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

October 15

Alianzarena, Munich

Resolved

I am going to Munich this weekend (21st to 25th) to visit a friend. I have two questions. First, besides Dachau which we will visit, are there any other places my fellow wikipedians can recommend? Secondly, she has tickets for the Alianzarena, but won't tell me what we are seeing. Does anyone know what's happening that weekend? --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 12:42, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

1) Not Dachau, not Allianz Arena. 2) Soccer game TSV 1860 München : SC Paderborn. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 13:31, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

When I was a kid, I had a copy of Miroslav Sasek's This is Munich; unfortunately I don't still have it, and neither Amazon nor Google Books has viewable pages. If you've never been there before, it's virtually inevitable that your friend will take you to the Frauenkirche. If you're a beer drinker, a visit to the Hofbräuhaus am Platzl is also de rigueur. Have you browsed Category:Visitor attractions in Munich to see what appeals to you? Pais (talk) 14:14, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I've lived in Munich for 11 years. The art museums are quite good. See Alte Pinakothek, Neue Pinakothek, Pinakothek der Moderne. The Deutsches Museum is a world-class museum of science and technology. Also, the Englischer Garten should have lovely colours this time of the year. But for me, the main attraction was always the surroundings. If the weather is fine, take a trip to Starnberg and walk along the Starnberger See. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:27, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I second Stephan's answers, and definitely recommend the Deutsches Museum, even should you happen to lack scientific or technological inclinations. Also, look inside the Asamkirche. This concentration of late baroque opulence within such a small enclosed space is quite unusual (albeit not to everyone's taste or liking). ---Sluzzelin talk 15:12, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Excellent answers, thanks! Just what I need! KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 00:00, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Ludwigskirche

Small follow-up: If you are interested in academics and history, make a short stop at the old core of the Ludwigs-Maximilians-Universität on Leopoldstraße. The Ludwigskirche is quite striking, and at the Geschwister-Scholl-Platz you will find both a memorial and the very building the White Rose distributed leaflets and where ultimately caught by the Nazis. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:28, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Victorian water colour painter

Name George Arbuthnot. Born c.1803. Living in London 1829-1854. Who was he? Kittybrewster ☎ 13:46, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Are there any cases of reverse-provocateur government agents?

So traditionally one of the tactics used to break up and destroy subversive groups is to infiltrate them with agent provocateurs. The provocateur will usually encourage and incite the group to become more radical, militant and extreme and urge the organization to commit outrageous acts of violence, which will both discredit the group among the general population and give the government a pretext to crack down and make arrests. In some cases provocateurs might even initiate violence alone in the name of the organization.

So my question is are there any cases of reverse-provocateurs? By which I mean government agents that infiltrate radical militant groups to stear them in a more peaceful, nonviolent, legal, moderate, reformist direction. So instead of encouraging a nonviolent group to become violent, these agents would attempt to drive the violent organization in a less violent direction.

It would seem like agents who encouraged subversive groups to engage in LESS illegal activities would be less likely to be detected as provocateurs, and such a tactic might be better for a longterm strategy of defusing radicalism from within, making them less of a direct violent/terroristic revolutionary threat to the state.

So if anyone knows any examples of government use of this tactic, either from history or contemporary politics please let me know. --Gary123 (talk) 13:54, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, the goal of law enforcement is generally to discredit and disband such groups, so the strategy you're talking about isn't really amenable to that mindset. But in the intelligence community you do have things like this, such as the CIA's funding of the Congress for Cultural Freedom, which was generally meant to have a "liberal" (as opposed to "radical") approach to Europeans, who were perceived as particularly likely to be sucked in by Soviet propaganda during the Cold War. It wasn't so much that they paid people to try and influence towards liberalism (and against Communism) as that they funded people who happened to already believe that in the first place, and give them a mouthpiece. Other than that, though, I can't think of any comparable examples. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:59, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Wasn't there some white power skinhead group which was being infiltrated by cops in the 1990s out in the midwest U.S. somewhere? 208.54.38.200 (talk) 16:34, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Where to buy Kippot in the Czech Republic?

Where can kippot be bought in the Czech Republic either online or in person?--147.32.97.254 (talk) 18:06, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Well I don't know about buying them in person, but I suspect there are some Jewish stores in Prague. As for online, I guess you could use a site like [1] (they've been okay in the past). Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 17 Tishrei 5772 18:09, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Now that I think about it, check local synagogues, they would definitely know where you can buy kippot and some probably have Judaica stores that would sell them. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 17 Tishrei 5772 18:12, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

The Old New Synagogue is the only one still active on that list though. >.< But wait, I have found something else! Chabad of Prague [2] 'Chabad of Prague • Parizska 3 • Praha 1, 11000 • Czech Republic • 420-222-320-200/192 -- Tefillin, Mezuzot and other Judaica items are available at Chabad. Please call +420 222 320 200.' If they have those, there is no doubt that they have kippot! Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 17 Tishrei 5772 18:20, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, you are probably right. I just found that website very confusing (in all languages, Czech and Hebrew included) and skipped over it entirely. I'll be sure to go soon.--147.32.97.254 (talk) 19:24, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I know, it is poorly designed, but I thankfully noticed that stuff at the bottom. !חג שמח (Happy holiday!) Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 17 Tishrei 5772 19:29, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Brechova, where Shelanu Deli is located, is a short extension from Maiselova. Walk from the main square of the Old Town straight up Parizska (sorry, no háčeks on this keyboard apart from copy and paste) and turn left into Bilkova. Alternatively, from the Staromestska metro walk up 17. listopadu and turn right. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 19:51, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Il Canzoniere

I know it is obvious to some, but I seem to have missed the meaning of the "II". Is it because it is to be broken up into two words?--Doug Coldwell ^talk 18:25, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

"Canzoniere" would simply be song book. "Il Canzoniere" is the song book. It's just a Definite article. SDY (talk) 18:45, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I think the sans-serif font has misled you. It isn't the Roman numeral II. It's a capital eye followed by a lowercase ell, pronounced (approximately) eel. --Trovatore (talk) 18:50, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, now I get it. The sans-serif font did throw me off. It has NOTHING to do with the Roman numeral II.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 18:58, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Some good screen fonts, including Verdana and Segoe UI, put serifs on capital eyes despite otherwise being sans-serif fonts, thus eliminating this kind of confusion. Angr (talk) 06:41, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Cottage cheese in Israel

A while back, I read a news article regarding popular protests in Israel about cost of living, and cottage cheese came up as a specific bone of contention. Is there some particular reason this is ingrained in Israeli culture? I had a couple of Orthodox friends growing up, and none of them seemed particularly taken by the stuff. SDY (talk) 18:47, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Cottage cheese touched it off. Israelis love six types of food: Fish, Dairy, Cucumbers, anything made from chickpea, Tomatoes and Bread. I think there was some price fixing going on between the dairy companies like Tnuva and prices of cheese and other dairy products skyrocketed. Oh yeah, and I believe that another reason for the high prices was that, in the realm of dairy, Israel is very protectionist and does not allow dairy imports; or didn't until the protests, and I believe this was after several Israeli grocery stores said they would stop carrying Tnuva's products if they didn't lower the prices as the stores were apparently selling them for little or no profit. A lot of politics though. So, people got incredibly pissed off and it eventually evolved into a protest over many other things including government corruption, monopolies and high cost of living. I don't quite remember how it transitioned though, but that was an epic protest. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 17 Tishrei 5772 19:16, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Good info, but why cottage cheese in particular? Our article on the product doesn't give any background on the history of it other than the curds and whey. It more or less doesn't exist in India, so it's not a universal dairy food. I'm thinking Hawaiians and spam: it's a traditional food because there weren't many other meat options. Paneer has an additional quality that some cottage cheese shares, which is lack of rennet, and is that appealing from a standpoint of kashrut? SDY (talk) 21:15, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Cottage cheese is one of those foodstuffs which many cultures (at least, those that eat dairy) have arrived at independently; many have different names for it, and slightly different applications and preparation techniques, but most dairy-consuming cultures have a fresh, unaged cheese product. (besides the aforementioned Paneer, there is also things like Farmer's cheese and Queso fresco, and Quark (cheese) and so on). In Israel, apparently, it is a staple foodstuff; I'm not sure there needs to be a causitive agent for its popularity. Why do Italians eat pasta? Why do the Irish drink dark, warm beer? Why do Asian cultures use soy sauce? It just is... --Jayron32 23:35, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Apologies, as usual I ignored the most obvious answer. The main reason Israelis were so pissed off was because the price increase was completely and totally unreasonable to them. Israelis hate, and I mean hate, feeling like someone is taking advantage of them, to be considered a fraier (sucker, chump) is horrible (the only thing worse is to be called out as the person taking advantage of someone). The fact is that if an Israeli sees the price of something like cheese go up by 53% in the course of one month (I think that was it), he or she is going to be pissed because he or she feels that someone is trying to play him or her for a chump. It's not so much the cost or the love of cheese as the principle and no Israeli willingly takes such things lying down. Statements vetted and confirmed by Israeli girlfriend Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 18 Tishrei 5772 05:16, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

OT but how much is cottage cheese in Israel? It's not actually something I like much but I recently bought some and it was NZ$1.99 for 250g albeit on special. Of course NZ has a large dairy industry but we do get common complaints about the price of dairy products particularly milk. Nil Einne (talk) 16:11, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Cottage cheese is a staple part of Israeli breakfasts, if not the main element. In the UK, it would perhaps be comparable to the cost of breakfast cereal rising by 50% in a month. --Dweller (talk) 09:47, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

---

There's an article on the cottage cheese boycott... AnonMoos (talk) 10:49, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

See also 2010–2011 global food crisis. ~AH1 ^(discuss!) 01:45, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

"professional, dedicated, highly skilled and resilient"

According to Mike Jackson, the British Army's Chief of the General Staff, as the article Provisional Irish Republican Army campaign 1969–1997 points out, the Provisional IRA was "professional, dedicated, highly skilled and resilient". Where can I read the paper (by Jackson) wherein he described the IRA as being like that? --Belchman (talk) 19:39, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Operation Banner released under FOI [3] The Last Angry Man (talk) 20:00, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Great, thank you! --Belchman (talk) 20:57, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

silk road

What countries did the silk road go through and what goods were traded? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.92.76.13 (talk) 21:43, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Please, see Silk Road. --Belchman (talk) 22:28, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Why didn't Derry/Londonderry join the Republic of Ireland during the partition?

Why didn't it? Its population is mostly Catholic and nationalist. --Belchman (talk) 23:01, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

According to the relevant articles including Irish Boundary Commission and Partition of Ireland areas which were otherwise majority Catholic and Nationalist, including (London)Derry, were included on the northeast side of the border for primarily economic reasons: If the border were drawn on purely sectarian lines (i.e. fully seperating only those areas which were Protestant and Unionist into Northern Ireland), then the Northern Irish area would not have been economically viable. --Jayron32 23:25, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, checking those articles. Also, fixed a spelling mistake. --Belchman (talk) 23:37, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Also, it's the largest city in the northwest of Ireland, and has been considered by some to be a kind of Protestant holy city after the events of 1689. AnonMoos (talk) 09:33, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

The border decided in 1920 was provisional, to be adjusted by a Boundary Commission, which was appointed in 1924. Its report recommended transferring some parts of Northern Ireland to the Free State, as it then was, and some parts of County Donegal to Northern Ireland, but it was suppressed for a variety of reasons - mainly because the Irish government traded it for removal of liability for a proportion of the UK's public debt, which had been included in the 1920 treaty, but also because they felt it would entrench partition and make it harder to one day get rid of entirely. --Nicknack009 (talk) 11:02, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

As Anonmoos says, the symbolism of the place was a MAJOR factor. The 1689 Siege of Londonderry is seen as a defining moment in the Protestant mindset. The 13 Apprentice Boys who closed the gates to the Catholic James II, are commemorated annually. The answer to the King's ultimatum "Surrender or die" was "No surrender!", which has been the rallying call of the Ulster Protestants ever since[4][5][6]. Surrendering Londonderry to the Free State in 1920 would have been a disaster in the eyes of every Loyalist. Alansplodge (talk) 08:09, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Another factor - our article, The Troubles in Derry says: "Although Catholics were a clear majority of the Derry population, severe gerrymandering meant that unionists controlled the city government". Alansplodge (talk) 10:15, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

All of that is true, but since the Northern Ireland government took no part in the Boundary Commission and played no part that I know of in suppressing its report, I'm not sure how relevant it is. Besides, Unionists are quite happy to celebrate the Battle of the Boyne while the Boyne is entirely in the Republic. --Nicknack009 (talk) 12:09, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, but I suspect that the Commission would have known what would have been grudgingly accepted by both sides, and what would have been likely to start a civil war. "Then fight and don't surrender / But come when duty calls, / With heart and hand and sword and shield / We'll guard old Derry's Walls." Alansplodge (talk) 12:56, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

The relevant chapter from The Making of a Minority: Political Developments in Derry and the North 1912-25 by Colm Fox (1997) can be seen here. The crux of the matter seems to be as follows: "The claims that the city should become part of the Irish Free State were opposed on the grounds that the greater part of the trade of the city and its port was with Northern Ireland and that the city was linked economically with the Protestant districts of the East. These last points were decisive for Judge Feetham, who invoked the 'so far as may be compatible with economic and geographic conditions' clause of Article 12, maintaining that those conditions would take precedence over the 'wishes of the inhabitants'." Alansplodge (talk) 17:40, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

David & Karina Calvert-Jones

What are the names of their two children? Living in Los Angeles. Possibly in birth announcements in Australia. Kittybrewster ☎ 23:29, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Women in old Russia before seclusion

I know that before the Western reforms issued by Peter the Great in the early 18th century, Russian women lived secluded life's, at least in the upper classes, were they were not allowed to mingle with men. My question is, when were they secluded like this in the first place? Surely, they could not have been secluded in old Kievan Rus', as it was influenced by the Swedish culture, were women were not secluded? Or was it? Perhaps Kievan Rus were not influenced by Swedish culture, or not to that degree? If women were not secluded in Kievan Rus, then when were they placed in the seclusion from which they were freed by Peter the Great? Was it under the influence of the Golden Horde? Thank you.--Aciram (talk) 23:35, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I am not familiar with this in Russians per se, the practice here is attributed to a development even beyond Mongol and Byzantine influence, but Purdah was a common Indo-European practice also known in Persia, india, and among the Greeks. Indo-Europeans themselves, the Slavs were influenced by the Greeks and the Aryan relatives of the Persians. It is doubtful that the Ruotsi brought that many women along with them and probably took native brides--but that's a guess on my part. μηδείς (talk) 00:41, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

It's very doubtful whether it should be called an "Indo-European practice", since it was definitely not practiced by the speakers of the original Proto-Indo-European language, and there are whole branches of the Indo-European languages whose speakers have never practiced it.

