Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

• Computing
• Entertainment
• Humanities
• Language
• Mathematics
• Science
• Miscellaneous
• Archives

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

• Select the section of the desk that best fits the general topic of your question (see the navigation column to the right).
• Post your question to only one section, providing a short header that gives the topic of your question.
• Type '~~~~' (that is, four tilde characters) at the end – this signs and dates your contribution so we know who wrote what and when.
• Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. Any answers will be provided here.
• Please be as specific as possible, and include all relevant context – the usefulness of answers may depend on the context.
• Note:
  • We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice.
  • We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate.
  • We don't do your homework for you, though we'll help you past the stuck point.
  • We don't conduct original research or provide a free source of ideas, but we'll help you find information you need.

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

• The best answers address the question directly, and back up facts with wikilinks and links to sources. Do not edit others' comments and do not give any medical or legal advice.

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

March 12

why does canada allow its ice hockey skaters to be so unprofessional as to fight?

why does canada allow its ice hockey skaters to be so unprofessional as to physically fight? This is not sanctioned in any other sport and is ridiculous. Aren't these people professionals? 212.96.61.236 (talk) 22:47, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

They are not "allowed to fight". Fighting leads to penalties of various kinds, depending on the severity of it, just as in any other sport. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:54, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Tradition. 70.174.141.142 (talk) 22:58, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

It's part of the game, although this is not official. OsmanRF34 (talk) 23:09, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

You do realize, that merely because you speak of something in a derisive tone, it doesn't actually change the nature of the thing of which you are speaking? If you want to know more about fighting in ice hockey, you can read the Wikipedia article titled fighting in ice hockey. We aren't really here to affirm your feelings, or to argue with you over their validity. We can provide historical and traditional context for the existence of fighting, but that's about it. --Jayron32 23:14, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Players from other countries fight too... Adam Bishop (talk) 00:44, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but as noted in the Wikipedia article cited above, when they do, they are ejected from the game immediately, and face multi-game suspensions for doing so. In most North American professional leagues, they usually get a 5-minute penalty then can return to the ice. The difference in how professional leagues in other nations deal with fighting in hockey is real. Does that mean that there are never any fights in DEL or Elitserien or leagues like that? No, it doesn't. However, fights are much rarer; probably on par with fights in leagues like the NBA where the penalty for fighting is severe enough to deter it. The difference in fighting between European leagues and North American leagues is real, and the OP is right for noting such a difference. The only objection to make is that we should not make normative judgments one way or the other. --Jayron32 00:51, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Fighting is, sadly, all too common in Australian rules football. While there are penalties, as often as not they're not imposed. By no means is it certain that the participants will be "ejected from the game immediately, and face multi-game suspensions". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 01:15, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

That's not what I mean...I mean the NHL is not made up solely of Canadians. A Russian or an American gets five for fighting just like a Canadian. Adam Bishop (talk) 08:55, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

And on reflection, it's not about what Canada does or doesn't "allow". It's what the National Hockey League "allows", i.e. what its rules are. The rules are not written by the country, but rather by the leagues. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:53, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

The national government could certainly stop it if they wanted. For example, announcing that "anyone who starts a fight during a game will be arrested immediately for assault" would put an end to it right quickly. Or they could give the league some time to stop the fighting by threatening to take action if they don't. I believe an approach similar to this was taken to end steroid use in US baseball (where the leagues similarly turned a blind eye to increase profits). StuRat (talk) 01:51, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

If our government (especially this one) so much as hinted at banning hockey, they'd almost certainly be lynched for treason. Even fiddling with it is political suicide. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:20, March 13, 2014 (UTC)

Most hockey fights are actually pretty tame. There are occasional injuries, as with other sports. Far as I know, there's no serious discussion about the government "banning" hockey or trying to nanny the sport in some way. And comparing to steroids is not really propr, as the steroids the athletes have used are illegal. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:11, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Assault is illegal, too, especially assault with intent to cause great bodily harm. It's only the state and local governments deciding not to prosecute assaults that happen during hockey which allows it to continue. StuRat (talk) 19:01, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Not sure about the US state laws, but Canadian police don't prosecute because consentual fighting isn't assault. But yes, pulling a Bertuzzi can be. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:21, March 15, 2014 (UTC)

That law only seems to protect the person who is assaulted, if he fights back. The person who throws the first punch could still be charged. StuRat (talk) 17:17, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Blame Rob Ray for the tameness. They want to hurt each other, but like hopelessly tangled moose. Still a few slobberknockers, but they're much rarer. Not legally assault if two people consent. Not even disorderly conduct, because it's not public space. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:52, March 13, 2014 (UTC)

As for not being sanctioned in any other sport, were Georges St. Pierre and Razor Ruddock not professionals? Anyway, without fighting in hockey, huge defenseman could rough up tiny star scorers without fear of retribution. If that happens, scoring drops. If scoring and fighting drops, ratings and attendance drop.InedibleHulk (talk) 01:21, March 13, 2014 (UTC)

It's about what the fans want to see. HiLo48 (talk) 01:23, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I was edit conflicted there. Sorry for making it seem like you repeated or affirmed me. You were first. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:26, March 13, 2014 (UTC)

Yes, if the leagues set penalties low enough or don't enforce them, then they are not only allowing fights, but encouraging them. Note that the fights are televised, but wouldn't be if they didn't think it would garner more viewers.

So then, why do North American hockey fans want to watch players fighting ? One reason might be the blue-collar appeal of hockey in NA. "Gentlemen's sports" like golf, tennis, and cricket, presumably are less tolerant of fighting players. Is hockey more of a gentleman's sport outside NA ? StuRat (talk) 01:45, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I dunno. Is this a gentleman? Jim Cornette, maybe? This guy?InedibleHulk (talk) 02:10, March 13, 2014 (UTC)

Personally, I don't want to see all players fighting. Only the fighters. There's definite entertainment value in skating, puckhandling and shooting, too, and that shouldn't be screwed up by swollen eyes and broken hands. As to why, it's also why I watch UFC. 30% bloodlust, 70% investment in characters juxtaposed in one-on-one competition, legally and naturally fueled by adrenaline boosts. When things like cordiality and team reliance go out the window, it's a purer athletic contest. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:03, March 13, 2014 (UTC)

