Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

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

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

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

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

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

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

July 19

Why did Massachusetts vote for McGovern?

I only ask because if you look at the county map, Massachusetts seems to stick out as a Democratic bloc, while the rest of the Northeast (and the country) was almost uniformly Republican. Had McGovern campaigned especially hard in the Massachusetts primary? --Lazar Taxon (talk) 05:08, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Massachusetts is known as perhaps the most liberal state in the country. Conservatives have been known to call it the "People's Republic of Massachusetts." (A term of derision also used for Berkeley, California, Takoma Park, Maryland, etc.) -- Mwalcoff (talk) 05:20, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

And don't forget that McGovern's VP candidate, Sargent Shriver, married into the Kennedy family. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 21:13, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Still, both of those by themselves don't really indicate why Massachusetts when all out for McGovern and basically nobody else did. It's true that a number of other very liberal counties (San Francisco and Alameda stick out quite plainly), but even other usually quite liberal counties did not (e.g. Los Angeles). What's impressive is that almost no counties in the Northeast outside of Massachusetts went for McGovern, and that in Massachusetts even the Western counties went for him. I suspect it is not a question that can be answered by one fact or the other. It was, to be sure, a completely bungled campaign on his part. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 01:04, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd rather see that map in shades of purple; remember, one vote can make the difference between a blue and red county. Nixon's popular vote victory was substantial, but it wasn't the vast percentage the map indicates. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 04:55, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Also LA was a lot less liberal in the 1970s. Googlemeister (talk) 14:07, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll take a stab at this, as I am a longtime Bay Stater. Massachusetts was probably the most liberal state in the country in the 1970s. The western parts of the state were and are no less liberal than the rest of the state. In fact, the least liberal part of the state is Southeastern Mass and Cape Cod, as you can see even on this map from 1972. Most people in Massachusetts strongly opposed the Vietnam War by 1972, so they responded well to McGovern's antiwar campaign. Also, Richard Nixon was widely disliked in Massachusetts, whose people tended not to go for his authoritarianism wrapped in faux-patriotism. As such, they did not respond as most other parts of the country did to the Nixon campaign's character assassination of McGovern. Someone else as already mentioned Shriver's Massachusetts ties. Two other big pluses for McGovern were strong union support in a state where unions were still strong. Blue-collar workers in Massachusetts have never taken as much to the cultural conservatism that has worked so well for Republicans in other parts of the country. Also, McGovern's Irish last name surely resonated in a state with a very large and political Irish-American population. Marco polo (talk) 01:35, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Name of literary device

When a word is repeated for emphasis or to create a rhythm. For example, the word "never" in this poem about abortion:

I'll never have the chance to see what everyone can I'll never even learn to stand I'll never crawl, I'll never walk I'll never get the chance to talk I'll never smile,I'll never cry —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.10.230 (talk) 16:09, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

The general term is simply repetition. This particular example seems to be anaphora. Algebraist 16:18, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

My Harvard-educated eleventh grade English teacher referred to precisely this effect as a "litany". I don't use the word litany however, and certainly not in this sense. (if I did use it, it would be in a phrase such as "a litany of grievances") 193.253.141.65 (talk) 18:21, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

July 20

Patron saints

How does a saint come to be regarded as the patron saint of anything? Patron saint doesn't say anything about it, and I don't know where else to look. I presume that it's different between the Eastern and Western Churches, but for all I know it could be by popular opinion in both cases. Nyttend (talk) 02:12, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, the subject a particular saint is patron of has usually been extrapolated (sometimes strenously) from how that saint lived or died. For instance, Saint Barbara is the patron saint of miners, and the article says it is because of her association to lightning, which can be stretched to associate her with explosives. (BTW, I never knew the lightning connection until now.) I would think it is indeed just popular opinion, as you say. TomorrowTime (talk) 02:55, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Similarly, Joseph of Cupertino is the patron saint of air travel because he could levitate. Sometimes though, it is just because of ancient tradition - like St. George is a patron saint of soldiers because he was a soldier, or of various countries (Georgia, England) which identified with him for whatever reason. That is basically how saints were always made in general, by popular tradition. In Catholicism a methodical process developed in the Middle Ages (and since JPII has been even more rigourous), while in Eastern Orthodox churches sainthood still occurs by popular acclamation (so Tsar Nicholas II could be a saint if enough people believe he is). Adam Bishop (talk) 03:03, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I have a vague memory of hearing that there's a patron saint of television repairmen. Assuming that there's not popular acclaim for a saint becoming the patron of such an occupation, how would this happen? Or is this a false story? This story says that there's a patron saint of television, declared so to be by Pope Pius XII; is this a very common means of a saint becoming a patron of something? I know that popular acclaim was common, although I didn't know that it was still common in the East; I've heard of the Tsar and his family being thought of as possible saints (as martyrs for the faith, among other things), although I thought it was a decision of the Patriarch and other high prelates. Nyttend (talk) 03:47, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I think in days of yore the patronhood came about naturally, from the people rather than the clergy, but recently patron saints of newer inventions have to be declared - there's just not as many people who would desire "little gods" for specific purposes, like there was in past times. For instance, there is a patron saint of the Internet, but I don't think many users of the Internet say a little prayer to protect them from trojans before clicking that link that just mighty be iffy. TomorrowTime (talk) 05:43, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

FYI, creating Isidore of Seville the patron saint of the internet was proposed, but not carried out. --Sean 15:59, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Being God?

Are there any works of literature or philosophy which ask the question "what is it like to be God?" In particular are there any that have a pessimistic view of such an existence? Thank you, --S.dedalus (talk) 02:17, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

It's definitely not philosophy, and it's probably not literature, but Black & White is the closest that I can think of. Nyttend (talk) 03:48, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Gods have it pretty rough.[1] 67.117.147.249 (talk) 05:03, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Hard to Be a God by Strugatskie brothers is exactly it. It is a masterpiece, but a pretty damn dark one; at least the Russian original is. I don't know what English translation is like. --Dr Dima (talk) 07:47, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

In my hazy memory, God in that title is pretty damn metaphorical. —Tamfang (talk) 21:59, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

More optimistic takes on this question are Lord of Light by Roger Zelazny and American Gods by Neil Gaiman. You may also want to read some of the Jorge Luis Borges stories, like The Aleph for example. --Dr Dima (talk) 08:05, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Jerry Springer: The Opera does present that question. One of God's songs is:

It's not easy being me. It's so not easy being me. Millions of voices making all the wrong choices, then turning 'round and blaming me.

The fights between Jesus and Satan are also fun. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 14:19, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I have to speak up for Terry Pratchett's Small Gods, too. It's not exactly pessimistic, but it does address some of the problems of being a god. John M Baker (talk) 17:21, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Can you conceive of a God? Then be silent about all Gods. -- Nietzsche. Vranak (talk) 01:34, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

1886 Nietzsche declares God dead.

1900 God declares Nietzsche dead.

Googlemeister (talk) 13:52, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Nietzsche predicted his own death though. "I know my fate. I am not a man, I am dynamite!" Or something to that effect. Vranak (talk) 22:51, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Incarnations of Immortality series by Piers Anthony. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 14:18, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

The character of Doctor Manhattan in Watchmen essentially becomes a god and has what I'd call a pessimistic view about it. -Elmer Clark (talk) 19:43, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

On the extremely light side, there's Bruce Almighty which starts off with God being fed up with his job. Then there are the Preacher comics by Garth Ennis whose story largely revolves around what happens when God doesn't want to do his job any more...and seeing American Gods has already been mentioned, Gaiman's Sandman comics also more or less follow the theme of a god-like, quasi-immortal, quasi-omnipotent being who cannot really cope with the burden of his position. -- Ferkelparade π 19:50, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Did somebody call me?

Clerical celibacy and Catholic priests

My question is, their celibacy is 100%?. I mean, can't they do ANYTHING related to their sexuality?. Even desire a woman?. Any article?. Thanks and have a nice week. --190.50.112.44 (talk) 04:01, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

We have two articles which overlap with the same information - Clerical celibacy and Clerical celibacy (Catholic Church). Basically, yeah, nothing sexual at all, after they are ordained. Of course, that is not to say that a priest will never desire a woman (or a man). Of course they will. You also do a lot of things you're not supposed to do, don't you? Why wouldn't they do the same? But that's not the point - the point is to overcome temptations, whether you are a priest or not. There are just extra rules for them because they are supposed to be committed to a higher purpose than regular people. Adam Bishop (talk) 04:47, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

"Great Britain"

Was the choice of King James VI & I to rename his dominions not only due to a need for a common name? Did it reference Henry VIII on the "ancient empire" he declared, that of the ethnic Britons or Bretons, the very same people the Tudors come from, the Tudors also having been in exile in Brittany and Earls/Duke of Richmond, a fief of Brittany since the Norman Conquest? Brittany, like Normandy, had been taken over by France by this point, only just recently. I could sum it up by asking whether it was as much for ethnic reasons, just as for political expediency. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.171.239.21 (talk) 07:45, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

If you are asking if Britain is named after Brittany, then no, it was the other way around. Little Britain was named for Great Britain. See also History of Brittany#Early Middle Ages. Rmhermen (talk) 14:10, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I take it that the OP is not asking about Brittany at all, but instead why James I of England (who was also James VI of Scotland) used the style King of Great Britain. While I don't know all the reasons for his choice, I feel safe in saying that the primary reason was that he wanted a style that represented the island as an entire unit, and the island was already well-known as "Britain," notwithstanding that the Britons had not been ascendant for about a millennium. James was interested in unifying his realm, so calling the whole thing "England" or "Scotland" was a complete nonstarter. John M Baker (talk) 23:47, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Note also the term North Britain. --ColinFine (talk) 22:06, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Geneva Convention, treaty agreements etc

Would it be against the Geneva Convention or other treaty agreements to coat bullets with biological materials that would cause an infection, like blood poisoning?

