Haakon Sigurdsson. I will high appreciate your answer. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_I_of_Kiev

Oleg L.Gubarev <E-mail address removed to prevent spamming> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.52.73.176 (talk) 06:26, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Monday the 22nd of 1826

What date in 1826 was a Monday the 2nd?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 08:23, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

According to our article on 1826, the calendar is here. The title of this thread differs from the question you asked. Monday the 22nd was in May. Monday the 2nd was in both January and October. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:38, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Here's a nifty site that will display a calendar for any year:[28] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:07, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

World War II Air Raid sirens

On YouTube, I have been listening to recordings of both British and German air raid sirens which were used in World War II. My question is why were they different from one another? The British used a dual-tone siren while the Germans employed one with a single tone. I would have thought they'd have been standard.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:44, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

The British sirens were dual tone for an air-raid warning and single tone for the "all clear". I would imagine that Britain would not have wanted to buy it's sirens from Germany of vice-versa! Alansplodge (talk) 09:03, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

My apologies if this is obvious to everyone else but why would you think that they'd be the same? Were both sirens made by the same company? Dismas|^(talk) 09:09, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

No, but seeing as stop signs, traffic light colours, etc. are all standard use internationally, I had presumed air raid sirens would have sounded the same. I have probably been influenced in my thinking by the fact that the British air raid siren is used as a generic siren in all World War II films, irrespective of nation. I recall having seen a film about the war based in Italy, and the British siren was used.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:32, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Instead of using traffic signs, you should perhaps instead compare them to the situation regarding sirens on emergency vehicles, which can also vary a lot from country to country. --Saddhiyama (talk) 12:44, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I know that having lived in four different countries. The US emergency vehicle sirens appear to be much faster and frenetic-sounding than those in Europe.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:48, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Long ago I was taking a physics class with a professor who had been a kid in Germany when the allies were bombing and the air raid sirens were sounding. At some point a police care came whizzing by, blaring its siren, very audible as the windows were open. He said that when he heard an American police car or other emergency vehicle, it gave him chills, as it took him back to that time. It was always my understanding (tell me if I'm wrong) that European emergency vehicle sirens have that two-tone aspect to them purposely to sound different from air raid sirens. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:54, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Possibly. However, UK emergency sirens are different from those used in over in continental Europe. Road signs weren't harmonised until the late 1960s. I remember learning one set for a test at Cubs and then having to learn a whole new set because they'd changed. You can see the old UK signs here. BTW, the old air-raid sirens were kept in the UK until the 1990s in case WWIII broke out. In London, they were also used to signal a major flood, before the Thames Barrier was completed. There was a test once in the 1970s and it was a very erie sound - made the hairs on the back of my neck stand up. Alansplodge (talk) 15:51, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

The story I heard was that a new set of British road signs were designed in the 1960s by a British artist, and then these were copied by countries all around the world. I imagine they'd didnt pay her or us either. 92.15.25.108 (talk) 16:06, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

See Siren (noisemaker). I thought the sound from the traditional British air-raid siren was due to compressed air blowing through a series of holes in a rapidly rotating disk - hence the lower tone as it rotated up to speed. 92.15.25.108 (talk) 16:10, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Knowledge of politics outside the US

Americans (of course excluding experts) are more knowledgeable about British politics. Compared to this, they have little knowledge/interest on the internal politics of other European countries like France, Germany etc., even through these countries are major global powers and their economies are ahead of UK economy. Is there any sociocultural explanation for this? Does language have something to do with it or other reasons? --Reference Desker (talk) 14:42, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Judging by the amount of Americans who post on these reference desks who seem to think the UK is a socialist state, I would say your first sentence bears little resemblance to reality. --TammyMoet (talk) 15:23, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

And, given the number of Americans who insist on changing UK spelling to American spelling in article about British subjects, they don't know much about the language either. HiLo48 (talk) 15:28, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Let's be nice to each other now. My guess is that it's because of the Special Relationship. It works ther other way too; I know a lot more about US politics than I do about French. Also, I wouldn't have been able to tell you who the Prime Minister of Japan was until last week. Alansplodge (talk) 15:38, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

If you (awkwardly) recast the original assertion as "Of the politics of non-US countries, Americans are most knowledgeable about British politics," then there may actually be a grain of truth to that. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 15:46, 21 March 2011 (UTC)