The tradition of fighting in hockey is strong enough for Rodney Dangerfield to have noted "I went to a fight the other night and a hockey game broke out." Acroterion (talk) 02:16, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Hockey players reach 30mph, right? Even Usain Bolt can only reach 28mph. That's faster than football. And on hard ice. Do they even wear pads (besides the goalies)? So fistfighting keeps huge, low hockey-skill players from bodyslamming Wayne Gretsky at the speed of a subway train. Of course they could actually start calling fouls, but they'd rather have a chivalrous gang-like solution (no sticks, no kicks, no helmets, no gloves, no sucker punches, no unwilling opponents). I believe I once read that if they made the rinks wider (to the width of a non-North American rink) the fighters would be out of a job due to insufficient playing ability. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 04:24, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

There are penalties, including for charging. The last few years, headshots are excessively frowned upon. Skaters wear a variety of protective ice hockey equipment. And there are many goons quite good at the other stuff. Gordie Howe has a hat trick named after him. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:21, March 13, 2014 (UTC)

The protective gear typically worn by players is discussed in Ice hockey equipment. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:07, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

The fighting will start to disappear when mothers start sending their sons to "less violent" sports. HiLo48 (talk) 08:10, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Even minor league ballet audiences love a scrap. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:45, March 13, 2014 (UTC)

InedibleHulk, the penalties aren't real penalties (read: a joke) because you still need fighting to do some of their job. Whether running into players at full-speed is sufficiently discouraged by the penalties or not (I didn't know there were different kinds of body-checks, not all legal, I just thought rhe threat of fighting had kept the speed in check) there would clearly be an unacceptable level of roughness if the fighting punishment was strengthened (multi-game suspensions and large fines) but the other penalties were not, ergo the other penalties are too weak. Also, your article and it's comments almost agrees with me. The gist of the article I poorly remember might've just been that widening the rink would stack the deck against enforcers' existance, not eliminate them entirely. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 05:43, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Plenty of ways to hit someone illegally, with various consequences. See Section 6 of the rulebook. Whether they're too strict or too loose is a matter of preference, I suppose. But a penalty or fine is never going to send the same message a good punching will.

And yeah, I didn't mean to imply there aren't pure toothless aggression guys. Many of those, too. But it's not black-and-white. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:21, March 14, 2014 (UTC)

• They fight because no one ever charges them with assault or other criminal charges. Fighting would stop almost entirely if it led to a jail sentence. Ex-convict ex-hockey players don't have much in the way of prospects. μηδείς (talk) 18:36, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

• I take it you missed it when I said the exact same thing above. StuRat (talk) 19:03, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

And you missed where I said it isn't illegal, immediately below. While we're complaining, I also mentioned the ice hockey equipment, Bugs. All good, though. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:28, March 15, 2014 (UTC)

When I post with a bullet and unindented at the bottom of a thread, it means my comment is not in response to those above me. μηδείς (talk) 19:42, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry. I was trying to respond to Stu, but I tend to not notice asterisks on the edit page. So didn't indent hard enough. I normally fix them, but just didn't this time. Should have stressed you, too. I'll go sit in the box for two minutes. Well, actually longer. Gotta watch some human cockfighting. Go Hendricks! InedibleHulk (talk) 01:53, March 16, 2014 (UTC)

Here's an analysis of some of the legal questions raised about rough hockey over the years (-2002). And here is much more similar stuff. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:57, March 15, 2014 (UTC)

• Normally the guys agree to fight each other (and thus as such assault etc normally isn't the issue - or we would have no UFC or boxing!) - the few times that weren't the case the league came down rather hard on them. Shawn Thornton got a 15-game suspension, where as Todd Bertuzzi–Steve Moore incident is the prime example of why there's a huge deterrent to fighting the unwilling. (If you don't know that incident: Bertuzzi sucker-punched Moore who was not expecting it, and the punch ended Moore's playing career. Bertuzzi was suspended for 13 regular season games + 7 postseason games. The suspension looks on paper to be short only because of the 2004–05 NHL lockout - the international federation prevented Bertuzzi from playing internationally, basically costing him a full season.) - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 04:05, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

March 13

Other Countries With Equal Legislative Representation for Each State/Province/Et Cetera

The United States Senate has two Senators for each U.S. state regardless of the population of the states. Are and/or were there any other national (as opposed to local) legislative branches in any other countries which also have/had a similar principle/rule (each state/province/et cetera having the same number of seats in this national legislative branch regardless of the population of these states/provinces/et cetera)?

For the record, I know why the U.S. Senate has this provision--I simply want to know if any other countries have and/or had something similar to this. Futurist110 (talk) 06:48, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Looking at the first few entries in Federal Republic, Argentina and Brazil both have three senators per state, while Austria relates the number to population. Maybe it's a New World thing. Rojomoke (talk) 07:09, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

In Canada each region of the country (comprising one or more provinces) has a set number of senators, with smaller provinces ending up with more representation than larger ones. It's not as strictly egalitarian as the U.S., Argentina or Brasil though: originally, it was 24 seats for Ontario, 24 for Quebec and 24 for the three maritime provinces; the five provinces that joined later were given 6 seats each (even though their population differs vastly) and each territory has one senator. See Senate of Canada for details. --Xuxl (talk) 09:08, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Australia has ten Senators from each of its six states, and two each from two internal territories. HiLo48 (talk) 09:42, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

It used to be 10, until it was increased to 12 in 1984. There are 76 senators. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 10:14, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Moreover, the Swiss Council of States (Switzerland's constitution was actually directly inspired by the United States Constitution). ---Sluzzelin talk 09:55, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Was there no earlier body where the half-cantons were half-represented? —Tamfang (talk) 00:03, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, the body was/is the same, those six cantons (AI, AR, BL, BS, NW, and OW) still only have one representative instead of two. They're just no longer called half cantons officially, though the former "halves" still remain grouped next to each other in the constitution's first article, separated by the word "and" rather than a comma (see link). (Bad analogy, but imagine if the Dakotas, the Carolinas, and Virginia and West Virginia only got one senator per state. Then again, I'd also have to imagine the city of Bern having no representation in the Council of States). ---Sluzzelin talk 07:58, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

The last change to the body happened in 1979, when two seats were added for the newly formed Canton of Jura. In this case the result wasn't one seat for the canton of Bern and one for Jura, but two for each. Doing some googling, I did find there are initiatives for giving both cantons of Basel (-Stadt and -Landschaft) two seats instead of one, but to be honest, I haven't really heard much about that (then again, people from Zurich are famously ignorant about Basel). The other four former half-cantons are among the six smallest by population, but the Basels are in the top half (well, almost, 11th and 14th, out of a total of 26 cantons, but number 14, Basel Stadt, is significant, culturally and economically and should be politically too), so they might have a chance. Who knows? ---Sluzzelin talk 18:19, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