It actually originated in the urban civilizations of the middle east. However, it seems to have been systematized and intensified in Achaemenid Persia, and it was the Persians who were most influential in transmitting the custom to other nations or civilizations... AnonMoos (talk)

As far as I understand, the women of India were not secluded before Islam? In any case, perhaps it is best to determine when the seclusion was first practiced in Russia? Were the Grand Princesses of Kiev secluded? And if not all, who was the first one of them to live in seclusion? Were the women secluded in the 11th century, in the 12th century, or in the 13th century Russia? If it was byzantine influence, then perhaps it was introduced by the Byzantine marriage and Christianisation of the Grand duke in 988? In short, when did the practice start? When is the first time were this practice is observed in Russia? And when is the last time when the women were not secluded? It was definitely in full practice in the 15th century, when Sophia Palaiologina was exempted from it. --Aciram (talk) 11:07, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, as I said the one book source I could find said that the seclusion of Muscovite women became more severe over time. I don't have an opinion of the source, having only seen it on google. I should say that there is no Indo-European word meaning "purdah" or "seclusion" in the strict sense. But, the seclusion of wives among the Greco-Aryans; the fact that the word "wed" and its analogs in other branches means "to lead away"; the fact that PIE kin terms are patrilocal; while evidence of Old Europe (archaeology) shows the opposite practice; the likelihood that the Latin word uxor comes from a root with a meaning "to become accustomed" (i.e., to one's role); the fact that the Romans found the equality with which the Etruscans treated their women suprising, while the Romans had such cults as the Vestal Virgins; the suggested etymology of wife from a verb *weip meaing "to wrap, enveil"; and many other things all imply a secluded role for wives in the culture of the Kurgan expansionists. μηδείς (talk) 02:17, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't really find that credible. The proto-Indo-European speakers were no doubt somewhat patriarchal in their own particular way, but their fairly mobile lifestyle (often more attached to their animals than to any particular plot of land) was not conducive to any type of strict segregation, and if they lived significantly north of the Caucasus mountain range (as seems most plausible), then they were too far away from urban civilizations to be directly influenced by them. Furthermore, it's quite dubious whether the English word "wife" goes back to Indo-European, and the attested early Germanic forms of this word don't really mean "married woman" anyway. And a source I have here explains the etymology of uxor as meaning "she who gets accustomed (to the new household)", implying patrilocal marriage customs, but not purdah. (In any case, in a society with purdah, a woman who went from seclusion in her father's household to seclusion in her husband's household would not have to become accustomed to purdah...) And the Greco-Aryan article describes what seems to be a rather speculative hypothesis. AnonMoos (talk) 06:06, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Graeco-Armeno-Aryan is rather mainstream and quite well supported by such things as the augment, the me negative, common vocabulary and morphological phenomena. Gamkrelidze and Ivanov support it as does Mallory, apparently. The only real problem seems to be that Greek alone among them is a Centum dialect, but that is not unsurmountable. Your comment that the uxor wouldn't have to get used to purdah is flippant. The object to which she would have to conform would be the husband's household. μηδείς (talk) 17:14, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

And having to accustom herself to her husband's household is evidence of patrilocal marriage customs, but not evidence for purdah as such. Of the three components of the claimed Greco-Armeno-Aryan group, the Greeks had locally-varying degrees of seclusion, the Armenians were subject to strong early and continuing Persian influence, while among Indic-language speakers purdah seems to have been greatly strengthened by external influences. The economical hypothesis is that speakers of Proto-Indo-European, while likely somewhat patriarchal in some ways, did not practice any strict seclusion of women. AnonMoos (talk) 00:35, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

P.S. The degree of seclusion among the ancient Greeks seems to have varied significantly among different city-states, and Herodotus' fellow-Halicarnassian Artemisia I of Caria famously fought in the battle of Salamis as a reigning queen, etc. Some might say that if there are publicly-recognized queen-consorts in a society (as in Byzantium and Muscovy), then that's not a full implementation of purdah -- since in the system as practiced by the Abbasids (who were significantly Persianized in certain customs) and Ottomans, there was nothing that could be called a public "queen" role at all (with the exception of the mother of the reigning monarch occasionally waving from distant balconies at male ceremonies going on below), and names of "respectable" women were rarely mentioned officially in public or recorded in histories, unless they became involved in crimes or in semi-disreputable incidents where they were considered to be transgressing the accepted feminine role... AnonMoos (talk) 11:48, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Artemisia I of Caria was not entirely Greek but a Carian. In any case, that is not an answer to the question. Can we establish that there was no seclusion in Russia before the Golden Horde in the 13th century, or can't we? Was for example the Grand princess of Kiev Ingegerd Olofsdotter of Sweden secluded or was she not? --Aciram (talk) 12:36, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

The fact remains that the practice has been common among Indo-Europeans, whether or not it was practiced by the earliest Proto-Indo-Europeans themselves. (The complaint that mobile societies can't practice some version of purdah is belied by the example of the Mongols themselves.) There is also the ancient practice of bride-kidnapping to look at, although that hardly seems relevant in the casr of Moscow.

It was mainly practiced by speakers of those branches of the Indo-European language family which ended up being spoken in areas subject to significant influences from early middle-eastern urban civilizations and/or the strong secondary center of diffusion in Persia. I really don't think that there's any particular or special affinity of speakers of Indo-European languages for purdah (beyond that shown by speakers of other language groups in comparable historical circumstances). I don't know much about Mongol customs, but I suspect that they may have been subject to influences from China -- and I'm not sure how the quasi-subsistence lifestyle in harsh conditions which the Mongols led while living in Mongolia would have allowed for strict female seclusion, unless among a small aristocratic/royal elite only... AnonMoos (talk) 21:23, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

All evidence is that the area of spread of the late PIE Graeco-Armeno-Aryans was the steppe north of the Caucasus, not the Middle East. See also Ossetian language and the superstratum influence on Slavic and Finno-Ugrian, giving such results as Bog for Gog in Slavic. (I would look to the Northwest Caucasian languages to see if they provide an influence.) None of this is conclusive but it indicates areas of research for the OP. μηδείς (talk) 21:43, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but what is the specific evidence (separate from general linguistic relationships) that the social custom of purdah also spread from the steppe north of the Caucasus (rather than from the middle-east, and later also Persia)? AnonMoos (talk) 22:36, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

In short, a number of groups who happened to speak Indo-European languages have also adopted purdah -- but there's no real evidence that I've seen for a special Indo-European/purdah connection or affinity, or evidence of purdah among Indo-European speakers in the pre-Bronze era, and it probably would be difficult to find reputable modern scholars who claim that it's an "Indo-European custom"... AnonMoos (talk) 22:55, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

October 16

Bahá'ís on Sundays?

According to an advertisement in my campus paper, the local Bahá'í center is the location of a worship service (or whatever it's called; my apologies, but I'm very unfamiliar with Bahá'ísm) on Sundays. Is Sunday typically the day of worship for Bahá'ís worldwide, or is it chosen here because Christianity, as the dominant religion in the USA, worships on Sundays? I can't find anything relevant in Bahá'í Faith or in Bahá'í calendar. Nyttend backup (talk) 04:52, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

This would be because of its significance in Christianity. The article Bahá'í calendar says that the day of rest for Baha'is is Friday, and as far as I know, that is the only reference to a specific day of the week of significance in the Faith. Worship is based around the Feasts (an administrative/worhip-based gathering held every 19 days) and the Holy Days (11 per year, with work suspended on nine of these). As a long-term member, I can assure you that much of Baha'i civic life is designed to fit in with mainstream society, since Baha'is have to work, and generally aim to be compatible with the world. It's been emotional (talk) 06:11, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Patriot act

Enough.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I've read somewhere that it is abuse of the Patriot Act that is killing America and may be preventing economic recovery and job creation. If this is true then did Bin Laden win by means of the American government's reaction to 9/11? --DeeperQA (talk) 07:38, 16 October 2011 (UTC) IF, it's true, than probably, see the terrorists have won. Public awareness (talk) 08:11, 16 October 2011 (UTC) I don't understand your question. It isn't even grammatical. Can you write more clearly? Pfly (talk) 08:18, 16 October 2011 (UTC) Wait, maybe I can parse the question. Are you asking if the Patriot Act caused the Late-2000s recession? If so, it seems unlikely to me, but what do I know? Pfly (talk) 08:31, 16 October 2011 (UTC) Multinational corporations, reassigning the "good" jobs to foreign countries, is a much more likely explanation. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:20, 16 October 2011 (UTC) See also Occupy Wall Street. Pfly (talk) 09:27, 16 October 2011 (UTC) This is rapidly going to turn into "insert your political bias here." That doesn't answer the OP's question. I'm guessing that the OP is referring to this piece or something akin to it. There's a specific question they raise about regulations leading to people not holding their money in US banks, which may have had some effect on their ability to lend, and also reducing the influence of the dollar as currency. It's an interesting idea, and it's not one of the usual complaints about the USA PATRIOT Act (there's nothing patriotic about it, it's just a loaded language initialism), though it doesn't address what's usually fingered as the source of the problem, as Greenspan put it "irrational exuberance" and also the loophole in regulations of investment products that allowed banks to create houses of cards predicated on overly optimistic assumptions about housing prices. Did the USA PATRIOT Act contribute? Possible, but it was far from alone. SDY (talk) 10:29, 16 October 2011 (UTC) The most relevant complaint about the Patriot act to the economy that I have heard is that it makes it much more difficult for talented immigrants to come to or stay in the United States. There are some pretty hard facts out there with regards to science, technology, engineering, and medicine that the trend since 2001 has been for talented foreigners to get their educations in the United States and then to immediately go back to their home countries, rather than contributing to the United States. That's not great for the US, on the whole, and is a somewhat stupid side-effect of being overly tough on immigration issues. But it's not the cause of the financial crashes. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:47, 16 October 2011 (UTC) Parsing things through the question of "did Bin Laden win?" is a very foolish mode of analysis. It invites nothing but bias and silliness, and gets emotions up. It's subjective to say the least. There are lots of productive conversations to be had about the effects of 9/11 or the Patriot Act, but whether anyone has "won" or "lost" is the least productive lens to view these events through, and misses the important points. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:49, 16 October 2011 (UTC) Capitalism is failing at last. →Στc. 20:16, 16 October 2011 (UTC) Please stop trolling. --Mr.98 (talk) 02:09, 17 October 2011 (UTC) Pure capitalism is precarious, which is why a social safety net is needed. Etc's alternative, pure communism, contains the seeds of its own guaranteed failure, for the simple reason that "people like to own stuff." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:00, 17 October 2011 (UTC) Not directly the Patriot Act, but many on the left say that the Iraq and Afghanistan wars contributed to the national debt and annual budget deficits, hence causing the present recession. The combined costs of both wars is around $1 trillion to date (Cost of War) while the total national debt is around $15 trillion (United States public debt), so it played a part, but isn't the dominant factor. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:43, 17 October 2011 (UTC) Notes: since bin Laden is dead, he didn't win. The same seems to be the fate of his organizations. Working worker ant (talk) 11:57, 17 October 2011 (UTC) Death is not necessarily a bar to winning symbolic campaigns. Consider Patrick Henry, Che Guevara, and even Jesus Christ. No doubt bin Laden would have been satisfied to sacrifice his life in order to do grave damage to the US, and considering the political, cultural, and economic problems that are all traceable back to our reaction to 9/11, I'd say he probably did succeed. The truly sad thing is that we did most of the work of destroying ourselves for him. That being said, this is a problematic thread. I'm leaving a note on the OP's talk page. --Ludwigs2 17:02, 17 October 2011 (UTC) The OP is apparently a sock of an indef'd user named Inning. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:38, 18 October 2011 (UTC) You guys are so good at giving your opinions instead of references to material which might lead to the facts. --DeeperQA (talk) 21:13, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

buddhi

I see the definition of "buddhi" in Wiktionary. Can you give me a sentence or two with this usage of A transpersonal faculty of mind higher than the rational mind that might be translated as ‘intuitive intelligence’ or simply ‘higher mind’?--Doug Coldwell ^talk 11:40, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

