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

July 31

Neo-Hittite Kingdom of Patina

this article talks about the Neo-Hittite Kingdom of Patina and its capital city, Kunulua. There are no mentions of either in the Neo-Hittite article. Does anybody have any idea as to whether any of the kingdoms mentioned in the article are related to this kingdom/city? 69.62.243.48 (talk) 00:09, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

They are mentioned in our article; see Syro–Hittite states#List of Syro-Hittite states, fourth bulleted item under "The southern, Aramaic, group includes". Deor (talk) 01:05, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. 69.62.243.48 (talk) 01:07, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Japanese scales

Which note is the root of the Hirajōshi scale? The article gives three different interpretations, but they're all modes of the same interval pattern. Why do they all correspond to the In scale? --108.206.7.65 (talk) 03:26, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Philiosophical Articles/Essays/Works Arguing in Favor of Absolute Bodily Autonomy?

Does anyone know of any philosophical works that argue in favor of absolute bodily autonomy using an argument other than the law, common practice, tradition, or popular opinion? All of these arguments are fallacious and thus I'm wondering if there are any works arguing in favor of absolute bodily autonomy (with no exceptions) using arguments other than the ones I mentioned above. Thank you. Futurist110 (talk) 02:31, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Not exactly sure what you mean by "absolute bodily autonomy", but as I understand it Murray Rothbard argued from an axiomatic approach for total ownership of one's self and property. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 02:48, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

By absolute bodily autonomy, I meant refusing to allow someone to use someone else's body (including organs, blood, and bone marrow) without the other individual's consent in any circumstances, even when the second individual made the first individual dependent upon him to survive (such as by infecting him with a kidney illness). Futurist110 (talk) 05:25, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

The word "allow" is problematic there (since you can still be autonomous and allow someone to use your body). Anyway, if we substitute "force" or "coerce" for "allow", then yes, that is what Murray Rothbard and also Hans-Hermann Hoppe argue. Hoppe's argument is; "self-ownership is a presupposition of argumentation, thus a person contradicts oneself when one argues against self-ownership. The person making this argument is caught in a performative contradiction because, in choosing to use persuasion instead of force to have others agree that they are not sovereign over themselves, that person implicitly grants that those who one is trying to persuade have a right to use their body in order to argue." 203.27.72.5 (talk) 07:17, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Musical scales

Why are pentatonic and heptatonic scales so much more common worldwide than other scales (e.g. hexatonic)? --108.206.7.65 (talk) 03:43, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Are they? The scale database in Scala (program), [1], lists 192 five note scales, 608 seven note scales, and well over a 1,000 twelve note scales (the database includes scales using any tuning, not just equal temperament, obviously, or there would only be one twelve note scale). If you meant why are five note scales used more often than others, again--are they? I would guess seven note scales are more frequently used. Pfly (talk) 10:23, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

For the standard pentatonic, I believe the reason most often given for its popularity is that it makes music easy, in the sense that there is no combination of those five notes that has major dissonance. You can experiment on a piano: you can mess around on the black keys (which form a pentatonic scale) however you like, and nothing you do will sound really terrible. For heptatonic the story is probably more complicated. Looie496 (talk) 15:36, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Oops, for some reason I was thinking hepta- also mean "five". Looie is right about the standard pentatonic scale being basically dissonance free. As a kid I first played around with improvising on the piano by fiddling with pentatonic scales. The seven note scale thing is definitely more complicated. There's a little history as Diatonic scale. I think in Western music you can trace scale pattern logic back to ancient Greece at least—two tetrachords with the lowest and highest notes being octaves of each other results in a seven note scale. There are other historical factors though. Pfly (talk) 20:47, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

C played with D is a dissonance. C played with B is a dissonance. That's 2 out of 7, or 24%. Not quite what I'd call "no major dissonances" or "dissonance free". Dissonances have been given a bad rap, but no composer would ever do without them. They're the salt and spice for what would otherwise be a bland dish of musical creamed chicken pulp with white sauce. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 23:00, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I think both Looie and I were saying the "standard" or "major" 5-note pentatonic scale is basically dissonance free / has no major dissonances. Starting on C the standard pentatonic scale is C D E G A. The "worst" dissonance is the major second, which C and D is an example of. Whether a major second is dissonant or not is a subjective question, of course. It's certainly less dissonant than a minor second or a tritone. I don't find major seconds very dissonant, so I said "basically dissonance free". I suspect Looie said "no major dissonances" for similar reasons. But I definitely agree that "major" dissonance is extremely important in music (obligatory link to Consonance and dissonance). Perhaps both of us were wrong to assume "pentatonic scale" implied "major pentatonic". After all, the term "pentatonic scale" just means "five note scale", there are many pentatonic scales other than the standard/major one, some of which are quite dissonant. I noticed the OP has edited pages like Hirajōshi scale, which is about a pentatonic scale with "major dissonances"--and it is apparently in equal temperament. In other tunings pentatonic scales can be exceedingly dissonant. In short, all this is why I asked whether it is actually true that pentatonic scales are more common (they aren't according to the Scala database). I'd also question the claim that the standard/major pentatonic scale, or any/all equal tempered pentatonic scales are more commonly used than other scales. I'd be less skeptical of the claim that 7-note scales are the most common / most used, although I'm not sure how one would determine such a thing in the first place. Finally, I'd point to our pentatonic scale page, but it needs work, especially the lead and with regard to this topic--the lead makes that claim about lacking "the most dissonant intervals", but with a big "citation needed". The heptatonic scale page isn't too useful on this topic either. Pfly (talk) 02:01, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

PS, I don't have Scala installed—and it's hard to install on a Mac—but looked through the scale files to find two examples of dissonant, non-equal tempered pentatonic scales, for what it's worth—the "dimtetb" scale ("pentatonic form on the 9/7") and the "chin_pipa" scale ("Observed tuning from Chinese balloon lute p'i-p'a"). The five pitches of the "dimtetb" scale are (in frequency ratio notation): 9:8 major second, 9:7 septimal major third, 14:9 subminor sixth, 7:4 harmonic seventh, and 2:1 octave. The "chin_pipa" notes (in cents): 145 neutral second, 351 neutral third, 647 (no name for this pitch, its about a quarter tone below a perfect fifth), 874 (no name, vaguely near a "Pythagorean diminished seventh), and 1195 (a slightly flat octave). Those two pentatonic scales are quite dissonant! Anyway, anyone interested in the inner workings of scales might want to take a look at Scala. Pfly (talk) 02:46, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Countries ruled by one royal family

Besides Japan, has any country had only one royal family in its entire history? --108.206.7.65 (talk) 05:29, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

If you're going to use a broad definition of "family" (including proven relatives and all that), then the United Kingdom (which existed since 1707) would probably work. Futurist110 (talk) 05:37, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

If you're not restricting yourself to parent-to-child succession, there is an indirect line of descent through all English monarchs from William I covering all monarchs of England, Britain and the United Kingdom to Elizabeth II; this can be traced back even further with the descent of Elizabeth II from Egbert of Wessex, first king of England. But since the European royal families are closely interrelated the same is probably true of all of them. The concept of a royal family or royal house is rather artificial; it depends on how tightly you limit the relationship between each monarch. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:17, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

The Netherlands likewise has had only one royal family, that is if you ignore Napoleons brother, who was installed as a puppet king during the French occupation of the Netherlands.

I might note that the first statement is true of Japan only if you use a similarly broad definition of "family" as would permit William the Conqueror and Elizabeth II to be described as one "family" - Emperor of Japan#Succession has a more detailed description. --10:16, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Agreed - in the medieval period, at least one Japanese emperor was forced to abdicate to be replaced by a distant cousin, an event which would have marked a new dynasty for a European throne. There was also the practice of emperors adopting perspective candidates to the throne, thereby leapfrogging the succession list - this would not (as far as I know) have happened in Europe. Alansplodge (talk) 18:30, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

According to our article, the Monarchy of Denmark is the oldest in Europe. Oda Mari (talk) 09:38, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

However, the present House of Glücksburg has reigned only since 1863, when Christian IX acceded. Alansplodge (talk) 20:21, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Cumulative Total Number of People Killed in the Name of Religion Throughout History?

Does anyone have reliable statistics as to the cumulative number of people killed in the name of various religions throughout history? Futurist110 (talk) 05:58, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

No. We don't even have reliable statistics for people killed in modern wars (see e.g. the debate about the Lancet surveys of Iraq War casualties), much less for historic conflicts. And then the definition is very unclear. Did the crusaders "kill in the name of religion"? Arguably yes. But their opponents, also arguably, killed to defend their homelands, with a religious component creeping in over time. And so on on countless occasions. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:27, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Which is suprising considering the fact that people can estimate how many people have been ever lived on this planet?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 06:39, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

No, not really. It's typically easier to answer better-defined and more general questions than to answer more ambiguous and more specific questions. That said, I bet there are serious error bars on "the number of people that have ever lived", not just from the estimation process, but also from unclear definitions. Who counts as "people"? All Homo? All Homo sapiens? All Homo sapiens sapiens? All humans since the development of behavioral modernity? All humans since the advent of civilization? And what counts as "have ever lived"? Up until modern times, most people died in their very early childhood. Do they count? What about stillborn babies? The only thing that keeps these errors somewhat in check is that human population has been growing very much, so the influence of the earlier questions is not very large. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:14, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia has an article on that. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 07:31, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Both the Crusaders and their Muslim opponents killed in the name of their religion. This is in contrast to someone like, say, Hitler, who killed in the name of pseudoscience or Stalin who killed in the name of Communism. Futurist110 (talk) 07:00, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I quite disagree with nearly everything you say in this sentence. It's much to simplified. Stalin killed some people in the name of communism, but also a lot of people in the name of the defence of the Motherland. And why do you think that the average inhabitant of palestine fought the crusaders for purely or mostly religious reasons? Note that e.g. Damascus had been, on and off, allied with the crusaders until the disastrous Second Crusade - do you think they had a religious epiphany when the crusaders decided to attack them? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:14, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

For a WAG estimate, the cumulative human population is estimated at around 100 billion, so let's say 1% of those were killed for religious reasons, to arrive at a total of 1 billion killed for religious reasons. StuRat (talk) 07:17, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I doubt 1% were even homocide, let alone homocide on the basis of religion. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 07:27, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, cause of death give 2.84% for "Intentional injuries" (but presumably not including suicide since it has it's own category. Violence also has it's own category to confuse matters further.) 203.27.72.5 (talk) 07:35, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Nope, 1.28%. Violence included suicide so that had to be taken off the figure to get homocides only. Unless you're including people who killed themselves in the name of religion...

So anyway, of the 1.28% of people killed by another person, I doubt fully 1.00% were killed in the name of religion. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 07:39, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Those figures are for the year 2002, not historic averages. The rate is certainly far higher during major wars. StuRat (talk) 09:08, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Let's see...in 2002 we had Sierra Leone Civil War, Algerian Civil War, Somali Civil War, Burundi Civil War, Ethnic conflict in Nagaland, Insurgency in Ogaden, Nepalese Civil War, Republic of the Congo Civil War, Second Congo War, Second Liberian Civil War, Ituri conflict, Second Chechen War, Second Intifada, 2000–2006 Shebaa Farms conflict, Operation Defensive Shield, Ivorian Civil War, Insurgency in the Maghreb (2002–present) and of course War in Afghanistan (2001–present). 101.172.42.165 (talk) 09:30, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

None of which, even totaled, come even close to the deaths in WW2. StuRat (talk) 09:48, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Does it matter? Very few of the deaths in wars are attributable to religion. I think it's pretty safe to assume that 2002 was a fairly average year for war i.e. not particularly peaceful and not particularly violent. If you look at the List of wars by death toll and take the sum of the upper estimates of dead for all wars over 1,000,000 million killed, then add a further million for every listed war with less than 1,000,000 killed and then double it you get about 1 billion, which is your estimate just for people killed in the name of religion. 101.172.42.156 (talk) 10:42, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

The Taiping Rebellion which killed around 20 million Chinese was by far the bloodiest war which can be blamed on religion (and its causes were more complex than that); there have been very few significant wars motivated by religion (distinct from nationalism or race) since the 17th century, when populations were far lower and casualties therefore fewer. The Thirty Years' War, which was partly caused by religion but also by other tensions, killed something like 8 million (including plague deaths and other civilian casualties) in the 17th century, the 16th-century French Wars of Religion 2-4 million, and the Crusades 1-3 million which included Christian-on-Christian violence like the Siege of Constantinople (1204) (see List of wars and anthropogenic disasters by death toll). --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:27, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Very few wars can really be ascribed to religion. Most are really down to fear, hate or greed (often with a good measure of stupidity), even if religion is the banner used to justify them. Here's a terrific example of fear, hate, greed and stupidity at work in the name of religion: Fourth Crusade. --Dweller (talk) 10:23, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Fear, hate, greed, and stupidity often come from one's religious beliefs, though. A current/modern example would be conservative Christians using the Bible to justify their homophobia and opposition to gay rights. Futurist110 (talk) 00:15, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, fear, hate and stupidity can come from religion (though is by no means restricted to religion), not sure about greed though, I know of no religion that promotes or causes greed. Fear and hate, however, are not always bad things. I'm sure Americans fighting in WWII hated the nazi ideology, and if that motivated them, great. I am not convinced however, that fear, hate and stupidity are major factors in the starting of wars. The leaders are usually not stupid and will only wage war if they have a good chance of benifiting from it. The main reasons leaders start wars is love of power, fame and wealth. Fear, hate and stupidity are then of course used to motivate the soldiers, e.g. in the medieval period both crusaders and mujahideen were promised heavenly rewards for fighting and were told to hate unbelievers. However, from the fact that the pope and the kaliph did not personally fight in the wars, it can be gathered that they themselves were more worried about earthly pleasures and used religion mainly as an means to increase their power. - Lindert (talk) 12:49, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Zara and Peter Phillips

According to Anne, Princess Royal, her children have no titles due to her husband never having one given to him. If she wanted to, could Anne give some sort of title to her children anyway? Dismas|^(talk) 10:26, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

As I understand it, only Parliament can confer titles, since the Queen had to ask Winston Churchill to grand her husband the title Prince. But apparently, the parliament has no control over who is worshipped as a god. 101.172.42.156 (talk) 11:15, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what was going on with the Duke of Edinburgh's case, but I think the Queen usually decides on titles for the royal family herself, although she probably consults her ministers. It is definitely not Princess Anne's decision, though (although I think it was at her request that her husband wasn't given a title, so if she asked the Queen may well be willing to grant some titles now). --Tango (talk) 11:32, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, you're right. It's her decision who gets titles. She was just treading carefully because the other commonwealth nations might object to his title including them under "other territories" or some such. 101.172.42.154 (talk) 11:41, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Hm. She gave him "the dignity of a Prince of the United Kingdom", I believe. I never thought of this before, but do (other) members of the RF also have the title "Prince/ss of Canada" &c? —Tamfang (talk) 09:17, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I suspect that if either Peter or Zara Phillips really wanted a title, he or she would ask Grandma for one ... the Queen would consult Parliament (and Parliament would probably approve the request) ... and the Queen would grant one. The real question is whether either of them would feel the need for a title ... after all, titles are fairly empty honors these days. Blueboar (talk) 11:55, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Is it really a matter for Parliament? I know MPs do sometimes have things to say about honours and titles, but are there any actual laws about these things? I thought it was a matter for the Queen; however, except when dispensing honours within her personal gift, she only ever acts with the advice of her government (= Prime Minister). The governments of the 16 Commonwealth Realms can effectively veto honours for members of the Royal Family (because they're not just the UK's Royal Family but that of 16 nations) - but they usually have no objections. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 22:50, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Parliament definitely aren't involved. The Prime Minister might be, but definitely not Parliament. --Tango (talk) 23:15, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Titles are granted through the issuance of Letters patent which are one of the few royal prerogatives that may still be exercised. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 00:21, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

It was pretty well reported at the time that Princess Anne's children would have no titles because that's what Princess Anne wanted. But finding a decent source for this, 30 years later, is proving more difficult. This forum is quite informative. This site also confirms my assertion. --TammyMoet (talk) 12:38, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

As I misunderstand it, honours within the royal family are strictly a matter of Royal Prerogative, while most honours outside the family are always (in practice) given "on advice", i.e. as instructed by the Prime Minister. (Exceptions include the Order of the Garter, the Order of the Thistle and the Royal Victorian Order.) —Tamfang (talk) 09:11, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

is there a world in finance/economics for "intrinsic" demand?