If you go right back to De Montfort's Parliament in England in 1265 you can - unexpectedly - see this; the knights of each county sent two representatives, and the burgesses and aldermen of each borough selected two representatives. Neither was adjusted for population. The Model Parliament of 1295, seen as setting the standard for subsequent parliaments, again raised two seats from each county/borough/city - whether that was Yorkshire or Rutland. It wasn't until a lot longer that representation was clearly linked to population. Andrew Gray (talk) 17:42, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

The way in which seats in Commons were apportioned is what led to the issue of rotton boroughs, whereby the population of a borough would shrink over the years to the point where the franchise in that borough was so small as to be silly. One example in that article had a voting population of 7 voters, and still got 2 MPs. --Jayron32 18:39, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much for all of your answers here. Futurist110 (talk) 05:30, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

President of the US for a day

There's a legend that so-and-so, President Pro Tempore of the Senate or Speaker of the House of Representatives, was president for a day because inauguration day was a Sunday and the president-elect preferred to wait until Monday. Who was it, and when? I thought it was George M. Dallas, but apparently not. 2001:18E8:2:28CA:F000:0:0:BA27 (talk) 15:00, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

David Rice Atchison. --Jayron32 15:14, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

St. Therese Statue search: Is there another one exactly like this in the world?

• 

This Statue depicts St. Therese the Little Flower “without the Crucifix and or the bouquet of Flowers”, as she is usually seen in a Statue Image as St. Therese the Little Flower. In my research on this question I have not found another Statue like this one. Might it be the only one still in existence? I have contacted the manufacturer of this Statue and other Statue manufacturers and suppliers from the Netherlands, United States and Australia and neither knows of any exact duplicate as this one. I am working to do a Genealogy study of this rare Statue and need your reference and help to determine if there is another like it in the (entire world). Most likely would be found in a Chapel or Church named in Honor of Saint Therese the Little Flower. I appreciate your help in my search for another Statue exactly as this one. Thank you for your help.Polkateer (talk) 15:10, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Where was your photo taken? The statue marking the spot in Lisieux cemetery where Therese was buried 1910-1923 (from [1]) does not have a cross or flowers. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 23:21, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Is the top leadership at Wegmans religious?

A friend who works there told me all the worker staff like stockers and cashiers get time and a half for all hours worked on Sundays, whether or not they've reached overtime. Does the top ownership of Wegmans openly profess religious reasons for this? 20.137.2.50 (talk) 17:00, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

According to Wegmans, it's a family-owned business, and it might be their opinion that having to work on a Sunday is a burden. This would seem to be a more flexible alternative to a place like Chick-fil-a, which is closed on Sundays. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:09, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I was just curious if the multimillion-dollar business decision was driven by a rational cost/benefit analysis or mythology. 20.137.2.50 (talk) 18:07, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

The Bible says not to work at all on the sabbath, not to get time-and-a-half for doing so. As far as a cost/benefit analysis, a significant portion of the staff won't want to work on Sundays, for religious reasons or just wanting to be with their families on weekends, so offering them extra pay is a way to offset that. Not doing so is likely to lower morale, and/or cause resentment by those forced to work Sundays, and poor morale can lead to lower profits. StuRat (talk) 19:11, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Here in the UK (thus not necessarily a good answer to your question), evidence seems to support StuRat's answer. A form I can fill out has at least a dozen different overtime rates, including higher rate for Sunday than Saturday, higher rate for before 6am on Sunday than after, markedly even higher rates on Christmas Day, and so on and so forth. (There's also matching rates for being on call across various times, and more rates yet again if you actually get called while being on call on particular days.) This is not for religious reasons, it's either because people expect it (as Stu says) or because some EU/UK rule demands it. Obviously in the USA it's not the latter. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:28, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Incidentally, the main thrust of the question here is "whether or not they've reached overtime". This is a meaningless concept to me, and perhaps even to some in the USA. I didn't get paid extra for being on call until I had completed certain requirements to do that job. But if I'd come into the office at a weekend, even to do more basic tasks, I would've expected the weekend uplift for working outside my normal contracted hours.

Work in the EU, you will like it! :) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:32, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Of course if you work in the EU, or at least in France, you'll get Sunday off anyway, thanks to Enforced Secular Catholicism :) Adam Bishop (talk) 11:02, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I guess it all comes down to the origin of the weekend, and our expectations that we be given time off work then. Religious reasons were certainly the start of it, with some having sabbath on Sunday and others on Saturday. But now it has simply become the equivalent of a "secular holiday" for most. StuRat (talk) 17:08, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

The true Sabbath is Saturday. Sunday, or "The Lord's Day", is sometimes called the "Christian Sabbath". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:22, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Time and a half for working on a Sunday would actually seem like an incentive to work on Sundays. I enjoy working Sunday mornings in the Bible Belt, but God damn, I wouldn't work Sunday afternoons for double time. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:22, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

• Is there something specifically about Wegman's that makes one suspect nefarious religious motives, when most large companies give weekend and holiday differential? μηδείς (talk) 19:38, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Little-"o" office of the Vice President

Is there a named, or otherwise well known, office of the Vice President of the United States? I mean the veep's version of the Oval Office, not the veep's version of the Executive Office of the President of the United States. 2001:18E8:2:28CA:F000:0:0:BA27 (talk) 17:11, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Before 1961, there were two offices: A formal office in the United States Capitol, and a working office in the Russell Senate Office Building. Since then, the formal, or "ceremonial" office is in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building while the "working" office is in the West Wing of the White House. This is all in the article Vice President of the United States in the section titled "Growth of the Office" but it took some digging to find. You can see on this map here the location of the Veep's working office in the White House. --Jayron32 18:34, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Short answer has to be no, by the following analogy: everybody has heard about the Oval Office and the White House. People think 'White House', not '1600 Pennsyvania Avenue', because 'White House has become a brand, an icon in itself. Irish people don't realise its facade is identical to the Irish legislature building in Dublin; and the Oval Office is the same shape and size as room at Castle Coole. The South Korean White House is the Blue House. I doubt, by contrast, you have heard of 'Number One Observatory Circle'? That's right. The Veep's house is so unheard of that, even if you do know what it is, you have to call it by its address, if it has a name at all.--89.242.206.103 (talk) 14:54, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Life on the Canals in 1800's

Please can you help me.. I know that my grandmother's parents were living/working in a barge on the West London Canal (Brentford)...as I cannot find any birth record for Nan on the UK Births/Deaths/Marriage records..was it possible she was not registered....was it maybe not mandatory to register births in the 1800's???..her siblings were all registered...but by then they were living in a house....I did obtain a marriage certificate for my great grandparents 1885...but my Nan born in that year is nowhere on the register...Thank you for your assistance... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.63.47 (talk) 19:14, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