This word isn't generally used by English speakers - most will use the Chan Buddhist equivalent 'Buddha nature'. Buddhi would translate directly as something like 'wakefulness', and you'd say something like: proper understanding and discrimination in the world can only be achieved by buddhi; lower faculties of the mind are bound to their limited perspectives". --Ludwigs2 13:56, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I haven't heard of "Buddha nature" being used, but I have come across "higher self" - the self which is subconsciously in tune with the spiritual world. One translation of "namaste" I have seen is "My higher self recognises and salutes your higher self". But to be honest I've never come across "buddhi" either! "Higher Self" is more in my experience. --TammyMoet (talk) 14:22, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I am getting a good understanding on this now.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 23:00, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I've never heard the term Buddhi in english before. I think in sanskrit it means something like intelect or intuition in non-buddhist contexts, but something like wakefulness in Buddhist ones, but don't quote me on that as I have no idea where I read that. Rabuve (talk) 01:43, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, buddhi certainly isn't intellect, which is a lower faculty. If I remember correctly, Hindus would say something like 'Buddhi is the state of experiencing atman/brahman' (universal consciousness in its personal or general form). When you are buddhi (in contact with universal consciousness) your perspective is universal, when you are not, then your perspective is intellectual, emotional, physical… each of which is a progressively more narrow and limited worldview. --Ludwigs2 04:47, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Good stuff! Thanks.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 12:49, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

See universal consciousness. ~AH1 ^(discuss!) 01:33, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Wow! Thanks...Doug Coldwell ^talk 14:37, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

British government or British military opinion on the various loyalist paramilitaries

Where can I find a paper by the British government or the British military about the loyalist paramilitaries? --Belchman (talk) 14:02, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Here unclassified from the HOC The Last Angry Man (talk) 14:16, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

National archives are also good The Last Angry Man (talk) 14:19, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Brilliant, thank you. --Belchman (talk) 14:21, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Amerigo Vespucci

Is it true that America is named after Amerigo, because he was the first to actually realize that America was a completely new continent and not India? Or was it because he spread the word to Europeans that this land was a new continent and not India? Or neither? ScienceApe (talk) 16:30, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

See Americas#Etymology and naming. It is unclear whether Vespucci realized that South America was a separate continent. Lesgles (talk) 17:48, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Anyway, they thought they were in the "Indies" -- i.e. parts of Indonesia, or islands to the east of China -- not India itself. AnonMoos (talk) 18:00, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

According to East Indies, it seems like "Indies" was just a term they used back then for the entire Indian Subcontinent. ScienceApe (talk) 18:31, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but India itself was fairly clearly known to Europeans as early as Hellenistic times (e.g. the Periplus of the Erythraean Sea, Ptolemy's maps, etc.), and Columbus never had any delusions that he was off the coast of India -- rather he thought he was finding indeterminate islands east of China, hopefully not all that far off from either the Chinese mainland or islands where exportable spices grew... AnonMoos (talk) 01:22, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

The technical answer is "no" because the question implies that Amerigo did know he discovered a new continent. It was named after Amerigo because others thought that he knew he discovered a new continent. I've seen it suggested in multiple places that Amerigo's descriptions of topless natives made his writings very popular compared to the writings of other explorers, so his descriptions had a better chance of being accepted as the definitive descriptions of the new world. I've seen just as many objections to that claim. -- kainaw™ 01:38, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

There is an alternative suggestion that America was named after a Bristol merchant of Welsh origins, Richard Amerike (or ap Merrick) - more here and here - not Vespucci at all, though I think it's fair to say that most non-Bristolians reject the theory. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:40, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Of course, the two continents could have been named after two different men, with coincidentally similar names. 148.197.81.179 (talk) 08:06, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

need to find an old saying

There is an old quote that begins with the danger of committing murder because it then leads to a list of other, lesser crimes and eventually ending with something like foul language. Anyone remember this? Thanks. 76.116.92.205 (talk) 20:14, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Thomas de Quincy. See http://quotationsbook.com/quote/27548/ . --Trovatore (talk) 02:13, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

The quote is from the (appropriately named) essay On Murder Considered as one of the Fine Arts. The entire essay (along with all of de Quincy's works) can be found at Project Gutenberg. Buddy431 (talk) 04:17, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Similar to a maxim 750 of Publilius Syrus Invitat culpam qui peccatum praeterit Pardon one offence and you encourage the commission of many.
Sleigh (talk) 08:39, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

There's an old Jewish joke, in lots of versions, that the reason the rabbis forbade orgies is that it might lead to dancing. --Dweller (talk) 09:42, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. I hear it told as a Christian joke about Baptists (specifically the sort of teetotal, no musical instruments Baptists that inspire the children's parody song, "On Jordan's bank the Baptists cry/If I were one then so would I." I don't know what sub-category they place themselves under). 86.163.1.168 (talk) 11:29, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks.03:23, 18 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.116.92.205 (talk)

Positive pessimism

is there any philosophical ideas or any philosopher that has a view of positive pessimism?

I described positive pessismism as expecting the worst out of things to be happy to whatever the outcome is. Does it make sense? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.112.82.128 (talk) 23:33, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Somehow yes, that seems to be something in the direction of Buddhism or stoicism. Wikiweek (talk) 00:10, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Some might say that approaches fatalism... AnonMoos (talk) 01:10, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I think you should take a look at Raymond Smullyan's This Book Needs No Title. In it he describes optimists, incurable optimists, and pessimistic optimists. An optimist thinks everything that happens is for the best, mankind will survive. An incurable optimist believes that even if mankind doesn't survive, it's still for the best. A pessimistic optimist sadly shakes his head and says "I'm very much afraid everything is for the best." Whereas Arthur Schopenhauer was an optimistic pessimist. He was happy to say "See, everything is for the worst." Furthermore, he was optimistic that everything would continue going as bad as he predicted.Greg Bard (talk) 01:32, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Some interesting reads in this area may be Candide (especially the character of Pangloss), as well as the real person upon whom Pangloss is based, see Gottfried Leibniz#Theodicy and optimism and Best of all possible worlds. --Jayron32 02:05, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Stoicism? I prefer utilitarianism, because it lets me smile more often. Dualus (talk) 02:48, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

This is not an answer to the question. Working worker ant (talk) 11:37, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Why not? If you were going to suggest Cynicism you have to realize that Cynicism (contemporary) is a different meaning today, and more of an attitude than a philosophy. The cynic philosophy is completely different, and while it may be more fun than utilitarianism in the short run, it's not in the long run. Dualus (talk) 16:30, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Who is talking about cynicism?!? Do utilitarians expect the worst?!? That is what I mean by not answering the question...... Working worker ant (talk) 16:58, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

So do you think it is a wrong answer, or just not an answer? And what were you expecting? Dualus (talk) 17:45, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

The first is not an answer, but could be right. The second is also not an answer, but more far away from the thread. Working worker ant (talk) 21:49, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Amor fati might be a lead on the topic. I often take this approach to things, although it can be hard to avoid the "expecting the worst while hoping for the best" trap. A quick google says that Mets fans "hope for the best but expect the worst", heh. Pfly (talk) 08:50, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps some environmental philosophers are positive pessimists. Also: psychological resilience. ~AH1 ^(discuss!) 01:31, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Not exactly philosophical but we want to beware of the "Pitfalls of Positive Thinking" Bus stop (talk) 01:40, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

October 17

Polynesian ethnic group in French Polynesia

Map of Polynesian migration throughout the millenia. ~AH1 ^(discuss!) 01:27, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

What are the different kind of ethinic groups in French Polynesia? It seems like they are all clump together as Polynesians, but they are as different as Hawaiians are from Samoans or Maoris are from Rapa Nuians. What are some of thing other than Tahitians and Marquesans? Also what are the people of the Society Islands west of Tahiti called?

Also what are the different Polynesians called other than Tahitian?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 01:50, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

According to Tahitians, it would appear that the Society Islands culture is refered to as "Tahitian" in general terms, implying a somewhat homogenous culture. The article Tahitian language lists other dialects and closely related tongues; language and culture being closely tied together this may lead you on some interesting threads. The article Polynesians lists various Polynesian ethnic groups, so that may also help you differentiate between them. --Jayron32 02:01, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Some googling on things like "bora bora" and "denonym", or "what do you call a person from Raiatea", etc, it seems like the general answer is "Tahitian". I wonder though if within the Society Islands there are informal terms for such distinctions. On the other hand, Hawaiians, both native and "newcomers" seem to call themselves just "Hawaiian". I can't recall ever seeing a term like Oahuian. Our Oahu page says "residents of Oʻahu refer to themselves as "locals" (as done throughout Hawaiʻi), no matter their ancestry." Pfly (talk) 08:35, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Oahuans, Mauians, Kauaian, Hawaiians, Niihauan, Lanaian, and Molokaian (notice no such thing as a Kahoolawean) exist and sometimes used back then to referred to different island chiefdoms and sometimes in science to refer to flora and fauna, although very, very rarely. What do the people of the Austral islands or the Tuamotus regard themselves? I only asked about the different Society islands since they existed as seperate island nations until the close of the 19th century.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 03:28, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Being effectively independent states doesn't mean that there cannot be a fairly unified culture. Consider the situation in Ancient Greece or Phoenecia. Perhaps the 19th century Society Islands could be thought of like Greek City States; independently governed by unified by culture. Just a thought... --Jayron32 04:12, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Why do Western buddhist monks and nuns change their names to Eastern names?

I was flipping through Buddhadharma:_The_Practitioner's_Quarterly at a bookstore and found myself continuously surprised to see Americans with names like John Smith Rinpoche. Or outright foreign names. While I have no problem with people naming themselves whatever they please, I'm curious why they do this. When I pick up a book written by Ven. Sri Buddhadharma Rinpoche and find on the inside flap that this is a Caucasian American it is very mentally jarring! Is this part of the ordination process? The Masked Booby (talk) 02:48, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

It is a religious name. It is mainly a tradition for religious figures to adopt new names, similar to how the German-born Joseph Aloisius Ratzinger adopted the more-Latin name of Pope Benedict XVI. Religious names for Buddhist monks are traditionally Eastern names. Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:16, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

More to the point, in many mystical traditions one gives up one's name as a symbol of release from worldly affairs, and adopts a name that reflects the spiritual principles one is aspiring to. Since these spiritual principles are usually expressed in the language of the faith, the odd names follow. Note, also, that words like 'Rinpoche' are actually titles, not names (Rinpoche translates roughly as 'one who is dear to us'). --Ludwigs2 04:33, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

See also Dharma name. A google search on "Dharma name" and "purpose" turns up lots of pages. There appears to be a number of opinions about why it is done, and they don't always agree. However, many seem to think it is at least partially to remind you about your new direction in life, or something to that effect. Also to serve as a kind of connection to a specific tradition and community. In Zen dharma names tend to be given during jukai or "ordination"--though in many US Zen schools one need not become a monastic, a monk or nun. Also, in the Zen schools I've encountered, you don't pick your own dharma name--your teacher gives it to you. And as Ludwig pointed out, there's a difference between titles like Rinpoche and Rōshi and religious or dharma names. An example, John Daido Loori's dharma name is "Daido". I'm not sure who gave him that name or when. Probably one of his teachers early on; Taizan Maezumi I would guess. He was also "roshi", a title he didn't earn until much later. Pfly (talk) 08:04, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Just to make this explicit so that you understand, pretty much all Buddhist monks and nuns, western and eastern alike take a Dharma name that follows certain traditions. In some traditions for example, there is basically a set of root words and the name is made by combining them, so all the names in a tradition sort of sound similar (e.g. Mettananda, Dhammananda, Dhammavuddho ,Yutthadhammo,etc... are all compound words). It's not a matter of the westerner adopting an eastern name just to sound eastern. They just follow the practice of taking on an ordination name like everyone else.