Let's say that I am making a crown for an exacting king, the total project value is $500,000,000 - it's huge. Well, it calls for a particular gemstone in one place, something that is only semiprecious like a ruby.

Now, it could be the case that "intrinsically" I don't give a shit if I have to pay $80,000,000 for any ruby of any size - I'll take it, to meet the requirements. But in fact I wouldn't ACTUALLY pay that much because of the fact that others are making it available CHEAPER.

So in a world where my only option is to pay $80,000,000 or not receive the gemstone - I would still pay that much. but in the actual world my demand isn't nearly as high due for any particular ruby because of the others that are on the market.

By comparison, if the crown did NOT specify "ruby" that it HAS to be made from, then if my only choice is an $80m ruby or no ruby, I choose "no ruby" and put something else there.

So here are two cases with a high intrinsic demand a low intrinsic demand. Another example would be debt: let's say you absolutely have to borrow $3000 for a week not to lose your business that is worth $800,000 and with many orders about to come in. Your "intrinsic" demand might be up to 1000% annual interest rate (which is 19% in a week, the $3000 plus 19% - however that week is enough for you to not go under until you recive the funds that are coming in, which far more than pay for that money. Or you have customers and you can immediately within 3-5 days flip any amount of borrowed money up to $8,000 into twice as much, due to your customer's demand.) So here are cases where your "intrinsic" demand is for money at a cost of 1000% interest rate provided you can account it on a prorated daily basis and pay it off immediately at any time.

Nevertheless, your ACTUAL demand isn't for 1000% interest rate, since you can get an unsecured credit card in addition to the ones you have at a much more reasonable rate - and so you would use that; and you do. So you see, here is an example of a high intrinsic demand that is met by a lower supply. Nevertheless if the choice were not to borrow money or borrow it at 1000% interest rate you would use the latter due to the fact that it's still free money for you since you're out of stock and would have fantastic margins if you weren't. what in fact happens is you do borrow the money, at a far lower interest rest, sell the inventory, and pay off the lower interst rate.

my question is what we call the intrinsic demand? The actual demand is fueled by your other choices. 84.3.160.86 (talk) 13:00, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

here is another example. Obviously the intrinsic demand of nearly every person in America for air is at least $100 per month (in fact far greater), as every person breathes every single second of every day. But as that air is free, the actual demand is at $0, since any amount of demand is met by supply (outside air) at a price of $0. Water is not the same. if people could "drink" from the air iteslf as easily as they can "breathe" from the air itself, then demand for bottled water would fall sharply. Because the "actual" demand is falling. the intrinsic demand is still high - it is just being met elsewhere. Another example of this is if you google "water mafia" for some cities in the world where houeshold water is very expensive. it shows the intrinsic demand that is there when you cut off alternatives. 84.3.160.86 (talk) 13:07, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Graph illustrating consumer (red) and producer (blue) surpluses on a supply and demand chart

Perhaps you could summarize all that down into a precise question, it would help us to answer you. None the less I will try,

if you look at the graph I added you will see that a portion of both parties, suppliers and demanders, are willing to pay more/demand less than the market price. These people luck out the most, and have the largest economic surplus (the price they would be willing to pay minus the price they have to pay). The economic surplus for goods like food and water are massive for consumers as you have noted. 65.95.22.16 (talk) 14:25, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

The red line does not accurately any intrinsic demand curve, for example for air (which is easily $500/month or easily more than a mortgage, but for which unlimited demand is met at a supplied price of $0.) So I don't thin kit would be accurate to draw a consumer demand curve anywhere above $0 since - DUE to the response to the present supply - there is none.

What I mean is this. "There is large high-priced demand for a cinema TV from Apple that costs at least $1500" is not true if, in fact, they could not sell any TV's at a high price because the demand for large cinema TV's is met elsewhere. So, there is a large INTRINSIC demand for a high-quality TV but a small ACTUAL demand due to the market conditions. As far as Apple is concerned it just sees that nobody is buying it. There is no way to know what the "intrinsic" demand would be if not all that competition. The competition changes the nature of the demand.

Maybe I can put it this way. There is a large high-priced demand for any sweetener that is low on calories - dieters would happily pay $0.05 or $0.10 per single tablet that they can sweeten their drink with to help them successfully diet - but due to the large number of such sweeteners on the market in fact no consumer has ANY demand at that price - $0. Just because they know that the price is too high.

This isn't actually consumer surplus and I can illustrate it as follows. Suppose there is a shortage of all sweeteners in the market. A consumer will still NOT buy one at $10 because they will prefer to wait for the 'real' price to reappear. So, it's not that the demand was met by cheaper supply: it was not. Rather, the demand was INTERRUPTED and PREEMPTED by the knowledge of the cheaper supply. A consumer might not use any sweetener for a month and then go back to buying the regular low-priced sweetener, rather than pay the $10 for a box of sweeteners. Whereas, if there WERE no low-priced sweetener undercutting the demand curve, any dieter would consider it a tiny expense to add $10 to their diet and exercise program per month. So you see the very KNOWEDLGE of the cheaper supply undercuts the demand curve. Likewise, the person might wait for two years to complete the crown and deliver it due to the very KNOWELDGE of how much a ruby is worth, even though if that knowledge didn't exist, they wouldn't think twice about paying the $80m to complete their crown to specifications. (for example if the specifications called for a one-of-a-kind object in the kingdom, or any kingdom, and which that costs that much.) So really we are talking about a situation where the intrinsic demand would be much higher but it is interrupted by the market conditions and market knowledge. I'd like to know how to talk about this intrinsic demand, which might never show up as actual demand. 84.3.160.86 (talk) 14:48, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Here is another example. People might have a practically unlimited demand for actual get-rich-quick schemes (over double their money in a few months or less), i.e. any of their savings. But because that is "too good to be true", their actual demand is literally $0. No consumer will invest a penny into savings schemes that return more than 100% in a few months. So what's going on? There is almost unlimited intrinsic demand, but market conditions make actual demand a quantity of 0. It doesn't matter how compelling the case is or what the guarantees would be; no one would even look into it. So this is another example of a huge difference between the intrinsic demand and the actual demand - and this is not because any of the actual demand is being met!! So we are talking about something fundamentally different from the demand curve pictured, and fundamentally different from consumer surplus. 84.3.160.86 (talk) 14:54, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Just think about it. If I could somehow guarantee you a 100% roi on your money, hell, (this isn't serious, this is how scammers talk:) it could consist of you safekeeping actual physical money and getting to keep some of it, your intrinsic demand for the conditions described would be as much of your savings as you can free up, whereas DUE TO SCAMMING your actual demand is "no fucking way." So you have high intrinsic demand for a 100% roi small-investment scheme, but 0 actual demand for it. see? we are not talking about your supply/demand curve at all. 84.3.160.86 (talk) 14:57, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

so what I'm getting at is the "MARKET EFFECT" on demand. The market for scamming drives down demand for "too good to be true" investment to almost $0, despite what the "intrinsic demand" might be. Likewise, the used car market might drive down demand for used cars, despite what the intrinsic demand might be. Not even to your best friend would you pay anything like your intrinsic demand for a used car. 84.3.160.86 (talk) 14:59, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh, perhaps you want utility - the value of a good to a person. The utility - or intrinsic demand - is not affected by market price, my utility for air, rubies, sweetners, etc is fixed - besides diminishing returns. If the price is lower or equal to my utility than I will purchase the good. My demand for a safe loan from a respectable bank is X, my demand for a risky loan from thumb breakers is Y. If The price ox Y is lower than the price of X by more than the price of possibly having my thumbs broken, I will go with Y, if not than I go with X. 65.95.22.16 (talk) 15:04, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Right - "Utility" sounds a LOT better for what I'm talking about. Are you the other IP (84.3.160.86) too? If not, can they confirm as well? Is this standard usage? (e.g. talking about the "utility price" of something.) Thanks. 84.3.160.86 (talk) 15:06, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

The "utily" article links to "indifference price" which to me sounds like what I'm looking for. (THough I can't follow the math that comprises nearly the totality of this particular article). 84.3.160.86 (talk) 17:04, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

The article the OP is looking for is Willingness to pay. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 21:07, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I haven't read everything you have written (please be concise!) but I think you might be asking about price elasticity of demand. That's how much demand (which refers to the number you want, not the amount you pay, by the way) changes as the price changes. In your situation, your demand is very inelastic - it doesn't change much when price changes a lot (you always want one gem, regardless of the price). --Tango (talk) 23:18, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Willingness to pay sounds like it could be the one, but it's a very short article. Would a person's "willingness to pay" a monthly charge for air be $0 - as they get it for free - or some token antipollution tax amount, or $500+? The article is unclear. 84.3.160.86 (talk) 07:36, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

It may vary from person to person but I strongly suspect that for most it would be 100% of their net worth. The article essentially deals with this "the willingness to pay to stop the ending of one's own life can only be as high as one's wealth". If you want more details I'd try a google search or consult a first year economics text. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 08:06, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

"Philosopher" is a honorific title he gives to himself after he has possessed necessary characteristics and decides to call himself as such, do you agree?

the ref desk is not a debate forum, sorry
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
According to some sources to classify a philsopher he should classify himself/herself to be like one, for even if he is perceived as a philsopher by the masses yet he does not for himself then he is not, as I know certain persons who refused to be called a philosopher even if they are assumed to be likewise, thus anyone can call himself a philosopher, but not everyone can, for having the desire to call oneself as such requires the craving to know something in a philosophical point of view, for one needs to satisfy the title he gives to himself, as none can have the conviction of calling himself a painter even if he likes to if he doesn't have the passion in painting, therefore anyone not everyone can call himself a philosopher only after he attained the state of the desire to search for truth for only then shall he have the conviction of calling himself a philosopher, for the moment that he has that conviction he is already a philosopher, which may or may not be motivated in the academe. Do you agree? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.194.239.26 (talk) 15:33, 31 July 2012 (UTC) "The reference desk does not answer requests for opinions or predictions about future events. Do not start a debate; please seek an internet forum instead." --Mr.98 (talk) 16:32, 31 July 2012 (UTC) :No. Even if someone has a passion for painting, if he hasn't painted anything, he's only a painter to himself. And if someone creates paintings and has become famous for them yet still insists on being called a blacksmith, well... that's his problem. :P -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 16:44, 31 July 2012 (UTC) It is clearly noticed the respondent entirely missed the point and made his argument less relevant shown by the below predicaments; the statement posits that for one to have the conviction of calling himself a painter he should have the passion for Painting, which is a satisfying notion, but what is done by the respondent is to separate the concepts which are inseparable for this specific claim, which then is his mistake such that- “Even if someone has a passion for painting, if he hasn't painted anything, he's only a painter to himself” The moment that you have passion it is inseparable with the action, for one can never be said with passion without action to fill thereof, how can you say that you have passion for painting, but you do not paint, then how can the passion be substantiated, as saying he has a passion for dancing yet he does not dance perhaps he possess a passion for art collection or watching dances, thus they are one. And other contention- “if someone creates paintings and has become famous for them yet still insists on being called a blacksmith”, As is stated anyone can be somebody but not everyone, anyone can splash different colors on canvas but not everyone has the ability to give aesthetic substance to such. One may paint yet considers himself best suited for blacksmith for he might paint not as his passion, that he cannot give any deepened substance to his chosen colors but as a mere past time, therefore, again, you need the passion and act to satisfy your chosen career before you can call yourself as such and, yet even by doing it but lacking the desire or the passion the act then is unsubstantiated, it is a mere act and there is no conviction of any kind to call himself an artist because there is no passion, for a blacksmith may splash colors unto anything yet without passion he may not continue and adhere to his current profession as a blacksmith because there is no conviction of doing so, he can never have passion without action. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.194.243.167 (talk) 18:17, 31 July 2012 (UTC) It was a joke on my part, sorry. Again, the reference desk does not answer requests for opinions. Do not start a debate; please seek an internet forum instead. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 18:45, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Death plot against the Princess Alexandrina Victoria

I'm reading a book which tangentially mentions a plot to kill the Princess Alexandrina Victoria so that her uncle the Duke of Cumberland would succeed to the throne. It hinted that the Duke was involved in the plot. Was there such a plot, whether the Duke was involved or not? 69.62.243.48 (talk) 18:06, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Allegedly. The Duke of Cumberland was apparently a very very unpopular fellow. It was known as the "Orange Conspiracy" or the "Cumberland Plot", and allegedly happened during the Duke of Cumberland's tenure as grand master of the first incarnation of the Orange Order secret society (1828 to 1836). Supposedly the members of the Orange Order were trying to make Cumberland next in line for king instead of Victoria. Here's a contemporary 1835 article. A later 1886 article, and a "looking-back" article in 1901 published after the death of Queen Victoria. The latter paper summarizes it neatly. Note however that it's basically tabloid reporting, all of it are probably lies. The Duke was already quite unpopular as it is, even if he did succeed, they'd probably hang him anyway :P But then again, Queen Victoria did get a grand total of seven attempted assassinations, hehe. See also Cato Street Conspiracy, which was linked to the Duke by the 1901 paper. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 20:28, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Blennerhasset Fairman and Chetwoode Chetwoode? You have to love the names! Thanks for the links. 69.62.243.48 (talk) 22:18, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I did most of the writing on the article on Ernest, and his biographers were pretty unanimous that there was no plot, and it was most likely a Whig claim to make Ernest, a very conservative Tory member of the Lords, look bad.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:40, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Spanish Monarch visit Equatorial Guinea

When was the last time that Equatorial Guinea ever got a state visit from the Prime Minister of Spain and the Monarch of Spain? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.53.229.231 (talk) 18:30, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

According to this, the last visit by the king was 13-16 December 1979.--Cam (talk) 19:09, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

This page lists visits by a number of Spanish cabinet ministers over the years (most recently in 2009) but none by a prime minister. It is possible that no Spanish prime minister has visited the country.--Cam (talk) 00:01, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Where is Jason Russell now?

I have a hard time finding online what Jason Russell has been doing since March. Apparently an LRA operative deposited to San Diego managed to poison Russell (and called it a "voodoo" spell), causing him to have a public breakdown.

Then after he's been detained and sent to a mental hospital, don't you think since a lot of people are known to continue some form of their cause or another behind hospital walls, Jason would do that too?

But do we know what Jason is doing wherever he's being held, when he gets out, and what he plans to do as soon as he's out?