According to our article General Register Office and other sources, it became compulsory to register births in 1875 in England and Wales. In that year, a fine of £2 (more than £100 at present-day values) was imposed for non-registration. However, it isn't clear how the authorities discovered and penalized unregistered births. It's possible that your grandmother was registered but that she was registered under a different name than you know. It's possible that her registered given name, for example, was different than the one she was known by, or that there was a misspelling. Marco polo (talk) 19:36, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

And, since you said she was born the same year they were married, if it was less than 9 month later, they might have not wanted an official record of that, as it was a big deal then. So, they might have given a later date for the birth or not have registered it at all. StuRat (talk) 19:16, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps you can check how her name was spelt in the 1891 Census just after she was born, it would at least tell you where she was born. MilborneOne (talk) 18:11, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Longest incarceration

I was quite surprised to see that the perpetrator in the Murder of Kitty Genovese is still alive, is still in prison, and has been in prison since 1964 (a total of 50 years). I never gave it much thought, but I guess I had always assumed that Charles Manson and his crew have maintained the longest incarceration (in the United States), since those crimes were in 1969. So, is there any way of knowing who is the longest-incarcerated prisoner in the USA? And the longest-incarcerated prisoner anywhere else? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:29, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Actually, Sirhan Sirhan just came to mind. His crime pre-dated the Manson murders by a year or so. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:54, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't know about living prisoners, but we have articles on Paul Geidel and William Heirens, who spent over 68 and 65 years respectively in custody. The latter article seems to be wrong in describing Heirens as "reputedly the world's longest serving prisoner", though I suppose he could be reputedly, if not actually; and to confuse matters Geidel spent much of his time in a "Hospital for the Criminal Insane", and the last six years inside were by his own choice as he didn't want to leave despite being granted parole. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 19:53, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

When I read the William Heirens article, I took that statement to mean that he was the longest-serving prisoner at that time. In other words, his incarceration was the longest currently being served, despite others having (historically) served longer. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:50, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

This CNN article supports Heirens as the longest incarcerated prisoner, at least as of October 2009. --Jayron32 01:00, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

"reputedly the longest serving prisoner" The sources say "is", very deliberate present tense. They claimed only that at the time of publication, he was the longest serving prisoner still in prison, and not that he was the longest serving prisoner ever. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:08, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

OK, who served longer? --Jayron32 01:11, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

More evidence for Heirens: Richard Honeck once held the record for the longest prison term, and his article notes the date that Heirens broke his record. --Jayron32 01:16, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I think it's still accurate, I just could not find a source that stated it so definitely. I do not personally believe that Geidel counts - if his final years in prison were voluntary, I would not consider that "incarceration". Someguy1221 (talk) 01:17, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I suspect it is a misnomer that he remained in prison "voluntarily". People probably get the impression that his sentence was finished; the warden said "OK, you can leave now"; and the prisoner said "I don't want to leave, may I please stay?"; and the warden said "OK, fine, you can stay. We won't kick you out." I doubt that is what happened; in fact, I doubt that that is even legal. What probably happened is: his sentence was not done; he still had some time remaining to serve; they offered him parole; he refused the parole offer. That's what I suspect. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:30, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

This article has a list of the longest ever incarceration terms. Geidel is first, but if you want to throw that one out, then the winner according to that list is Johnson Van Dyke Grigsby, followed by Heirens. The article is updated as of Oct 2013, as Heirens died in Dec. 2012, that means that Grigsby would still hold the record (if you discount Geidel). --Jayron32 01:21, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

The longest serving prisoner in Britain ever is John Straffen, who was in custody from 9 August 1951 until his death on 19 November 2007, with the tragic exception of three hours on the morning of 29 April 1952. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:05, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

March 14

Does Dhritarashtra in Mahabharata relate to Dhṛtarāṣṭra in Buddhist mythology, or they just share a name?

--58.251.146.130 (talk) 04:40, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't know directly, but it would not be surprising, as Buddhism grew out of Hinduism. In much the same way that Christianity was founded on the teachings of a Jewish figure, Jesus Christ, and as a result incorporates elements of Judaism in its teachings and scriptures, Buddhism was founded on the teachings of a Hindu figure, Siddhartha Gautama, and also incorporates older elements of Hindu teachings in places (compare, for example concepts such as Dharma and Nirvana appear in both Hinduism and Buddhism, and there is a lot of crossover in mythological figures between the faiths. Which is not to say that the Mahabharata king Dhritarashtra is the same person as the Heavenly King Dhṛtarāṣṭra, I don't know enough to say that it is or is not; except to say that it would make sense if they were the same figure. --Jayron32 04:57, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Monier Monier-Williams lists eight people from the Hindu and Buddhist scriptures with this name, and states that some lexicographers identify one with another. But in the end, nobody really knows.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 12:58, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Strange: No interwiki link to "Vollzugslockerung"

Vollzugslockerung (literally: loosening the conditions of the prison term) means all "favors" which a prisoner can earn, if he/she behaves in a way which might indicate that (s)he is really making an effort to change his/her life and behaviour. These privileges - e.g. working and being trained at a factory outside of the prison, being allowed to spent an unsupervised weekend out of prison with his/her family, attending a family event etc. - are defined and executed regionally. They are supposed to help the prisoner - while serving his/her term - to reintegrate into society after (s)he is released.

Question: Is there an American or British expression for this term? What do I have to search for? GEEZER^{nil nisi bene} 09:59, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

D'OOOOH! Found it: Open prison. Case closed. GEEZER^{nil nisi bene} 10:10, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

In the UK, we also have Home Detention Curfew or "electronic tagging" and Release on Temporary Licence but there doesn't seem to be an umbrella term that unites the three. See the rather wonderfully named firsttimeinprison.co.uk - isn't the internet a splendid thing? Alansplodge (talk) 15:22, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

And also of course "day release" and "probation" but I have no idea how either of those relate to any of the other concepts mentioned. I think there's a third that I've forgotten. Also "conjugal visits" which are controversial sometimes. Or did I imagine that? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:18, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

  Parole? Hotclaws (talk) 03:39, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Banana producer logo

I remember seeing a banana sticker logo featuring a girl with a wreath or a flower on the head (not Chiquita), but can't find the producer's name (perhaps from Ecuador, but not sure). The girl looked downwards and was depicted at chest level or so. Brandmeister^talk 16:58, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I seem to remember such a logo. She had a flower with maybe 5 petals in her hair, as I recall. Not sure if it was on bananas though. StuRat (talk) 00:59, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Pepita? , Lola Bananas Ecuador? , Princesse Créole Martinique? ... this Flickr photostream seems to have just about every banana logo ever made. —71.20.250.51 (talk) 04:40, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Is this bible code accidential or from God?

