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

November 27

One aspect of capital punishment

The capital punishment supporters sometimes like to ask the opponents a sort of what they would do if one kills the entire family of a capital punishment opponent or inflicts some other blow of similar scale upon capital punishment opponent. What the opponents typically reply in such cases? --178.180.78.140 (talk) 00:39, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Something to the effect of the uncivilized desire for vengeance being what the judicial system is designed to overcome. StuRat (talk) 01:00, 27 November 2011 (UTC).)

The justice system may have got the guilty verdict wrong. (It happens far too frequently.) Society killing somebody, for whatever reason, doesn't help the argument that killing is wrong. HiLo48 (talk) 01:48, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Have you googled anything on this subject? Surely there would be some references somewhere. However, it's worth pointing out that if someone's support or opposition to the death penalty is based on their emotions or what affects them personally, then they are much more likely to waiver than if it's based on a moral principle. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:51, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

The answer I think is the most honest and considered is, "you know, I don't really know what I would do, because I've never been in that situation. But it doesn't really matter what I personally would do under such extreme duress. My current position is the one I consider to be correct, according to my moral reasoning, or according to my judgment of the most effective policy, as the case may be. The fact that sufficiently trying circumstances might change my mind might mean that my personal character is not as strong as could possibly be hoped, but it does not render that reasoning or that judgment incorrect." --Trovatore (talk) 09:50, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

They typically say something like, "I would be devastated, but executing the criminal would not bring them back." That rhetorical question isn't a very good one for the capital punishment debate, however. It is not the victims who are punishing the criminal, but society represented by a panel of jurors. The example of killing your family isn't very good as usually there has to be something brutal like raping the victim's child in front of them before dousing them in gasoline, torturing them then burning them alive as what recently happened in Connecticut. Professor Robinson of the Upenn Law School teaches a unit on the death penalty using the example of the Murder of James Byrd, Jr.. It is a particularly gruesome example, but the article fails to state that what people found outside the black church was a torso with one arm. Missing were Byrd's head, legs and another arm. Forensics also believed he was conscious and alive for several miles as he was dragged from the murderers' pickup truck. What usually gets people in this example is that the defendants were void of any sort of sympathy. Of the two defendants who received the death penalty, both had served prison sentences before indicating they were a danger to society. Both wrote letters claiming how glad they had killed the "ni--er," and they both belonged to Nazi sympathizing white supremacist groups. Indeed 13 years after the murder of Mr. Byrd, defendant Brewer stated that if given the chance he would do his crime again: that is brutally beat Byrd with a baseball bat, chain him to a pickup truck, urinate on him, drag him behind the truck for several miles until most of his limbs were severed, then deposit what little was left of the body in front of a black church. Greater than a majority of those polled believed that the death penalty was warranted in this case. The question is whether the minority can impose their moral beliefs on the majority without the use of democracy, but with the ruling of a judge. Death penalty opponents have a hard time with arguments that they are imposing their moral beliefs on the unwilling majority. They are usually people who resent the majority imposing their moral beliefs on them so the claim of quid pro quo is unsettling. Usually, they stick to arguments about the shortcomings of the justice system and those who have been exonerated due to DNA evidence when they had been sentenced to death. This sidesteps that argument and moves it to another more in their favor. Gx872op (talk) 16:00, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

You're either very confused about the legal system or deliberately spreading propaganda. The judicial branch of government is not democratic: judges are usually appointed, not elected; judges' decisions don't have to correspond to majority opinion; judges are obliged to rule according to the law, regardless of whether they or the public agree with it. Death penalty opponents and supporters are presumably trying to change the law through Parliament, which is based on majority opinion, and not trying to persuade a certain judge to ignore the law for a specific case, which the judge has no power to do. "The majority" (as represented by Parliament) has no authority to punish one specific individual more severely than the law allows, due to separation of powers. Finally, it should be obvious that debates are meant to change the majority opinion. If everyone stopped debating when more than 50% of the public disagreed with them, we'd have no social change, no reform, and definitely no democracy. --00:13, 29 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.180.15.97 (talk)

You are very confused as to how the justice system works in the United States. 46% of all US States have direct election of judges. Another 46% have appointments followed by elections. The four states with appointed judges are California, Maine, New Jersey and Virginia. In the US, it is the jury which decides, see Apprendi v. New Jersey. The jury is a representation of the local community. The "propaganda" as you call it started in the 18th century as Brutus wrote:

There is no power above them, to control any of their decisions. There is no authority that can remove them, and they cannot be controlled by the laws of the legislature. In short, they are independent of the people, of the legislature, and of every power under heaven. Men placed in this situation will generally soon feel themselves independent of heaven itself.

What I was referring to was not a debate, but the minority imposing law upon the majority. The danger of this was recognized by James Madison in Federalist No. 10. America has always been distrustful of minority special interest groups attempting reform thereby imposing the will of the minority on the majority. There is a difference between a debate and the agenda of the minority to rule. America doesn't stand for that as we showed Tyrant King George over 200 years ago. Arguments against the death penalty are still losing arguments in the US. One of the killers in the Byrd case I mentioned above was executed a couple of months ago. The sentiment of the people was that justice was served. A judge who does not recognize this will be removed from the bench in the next election. As for the federal judiciary, their scope and standard of review of state court proceedings is very narrow in the habeas corpus procedure. I don't expect you to understand this as it is generally not even taught in American law schools. When habeas relief is granted (in about 2% of all petitions), the vast majority of cases require the elected state judges to consider the case again. Those elected state judges rule according to the law and the will of the majority. America is distrustful of any individual who does not possess the mandate of the electorate. Gx872op (talk) 16:47, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

There is a difference between the majority imposing what it sees as moral behavior on individuals (beyond preventing individual behavior that is objectively harmful), and objecting to immoral behavior on the part of the State. Majority or minority is actually irrelevant; what is right is right and what is wrong is wrong, even if only a single person is able to figure it out. --Trovatore (talk) 22:39, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Not sure what a "typical" response is, but the argument is an example of appeal to emotion. --140.180.15.97 (talk) 23:50, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

someone with a good understanding of music and jazz pls answer this question.

I like the famous Miles Davis "modal" songs such as Milestones (composition) and So What (composition) and sometimes i wonder if there are any semi-famous rock and pop songs that use modal composition.

Like I was listening to Here to Stay (Korn song) and I am wondering if it has Miles-like modal changes or if those are just normal I-IV-IV pop changes.

[1]

OK, listen to the song precisely at 00:29 right around the time there is a key change or something. Is that the same kind of change that happens in "So What" or is it different. Someone who knows music please explain.--Fran Cranley (talk) 01:09, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like a simple modulation of the repeating riff, up a major third perhaps (I have trouble identifying intervals by ear). That might be "the same kind of change" as in "So What", which features a repeated riff modulating up and down a minor second. Pfly (talk) 06:35, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

On modal songs, you could browse the pages about them (via {{Modes}} perhaps). Some have lists of songs in that mode. Like Dorian mode mentions "Eleanor Rigby", Mixolydian mode "Sweet Child o' Mine". Also see Phrygian dominant scale, which mentions its use in "modern progressive rock/metal". As far as I know there are no "list of songs in phrygian" type pages on Wikipedia, but there probably are out on the Internet. Pfly (talk) 06:45, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

IIRC, Davis's use of modal composition was largely because of his desire to get away from chord-based composition (I'm not at home now, but the liner notes to the CD re-issue of Kind of Blue basically explains it that way). Davis was interested in returning the prominence of melody over harmony. Because of this, Davis's modal compositions (especially the stuff on Kind of Blue) is very riff-based; those recordings were very improvisational, with the musicians improvising riffs based on the modes outlined by Davis for the each composition. Since rock music is often based off of riffs, they have that same "modal" feel; any riff is built on a series of notes, repeated, which roughly could be thought of as selecting notes from a mode the way that Davis thought of it. Modulation, which is a change of key, is largely independent of this idea. Lots of songs have modulations; at many places. Two rock songs I can think of that make prominent use of modulation in different ways could be One (Metallica song) features a promient B->G downward modulation in the intro, and Livin' on a Prayer features a modulation up a whole step for the closing chorus and coda (a common technique in lots of pop and rock songs). In short, modulation is independent of modal composition, and lots of things can sound "modal" even if the composer didn't have that mindset, merely because of the way that riffs are composed. This is my understanding as a non-trained musician. --Jayron32 07:19, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Jayron, you are right about modulation not being the right term (if that is what you were suggesting). I should have said transposition. Also, modulating up a half or whole step near the end of the song, to step up the energy, is sometimes mockingly called a "truck driver's modulation"--mocked because the technique has become rather cliche, as I understand. Here's a funny little rant about it. Pfly (talk) 08:04, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

China's one-child policy and adoption

Greetings.

I'm curious about the one-child-per-couple policy in mainland China and how it relates to Chinese parents who wish to adopt unwanted children. I know that in urban areas it remains strictly enforced, but that in rural areas, it has been relaxed somewhat due to the widespread infanticide of girls.

I'm curious, however, as to whether it applies to adopted children or just natural children. If a Chinese couple with one son, living in Shanghai, for example, wished to adopt someone's unwanted daughter, could they legally do so?

Also, how does the adoption process—in terms of speed and convenience—compare to that of the typical, Western country?

Pine (talk) 06:15, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

One-child_policy#Abandoned_or_orphaned_children_and_adoption has some information on Chinese adoption policy, not a lot, but there are references to external sites which may provide more info. --Jayron32 06:34, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Slightly off-topic, International adoption claims 95% of Chinese international adoptions are girls but it is citation needed. Rmhermen (talk) 15:36, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Can anyone here read enough Chinese to find the Chinese Wikipedia RefDesk, and ask the questions there, even in English? BrainyBabe (talk) 16:49, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

There's an interwiki link from WP:Reference desk to zh:Wikipedia:詢問處, which looks to be the place. Warofdreams talk 16:06, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I translated the question that someone posted there into Chinese, although my Chinese isn't that good. I doubt we'll receive a response, considering how inactive the desk is. --140.180.15.97 (talk) 18:42, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Don't know about the Chinese we certainly need to adopt the same policy in the UK and now!--85.211.153.242 (talk) 12:38, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

adjournment motion in Indian Parliament

Dear friends, I have a query in regards to "adjournment motion of Indian parliament"...recently in news its coming...my query is: 1.does Rajyasabha has power to pass "adjournment motion"? 2.if adjournment motion is passed,does it amounts to "censure" of government or "will it lead to fall of government as in case of 'no confidence motion' "? 3.what majority is needed to pass a adjournment motion? -Regards, -Navneeth — Preceding unsigned comment added by Navneeth tn (talk • contribs) 08:29, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Name for this kind of behaviour?

In one of Tove Jansson's Moomin comics, the Moomins travel back in time to Victorian times, where they start up a safety pin factory, which becomes successful and makes them rich. Thus they get invited to upper class parties, where one guest says to Moominpappa: "You no doubt own one of these centuries-old trading companies, right?" Moominpappa replies: "No, we are, as they say, self-made: safety pins!" At this point, all the other guests start shunning the Moomins and say that they are just leaving. Is there a name for this kind of behaviour? JIP | Talk 08:51, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Maybe something related to nouveau riche? Pfly (talk) 09:15, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Snobbery? --Viennese Waltz 09:19, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

AS above. Snobbism. The established classes considered their social standing to be bequeathed to them along the lines of Dieu et mon droit. The "nuevo-rich" industrialists were just muscling into their world of privilege and were thus not of their kind and good breeding.--Aspro (talk) 09:22, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Don't know anything about Swedish culture, especially of that time, but if it had happened in Britain, I'd have called it normal. It's just the way things worked. HiLo48 (talk) 09:32, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

The British idiom is to send them to Coventry.
Sleigh (talk) 11:26, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Also known as ostracising the unfortunate small animals.  Card Zero  (talk) 18:04, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

If this is indee related to nouveau riche, then I have a further question: Isn't it so that in order to become vieu riche, you have to start as nouv riche? All those riches have to come from somewhere. Should the nouevau riche then just keep learning the social ways, and not actually engage in them until they are vieu riche? JIP | Talk 12:42, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think an individual can become "old money" within their lifetime - the key feature of old money is that you inherited your wealth rather than earned it (that's what makes it old). The best they can do is try to get their children considered as old money by giving them the right education, exposing them to the right people, finding them the right spouses, etc.. Even with all of that, it might take more than one generation. With the right marriage, though, one generation should be enough - you would need to find someone with the right breeding and, ideally, a title but whose family has fallen on hard times financially and would therefore be interested in a marriage to new money. You can then combine their title and your money and end up with a good social position for your child, which might then help you a little as well. --Tango (talk) 13:49, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, That is what ended up happening, ugly high-born women married rich commoners. Yet it was more than an old money issue. If you take the (early) Victorian hymn All Things Bright and Beautiful as an example, it has in verse three:

The rich man in his castle,

The poor man at his gate,

God made them high and lowly,

And ordered their estate.

In other words, the landed gentry felt they had God on their side, and their insecurities lead them to ostracise those, whom (in their eyes) were trying to assume a social station above that, that God had ordained only for their 'betters'. After all, that upper classes built chapels and churches and gave arms to the poor over generations, so obviously they were more pious and worthy of their privileges position than these snivelling little safety-pin makers!--Aspro (talk) 18:41, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I assume you mean alms. Giving arms to the poor sounds incautious. 213.122.59.35 (talk) 22:58, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

It might be worth noting also, that even today, some people whom consider themselves to be somebody, are quick to point out (should needs must), that they can trace their bloodline back to the Normans. As if to say -And who(?) are you(?) to talk!? ( I can say this with tongue in cheek and a grin because I know my blood line too, and so can answer these ponce’s back (- its their automatic presumption that gets my goat – and no! I don't drive a Ford (horrid contraptions), I just speak non U. Likewise, I do and most unreservedly, apologise to any snivelling little safety-pin makers who happen to be reading this.--Aspro (talk) 19:12, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

In Australia these days many folks are pleased if they can trace their ancestry back to the original convicts. Not sure what that proves. HiLo48 (talk) 00:57, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

In the USA we just divide them between the 99 percent and the 1 percent. Bus stop (talk) 19:41, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

In the US though , it seems that 'Worth' is based more on financial wealth – not pedigree. Indeed, great store seems to be put in notable 'worthies' inventing (contriving) deprived origins, to bolster the poor-boy-made-good to cover up the less than Christian methods, they used to trample over their fellow brethren on their way to the top of the heap. The Public Enemy attempted to elucidate There but for the grace of God, go I but America has changed. No longer can the bum in the gutter, look up and see the stars above – and be so reminded, that this is the land of opportunity where a man can achieve anything he wants to -by hard honest work.--Aspro (talk) 20:08, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

If that's true, why did it all go so badly wrong, and what can be done about it? -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 20:37, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Nothing can be done about it. There is a 400 year cycle between west and the eastern worlds. When Marco Polo went to China, its technology was far advanced from ours. The technology then drifted west. Today we speak of the 'wisdom of the crowd' but that is balances by the ignorance of the masses and those whom they give their political support to. This cycle is still in motion. The US society now is wrap up in litigation and stagnating, whilst the the far east (and India) is entering a new renascence. What can be done about it??? Look through your home for anything not made abroad. Who is exporting your jobs and means of wealth creation abroad for their own enrichment? 200 years ago the Chines said the same thing – did it do them any good? The society went into stagnation – just like the US is currently slipping into. "Those Who Forget History Are Doomed to Repeat It"--Aspro (talk) 00:45, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

.Hmm: Thinking about it, I think I meant Angels with Dirty Faces--Aspro (talk) 20:38, 27 November 2011 (UTC)--Aspro (talk) 20:38, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

There is definitely an "American aristocracy" made up of "blue bloods" with "old money". Google on those terms to find many results. Here's a page from a book describing it to some degree, The power of privilege: Yale and America's elite colleges, p. 74. Pfly (talk) 21:39, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

What is to be done? I'd suggest reconfiguring economic life based on insights into higher productivity economic relations seen in proletarian communities of all kinds, and finalise the enlightenment project by democratising production and ownership, and by reducing the caprice and power of the state still further, though there are other visions of how to reduce class society or class disparity including fascist corporatism and social democracy. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:58, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Hawaiian Islands, Liberia and the Orange Free State

Looking at this quote "Thirdly, a few Christian states in other parts of the world, as the Hawaiian Islands, Liberia and the Orange Free State" from here. Can anybody tell me where the quote originated in what document or treaty is it from? --KAVEBEAR (talk) 09:55, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

So far as I can tell from googling the quote, it seems to be text written by John Westlake in his "Chapters on the Principles of International Law", published by Cambridge University Press in 1894. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:54, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

That's what the link KAVEBEAR gave us suggests as well. It's the first result in his link (and is quoted in the second result). Adam Bishop (talk) 12:38, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Protest over Kashmir Map Controversy at Wikipedia Conference Mumbai 2011

I work with www.mylaw.net.

I wish to have a formal reaction of the Wikipedia editorial board on the controversy.

[[2]].

What is Wikipedia going to do about this problem?

