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

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)

It's even worse than I thought, with the original meaning more like "Thou shalt not destroy", which could mean pretty much whatever you want it to mean. StuRat (talk) 19:39, 6 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.[1][2][3][4] --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:11, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

In a documentary I saw once, there was an argument that Hitler didn't want to be married, because it would make him more attractive to the female voters. (That's a very simplistic rephrasing of a more complex argument from memory, and it doesn't sound very convincing at all.) However, if Braun saw herself to be the 'secret lover', closeted away, and not being able to be with her man outside, that could lead her to commit suicide. V85 (talk) 23:35, 6 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)[5]. (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)

Though not relevant here, it ought to be specified that Russian has no ‹і› since the spelling reform of 1918. —Tamfang (talk) 03:37, 6 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)

Thank you.Уга-уга12 (talk) 12:21, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

It may not be as relevant to current scholarship, but it's a nice intuitive term with a long history. I never regarded it as something made-up by a single person (and I know a made-up term when I see one, "praxiology", for example).Уга-уга12 (talk) 12:25, 8 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)

What's the evidence that the OP thinks Flemish-speakers consider themselves Walloon?! —Tamfang (talk) 03:40, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Based on his last "Dutch" question, that's what I assumed. If I misunderstood both, I apologize (though not too much, considering...) -- AnonMoos (talk) 05:20, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Please stop asking these questions. If you are this interested in migration statistics, you need to learn how to find them yourself. Look at the kind of places people have found statistics for you before, and try similar places for your latest question. We're a reference desk - we're not here to do extensive research for you. --Tango (talk) 11:55, 5 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)

Was that equally true of all of the Netherlands before the Kingdom was formed in (iirc) 1816? —Tamfang (talk) 03:42, 6 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)

What about the other European countries? Futurist110 (talk) 07:29, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

This is rather speculative, but I believe that migration control is a modern concept. In the 19th century, if you couldn't scratch a living in one country, you could go and try to make a living somewhere else. Obviously, you would find somewhere that wasn't depressed or in famine, and where your religion would be tolerated. I've tried to find a reference to support this, but have failed so far. Alansplodge (talk) 11:08, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

To be honest, I thought that many European countries in the 19th and early 20th centuries restricted immigration of non-native ethnicities (unless their population was stagnating), considering how widespread and popular nationalism was in Europe at the time. Also, I heard that many European academics back then tried using pseudoscience to demonstrate that their ethnicity was superior to others. This is in contrast to the U.S., where until the 1920s there was large support to allow white immigrants from any country to immigrate to the U.S. Futurist110 (talk) 20:46, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Well certainly 19th century London supported a large German community, as well as the east European Jews mentioned above. A number of British intellectuals took up residence in Paris without any difficulty. However, as most European countries had a surplus of cheap labour, those driven away from their homes by poverty would be more likely to look to the US, Canada and Australia for an opportunity to better themselves, rather than join the bottom of a very big heap in Europe. Alansplodge (talk) 23:02, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I think that nationalism was somewhat less widespread in Britain and France during this time than in countries to their east, such as Germany, Italy, the Balkans, and Russia. Futurist110 (talk) 01:58, 6 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 totally agree with ObsidanSoul's take here. You could easily redefine the terms from the ancient Greek pantheon and call Zeus God, with all the other gods as lesser dieties. There's nothing advanced about monotheism. It's just terminology. 112.215.36.172 (talk) 10:48, 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)

Sorry for being late to the discussion (too much Olympics to watch!), but I broadly agree with Obsidian Souls's argument, and would additionally adduce the example of Voudun, in which various African deities or Loa have been subsumed under the identities of Roman Catholic Saints, but are in their new context still effectively gods/godesses. (Voudun also identifies the Catholic God and Christ with equivalently supreme African-origin deities, but believes them too important to bother them with everyday concerns, so turns to the lesser Loa just as Catholics direct their prayers to/through Saints).

A similar process is quite consciously employed in Wicca and related Neopaganist movements (disclosure: my own path), where pre-existing and new deities may be viewed as either independent entities and/or aspects or facets of the Lord or Lady according to momentary context. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.109 (talk) 11:25, 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)

---

108.206.7.65 -- The real shift has been from religions whose characteristics are closely tied to one particular ethnic/cultural group and the details of its way of life, and which often somewhat ignore or have an equivocal relationship with morality, to cosmopolitan religions of individual salvation, which are suitable to be adopted by a number of ethnic/cultural groups, and where there is a strong emphasis on personal morality and redemption. In the Mediterranean/European area, the cosmopolitan religions of individual salvation have been heavily influenced by Judaism, and so monotheistic, but in other areas the outcome was different. Buddhism (especially the Mahayana version) fits very well within the cosmopolitan religions of individual salvation model, and in east Asia, people can be both Buddhist and Confucian, both Buddhist and Shinto, etc. AnonMoos (talk) 13:59, 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. They have a handful of hormones in them depending on their type, but in tiny quantities. 70.59.11.32 (talk) 06:58, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Salt deposits could be left behind, or perhaps the tears caused water-soluble ink to run, say while reading a letter informing them of the death of a loved one. StuRat (talk) 08:03, 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)

The ship seems to have had only one official photographer at any given time; however, it was unlikely to have been Newbold at the time the ship was visiting Tonga, as he seems to have deserted the ship at Cape Town on the outward voyage, per this and other mentions online. (His first name was Caleb and he was a corporal in the Royal Engineers) According to the above source, the ship's photographer at the time of the visit to Tonga was Frederick Hodgeson, who was recruited in South Africa. He later left (or deserted) the ship at Hong Kong, but that would have been after Tonga. I can't find much more about him online than is given in the source above, except that he was back in South Africa by 1889 and is mentioned in the journal of the Society for Psychical Research as a "witness" to some spooky shenanigans in that year.(link) FlowerpotmaN·(t) 19:30, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

PS A lot of sources use the spelling Hodgson, rather than Hodgeson, and he seems to have been an active photographer into the 1890s at least, from mentions in passing online.FlowerpotmaN·(t) 19:37, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Could you give me a range of their years as official photographer like when they started and ended? Basically when Newbold left, when was Hodgeson recruited and when did he also leave. Not even exact dates.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 05:55, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

So is it Caleb Newbold (1872-1873), Frederick Hodgeson (1873-1874), and then Jesse Lay (1874-1876)?

That looks about right. You can use the Challenger expedition article to narrow the times down to a matter of days or weeks and Challenger logs are probably online somewhere. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 06:29, 6 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)

Do you know any more about the quotation? It would help your searching if you knew any of the words used in the quote, the date and/or to whom it was said (if a spoken quotation) or when it was written (if it's a quote from one of his books). You might find something useful in the collected works of Marx and Engels. The same site has a list of Marx quotes, but no matches for 'liberal'. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 14:14, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

"Classical liberalism" is a recently developed political term, of great usefulness for certain discussions. The term emerged after Marx, so he is unlikely to have used it, but almost certainly referred to some of its referants. Marx commonly commented on the "Manchester School," on "liberals" in power on the Continent and in the United Kingdom, and on the "Political economy" movement. It would help if you remember if the discussion relates to economic or political economic theory; the political economic disciplining of the working class in the UK; the policies of "liberal" politicians; or, some other context. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:00, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Luxembourg Continuation

Does the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg identify with the medieval County and Duchy of Luxembourg? Does it consider itself a continuation of those states or do they consider themselve a country created in the 1800s? Does the Grand Dukes consider themselves part of a line stretching back Siegfried of Luxembourg or is this a wikipedian concept? --The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 08:25, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

The history page on the Grand Duke's website only goes back to 1815: (French) - Cucumber Mike (talk) 08:42, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

The guide in the Grand Ducal Palace, Luxembourg told us pretty much the same stuff as on the Grand Duke's website. The family looks back six generations (line Nassau-Weilburg from 1890 to present). They also show paintings of the three kings of the Nassau-Oranien line (1815-1890), who were distant relatives of the present house, considered foreigners and had Luxembourg ruled by governors. The ancient counts of Luxembourg were not mentioned at all. The city of Luxembourg, however, is very proud of its tradition extending back to Siegfried of Luxembourg, who built the castle of Lucilinburhuc on the Bock (Luxembourg) promontory. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 13:37, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Extracting a contiguous history for many Continental European countries prior to the 19th century is difficult because the map of Europe essentially got erased and rebooted by Napoleon and the later Congress of Vienna, and further developments like the Revolutions of 1848, German and Italian unification. The history of Luxembourg is intricately tied to that of the other Low Countries, the modern Grand Duchy was itself created in 1815 at the Congress of Vienna, though its borders were considerably re-written at the Treaty of London when the French-speaking parts of the Grand Duchy were transferred to the newly-recognized Kingdom of Belgium. The 1890 date is important because that is the date when Luxembourg got its own royal family. Prior to 1890, the King of the Netherlands was also Grand Duke of Luxembourg, but the roles were seperate (much as the Queen of the UK is also Queen of Australia and Queen of Canada). The reason the crowns seperated in 1890 was that the Netherlands and Luxembourg had different inheritance laws, Luxembourg being a former state of the Holy Roman Empire was bound to Salic law and did not allow females to inherit. After the death of William III, his daughter Wilhelmina succeeded in the Netherlands, while Adolphe, Duke of Nassau succeeded in Luxembourg. --Jayron32 19:18, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Olympic "rivalry" between Britain and Australia

I've seen it written that there is apparently a strong rivalry between Britain and Australia at the Olympics, but here in Britain you would be hard-pressed to find many people who were aware of this. Is this so-called "rivalry" entirely one-sided, observed in Australia but not in Britain? Or has it now been quietly forgotten in Australia, too? 87.112.129.180 (talk) 14:15, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I can think of a few Australians who might give a more definitive answer, but I'd assume it has something to do with playing a country that used to control it. Hot Stop 14:18, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I am aware that Australia used to be ruled from Britain, and so were many other countries. I didn't ask why such a rivalry might have arisen, anyway. I asked if there was any evidence that both parties observed it, rather than just the Australians. 87.112.129.180 (talk) 14:24, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm in the UK, and haven't seen or heard any mention of it here. Headlines in the UK tend to be which GB athletes have won medals, plus the more high profile of other controversies (such as the badminton "not trying hard enough" claims), and the organisational/host nation issues (such as the empty seats problems).