I wish somebody out here had an update about him. There's been nothing new on Jason since mid-March. --70.179.170.114 (talk) 19:46, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

There is no reputable basis for those bizarre claims. Looie496 (talk) 20:45, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

La Malinche

In the Wikipedia article "Triste Noche" it incorrectly says that La Malinche was the mistress of Pedro Alvarado. She was the mistress of Hernan Cortes, as stated in the Wikipedia article "La Malinche." I suspect that some of the other info in the same paragraph in "Triste Noche" may also be incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.161.113.220 (talk) 20:18, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

You can fix that by clicking on Edit, which is next to the title of the appropriate section, modifying the text and hitting Save. --Immerhin (talk) 20:45, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

The sentence at issue (in La Noche Triste) is probably this: The few women who survived included María Estrada, Cortes' mistress and the only Spanish woman in the party, La Malinche the interpreter, Alvarado's mistress, and two of Moctezuma's daughters under Cortés' care. I read it as counting five women: Maria Estrada (one), La Malinche (two), Alvarado's mistress (three), and the two daughters. Needs clarifying either way. —Tamfang (talk) 08:55, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

why couldn't a stock trade at 2x its price at every point in history and be in exactly the same position today?

Say that a stock averages 10-15 multiples (price per earnings). Some yeasrs sentiment is lower, it dips toward 10, maybe as low as 7, 8, some years it's higher, maybe it goes up to 17, maybe up to 19. But, there you have it. It makes profit, it does its thing long-term, it grows, for thirty/forty/whatever many years right on through today. it doesn't pay dividends.

Now let's rewrite the story so that everything - every dollar - going through the company happens exactly the same. but it has a better name and is located in silicon valley, or whatever actually we don't need a reason as this is hypothetical, so we just define the story as such - and for whatever reason the story is the same except it averages trading between 20 and 30 multiples. Some years sentiment is a little lower, it dips toward trading at 20 or maybe as low as 16, 15, or 12 times revenue, som years it's higher, maybe it goes up to 34, maybe up to 38. But, there you have it. It makes profit, it does its thing long-term, it grows, for thirty/forty/whatever many years right up through today. it doesn't pay dividends.

is there any material difference between these two stories? or anything that makes my telling of it unlikely. (i.e. that they're "just the same" and dollar for dollar and dip for dip both the hypothetical companies and the stock price behaves in every single way exactly alike.) 84.3.160.86 (talk) 20:22, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

There are two things that determine the actual value of a company: (1) the ability to pay dividends, either now or in the future; (2) the ability to sell the company as a whole, for cash which is distributed to the shareholders. If the company will never pay dividends, its value comes entirely from its potential to be acquired. In at least one of two situations you mention, the perceived value of the company would not match its actual value. Looie496 (talk) 20:36, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

But this is what I'm talking about. Obviously 7x earnings and 14x earnings is a difference in magnitude - NOT kind. They behave EXACTLY the same. Let me give you an example. Let's say that Apple, since its founding, has the exact stock-price story it has until now. Except the stock price at any point is exactly 2/3rds of what it is in our world. In this hypothetical world, then, it is now trading at 400 or so instead of 600 or so, and is now at a market capitalization of 381billion or so. It's still competitive for being the world's biggest company. It's still largely speculative. But, there you have it. At every point it is 1/3rd lower than in our reality.

Fundamentally, isn't the behavior of the stock price exactly the same in this alternate reality! Same peaks; same troughs; everything is the same except the magnitude is slightly different. So, what makes it any different? Obviously for tech companies, in your list of 1 and 2, people put value in 2 over 1. 84.3.160.86 (talk) 23:10, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

If the stock price were a third lower, but the business was the same and had the same dividend potential (a dividend paid on selling the company is just another kind of dividend), then it would be a really good deal so everyone would buy it and that would push the price up to the level it really is. --Tango (talk) 23:34, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

The sentiment is precisely the only thing that I am modifying between the two examples - perhaps the company is slightly less sexy or in an industry perceived to grow more slowly as compared with e.g. silicon valley companies. But this perception is a constant factor - the company performs exactly the same but simply has a smaller hype attached to it. So, it's not the the one company is a "steal" because of it's growth-potential while another is a "sloth" (or other slow-moving animal) that isn't going anywhere. Rather, the companies are doing the same thing and doing as well, but at any given point in time, one has a CONSISTENTLY less rosy outlook than the other in the eyes of SENTIMENT only. So, that is what I am changing between these two hypothetical examples, it's my "independent" variable. Are there any dependent variables? Does anything else happen? DO the two stories diverge in any way at any point for any reason? 84.3.160.86 (talk) 00:47, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Let me try again. The price of a stock is not simply determined by sentiment, it is determined by the amount of profit the company makes. If sentiment drives the value of a stock down too far in relation to the profit it makes, then a private firm such as Bain Capital will buy up all the stock so that they can take all the profit. Sentiment only comes into play because future profit matters as well as current profit, and sentiment affects the predictions that people make about future profit. Looie496 (talk) 01:49, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for this, but wouldn't Bain capital's valuation also be a question of sentiment? Bain has no special information here. The idea is that, on some inrinsic level, whether you're at 10x multiple or 20x multiple for 30 years doesn't really change anything does it? The former doesn't make you undervalued, the latter doesn't make you overvalued. It depends on future performance, which is unknown. 84.3.160.86 (talk) 07:39, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Future performance is unknown, but not completely unpredictable. Investors (including firms like Bain) base their predictions of future performance on facts (past performance, trends within the firm, industry and general economy, the firms plans, etc.). If the facts are the same in your two scenarios, then their predictions will be the same. --Tango (talk) 22:42, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

• cough There are other considerations, such as possession or control of strategic industries that ensure capitalism as a whole continues. A kind of "loss leader" if you will, or a kind of collective voluntary taxation amongst capitalists, dependent upon an awareness of the long term costs of maintaining imperialism. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:59, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Do you have to be a native born citizen of France to be president?

Do you have to be a native-born citizen of [[citFrance to be (or run for) president there, as you do in the US? I know Jean-Luc Mélenchon ran for president this year even though he was born in the international zone of Tangier, but that might be a special case because it was an international zone.  Liam987(talk) 20:34, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Our article, Requirements for becoming a president, says that The required personal qualifications for a candidate for the presidential elections are the same as those for any other official election, as set forth in the French Electoral code (Code électoral). A candidate for an election must be a citizen, have attained the age of 18 years, be qualified to vote, not be ineligible by dint of a criminal conviction or judicial decision and have a bank account.

Frustratingly the particular clause which lays this down isn't specified, and I've seen another website which says that the age limit is 23. But both sites agree that you just need to be a citizen of France, and not 'natural-born', which, as we know, can be a troublesome term.

Here is a link to the Code électoral if you want to check it out for yourself. You will need to be able to read French, though. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 20:50, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Seems odd that a bank account is required. What's up with that ? StuRat (talk) 20:54, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, they're unlikely to get away with paying him/her cash in hand. - Karenjc 21:01, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Just cut them a check, it's up to them to figure out how to cash it. StuRat (talk) 22:30, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Requiring a bank account is an easy way to make sure someone has gone through some basic identity checks. I don't know the exact wording (I don't speak French) but it might also be such that you would have had to pass a basic credit check (does it specify the type of bank account?). --Tango (talk) 00:04, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

If the people want to elect someone whose identity cannot be confirmed and who has no credit history then isn't that just democracy? 203.27.72.5 (talk) 02:02, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

If the people want to elect someone who's 3 years old, or a recidivist pedophile, or has lived their entire life in Kazakhstan and knows no French, then isn't that just democracy? -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 03:19, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 03:28, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

How about this for a strange idea: The current laws are in place because the people, through their representatives, have given their approval to them. We know this because there are no campaigns to change the law to permit people whose ID cannot be confirmed to become eligible for election as President. The rules are what the people actually want. I call this democracy. What do you call it? -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 03:43, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Even if they want to elect someone convicted for smoking crack cocaine with his mistress ? You'd think this would be considered immoral behavior for anyone other than a televangelist, but apparently not. StuRat (talk) 03:43, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

About the required bank account. It is a bank account dedicated to his/her political campaign. Campaign costs are limited by law and part of them is reimbursed by the French Republic, if she/he has more than 5% of the votes. (See, in French here) — AldoSyrt (talk) 09:27, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

August 1

Why Did the U.S. Make it Much Harder for Soviet Jews to Move Here in 1990?

Was it due to Israeli pressure, or was Israeli pressure a secondary factor, with the main factor being a viewpoint that since the U.S.S.R. is no longer than same country that it once was, there's no need to unconditionally accept Soviet refugees? Futurist110 (talk) 00:17, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't have a clue what you're talking about here in regards to limiting immigration, Israeli pressure, etc - claims like these really need refs so others can understand. And generally, if you have a ref that discusses this, then it should be able to answer your question, which makes editors think that you can't back this statement up and not to take it for 100%.

Also, the questions you posed here may be more suited towards another forum. I don't know how many editors will be able to answer questions like these or some of the others you gave.

(just trying to help out, not trying to be harsh) --Activism1234 01:07, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Here's an article explaining what I'm talking about--Aliyah#Aliyah_from_the_Soviet_Union_and_post-Soviet_states. Futurist110 (talk) 01:28, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Right. And now where did you get it that the U.S. made it harder? --Activism1234 01:30, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:DbK0BEeWmO4J:yivoinstitute.org/downloads/america.pdf+u.s.+limit+jewish+immgration+1990&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEEShVohkZ-oTJYx17sOse0EDGjsSNXvLrkDMOcRGlQaxBrZWcp0PDe9787ktGh5w2ZWrMy1DCFL3ITuRPpyySH18sY4Gd_ZkEwM01NbU1MVimZPSV3b3Owu-uEx8HyZYiA1kClVQ8&sig=AHIEtbR0hMC6ul6r_FOtxTB3Og2tJSh_5w

Page 12 here. I'm wondering if there are other articles talking about the causes in more detail, though. Futurist110 (talk) 01:36, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. The article mentions two factors.

1. "given U.S. commitments to provide a haven to various other groups, many of which lacked the substantial remedies and resources available to Russia’s Jews." Very tough to absorb all of these different groups, overwhelming numbers.
2. The wave of immigration would be much much larger than before, which makes it tougher to handle, and also complete assimilation levels were high for those who came to America and they may have wanted to avoid that. The population #s wouldn't impact America's population percentage too much, but it certainly would boost Israel's (and the original goal anyway was to immigrate to Israel, not America). --Activism1234 01:45, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that explanation but I was wondering how large of a role the Israel lobby played in this decision. After all, the U.S. allows 1 million or so people to immigrate here each year right now, so a million Soviet Jews wouldn't have really been too much for us to handle. Futurist110 (talk) 02:01, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Young Philsophers

Except from child prodigies who are some philosophers who started becoming philosophers at their 20's or in other words at at their teenage years? I am greatly curious for it is often seen that Philosophers are those aged 40 and up and sometimes older. There are some yet not often discussed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.194.241.178 (talk) 01:03, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Come on. This reached absurdity several posts ago, and now it's way beyond. I hereby give notice that I am going to remove any further posts along this line. Looie496 (talk) 01:35, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I suggest the OP finds an internet forum that deals with philosophy via a google search so he can ask his questions there. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 01:58, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Better the OP should listen to the OLD philosopher. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:03, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

OP's question is not ridiculous though. The usual historical example of a prodigy, a young philosopher is Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph Schelling. Today (rather, some decades ago) we have Saul Kripke. And from Zeno of Elea we see that Plato's Parmenides takes place when at a time when Parmenides is "about 65," Zeno is "nearly 40" and Socrates is "a very young man". So both Zeno & even more Socrates are examples of young philosophers.John Z (talk) 07:47, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Bertrand Russell published The Principles of Mathematics when he was 31. Ludwig Wittgenstein's Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus was completed before he was 30 and published when he was 32. These are among the most important works of 20th-century philosophy. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:11, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Friedrich Nietzsche: "In 1869, at the age of 24 he was appointed to the Chair of Classical Philology at the University of Basel...", and he had already published numerous philosophical works. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:41, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

David Hume published A Treatise of Human Nature before he turned 30. --Xuxl (talk) 10:32, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Calvin and Hobbes are young philosophers. StuRat (talk) 09:43, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Eric Hoffer , the self-proclaimed "longshoreman philosopher" is an example of a famous self-taught "philosopher" who read a lot, thought a lot, and then wrote a lot, without any degree in "philosophy." (I'm reminded of the joke of the boy who cheated on a philosophy exam by gazing into the soul of the boy sitting next to him). Edison (talk) 02:06, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Saul Kripke was a famously precocious philosopher (his first publication was at age 17, according to his WP biography). Harvey Friedman was assistant professor of philosophy at Stanford at age 18 though I think most people consider him a mathematician rather than a philosopher (he has also apparently been a professor of music). If you mean e.g. social philosophers, Pekka Himanen was pretty young when his first book came out. 67.117.146.199 (talk) 05:46, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Mandatory gun ownership

Is/was there a local law in one of the southern states that each household had to have at least one firearm? I had thought it was in Texas, but I am doubting that now. See Gun laws in the United States (by state). It may not be listed in state law as I think it was a county by-law.--Canoe1967 (talk) 04:54, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I thought Switzerland had such a law, at some point, so they could raise a militia if attacked, since they lack a large standing army. StuRat (talk) 05:00, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

In Switzerland, all males who are fit for service are required to complete basic training and keep and maintain a military issue rifle and a certain amount of ammunition in sealed packets in their home. See Gun politics in Switzerland. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 05:40, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Kennesaw,_Georgia#Gun_law

Resolved

--Canoe1967 (talk) 05:25, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

It's not a state or even a county, it's the town of Kennesaw, Georgia -- see the Gun law section of the article. Looie496 (talk) 05:34, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

How is that constitutional? --108.206.7.65 (talk) 06:23, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Because there's no right not to bear arms in the Constitution. They do have a clause exempting objectors, otherwise Quakers could argue it violates their religion. StuRat (talk) 06:27, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

It's basically a nonlaw. It says you must have a gun unless you don't want to. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 07:48, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Depending on what is required to become an objector. The draft had an exclusion for objectors, but you had to prove that you had a religious or moral objection. StuRat (talk) 07:56, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, there is Amendment IX: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. Neutrality^talk 04:35, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

This article, [2], points out that Greenleaf, Idaho recently passed a similar law, based on the one in Kennesaw. It also points out that the law in Kennesaw has never actually been enforced, that about 80% of the people there already owned guns, and that the law probably did not result in much of a change in gun ownership there. Also, apparently Kennesaw passed its law as a kind of protest about Morton Grove, Illinois passing a ban on handguns. Make of that what you will. Pfly (talk) 09:57, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, those kinds of laws are passed strictly as political statements. If you compel someone to buy a gun, or any other object for that matter, you're basically imposing a tax. And the catch-22 with a law like this is that for proper enforcement you would have to provide written proof that you own a gun - in short, you would have to register the gun, which is something pro-gun people oppose. So it's nothing more than grandstanding. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:29, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

That's a very sweeping statement - people that support the ownership of guns by the public have a wide range of opinions on exactly how it should work. I'm sure plenty are in favour of registration. --Tango (talk)

Good luck finding any. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:24, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

In colonial times there were many such laws as well. With mandatory militia training usually on Sundays when everyone came into town for church.[3] Rmhermen (talk) 12:45, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

The English "Assize of arms" of 1181 required every "able bodied freeman" to provide himself with a weapon and to report for training periodically. The English were required by a law of "Hue and cry" in 1285 to have a weapon and to pursue criminals. A wealthy landowner might be required to have a horse, armor and knightly weapons. A poor man was expected to have a knife or club. All were required to take up the chase through town and country, from county to county until a malefactor was captured, or pay a penalty. Rewards for catching a felon were established. Men in town could be compelled to be night watchmen. Men in colonial America were required to be part of the militia, and to muster with a serviceable firearm, to defend against insurrection (how did that work out?), or attack by brigands, native Americans, or foreign powers. This specific law was apparently repealed under George IV, but this was long after US independence. Thus it seems consistent with the British legal heritage of the American colonies that there could be a law requiring citizens to own weapons, especially with exceptions for religious reasons, if the Constitution or state or federal laws did not forbid such a requirement. Edison (talk) 01:34, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