Please respond fast.

name and email address redacted — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.125.21.243 (talk) 12:45, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what this is about, but the last paragraph of our article BJP youth wing protest against Wikipedia's map of India gives the official response of the Wikimedia Foundation to the "controversy". Is that sufficient for your needs? PS. This is not the place to raise this kind of question. PPS. Was that fast enough? --Viennese Waltz 12:59, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

To clarify Viennese Waltz's P.S., there is no reason to believe that members of the Wikimedia Foundation will read this page before or after it is archived. Also, people who do read this page regularly, such as myself, have no connection to the Wikimedia Foundation other than as users of its media and do not know how to contact members of the Foundation. Posting your request here is like posting a request to the board of directors of a city bus service on the walls of one of the bus stops. Marco polo (talk) 16:46, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

My PS did not require any clarification, it was already perfectly clear. What you've done is expanded upon it, which is a different thing and arguably unnecessary. In fact I probably would have said something along those lines but I was in a hurry to "respond fast". --Viennese Waltz 17:41, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Talk:BJP youth wing protest against Wikipedia's map of India is interesting. "It is outrageous that to even publish a map showing what the Pakistan government believes or wants to be the case is illegal. This shuts down legitimate public debate and understanding of the issue." --Jimbo Wales. India's law making it illegal, under penalty of imprisonment, to show all of Kashmir as anything other than fully part of India, is, according to Jimbo at least, a "freedom of speech and human rights issue". Finally, Wikipedia/Wikimedia isn't going to do anything about this. No other country abides by India's censorship law. Nor does the UN. The issue is strictly internal to India and something Indians need to address and fix. Also, that page is likely to be deleted soon. At least that's how it's looking at its deletion page--the protest is probably not notable, although the law itself is. I've already added the information about the law in question over at Censorship in India#Maps and Kashmir conflict#Map issues. Pfly (talk) 21:17, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

We don't have an editorial board in the first place. Nyttend (talk) 03:26, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Harvard Citation Style

I need to use the Harvard citation style for a social sciences essay that I have to write. I've been told that I need an add-on to use the style in MS Word. MS Word tells me that I'm already using the Harvard style, but there are some small differences between what it does, and how the bibliographies appear in my text books, e.g. missing brackets. Does anyone know where I can find the Harvard add-on? — Fly by Night (talk) 13:40, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

You shouldn't need to download anything, you can just do it manually. There is a way to use Word to input all the information you need for a reference, and it will organize it according to whatever style you want, but I find that it's actually almost completely useless. Creating references manually is definitely easier. Adam Bishop (talk) 13:53, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Adam. The problem is that implementations of style sheets can vary a lot and software is often pretty bad at it. Why not just do it manually? Most styles are pretty regular once you take a minute to learn how to do the three formats you'll be doing constantly (the article out of a journal; the book; the article out of an edited volume, or whatever your paper uses). It takes a lot less time than futzing around with Word. This page and this page break it down and give examples. Just copy the pattern. If you have questions feel free to ask them here. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:25, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

An automated referencing system (like I use in LaTeX) guarantees continuity. Moreover, it's far easier. Once I input the information into a referencing system, I will have a consistent referencing system that I can use repeatedly. If you don't agree with my method then don't answer the question. I didn't ask: "What do you think of..." I asked "How can I do...". — Fly by Night (talk) 16:21, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Maybe next time you can give us all the relevant information in the original post. Adam Bishop (talk) 18:15, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I gave all the details: "I need to use the Harvard citation style for a social sciences essay... I need an add-on to use the style in MS Word... Does anyone know where I can find the Harvard add-on?"Maybe next time don't waste people's time (and your own) by making posts that don't answer people's questions. — Fly by Night (talk) 19:00, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

You didn't mention you were using LaTeX...and unless there is an add-on for that, "you don't need an add-on" is still probably the correct answer. Adam Bishop (talk) 19:24, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I am not using LaTeX; I use LaTeX. As I mention in my original post, and have since repeated: "I need an add-on to use [an Harvard style] in MS Word..." Please re-read what has been written. — Fly by Night (talk) 19:36, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

"I am not using LaTeX; I use LaTeX." Are you using LaTeX or are you not? 194.100.223.164 (talk) 13:43, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Would you like me to explain the finer points of the English language to you? "I am not using LaTeX" means that, at this moment or for this project, I am not using LaTeX. "I use LaTeX" means that, for some things, I use LaTeX. It's an analogous distinction to that of perfect and imperfect tenses. Let me give you another example: I am not drinking water (right now), but I do drink water (at times). — Fly by Night (talk) 19:57, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

And if you are just looking for computing answers, consider asking the question on the computing desk. Anyway, we're not trying to be difficult, there's no need to be snippy about it. My personal experience, as someone who has probably written far, far more essays than you do (and more or less writes them for a living), is that reference software is usually more trouble than it's worth, consistently requires work-arounds and debugging, and is indeed less of a time-saver than just learning how to do styles from memory. But hey, it's your time, and your essay, do it as you feel. --Mr.98 (talk) 18:38, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

It wasn't a "computing" question, and did not require a "computing" answer. It was a question about citation styles in social sciences. It just so happened that the medium of choice was a word processor. I'm sure that, if you stop and think, you can understand my annoyance. I ask a question and the answers are, to paraphrase, "I wouldn't do that..." — Fly by Night (talk) 19:00, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

If all you want is a Word plugin, it's a computing question. If you want a discussion of citation styles in the social sciences, it's a Humanities question, and that's what mine and Adam's responses are. We're addressing this as a question about citation practice, not a narrow computing question. If you're really just looking for the right Add-on, ask in Computing. Otherwise expect a more Humanities style answer. I'm sure that, if you stop and think, you can understand our annoyance at trying to give thoughtful responses as people who practice in the Humanities, and being told that all you want is a narrow Computing answer, despite this being the Humanities desk. Getting snippy with people trying in good faith to help you out is irritating to them, as you can imagine, if you stop and think. --Mr.98 (talk) 21:55, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Let's agree to disagree… — Fly by Night (talk) 17:11, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

You may (or may not, given the above comments) be interested in the fact that there are at least 5 different styles of referencing that count as "Harvard". (I write this as a retired lecturer in the social sciences at 2 different UK universities, by the way) From experience, the best advice to give you is to follow exactly what your university has told you to do and do it manually, as you will lose marks for sloppiness. Don't rely on a computer to do it for you. (If I'd have taken my own advice a few years ago I'd have got a 1st instead of a 2:1, so I write whereof I know.) --TammyMoet (talk) 19:25, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I've noticed that there are several similar styles. Is there a way to write a personal citation style file in MS Word? As a maths PhD, I have used a custom bibliography file in all of my LaTeX documents. I would like to have the same functionality -- if possible -- in MS Word. — Fly by Night (talk) 19:44, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be easier to do everything in LaTex (since you already can deal with it) and then converting it to MS Word? Quest09 (talk) 00:23, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I had thought about that, but it isn't very user friendly and is very specialist. It's designed to write mathematics. You have to type in LaTeX syntax and then it's compiled into a document that is displayed. I prefer the WYSIWYG style for simple word processing. — Fly by Night (talk) 17:11, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Zotero may help.[3] It lets you create a citation database in a Firefox plug-in, and then insert references into common word processors. (I think you can import a database of citations into Zotero as well, but haven't done it.) Several styles of reference are directly supported, and you can freely change the citation format by editing XML files, so you should be able to match almost any variation of Harvard. (The built-in referencing features in Word or Open Office are not really suitable for serious academic use.) --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:35, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Excellent. Thanks for the advice. I've downloaded it, and it seems to work really well. I love the way that I can "grab" citation information directly from websites. :-) — Fly by Night (talk) 17:11, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

You may also be interested in Comparison of reference management software. If you are at university as staff or student, you may want to see if your university has any site licenced software that you can use including at home or on your personal laptop. On a personal note I've used EndNote a while back and found it worked well without needing much fiddling around as others have mentioned here although was mainly working with journal articles and occasional web sources. And importing citations was usually fairly trivial for journal articles. I did hear EndNote had some major stability and similar issues in one of the versions after I last used it although I think those are mostly resolved by now. Of course if your university provide it then hopefully a style exists for the software that fulfills exactly what your university requires avoiding TammyMoet's problem although if they are known to be fussy it may still be a good idea to check the output just in case. Reference management software when properly set up should provide not only the advantage of managing the stuff in your Word processor, but also if properly set up, of managing a large number of references and being able to easily access them when you have local digital copies. However EndNote is not cheap if you have to pay for it yourself. I do agree this question was probably better asked at the computing desk. Nil Einne (talk) 19:24, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Most lopsided prisoner-swap not involving Israel

With the recent headlines on the Gilad Shalit prisoner exchange, where Shait was released in return for 1,027 arab prisoners, I wondered: which would be the closest such swaps not involving Israel?

(Yes, I'm aware that the Israelies have historically paid a lopsided price in numbers for the return of their captured soldiers. I'm interested only in non-Israeli cases). Has any other swap come close? And if not, which swaps have come closest? 58.111.163.17 (talk) 16:24, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

In 1985, Soviet Union traded the U.S. 23 for 4 at Glienicke Bridge. Rmhermen (talk) 21:23, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

On a grander scale, during the U.S. Civil War by the Dix–Hill Cartel, the "Union Army paroled or exchanged 329,963 Confederate prisoners of war, while the Confederacy paroled or exchanged about 152,015 Union prisoners of war". A balance of almost 178,000 in the Confederates' favor, although only about a 2 for 1 rate. Rmhermen (talk) 21:46, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

According to The Final Crucible: U.S. Marines in Korea: 1953 by Lee Ballenger, in 1953 (following the death of Joseph Stalin), the North Koreans agreed to exchange 684 "sick and injured prisoners" for 6670, "about 5 percent of all POWs held by either side". Clarityfiend (talk) 03:17, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

This BBC article says it was called Operation "Little Switch". And of course, we have an article: Operation Big Switch#Operation Little Switch. In Big Switch, 75,823 communist prisoners were exchanged for 12,773 UN ones. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:23, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

There have also been more recent exchanges between North and South Korea[4], but I'm having trouble finding details. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:38, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Julius Peter Garesché

Good morning,

I'd like to know why Julius Peter Garesché is listed as one of the Spanish in the Civil War. He was NOT Spanish; he was of French-American descent, only born in Cuba because his parents were there temporarily. By the way, his last name is spelled wrong in the body of his mini-bio. Please note, too, that there should always be an accent on the last e of his name so that people understand that it is French and know how to pronounce it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.81.132.153 (talk) 17:54, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

What is the title of the article with the problem? --Jayron32 21:24, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Having looked through Julius Peter Garesché, my comments are (1) Welcome to Wikipedia! Anyone can edit articles, if you see something wrong, please fix it! Nobody here has any more standing than you do. (2) I can't see any examples of the accent missing? I've added the missing 'h' in one example of his name, though (3) He's not listed as 'Spanish' (from your q, I was expecting something about the Spanish civil war), under 'see also', there's a link to Hispanics in the American Civil War - my understanding, and I'd need an American to clear this up, is that 'Hispanic' is a very broad catch-all that doesn't just take ethnicity, or at least not only ethnicity into account? --Saalstin (talk) 21:38, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Hispanic means coming from a Hispanic culture into the U.S. Like any such nebulous term, it is usually self-defined (only a person may define for themselves if they are Hispanic). It doesn't really matter what the last name is, or the ethnic background before settling in a Hispanic culture. It only matters that the person self-identifies as being Hispanic, at least by the U.S. definition. --Jayron32 21:49, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

If the person who asked the question has reliable sources indicating the Garesché was born to parents of non-Spanish origin and lacked a Spanish-language cultural background, then he should be removed from the article on Hispanics in the Civil War. (He would not have identified as "Hispanic" since nobody at his time identified as such.) Marco polo (talk) 02:18, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Jatiyatabadi Ulama Dal in Bangladesh

Hi,

What is the Ulama Dal or Jatiyatabadi Ulama Dal? How is it different from the rest of BNP ?

Thanks. Apokrif (talk) 21:44, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

It is the pro-BNP front organization of religious clerics (ulema). BNP has many front organizations, amongst youth, students, women, labour, farmers, etc. See this for example, http://www.unbconnect.com/component/news/task-show/id-18672/format-raw --Soman (talk) 04:02, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

November 28

Euroscepticism in Northern Ireland

Why are most parties in Northern Ireland eurosceptic? I can understand that —more or less— in the context of British politics for conservative, right-wing unionist parties such as the Democratic Unionist Party or the Ulster Unionist Party, but according to its article, Sinn Féin is eurosceptic too. --Cerlomin (talk) 00:09, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

There are lots of reasons for being against European integration: weakening of the nation state, bureaucracy, undemocratic centralism, and recently the predominant German role on European affairs. You don't have to right-wing or conservative to be eurosceptic. Quest09 (talk) 00:19, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Looking at their website, I have no idea whether they're Eurosceptic or not - "We have supported EU ... measures that promote and enhance human rights, equality ... promoting a basic level of rights protection in all member states ... we have also never been afraid to stand up against EU measures that are damaging to Irish interests" is the sort of fudge that everyone can sign up to, wherever they stand - an inspection of things like Bairbre de Brún's voting record might be more helpful here in determining both position and reasoning. As an aside, I find it amusing that Quest09 says you don't have to be right-wing to be eurosceptic, in qualification of a list of rather right-wing reasons & claims --Saalstin (talk) 01:13, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Saalstin: only the first reason is typical right-wing. Reasons 2-4 could perfectly be liberal, democratic, whatever. 88.9.215.192 (talk) 01:26, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

As someone who lives in Italy I can sympathise with Northern Irelands euroscepticism. For starters, I have much less money in my wallet ever since lira was changed into euros; buying a new item of clothing or a book is now a luxury when it used to be par for the course.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:04, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe things got much expensive with the Euro. From my experience in more than one euro country, I know that cheap things like a coffee were rounded towards €1.5, €2, or whatever, making them maybe 10% more expensive. But big things were not influenced by it. Some, specially imports, even got cheaper. Quest09 (talk) 11:51, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

The first is typical right-wing, the second is simply wrong and a claim that usually comes from the right (we have one set of bureaucracy and standards rather than 27), the third is a typical right-wing claim/excuse (EEA is undemocratic, EU means we get Commissioners, Ministers, MEPs, Members of the CoR writing our law), the fourth is just... offensive. Germany's the largest country and economy in Europe, it would be a very strange world in which they weren't predominant, indeed they punch under their weight against what you'd really expect, in large part due to historical concerns over what happened last time they didn't. --Saalstin (talk) 08:50, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

At least we agreed on 1. 2. I don't see how we get less state intervention (i.e. a classical liberal demand) putting a further layer of government on our national governments. 3: if demanding direct real democracy, and not that set of indirectly appointed 'representatives' in the EU, is right-wing, then, being right-wing is the only acceptable choice for me. However, I dispute that you have to be right-wing to be democratic. 4. How can being against Germany be offensive? It's just a position. You don't want a foreign country interfering in your affairs. Be you NI or GB, you want to set your own set of values, independent of the economical situation. Quest09 (talk) 10:57, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Maybe you should have pointed out that the CoR, that you referred to in your post, is an example of duplicated work. Quest09 (talk) 11:04, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Before everyone piles in to advise you on how you are wrong, please note the top of the page: "Do not start a debate; please seek an internet forum instead." Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:29, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Right, this thread is starting to get soapy. Anyway, there is also no need to discuss further, since I'm right. Quest09 (talk) 15:00, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Ian Paisley, former leader of the Democratic Unionist Party, has claimed that the EU is an evil Catholic conspiracy led by the Pope (who is the Biblical Antichrist) with the intention of enslaving Europe in a new Roman Empire.[5][6] --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:41, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

LOL. I wonder who chooses such lunatics for party leaders. Perhaps it's an requirement. Flamarande (talk) 13:39, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Doubt that Paisley came up with that on his own -- it was a central tenet of the old Armstrong Church of God (see 1975 in Prophecy!), which had a very strong international publishing and propaganda arm for many years... AnonMoos (talk) 14:59, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Why do they waste champagne at the end of motor races?

You all know what I mean. Those images of motor bike or car racers spraying champagne all over everybody at the end of races. Where did this tradition come from? I've always thought it was a waste of perfectly good champagne, but maybe they use crap imitations. HiLo48 (talk) 00:20, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

According to the G. H. Mumm web site, "The legend began on 13 May 1950 when the preeminent championship was created: Formula 1. The first Grand Prix race took place on the Silverstone Circuit in England, with the same distance as today’s events, slightly over 300 km. The tradition of paying tribute to the winner with a bottle of champagne began that same year at the Reims-Gueux circuit in the Champagne region of France. But it was actually 16 years later when the prize-giving ceremony on the podium took the form that we now today. Jo Siffert, after winning his category of the 24 Hours of Le Mans, unwittingly enriched the tradition. On the podium, the cork popped out of his overheated bottle of champagne, showering the onlookers below. The following year, in 1967, Dan Gurney celebrated his victory by deliberately spraying the crowd, a gesture that is now a Formula 1 ritual." For tangentially related material, you may want to see sabrage and Gatorade shower. - Nunh-huh 01:11, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't know about racing, but it's traditional in US pro sports for teams to spray champagne all over each other after winning championships, pennants, division titles, etc. This apparently is an old tradition; the New York Times article from the end of the 1970 World Series says "jubilant players were doing everything with the champagne but drinking it." -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:51, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

It's at least ten years older than that, as this famous picture following Bill Mazeroski's walk off, game-7 winning homerun in the 1960 World Series. --Jayron32 14:14, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

13 May 1950? They must have been celebrating the birth of Stevie Wonder. And why not? -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 09:22, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

By the way, they don't use a "crap imitation". Moët et Chandon is an F1 sponsor and provides the champagne used in the podium ceremonies. --Xuxl (talk) 12:45, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

As per the above link, isn't G. H. Mumm the current and I'm pretty sure sole champagne sponsor for Formula One and has been for a number of years (over 10 according to the main part of the G.H. Mumm site). Nil Einne (talk) 17:25, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

You're right, Mumm replaced Moët et Chandon as main champagne sponsor in 2000 [7]. It's still high-quality stuff, though. --Xuxl (talk) 10:19, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I have recently acquired a son-in-law who is a motor bike racing aficionado, and am being educated in the ways of that sport. Similar spraying ceremonies happen at the end of all their major races too. I can now see the way a tradition like that comes about, but to someone who enjoys a good wine taken orally from a glass, and is new to the sport, it does seem an awful waste, and a pretty silly ceremony. HiLo48 (talk) 19:45, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

A good wine, sure. But champagne? I always thought champagne was a waste of wine in the first place. --Trovatore (talk) 19:47, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I suspect you haven't been drinking the right champagne then ;) --Jac16888 ^Talk 19:51, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Could be, but I sort of doubt there's any champagne I'd prefer to a good cabernet. I'm not even sure there's a champagne I'd prefer to a Two Buck Chuck cabernet. --Trovatore (talk) 19:55, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Sadly in my experience the nicer champagne is generally extremely expensive stuff. Also I kind of see the point of spraying champagne, but this? madness--Jac16888 ^Talk 19:57, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Veuve Clicquot Yellow Label is a very nice champagne and a good value at about $40 US/bottle (less if you shop carefully). - Nunh-huh 21:58, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

To answer the question, it is because they are stupid.85.211.153.242 (talk) 12:35, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

They do occasionally drink part of the champagne though. – b_jonas 09:54, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

What caused the spike in US t-bill bonds in the 1980s?