However, there is a perception this year that the GB team is doing unusually well, and that this is somewhow at the expense of the Australian team doing unusually badly. BBC News website in the UK did have a piece on this, and they also linked to this Australian news report. But really, as far as the UK is concerned, any mention of this comparison is swamped by other coverage. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 14:49, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

There's quite a few news stories from 2012 which mention the rivalry, many from the British side: "the age-old sporting rivalry between Britain and Australia"[6], "GB and Australia's water polo girls to renew old rivalry"[7], "GB four enjoy Aussie rivalry"[8], "More than a century of fierce sporting rivalry"[9] as well as some internationally: "I personally believe the rivalry to watch is Great Britain vs. Australia"[10], "Australian and British team bosses squared up at London’s Olympic village in a demonstration of a friendly rivalry"[11]. The rivalry probably partly carries over from the older rivalry in cricket (The Ashes etc), which has been very fierce since the late 19th century, and rugby. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:05, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

As with many things when it comes to sport, the commentators/journalists make a lot of stuff up. Yes, the Ashes is a huge rivalry in cricket. But with other sports, there's no special rivalry between Australia and the UK compared with Australia and any other country. There's the odd comment here and there, and such things are always good media fodder for blowing up way beyond what's real. The ordinary Australian people do not know this rivalry with the UK. If it existed, it would not just come out at the Olympics, it would be live all the time. And it's not. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 19:41, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

In 2008, when the UK passed Australia in the medal count, some Australians claimed that the UK was earning many of its medals in "sit-down sports" (such as cycling and rowing), to which some British replied that Australia won many of its medals in the "lie-down sport" of swimming... AnonMoos (talk) 15:52, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

All I can say is that it's alive and well on my Twitter feed! It has something to do with the Ashes, as Colapeninsula says above. --TammyMoet (talk) 17:36, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

And it's only the Ashes, really. See my comments above. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 19:41, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. According to my Twitter feed, Yorkshire has more gold medals than Australia does in these Olympics. Also according to my Twitter feed, NZ has more medals than Australia. And according to my Twitter feed, Australian TV has cut its coverage of the Olympics because Aussie teams are doing so poorly. Believe me, the rivalry between Eng and Aus is alive and well in Eng. It's present every time we play Aus at rugby league or union. It may not be as strong in Aus, but certainly over here... --TammyMoet (talk) 20:15, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, that's the complete reverse of the OP's premise. He was saying this rivalry is a big deal in Australia but not in Britain. It's not a big deal in Australia, apart from the Ashes. It's just not. It does appear to be a big deal in the UK, though, if your Twitter feeds are anything to go by. Yorkshire can have its little joke.

Australian TV has most certainly NOT cut its TV coverage, by the way. The fact that 9 days in we've still managed only one gold medal is a matter of extremely widespread discussion and commentary, not something we're ashamed of (apart from Emily Seebohm, who seemed to consider only winning a silver was the worst disaster of her life and brought shame on herself and her family). We've done way better in the silvers, and in total medals, than a number of countries ahead of us in the standard table, which places 1 gold ahead of 1,000 silvers. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 21:40, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

There is also the bet between the sport's ministers: [[12]].90.214.166.145 (talk) 20:35, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I submit that the cohort of Twitter users is not representative of the Australian and British population as a whole. I'm with Jack on this. The Ashes matter. The rest is a media beatup, although many Australians like to think they should be able to beat anybody at any sport. HiLo48 (talk) 20:49, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, media beatups in sport, particularly the Olympics, deserve their own gold medals. I remember the mythical rivalry between Sebastian Coe and Steve Ovett at the Moscow 1980 Games. The media made it the BIG story of the Games, and talked endlessly about it for weeks and months beforehand. Meanwhile, Coe and Ovett themselves, on those few occasion when their opinion was considered at all relevant to the story, consistently denied there was any such huge rivalry. They were both competitors and both ran to win - surprise, surprise - but that's as far as it went. They were politely listened to, but their message was just ignored. The journalists had to get back to writing even more purple prose about their so-called fantastic rivalry. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 21:51, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Of course the people of Oz don't entertain the existence of such a rivalry now that they're not doing so well. 112.215.36.177 (talk) 22:55, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

That would be fair comment if there was any truth to it. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 23:31, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

The decline in Australia's medal tally performance suggests there's plenty of truth to it. 112.215.36.185 (talk) 05:50, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Absolute rubbish. The most circular (non-)argument I've ever heard. The only thing the decline in our medal tally suggests is that there's been a decline in our medal tally.

But this is all very premature; we're only a little over half way into the 2012 Games. Yes, we've done very poorly in the pool, where we've traditionally performed very well. But the final medal tally is the thing that matters when comparing countries' overall performances. Let's hang fire till then before rushing to judgmement.

Fwiw, we currently have 20 medals overall, which is already way better than our total tally at Seoul (14), Moscow (9), Montreal (5), Munich (17), Mexico City (17), Tokyo (18), Helsinki (11) or London 1948 (13). We will surely do better than Rome (22), Los Angeles (24) or Barcelona (27). That will give us a result that is at worst our 6th best since 1948, and if we take out the home advantage we had in Melbourne (35) and Sydney (58), then only Atlanta (41), Beijing (46) and Athens (49) will be ahead of us. I don't call that a half-bad result. The folly of believing the unutterable tripe the media often dishes up to us is readily apparent. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 09:00, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Australia was one of the first nations in the world to have a national institute of sport in the late 70's early 80's. We've been riding a huge wave of success since that time consistently punching well above our weight in the "medals per population" stakes. I think all that has happened is the initial advantage we had has now worn off, I actually read predictions of this since before the last olympics. Vespine (talk) 04:47, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Anecdotal evidence: before the Olympics I heard on several occausions British people saying to non-British, non-Australian people that Britain's "goal" was to beat Australia in the medal tally. I think it's a relatively recent thing, and must be related to the fact that Britain and Australia have tended to finish in the same rough band on the medal tally at recent Olympic games - obviously neither has a chance of beating the US or China, so competing against someone in a similar band of the tally seems a reasonable and realistic goal to pick. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 13:05, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

As someone who lives in Australia, and was raised in Australian culture: the only thing worse than the poor losing of the Australian [media and crowing mob], is the poor winning. The 7.30 Report (a news-review on ABC) featured a main story segment last night on "Is this worse than Montreal?," a question they answered (being the ABC) by digging up reports into elite sports funding that criticise the concept of elite rather than popular (and more than popular, popular mass participation) sport. The 7.30 Report, to paraphrase badly, claimed that elite sporting medals are the pay-off for Australians. They also pointed to the post-Montreal decision by all governments to specifically fund national elite sporting, even when governments were winding back funding in other public benefit areas under neo-liberalism. Sport and nationalism are bound up in Australia in ways that are unusual in other nations. We don't have a space program, we don't have a large military, but we did have a swimming team [in the eyes of Channel 9's journalists]. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:53, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I could broadly agree with all of that, but it has little/nothing to do with the topic of Olympic rivalry between the UK and Australia. All the evidence I've seen is that it's pretty much all from the UK towards Australia, not the other way. There's nothing wrong with a healthy rivalry, and we have often been rivals on the sports field, particularly cricket, where we get huge pleasure out of beating the Poms at their own game (whenever we do actually beat them, which is certainly not all the time). But in the Olympics specifically? I don't think so. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 22:07, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

There's very little evidence of this supposed rivalry here in Britain, either, as I said at the outset. I think on balance that what you said earlier was correct, about the media creating this story based on very little. Is there any reason why we should have a specific agon with the Aussies for medals, as opposed to other traditional sparring partners such as Germany or France? 87.112.129.180 (talk) 22:34, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I think I was suggesting that any "rivalry" in the Olympics is an invention of Channel 9 commentary, and its tail enders in the Channel 9, 7 and 10 newsrooms and a few crowds of 9, 7, 10 influenced street partiers. Your comparison to cricket where the teams genuinely look forward to coming to grips is apt. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:45, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

As a Brit living in Melbourne I can confirm the Aussie media are obsessed with the "Ashes" Olympic rivalry. I could cite numerous articles from The Age confirming this. Plus the 9 and Foxtel commentators talking about it regularly. People at my work were also quick to give me some banter when the UK hadn't won a medal for the first 4 days. Coolcato (talk) 13:37, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Here are some citations to back up that Australian media are obsessed with the UK's Olympic performance (and this is just one newspaper in Australia):

"...Again, satisfyingly for those Australians tiring of likeable British winners..." "Ready to rock the boat in medal fight with Poms" "A long jump to the conclusion Brits come first" "Aussies far from perfect but still better than Brits" "Gold medal? No thanks, we're British" Coolcato (talk) 02:29, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

How many men commit rape?