The history of colonial militias in America, the right or even requirement to have a firearm, and the right to serve in the militia, was not always a simple thing. A key term mentioned above is "freemen"—in colonial America a great many people were not free. In early colonial Virginia, for example. In 1620 Virginia had a "universal militia"—all men were subject to being mustered, indentured servants, white and black men alike (slavery did not really replace indentured servitude until a bit later). Masters of indentured servants were required to arm their servants if they were called up in the militia (servants were generally too poor to own a gun). By the late 17th century the militia laws had changed so that only free white men could be called for militia duty. The gentry had come to mistrust the poorer servant classes, white and black alike. The gentry feared that the lower class might rebel (and there were servant rebellions and conspiracies to rebel in the 1660s) and did not want to see the servant class armed. The militia laws of the late 17th century required free white men to own firearms, for use in militia duty. The servant class was not usually, as far as I know, forbidden to own firearms, although most did not as they could not afford it. As this book puts it, [4], the gentry considered the servant class hard enough to control unarmed, "and that if they were armed and permitted to attend [militia] musters, they might be tempted to obtain their freedom by slaying their masters." In 1676 Bacon's Rebellion changed the situation radically. This rebellion was at least in part an uprising of poor folk, servants, and slaves against the gentry. Poor white indentured servants and black slaves joined together in an attempt to overthrow the ruling class ([5]). During the early stages of the conflict the gentry tried to impose gun control ([6]), which only enraged the common folk more. The rebellion failed, but in the aftermath, and after lengthy debate, the right to bear arms was extended to basically all white men, servant or not. After 1705 masters were required to give a musket to servants who had finished their term, as part of a "freedom due"—although servants were still not allowed to be mustered into the militia in, eg, Virginia, Delaware, and Pennsylvania, during the 18th century ([7]). Various historians have argued that Bacon's Rebellion was a kind of precursor to the American Revolution and that there is a very direct link with right to bear arms in the Bill of Rights. However, another aspect of the aftermath of Bacon's Rebellion was an extreme reduction in the rights of blacks, especially black slaves. Blacks were deprived of the right to bear arms, to vote, and so on. Before long slavery was made hereditary. In short by granting rights to poor and indentured whites and taking rights away from blacks, the gentry was able to drive a wedge between the two so they would not join together as they had in Bacon's Rebellion ([8]). After the American Revolution indentured servitude was eliminated, leaving all white men with the right to bear arms and be mustered into militias, but no such rights for black slaves or, for the most part, free blacks. Our article on Bacon's Rebellion is short and only touches on the complexity of it, which is too bad because it was a very significant event in early colonial America, but most people, most Americans have not even heard of it. There are interesting connections between Bacon's Rebellion and the English Civil War and the Glorious Revolution, both of which, if I understand right, involved issues of the right and/or requirement to bear arms and serve in militias. There are also links with the New Model Army. Pfly (talk) 08:27, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

French Polynesian royal stamps

Does anybody know when these stamps of the Pomare Kings and Queens of Tahiti, King Tamatoa V of Raiatea, and King Maputeoa of Mangareva created? Were they comtemporary or commerative? What postage stamps were used during the monarchy periods of these kingdoms?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 05:31, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

The first group of stamps you link to were issued in 1976 according to various collector sites (see here for example [9]). The other links you have bring me to generic "Colonies françaises" stamps which have no particular Polynesian design, so I,'m not sure I understand the question. As for the second question, this page [10] claims that postal service in Tahiti only began in 1859 under the French protectorate, and that before that it was a real hassle getting any mail to Tahiti... So, no stamps pre-dating the French period exist, and stamps from the protectorate period, beginning in 1862, were simply generic French colonial stamps locally overstamped with the word "Tahiti". --Xuxl (talk) 10:47, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I would consult the appropriate volume of Scott's Postage Stamp Catalogue (either 1 or 2) for further information. From my own knowledge of philately, I know most French colonies, well into the 20th century used somewhat generic designs, often with overprints or else with space for the printing of the name of the colony. This was probably to spare the time of the engravers in Paris.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:02, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Polynesian Pele

Are there other Polynesian counterparts of the Hawaiian goddess Pele? --KAVEBEAR (talk) 05:45, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

According to the Pocket Hawaiian-English Dictionary (ISBN 0-8248-0307-8), the basic meaning of the word pele is "lava flow, volcano, eruption". Did any non-Hawaiian Polynesian islands have active volcanos? -- AnonMoos (talk) 07:12, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Maoris are polynesian. There are active volcanoes in New Zealand. 101.172.42.144 (talk) 09:10, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

There is Rūaumoko but from the description of Pele in our article, I don't think he's really a perfect counterpart. See also [11] [12] [13] [14] Nil Einne (talk) 09:26, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

See list of volcanoes in Tonga and list of volcanoes in French Polynesia. 101.172.42.144 (talk) 09:49, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Plagiarism lawsuit

According to Deepak Chopra, he was sued by Robert Sapolsky for plagiarism. But according to Plagiarism, that term does not exist in a legal sense. The source actually talks about "a lawsuit over plagiarism". So, what happened here? Was he sued in a jurisdiction where they do recognise plagiarism as a legal term, or was this actually a copyright infringment suit, or was it something else entirely? 203.27.72.5 (talk) 07:58, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

The word plagiarism may have been thrown around, but the official claim was copyright infringement, as you suspected. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:05, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 08:08, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I believe the difference is that it's perfectly legal to plagiarize whatever you want, as long as it's not copyrighted. StuRat (talk) 08:12, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

The article is now fixed with the ref you provided too. Thanks, again. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 08:15, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Whether it's still copyrighted or not, claiming someone else's work as your own could get you in trouble. For example, I can post a pre-1923 photograph here because it's "free", but I still have to indicate the source. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:25, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

do you mean in an "academic policy" / "wikipedia policy" / "public relations" sense, or do you mean legally? I'm puzzled what kind of legal trouble you are alluding to. 84.3.160.86 (talk) 13:08, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Certainly under academic policy. When Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg's Ph.D. dissertation was found to be full of plagiarism, the media in Germany kept implying the problem was simply that he hadn't acknowledged the sources of the information - that he hadn't "used enough footnotes". But in fact, that wouldn't have been enough. A dissertation is supposed to be a work of original research, and if all of the ideas in it are other peoples' ideas, it isn't an acceptable dissertation, no matter how diligently it cites it sources. It may not be a copyright violation putting you in legal trouble, but you'll certainly be denied the degree (if they find out ahead of time) or revoke the degree (if they find out afterwards, as happened to Guttenberg). Pais (talk) 14:40, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm amazed how the doctoral advisor didn't find it, since Guttenberg was even plagiarizing him. OsmanRF34 (talk) 17:19, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, the whole thing was a huge embarrassment for everyone involved, for lots of different reasons. Pais (talk) 17:21, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

But Baseball Bugs mentioned uploading a public-domain photo to Wikipedia pretending it's your own. So my example of "academic policy" was obviously a joke, as Wikipedia is not such an institution. where is the legal trouble here? 84.3.160.86 (talk) 16:10, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Bugs just said 'trouble', as in possible sanctions for knowingly plagiarising (see WP:Plagiarism for why that's a problem here). Mikenorton (talk) 17:54, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Here, for sure. In academia, very likely. Legally? I couldn't say. But I'm reminded of this line from a Tom Lehrer song: "Plagiarize! Let no one else's work evade your eyes! Remember why the good Lord made your eyes! So don't shade your eyes! Plagiarize! Plagiarize! Plagiarize! ... Only be sure to always call it, please... Research!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:19, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Resolved

Bugs might be thinking of Moral rights (copyright law) as well? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 20:14, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Olympia

Why weren't the First Olympic Games held at Olympia, the site of the original games? There is a modern town there. Has there been talk of that being a site for any future Olympic Games or can only cities bid for who host the games?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 12:14, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Athens in 2004 had the men's and women's shotput at the ancient stadium of Olympia. But even Athens had inadequate public facilities and infrastructure for whole modern games. 12:22, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I'd guess that in 1896, it was the cost of overcoming nature for the needs of a modern Olympics: "The area is hilly and mountainous; most of the area within Olympia is forested." says our article Olympia, Greece. By 2004, you could probably add ecological and archaeological concerns. --Dweller (talk) 13:51, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I've been to Olympia. It is the hell and gone in Greece. The town is rather small and mostly geared to the needs of tourists. I stayed at the Best Western, which is about two miles from town, mostly uphill. While the 1896 Olympics were not as large as those today, it would have been most impractical to hold it in Olympia. Today it would not be possible, s the necessary construction would damage protected sites, and the legacy situation would be far worse than in Athens.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:38, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

It is the hell and gone in Greece. - Wehwalt, I thought this expression might have been some play on Hellene/Hellenic, but that was off the mark. Then I discovered a movie of this name they were making in 2010 about the Great Chicago Fire, but that project seems to have gone cold. I finally tracked it down in Urban Dictionary. (So little learned, so much still to learn. And that's just my so-called own language!) -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 21:40, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

what is a "televised play"?

if you search for it you just get one wikipedia article about a 2000 remake of a sixties film - is it because they didn't have the rights to remake that film, so they decided for the 2000 version Oh No This is a "Televised Play"? Or does the term actually mean something? 84.3.160.86 (talk) 16:28, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

See Teleplay; a one-off drama not produced for the stage or cinema, and which therefore needed a new name. In the early days of television they were very much "plays", telecast live and not recorded, but the term survived for a while even after they became more like the Made for TV movies which succeeded them. Fail Safe, which is the article you're referring to, was a deliberate attempt to recreate the atmosphere of a 1950s TV play by using the same techniques they used in the 1950s; it was shot in black and white, in a single take, and originally broadcast live. FiggyBee (talk) 16:44, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

The original TV version of Casino Royale was one, as was the BBC version of 1984. 1950s TV viewers were very familiar with them... AnonMoos (talk) 18:34, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

how do I get in touch with a good opera critic as opposed to a voice coach

I don't believe in modern voice coaches, because they do not produce opera singers capable of the singing that opera singers several decades earlier used to be capable of, and which I am trying to study. So I would like to find just a critic, someone with a good appreciation for classical opera, to give me feedback regarding my development. they wouldn't have a vestd interest in "teaching" someone even in the absence of techniques to do so. any ideas how I can do this? Also, I don't believe naive untrained singing is the best, obviously - so that I would not be above contacting a conservatory director. I just don't want a voice coach. --80.99.254.208 (talk) 18:48, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Let me get this straight. You are unhappy because the available teachers don't know enough about technique, so you are going to solve the problem by finding a teacher who doesn't know anything at all about technique? Looie496 (talk) 18:56, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry if I was unclear: I am seeking a critic rather than a teacher. This would be if, as a chef who thought he reinvented ancient techniques of court cooking that were lost with the revolutions, did not try to go to a culinary school or take part in chef's training: however, instead, he tried to find some good food critics and gourmands to "practice on." The unstated hypothesis is that if you can produce good results, it doesn't matter if you are "self-taught", and the second unstated hypothesis is that an opera critic (or the food critic) can judge whether the results are any good. Alternatively, I do believe I could contact persons at these schools who would be good critics (e.g. conductors, to name one) without them being voice teachers. What do you think is my best bet? I contacted someone from here at the refernece desk who showed good knowledge of opera, but he declined to critique my practice in operatic terms, citing the fact that he was not a voice teacher. This was disappointing to me, as I still would have valued his critical opinion. --80.99.254.208 (talk) 19:08, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

It won't work. It would be like trying to learn a language from a critic who can only tell you whether what you said was good or bad. The problem is that there are far more ways of doing something wrong than of doing it right, so merely knowing that you got it wrong is not informative enough. You need positive instruction on technique for teaching to have any value. Looie496 (talk) 21:16, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually this is a perfect analogy. I don't learn languages from "language teachers" but from the living language: and my standard is, in fact, the "native speaker", who can in fact tell "whether what you said was good or bad." So whilst learning following my own curriculum, which includes authentic culture, film, books, a few grammar books but for the most part organic learning, the end result is, in fact, judged by whether I can hold conversations and and write perfectly: as jusdged by educated native speakers. This actually beats the hell out of a "language teacher", as evidenced by the fact that I've learned German, French, ad Italian to a very high level, passing the countries' own exams for foreigners, in these languages. --80.99.254.208 (talk) 07:58, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Allow me to out myself as the person you contacted privately. Let me put it this way. If you played me a song or aria sung by Dietrich Fischer-Dieskau, and then exactly the same piece sung by almost anyone else, and asked me to say which was the better singing, chances are I’d say the other guy. Now, that may surprise you, but we all have our likes and dislikes, our biases and our prejudices. A professional teacher would be able to point out exactly what Fischer-Dieskau did that made him the darling of the critics and the record-buying public for over 60 years, and what an aspiring singer could usefully copy from his technique. Me, I was never convinced about his voice, and probably never will be. To me, it has always sounded forced and amateurish. If his career had been in my hands as a critic, it would never have got off the ground and nobody would ever have heard of him. I would say the same thing about Andrea Bocelli. Some say Maria Callas was a goddess incarnate, others say she shrieked like a cat in heat. Who was right? To me, she was both: at her best, unmatchable; but at her worst, almost intolerable. One would have had to hear her on a number of occasions to get a true perspective on her abilities. You owe it to yourself to not let your singing future be controlled by the opinions of people who might get to hear you only once and whose only known asset is their opinions – and most particularly not anonymous people on the internet, about whose training or personal circumstances you know nothing. I also don't understand your reluctance to be involved with a teacher. If you wanted to learn to ski, to fly a plane, to do nuclear physics or perform brain surgery, you'd get a teacher. Your voice is just as precious as any of those things, and deserves to be trained in a way that has the support of centuries of tradition. All good singers have natural gifts; a teacher can do little with someone who doesn't have a good god-given foundation. But all naturally good singers who ever amounted to anything had good teachers to help them turn their rough nuggets into gleaming diamonds. No critic can ever do that. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 22:22, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Jack, you go to extreme lengths here. I would say 87-93% of what you've written is hedging to reduce the weight of your opinion. Nevertheless, the opinion does seem to shine through, though I could be misinterpreting. Were you able to listen to my practice? If so, this is the "before" of conservatory practice (in that it is, obviously, not a product). Like all self-motivated programs, tracking progress - and making it - is extremely important. So, if you will confirm that the above is written after having, in fact, heard the practice, I will be very grateful. This does not mean I will NOT follow your advice. Incidentally I'm particulary glad you mentioned both of your examples (Andrea Bocelli, Callas). The former is explicitly an example of the fact that the tradition has died out: he can't sing. --80.99.254.208 (talk) 08:20, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

No, your link was inaccessible, but my position does not rely on having heard your voice. Maybe I know a little more than your average Joe about singing and opera and all that jazz, but that doesn't make me any more suitable as a mentor than an experienced and qualified voice teacher. If you're embarking on a major road trip, you have your car checked out by a qualified and licenced auto mechanic, not by some anonymous stranger who appears to know a few odd facts about cars. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 08:44, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

But when you told me that, I included it as an attachment by email instead! Didn't you get it? again, it's just a bit of practice though. just sent it again. --80.99.254.208 (talk) 10:33, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Secondly this "Maybe I know a little more than your average Joe about singing and opera and all that jazz" sounds fine to me! You don't have to mentor me, just an opinion is fine. --80.99.254.208 (talk) 10:33, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