If you are asking why monks and nuns take ordination names at all, then all I can say is that the answer isn't exactly certain. Some say that it developed so that the name would match the language of the ordination ritual (taking a name in Pali if the ordination is done in Pali, etc...). Rabuve (talk) 15:09, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah I understand now, and I appreciate all the responses. I'm glad (and somewhat relieved) to know that there is real meaning behind these appellations, and this isn't a case of Westerners just giving themselves new names to sell more books or lend unwarranted/undeserved authority to their meditation center. The Masked Booby (talk) 21:52, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

free tuition and other benefits

Debate closed
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Is the State of California being blackmailed into providing free tuition and other benefits for illegal, undocumented and migrant produce workers so the nation's supply of produce will not stop or become contaminated with diseases like Listeria or bacteria like e-coli? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DeeperQA (talk • contribs) 06:34, 17 October 2011 (UTC) Questions like these are likely to end into a political debate, which are not appropriate for the RD. Do you have any reason to believe that this is happening? Otherwise, this questions should be deleted. Working worker ant (talk) 11:36, 17 October 2011 (UTC) No one is forcing you to consider this question much less to answer it. This is not a community with a POV but a source of merely informational questions to be answered. --DeeperQA (talk) 15:20, 18 October 2011 (UTC) I can find no evidence of blackmail, and it's hard to imagine who would do the blackmailing, since migrant workers are not well organized. There is an argument that the state should provide education and public health services to ALL residents, documented or undocumented, not for the sake of the undocumented but for the sake of the citizenry, since an uneducated and disease-ridden population ends up being a greater financial burden to the state than providing that population with childhood education and medical care. Marco polo (talk) 14:47, 17 October 2011 (UTC) Does not that leave the issue of taking care of one's own first unanswered? Would you like someone to move into your house, apartment or car and take up residence without your permission (other than an attractive member of the opposite sex) and take up space in a college that would otherwise rightfully belong to your own child or get vaccinated ahead your child when you are the one who is documented and therefore obligated to pay taxes? --DeeperQA (talk) 15:21, 18 October 2011 (UTC) The committees whose approval are required to raise tuition have no concern or interest in the political reality insofar as agriculture is concerned. There is a student fee committee, a board of trustees, and the legislature at least before a tuition can be raised or lowered. It is inconceivable that somehow farm workers are working over each of those committees. That is just for starters as far as characterizing how implausible such a hypothetical is.Greg Bard (talk) 18:54, 18 October 2011 (UTC) The Ref Desk is not a debate soapbox. You are clearly trying to create and participate in a debate. Your latter reply makes that clear. I'm closing this thread. If you have any factual questions you'd like answered, by all means ask them. But there are other, more appropriate places on the Internet if you just want to debate people on political topics. --Mr.98 (talk) 18:48, 18 October 2011 (UTC) I did not ask for comment but only references to articles which might give some background as to why this is an issue other than the reasons that are obvious to the rest of the nation. Trying to sweep the question under the table only makes the obvious reasons more obvious. --DeeperQA (talk) 21:10, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Lying when installing software

I suspect most of us do it. Tick the box that says "I have read and agree to the terms and conditions....." when we haven't read the whole thing, and therefore cannot possibly agree to the terms. What is the legal significance of ticking that box when it's not true?

To further complicate the question, I'm in Australia, and most of the software is American. Whose law am I breaking, if anybody's, and does it matter?

And, given that the software companies (and their lawyers) must realise that most people don't read the terms and conditions, what's the point of it all? HiLo48 (talk) 07:02, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Some of this is covered at software license agreement. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 07:06, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

That article suggests that the OP's premise hasn't really been tested in court. Also, given that it's a legal question being posed, trying to answer further is probably against the rules. But HiLo48 knows that, so he can click through this: My own, completely non-legalistic opinion is that if you click the "agree" and don't bother to read it, you won't get much sympathy in court. It would be like signing a contract without reading it. Somewhat of an analogy: If someone posts something on a user talk page, and the user deletes it, they are presumed to have read it, whether they actually read it or not. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:55, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

My theory is that if you have read, or at least quickly skimmed through most of, one then the rest all say near enough the same thing. Not sure that would work in court either, though. 148.197.81.179 (talk) 08:02, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

See HumancentiPad for a cautionary tale of not reading the terms and conditions you agree to. Pais (talk) 11:53, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

If one of those agreements compels you to do something outrageous, like turning over all your assets to them or giving them your first-born child, obviously it wouldn't hold up in court. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:12, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Our article on the first-born child agreement is Unconscionability. Comet Tuttle (talk) 16:11, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

See Fine print.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 18:20, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe it's like signing a contract, since licenses of software are not equivalent to contracts. Working worker ant (talk) 12:03, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

A EULA is a standard contract of adhesion - commonly known as a "take it or leave it" contract. -- kainaw™ 12:42, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I wish I could find the reference, but there was some talk that some EULAs would be challengeable because there was a general expectation on the part of the company that you wouldn't read it because it stretched to 47 pages or something. A bit like having a physical contract written backwards, in a different language, or indeed blaoted out to 250 pages. Best not assume this, though. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 14:15, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

The OP's question has to do with a scholarly debate concerning contract theory. The question is whether one can be bound by the terms of a contract for which he has not given consent. This is a question of personal autonomy and contracts and when does a promise become a promise. There is a book called From Promise to Contract: Towards a Liberal Theory of Contract. Another is Economic Analysis of Law. Entire books are written on this subject and the scholars do not agree. The courts are not in agreement either. An EULA may be enforceable as a contract, it may involve the granting of a license, it may impose a limitation of warranty, it may supply a notice. It may do lots of things depending on its language. What it does most is give more legal tools to the software developer than would otherwise be available without one. Gx872op (talk) 14:53, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

That was my point: how can it in all cases be a contract? Sometimes we get the software for free. Are there all contractual elements present? Working worker ant (talk) 16:43, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

As Gx872op wrote, EULAs may do lots of things depending on their language. To answer your last question, sure, some poorly written EULAs are probably invalid contracts. Whether they are enforceable depends on the language of the EULA, the jurisdiction, and presumably the judge. See bnetd, in which one US judge granted summary judgment to Blizzard Entertainment based partly on their assertion the EULA had been violated; and the case was affirmed on appeal. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:48, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

The purpose is to indemnify the software company, so you can't claim damages when their program irretrievably deletes you wedding album or master's thesis or so forth. μηδείς (talk) 17:55, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Interesting responses folks. Thanks. Does anyone want to touch on the international aspect? I'm in Australia, and most of the software is American. Whose law am I breaking, if anybody's, and does it matter? HiLo48 (talk) 19:33, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Take a look at the contract, it will usually say. I'm guessing that which comes with an American piece of software is probably designated to be governed by a law of some state of the US. If you sue them (or they sue you) in an Australian court, the court will look to its conflict of laws (read that article) as to what rules to apply - e.g. Victorian procedural rules but Californian substantive contract law. Note that even if the contract itself is governed by Californian law, Australian consumer protection statutes might nonetheless apply.

I don't agree with Bugs' assertion that the court does not protect you if you just click through something without reading. In most common law jurisdictions there is some protection, at least for consumers, against the harsh terms of contracts forced on them despite them not having an opportunity to negotiate it. English contract law has some relevant information.

Finally, don't take legal advice from random people on Wikipedia. Ask a lawyer. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 20:25, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Side anecdote. Every day of my working life I have my clients sign a new or amended Employment Pathway Plan, which I also sign. This document sets out their goals, what they agree to do to achieve them, maybe mentions some barriers and how they're to be addressed, and how my company can help with all this. Simple. The page where they sign contains about 10 statements starting "I understand ...", "I agree ...", etc. After the signatures come three A4 pages of small-print terms, conditions, and other things they have to be aware of. They are all part of what they're agreeing to. Not one client of mine has ever even shown the slightest interest in knowing what these pages broadly say, let alone read them. At least, not in my presence. They're given a copy to take away, but no client has ever come back and discussed the finer points of this red tape and what it actually means for them. When I was a jobseeker (before I became an employment consultant, how ironic), I exposed these documents to exactly the same degree of scrutiny as my own clients do. We might wonder why humans are prone to agreeing formally to things they have no idea about. It comes down to "I'll sign anything, just get me outta here. I trust that there's nothing unconscionable or even unreasonable in what I'm agreeing to. Signing doesn't necessarily mean I actually intend to abide by these agreements, so it's all a joke anyway. Let's all have a laugh, and have a nice day". -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 20:53, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Jack, you must simply have a very honest face ;-) HiLo48 (talk) 21:59, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Would I lie to you? You can trust me. Honest.  :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 01:21, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

It's OK PalaceGuard008, I have no intention of taking anything written here as a legal guide for me personally. It's just that I've been thinking about the broader issue for a while. It's in my first sentence at the top, and in Jack's post. Nobody ever reads these documents in their entirety. (Am I wrong? Does anybody here actually read them?) Why does society allow itself to go through this silly process? Who benefits? HiLo48 (talk) 21:39, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Personally I never read it. It's not like anyone will stop installing the software just because of the terms of the EULA. I think the software companies just throw a bunch of harsh clauses at you in the hope that some of them will stick should your dispute ever go before a court. Who benefits? I guess the software companies and whoever drafts these stupid things for them. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:36, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I think the issue of "lying" while installing software is broader than whether one does or does not read the EULA. For example, one might pay for software, get it home, and find one must install a company name to install it, even though the purchaser/licensee either does not work for a company, or the software is unrelated to the company. So the purchaser/licensee just makes something up. Or the circumstances of the software acquisition makes the purchaser/licensee believe the EULA does not apply at all, but it won't work unless "agree" is clicked, so it gets clicked. Just as one may break open a safe one buys at an estate sale without becoming a safecracker, one may, under some conditions, click "agree" when one does not actually agree. Jc3s5h (talk) 02:21, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Australia has signed a number of treaties with the US for the protection of intellectual property. It would take some digging to find them and then additional digging to find the implementing legislation in Australia that enforces American EULAs there. A number of years ago, foreign corporations began to choose New York as the jurisdiction to resolve international disputes. I've been looking, but have not found any information why New York was chosen out of everything else. To facilitate trade, foreign jurisdictions adopted laws and jurisprudence similar to New York. The similarities around the world especially among common law jurisdictions is remarkable. Enforcement of an EULA in Australia is not a difficult thing to do. It was a requirement for increased trade, lower tarriffs, and defense pacts between the two countries. Australia and America are good friends. Gx872op (talk) 15:02, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

How to beomce a dictator

How to become a dictator? --Jigsaqqq (talk) 09:56, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Have you read Coup d'État: A Practical Handbook? Gabbe (talk) 10:04, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

It would depend where you wanted to become dictator of. You could take over certain countries with a mercenary army, but other places, like the USA, would require different tactics. For another option, see micronation. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:50, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

There's a history book out there with a title that I always thought sounded like a self-help book: Hitler's Thirty Days to Power ("You too can have a Thousand Year Reich, if you use my five step system!"). Jokes aside, it's not the worst template: 1. exploit weaknesses in an electoral system that allows minority parties to have much more power than their share of the vote; 2. get yourself put forward as a weak "compromise" candidate for a reasonably high office; 3. use a national emergency as a pretext for increasing your emergency powers; 4. purge the army of anyone problematic, establish your own secret police that investigates loyalty issues; 5. declare self dictator, send self flowers.

Other historical routes: be a top general in an army (or even a lesser rank, historically), convince subordinates that civilians are unable to make top decisions, conduct coup. Or, be top general, win important battles, become quite popular with many people (promise security and resources), get one's self appointed leader, decide there can be no more leaders until you die. These are more or less the standard approaches used in the past. --Mr.98 (talk) 11:58, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like George W. Bush (path 1, steps 1 to 3) and Dwight D. Eisenhower (path 2b, steps 1 to 4) both started down the path to dictatorship, then, but didn't make it to the end. Pais (talk) 12:02, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

David Lloyd George had a go at path 1 as well, rumour has it he even got as far as doing for Kitchener when the commander of his own army proved problematic. (Though that was because he was popular and not very good at his job more than anything else) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.197.81.179 (talk) 19:36, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

These paths are not exclusively those of dictators, mind you. I think you overestimate Eisenhower's abilities in this regard — he was popular, but mostly because he was pragmatic, fairly non-nonsense, and legitimately bi-partisan (he could have gotten the Democratic nomination if he had wanted it). He wasn't wildly charismatic — he was no Napoleon, and far less of a monopolizer than FDR. As an alternative path of the war general, see also Cinncinatus or George Washington (the latter probably could have established himself as "king" of the USA if he had wanted it, but thankfully he didn't want it). --Mr.98 (talk) 14:43, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Get born as a psycho narcissist with a chip on your shoulder. The Boys from Brazil shows how to do that. Dmcq (talk) 14:58, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Get a sexy uniform overladen with medals, yell a lot, throw tantrums, obtain an arsenal of weapons, and get an army of heavies behind you. In three words you need guns, guts and a gang.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:11, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

it's easy: hire a secretary, sit him/her down at a keyboard, think of some letter you want written, and start dictating.