I noticed that the yields went much higher than anything currently happening in greece or italy and am curious why they went up and why they came back down. 70.122.115.221 (talk) 01:57, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

They were part of intentional monetary policy in order to control inflation. I can't find a specific article of ours talking about it exclusively, but this section in Paul Volcker is a good summary. I heard in school that Volcker received death threats at the time and was the first Fed Chairman given Secret Service protection. I don't know if that was, or still is true, but it sums up the unpopular aspect of it at the time. Shadowjams (talk) 08:31, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

That section is talking about the Fed's deposit rate (that is, the interest rate the Fed pays on the money banks deposit there). The OP is talking about the T-bond yields (ie. the interest rate the government pays on its debts). While they are related, they aren't the same thing. Not everyone can deposit money in the Fed, so it's not impossible to have T-bond yields that are lower than the deposit rate. --Tango (talk) 13:40, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Our article Early 1980s recession describes the high inflation that prevailed during that period. Investors in US Treasury bonds did not want to see an inflation-adjusted loss on their investment; therefore, they demanded interest rates that would cover the expected inflation during the term of the bond. The U.S. government was unable to raise money without offering a rate that would compensate investors for the expected inflation. Marco polo (talk) 19:23, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

thanks a bunch for the info folks my curiosity is sated 70.122.115.221 (talk) 22:24, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

American Civil War

In the American Civil War, how many regiments would typically be in the average infantry brigade - on either side? I know that Barkdale's Brigade at Gettysburg had four, but some seem to have more, and others less. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 02:25, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Infantry in the American Civil War#Organization says an average of 4.71 for the Confederates, 4.73 for the Union. (I wonder what gargantuan rebel brigade had 20.) Clarityfiend (talk) 02:33, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Excellent - cheers! And twenty? At full strength (20,000 men) that single brigade would be bigger than the entire Union army at the start of the war! I'll look around to see who it was..... KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 03:24, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

In the North, there were generally strong incentives for recruiting new regiments, but no incentives to recruit individual men to bring existing regiments up to strength. The result of this was that, over the course of the war, attrition would cause a regiment to shrink from its paper strength of ten hundred-man companies, with some regiments falling to platoon strength or smaller. If the South had similar policies, that twenty-regiment brigade would probably have had fewer than 3000 men. --Carnildo (talk) 23:44, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Michael D. Higgins knee operation in 2004?

Recently-elected Irish President Michael D. Higgins broke his knee in Colombia in 2010, but when he was seeking the Labour Party nomination to contest the Presidency back in September 2004, a contemporary RTÉ news report stated,

"There's been speculation for months about whether Michael D Higgins would run for the Presidency. Today, he told Labour TDs and Senators that he was willing to do so, that his recent knee operation wouldn't prevent him, and that it would be good for the party and for the presidency to have a contest." — Youtube recording

Does anyone know anything about this knee operation in (circa) 2004?

1. Why did he need the operation?
2. Did he acquire a limp as a result of it, or did he only begin to limp in 2010?
3. Was it the same knee that he broke in 2010?
4. [Bonus question] If it was the same knee, have the 2004 operation and the 2010 fracture combined to make him limp so much nowadays? — O'Dea (talk) 03:01, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

You already asked that... AnonMoos (talk) 08:57, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Did Rudyard Kipling ever meet Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi?

Did Rudyard Kipling ever meet Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi? If so, I think it would have been a very interesting meeting, with Kipling's staunch Britishness combined with a love of India. I expect if it had happened after WW1 he'd have had some sympathy for Gandhi's pacifism too. -- Q Chris (talk) 09:25, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Kipling doesn't seem to have been to India since 1889[8]1891[9]. Gandhi visited George Bernard Shaw during his 1931 visit to Britain, but I suspect that there was little common ground between Gandhi and Kipling. Kipling's anger over WWI was (as I understand it) almost entirely directed at elected politicians[10] and he tried to promote the idea of governance by a kind of military junta. Interesting thought though. Alansplodge (talk) 11:20, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Me again: please take that comment about Kipling's military government with a pinch of salt - I can't now find a reference for it. One of those things that I thought I knew. Alansplodge (talk) 11:36, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I wondered if you were referring to his Aerial Board of Control or to non-fiction writing. -- 203.82.66.204 (talk) 11:45, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Interesting link, but not what I was thinking of. I believe it came from a TV play (not My Boy Jack (film)) but I'm not sure now. However, this article about his poem Gehazi gives an insight into his post-war political views "The Radical Right group, of which Kipling was an active member, despised any form of political pragmatism because it negated the duty to serve the nation and the Empire in the way that Kipling himself had immortalised in his Indian canon." Alansplodge (talk) 14:07, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Christian groups that do not believe that Jesus was crucified?

I was reading the article Dispute about Jesus' execution method, and in the introduction (specifically, in the first sentence), it is mentioned that Jehovah's Witnesses do not believe that Jesus was crucified, but was instead executed using a torture stake. However, no other denominations are mentioned and in fact one section was about evidence supporting the theory that Jesus was crucified. Also, the people quoted in this section (under "Stauros" interpreted as stake only) are Jehovah's Witnesses writers. Are there other (modern) denominations that share their opinion, or are the Witnesses alone in this opinion? (Which would not be surprising, knowing their views on blood transfusions and nationalism)

-Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:09, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

It's such a basic tenet of Christianity that anyone who doesn't believe he was crucified can almost safely be said to be something else. Jehovah's Witnesses are the only ones, I think, who believe in the stake hypothesis, but in that case he was still executed and died and ascended and all the rest. The Islamic view of Jesus' death for example sometimes follows the crucifixion story, sometimes not, but in either case Jesus did not actually die on the cross. There is also the "swoon hypothesis" where he didn't die, he just passed out and looked like he was dead. The idea that the crucifixion was somehow an illusion goes back almost as far as Christianity itself, as it was a tenet of Docetism. (Also, somewhat irrelevant but interesting, aside from the dispute over the shape of the cross/stake, there is also another dispute about the date; some Protestants think a "Friday crucifixion" is too Papist, and believe instead in a "Wednesday crucifixion".) Adam Bishop (talk) 11:29, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I wonder why the particular shape of the piece of wood some guy was nailed to about 2000 years ago has achieved such importance. I cannot see any important doctrinal implications of one or the other (although one is slightly more open to Freudian interpretation...). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:20, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

The "particular shape of the piece of wood" was the means by which the Christians believe that he died for our sins and ascended to heaven. Such shapes/symbols have a way to becoming important. Flamarande (talk) 13:36, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

But it's weirder than that. While Christians often use the cross as a symbol, and in imagery, there really isn't any special theology attached to the shape. People use the familiar imagery in phrases like "arms opened wide to save", but it really wouldn't be a big deal to Christians for Jesus to be crucified on a different shaped piece of wood. It would be weird, as we have a good chunk of early Christian writing and imagery that refer to this shape, but it wouldn't actually change anything. Jehovah's Witnesses (who are the only people who find the 'stake' thing convincing, and the only ones who think the 'Tammuz' thing is convincing, but not sadly the only ones to find 'Constantine invented the Catholic Church to appease pagans and destroy Christianity' convincing) often present the issue of the shape of the cross as vitally important, as if it deeply matters, whereas it is really completely irrelevant to standard Christian belief. 86.163.1.168 (talk) 21:27, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, almost all sects, cults and religions find and focus themselves upon some relatively minor issue as vitally important. This way they can separate their guys from the surrounding world. This way religious leaders can impose their rule over the faithful. It goes more less this way: We do this this way and the others don't. They are different from us as we are to them. We shouldn't mix. It is GOD who decided such issues. Flamarande (talk) 02:06, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

It's sometimes claimed that the ultimate was the homoousianist vs. homoiousanist dispute "over a vowel" (however, though it was rather esoteric, it was not actually about a vowel as such)... AnonMoos (talk) 02:26, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

In early Christianity, some Gnostic or Docetic groups thought that Jesus had never been crucified at all, but rather only his eidolon appeared to be crucified. This idea is pretty much extinct among Christians (though Muhammad incorporated a version of it into Islam). The JW thing is unique to them alone, as far as I'm aware. It can appear to be supported by somewhat superficial perusal of a dictionary of Classical Attic Greek (note: the New Testament was written in Hellenistic Koine Greek), but everything else we know about Roman execution customs and the history of early Christianity contradicts it... AnonMoos (talk) 14:40, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Galatians 3:13 (http://mlbible.com/galatians/3-13.htm) uses ἐπὶ ξύλου, meaning "on the stake" (literally, "on the wood"), in quoting from Deuteronomy 21:22, 23 (http://mlbible.com/deuteronomy/21-22.htm; http://mlbible.com/deuteronomy/21-23.htm), which uses עַל־הָעֵץ, meaning "on the stake" (literally, "on the tree").

—Wavelength (talk) 20:05, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

And why don't those words mean "wood" and "tree" in those places? -- AnonMoos (talk) 21:50, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

One has to be a little careful with the word cross. In English, a cross has to have something that crosses, but this is not the original meaning of the word crux, which meant the execution device. A crux simplex is just a pole to which the victim is affixed; it's a cross, so to speak, without a crossbar. So at first glance I don't see why you would say the Witnesses don't think he was crucified — apparently they think he was on the cross, but without a crossbar. --Trovatore (talk) 21:45, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Some sects believe that Simon of Cyrene and not Jesus was the one actually crucified on the cross. Heiro 02:35, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witnesses deny Jesus died on a cross, and insist it was a "stake." But then they are not considered Christians by many Christian denomination. Edison (talk) 03:09, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

It's hardly for other denominations to pronounce on whether the JWs or any others are not Christians. If the JWs say they follow, in their way, the teachings of Christ, that ipso facto makes them Christians. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 08:01, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

JackofOz -- That may sound logical, but unfortunately it goes against about 1,700-1,800 years of history, and would define Muslims as being "Christian"... AnonMoos (talk) 14:02, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I do believe that they are Christians, they just worship God differently. But my question is, are there other Christian denominations that believe that Jesus was executed using a stake or a method other than crucifixion. And is there any evidence for (or against) the stake theory? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 09:54, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean "differently". There's a reason there are so many different Christian denominations - they each differ from all the others in some significant way. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 11:32, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

In their beliefs and ways of worship. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:06, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Compared to what? -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 18:39, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Narutolovehinata5 -- The main "evidence" is looking up the word σταυρος in a dictionary of Classical Attic Greek, and overlooking that the New Testament is written in Hellenistic Koine Greek. Just about everything beyond that which has been alleged in favor of the stake hypothesis is somewhat strained or irrelevant... AnonMoos (talk) 19:59, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Name in Buddhism for different ways of not being indifferent

One thing is having preferences (but still being happy for getting something) and another is to get a fixed idea about what you want. What's the name of that? Quest09 (talk) 16:01, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Attachment? Pfly (talk) 16:28, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I think you want Dukkha: basically, the state of being attached to the presence or absence of something (as opposed to the something in itself). --Ludwigs2 18:28, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok, both answers seem to be on the right direction. But, is there a name for "having preferences, but it's OK". Buddhists are not indifferent to stuff, even if they accept that things go wrong sometimes, they have preferences (for example, they prefer not to break a leg, but accept that it happens). Quest09 (talk) 21:19, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Maybe something to do with the Noble Eightfold Path--right view, right intention, right effort, etc.? Pfly (talk) 07:08, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

The term you are looking for is Upekkha in Pali. It means equanimity. Rabuve (talk) 15:41, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

What is the cost of leaving a tv on standby

for a year in UK? Kittybrewster ☎ 18:47, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

If your TV satisfies the latest "Energy Star" requirements for less than one watt in standby, then you can run it for 1000 hours for the cost of one unit (perhaps 10p in the UK, depending on your tariff). One average year is 8766 hours during which time your TV will use 8.7 Kwh (units), so the cost is likely to be less than £1, though tariffs are rising rapidly. Dbfirs 20:14, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Use of prefix "my" for British nobility

Why did people (and not just the sovereign) in Elizabethan etc times refer to eg "My Earl of Derby", "My Earl of Leicester" and so on. Why "my"? Ericoides (talk) 19:16, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

The article on Madam states that the term comes from mea domina, meaning my mistress of the house. When a subordinate refers to his lord it is "My lord." So, to someone living in the Earldom of Leicester they would refer to their earl as "My Earl." Not so important now, but when your lord owned the land you lived in when you were a slave/serf, it might have been important. 24.38.31.81 (talk) 20:13, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

But people who are not subordinate to Leicester – either because they are not within his earldom or because they are his sovereign (ie Elizabeth) – also use the term "my" when referring to him. Ericoides (talk) 20:26, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Without claiming definite knowledge, I have always taken this to be just another instance of the formerly widespread etiquette practice (common, for example, in China and Japan as well as Europe) of equals in an exchange each behaving and speaking as if the other is the senior, or those in a nominally subordinate position exaggerating that subordination, hence antique letter salutations like "I remain, Sir, your humble and obedient servant" from civil servants and others, or the spoken "Your servant, Sir" used between gentlemen in the Stuart period. In English the use of "My lord" was sufficiently common that French and Italian speakers took "Milord" to be an actual English title of nobility. [Sorry, too rushed to dig out proper references.] {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.111 (talk) 10:20, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that, but again a little quibble; the us of "my" occurs even when the person so referred to is absent, eg, "I was discussing with my Earl of Derby the matter arising from etc". Ericoides (talk) 12:34, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

If "My Earl of Derby" was used, it was much less common than "My lord the Earl of Derby". I can look into this, but my immediate guess is that the possessive pronoun was transferred from the everyday use of Norman French and Medieval Latin by the upper classes of England... cf. "monseigneur", &c. (By the way, there was no British nobility in the 16th century!) Moonraker (talk) 12:46, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, of course, re British, my mistake (although it could be construed as being a question in general about English and British nobility)! I'll try to find instances of my Earl of X; I'm sure I've read some recently. Ericoides (talk) 14:20, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

(ec) I've never seen "my Earl of X"; it's normally "my Lord Earl of X" or, more commonly, "my Lord of X" (so you'd say "I was speaking to my Lord of Derby" rather than "I was speaking to the Earl of Derby"; this form occurs in Shakespeare). It seems that it was just seen as a more respectful way of referring to someone, which presumably developed from the more respectful way of addressing someone directly. A similar form still exists to a certain extent in the courts: if a judge in the Court of Appeal of England and Wales wants to refer to one of the other judges he is sitting with he will say "...as my Lord, Lord Justice Smith, said...", or simply "...as my Lord said..." if it's clear who he's referring to. Proteus (Talk) 12:52, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Agreed: "my Earl" is wrong. See Robert Dudley, 1st Earl of Leicester; "I see not her Majesty disposed to use the services of my Lord of Leicester." (Francis Walsingham). Alansplodge (talk) 10:31, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

No it isn't. One contrary example hardly proves the non-existence of the Earl form. See, for instance, Sir John Gilbert to Sir Robert Cecil: "As to my Earl of Cumberland having the greatest part in the Watt's adventure, the case standeth thus."[11]; or [A. Gorges (?)] to Lord Carew: "I am desirous to hear of your welfare, and by a few lines to let you know of some bruits that I hear of, that may concern the State, that if you think fit it may be related to my Earl of Salsburye."[12]; or Montagu: "nor my Earl of Leicester with any of the favourites of Augustus"[13] etc. etc. Ericoides (talk) 12:08, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I stand corrected. Alansplodge (talk) 22:41, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

This is not to disagree completely with my first comment, but the "my lord" construction does also appear in Old English. For instance, in Genesis B, Eve calls Adam "frea min" (my lord). Moonraker (talk) 17:25, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

November 29

Good modern Muslim role models ?

By "good", I mean nonviolent, not controversial, and cooperative with those of other religions. The more famous the better. Thanks. StuRat (talk) 02:12, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Do you mean people of any walk of life who are Muslims, but are mostly known for other things, or do you mean people who are mainly known for being Muslim (religious leaders and such)? -- AnonMoos (talk) 02:31, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Leaders of some type, either religious or political. Somebody comparable to Gandhi or Martin Luther King. StuRat (talk) 02:58, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Obama? (Sorry. It's a joke.) HiLo48 (talk) 03:05, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Just a tip: rejection of violence and cooperation with those of other religions are characteristics of almost all Sufis. You may read our article on Sufism. (And remember that Gandhi and King both were political figures and in politics nothing can be "not controversial". Were not both of them killed?) --Omidinist (talk) 04:46, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

What world do you live in where Obama is non controversial? Nil Einne (talk) 07:09, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

It was a joke. (I thought I said that) HiLo48 (talk) 07:39, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I knew it was a joke directed at the fact some people claim Obama is a muslim, my point is it isn't funny because he doesn't fulfill the criteria anyway even if he were muslim. (I think some would also question whether Obama can also be said to be nonviolent but that's a more complicated issue.) Nil Einne (talk) 12:11, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't recall Aga Khan IV being particularly disliked; indeed his charitable work is well known and well respected, and he's been a campaigner for peace and for international harmony. Several other members of his family work for the UN in high positions, and his grandfather and predecessor as Imam, Aga Khan III, was president of the League of Nations. --Jayron32 05:29, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

The first and last criteria are not hard to fulfill, but the second one (not controversial) is. I assume that you mean not controversial to Muslims, since you're asking about Muslim role models. In that case, the Muslim world is very sharply divided along national, ethnic, and particularly sectarian (Shia/Sunni) lines. Arab Spring has improved this situation somewhat, especially amongst the youth, but the fact remains that the culture and values of Christian countries are much more alike than those of Muslim countries.

