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.
Does the precentage of an average individual british person taxes that goes to the NHS equal to amount of money spent by an average insured american on their own private health care plans? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.146.124.35 (talk) 02:52, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The US spends by far the most money per person on health care of any country [1]. This data shows the average cost per American so insured American's pay an even higher share than reflected by the graph. Something to keep in mind is that some US health care is paid for by tax money as well (Medicare and Medicaid) and the cost of employer based health plans effectively comes out of wages, so the full costs aren't always obvious. Rckrone (talk) 06:55, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The last point is especially important: the average insured American is not actually paying their own premiums directly. If you pay them out of pocket, they are for most prohibitively expensive (thousands of dollars per year for even really poor plans). My wife has to pay for private healthcare at the moment (she is in between jobs), and it's some $2000 a year or so for "hazard insurance" that just caps anything she would owe at $5000. So if she gets hit by a car, or catches some virulent disease, she pays the first $5000 in services out of pocket, and then the insurance pays for the rest—that's the whole health plan, no regular doctor's visits, no prescriptions, nothing. All of this for someone who is in between benefits-giving jobs, and has a correspondingly low income! You can, perhaps, understand why the "private option" is not so appealing to us at the moment! --Mr.98 (talk) 15:03, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The NHS employs about 1.3 million employees out of a UK employed population of 29 million. So approximately 4.5% of the entire employed population is dedicated to health care. What is the cost of that? When about 1 worker out 20 workers is working in health care I suspect the actual cost is not inexpensive. What is the cost of wages plus material annually for the NHS? SunSw0rd (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:40, 4 October 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Nobody said the NHS didn't cost a lot, but it is far cheaper than US health care. I don't know how many people are employed in health care in the US, but I expect it is at least as large (you have to include all the people working in the insurance industry as well). --Tango (talk) 03:26, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A women-only Swedish city
I read a Chinese news report on a city in Northern Sweden that, according to the report, is the only women-only city in the world since 1820. However, the news only quoted the name in Chinese as 沙科保(pinyin:Shakebao), without its native name. Is there such a city in Sweden, and if so, what is its name in Swedish?--Poeticlion (talk) 08:36, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
According to the news report, the city:
forbids men to enter
has 25 thousand women as residents
was established in 1820 by the widow of a rich man
is situated near a woodland in Northern Sweden, therefore the women there live on forestry
I'm Swedish, have never heard of this, and I find it highly unlikely (impossible!) that any city in Sweden would forbid people of a certain gender to enter it. Perhaps some community of 25 inhabitants could have such a rule, but certainly not a city of 25 000 inhabitants. Was the city supposed to exist to this day?/Marxmax (talk) 09:10, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
After a little Google translate, I must say that this is either the product of the journalist's or the chinese girl's vivid imagination. "Chako Paul City provides a woman having sex out of the city to come back you must first bathe, wash away the taste of a special body, and then a calm mood, taste and excitement to avoid the emotional impact of other women." Hilarious!/Marxmax (talk) 09:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply! Google gives tens of thousands of mentions of the "city" but they are probably derived from the very same source, since most of the Chinese media are used to doing mindless copying and pasting. The character 市 usually refers to a city or en kommun but another news article says 沙科保 is actually a castle. This article, from the government news agency Xinhua, shows a picture of the castle. (Pictures and texts are often duplicated in the same manner by Chinese media.) Now I tend to believe it is a hilarious and falseurban legend, but I cannot be certain of this. --Poeticlion (talk) 10:08, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sweden is a small country. A town with 25 000 inhabitants is considered a medium-sized town, which means that pretty much everyone in the country would know at least something about it, even had it been a perfectly ordinary town. I assure you that this is an urban legend, and that such a town would be unthinkable, since you can't deny half the population access to somewhere big enough to house thousands of persons. /Julle (talk) 11:41, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What solid evidence and counterargument!! Thank you!! It's not famous despite its alleged "relatively high population", and men should have allemansrätten to enter the place unobstructed by policewomen, so it has to be an urban legend. Now I have to think about another question: how to stop it from widespreading and persuade other people (esp. my girlfriend) to believe it's untrue. First to get the article off from Chinese wikipedia??...--Poeticlion (talk) 12:16, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That reminds me of a 1980s sci-fi film from Poland where two guys 'wake up' in the future and the entire world is populated by women (it's actually more complicated than that and has a very interesting ending). Can't for the life of me remember the name. --KageTora - SPQW - (影虎) (talk) 10:26, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps not very coincidentally, we have such a place in the classical Chinese novel Journey to the West. The women in the "Girls' Kingdom" gave birth to babies after drinking their river water, so they did not need men. --Poeticlion (talk) 12:16, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Such an interesting story! Perhaps it is inspired by the fact that gender equality is so important in Sweden. But remember (And why not tell this to your girl friend, haha!), that gender equality work both ways: just as it would be unequal to prevent women to enter a particular city, it would be to prevent men from doing so. Equality means just that: equality. And, by the way: the more equal a society is, the less reason it would be for women to hide from men in a special city. --Aciram (talk) 12:51, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As a Swede myself, I agree with Marxmax: there is no such town in Sweden. Interesting story, though, of the same kind as the belief that men has never walked on the Moon or that Santa Claus really exists, flying in a sled behind reindeer. Typically, if you want to believe in it, you can, because it is hard to prove that something does not exist. It should be noted that, despite the Swedish freedom to roam ("allemansrätten", as referred to above), you can exclude people from visiting your real estate - but only if it is gated real estate in direct access to a house where you live or a factory where safety requires it. Gated communities does not exist in Sweden, it has never been tested if it would be legal, but it would certainly be unimaginable in the Swedish political context - sort of beyond politically incorrect. Dagrqv (talk) 14:01, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Whilst it already well established that this is a hoax, i have to add that the castle on the photo in the Xinhua article cannot possibly have been taken in Sweden. Even more unlikely that such a castle could have been found in northern Sweden, to my knowledge there are no major medieval buildings in the northernmost parts of the country. --Soman (talk) 08:29, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And as for why the Chinese may have cultural links to this myth, see Qian Ma's 2004 book Feminist Utopian Discourse in Eighteenth-Century Chinese and English Fiction : A Cross-Cultural Comparisonhere. BrainyBabe (talk) 11:12, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As Edaen pointed out, the picture is the Taymouth Castle Club House, see http://www.igougo.com/attractions-reviews-b96015-Perthshire-Taymouth_Castle.html for a different view of the same section. Chinese media is hilarious, to think someone actually sat down and wrote this complete piece of garb...um, fiction; and it gets somehow gets picked up and propagated across several major news agencies, all without any fact-checking. They are less credible than the National Enquirer...though certainly quite adept at writing fiction to cover up the human rights violations... Tendancer (talk) 20:04, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If I try to say Rawlson and Rillerah in swedish the closest I get is Råsun (Rawlson) and Rilleån, but neither exist in Sweden. Råsunda is a soccerstadium in the surburbs of Stockholm and Rickleå is a creek and a small village in nothern parts of Sweden. Who ever wrote the lyrics to the song might be an ancestor of Swedish chef. // Castrup (talk) 11:00, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't it interesting that it is in fact easier to prove that something does exist, than that it doesn't, this being the basis for all the Urban Legends in modern society ? If such a place existed - reminds me of Wonder Woman's Amazon - could one know for sure ? I am not disagreeing with the Swedes on this because how would I know ? I am not Swedish, ( although far enough back, to when the Vikings came to England, and were very nice to everyone, and only afraid of the Sky falling on their heads , who knows ? ), nor have I ever been there, though I wouldn't mind - Scandinavia fascinates me. But if we say such a town does not exist, how could we be absolutely sure, in a country of what - nine million ? This is the sort of " well, you never really know " kind of talk that allows us to want to believe in mysteries. I get the feeling, that even if they drained Loch Ness, as Burns did in that episode of the Simpsons, and found nothing, people would still say there was a Monster there - it was hiding under a pebble, or was invisible. What I mean is, if such a town were found, then it would be undeniable - you would only need one such discovery to verify it. But if it was not, and people looked in hundreds of towns all over Northern Sweden, and found nought, even hundreds of failures would not mean the theory is disproved. Reminds me of the rigour needed to make a Mathematical Proof - the mathematician knows of no counter examples to his theory, but cannot use this fact to prove beyond doubt that it is true. One however could argue that if such a town were real, there should be some indication, but this to me goes against the egalitarian nature of Swedes in general, even though it is a Monarchy. We had a similar thing here in New Zealand in 1993, when some hunters claimed to have seen a living Moa. This is a flightless rattite bird similar to an Emu or Ostrich, believed to have been hunted to extinction some time ago. There was no undeniable proof of what they had seen, but then no proof they hadn't seen it. This all goes back to the idea that just because You can't see something, doesn't mean it is not there. One way around this is to use common sense, and sometimes one can be told tall stories and believe them without thinking it through. In " All the President's Men " Woodward and Bernstein recall that there was a story about a king who supposedly waited in the snow to see the Pope, for ages, without going inside - if I remember rightly - it's been a while - the lesson in Journalism was to ask if such a story was likely , or possible, or any number of other things. It is true that sometimes Truth is Stranger than Fiction - there are proven examples of this, but one needs to look at each story one is told, and think about it. I was recently told that recycling in New Zealand is more expensive than just making the stuff again from scratch. Immediately I was skeptical. One could seize this idea as if it is some of the usual Lone Gunman X Files type conspiracy theory, or consider, would any city council and big business continue with something like that if it is a waste of money ? Doubt it. I am not of the belief that pollution causes Global Warming, since historically there have been warm periods and cold snaps long before mankind could possibly have done enough pollution to cause it - but I like a clean planet. I see no point in pumping filthy smoke into the air, nor in wasting raw material that can be recycled, and incidentally, seeing I mentioned it, I do believe there was a conspiracy in the death of JFK, that Oswald was part of it, with Jack Ruby, but I do not believe Oswald fired the fatal shot. Look at the film. Laws of Physics apply. Whether it was a coup as Oliver Stone suggested and Walter Cronkite disagreed with, I do not know. The Christchurch Star, right here in my city, which Donald Sutherland's character was reading in the movie still has records of the premature announcement of details of the assassination on file. But perhaps I digress. One thing this serves to show, though, is how many legends there could be in the world, and how we may never know the truth or untruth of some of them. As for the possibility of this town in Sweden ? Yeah, doubt it. Such a thing would not be legal - although there are women and men only gyms in some places, fair enough - but a whole town ? If anyone had seen it, they would have made a mint selling pictures to the tabloids. If the female inhabitants kill any spies, then how would anyone live to tell about it ? By that rationale, I could say there is a city of giants in Tasmania, and prove it by saying that it must be true, because no one can disprove it, so it is like the evidence exitsts by default. The Russian.202.36.179.66 (talk) 02:50, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
IOC and Barack
Is Barack going to the IOC and personally petitioning them to select his native country's city for the 2016 Olympics unprecedented by a head of state (or government)? Only interested in Olympics prior to 2016, not inclusive. Googlemeister (talk) 14:01, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No. "Heads of state have been instrumental in recent votes, creating somewhat of a new precedent. Tony Blair helped London win the 2012 Olympics by traveling to Singapore to meet with IOC members ahead of that vote, and Russia's Vladimir Putin went to Guatemala to lobby in support of Sochi's bid for the 2014 Winter Games." source. --LarryMac | Talk14:15, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
British Prime Minister Tony Blair's personal visit was considered to be one of the elements that decided London's selection for the 2012 Olympics over (inter alia) U.S. and French competitors who did not send national leaders to the IOC meeting. British national euphoria over winning this contest lasted less than 24 hours before the 7 July 2005 London bombings. In my opinion, Obama and Lula da Silva, the President of Brazil, were both correct in their decisions to present their countries' cases to the IOC meeting in Copenhagen. —— Shakescene (talk) 07:37, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Although the OP specifically excluded the 2016 bid, it's worth remembering that every country bidding had leaders there. Japanese PM Yukio Hatoyama, Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva (as already mentioned) and both King Juan Carlos and Spanish PM José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero[5][6] attended and had apparently announced their intentions to attend before Obama had. The Japanese tried to get a royal representative as well [7][8] but appear to have failed. If Obama hadn't attended then the Chicago bid would have been the odd one out in lacking their countries head of government. And let's not also forget the Chicago bid effectively lost to Tokyo and Madrid not just Rio. So it's not that clear if Rio had not been there that Chicago would have won. Nil Einne (talk) 23:53, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I understand your query but here are a few points:
The Fed bases its decisions on the M2 definition of money supply which excludes eurodollar deposits (but this says it does include overnight eurodollar deposits). Monitoring M3 would have its benefits but, according to money supply, it's not worth the effort of compiling the data. So the Fed has control over M2 despite what goes on in other countries.
Now think about what would happen to US money supply if an EU central bank altered the reserve requirement on eurodollar deposits in the EU. Nothing, right? Limiting central banks to alter reserve requirements within their own jurisdictions only, prevents them from affecting money supplies in other countries.
Also central banks seldom use reserve requirements to change the money supply anyway. They mostly use interest rates and trading bonds.
Thanks, I'm not actually asking about monitoring, but about controlling, but thinking again what I mean is probably no longer an issue since September or October 2008 when the Fed was allowed to pay interests on the reserves. By doing that they can probably pull any amount of money out of the system.
What I meant is:
The foreign banks lend almost all the US dollar money that is deposited, and that money is then again deposited outside the U.S. (indirectly of course, someone spends it, someone else deposits it). The money supply created by such transactions grows to at most 1/(reserve fraction). The smaller the reserve fraction the larger M3 becomes.
If - theoretically - the Fed thinks M3 is becoming too large, so it has to raise interest rates, then it actually does this by selling U.S. Treasury securities.
What if the foreign deposits have grown so large that the Fed runs out of Treasury securities and the interest rate still doesn't rise to the desired level, and M3 still grows rapidly?
There isn't really anything a government can do about what people do with its currency overseas. They don't really need to, though - it is in a bank's interest to keep reserves in the currency the deposits are denominated in, otherwise they could get into serious trouble when people come to withdraw it. It also smooths out exchange rate risks. I believe the UK doesn't have any reserve requirements, it is just left to the banks to choose a reserve that works for them (although the Financial Services Authority (FSA) will step in if the bank is taking excessive risks - at least, that's the theory...), and the Bank of England still manages to maintain control of the money supply through interest rate changes and, recently, "quantitative easing". It also helps that the amount of a currency being used in other countries is usually a small fraction of the amount used at home. --Tango (talk) 23:41, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Criminal organisations in Russia
Quick query: were there any named criminal organisations operating primarily in the Russian Empire? Alternatively, were there any particularly infamous (non-political) criminals active in Russia between, say, 1850 and 1917? GeeJo(t)⁄(c) • 17:56, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Napoleon's Grande Army? There were certainly many groups of anarchists committing criminal acts, such as the Circle of Tchaikovsky. Their crimes were mostly printing seditious and inflammatory anti-government pamphlets, and trying to foment revolution. As far as named criminals go, how about Rasputin? Googlemeister (talk) 20:41, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See below. I thought one of your editors might want to verify and modify the APA style entry accordingly.
Mark
Mark A. Allan
Head of Library Reference Services/Porter Henderson Library
Angelo State University
Any opinions expressed are my own and do not reflect any official stance held by my employer.
I love the smell of book dust in the morning. It smells like...... knowledge.
From: Educ. & Behavior Science ALA Discussion List
Sent: Thursday, October 01, 2009 2:30 PM
Subject: APA Publication Manual 6th edition - errors
Hi all,
We have received word from our campus APA expert that the 6th edition contains many errors. Some (but not all) of the errors were corrected in a second printing. She is in constant contact with the folks at APA regarding the errors, so her information is from the source. With her permission, I am re-posting her email to me here:
So far, I know that the sample paper has errors in the running head and the figures. I haven’t searched for the
rest of the errors – I’m waiting for the list of errata to be published in the next couple of weeks.
The problem is that they rely heavily on the sample document to convey many of their formatting instructions, and so lots of people are now doing it wrong. I agree that they should really do a product recall.
Look at the sample one-experiment paper (figure 2.1). If it has the words “Running head:” in the header at the top of every page, then you have the wrong version. This is the correct version:
I suspect that many of us purchased copies from the first printing, which means that our copies have errors. Our campus bookstores may also be selling copies with errors.