I know this is kind of difficult to discover, and controversial, but is there some educated guess available? Someone somewhere should have researched the topic. OsmanRF34 (talk) 18:48, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, you have to make your question much clearer. How many men make a habit of committing rape? How many men have ever committed rape? How many men have been convicted of rape? What proportion of the male population is involved in any of the foregoing? By country? World-wide? -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 19:28, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Any place, US would be OK. And it's not about convictions, nor habitual rapists. OsmanRF34 (talk) 21:51, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

http://www.oneinfourusa.org/statistics.php - 99% of rapists are men. As for the exact number, I'm not sure if you mean in your state, the U.S., or the world. You'll need to clarify on this. Futurist110 (talk) 20:38, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I wanted to know how many men are rapists, not how many rapists are men. OsmanRF34 (talk) 21:51, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

The reason that so many rapists are men could be due to laws defining rape as 'penetration by the penis' or 'penetration of the vulva'; in the former case, only men could commit rape, and in the latter, only women could be its victims. V85 (talk) 16:56, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I remember reading, it may have been in Before the Dawn, that some 10% of conceptions historically have been due to rape. That doesn't give you a number of men, but it gives you a ballpark idea. μηδείς (talk) 21:57, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Though historically a good deal of that is due to mass rape and pillaging, which has gone out of style in most parts of the world since the end of World War II. It would not give you necessarily a good contemporary estimate. --Mr.98 (talk) 22:13, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Sadly Mr.98 mass and systematic rape have not gone out of style. It remains a tool of preference by state agencies for the disciplining of ethnic minorities. Off the top of my head, Europe in the 1990s: Rape in the Bosnian War. Our article War rape seems to cover the mass disciplinary use of rape to a certain extent. There are other incidents in the post-war period, but no mass rape seems to have occurred between Great Powers after the resolution of WWII's immediate occupations. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:56, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Besides that, from the number of women who get raped, you cannot get the number of men who rape, unless you know how many rapes each rapist commit, which is still unknown. OsmanRF34 (talk) 22:50, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Also note that there is often a difference between legal rape and a moral one. In many nations, it's has been perfectly legal for a man to first marry a woman, against her will, and then force her to have sex, also against her will. In some cases the marriage step has been optional. StuRat (talk) 22:29, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

33% of men fantasize about it. 112.215.36.177 (talk) 22:41, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Can you give an example of a nation where forced sex, outside of marriage, was legal? I know of legal systems where the evidence required of a rape is such that it is almost impossible to get a conviction (eg. only men can be considered witnesses, so the victim can't testify), but it is usually nominally illegal (although it may be more of a crime against the husband/father than the woman). There is sometimes are exception made for slaves or the women of an invaded land, where they basically aren't consider people with any rights - is that what you meant? --Tango (talk) 00:27, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Besides rape in war, which is illegal under international law but frequently legal under national laws, there are other cases. For example, in Morocco and Jordan, a man who is convicted of rape may be excused if he then marries the victim (and this can again be a forced marriage): [13]. Also, for a historical case, there was droit du seigneur, where the victims were serfs, rather than slaves. StuRat (talk) 06:31, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

As our article says, there is very little evidence droit du seigneur/prima nocta ever existed. Your examples of Morocco and Jordan are news to me, though, and are certainly good examples. --Tango (talk) 22:59, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

The article said there wasn't strong evidence of it in Western Europe. It then added "Instances of the right have, however, been observed elsewhere, such as the Ottoman Empire. As late as the early twentieth century, Kurdish chieftains (khafirs) in Western Armenia reserved the right to bed Armenian brides on their wedding night." Two sources were provided. StuRat (talk) 23:04, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

While I know I'm getting a bit off-topic here, I'm really curious how this locution prima nocta came about. Tango uses it; the IP below uses it, and a Google search for nocta finds a lot, but it's very strange; it does not appear to be real Latin at all. Here's the declension of nox; you can see that nocta does not occur at all. Correct Latin would be jus primae noctis.

Is calling it prima nocta just a mistake that somehow caught on, or is there something I'm missing? --Trovatore (talk) 17:26, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Nucta or nykta would be the Greek accusative singular (νυκτα). "Nocta" doesn't seem to be anything in Latin (though "Noctua" is an owl)... AnonMoos (talk) 18:24, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I guess that's a possible lead, but prima doesn't seem to have anything to do with Greek, at a cursory check (I don't really know any Greek so I could easily miss something there). --Trovatore (talk) 18:49, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I just kind of threw in the Greek as trivia; it doesn't do anything to help "nocta"...AnonMoos (talk) 05:29, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Above comments are very gynocentric. While not technically legal, the state relies on prison rape to accentuate the severity of punishments of incarceration in jurisdictions where hard labour and corporal punishment cannot serve that purpose. 112.215.36.177 (talk) 00:58, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Also, see prima nocta. 112.215.36.185 (talk) 05:42, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

The best data you are going to get is for convictions/prosecutions, but for at least some countries, that is believed to be completely off the mark. Listening to one of the NPR weekend shows (I forget which one), it has been estimated that 25% of men in South Africa, over 12 million, have committed rape at some point, and half of those have raped more than one woman. Yet only ~50,000 rape cases are pursued annually in South Africa. And in the less developed parts of India, it was estimated that there are enough rapists to place at least one in every household, but looking at the criminal convictions for rape would belie that fact. We do have articles such as Rape in the United States and Rape statistics, which itself has links to similar articles about other countries. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:05, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

How can anyone get Jimbo Wales to speak at the Landon Lecture series?

This is a series of lectures made by highly prominent individuals (including two sitting Presidents at Kansas State University. I believe it is high time that Jim Wales was brought in to speak, as there have been a dearth of Landon Lectures lately. --70.168.121.147 (talk) 21:37, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

He has a talk page, innit? μηδείς (talk) 21:58, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

First you'd have to get KSU to invite him. Get in touch with them, not us. --Mr.98 (talk) 22:12, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Polynesian researches, during a residence of nearly six years in the South Sea Islands' Volume 2

Does anyone know what event is depicted in the title image of the William Ellis (1833) Polynesian researches, during a residence of nearly six years in the South Sea Islands, Volume 2, Fisher, Son & Jackson, shown here? It seems to be a conflict or war. The previous image has thte title The Cession of the District of Matavai in the Island of Otaheite to Captain James Wilson for the Use of the Missionaries but this one doesn't. Also can anyone make out the engraver/artist.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 22:29, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi again Kavebear. Just a thought, but looking at the date on the image (and some quick Googling) suggests the image is from an American reprint of the book, dating 4 years after the original publication by the London Publishers Fisher, Son and Jackson in 1829. (Original here). There is a possibility that the image has no real connection to any events in the book; rather it might be an exercise of artistic license by the publishers. However, I do see the name H. Corbould as the original artist, who quite possibly might be the artist Henry Corbould. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 22:57, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

(PS) The engravers names on the right are "Illman & Pilbrow", Thomas Illman and Edward Pilbrow, who apparently did a lot of engravings for various New York publishers; the original artist is H. Corbould, who I am fairly certain is Henry Corbould.FlowerpotmaN·(t) 23:57, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

It seems that only the 1833 reprint had this illustration while the 1829 version did not. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 04:24, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

http://histoire.assemblee.pf/articles.php?id=360 calls it "Scène de la bataille de Fei Pi (Scene of the Battle of Fei Pi)", but from personal experience, I know some of the captions on this site are unreliable. It really sucks that their are no records on the title of the engraving like there is on the other ones. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 04:24, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Why only 2?

In human history, there have only been 2 diseases that are eradicated. They are smallpox and rinderpest. What I don't understand is why don't we try to eradicate as many diseases as possible? Why we only eradicated 2 diseases? I know we have vaccines for a large portion of diseases out there now. What are we waiting for? Is it because of the money problem? Aren't human lives worth more than money? 174.20.39.60 (talk) 22:34, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Eradication of infectious diseases gives you information about eradication efforts. Some diseases are on the way of eradication, however, I suppose the last mile is quite tough. OsmanRF34 (talk) 22:55, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

There were many short-lived epidemics of past centuries which briefly caused havoc, then didn't recur... AnonMoos (talk) 23:54, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I can't think of a good article, since you are asking a negative question. But among other things there are: a general lack of profit motive; drug shortage; the problem of international boundaries and local inertia; the fact that carriers often don't care or comply (HIV, Tuberculosis); the problem of resistance (Gonorrhea); and that people refuse inoculation (Whooping Cough, Measles). μηδείς (talk) 23:50, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

And many diseases can't be eradicated, because they have many strains and/or are constantly mutating, like the flu. StuRat (talk) 23:55, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Many diseases have animal hosts in the wild and would be very difficult to eradicate. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:01, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

To answer your last question, money only has value because of the things you can buy with it. If you buy one thing with it, you can't buy something else. The cost of eradicating diseases can be extremely high, so what you you rather not have instead? Education? National defence? Other aspects of healthcare? It sounds great to say that lives are infinitely valuable, but in reality it doesn't work that way - people do put finite value on their lives and on the lives of others. For example, people are willing to do dangerous jobs in order to earn more money than they could be doing a safe job - if their life was infinitely valuable, then even a small increase in the risk of death in return for a much larger wage wouldn't be worth it, yet people still do those jobs. --Tango (talk) 00:36, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

If people assigned an infinite value to their lives, they wouldn't do any work at all, since the fractions of their lives spent working would be worth more than any monetary compensation in the form of wages. 112.215.36.177 (talk) 00:51, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Nobody suggested spare time having infinite value, just life itself. You are still alive even when you are working. --Tango (talk) 22:29, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Can't say much new that's not said above, but the briefest explanation is that 1) it's quite hard to do period, and 2) many diseases have natural animal hosts that carry the disease but do not get sick from it, and so these reservoirs of disease make it exceptionally difficult to eradicate. I believe that there is optimism that Polio may be eliminated within most of our lifetimes. Shadowjams (talk) 23:03, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Unnecessary tangential rant. This is not a debating society. Shadowjams (talk) 02:30, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Because human beings are stupid. Because they are ruled just about everywhere by an astoundingly shortsighted, mindlessly greedy & stupid elite 1% of the 1%, economies worldwide strangled by absurd economics that grossly starves public expenditure, except of course, for the titanic untouchable streams of welfare for the 1% of the 1%. Because a profit motive is absurdly inserted into the procurement of such a public good. The "what would you rather not have instead" argument fails in a time of financial crisis & great unemployment of human and other resources which has followed decades of intentional imposition of higher unemployment and slower growth worldwide. A multi-trillion dollar worldwide effort would not present any "what would you rather not have instead" choices. Compared to the costs they impose, the cost of eradicating any eradicable disease is minuscule in any real terms. Who knows which are eradicable? Some look tough, but you won't know til you try. Nowadays, societies don't even try. Because people used to have more of a can-do attitude - and the one successful eradication effort was not coincidentally undertaken at a time when somewhat rational economics was dominant, and resources put behind the effort by a US president Lyndon B. Johnson, who in spite of his many other faults, no one ever said didn't have a can-do attitude.John Z (talk) 23:30, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I do not think that my "rant" (I'm OK with the word) was in any way tangential, or proper to a debating society. Your answer was the best of the others above IMHO, Shadowjams, but also IMHO many of the others were simply wrong. There is no real economic obstacle to doing what the OP implicitly proposes, the real obstacles are as I said, and I suggest that you uncollapse it.John Z (talk) 06:12, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witnesses