How about coating bullets in pig products (blood, fat, urine etc) as a psychological weapon to use against those who adhere to Islam or Judaism? Googlemeister (talk) 15:29, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

See Geneva Protocol. Yes I believe anything like that would be prohibited even by the very earliest agreements. Dmcq (talk) 15:37, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

The pig blood thing a goofy idea anyway. Some idiotic legislator proposed it some years ago, based on an urban legend about Black Jack Pershing. Here's a rebuttal from the Anti-Defamation League, of all places. --Sean 16:09, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it was partly based on how the Indian Mutiny started... AnonMoos (talk) 22:51, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

As a bullet travels through the air, friction causes it to heat up. So, between the heat and the friction, it is highly unlikely that any substance would remain both intact and (in the case of contaminants) useful all the way to the target. DOR (HK) (talk) 03:41, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

• Wouldn't it just be easier to oh, I dunno... just shoot them in the head instead? HalfShadow 03:43, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Countries for Euthanasia Without Terminal Illness Requirements

Is there any country where you can be euthanized on request even if you aren't terminally ill?20.137.18.50 (talk) 16:46, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

This list Assisted suicide#Legality by country should help. A quick scan suggests that plenty don't place it on Terminal Illness alone (well it depends on your definition of Terminal Illness) - but rather placing it more firmly in the hands of approval by a series of doctors. 17:05, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

If your request can be made in the form of a particularly nasty crime, then many countries have the death penalty. Googlemeister (talk) 18:14, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

There are not "many countries" which enforce the death penalty but a small number. China, some Muslim countries and the USA are the main executioners. See our article on capital punishment. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 18:46, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Many is more then a few, which is 5 or 6. I think 58 countries would qualify as many. Googlemeister (talk) 19:25, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

If you put it that way, would you consider 58 out of 197 many? TomorrowTime (talk) 06:22, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Many is not the same as most, but this seems to have digressed into something for the language desk. Googlemeister (talk) 13:51, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Edward Downes recently committed suicide in a form of assisted euthanasia at a clinic in Switzerland, where it's legal. He was not terminally ill, although his wife, who joined him, was. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 18:49, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Probably a nitpick, but I think it's more correct to say he chose to die because his wife had chosen to die, and he did not want to carry on without her. -- JackofOz (talk) 12:37, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Around the world in 80 days

I've just finished the book and I wondered how long it would take nowadays. It could be done in less than eighty hours by plane, but how long by train and boat alone in the same route Fogg took? Assuming that entry into certain countries, like the US, was not hindered by passport issues, etc.

-- EA Swyer ^Talk _{Contributions} 22:09, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

You might find Michael Palin: Around the World in 80 Days interesting. Palin attempted the trip in the late 80s, using only transport which would have been available in Jules Verne's time. It took him 79 days. He was shooting a documentary as he went, though. Gwinva (talk) 22:47, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, let's start at the beginning. According the German Railways timetable server, the fastest possible train trip from London to Brindisi (we aren't requiring him avoid using the Channel Tunnel, are we?) is just under 22 hours if you leave London St. Pancras station at 11:01 int he morning and change trains at Paris (with change of station), Milan, and Bari: you arrive at 09:59 the next day, one time zone east.

The next train is from Bombay to Calcutta, now Mumbai to Kolkata. According to the Indian Railways web site, this can be done in about 1 day and 12 hours by the Samarsata Express, leaving at 20:35 and arriving at 08:25 the second morning following. There are other trains in the day.

There are no long-distance trains from San Francisco any more, due to its location on a peninsula; he would have to start his journey to New York from an East Bay point such as Emeryville (getting there by Amtrak bus or urban transit), where the California Zephyr starts at 9:10 in the morning. It reaches Chicago at 3:50 pm (15:50) on the second following day (two time zones east). Then the Capitol Limited departs at 6:50 pm (18:50), arriving at Washington the next day at 1:15 pm (13:15), one more time zone east. Then there are trains leaving Washington at 1:25 pm weekends and 2:00 pm weekdays and Sundays, arriving New York at 4:47 or 4:50 pm (16:50) for a total time of 3 days 4 hours 40 minutes. All times according to the Amtrak web site. (There is also a direct Chicago to New York train, but it leaves later in the day and if everything is on time it's faster to go via Washington. There are no other feasible trains.)

The next rail segment was Queenstown (now Cobh) to Dublin. According to the Irish Railways web site, this takes about 3 hours 25 minutes with a change of train at Cork, with several trains every day.

Finally, returning to the German server, Liverpool to London takes 2 hours and about 10 minutes by most trains, and there are lots of them.

Of course, this assumes that the timetables are to be relied on, which is certainly not the case for Amtrak long-distance trains and I suspect not for Indian ones either. I think the other countries have a better shot at being reasonably close to on time. In any case, Fogg in the novel allowed 2 days for delays to be made up; his estimate by the timetables alone was 78 days, so I think that's what we'll need to compare against.

That covers the land parts of the trip; someone else can do the sea parts (and the sea/land connections and the travel within London). For many of these routes there may be no scheduled passenger ships any more, but travel by freighter or special charter is another matter, and of course the type of ship will affect the time requirement.

--Anonymous, edited 23:03 UTC, July 20/09.

(ec, after the better response by anonymous above) Well I think most of the rail sections will be reduced. The article says it took 7 days to go from San Francisco to New York, but I think the train goes from San Francisco to Chicago in less than 3 days, and I can't see it taking more than a day getting from Chicago to New York. The steamers seem similarly slow, it says it took 22 days in the book but the Pacific is about 5000 miles between Yokohoma and San Francisco so at say 25 knots (is that reasonable?) non stop a boat would get there in a little over a week. However, I don't know if any liners remain doing such a route, and they certainly wouldn't be booking it at that speed. If you took away the constraint of following the same route, you could probably do the whole thing much faster by taking the Trans-Siberian Railway, which didn't start construction in 1891 (and I think was off limits to Westerners for most of its history). The trip from Moscow to Vladivostok takes 6 days, 4 hrs (according to the article), and much of the trip from London to Moscow can be done by high speed trains (the total would take about 3 days). TastyCakes (talk) 23:08, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

With Amtrak's reputation for being far far far behind schedule, it probably isn't advisable to use their own time tables. Dismas|^(talk) 06:31, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

You can take trains out of San Francisco. Either BART across the bay to Oakland, or Caltrain to San Jose and points south. I'm sure you can connect up with Amtrak one way or another. 67.117.147.249 (talk) 08:23, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, yeah, no long-distance trains is what I said. You used to be able to connect between BART and Amtrak at Richmond, but the California Zephyr no longer stops there, nor does it run to Oakland. Its Emeryville terminus is 1½ miles from the nearest BART station; its other East Bay stop, Martinez, is more than 5 miles from a BART station. Having said that, I see that Amtrak provides a medium-distance service, the Capitol Corridor, that among other things connects Oakland, Emeryville, Berkeley, and Richmond. So it would be possible to take BART to one of those points, then Amtrak for the short hop to Emeryville and another Amtrak train to Chicago: a shorter route than via San Jose. However, the Capital Corridor services are not particularly frequent, with up to 2 hours between train in the daytime. Of course the easy way is the Amtrak bus from San Francisco to Emeryville, but we're trying to use trains. Maybe the 1½ mile walking connection would be best. Or, of course, if you can manage it and it's not considered too far from the original route, take a ship that docks near Emeryville or Martinez in the first place. --Anonymous, 22:15 UTC, July 21, 2009.

I think TastyCakes' estimate of 25 knots for sea travel is optimistic. Wikitravel's article suggests it would take about 8-12 days to cross the Atlantic Ocean by cargo ship (compare that to the Queen Mary which took 4 days at a speed of around 30 knots).

As pointed out above, sticking to the same route might be too difficult. I suggest the following route:

• London to Moscow by train = 3 days
• Moscow to Vladivostok by train = 7 days
• Vlaidvostock to Yokohama by ship = 3 days
• Yokohama to Los Angeles by ship = 15 days
• Los Angeles to Chicago by train = 2 days
• Chicago to New York by train = 1 day
• New York to Southampton by ship = 10 days
• Southampton to London by train = couple of hours

In all around 41 days in a pretty punishing schedule and that's assuming everything runs to schedule, there are ships which travel between the ports and you are not waiting for a ship to either leave or dock for days on end, the trains run every day, and so on.

However, by avoiding the Trans-Siberian and staying close-ish to the original route, you could perhaps do this:

• London to Naples by train = 1 day
• Naples to Mumbai by ship = 14 days
• Mumbai to Chennai by train = 2 days
• Chennai to Hong Kong by ship = 10 days
• Hong Kong to Yokohama by ship = 6 days
• ...then as described above = 28 days

Unfortunately, that would add 20 days travel, mostly by sea and that's assuming you don't get attacked by pirates. Astronaut (talk) 09:40, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

New York to Southampton on the Queen Mary 2 is 7 nights, call it 8 days. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 15:44, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I can't give the times, but it is possible to cross the Eurasian continent by train: Hong Kong-Guangzhou-Beijing-Moscow-Warsaw-Paris-London . . . DOR (HK) (talk) 03:45, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I've also found out that it will soon be possible to travel from London to India by train. The route is further south than discussed above, going via Istanbul, Tehran and Quetta (Pakistan) while avoiding Afghanistan :-) See seat61.com for detail. Astronaut (talk) 17:26, 23 July 2009 (UT

I went London-London in 90 days on container ship.--79.79.154.106 (talk) 11:11, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

July 21

Identifying an unknown US sword

Hello all! I suppose this question would loosely go under "history." We've had this sword stowed away either in a closer or under a parlor sofa for quite some time. I only just now got to taking a close look at it. There are some ornate inscriptions on the blade; you can pick out a shield, probably an eagle here and there, you know, stuff you'd expect to see engraved. In addition, on one side is a nice big "US," and on the other a "Pluribus Unum" (I can't seem to find the "E"). I combed over the blade and scabbard in search of a date, to no avail. Any help on some identification? I'll list some details:

• The hilt is goldish, covered in engraved four-point stars.
• The scabbard is primarily silver, but there are four gold areas:
  • The very top (which the cross-guard rests on when sheathed)
  • The very end (which I guess would be the chape, but it actually extends off the basic shape of the sheathed sword. A similar shape can be seen on the end of the scabbard in this sword.)
  • Two separate rings where you attach...um, something to something...they're for attaching the sword to your body, of course, but I'm a dunce at how it actually attaches. They're similar in shape to the rings on Marxuach's sabre in the preceding image. However, they are placed a bit farther apart on the scabbard than on Marxuach's.