That reminds me of the lovely scene in Charlie Chaplin's film The Great Dictator, where "Adenoid Hynkel" is giving dictation to his secretary. He rabbits on for over a minute while she listens attentively to what she has to write, then all she writes is a comma or something equally inconsequential. Curious that Chaplin was born only 4 days before Hitler. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 19:18, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but under different zodiac signs; Chaplin having been an Aries, while Hitler was a Taurus.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 05:51, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

seriously though, the process of becoming a dictator (or a tyrant, or king, or any form of near-absolute ruler) is usually not intentional. generally it's the outcome of seeking more-or-less legitimate power in a society with deep cultural divisions, political instability, and significant national problems that leave the population unsettled and worried. Someone seeking legitimate power in that atmosphere will start to worry about the destruction/subversion of the system he seeks power in, and then he will use whatever power he gets to make sure that the system is safe by surveilling, brutalizing, or eliminating political or cultural elements he considers sources of subversion. It's a paranoid mentality in which unseen danger lurks everywhere and violently oppressive tactics take on a heroic air. Hussein went to his grave (and Gaddafi will go to his) believing he was a great leader and an asset to his people. It's a constant threat in any democratic society (since democratic societies tend to be multi-cultural and tend to prize a certain degree of instability), and I can't think of one where it hasn't either happened or nearly happened (except - possibly - Switzerland and Sweden). --Ludwigs2 15:13, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Gini coefficient. Christ, man, here's a macroeconomics textbook. Dualus (talk) 16:20, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Get a copy of Macchiavelli's The Prince. It's the absolute monarch/tyrant/despot/dictator/Marine instructor/school bully's bible.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:25, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Don't make rooky mistakes. For example, when murdering a village always remember to leave one person alive to tell the tale of your cruelty. You need that to make everybody fear you. 93.95.251.162 (talk) 15:42, 19 October 2011 (UTC) Martin.

Roman Opałka Counting Paintings

I was looking at one of Roman Opałka's counting paintings, and I found a number listed twice - Is this common? Is there a list of doubles anywhere? Where can I find more information? Tewner (talk) 17:53, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

'Longevity risk'

Hi everyone,

The article on longevity risk (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longevity_risk) says that increasing life expectancy can be a problem for insurance companies by leading to increasing payouts - however, how is this the case? Surely a higher life expectancy means people will be paying for their policies for longer, so the insurer will take in a higher premium for the cost of insuring one life. Do insurers generally pay more for life insurance if you die at a later age, or something along those lines? I can't find much information on longevity risk online, and the article is extremely limited, so I would be very grateful for any help you could offer.

Thanks, 86.26.13.2 (talk) 18:59, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

The problem is, when you extend a person's life, they don't get those extra years in their 20s and 30s. They get the extra years in their 80s and 90s, and 80- and 90-year olds take more money out of the medical system than they pay in premiums, given the increased number of medical problems they have compared to 20- and 30-year olds. At some point (probably around retirement age), a policy holder goes from becoming an asset to a liability for insurance companies. It is in their financial interest to keep you alive up till the point when you start to cost them money. --Jayron32 19:21, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Ah, that makes perfect sense - I was only thinking in terms of life insurance payouts, not medical insurance too. Thanks! 86.26.13.2 (talk) 19:58, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Longevity is a big issue for pensions (obviously - the longer you live, the longer you get paid your pension for). A lot of people get their pensions from insurance companies (if you pay into a defined contribution pension scheme, then you need to buy an annuity when you retire and that often comes from an insurance company). --Tango (talk) 22:07, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps someone could clarify the article please? Alansplodge (talk) 08:04, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Art music journal?

Hello. Recently, I've been trying to find some kind of journal for art music (just like PHYSorg or Universe Today for the physical sciences) and have been unsuccesful. So, I was hoping for someone here to point me to one that I may have missed. It should be free and publish news at least weekly of the contemporary proceedings of art music. Thanks in advance.AtonalPhysicist (talk) 21:16, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

A few periodical references in article art music stick out at me: Popular Music 2, Music and Emotion: Theory and Research, and International Review of the Aesthetics and Sociology of Music. These are unlikely to be exclusively about your genre however. ~AH1 ^(discuss!) 01:19, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! I did some more research and found some, as well as an index from where you can access most periodicals about musicology, Its name is "IIMP" (International index of Music Periodicals). Although it is not free, I found that my university had a subsription to it.AtonalPhysicist (talk) 02:03, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

October 18

Lee Harvey Oswald

Seeing as today would have been Lee Harvey Oswald's 72nd birthday, I am curious as to whether he has a cult following anywhere in the world? Thanks.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 05:54, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I hope not. There seems to be a memorabilia market and that's about it. Cults need leaders with charisma. Dualus (talk) 07:19, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

OK, it's Trivia Time. Oswald shares something unusual with:

* 3 other US presidents – Andrew Jackson, Rutherford B. Hayes and Bill Clinton, and

* JFK’s niece Rory Kennedy (Robert F. Kennedy’s daughter).

They were all born posthumously. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 09:18, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Sirhan Sirhan seems to have such a following -- all through the 1970's and 1980's in several hijacking incidents etc. a number of Arab terrorists included his release as part of their lists of demands... AnonMoos (talk) 17:06, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

For once I was happy I couldn't find a result for a search. μηδείς (talk) 05:46, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Business That Couldn't Possibly Be Surviving on Sales Alone

I sat in front of a McDonald's all day every day for a week in the shabby, low-population town in which I live and observed how many people went in and how many cars went through the drive-through and found that the average daily number of customers was 42.5. I did the same all-day-week-long data collection exercise six months later and got an average of 45.6, so I feel pretty confident that I didn't just observe them on some uncharacteristic weeks. Even if I generously estimate that the average purchase was $10.00 and round up, this McDonald's is bringing in about $460 in revenue per day, or $13,800 per month. But I think about the building lease, franchise costs (there's a picture of the franchise owner inside--it's not corporate-owned), water, electricity, supplies like buns, meat, fries, etc..., and of course employee pay (there's usually five or six people that I can see in there), I don't see how this place could not be negative as far as the bills go for $13,800 per 30-day month. But this McDonald's has been where it is for years. Just thinking about five employees at $7.25 per hour from 6AM to 10PM (already ignoring the manager who probably doesn't make minimum wage) you've spent $580, or $17,400 per 30-day month before you've even paid the rent, franchise costs, or utilities. What could be keeping this place alive? I want to know likely sources of supplemental revenue for franchises that couldn't possibly be surviving on sales income alone. Peter Michner (talk) 18:24, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Franchises must not only turn a simple profit. They must turn a profit above and beyond the normal costs and franchise fees. Further, companies like McDonalds put more rules on profits, requiring each franchise to exceed normal profits or be shut down (usually, that means that the corporate office has the option to close the restaurant or take it over until another person wants to purchase the franchise). So, your estimates are clearly wrong. McDonalds will not allow a restaurant to continually fail. Have you taken into account the number of people who are purchasing meals for their families (who are not with them) or coworkers (who are not with them)? -- kainaw™ 18:30, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Not able to survive on sales alone...? Sounds a bit like Microsoft! [7]--Aspro (talk) 18:44, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

You spent an entire 112-hour week monitoring a local McDonalds?

Taking your numbers as given,(And assuming that you didn't take them on a weird week, like a school vacation) a couple of thoughts occur to me. First, some places survive on events. Is it located so that it'll get a lot of traffic when local high-school football games let out, then that could be keeping it alive.

Also, some fast food franchisers will do the majority of their cooking at a single central location, and then ship it out to the other locations owned by the same franchiser. I'm not sure if that works for a McDonalds though, that strategy is more of a donut-shop strategy. APL (talk) 18:55, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I think Kainaw is right. A fair number of those customers must be placing orders for coworkers or family members that you don't see. Another factor is that the staffing will probably vary by time of day. There might be 5 or 6 staff on hand at peak times but only 2 or 3 when it's slow. Marco polo (talk) 19:11, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Large corporations will very often have particular locations where the individual location isn't making a profit. So why locate there? Their goal is market share. They want to make sure that on the whole, in a particular region, a certain percentage of people are getting their (fill in blank -- for McD's it's food / for Starbucks it's coffee / for CVS it's sundry goods, etcetera) from THEM, not someone else. This is why (at least where I am) you ALWAYS see a CVS directly across the street from a Walgreens (and I mean ALWAYS). It doesn't matter that each will suffer from the other's presence, they do it anyway to maximize market share.Greg Bard (talk) 21:52, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

{{{1}}}

This is an interesting point. I'll mention Hotelling's law, as I believe it is relevant to the situations you describe. It's worth noting as well that McDonald's operates a number of non-franchised locations that are directly owned and operated by the parent company; I suspect that among these are both high-profile locations and locations that are maintained purely to maintain brand presence and recognition in unprofitable markets. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:23, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

McDonald's average spending per visit and customer is much lower than $10. It's something like $3.6. See source [8]. Did you made any pause at possible peak times (including late at night)? How were you counting the cars, BTW? Could you see how many people were inside the cars? Why would they have 5-6 staff members, for less than 50 clients/day anyway? 88.8.75.87 (talk) 13:57, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Presumably they expect franchisees to adhere strictly to a minimum number of staff covering any time when open. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:00, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Leaving aside the likely flaws in the original poster's methodology and data (we're – I think rightly – skeptical that he spent two full 112-hour weeks doing nothing but collecting a precise and accurate count of customers) we should be careful not to assume that average values obtained for the entire restaurant chain are necessarily accurate for a given specific location. If there are a few local businesses which regularly send a clerk over to pick up lunch for the office/warehouse, that's going to heavily skew the number of meals served and average buy per customer at a low-traffic franchise. Locations which rely heavily on the purchase of inexpensive breakfast coffee-and-muffin deals will see a very different per-customer income from locations which sell a lot of Big Mac combos. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:23, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

But these 5-6 employees won't all be earning $7.25. An individual, who is under the age of 20, would get a wage of $4.25 an hour for the first 90 consecutive days of employment. Afterwards, a wage of $5.25 an hour until they reach the age of 20 years. McDonald's employees are notorious for being young and only employed for a short while. Anyway, if the OP really spent every day from 6AM to 10PM (that's16 hours), and did not count cars as 1 client, then I don't know how this business could be making money. 88.8.75.87 (talk) 14:35, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I think Peter Michner gave the $7.25 number because that is the minimum wage in his location (presumably the US). So all the employees would be making $7.25 or more. —Akrabbim^talk 16:46, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Right, we would need more information to know how much the McDonald's is paying, which is probably the legal local minimum, but not the federal minimum of ]$7.25. 88.8.75.87 (talk) 18:29, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Historical Gini coefficients

Is there any standard place to look up historical Gini coefficients (wealth inequality) for arbitrary countries? I'm just curious if there is an correlation between Gini coefficients and social unrest/revolutions. I'd be curious in particular about Cuba and Russia just before their revolutions, Weimar Germany, Vietnam before their revolution against the French, and the Soviet Union just before its collapse, among other cases. I'd also be interested in Haiti and the Dominican Republic in the same period, just as counter-examples to Cuba. --Mr.98 (talk) 20:24, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DatasetCode=INEQUALITY has some, but I'm not sure if you can coax what you want out of it. Gapminder has very sparse Gini index data and I don't know why. Increases in inequality are correlated with riots, and dozens of other things described at http://equalitytrust.org. Dualus (talk) 21:00, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Last time I checked the standard theories of mass social unrest near me, they emphasised a combination of large scale economic growth putting power in the hands of the proletariat, combined with perceived inequalities (ie, our old friends class formation and class consciousness). This is especially true regarding late war unrest (Petrograd strikes, German shop stewards, US Coal and Rail 1945-1946). This is true of the late 1960s. Gini might explain perceived inequalities—firstly class, and secondly within classes sectional advantage from growth. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:58, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Mr.98 -- About 50 years ago, there were some semi-classic studies of the French, Russian, etc. revolutions, which concluded that the time of maximum oppression was not the likeliest moment for a revolution to occur. Rather, it was when the lower classes experienced some glimmer of improvement in their conditions and expectation of further improved conditions, and felt their collective importance to society and potential power, but then felt that their possibility of a better life was being thwarted or blocked -- THAT was the point of maximum danger. AnonMoos (talk) 00:13, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