There's one thing I never understood about them. They are one of the few denominations I have heard of that made their own version of the Bible, which is also the only modern Bible I am aware of whose authors are anonymous. But why does it seem that whenever skeptics of the religion find "flaws" in their doctrines, they apparently change the scriptures instead of apologists trying to reconcile the differences? That is, why do they seem to change the verses in order to fit the doctrine, rather than the other way around? If other denominations or biblical scholars question some of their beliefs, why don't they just drop or modify them? I would find their behavior rather ironic for a religion that started as a bible study group. I'm not saying that JW is a false religion, I'm just asking for possible motive behind this behavior. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 23:04, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Not entirely sure what you mean -- The "New World Translation" has some extremely disputed translated passages (John 1:1 etc.), but JW's don't make up scriptural verses from scratch. For a group to arbitrarily change around the Bible (going way beyond an arguably dodgy "interpretive" translation to reauthor Biblical books) would be to make itself a prominent target for vilification and scorn by evangelical/fundamentalist Christians. The Mormons supposedly theoretically reject the inspired status of Song of Songs, but still include it in the Bibles they distribute... AnonMoos (talk) 23:19, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

On what do you base your belief that "they apparently change the scriptures" "in order to fit the doctrine"?

—Wavelength (talk) 23:23, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

For example, they changed all instances of "cross" to "torture stake" due to their belief that Jesus was executed on a stake rather than a cross. They also changed "coming" to "presence" due to their belief that Jesus had already arrived on Earth in the 1800s. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:18, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Narutolovehinata5 -- those are all dodgy interpretative translations, while the rhetoric in your original post led others to think that you were accusing JW's of making up stuff at random... AnonMoos (talk) 00:48, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

And they are not all more "dodgy" than more conventional translations. Many features from the New Word Translation also occur in other independent translations. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 01:07, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

The JW's are far from alone when it comes to dodgy interpretative translations of scripture, but they have attained a certain frequency and concentration of them beyond most others... AnonMoos (talk) 04:18, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia has information about the torture instrument at Crucifixion#Cross shape (version of 16:42, 3 August 2012). The two images are by Justus Lipsius (1547 to 1606). More information is in the article "Instrument of Jesus' crucifixion" (version of 20:40, 28 July 2012).

Wikipedia has information about the second "parousia" at Second Coming#Jehovah's Witnesses (version of 14:38, 5 August 2012). More information is in the article "Parousia" (version of 12:53, 8 July 2012).

—Wavelength (talk) 01:12, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

There is information about σταυρός (stauros) at http://mlbible.com/matthew/10-38.htm and http://biblelexicon.org/matthew/10-38.htm and http://concordances.org/greek/4716.htm and http://concordances.org/greek/strongs_4716.htm.

There is information about παρουσία (parousia) at http://mlbible.com/matthew/24-3.htm and http://biblelexicon.org/matthew/24-3.htm and http://concordances.org/greek/3952.htm and http://concordances.org/greek/strongs_3952.htm.

—Wavelength (talk) 01:56, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

There is an article "TORTURE STAKE" at http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200004456. There is an article "PRESENCE" at http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200003548.

—Wavelength (talk) 03:25, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

There do seem to be parts of the Bible that could use changing, like where God orders the Jews to commit genocide [14]. So, I'd change or scrap large portions of the Bible. StuRat (talk) 00:03, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

"Herem" war is described fairly briefly in the Old Testament in passages concerning some groups which were considered to be blocking the Israelites from core areas of the Holy Land assigned to them, before the establishment of the Kingdom of Israel. If you imagine that "large portions" of the Bible are devoted to Herem war, then you've never read much of it... AnonMoos (talk) 00:35, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

(So the lesson is that you can only commit genocide if you want to steal someone else's land ?) Genocide is just one of the many things that could be scrapped from the Bible. The "begats", for example, while at least not teaching us to be evil, are incredibly boring and utterly useless in instructing people how to live their lives. StuRat (talk) 04:05, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

That's nice -- the Bible describes cruel practices in one particular phase of Israelite history more than 3,000 years ago (not setting it up as a general rule of conduct). It may be shocking or reprehensible, but your pattern of rushing to condemn without bothering to understand does not impress me. By the way, genealogy was the way that the ancient Israelites understood their place within their nation and within the world. The tabula gentium of Genesis chapter 10 is a kind of map of the world as understood by the Israelites ca. 600 B.C. Actual diagrammatic visual maps were somewhat rudimentary or restricted in purpose at that time, so it was expressed in genealogy... AnonMoos (talk) 04:36, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Did you read my link ? That's just one of many examples. The Flood is another. Supposedly everyone but Noah's family was evil and had to be drowned, including the children. Similar destruction happened to Sodom and Gomorrah. Of course, I don't believe those stories are true, but it's still an example of the lesson from God that it's OK to kill off anyone you think of as evil, including children. StuRat (talk) 04:51, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Biblical criticism doesn't come very well from somebody who doesn't know too much or care too much about the Bible. If you want to indulge yourself with a generalized rant about the inherent evil of all religion, then there are plenty of other places to do it. And since I was not particularly impressed with the style, attitude, or factual content of your comments on this thread, why would I click on your link?? -- AnonMoos (talk) 04:57, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

How did you assess the factuality of his comments without looking at the reference he cited? 112.215.36.185 (talk) 05:36, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I saw plenty of old "freethought" literature in past decades, and I'm familiar with what it is, and someone who regurgitates fragments from that material without having any real personal knowledge of what he's trying to attack or criticize really does not impress me, and does not even interest me. Some attempts in that genre can be rather interesting and amusing, such as the letter to Dr. Laura, or the list of "Top Biblical Ways to Find a Wife" (which is circulating in many variants) -- but those were made by people who actually knew what they were talking about... AnonMoos (talk) 19:47, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Geez, somebody piss in your corn flakes this morning ? Somebody who doesn't read the sources I provide before forming their opinions doesn't much interest me either. StuRat (talk) 06:35, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm familiar with that general type of source already, and your particular approach towards the subject in this thread did not leave me wanting to know more about that particular URL. AnonMoos (talk) 08:49, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

That site is cherry picking quotes without context... And if you would look later on, you'd see no genocide occured, and many native groups remained and lived there. --Activism1234 04:40, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

But god was not pleased... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:02, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Also, Jehovah's Witnesses DO indeed sometimes change their doctorines. Even the notorious Jehovah's Witnesses and blood transfusions issue has had more then a couple of revisions, none as far as I know involved modifying their scriptures. Vespine (talk) 04:23, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Locations for Olympics

I know they bid to decide the locations for every Olympic games but I don't know what they actually mean by bid? So is it like whichever country can bid with the most money win? What determine the result? How did a country eventually win the bid?174.20.39.60 (talk) 23:54, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

In theory, the decision is based on who can put on the best Olympics (this is why you don't often see them in third world nations) with some value placed on new locations (that's why they don't just stick to the same old location). So, number of stadiums, hotel rooms, public transportation, etc., would all figure in. Unfortunately, there has been corruption in the selection process, so bribery is also sometimes a factor. StuRat (talk) 23:58, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Politics plays a role. Not sure why, but the IOC seemed to very deliberately yank Obama around in the process of the selection for the 2016 Olympics -- they made an ostentatious point of telling him that Chicago's bid might fail if he didn't show up personally, then when he did show up, they made an ostentatious point of giving him the bum's rush and dumping Chicago's bid in the first round. Hope they don't need any favors from him... AnonMoos (talk) 00:19, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

As I understand it, after the London olympics bid and Tony Blair, having your leader show up began to be seen as important. Regardless of whether this was a good thing, if this was how the IOC members felt, it seems to me it was fair to point out to the US that if they thought they were special and didn't have to do what everyone else was doing to win, they weren't. However having your leader show up was still only a portion of the bid. You can't blame the OIC for quicky rejecting the US if the rest of the bid was crappier then other candidates. If the US felt that doing what every other country was doing would somehow give them a better chance then the other coutries (and even when they did do it only at the last minute), that was surely their own misconception. Our articles list several problems with the US bid, only one (the amount of money going to the USOC) of which could really be called politics (and like it of not, taking more money then others feel is fair, is going to cause resentment). The article on the Chicago bid in particular notes that it may not have even been intended by the IOC members for Chicago to go out. Nil Einne (talk) 08:02, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

And yet the IOC always makes a point of stressing the Games are awarded to a city, not a country. On that basis, they ought to be satisfied with the mayor. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 08:15, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

That may be the official claim of the IOC, but it doesn't mean the IOC members who actually vote share the same view. Besides as with so many things the IOC claims about the unimportance of countries (or more accurately NOCs), long before the London bid the significance of the country involved has been clear. E.g. the bidding taking place in a non candidate country, the clear reluctance to avoid a the olympics to the same country too often. (The same way that despite the official view that atheletes not countries compete, the IOC posts medal tallys, atheletes march in under their country flag, the flag is raised along with the anthem for the medalist, in many sports the number of competitors per country is limited, the IOC pushed for women atheletes from all countries, earlier Chinese bids being rejected for human rights reasons, etc etc.) The more accurate view is that while cities are competing for and ultimately win the bids, the countries the cities are in are still a big factor. So having your countries leader support your cities bid should hardly be surprising. (If the Americans are unable to see this, again this is ultimately their fault.) Nil Einne (talk) 09:19, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