Also note that a significant percentage of Muslims would disagree with your third criteria. Religious tolerance, to the extent of secularism, is not a universal value in most Muslim countries. This is indicated by the victories and likely victories of Islamist parties in recent Middle Eastern elections--Tunisia, Egypt, Morocco, and Libya, for example--and by the less-than-tolerant policies of Arabic dictatorships like Saudi Arabia. --140.180.15.97 (talk) 06:37, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

To clarify, I mean a Muslim who could be a role model for the entire world, not just to Muslims or those of his particular sect. Think Gandhi. So, religious tolerance is a must. As for being non-controversial, I suppose it's OK if they were controversial once, as long as they are widely accepted now. Presumably not too many Brits think of Gandhi as an agitator and trouble-maker anymore. StuRat (talk) 04:42, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Maulana Azad: supported Hindu-Muslim unity and anti-partitionist during India's independence. IT billioinaire philanthropist Azim Premji of Wipro. For other Indian-Muslims: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_India#Prominent_Muslims_in_India ќמшמφטтгמ^torque 07:43, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Muhammad Yunus, Shirin Ebadi and Tawakel Karman are recent Muslim Nobel Peace Prize laureates. Sari Nusseibeh had apparently been mentioned as a potential Nobel Peace Prize candidate. --Soman (talk) 13:00, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan was sometimes referred to as a Pashtun Gandhi. --Soman (talk) 13:14, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

There are Nawal El Saadawi and Ahdaf Soueif, both controversial in the way that Gandhi and King were. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:14, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

How about Imran Khan, Pakistani cricketer and politician? HiLo48 (talk) 21:41, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

May I suggest Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan and his family? --TammyMoet (talk) 09:42, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I think Abdus Salam is a good candidate. He's such a huge name in physics, the first Muslim to win a Nobel prize in the sciences. You can see his specific collaborations with non-Muslims like Steven Weinberg, Jogesh Pati and John Clive Ward. The only downside is there is some controversy over his role in the Pakistani nuclear program and also, through no fault of his own, his problems with the government there which decided that Ahmadi Mulsims like him were not Muslims at all. --JGGardiner (talk) 23:30, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks so far. I'm a bit disappointed that none of them seem to be household names, though, while bad Muslim role models are. StuRat (talk) 04:40, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Aly Khan, the son of Aga Khan was a very famous celebrity in the mid-20th century, and married Rita Hayworth. However, many more "orthodox" Muslims would consider him to be a religious deviant and heir to the Hashisheen. Muhammad Yunus is actually rather well-known among many throughout most of the world (though not a personal celebrity). AnonMoos (talk) 06:40, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps Abdul Sattar Edhi although I seem to recall that he like to stress that his religion is humanitarianism. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:58, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Classical music: what is an intervention?

Resolved

 – – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 22:07, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

In our article on Piano Concerto No. 9 (Mozart), it says, "The first movement opens, unusually for the time, with interventions by the soloist". What is an intervention? I listened to the first movement and I can't figure it out. Thanks. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 02:17, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

"intervention" in this case is just loose music-criticism speak, there's no musical form called an intervention. All that's being said is that the (piano) soloist is heard in the first movement earlier than would have been expected at that time. In general, the first movement of a concerto was expected to have a "double exposition", with the first exposition for orchestra alone, and the second for the solo instrument accompanied by the orchestra. So "The first movement opens, unusually for the time, with interventions by the soloist" just means that the soloist enters during the first exposition rather than waiting for a second exposition following the completion of the first. - Nunh-huh 04:48, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

(ec) It's compared with Beethoven's 4th and 5th piano concertos. The 4th opens with the piano playing solo. The 5th opens with an orchestral tutti chord, but then the piano plays solo for a little while before the orchestra returns. This is what I think is meant by an "intervention". A concerto is defined as a work for solo instrument and orchestra, so when the piano is playing without the orchestra, it's "interverning". -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 05:00, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you both so much, that clarified it immensely. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 22:07, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Would Basil Hallward be considered a gay man by modern-day standards?

I remember reading Oscar Wilde's only novel The Picture of Dorian Gray and became intrigued by the three main characters' personalities. Yet, I have one question: would Basil Hallward be considered a gay man by modern-day standards? His homoerotic affections for Dorian Gray is apparent in his artwork and his behavior and his conversations with his friends, but does one homoerotic experience would hint at that person's sexual orientation? If a person only has one homoerotic experience and has never fallen in love (as opposed to is not and never will be sexually attracted to) with a member of the opposite sex, then does that make that person "gay"? Despite that I am a native speaker from the United States, a democratic and developed nation, I admit that this is one subject of which I am woefully and shamefully ignorant. Since I have admitted my ignorance, I hope this will refrain from receiving accusatory personal attacks against my ignorance. Hopefully, someone can provide the answer. SuperSuperSmarty (talk) 04:53, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Responses sourced to reliable references would likely be more useful in response to this question than anecdotes, original research, or personal opinions. Edison (talk) 05:43, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. I would like to add that it is important to keep in mind that this is the 19th century. The book is published in 1891. According to Merriam-Webster, the term "homosexual" originated in 1892. Because of this, Oscar Wilde never mentioned "gay" or "homosexual". In Jane Eyre, another Victorian-era novel, I recall that the words queer and gay are mentioned (using queer to describe the behavior of Grace Poole, but those words do not have a sexual connotation). It is widely cited that Oscar Wilde is homosexual himself. Whether or not he uses the term to refer to himself is unclear. Whether or not a character like Basil Hallward would be seen as "homosexual" in the eye of a modern-day viewer is also unclear. There is much speculation; however, I hope that the speculations can be resolved by known facts about homosexuality. SuperSuperSmarty (talk) 06:08, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

There are no known facts about a literary character except the words that appear in the novel. Having had one love-free homoerotic experience does not make someone gay. But being gay might cause a person to have homoerotic experiences, the first of which may or may not be associated with feelings of love. And the second, etc. Bottom line: a person is gay because they decide or realise they are; it is not necessarily connected to any behaviours they may exhibit. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 07:53, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

• You may find the Mollies and Havelock Ellis interesting as they were both English Speaking and pre 1890. I have strong political opinions connected to a belief that working class queer politics is a method for the proletariat to achieve sexual liberation (there's nothing queerer than fucking people you love and are attracted to)—see the post 1970 HOMOCULT microscopic workerist political group/publisher in the UK. In the contemporary era, the concept of a gay identity, or homosexual identity is tied up with the complex of social repression in the advanced west and english speaking advanced west experienced as a straight jacket in the 1970s; the legalisation movement in the same; and the disproportionate impact of GRIDS/HIV/AIDS on promiscuous sexual communities comprised largely of gay men. I'm not going to say that the two bourgeois shits with their matching dogs, and matching porches, and matching management positions aren't gay; but they're certainly not my comrades; and their version of "gay" has very little in connection with the historical experience of men-who-had-sex-with-men. Given the level of contest over this terrain, it will be difficult for any editor not to make a contribution coloured by her own politics, or sexuality, or morality, or religion; but, I suggest that the OP may wish to read stories prior to the 1890s of men who loved men, and of men who fucked men. Their self conception doesn't match the current "gay" identity; any more than the historical men-who-loved-women match contemporary "straight" culture. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:15, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Men who have sex with men is a useful phrase for discussing these things. I find Fifelfoo's perspective interesting, because I have actually heard that many working-class 'men who have sex with men' and 'women who have sex with women' do not identify as gay specifically because they view it as a middle-class identity, associated with a culture that is very middle-class. Some of these seemed happier to call themselves 'queer'. If it's not too derailing, I'd be interested in how true this is in your experience? (not OP) 86.163.1.168 (talk) 09:24, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I'll firstly note that the HOMOCULT organisation I mentioned above is a useful datapoint, it was a Queer organisation in the 1980s, with Andy Anderson as a leading intellectual (and proletarian) figure. They were somewhat influential in class anarchism and some of their material on queer sexuality is available online. I'm going to speak personally for the rest of this: I'm primarily a boring real world straight guy. I grew up on the Internet before Eternal September when post-modernist gender theorists roamed the internet, policing heteronormativity. My first political awakening was in my mother's trade union struggles in the 1980s against neo-liberalism; but, the first positive politics I owned was in the mid 1990s in student politics where queer theory was already embedded as an "official dialogue" for the GLBTI…[under expansion] politics. So I'm not neutral here, "queer" is political for me, and the variety of online sexual experiences I've had I'd personally identify as "queer" rather than "men-who-have-net-sex-with-men-pretending-to-be-women" etc. etc. etc. For me, there are some people who obviously only want to date men, and you meet them at the pub, and you don't ask them if they're dating a nice guy because it'll seem rude because they haven't mentioned it yet. For me, promiscuity threatens me, but I feel obliged and correct when I recognise people happy in their promiscuity. For me "Queer" explains how sex always feels a bit "weird", and "transgressive" and possibly even "dirty" if you're doing it right, even if it is married missionary heterosexual sex with consent within marriage for the purposes of procreation. In my experience (which is nationally and ethnically limited) workers tend to get to the heart of the matter, which is who do you love and who do you fuck. I will note, however, that I tend to hang out with workers who don't accept the status quo as fundamental—they don't believe in the "dominant ideology" or the hegemonic institutions, even if they're not revolutionaries; so I suspect that my personal experience is liable to bias. I think that workers whose primary "political" social association was a conservative religious organisation would have a very different experience of what it means to be a man who likes to, exclusively, occasionally or has never fucked men means. Fifelfoo (talk) 09:56, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd question this. What's described sounds more like what's known as being on the DL ("down-low") within the gay community, and it occurs almost solely with men. Most of them hypermasculine. It has nothing to do with economic classes and everything to do with distancing themselves from the stigma of the effeminate and hedonistic stereotype (most of which just happen to be white collar). The working class just happened to have the largest population of men whose work have traditionally been classified "masculine". Even if they are homosexual, a few refuse to identify as such because in their mind it puts them in the same group as all other LGBT which mainstream culture usually equates with femininity. I've come across some attempts of such distancing, often for completely ridiculous reasons (including one which reasoned that as long as no one does anal sex, they aren't committing sin and are still straight). None of them are based on economics or social classes, a fair amount of them are higher class but with socially conservative views.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 10:08, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I suspect in the case of my local culture it is likely connected to residual revolutionary/"mobilised" class cultures; but, at the same time, I'm highly willing to admit that my personal experience is localised geographically and culturally. The working class is so fucking huge that it is hard to generalise; and, while I'm politically willing to claim my local experience should be the norm, I'm aware that it isn't. Your explanation sounds far more generalisable as it connects masculinity, queerness, gayness and straight culture far more effectively for the entirety of society. (I am so not an expert in queer / GLBTI… studies) Fifelfoo (talk) 10:23, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I wrote this earlier but didn't post because of the request for sources. But since most of the other comments are in the same vein.... I don't pretend to know much about the subject but in terms of the 'only has one homoerotic experience' I think most would agree you can't draw much of a conclusion from a single experience. Sure it might be a sign, but only a tiny one. Also presuming you take 'gay' to be different from 'bisexual' even being regularly sexually attracted to someone of the same sex doesn't seem to preclude the person also regularly being sexually attacted to someone of the opposite sex. Nil Einne (talk) 12:18, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to try to get back to the original question. I do not think it is possible to classify people who lived before the 20th century as "gay" or "not gay". The identity and category "gay" really exists only in a late modern context. It just wasn't an option before about the turn of the 20th century, and during the first half of the 20th century only for a small milieu of urban sophisticates. We can say that a person who lived before that time or outside of that milieu had homoerotic inclinations (such as Basil Hallward's) or was primarily homosexual, but it is anachronistic to say that any of these people were "gay", with all of the historical and cultural baggage that that term has accumulated since the early 20th century. Marco polo (talk) 14:30, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I concur with Marco Polo that terms such as these need to be read with historical specificity. Nil Eine brings up bisexuality: Oscar Wilde married (a woman), and loved her in his way, and adored being a father. You might find the Klein scale useful, and, by contrast, the one-drop rule. BrainyBabe (talk) 02:18, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Although the novel is actually written in third person omniscient persona, Basil Hallward's sex life is not really explicitly written. It may be that Oscar Wilde's novel has been censored prior to publication, or he self-censored it before he submitted it, or it may be that it's not really that important on a literary scale. The only thing the reader can do is to imagine what it is like to be a man or woman with homosexual inclinations, which I hope would not be so difficult to do. You may never know where imagination can take you. ;)

I recall reading a New York Times article about Wikipedia's gender gap. I suspect that the supposed gender gap is affecting the answers, since little is discussed or mentioned about lesbians or female homosexuals. There has been one personal anecdote, but that personal anecdote is taken from a man's perspective. SuperSuperSmarty (talk) 03:38, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

The question "Would Basil Hallward be considered a gay man by modern-day standards?" does not really lend itself towards expiating expatiating on lesbianism in Victorian times. If you are interested in that, please ask a more specific question. The novel that began this has no significant women in it. BrainyBabe (talk) 11:42, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Then I apologize for proposing that. I think my ignorance and naivete in the subject have led me to believe that male and female homosexuality are the same but with two different names; therefore, this erroneous assumption leads me to think that the same homosexual behaviors apply to women as well. SuperSuperSmarty (talk) 15:27, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

It's not so much the cause, but the difference in societal pressure for homosexual women and homosexual men. Female homosexuality is a very common heterosexual male fetish and society (even western society) is mostly masculine-dominated. Men are expected to conform far more than women who are supposed to be the "weaker" sex and thus more prone to errors (cf. Biblical Eve). Even Leviticus explicitly mentions male homosexuality only. If we are to take scriptures literally, that means being lesbian is not a sin. But then again, it relegates women to inconsequential roles anyway (an extreme example would be Lot letting the people of Sodom rape and kill his virgin daughters to protect the visiting angels). Much more during the Victorian period, when feminism was still in its infancy.

That said, I know a few men who claim to be gay but are happily married to women who know it too (basically a bestfriends with sexual benefits kind of marriage). I only know them online, so it's hard to verify that. But I think it illustrates how with strong enough feelings, people can bridge the orientation gap (I'm talking about monosexuals only, excluding bisexuals, pansexuals, asexuals, etc.) It doesn't really change their orientations though. Straight people can form crushes with people of the same gender as do gay people with people of the opposite sex. Kind of a step up from bromance (or "heterosexual life partners"). There are even tropes for this - the "gay for you" trope (included within the more general "If it's you, it's okay" trope - a straight guy who falls in love with another guy but is only attracted to that guy and is otherwise still attracted to women (basically an "I'm not gay, I just like you" kind of thing). I'm personally very skeptical of this actually occuring in real life, but who knows, human sexuality is a very very complex thing. So the possibilities are either Basil was straight and completely obsessed with Dorian (in a scary way), Basil was straight but had an easily manipulated submissive personality, or Basil was gay and it was a classic example of unrequited love.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 19:31, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

In summary, if the claims above are all true, then they would send an implication that (1) religion, especially the Abrahamic religions, have a profound influence over early modern and late modern views of homosexuality and (2) being against homosexuality means putting women and those like women (homosexuals) inferior to men, especially heterosexual men. On the Internet, especially on Christian sites, it is noted that "homosexuality is a sin". This widely used quote may be referring to strictly male homosexuality, not female homosexuality, with an implication that women are inferior to men so that they cannot be punished for this "sin". Ah, now I seem to understand what the big fuss is all about. I am going to synthesize my own original research, which may or may not be supported elsewhere: homosexuality is all about the dominance of femininity. That is, anything that society perceives to be "feminine" (gay people and women and girly things) are condemned or are inferior to men under God. SuperSuperSmarty (talk) 03:00, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

They obviously aren't exactly the same. My original answer didn't refer to the sexes seperately other then the usage of 'gay' which is sometimes reserved for men (but part of the reason I chose it is because it's the word you used and as BB has said, the question seemed to be referring to men). During my research, I came across a few sources stating what OS has noted and what is fairly obvious. (I don't recall the source but it's easy to find similar ones e.g. [14].) It's general more acceptable and therefore probably more common for a woman to admit having sex with a woman or to admit to having had a 'homoerotic experience', without being lifelong labelled as being gay or lesbian or bisexual. In fact we even have articles on Bisexual chic and Lesbian until graduation, while these are or can be pejorative, I think it also highlights the fact the behaviour itself is more accepted. As these source generally note, it can actually be seen as an attractant to opposite sex partners for a woman to admit to such a past, rarely the case for men. I didn't mention any of this at the time because it didn't seem relevant, IMO it remains true it doesn't make any sense to draw conclusions from one single experience even for men.

BTW, I haven't really commented on the novel aspect but I agree with others it's rather difficult to be sure what the writer was thinking if they haven't commented on it, even more so if the writer was from a different time of culture. One thing thought is that if there is a scene in a book there must be a reason for it, even if that reason was simply because the editors demanded it, or the author thought the readers would enjoy it, rather then having a wider meaning. Of course people's preconceptions may have an effect on what they read in to a book. For example in the Dumbledore case, I see no reason to think JKR hadn't been thinking that for a long time (it's been revealed she mentioned it to a scriptwriter once before the 'public outing'). And I sometimes wonder how quick those who say 'there's nothing in the book' would have been to dismiss the idea Dumbledore loved Grindelwald if Grindelwald was female instead of male. (Of course whether readers want to believe Dumbledore is gay is up to them.)