Similar question already asked and answered above. This is not a forum for speculation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:55, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Quote from what I need "One cited example is that by taking every 50th letter of the Book of Genesis starting with the first taw, the Hebrew word "torah" is spelled out. The same happens in the Book of Exodus — Preceding unsigned comment added by 07scott (talk • contribs) 17:39, 14 March 2014 (UTC) See Texas sharpshooter fallacy, especially the second example of the "Examples" section. --Bowlhover (talk) 17:41, 14 March 2014 (UTC) Hi! There's a third possibility! For example, acrostics are not accidental, and they don't come from God. They're just written that way. (On purpose). Someone could have written it that way on purpose. 212.96.61.236 (talk) 20:16, 14 March 2014 (UTC) The question makes too many assumptions about what defines an accident and what defines God's will, and therefore any attempts to answer it merely reflect one's own definition for each rather than the actual question. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:40, 14 March 2014 (UTC) I know this is closed, but I just intentionally added some 13s to Hire More Heroes Act of 2013 (H.R. 3474; 113th Congress), and they accidentally formed a perfect pyramid. So it stands to reason that God's will, our will and the ghostly hand of fate are three parts of the same damn thing. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:12, March 15, 2014 (UTC)

Can you show the text hilighting every 50th letter in bold?

Where is torah spelt out in the hebrew bible code in (Leviticus), (Numbers), and (Deuteronomy).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_code — Preceding unsigned comment added by 07scott (talk • contribs) 18:15, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

No we can't. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:18, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

colse facetious answers to trolling question
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Do you mean, to pick every 50th letter of the Bible? It seems to be a task for the computing RD. OsmanRF34 (talk) 23:21, 14 March 2014 (UTC) I've always been intrigued by the idea of a sneaky, tricky, puzzler god. HiLo48 (talk) 23:34, 14 March 2014 (UTC) The Greeks had one: Hermes. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:44, 14 March 2014 (UTC) Loki was always in the center of trickery, although a bit eccentric. StuRat (talk) 00:49, 15 March 2014 (UTC) See also Psalm 46#Shakespeare's alleged involvement. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 01:17, 15 March 2014 (UTC) WP:DENY μηδείς (talk) 03:30, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Senator for two states?

Inspired by rumors of Scott Brown running in New Hampshire: has anyone ever served as a US senator for more than one state over their career? --Lazar Taxon (talk) 22:36, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

James Shields is the only one to have served as Senator for three states. ---Sluzzelin talk 23:09, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Are there any counterparts to Members of the Australian Parliament who have represented more than one state or territory? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 01:14, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

There are some more close calls, for example: Sam Houston represented Tennessee as a Congressman, and served as Governor of Tennessee, then later served as both Senator from and Governor of Texas. Bill Weld was Governor of Massachusetts, and had an abortive campaign for Governor of New York later. Daniel Webster represented both New Hampshire and Massachusetts in Congress, and later served as a Senator from Massachusetts. --Jayron32 02:20, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

March 15

Not sure if I'm the Biological Father.

We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I am a 25 year old man, living in texas with no children. In january 2014. I impregnanted a woman, She told me I was the biological father. She has been married since may of 2013, she separated in december 2013 but has not yet filed for divroce. She has recently started filing the paperwork and got a notary between her and her husband, saying that she is NOT pregnant(When they both know that she is pregnant because I Told the husband that she was.) In texas, If you are getting a divorce you have to clarify that you are not pregnant, because if you are married and have a child, the husband is legally the father. Now, since she is willing to lie to the court, she is willing to lie to anyone. On march 12, 2014 she broke up with me saying that it is not my child and that I need to leave her alone because she is getting back with her husband because he loves her. Im not sure if they are still getting the divorce, or if they are actually staying married. I need to know if there is anything I need to do ( such as get a attorney) regarding Paternity of the child. Because I do not want any Surprises in the Future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.112.239.7 (talk) 01:05, 15 March 2014 (UTC) Yes, definitely see an attorney. We cannot offer any advice apart from that. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 01:16, 15 March 2014 (UTC) We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice. μηδείς (talk) 03:10, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

List of Countries by Their First Constitution

Is there any place where I can find a list of when many/most/all countries (including those which don't exist anymore, such as the Ottoman Empire) adopted their first constitution? Thank you very much. Futurist110 (talk) 06:16, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

List of national constitutions would give you a starting point. It gives you a link to all current constitutions, most of those articles have links to earlier constitutions where they existed. For example, United States Constitution contains information of and links to Articles of Confederation, which was the first U.S. constitution. --Jayron32 11:39, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much for this link. Futurist110 (talk) 07:44, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

See also Constitution of the Athenians and Constitution of the Roman Republic -- Q Chris (talk) 11:17, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. An important point here is that the term is somewhat ambiguous. Every state has a constitution (a basic set of rules according to which it operates), but not every state has a written document called "The Constitution". And even worse, for those that have a document, it almost invariably documents only part of the underlying constitution. An extreme example is the UK, which has very little in the way of a written constitution, but still wrangled together a working democracy. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:35, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

It depends on your definition of constitution. The Constitution of San Marino dates from 1600; the British Magna Carta dates from 1215, but it's either irrelevant, repealed or replaced with more modern sources. If you count indigenous Americans, the Great Law of Peace dates from -1150. The present Swiss constitution is 1999, keeps the same general setup as 1874 and 1848 constitutions.--89.242.206.103 (talk) 14:45, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Wade in the Water

► Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL : : : : 71.20.250.51 (talk) 10:07, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

This question seems more important for this reference desk rather than for entertainment. I'm having trouble finding sources to help build the Negro spiritual song article, Wade in the Water. I know there's a lot of sources on this song but I can't find them. I also left a question at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject_Songs#Wade in the Water asking for help. Viriditas (talk) 08:56, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

• Jones, Arthur C. (2005). Wade in the water : the wisdom of the spirituals (3rd ed.). Boulder, Colo.: Leave a Little Room. pp. 54, 112. ISBN 0976237709.
• "Music : Wade in the Water". Pathways to Freedom: Maryland & the Underground Railroad | Secrets: Signs and Symbols. Maryland Public Television. 2014.
• Tobin, Jacqueline L. (2011). Hidden in plain view the secret story of quilts and the underground railroad. New York, N.Y.: Anchor Books. p. 126. ISBN 0307790568. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