And of course, some rather rough measurements:

• The blade is 30.5 inches.
• The grip is 3.5 inches.
• The inscriptions on the blade end about 17.5 inches from the cross-guard.

There's also something a bit unusual with the pommel. At the very end (that is, opposite the blade), there is a silver circular piece, topped with a gold cap nut/acorn nut. I really don't think unscrewing it is a good idea...

I did browse through a few US military sword sites, but nothing looked like it. So, with this plethora of information, anyone have a clue?--The Ninth Bright Shiner 03:34, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

With the inscriptions about halfway down the blade, it sounds to me like some kind of ceremonial sword. A photo might help with identification, but you might do better taking it to a specialist. Of course, you might find out it is a worthless souveneir from somewhere, but it might genuinely be worth something or at least turn out to be something interesting.

As for the nut at the end of the handle, I did read that with Samurai swords, the patina on the tang inside the handle is particularly important to the value of the sword - maybe the same applies to your sword, so I suggest you do not remove the handle and certainly do not clean the tang without seeking expert advice. Astronaut (talk) 08:00, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

The legal concept of acquiescence -- does it exist in any United States laws?

The legal concept of acquiescence (see article), are there United States laws, especially Federal, where it is in law? (I don't mean the precedent Georgia v. South Carolina.) Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 07:19, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

There are definitely adverse possession laws in the U.S. Although I think they are mostly at the state level. 164.156.231.55 (talk) 12:23, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

There is no one acquiescence statute, but there are many statutes and common law doctrines that reflect this concept. For example, it may be said to underlie statutes of limitation, where a would-be plaintiff has only a limited amount of time to bring suit after being on notice of a wrong. John M Baker (talk) 17:14, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Adverse Possession is part of property law. The states have almost exclusive jurisdiction. The common law requirements are that the adverse possession must be open and continuous, hostile and last the statutory period. Recently, I read a text that described it as a statute of limitations for trespass actions. Now I realize the previous poster answered the same question. The s/l for trespass formulation makes so much sense to me. The elements now made more sense to me.75Janice (talk) 13:50, 26 July 2009 (UTC)75Janice

Meaning of Maxims and Arrows 27

What is the meaning of Maxims and Arrows 27 from Twilight of the Idols By Friedrich Nietzsche The quote is "Women are considered profound. Why? Because we never fathom their depths. But women aren't even shallow."

What is the meaning? Is it as simple as women are below shallow or is there a much more profound meaning? I have heard the quote used many times but with no context —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.98.64.15 (talk) 07:46, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

The original is "Man haelt das Weib fuer tief - warum? weil man nie bei ihm auf den Grund kommt. Das Weib ist noch nicht einmal flach" - It's just an aphorism - of the type "I'll never understand women because they are illogical creatures - maybe that makes them profound?", and similar to "rocket science is easier than marriage"

The subtitle of the book is "how to philosophise with a hammer" - don't expect it to be profound - most are trite. In contect most of this section of the book is about "turning on the head" or "giving a twist to" common phrases or sayings - it's not a particularily profound or philosophical work by any measure. 83.100.250.79 (talk) 10:25, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Learning to kill

I read On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society awhile back and was most interested in his thesis that specific changes were made in the training of Western soldiers in the years after World War II along Skinnerian lines in order to increase their individual chances of being psychologically capable of killing when the chance game. Unfortunately the book is high on argument (and anecdote) and low on historical citations. Does anyone know another good, generally readable book on such a topic that goes into this particular type of training? E.g. Skinnerian conditioning in the American armed forces between WWII and Vietnam. Any suggestions? --98.217.14.211 (talk) 13:05, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Or put another way. Is there a good book on the use of psychology in warfare for the purposes of training, not psychological warfare as it is typically understood? I'm looking for a historical study on the uses of psychology in developing troop training, basically. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 15:31, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

It is not about psychology per se, but S.L.A. Marshall's "Men against fire" (a controversial work) contended that in World War II, only one in four U.S. infantrymen used their weapons during a battle. Some comments about Marshall's work and his critics can be viewed here. Marshall contended that his work resulted in the percentage of "active participants" rising to 55% by the Korean War, so there may be something for you in this work. Cheers W. B. Wilson (talk) 09:19, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

UK Ministry of Information during WWI

I noticed the following unsourced statement about the (former) Ministry of Information, in the Censorship in the United Kingdom article: "During the First World War it was infamous for having a staff of 999." Was that because government bodies with 1000 or more staff were subject to greater supervisory or public disclosure requirements, and the Ministry was able to get away with specific, identifiable dirty deeds because it was small? Would be very interesting to read about if so, but otherwise "infamous" is just a throwaway superlative that should be deleted. 86.162.194.37 (talk) 14:21, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

That should be "During the Second World War..." If you're headed to the library, try: Riley, Norman. (1940). 999 and all that. OCLC 12876189.—eric 04:30, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Can a nun enter a civil marriage

Can a Roman Catholic nun enter a civil marriage? Does any secular country forbid Roman Catholic nuns to enter a civil marriage? Surtsicna (talk) 14:25, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I seriously doubt that any country (even the Vatican) has laws forbidding Catholic nuns from getting married. The Catholic church forbids marriage. A nun can freely marry with the possible result being loss of status as a nun by the church, not the country. -- kainaw™ 15:31, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I have heard of such cases. Of course those are moot, since in all cases the nun/priest had to denounce her nunhood/his priesthood before the actual marriage could take place. And I also find it less than likely that any country would have a law forbidding nuns marriage. TomorrowTime (talk) 19:21, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

If the Pope himself wanted to marry someone, I doubt there's be any law preventing him. There'd of course be theological ramifications ..., but that's not the state's concern. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:50, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Well isn't the Pope himself a head of a theological state? Googlemeister (talk) 15:44, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Correct, but he is also the head of a religion. Are the rules/laws of the state identical to the rules/laws of the religion? It is very possible that the religion forbids the Pope to marry but there is no specific law in the state forbidding marriage. -- kainaw™ 15:49, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

It would probably be quite tricky for the Pope to marry in the Vatican City itself. But if he went to another country to do it, there'd be less of an issue. -- JackofOz (talk) 09:37, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the nun in question (if british) could enter into a civil partnership... AndrewWTaylor (talk) 15:56, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

It depends what you consider a secular country I guess. Israel for example is often considered a secular country, but there's currently no provision for a civil marriage in Israel so clearly a nun, and everyone else can't enter in to a civil marriage in Israel. However it's still possible the Pope or a nun could get married in Israel if one of the 15? religious authorities were willing to marry him or the nun and if he/she were to marry overseas, his/her marriage would be recognised and that's even if he/she gets married to another man/nun(woman). There may be other countries which some consider secular but with similar issues. Nil Einne (talk) 12:22, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the Pope: the rule banning priests (excluding monks, who follow special rules) from marrying is internal church discipline that the Pope can change. It has no theological ramification. David.Monniaux (talk) 19:05, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Weren't there a few Popes or so with children? I remember hearing about a Pope who was the son of a Pope sometime around the Renaissance. So perhaps this has changed? (Then of course, they could perhaps be situations like that of the former? Argentine? (somewhere in that region) president.) Vltava 68 00:22, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

If you can't say something nice...

Every time Bernanke makes a public statement, the Dow takes a 50+ point hit. Why does he insist on making public statements? Googlemeister (talk) 16:27, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Every time? Literally, every single time he has made any sort of public statement, the market drops more than 50 points? If you actually believe that, you shouldn't be messing with stocks. Or... now that I think of it... I have a bunch of Martian stock that is very rare that I can sell you for, say, just $5,000/share. -- kainaw™ 16:38, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Considering how stocks are fungible, rarity is not a means of increasing value. And I mean everytime he makes a public televised statement. Googlemeister (talk) 16:43, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not at all sure of the accuracy of the premise (that Bernanke's statements (almost) invariably make the market go down). Even assuming it to be true, however, consider that maintaining the valuation of the stock market neither is, nor should be, a central responsibility of the Fed Chairman. He has more fundamental responsibilities with respect to, for example, the monetary supply and the banking system; protecting the interests of stock market investors and speculators is at best a secondary consideration. In addition, there are many occasions on which he is obligated to speak, and others on which he may believe providing reliable public information is part of his job. John M Baker (talk) 16:54, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the questioner could read today's news and realize that the base of his claim is simply not true. -- kainaw™ 20:37, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

All I know is stock was about 60+ before he said anything, it dropped to -20 or so, and then eventually worked its way back up to end at 60+ or so yesterday. Probably just observer bias. Googlemeister (talk) 15:43, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Almost all of Bernanke's public statements come from Congressional hearings, i.e. he is compelled to testify. Fed chairman have made an art of speaking without saying anything substantive at these hearings so as to avoid unduly influencing the markets. Alan Greenspan was renowned for this, though he occasionally slipped and said something immoderate ("irrational exuberance"). —D. Monack ^talk 03:38, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Retiree organization in USA

I can't recall the name nor find anything in the Category:Retirement in the United States - but I am almost sure there is an important organization in USA for senior citizens that has major influence on politics by lobbying... any thoughts? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:42, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

How about AARP? Googlemeister (talk) 16:44, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is the AARP. Tempshill (talk) 17:45, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Are confessional booths always made of wood?

Are confessional booths always made of wood? -- 208.120.179.230 (talk) 17:26, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

They can be brick or stone as well.83.100.250.79 (talk) 18:28, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

When I was on tour in Europe 2 months ago I saw a church with a confessional made of glass, both the outer door as well as the panel between the confessor and the priest. The confessor spoke into a microphone which presumably had a speaker on the priest's end, and vice versa. Since the whole setup was glass, we could look in from the main floor of the church. It might have been Notre Dame (/me runs off to check his pictures...), yes it is Notre Dame. I have a not-so-good picture of one. Do our articles on confessional or Notre Dame particularly need a pic? Zunaid 18:47, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean Notre Dame de Paris? Algebraist 18:52, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Buying share - online or physical broker?