I would like to respectfully suggest that APA do a product recall and replace the erroneous copies with free – and correct – copies!
Which organization officially said that Urdu should be the second most spoken language of the Muslim World after Arabic? Someone told that as a Muslim, you should speak Urdu after you learned Arabic. I am a Bengali and our ethnic group is the second largest Muslim group in the Muslim World after the Arabs-I believe this fact is true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.119.102 (talk) 20:47, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Its too late, unless you had this translated, your speaking English before Urdu. I don't think that there is a work around at this point. Is Arabic your first launguage? If so you may not be fully Bengaleze. French is a beautiful launguage, possibly you could travel to Paris and study up. Good luck! 174.152.228.209 (talk) 22:45, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
...I think you've missed the point of what the poster was asking, by a long shot. He/she is asking whether Bengali is the second most spoken language in the Muslim world after Arabic, rather than Urdu. I don't know if that's true—our articles on Bengali and Urdu seem to imply that Urdu is much more widely spoken than Bengali, though what percentage of that is Muslim, I don't know. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:02, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
...Looking Back the OP started with the question of "Which organization officially said", Since he asked this on the Humanites Desk instead of the Launguage Desk, I thought it best to recomend that he try to learn French. It's possible that the information on being Bengali and other factors, were only inserted as distractions to throw us off from selecting the correct answer. 173.103.254.88 (talk) 00:38, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per the number of Bengali speakers versus the number of Urdu speakers, see List of languages by number of native speakers, which does give Bengali the edge. Note also however that according to our article Islam by country, there are more Muslims in Indonesia than in any other country, so perhaps Indonesian would be even more useful for communicating with fellow believers.
To 74.14.119.102, sorry, I have not found the answer to your first question, about an organization suggesting Muslims should learn Urdu after learning Arabic. I hope another editor will be able to help you, or you might try Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Islam. Best, WikiJedits (talk) 00:40, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Understanding Indonesian should probably also allow you to communicate to a reasonable extent in Malay so you can probably add ~18? million Muslims from Malaysia, Brunei and perhaps Singapore. Not much but if the numbers are close enough it may push it over the edge. It's possible it will also enable you to communicate with some Pattani Malay Muslims in Thailand but I'm less certain of that. However bear in mind number of native speakers is not necessarily the greatest measure since there's no reason why being able to communicate with people in a second language won't be quite useful. Also bear in mind the Indonesia having the most Muslims is no guarantee there are more Muslim Indonesian (language) speakers then Bengali or Urdu because there would be some in Bangladesh, some in India and some in Pakistan (and also some in other countries like Afghanistan and of course even a few in countries with high immigrant populations like the UK and US). Considering these, it's even possible that English may be the best language given it's wide popularity as a second language. Nil Einne (talk) 04:15, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1) Works by Van Gogh for example have risen in price. But are there many instances of works of art that have significantly declined in price - where their valuation in the past was greater than it is now? 2) How do economists explain the art market? Particularly for modern art, where you could sometimes buy identical items for a tiny fraction of the price (Damien Hurst's Pharmacy for example, that urinal thing)? 78.151.117.222 (talk) 01:09, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is an artist (I have absolutely no clue who it was) who was well regarded. He painted very realistic paintings. They were worth a reasonable amount of money. Then, long after he died, it was discovered that he couldn't draw very well. He used an overhead projector to project photos on his canvas. He traced them and then painted them. When this was discovered, the value of his works fell. They are still considered very nice works of art, but not completely original. Perhaps someone reading this will know exactly who it was and be able to point out the old and current value of his paintings. The only one I remember in the documentary that I saw was one of a boy sitting on a dock. -- kainaw™02:01, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see the similarity, but the documentary I saw showed the overhead projector and the transparencies he used in his painting room. They were able to reassemble his most popular works by using the transparencies. -- kainaw™13:46, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In I900, you could have bought all of Van Gogh's paintings for the price of just one by Alma-Tadema. In 1960, you could buy all of Alma-Tadema's paintings for the price of just one by Van Gogh. The market of reputation and of money in art has its dizzying ups and downs.Rhinoracer (talk) 12:35, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And there are many examples of unrecognised masterpieces being found in someone's dusty attic and being sold for a paltry sum, but when the real artist is identified, the current owner discovers they're an instant millionaire, assuming they choose to now re-sell the painting for its actual market price. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:59, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
An economist would tell you that price is determined by supply and demand. In this case a decrease in demand. There are many "economics reasons" demand might fall and in this case an economist would likely say it was due to a change in consumer preferences. The supply and demand model isn't broken just because people want something less.203.214.104.166 (talk) 13:11, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In the case of Damien Hirst or Marcel Duchamp's urinal, the fact that you could buy something the same or similar for far less money is neither here nor there. What gives the art its value is the fact that that particular artist made the piece. Anything else tends towards the philistine (the "that's not art, anyone could do that" point of view). --Richardrjtalk email13:24, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi; in my country, Argentina, murdering a relative carries a mandatory life sentence. Example: Carlos Carrascosa was convicted last June of murdering his wife María Marta García Belsunce in Pilar, Buenos Aires Province and was sentenced to a mandatory prisión perpetua (life imprisonment). My question is, if in a gay couple, one of them kill the another one, would the crime carry a mandatory life sentence if gay partnership is not recognized?. Hope you understand me. Thank you ! --FromSouthAmerica (talk) 02:07, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Does marital status really affect the sentence? It doesn't matter if Carrascosa murdered his wife, it only matters that he murdered someone. Same for a gay couple. (Unless the law is different in Argentina, which is possible.) Adam Bishop (talk) 13:15, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect that in a country which doesn't acknowledge gay partnerships, a man who murdered his husband would not be tried under that law. However, he would also be subject to the contempt that such countries often have for homosexuals and treated as such (equally badly or worse than if he had murdered a wife). 130.56.65.25 (talk) 03:12, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a word for Oriental/Asian/Mongoloid that is politically correct, accurate, and non-offensive?
Is there a word for Oriental/Asian/Mongoloid that is politically correct, accurate, and non-offensive?
Oriental -- is a word that sounds pleasant and complimentary, but some whiny politically correct nuts turned it into being politcally incorrect
Asian -- the worst politically correct term out there because of its inaccuracy. Most of Asia is caucasian, middle eastern, and indo-arayan. And the Oriental/Mongoloid race category is mostly not on the continent of Asia, but on islands near Asia.
Mongoloid -- scientific, possibly poltically correct, but the term is very offensive
And telling which country a people came from or their sub race like Han or Maio is usually too difficult. So... is there a word for Oriental/Asian/Mongoloid that is politically correct, accurate, and non-offensive? Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 05:05, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Race is pretty much a bullshit idea, in the sense that there is usually very little scientific backing or great consistancy in classifying people. Terms like Han or Maio don't refer to subraces, they refer to people groups, and are self-identifying tags used by the groups themselves. If you want to refer to someone, use terms they would use to describe themselves to others. That is universally the most accurate and non-offensive way to talk about someone. --Jayron3205:12, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Asian" has become the euphemism for "Oriental", meaning Chinese, Japanese, Korean, and most anyone else east or northeast of the Himalayas and residing along the western Pacific rim. "Oriental" means "Eastern", and it's more precise than "Asian" for sure, but that's the nature of political correctness. →Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots06:08, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Asian" has that connotation (of Northeast Asian and/or Southeast Asian, although oddly enough not always of Filipino) in the U.S. today, but in other places, such as Britain and Africa, it's far more likely to imply South Asian (from India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, and surrounding countries). But as more South Asians migrate to the U.S. (and have children), and more East Asians migrate to Europe and Africa (and have children), those assumptions may well change. —— Shakescene (talk) 07:20, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's interesting, and by your implication it has to do with the type of immigrants seen in a given area. To be more blunt, "Asian" as a euphemism for "Oriental", in the U.S.A., refers to those of the "Mongoloid" race grouping, i.e. those with what some call "almond eyes". Filipinos don't really have that characteristic, nor do Indians, Pakistanis, etc. Hence, in America, "Asian" is a rather specific (and misleading) racial euphemism. →Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots07:29, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd use East Asian. Accurate, and no-one's taken offence to it, although of course no term is without problems. That is, if you meant China(s)/Koreas/Japan sort-of-thing, rather than all of Asia. In Britain, Asian did mean British Indian, now it's changing to mean both them and the above group. - Jarry1250[ In the UK? Sign the petition! ]09:20, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with "East Asian," "South Asian," "Southeast Asian," "Central Asian," etc. Specific regional descriptions are unambiguous without bringing up any racial implications that tend to cause problems (rightly or wrongly). Rckrone (talk) 17:56, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you can say they're entirely unambiguous. For example are Afghanis, South Asians or Central Asians? Vietnam is in South East Asia geographically and politically but often considered culturally East Asian. I suspect many people would identify Baichung Bhutia as East Asian if they look at him but as an Indian he's surely South Asian right? I'm part Chinese Malaysian and part Pākehā; so consider myself both East Asian and South East Asian. And in that vein, how do we deal with Singapore? It has a significant what many would call East Asian cultural influence given the Chinese dominance but also some South East Asian and of course South Asian cultural influence but is well and truly part of South East Asia and doesn't even neighbour part of East Asia. Any attempt to categorise humans is always going to have problems particular at the borderlines. P.S. As should be obvious, I do consider the terms the best solution but I think people should appreciate that they're far from unambigious. P.P.S. I should point out as hinted at by Jayron32, Mongloid often isn't considered particularly scientific nowadays Nil Einne (talk) 09:29, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If the OP is happy to use African to describe everyone from Afrikaans to Zulus, then South Asian and East Asian would be much more precise descriptions of the people living between the Western Pacific and the Arabian Peninsula. But, it might be more useful to try and understand the differences between Japanese and Burmans. DOR (HK) (talk) 09:16, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Left-wing unionism
Are/Were there any left-wing or socialist Unionist organisations or groups in Ireland and Northern Ireland? --05:25, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
You're referring, I presume, to Unionism in the sense of wishing to preserve or strengthen Northern Ireland's political bond with the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and opposing independence or absorption into the Irish Republic, rather than in the sense of trade unionism or labour unionism. I think that there was a strong working-class flavour to the Popular Unionist Party, which adopted a social programme broader than simple Ulster Unionism. (Many of the militias that supported other small Unionist parties, such as the Ulster Democratic Party, also had working-class roots, but I don't think that their political agendas were particularly left-wing.) The Northern Ireland Labour Party tries to avoid the question of political union with either the UK or the Republic (unlike the explicitly-nationalist Social Democratic and Labour Party), and I think includes many members who are both Ulster Unionists and trade-unionists.
But I've never set foot in Ireland, so these are strictly third- and fourth-hand observations and speculations; there must be others here who know far more and far better than I. —— Shakescene (talk) 07:08, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There used to be a bit of a joke about even the poorest unionist considering themselves middle class to distinguish themselves from the nationalists. Probably breaking up a bit now. Dmcq (talk) 10:38, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There was a controversy a few year back, when one of the Irish trotskyist parties (SWP?) began re-evaluating the PUP, saying that PUP was more working-class-oriented than other parties in NI politics, etc.. This caused quite a stir as the Irish left is historically pro-republican in one sense or another. --Soman (talk) 16:30, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to this American that there are a lot of Brits who are honored by the royals (CBE, OBE, etc). So, from a layman on the street perspective, are these titles given much attention? Do they make the nightly news over there? Are only the more prestigous ones paid any sort of attention? Dismas|(talk)09:44, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not really about an "insult", as such, just an unnecessary lack of respect. One of the comments on the blog Separated by a Common Language pretty much sums it up:
Whoever coined Brit clearly had some idea of how they should have been referring to me - it is clearly a shortened or diminutive form of Britain, British, Briton - and the speaker couldn’t be bothered to say the whole word/phrase. That ‘can’t be bothered’ translates as a lack of respect. That lack of respect irritates me. :~)
On a personal level, I never meant any great insult by calling Americans, Yanks - but I stopped doing it when I realised that many Americans did find it irritating. And that irritates me slightly as well. I was prepared to change my word usage to avoid irritating/annoying Americans - why aren’t they prepared to moderate their word usage to stop irritating me?
I understand that it is a minor thing and that I shouldn’t be so sensitive …….
However, I was taught that to insult someone accidentally was just plain bad manners. Good communication is all about choosing words that your listener will interpret in the same way as you intend them. When speaking, it is my job to understand how my words will be understood and to choose them carefully. Therefore, if I insult someone accidentally, I have failed to communicate well.
Insulting people on purpose is a whole different ball game. :~)
Reuben Said “As a Yank living in the UK, I find it shocking that people find 'Brit' anything other than neutral.” - Well I find it absolutely shocking that anyone who reads blogs like these doesn’t realise that there are huge differences in the way that language is perceived by different people. I just hope that Reuben was trying to be ironic – no matter how badly he pulled it off.[9]Malcolm XIV (talk) 10:52, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's just a reference to one of the earlier comments on the blog that I was quoting from. Meanwhile, our article on Yankee says Outside the United States, Yank or Yankee is a slang term, sometimes but not always derogatory, for any U.S. citizen, and indicates that many Southerners would certainly not regard it as a neutral term. Malcolm XIV (talk) 11:02, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The blog wouldn't come up, so I don't know their context of "Reuben". There's no question people outside the USA use "Yankee" as an insult, and always have. We just don't care. We've embraced the term and worn it like a badge of honor. Most of the time, anyway. The Yankee article has an amusing summary of how the term is used with successive groups to describe someone else. The New York Yankees got their name because it's a synonym of "American". Songs like "Yankee Doodle" and "The Yankee Doodle Boy" are considered patriotic. Although there is the old southern joke, about the guy who said he was 21 years old before he realized that "damn" and "yankee" were separate words. :) →Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots11:09, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are generally two batches of honours awarded each year, in the Queen's birthday honours list and the New Year honours list, which are reported about in the news, yes. But it's pretty rare to see things like OBE appended to people's names in general practice, particularly given than many of those who receive the honours are unknown civil servants. People like Jimmy Saville might insist on it, though... Malcolm XIV (talk) 12:19, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My sense is that people are much more attached to/conscious of knighthoods than to/of the other honours. Even peerages have become somewhat debased of recent years. The ordinary person would be generally aware that the former Mr Smith is now Sir Murgatroyd Smith; but they wouldn't know, or really care, that Mr Jones is a CBE, OM, LVO or CH. -- JackofOz (talk) 14:37, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As another example closer to home, I've lost count of the number of WP articles I've edited that said the subject "was awarded the Order of the British Empire/Order of Australia" or whatever. Such awards - or appointments, to give the correct term - are to a particular level of the relevant order, such as Member, Officer, Commander, Companion, etc. Nobody is ever awarded "the Order of the British Empire" as such. But common parlance would have it otherwise, because the vast majority of people are indifferent to/ignorant of the forms and customs they use, because they don't have a particular interest in these things, mainly because they know there's precious little chance of them ever getting one. -- JackofOz (talk) 14:55, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The lower level honours (like MBEs) are handed out in quite large numbers, only those going to famous people get any real mention in the press. Local newspapers might mention local people being honoured, though. Someone being honoured for something particularly interesting might get mentioned in an "And finally..." type story. OBEs and CBEs are rather more prestigious, but still only really get press attention when going to famous people. Knighthoods are given routinely to people with certain jobs - High Court judges, senior civil servants, etc., nobody pays any attention to those. Knighthoods for less routine reasons get more attention, but I think usually you have to be either very rich or very famous to get one anyway. Peerages are mostly handed out for political reasons, so nobody pays much attention to them (one exception is peerages handed out as part of the "Government of all the Talent" (GOAT) where experts in their field, sometimes famous ones, are given peerages so they can take government positions, as recently happened with the now Lord Alan). --Tango (talk) 17:42, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
More discussion about whether "Brit" is an appropriate substitute for "Briton" / "British"
Speaking as a French-American who lived for years in London and has worked with Britons for three decades, I must say that I have never met one who objected to the word `Brit`, and, indeed, many use it themselves. You Limeys, Taffies and Jocks are way too sensitive. Rhinoracer (talk) 12:42, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just because some people don't mind it, doesn't mean nobody does. And just because nobody voiced an objection, it doesn't mean it didn't grate with them. It's not about anyone being oversensitive, it's about respect: not playing the Ugly American. Malcolm XIV (talk) 12:48, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of just claiming that the word brit is a no-no, would you please then suggest a replacement. Saying British persons, UK citizens, or whatever doesn't seem to cut it. It is quite interesting that the convenient names in English used for other peoples e.g. Swedes, Danes, Dutch are widely accepted and used but that extra PC-talk is necessary for yourselves. /Coffeeshivers (talk) 12:57, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's really not "PC talk" to ask people not to use unwanted diminutives. If you kept called me "Malc" in a faux-chummy way, I would be quite within my rights to ask you to stop without it being anything to do with political correctness. Your use of Swedes, Danes and Dutch conveniently overlooks other proximate nations that have an equivalent "problem" with terminology. Are you saying it's too much bother to say "French people" or "Irish citizens", for example? Or is there a "convenient" name for them that I haven't yet heard?