Nil Einne (talk) 06:51, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

<unindent>SSS, I commend your open-minded curiosity and willingness to learn. There are lots of good pointers on here, but to avoid being swayed too much by any one response, I would suggest you read some of the linked articles and follow the references within. You started with one specific question, which the refdesk is well positioned to handle, but now seem to be broadening your query to the nature of human sexuality in general, which, as correctly pointed out, is a complex subject. BrainyBabe (talk) 13:54, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

GK Question

Which brand gets its name from Ebenezer Scrooge’s dismissive remark about the entire Christmas celebration? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.111.228.20 (talk) 07:03, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Humbug (sweet), Humbug (video game), Humbug (comics)? -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 07:56, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Name of item

I want to make/add images to the article for those two baskets hanging on each end of a stick. Looks like big scales. Used to carry stuff in China. I don't know the name of it. Thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:20, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Found: Shoulder pole, thanks to the kind folks at IRC. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:55, 29 November 2011 (UTC)  Done

In Europe, milkmaids sometimes traditionally used a milkmaid's yoke, which was functionally equivalent (see here), but there doesn't seem to be anything about it on Wikipedia... AnonMoos (talk) 13:55, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

It gets a brief mention on the "Shoulder pole" page. Alansplodge (talk) 15:54, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, that was added since "13:55, 29 November 2011"... AnonMoos (talk) 19:21, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Political Science - Beliefs versus Opinions

It's sad that I'm quoting mass-murderer Anders Behring Breivik, but the remark he quoted on Twitter from John Stuart Mill is something I have long puzzled:

"One person with a belief is worth 1,000 who merely have an opinion".

Basically, in practice, imagine an issue like Gay Marriage as a classical example. To make it as (unrealistically) simplistic as possible: Assume 80% of the population supports Gay Marriage, but is not passionate about it. It will have little or no effect on whom they vote for. They will choose a candidate based on other issues. The other 20% are staunch and fierce opponents. They will *always* vote for an anti-gay-marriage candidate over a pro-gay-marriage one. Other political issues are relegated to secondary status in the face of this "loftly" objective.

The obvious logic for a politician will be to indulge the passionate "anti" 20% (whose votes will be impacted) rather than the mild "pro" 80% (whose votes won't be). My question is, how do political scientists attempt to measure the "voting impact" of an issue before the electorate?

(Of course, my example is far, far more simplistic than reality. And I don't care specifically about gay marriage much. I'm just trying to describe the concept as I see it. And gay marriage is probably a good example of a "many may have opinions, relatively few have beliefs" issue, as it has little or no practical effect for the majority of the (heterosexual, secular, ideologically apathetic) population). Please don't get sidetracked by debate on the rights and wrongs of gay marriage - that's not what I'm interested in. The same conundrum no doubt applies to other issues with heavy ideological weight but little practical effect. (Another example that springs to mind may be policy towards the Israeli-Palestinian conflict by those countries such as the UK or Australia which have limited practical involvement or influence. Muslims, Lefties, and Jews may care. Most of the rest of the population are either ignorant or apathetic. It has no impact on their lives, and government policies on these matters are largely academic and of limited relevance).

I know that many opinion polls include "strongly agree / agree / neutral / oppose / strongly oppose" options. But is there any standardized measure for this (impact on votes) beyond offering those polled these five choices?

And one more small "side" question: Which of the desks do Political Science questions belong on? Humanities, or Science? 203.45.95.236 (talk) 15:31, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

The five choices from Strongly + to Strong - are a Likert scale. Using a Likert scale allows the researcher to ask questions about the average opinion (when the responses are coded as numbers), or about the extremes. Politicians are often particularly interested in the middle range, and the so-called floating voters, but then there also has to be research into more strongly held or extreme views. Political science questions are best asked here, because they fall into social science, which this desk handles. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:51, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I think passion shows up most strongly in terms of likelihood to vote. For example, an opponent of gay marriage is likely to be against Obama for various reasons even if the gay marriage issue is disregarded, so the actual votes are not that greatly affected. What does happen is that a passionate opponent of gay marriage has a high likelihood of actually showing up to vote for a candidate who shares that view, but may be too demoralized to bother voting for a candidate who does not. Thus, the most useful measure of commitment is the answer to, "how likely are you to vote for a candidate who has this view?" Looie496 (talk) 16:24, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

(From the OP) Would this dynamic be significantly affected by Compulsory Voting? Also, many people are not one-issue voters, I would think. Also, knowing the experience in my country Australia there's much less "moral emotion" amongst the general population, or at least that's the perception. Voters are (on the whole) more pragmatic than ideological, thus I would assume that "moral issues" have the ability to influence fringe, passionate populations, whilst mattering little to the pragmatic "what's in it for me?" majority. 58.111.163.17 (talk) 17:01, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the Norwegian justice system has determined that Breivik is insane. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:21, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Possibly irrelevant, but is that quote really from JS Mill? Something similar is said in the last Harry Potter movie (which, not coincidentally, I thought, had recently been released when Breivik went on his shooting spree). Adam Bishop (talk) 21:45, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

The actual quote (from "On Representative Government) is this:

To think that because those who wield the power in society wield in the end that of government, therefore it is of no use to attempt to influence the constitution of the government by acting on opinion, is to forget that opinion is itself one of the greatest active social forces. One person with a belief is a social power equal to ninety-nine who have only interests. They who can succeed in creating a general persuasion that a certain form of government, or social fact of any kind, deserves to be preferred, have made nearly the most important step which can possibly be taken towards ranging the powers of society on its side.

Of course, Mill is talking about persuasion, the ability to convince people of the rightness of one's position, not dissuasion, the ability to intimidate others away from challenging a perspective. Breivik was misusing the quote (though doubtless he wouldn't understand that). --Ludwigs2 18:24, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

When did Loreta Janeta Velazquez die?

She was born in Havanna in 1842, but I can`t find her death date. Please post. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deerslayer0532 (talk • contribs) 17:23, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

• Wikipedia has an article on everything. In our Loreta Janeta Velazquez article, we write, "Loreta Janeta Velazquez is said to have died in 1897, but historian Richard Hall asserts that the place and date of her death are unknown." Such a thing was actually fairly common in the Wild West, where records were spotty and verification difficult, especially for a master of disguise like her. --M@rēino 19:14, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

place for posting reader's opinion on content within an artcle

If i find anything not appropriate in an article, for example, "meaning of a term", then how to suggest own opinion. For example, meaning of the term Ayana in Ramayana is given as 'going or Advancing' in english whereas its hindi equivalent is 'darpan or darshan or charitra parichay' which is 'mirror or vision or personal values in english. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhishek4dionly (talk • contribs) 18:53, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

If you see an error in an article, then if you feel up to it, you can correct it by editing the article (ideally with a supporting source). If you want to discuss an issue, edit the corresponding article talk page (Talk:Ramayana or whatever) instead, adding a new section with your comments... AnonMoos (talk) 20:23, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia page User talk:Jubault has been changed by XLinkBot

Hi there, I am a total fan of wikipedia, long time user, and even financial contributor. However, I disagree with the linbk removal you have just made automatically it seems. Please at least visit the link suggested as "external link" on;ly and tell me if does not add value to your French Cusine webpage? I am not even sure this message will reach anyone. best regards, Bertrand Jubault — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jubault (talk • contribs) 19:17, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

The place to discuss this is at Wikipedia_talk:External_links or the Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy) board, not here... AnonMoos (talk) 20:12, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

However, in general blogs are almost never considered appropriate sources for Wikipedia, or even as external links. Check out WP:LINKSTOAVOID #11

APL (talk) 23:37, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Christianity

What and when was the first use of the word "Christian" - perhaps a scriptural reference.98.166.145.77 (talk) 22:14, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Acts 11:26 -- Antioch. AnonMoos (talk) 22:19, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Closely related, it was in the Pauline epistles that "Christ" or "X" (shorthand for Christ) was used extensively as opposed "The Christ Jesus" or "Jesus Christ". Instead of being a descriptive word, Christ became a name synonymous with Jesus. So, instead of Jesusians, the followers of Pauline's teachings were Christians - which is what is described in Acts 11:26 if I remember correctly (the followers of Saul/Paul were called Christians). -- kainaw™ 12:08, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Kainaw -- Greek manuscripts would use Chi-sigma with an overbar as an abbreviation for "Christ" more often than just Chi; however, the use of abbreviations is variable between manuscripts, and not part of the "official" text of the New Testament. AnonMoos (talk) 19:18, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

According to my grandfather's seminary books, the Greek was Χριστιανός or Χ for short. I would not be surprised to find that different books make different claims when it comes to religion. -- kainaw™ 00:51, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Strike that. It states that Chi (X) was used often because it was quick to write, but in more formal texts, it was written as Chi with Rho overlayed over it - an X with a P over it. -- kainaw™ 00:58, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

The Chi Rho was usually more of a symbol than a textual scribal abbreviation as such, as far as I'm aware... AnonMoos (talk) 01:57, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Since when has scripture been a reliable source? We don't even know who wrote the Acts, and even if we did, there's no reason why Luke (or whoever the author is) would know the first time anybody in the world used a certain word. The Acts is based on oral traditions anyhow, whose source and validity is unknown and probably unknowable. All we can say for sure is that by the time Acts 11:26 was written some time in the Apostolic Age, "Christian" was a word. --140.180.15.97 (talk) 17:16, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

If you want to take that standpoint, you have to include that when someone translated Acts to English, Christian was a word. Previously, it was Χριστιανός. -- kainaw™ 17:31, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

The IP appears to be AntiAntioch. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:22, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

140.180.15.97 -- It's very widely accepted among scholars that Luke and Acts had the same author, so I'm not sure what you're trying to say when you claim that the author of Acts is unknown. In any case, 11:26 is somewhat plausible, since Antioch was the center of Greek civilization in the Roman Levant, and a crossroads where peoples of very diverse origins met. It's also hard to imagine what motive somebody would have for fabricating something like that. It's always possible to be radically skeptical about anything and everything, but I don't see much point in discarding the only available known piece of information which is relevant to the question being asked... AnonMoos (talk) 19:18, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

According to the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, 6th ed, the adjective Christian dates back to "Late Middle English" (1350-1469), but it does not cite a first usage. The noun form (derived from the adjective) only dates back to early 16th century. Mitch Ames (talk) 10:43, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

November 30

Multi-state small claims

I'm sure this is clear in a legal sense since it has taken place since the old days of mail order catalogs. But I can't find the answer. Suppose a guy in the United States buys something from a company in another state. The product is shipped to yet another state. For some reason, the guy wants to sue the company in small claims court. Does he do it in his state, the company's state, or the recipient's state? I'm trying to make an example and I don't want to get side-tracked by some anal retentive lawyer in the crowd. -- kainaw™ 11:59, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

The articles Choice of law, Conflict of laws in the United States, and Lex loci delicti commissi seem to be relevant to your problem. --Jayron32 13:58, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. It appears that if it is all within the U.S., the case can be taken to any of the courts and it is up to the judge to decide which laws apply. That satisfies my needs as I don't have to state that any particular state is the necessary one to use. But, it makes me wonder: What if I were to sue some company in another state. They won't send someone to my state to represent themselves. I don't want to drive to their state to represent myself. So, there must me something about out-of-state representation as well. I think I have a lead on that. I remember an article about a guy suing Bank of America and they didn't send anyone to represent themselves. So, I can look that up. -- kainaw™ 14:09, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Lex loci delicti commissi is not relevant as this is a contracts issue not a torts issue. More relevant would be lex loci contractus, but we aren't even getting there yet. As the anal retentive lawyer in the crowd, I would object to your use of the topics of conflict of laws. Your question has to do with the two primary issues before we choose the law to apply: jurisdiction and venue. Unfortunately, the wikipedia article on jurisdiction isn't very good. The choice of forum is normally the choice of plaintiff, see Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. v. Shute. However, a plaintiff cannot sue in just any old state. There must be sufficient minimum contacts such that the exercise of jurisdiction over the defendant will not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. This is a meaningless phrase invented by the Supreme Court and recited by lawyers across the country to justify our salaries. It comes from a very old and "important case" involving shoes: International Shoe v. Washington (1945). It is a violation of due process for a court to exercise jurisdiction when it lacks the power to do so. In your example, the plaintiff will decide a particular forum to sue in based on the laws there. Maybe one of the states has a cap on damages or another has juries that love to give people money for spilling coffee on themselves? When the plaintiff sues, the court asks itself, "Does the defendant have enough contacts with the state?" If the answer is yes, the court goes onto the next question: venue. Venue is a bit different and has to do with the ancient concept of forum non conveniens. While a court may have the ability to adjudicate the case, it may decline to do so with a preference given to a different forum. Determining factors will be the convenience of the parties, the distance witnesses will have to travel. Your company could be located in Virginia, but all the witnesses are located in Pennsylvania and that is where the contract was signed. Sure you can sue in Virginia as that is where the company is located, but the defendant might ask for a change of venue to Pennsylvania. Venue is somewhat of a choice between the parties. All the witnesses could be in Alaska, but if everyone wants to hear it in the home state of Virginia, that's up to them. Of course jurisdiction is not up to the parties at all. If the case is brought in Alabama and no one has anything to do with the state, Alabama won't hear the case even if everyone wants it to be heard there. Gx872op (talk) 20:55, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Naive question: isn't the jurisdiction already determined in that ToS that nobody reads?Quest09 (talk) 01:45, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Generally yes, but most sales contracts are not in writing. If you have a forum selection clause on the back of your receipt, there is a very strong argument that it won't be enforceable. Gx872op (talk) 17:07, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Naive question II: but many sales are online sales, where the ToS is at least accessible somewhere, wouldn't that be legally binding? Quest09 (talk) 21:32, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Not always. If you look at Amazon's agreement, for example. There are a number of restrictions there. Interestingly, they have a carve out for small claims courts. A user agrees to apply Washington law, not to seek class action status and to seek arbitration. An internet search for "classaction" and "Amazon" will yield several examples of class action suits, filed in a court of law rather than in an arbitration proceeding, and applying laws other than those of Washington. Generally a court will assume such an agreement is valid, but it is subject to attack. A general breach of contract claim would likely find itself bound by the agreement. When you get to other types of claims, involving other rights, states will find these clauses invalid. Strong deference is given in most cases however. Gx872op (talk) 18:37, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Fundamentally it's a jurisdiction question. Gx872op is right but sort of ambiguous about conflating that with venue. In the U.S., from a Constitutional perspective, it's a jurisdiction question. Then, it's a statutory question. That depends on the statute of the particular state. In some states (I'm not sure how common it is) small claims courts may be limited to disputes between in-state residents, and other restrictions. Without getting into choice of law, or specific small claims statutes, or anything else, the fundamental question I think you're interested in is minimum contacts and a whole line of personal jurisdiction cases that start with Pennoyer v. Neff and continue to the present day. International Shoe is not the last in that line of cases either. As a practical matter, minimum contacts is a low standard, but our article probably provides the necessary detail. Shadowjams (talk) 08:57, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

International Shoe overruled Pennoyer v. Neff; it isn't good law anymore,

Historically the jurisdiction of courts to render judgment in personam is grounded on their de facto power over the defendant's person. Hence his presence within the territorial jurisdiction of a court was prerequisite to its rendition of a judgment personally binding him. Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714, 733. But now that the capias ad respondendum has given way to personal service of summons or other form of notice, due process requires only that in order to subject a defendant to a judgment in personam, if he be not present within the territory of the forum, he have certain minimum contacts with it such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend "traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice."

I'm not certain what you mean by "statutory question." That wasn't on the bar exam. Small claims courts do not limit their jurisdiction to "between in-state residents" and "other restrictions." The only restriction is the amount of the claim. Indeed, it would be a violation of due process for a court to deny a claim based on the residency of the claimant. It is jurisdiction over the defendant which matters, not jurisdiction over the plaintiff. It's rather nonsensical to declare the issue to be jurisdiction, then state that any discussion of venue is conflating the issue with it. Half of all US Corporations can be sued in Delaware. Delaware has jurisdiction over the corporation, but it can't be said that that is the proper venue for half of all lawsuits against corporations in the United States. Do not conflate venue with jurisdiction. The issue here is venue. Gx872op (talk) 18:37, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I think you misinterpreted a lot in my response. I was only saying that you were being ambiguous about the difference between jurisdiction and venue, not that you yourself don't understand it.

I never suggested Pennoyer is the law today. International Shoe isn't the last word either for that matter. Third, in what state does the bar exam not ask any questions about statutory law? All of your discussion about venue is exclusively statutory law. That's on the bar exam.

Small claims courts have all sorts of jurisdictional restrictions, again by statute. And actually some states, as I said, do limit it to in state defendants, and "other restrictions." Perhaps I was unclear in saying between in-state residents. I'm not sure if that exact arrangement exists. Nevada's a good example: NRS 73.010 "In all cases...where...the defendant named: Is a resident of; Does business in; or Is employed in, the township in which the action is to be maintained..." I'd be curious to hear your discussion of that due process claim.