I would like to buy some (maybe U.S/Cad) shares and I live in Canada. I'm treating this like gambling so I'm not really asking for advice on which stock to buy etc. I'm thinking of spending roughly 100 ~ 300 Canadian dollar per month. As a complete stock newbie (with no knowledge whatsoever, crazy, I know) which method would be better? Buying share online or go visit a physical broker? I tried Google, which return pages after pages of online share trading company intend on promoting their own services. The closest question I could find asked in the past here in the reference desk is "Stock exchange and share things", which quickly go off topic and not really helpful. What are the pro and con of each (buying online vs. broker)? Lastly, any link/book/advice to some intro material (basic lingo, very basic working on share/market) would be much appreciated. Thank you very much in advance. Royor (talk) 19:16, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

You really want two things: First, how much is the charge for the service? It may be a monthly charge or yearly charge. Second, how much does it cost to submit a transaction? It may be a flat rate or a percentage or a combination of both. With those two figures, you can budget how much the service charge will be, regardless of if you trade or not. Then, you can add in the transaction charges when you plan your purchases. When talking to brokers (online or in person) pester them to give you those two values. Nothing else is important until you are a power broker and you need split-second trades to profit off the microadjustments in a million different stocks at once. -- kainaw™ 19:26, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

The online service I personally use has a $US10 per trade fee and no other fees. Based on this, you would probably want to do trades of at least $500, maybe $1000 to keep the fees from eating too much of any gains you might get. The physical brokers I know start at $30 a trade, so if you are not trading in large chunks of $, online will probably be the wiser choice. Googlemeister (talk) 20:05, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't think you can get trades in Canada for that low a price. I think the lowest you'd probably find for occasional (ie not over quite a few per month) is about $20CAD a transaction from online companies. I asked at TD the other day and they said it was $29CAD a trade there. As Googlemeister says, if you're only buying or selling small amounts you are going to pay a lot of it to the broker. If you are just looking for a reliable way to invest money, I would recommend index funds. As someone pointed out to me here a few weeks ago, you can get TD e-series funds with an MER of 0.31%. You don't pay any transaction fees, and unless it's an RRSP you don't pay a yearly fee (if it is, it's $100 a year unless you have over $25000 in it, in which case it is waived). You can set it up to buy an amount each month (see dollar cost averaging) and not have to worry about buying or selling individual shares which can be incredibly volatile. Of course it's less fun - if you're just looking for the joy of speculating by all means go ahead, but be advised that it's quite possible you'll lose a lot of money doing it and your chances of "hitting it big" are probably less than you might imagine. TastyCakes (talk) 20:15, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Another note that I've found many people to miss... Buying stock is a trade. Selling stock is a trade. If you are paying $20/trade, you pay $40 for the entire buy-sell transaction. Therefore, say you purchase 10 shares of stock at $10/share ($100 total). The stock needs to increase to $14/share when you sell just to break even. So, before you start gambling, see if any stocks you are eyeballing happen to be making similarly large jumps in value. -- kainaw™ 20:34, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't recommend this idea of yours, because the transaction fees are going to dwarf any profits. In addition to the regular commission to the broker, you are supposed to buy shares of stock in lots of 100, or else you have to pay additional "odd lot" charges. Buying Intel will therefore cost you US$1,890 plus the commission to the broker. I applaud the idea of experimenting and starting small, but a less expensive way to do it would be to find a website that runs a stock market simulation game, and play that for a couple of years until you have more money you're willing to gamble all at once. Or invest in a stock-based, no-load mutual fund and follow its progress. Tempshill (talk) 20:35, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

In the UK i can trade stocks in any number and my charges are the same, not sure if this 'odd lot' charge is something unique to the US/Canada but never had it disclosed in any of my trades.

Another thing I would add - the bid offer spread is something to consider. Some stocks can have a very wide spread which adds to your need for more returns. I would say - go for it if you can afford to (and are happy to) lose every penny, and are not expecting to make much - if any - money. I have enjoyed my trading (which has been profitable even during the current economic downturn, thanks to Barclays and Aviva) and whilst all the above is perfectly true, and yes trade-costs and other incidentals add to the need for returns, if you are interested in learning more about trading, business and financial-information I find there's nothing like having money ride on it to make you take an interest!

Oh and another thing - in the Uk you pay Stamp Duty (a tax). I've no idea for Canada, but similar taxes may apply, adding to how much your need for profit. ny156uk (talk) 22:50, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for all the prompt replies. I have a few more related questions:

• 1) I heard about penny stocks, should a newbie try or stay clear of them?
• 2) So suppose I buy stocks once every year (CAD$4000 worth) and hold them for say ... 5 year before doing anything to them, would transaction fee still dwarf any profit?
• 3) Tempshill you mention the amount I'm willing to spend is too little to "buy-in". How much would be "enough", or at least worth the trouble?
• 4) I’m already buying RRSP for tax purposes (from my insurance company) - if I want to use index fund or mutual fund of my choice (right now I just give the company money and they pick for me) as my next year’s RRSP who should I approach? Bank? Insurance company? Is it really recommended (to pick your own) or should I just believe in the pro who do this for a living?

Royor (talk) 03:54, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, despite your not asking for stock picks, this is getting close to giving financial advice, and the Reference Desk is not supposed to give professional advice. Have you considered blowing a couple hundred to spend an hour talking with a financial advisor? Or, at a minimum, read The Intelligent Investor. I'll try to field some non-advice questions, though:

1. Penny stocks. These are simply stocks that trade for very low prices. They are trading that low for a great reason — the companies have very little value, because they aren't earning much, their debt payments are larger than their foreseeable profitability, etc. As the article states, their prices are pretty easily manipulated, and they are usually thinly traded. A total crapshoot.

2. This is of course impossible to answer because stocks are often like gambling, and nobody knows if there will be any profit at all. If you're talking about "odd lot" fees, $4000 would avoid them if the stock price is $40 or under, because you could afford to purchase exactly 100 shares. But then you are putting all your eggs in one basket. You should settle down with the book I mentioned and then do some math and figure out what price targets make sense for you, or whether mutual funds are a better idea.

3. See 2.

4. I don't know the answer to the question, but a good thing to investigate is the common claim of the superior performance of index funds over time when compared to actively managed funds. (Of course there are years, like last year, in which index funds lost millions of people a metric ton of money, despite their supposed superiority.)

Hope this helps - let me recommend that financial advisor or a lot of reading to you again. Tempshill (talk) 04:42, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree, I think the Intelligent Investor would be a great book for anyone that wants to get started buying and selling stocks. TastyCakes (talk) 05:23, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you again. Financial advisor sounds good, any additional recommend reading? Royor (talk) 07:58, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Never heard of the odd lot fee. Googlemeister (talk) 15:41, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I suggest reading about the Efficient markets hypothesis - implying that stocks picked at random are as good as any other. Warren Buffet is, by the way, consistent with this hypothesis, because out of the millions of investors, one of them by chance is going to be the best one. 89.240.217.9 (talk) 20:49, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

That sounds totally bogus. Consider the following. If stocks are picked at random, and I get a large amount of GM (who is extremely likely to have stock that is worthless) I would be better off with (random - GM). This would indicate, that random stocks are not as good as picked stocks. Now there is certainly uncertainty in the markets, but that does not mean that there are not some obvious bonehead plays. In poker you never fold if you are holding a royal flush. Googlemeister (talk) 13:35, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Reading Intelligent Investor now - and the funny thing is the Efficient markets hypothesis article on wiki read like it is AGAINST EMH and spend a lot of time disproving it. I also asked around and yes, in Canada, there is an "odd lot fee" when you purchase stocks. Royor (talk) 21:31, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Homosexuality.

In Saudi Arabia, is it illegal to BE gay?. Or to engage in homosexual activity? --190.50.111.180 (talk) 23:05, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

See LGBT rights in Saudi Arabia. Laws generally govern activity, not states of being (in part because a state of being is not usually prosecutable, while an activity is). In the cases of groups, religions, states, etc. that are against homosexuality, they generally don't recognize that one can be a homosexual if one is not engaging in homosexual activity (that is, they don't believe homosexuality is anything more than a "choice"). --98.217.14.211 (talk) 23:40, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Pacific Scandal 1872

Why did the pacific scandal lead to the resignation of Macdonald's government when all he did was ask for money from Sir Hugh Allan? Don't politicians ask for money from others all the time? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.6.144.211 (talk) 23:12, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

We have an article about the Pacific Scandal. It wasn't so much that they were asking for money, but that it was so secretive, and there was apparently bribery going on. It wasn't much of a scandal at all really, but it's the best we can do in Canada! Adam Bishop (talk) 00:24, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

July 22

Libertarian socialism and left libertarianism

What is the difference between libertarian socialism and left libertarianism? If there is no difference, then why two separate terms are used? --AquaticMonkey (talk) 02:58, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

As described in the articles, left libertarianism specifies common ownership of natural resources and nothing else, while libertarian socialism is far more prescriptivist as to the structures of economic activity. —Tamfang (talk) 05:23, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

"the good doctor"

This phrase is puzzlingly loved by composers of blurbs, who apply it to anyone known as Dr., good or (oh, irony! how original lol!) otherwise. As one isn't nearly as likely to encounter "the good professor" or "the good captain", it appears to be allusive, but to what? —Tamfang (talk) 04:40, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

See The Good Doctor for some possibilities. 70.90.174.101 (talk) 06:17, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Moken Sea Gypsies of Thailand

Hi I need to do a essay on indigenous people are the Moken sea gypsies indigenous to their area —Preceding unsigned comment added by Madrob (talk • contribs) 07:55, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Gypsies aren't usually ingigenous (by definition), the moken according to the article are austronesian which suggests a more eastern origin, more pacific in origin, but they live around the west of SE asian penisular Indochina. So on the surface it looks like they are not.83.100.250.79 (talk) 10:39, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Visigothic establishment in Hispania

When did the Visigothic kings came to rule Hispania? Who was the first king of Hispania? --Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 10:44, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Have you read Visigothic Kingdom? Adam Bishop (talk) 12:30, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Scandalous Saints

What Saints would be likely to appear in the tabloids today. Which ones might have had a turbulent or scandelous enough life to be in the likes of TMZ? Between halucinations and revelations there's bound to have been some desolute lives out there. Which Saints are the most popular and would end up in the press? Thank you. 190.229.67.201 (talk) 14:03, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Here's an interesting article : Cecil Adams Who Was the Worst Catholic Saint. APL (talk) 15:35, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. That is interesting. And I thought Mother Teresa was bad.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 16:17, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