N.B. I just wanted to mentioned that I'm not suggesting politics is not a big factor in the bidding process. It clearly is. I was only pointing out that I don't see much evidence the IOC was intentional trying to dick around Obama. The nature of the bidding process means no one wants to reveal too much information on a countries chances early on, and in any case, there is some evidence minds are not always made up until fairly late in the game. So it's hardly surprising if some IOC members pointed out to the US that if they wanted to have any chance of winning (or perhaps wanted the IOC members to actually look at their bid seriously), they better get with the programme (again regardless of whether the requirement is a good idea). But then when they actually seriously looked at the bid (perhaps after the US had finally gotten with the programme), they realised it was still too crap to win. (Although as I pointed out, it's entirely unclear whether Chicago was really rejected at the first round intentional; or it's more of a accident from voting blocs and the politics about which specific country to support, since there's no actual 'oppose' vote.) Nil Einne (talk) 09:19, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Nil Einne, it says right in the Bids for the 2016 Summer Olympics article that "Both indices correctly predicted the winner, Rio de Janeiro, but failed to predict the poor showing of Chicago". In the minds of many in Chicago, or who followed the process, that translates to a null hypothesis that the IOC chose to slight or snub Obama (enjoying exercising the power of making him come from DC to Copenhagen at their beck and call, and then ruthlessly slamming him after he behaved like a good boy and arrived on command). I wouldn't be surprised if many in the administration had the same impression. AnonMoos (talk) 19:30, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

See for example Bids for Olympic Games and Bids for the 2012 Summer Olympics. You are apparently thinking of meaning 1 at wiktionary:bid#Noun. Meaning 3 is more relevant. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:10, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

August 6

Countries where nationalism or patriotism is/was discouraged.

I was wondering if there are/were any countries where, at some point in time, nationalism and/or patriotism, or at least ultra-nationalism and ultra-patriotism, is/was frowned upon, or at least wasn't that prominent. Have there ever been such places? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:21, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

That depends on what you mean by ulta-nationalism. If you mean groups like the British National Party or the English Defence League in the UK, and equivalents elsewhere, then they are often very much frowned upon by the mainstream. --Tango (talk) 00:29, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

As in the ones that many Americans seem to follow, especially the political analysts and the right-wing politicians. Also, that includes the attitude of calling your country the "greatest". Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:32, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

The Soviets under Lenin and Stalin were antinationalist due to promotion of the ideals of the international brotherhood of workers. There was an abrupt change after the nazis invaded though, with Stalin calling on the soldiers to act in defence of Mother Russia. 112.215.36.177 (talk) 00:41, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Not sure that's a good example. Certain nationalisms were discouraged, while others were carefully channeled and controlled, but Soviet patriotism and blind faith in the leadership of the Soviet Communist party were strongly inculcated. By the way, one feature of Stalin's Soviet Union was that certain passages of Marx, Engels, and Lenin on Tsarist Russian imperialism were not allowed to be printed! (So much for the "complete" edition of Marx's works.) AnonMoos (talk) 00:57, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

See Russian nationalism and Socialism in One Country. It's the best example of the state rejecting nationalism that you're ever likely to find. 112.215.36.185 (talk) 05:28, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

It's a good example of rejecting the ethnic nationalism of the largest or most significant ethnic group in a state (though hardly unique -- the Ottoman empire didn't significantly encourage Turkish nationalism in the modern sense until 1908). However, it's a poor example when it comes to rejecting ideas of collective loyalty and loyalty to the leaders of a state (since fervent loyalty to the Soviet Union and the Bolshevik party was highly encouraged). AnonMoos (talk) 19:19, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Also relevent is Bourgeois nationalism, which in theory Marxist/communist countries would ascribe to; the idea that nationalism was anti-communist by its nature. The ideal Marxist state was anti-nationalist. Sadly, in practice this worked out very differently. At first, the Soviet Union tried to support world-wide communism by promoting local nationalism in its various constituent republics, see Korenizatsiya. This didn't last long, and instead it proceeded on a policy of Russification. --Jayron32 06:01, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

In Britain during much of the 1920's and 1930's, there was a strong reaction against the propaganda and jingoistic patriotism of WW1 (contrasted with the meaninglessness of much of the WW1 fighting), so an ostentatious anti-patriotism was fashionable in certain university circles, and it was famously debated at the Oxford Union that they would "in no circumstances fight for... King and Country". Kim Philby came out of this environment. AnonMoos (talk) 00:43, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

There have been plenty of self-hating countries, Weimar Germany, Vichy France, Britain under the Labour Party (UK). Germany and Japan banned the symbols of their prior regimes after WWII. They no longer sing Deutschland Ueber Alles do they? Although that is due, of course, to the US-lead victory of the allies, the US being, objectively, the greatest country in world history, with no need to prove it. μηδείς (talk) 02:50, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

They still use the third stanza of the Deutschlandlied as the national anthem, but the first stanza would not be appropriate as the places mentioned no longer form the boundaries of Germany. -- Arwel Parry (talk) 17:35, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

The fact that the composer Joseph Haydn was what we today call Austrian, and it was written in honour of the Kaiser of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, has never stopped Germany using any part of the anthem. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 20:03, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

"Britain under the Labour Party...." ??!! , I think. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:55, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Ghmyrtle, that was probably a response direct to Medeis, but it reads like a response to me. Could you please in future indent it one in from the post to which you're responding, and not one in from the last one in the current thread? It makes for very disjointed reading when you don't make it immediately clear to whom you're talking. Thanks. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 22:39, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

"The Nation" repeatedly reconfigures itself in relation to perceived or actual deficiencies. Consider, for example, the construction of appropriate German behaviour prior to 1914, prior to 1930, prior to 1945 and prior to 1989. One example to consider is the changes of meaning in "Australianness" in the past 130 years. Previous configurations of Australianness such as the Dutiful Daughter, the Authorised War Larrikin, New Australian-ness, or Multiculturalism come and go. Below them seethes changing ethnic and racial conceptions of the nation. In many cases competing concepts of nationalism contend. In the 1940s through the 1980s the Australian Communist Party championed a nationalist Australian identity, made from a gum leaf harmonica and Eureka stockade (without Lambing Flat riots)—meanwhile the Returned and Services League of Australia commemorated our valiant dead and their noble sacrifice beneath aging posters of Queen Victoria the Second. Very different nationalisms within a single "nation." Were the CPA anti-patriotic because they wanted President Larrikin instead of QEII? Fifelfoo (talk) 02:55, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Who the hell is Queen Victoria the Second? 87.112.129.180 (talk) 20:30, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

a) Brainslippage; b) riffing off the RSL's very Australian-As-British worship of QEII. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:45, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

United States Population Growth By Region

How come there is much faster population growth in the Western U.S. (plus Texas) and in the Southeastern United States than in the rest of the United States? Not only is this happening right now, but this has consistently been the case since at least the Great Depression and WWII. Futurist110 (talk) 01:14, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Not sure I agree with your timing. It seems to me the decline of the rust belt is a consequence of the US moving from an industrial economy to a service economy, since most industry was in the North Central and North East. On the plus side, global warming may push people back up north, as the South becomes unbearable. StuRat (talk) 03:15, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Another reason is that recent immigration to the US has been more from tropical areas than the traditional northern European nations, and people tend to move to where the weather is like home. StuRat (talk) 03:59, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

We have an article Sun Belt... -- AnonMoos (talk) 04:05, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Air conditioning. --Jayron32 04:06, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

And insecticide. Neutrality^talk 04:22, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

See also list of U.S. states by population growth rate, mean center of United States population, and Demographic history of the United States (the latter being a rather terrible article, unfortunately). Neutrality^talk 04:24, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

In regards to the Sun Belt, the U.S. population growth isn't purely divided along the Sun Belt lines. Utah, Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Nevada, and Colorado are above the Sun Belt, yet also grow much faster than the national average. Meanwhile Oklahoma, Louisiana, Arkansas, Mississippi, and Alabama are on the Sun Belt but are growing slower than the national average. As for my timing, it is based on facts, considering that most states in the North, Midwest, and "Interior South" (Southern states which don't border the Atlantic Ocean) experienced their peak number of Representatives in the U.S. House of Representatives in the 1920s, 1930s, 1940s, or 1950s. Futurist110 (talk) 06:49, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Early on, that might be almost solely based on the growth of California, and to a lesser extent in the rest of the West. This was just because those territories were newly opened, by things like the transcontinental railroad, and it takes many decades for an area to reach it's equilibrium population after that. Then, as noted previously, there was movement away from the rust belt (due to deindustrialization) and into most of the South (due to affordable home A/C). The growth of the Hispanic population, mainly in the Southwest, also played a role. StuRat (talk) 19:27, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

We should also consider the African American migrations which were primarily south to north until about 1970, afterward reversing: Great Migration (African American) (1910–1930), Second Great Migration (African American) (1941–1970) and New Great Migration. Rmhermen (talk) 14:22, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Urban legends or real?

Are these two stories [15] true?A8875 (talk) 03:02, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Those stories are touching, but not particularly incredible, so I see no reason to doubt them. StuRat (talk) 03:41, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

The bear story reminds me of one of the plots in Le Fabuleux Destin d'Amélie Poulain. —Tamfang (talk) 04:08, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

We have an article about Sadako Sasaki with links to several related articles. Fred Small also wrote a song about her.[16] 67.117.146.199 (talk) 05:20, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I want to create a page for a sculptor

My grandfather is a sculptor in Cd. Juarez Mexico who has made several statues for the government in Juarez city, Chihuahua city, El Paso, TX even Chicago.