Finally, there's nothing nonsensical about what I've said. I never declare that "any discussion of venue is conflating the issue." The fundamental answer to the OP is "probably any of them" and the way to get there is through minimum contacts which is a jurisdiction question. Shadowjams (talk) 23:07, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Countries treating minorities with equality

What are some countries that treat relatively small minorities with good equality?--78.128.205.47 (talk) 13:02, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Most Western countries, in theory any country signing up to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. -- Q Chris (talk) 13:14, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

The problem with that basic idea is that a government can write anything they want into their laws. It doesn't mean that a) they enforce it or b) that the people who live in that country abide by their laws. If people are treated well has little to do with what text is written into some law passed by some legislature. --Jayron32 13:54, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

That's a very non-specific question from our OP. I wonder which minority (or minorities) and which government(s) he/she had in mind as starting points for comparison. If a minority is small enough, it will hardly be noticed, so not suffer discrimination. If it's not very different, the same would apply. It's all very vague. HiLo48 (talk) 15:25, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Jayron's point does not include European countries which have the European Court of Human Rights that citizens can resort to if all else fails. Alansplodge (talk) 15:51, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the "if all else fails" is a minor hurdle to overcome. Kittybrewster ☎ 15:58, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I think it might be helpful if we distinguish between "legal equality" and "societal equality". There are lots and lots of countries that have laws against discrimination (and legally treat all citizens, including minorities, as equal under law)... many of those same countries have issues with societal bigotry and prejudice (despite the laws). Blueboar (talk) 16:24, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

There are also laws that exceed legal equality by giving legal benefits to minorities that the majority does not have. -- kainaw™ 16:27, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

--Viennese Waltz 16:31, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

See affirmative action. It covers issues such as quotas and inequality - much of which has been reversed. -- kainaw™ 16:45, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

As Blueboar points out, legal equality does not equal social equality, and countries that offer legal benefits exclusive to minorities generally do so to counter pervasive extralegal discrimination. For the latter, you really have to look outside of Europe, where racial and ethnic prejudice are widespread (despite the laws). I have yet to visit a European country where most indigenous people did not view migrants from other parts of the world with a mixture of disgust and titillation. Perhaps someplace like Finland is an exception. One of the best countries I know in this regard is Canada. Marco polo (talk) 16:33, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

That is certainly not true in respect of the UK, where most people treat most ethnic minorities no differently than they treat anyone else. --Viennese Waltz 16:37, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

On consideration, I've decided to strike through most of my comment, which is based too heavily on anecdote and for which I am having trouble finding a citation. I would have simply deleted it, but then Viennese Waltz's comment wouldn't have made sense. Marco polo (talk) 16:54, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Is it even true for Canada that most people treat immigrants with disgust and titillation? I'm Canadian, but also an immigrant who came here as a child, so I don't know what the majority of adult white Canadians think. On the surface, I get the impression that most of the population (including children and teenagers) embrace diversity as something positive that helps strengthen the Canadian nation. Many people do have concerns about immigrants rejecting the values of the country--especially religious tolerance and LGBT rights--but that's more a rejection of those values and not of immigrants themselves. --140.180.15.97 (talk) 17:30, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

The kind of people who are worried about immigrants rejecting "the values of the country" are usually the kind of people who themselves reject religious tolerance and LGBT rights, at least in Canada (and probably the US). Then we get all sorts of moral panics about Muslim immigrants imposing Sharia law and other such nonsense. I guess I can't speak for the majority of adult white Canadians, and some of them do believe immigrants come either to take over jobs or abuse the welfare system (or somehow both at the same time), but I would say the majority of Canadians have no problem with immigrants. Adam Bishop (talk) 17:41, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest that MP's original comment was too strong but I think they had a point that it's fairly common that in many European countries immigrants or more likely any non-white people do face some level of discrimination at a variety of levels from a fair percentage of the population. I suspect often the people themselves may be unconcious that they are doing. E.g. would the person react the same if they saw someone no white or someone they perceived as an 'foreigner' doing something then someone who was white or that they perceived as a 'local'? I would suggest evidence suggests often people do not do so, sometimes subtle enough that it's hard to see. There have been a number of studies in countries like France [15], the UK [16], Germany [17], and Canada [18] which have shown having a foreign sounding name reduces your chance of getting called up for an interview. I think the level found in these tests are generally enough to make it unlikely it's just a small minority of people viewing the CVs doing this (it could still be a minority). In France it seems they were evidentally even considering requiring anonymous CVs at one stage because of this. It would be nice to think it's only those in human resources or bosses who are doing this, but I suspect that's unlikely. I'm not saying European countries are unique in this, in fact the situation is often worse in Asian and I expect African countries. Nil Einne (talk) 04:06, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Here is a link to a study showing that immigrants face different hurdles in different countries. Of course, not all minorities are immigrants. Marco polo (talk) 16:59, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I think you really need to be more specific about what you mean by 'minorities' and 'good equality'. There are plenty of examples of minority groups that have never really been discriminated against (say, blue-eyed people in regions with significant numbers of them, as far as I know), and there are also countries where a minority group has more rights than everyone else - some totalitarian governments are dominated by a particular ethnic minority and tend to respond to the needs of that ethnic group more than those of others. The level of discrimination directed against a given minority group - and indeed whether it is in the minority - can also vary wildly within a country. 81.98.43.107 (talk) 23:55, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Here we run into the difficulty of having two incompatible definitions of "minority". You are using the traditional "any group composing less than 50% of the population" definition, while I suspect the OP is using the newer "any group traditionally discriminated against in a given nation" def. For example, women aren't a minority by the first def, but are by the second. StuRat (talk) 04:36, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

And by that definition everybody will be in some minority. We have to go by the "obvious difference" or else train-spotters, Wikipedia editors and even drivers of Ford cars would be minorities. -- Q Chris (talk) 09:17, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

But if we consider a minority as a group 'traditionally discriminated against' - then they are discriminated against by definition. Unless we are talking about cases in which groups were discriminated against in a country until recently but not any more - but that seems a poor standard to judge tolerance by. The question just seems unanswerable in its current form: we need to know which minorities the OP cares about and what forms of equality they consider important. 81.98.43.107 (talk) 12:41, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

The whole point of kyriarchy is that each person can have some ways in which the belong to the 'majority' and some ways in which they belong to a 'minority' (in the discriminated against sense, or appear to be a minority if you watch TV and films sense, not in the hat-wearers-are-a-minority-because-most-people-don't-wear-hats sense), and so most people probably do belong to a minority. After all, if women are roughly 50% of the population and are a minority, then you only need some men to belong to a minority for it to be apparent that most people experience being in a minority group. But when (for example) a black man and a white woman interact, the white woman is a majority in terms of race, and the black man is a majority in terms of gender, and you can get interesting intersections of these different privileges. 86.164.60.202 (talk) 12:34, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

One of my personal fields of interest is language minorities and even among the most developed Western countries there are hardly any examples where countries support their minorities to a point where the long-term survival of the minority language is secured. For small languages it's apparently good to have some language-struggle between bigger languages going on. The French-Flemish conflict in Belgium helped the small German minority. The fact that Switzerland is divided between the bigger languages German, French and Italian has helped Rumantsch. But if the country has one solid majority like German in Germany or French in France, then they don't care much about their minorities. If the minorities do not protest, the governments will do nothing until the language minority goes extinct. If they do protest, the governments will sign papers recognizing the minority without actually doing anything. If the minority protests angrily, the government declares them secessionist terrorists. --::Slomox:: >< 21:54, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

By way of contrary example, the use of Swedish in Finland (spoken by 6% of the population) is highly protected and the study of Swedish is compulsory in schools. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 03:08, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Why should a government support a minority language's long-term survival? Such a support will cost a lot of tax money for negligible advantages. Minority languages simply fade away naturally as the minority sees no advantage in preserving it. Languages die out all the time (always did) and I sincerely fail to see the big problem as long as this process is peaceful and without the meddling of politicians. If the minority truly wishes to keep the language, fine by me, let them teach the language to their children without the resource of common tax money. Flamarande (talk) 14:24, 2 December 2011 (UTC) PS: I think that your analyses of Germany is flawed: Sorbian languages officially recognized and protected as minority languages. Flamarande (talk) 14:24, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

At least in the case of Finland, Swedish is seen as part of Finland's cultural heritage. The Swedish-speaking minority also has traditionally enjoyed disproportionate political influence within Finland. This does breed some resentment: not so much that tax money is being used for compulsory Swedish education, but that mandatory Swedish instruction takes away time and resources from opportunities for students to learn languages of more immediate practical value. For more background, we have a fairly substantial article on this topic. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 21:03, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

How does CVS ExtraBucks work?

CVS stores, in the USA, offer "ExtraBucks", which are like rebates for certain purchases in the form of in-store coupons that can be used in any CVS store. So for example this week there's a contact lense solution on sale at $9 and which gives a $9 ExtraBucks coupon. What if I use it at a different CVS store? Does the original store still have to pay for the promotion? Does CVS Corp. ever chip in? Thanks. Imagine Reason (talk) 20:58, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

My wife does this stuff all the time. The Extra Care bucks are good at any CVS, not just the store where they were purchased. I'm not sure how the accounting works, but I also believe that you are assuming that CVS stores are independently owned, like a restaurant franchise or soda distributorship. I believe that CVS stores are actually all owned by CVS, which would eliminate lots of the complications you note. --Jayron32 21:05, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I assume that individual stores are evaluated based on revenue/profit, and there would have to be some sort of accounting there. Imagine Reason (talk) 23:42, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

New France prior to 1663

The article New France says that there was no royal control over that colony until 1663. By that time there were several permanent cities of non-Aboriginal people in New France. Who was head of state of those colonies between their founding and 1663? Were they legally not attached to any crown or state? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.244.174.130 (talk) 22:22, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Before royal control was officially established, it was sort of a French ecclesiastical-commercial colony (or a group of colonies, really). The first attempts at settlement in the 16th century and early 17th century didn't last very long, but the church and some sort of merchant corporation were always present. These colonies were governed by the Lieutenant General of New France, although I don't think any of them ever actually went to New France. There were hardly any colonists there at that point though, maybe a few hundred in Quebec and a few dozen in Montreal. In 1627 Cardinal Richelieu founded the Company of One Hundred Associates, and set himself up as Governor of New France, although Samuel de Champlain was the first governor who actually lived there. The Lieutenant General and the Governor had subordinates in each colony (the governors of Trois-Rivières, of Montreal, of Acadia, and later of Newfoundland). Ecclesiastically, the Bishop of Quebec wasn't established until 1658, but before that, there were Recollet and Jesuit missions, and various other religious groups. They were legally attached to France, economically, politically, ecclesiastically, and militarily, but not under direct royal control until 1663, when the Sovereign Council of New France was created. The council was led by the Intendant of New France, but confusingly (even at the time) the position of governor became the Governor General of New France, and the other colonies (now administered by the council essentially as one large colony) still had their own governors. The difference now was that they were all appointed directly by the king. Still, there weren't many people there. According to the 1666 census there were only about 3000 people in all of New France. Adam Bishop (talk) 23:11, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Adam does an excellent analysis of the situation in New France. A large bulk of those 3000 were fur traders and clergy spread over a large area, and there were no urban areas; a few trading posts and garrisons to protect them. Not much else. The French were not a major presence in North America in the middle 17th century. By comparison, during the Great Migration, something like 20,000 English had moved to Massachusetts and the surrounding environs during about a decade or two in the 1630s-1640s. By that 1666 date you note above, Boston was alread a bustling port. New France had no settlements that could even compare to it.--Jayron32 05:05, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

December 1

Oldest African American vote

Does history know who were the first African American (free slave) voters or when were the first African American (free slave) votes casted in the United States in the days before the Emancipation Proclamation?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 00:44, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

In some states free men (whether white or black) have always had the vote. According to our article on Voting rights in the United States#African Americans and poor whites, there were African American voters (both free born and former slaves) in the States of New Hampshire, Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, and North Carolina who had the vote as far back as 1776 (and perhaps earlier) ... granted not many, but some. Also, some of those States had a property requirement, which limited the franchise... but that was a financial limitation, not a racial one. There were blacks who qualified... and they both could and did vote. Blueboar (talk) 04:19, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Venture Smith was a slave who bought his own freedom and eventually came to own over 100 acres of land and three houses, in Connecticut. He first bought his own land in 1776. I'm unsure of the exact voting laws of the time and place, but as a free, male, land-owning adult, Venture probably had the right to vote. There are probably earlier examples. Pfly (talk) 06:08, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

This page puts it Although their lives were circumscribed by numerous discriminatory laws even in the colonial period, freed African Americans, especially in the North, were active participants in American society. Black men enlisted as soldiers and fought in the American Revolution and the War of 1812. Some owned land, homes, businesses, and paid taxes. In some Northern cities, for brief periods of time, black property owners voted. Pfly (talk) 06:22, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

The earliest freed slave in America I could find was Anthony Johnson of colonial Virginia. He was an indentured servant, became free around 1635, and went on to acquire at least 250 acres of land as well as a number of indentured servants on his own, including, apparently, America's first "true" black slave, John Casor. Colonial Virginian law gave a number of rights to Johnson, but not the right to vote. His life, and the court cases during and after it, set a key precedent for the rights of free blacks in colonial Virginia. I know this doesn't answer the question, but it seemed an interesting tangent. Pfly (talk) 06:36, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Air Canada strikes

A recent Air Canada strike was narrowly avoided due to Ottawa's intervention. When was the last Air Canada strike? (if there ever was one) I google-fu fails me because all the results pertain to the 2011 strike attempt. On a related note, is there any hidden option in google or any other search engine to search by year? Thanks in advance. 99.245.35.136 (talk) 01:26, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

You could try the advanced search on Google News. It allows you to specify dates, so you could weed out the recent attempt. I tried this and found an averted strike attempt in September as well, but also found story from June 14, 2011. Is that what you're looking for? 24.247.162.139 (talk) 03:43, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Your first question might be answered at http://www.labourstart.org/.

—Wavelength (talk) 17:20, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

What counts towards GDP?

If my neighbor pays me 1 million to greet him, and I pay him 1 million to be greeted back, we both paid and obtained a service. But would this 1 million moving around count for something? Quest09 (talk) 01:31, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes - you both owe the taxman 600,000. Pay up. Rmhermen (talk) 04:35, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

GDP can be estimated in a number of different ways, see "Gross domestic product" for more information. Gabbe (talk) 08:42, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

We don't owe the taxman anything, we produced 1,000,000 in services, and spent 1,000,000, resulting in an income of 0.

The GDP article is not clear if really anything counts, provided it is production, income or expenditure, even phony services like the one I described above. Quest09 (talk) 14:46, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

No, you produced an income of 1 million. That is what is taxed. Unless you have incorporated yourself, then you have an income of 1 million with a cost of zero so a profit of 1 million which is what is taxed. Rmhermen (talk) 15:32, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

In the UK and similar fiscal jurisdictions, VAT on the transactions might also be payable - or at least, for sums of this magnitude, HM Revenue and Customs might think it worth while arguing so in court. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.74 (talk) 16:52, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Even if you did it through a corporation, there would be corporation tax to pay. The greeting you purchased wasn't a cost of producing the greeting you sold, so it doesn't offset the income. --Tango (talk) 19:36, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

The question is not: why people don't do it? If a company does it, it won't be paying VAT or similar taxes in many jurisdictions, and other taxes can be avoided too. The question is if any service counts equally towards the GDP, with its value on the books, no matter if you produce something essential for life or just some phony service, which has just a subjective symbolic value. Obviously people are constantly interchanging services which belongs to the latter group, like astrology, Reiki, whatever. Quest09 (talk) 23:16, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

That is a known problem with GDP - as long as money has been spent, it counts, regardless of whether anything useful was produced. Conversely, if something useful is produced but no money is spent, it doesn't count, so if you mowed your neighbours lawn and then he cleaned your gutters as an exchange of favours with no money changing hands, it doesn't contribute to GDP despite a valuable service having been provided. The standard example is breaking a window. When you fix it, that counts towards GDP, so breaking windows makes it look as though your economy is doing better. That's clearly a strange result - keeping the window intact and spending that money on something else would surely be better. This effect can be very large following a natural disaster, such as the recent Tsunami in Japan. Japan's GDP dropped massively immeadiately after the disaster because no-one could produce anything, but it has now massively increased because things have got running again and lots of money is being spent on rebuilding, which all counts towards GDP. That is typical of a natural disaster's impact on GDP. --Tango (talk) 13:11, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

To give the simple answer (from the GDP article) "refers to the market value of all final goods and services produced within a country." In your example you produced the service of a greeting worth $1 million and your friend also produced the service of a greeting worth $1 million so the GDP of the two of you would be $2 million. 124.170.69.134 (talk) 17:46, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Legal term for ambiguous clause interpreted strictly

What is the legal term for when an ambiguous clause is interpreted by its immediate context to be referring to only things in that context? I know there is a term, and IIRC the Supreme Court of the US recently used it at some point.

For example, if a law stated "tigers, lions, panthers, cougars, and other felidae are prohibited as house pets," the judiciary would not interpret felidae to apply to domestic cats, but to big cats in general. The idea is that if the original intent of the law had been to include small cats, it would have included it under one of the examples given beforehand, but specifically didn't. As such, the framers of the law clearly meant tigers, lions, panthers, cougars as an explanation of the type of felidae (i.e., big cats), but due to oversight or ambiguity misused the term felidae, not realizing it was so inclusive. Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:43, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

You might be talking about the Golden rule (law), Mischief rule or Purposive rule. Generally u can look at Statutory interpretation. ќמшמφטтгמ^torque 05:50, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Specifically, Statutory interpretation#Internal and external consistency, which talks about "ejusdem generis". I believe that is the rule you are looking for. --Tango (talk) 19:39, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Where do White Men find their Asian Wives?