It's not hard to get in touch with an opera critic: try writing to one. You don't say where in the world you are, but you could check quality newspapers near you to see if they have an opera critic, and contact them. For example, Anthony Tommasini writes regularly about opera for the New York Times, and you can email him from this page. Rupert Christiansen is the (London) Daily Telegraph's opera critic[15] and the paper's contact information is here. I've no idea how they will respond to your request. --Colapeninsula (talk) 22:07, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Trying to read between the lines, I am wondering if the OP is saying that he does not want a voice coach to train him to sing like somebody else that the couch admires but to assist him to develop his own style. After all, opera was not invented by the teachers but by the countless individual singers that did it -their way – and the voice coaches learnt from 'them'. The difference is: that some will lead but others will follow. The OP -I think- is saying that he doesn’t want to follow but to lead and originate, and so lift opera to still a higher level. Yet, he recognises he needs someone as a sounding-board whom can advise him as to what works and what does not.--Aspro (talk) 22:49, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

*Grammar police sirens* That ought to be "who can advise him". I'll let you off this time with a warning :P 203.27.72.5 (talk) 23:54, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, that last part sounds quite egotistical almost to the point of megalomania. I would prefer not to ever say anything like that, and instead simply go through a circuitous route that does not include the traditional training, except as an afterthought once I am done with the bulk of preparation by myself. (As, in the analogy, as an afterthought of course I do read a traditional grammar textbook on a language to see if there is anything I missed organically: since, I'm not a child in an environment in that language, don't have parents correcting me, nor teachers for at least 12 years of primary and secondary school, nor 8 hours a day of media and culture. So, yeah, I do need to finish with a traditional language learning / voice learning program. But that is not the source of my development.) --80.99.254.208 (talk) 08:20, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

It sounds to me that you'd be as well getting hold of something sung by Mario Lanza (or his hero, Enrico Caruso but that's harder to come by) and a tape recorder: sing an aria yourself and tape it, then listen to Lanza's version and see if you can work out what the differences are. By the way, Andrea Bocelli isn't an operatic tenor, in the same way that Jose Carreras isn't an operatic tenor. I wonder if you're comparing apples with pears here: there are popular tenors like Bocelli, and there are operatic tenors like Pavarotti. Maybe you need to immerse yourself in recordings by the greats and see if you can emulate them? All a "critic" will do is tell you where you're going wrong, which can be soul-destroying. --TammyMoet (talk) 09:18, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Do you sing? Can I hear you somewhere? (I can contact you by email via your talk page if necessary for privacy.) --80.99.254.208 (talk) 10:33, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

(just picked myself up after ROFL!) Yes I sing but the only place you'll hear me is in my lounge! I was trained as an opera singer, as was my grandmother, but after passing my music A level many years ago I haven't sung in public since. --TammyMoet (talk) 11:03, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, I don't know if I'll be in your lounge anytime soon, so I guess I will miss out for now. Regarding my original question, do you have a critical apprecition for old-style opera music? If so I may just contact you for an opinion. --80.99.254.208 (talk) 12:10, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

A lot depends on what you call "old-style". I know what I like, and my tastes include Bocelli and Carreras as well as Tito Gobbi, Caruso and Elizabeth Schwarzkopf. I don't think I could advise you without knowing your definitions. --TammyMoet (talk) 15:05, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Tammy, every last note ever recorded by Caruso was released on digitally remastered CD (many CDs) some years ago. It's all very available. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 20:26, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I hope you (OP) are aware that if you succeed in learning to sing the way opera singers did several decades ago rather than the way they sing nowadays, you will never get a job as an opera singer. The reason singers sing the way they do nowadays is that it's what's currently fashionable. If you go to auditions sounding like an opera singer from the 1940s or '50s, the people in charge of hiring singers will, at best, smile politely and thank you for your time, and you'll never hear from them again. On the other hand, if your goal is just to sing as an amateur, for the sheer joy of it, that's great. Pais (talk) 16:02, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, my goal is just to be better. I think good singing on some level speaks for itself and transcends fashions. --80.99.254.208 (talk) 19:32, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I've now listened to your sample and I am more than ever convinced you must go to a voice coach/teacher. I've sent you an email with my detailed feedback. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 01:45, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Bad Fiction

What is the Title of the book written by multiple popular authors in the 1960s or 70s as an example of bad fiction that became a bestseller? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.1.143.59 (talk) 20:48, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Atlanta Nights was written in 2004 but otherwise fits the description. Not sure about a 60s/70s-era novel, but I'll look into it. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:56, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I think you're referring to Naked Came the Stranger. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:02, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

"As long as there are slaughter houses there will always be battlefields"

Hello, where did this Leo Tolstoy quote come from? At least it is considered a Tolstoy quote, but i can't find it in his complete works. Is this from an article? I know that he visited a slaughter house in 1892 (or 1893?) and it's likely that he said this sentence, but i can't find it. --KaterBegemot (talk) 23:43, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

We had a similar question in 2011, see archived question, with some possibilities, but no exactly congruent quote could be found. ---Sluzzelin talk 00:01, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Hitler was a vegetarian, but that didn't stop him. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:15, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually it's not clear that he was a (total) vegetarian. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 10:26, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually my intention was not to start an ethical discussion but to find the quote's source. Thanks anyway Sluzzelin! Maybe he said this in the 1893 article "Count Tolsoi on the Slaughter-House". It's listed on the IVU website but is unfortunately not available. --KaterBegemot (talk) 12:50, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

August 2

Olympic Tie

What is the procedure for determining a winner in an Olympic tie? In regards to this, I had two "Olympic ties" in mind:

1. A tie for selecting the host city of a future Olympics (ex. instead of having Sydney win 45-43 over Beijing for the 2000 Olympics, the vote ends up 44-44). 2. A tie in an Olympic competition (ex. instead of having Michael Phelps beat Milorad Cavic by 1/100th of a second in 2008, have their swimming times be exactly even (50:58 vs. 50:58).

Thank you very much. Futurist110 (talk) 01:22, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

For the second example, both contestants usually receive the medal in these cases. In swimming, for instance, this happened during Swimming at the 2000 Summer Olympics – Men's 50 metre freestyle where Anthony Ervin and Gary Hall, Jr. both swam the distance in 21.98 seconds and tied for gold (while the person with the second best time, Pieter van den Hoogenband in 22.03 seconds, consequently only received bronze, instead of silver. Silver wasn't awarded for this discipline at all that year). ---Sluzzelin talk 01:48, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much. What about a tie for determining the host city of a future Olympics? Futurist110 (talk) 02:41, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I couldn't find any clause for this event (see "Host City Election - Fact and Figures", for example, "If only two cities remain in contention, the one that obtains the greatest number of votes is declared elected"). Maybe they just keep voting until someone switches or abstains. So far it doesn't seem to have happened (see "Past Olympic Host Cities Election Results"). ---Sluzzelin talk 03:56, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

A quote from the IOC's 2018 Host City Factsheet reads that "if after the first round of voting, no city obtains the absolute majority of the votes cast, as many rounds are held as necessary for a city to obtain such majority." So if two cities remain in contention, and they still end up in a tie, I'd assume the IOC members would still keep on voting. Zzyzx11 (talk) 03:59, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

If the tie comes in a swimming heat and requires breaking to determine which swimmer qualifies for the next round (e.g. if there's a tie between 8th and 9th place and 8 places in the semi-final available) there will be a swim-off - the tied swimmers swim again with the fastest taking the qualifying place. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 06:21, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

What if there's a swim-off tie? Another swim-off? Futurist110 (talk) 07:18, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, they keep swimming until one drowns out of sheer exhaustion... --Xuxl (talk) 08:24, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

And in the synchronised swimming, if one has a heart attack and dies in the pool, all the others have to follow suit. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 08:32, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Or swimsuit. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:14, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

The Phelps analogy applies to swimming, but there is an entirely different way of deciding ties in other events. Just one example, fencing plays off for bronze. Gymnastics throws out the lowest score of each gymnast then re-calculates. 69.62.243.48 (talk) 22:53, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't really understand what you mean by your fencing example. Do you mean that in fencing, as in many other sports at the olympics and elsewhere (e.g. most world cups), they let the losing semifinalists compete to determine who get's the bronze medal rather then awarding two)? I guess you're correct this is nominally a form of tiebreak (of course so is the gold medal match), which some sports also use for high places usually when it's important for other reasons. (Note some sports which do normally award two bronze medal system use a repechage system to determine which 2, effectively a more complicated way of 'tiebreaking' for the bronze medal. The form of repechage used, usually where anyone who lost to a gold medal match competitor has a chance to compete for the bronze under the assumption one of them must be 2nd or 3rd best, but by nature that means it can only begin once it's determined who will be in the gold medal match. Therefore I think it's considered it will take too long particularly if you want to be fair to the atheletes i.e. give them time to recuperate, to get the last two to compete for the bronze.)

However it doesn't sound like what the OP is referring to since they seem to be referring to tiebreakers required when there is an unexpected tie during normal competition (i.e. it shouldn't always and arguably usually be required). The bronze medal playoff is a normal part of play which is always required baring some unusual occurence like a disqualification or injury leading to a walkover. The tiebreaker used in fencing (or is it only epee?), as perhaps made famous by one of the female epee semifinals, is a form of sudden death but with random preference. One fencer is randomly assigned preference and if they can survive one minute without getting a (sole) point scored against them, they win. The other fencer has to score a sole point before the end of the minute. Sudden death with extra time is fairly common in sports with two team or inviduals competing for points, although usually without preference. Some other sports like badminton where a winning margin of 2 points is normally required eventually allow a one point margin, effectively a sudden death (at least when you can score without service). Boxing goes to countbacks if the boxers are on equal points, then if that still leaves it unresolved the 5 judges push a button for who they think won the match. Archery have a one arrow shootoff where the closest arrow wins.

Nil Einne (talk) 16:22, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

What are the Closest Olympic Race Wins Ever?

Besides Michael Phelps's 1/100th second win over Milorad Cavic in 2008? Futurist110 (talk) 01:33, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I gave one example for your question immediately above this one, where the difference was 0, as close as it gets at the Olympics. There might well be other examples, but a quick search only revealed athletes who tied for gold in gymnastics and pole vault. ---Sluzzelin talk 02:03, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

When did the ties for gymnastics and pole vault occur and who were the competitors? Futurist110 (talk) 02:29, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

• Gymnastics at the 1984 Summer Olympics – Women's balance beam (athletes: Simona Păucă and Ecaterina Szabo)
• Athletics at the 1908 Summer Olympics – Men's pole vault (athletes: Edward Cook and Alfred Carlton Gilbert).
• There's an example of a tiebreaker in gymnastics too though: Gymnastics at the 2008 Summer Olympics – Women's uneven bars which was won by He Kexin who had originally finished with the same score as Nastia Liukin (the article explains the tiebreaker procedure). ---Sluzzelin talk 02:49, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your help. :) Futurist110 (talk) 02:50, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Sometimes, when the same time is recorded for two or more competitors, a photo finish decides the race. Examples include the men's 100 metres in 1948 (the first time it was used in Olympic history), women's road race cycling in 2000 (where it was used for the top three), Men's cross-country sprint in 2010 (Both Alexander Panzhinskiy and Nikita Kriukov were clocked at 3:36.3, but Kriukov won the photo finish). Gail Devers won gold at the 100 metres event in 1992 thanks to a photo finish analysis, though her time is also given as 1/100th of a second faster than Juliet Cuthbert's. I'm sure there are more examples. ---Sluzzelin talk 05:55, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

As I understand it, the equipment at Olympic standard swimming pools is actually capable of recording margins as small as 1/1000 of a second (which makes a draw pretty unlikely), but official results never show a margin less than 1/100 of a second. This presumably means that actual results are rounded out to the 1/100 figures that give the required official result. HiLo48 (talk) 00:30, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Tonight was the men's 50 meter freestyle semifinals. During the broadcast, they recapped the 2000 results when there was a dead heat for the finish: Two golds and a bronze were awarded. So, as recently as 12 years ago there was a swimming tie, which would be a closer finish than anything else mentioned. --Jayron32 03:17, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Jesus in Roman records.

I believe the Romans were good record keepers. I am wondering if there is any written records that make any reference to Jesus Christ while he was living? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.58.13.82 (talk) 01:35, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

You might be interested in Historicity of Jesus. But the answer appears to be no, at least so far as surviving records go. Scholars have intensively searched for any such records since the 18th century, but nothing was found from Jesus' lifetime. Roman historians have mentioned Jesus, but only after the New Testament was written. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:45, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah basically if there even were any records from Jesus's lifetime they were either destroyed or not found yet. Futurist110 (talk) 02:01, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Do you imagine that there is some shelf with thousands of scrolls of vital statistics and census records from Roman times, documenting the lives of all residents of the Empire, carefully preserved over the millenia, and viewable at some archive? Have you heard of the fires in Rome, and the sacks of Rome? If there is data on someone from ancient Rome, they were likely a high government official, with a few inscriptions or statues or monuments remaining, or later civilizations preserved the writings of a very few leaders, philosophers, etc,. Even the early Popes, or governors such as Pontius Pilate have few solid documents (not counting pious fabrications). The routine administrative records relating to the average Roman subject were burned or rotted or were eaten by bugs. An occasional scrap of parchment got accidentally preserved in a bog or something, but very few first century Roman subjects have anything resembling modern vital statistics records remaining. Edison (talk) 03:47, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Right, but to understand how that applies, the OP needs to know that Jesus was "nothing special" at the time. That is, there were many comparable religious profits prophets at the time (John the Baptist was one), and only in the centuries after the death of Jesus did he grow to his current status. StuRat (talk) 03:52, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Is that why they've had associations with banks ever since? -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 05:07, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

He was often observed at the banks of the Jordan. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:08, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

In the case of John the Baptist, Christianity and Islam have agreed to profit sharing. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:49, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

If I started a religion where nobody claims to know the will of God, would it qualify as a non-prophet organization ? :-) StuRat (talk) 10:14, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly. Even Christianity itself was an oral tradition until ~70AD, and earlier historians who wrote about "Jewish troubles" never referred to Jesus, even vaguely, although as mentioned the records from that period are sketchy at best. What I do find shocking is that the search for records didn't even start until 1700 years later. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:05, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Jesus wasn't "nothing special" to the Romans: at the very least, I'd expect they recorded his execution ("III Aprilis: two thieves and a rabble-rousing preacher were executed"). --Carnildo (talk) 02:34, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

See the comment below by AnonMoos. I challenge you to demonstrate that any official Roman records from 1st century Palestine have survived. There are none. - Lindert (talk) 10:49, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually, such low-level records are most often preserved in Egypt, by dryness (not wetness) -- but more often private contracts and letters than official government records. Extremely few internal governmental files or working documents have survived from the Roman empire, so the fact that none has survived mentioning Jesus means absolutely nothing... AnonMoos (talk) 04:55, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Execution scene

While channel flipping the other day I saw a scene in a movie where a guy was about to be executed, and the guards pulled down his pants, stuffed cotton balls into his anus, and changed him into a great big white diaper. Supposedly they do this to ease cleanup by minimizing the damage of him pooping himself when he is executed. Apart from being rather disturbed at the scene, it provoked some questions on actual practice. My question is 1) Do they really stuff cotton into the anuses of those about to be executed? 2)Do they really make them wear diapers? and 3) If they do both of these things, why bother with the cotton? It seems redundant because without the cotton, all that happens is that the convict messes their diaper during execution. Rabuve (talk) 01:37, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I might depend on the method of execution, but I don't think it's a normal part of preparing the condemned in most places and with most methods. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 02:27, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I question the accuracy of the OP's account. This does not square with any account I've read of executions. Maybe in some country they do that as an additional means of humiliation, like in some countries making the family pay for the bullets used to execute their family member, or demolishing the family home to punish the family of a killer. You should provide a better source for such an odd claim. They expect loss of bowel and badder control when a person is put to death, and someone gets to mop up. Edison (talk) 03:35, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not recounting an actual even I saw. As I said, it was a scene in a movie and I am asking whether or not they really do or did this kind of thing. Rabuve (talk) 06:28, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I remember that scene, it was from Ted Bundy (film). I am not sure if that actually happened, but I think the purpose of it in the movie was to show the total humiliation of Ted Bundy after all those scenes where he had been shown raping and killing women. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:24, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Adult diaper mentions "execution diapers" worn by some prisoners, although it's not very well sourced, and there's no indication whether it's compulsory in some jails, or what. Velma Barfield is recorded as wearing an adult diaper at her execution, for example. There was a Straight Dope forum thread on the same topic, where nobody could find any evidence of cotton plugs.[16] --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:48, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

What a coincidence! I just now finished watching a documentary on You Tube entitled "Death Row Women". One of the death row women interviewed was Lynda Lyon Block. She discusses this very same thing that the OP cites. Namely, that when she is to be executed (via electric chair, in the state of Alabama), the procedures call for cotton to be placed in the anus and for the criminal to be dressed in a diaper. The You Tube link is here: [17]. The part of the documentary where this topic is mentioned begins at about the 16:47 mark in the film. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:18, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

That seems really strange, surely cotton wouldn't do much to stop anything? Vespine (talk) 06:22, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

It might stop murders. It sounds like more of a deterent than the 2000 Volts anyways... 112.215.36.175 (talk) 09:23, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Maps of Past Congressional Districts?