In the case of this question, I was assuming in good faith that the OP didn't realise that his choice of words might irritate some people. Some people, not all people. I don't really think it would have been all that "inconvenient" to say British honors or a lot of British people. Malcolm XIV (talk) 13:36, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I guess I shouldn't have mentioned PC, since it apparently gave you the opportunity to answer but avoid the actual question. I'll re-state it: In a sentence such as "It seems to this American that there are a lot of X who are honored by the royals...", where X refers to persons from the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, what is the appropriate X? You have made it clear that you consider brits unacceptable. What do you want us to use to avoid the "unnecessary lack of respect"? /Coffeeshivers (talk) 16:42, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In recent years these honours have to my mind been given to unsuitable people with immoral pasts, so they are just baubles that the royals give away to buy popularity rather than being a mark of true worth. 89.242.93.56 (talk) 13:17, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Queen only makes the decisions for giving honours to other royals. The Prime Minister decides who else should get honours (on the advice of various committees and things). --Tango (talk) 20:45, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The thought of Winston Churchill or Pope John Paul II being made Kentucky Colonels is an amusing mental picture. Back to the "Brits" thing for a second, a Britisher on another ref desk page called himself a "Brit". Is it the case that it's OK for them to call themselves that, but not for others to? →Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots
Except, Tango, that there are certain honours within the monarch's personal gift, such as the Royal Victorian Order, the Order of the Garter and the Order of the Thistle. She and she alone decides who gets these, and when, and why; the only limitation is that there can be at most 24 Knights of the Garter alive at any one time, and only 16 Knights of the Thistle. -- JackofOz (talk) 07:22, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
True, but those are almost exclusively handed out to royals, other aristocrats and people known personally to the monarch. They aren't handed to the public for good deeds. --Tango (talk) 03:17, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
True. But they could be. It's entirely up to the Queen who gets them. There are certainly people who've never met the Queen but have been given the lower categories of the RVO (Lieutenant, Member, Medal) for some sort of service to her in far-flung places. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:36, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Could" is a difficult word in the UK - while there is nothing in writing that stops the Queen doing pretty much whatever she wants, conventionally there are lots of restrictions and here, convention is law. --Tango (talk) 20:55, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm wondering if we're talking at cross purposes. If the government, or whatever body decides these things, recommended in its wisdom that some horrible dictator should get a knighthood in the Order of the British Empire or the Order of the Bath, the Queen would be virtually powerless to prevent it (it happened with Robert Mugabe, for example; then his honour was stripped from him; I'd never be surprised to learn the Queen had serious reservations about the award in the first place but could not intervene). But for the orders within her personal gift, she does have the power to say yea or nay. That's the whole point of "personal gift". I'm sure the government recommends some of these awards as well; I can't imagine the Queen personally singles out all the recipients of the lower categories. But at the end of the day, if she does not want such an honour to proceed, it doesn't. -- JackofOz (talk) 08:07, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To shed more light on the original question, it may be of use to note that the honours are given out twice a year, at New Year and on the Queen's "birthday". So newspapers cover them on those occasions. Some newspapers print the entire list and then you have to peer through it for any names you recognise or search for the surnames of your hero(in)es, work colleagues or whoever. Knighthoods, especially to celebrities, make the TV news (still hard to believe in "Sir" Mick Jagger). Local papers carry the news of who locally has an honour. The specialist press usually says something about people in their own line of work, for example, the Times Educational Supplement prints the list of all those who have received an honour for their work in education. After noting anything we're interested in, we then forget about it. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:24, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not only that, but I believe the multiple birth rate (particularly above twins) has increased dramatically in the West (and hence, somewhat in the World average) since IVF and similar treatments. - Jarry1250[ In the UK? Sign the petition! ]08:40, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm looking for a story I once read in a book about the importance of punctuation. There is a criminal under trial for murder and some authoritative voice (queen?) sends a written message to declare the verdict. The original message is "Impossible, to be condemned," which would have resulted in capital punishment for the criminal. But somewhere along the line, perhaps in the transcription, the comma was dropped, corrupting the message to "Impossible to be condemned," which resulted in the criminal's life being spared. Or the story could have been the other way around, with the criminal accidentally being hung. Is this a true story, and if so, where can I find more details? dlempa (talk) 13:54, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've heard that story in relation to Catherine the Great of Russia. But I've always had my suspicions about its apocryphality (?), since this just wouldn't work in Russian. But then, she was Prussian, and maybe she said it in German. I googled it but came up with nothing. -- JackofOz (talk) 14:27, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(Edit conflict) A similar example is well known in the Nordic languages. A recent Norwegian book about punctuation uses it as the title: "Heng ham ikke vent til jeg kommer", word-by-word translation: "Hang him not wait till I come", which, depending on punctuation translates to: "Hang him, don't wait till I arrive", or "Don't hang him, wait till I arrive". I'm not aware of the example being based on an actual historic event (and I doubt that it is, because if it were, I think the story would have been even better known). --NorwegianBluetalk14:39, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The "root" cause of this ambiguity is that the comma is not just used for separation, it's used in place of "and". That's why proper punctuation is "A, B and C" rather than "A, B, and C", because the latter actually means "A and B and and C". →Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots17:07, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well there it depends what you're saying - A, B, and C can be perfectly valid, as you note, commas are used both for separation and as an 'and' substitute - "A, B, and C" has two commas, which mean two different things - the first is "and", the second is separating. To use some math symbols, "A, B, and C" means A+B+C, but "A, B and C" means A+(B+C). Without the second comma, the B and C run into each other, with it they are kept apart. Which of those you want to use.... depends on which you want to say --Saalstin (talk) 18:17, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, the semantics are exactly the same. The difference is simply between British English (no commas before 'and') and American English (with commas before 'and'). --Tango (talk) 18:40, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is not an American/British difference. In both countries some use the serial comma and some, sadly, do not. Hence the two alternative names for it, "Oxford comma" and "Harvard comma". --Anonymous, 05:48 UTC, October 4, 2009.
It's not just commas. There's this one, embedded in this page,[12] which is also somewhere in The Joys of Yiddish. Stalin receives a telegram from Trotsky which reads, "You were right I was wrong I should apologize" which makes Stalin happy until a Yiddish-speaking colleague says that it really reads, "You were right? I was wrong? I should apologize? →Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots16:51, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There was an example of this came up once in a US criminal proceedings. The prosecutors said a woman had called in and confessed, "I killed my baby." What had really happened, it turned out, was that she had, while sleeping, accidentally killed the child (rolled over on it in some bizarre fashion), and was trying to explain that in a state of panic. So the confession wasn't a confession at all, because of its ambiguity, and she was acquitted, in the end. "I (purposefully) killed my baby" and "I (accidentally) killed my baby" are two different phrases, but the dropping of the qualifiers makes a very ambiguous statement... --Mr.98 (talk) 21:33, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ha, an example from ancient Rome. A prominent Roman senator, in a time of troubles, sent to the prophetess, the Sybyl of Cumae, to know whether he should stay at home or flee into exile lest he be arrested.
The Sybyl's answer: DOMINESTES. (At that time, written Latin did not separate letters.) The senator read it as DOMINE STES, i.e. "Lord, stay". He therefore stayed...and was arrested. It turns out the true reading should have been DOMI NE STES --"Do not stay at home".
Ah, those prophetesses...what a witty batch o' lassies!
And somewhere lurks in my memory the comma that cost the US government billions of dollars...a tax suppressed for the importation of 'fruit nuts' ended up being suppressed for 'fruit,nuts'...yeesh, that is incompetence raised to the level of transcendent genius! Rhinoracer (talk) 20:36, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And here's one about the importance of capitalisation - see qqzm's post. (It's rather too close to the "bone" for me, unfortunately.)
Returning to the original question: I really ought to go back to Russian school or stop making pronouncements about what is possible or not in Russian. I had only ever heard this execution/pardon story from English-language sources, but I now learn it is taught in Russian schools, and the expression "kaznit' nel'zya pomilovat'" (казнить нелзя помиловать) is so well known to Russians that at least one movie has been made with that as its title. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:49, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is an example from Japanese (very well known). It pertains to a sign outside an inn or something which said 'ここではきものをぬいでください', which, depending on whether the comma (here omitted - which is not only possible but in fact usual in older Japanese) comes before or after the 'は' can either mean 'Please take off your shoes here' or 'Please take off your clothes here'. --KageTora - SPQW - (影虎) (talk) 00:14, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A true story of the importance of punctuation was a Canadian lawsuit involving Bell Aliant and Rogers Communications. The two companies had signed a contract that should have said it would
continue in force for a period of five (5) years from the date it is made, and thereafter for successive five (5) year terms unless and until terminated by one year prior notice in writing by either party.
but the actual text was:
continue in force for a period of five (5) years from the date it is made, and thereafter for successive five (5) year terms, unless and until terminated by one year prior notice in writing by either party.
which meant that 1-year-notice clause took precedence over the 5-year-term specification, making the latter effectively meaningless. When Bell Aliant took advantage of this error to cancel in the middle of a 5-year term, Rogers objected. The initial court ruling was in favor of Bell Aliant, but this was later reversed on the basis that the French version of the contract clearly said what the other one was apparently intended to say. --Anonymous, 06:00 UTC, October 4, 2009.
A very good example is from Marlowe's Edward II:
. Mor._ The king must die, or Mortimer goes down;
The commons now begin to pity him:
Yet he that is the cause of Edward's death,
Is sure to pay for it when his son's of age;
And therefore will I do it cunningly.
This letter, written by a friend of ours,
Contains his death, yet bids then save his life;
[_Reads._
_Edwardum occidere nolite timere, bonum est,
Fear not to kill the king, 'tis good he die:_
But read it thus, and that's another sense;
_Edwardum occidere nolite, timere bonum est,
Kill not the king, 'tis good to fear the worst._
Unpointed as it is, thus shall it go.
FWIW, in the tale "The Adventure of the Proper Comma" in The Memoirs of Solar Pons (1951), "the Sherlock Holmes of Praed Street" decides to investigate due to correct punctuation. A female patient at a mental asylum scratched the message "Help, please" on a stone and tossed it through the fence. Pons was intrigued that she took the trouble to include the comma. B00P (talk) 06:27, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You might check our article on dolphin, which - if I'm recalling correctly - can defend by pounding a shark in a certain spot witht heir snout. Where that is, i don't know, but I suspect it's similar to kicking a male human...well, you get the picture.4.68.248.130 (talk) 18:35, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)You should get in a defensive position and fight back. Punch sensitive areas, namely the eyes, gills, and nose, and it should go away. Still, it's better to just not get in that situation - don't go swimming at twilight, don't wear shiny things, don't carry bloody fish carcasses... ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs)18:37, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not so sure I would count on blowing up a scuba tank. In any case, predators in general are more inclined to back off if you put up a fight and show no fear. According to this extract from The Worst Case Scenario[13] you should use anything you have and repeatedly whack it in the eyes and gills (not the snout, unless that's all you can reach) and there's a reasonable chance it will back off. If it still eats you up, take solace in the fact that you're helping to improve the survival of a threatened species. →Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots20:00, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Scream and thrash up the water.They are alarmed by this...except, unfortunately, the Great White. This is because the Great White Shark is a dedicated predator, and its dedicated prey is roughly man-sized mammals, such as seals, walruses, or homo sapiens (i.e. you and me); thus, a display of thrashing and hollering that might deter a tiger shark or a hammerhead would only signal to a Great White "Mmm, lunch is a bit upset today." Rhinoracer (talk) 20:42, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All suggestions here are going along the lines of the best defense is a great offense. This question is easily answered by providing simple defensive measures such as shark tanks, shark suits, and simply staying out of the water. -- kainaw™21:00, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A full-sized great white is far too large to even think about dissuading without a speargun. They will destroy you if they are so inclined. The only reasonable prevention is not to swim in their habitat. Vranak (talk) 23:23, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Worst Case Scenario theory would still apply: If attacked by a Great White, try to repeatedly poke it in the eyes and the gills, with speargun, fist, or whatever. There is no guarantee you'll survive, but it will improve your odds, because if you do nothing, you're dead. →Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots00:17, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed - I think the question is clearly based on the premise that you are already being attacked, in which case you might as well try. Preventing a shark attack is a completely different, although probably more useful, question. --Tango (talk) 04:10, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Our article on shark attacks suggests poking the beast in the eyes or gills, but that assumes you have adequate time (sharks attack fast) and very long arms. More useful (albeit highly contentious) are chemical repellants and the shark billy (a bullet or shotgun shell inside a stick with a trigger that fires on contact). Forget the speargun -- small bore, hard to aim and very likely to really, really annoy the shark. Best advice is to know something about the ocean around you. DOR (HK) (talk) 09:24, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Which political party in the United States get most fund - Democrats or Republicans? Which type of industry give the parties maximum fund? How much fund third parties get? --AquaticMonkey (talk) 02:17, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please note: I'm not using this website as a crystal ball. But I'm interested in finding out if there may or may not be televised benefit concerts to aid the victims of the 2009 Samoa earthquake? Will there also be any charity singles for the same thing, as well? I'm also interested if the USNS Comfort and/or the USNS Mercy might serve in the relief efforts. If more information is available, please let me know. Thank you so very much.69.203.157.50 (talk) 02:20, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While we understand that you are not expecting us to predict the future, it would make more sense to wait a bit longer and post your question some time a bit more into the future, after all, the earthquake in Samoa has only just happened and they are still looking for people trapped in the ruins, not thinking about relief concerts. If you want to know about whether a particular ship is planning to serve there, you may find it helpful to contact the ship in question. On the website of the USNS Comfort there is a FAQ button (which as you know means 'Frequently Asked Questions') so I would assume there was a place to ask questions, even though I couldn't find one on that page. Good luck! --KageTora - SPQW - (影虎) (talk) 09:49, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently the USNS Comfort is based in Baltimore, which is not very far from New York, so it's not surprising. Anyway, if you are interested in helping out, it may be best to contact the places mentioned above. --KageTora - SPQW - (影虎) (talk) 13:27, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Benefit concert: [15] doesn't say anything about whether it will be televised even within NZ tho let alone outside. However I expect it will be televised in NZ and maybe streamed online Nil Einne (talk) 05:25, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A thought experiment of sorts...