Where do most white American men find their east asian and southeast asian wives? Did most of these white men go to Asia and find their asian wives or did most of them simply find their asian wives locally? 99.245.83.28 (talk) 04:06, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

What would serve as a source of statistics on this? From where would such information be available? Bus stop (talk) 04:20, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

While there are certainly cases of GIs returning home with Asian "war brides" after WWII, Korea, and Vietnam, I would say most mixed (white/asian) couples met locally in the States. Blueboar (talk) 04:32, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

There are also the, so called, mail order brides. Dismas|^(talk) 04:35, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Just remember to poke breathing holes into the shipping container. :-) StuRat (talk) 05:12, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Cruelly parodied by TV comedy Little Britain in their characters Dudley and Ting Tong: Dudley Punt ordered a Thai bride from a magazine. However, Ting Tong Macadangdang is quite the opposite of the slim, beautiful bride Dudley was expecting. He is not very happy about this. Ting Tong: "Pwease Mr. Dudwey! Did you have good time?" Dudley: "Maybe just... ONE more night..." Alansplodge (talk) 09:01, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Many Americans are doing increasing amounts of business in the Far East (initially with Japan, now China, etc).[19][20] On the other hand, a lot of Chinese, etc, come to the west to study[21]. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:13, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Or they meet them at work, or in school, or in their everyday lives, particularly if they live in the city. Come on, don't think too hard about this. There are plenty of Asian women in North America, plenty of whom are perfectly willing to marry white people because they love them. 207.81.30.213 (talk) 19:42, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I suppose most interracial Asian-white couples met in the West. The reason is simple: Asians tend to be much better integrated in countries like Canada, UK and the US than Westerners in China or Vietnam, not even being able to speak a little bit of the language after some years of expat life. Quest09 (talk) 23:53, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

How many white American men have married their asian wives in America and how many white American went oversea and married their asian wives? Any statistics? 99.245.83.28 (talk) 02:30, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Famous black Americans named after famous whites

It seems to me that a disproportionate percentage of famous black US citizens are named after famous whites. For example, we have George Washington Carver named after George Washington, Martin Luther King, Jr. named after Martin Luther (indirectly, as his father was named after him first), George Clinton (musician) named after George Clinton (vice president), and George Wallace (comedian) named after George Wallace. (I wonder why so many George's, too.) It's possible that a couple of those are coincidences. So, was this a trend at one point, for black parents to name their kids after famous whites, or is this just confirmation bias on my part ? StuRat (talk) 05:10, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Well I checked all 4 of those people. The only one which mentions being named after the famous person you list is Martin Luther King, Sr.. In the specific case of George Washington Carver, the history makes it sound like he probably wasn't named after George Washington, and this ref [22] seems to confirm that. It's possible the reason he took Washington was partly out of George Washington, but this is unclear and may be indirect even if it is the case (e.g. he took the name Washington because it was famous rather then specifically thinking of George Washington). I don't know about the rest, but considering the comedian was born in 1952 in Georgia and the only real notable thing the other George Wallace seems to have done by then was being a Circuit Judge of the Third Judicial Circuit in Alabama, it sounds to me like you're reading way to much in a person having the same given name, a fairly common one at that, as some other random famous person. Similarly for all we know the parents of the musician may have been naming him after George Washington or some random other person (who may or may not have been named after some other George), if he was named after someone. P.S. To be honest, being part Chinese and only having a Chinese name, I've never really understood the urge to name a child after someone famous or a relative anyway. Nil Einne (talk) 05:32, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

As Nil Einne notes, I don't think any of those except Martin Luther King, Sr. actually qualifies as anything more than a random coincidence; after all lots of famous people share names, and aren't necessarily named for each other. And one data point to throw it in a different direction: White people named after Native Americans, see William Tecumseh Sherman. Just because I found one, doesn't make it a trend. --Jayron32 05:40, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

(EC)How do you conclude that the black comedian George Wallace (born 1952) was named after the 1960's southern Governor George Wallace, when the comedian's father was named George Wallace Sr.? Did the politician use a time machine to travel back and get the comedian's grandparents to name their child after him? A factor in the relation you spotted was that many blacks came from the South, and many slave holders gave slaves the same last names as the owners. Many famous whites in the early US were from the South, like Presidents Washington, Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe. In contrast to famous black people named after slave owners, there is Cassius Clay, who was named for a famous abolitionist, Cassius Marcellus Clay (politician), but who gave himself an Arabic-sounding name when he was 22 years old. Ironically , Arabs were noted slave exporters from Africa. Edison (talk) 05:47, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, George Wallace is withdrawn from the list and Cassius Clay is added. StuRat (talk) 05:55, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

(e.c.) StuRat, you're talking about at least two different things--given names and surnames. On surnames, there's a couple of hints at Slave name#African Americans and African-American culture#Names. As for given names, like the George Washington of George Washington Carver, the practice was not limited to black Americans. If my own family tree is any indication, it was a popular practice in the 19th century. From 1830 to the 1860s my (extended) family tree includes James Madison Sooter, Benjamin Franklin Sooter, Martin Van Buren Sooter, Christopher Columbus Fly, and Andrew Jackson Fly--just to pick off the most obvious examples. These folks were mostly of English ancestry and living in the Tennessee-Arkansas-Missouri area. Pfly (talk) 05:47, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, thanks. So it was a trend, but not one limited to blacks. Was it limited to Americans ? StuRat (talk) 05:55, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Are you asking if only Americans name their children after famous historical figures? --Jayron32 06:00, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm asking if they named their children after famous historical figures disproportionately more than parents in other nations, during the 19th and 20th centuries, yes. StuRat (talk) 06:08, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't know how would could possibly discern that. Most names correlate with something historical — e.g. out of the Bible or something similar. Huge swathes of British girls at any one time have middle names that coincide with whomever the current Queen is. Is naming someone "Adam" naming them after an historical figure? How could you discern that from naming them after a grandparent or friend? How could you gauge intent from the name alone? I doubt people have been doing surveys on this for over a century... --Mr.98 (talk) 12:46, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Note that per the article on the person and ref I provided above, the GWC case is unclear. The name George came from his parents. The middle name Washingston was taken later in live because he wanted one. Whether he was inspired by GW directly or indirectly isn't knowspecified. Nil Einne (talk) 07:00, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Edison, good to note that. I got distracted when looking at the article so forgot to check his father's name. It makes even less sense now to include George Wallace Nil Einne (talk) 06:54, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

And Martin Luther King, Sr. doesn't fit in with this either; he chose that name himself and bestowed it on his son. (Even though the doctor assumed incorrectly that the son's name was to be the same as his father's original name, Michael.) --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:06, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Good point, I forgot that when answering. So it seems the only one one who we are sure who's name came from a 'famous white person' took the name themselves and the rest there's no evidence and in one case much evidence it didn't happen in that way. Nil Einne (talk) 08:05, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Jackie Robinson's middle name was Roosevelt, in reference to the then-recently-deceased Theodore Roosevelt. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:05, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

There was a fad in the UK in the 1970s for naming babies after American Civil War generals. There is a whole generation of young men called Lee, Grant or Jackson. I have no idea why and neither, I suspect, did their parents. Alansplodge (talk) 10:25, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Metropole Hotel, Belfast

Resolved

Would anyone happen to know the exact location of the old Metropole Hotel in Belfast? It was demolished many years ago. Thank you.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:21, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

95 Donegall Street. Warofdreams talk 10:04, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Lovely. Thank you ever so much, Warofdreams! Cheers.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 10:10, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Midrash Citation Help?

I need help finding the source for this citation:

Bemidb. R. 15 (ed. Warsh, p. 63 a, lines 9 and 8 from bottom)

It was in a book by Edersheim, but I need the original source. I believe it's from Midrash Rabbah (probably from Bamidmar?), but I can't figure out what page/section/edition it's from. Are there any Jewish Scholars out there who might be able to help? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.145.177.49 (talk) 14:59, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Presumably chapter ("parshah") 15 in the Bemidbar Section of Medrash Rabbah. The chapters aren't that long, but you may have to search through the chapter. The Bemidbar section is the fourth (bereshis, shemos, and vayikra obviously come before it), though sections don't seem to necessarily correlate to volumes. 58.111.171.35 (talk) 15:45, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Trilingualism in Pakistan and India

Are all Indians and Pakistanis trilingual? I asked this because I remember after Indian National Congress the last election, Pranab Mukherjee said that if he was a the Prime Minister, he would speak Hindi which he doesn't. So, I want to know if there is a stats that show how many Pakistanis and Indians are trilingual and how are bilingual in terms of speaking national language and English only (Bengali, Punjabi, Marathi, etc.) and bilingual in terms of speaking national languages and Urdu and Hindi (Bengali, Punjabi, Sindhi etc.). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.17.21 (talk) 18:56, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

There are articles titled Languages of India and Languages of Pakistan which may help you answer your question. If those articles do not, there may be bluelinks to other Wikipedia articles from those articles, or references or external links which also might. I would start there. --Jayron32 19:02, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm certain that not all Indians and Pakistanis are trilingual. Surely there are villagers who are monolingual and many people who are merely bilingual. While traveling in India, I found that most Indians could not converse in English (though they might know a few words). Indians' second language is often not English but another regional language such as Tamil in the South or Hindi in the North. (Note that even in the states where Hindi is the official language there are many dialects that are not mutually intelligible with Hindi.) Marco polo (talk) 21:34, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

People who have never visited India tend to grossly overestimate the English proficiency of the Indian population. I remember that some years ago the census determined that only 9% (!) could speak English fluently. Quest09 (talk) 21:45, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

From our Urdu article: "Standard Urdu is mutually intelligible with Standard Hindi. Both languages share the same Indic base and are so similar in phonology and grammar that they appear to be one language." Alansplodge (talk) 10:18, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Robin Hood's king

Simon Schama includes the following comment in chapter 3 of his Landscape and Memory (middle of page 149 of my edition, November 1996 printing of the paperback Vintage Books edition) about the king — "usually called Edward, not Richard, in the early ballads". Conversely, Keith Thomas' review of the book in the 21 September 1995 edition of the New York Review of Books says that this is an obvious error on Schama's part. Any clue who's right here? I've never before heard this idea, and I'm not at all familiar with the original Robin Hood ballads. Nyttend (talk) 20:29, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

This is what I can piece together from the Robin Hood article and others. In the earliest known Robin Hood ballad, Robin Hood and the Monk, the king is not named. However, one very early reference to Robin Hood in a (semi-)historical annal by Andrew of Wyntoun places Robin Hood's exploits in the year 1283, which would have occured during the reign of Edward Longshanks, but the use of Robin Hood in that work is very brief and not with much context; Andrew of Wyntoun's work wasn't really a "Robin Hood Ballad", rather it looks more like it was a historical poem about Scottish history that mentions Robin Hood and Little John in passing. Perhaps this is what Schama is talking about, but I would hardly consider this to be a "usual mention" about Robin Hood. However, our article also notes that some accounts place Robin Hood as a contemporary of Simon de Montfort, which would place him during the reign of Henry III. Apparently A Gest of Robyn Hode, written in 1475 and thus an "early ballad" names "Edward" as Robin's king (without indicating which Edward). Of course, the more modern stories place Robin Hood in the context of King Richard the Lionhearted and King John during the Third Crusade. --Jayron32 20:57, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Our own Robin Hood article points to an early ballad called A Gest of Robyn Hode and states that this ballad refers to the king as "Edward". However, the Gest article does not mention this directly, except to say that "it is believed the content of the tale dates to the time of Edward III between the 1330s and 1340s." There are some links to versions of the Gest tale and although my middle English is not good (OK, it doesn't exist), I can clearly see Edwarde mentioned, so to my mind, it appears the Schama is correct. For what it's worth, neither of the two articles I've linked appear to use Schama as a reference. --LarryMac | Talk 21:01, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Edward is the "kynge" in that ballad, yeah. Up until the 16th century, when a king was present in the ballads, and was named, it was usually "Edward", so the stories were generally supposed to take place in the 14th century. In the 16th and 17th centuries he started to be associated with Richard I, apparently starting with John Muir, and popularized by The Downfall and The Death of Robert Earl of Huntington series of plays. I'm not sure why Thomas thought Schama was in error. Aside from Schama, see also "Imagining Robin Hood: The Late Medieval Stories in Historical Context" by A. J. Pollard. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:44, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

When/ if science proves there is no god or that god is not necessary

When, or if, science proves that the catalyst for the big bang was not a divine entity, what will religions do? Will they rewrite their scriptures or maintain a bigoted stance that it was all the will of god or will they re-write their scriptures so that instead the focus is on god as a father concerned with our spiritual wellbeing, rather than as a creator? Is this something that any religion has ever considered?

The reference desk doesn't do speculation. However, we really don't need to in this case, since science will never disprove the existence of god(s). It's not a falsifiable hypothesis since an omnipotent god could fake the result of any experiment meaning you can't distinguish between an experiment that shows there is no god and a god making it look like an experiment that shows there is no god. --Tango (talk) 23:12, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Science can't prove everything. I can't see how it could ever solve the problem of the first cause. Even if we can somehow determine that the Big Bang was an offshoot of a meta-universe, and can explain what caused the meta-universe to shoot off our universe, one can always ask what created the meta-universe. The Big Bang theory was thought up later than all major religions began, so I don't see how any religion is particularly dependent on that theory, even if it does tie in somewhat nicely with the concept of creation. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:25, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

"First cause" is not a good argument. First, it goes both ways. And secondly, it presupposes that every effect needs a cause. There are plenty of quantum effects which seems to work fine without apparent cause, so that assumption is seriously unconvincing. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:35, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

It also assumes that there isn't just a sequence of cause and effect going back in time infinitely far. If something in a meta-universe caused the big bang, there is no reason to assume that meta-universe has a beginning. --Tango (talk) 13:32, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Science doesn't prove anything, but it does disprove things. A single observation that is contrary to the predictions of a theory disproves that theory (although you to be careful of experimental error - the prediction and the observation may not be what you think they are if you didn't do the experiment you thought you were doing). If you make a falsifiable claim about a god, then science can disprove it if it is, indeed, false (that's what falsifiable means). There are numerous claims in the Bible, for example, that are falsifiable and have been proven false (the usual response by theists is to say those weren't real claims and were just figurative). --Tango (talk) 13:32, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

They'll do what they've been doing for the last few centuries as things attributable to divine intervention or miracle have been explained as rational, materialistic processes. God retreats into the gaps, and becomes a bit more all-present but not interventionist, and then there's always falling back on faith. Rewriting of scriptures is uncommon. Reinterpretation of scriptures is not entirely uncommon. Reinterpretation of the science to allow for divine guidance — without miracles — is exceptionally common (e.g. theistic evolution, which happens to be entirely indistinguishable from naturalistic evolution). --Mr.98 (talk) 23:43, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Science's job is to tell us how the universe started... Religion's job is to tell us why. Blueboar (talk) 00:16, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Strange, IMHO most religions don't tell us why god (insert name here) would have created the universe. I mean, I have read a bit of Genesis and it says that God created the universe in 6 days and that "it was good". But his reasons why are left a mystery. Perhaps he was lonely or bored. Flamarande (talk) 00:24, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Scripture may not give the answer... but there is more to religion than scripture. The question "why" is still central to religion in general. Just ask any Rabbi, Imam or Priest. Blueboar (talk) 01:11, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

It's also important to keep in mind that science doesn't "prove" anything. Science makes observations and constructs models of how things "appear" to work. The Big Bang is not a "proven fact", it's a scientific theory based on the best evidence we have. As knowledge evolves, scientific theories evolve. Those theories may well demonstrate that God is not "needed" in order to explain the physical universe. It's not proof of non-existence. Nor is faith proof of existence. However, faith does demonstrate that a significant number of humans "need" God. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:59, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

By that argument, you can also support the claim that a significant number of humans "need" Oprah Winfrey. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:56, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Not all religions need a God, you know, neither do they need a Creator. --TammyMoet (talk) 10:08, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Science is about presenting evidence to support or refute a hypothesis. If science provides strong evidence that it was, in fact, not a god who created the universe, then that would be a major problem for many religions; I do not know how they would adapt, and certainly they would lose many followers. However, even if I put my religious beliefs on the back burner, I cannot fathom how science could prove the very first thing that ever spontaneously came to be. That may be that it is just way beyond the scope of my comprehension, but again, you have to prove that nothing existed before something existed. How do you prove that nothing existed, even if it's true? That leads me to another question, which may be a little philosophical in nature. "Nothing", the concept, is the absence of anything. Has science ever verified that the concept of "nothing" really exists (is it possible for there to actually be nothing), or is it just accepted on the basis of not "something"? I'm not sure if I worded that well, as it's not an easy question to express. (edit: I'm creating this as a new question). Falconus^{p t c} 10:41, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

The first task in proving or disproving the existence of God would be to define what God is (or would be), and that would probably bring the effort to a screeching halt. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:09, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. Science can't prove that there aren't any gods, but it can prove there isn't a specific god (say, the god described in the Bible). If you can agree on an exact definition of god, then you can actually start to analyse the question scientifically. Getting that agreement tends to be rather hard, though, since theists are inclined to change their definition when the first one is disproven (which is what scientists do as well, of course - if one theory is disproved, then you come up with a new one - but there are differences in the method used to come up with the replacement). --Tango (talk) 13:42, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Tango for pointing out earlier the dubious value of this question for the ref desk, although I think now we're starting to head into well-worn territory. I can suggest to the OP that Wikipedia has it's own article on God that we could refer him to, and he could also look up the Starlight problem to see how religions even now address the problem of scientific evidence (though Mr.98 has already given some good insights). Alternatively, we could just point out that God even has His own talk page, so the OP might want to take it up with Him there - although He seems a bit aloof lately. IBE (talk) 17:14, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Windows or open square on boat?

Alright, this should be an easy question. I just re-watched Titanic recently, and I realized when Rose jumped off of the lifeboat to get back to Jack, she jumped into one of the square holes on the side of the boat to get onto one of the decks. (I have no clue what its called, but that's not the question.) Now, the Queen Mary 2 has similar holes to the ones on Titanic, as do most ships. I assume that having a hole like that open with a railing would be dangerous to people that may get to close and could fall off into the water, but do modern ships (like the Queen Mary 2) have a glass protection where these holes are, or is it just a railing? (Refer to this if it helps, the "square holes" I'm talking about are near the middle of the ship in white.) 64.229.180.189 (talk) 23:47, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

One has to have some kind of sick twisted masochistic mind to watch Titanic a second time...