• When I wrote "Run, Nigger, Run", I used American Negro Folk-Songs by Newman Ivey White (1928) and On the Trail of Negro Folk-songs by Dorothy Scarborough and Ola Lee Gulledge (1925), but Google is not showing any results in either. I'll see what I can find. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:15, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

• I've been unable to access the Jones source for the last few days, so I don't know what it says. But, thanks. I find it a bit strange that such a famous song does not seem to have readily available sources. I mean, this is considered the quintessential Negro spiritual song, so it should be easier to research. Why is this so difficult? Viriditas (talk) 10:20, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

• You may have to take piecemeal. This search has a couple which may be useful... but only a couple sentences at a time. Themes, allusions (Moses and the Red Sea, for instance). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:27, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks. That was helpful. A good search string, too. Viriditas (talk) 10:50, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

This looks useful. Allmusic has a review of a recording (also worth mentioning that it is often the title of works about spirituals/recordings of spirituals). This may be useful. I'm not finding much, however, as a lot of the so-called "RS" are actually lesson plans for university courses. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:25, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

• Does this contain anything useful? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:29, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

• Heh. 26 programs! I guess that's useful as a starting place. Thanks. See you in a few years! :) Viriditas (talk) 10:49, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Re: Jones (2005); did you try links to page 54 and page 112? — There's probably more, but that was just a quick scan.  —:71.20.250.51 (talk) 10:45, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I can't access either of those pages. It says I've reached my viewing limit. Viriditas (talk) 10:49, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Well... whatever you do, do not use an IP proxy or borrow somebody else's computer, that would be unethical, and nobody here at Wikipedia would suggest such a thing. ~:71.20.250.51 (talk) 11:01, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Loud and clear, dude.  :) Viriditas (talk) 11:06, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Is this relevant - [2]? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 11:49, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Ladies and gentlemen of the refdesk. I'm an American. Australian sports frightens and confuses me. Sometimes when I fly to Australia on Qantas, I wonder, am I inside some sort of giant bird? Am I gonna be digested? I don't know, because I'm an American, and that's the way I think! Viriditas (talk) 04:06, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

You're not alone. I've lived here all my life and it frightens and confuses me too. Also, don't worry about Qantas. The way things are going it's likely to cease to be majority Australian-owned before too long. Or have any Aussie ownership at all, maybe. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 05:03, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

In just a few minutes I am going to make you very rich. Just watch this short video.

I keep getting e-mails from different financial gurus telling me the above message, and stupidly, I often begin to watch the video. Invariably the short video lasts forever and I turn it off before learning the secret. Does anyone EVER make it to the end? 94.174.140.161 (talk) 15:58, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

It's always a scam. You have to buy something from them, pay for some service, or give them money in some way (even if it's just advertisements loading on the side of the screen or malware sneaking into your system); and you're given useless advice that you're either already doing (whether you know it or not, such as "don't spend every penny you earn"), or doesn't really work (essentially boiling down to "wish harder"). Occasionally, the pay-for videos may include something like actual business tips that could be useful, but success is not typical and is entirely dependent on your local markets and existing capital.

TL;DR: always a scam, don't even bother with them. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:06, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

After you send in the $20 for the secret to getting rich quick, they send you a note saying "Scam suckers into each sending you $20 for the secret to getting rich quick." :-) StuRat (talk) 17:01, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

That one was probably old when I heard Jackie Vernon use it in the 1960s. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:16, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

That's envelope stuffing. Started in the Great Depression, and only cost $2. You'd have been a fool not to grab that deal. People don't like envelopes anymore, but they still love the idea of working from home. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:54, March 16, 2014 (UTC)

Documentary Miniseries on the Law

Can anyone recommend a documentary miniseries on the law, along the lines of Howard Goodall's documentaries on music, with episodes on things like evidence, common law, mechanics of a trial, object, civil vs criminal law, inquests, etc? I did find International Law (TV series) which seems perfect in format, although it is not the subject I want--I am interested mostly in law at the local trial level. Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 17:35, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Type of wars in Africa, Latin America, Europe

Have historians analyzed the, from my point of view, higher frequency of civil war in Latin America and Africa, opposed to Europe, where people seem to prefer attacking their neighbor. OsmanRF34 (talk) 23:15, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I haven't looked for sources from historians; but, in part, your premise relies on a definition of "civil war" based on rival factions within boundaries of "states" which, in large part were imposed externally by colonial powers, international conferences, etc. If you were to consider boundaries as being between (or among) indigenous groups, then often this can be seen as "attacking their neighbors".  —71.20.250.51 (talk) 00:07, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Europe had plenty of civil wars a few centuries ago. I think WW1 and WW2 just finally gave them enough incentive to do whatever it takes to stop the constant wars.

And the European colonial powers also frequently pitted ethnic groups against each other, putting one in charge and subjugating others, which led to inevitable resentment and instability when they left. StuRat (talk) 01:30, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Ukraine, Yugoslavia, Georgia, Chechnya (Libya, Tunisia, Egypt, Syria, Lebanon)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Medeis (talk • contribs)

Also The Anarchy, War of the Roses, English Civil War, Jacobite risings, The Troubles, Rising of the North - and that's only some of the conflicts in what today is the (possibly temporarily) United Kingdom. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:12, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

The English have had plenty of both types, but the English civil wars wouldn't still change the balance between civil and non-civil wars in Europe. There are plenty of examples when England went to war with other nations, (among many others).

I wonder if what happened in Yugoslavia counts as civil war. They were a conglomerate of different nations, that started fighting, split, and kept fighting. They have always perceived each other as ethnically different.