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
If Jesus lived in Nazi Germany (ignore the fact that he was a Jew here) and was hiding a Jew, what would he have said if some member of the SS were to go and ask whether he was hiding a Jew (also ignore any historical mistakes I'm making here)? After all, the answer "no" would save a few lives, but "yes" would mean the entire household and the Jew getting sent off to concentration camps... 202.45.54.47 (talk) 06:40, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the enquirer's purpose, but this falls into speculation and opinion (What would Jesus do?, What if God was one of us?) that isn't easily supported by sources and references. Perhaps, Beliefnet[16] would be a good non-denominational forum for posing such a question. ¶ Factually, of course, the early Christians were faced with precisely this sort of problem in a very real (non-experimental) way during many persecutions, and I think responded in several different ways. Jesus rebuked a companion for cutting off the ear of one of those who had come to arrest Jesus (Matthew 26:51-52). —— Shakescene (talk) 08:10, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's possible to meaningfully consider the question while "ignoring the fact that Jesus himself was a Jew:" his entire worldview and beliefs were firmly based in mainstream Pharisaic Judaism (notwithstanding subsequent Pauline biblical efforts to obscure this by substituting "Pharisees" or the ambiguous "Jews" where actual "Saducees" were being mentioned). The Pharisaic school of Judaic thought condoned the technical breaking of religious laws if a greater good resulted, such as saving health or life. Breaking a religious injunction against lying in order to save someone (whether or not a fellow Jew) from unjustified persecution and murder by such an obviously malign secular authority would in Pharisaic thinking have been completely justifiable and expected behaviour; not doing so would have been highly questionable if not reprehensible. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 18:52, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You need to either decide this for yourself or ask a religious leader of your choice. This isn't the kind of question a ref desk can answer, since it isn't based on facts, it is based on faith. --Tango (talk) 20:49, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
87.81.230.195 has the right answer, and it's a no-brainer. It's the Jewish principle of the "greater sin" vs. the "greater virtue". Lying may be a sin, but allowing a righteous person to be killed would be a greater sin. Also keep in mind that Jesus observably practiced this principle Himself, by healing the sick and the lame on the Sabbath. But as Myers suggests, this does not rule out the possibility that Jesus would have come up with something clever to say that would send the Nazis away confused, as He was pretty good at that sort of thing. →Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots20:53, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Could he have magically turned their blood into wine, since he did equivalent magic tricks a couple of times? (John 2:1-11 water to wine; Mark 14, 22-26 turned wine into blood.) This would seem like a highly lethal and effective way to deal with pesky SS who come to your door, if you are the Messiah. Edison (talk) 23:46, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think it more likely that He would have persuaded them of the error of their ways and to renounce their Nazism. However, it seems like the point of OP's original question was been lost. It was simply the question of whether Jesus (or anyone else, for that matter) would lie to protect people, and whether there's a moral dilemma. Of course He would. Anyone with a conscience would. And as 87.81.230.195 pointed out, there is in fact no moral dilemma in lying to protect innocent people's lives. →Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots00:15, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't recall Jesus having particularly impressive powers of persuasion - the Bible describes plenty of people disagreeing with him and not being convinced otherwise. Short of a miracle, I see no reason to assume he could persuade the Nazi to change his ways. Whether there is a moral dilemma or not depends on your morals, which is why the OP needs to answer this question for themselves. (Christians do not universally agree on moral issues.) --Tango (talk) 04:07, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Jesus' power of persuasion was sufficient to get him a billion or two followers today, though Paul certainly helped. The Jewish tradition, if I have it right, is that it's OK to break God's Law, pace rape, murder, and broadly construed idolatry, if you really have to. God wants his followers to have rich full happy lives, and if it's a pork chop that's the only food around and you're starving it's OK to eat the pork chop. If you have to lie to live, or to save another's life, it can be OK to lie. PhGustaf (talk) 04:27, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue that Paul (and his peers) did far more than Jesus did (assuming he even existed in a way reasonably similar to that described in the Bible). The number of followers when Jesus died was pretty low, as I understand it - the boom didn't happen until after that. --Tango (talk) 05:20, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well yes. Much of what's currently called Christianity is really Paulism, and Paul had many failings, especially those including his bizarre notions about women. I was just speculating about how Jesus (and I agree it's less than 50-50 that he existed at all) might have acted as an observant Jew. PhGustaf (talk) 05:34, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Blood into wine: Wait until the SS becomes suspicious about the missing officers, or until it becomes impossible to hide the dead bodies... Vltava6811:26, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Needed for urgent problem facing before debate!!!!!
Friends brothers:
I have a question on how to oppose that democracy wasn't a faliure in developing countries?
If anybody could tell me theese sametime some advantages also??
Thanks alot!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Williamrvd (talk • contribs) 11:39, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify the multiple negations inherent in your wording, do you mean that you will be arguing that democracy was/is a failure in developing countries? 87.81.230.195 (talk) 18:30, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Compare developing countries with oil reserves and developing countries without oil to see what difference the presence of Big International Oil makes. What difference does a thriving tourist industry have on democratic institutions? --Wetman (talk) 19:54, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Ref. Desk won't debate for you. Pick a developing country that has a history of, say, colonialism followed by democracy. Identify things that have happened during that transition and use them as examples that support your case. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 22:47, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your debate seems to be about the influence of oil, or tourism, on development. Neither requires democratic institutions, but here are a few examples that might be worth researching: Oil: USA and Canada (developing at the time of discoveries); tourism: Singapore (not quite democratic, but a nice destination) or Burma (losing vast tourism revenues by being such . . . must be NPOV . . . jerks). DOR (HK) (talk) 09:31, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DPRK? Zimbabwe? South Africa? Australia? New Zealand? Democracy seems to have been a failure in some places and not so much of a failure in others (pick whichever you want from the preceding list - all of these countries were developing when democracy was introduced). As said above, we won't debate for you, but we can only point you in the right direction to make your own debate. --KageTora - SPQW - (影虎) (talk) 13:22, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, yes, the sort of democracy where every adult got a vote, so long as they weren't a woman, or a slave (of which there were many) or didn't lack ownership of at least a substantial farm or the equivalent property/wealth. (Aformentioned conditions pertaining specifically to famously democratic Athens; other cities may have varied, but generally not for the better: don't get me started on Sparta). 87.81.230.195 (talk) 20:00, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you wish to stir things up a little, compare the state of African countries in the colonial period (stable, peaceful,well-fed) with their state after independence and transition to 'democracy' (underfed and in a state of constant war). Note that I'm not saying that's the whole truth, but it would certainly make a good debate point. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:49, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In the US, has anyone refused to testify against a defendant on the basis that their evidence may lead the defendant to be convicted and face the death penalty? If so, what happens. If the evidence was crucial, would the judge make allowances for this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.105.221 (talk) 21:49, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hence the country that won't extradite the murderer, gets to keep the murderer on their own soul. I don't see how someone could plead the Fifth when they are merely a witness. Better he should have said up front, "I saw nothing." It would still be morally dubious, but it would save time and resources. →Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots00:10, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The UK usually gets a commitment from the US that they won't seek the death penalty during extradition proceedings. Such commitments aren't binding, though, at least not on state courts, which has caused problems in the past, as I recall. Committing perjury or obstructing a police investigation are also illegal (at least, they are in the UK), so lying about not having seen anything would also not be allowed. --Tango (talk) 05:32, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You can imagine cases where the witness only witnessed a crime because he or she was committing one as well, or the testimony would contradict something he or she said earlier, thereby committing perjury. In all likelihood, the witness would provide such testimony and would not be prosecuted (or would be to a lesser degree) for their crime(s). ~ Amory(u • t • c)02:41, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Our article on the fifth amendment includes sentences like this: "The amendment has also been used, notably, by defendants and witnesses in criminal cases involving the Mafia." That implies you can plead the fifth when you are a witness in somebody else's trial. --Tango (talk) 05:32, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but only if you are actually using the Fifth to avoid self-incrimination, like if a witness's truthful answer would be "Yes, I saw Bugsy take all the money from the vault, because I was standing there pointing my gun at the guard." If you're using the Fifth to avoid getting rubbed out by the mob later, you'll get thrown in jail for contempt of court. (You get to decide which is worse.) Tempshill (talk) 06:30, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Although in the particular case of the (old) mob, it was against a certain "moral" code to rat out someone, even if they were your enemy, to the cops. Enemy of my enemy or honor among thieves sort of thing. ~ Amory(u • t • c)17:26, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The quoted source also only says vaguely that it was an "incapacity". This is complete speculation, but since he was 16 at the time of the Battle of Boroughbridge, and his father was killed there, maybe he was also there and was injured in some way? Adam Bishop (talk) 02:13, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds to me like it was probably some kind of embarrassing incapacity, which is why references to it are vague (it would have been hidden by the family). Learning difficulties, mental illness, epilepsy, some congenital disfigurement, perhaps even just a stammer - these are all things that aristocratic families would try to keep hidden so as not to make their bloodline look weak. The fact that he (twice) married (albeit without issue, at least not surviving issue - the article doesn't specify) seems to contradict that slightly, though. --Tango (talk) 04:02, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Complete Peerage mentions only that on 26 Oct 1330 "on account of his infirmity", the constableship (of England) was granted to his brother, Edward. Whatever the infirmity in question might have been, it didn't interfere with a pilgrimage to Santiago (13 Dec 1330), a second marriage, another journey in 1333 "beyond the seas", and one in 1335 to Scotland. It frankly sounds like a temporary problem or an indisposition. It is unlikely to be a problem resulting from the Battle of Boroughbridge, as the king expressed dismay that the Earl had disobeyed his commands and repeatedly jousted and exercised other feats of arms in 1327. - Nunh-huh13:36, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a report on the subject. I haven't read it but this blog says it indicates inter-racial marriages are somewhat less likely to succeed that same-race marriages. I don't think it's broken down by "asian-white", "black-white" and "asian-black" couples though. TastyCakes (talk) 01:05, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any alternative to setting the price through supply and demand? What do capitalism critics propose as an alternative? The most arguments that I hear refer to vague methods like: "paying the right price" which is "the fair price" which is "a reasonable price" which is "not exploiting people."
In the article linked above, the alternative measures of value seem to me directly based on supply and demand, but adding time to them.--Quest09 (talk) 12:18, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is clearly wrong, as there have been many attempts to provide alternative to supply and demand, and all of them have used money. In fact almost all economies have overridden the 'laws' of supply and demand in some instances, though in modern western economies it's pretty rare.
The simplest examples is price regulation, where the government enforces limits on what can be charged. Rent control might be an example. In the wake of recent global rises in the price of food, some countries instituted limits on how much could be charged for staples. I believe that communist countries quite regularly fixed prices. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:43, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's an academic literature on this, "the co-ordination problem". See for example Parecon (interesting idea, dreadful article), which proposes an automatic regulation. Pat Devine proposed instead "participatory planning". I think after the Soviet experience local-level approaches rather than national-level approaches are usually proposed. Most economists interested in post-capitalist models assume that money will continue, perhaps alongside LETS and other kinds of "funny money". But they also often say that more parts of our lives (caring for people, education...) should be taken out of the economy, as Andre Gorz argued in Critique of Economic Reason. So reciprocity would play a larger role than buying and selling. For a really radical view of a future non-economy though, I'd recommend the classic News from Nowhere.
Prices aren't set according to supply and demand. Prices are set to whatever price will maximise profits (assuming a completely free market), what that price is does depend on supply and demand but not by choice - that's just the way economics works. There are plenty of alternatives to free markets, though. --Tango (talk) 03:06, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Market price in the Bible
This question is related to the question above.
The Bible says something about trade, mainly about not short-changing your trade partners. I vaguely remember something about not increasing the price of people in need (I don't know if in an emergency or poor people). However, does it says something about market price or how to set a price?--Quest09 (talk) 12:24, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know the Hebrew bible is dealing with prices. There are alot of economic rules in the Jewish Talmud (including the first known formulation of limited companies) and also detail entire price and maximum profit policy (foor food, clothes and etc), as for the bible I know that it command sepcifically not to bias scales in the market and many other things, I can check it out for you if you need. --Gilisa (talk) 15:35, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One thing I know, in the meanwhile, in ancient Israel the bible forbid collection of interest on loans. So, it may effect signficantly on inflation and deflation rates, keeping prices relatively constatnt. The idea of setting prices by supply and demand is not only human made, sometimes when the supply is too low or too high it's meaning that the work and investment you have to put on the commodities production is too high or too low, respectively.--Gilisa (talk) 16:13, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is still the case in Islam under stricter interpretations of Sharia law. See Islamic finance and Islamic banking. I saw a BBC news story about specialty "Sharia compliant banks" in the UK. They do things like provide an alternative to mortgages where the bank effectively owns the house and the client "rents to own". TastyCakes (talk) 16:18, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is still the case in few Israeli and Jewish banks as well. However, if you took loan/mortgage in $ you have to return it in $, so if you don't have your income in $ you may earn or loose as a function of changes in the exchange rates. The Sharia laws were naturaly affected from the Bible. --Gilisa (talk) 16:22, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The lack of significant economic growth (economies only really grew in line with populations until the industrial revolution, and populations didn't grow that quickly back then) would also tend to reduce inflation. (The causes of inflation are really complicated and different models include different factor, but economic growth is one of the factors that sometimes appears.) --Tango (talk) 03:03, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
These models are never 100% valid however they are interesting. Nonproportional growth on one side of the market would lead probably to inflation (but it would be less signficant as cash flow is high) while equal growth of the market would reduce inflation. As for the loans in foreign currency, they are given in local currency-this way banks profit from the exchange rates.--Gilisa (talk) 14:52, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Evolution theory and Bible
Recently I thought about it and I talked to a lot of people and just about everyone claims to be a christian, but most of them believe in dinosaurs and evolution theory.