I'd like to document his work and his life as well as put pictures of his statues. How can I do this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.182.167.113 (talk) 03:18, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

First, read the guidelines to see if your grandfather is notable. If so, you can use WP:YFA or WP:RA to either create the article yourself or ask for someone else to create it. In either case, also read the policy about conflict of interest. In the future, you should ask this sort of question on the help desk at WP:HD RudolfRed (talk) 03:30, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Wow, Rudy, ever heard of "don't bite the newbies? Conflict of interest? Wow. μηδείς (talk) 03:35, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't see what is biting about my response. I pointed the OP to two resources useful for creating new pages. The OP is related to the subject of the proposed new article, which introduces the possibility of conflict of interest, so I pointed to the relevent page. RudolfRed (talk) 04:59, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Welcome, prospective editor. You'll need some sort of references, books or periodicals, that mention his work. So long as there are reliable sources that show he is notable you can create an article based on them. You will find doing so easier if you create an account for yourself. Once you have done this, search for his name as you would want it to appear in the Article, say John Q. Public. When you do so, unless we have an article on someone else with the same name, it will offer you the option of creating an article on him. Any instructions you need you will find here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Contents

The only real mistake would be to create an article without any published sources as references. (They can be published on line, but be related to something more than a blog.) If you don't have sources, someone is liable to nominate your work for deletion pretty quickly. If you have further questions, follow the help link I gave. Use the chat option if you want immediate help. This page is for research questions, so ask us if you need us to look something up for you. μηδείς (talk) 03:35, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Incidentally, there are still some helpers in "the chat" who will point potential COI editors to the COI link before giving them any other advice. I am not one of those, because it would be tiring (about 95% of new entrants to the chat have a COI.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:22, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Bonaly skating video, what is the music?

[17] Thanks. 67.117.146.199 (talk) 04:55, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Echo Nest says it's Georgopoulus, A. as Arp (2007) "Odyssey (For Bas Jan Ader)" on In Light (San Francisco: Smalltown Supersound), but that can't be right because the video was uploaded in 2006. 70.59.11.32 (talk) 10:14, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Presidents of the Congress under the Articles of Confederation

Are the Presidents of the Congress under the Articles of Confederation given any respect or acknowledgement anymore and were they ever in the past? It seems like they are largely forgotten. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 08:59, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

They were all very famous at the time, but the presidents of the Congress of the Confederation had absolutely no executive power, and their duties to preside over the congressional assembly were almost always delegated, so they didn't really do anything. It was just a ceremonial role. The colonial speakers were the actual executives until the Constitution was ratified. 70.59.11.32 (talk) 09:23, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

No, the state governors, and the Congress itself, were the "actual executives" during the Articles of Confederation era. But yes, the president of Congress was not much more than a ceremonial position, a symbolic head of an increasingly unimportant body. No one really wanted the job, some guys turned it down, and my guess is few Americans at the time knew or cared who held the office. To the extent that some of the presidents were famous, they were famous for doing other things. —Kevin Myers 10:04, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

We should mention that Congress did get around to creating some executive departments. The most important official in the government was not the president, but the Superintendent of Finance of the United States. —Kevin Myers 10:30, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

U.S. Urbanization Data By State Before 1900 and in 2000-2010

Does anyone have it? Thank you. Futurist110 (talk) 11:32, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

http://www.demographicchartbook.com/Chartbook/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=135&Itemid=142 - This page has pre-1900 and 2000 urbanization data, but I'm not sure what its source for the data is. Futurist110 (talk) 20:05, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Another possible place to look is http://www.census.gov . They have a wealth of demographic data, directly from the US census. --Jayron32 19:46, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Riots in Belgium

How many riots in Belgium dealt with the ethnic minority? because you wikipedians didn't mentioned about a riot regarding the burqa ban. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.20.38 (talk) 19:01, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't know the answer to the question, but regarding your second sentence, Wikipedia is not the news, it is an encyclopedia. Looie496 (talk) 22:17, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

BBC News is not an encyclopedia either, but still, that didn't mention Belgian riots any place I could see. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:19, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Huffington Post mentioned the riots. That actually took me longer than I thought it would. Most of the sources mentioning the riots are blogs of one sort or another. Based on the description given, as well as the paucity of coverage, I am assuming this was more "a few dozen people angrily congregating in front of a police station" and less, you know, rioting. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:24, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Even if you want to call it a riot... not every riot is notable. Essentially, if sources don't talk about an event (in some degree of depth), we shouldn't have an article about it. Blueboar (talk) 23:35, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

The Belgian newspaper Le Soir has had quite some coverage of this; for example: this story. However, I suspect that as such things go, it really wasn't that notable. Even the French Wikipedia has nothing on riots. Astronaut (talk) 10:07, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

The Daily Mail covered it: [18]. It's their kind of story, though... --Tango (talk) 21:31, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

If it's some minor riot in Belgium, most Western media outlets, other than those in Belgium, won't be interested in it, compared to all the other stories they get. Belgium media outlets, however, may have reported more on it. --Activism1234 00:33, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Think and Grow Rich and The Law of Success + The Law of Success In Sixteen Lessons by Napoleon Hill

Hello there, I have already purchased Napoleon Hill's "Think and Grow Rich" and start reading it and the book seems quite impressive to me. I have noticed there are two more books of this writer available in the store (The Law of Success and The Law of Success In Sixteen Lessons). I am thinking to purchase one of them. But I am bit confused about this two book whether they are similar to "Think and Grow Rich" book. If they are then I wouldn't go for them. Has anyone have own / read these books? What are the differences lays in them? Thanks in advance--180.234.114.129 (talk) 22:17, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia has articles "Think and Grow Rich" and "The Law of Success".

—Wavelength (talk) 22:26, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Books that are popular, well-written, and successful, have a problem - the publisher will force the author to write more books on the same approximate topic, even if the original books covered the topic comprehensively. When deciding whether to buy the subsequent books, one thing you could consider is whether the original books lived up to their promise. Did you get rich? If so, then you will have no problem affording the new book or books. Did you not yet get rich? In that case, I would suggest that buying a possible re-hash of the book that failed to get you rich, is a bad idea. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:18, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Dogbert has a word of warning here:[19] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:35, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I recommend "The Spirit Level: Why More Equal Societies Almost Always Do Better" (the Wikipedia article and the book of the same name).

—Wavelength (talk) 00:41, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I recommend "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal" by Ayn Rand. μηδείς (talk) 16:46, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

August 7

US Consuls to Tahiti

Dorence Atwater was appointed US Consuls to Tahiti in 1870. Was this a diplomatic gesture to France (having many consuls in French areas of controls) or was it because of a treaty/recognization of the still semi-independent kingdom? Was there ever an American-Tahitian treaty?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 00:04, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

If the US considered it independent, presumably a chargé d'affaires or minister would have been sent, not a consul... AnonMoos (talk) 04:32, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't fully understand how the consular system worked at that time, but apparently it had more of an economic function than a diplomatic one. In any case it looks like the first U.S. consul to Tahiti was a Belgian named J. A. Moerenhout, appointed Jan. 1835 (oddly he later became the French consul!).--Cam (talk) 23:27, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Paintings by John Cleveley the Younger

• 
• 
• 

These are a set of four Views of the South Seas:

1. View of Huaheine, one of the Society Islands;
2. View of Morea, one of the Friendly Islands;
3. View of Charlotte Sound in New Zealand (sic, actually a view in Matavai Bay, Tahiti);
4. View of Owhyhee, one of the Sandwich Islands (also known as 'The Death of Cook')

My questions are which is which? Which painting is missing here and what does it look like. Also where is "Morea, one of the Friendly Islands", the Friendly Islands was Tonga; it isn't Moorea since that was called "Eimeo" at the time. I am assuming that the third image is 'The Death of Cook' but why does it differ from the other version, also credited to John Cleveley the Younger, File:Deathofcookoriginal.jpg, File:Death of Captain Cook, Alexander Turnbull Library.jpg and File:John Cleveley the Younger, The Death of Cook (1784).jpg; which is the original one?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 00:35, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Here's a description of the set of four at the time of their auction by Christies in 2004. There's a tiny thumbnail of the missing one. These four watercolours of Matavai Bay in Tahiti, the nearby Morea, Huaheine and Sandwich slands (Hawaii). These are thought to be the original drawings from which a set of prints was published in 1788. The scene of the Sandwich Islands depicts the skirmish that resulted in the death of Captain Cook. However, this watercolour shows Cook trying to defend himself, whereas the subsequent print depicts Cook being attacked from behind. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.88.9.92 (talk) 09:44, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Looking at the original Christies listing, compare lots 35, 40 and 41. You may have images of J. Martyn's aquatints, not Cleveley's originals? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.88.9.92 (talk) 09:49, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

And The Independent, reporting on the sale, explains why the Death of Cook is different: it shows what actually happened, from Cleveley's brother's original sketch (Cook fought the Hawaiians). Martyn and other aquatinters revised the image to show the "official" version (Cook tried to make peace).

Dozens of aquatints produced after his death in 1779 show Cook acting the peace-maker...this image of Cook became the authorised version of his death... But a painting by John Cleveley, on which the etchings were based, exposes another version...Cleveley died in 1786 and by the time his four watercolours were turned into aquatints by John Martyn two years later, the changes to the scene had been made... Clevely's previously unknown work makes clear that 18th-century engravers deployed the art of spin to boost sales...Nobody had known until now that the Martyn set of aquatints, called Views in the South Seas , were so clearly an act of historical revisionism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.88.9.92 (talk) 09:56, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

United Kingdom Government

There has always been a discussion about the monarchy in the UK. One of the Royalist arguments is to say that a monarch, as the permanent (ceremonial) head of state, is more experienced than a temporary elected one (and saves a small fortune on not having to organise and facilitate elections). If the head of state is ceremonial then couldn't they just do away with monarchy altogether, and just continue, unceremoniously, as they already do? — Fly by Night (talk) 01:06, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

You'd likely be interested in Republicanism in the United Kingdom. Dismas|^(talk) 01:34, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

"Couldn't they just do away with monarchy altogether, and just continue, unceremoniously, as they already do?" Yes. μηδείς (talk) 02:39, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

And if they died, what then? Who would succeed them? The point of a monarchy is that the succession is a matter of fact rather than election: this in itself removes uncertainty, promotes stability, and facilitates the transfer of experience. --TammyMoet (talk) 08:25, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

"They" who? I don't think FbN was proposing an elected ceremonial head of state, but rather dispensing with a ceremonial head of state altogether.