The New Orleans Saints perhaps? Googlemeister (talk) 16:36, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Not sure how scandalous it'd be but there was a saint who had his balls bitten off by a dog. Don't know his name but there's a statue of him in a church in Salvador, Brazil. AllanHainey (talk) 22:40, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Historical Jesus question

Do scholars of historical Jesus believe the man in quesion actually was crucified and died on the cross? If so, why was the man crucified? (from a hisorical not religious perspectve) --193.253.141.64 (talk) 19:00, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Historicity of Jesus says that "scholars ...agree..." that Jesus "on the orders of Roman Governor Pontius Pilate was sentenced to death by crucifixion", so that should answer the first part of your question. -- Finlay McWalter Talk 19:06, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

ok. And their opinion of whether he died on the cross? To me, if he was seen again later occams razer implies that he didn't die, but Im interested in what historians believe... --193.253.141.65 (talk) 19:25, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't know anything about "historical Jesus" arguments, but premature burials were uncommon but not unheard of throughout most of history until modern medical technology was invented. Even if he was crucified and the Romans declared him dead, unless they did an EKG it's not completely impossible for him to be up and about a couple of days later. (Improbable, though, but that's why we're still talking about it twenty centuries later.) 72.10.110.109 (talk) 19:54, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

also what about why? (from historical not religious perspective)...--193.253.141.64 (talk) 19:26, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Although there is no consensus as to the reason for his crucifixion, it followed closely (in the chronology used in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke) on his overturning the tables at the Temple, so many scholars think this was at least the trigger for his being turned over to the Romans.

The crucifixion itself is considered one of the best-attested events of the first century, since there are multiple sources confirming it occurred and it would at least initially have been difficult for the Christians to overcome the fact that their god had been crucified (i.e., for Christians to say it happened was a statement against their own interests). There is no serious suggestion that Jesus did not die on the cross. The historicity of the resurrection is quite a different matter; its evidence consists of a much smaller number of reports that his tomb was found empty and that a small number of followers saw him or had visions of him. As our article on Historical Jesus puts it, "Most scholars believe supernatural events cannot be reconstructed using empirical methods, and thus consider the resurrection non-historical but instead a philosophical or theological question." John M Baker (talk) 19:44, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm a little puzzled by some of John M Baker's assertions.

• " . . . one of the best-attested events of the first century, since there are multiple sources confirming it occurred . . ." What sources exist at all that are independent of the Gospels and Acts - which are several decades post facto and which collectively derive from only a couple or so earlier accounts? I was under the impression that the very few supposed non-canonical near-contemporary references (e.g. in Josephus' writings) were either references only to what early Christians themselves believed (i.e. not independent of the aforementioned), or are now generally acknowledged to be later interpolations, the sole disputed exception being the (possibly doctored) mention by Tacitus dated to around 116AD.

• ". . . it would . . . have been difficult for the Christians to overcome the fact that their god had been crucified . . ." The re-interpretation of Jesus from failed candidate for Jewish Messiah-hood to sacrificed and resurrected God is surely what enabled the transformation of a Jewish socio-political faction into a new religion, changing the drawback into an asset. It could be, however, that the proto-Christians' belief that Jesus had genuinely died was sincere but mistaken, leading on to . . .

• "There is no serious suggestion that Jesus did not die on the cross." I thought his suspiciously quick death - around 9 hours as opposed to the usual 2 or 3 days (if at all: at least one Jewish man of the period is archaologically proven to have survived crucifixion), his 'corpse's' apparent disappearance, and various traditions of a subsequent terrestrial career quite aside from the canonical resurrection apparitions, had given rise to entertainable arguments for his possible survival (though I myself think it more likely that he did die and that the authorities removed his body to a common grave at the earliest (post-Sabbath) opportunity, in full accordance with prevailing local laws pertaining to those executed for (alleged) crimes such as his).

Enlarging on .109's answer above: yes, premature burial and/or recovery from an appearance of death were far from unknown, which is why Jewish law of the time stipulated that a person could only be declared dead after 3 days of lifelessness or when their body had demonstrably (by its smell) begun to decay. This is alluded to in the account of Jesus resurrecting Lazarus miraculously, when the bystanders gainsaid Jesus's assertion that Lazarus was merely sleeping by telling him "He stinketh."

And enlarging on John M Baker's reference to the reasons for Jesus's execution: he seems to have been embedded in a power struggle between Jewish socio-religio-political factions; collaborationist establishment Sadducees, populist liberal Pharisees, isolationist Essenes, freedom-fighting/terrorist Zealots and Sicarii, ascetic Nazarites, and doubtless others we know little or nothing of, all with different approaches to the basic problem of the Roman occupation. Jesus was probably a member of and/or aligned with one or more of these groups, while others probably wanted him dead because he was rocking the political boat and because they either genuinely thought he was a serious blasphemer (a capital offense in Jewish law) or were willing to pretend so as an excuse for his judicial elimination.

However, the Roman authorities probably reserved to themselves the power of execution, certainly by crucifixion and possibly by any means, and would have required reasons valid to themselves for it; mere blasphemy (in terms of Judaism) would not have sufficed of itself (near-contemporary Jewish executions such as the stoning of Stephen for blasphemy may well have been unsanctioned mob actions). They (in the person of Pontius Pilate) may, as John M Baker implies, have viewed Jesus's disruptive behaviour in the Temple (and elsewhere?) as sufficiently dangerous to warrant execution, or may have been willing to accommodate such a request from their Sadducean allies on the basis of the latters' (apparently irregular) religious trial of Jesus, or may have actually believed what seems to have been their official grounds, that he had proclaimed himself "King of the Jews", which would have been a treasonous challenge to the authority of Rome and the Emperor. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 02:25, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. And, as The Jesus Mysteries goes into great depth to explain, the crucifixion is probably the least likely of historical aspects. While virtually all the major aspects of the story told in the gospels have antecedents in earlier myths, the death-rebirth trope is the one most clearly defined - in Dionysus, Osiris, etc. - see Life-death-rebirth deity for more information. Matt Deres (talk) 13:54, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

The crucifixion was acknowledged as a fact by all early Christian factions. In addition to the gospels and Acts, there are numerous references to it in the letters of Paul, which actually are the earliest surviving documents that refer to Jesus. Although Paul did not become a Christian until after the crucifixion, he knew many early Christians who would have witnessed these events.

Most historians consider that crucifixion would have been seen as a shameful death, undercutting any claim of divinity. As it turned out, of course, it was a factor supporting the growth of Christianity, but it probably would not have been seen that way at the time.

In the account by Mark, which is probably the earliest, death took about six hours. That's at least consistent with what we know - Jesus had already been flogged and was too tired to carry the cross, so fatigue and loss of blood probably made it more difficult for him to continue to fight asphyxiation. Crucifixion could take anywhere from minutes to days, and we don't have full details of the technique used. In the one known case of a survivor of crucifixion, the victim was removed from the cross while still alive. Premature burial may have happened on occasion, but it was quite uncommon, and there are few if any historians who argue that it was what happened here.

I haven't read The Jesus Mysteries, but our article suggests that it has come under quite a bit of criticism. John M Baker (talk) 17:59, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

My main problem is not with the actuality of the crucifixion's occurrence (though I'm willing to consider evidence to the contrary, as should any disinterested seeker of knowledge), but with your bold assertion that it is " . . . one of the best-attested events of the first century:" I'm sure there are many, many events of this era that are more widely and more reliably attested and documented.

Agreed on Paul's (genuine) letters, I was lazily and wrongly conflating them with Acts, but I understood the OP's questions to be implicitly asking for evidence independent of Christian scriptures, which rest on a slender base of originally oral anecdotes that obviously were not dispassionate. Whether one regards Paul as a reliable transmitter of whatever hearsay he chose to record depends on how accepting one is of the supernatural elements of the context - by his own account he committed and fomented lethal violence against ideological opponents, had his coat completely turned by experiencing an incapacitating vision, and even so pursued policies contrary to the consensus of his new allies, some of whom, as you say, had been Jesus's close associates and even relatives. Since one revisionist book has already been cited, may I recommend for a different POV on Saint Paul the work of Hyam Maccoby, particularly his The Mythmaker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity.

Where have we got to so far on the OP's questions, then? Historically speaking:

• Was Jesus crucified? - We all think yes (or at the least very likely), but differ as to the quality of the evidence.

• Why? - We've addressed various aspects but are I think in general agreement.

• Did he die on the cross? - Undecided. According to the religious scriptures supposedly derived ultimately from eyewitness accounts: his apparent death was faster than usual; his body (dead or alive) vanished a few hours later; he subsequently appeared, scarred but seemingly alive and material, to various people who knew him well. There are no reliably authentic contemporary non-religious records of his death (or for that matter his existence in the first place). There are some non-Christian traditions (Jewish and Hindu?) of disputable authenticity of his having had a post-crucifixion earthly career - these need more research. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 02:45, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Bear in mind that there are hardly any well-attested events from the first century, and those few almost entirely relate to the high points of imperial Rome and imperial China. As for Paul, he was writing within about 20 - 30 years after the crucifixion, to an audience that would have had other sources of information about it. It's hard to see how he could have been just making the crucifixion up out of whole cloth. As for the possibility that Jesus didn't die on the cross, while we're not going to get any definitive answer, the question was what historians think, and I believe there are few if any secular historians who take this view, though as you point out there are non-Christian religious traditions to that effect. None of these, however, date to the first century. John M Baker (talk) 11:34, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

It remains striking that the authorities did not smash his bones after taking him from the cross - I heard this was usually done, it remains striking, two, that his followers had procured a safe hiding place before the event. Occam's razor could add up to a number of possibilities: the Romans did not want him dead (at least Pilatus was washing his hands off this crime), Jusu followers wanted him alive - may be the Romans had made a deal to let him survive if his followers ensured he would leave the region and cause no further trouble. He most certainly left, yet the trouble was even worse with all the news that he did not die --Olaf Simons (talk) 12:18, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

John M Baker: I think we differ not on the probable and possible facts but merely on our direction of approach to them; you are quite correctly explaining why some purported details are unproven but possible, while I am suggesting why, though possible, they are unproven! To reiterate, all here seem to agree that (assuming the scriptural accounts are not wholly pious fictions/misunderstood parables/conspiratorial inventions/whatever, which remain possible but pretty unlikely), Jesus was almost certainly crucified; whether or not he died of it is rather less certain.