Is it possible to be believe that God created people from Adam and Eve, but to believe in evolution theory at the same time? And is there a philosopher or a book on this issue which explains this in detail? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.2.168.231 (talk) 17:02, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is it possible? Yes. Humans are capable of believing in most things. That being said, the article on Theistic evolution will pretty much answer all of your questions, especially the Christianity section. Essentially, evolution contradicts a literal interpretation of Genesis, but most don't take it literally anyway. As for your specific Adam and Eve question, it's a little more difficult to reason through, but most commonly (mentioned in the Islam section of that article) is the concept of a "guided evolution" where evolution takes place, but God has guided it along, thereby ensuring Mankind's special place among the creatures of Earth. ~ Amory (u • t • c)17:21, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's realy possible. There are many books on that matter, some supprot only evolution (like Ever Since Darwin), other support the combination of evolution and Bible (like "Genesis and the Big Bang" by Gerald Schroeder) and some support only the Bible and argue that evolution couldn't possibily take place (like Darwin's Black Box). There is a huge debate on this matter in the American society. Not along time ago I saw movie called expelled that was filmed by Creationists, I realy can't understand what the all commotion is about.--Gilisa (talk) 17:22, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
De facto there is no difference. If evolution may be responsible to X but not to Y, God responsible for sure to Y but not necessarily to X then the most parsimonious theory would be that God responsible for both X and Y.--Gilisa (talk) 19:03, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's possible to believe just about anything. I know devout Christians who are perfectly comfortable with the notions of a 4.5 billion-year-old Earth and of evolution. They don't believe in the Eden story as anything other than a valuable old story, but do believe that God has a special view of humans. The notion that Christianity and evolution are incompatible is largely a fundamentalist US one — the Roman Catholic church and the mainline Protestant ones accept evolution. They might believe that God steered it, but that would be another matter. PhGustaf (talk) 17:32, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The basic problem is that you can't take the Bible stories literally and still believe in evolutionary theory; but you can take them as allegorical stories. Complicating matters is that there are two different and self-contradictory creation stories within Genesis itself. →Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots17:44, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Probably the part where s/he says "the Roman Catholic church and the mainline Protestant ones accept evolution." It's not wrong to say that Creationism and Evolution are contradictory, because they are, but it iswrong to say that it's a black and white issue. More often than not people take a little bit from both. Darwin himself, although he struggled with the concept, put stock in the view of God acting through evolution. ~ Amory (u • t • c)17:45, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Read it closely. There are two stories. The second one starts about the third sentence of the second chapter. The chronologies are different. And the dead giveaway is the Eloist vs. the Yahwist words for "God". If you think I'm making this up, they explained this to us in Sunday school, decades ago. →Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots18:05, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, Bugs is right, in the sense that (at the very least) the story is told twice. There's nothing definitively contradictory, but the two are certainly from different perspectives. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:37, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking of a friend who is both a professor emeritus of geology and an Anglican lay preacher. He didn't get to be a professor emeritus by believing in any earthwide floods, or by believing that God left jokes in the rocks to taunt us. But he's still out leading services at rest homes. PhGustaf (talk) 18:08, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Genesis was cobbled together from (at least) two separate sources, in which the order of creation differed. These appear consecutively, telling different stories, in the Book of Genesis. I see our article avoids mentioning this directly. In Genesis 1: animals created first, then male and female humans are created together on the sixth day. God is referred to as Elohim. In Genesis 2-3, the Eden story: God is referred to as Yahweh. Order of creation: male human, animals, female human. The orders of creation are incompatible. - Nunh-huh18:15, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh well, you are talking about P and J sources from the prespective of the biblical criticism. Well, I wasn't familiar with this exact story but I do know that for much before Spinoze estabished the biblical criticism, Jewish mysticism consider each Godly name as unique in its meaning. Mordechai Breuer have established his own paradigm to deal with this kind of allegations. For myself I can't how this specific stories contradict and more, what sense can be behind puting two contradicing stories one after the other?--Gilisa (talk) 18:23, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The ancient Hebrew writings often did not put as much emphasis in the chronology of events as our western minds would like to think they did. Gen 2:19 does not necessarily mean "and then God created the animals." Simply, Gen 2:1-19 says "God created Adam and he created animals and he sent them to Adam," not necessarily in that order. It doesn't contradict the chronology given in chapter 1 (which is one of the few places in the Hebrew where chronology is explicitly stated). —Akrabbimtalk18:41, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's about the chronolgy, but about deeper understanding of the text and the subtext. Sometimes it's hard to understand the language Hebrew Bible use in correctly even for native speakers of Hebrew. Modern Hebrew express times and quantities in what may seem as different from the Biblical one.--Gilisa (talk) 18:55, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
More to the point, I think, is that you can't legitimately say "I take this literally" and then say "except I don't take it literally when it is self-contradictory, then I say it's not to be taken literally". It's not that you can't find some rationalization, but that the process of rationalization necessarily involves being non-literal. -- Nunh-huh19:19, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there is a tradition in the Jewish world according which the Bible start with the letter B (ב for בראשית(in the beginning) to indicate that we don't start from A. We just can't know what was before. There are things to be taken without commentary (such as the Ten Commandments) and others that need commentry that not everyone can give. As I read the "second" creation story, I realy don't sure that it mean to a different story, even it sounds complex indeed--Gilisa (talk) 19:25, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The dinosaur bones exist, we were once told at a Christian camp that Satan put them there. My belief as a Christian, is that they are not as old as they were thought to be. The change came with Darwin, grandson of Josiah Wedgwood and Erasmus Darwin, where they theorised that this supposed change in a species had to take a long time. They did not realise they were looking at many species. In short - God created all things, and did not employ Charles Darwin as His Evolutionary consultant. It is a shame that what is called a Theory is taught in schools as fact. Mathematicians had more respect for rigour than to call Fermat's little paragraphic entry anything other than a Theory until it was proven ultimately by 1994 by Dr. Andrew Wiles. World has only been going 6000 years. Amen. The Russian.202.36.179.66 (talk) 02:59, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In any case, the OP's question has been answered several times. Literal belief in the creation stories is not compatible with what science has discovered about the history of the earth and the universe. Treating the creation story as an allegory rather than being literal, can work. →Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots03:19, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Theory" is the most definite thing science has, there are no absolute facts in science, just theories that have an overwhelming amount of evidence for them (such as evolution). Mathematicians actually did call that little paragraphic entry "Fermat's Last Theorem" - a theorem is a major mathematical result that has been proven. Originally that was because people gave him the benefit of the doubt and assumed he really had proven it, later is was just because that was the traditional name that everyone knew it was. That evolution takes a long time is determined by geologists who can work out the age of different layers of rock that the fossils are found in and physicists that can work out how long it must have taken for the radioactive isotopes (mainly Carbon-14) in the fossils to reach the measured levels. It is far from a supposition. --Tango (talk) 16:38, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Treating the creation story as an allegory" is not good enough, you either believe it literaly or not. Of course I would be happy to kid myself that the creations stories are allegory, but they are not, they are either lies or the truth. Anyway, thanks for your answers everyone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.2.168.231 (talk) 13:58, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well you are free to feel it's not good enough for you and therefore if you look at the evidence I guess you will have to accept them as lies. Plenty of Christians don't agree and do consider the stories as allegory Nil Einne (talk) 15:18, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there is a middle ground. For example, the creation stories can be seen as nostalgia for a simpler time, when people lived off God's bounty (hunting and gathering) rather than becoming slaves to their own ingenuity (agriculture). The argument that the creation stories are either truth or lies, is a false argument, a red herring. The stories can easily be seen as "a little bit of both". Which, in fact, is a good characterization for much of the Old Testament. Thus, one can believe in the generic "truth" of the Old Testament and still accept evolution. It's only if you require that the creation stories be word-for-contradictory-word "true", that you obviously can't accept evolution. →Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots15:27, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I dont think that a Christian can really consider those stories as allegory, for then stories about Christ might also be allegories, for example Mary might not be a virgin if you look at it as an allegory. Then Resurrection might also be an alegory and so on, which means that only things that can be proven will are considered to be literate and then the whole point of FAITH is lost. Thats why its kind of impossible to believe believe that creation stories or Mary being sinless or Resurrection are allegories if you are a Christian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.2.168.231 (talk) 16:57, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Christianity is the most heterodox religion the world has ever known. I don't think a little skepticism about the literal nature of the Book of Genesis is going to kick anyone out of the definition of "Christian." It might remove you from certain specific sects, yes, but there are plenty of sects left to choose from. Catholics support Darwinian evolution, for example. --M@rēino15:54, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A few years ago I was at a talk given by the pastor of a local Presbyterian congregation[17]. He had had a year or two cut out of his career by, of all things, a trial for heresy. When asked what he'd do if called to the bedside of a dying Buddhist, he said he'd just say, "God loves you and will take care of you" rather than try for a last-minute baptism. The church management didn't like that. Then when ask whether Jesus' resurrection really happened or was an allegory, he said, "I'll go with the allegory." The management didn't like that either, so they busted him.
But he survived the trial, and his church seems to be going fine. I'm not going to suggest, though, that what plays in Palo Alto would play in more fundamentalist neighborhoods. PhGustaf (talk) 21:14, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's a story about a child who drew a Nativity scene, with Mary and Joseph and the Kid and Magi and the lot. Off to the side was a plump little child. "Who's that?" "Oh, that's Round John Virgin". PhGustaf (talk) 20:03, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following day, on 1 May 1945, Magda and Joseph Goebbels drugged their six children with morphine and killed them by breaking cyanide capsules in their mouths. Accounts differ over how involved Magda Goebbels was in the killing of her children. Some accounts claimed that the SS doctor Ludwig Stumpfegger crushed the cyanide capsules into the children's mouths, but as no witnesses to the event survived it is impossible to know this. O'Donnell concluded that although Stumpfegger was probably involved in drugging the children, Magda Goebbels killed them herself. O'Donnell suggested that witnesses blamed the deaths on Stumpfegger because he was a convenient target, having disappeared (and died, it was later learned) the following day. Moreover, as O'Donnell recorded, Stumpfegger may have been too intoxicated at the time of the deaths to have played a reliable role. (James O'Donnell: The Bunker (De Capo Press, 1978) ISBN 0-306-80958-3)
No, you aren't. Magda Goebbels and Joseph Goebbels weren't innocent. There is only a tiny diffrence if Magda crushed the capsules or if Ludwig Stumpfegger did it. If Ludwig crushed the capsules he did it solely on the express request of Magda and Joseph Goebbels. The parents had drugged the children solely to kill them later. All three of them are guilty of conspiracy to murder which they fulfilled. In this particular case, weighing all testimonies, there is no reasonable doubt at all. I suppose that it could be "possible" that Magda knew absolutly nothing. However this would require the false testimony of all witnesses, throughout their entire lives. Ergo: not bloody likely (or reasonable). Flamarande (talk) 19:55, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While she may not technically have carried out the specific act that actually killed them (administering the cyanide), she does circumstantially appear to have been a willing and active participant in the overall process, unless there are any accounts to the contrary. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 19:42, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also like to point out that the Presumption of innocence is in most cases an ideal, and not a truth. There are things such as bail (and, well, jail) because we do not follow "innocent until proven guilty" to the letter. ~ Amory (u • t • c)20:08, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We try, though, and this discussion doesn't mean "we" didn't in this case. Your quibble, I believe, is with the word "proven". In the US, and probably the UK, "proven" is synonymous in a court with "proven beyond a reasonable doubt", not "proven beyond the shadow of a doubt". The Goebbels' role here has, or so I read, been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, hence, in a court of law, "proven". Comet Tuttle (talk) 20:33, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Further, "proven beyond reasonable doubt" is the standard for subjecting someone to the penalties provided by law. It is not necessarily the appropriate standard for any other context. (As Amory points out, even in law it doesn't necessarily apply in all contexts.) --Anon, 20:44 UTC, October 5, 2009.
(edit conflict) I'm referring to the period before the court case, before we get into the usage of the word "proven" or how it ties to reasonable doubt. Rather, I mean to refer to the moment of arrest (or in some cases suspicion of a crime) leading up until the court case. Someone charged with a triple homicide is not "presumed innocent" - rather, they are locked up tightly and will most likely be denied bail. It's a nice phrase, and one we should all aspire to, but it's not a reality in a society where criminals exist. ~ Amory (u • t • c)20:47, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
According to Helmut Kunz (see www.holocaustresearchproject.org/holoprelude/goebbels.html ) "According to Kunz's testimony, he gave the children morphine injections but it was Magda Goebbels and Stumpfegger, Hitler's personal doctor, who then administered the cyanide." 83.100.251.196 (talk) 20:40, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I assume this is the list in question, in which case Magda Goebbels is there by the same logic that includes Peter the Great of Russia, who had his son tortured to death and even allegedly participated in some of the torture sessions. We don't know that he struck the fatal blow, but he do know that he sanctioned it. Karenjc22:47, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Truman didn't kill any Japanese, but he definitely sanctioned it. Since we're talking about Goebbels, I figured Godwin's Law was unnecessary. ~ Amory (u • t • c)00:35, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(There is no presumption of innocence in writing history. There is presumption of innocence when being convicted in a court of law. There is a difference. The context of an accusation does matter, as do the potential consequences to the accused.) --Mr.98 (talk) 00:31, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Historians have disagreed on the death of Alexis the Tsarevich; not everyone believes that Peter ordered or desired that the torture go as far as it did. Nyttend (talk) 14:13, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
World Bank loans.
Not really sure where to put this but:
What happens to some African (or any other but Africa comes to mind mostly when I think of big loans) when they default on a loan to the IMF or World Bank or some other banking.66.133.196.152 (talk) 23:01, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The IMF or World Bank will refuse to lend them any more money (they also lose voting rights). That's pretty much all you can do with loans to sovereign entities. --Tango (talk) 23:08, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The IMF is a member run organisation, with countries as the members - they make the big decisions by voting (with votes weighted by quotas. A country that is behind in payments can have its voting rights withdrawn. See IMF#Membership_qualifications. --Tango (talk) 00:34, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's likely that other lenders will also be very reluctant to lend money. Lenders will have considerable leeway in imposing conditions required in order to restart lending - presumably alongside some debt relief. The article on developing countries' debt may be of interest here. In the cases where this is due to an inability to make the repayments (rather than a refusal to pay), our article on national bankruptcy - in need of work - provides some details. Warofdreamstalk23:26, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It has to already suck for that to happen, really. Countries only default on their debt as a last resort, so everything has to have gone wrong already to get to that point. --Tango (talk) 02:54, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hague Convention of 1907 article II allows countries to use armed force against a debtor countries if they don't comply with the terms of compulsory arbitration, or otherwise refused to take part in such arbitration. Specifically:
This undertaking is, however, not applicable when the debtor State refuses or neglects to reply to an offer of arbitration, or, after accepting the offer, prevents any compromis from being agreed on, or, after the arbitration, fails to submit to the award.
[19] mentions that arbitration is usually somewhat reasonable in what it expects from debtor countries. I'm not sure if this area of international law has changed much. If it has it's likely more friendly to debtor countries. Nil Einne (talk) 15:11, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Countries don't usually default on debt by choice - if the money isn't there, there is no point sending soldiers to go and get it. They could confiscate assets, but usually the main asset of a sovereign state is the power to tax, which you can only confiscate by actually occupying the country - that's no usually worth it, the economic and diplomatic costs would be prohibitive. --Tango (talk) 16:31, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It depends. Some countries in dire economic situations have a fair amount of natural resources which they are unable to effectively exploit because of internal problems. While I agree it's unlikely in this modern era, as the article I linked to says, the fact that this became a part of international law suggests it was a concern. Also it really depend on the reason the country defaulted. If they have a fanatical leader who has no desire to engage with the outside world, then other countries could use their refusal to abide by international law in servicing their debts as an excuse for an invasion. As the article mentions, there are various issues which may enable a country to get out of a substantial portion of their debt (and these in themselves may discourage debtor countries from going down that route). But this also presumes the country is willing to take part in the arbitration. If they refuse then it doesn't matter. Or even if the leader is not so fanatical but still doesn't comply with their requirements some debtor country could use it as an excuse for an invasion which serves their own purposes. Again I think it's rather unlikely and is unlikely to be seen as a major risk to countries for not servicing their debt (as the article I linked to mentioned) but (presuming the conventions haven't changed significantly) remains a possibility depending on the precise circumstances and countries involved. P.S. Perhaps part of the problem is your assumption countries will only ever refuse to pay if things really suck. While this may be the case for all defaultions of recent times and there are good reasons why countries prefer not to default, it clearly doesn't have to be. Countries can simply refuse to pay and refuse to talk about it. You can make things very nasty for them, but they may not care. In such circumstances I strongly suspect many countries will at least use the threat of war as a negotiating tactic and may even give it some consideration. Nil Einne (talk) 14:28, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nowadays there may be more hope for poor countries trying to escape their odious debt to the developed countries and the "international loan-sharking institutions" - the World Bank and the IMF (phrase from Jonathan Kwitny's old book Endless Enemies). But in their heyday, practically nobody could or did. Nations that tried were faced with organized economic warfare from the west, led by the USA, and they almost always were brought to heel and signed on to Structural Adjustment Programs, in the full knowledge that they were intended to, would and did wreck the debtor nation's economic health and enrich lenders in the short run. The current financial crisis has led to the first repayment plans based on the debtors' ability to repay since the 1920s. "No doubt the post-Soviet countries are watching, along with Latin American, African and other sovereign debtors whose growth has been stunted by the predatory austerity programs that IMF, World Bank and EU neoliberals imposed in recent decades. The post-Bretton Woods era is over. We should all celebrate."[20]
YEs this is the correct one! I've been searching for hours and have come up empty handed, so i think i will check in on this richard dobbs fellow! Thank you very much!!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iluvgofishband (talk • contribs) 00:35, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I checked the index in my printed copy of Madison's notes, and there are several references to Spaight's contributions on different topics. So I suggest that you pull up the Convention debate texts from one of the links at Wikipedia's articles on the Philadelphia Convention or on Madison's notes (see above), and run a search for Spaight's name. Or look up a printed copy at a local library. —— Shakescene (talk) 01:05, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The first person that came to my mind when you said "Dobbs Strong" is Caleb Strong, who attended the Constitutional Convention and made important contributions (supporting the Connecticut Compromise and more than one term for the executive), though you won't learn that from the brief Wikipedia article on him. But maybe that's the guy you were looking for. —KevinMyers12:59, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
October 6
Help! How to suggest an article to add to Wiki.
I think that this website it great but we could add a little more to the site's articles about colonial America. It's not of the upmost importance, but I think it would help tremendously. I have tried to find colonial info on the internet before, and have not been successful. I think people can benifit a lot by learning about the old world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peace.out.42 (talk • contribs) 01:40, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What are your opinions about the media and celebrity stuff you see all over the tabloids like in grocery stores and other places? Do you enjoy it or thing it's wrong and stupid? or otherwise? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peace.out.42 (talk • contribs) 01:43, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In any event, the ref desk is for asking factual questions, not for taking opinion surveys. Potentially, one might be able to find an opinion survey on that subject, somewhere on the internet. But the best opinion survey there is, is the free market. Obviously, enough members of the public like these tabloids that it keeps them in business. And those who don't like them are free not to buy them. →Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots01:52, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A page that used the color red as an example
I think it was Philosophy-related: I first found it when I was poking around articles on Existentialist writers. It was relatively short. There was a picture in the top right corner, a mid-sized swath of red with a caption. If anyone could link me to this article, I'd really appreciate it. The subject matter might help me with an essay that I'm writing for an Epistemology course. Thank you.