This is one of my issues as well. Constitutional royalists often respond to cost questions by saying that, if you didn't have the monarch, you'd still need a head of state. But do you, really? Why is a head of state necessary at all? --Trovatore (talk) 18:12, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

The way international relations work, you do need a head of state. You could just have the Prime Minister as head of state, though. --Tango (talk) 19:12, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Why? The Queen doesn't really do anything as regards international relations. She is toasted, she shows up, people are introduced to her. None of that is in any obvious way essential to conducting international relations. People seem to assume it is, but I have never seen any good reason given for it. Do you have an example where it has been tried and failed? --Trovatore (talk) 20:15, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Diplomacy is all about protocol and tradition. It's part of how you show respect to a country. When a foreign head of state comes to the UK on a state visit, they expect to be hosted by the the British head of state, for instance. It's really just a name, though. You could call the Prime Minister head of state and that ought to work just fine for diplomatic purposes. --Tango (talk) 21:36, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Do you really think, if the UK (UR?) were to decide to just dispense with all this protocol and tradition, other countries would want to stop interacting with it? --Trovatore (talk) 21:56, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

That's no argument for change. Every country has its protocols and traditions, almost none of which are strictly necessary for the continuation of the country, or life on the planet. They are part of the set of things that make other countries interesting, and people have a funny habit of being interested in things that are interesting and different, but not particularly interested in things that are the same as what they're familiar with. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 00:18, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

But I wasn't making an argument for change. I was attempting to refute an argument I've heard against it, another matter entirely. --Trovatore (talk) 01:12, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

It sure read like an argument for change to me: Why is a head of state necessary at all?. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 01:53, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

The argument I'm attempting to refute says that the monarchy is not a waste of money, because in any case a head of state is necessary and money would have to be spent on one. I am questioning the underlying assumption that a head of state is necessary. Now, even if a head of state is not necessary, there is a possible argument for having one along the lines you bring up, but that is a separate argument from the one that says a head of state is necessary. --Trovatore (talk) 01:59, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Consider just one aspect; the right to grant pardons. In the US, pardons are given freely to the highest bidder, especially if the criminal in question is of the same party as the governor or president, who happens to be retiring. In the UK, that type of corruption doesn't happen, because the Queen has plenty of money, so has no reason to risk the scandal, which could ultimately result in the monarchy being dissolved. StuRat (talk) 04:37, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Like most actions of the monarchy, royal pardons are done "on the advice of a government minister" (Pardon#United Kingdom) and the Queen would never normally refuse, so the existing system could easily be modified by giving the Home Secretary or Justice Secretary the formal right to pardon. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:01, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Then he would sell pardons to whoever contributes the most to his party, as in the US. If he recommends pardons to the Queen based on such bribery, however, and she gets wind of it, she would refuse to grant them, and he would be disgraced. It's an extra level of safety. Hopefully she would also be suspicious if an outgoing minister suddenly submits hundreds of pardon requests (since he will soon be beyond caring about voter contempt). StuRat (talk) 09:31, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

He would, Stu? Really. You are wildly and baselessly speculating, something we don't engage in on the ref desks. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 11:11, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

The question of why any system of government is used requires thinking of possible ways that governments have failed, and can fail again, so we can then determine if the system in question is more or less likely to have the same failings. StuRat (talk) 11:29, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

As Colapeninsula mentioned, the Queen pretty much never acts against ministerial advice. Technically, she could, but it would be a major constitutional crisis and it is generally assumed that she would lose whatever reserve power she had used in the aftermath. She's unlikely to intervene in that way to prevent corruption and would just leave it to the justice system to deal with (selling pardons is illegal - if the minister tried to pardon themselves from the corruption charges, that is where the Queen might step in!). --Tango (talk) 19:12, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Can the Queen just delay granting iffy pardons until an investigation is concluded ? StuRat (talk) 20:32, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

If advised to by her ministers, yes. Otherwise, no, not in practice. --Tango (talk) 21:38, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

She wouldn't lose power if the decision (to act against ministerial advice) had popular support. This is one function of the monarchy: as a backup system against the unlikely event that the elected government is utterly corrupt. See Thailand.  Card Zero  (talk) 22:03, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Stu, have monarchs historically refused to create peerages (etc) that were motivated by donations to the party in power? —Tamfang (talk) 00:08, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

The crux of the debate is that we, the people of the United Kingdom, rather like things the way they are, thank you very much. Yes, we could do without them, but we'd rather not. Alansplodge (talk) 10:55, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I'd like change. You speak for yourself, not the 'people of the United Kingdom'.Dalliance (talk) 12:04, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Apologies if that sounded a bit pompous; what I meant was that the Constitutional Monarchy continues by the grace of Parliament, which represents (however poorly) the collective will of the people of the United Kingdom. If and when a reasonable majority come around to your way of thinking, then the time for change will have arrived. Alansplodge (talk) 19:27, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Granted that this seems to be a theoretical question (can the UK become a republic?) rather than one of likelihood (is the UK likely to become a republic?) or procedure (what would it require for the UK to become a republic?), the simple answer is, of course, yes: the UK could indeed become a republic if the necessary legal changes were made, much in the same way that the Supreme Court was made a separate entity from the House of Lords.

However, I don't think that it's likely, at least not anytime soon (let's come back to that one when King Charles III has been crowned), for two reasons: firstly, the Monarch would have to be written out of all legislation and whoever holds the actual power would have to be written in, instead. Secondly, when I read the OP, I got hung up on the formula 'just continue, unceremoniously, as they already do?', which seems to show a lack of understanding for how British society works. The British do not do things unceremoniously, they do them with all the pomp and circumstance that they can muster. V85 (talk) 16:42, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

You wouldn't need to rewrite legislation like that, you just have to pass one piece of new legislation that says all references to the monarch in existing legislation should now be interpreted as references to whatever replaces them. References to the monarch are fairly rare, anyway, outside of Acts specifically pertaining to the monarchy (which would probably just need to be repealed). --Tango (talk) 19:15, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Medeis answered this question. This question was put intending to cause debate and seek opinions, rather than to seek answers and references adequately. This question has been repeatedly asked and answered as demonstrable from the archives. The history of parliamentary supremacy is reasonably well known in the British constitution just as well known as the failure of potential Commonwealth forces in supraparliamentary movements like the Chartists or the disinclination for the UK Labour party to take republican stances. Can we all now go and read the archives; for this is as tiresome as a question seeking debate on abortion politics, US firearms law, or the moral deficiency of the Australian. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:56, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Resolved

Arcadia, South Sea Islands

Where is Arcadia, South Sea Islands?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 05:36, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

In some Nicholas Chevalier admirer's art collection?[20]. The only other Arcadia with any connection to the South Seas I can find is MV Arcadia, which will be sailing there in 2013. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:02, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Is it made up? Or is it an archaic European name for a South Sea Island?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 06:05, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Chevalier was just using "Arcadia" in its extended sense of "an idyllic place". As the text at Clarityfiend's link states, the actual setting was Opunohu Bay on Moorea. Deor (talk) 10:04, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

See also Et in Arcadia ego. I'm not sure the article is brilliantly done, currently, as to my mind, it seems to bury the information about the phrase while explaining the paintings' contents and significance. Might need to split the article. --Dweller (talk) 09:01, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

list of marriages of famous people which took place in a particular year

Looking for names of famous personalities who got married in a particular year say 1949 (my current interest). Appreciate any help — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.111.228.20 (talk) 06:57, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Of course the Internet has a "Celebrity Weddings Archive"! There are 160 listed for 1949 there. Adam Bishop (talk) 08:47, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Buddhism, meditation and illusion

When Buddhists say meditation is good against daydreaming, do they imply daydreaming is bad for you? And, assuming they imply that, do they say that because daydreaming is just an illusion? And, how do Buddhists view things like prestige? Is that also just an illusion? Budddhhha (talk) 17:54, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

See Buddhist meditation, satipatthana, and mindfulness. Neutrality^talk 18:04, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

They do not explicitly say daydreaming is bad, or that the prestige that you get from, as an example, being fashionable is just an illusion that has to be avoided. I've already read similar articles, but it's difficult to find concrete information. Budddhhha (talk) 18:14, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

If you daydream you are not living in the present, fully experiencing what it is to be human now. That is what Mindfulness is about. (I doubt whether a Buddhist would say anything is bad, actually. I think what they'd probably say is that it keeps you from doing something which is better for you.) Prestige I think they view as a diversion from the pursuit of nirvana. Having a status in the eyes of others is irrelevant really. What is relevant is the achievment of nirvana and the Eightfold Path. --TammyMoet (talk) 19:46, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

How many of the world's technological advancements have come from Buddhists? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:14, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

If that's a serious question, Bugs, it should have its own section. μηδείς (talk) 02:45, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Paper, gunpowder, rocketry...you know, nothing special. Adam Bishop (talk) 06:24, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

August 8

Oceania

The Wikipedia page of Oceania says that there are different opinions on which areas of the world are part of Oceania.

1) What is the reason for these different opinions? It seems odd to me - geographical areas should be an agreed, set thing, it isn't exactly a dispute over differing scientific theories. 2) What do most people, in modern-day every-day usage, refer to when they say Oceania?

I find it to be particularly problematic when nation-wide tests will ask a question about Oceania, for example on a history test, because there are different opinions on what exactly Oceania is.

Thanks.