Olaf Simons: I was given to understand that it was common practice to break the live crucifixee's legs to hasten death, and that Jesus' unusually quick death anticipated the need for this. I hadn't heard of any similar post-death procedure, but if it were so it is, as you suggest, suggestive though completely unverifiable. As to your closing point, the Law of Unintended Consequences bites again! 87. . . . .195 posting from 87.194.161.147 (talk) 13:52, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

United States Special Operations Forces

Which of the United States Special Operations Forces is most elite? Can you just apply to be one? My friend is bragging that his bro is in special forces but I would think that their protocol wouldn't allow them to advertise that info in public. BTW, do they live in the public? If so, are they incognito where that they have a home front or a job front? --Reticuli88 (talk) 19:30, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Opinions will vary. In my experience, the particular special forces branch with which one is affiliated is "most elite". Cross-application is generally restricted by the branch of service: for instance, the SEALs are open only to members of the Navy or Coast Guard; however, there appears no restriction within branch of service (for instance, an Army soldier could attempt to join both the Rangers and the Green Berets). There is no particular secrecy associated with much of the special forces. On the other hand, how would we know about the secret ones? That said, members of special forces live much like any other members of the military -- often off-post, with the military as a day job. They should not be confused with intelligence operatives who work under cover. — Lomn 19:36, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Which is "most elite" is a matter of opinion; I'm sure all the members of each will contend it's them. They're all divisions of regular military forces, so you're recruited from the normal ranks of the army etc. - you don't just join Delta Force or the Seals straight from the street. So, to the extent that it's secret, they'd just say they're in the army or whatever. Anyone who is bragging they're in the SAS or whatever is, in my experience, generally in the catering corp. -- Finlay McWalter Talk 19:38, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

There is probably not a way to determine which SOP unit would be more elite then another that would be be without controversy. To become a member of such a unit, you would need to be a member of one of the branches of the US military first. From there, you can probably volunteer to apply for a SOP unit, and take the required training for it. Such training is pretty hardcore, and they generally fail a good portion of those who take it. They are usually as public as most others who are in the military, although most likely they will be involved in missions with higher levels of classification, though it is not always the case. There is not any real reason why they should be incognito at home about them being part of a special ops unit, and it is certainly a matter of pride to most of them. Googlemeister (talk) 19:43, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I can't at all speak for US special forces, but members of the UK's SAS, including its two territorial units, don't publicise their membership, and (even when they've left) their appearance on TV often shows them with their faces obscured. The rationale for this is that the SAS was heavily involved in operations against the PIRA and INLA, and they don't want current or former SAS members to face retaliation from said groups. -- Finlay McWalter Talk 19:47, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I would second Finlay McWalter's comments about secrecy. The US might be different, but Commonwealth SAS units keep their membership details private, and SAS members will not boast of their role. While they don't hide physically from the public, they might just refer to "being in the army". Personal details can also be kept under the radar by ex-directory listings, closed electoral roll listings and so forth. See for example, Willie Apiata, recent NZ recipient of the Victoria Cross; since it is unusual for a serving SAS member to be so identified, this was a significant award. Note that in his citation his team members' identities are hidden. See this Australian article for a similar story. Gwinva (talk) 05:56, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Are there any statistics to the female popluation of the United States Special Operations Forces? --Reticuli88 (talk) 19:45, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Yep, 100% male, 0% female. Googlemeister (talk) 19:54, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

False. The 160th SOAR, for example, "recruits women, though only for staff positions." I don't know the full breakdown, but it is not 100/0%. — Lomn 20:14, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Why so? --Reticuli88 (talk) 19:57, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

You may be interested in our article on women in the military, which has a large section on the specifics of women in the US military. — Lomn 20:18, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

In that article, it says that "stated justification include both social and physiological issues" as reasons why women are not allowed to serve in SOP or drive a sub. What exactly are the details of these reasons? --Reticuli88 (talk) 20:33, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

The article on submarines can help with that Submarine#Women_as_part_of_crew. Fraternization in close quarters would be a concern in special ops forces as well, given that they work in small teams. As much as it's a generalization to say that would happen, it would appear to be a situation they would rather just avoid entirely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.132.9.130 (talk) 21:15, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

In addition to the fraternization issue, I believe that the US military still has a "no women in combat roles" rule. That's not to say that women do not participate in combat, but they are not assigned to roles where their primary duty would be active combat. (e.g. a guard may in the course of her duties fire on enemies, but active combat is not the *primary* role of a guard.) As the whole *point* of special forces is forward deployed active combat, females would be excluded based on that criteria. -- 128.104.112.87 (talk) 21:42, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I am pretty sure that this is a "paper rule" which in practice is falling out of use, and only applies now to very limited circumstances where women aren't assigned directly to infantry units. I recently heard a story about a woman Marine who asked for, and was assigned, a role as a door gunner on an Apache helicopter. Based on her descriptions of her role, it was certainly a combat role... --Jayron32 04:49, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah, but the question is, will this 'paper rule' (presuming it isn't removed) remain a paper rule? As I understand it, there's some evidence that the enforcement of US military's policy on gays has varied depending on their needs. This is mentioned in Don't ask, don't tell albeit with {{fact}} tags. I have the idea I saw some source once showing the number of discharges albeit it may have been a personal website so not a RS. It seems to me part of the reason for the rule being 'paper' may be because of the high demand at the moment and if this were to change the enforcement of the rule may be more strict again. Of course, the rule may change itself, I believe Obama wants to allow gays to openly serve so perhaps he'll also consider removing the paper rule on women on combat positions. Nil Einne (talk) 12:36, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

It ends up being complicated even in fully integrated armed forces, like the Israelis have. I read that the Israelis found that when men and women served side by side, if the men perceived the women were in danger they would act far more violently than otherwise, which proved to be a liability (you don't always want your soldiers shooting up everything in sight). --98.217.14.211 (talk) 21:48, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Omar Bongo's death

How many national leaders attend Omar Bongo's funeral. Did John Kufuor go to his funeral Did he even hear about it. Omar Bongo die from a colon cancer, I was shock to hear Levy Patrick Mwanawasa die last year when is just a month till his 60th birthday. Did all African leaders attend his funeral or is only few people. Did Abdoulaye Wade and Paul Biya hear about it? Alot of people is sad Levy Patrick pass away. John Kufuor went to his funeral though. What about the leaders in West Africa?--69.228.145.50 (talk) 23:31, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

The articles you linked to mention the leaders present at the funerals. Rmhermen (talk) 00:14, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

July 23

Minors Viewing Pornography

Is it illegal for teenagers to view pornography in the United States? I'm not talking about child pornography. Alittlemoneybill (talk) 02:57, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

The sale of pornography to minors is illegal. Note: 19 year olds are not considered minors but are still teenagers, so your question has some ambiguity to it. Dismas|^(talk) 03:03, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

And what about minors viewing pornography with no sale involved? I suspect the OP is thinking of viewing it on the Internet, for free. Vimescarrot (talk) 09:05, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Most internet porn sites require the viewer to click a link that certifies they're 18 or older. If they're not, I guess they could be had up for providing false information (IANAL). Whether legally this is the same offence as viewing the porn, which is the logical consequence of the minor providing that false information, I couldn't say. -- JackofOz (talk) 09:30, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I believe—though am not sure—that pornography is something where the distribution, sale, and etc. of it to minors is illegal. The possession of it by minors is not—e.g. if a 10-year-old steals a pornographic magazine, there is no liable party. (This contrasts with, say, cigarettes and alcohol, which in some states is illegal to sell and possess by minors, and minors can receive citations for possessing it.) I'm not a lawyer, though, and I imagine this varies state-by-state anyway. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 13:08, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

lol wut if he steals it there's got to be something illegal about that :P 80.123.210.172 (talk) 16:01, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Not if he's under the age of criminal responsibility. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 17:54, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

If an adult leaves it around where the minor could easily find it and steal it, the adult could be charged with contributing to the delinquency of a minor, or even criminal mischief. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 01:59, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I guess it comes down to a similar deal as with cigarrettes and alcohol. In many jurisdictions it's illegal to sell them to people under the legal age, but it's not illegal for them to consume it. On the other hand, the same jurisdictions often have laws regarding provision of illegal material (be it cigarrettes, alcohol or pornography) to minors. Anyone considering anything like this should check their own jurisdiction's rules. Summary: The viewing may not be in itself illegal, but the provision of it usually is. 130.56.65.25 (talk) 01:11, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

International occupation of Jerusalem

Given the very long-standing dispute over who has the rights to live in / own / administer / control Jerusalem, I was wondering: has it ever been considered to declare Jerusalem extraterritorial (similar to the status of the UN building in New York), administered by an international organisation (such as, but not necessarily, the UN)? Please note that I am explicitly not looking for a debate about the merits of this solution (or any other solution to the political problems in that area of the world). Thanks in advance! — QuantumEleven 11:53, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

An episode of The West Wing featured an Israeli-Palestinian peace conference at Camp David, which I think countenanced designating a small part of the city (I think just the Temple Mount and environs) as something like the territory of an embassy. -- Finlay McWalter Talk 12:00, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I just watched the relevant episode, "The Birnam Wood", and in it (in an attempt to solve the logjam that the status of Jerusalem is having for their discussions) Kate Harper says "After the Six Day War, the Israelis offered to give the UN diplomatic status and immunities over the holy sites in Jerusalem", and she suggests this same status could be given to the Palestinians (so the Israelis retain sovereignty, but would be bound not to enter the Haram al-Sharif under the terms of the Vienna Convention). That's a different solution than that suggested by corpus separatum; did Israel make this offer, or is this just a WW writer fantasy? -- Finlay McWalter Talk 14:06, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I seem to remember (this was way back in 1995 or something, may be before Yitzhak Rabin was assasinated) some talk of a proposal for jointly administering Jerusalem. Not quite the same thing but related Nil Einne (talk) 12:11, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