And what does Chechnya, Libya, Tunisia, Syria, Lebanon have to do with this issue? Do you think they are in Europe, in Latin America or in Africa? OsmanRF34 (talk) 15:07, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Have you noticed that there are two independent remarks, one about (some) British civil wars, and the other by User:Medeis, who forgot to sign? I've added the template now. It's not clear whom you try to address with "you". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:21, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

No, I had not noticed that before I have answered the question. Indeed, Medeis' remarks seem out of sync with the discussion, however, yours are relevant, although I am not sure they contradict my assertion that Europeans are more prone to attack other ethnic groups instead of fighting internally. OsmanRF34 (talk) 16:34, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

My point was the wars/conflicts/revolutions I listed were all quite recent even compared to WWII, and outside the implied third-world area. (The Troubles is a good addition to that, perhaps the best counterexample to an anglo vs the rest of them approach.) I think maybe we tend to see the Third World through Woody Allen's eyes. μηδείς (talk) 16:51, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't see how I "implied [a] third-world area." OsmanRF34 (talk) 16:53, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I am not sure how to interpret "Latin America and Africa, opposed to Europe" other than a 1st v 3rd world comparison. But I don't want to put words in your mouth. I am concerned with my point, which is that even since the fall of the Berlin Wall, revolutions, conflicts, civil wars, and ethnic insurgencies, in, and on the border of Europe have not been rare. μηδείς (talk) 17:26, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

A big chunk of Europe is far away of being part of the 1st world, and, on the other hand, historically, some Latin American countries had a non negligible economical weight. I still believe your point is beside the point. OsmanRF34 (talk) 19:16, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

You'll notice my counterexamples were indented in response to Stu's comment. μηδείς (talk) 23:15, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

For one, I think you underestimate the amount of civil strive in Europe - I listed only a subset of the UK ones to avoid flooding the page. For the 20th century, also consider the Spanish Civil War, the ETA struggle, the Greek Civil War. But above you write about "attack[ing] other ethnic groups". Europe had had a few hundred years to sort itself into Nation states, most of which are build around a single ethnicity. In the former colonial areas, many of the newly formed states are multi-ethnic. Thus, many inter-ethnic conflicts can still be formally civil wars. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:19, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

March 16

How can you ensure that you can't do anything illegal on the Internet?

We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Medeis (talk • contribs)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Where does the "safe part" of the Internet end with regards to US "look-crime**"? Anything one click from Google? Anything on Google Images? What was the least number of clicks from Google to Silk Road? The funniest phrases on Internet Oracle oracularities*** often have like 3 results, for example. (when searched in quotation marks) Could I theoretically say yay, this is not an oracularity mirror for once, click on it, and find out that some jokester made a website with child porn on it? Even if some things are too repulsive compared to my desire to know for me to personally near the line, I'm still curious to know how far you could click from Google before you might see something illegal even to look at. **Though unlike with thought-crime such laws are at least sometimes good, you wouldn't want people watching child porn. ***A technical term that I did not make up. We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice. μηδείς (talk) 03:07, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

What do you think/how do you feel about the Vampire Subculture and the real-vampires?

We don't do opinion questions here
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I have to make a presentation about a subculture and I've chosen Vampire. I want to ask people who are 'Real-Vampires' and people who aren't part of this culture. (I'd very much like it if some people who are part of this culture will answer me) :) My questions for people who aren't part of this culture: 1.) What do you think about this culture? 2.) How do you feel/think about the people who do it? 3.) Do you agree/disagree with them? Why or why not? 4.) How do you feel about the way they express themselves? So these are my set of questions for the people who are part of this culture: 1.) How do you view yourself? 2.) How do you view other people within your group? 3.) How do you see people who aren't part of your culture? 4.) How do you feel about expressing your identity? 5.) How/what do you feel about people who agrees/disagrees about what you do? 6.) Describe your normal day as vampire? 7.) What are the myths and facts (from movies and what people talk about) about your culture/being vampire? 8.) Do you have a religion? 9.) What's the most exciting about being a vampire? 10.)What do you think about how vampires are perceived in movies/books? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.112.24.12 (talk) 06:43, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Who all live at the White House?

Does anyone besides the president and immediate family actually live at the White House? Which other cabinet level people work there?

Executive Office of the President of the United States should help. Note that you're asking both about those who live there and who work there, which of course are two rather distinct groups of people (though slightly overlapping).--74.72.255.103 (talk) 07:16, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, yes I do know exactly what I'm asking; that's why I wrote two separate questions. My questions were prompted by the earlier topic above about the location of the vice-president's office. Basically my thought was if the President were to be woken in the middle of the night for some or other crisis, which senior people could join the meeting within minutes, because they sleep in the same building. (Yes I know teleconferencing is routine and makes physical co-location unnecessary, but that is a recent development.) BTW Please try to not presume that question posters are too stupid to understand their own questions. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:48, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Dodger, my apologies. It wasn't intended as a presumption but just an attempt to focus on the distinct issues at hand (residence vs. workplace). I'll try to be more discrete in the future. I think the desire to clarify was prompted by the heading of your question, which contained only the residence issue.--74.72.255.103 (talk) 17:08, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, we can rule out the 93-member[3] staff. The White House Staff: Inside the West Wing and Beyond (p. 397) states that "No staff now live in the Residence", which agrees with Executive Residence#Third floor (to which I will add the book reference). Clarityfiend (talk) 10:07, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Certainly no government officials other than the President live in the White House. If none of the White House staff live there either, then I think we can conclude that only the President and his family live in the White House. No doubt there are staff who work a night shift and are ready to meet the President's needs if he should have any at 3:00 a.m. But in an urgent situation, I think the solution would be either a teleconference or an impromptu meeting, since all Cabinet members probably live within an hour (or much less) of the White House by limousine. Marco polo (talk) 00:34, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Marian Shields Robinson, the president's mother in law lives there.--89.242.206.103 (talk) 14:39, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

What is the fertility rate of Guangzhou City?

I like to know the fertility rate of Guangzhou City, China. What is the number of children per woman for this city now? 173.33.183.141 (talk) 16:07, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

"Guangzhou's natural birth rate has remained around 6.2% per year for many years." —(Guangzhou Population 2014) — but you need to do the math to come up with your specific demographic. ~71.20.250.51 (talk) 16:43, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

March 17

Evolutionary reason of good/bad distinction

Hi, I'm trying to found out the evolutionary reason behind the distinction between good and bad. Obviously, good and bad are purely subjectively ideas, and humans co-exist peacefully and procreate while having completely incompatible views of what is good and what is bad. I myself don't even see the point in it, what is "good" for some will necessarily be "bad" for some others, so how do you even decide if an action is "good" or "bad" in the first place? Is there anything behind this that I'm missing, beside some mystification of human empathy? 78.0.219.174 (talk) 00:47, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Is there some reason to believe the distinctions live/dead, pleasant/unpleasant, functional/disfunctional adaptive/unadaptive, successful/unsuccessful, fertile/infertile, have no objective meaning? Good and bad, assuming you mean good and evil, are simply the analog of this distinction in the realm of personal responsibility. Or one can simply stick with good and bad. They concepts follow from living and unliving. See the immortal robot argument. μηδείς (talk) 01:02, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, good and bad definitely have meaning and purpose if understood as "good for me" and "bad for me", but my point is that those ideas are hardly the same for all people. What's good for one person can often be bad for someone else, whereas if someone is alive/dead/fertile/infertile, he/she bears the same quality from everyone's perspective. Nevertheless, it is common in our society to assume that there is some "greater good" or "greater evil", which appear illogical to me. 78.0.219.174 (talk) 01:28, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