Does anyone know where I can find high-resolution, colorful maps of past United States congressional districts?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Pagecgd112_ga.pdf&page=1

I know that the U.S. has a National Atlas, but I am unable to find colorful high resolution maps like the one above (except this is for current congressional districts) for past Congressional districts.

Thank you. Futurist110 (talk) 02:28, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Not online but if you have access to a big library you can find this:

The historical atlas of United States congressional districts 1789-1983

Kenneth C. Martis, author and editor
Ruth Anderson Rowles, cartographer and assistant editor.
Dewey: 912/.13287307345
Publication Details: New York : Free Press ; London : Collier Macmillan, c1982.
Identifier: ISBN 0029201500; BNB GB8316858

Physical Description: xiii,302p. : maps(some col.) ; 35x50cm.

It's a physically very large book as some of the maps have to be detailed. For Congressional districts after 1983, you may have to do with back editions of 'The Almanac of American Politics', or Congressional Quarterly's 'Politics in America'. Sam Blacketer (talk) 09:12, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. To be honest, I remember when the National Atlas had high-resolution congressional district maps of previous Congressional districts (those between 2005 and 2007, such as the two maps in my link below) five and six years ago.

http://www.iqrealestate.com/CongressionalMaps/TX2.gif

http://nationalatlas.gov/printable/images/preview/congdist/pagecgd109_GA2.gif

Is there any place where the U.S. federal govt. or someone else keeps high-resolution colorful copies of these maps today? Futurist110 (talk) 21:56, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

http://www.tlc.state.tx.us/redist/historical_congress.htm - I found some historical colorful CDs for Texas. Futurist110 (talk) 00:06, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Adult Diaper Statistics

I guess my last question got me thinking! In stores in the health aisle, there is usually quite an array of adult diapers being sold, and I've always wondered just how often they get used in the general public. 1) About how many people in the general public actually use these adult diaper products? 2)How frequently are adult diapers used in hospitals? 3)How frequently are adult diapers used in nursing homes? Rabuve (talk) 02:29, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

(1)The article on Fecal incontinence says that 2.2% of the general population has problems with feces leaking out (presumable babies are not included in the calculation), with a higher prevalence in older people, and in the female population. "Up to 35%" of the population over age 60 has Urinary incontinence, again with a much higher prevalence among women. Ah, the joys of growing old.(2)It is hard to find stats on "what % of hospital patients use adult diapers." Many folks in hospitals have a Foley catheter collecting urine, so are not urinary incontinent while in hospital, or are there for reasons which have nothing to do with incontinence. (3) There might be a higher percentage of nursing home patients in adult diapers than in the general population, since some folks there have severe senile dementia and various ailments making them incontinent. Also, it has been alleged that nursing home staff may put residents in diapers for the staff's convenience because so many residents are incontinent. Edison (talk) 03:21, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Also, some meds and diets cause incontinence of one form or another. Then there are people who only occasionally suffer from incontinence, when their condition flares up, or, in the case of the general public, when they get food poisoning, the flu, etc. StuRat (talk) 03:44, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Observation, and not medical advice: Generally healthy and competent adults I've known who urinate frequently due to prostate trouble or diabetes, or who have a bout of diarrhea generally have not suddenly started wearing diapers, but have just stayed close enough to a toilet to run to it when the need arose. I guess after a very few episodes of having to change clothing, sheets, etc after an accident, they or their caretaker/spouse/partner would likely make a run and get some adult diapers, along with making arrangements for them to see a doctor and get treatment or medication to restore control. Edison (talk) 03:55, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Heyy :D

heyy , does any1 have any facts on the New Zealander Sarah Walker (Bmx rider) For Ma projet :) ...Fanks any ways :d — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zobo:D (talk • contribs) 05:58, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Try this - Sarah Walker (BMX rider). Futurist110 (talk) 05:59, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Also, if you intend to get a decent grade from your teacher on this project, you may want to use a more appropriate register. Learning which social environments are appropriate to use which language is a useful skill, and will get you very far in the world. --Jayron32 16:41, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

What is the basis of considering somebody a political philosopher?

Given much information about the scope of political philosophy, what is then the encyclopedic basis of considering a person to be of the discipline of political philosophy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bazooka mortar (talk • contribs) 06:36, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Philosophy is not a regulated profession like doctor, lawyer, etc. If you get a BA in Philosophy or a PhD in Philosophy that does not make you a philosopher. Normally if you start getting published, people referring to your work, going to conferences, this might make you a philosopher. Alternatively, if you pronounce "I am an amateur philosopher" then you are one. --80.99.254.208 (talk) 09:37, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Being called a political philosopher, or any kind of philosopher, is like being called a hero or genius: the motives of the speaker probably come into it. For instance, if someone agrees with you they may call you a "brilliant political philosopher", if they disagree they may call you a "hack writer" instead. If you've written a book on something vaguely resembling political philosophy your publishers will probably call you a "political philosopher" if they want to get it reviewed in philosophical journals, included as a textbook on political philosophy courses, interviewed by serious newspapers, etc, but if they're trying to get you on Fox News they may call you something less ivory-tower. If you're teaching on a political philosophy course, they will claim that you're a political philosopher, not an aesthetician or economics lecturer, because who wants to take a course that's not taught by an expert? Gradually, with time, all these sources may begin to agree, and then you're a genuine political philosopher. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:47, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Philosophy is the study of the underlying structure of various aspects of human existance: scientific philosophy looks at the underlying structure of science (how it is organized, how people think in a scientific mindset, etc. etc.), and political philosophy looks at the underlying political structures that define how people are governed (the relationship between the governed and the government, the structure of the government, etc.) Any asshole can write (and with the internet "publish") a treatise on political thought, just as any asshole can disect a dead squirel and call themselves a biologist. It is general acceptance by the community at large as a political philosopher (exactly as it would be for a biologist or a plumber or a whatever) that determines what they should be called. So, people who have published works that are recognized as authoritative in the field of political philosophy are generally considered to be notable for being political philosophers, as opposed to just random assholes with crazy ideas. Jean-Jacques Rousseau was the former. Ted Kaczynski was the latter. --Jayron32 16:37, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

About accounting and :please tell me the relationship between the Audit risk and Materiality?

Hi，I am a college student majoring in accounting.Now I have a question about auditing. Please tell me the relationship between the Audit risk and Materiality? and it will be better if you can explain itLemonvivian (talk) ThxLemonvivian (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:22, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Will our articles Audit risk and Materiality (auditing) help? You can also try the first two links on this page. If that doesn't work, just post again saying what is the part that you don't understand. 184.147.118.54 (talk) 22:51, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Only normal profit in a perfectly competitive industry?

Why all firms earn only normal profit in a perfectly competitive industry? Thanks in advance--180.234.246.221 (talk) 17:22, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

There is no such term as "perfectly competitive industry". It is meaningless, just as "perfectly competitive sport" or "perfectly competitive school" would be. Looie496 (talk) 17:34, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Certainly, it's a theoretical construct, but then, so are ideal gases and perfect vacuums, they're still worth considering. Anyhow, this is a typical homework question, so I'm reluctant to give the full answer. Rather, I would urge the OP to consider incentives to enter and leave the market under different levels of profit. - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 18:14, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

We did discuss the topic recently, so it is possible the OP is trying to follow the previous thread, rather than doing homework. --Tango (talk) 19:02, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

There certainly is such a term. See perfect competition. --Tango (talk) 19:02, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

True, though as a term there are three orders of magnitude more Unicorns. http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=%22perfectly+competitive+industry%22&word2=unicorn --80.99.254.208 (talk) 07:03, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a point? --Tango (talk) 11:44, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah but the hat covers it —Tamfang (talk) 04:40, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Differences Between Colonialism and Imperialism?

The main difference that I can think of is that in colonialism there was a much greater transfer of the occupying country's population to the colonies, in contrast to imperialism, where (in most cases) very few of the occupying country's population moved to other parts of the empire. Are there any other differences? Thank you. Futurist110 (talk) 19:45, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

You could start with Colonialism vs Imperialism, Imperialism vs Colonialism and this randomly selected research paper. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 19:51, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

False dichotomy and incorrect use of terms. The currently preferred term in Academic literature to discuss the kind of imperialism that involved large scale ethnic movements with the intention of replicating the home society in the distant society is "settler societies." YMMV, but your terms are out of date with the current state of research, and poor at specifying the difference to be discussed. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:24, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Colonialism is more about establishing colonies for the mother country, while imperialism is more about exploiting a country's resources or people. --Activism1234 23:55, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Marriage in the United States

I've been looking for some supreme court cases that touch on the purposes of marriage. I remember somewhere reading that in an opinion once the court said that marriage is about relationships just as much as it is procreation, but I can't seem to find it. 1)Can someone direct me to the case I am thinking of? 2)Can anyone reccomend a good website for doing searches of supreme court opinions? Thanks. Rabuve (talk) 22:21, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Cornell University has a search engine for supreme court opinions. Plugging in "marriage" and "relationships" gave 60 results; about 10 of them are dissents. Still a big number to go through, but perhaps if you can come up with another keyword from what you remember you can narrow it down? 184.147.118.54 (talk) 22:57, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Traditionally in the U.S., defining and regulating marriage has been much more a matter for the individual states, rather than the federal government... AnonMoos (talk) 23:28, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

As I recall, there's nothing explicitly stated at all about marriage in the US Constitution. Marriage is a contract entered into under individual states' laws. Any Supreme Court cases would likely center on allegations of violation of the Equal Protection amendment, or something along those lines. That's not to say federal coercion doesn't come into play from time to time. For example, Utah had to disavow polygamy before it was granted admission to the Union. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:10, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

The Utah thing was congress setting conditions for a territory to be admitted to statehood. Congress has basically unlimited powers over territories, quite different from the federal-state relationship... AnonMoos (talk) 04:43, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Loving v. Virginia may be a case of interest to you. Shadowjams (talk) 06:11, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Historical weather records

Are there any websites (or even books) where I can find records of the weather and temperatures on a certain date in a certain place? Say, San Francisco on July 4, 1860, just as an example? 69.62.243.48 (talk) 23:32, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Weather Underground has historical records, but (at least for San Francisco, CA) these only go back to 1948 (17°C and dry). -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 23:43, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Do you only want San Francisco? Environment Canada offers historic weather data for major cities in Canada. The drop down menu goes back to 1840, but for most cities there's actually only data to the 50s or 60s, a few go to the 30s. 184.147.118.54 (talk) 00:17, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Depending on how far back you're looking, the local newspaper for that date may be your only hope. This may involve a trip to a large library and spending some time with the microfilm machine. Zoonoses (talk) 03:37, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

NOAA has some good information online. Some is behind a paywall, some is not, but I did find this which has some data sets going back to the 1800s. --Jayron32 03:48, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

No, I'm not looking for just San Francisco, nor for just US. UK links would be great, as well as for any countries. Thanks for the links. 69.62.243.48 (talk) 04:19, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

There are very odd statements in the US about historical weather data. It gets hot or cold or there is some precipitation and US papers maunder about how "This is the most extreme weather since records were first kept in 1885" or some such year. That seems to date to the establishment of the US Weather Bureau, which has since had its name changed variously. Long before that, weather records were systematically collected and analyzed by Joseph Henry by the 1840's. Also, newspapers kept records of extreme weather. When there was on the US East Coast the Great Blizzard of 1888, the New York papers wrote authoritatively about weather extremes back to the late1600's. It is as if there was sudden amnesia when the Weather Bureau was established, and old records were to be expunged and forgotten and never mentioned.. It was not as if they suddenly started using perfect thermometers as opposed to earlier making random wild guesses as to local temperatures and precipitation and barometric pressure.. New York papers in the late 19th century criticized the placement of the "official thermometer" and noted reflection of heat from metal rooftops, and contrasted it with lower temperatures nearer street level recorded by sheltered thermometers. There is indeed archived weather data from the mid 19th century, but it may require a bit of digging. Edison (talk) 04:53, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

For ease of use, I go to climatestations -- here's their San Francisco page: http://www.climatestations.com/san-francisco/ They only have a handful of cities, all from the U.S., but since I happen to live in one of them, it works for me. They only post historical data in graphical formats, that I can see, which would make getting data for an exact date a matter of pixel-counting: I can't find any tabular data on their site, anyway. They say their data is taken from this site: http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/climatedata.html which is the same site Jayron suggested above, so I expect that would be the best place to look. And I don't know if 1860 was chosen at random or not, but I think it's safe to say that reliable and regular weather records for many cities in the American West won't go back that far -- the suggestions of consulting newspapers are probably best for dates that early, but that'll be slow work if you have a lot of dates to check. You might consider using the Library of Congress's "Chronicling America" search engine for newspapers from the U.S. in the 19th Century -- http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/ -- not comprehensive, and less good than paywalled databases that a good research university probably has access to, but easier than hitting the microfilm reader! Jwrosenzweig (talk) 05:25, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

UK Met Office has some historical data at http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/stationdata/ The Armagh station's records go back to Jan 1853. Astronaut (talk) 13:10, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

August 3

Would Creating a List of Goldman Sachs Research Papers Article be a Good Idea?

After all, Goldman Sachs produced a lot of research papers over the years, including some notable ones. Futurist110 (talk) 01:05, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

To what end? --Jayron32 03:12, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

The ref desk isn't the appropriate place to raise this. You should go to WP:AFC or perhaps Talk:Goldman Sachs. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 03:15, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

General questions about editing belong on WP:Help desk. I'd suggest that you start by adding notable research papers to Goldman Sachs, and then if the list gets too long, you can put it on a separate page, but don't create a page that's mostly non-notable papers. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:03, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I followed your advice and created a list of the notable papers on the Goldman Sachs article. Futurist110 (talk) 21:15, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Resolved

Hinduism

Why is Brahma worshiped less than the other members of the Hindu trimurti? Since he's the creator god, why isn't he worshiped the most? --108.206.7.65 (talk) 04:14, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't know much about this aspect of Hinduism, but a phenomenon in a number of traditional religions in various parts of the world is that there's a creator god and/or supreme head of the pantheon who's a somewhat shadowy and remote figure, and that less exalted divinities are considered much more involved in day-to-day human concerns... AnonMoos (talk) 04:53, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I believe that's basically correct. Specifically in Hinduism it's because Brahma created the world long ago. Vishnu the preserver and Shiva the destroyer have more influence on people's lives now that the world already exists.--Wikimedes (talk) 07:42, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

jesus and figs

is there a causal relationship here between the first part and the last part?