UN control was proposed (and passed, only to be nullified by war) under the Partition Plan for Palestine (Resolution 181 (II) of 29 November 1947), accorrding to this site (which is part of the UN) and the wikilinked page. - Jarry1250 ^{[ In the UK? Sign the petition! ]} 12:43, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

See Corpus_Separatum... AnonMoos (talk) 12:56, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

music instruments

I am trying to find information on a French violin factor, Gaggini, active in the town of Nice in the XXth C. I could not find anything in Wikipedia. Thank you CV —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisv73 (talk • contribs) 14:38, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

• All I could quickly find was this: Pietro Gaggini, Nice 1943. Gaggini was the nephew and student of Alberto Blanchi in Nice and took over his business in the 1930's. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:13, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Nautical chart lines

What is the point of the seemingly arbitrary lines, which seem to be at regular numbers of degrees from certain points on charts lik e this one? Distance measurement? - Jarry1250 ^{[ In the UK? Sign the petition! ]} 14:49, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Great question. Hopefully someone will know for definite but from a bit of searching it kinda seems like they might be a series of Compass rose for ease of use with a parallel ruler but i've no idea if that's true (i've no boating or nautical knowledge - it's just based on a bit of guesswork from articles I could find that seemed to fit the bill). ny156uk (talk) 15:58, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Rhumb lines? Deor (talk) 18:27, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Rhumb_line#Usage seems to confirm that. As noted, good question.. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:37, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Cf. the file description here. Deor (talk) 18:43, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

history of racism in Toronto

How racism started in Toronto and the rest of Canada? Is there any website about history of racism in Toronto and rest of Canada? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.53.160 (talk) 15:06, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

How about the first result when searching "history of racism in Toronto"? That gives this link which is, in turn, a list of possibily relevant links to other sites (relating to Canada in general, for the most part). A number of the links I checked were out-of-date, but the material may still be available on the web. For example, "A History of Race/ism" can be found at this location. Some of the other search results may also be useful. --Kateshortforbob 15:55, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

As for "how racism started"... As soon as someone showed up who looked different, racism started. There was well documented racism among the Native Americans, so it predates anything current. -- kainaw™ 18:36, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

That depends on how you define racism. Native Americans (First Nations) engaged in ethnocentrism and persecution of people from other ethnic groups. Native American ethnocentrism was based on identity and cultural traits. That is something different from modern, pseudoscientific racism, which involves a belief that there are biological entities called races, and that the genetic makeup of one race makes it naturally superior to another. Native Americans certainly did not have such a belief. This belief or ideology first arose during the 19th century in Europe, though it was based on earlier ideas about superiority based on physical appearance, which date back to the European conquest of the Americas and the transAtlantic slave trade. Again, this earlier racism based on appearance was very different from Native American ethnocentrism, which existed between ethnic groups indistinguishable from each other in appearance. The earlier version of European racism was already in place among the first French visitors to the Toronto region, who viewed the Iroquoian people of the region as inferior savages. The later pseudoscientific version of racism, based on (false) beliefs about genetics, gradually spread to Toronto along with the rest of North America during the late 19th century. Marco polo (talk) 20:04, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, it isn't true that something like racism was inevitable when premodern people encountered others of different appearance. For example, ancient Egyptians were darker in complexion than ancient Greeks or Romans, but there is no evidence at all that Greeks or Romans considered them inferior, except to the extent that ethnocentric Greeks thought that any non-Greeks (regardless of appearance) were inferior. Marco polo (talk) 20:06, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

There are three kinds of humans: those whose culture is less successful than ours, who are subhuman monkeys that God hates; those whose culture is more successful than ours, who are effete degenerates that God hates; and those whose culture is much the same as ours, who obviously stole all our ideas and are using them in a way God doesn't like. Race, nation, and what football team we support are back-formations we make up to justify our intrinsic (and, once, genetically well-founded) tribalism, something we've been carrying around since we all really were monkeys. Unless mitochondrial eve lived in Cabbagetown, none of this is native to, or peculiar to, Toronto. 87.114.144.52 (talk) 22:40, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

We had a question the other day about the Riot at Christie Pits in the 1930s. There were also Catholic vs. Protestant riots in the nineteenth century (the Jubilee Riot, for example, which we don't seem to have an article about). There hasn't been a lot of racism against blacks, as much as there has been against Jews and the Irish, which is not surprising given Toronto's Protestant English history. Adam Bishop (talk) 00:22, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I know I know; I know I don't know; I don't know I know; I don't know I don't know

Do you have any references that encompasses these statements? Has there been any philosophical essays dealing with these 4 statements? Here they are again:
There are things I know I know,
There are things I know I don't know,
There are things I don't know I know,
There are things I don't know I don't know

Rfwoolf (talk) 21:41, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, Donald Rumsfeld was (undeservedly) hammered by the press and the Plain English Campaign for talking about unknown unknowns. --ColinFine (talk) 22:17, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, I can't guarantee there haven't been any philosophical essays specifically about your 4 sentences, but as far as I can tell they are simple english sentences each with a clearly recognisable meaning. Unless you were thinking of a specific essay, it does sound like something would Hegel would warble on about.

However for more on known, and unknown things see Knowledge, and Epistemology - which adds to your list - ie "there are things I know, but aren't true..", you might also read A priori and a posteriori (or alternatively maybe you were thinking of 'Intrinsic and extrinsic knowledge'). Apologies if I've missed some obvious and well known essay that is the answer.83.100.250.79 (talk) 23:04, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

It looks like you could clarify the lines by replacing the first "knows" with "aware of"

eg "There are things I'm not aware that I know" ie things you didn't realise you knew. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.100.250.79 (talk) 23:23, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

There's a model used in teaching, which I know as the 4-stage mastery model, which roughly corresponds to Rumsfeld's burblings. The 4 stages are, in ascending order of competence: unconscious incompetence (you don't know what you don't know), conscious incompetence (you know what you don't know), conscious competence (you know what you know but still have to think about doing it), and unconscious competence (you know what you know and can do it without conscious thought). If anyone can give me the source of this model, I'd be very pleased because I've been trying to remember it since 1993! --TammyMoet (talk) 07:52, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

No source that I can see but we do have an article on that: Four stages of competence. --bodnotbod (talk) 13:28, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

African American Money Donation to Africa

How much money do African Americans donate to help the people of Sub-Saharan Africa each year? 174.114.236.41 (talk) 23:07, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

This may be estimated via surveys, but there will be no way of directly knowing, as charities don't ask the race of donors. Tempshill (talk) 23:46, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

July 24

superoldest living black peoples

Generally, on average old black women lives longer or old black womens live longer? One black women have live until 108. Bettie Wilson, one of the oldest black women live till 115. One old black man who was a golf player live until 111, the first national leader on Malawi live until 100.--69.228.145.50 (talk) 00:25, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

A few not randomly selected data points do not make a good basis for such determinations. You need a large sample to get reliable numbers. The U.S. CDC has a good graph on page four of this report: [2] They use a very large data set and find that black women on average live several years longer than black men (and about the same average lifespan as white men, but trailing white women by several years). Rmhermen (talk) 07:00, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Mexican and Iranian skin colors

What is the general color of Mexicans. Is Mexians usually tan, white, or brown in skin color. What about Indian and Arabian skin colors. Aren;t they orange or yellow in skin color. Is Asians white?--69.228.145.50 (talk) 00:39, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Mexicans and Iranians and Indians and Arabians and Asians all have a wide range of skin colors. Usually, skin colors of people range are various shades of tans and browns, though some people have pinkish tones mixed in as well. --Jayron32 00:52, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

All of these groups vary quite a bit. There are Asians with very light, white-like skin tone, and there are those with very dark skin tone. Different regions of India have very, very different skin and facial apperances. Arab is a language and cultural group and corresponds with a hugely varied geographical range. Mexicans have as varied skin tones as you can find anywhere else. None of these skin colorations line up with crude color categories like "orange" or "yellow". --98.217.14.211 (talk) 03:18, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

See Human skin color and Race (classification of human beings) for related topics. Tempshill (talk) 06:10, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

And for the record, most Iranians are not arab. Googlemeister (talk) 15:25, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Nil Ellien

@Nil: Actually there is a difference between language and dialect. Many languages have mutually intelligible dialects, as well as language isolates.174.3.103.39 (talk) 00:59, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

If you want to continue that discussion, post to that discussion. If you want to talk to Nil, post to his talk page. It'll help if you spell his name approximately correctly. Algebraist 01:09, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

The discussion is over. This was for the desk, not for his talk page.174.3.103.39 (talk) 02:31, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Visigothic languages

Did the Visigoths who lived in the Visigothic Kingdom speak a Germanic language? If so, how is it that those who succeeded them following the Reconquista spoke a Romance language? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 01:54, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

The original conquerors certainly spoke an East Germanic language, but the Visigoths in Spain seem to have formed a small and somewhat inward-looking ruling elite, while the majority of the population went on speaking their previous languages. There's some discussion of the almost completely negligeable linguistic effects of Visigothic rule in Spain in the book Empires of the Word: A Language History of the World by Nicholas Ostler.. AnonMoos (talk) 02:22, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

The elite Visigothic language was Gothic. Changes must have occured during the two centuries of Visigothic rule in Hispania.--Wetman (talk) 18:31, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Depression?

Are we currently in a depression? If not, how much worse do things have to get before we start calling this recession a depression? Also, what would make it another "great" depression? Cousert (talk)

I'm not sure whom you mean by "we", but in the US, we're not in a depression because the government refuses to say we are. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 02:01, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

There is no agreed-upon definition of a depression, other than that it is an economic downturn more severe than a recession. One rule of thumb is that a depression reflects a reduction of at least 10% in gross domestic product. In most countries, the current downturn, although the most severe since the Great Depression, falls well short of that standard. In the United States, the Great Depression resulted in a 33% reduction in GDP, so that's the kind of downturn that would be needed for this to be called the Second Great Depression. John M Baker (talk) 02:23, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

The definition I heard (which is apparently incorrect; hey, I heard it in a tabloid newspaper) is that the GDP falls for four quarters in succession. Recession is two quarters. Vimescarrot (talk) 09:06, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

The formal definition of a recession is a two consecutive quarter decline in real GDP. There is no formal definition of a depression. Wikiant (talk) 11:18, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

That appears to be correct. This Google search might give you a few ideas to play with, though. One of the hits returns a "definition" from the respected journal The Economist giving the rather vague "a bad, depressingly prolonged recession in economic activity." --bodnotbod (talk) 13:12, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

There is no 'we'. Are you depressed? Then you're in a depression.