On the subject of getting a little and then demanding a lot, I always thought Czar Alexander the II was a telling case — he abolishes serfdom, implements various reforms, starts Russia on a liberalizing path... and what does he get for his trouble? Blown up... twice! (A fate narrowly avoided by Gorbachev as well. One senses that a "liberal czar" is just too oxymoronic for history to tolerate.) --Mr.98 (talk) 01:43, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Gini isn't a great proxy for a sense of labouring class improvement. Peasants are often quite happy to reproduce existing proportionate distributions of social wealth if they have person access to "acceptable" objective levels of wealth: the settlement of the forests in the 10th–12th centuries in England for example. Similarly, proletarians are often willing to accept declining proportions of social production (1978–current, total wage growth versus productivity growth); whereas they'll blanch when certain kinds of commodity become unavailable (housing in the US at the moment). Gini, as a measure of the exchange values in a capitalist economy, would tell a similar story in the US between 1995 and 2010. But the use value of the perceived mass access to housing isn't so very well covered. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:50, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't think AnonMoos was implying that Gini was everything, or even a proxy for class improvement. I think he/she was just sensing the sort of thing I was interested in and presenting a slightly different aspect of it. I don't think that Gini is everything; I was just curious if one could see interesting trends there or not. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:39, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Fifelfoo, could you spell out what you mean about the settlement of the forests in England? With a source if you have one. Thanks. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:27, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I've stuffed up a bit here... I meant, of course, deserts, most deserts being woodlands in Europe. I know in the 12–13th century that high medieval Western european society was expanding economically through growth into lower yield lands, ie: people turning wastes into manorial production units with associated villages; or even free villages. But there was an economic crisis in that this was quantitative not qualitative expansion, and the areas were marginal under the prevailing productivity standards. I'm pretty sure this occurred with Royal land in England, Forest article; Our main article starts here; and, here's some references I gleaned from it: Cantor, Leonard (ed). (1982) "Introduction" in The English Medieval Landscape. London: Croom Helm. ISBN 9780709907077. at p19. Now I'm pretty bloody sure I read the same evidence in Annales stuff too. The guts of the matter is that there was legal and illegal expansion onto "waste" land, which improved peasant life quality (access to land, instead of waiting for 4 people to die to get a 1/4 share); but, that the relations of production didn't change. Yet when the Black Death comes along a little bit later, the relations change but land appears less accessable due to the farming system replacing the manorial system and so a peasants revolt. (I'm slightly tired, does this make sense?). Fifelfoo (talk) 15:15, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I think Fifelfoo is suggesting that, while there might be a weak correlation between high Gini coefficients and revolutions, there is not a direct causal relationship. I think his attention instead to class consciousness is spot on. Up until recently, working-class people in the United States have generally shown little discomfort with dramatically rising Gini coefficients because 1) they have entertained the hope that they might attain greater wealth and 2) they have felt that the system was fair and that the rich had "earned" their position. (Note that I am using "working class" in the structural sense of people who derive most of their income from salaries and wages directly linked to their labor rather than from investments or positions (such as those of CEOs) involving a large degree of economic rent.) That is to say, in the United States the structural working class (as opposed to the smaller subset that is organized labor) has lacked much class consciousness. That may be starting to change, as working-class people who considered themselves "middle class" find themselves just as vulnerable to layoffs, outsourcing, permanent unemployment, and poverty as blue collar manual workers and begin to find common cause. Marco polo (talk) 14:40, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

World Income Inequality Database. Jørgen (talk) 17:48, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

On the side topic, maybe a better way to describe what happened than "settlement of the forests" is deforestation, or clearance of forests for agricultural expansion. This paper sheds some light. Marco polo (talk) 18:02, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Jason Vale

I'm having trouble determining if the subject of the biography Jason Vale is the same as the individual mentioned in the results of this Google search. Any assistance would be appreciated. If it is the same person, is this appropriate material to add to the article? (complying with WP:BLP, of course) Gnome de plume (talk) 21:22, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

October 19

Hawaiian constitution

Who authored the 1840 Constitution of the Kingdom of Hawaii? --KAVEBEAR (talk) 03:20, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I have looked around but found nothing. Google books may have it. It definitely sounds like a missionary, probably British and protestant from the way it reads. μηδείς (talk) 20:39, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Google Books indeed. Apparently William Richards was the main author: [9], [10]. And yes, he was a missionary. But from the New rather than the Old England. Pfly (talk) 22:01, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

See, I have 3/4 of the accuracy of google books and am only 1/4 the price! μηδείς (talk) 00:12, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I knew Richard had something to do with it, but did any Hawaiians contribute to the constitution. The 1839 Bill of Rights of Hawaii were written by Hawaiians.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 01:45, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, a slightly different question. That level of info didn't turn up in my (very rapid) searching I'm afraid. Pfly (talk) 11:18, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Harbor in Honolulu

What is the difference between Honolulu Harbor and Pearl Harbor? Why was one historically used before the other?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 03:46, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

They are physically distinct harbors located in different geographical locations. Our article on Pearl Harbor indicates that it was not suitable as a deep-water port until 1869, when the shallow approach was dredged to allow for larger vessels. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 03:54, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Honolulu Harbor is the main harbor for Oahu. It has been for hundreds of years. Pearl Harbor was a minor harbor used by small trading ships. During a time of much conflict between Hawaii and various naval forces from England, France, and the U.S., King Kalākaua gave the U.S. exclusive rights to Pearl Harbor, making it a reasonable choice as a permanent naval port for the U.S. Navy. Honolulu Harbor is not exclusive to the U.S., so it is not a good choice as a port for the U.S. Navy. -- kainaw™ 12:37, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Ruler from birth to death

John I of France was king from birth to death, as he was born to a deceased king who had had no sons. Are there any other cases of rulers who ascended the moment they were born and reigned until death? Alfonso XIII of Spain was also born posthumously and became king upon his birth but was deposed ten years before his death so he does not count. Surtsicna (talk) 12:29, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

It seems likely. There are quite a few names listed at Posthumous birth#Royalty and nobility so you would just need to check each of their status at death.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 15:34, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

For kings specifically, our list only has a few others, Shapur II, Chlothar II, and Sebastian of Portugal. Adam Bishop (talk) 22:25, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Sebastian of Portugal wasn't born king, although he was born posthumously, because his father (who was only 16 at the time!) died while still heir to the throne. Sebastian didn't become king until he was three, when his grandfather died. Pais (talk) 11:12, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. That seems to leave us with Shapur II of Persia, Chlothar II of Neustria and John I of France, if counting only kings. William IV and William III were both born sovereign princes of Orange, while Theobald IV was born count of Orange. Surtsicna (talk) 12:50, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I just don't understand the Gilad Shalit prisoner exchange

The Gilad Shalit prisoner exchange mystifies me. According to the article, it is extremely popular in Israel, with 79% of the population supporting! Yet it involves the release of people who received multiple life sentences for committing heinous crimes, who are going right out to celebrations of their cause. I remember in decades past hearing of Israel as being praised for being unyielding with terrorists, storming planes with troops when the U.S. (in the 70s-80s) might have let them take off for some destination. I just don't understand why even one Israeli could see this as a good deal, let alone most of them. Is there some factor that can explain this? Wnt (talk) 15:27, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

1000 for 1 has a symbolic value of 1000 of yours is worth 1 of ours and there seem to be a policy of "no soldier left behind" at place. Add to that that even those murderers got their 10+ years in prison. 88.8.75.87 (talk) 15:33, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

There was a YNet article about many foreign people trying to understand this. [11] As was said, the mere fact that military service is compulsory (and most kids do it gladly), means that Gilad could be anyone's kid next. That's how many Israelis saw it, and so many Israelis sympathised. Hell, I worry about my gf being abducted from time to time (though she thankfully doesn't work at any shitty border posts). As my Hebrew teacher said, there was probably not one Israeli Jew who didn't want Gilad back, but many people who lost family were none-to-pleased with handing back 1.027 prisoners, some of whom were convicted of murder. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 21 Tishrei 5772 15:54, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

One way to look at it is that Palestine now has a thousand extra violent criminals walking free among them, and Israel is now paying the expenses for 1,000 fewer bodies in their prisons. Looks like a winner! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:38, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Yep, but they will be and are being treated as kings at home. No less than 250.000 people did show up to greet them in Gaza, and as long as they keep their noses clean, they're safe to live their lives normally again. If not, I trust my gf to deal with them. ;) Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 21 Tishrei 5772 18:05, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

@Baseball: Not every one was released to Gaza/West Bank. Not every one was a violent criminal. Some were only awaiting trial. Some were deported to Jordan and Egypt.88.8.75.87 (talk) 18:24, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

M'yes, there was an interesting breakdown of them. It's also only less than halfway done, they only released the first 470 or so. Some were released in E. J'lem, some in the West Bank, and some were deported or prohibited for X number of years from re-entering the West Bank (a select few are banned for life). Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 21 Tishrei 5772 18:37, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I am tempted to say that when the pendulum swings, it often swings far in the other direction, but I hope that secret negotiations arrived at this for a long lasting peace accord, maybe a two state solution or allowing Palestine in the UN, or not wasting money fighting a land war in Asia, or shrinking the military industrial complex, who knows? Maybe it is to make up for the imbalance in deaths. Dualus (talk) 19:17, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

So it's time to kill some innocents to even the score? Where is the outrage from the usual suspects? μηδείς (talk) 20:47, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Could this please not become an Israel-Palestine debate? Those are worse than annoying (most net drama is, if not done for trolling). Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 21 Tishrei 5772 20:49, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Who is convicted as a violent criminal is sometimes a function of who appoints the judges and controls the courts. It has not been possible, for instance, for the Palestinians to try any Israeli person who is suspected of having killed Palestinians outside the rules of war. Edison (talk) 00:04, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

What I'm feeling, unspoken, from these responses is that although the Palestinians are spoken of and convicted as terrorists, nonetheless there is some sense that they are POWs - i.e. even though they killed many Israelis, there doesn't seem to be a sense that the moment these people get out, that they're going to start up killing more Israelis on their own; rather, that whether Israelis are killed depends on some high-level command decision, and if that happens anyone might do it. Is that a correct inference? Wnt (talk) 00:08, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Vocalisation done during a celebration in Arab and Arab-influenced cultures

So I was watching Turn left at the end of the world (an Israeli film), and I noticed that the Morroccan Jews, when celebrating made a vocalisation that I have seen in Arab cultures during celebrations; it is a sound that seems to go something like ay-yi-yi-yi-yi-yi. What is the name of this? Also, how does one vocalise this? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 21 Tishrei 5772 20:59, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Ululation? --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:01, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Yep, that's it (after using YouTube, oww my ears). Uh-l'-l'-l'-l'-l'-l' probably would have been a better way to characterise the sound. (I don't know the IPA) Still not sure how to vocalise that sound though. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 21 Tishrei 5772 21:08, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Keep practicing. μηδείς (talk) 21:49, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Practicing does not help if one cannot figure out how to properly use their tongue for this exercise. :p Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 21 Tishrei 5772 21:55, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Google knows --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:01, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

What do you know, sometimes the simplest answer is the best. xD Thanks! Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 21 Tishrei 5772 23:26, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Three cheers for William of Okham! Alansplodge (talk) 08:06, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Getting citizenship by parliament vote?

I read the article about Bobby Fischer which got an Icelandic citizenship when Iceland's parliament voted in march 2005 to give Bobby full citizenship. How many other people have short cut the normal immigration procedures by having the country parliament to "vote them in" ? Electron9 (talk) 23:16, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

The recently repatriated Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit has a whole bunch of them. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 23:19, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Could you provide a source on that? I know he has dual Israeli-French citizenship, however, I don't have any evidence that he got it through some special procedure. What he got was a bunch of honorary citizenships of cities around the world, but those are not real citizenships. 88.8.75.87 (talk) 23:36, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

To be honest, when I read that article earlier today, I was a little confused about what the difference between an honorary citizenship and a normal citizenship would be, in terms of practicalities. If, as in the case of Fischer, Shalit got into some trouble and had to take refuge in one of these cities, would they allow him, as being a citizen? Or would they take him as a refugee (or deny him entry rights, as the case may be)? KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 23:43, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

No, it's only honorary (=symbolic), it's like a PhD honoris causa, not indeed real. 88.8.75.87 (talk) 00:22, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Three of the cities are in the US, and as far as I know there is no such thing in the US as citizenship in a city, so honorary is all it can possibly be. Citizenship in states is mentioned in the 14th amendment, so it has some sort of legal existence, but very limited -- your home state can tax you on your income in another state, for example, but I don't think it can ordinarily apply its law extraterritorially to what you do in another state. --Trovatore (talk) 00:36, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

On a side note: I ask myself what Shalit did to get the honorary citizenships. He was necessarily a passive element and he definitely didn't do anything to these cities. 88.8.75.87 (talk) 01:31, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

The US Congress can and does grant citizenship by statute such as the 1924 act unambiguously granting citizenship to all American Indians and the 1949 act giving citizenship to Puerto Ricans. Congress has also granted citizenship posthumously. I haven't been able to find evidence for individual living persons in the US, but would assume it has happened. μηδείς (talk) 00:45, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Congress can grant citizenship through a private bill. See [12]. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:20, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

They can make someone an Honorary citizen of the United States also, but that's apparently just a sort of award. Interestingly, apparently they can also declare someone a natural-born-citizen, and this has been done at least once -- you'd think that you'd have be born in the USA to be a "natural-born-citizen", but apparently this is not necessarily true. It is true that a private bill can make someone a citizen, and apparently they mooted doing this for Elián González but didn't. Herostratus (talk) 07:33, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