The greater good that you're talking about is simply the social good, I think. Stealing someone's possessions benefits you, all else being equal, but it's bad for society if it happens a lot, and that's why we've evolved mechanisms to limit it: both a built-in social conscience and a tendency to ostracize or otherwise punish other people who do bad things. -- BenRG (talk) 02:19, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Yeah that kind of makes sense, and having it "mutate" over the evolution of our society into a large moral system of today. It still doesn't feel right to me, but you're very probably right. 93.139.105.228 (talk) 03:00, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

An immortal robot, if it was built by people to serve people, would be motivated to help us because we would design it that way. Selfishness, like social responsibility or hunger or libido, exists in us because it's evolutionarily adaptive, not because it's in the laws of physics. The argument that you linked presupposes what it seems to want to prove, namely that all goals derive from a meta-goal of self-preservation or self-improvement. That's not even true of humans, and certainly wouldn't be true of a robot. -- BenRG (talk) 02:19, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

You're simply parastizing its morality of its human creators programming their preferences (which they have because they are living beings) into it. If it were a natural object, which is the entire point of the argument, it would have no need of values or any code of morality. It is an objective truth to say sunlight is good for sunflowers, and arbitrary nonsense to assert that not committing blasphemy is good for hurricanes and asteroids. μηδείς (talk) 05:41, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I believe you mean amoral, not immoral. StuRat (talk) 03:31, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

No, immortal with a t. -- BenRG (talk) 04:16, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

You also presuppose what you want to prove -- if the robot wasn't built with any purpose/programming (such as to serve people), then the original argument stands quite well. Of course, there would be no useful reason in spending resources on building such a useless robot :) 93.139.105.228 (talk) 03:00, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

A robot with no designed-in purpose would have no reason to do anything, but that has nothing to do with its being immortal or not. It's simply because you can't logically derive a statement of the form "I should do X" without at least one axiom that contains "I should", or a rule of inference that introduces it, which amounts to the same thing. My point was just that there's nothing special about self-interest as a motivation; it's not a default behavior of rational systems in the absence of other motivations. -- BenRG (talk) 03:29, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

What's the difference between the statement, "If I wish to live, then eating is good for me," and "If I am an asteroid, hen following Kepler's Second Law is good for me"? μηδείς (talk) 05:45, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Good and bad originate from the principle of "tat tvam asi" ('Thou art that') which expresses the unity of (to start with) the atman as the basis of self. It is approximated in various religions - Golden Rule, in a very partial manner in reincarnation, in the apparently vague Daoist sense that people are a part of the flow of nature, etc. To take the case of a (nearly) immortal robot, if it were conscious, it would gradually get to wondering how it is the same robot when it has replaced each of its redundant CPUs and buses and motherboards and RAMs and disk drives and other peripherals on multiple occasions. As a Ship of Theseus it has its memory to link it, but it has suffered enough failures over the years, and swapped memory records with enough other robots, to realize that forgetting this and that doesn't make it stop being itself. Inevitably, the robot would seem bound to recognize that what makes it itself is simply that it has a certain configuration of components, which it shares with other robots of its model, and therefore, those robots are simply other instances of itself, much as the threads running on its parallel processors are different instances of itself. Therefore, for it to harm itself would seem as disordered whether it is done to a "second" robot or to the same one. Wnt (talk) 04:11, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Insofar as I can understand that, are you saying morality depends on reincarnation? Don't answer that. Instead, had God not stayed Abraham's hand, and Abraham sacrificed Isaac at His command, would God have been evil? μηδείς (talk) 05:49, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Reincarnation explains morality if one considers past lives that are contemporaneous with one's present life. The second question begs the question of how one knows God is God. If you have a second method by which you can evaluate the morality of an action that contradicts "God's command", and that is more fundamental than the command, how do you know the command is not a voice in your head, a demonic compulsion or possession, an orbital mind control laser, etc.? I would suggest (though I don't know how to provide evidence to 'prove' such a thing) that especially in the Christian tradition, divinity seems to reveal itself primarily in that only the divine can control what is logical, what is true, what is right, rather than in terms of temporal power. Wnt (talk) 13:00, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Infinite reincarnation is the sole reason I'm not questing about like a Final Fantasy character, stabbing everyone for gold and experience points. Eventually, I'd be responsible for my own stabbing (many times over, if I get far enough the first time). My selfishness alone breeds my altruism. Lot easier than trying to do it for another. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:47, March 17, 2014 (UTC)

• "If God is perfect, He is always at peace and cannot become angry or upset at anyone or anything because only an imperfect being can be disturbed in these ways. Likewise, if God is perfect, He doesn’t need or want anything from anyone since if He did need or want anything, He would not be God but an unhappy and imperfect being." --Epicurus

μηδείς (talk) 05:52, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Having a characteristic which rules out the possibility of having another characteristic makes one imperfect. Hence, if God is perfect, He cannot be imperfect, therefore God is imperfect, because there is something he cannot be. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 09:47, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Since an evolutionary explanation/speculation is what you asked for: One evolutionary advantage of a society deciding to develop notions of Good/Bad would be to preserve that society, even at the cost of what might be good or bad for some individuals. Note that the notion of Right vs Wrong may be an older idea than Good vs Evil, as suggested by the metaphor in the development from a Bicameral_mind. If so, then Good vs Evil might only be applicable to humans. I have seen many studies showing altruism among animals, and it is easy for us to label these "good", but it may be anthropomorphism. Star Lord - 星王 (talk) 10:29, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

If you believe Richard Dawkins, his Selfish Gene theory or Memetics, explains selfless behaviour. Alansplodge (talk) 10:32, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Yup, he and many others make a good cases, both theoretically and experimentally for altruism. There may be a distinction between altruism and Good vs Evil. Perhaps altruism was what the OP was after? Star Lord - 星王 (talk) 13:18, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

This article that I just googled has one aspect of the distinction. Star Lord - 星王 (talk) 13:31, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Do you have a link for it? In the meantime, we also have an article Altruism, which has a section on Altruism#Scientific viewpoints. Alansplodge (talk) 13:38, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I do apologize. Here you go, Alan. http://atheistethicist.blogspot.se/2008/12/what-makes-altruism-good.html Star Lord - 星王 (talk) 13:39, 17 March 2014 (UTC)