Overachiever (talk) 03:00, 6 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Overachiever (talk • contribs) 02:59, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Privately owned land tracts
I've been considering what the largest privately owned tracts of land are, and how visible they'd be on a world map (say 4ft x 6ft). Any clues? Steewi (talk) 05:14, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If I remember right Lou Paiis was the second largest private land owner in Colorado. 77k+ acres will show up on a reasonably sized map. Other billionaire types own large tracts of land; Ted Turner supposedly owns large portions of the American west as well. If you're looking for a list of "Largest private land owners" or something like that, I don't know where it'd exist. Land record registration is surprisingly local in the U.S., although with the proper access one might be able to derive similar information from state tax returns. If someone else knows of a centralized record of land ownership I'd be interested too. This is the sort of thing that Reed Elsevier might have a database of, but if they do I don't know where it is. Shadowjams (talk) 05:22, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Anna Creek station in Australia is 24,000 km² (6,000,000 acres) (according to the Wikipedia article, which says it's bigger than Israel), but it's not clear whether the land is owned or leased from the government. Jørgen (talk) 06:51, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Also look at other large countries, especially Canada, Australia and Brazil. There must be large areas of unsettled tundra, desert, rangeland, forest and jungle that might be visible from a satellite without too great a magnification. Nowadays, even Russia must have some moderately-large privately-owned tracts. And it depends on whether you're thinking about tracts owned by one individual or family, or also of ones owned by corporations or institutions.—— Shakescene (talk) 06:58, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm Australian, so no. I meant on a worldwide scale. I had a thought that the biggest one might be Australian, but couldn't be sure. I'd think there might be a list somewhere on WP, but nothing comes up on a cursory search. Corporate and individual are interesting to know. Steewi (talk) 09:02, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Extra - I was thinking particularly in terms of a single continuous piece of land, rather than the world's largest land-owners (although that's interesting as well). Steewi (talk) 09:08, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Some areas look bigger than othersIf you're specifically looking for land that would show up on a world map, you could see if there are any private land-owners in the far north of Greenland or Ellesmere Island, as those areas look very big indeed on some map projections... Jørgen (talk) 09:36, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But the OP did talk about visibility on world maps, so being near a pole would help for many maps. The required actual size to be visible is smaller the nearer a pole you are. Greenland is closer to the North Pole than mainland Russia. --Tango (talk) 14:30, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have also heard before that Ted Turner is the largest American land owner. His wikipedia article says this, and is referenced to this article saying he owns 2 million acres (3100 square miles, an area the size of somewhere between Delaware and Connecticut)in 12 states. I doubt one of the huge arctic areas (Greenland or northern Canada) is home to a larger land holder, since there is not really any point in owning a whole bunch of tundra, so most of the land remains in government hands. My money would be on some absolute monarch somewhere that "technically" owns a whole country. TastyCakes (talk) 15:35, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Probably Queen Elizabeth then; in Canada the government owns all the biggest chunks of land, but technically they are just representing the Queen, and I suppose it works that way in Australia and wherever else there is crown land. Adam Bishop (talk) 17:55, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is a difference between crown land and land owned by the Queen. Crown land is just held by trust by the Queen, she can't sell it, it is automatically inherited by the next monarch. --Tango (talk) 18:54, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If there is a debate about Anna Creek station, there is little debate about King Ranch. It is cited as the largest ranch in the U.S., and is noted to be 85% the size of the state of Rhode Island So, basically, picture the mainland portion of Rhode Island, and that gives you about the size of it. --Jayron3221:18, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The loathsome Leopold may not have been a 'private person', but prior to 15 November 1908 he did indeed hold the Congo Free State as his personal possession (through a "wholly owned, single-shareholder 'philanthropic' organisation"), not in his capacity as Head of State. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 14:57, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
testifying at death penalty trials
Is it legal for a witness for the prosecution to refuse to testify in cases where the defendant would receive the death penalty if convicted? ----J4\/4 <talk> 13:50, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I searched for information in my local telephone book, I encountered the following notice: "This publication contains certain licensed materials as well as material developed independently by the publisher. It may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, in any form without permission." It sounds to me as if the telephone company is asserting copyright over the entirety of the contents, for it's easy to copy the information in the book without copying the photographs and advertisements. How is this possibly in accord with Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service? Don't take this as a request for legal advice; I have no reason to copy the telephone book, whether or not it's legal. Nyttend (talk) 14:01, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's a complex issue. Essentially, Feist opens up the information but closes the presentation. The classic recipe example is a good one, and is used in that article. No one owns the copyright to the actual phone numbers, but the way they are listed (alphabetical by last name, along with address, family members listed as well, etc.) along with which numbers are even included (residential, commercial, everyone except "Doe," etc.) and the style in which they are presented (Yellow pages, font, etc.) are. All of that is a choice made by the producers of the work, and they retain the rights. All that being said, their presentation has to display some sort of creativity, as a simple alphabetical list is pretty generic. ~ Amory (u • t • c)14:21, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the way of listing the numbers by last name is considered copyrighted. The page design, sure. But not alphabetical listings, which have been common to all such books for as long as they have been around. Most telephone books often have funny little "extra" sections, like stylized listings of emergency numbers, special discounts, etc., which are probably copyrighted. Anyway, there is really no enforced penalty for claiming more copyright rights than one actually has (even though it is technically illegal), so they're doing the standard thing of claiming total copyright, even well beyond fair use. They aren't correct on a number of levels, but that's pretty standard... --Mr.98 (talk) 14:27, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mary Plantagenet, a daughter of Edward I of England
Is there not any information on Mary Plantagenet, a daughter of Edward I of England. Seem to be none in Wikipedia. For example, was she close to her sisters of Margaret and Elizabeth? What is the history of Mary? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.83.106.45 (talk) 14:15, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello 97.83.106.45. There are two reasons why Wikipedia might not cover a topic. (1) People might have decided that Mary is not notable, meaning that she wasn't important enough to history to warrant having a page all her own. However, if you have information on her life, you can still add it - perhaps to the page on her father, mother, or sisters. (2) No one has yet got around to writing an entry about her. If you have enough information on her to make a good stand-alone article, you can write it yourself and add it to Wikipedia. The Wikipedia:Article wizard 2.0 page should have all the info you need to learn how to do this. (P.S. one source you might look for at the library if you are looking up Mary: Index to women of the world from ancient to modern times: biographies and portraits, by Norma Olin Ireland (F. W. Faxon Co., 1970), ISBN 9780873050975.) Best, WikiJedits (talk) 15:05, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Even fairly minor aristocrats have articles, so I expect a daughter of a king would be considered notable. There may just not be enough information available to justify an article, though. --Tango (talk) 16:26, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The daughter of a thirteenth-century king might not be notable at all, especially since Edward had so many other children and this one was just a nun. There are a few articles about important medieval nuns, but most of them didn't really do anything. However, the person to ask about this is probably Lampman (talk·contribs), who is currently trying to make Edward I a featured article. He'll probably know, or at least know where to look. Adam Bishop (talk) 17:52, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, not much information. Born at Woodstock the 11th or 12th of March, 1279, veiled as a nun at Amesbury in 1291, died 29 May 1332, buried in the Benedictine convent at Amesbury. <Richardson, Douglas (2004). Plantagenet Ancestry: a Study in Colonial and Medieval Families. City: Genealogical Publishing Company. p. 20. ISBN0806317507.> - Nunh-huh18:03, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the show of confidence :) Prestwich writes a few lines on her in his Edward I biography, which can be looked up on Amazon (page 128.) He also points to two other sources; Green's Lives of the Princesses of England (on Google books, page 405) and Fairbank's YAJ article on the earl of Warenne. If anyone wants to use these sources, there seems to be enough information on her for a stand-alone article. Lampman (talk) 19:46, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be a bit more here in The Queen Mary Psalter - apparently she travelled fairly widely as a representative of her order and possibly for pleasure, regularly attending court and running up gambling debts. According to Sources and analogues of the Canterbury tales, Volume 2, Nicolas Trevet's Les Cronicles - an important source for several widely read works of the period - was dedicated to her. A further source notes that she managed Grove Priory and has a couple of details of her veiling, and another notes that Edward visited her at the convent and gave her frequent gifts. Sounds like plenty for an article. Warofdreamstalk21:00, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've just realised - there's an ODNB article on her as Mary of Woodstock ([21], if you have access). With regard to the original question, there's no sign of her being particularly close to her sisters, but it does suggest that she was close to her brother, the future King Edward II. Warofdreamstalk21:43, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for finding the information and writing an article on the virgin Mary. Does that mean then that in Edward I she should be listed as Mary of Woodstock instead of Mary Plantagenet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.83.106.165 (talk) 12:06, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Probably. "Plantagenet" was certainly not her surname: it was first used as a surname in 1448; historians have applied it to people who never used it as a sort of shorthand. _ Nunh-huh12:23, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
She is not listed as either in Edward I; for simplicity, the children are all listed only by first name, with piped links where articles exist. Mary was the only child who lived into adulthood and still did not have her own article, so good job on that. Warofdreams, you might want to put it up for DYK. Lampman (talk) 17:24, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tata_Corus_acquisition#Proposed_funding_of_the_deal - please explain how this works : "..by deciding to raise $6.17bn of debt for the deal through a new subsidiary of Corus called 'Tata Steel UK', rather than by raising the debt itself"
English upper class attitudes to working and money
Hi Friends. Can anyone suggest where/what I could read to understand more about the mores of the English upper class pre Second World War. I have looked at upper class and landed gentry without success. Question is sparked because of a paragraph in The Mysterious Affair at Styles, which Agatha Christie wrote in 1916. She writes: "John practiced for some time as a barrister, but had finally settled down to the more congenial life of a country squire. He had married two years ago, and had taken his wife to live at Styles, though I entertained a shrewd suspicion that he would have preferred his mother to increase his allowance, which would have enabled him to have a home of his own. Mrs. Cavendish, however, was a lady who liked to make her own plans, and expected other people to fall in with them, and in this case she certainly had the whip hand, namely: the purse strings." As a modern reader, I don't get why John wouldn't just restart his law practice and earn enough to have a house of his own. Thanks all, WikiJedits (talk) 15:14, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps Old Money might be interesting to you? I would think maybe John doesn't want to be a lawyer because it's a lot of work, he's settled in the countryside with a wife that probably doesn't want to put up with ridiculous working hours and city living and he's looking to inherit a large amount of money "as soon as the old bag kicks it", or however Agatha Christie would put it. Is his mother a murder victim in the book? TastyCakes (talk) 15:22, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Another detail to point out here is that, while present-day English barristers can live on a country estate and still make a decent living due to car ownership and a relatively modern infrastructure of roads that allow them to visit clients and courts of law easily, in 1916 it would have been difficult to earn a lot of money as a barrister in the English countryside because of the relative expense of cars (then affordable only to rich Britons) and a lack of roads that would have offered timely access to clients and legal venues. At that time, there were only rough dirt or gravel tracks in most parts of the English countryside, better suited to travel on foot or by horse than by car. Marco polo (talk) 15:45, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure that is true nowadays. Remember that in the past the population was a fraction of what it is now, and the countryside started much closer to the city- or town-centre than it does now, so there would be less far to travel. And incidently none of the road congestion we have now. Parts of what are now the commuter belt around London would be like what only the deep and remote countryside would be now. It is still common for high-earners to have a week-day home in the city and another in the country. 78.146.29.77 (talk) 20:22, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, he would probably have had to get a "townhouse" to live in during the week, which would be another expense. --Tango (talk) 16:18, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
His mother might not have given him an allowance at all if he was working - I know members of the royal family have to give up their share of the civil list if they want to get a job (eg Prince Michael of Kent, although apparently he never got any civil list payments). That could mean he would actually be financially worse off with a job (his mother may have tolerated him working before he was married). --Tango (talk) 16:18, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Even a career as a barrister was infra dig if he really wanted to be part of the squirearchy, and to make a fortune would have made him a self-made man. England was well-served in 1916, not by tarred roads, but by a railroad network. Even an upper middle-class family would have someone who could drive him to the station. In 1916, though, everyu able-bodied gentleman was at the Front, where they died like flies.--Wetman (talk) 16:41, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Of course there were railways, but not every country estate was within a short drive of a railway station, especially given the state of the roads, and not every station was on a line with quick or frequent service to a town where a barrister could make a living sufficient to pay for the car, driver, etc. Marco polo (talk) 19:04, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There would have been pony and traps, which could have been quite fast. When did tarmacadaming of roads become common? The trains in Victorian britain were said to be almost as fast as most modern ones. I expect in those days they stopped more frequently in stations that are now closed, but they also had expresses. 78.146.29.77 (talk) 20:17, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Daily commuting was pretty common, although far more for the middle and (by the early C20) working classes. But it would only have been realistic if they were fairly close to a major city - while some services ran at similar speeds to today, longer distance trains were much slower than now. Warofdreamstalk21:35, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks everyone for the replies so far, they are helping me understand the implication in the book. I hope people will keep replying though, as I'm still looking for references, so I haven't used that resolved thingy yet.
TastyCakes, Old Money was interesting, but unfortunately all about America. Do we have anything on the English idea? His mother was murdered in Chapter 2!
Marco polo, 78.146.29.77 and Tango, the house in the book was three miles from the railway station and they had a car, though petrol was in short supply because of the war. They also had a pony and trap. My thinking, though, was that because he wanted a house of his own it would naturally be elsewhere.
Wetman, thanks for the info about social attitude towards him earning his own living! That is the kind of thing I wanted to find out more about. FYI, squirearchy redirects to landed gentry, unfortunately. John was 45. So far the book hasn't given any reason for him not being an active soldier; maybe it was age.