As we've discussed here many times, one doesn't necessarily have to be born in the USA to be a natural-born citizen. As long as at least one parent is a US citizen, a baby is born an American citizen no matter where in the world the birth occurs. To need to be specially declared a natural-born citizen, one would have to have been born outside the USA and to parents neither of whom was a US citizen. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 08:33, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

That is the case now but has not always been, it is a matter of statute not the Constitution. μηδείς (talk) 16:23, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

As far as I know, the "natural-born" part affects only one thing, which is one's eligibility to serve as president (and by extension vice-president). And in that regard, I don't believe the question has ever been fully tested. To me Jack's interpretation seems natural, but it cannot be regarded as a matter of settled law. --Trovatore (talk) 20:57, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

October 20

Margo Peters, author

Margo Peters wrote, "Summers/A True Love Story" I think she was born in Wausau, WI. What is her birth name?00:21, 20 October 2011 (UTC)~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.210.74.79 (talk)

Is there some reason to believe that Margot Peters[13] isn't her real name? Clarityfiend (talk) 00:59, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

This bio states she is "the mother of Marc and Claire Peters. She lives in Lake Mills with her husband Peter Jordan", so it's not clear if Peters is her married name or whether she kept her maiden name. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:30, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Sister in the shadows

I saw a biography of Yu-Na Kim. She has one sister. What's her name and what does she do? Is she older or younger?24.90.204.234 (talk) 07:00, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

If the sister doesn't want to be a public figure, and she doesn't prominently impact on Yu-Na Kim's career, then how is she newsworthy or notable? AnonMoos (talk)

That's not pertinent. Anon is not proposing to create a Wikipedia article about the sister. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:01, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, I saw a video on YouTube. The video was about Yu-Na Kim and her sister.24.90.204.234 (talk) 17:11, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Last Rites for a Catholic priest

Suppose a Roman Catholic priest finds himself unexpectedly and suddenly mortally injured, with only a short time left to live. What would be the proper/recommended course of action recommended by the Catholic Church for him to take, especially with regard to Last Rites? Specifically, what would he do in each of the following three situations?

(1) If the priest was with another priest, would the other priest administer Last Rites to him, or are priests exempt from Last Rites?

(2a) If no one else was around except a layperson, would the priest quickly instruct the layperson in how to administer Last Rites to him, or do rules prohibit laypersons from administering Last Rites?

(2b) Given that women cannot be ordained as priests in Catholic Church, would it make any difference if that layperson is female?

(3) If the priest was alone, would he administer Last Rites to himself, or are Last Rites something that one cannot administer to oneself?

—SeekingAnswers (reply) 14:42, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Your questions are answered in the article you linked, and in the articles linked within that article such as Anointing of the Sick (Catholic Church). For a start, priests are not exempt from anything in the Catholic Church, and the question seems to assume that the Sacraments are a burdensome duty rather than a source of Grace. That is: it is a privilege to have access to the Sacraments, rather than the Sacraments being something we must do because we are told to.

As our articles say, the 'Last Rites' include 'Anointing of the sick', which is a Sacrament that can only be administered by a priest, and the Sacrament of Penance, which can only be administered by a priest, and viaticum, receiving the Eucharist, which can be brought from the Tabernacle in the nearest chapel or church by a layperson, and given to the dying by a layperson, although it must have been left over from a Mass presided over by a priest, and the ordinary form is for the Eucharist to be brought and administered by a priest or deacon. The priest could not anoint himself, nor give himself absolution, although he could make a good act of contrition. 86.163.1.168 (talk) 14:58, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

The sacrament of Marriage is something that only a priest can conduct but is not something he can personally receive without it having significant ramifications for his priesthood. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 20:30, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the Sacrament of Marriage is conferred by the couple getting married, and overseen by a priest or deacon. Just a weird quirk: Baptism and Marriage are the two Sacraments that don't need to be administered by an ordained person, which is why Protestant Baptisms and Marriages can be considered valid by the Catholic Church. A priest who has been defrocked can marry, and marrying would almost certainly lead to being defrocked, but he can never lose his priestly status because it is considered a permanent mark on his soul. He'd still be a priest, even if ordered not to do any of the jobs a priest does in the Church.

But, yes, I was interpreting the word exempt as meaning you don't have to do it rather than you may not do it, which was perhaps a mistake on my part. There is nothing that all lay Catholics are supposed to do which Catholic priests are not also supposed to do. There is no priestly shortcut that means you don't need a Sacrament. 86.163.1.168 (talk) 21:51, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Let me explore this a little because I'm not sure I have it nailed down. To be recognised as a valid sacramental marriage, it must occur in a Christian church (as distinct from a registry office, or in your living room before a civil celebrant, or in a non-Christian religious ceremony) but it does not have to involve a priest? Is that what you're saying? Apart from the 2 witnesses, does it have to involve anyone else at all? Or must there be someone there "overseeing" it? Could one of the witnesses also be the "overseer"? What's the absolute minimum number of people that must be present at a wedding: 4 or 5? -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 22:09, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

The two witnesses are a requirement of civil law, not church law; the priest is the witness for the church as the couple contracts the marriage. As far as the church is concerned, the marriage can occur anywhere; it needn't be in church; laws as to where weddings can occur are civil laws. (But the church wants you to comply with civil laws, so civil law restrictions on place would be obeyed.) So the minimum number of people would be 3 (the couple and the priest), unless civil law requires more. The other distinction you may want to explore is between "licit" and "valid" marriages, but that opens up all sorts of casuistry in which the licitness and validity will depend on the religions of those getting married. (I suspect the minimum number of people who could be at the valid and licit sacramental marriage of two non-Catholic but baptized people is two...) - Nunh-huh 22:29, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, N-h. So, combining what you and 86.163.1.168 have said: as far as the church is concerned the marriage can take place anywhere at all, not necessarily in a church; and the celebrant-cum-witness can be anyone at all, not necessarily a priest. Say a couple got married on top of Mt Everest, using their sherpa guide as the celebrant/sole witness. How would they ever prove to the satisfaction of the Church that they had married in accordance with church law? -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 05:57, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, they probably couldn't, and if they did, it wouldn't matter. Speaking specifically about sacramental marriages, at least one party must be a baptized Christian (otherwise the church isn't going to claim jurisdiction: the church calls marriages between two non-Christians "natural marriages"). If two Catholics went through a marriage ceremony in the absence of a priest, that marriage would likely be deemed invalid (unless there is a dispensation obtained), because it is "deficient in form". If two Christian non-Catholics marry in the absence of a priest, the church does not consider that that makes the marriage invalid. In the case where two non-baptized persons marry, and one later converts to Christianity and can no longer tolerate his spouse, that marriage can be dissolved and the baptized party can then marry a Christian (the Pauline Privilege). If a baptized person and a non-baptized person marry, that marriage can be dissolved by the Pope (Petrine Privilege). In any case, the validity or licitness of a marriage would be decided by testimony before a church legal tribunal. (And of course, like any legal proceeding, a specific outcome can't necessarily be predicted. :) - Nunh-huh 06:22, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

This seems to have strayed from the original question a tad. One thing is unclear: Wouldn't the Roman Catholic Church recognize pretty much any "conventional" marriage (one man, one woman) that's allowed by law? For example, a married Jewish couple. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:24, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I think Nunh-huh's answer to which you are indented as a reply explains the distinction pretty clearly. What part of their answer was unclear to you? I don't want to just repeat what they said. 86.163.1.168 (talk) 12:13, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

The best I can figure is that it's not that the RCC doesn't recognize non-Christian marriages, it's just that the RCC doesn't care... unless the couple decides to convert. Is that a reasonable conclusion? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:03, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Pretty much. As Nuhn-huh says, the Church considers a marriage between two non-Christians (one male, one female) a "natural marriage", on which we have a brief explanatory article. They aren't under Church law or authority, so in that sense the Church doesn't really care: there's no problem in non-members of the Church not following canon law, because it is only binding on members of the Church. A natural marriage is not considered sacramental. 86.163.1.168 (talk) 14:20, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Could we please address my original questions? (Most of the long discussion above is a tangent on marriage rather than on the original questions.) Thanks. —SeekingAnswers (reply) 09:14, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

While the discussion did get fairly sidetracked, this only happened after 86.163.1.168 had mostly answered your questions. Do you doubt these answers? They suggested you could confirm the answers in the articles although to be fair I don't think Anointing of the Sick and Sacrament of Penance (Catholic Church) explicitly say they can't be administered by a priest to themselves but particularly in the later case, I don't see how that would work anyway.

The only one of your questions that perhaps was't clearly answered was the one on females. 86 didn't directly comment on whether female Laity can deliver the viaticum (the only thing a lay person can do that is part of the 'last rites'), but the lack of any comment on the matter by them or in the article on viaticum seems to a female laity could do it.

Further if you check the article on Catholic Laity, it seems to suggest the only thing reserved for men is "Lay men can be admitted “…through the prescribed liturgical rite to the ministries of lector and acolyte.” Nevertheless, the conferral of these ministries does not grant them the right to obtain support or remuneration from the Church." This is mentioned in another place where it says:

However, "In accordance with the ancient tradition of the Church, institution to the ministries of reader and acolyte is reserved to men."[10] Due to this fact these ministries are rarely formally instituted in may regions of the Catholic Church.

In their place has evolved the widespread use of commissioned Readers, Altar Servers and Extraordinary Ministers of the Eucharist as these functions can be undertaken by both men and women.

In other words, I think we can be extremely confident there's nothing stopping a lay woman delivering a viaticum.

Edit: Actually if you check out viaticum, it says lay minister may administer the eucharist and links to Extraordinary minister of Holy Communion under lay minister which makes it even clearer both males and females can do it.

Nil Einne (talk) 10:09, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Nitpicking a bit more I guess 86 also didn't comment on whether a mortally wounded priest could preside over a mass needed for a eucharist if none are left over. At a random guess they theoretically could (why couldn't they?) but it would seem they likely have better things to do and if they were really mortally wounded it seems doubtful they'd succeed anyway. There may be something against presiding over a mass if you don't think you can manage the whole thig which would I guess cross over in to the 'no they can't not even theoretically' territory. Nil Einne (talk) 10:45, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Now that the question seems to have been answered, I can report this item, from The Joys of Yiddish. An old Jewish man is slowly crossing a street when he's hit by a car. A priest, seeing this and knowing nothing about the man, runs over and begins to administer last rites, just in case: "Do you believe in the Father, the Son, the Holy Ghost?" The old man casts his eyes skyward and cries, "I'm dying, and he's asking me riddles!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:42, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Il Canzoniere - Petrarch

How many different kinds of poems does Il Canzoniere contain?--Doug Coldwell ^talk 11:39, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

What exactly do you mean by "kinds of poems" that isn't elucidated by the second sentence of the second paragraph of the WP article? Deor (talk) 12:47, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I see the 5 different types here, however I see also "two sections" related to Laura's death of 'in vita' and 'in morte'. Were the 5 different forms still then the same within these time periods? Was the collection all then within one book? I also notice the "themes" as: religion, poetry, politics, time, glory. I would assume "love" is another theme.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 13:27, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Is labor a deductible expense in Cain's 9-9-9 plan?

I am confused about whether labor costs are a deductible business expense in Herman Cain's 9-9-9 plan. On the one hand, he says that all deductions except those listed would be dropped and labor is not listed. But on the other hand, he says that his business income tax is a flat tax and I thought that labor is normally deductible in a flat tax. Also he says that he eliminates all multiple taxation (including the social security tax, death tax, gift tax, taxes on reselling used consumer goods, dividends, etc.), but taxing the earned income of workers and not giving businesses a deduction for labor would be a multiple tax. So which is it? JRSpriggs (talk) 12:24, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

From our article on Cain: "...corporations would be able to deduct costs of goods sold (provided the inputs were made in America) and capital expenditures, but not wages, salaries and benefits to employees". Shimgray | talk | 12:41, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I cannot find the text you quoted in the article. In any case, I would like to see a quotation from Herman Cain himself in a reliable source to verify that. JRSpriggs (talk) 14:16, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Cain's plan is so divorced from economic reality and would cause so much pain to so many people that it is unlikely ever to be enacted without substantial changes. That said, not allowing employers to deduct labor costs from income and taxing employees on those same wages is no more double taxation than taxing both the wages and consumption of employees. That is, assessing taxes on labor costs (in effect the same as not allowing deductions for those costs) amounts to a consumption tax not unlike the sales tax. I've checked Cain's website, and he does not explicitly state that he will eliminate the labor deduction. He just says "Gross income less all purchases from other U.S. located businesses, all capital investment, and net exports." I don't see labor in the clause after "less", do you? Seriously, what politician is going to explicitly spell out a feature of a policy they propose that could alienate part of their base? Politicians tiptoe around those things and evade direct questions about them. Marco polo (talk) 14:24, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Indeed after I posed this question, I saw this essay by Peter Schiff which specifically criticizes Cain for not allowing a deduction for labor cost. The question of whether labor is deductible could make all the difference in whether this is a marginally good idea or very bad idea.