--Activism1234 00:02, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Continents are a matter of convention, shaped by cultural and historical influences. Oceania is not only the only continent subject to different definitions. Boundaries between continents lists several others. OsmanRF34 (talk) 00:06, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Oceania is not really a "continent" — I know that word is sometimes used, but it's imprecise. The relevant continent is called Australia and does not include New Zealand, which is made up of volcanic rather than continental islands. --Trovatore (talk) 02:12, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Hmm... Interesting... But still, if I said "Africa" people would know what and where I'm referring to. If I say Oceania, where would I be referring to (meaning, what's the most commonly accepted definition?) Thanks. --Activism1234 00:31, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

People will get the general idea of "Africa" or "Oceania". The only problem is on the boundaries and islands of both continents. OsmanRF34 (talk) 00:45, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

If you have a nationwide test which uses a certain convention, you need to use an educational curriculum which uses the same definition. Even if the differences are a bit arbitrary, just use the same convention the test-writers used. It doesn't pay to argue with a test. It can't argue back. --Jayron32 00:22, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Well I'm a bit above the age of taking tests, my question was hypothetical, but your response is very true. --Activism1234 00:29, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

For 1), the lead in our maritime boundary points out several potential causes behind geographical areas boundary dispute: A maritime boundary is a conceptual division of the Earth's water surface areas using physiographic and/or geopolitical criteria. As such, it usually includes areas of exclusive national rights over mineral and biological resources. Sometimes it's national pride, but Fishing zones + potential oil extraction sites are especially problematic - see List_of_territorial_disputes and especially Territorial disputes in the South China Sea. Royor (talk) 01:41, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Very interesting. Will check it out. --Activism1234 02:15, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Concepts are tools, and how they are used depends on the context. There are circumstances under which the Arabian plate is seen as part of the African continent, so even "Africa" is not so well defined. See Sahul, Zealandia, and the Geography of New Caledonia for some interesting facts. My experience with "Oceania" is that it is a convenient term for encyclopedists when they want to refer to what is left over after the look at the Old World, The Americas, and Antarctica. μηδείς (talk) 02:53, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Nazi plans for the occupation of the US

In the Ken Burns series The War, Episode 6, The Ghost Front, near the start, a former US soldier stated that a captured German claimed that he had been trained for the administration of captured US mainland territories:

1) Did such training occur ?

2) Do we have an article on it ? StuRat (talk) 01:28, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

We have an article that goes into detail on Axis operations in North American during WWII, as well as plans for the same that never saw fruition. There is no mention of a planned occupation, however: American Theater (1939–1945). I also looked through our categories on cancelled German military operations of WWII, and didn't see anything of the like. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:38, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Not sure, but almost positive that Hitler planned to conquer America at some point. --Activism1234 01:45, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I completely believe that, and we do have Category:Cancelled military operations involving Germany as well as the more general Category:Cancelled_invasions, whose contents are mostly from WWII. But I have a suspicion that the occupation of the United States was more of a pipe dream for Hitler than anything else. There were certainly efforts to get spies and saboteurs on the American mainland, and plans for military attacks, as well as rampant speculation of an future Nazi invasion, but I find no solid sources that any such plan moved beyond the imaginary. Maybe someone will show me something that really should be on Wikipedia. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:51, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah I don't think he got anything ready before he died, since he was busy in the east/west Europe front, but I don't think it's disputed he did intend on eventually conquering America. Indeed, see New Order (Nazism), which describes Hitler's plans to bring Nazism to the entire world. --Activism1234 02:22, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I fixed your link. StuRat (talk) 03:18, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

So the implication of the documentary was incorrect ? StuRat (talk) 03:08, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I completely believe that a US soldier claimed that a German soldier said he was trained for such an operation. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:23, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

But one of the two must have been lying, right ? StuRat (talk) 03:52, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Allegedly, after the Navy Seals killed Osama bin Laden, it became very popular for douchey men at bars to claim they were seals to make themselves look macho. It wouldn't surprise me if POWs did much the same thing, especially the comparatively well treated ones held by US soldiers. The German soldier could also have just been trolling. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:22, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I have a question--if Nazi Germany wanted to occupy the entire U.S., how exactly were they planning to deal with the massive resistance that would follow afterwards? Also, I seriously doubt that Nazi Germany would have been able to cross the Atlantic in large numbers AND build a nuke before the U.S. built some nukes of its own. Futurist110 (talk) 05:23, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, any plans to invade the US would have been foolish, but that doesn't mean they didn't make them anyway. After all, the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was just as foolish, since they had almost no chance of winning, based on industrial capacity, but they went ahead with that plan anyway. As for how the Nazis would deal with resistance, their usual pattern was massive reprisals against civilians. As for nukes, the Nazis didn't know how quickly the US program was progressing. StuRat (talk) 05:29, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

If their own citizens (especially white ones) are killed Americans tend to get extremely angry and go out of control. And didn't the Nazis have spies in the U.S. to determine the pace of the U.S.'s nuclear program? Futurist110 (talk) 05:55, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, if I was with the resistance, I wouldn't attack, knowing it would get everyone in town massacred. What I'd do, instead, is stockpile weapons and bide my time, until when they were too weak to retaliate (maybe due to a counter-offensive, maybe due to a power struggle within the Nazi Party, etc.) StuRat (talk) 06:37, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not aware of the Nazis having any real idea how well the Manhattan project was coming along. The Soviets did, for sure, and even had the blueprints for the bomb. We have a section on it at Manhattan_project#Espionage. The German attempts to infiltrate the project is barely a blip its history. Coincidentally, the Soviet spy that penetrated the project was born in Germany. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:11, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Why Are Druze Much More Patriotic Than Other Israeli Arabs?

Some Druze even vote for Likud and Yisrael Beitenu, despite the latter's anti-Arab platform and the former's desire to keep all of Jerusalem united under Israeli control. My question is--why? Futurist110 (talk) 05:54, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Becouse they not consider themseves Arab or Muslims.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 06:26, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

The Druze have traditionally been somewhat less permeated by Arab nationalist sentiments than either Arab Muslims and Arab Christians, and they certainly do not have the same attitude of historical entitlement ("We should be the rulers!") that Muslims do, so many decades ago they made a pragmatic decision to serve in the Israeli army, and reap the corresponding benefits... AnonMoos (talk) 06:27, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

The Druze, being a minority, might fear that they would be mistreated in a Palestinian state. Similar logic applies in Syria, where ethnic and religious minorities have supported the current regime, because they fear how they might be treated under a new regime (of course, this logic changes once they believe the current regime will soon collapse). StuRat (talk) 06:29, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I was under the impression that Druze were Arabs. This is like how I am partially ethnically Jewish even if I do not want to be. Also, Druze consider themselves to be "an Islamic Unist, reformatory sect", which implies that they consider themselves to be Muslims. If Druze are afraid of being mistreated in a Palestinian state, then why is there not such a large support for Israel among Arab Christians in Israel and Palestine? Also, why exactly was Arab nationalism less popular among the Druze than among other Arabs? Futurist110 (talk) 06:39, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

While Christians are a minority in Israel, they are a far larger group, overall, than the Druze, so may feel they would be protected by other nations, should Israel collapse. StuRat (talk) 06:46, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Christian countries sure haven't done much protecting of Christian minorities in Muslim countries lately, such as the Copts in Egypt. Futurist110 (talk) 07:05, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Are they being systematically massacred ? StuRat (talk) 07:46, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

No but I haven't read of any countries systematically massacring or wanting to massacre Druze either. Futurist110 (talk) 08:24, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Our excellent article on the Druze shows that they have experienced periodic persecution from what could be described as the more mainstream branches of Islam since the eleventh century. The article also says, "the Druze religion doesn't endorse separatist sentiments, urging the Druze to blend with the communities they reside in". --Dweller (talk) 08:46, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Kaliningrad Oblast

What benefit does Russia get from Kaliningrad Oblast? Why haven't they sold it to Poland or Lithuania? --108.227.27.111 (talk) 05:56, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Your second question seems to assume that any bit of land that is not contiguous with the main geographical part of the country is of no interest to them. Why hasn't the USA sold Alaska to Canada or Russia? Countries do not just give up bits of themselves like that. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 06:09, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

It could be a year-round naval port, for one thing. And Lithuania is poor. Indeed, would Poland or Lithuania be interested? Surely some Germans would, but other Germans would be repelled. But let's suppose that nation X wants Kaliningrad. (China or Saudi Arabia could afford it, and might find some use for it.) Yes, common sense says that if (say) Argentina is so keen on (re) acquiring the Malvinas, it should just make an offer for them. But common sense and national dignity clash. (NB national dignity, or anyway his notion of it, seems to be of particular importance to Putin.) Also, the inhabitants of the Malvinas consider themselves British and not Argentinian, and the inhabitants of Kaliningrad consider themselves Russian, even though the EU may beckon. ¶ NB this is all just off the top of my head. -- Hoary (talk) 06:16, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

What does NB mean? Also, I agree with everything you wrote, and I also want to point out that Kaliningrad is a large city (not some small rural area) and thus it has important economic (and strategic) value for Russia. Also, considering that most (or a very large part) of the Soviet casualties during WWII were Russian (Russia formed a majority of the U.S.S.R.'s population at the time), many Russians even today feel that Kaliningrad is their compensation from Germany for being forced to endure so many casualties and damage during WWII. Futurist110 (talk) 06:34, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Nota bene, or "note well". (Or New Brunswick, but that might not apply here.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:01, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Futurist110 (talk) 08:24, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

See Nota bene, which includes a link through to the Wiktionary article. --Dweller (talk) 08:52, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

do all humans have synesthesia?

like if there is an food flavoring that is clear but tastes like orange, and you put an equal small-ish amount in two glasses of water, but in the second you also put orange food coloring that has no taste - then will people actually "taste" the second glass as having more orange taste? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.3.160.86 (talk) 10:03, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

not asking what they would say about it - just whether it ACTUALLY "tastes" more ornage-y. (becaues the raw input from taste is mixed with visual cues or knowledge to come up with "sense of taste"). here is another example of two sense affecting each other. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-lN8vWm3m0 . --84.3.160.86 (talk) 10:05, 8 August 2012 (UTC)