Best, WikiJedits (talk) 20:59, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect that the answer to your original question is simply that most people do not like working, particularly when they do not have to. It would probably be a large house, and (without having read the story) he did some work managing the estate (ie some tenanted farms, perhaps also a farm directly run) from which the family got their income. The income may have been as much or more than that earnt as a barrister, as I understand that in at least contemporary times only a small proportion of people can make a living at it. Although written in 1916 it may have been set before WW1, and also in those times people were thought to age much more rapidly than they do now, so 45 may have been seen as being far too old to be a soldier. 78.144.250.124 (talk) 16:11, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Barristers did not appear for clients in local courts or before local magistrates (Justices of the Peace); that was done by local solicitors. As a barrister, he would have been hired (given a brief) and "instructed" by a client's solicitor to advocate the client's case before higher courts in London or the Assizes in large provincial towns. So, rather than at Styles, he would have spent the working week either at a club or in a pied-à-terre (second house) in town. To get an idea of how much or how little time it took to travel into and out of town (London), see the Sherlock Holmes stories. Partly to advance his plot-line, Conan Doyle often has Holmes or Watson stranded in some country inn or estate waiting for the next train into town (or alternatively finding some way of getting to a country or suburban scene before the first train left Paddington or Waterloo). The Holmes stories also give some idea of different attitudes towards work among different classes. —— Shakescene (talk) 23:36, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Our only source of information on most Wikipedians is their user page, and few Wikipedians discuss their net worth on that page. Those with the greatest net worth are unlikely to want to reveal it. So we really can't know, but given the number of Wikipedians and the potential attraction of contributing to Wikipedia to someone with no need to earn a living, it is fair to assume that we have some multimillionaires. Marco polo (talk) 15:47, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also I think "wikipedian" is a bit of a fuzzy term. What if someone has just made a single edit? Two edits? Where is the line drawn? What if that person has only ever corrected typos? What if that person was very active and now is not? I'm sure some very rich people have made some kind of edit to Wikipedia. But I doubt we'll ever know the richest with any accuracy. TastyCakes (talk) 15:52, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
According to Søren Kierkegaard, "When one has once fully entered the realm of Love, the world — no matter how imperfect — becomes rich and beautiful," which clearly indicates that I am the richest Wikipedian. ~ Amory (u • t • c)15:56, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(My apologies, but I have removed a slew of indenting colons from the next 15 entries. By the fifteenth, the format was one word per line, jammed up at the right of the screen. B00P (talk) 21:29, 7 October 2009 (UTC))[reply]
In that case, there is absolutely no way we can even guess at the answer. We simply don't have that information about the vast majority of Wikipedians and have no way of getting it. --Tango (talk) 16:09, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it would be nice to engage war edit with him. We have to find the smartest and the most influential wikipedian, I have the hunch they could help!--Gilisa (talk) 16:46, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He was (is?) a famous wikipedia vandal who used to rename articles "article name on wheels!" or some variation of that. I'm a little surprised there isn't a wikipedia article about him, urban dictionary has a pretty brief description. TastyCakes (talk) 17:31, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We don't make articles on vandals. Not only are not they not notable by any of our definitions, generally speaking, but it would only encourage more vandalism. --Mr.98 (talk) 17:50, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I like how there's a warning on Famous Wikipedians that says, "This listing may contain errors and should NOT be used as a source for any page in Wikipedia or publication outside of Wikipedia without doing some independent checking.". Isn't that true for every article? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:21, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Some years ago, I had a huge belly laugh when someone suggested Queen Elizabeth II might edit Wikipedia in her spare time. (Well, it's possible.) -- JackofOz (talk) 20:25, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'd be curious too. The Queen certainly does a lot of public walking, wearing clothes that many people comment on. But I'm not aware that she ever attempts to impersonate a giant stick insect, with her shoulder blades almost touching each other behind her back, or walk in an utterly unhuman fashion, or have a look on her face that's a cross between contempt and clear evidence of some form of insanity. -- JackofOz (talk) 07:47, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that as she was irritated by her believe that Scottish people don't share satisfying respect to the royal family she impersonate the the Loch Ness monster.--Gilisa (talk) 09:03, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Surely I'm the richest wikipedian around: a few days ago I received an e-mail telling me that I have won 740.000 euros. I just need to give them my credit card numbers and pay them a lawyer for dealing with the technical legal details, and I will receive the money very soon. MBelgrano (talk) 15:27, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
During a documentary on the History Channel, the presenter showed some of the trenches that were used by Turkish troops and Commonwealth troops during the battle. At one point, he stands between two trenches which were facing each other and were at such proximity to each other that it only took him literally three steps to get from one to the other. He also said, 'This is how close the troops were to each other'. I find this completely incredulous, but forgive me if my common sense is getting in the way here. I can understand that trenches may be close to each other, as after enemy trenches have been cleared, troops may (for any number of reasons) decide to dig new ones rather than occupy the existing ones, but I cannot believe that the troops would be so close. For one thing, it would be very hard to miss an enemy unit digging a trench a few feet in front of you. Can anyone corroborate what this presenter was saying? --KageTora - SPQW - (影虎) (talk) 16:33, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't seen that program, but how big were his steps? I suppose this means the trenches were between 3 and 10 feet apart? It's possible that they were part of the same trench system for one side or the other; or maybe that the different sides occupied trenches that close together but not at the same time. Who was the presenter? (I would be incredulous too...the History Channel is not interested in history as much as it is interested in being entertaining and making money.) Adam Bishop (talk) 17:45, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
His steps were not overly-exaggerated (or even exaggerated at all), so I would take a rough guess at the trenches being around 6 to 10 feet apart. He specifically said, though, that 'this is how close the troops were to each other' and there was no implication of them being trench systems from different times in the 8+ month campaign. I understand the History Channel likes to spice up its presentations, but it's generally pretty reliable with the raw facts, so this is why it threw me. I can't remember the presenter's name, but I have seen him on plenty of military history programs. All I can say is, he has dark wavy hair, a moustache, and glasses. --KageTora - SPQW - (影虎) (talk) 21:02, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The presenter was telling the truth: some of the trenches were exceedingly close; however, he was also selective: not all the trench systems in Gallipoli were so close. If you google, you will find a broad range of given distances. Our own trench warfare gives 15m between trenches at Quinn's Post. Philip Haythornthwaite suggests [23] 5 yards in places; Christopher Pugsley mentions 5-15 metres at Quinn's Post in a book of his I have to hand. You might enjoy this history of sappers (engineers) at Gallipoli, describing the hand bombs lobbed into the opposing trench. Why do you find such a situation difficult to believe? They did not miss noticing the presence of the enemy, and did their best to lob bombs (etc), but they could not shell them with heavy artillery without risk to their own lines. Partly, the terrain was steep, so the trenches were by necessity close together; sometimes it was deliberate sapping through to try and reach the enemy's trench, to take it. Sometimes that happened, and they shared the same trench, with hastly erected blast walls dividing them. Gwinva (talk)
Mr Occam would suggest one side (likely the Turks) dug both sets of trenches, and after losing one trench, found themselves some 10 feet from the enemy. DOR (HK) (talk) 07:00, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why is Associated Press calling Charles Kao American?
Amazingly, Judiasm and Who is a Jew? don't really help with this, so I'm turning to the reference deskers for help. What is the preferred term for a religious Jew? Is it simply "Religious Jew"? Or "Observant Jew"? Or something else? The linked articles seem to say that Judaism doesn't distinguish between religious and non-religious Jews, but surely there's some generally-recognised term, even if it isn't used within Judaism itself. --85.210.115.126 (talk) 16:45, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the most common term is "secular Jew". At least in Israel it's and at least from what I heard from American Jews it's also applicable in USA. Besides, there are no further distinctions by at least large majority of Jewish people.--Gilisa (talk) 17:01, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nyttend, it's nice but I guess that in your family the terms you use may be mixed with definitions from the non Jewish world even when it comes to Jews (i.e., this definition). I have Jewish relatives in USA and they use to say "secular"--Gilisa (talk) 17:06, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have always assumed that "secular Jew" meant a "non-observant" Jew, and thus that Nyttend is describing a practising Jew and Gilisa a non-practising one. However, this article says: The word secular in secular Jewish culture, therefore, refers not to the type of Jew but rather to the type of culture. For example, religiously observant Jews who write literature and music or produce films with non-religious themes are participating in secular Jewish culture, even if they are not secular themselves.Bielle (talk) 17:19, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Secular refers to nonobservant. Dictionary dot com:
1. of or pertaining to worldly things or to things that are not regarded as religious, spiritual, or sacred; temporal: secular interests.
2. not pertaining to or connected with religion (opposed to sacred ): secular music.
3. (of education, a school, etc.) concerned with nonreligious subjects.
4. (of members of the clergy) not belonging to a religious order; not bound by monastic vows (opposed to regular ).
5. occurring or celebrated once in an age or century: the secular games of Rome.
6. going on from age to age; continuing through long ages.
Bielle, I'm sorry to have to say this but that is an example of why Wikipedia has a reputation for not being trustworthy. That assertion is not sourced. Bus stop (talk) 17:26, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know that it's not the most politically correct answer, but trust me on this that this is the correct one: The definitions you read on such articles represent much of the views of those who wrote them. For minority of ultra orthodox Jews many religious Jews may seem secular. This is exatly the difference betweem ultra orthodox and just orthodox -ultra orthodox (espcially in Israel, and very different in USA where they are more affected from the secular culture and adopt things they don't recognize as contradicting with their believes or "secular" by definition) reject almost all aspects of secular society (e.g., T.V. as it include immodest content and gossip, many kinds of music and etc) while orthodox adopt anything that is not secular by definition (they all have TV at their house but they skip gossip or sexual content, some even use special internet and media companies that choose the contents for them so no sexual or immoral content would escape filtering). I guess that the cultural context of part of the ultra orthodox is more incorrigible (depened which kind) and this of the orthodox is always reshaping itself while like ultraorthodox they strictly keep the Jewish law (unlike Reforms and Conservatives who are not considerd as secular nor as religious by many religious or even secular Jews). But many times when you orthodox Jew in the world you won't recognize that he's Jewish unless you ask him (not relevant for her) as mostly when outside Israel they don't wear skullcap (wearing a cap instead is common solution) to avoid Anti Semitism, while you would always recognize ultra orthodox. --Gilisa (talk) 17:35, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I'm missing the point here, but I'm pretty damn sure that the preferred term is "Jew." There's only a need to disambiguate if you're comparing two different Jews. You wouldn't call the general American populace "secular Christians" unless comparing them to the Pope, a "religious Christian," and even then that sounds weird. ~ Amory (u • t • c)19:01, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not a fair comparison. "Christian" refers only to a practicing christian. "Jew" can refer to someone whose family is ethnically Jewish, but who does not practice the religion in any way. APL (talk) 19:35, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Amory, I agree with APL. The Hebrew Bible commanded "And you shell be my nation" (this translation is pretty awkward, but my English is not fluent) so even non Jewish who convert to Judaism is fully immersed within the Jewish community in almost all aspects and in most cases his offsprings would be hard to distinguish from the rest of Jewish people who are Jewish for generations on generations. In early times, before the time of church and before Jewish people were exiled from Israel converts were common among Jewish people, but after they were expelled, they were forbidden to convert by the orders of the church in Europe and a bit later by Muslim regimes. So, today most Jewish people heritage could be tracked down to the middle east using methods from the genetic research. They also share different extents of lingustic and cultural similarities, even where lived separated by oceans from each other for generations. So they consist in most cases and in all aspects an ethnic group. So, the most suitible comparison to atheist Jew would be to, let's say, French or Spanish who abandoned the Catholic churce-but you still refer to him as an ethnic French/ Spanish. --Gilisa (talk) 19:49, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
@Bus stop The quote from the WP article above is, indeed, not sourced in-line, and I haven't had the time to check the references cited at the end. Not being sourced, however, does not necessarily mean it is wrong. The dictionary definition of "secular" is useful on its own, but my review of "secular Judaism" on the Net suggests that the definiton may not apply as written when the two words are used together. We are wandering away from the question which wanted an English word to describe the opposite, the religious and observant Jews. Bielle (talk) 21:46, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is not such word in Hebrew nor in Yiddish. There are words which define the exceptionality of a Jew who is not observent such as become licentious or Tinok shenishba or Chiloni (secular) which in Hebrew comes from the stem "Chol" (sand), meaning something like "someone who deals with material life only" even this term is widely used it is not accepted by Rabbnical figures.--Gilisa (talk) 22:07, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Gilisa, I'm confused by your original definition: by "secular Jew", do you mean a Jew who practices his/her religion actively but is involved in what non-Jews call "daily life", or do you mean a Jew who does not actively practice his/her religion? The original question would signify the first of the two answers I gave, but the idea of "secular" makes me think that you may mean the other. Nyttend (talk) 04:49, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My definition is everything but original. I was meaning to Jew who doesn't actively practice the Jewish religion (or an atheist).--Gilisa (talk) 07:06, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In my personal experience, the appellation "observant" is reserved for the very observant (i.e., do more than just go to services every week), and the term "secular" is reserved for the very secular (i.e., actively reject important tenets of the faith, and no, pork doesn't count as "important"). Since one word, "Jew," covers some rather different practices, from Jews in the U.S. South who tend to avoid outward signalling of faith to Hasidics who are easier to spot than Amish people, it's generally recognized within the tribe that a heterodox approach to faith is normal and unavoidable. Contrast this with Catholics, where about 90% will cheerily refer to themselves as "lapsed." --M@rēino15:40, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bus stop, you give the OP the wrong impression that Judaism is only religion. You may believe so but it's wrong concept, however understandable in people whose refernce is secular non Jewish people.--Gilisa (talk) 16:20, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is that "playing the music backwards" has two meanings. You can take the sheet music and a suitable instrument and play the notes in reverse order; or you can take a recording of the piece played normally, and play that backwards. I think D.J., talking about fugues above, has the first meaning in mind, while Toto, talking about sounds in general, has the second. As to the second meaning, any sound produced by percussion instruments (including pianos) will sound very different backwards; with many other instruments the difference will be harder to detect. --Anonymous, 23:07 UTC, October 6, 2009.
The earliest example I know is by Guillaume de Machaut, Ma fin est mon commencement (the whole text, if I remember correctly, is "my end is my beginning, and my beginning is my end"), probably written around 1350-1360. One performer reads the melody forward, and another who is singing it rather than playing on an instrument, reads it backwards. Simultaneously, another voice sings a second melody, half as long, which repeats, backwards. If you played this entire composition backwards, it would be essentially the same. (It's a little more complicated than my description, but it's essentially a palindrome.) Antandrus (talk)23:19, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Who were some pre-Marxist Communists leaders, movements or communities? What are some good books or sites on this topic? --Gary123 (talk) 01:28, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was just about to point you to Pre-Marxist Communism in case there was anything useful to you there and just happened to take a quick look at the history and realised that you created it about 5 minutes ago! Oops! --Tango (talk) 01:41, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's a short account of Utopian Socialism in the U.S. in the first part of History of Socialism in the United States by Morris Hillquit, a non-Utopian founder of the Socialist Party of America (1903; 5th edition 1910, reprinted in 1971 by Dover Books – ISBN 0-486-22797-7). Contemporary accounts reprinted by Dover about the same time are History of American Socialisms by John Humphrey Noyes, a founder of the Oneida Community (ISBN 0-486-21581-4) and The Communistic Societies of the United States, from Personal Visit and Observation (1875) by Charles Nordhoff (the grandfather of The Mutiny on the Bounty's co-author) (ISBN 0-486-21580-6).
Jesus a communist? That will take some serious evidence. One argument is that He told people to give up their worldly possessions and to follow him in a vow of poverty. That makes him something of a Buddhist, as the sharing was entirely voluntary (under Communism, volunteering is mandatory).
Another is that throwing the (licensed) money changers out of the temple was an act of revolution, but one might just as easily see it as good old American style separation of church and state, or non-profit tax status.
Charity? The biggest donors in the world are all capitalists. Property? in the fourth chapter of Acts, there is a real estate transaction that is defended as pure property-rights-loving capitalism.
The Temple moneychangers fracas should be interpreted not in modern economic/political terms (contemporary Jewish thought in any case favoured the identity of 'church' and state), but in the light of then-prevailing conditions and attitudes. The occupying Roman authorities required the Temple tax (some of which they presumably received) to be paid in Tyrian shekels, partly to emphasise Judea's lack of political autonomy. These coins bore the image of the Phoenician god Melqart; they were also heavier and had a higher silver purity than commonly circulating sheckels, but were deemed equivalent for religious tax purposes. Thus Temple moneychanging was a necessity to enable Jews to pay the tax, but involved a constant reminder of foreign occupation, imposed pagan impiety, and the wrong end of an unfavourable exchange rate. It's not surprising that an aspirant to Messiah-ship (which meant primarily expelling foreign occupiers and re-establishing a religiously-run Israel) would make a public 'statement' about this issue in the form of an arguably revolutionary act.
Let's also remember that although modern extant Marxist-derived Communism happens to be atheistic, it's not a necessary attribute of all communistic philosophies, and the OP specifically asked about Pre-Marxist communism. No teachings attributed to Jesus are incompatible with some form of communism, some of them can be interpreted as favourable to it, and early Christian communities and practices described in the New Testament could reasonable be described as communism of a sort. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 14:38, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I first heard that "Jesus is a communist" silliness decades ago. The comparison to Buddhism makes more sense. Jesus simply warned against placing too much importance on material things, "where fire consumes or thieves break in and steal", and to focus on the spiritual, which no one can steal. →Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots13:13, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See Christian Communism. Anyway, the point isn't to argue the desirability or dangers of Communism (which isn't always the same thing as Marxism or Leninism), but its origins and history before Marx. When someone earlier asked us (at Ref Desk/Misc.) about the distinction between Fascism and Nazism, no one was arguing the merits of either. —— Shakescene (talk) 07:47, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The English term "communist" was invented around 1840, possibly by John Goodwyn Barmby, to describe followers of François-Noël Babeuf - who called themselves "communistes", and it was rapidly picked up to describe the more radical utopian socialists. The French term seems to have been used for some time earlier - this work of 1818 makes an early claim to Jesus being a communist. The OED dates "socialist" to 1827, when it was used to describe followers of Robert Owen. Warofdreamstalk20:26, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Common personality traits of wikipedians
I wonder if anyone ever done such research. Of course, wikipedians are different both in their style of editing and in the motives that lead them to edit in wikipedia, they also have different interests. However, most share similar levels of enthusiasm and the same will to spend hours on edits that probably will be read by few readers, if not reverted or modified before. So I wonder, what types of wikipedians there are and in these days, when revolutionary studies of critical importance such as "how does using mobile phones changed the average time old peoples spend daily in toilet" getting the headlines, do you think that this lind of study is worthwhile? and what common traits do you think they share?--Gilisa (talk) 08:55, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They're polymathic pan-talented people with brilliant minds, coruscating wit and a superb conceit, ever willing to make a difference in ways both great and small for the betterment of all humankind in perpetuity.