Seriously though, when all joy and spontaneity has disappeared from a person's life, they will seek wealth as a sign that all is well in the world. In an economic downturn like what happened last September, all these joyless automatons have their worldview challenged. They call it depression. The reality is that their souls are in anguish. Their economic reality is largely unchanged. So long as people get enough to eat (they do) and have a warm bed to sleep in (they usually do), everything else is trivial and inconsequential. Vranak (talk) 16:20, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

The Republicans perceive correctly that their only hopes of gaining in the next round of elections are through a public sense of worsening economic slump and other fear-driven voting patterns: it is with this sense that their leaders express "concerns" that Obama's administration will "fail".--Wetman (talk) 18:28, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

what troops were at the battle of the wilderness

does anyone know??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iluvgofishband (talk • contribs) 03:07, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

See Battle of the Wilderness. Algebraist 03:09, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Also Wilderness Confederate order of battle and Wilderness Union order of battle --Tagishsimon (talk) 03:10, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

That's if the question is about the Battle of the Wilderness in the American Civil War. For the French and Indian War battle sometimes known as the Battle of the Wilderness, see Battle of the Monongahela. —Kevin Myers 15:22, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Maoist opposition within the Soviet bloc

Are there any examples of parties or individuals within the Soviet bloc who sided with the Maoists in the Sino-soviet split? --Gary123 (talk) 05:34, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Enver Hoxha, I believe. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 00:25, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there were several (although not all could necessarily be identified as Maoist). There were pro-Maoist/anti-Revisionist groups amongst Soviet students, but it seems they didn't make any formal organization. There's an article on Soviet Revolutionary Communists (Bolsheviks), but its possible that that group was an Albanian propaganda hoax. It was rumoured that Molotov worked behind the scenes for the anti-revisionist opposition. In Poland, there was Kazimierz Mijal and Communist Party of Poland (Mijal). In East Germany there was the Communist Party of Germany/Marxists-Leninists, German wikipedia writes "Als einzige K-Gruppe verfügte die KPD/ML seit Mitte der 1970er Jahre auch über einen Ableger in der DDR, dieser wurde größtenteils Anfang der 1980er Jahre vom MfS zerschlagen. Das Organ der DDR-Sektion hieß Roter Blitz. Vorläufer Anfang der 80er Jahre war der "Rote Morgen - Ausgabe der Sektion DDR". Die Magdeburger Ortsgruppe reorganisierte sich nach der Wende 1989." At one point the KPD/ML was the sole organized opposition parties in the GDR. --Soman (talk)

See [3], [4], [5], [6], etc. on KPD/ML in GDR. --Soman (talk)

I bit separate from the query perhaps, but the People's Republic of Kampuchea was part of the Soviet bloc in the 1980s, and the Party of Democratic Kampuchea (i.e. Khmer Rouge) was a pro-China opposition group. Both the Korean and Vietnamese communist parties had ambivalent positions at the time of the Sino-Soviet split, but both ended up remaining in the Soviet bloc. --Soman (talk)

Another incident, preceding the Sino-Soviet split, but related to the political changes after the 20th CPSU congress, were the conflicts amongst Greek communists exiled in Tashkent. see http://anasintaxi-en.blogspot.com/2007/08/50-years-since-massive-rebellion-of.html and http://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/rdv14n2/greek.htm . --Soman (talk)

AFAIK Romania was tilted more towards China as towards the USSR. 80.123.210.172 (talk) 18:33, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Romania is a bit of a complicated case. Romania did pronounce a certain degree of independence against USSR, and did borrow some inspiration from Asian socialist countries. For example, Romania did not send troops to crush the Prague spring. But its also important to state that Romania never broke with the Soviet bloc. --Soman (talk) 20:26, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

US states :geographical oddities..?

Once, early in my use of WK, I think I stumbled on a page that listed certain "trivia" statistics about the US States' relationship to each other, eg " State that borders most other states" etc. But after many attempts to find again, I remain defeated ! I have seen "US border anomalies" but this was something else..Can anyone pont me in the right direction ? Feroshki (talk) 08:08, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Such a list of trivia does not seem that encyclopedic, so it might have been gone AFD. Googlemeister (talk) 14:29, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

The Pope

Is there any mechanism of removing the pope from office besides his death? Can he be voted out by the cardinals? Can he voluntarily resign? Googlemeister (talk) 14:28, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

We have an article papal resignation. Algebraist 14:35, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

OK thanks. So it appears he can resign, but no one else can force him out of the papacy without actually killing him. Googlemeister (talk) 14:46, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

How many times in history have a group of Cardinals or some King or Emperor and some cardinals just gone ahead and elected a replacement Pope, without killing the incumbent or getting a resignation? Regardless of whether later historians considered the rump Pope the "real" one, didn't he have temporal power and weren't rites he performed recognized as legitimate, such as marriages, ordinations as priest or as bishop? In the 11th century there were three "Popes" at the same time and all three were deposed by an Emperor,Henry III, Holy Roman Emperor for instance. Did he technically get resignations, by making them an offer they couldn't refuse (either your signature or your brains will be on that resignation document in one minute) or did he just issue an "Edict of Papal Deposition?" Some irregularity in the selection of a Pope (purchasing the office, in the 11th century) might have been used to argue that he was "never legitimately Pope." But then wouldn't someone have to follw up and re-make the bishops he made, so that the priests they made would be recognized? Edison (talk) 15:15, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

There is a complete list at Antipope. TomorrowTime (talk) 15:38, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Were their edits and such considered legitimate? Often the Popes would excommunicate each other and such. Very confusing how to deal with that if you were a (honest) bishop I am sure. Googlemeister (talk) 20:32, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

The last time there was any significant popular support for a rival pope was a long time ago. I think it's safe to say it's just not going to happen these days, and the Pulvermachers of the world can go hell for leather but they are simply never going to be recognised. And without that recognition, nothing they do or say will ever be considered legitimate. (Btw, popes probably don't make "edits"; they're too busy reading our articles to get around to improving them. :)

I remember during the last couple of years of John Paul II's reign, when he was infirm (to put it mildly), people saying "He can't function any more; they'll obviously get rid of him". But who were "they"? I can imagine cardinals bringing pressure to bear on a pope to abdicate, but they can't force him to do so. Short of murder (papicide?), it's not possible to get rid of a pope. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:20, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Architectural style of house

What is the architectural style of the Hugh T. Rinehart House (built in 1861 in Auglaize County, Ohio), pictured here? I'm really not good at identifying styles, and (unlike many houses on the NRHP) this one doesn't have a style indicated in the NRHP database. Other images are available at Commons:Category:Hugh T. Rinehart House. Nyttend (talk) 17:44, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

The seeming problem is the result of our American habit of inflating all buildings to the status of "architecture". "Bungalow" was not yet a term used in Ohio. Why is this not simply a vernacular cottage? BtW, the NRHP database, followed blindly at Wikipedia as it must be, credits as "Greek Revival" all houses built c. 1820-1840, it seems, whether or not they have perceptibly "Grecian" details. This cottage shows that not everything built in 1861 was "Victorian architecture".--Wetman (talk) 18:22, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, I would call that style Haitian Shanty, but to each his own. Googlemeister (talk) 20:14, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Greek revival seems fair. The column capitals appear to be of the Doric order. The house has likely been altered over the years, and an early drawing or photo would be useful in determining what it started as.

Another photo is available at this Ohio Historical Society webpage. Don't know the date for it, however. Nyttend (talk) 20:48, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Eclecticism or historicism? --Saddhiyama (talk) 20:54, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Accidental deaths in the US military

I've been reading a US book which says that over a thousand US military personnel get killed every year in military accidents (not during combat) and that at least 200 commit suicide every year. Is that true? 78.147.128.100 (talk) 22:33, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a source, but that sound very credible. It's a big military, they do a lot of stuff, and health-and-safety guys with clipboards are much less prevalent in military settings than ordinary civilian life. A remarkable number of deaths in warzones like Afghanistan are due to car accidents and helicopter crashes. Planes crash, humvees don't have crumple-zones (heck, do they even have seatbelts?), and much time is spent firing live ammo. People die of heatstroke or exposure, or are run over by landrovers or fall off cliffs. Worse, if you shoot yourself in the brain with M-16 you thought was empty but wasn't, you don't get a purple heart, even if you were trying to unjam it when under fire in Helmand. -- Finlay McWalter Talk 22:47, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

This where "not during combat" means "not as a result of enemy action", not "not in a combat zone". -- Finlay McWalter Talk 22:58, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

The official US Army site says that "accidental, non-combat deaths" peaked in 2005 at 299. MSNBC reported (in 2006) that suicides rose in 2005 to 83. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:16, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Those numbers (cited by Clarityfiend) are just for the active duty US Army, and not the US military overall.

Unless my math is off, about 1,000 accidental deaths per year in a military of about 3 million people is about the same rate as civilian accidental deaths in the US (about 100,000 deaths per 300 million people per year). And I think the military suicide rate appears to be lower than the civilian rate. —Kevin Myers 23:27, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

There was a news report recently about the rise in the murder rate of spouses by active duty military personal returning from the Middle East. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 00:27, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

July 25

Royalties in concentration camps

Does anybody know any royalties that were sent to concentration camps during World War II? I know there was Princess Mafalda of Savoy, who died in one--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 02:33, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Obama's citizenship and presidency(a "what if")

Let's say that the "birthers" are right and it can be proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Obama really isn't an American citizen. If this was the case(as I don't believe it to be), I assume his presidency would somehow be declared null and void. However, how might this be handled? Would Obama just have to step down, and Biden take over? Or would there be a special election called? 69.224.113.202 (talk) 03:12, 25 July 2009 (UTC)