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark+11%3A12-14&version=KJV

reading litrally it sounds to me like he got mad because there weren't any figs so he said, you know what NOBODY gets figs. is there a deeper meaning here? It also puts J in a bad light, like he has an anger management problem - why would the bible writers write it like that (i.e. in that "causal" way as above). Finally was there some historic significance to figs that makes the sentence easier to understand. --80.99.254.208 (talk) 07:01, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Also: do Christians followt his edict, which seems to me extremely direct! (A lot more direct than a lot of other ones they follow.) --80.99.254.208 (talk) 07:01, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

This here article-type thing says, "Traditional Christian exegesis regarding these accounts include affirmation of the Divinity of Jesus by demonstrating his authority over nature." It then goes on to give alternative supersessionist interpretations that connect it (for some reason) with the parable of the barren fig tree. Also, that's not a command that no one should eat figs anymore, but simply a statement that the individual tree in question would no longer bear fruit. I recommend a translation in modern English, as the King James is prone to causing all sorts of confusion in areas like that. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 07:32, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Perhaps it is the translation - in the translation I quoted, as a single individual fig tree is not immortal, the only way anyone can possibly interpret "And Jesus answered and said unto it, No man eat fruit of thee hereafter for ever" is that no one is to eat figs. Otherwise adding "forever" simply does not make sense. I understand that figs may be delicious but this is pretty cut and dried for anyone who can read. --80.99.254.208 (talk) 07:52, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. "Forever" is often used, at least in English, to mean "for as long as it would otherwise be possible". For example, "I'm leaving you forever". StuRat (talk) 10:10, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Jesus did occasionally have a bit of a tamper tantrum, though, like the overturning of the money-changers tables at the temple. StuRat (talk) 07:41, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I was going to ask if this was the reason the medieval Church chose fig leaves (over other potential obstructors) to cover the genitalia of every statue and painting they could get their hands on - "May no one ever eat fruit from you again..." - but apparently not. Oh well. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 15:50, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Neither sausages nor eggs are classified as fruit. :) -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 05:15, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Nuts! μηδείς (talk) 05:36, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

The fact that Jesus uses the singular thou is a hint that he is talking to just one tree. μηδείς (talk) 16:06, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Does the original Greek make the distinction between singular and plural second person or is that an artifact of the KJV? --Jayron32 18:05, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the Greek (like most European languages) distinguishes between second person singular and plural. - Lindert (talk) 18:18, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Does the original Greek text of that passage use the singular you or the plural you? --Jayron32 18:19, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Don't you trust the KJV translators? The Greek text translated 'of thee' in Mark 11:14 is 'εκ σου', which is indeed a singular (see here for an overview of Greek pronouns). - Lindert (talk) 18:29, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

It isn't that I don't trust them, as though they were acting in bad faith. Different translators will arrive at different good-faith conclusions regarding the appropriate way to translate a passage, given the intricacies of translating in general. I believe that the KJV translators were providing what they felt was, to them, the most accurate translation of the passage. That doesn't mean that there would be universal agreement among every translator. It isn't that they would be untrustworthy, there are many good reasons to ask what the original text was, and "not trusting the translators" isn't necessarily the main reason. --Jayron32 18:37, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I understand that. Of course these translators made mistakes or had certain interpretations that others may differ in. My point was really that the knowledge of pronouns is such an elementary issue that not even a first-year Greek student would make such a blunder as to translate a plural as a singular. There is no room for such basic errors in a translation by professionals. - Lindert (talk) 18:44, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

exactly μηδείς (talk) 18:47, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Regardless, I don't have a personal stake in resolving the question, it does, however, get to the heart of the meaning of the passage to understand what the original text said. It has nothing to do with me, so arguing with me over what I feel about it is completely besides the point. It is quite relevent, when discussing what a passage in an historical text says, to know what the passage in the historical text, you know, actually says. I don't really understand why you spent three responses personalizing this to me regarding my supposed opinion of the KJV translators, of which I have none, and even if I did, it wouldn't change the relevence of knowing what a passage said when discussing what it was a passage said. --Jayron32 18:54, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't particularly trust the translations in the King James Version. For example, is "Thou shalt not kill" a correct translation ? If taken literally, it not only forbids murder, but also executions, killing in war, and killing animals and plants. (Technically it also forbids the killing of microorganisms, but they can be excused on that count for not knowing of their existence.) I suspect that the original meaning was closer to "Thou shalt not commit murder". StuRat (talk) 18:37, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

It is kind of hard to get translating the second person pronoun συ (cognate with Latin tu, PIE in general) with the English thou wrong. The difficulty in "Thou shalt not kill" (originally from Hebrew) is in the meaning of the verb, not the pronoun. μηδείς (talk) 18:46, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

As with so many things, we have an article You shall not murder. Nil Einne (talk) 16:35, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Fig fruit has a laxative effect, and thus promotes regular bowel movements. Other religious leaders whose teachings have emphasised peace, such as the Dalai Lama, have also been documented as considering regular bowel movements to be important. However, it may be undue synthesis to connect Jesus' annoyance at not finding a readily available supply of fig fruit with such considerations. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:49, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

• I am not seeing where this question has been personalized. The text with word-for word translation is here, and is quite straightforward:
  καὶ ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπεν αὐτῇ·
  And answering he-said to-it
  μηκέτι εἰς τὸν αἰώνα ἐκ σοῦ μηδεὶς καρπὸν φάγοι.
  No-more in the aeon from thee nobody a-fruit shall-eat (optative)
  καὶ ἤκουον οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ.
  and they-heard the disciples [the words] of-him
  And Jesus answered and said unto it
  No man eat fruit of thee hereafter for ever
  And his disciples heard it. -KJV
  It is also very interesting that thou (i.e., you singular) is one of the most basic of words, one of the most conservative words in linguistic evolution, on the Swadesh list, as well as the third in all roots for stability on the Dolgopolsky list. μηδείς (talk) 19:51, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Just to mention, αὐτῇ and σοῦ are both explicitly singular forms here. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:58, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Minor point: the Textus Receptus, the basis for the cited (KJV) translation has a slightly different word order and adds 'ο ιησους'. - Lindert (talk) 20:04, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

In 11-13 it says "the indeed season not it was of figs", or as it says in the article, "because it was not the season for figs". So even if only one fig tree was affected by this curse, it still seems a sulky and gratuitously destructive act. The part further on, where Jesus incites everybody to magically throw mountains in the sea, if they feel like it, seems downright dangerous. Jesus was in his middle thirties at the time, and frankly I would expect more maturity and more responsible actions.  Card Zero  (talk) 21:45, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

He obviously didn't get enough sleep, pending crucifixion and all, and was cranky.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 00:25, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

So Jesus behaved irresponsibly, eh, Card Zero? How about we give him a thorough dressing down, a good thrashing, and send him bed without his supper. Yes, that oughta fix it. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 06:03, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, a metaphorical interpretation of the "mountain, sea; sea, mountain" passage greatly mitigates any real danger that would otherwise be involved. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:46, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

See http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2003366#s=15:0-16:414.

—Wavelength (talk) 22:28, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

The story is a metaphor. The fruit tree heard his words, but did not respond, and was cursed. This is more of an ancient gnostic teaching than a modern ethical one. Heed Jesus' saving message, or the same will happen to you. μηδείς (talk) 03:20, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

It's a strange passage, but it did inspire the sadly defunct website GodHatesFigs.com. --Nicknack009 (talk) 16:46, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Eva Braun

In the article, there is a part where I don't understand the purpose of it. "She attempted suicide twice during their early relationship." Obviously it is the relationship between her and Hitler. So why did she attempt to suicide? Was it because of Hitler? Pendragon5 (talk) 07:17, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I've heard that she was depressed due to Hilter always being away with work...those untermenschen didn't just erradicate themsevles you know. 101.172.127.247 (talk) 08:16, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Please don't tell me you're saying that word in a serious manner. That's sickening. --Activism1234 18:50, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

The tradition here is that small text is used when not being serious. Besides, the turn of phrase "those X don't Y themselves you know" is much overused in lazy parody, and nazis have been the regular target of parody for over 70 years, The Great Dictator being a notable example. So I think you're feeling sick by mistake.  Card Zero  (talk) 21:29, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Not a fan of Nazi jokes, particularly those relating to genocide, but thanks for the explanation. --Activism1234 21:32, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Not just away with work. Nobody's totally sure why she did it, but she was probably jealous of him seeing other women and not spending time with her. It seemed to work to get Hitler's attention.[18][19][20][21] --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:11, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Halbstadt

Here, at page 186 of this book http://books.google.it/books?id=jdRO9_rsokUC&pg=PA185&lpg=PA185&dq=hegewald+halbstadt&source=bl&ots=6n5_Fv8cF7&sig=ycYjqmDWZi9AHmY79D2scyTCDhE&hl=it&sa=X&ei=9fsbUM6bMsSL4gT0_4CoAQ&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false, there is a wartime photo of the town sign of the Nazi colony of Halbstadt. It reads: "Halbstadt Deutsche Kolonie - Нім. ҝолонія - Colonia Germana". Apparently, the first and second ones are German and Ukrainian/Russian for "German colony". What I'm wondering are the language and the purpose (that's why I'm asking here and not at the Language Desk) of the third part (Colonia Germana). To me it sounds like Latin, but it doesn't make much sense, does it? --151.41.181.244 (talk) 17:22, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Germanicus/Germanica was the usual Latin word for German (adjective)[22]. (Germania was Germany.) The Nazis liked Latin when they wanted to pretend to rule an empire as mighty as Rome's, as in Hitler's plans for Welthauptstadt Germania. Although i guess it could be a failed attempt to transliterate the Russian, or possibly even Romanian or Ladino language. (I assume it was the Halbstadt in Ukraine? The book isn't visible in all countries.) --Colapeninsula (talk) 18:07, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

The middle language is not Russian. There are no i's - dotted or otherwise - in Russian. Dotted i's are a feature of Ukrainian, though. The Russian for "German colony" would be Нeмeтская ҝолония, abbreviated to Нeм. ҝолония. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 21:35, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

"Colonia Germana" is Romanian (it could also be Latin but "Germanus/a/um" usually means something else). Adam Bishop (talk) 21:56, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

is nationalism collectivism?

I can imagine an "ultra-individualist", perhaps some Ayn-Randian type, making a case that this is so. But then I think about Victorian England and other nations at the time, I mean they were pretty nationalist but also individualist. On the contrary, Eastern Europe was collectivist but also pretty multi-cultural, avant la lettre :) (Eastern Europe's diversity (think Carpathia, Bessarabia, those lands) is sometimes cited as a reason for her delayed adoption of new stuff as compared to the West.) But then in today's world, most ethnic conflicts seem to unfold in traditionalist (as opposed to Post-Modern) societies, that I guess also are collectivist and tribal as hell. Or is tribalism a sign of a failure to instill (healthy) nationalism? Is then tribalism collectivism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Уга-уга12 (talk • contribs) 20:06, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Nationalism is by definition exclusive. --Saddhiyama (talk) 21:58, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

No logical reason why someone couldn't be nationalistically loyal to a Night-watchman state... AnonMoos (talk) 22:28, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Given that "collectivism" is a term almost entirely derivative of Rand's ideology, I would suggest that you peruse the original texts regarding Rand's opinion of the nation. I deal regularly with colleagues whose work pertains to the "national" and "the national imaginary" and "collectivism" is not a term used or considered pertinent in current scholarship. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:21, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Collectivism is a socialist term dating to Bakunin and Kropotkin and used as frequently by Hayek and Marx as by Rand. The fact that modern leftists "academics" avoid it is hardly surprising. μηδείς (talk) 00:18, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

August 4

Why did JFK Threaten to Put Sanctions on Israel For Building Nukes?

After all, Israel genuinely needed nukes for its security, especially back then. Futurist110 (talk) 02:02, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, that's your opinion. Others may have different opinions. HiLo48 (talk) 03:18, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Did he? Wikipedia, at least, says nothing about that. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:20, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't know if JFK did or not, but one possible result of Israel getting nukes is that all their enemies would want them too, which would be very bad. And Israel also seemed quite capable of defending itself with conventional weapons. StuRat (talk) 03:26, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

During JFK's presidential term, the United States still carefully avoided being seen to be in any kind of direct active military alliance with Israel, and the legacy of Suez 1956 left a lingering impression that the Israelis were loose cannons, whose possession of nukes would not necessarily simplify U.S. diplomatic tasks. Of course, all that was blown away by the events of 1967, when the Arabs by their behavior drove the United States into the arms of Israel... -- AnonMoos (talk) 03:47, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Which behavior ? StuRat (talk) 04:13, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Attacking or preparing to attack Israel in the hope of wiping it off the map. Futurist110 (talk) 06:27, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Didn't they already do that, starting in 1948 ? StuRat (talk) 06:29, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but the fact that the Arabs didn't learn their lesson after 20 years as well as their increasingly genocidal rhetoric made the U.S. change its mind. I do want to point out that Israel's conventional weapons advantage would only last as long as the West would be willing to sell Israel these weapons, and in the event of an oil embargo threat (such as in 1973) and an unsympathetic U.S. President, Israel would be obliterated without nukes as soon as it runs out of conventional weaponry and military supplies. Futurist110 (talk) 07:53, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

StuRat -- from the U.S. point of view, the behavior of acting as pathetic bloodthirsty military incompetents, or vicious wannabe-genocidal maniacs who couldn't shoot straight, to be frank. In their loose irresponsible grandiose rhetoric combined with largely self-defeating actions, the Arab leaders revealed themselves to be far more loose cannons than the Israelis had been in 1956, and the United States pretty much just stopped playing the game of trying not to offend the Arabs in the hope that such appeasement might prevent the consolidation of an Arab-Soviet alliance. Thus the former taboo against any kind of appearance of a direct U.S.-Israel military alliance was broken, and the Arabs mainly had themselves to blame for this. AnonMoos (talk) 07:10, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Kennedy opposed Israel getting nuclear weapons, for a complicated set of reasons. You can read quite a lot of Kennedy-era documents regarding the Israeli nuclear program here. This CIA assessment is quite telling with respects to the US position — they felt that it would severely complicated Middle Eastern relations, both in how Israel would act towards its neighbors, and the likely responses of its neighbors, which would also likely blow-back with regards to Arab interactions with the United States. The calculus of this sort of thing is much more complicated than just "needed the nukes for its security" or not. Another way to put this is that from a US perspective, it is never positive for another nation to get nuclear weapons — not just because it may increase the possibility of nuclear war, but also because the US has had (since World War II) global ambitions of dominance, and nuclear weapons complicate those ambitions considerably. (The USSR felt similarly during its time, though it did give China more aid than it later wished it had towards getting nuclear weapons. France by comparison didn't have as much of a problem with the idea of destabilizing other regions with nuclear weapons — hence their support of the Israeli nuclear program, which they saw as a way to get Egypt off their back with regards to Algeria.) --Mr.98 (talk) 16:28, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

French cities with Walloon population

Which cities of France have significant population of Walloon people? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.23.213 (talk) 04:36, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Why, when you ask such questions, do you always take for granted dubious presumptions (i.e. that Flemish-language speakers in France consider themselves to be either "Dutch" -- last time you asked -- or "Walloon" -- this time)??? The question might be more readily answered if you didn't use ethnic- or national-identity terminology in a manner which is possibly incorrect, and most definitely loose and sloppy... AnonMoos (talk) 07:21, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Malik Joyeux

Was Malik Joyeux a Native Tahitian?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 05:27, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

According to the Tahitians Wikipedia article, Yes. Futurist110 (talk) 01:16, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I added him, and I am not sure about it. So that is why I am asking the question.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 02:37, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

In that case, I'm genuinely unsure. Sorry about that. I tried finding something on Google but couldn't find anything. Futurist110 (talk) 07:30, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

He was born in France. Joyeux himself liked to obscure his origin and the first newspaper report contained wrong information, which is probably why Wikipedia got it wrong - the problem was once it's here other places (including other news organizations who should know better) start reporting it as fact and then it becomes very difficult to dig down to the real answer.