In essence different ships have each type of aperture, glazed or open with railing, and in the case of a cruise ship a mix of those.

It's not apparent from that image which QM has although you'll note that there is a differene between those that are clearly glazed and some of the others. Zooming in starts to show what appear to be rails in those apertures and the ones below. You'll noe that on eht weather deck above the rails are quite tall.

The architectural issue is finding the balance between safety of the passenger and their experience. Whilst some will want the sterile disconnected experience of staying behind glass panes others will want to be more exposed. The architect can do as much as possible to minimise the risk but that does have to be balanced with the experience one is looking for.

ALR (talk) 11:22, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

December 2

Illustration identification

Can anyone identify the artist, date and medium of each of the four illustrations of Ely in Collins, W W (1908) The Cathedral Cities of England? This catalogue may hold the key but it is marked no review from the UK and thus I am unable to see inside it. Of particular interest to me is the illustration, probably a watercolour, of Ely Market --Senra (Talk) 00:59, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Can't help you on the dates, but the signatures that appear on many of the artworks depicted in the book make it clear that they all were painted by Collins himself. Since the subtitle of the book is "60 reproductions from original watercolors", the medium is also clear. Deor (talk) 01:24, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Ha ha. I must be tired :( Thank you for putting me right. What threw me is the catalogue I linked above. Still, if anyone can dig up a date, especially for the Ely marketplace, It would be good. In the meantime, thank you Deor --Senra (Talk) 01:47, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, the publication of the exhibition catalogue in 1905 gives you a firm terminus ante quem (assuming that the Ely market painting was included in the exhibition, which seems likely). That very painting, or one very much like it, was sold at Christie's for £715 in 1992, though their lot description doesn't date it. Deor (talk) 11:46, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Any connection to William Wilkie Collins, better known as Wilkie Collins? He was the son of Royal Academician landscape artist William Collins, and dabbled in art before turning to literature (The Moonstone, The Woman in White, etc.). BrainyBabe (talk) 23:35, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

My dude is William Wiehe Collins. Indeed he may be related but if he is, I am not aware of the relationship --Senra (Talk) 00:23, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Stations of the Cross at Pájara

I was impressed by the Stations of the Cross paintings inside the church of Nuestra Señora de Regla at Pájara, Fuerteventura. Is there any information available about who painted them and when? --Frumpo (talk) 09:34, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Apparently not. I've searched, but can find nothing about the paintings inside the church, only about the carvings on the outside and the church itself (rebuilt in 1687). However, this page has an address and email for the Museo de Arte Sacro de Fuerteventura in Betancuria, who may be able to help. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:18, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much. I'll report back if I get a response from them. --Frumpo (talk) 16:17, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Nothing

Above, in the post concerning proving God, I had a question which may be quite philosophical in nature. "Nothing", the concept, is the absence of anything. Has science ever verified that the concept of "nothing" really exists (is it possible for there to actually be nothing), or is it just accepted on the basis of not "something"? I'm not sure if I worded that well, as it's not an easy question to express. Thanks! Falconus^{p t c} 10:45, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

And I'm not sure if this is more suited for the Humanities desk or the Science desk. Falconus^{p t c} 10:46, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

"Nothing" is a human concept. The logical construct called the empty set would be its equivalent. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:06, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

But of course, the empty set is not nothing, but something. Indeed, it is the basis for the standard construction of the Natural numbers, which, of course, are made by God (at least according to Leopold Kronecker). This brings us nicely back to the beginning ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:56, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Have you read the book Nothing: A very short introduction by Frank Close (ISBN 9780199225866)? Gabbe (talk) 12:02, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

A close physical concept is vacuum- a space with absolutely no matter or energy. That article explains why a pure vacuum can't really exist. "Empty" outer space is close, but not perfect. Staecker (talk) 13:52, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

According to modern physics, at quantum scales, so called "empty space" or "vacuum" in fact is in constant fluctuation with spontaneous creation of particles in matter-antimatter pairs (almost always quickly followed by their mutual annihilation) etc. etc. According to some ways of conceptually measuring things, there's actually quite a bit of energy locked up in a "vacuum"... AnonMoos (talk) 14:02, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

In both these questions you display an unfashionable philosophy of verificationism. Most scientists prefer falsifiability, and will tell you that science doesn't prove things, it tests things, sometimes ruling theories out but never ruling them in. So, science can't tell you whether nothing exists ... it can only tell you whether nothing doesn't exist, provided you can formulate a test which nothing would fail if it didn't exist. I hope that's clear.  Card Zero  (talk) 14:21, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Then the questions should be has there been 1. significant evidence that suggests against the existence of "nothing", and 2. significant evidence against the existence of "anything" in any circumstance. I know well that science doesn't prove things, but it can certainly indicate things. Falconus^{p t c} 15:48, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

What's the testable hypothesis? If nothing is defined as having no effect on anything, then it is by definition impossible to test for - it's the ultimate Russel's teapot. Perhaps nothing has some indirect effect on things, which I can't imagine? If it's context-dependent, as in the absence of an expected something, a gap, then you have vacuum, which has already been mentioned. Presumably then you mean a point in time at which nothing exists, anywhere. In a multiverse any physically possible state can occur - even if we can't reach it (or didn't begin from it) - and the state where nothing exists seems trivial - but the question remains: how can we identify the condition where nothing exists, and tell it apart from the opposite, where nothing doesn't exist (and nothing else does either)?  Card Zero  (talk) 17:59, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I think this is a issue of semantics instead of science. Once you define what "nothing" or "anything" means, it should be easy to get an answer. --140.180.15.97 (talk) 18:55, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

In order to understand a concept, you have to be able to distinguish the concept (for instance, "x") from not-the-concept (or "not-x"). So there is a sense in which you are correct that it is accepted as "not-something," and we can be certain that something exists. So in this sense, the understanding is a philosophical one. The scientific understanding traditionally is that the vacuum of space is empty, and therefore "nothing" exists there. However, with quantum physics we are now understanding that particles come into and out of existence in a flash all the time. So therefore any given "empty" volume of space is really only empty on average. Greg Bard (talk) 20:59, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I think this is where it gets into the philosophical debate. My immediate response to what "nothing" is is where you have no matter, energy, space, or time, but I have to say that I honestly don't know what "nothing" really is. And "anything" would be matter, energy, space, or time, or any combination thereof. But I guess that unless there is a scientific definition of nothing and anything, it's really very philosophical, which means there is no right answer (and besides that, in these subjects, I only have a vague idea what I am talking about) Falconus^{p t c} 21:01, 2 December 2011 (UTC) (this was somehow posted out of order, so I moved it)

Story about a child who enjoys pain

I am looking for something which I've read before, though I can't remember the title, author or collection it was published in. Hoping it might ring a bell with someone on here.

The story (I am fairly sure it is a short story) centers around a child who enjoys pain. There might be some sort of reason for this - it silences some noise in his head, or he gets pleasure out of it, I can't remember which. The child does such things, I recall, as rolling their eyes back into their skull until they throb dully. That's the nearest to a quote I've got. I remember this goes on - the parents' frustration increasing - and the child protagonist is narrating it all from the future, first-person, in a quite impassively observational style. A lot of it bears semblance to autism - I don't think the child can speak at the beginning of this story, but learns over time. The story ends with the child seeming to 'grow out' of this phase, gets a job, is a normal person etc.

I had guessed this was by Will Self or Augusten Burroughs, but looking into their works has not given me any joy. Be thrilled if anyone can help. Thanks. 83.244.180.83 (talk) 13:05, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

What is the publication date? Where did you read it? 164.107.189.171 (talk) 14:26, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Is it the story where the child plucks out their pubic hairs (I think) one by one? Where they have a feverish childhood disease which affects their brain, such that before it they were in the stream for grammar school, preparing for a good 11 plus score, but afterwards they just can't do it? If it's that one, I think it was an autobiography. 86.164.60.202 (talk) 18:47, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Women allowed to study in Portugal

When was the universities open to women in Portugal? I assume somewhere in the late 19th century? Thank you.--Aciram (talk) 16:18, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

This book: The Modern Woman's Rights Movement By Kaethe Schirmacher written in 1912 says "As yet there are no public high schools for girls, but there are a number of private schools that prepare women for university entrance examinations. The universities admit women." Alansplodge (talk) 17:06, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

This book Storia della storiografia, Volumes 45-46 says (footnote on page 16) "(Women could attend university courses in) Portugal in the 1880s". Alansplodge (talk) 17:11, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Might it be worth asking the question, even in English, on the Portuguese WP RefDesk? That is, assuming the lusophones are active: Brazil, after all, is a populous BRIC. BrainyBabe (talk) 23:22, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

What is the difference between "Christian Fundamentalist" vs. "Conservative Christian" vs. "Christian Right"?

What is the difference between "Christian Fundamentalist" vs. "Conservative Christian" vs. "Christian Right"? Is the antonym for "Christian Fundamentalist" "anti-Christian Fundamentalist"? Is there such a thing called the "Christian Left" or "Liberal Christians" or "Progressive Christians" or "Communistic Christians" or "Socialistic Christians" or something like those aforementioned to describe beliefs contrary to the three in the title? Finally, how is it possible for Christianity to support two seemingly contradicting ideologies -- liberal and conservative? Which interpretation is "more accurate" to the teachings of Christ, or are they both subjective and prone to misinterpretation? 164.107.190.86 (talk) 16:57, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Answers to some of your questions might be found in our articles on Christian right, Christian left, Christianity and politics, Christian socialism, Christian communism, progressive Christianity and liberal Christianity. Gandalf61 (talk) 17:07, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Jesus Christ was the original hippie, he would be liberal in modern times. Moses, Abraham, and the Old Testament folks, however, were conservative.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 17:18, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

What a great bumper sticker: "Jesus was a liberal". To the main question in the title, though, Christian fundamentalists are Christians who believe that the words of the Bible are authored by God and to be understood literally, unless they are clearly parables or other figurative language. Christian fundamentalists may differ in their politics, though in the United States at least, most though not all are conservative. Conservative Christians are merely Christians with conservative political beliefs. Not all of these are fundamentalists. The Christian Right are Conservative Christians whose political beliefs have a religious basis, based on their interpretation of the Bible or other religious teachings. Not all conservative Christians are members of the Christian Right, but all members of the Christian Right are conservative Christians. Marco polo (talk) 17:26, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, Jesus was a bearded hippie in sandals who whipped the money-lenders out of the temple, preached for peace and against using force even in self-defense, claimed that material wealth inherently made salvation impossible, was unmarried at 30, but wandered the land with a group of "special" male friends. I can see the attraction for the left ;-). Surprisingly, the religious right seems to be much more into choosing picking things from the Old Testament. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:48, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually, he did not claim that material wealth made salvation impossible. He just said it was harder than for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle. He explained that this was possible for God. (The listeners asked him who then can be saved?; a reading of it I remember seeing went on to say that this was because they knew that everyone was rich in one way or another.) --Trovatore (talk) 22:38, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

If Conservative Christians are merely Christians with conservative political beliefs, then what is the terminology used to describe Christians with conservative personal beliefs but do not allow their personal beliefs influence their political decisions, or am I suggesting an impossibility? 164.107.190.86 (talk) 17:55, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the term conservative Christian generally means a Christian whose theological and soteriological, rather than political, views are conservative. The two things are in practice somewhat correlated but logically not the same at all. Also, typically, it means a Protestant Christian with conservative religious views; Catholics with traditional Catholic views are more likely to be described as conservative Catholics rather than conservative Christians.

The difference between a (religiously) conservative Christian and a fundamentalist is complicated. One issue is that some of them hear the term fundamentalist as pejorative or at least reductive; they describe themselves as "conservative" not because they disagree with the positions of fundamentalists, but because they just don't like the word. In the strictest possible sense, a fundamentalist is one who agrees with the teachings of The Fundamentals, a surprisingly intellectual series of tracts published in I think the early 1900s. --Trovatore (talk) 18:47, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Fun though this game is, Jesus of course would not fit into whatever box the person doing the pigeonholing personally belongs to. Jesus represents an orthogonal belief system, and actually took a third option when people tried to trick him into siding with one group or another (Render unto Caesar). Consider how Christian groups like the Catholic Church oppose both abortion and the death penalty, strongly support marriage and also push for a stronger emphasis on rehabilitation in the justice system. In most political systems, this makes it a mishmash of difrerent sides, but that's because it's basing its position on something other than the political divisions. 86.164.60.202 (talk) 18:21, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

But the Catholic Church isn't Jesus. In fact he had nothing to do with its establishment, much less any other Christian groups.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 23:49, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

See also liberation theology, a Marxist formulation of Christianity. It's possible for Christians to support two opposing ideologies because, first of all, many Christians believe in separation of church and state, and that religious beliefs shouldn't be the basis of public policy. Second, many (most?) Christians consider the Bible a historical document, colored by the biases and culture of its authors, and so not meant to be taken literally. That's why Christians don't necessarily believe the universe was created in 7 days, that giants used to walk the earth and live 900+ years, that women should be subordinate to men, or that homosexuality is a sin, even though the Bible explicitly says all of these things. Third, it's possible to "interpret" (twist) the Bible in any way to suit your preferences. It certainly doesn't help that the Old Testament is self-contradictory, being written by 4 different authors and numerous redactors (see documentary hypothesis) who often found each other's writings offensive and changed them at will. It also doesn't help that Jesus himself rejected aspects of the Hebrew Bible (especially ritualistic aspects) while affirming the supremacy of Scripture, or that Jesus held moral values that contradict those of the Hebrew Bible. --140.180.15.97 (talk) 18:48, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Excellent question! First of all despite its popular use, the whole left-right analogy is meaningless in itself. There is a family resemblance relationship between all "lefty" issues and people, and a similar resemblance among all "righty" issues. The correlation is very strong so it appears very meaningful. Fundamentalism has these features: 1) the fundamentals of a political or religious movement should be adhered to strictly, 2) one should actively try to gain converts to one's own position 3) there is only one right way to be. That is, for instance, that Bible believers should believe the Bible literally, so too for those who believe...the Quran, the Constitution, any manifestos, etcetera. Conservatism is just believing that any social or political change should be slow or nonexistent. There isn't anything about Christianity that makes these unique to it. There are fundamentalists of every religion. Greg Bard (talk) 20:46, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Specific Walmart Profit Margin Question

I'm not going to post links in here, but just now out of curiosity I went to Walmart's website and saw a Toshiba 40" LCD TV for $398. What's a likely ballpark figure that Walmart paid Toshiba per unit for that TV, factoring in Walmart's size and making educated guesses as to what volume of this item they order from Toshiba? $50? $100? $300? Sources for profit margins on electronics, and TVs specifically, and even more preferably, sources applying to mega-retailers like Walmart would be even better than your thoughts alone. 20.137.18.53 (talk) 17:59, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

More than a decade ago I worked in consumer electronics in the US, and at the time we were told that the wholesale ex-factory price was about half the final retail price. By that measure the maker would get about $200. Of that, about half was the bill-of-materials (the cost of components, the manual, the box, the plug, everything) leaving about $100 for the manufacturer's assembly and shipping costs, advertising, and R&D. I don't know what the margins are now - surely the ease of internet price comparisons will have squeezed the retailer's margin down a fair amount. 2.122.75.79 (talk) 20:04, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, Walmart's known for squeezing suppliers on pricing (huge, huge power there) as well as keeping prices low even on popular items. I think their markup is lower than that of other retailers. 209.2.60.88 (talk) 21:23, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Walmart utilizes the loss leader strategy. That is, they offer a product at a price that undercuts the competition, even if they have to take a loss on it. However, those products have such minimal features and are of such low quality that most of the people who they bring into the store will upgrade to a more expensive model, where Walmart does make a profit. The upscale models are often more expensive than the comparable models at their competitors. Here is one of the reviews of that model:

"I bought this TV about 3 weeks ago. It has great pictures on the HD channels, they are so so on the regular channels. Sound is terrible. It takes forever to turn on. The remote doesn't reach that far. And it takes a while to change channels. I am returning today."

StuRat (talk) 22:40, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

A little incident in the library

I just observed a librarian turn down a request from two small children about something. She turned down the request. Then the kids found their older friend, a teenage girl, who went to the the librarian again and asked for books on abortion.

Was it really necessary to keep this info from the children? 209.2.60.88 (talk) 21:20, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

This isn't really a question for the Wikipedia reference desk. We all have opinions, but this is designed to give facts, citations, sources, and things to research. You can check out abortion debate, but in this case, I have no sources that it was necessary, and none that it wasn't. Falconus^{p t c} 21:24, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Are you trolling? A librarian getting two such requests on a particular subject in a short space of time would twig a conspiracy. --Aspro (talk) 21:30, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

No, I'm not trolling. If you read my question carefully, you'll see that it was one group of girls. As for the first, I thought this place could answer questions of fact, e.g., whether the librarian should've answered the girls' request the first time. 209.2.60.88 (talk) 21:38, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

But that's not a request for a fact - it's completely subjective. It's a request for an opinion. A request for a fact would be "What are some societal reasons that may have influenced the librarian's decision to refuse the request?" not, as I interpret your request, "What's your opinion? Did the librarian do the right thing?" Falconus^{p t c} 21:51, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

December 3

Taiwan (ROC) presidential debate

Hello, i understand there will be a televised debate between the three major candidates for the upcoming elections in january 2012 and all i know from the news it is will be today (December 03), but it doesn't tell the time nor the networks which will broadcast it. Anyone has the schedule and what time will be shown up or anything?. Will it be on TVBS or CTi-Tv? Thanks in advance.

Update: As far as i know according to UDN [23] the debate will be at 2PM, Taiwan time. Still no clue which network will broadcast it.? HappyApple (talk) 03:13, 3 December 2011 (UTC)