It is hard to do a proper survey, Wikipedia:Wikipedia in academic studies lists the main ones involving wikipedia. If you google 'survey of wikipedians' you'll find evidence they are grumpy, introverted and closed-minded. It's surprising, I don't seem to be able to find an easily accessible article on that here. Oops must go back and put a comma in that list; should I put one before the 'and' I wonder? I think a semicolon is okay there. ;-) Dmcq (talk) 11:21, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's also worth mentioning that there is a difference between Wikipedians and Wikimedians. enWiki is the largest WMF project by far, and is itself heavily biased, so while your question is probably only concerned with enWiki just keep in mind that any traits anyone sees, whether en or not, will have to deal with an over-abundance of Americans. ~ Amory (u • t • c)13:37, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think one undeniable personality trait would be sociability, at least on Wikipedia. I don't think anyone works on Wikipedia because they want to work in seclusion. Bus stop (talk) 22:22, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If the laws were secret then neither the police nor the judges who enforce them would know about them, so no. That's not to say there are not secret orders to law enforcement agencies. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:12, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The U.S. government is notoriously poor at keeping secrets anyway. Consider the prisoner abuses in Iraq, for example. The press rooted them out despite the government's best efforts to keep it quiet. Then there's the so-called "secret" Area 51, which has to put signs up warning the many tourists not to get too close. →Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots13:17, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And nobody anywhere knows anything about the very expensive NSA. If there were a secret law, anyone who knew about it who told you about it would have to kill you. PhGustaf (talk) 13:20, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)If the government wants something kept extremely secret, it won't concern itself with trivial things like laws. There are, however, secret courts for the purposes of warrants, and agencies such as the CIA often perform dubious activities in other countries... ~ Amory (u • t • c)13:30, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Right. There aren't secret laws (in the US, anyway, I don't know about elsewhere). They would be unenforceable. But there are secret budgets, secret funds, things that are labeled as one thing but really go to another, things of that nature. There are secret regulations, but that's not the same thing as a law. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:44, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
True. Though I think it is worth distinguishing between policies and laws, and in the realm of "law", I think it's worth distinguishing between a law that regulates people or organizations or behavior, and one that is just in charge of dispersing funds, creating organizations, etc. There aren't going to be criminal codes that are secret, for example, because they would be unenforceable. --98.217.71.237 (talk) 15:04, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are executive orders and legal memos that dictate what behavior is legal or criminal. The obvious recent example being the torture program carried out by the CIA, authorized by secret legal memos from the justice department, which in a sense made certain behaviors legal (or at least the that was the idea).
The executive branch has often had legal cases against it thrown out by claiming State Secrets Privilege, notably recently when sued over issues of indefinite detention, warrant-less wiretapping, and other anti-terrorism policies. That is to say that there are laws in effect that can't be subject to judicial oversight because they're secret. In terms of the logistics of enforcing secret laws, they obviously aren't secret to the executive branch which is the branch charged with enforcing laws so there's no difficulty there. Rckrone (talk) 16:11, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think by problems with enforcement, people are referring to the inability to actually penalise people in most ways for actions violating secret laws. For example if there was an secret law making it illegal to call George W. Bush an idiot and the penalty for violating the law is life imprisonment, the executive branch would have difficult enforcing this. They would be laughed out of court if they tried to argue the person should be sentenced to life imprisonment for violating some secret law they can't tell the jury or judge about but the person definitely violated and you have to trust them. They could hold the person without taking them to court or give some other punishment, e.g. allowing them to be shot in 'hunting accidents' but I believe the courts ruled against American citizens being indefinitely detained and I'm pretty sure people would notice if the executive branch is continually shooting people in hunting accidents. Even if you have something less extreme, e.g. requiring the person to pay a fine, they could simply ignore the request and when you tried to pursue them you will be laughed out of court in a similar manner to what I described. In other words, it's all very well the executive branch knows about it, but it's unlikely the judicial branch would be willing to enforce a secret law since amongst other things, I suspect it would violate the US constitution Nil Einne (talk) 16:42, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are still ignoring the secret executive orders, approved by secret Attorney General memos, under which armed men seized people, drugged them, and transported them across to world to secret prisons to be interrogated (sometimes until they died) and imprisoned indefinitely. Sure sounds like secret laws. Note that they did not drag the accused before a judge, nor did the accused have any right to an attorney, to know the charges, to question witnesses, or even to see the evidence against them. The accused were said to be "unlawful combatants" and neither the Geneva Conventions nor the Constitution were said to grant them any rights. They could be compelled to sign confessions, by denial of medical treatment for gunshots (if captured in a war zone) or by threats of any kind, by sleep deprivation, by various forms of humiliation, by waterboarding, by being slammed repeatedly against walls. Those tasked with carrying out the program wanted a memo from the Justive Deartment saying it was legal so they would not later be prosecuted for "only following orders." This is what makes it "secret laws." Edison (talk) 17:39, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) As far as I know, the legality of holding US citizens indefinitely without charge was never struck down. José Padilla sued, but the lower courts ruled against him and the government filed actual charges to prevent the case from getting to the Supreme Court. Therefore the US government still has legal authority to deny habeas corpus to US citizens, and could therefore legally enforce secret laws against them without judicial oversight. Rckrone (talk) 17:49, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not really sure what the distinction is you're trying to make. If the US government says "If you rob a bank we'll send you to prison" that's a law. If the government says "If we deem you to be an 'enemy combatant' we'll ship you to a black site prison to be tortured by the Egyptian government" that's a law. Rckrone (talk) 18:10, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the distinction is that if the legislative branch does it, it's a law; if the executive branch does it, it's an executive order. - Nunh-huh18:14, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And it's an important distinction to make. "The Government" isn't a single entity, it's a group of organizations that sometimes compete on issues. Laws are enacted by Congress and enforced by the Executive branch. Executive Orders are enforcement decisions made by the Executive branch, but they are limited in scope. If the Executive tries to enforce Orders that they don't have the authority for, it'll usually be struck down by Congress or the Judiciary. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite18:34, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're right that it is an important distinction. But I'm not sure how salient it is in practice. Executive orders often carry the force of law, so it's hard to argue they aren't law. Executive orders do have limited scope, so that create some restrictions. They can in theory be struck down by the judicial or legislative review, but that doesn't make them any less secret or any less law. Plus that mechanism is pretty toothless. If the executive branch successfully claims the information is state secrets then it's essentially exempt for judicial review. Of course it's the courts that get to make the final call if something is a state secret, but that process can take years, and the decision whether it's a state secret has nothing to do with the legality of the policy, just whether it can be argued that publicizing the information would put Americans at risk. In theory there's also supposed to be congressional review of the secret actions taken by the executive branch, but in practice the executive branch is only required to brief the Gang of Eight, who are sworn to secrecy, so it's kind of a joke. Rckrone (talk) 19:19, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was specifically wondering if any law would be accompanied by a gag order on it, so that when you were shown it by a government official, who would let you discuss it with your lawyer if you wanted, then your lawyer would say: "Yeah, this one I haven't heard of before, because it's a secret one. You can't talk about it with anyone else than me or a judge you go before if you break it, but it's a vaild one, I can tell by the pixels." From the above, it seems there isn't anything like that "on the books" (though not public). Obviously in my naive conception of how it would have worked if there had been secret laws, your actions only become illegal AFTER you are shown the law, kind of like you "have" to treat police officers a certain way only AFTER they tell you they're police officers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.224.204.99 (talk) 19:03, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This NY Times article is about a secret addendum to airline security regulations. I think that's as close to a secret law as you can get. That is, a law that is public, but some of the specifics are kept secret.Sjö (talk) 19:48, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That would be very much like ex post facto legislation. It's a general principle that you can't be guilty of something that you couldn't be expected to know was a crime. (If you could be expected to, but didn't, that's very different; you can certainly be guilty then.) The situation you describe couldn't feasibly arise in any country with a reasonable degree of personal freedom. AlexTiefling (talk) 21:08, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, you're completely wrong that "you can't be guilty of something that you couldn't be expected to know was a crime". You most certainly can and will be convicted. The most you can hope for is leniency from the judge or jury when it comes to the penalty phase. (I'm talking about ignorance of the law, even ignorance that is reasonable; not secret laws.) Comet Tuttle (talk) 21:58, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The old adage is "ignorance of the law is no excuse." And that has nothing to with an ex post facto law. That's a law that tries to punish an act committed before it was illegal to do it. As a trivial example, on Tuesday the government passes a law against chewing gum in public. Someone finds evidence that you were chewing gum on Monday. The government can't touch you. If you're chewing gum on Wednesday, they can. →Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots00:06, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, he's right - you can be and, more important, are expected to know all the laws of the any jurisdiction you do anything in because they are all publicly available. It's not a reasonable expectation since there are far too many to actually read, but that is how the law works. If a law wasn't publicly available then that legal fiction would fall apart and ignorance would be an excuse. --Tango (talk) 00:09, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Right. And I think this is what people are trying to make the distinction about. The question isn't, "can the government do things in secret?" —the answer is obviously, yes it can. The question is, "can the government make regulations or deem things to be criminal based on secret standards?" Generally speaking, no. The handling of "enemy combatants" was secret, but the designation of what one was and that the category itself existed was public and well-known. To put it bluntly, no judge would put up with the idea of a "secret law" in that sense, where you are being convicted of violating a law that was not available for the public to read. That's the essential bind, here, legally. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:13, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Person (A) uses demonization remiscient of Nazi propaganda in his filmmaking work, therefore Person (A) wants to put the group he targets in death camps.
Rachmaninov Khan (talk) 20:03, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like you have cause and effect the wrong way round there. Usually you make propaganda in order to achieve what you want, you don't want something because you've made propaganda supporting it (unless you are called Winston). --Tango (talk) 00:13, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are there any archives or letters of one person apologizing to another? I am looking for something heartfelt. Also, looking for something that can be found in the history books. Reason is I want to apologze to someone I hurt and I want to cite that certain document. --Reticuli88 (talk) 20:19, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Politics
Based upon searches, it is most apparent that those "editing" wikipedia are more than a bit leftist. When searching extreme political groups, wikipedia refers to hard right wing or extreme right wing or militant right wing. Yet, when the same search on leftist does not even acknowledge that the leftist groups are hard left wing, extreme left wing or militant left wing? WHY??????????66.207.247.177 (talk) 20:42, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Most apparent? I think you could find examples of left-wing, right-wing, and all sorts of other biases in Wikipedia if you looked hard enough. The ideal is for no bias at all, and that's what, collectively, we all strive for. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:45, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You'll have to give specific examples if we are to have any hope of answering your question. None of us have read all of Wikipedia. --Sean20:59, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, provide specific examples. Some of us will want to go correct articles with a slanted viewpoint, or to ask for citations for doubtful information. --DThomsen8 (talk) 21:03, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A quick search on Google shows that usage of these terms is pretty similar, whether the suffix is "left" or "right". Because of their potential vagueness and the fact that they are often used to denegrate, they are generally best avoided, unless very well referenced. Warofdreamstalk21:05, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't suppose wikipedia can fully rid itself of bias, a community tends to attract like minded people. Have you tried Conservapedia?, as you might guess from the name it has a more conservative bias. Dmcq (talk) 21:35, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This supposed bias has certainly been mentioned before. See Criticism of Wikipedia#Liberal bias. Do there tend to be more liberals on Wikipedia than conservatives? I would say yes, just due to its nature and the nature of the people it generally appeals to. But the ideal editor is able to remove biases from their editing, and will remove other biases they see on Wikipedia even if they strongly agree with them. That is why I think most Wikipedia editors would be driven nuts trying to meaningfully contribute to Conservapedia or something similar. I agree on this particular issue as well, I cringe every time I read "left wing" or "right wing" in an article. Beyond the stigma each has acquired over the years, they are very vague descriptors that could mean a large range of things. TastyCakes (talk) 21:40, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think it might be worth clarifying that there's a difference between a viewpoint and a bias. Bias isn't very well-defined, and there are probably large differences in its meaning from person to person. But they are not (generally) the same.--Leon (talk) 21:43, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One of the nice things about Wikipedia is that it strives to have no bias. It is no more successful at that than any one person can be, but is remarkably closer to that than most of the internet (certainly more than sites like Conservapedia, which doesn't have a "more conservative bias," but is explicitly just a propaganda site). Wikipedia can be edited by anyone... even you! If you find a page that has what appears to be bias on it, you can put a NPOV tag at the top of it, go to the talk page, and say, "hey guys, what's up with this?" and someone will take a look at it. Will you always get your way? Will everyone always agree with you? No way! But that's how it goes. Unlike a lot of places around these here interwebs, though, you're encouraged to voice your concerns, and the community as a whole will try to figure out an acceptable solution. On the whole, based on the demographics of the web and the number of Europeans on Wikipedia, it is going to lean more leftwards in general than the standards of the "center" according to someone in the US. Whether this is a problem for you or not personally, I don't know, but it's a fairly common thing. I'm not sure the answer is to go off to fringe websites, though, that try as hard as possible to be as biased as possible. If you have a legitimate complaint, voice it, and over time, if you don't act too crazy, people will take it seriously. If you indulge in a lot of CAPITAL LETTERS and unverified accusations of bias, you won't be taken very seriously. Approach it calmly and without the attitude that there's a massive conspiracy against you, and you might get somewhere. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:27, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a term that define apparent small edit wars with big meaning?
For instance, one reason that is commonly used to support the exclusion of ethnical origin from bio-articles is "Oh, well, it wasn't notable for X or Y work/life" (even when it was). So, this way, the argument in favor of inclusion may seem foolish, lame and petty. It's realy a very successful tactic (not that I claim that always it's tactic) in many edit wars on different subjects, but does it is acknowleged in Wikipedia?--Gilisa (talk) 21:43, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think they are talking about people who work really hard to argue that some historical figure was really of X nationality, even if he only spent five minutes there and got his citizenship somewhere else and didn't even know he was from that area. It comes up all the time with famous people of various European backgrounds (Einstein, for example). The argument is that Wikipedia should focus on the things that were relevant to their actual life, rather than arguments by (often quite nationalistic) editors wanting to include lots of details. I'm not endorsing the argument entirely, though I do note that the people who are most concerned with such things are often concerned for transparently nationalistic reasons (Tesla is Serb! No, he's a Croat! No, he's Austrian! HE'S OURS, DAMN IT!), generally at the expense of the article content itself. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:33, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While touring the Oklahoma Supreme Court, we were told that the Justices stand behind velvet curtains and then step out when the court is called into session. Googol and Wikipedia searches have shown that this is a common practice in higher courts, but provide no other information.
When, where, and why did this custom originate? Did it begin in Roman courts? Is it simply to convey a moment of suspense and mystery, as when a statue is unveiled? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Decayjack (talk • contribs) 22:32, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Even on shows like Judge Judy, everyone gathers and then the judge comes in. There's a pretty obvious "taking charge" symbolism there: Nothing of substances can happen until the judge makes his/her entrance. Standing behind curtains, though? It's possible they just don't happen to have any doors near the bench, but this is worth looking into. →Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots00:02, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, I expect they just prefer a curtain to a door. The most senior person or people entering after everyone else is common outside of courtrooms - the high table at a formal meal (at a University, say) will usually enter after everyone else has found their seats (and waited ages for them to stop getting drunk in the SCR, if my experience is anything to go by). People usually stand respectfully while they walk in, too. --Tango (talk) 00:16, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
October 8
Aftermath Gandhi's assasination
I read that the assasin of Mahatma Gandhi was a Marathi. Does this mean that the Gujarati people fought against the Marathi people?q —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.52.143 (talk) 00:36, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How did they know that you were gay. I don't understand that. I understand the persecution of gypsies, communists, Jews, Slavic people, etc. Because they are recognizable, because of their clothes, skin, etc. But I can't understand the persecution of homosexuals, if you didn't "come out" in public, how could they know that you were a homosexual?. --FromSouthAmerica (talk) 01:37, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When societies fall down into "witch hunts", you can't expect well reasoned and fundamented methods for finding the persecuted people. They start with the obvious cases (in this case, the gays who "come out"), and they follow with false positives, circunstancial evidence, plain mistakes or making a big mess from some inconsequential anecdote (have you ever seen the Stark Raving Dad simpson episode?) MBelgrano (talk) 02:45, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just a random "i wonder" question that popped into my head from who knows where. If you have the "national treasure 2" you'll know what im talking about. But does anyone know if there is one??
Thank you!! It's not famous despite its alleged "relatively high population", and men should have allemansrätten to enter the place unobstructed by policewomen, so it has to be an urban legend. Now I have to think about another question: how to stop it from widespreading and persuade other people 
.jpg)
— The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:49, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:56, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
![[22]](http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_1IQMEU3GM-s/R9MDIdsGFqI/AAAAAAAAAMw/qtYaW6z-X6s/s320/glasses.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}