What seems to have happened is the first report, on the accident, made the (wrong) Tahiti claim. Writing the day after the accident, the Honolulu Advertiser first said "Joyeux was born on March 31, 1980, in Tahiti". The New York Times repeated this three weeks later in an article about Pipeline: "Tahitian-born Malik Joyeux".

However, once reporters had the chance to talk to his family, the correct place of birth came out. Reporting on the funeral service, the Honolulu Advertiser said: "Thilan Joyeux, Malik's sister, said ... Her mother, Helene Joyeux, brought the children to Tahiti when they were very young and raised them as Tahitian, said Thilan, 23. "He didn't like to say he was French," she said, laughing at the memory. "He's even more Tahitian than some Tahitians."" His obituary five days after the tragedy, in the Honolulu Star Bulletin, says "He was born in France".

We might also add this info from his friend Tim McKenna: "Raised on the tropical island paradise of Moorea in French Polynesia, he started surfing at the age of 8." 184.147.121.211 (talk) 13:08, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

(I fixed and sourced his article.)184.147.121.211 (talk) 13:17, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Immigration Policies of European Countries in the 19th and Early 20th Centuries

Which European countries had the most strict and the most lenient immigration policies between 1800/1850 and 1950? Futurist110 (talk) 07:30, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

The Netherlands was famously lenient before 1849 according to this source, but this says restrictive immigration policies then began to be passed. 184.147.121.211 (talk) 14:41, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

The UK was quite welcoming to political dissidents, such as Alexander Herzen and Karl Marx, and had a large Jewish immigrant population in the late 19th/early 20th century. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:01, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Frederick of Austria (Habsburg)

After the rise of the Habsburg to the Duchy (later Archduchy) of Austria, they had four rulers by the name of Frederick. If Frederick the Fair was Frederick I, the second being the son of Otto, Duke of Austria, the fourth being Frederick IV, Duke of Austria and the fifth being Frederick III, Holy Roman Emperor, then who was the third Frederick.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 10:34, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Frederick III, Duke of Austria, presumably. Not sure why he's not on the List of rulers of Austria though, maybe because of his age. - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 11:47, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

After over 4 years, what happens to my unpaid Softbank cellphone bill?

we cannot entertain requests for legal advice
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I studied at the Nagasaki Gaikokugo Daigaku until July 31, 2008, and even though all foreign students were ordered to turn in their phones back to their providers by the end of their stay, I was deviant; I decided that since my phone (a Panasonic 920p was years ahead of phones in America, with features that STILL haven't arrived and all, I would take it back to America with me. Its camera was so cool, that I was looking forward to using it even after the service got cut off. Last I heard, I owed ~$765 (in a time when the Yen was still ¥105/$1.) I figured that they would not be able to trace me back to my home address, and I was right. I got to use my phone for "free" in America (even though international roaming charges were quite up there) until at some point, I no longer had service. The camera also stopped working even though it had nothing to do with a service connection. I tried getting a HyperSIM Card from an online vendor who never shipped it; so I am still dubious to whether such cards even exist. (Do they? And where can one buy them and actually receive said card?) Purportedly, I would've gotten to keep using the phone for free with all functions restored had I obtained and installed said HyperSIM card. Now I wonder: Estimably how much more in late and other fees would my Japanese phone bill have accumulated? Why haven't they found me all the way back to America yet? (I know Softbank has a few U.S. operations.) Are they likely still looking for my address & other relevant info? Would they report me to the American credit reporting agencies if they found out where I was? And finally, say that I return to Japan in 5 years or so, just for a vacation or on business. What happens when I debark at the airport? Thanks. --70.179.170.114 (talk) 18:02, 4 August 2012 (UTC) So, in summary: you screwed someone and need legal advice on how to get away with it? OsmanRF34 (talk) 19:12, 4 August 2012 (UTC) Please contact the company you were dealing with or a lawyer. μηδείς (talk) 19:17, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Where is Jason Russell now?

asked and answered
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I have a hard time finding online what Jason Russell has been doing since March. Last I heard, he had a public breakdown of some kind; he lost his mind and was brought to a mental hospital. Don't you think since a lot of people are known to continue some form of their cause or another behind hospital walls, Jason would do that too? But do we know what Jason is doing wherever he's being held, when he gets out, and what he plans to do as soon as he's out? I wish somebody out here had an update about him. There's been nothing new on Jason since mid-March. --70.179.170.114 (talk) 18:08, 4 August 2012 (UTC) You asked this a few days ago. Asking the same question again is not going to get any more information. As we're talking about the private health condition of someone, Wikipedia doesn't know anything that you won't find on Google. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 18:15, 4 August 2012 (UTC) That's -only- because the replies fizzled out. I was expecting a better turnout but it didn't come, so I had to give it a 2nd go. --70.179.170.114 (talk) 21:01, 4 August 2012 (UTC) Replies fizzled out because nobody had anything else to say. --Tango (talk) 21:20, 4 August 2012 (UTC) Please don't ask live questions twice.μηδείς (talk) 00:10, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

History of religion

Why is there a general global trend for societies to go from animism to polytheism to monotheism as they develop? Why weren't Hinduism and Shinto, which are polytheist and animist, respectively, affected by this shift? --108.206.7.65 (talk) 19:45, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I think the second part of your question suggests an answer (or rebuttal) to the supposition in the first part. Our article History of religion has links to some relevant articles. Does it help?

Relatively few societies independently evolved a monotheistic religion - while many people in the world adhere to monotheistic religions today, that is due more to the persuasive power (whether by words or by the sword) of such religions than to any evolution as a consequence of social development per se.

There are far more surviving religions which are polytheist or animist, and in many parts of the world the trend has been different or ever opposite to how you describe. In India, for example, a non-theistic Buddhism was overtaken by a revamped, polytheistic Hinduism. In China, the monotheistic "heaven worship" was overtaken by (and in some sense incorporated into) the polytheistic Taoism, which itself gave significant ground to Buddhism. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 20:07, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Also Ancient Egypt's Atenism, one of the oldest known examples of monotheism. It has even been linked to the development of the Abrahamic religions, though that's controversial. It was quickly replaced by the preexisting polytheism after Akhenaten died.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 23:37, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

The theory that there's a "trend for societies to go from animism to polytheism to monotheism as they develop" is most closely associated with Auguste Comte (see Law of three stages), although the notion was certainly repeated and developed by others during the nineteenth century. I think you'd be hard put to find many contemporary scholars who accept such a natural progression, at least in the crude form implied by your question. Deor (talk) 20:46, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Most monotheists are also not really monotheists either. Though not admitted as such, demons, jinns, angels, saints, prophets, and satan are themselves gods. In some instances, they are surviving subsumed deities of conquered religions. The modern western image of the devil for example, is a conglomeration of various ancient gods who have been demonized after their worshippers converted (usually forcibly). In the middle east, the devil is deliberately conflated with local gods (baals), including dragon/serpent ones like Tiamat. When Abrahamic religions spread into Europe through Christianity, it again usurped the local pantheon who were recast as the devil. Notably retaining Poseidon's trident and the cloven hooves and horned heads of pagan nature gods like Pan and the satyrs or Odin in the Wild Hunt. It can even work in reverse. In the Philippines for example, instead of displacing the local religion, it instead merged with it. The local creator god Bathala became identified with the Christian God, while the various lesser deities were either forgotten or relegated to angelic roles. In the middle east, the local nature gods (jinns) were adopted into Islamic folklore as the third sentient creation. Saints, idols, monuments, shrines, angels, Mary, Santa Claus, these are all elements of polytheism and ancestor worship peeking under the blanket of monotheism.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 23:37, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Obsidian Soul's notion that the presence of supernatural beings such as saints (the souls of good dead people) violates the idea of monotheism, which is the belief in one God (not the belief in only one supernatural being) is an idiosyncratic one that seems to mimic certain forms of Islam and radical Unitarian protestantism. Catholics, for example, don't consider saints gods, or themselves polytheists. μηδείς (talk) 00:07, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

The chauvinism that "God" has a special meaning independent of what is actually practiced is typically monotheistic. Though you classify them as merely "supernatural" they are worshipped in the exact same way "God" is, despite excuses of them merely being intercession or whatever. See deity.

"A deity is a supreme being, natural, supernatural or preternatural, with magical or superhuman powers or qualities, and who may be thought of as holy, divine, or sacred. Believers may consider that they can communicate with the deity, who can respond supernaturally to their entreaties, and that the deity's myths are true."

Go on. Show me how and why satan, saints, jinn, shrines, idols, or angels are not deities. Then show me how it differs from henotheism in a meaningful way.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 03:12, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Okay, so you are defining them as divine, instead of supernatural, just not supreme. The Romans did something similar. So what? Why do you expect me to argue with you? You gonna send me to Ref Desk Hell? You are entitled to define your terms however you like. Not that anyone else uses those words the same way you are choosing to do so. μηδείς (talk) 03:26, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

An awful lot of Catholics seem to pray to Mother Mary. HiLo48 (talk) 03:30, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

And to patron saints, or any favourite saint. There's a difference between praying to some departed person who's believed to be in Heaven and can intercede on behalf of the pray-er, and claiming they're God. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 04:00, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

How about claiming they're a god? Where does one end and the other begin? -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 04:23, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Catholicism, and Christianity generally, reserve the term "God" for one supreme being. Whatever special status any other beings may have, they are not God and are not even gods. There is, by the religion's definition, only one god, God. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 04:43, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

The Bible makes a distinction between one true God and many false gods. (Exodus 20:3; Deuteronomy 7:16; Daniel 3:18; 1 Corinthians 8:5, 6)

—Wavelength (talk) 05:14, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Exactly the point. It's a matter of terminology. Thus the claims of the propensity of human religions to turn into monotheisms over time isn't really justifiable when similar practices as those of polytheisms, etc. are still in place. Just under a different name. Whether this is officially sanctioned, condemned, or explained away by their clerical bodies or their philosophers doesn't really matter that much overall. Christianity itself started out being contentious among Jews precisely because of Jesus' claims of divinity. And the concept of the trinity and how to reconcile Jesus with monotheism has continuously split off churches from churches over the centuries. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 05:37, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I was objecting to you characterizing what I said as idiosyncratic. Because I'm certainly not alone in the observation that most claims of monotheism doesn't exactly hinge on any meaningful differences but terminology. Instead of ancestor worship, they're saints; instead of demigods, they're prophets; instead of avatars or lesser gods, they're angels; instead of a rival god, it's the devil; instead of a mother goddess, it's Mary. Heck, angels even have their specific dominions mirroring the roles of the lesser gods in the polytheistic pantheons. Nuriel creates hailstorms, Michael dispenses mercy, Azrael dispenses death, Camael is the heavenly police, Samael is the entrapment officer, etc. And the jealousy of the Old Testament Abrahamic God implies that "false gods" is really just another term for "not my god". It's one of the perennial arguments in Abrahamic religions. And they're not alone in that oxymoron. Nontheistic Buddhism for example, has also undergone a similar shift. From being a religion that only includes gods as incidental, to being a religion that worships Buddha as a god. By saying "anyone else", I'm guessing you mean not you. Ref Desk has a hell? -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 04:23, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I am an atheist. That being said, my understanding of Christianity is that Mary and the other saints only have supernatural powers insofar as God grants them. My "understanding" of polytheistic religions is that Hermes does not depend on the dispensation of Zeus for his juju, while Mary cannot gainsay Jesus. μηδείς (talk) 04:34, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I know you are. There are plenty of supreme beings in different polytheistic religions who have the power to grant or take away juju. Monism even makes that juju simply different aspects of one giant juju of everything. And lastly, with the control of juju comes the control of evil. But I digress, that's worth another 20 more pages of endless discussion. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 05:37, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Religious doctrines are too variant in their details to try to make very meaningful statements about trends across different cultures. It's like asking about trends in the use of first versus third person narration across languages. There's plenty of material to summarize, but too much to really generalize accurately. 70.59.11.32 (talk) 06:49, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Agatha Christie story/play

About two years ago I watched a PBS Masterpiece Mystery play from a story/play from Agatha Christie. I can't remember anything about it, other than it was based in Egypt and there was a fun story in it about death and a man in a tavern. What was this play? Albacore (talk) 22:05, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

The obvious thing to suggest would be Death on the Nile, presumably in its Suchet incarnation. I don't remember a tavern, mind, but much doings on a luxurious boat. Is there an Agatha Christie where someone doesn't die? -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 22:16, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Given that she has written about 10⁷ novels, she may have run out of murder plots and settled for burglary or kidnapping once or twice. I vaguely seem to remember a more juvenile-oriented storyline which did not feature a murder. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:48, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Christie's Parker Pyne stories appear to encompass only the occasional murder. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:50, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I can recommend Death on the Nile (1978 film). It is not a PBS production or import per se. μηδείς (talk) 23:54, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Ancient tear stain

Are their such things as ancient tear stains? I know their are ancient blood stains that can still be seen/detected.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 23:50, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Tears are mostly just saline without being comprised of great masses of cells, platelets, with distinctive proteins, nucleic acids, and glycans like blood is. Tears are far more ephemeral and less distinctive than saliva, even. Tears don't stain; they wash clean. There aren't any forensic techniques which could use tears even if they were far more abundant and easy to recover. 70.59.11.32 (talk) 06:55, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

August 5

HMS Challenger (1858) in Tonga

When exactly did the HMS Challenger (1858) visit Tonga? It was somewhere between 1872 and 1876, does anybody know the exact dates, ie. year and months, even dates. And also does anyone know who was the Governor of Tongatapu, picture here, was during the time this ship went there?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 01:35, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Answering part 1: according to this, HMS Challenger was at Tonga between the 19th and 22nd July, 1874. The log of the Challenger (in an awkward spreadsheet format here) from the National History Museum gives dates for log entries of the 22nd of July for Tongatapu. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 01:59, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Answering part 2: The same photograph is on the NZ National Library website above with a name that I can't magnify the image sufficiently to read, but you can take a shot at it yourself. (Actually the name is in the text and is given as Governor Tungi.) FlowerpotmaN·(t) 02:09, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 03:39, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Third question, the link to the Natural Museum site seems to say that the ship had one photographer abroad. Is this the same person as this Corporal C. Newbold? And what is his full name and birth and death date?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 03:39, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Quote of Karl Marx on (classical) liberalism?

Hi, I have been trying to google a quote of marx on liberalism, and just couldn't find it. A lot of commentary, but no quote...

I would much appreciate any help! --MeUser42 (talk) 06:44, 5 August 2012 (UTC)