By double or multiple taxation, I understand that, when a widget is sold, two or more taxes are paid. If the corporation is paying an income tax on it (without a deduction) and the individual worker is also paying a tax on the labor which he put into building the widget, then that is double taxation. I appreciate that the sale tax (the third 9) would also be another tax on the widget, but that was not part of the flat tax (first two 9s) which was supposed to exclude multiple taxation. JRSpriggs (talk) 14:41, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

In terms of its affect on the economy, the most important fact about a tax plan is the maximum marginal rate of taxation. If labor cost is deductible, then that would be

$1-{\frac {1-0.09}{1+0.09}}=1-{\frac {0.91}{1.09}}=1-0.835=0.165\,.$

If labor cost is not deductible, it would be

$1-{\frac {0.91^{2}}{1.09}}=0.240\,$

which is quite a bit higher. The income remaining after the flat tax is in the numerator of the fraction since it is a fraction of the gross. The sales tax is accounted for by the denominator because it is a fraction of the net. JRSpriggs (talk) 17:07, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Gently chiding Marco over, "That said, not allowing employers to deduct labor costs from income and taxing employees on those same wages is no more double taxation than taxing both the wages and consumption of employees." Is this an argument from a wages fund position? You seem to imply that capitalists offer wages from a fixed pool, so when labour is input taxed, capitalists reduce the amount actually offered to workers? Australian payroll tax doesn't seem to operate as if there were a wages fund. (I don't think we need to remember when Kazza and Freddie criticised some other Germans for holding this idea regarding wages). Fifelfoo (talk) 22:58, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

When is a music track considered to be published?

The 1976 Copyright Act defines publication as follows: “Publication” is the distribution of copies or phonorecords of a work to the public by sale or other transfer of owner- ship, or by rental, lease, or lending. The offering to distribute copies or phonorecords to a group of persons for purposes of further distribution, public performance, or public display constitutes publication. A public performance or display of a work does not of itself constitute publication.

I'm looking for clarification on this part - "The offering to distribute copies or phonorecords to a group of persons for purposes of further distribution, public performance, or public display constitutes publication".

So, if the owner of a track has passed on copies ("offering to distribute copies") of a song to youtube or a radio station ("group of persons") for them to promote ("for purposes of public performance or public display"), does that mean the track is deemed to be "published" even though it hasn't been made available for sale? My interpretation of the definition makes me think that in this scenario it would be deemed to be published, but i may be wrong.

Anybody got any thoughts or further clarification?

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jd47321 (talk • contribs) 12:59, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Long before 1976 and well after 1976, it was standard practice in the music industry to distribute copies of singles to music stations, music magazines, etc... before a single was published. The rationalization you are going down will eventually take you to the point that you will claim a song is published as soon as one guy scribbles some lyrics on a napkin and hands it to a friend. Obviously, that is not publishing a song. -- kainaw™ 13:17, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I think your use of "published" differs from the use of "published" according to the act quoted above. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:18, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

To clarify my post... Distributing to a radio station before a song is published does not mean that the radio station can play the song over the air before it is published. A movie is a better example. Distribution companies cannot wait until Friday when a movie is released to deliver the movie to the theater. They distribute it ahead of time, but it is illegal for the theater to display the movie to the public before the movie's release (publication) date. -- kainaw™ 13:29, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

. "Illegal"? Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:16, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I wondered about that, too. It's becoming common to have a formal release of a movie in a particular country preceded by formal "pre-release" showings in that country. Which makes a nonsense of the formal release date. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 19:11, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

To receive permission to show a movie, the theater must sign a contract with the distribution company. In that contract, there is a stipulated date and time on which the theater has permission to start showing the movie. Side note: This contract also stipulates the minimum ticket fee - so theaters cannot simply lower their ticket fee whenever they like without getting a new contract, which isn't going to happen. So, if a theater shows the movie to the GENERAL PUBLIC too early, they are in violation of the contract, which is not legal, so it is illegal. Some contracts have stipulations for showing the movie early to the press and/or special contest winners and such. That is not considered the general public. Since publication/release date is the date it is available to the general public, displaying it early to a select group of people does not constitute a publication/release date. -- kainaw™ 19:17, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Sure, I understand all that. But "illegal" means "against the law", meaning the government can indict you and bring you to trial, and you can be fined or sent to jail. Violating a contract is a tort, meaning you can be sued; but it is not against the law. I also disagree with your last sentence; there's nothing in the copyright law text quoted above that requires that "publication", for its purposes, has to mean "shown to the general public." Comet Tuttle (talk) 20:03, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

In the last case I can think of, The King's Speech was advertised as opening on Day X, but "Special Pre-Release Screenings" were being shown a number of days earlier. These pre-release screenings were advertised in the local media, and anyone at all could buy tickets to them; they were not restricted to the press, contest winners or any other exclusive group. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 20:21, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Not music, but perhaps related: A book might have an "official" publish date that is after it is physically available for sale in a bookshop. Example details at Talk:Daniel_H._Wilson#Robopocalypse publish date. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:24, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

That is just the publisher threatening the bookstore to not put it on sale before it is convenient for the publisher. It has no bearing on the legal question of whether publication has occurred for copyright purposes. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:16, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I, like almost everyone else here, am not an attorney and you should ask one if you are asking for legal advice; as a layman, my straight reading of your quote sounds like the track has been published, because it has been distributed for the purpose of public performance (whether the performance has yet occurred or not). Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:16, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm an attorney, but my contributions are for amusement purposes only. Generally, posting a video on youtube would be considered publication. Publication is not necessary for the creation of a copyright. That occurs as soon as an original work of authorship is fixed in a tangible medium. Publication can be an issue where defendants raise the independent creation defense or innocent infringer defense in an infringement suit. Publication is an issue in works made for hire, the duration of copyrights, inter alia. What constitutes a publication is not a matter of statute but a question of fact left up to the trial judge. See, Donald Frederick Evans and Assoc. v. Continental Homes, 785 F. 2d 897 (11th Cir. 1986)[14] (Courts are disagreement in deciding this issue); See also Original Appalachian Artworks v. Toy Loft, Inc., 684 F.2d 821 (11th Cir.1982)[15], (1% not a significant number to constitute publication without notice). What constitutes "the public" is another issue. A private show among friends could or could not be a "publication" within the meaning of the act. Distribution of a completed film to movie theaters before the release date does constitute publication under the act however. Publication is distribution. There is no requirement that anyone read, buy or view the material, it just has to be out there in the public. Gx872op (talk) 19:33, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

There's surely some interesting case law yet to be written in this regard. Digital movies are distributed to movie theatres in an encrypted form, and typically the distributor emails the decryption keys to the theatre manager only just prior to the date at which the theatre is authorised to show the movie (and sometimes they mess that up and send bad keys, which drives theatre operators to distraction). Similarly the bulk of unreleased computer games (on platforms such as Steam or Origin) can often be downloaded days ahead of the release time, again in an unintelligible encrypted form; with the official release comes the decryption key. Whether the distribution of something in a temporarily unreadable form constitutes "publication" is surely something various courts are going to be asked to consider over the next few years. Is an intact but encrypted text merely "locked in a special box" or is it "incomplete without the key"? By the time various jurisdictions' commercial courts of last resort have figured that one out, we'll be watching movies beamed directly into our brains by orbital lasers. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 21:15, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I expect it's a moot point whenever physical medium distribution exists and is 'released' at the same time as the digital distribution stuff though. I'm guessing the films sent to theaters and the optical or flash medium sent to stores are usually produced and sent before the digital stuff is made available. Games are a more interesting example here as in a few cases despite physical distribution existing, these actually only functioned as a cache for the online distribution platform and you did need something from online before the game would work, and of course it wasn't made available until the release date & time. Nil Einne (talk) 22:22, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Native Americans and the law

On a historical basis: Can Native Americans be sued on a civil matter in local courts or have these cases required filing in Federal court? Thanks for your assistance — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.74.223.149 (talk) 14:28, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Non-criminal cases, such as being sued for debt, are not covered under the Indian Bill of Rights. So, there is no reason they can't be held in a local court. -- kainaw™ 14:37, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Indian Bill of Rights is a red link. Do we have an article under another name? 75.41.110.200 (talk) 14:47, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Indian Bill of Rights = Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968.

Tribal sovereignty in the United States also has some information though it's not terribly clear. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:49, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

This is a complicated question that will depend on:

• The nature of the action (e.g. contract, tort, civil rights, land dispute)
• The tribal citizenship of the Native American
• If a reservation is involved, the state in which the reservation sits
• Whether the events giving rise to the suit occurred on a reservation or within the territory of the state
• The status and identity of the parties (businesses, tribal organizations, governments)

There are many reasons why a local court would be prohibited from hearing the case. A court must have jurisdiction over the person (in personam) and against the matter (in rem). Venue must also be proper. No federal statute or treaty must exist that places jurisdiction solely within federal or tribal courts.

The US Supreme Court in Williams v. Lee, 358 U.S. 217 (1959)[16], has held that state courts lack subject matter jurisdiction over suits brought by non-Indians against Indians for those matters originating in Indian country when exercising jurisdiction would infringe "on the right of reservation Indians to make their own laws and be governed by them." Similarly, tribes and tribal organizations are immune from suit in state courts. However, there is an exception to this rule for a limited number of states and tribes listed by Act of Congress, 28 U.S.C. § 1360.[17]. This conveyance of jurisdiction is not absolute. Another exception would be if an Indian sued a non-Indian in state court; supplemental jurisdiction could apply in some cases for counter claims. Jurisdiction can be waived. This might be seen specifically in certain contracts as a requirement for doing business across reservation borders, but the effectiveness of choice of forum clauses involving Indians, Tribes and Tribal Organizations is questionable. The answer is, it will depend on the facts of the case. A specific answer of which courts could be courts of competent jurisdiction over a particular matter is a legal question which should be directed to an attorney in your area. Gx872op (talk) 15:24, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Uneven bars

Why uneven bars are designated only for women? Our article currently doesn't explain why men can't compete on them. --178.181.117.139 (talk) 21:44, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Women took to them first in Olympic competition (1936 according to this history). Interestingly, women could also compete in parallel bars at the time, now exclusively a men's event. Once women gravitated to the uneven bars, I'm guessing men didn't want to be considered unmasculine by taking up a discipline seen as feminine. Still applies today I guess, since you don't see many male rhythmic gymnasts either. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:25, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Men don't do them because they would get their genitals smashed. Here's a random clip of an uneven bars routine from the 80s.[18] Certain moves there would be highly uncomfortable for men, to say the least. I recall a few Olympics ago, when a male gymnast did a funny skit dressed in a female-like outfit, with predictable extremely-pained reactions when he did those moves. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:26, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

It was longer ago than I thought (1981) and it wasn't the Olympics.[19] In any case, ignoring the comedy, you can see that (1) he's actually quite good at it; and (2) men would not want to do the pelvis-slammed-against-the-bar move that's key to the unevens. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:36, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Religion & Political beliefs

Due to the Christian injunction to "love thy neighbour as thyself" and be a good Samaritan, I would expect Christians to be the strongest political advocates of humanitarianism. They should be pushing for more government welfare for the poor, a more progressive tax code, an internationalist foreign policy, and less nationalism. It seems that in the US, the opposite is true: the more Christian a person claims to be, the less likely they are to support these leftist policies. In fact, atheists and agnostics (as a group) seem to be the strongest supporters of these policies. Why is this the case, and is it also the case in other democracies (Canada, western Europe, Australia)?

If what I said isn't true, please don't be afraid to say so. Even if it were true, I'm in no way attacking Christianity, because correlation does not imply causation. --140.180.26.155 (talk) 22:48, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Churches are typically very involved in charity. Christianity also typically encourages self-starting and sustaining, as opposed to becoming dependent on handouts. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:04, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Does it, Bugs? I am not saying it does not; I have too little learning to make any claims at all. Where might I find a New Testament (or Old, I guess) writing that supports self-starting and sustaining, or, for that matter, that equates charity with "handouts"? Bielle (talk) 23:14, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

See this recent thread that covers similar ground. Alansplodge (talk) 23:47, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

That's exactly what Jesus meant by "my kingdom is not of this earth" and "he who lives by the sword shall die by the sword": personal salvation is all about setting up a confiscatory redistributive state which will take your money at threat of gunpoint and give it to others without your consent? For the Catholic view read Rerum Novarum and Cardinal Mercier's manual of modern scholastic philosophy avail in full at google books. μηδείς (talk) 23:54, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Why hasn't Europe gone after Facebook for keeping user info?

Thanks. Imagine Reason (talk) 23:36, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Several complaints are in process.[20] Dualus (talk) 00:13, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

(EC) The Mighty Engines of Justice take a while to get into gear, and some of the details of what Facebook does are only now emerging. Don't rule out legal proceedings once the EU's Lawyers have had time to get all their ducks in a row, as well as some furious revamping by Facebook :-) . {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.33 (talk) 00:15, 21 October 2011 (UTC)