Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

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

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

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

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

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

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

October 20

File:Old sculpture.jpg

can anyone identify any information about this sclupture i posted it on wikimedia commons but there is no licease information or anything. thanks KSLaVida (talk) 01:27, 20 October 2009 (UTC) File:Old sculpture.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by KSLaVida (talk • contribs) 01:28, 20 October 2009 (UTC) http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Old_sculpture.jpg KSLaVida (talk) 01:29, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

The museum label is right there in the image. You took this picture in the Musée d'Orsay, Paris. The sculpture is 19th century French, perhaps a morceau de reception for the Academy. --Wetman (talk) 03:06, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, here it is: Your sculptor is Jules-Félix Coutan. Better keep notes as you go!--Wetman (talk) 03:19, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Interesting Moral/Ethics Money Question

My friends went to the liquor store to get beer for a party. Karl bought an 18-pack of Bud Light, Chris bought a 12 pack of Coors Light, both similarly priced. At the party they handed out beers without thinking about brand, i.e. people just took whatever they got, there was no discrimination between brands. In the morning there were only 7 Bud Lights left. My question is how should the beers be divided? 169.229.77.106 (talk) 02:41, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Before or after breakfast ? DOR (HK) (talk) 09:31, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

If you want to be completely impartial you can give Karl 4, Chris 3, and have Chris reimburse Karl for the fifth of the bottle that was his portion (18/30 = .6, .6*7 = 4.2). Maybe Chris and Karl don't care that much. What's a dollar or two between friends? —Akrabbim^talk 02:49, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

You didn't mention the number of ounces or ml per beer, so let's assume each beer is 10 ounces, for ease of calculation. You also didn't mention whether you value Bud Lights more highly than Coors Lights. Let's assume not. Pour all the beers into a big bowl. (They're all Bud Lights, so you could also pour them into a compost bin and you won't notice much difference in flavor.) The amount to pour Karl, into his own compost bin, is (10 * 6) * (18/(18+12)), which is 36 ounces. Chris gets the remainder. Now both of them must chug and throw away what they can't get down their throats before pausing. Everybody wins! Tempshill (talk) 03:59, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

In my experience, friends that keep accounts of these sorts of transactions aren't friends for very long. If you spend this much effort to keep track of who owes who a few bucks, you end up resenting each other, and the whole mess just isn't worth it for a few bucks. Instead, each friend should be buying the beer in good faith as a gift to the party effort; and should expect no compensation for their own donation, which is given freely and without expectation of remuneration. If everyone keeps that attitude, there is no danger of hurt feelings. Leave the leftover beers in the fridge for the next party, or let them be community property on "whoever wants it drink it" mentality. --Jayron32 04:48, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Good answer. Another idea: Give them to the party's host. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:59, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

It would be a start towards the concept depicted here: [1] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:06, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

This reminds of a story I read in a book with riddles and logical problems. In it, two travelling friends meet another traveler who doesn't have any food. The two friends share their bread with him, one contributing four pieces of bread to their meal and the other one five. At the end of the meal the lone traveler takes out nine coins and gives six to one friend and three to the other. Why he didn't give them five and four? The reasoning goes that the friends ate three pieces of bread each, so the lone traveler got one piece from one friend and two from the other, so one third of the money should go to one friend and two thirds to the other. Just wanted to show that you can argue for different ways to divide the beers.Sjö (talk) 08:42, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

benefit concerts for Pacific islands earthquake clean-up efforts

Were there benefit concerts for the 2009 Samoa earthquake clean-up efforts?24.90.204.234 (talk) 05:01, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

It seems as though there were at least a few concerts organized to benefit clean-up efforts and victims of the Samoa earthquake. "I Love the Islands" is among them. Information about this event which took place October 19, can be found here: [2] Additional information and video of the event can be found here: [3] Several other smaller concerts by individual artists/bands also seem to be in the works. The search string "samoa earthquake concerts" yielded the above results and others related to smaller events. You can see the results here: [4] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ktstrat (talk • contribs) 15:30, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

There are actually multiple "I Love the Islands" being carried out. The Auckland and Christchurch were on Monday and Tuesday respectively and Auckland will almost definitely have been the biggest but there's still Dunedin, New Plymouth and Wellington to go. Nil Einne (talk) 19:32, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Can someone write an article about the event? When I tried to do a little preview, it was deleted. On October 7, there was this event called "Hope for Samoa". It was also a benefit concert.24.90.204.234 (talk) 17:16, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Note also my comments at WP:RD/E#show_related_to_natural_events Grutness...wha? 05:58, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Brades Cockatoo Axe

Hello, where was the Brades Cockatoo Axe made?--119.17.139.241 (talk) 07:47, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Brades & Co., Ltd. were in business in Sheffield, England, which had been a center of fine metalworking since the late 17th century.--Wetman (talk) 19:10, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Academic Residency

There is a monastery somewhere in Europe which offers a residency for academics who successfully apply. They provide room and board for a year and leave the student to their own devises. Do you have any idea what monastery this is? Also, are there other similar residency programs anywhere in the world? Thanks, --S.dedalus (talk) 07:55, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

A question about this concept was posted here a couple of months ago. Go through the archives, I remember two such places were brought up. TomorrowTime (talk) 11:48, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

The OP posted this question here more than a year ago. There was no proper answer in 2008 (neither do I have one).

There are quite a number of monasteries which provide accommodation in Europe (there are dozens in Italy, alone), but I could not find any mention of the academic scheme you are referring to. You may check with a travel agency specialising in "educational" tourism. It may also be an idea to talk to a clergy man / a theological faculty / a seminary in your vicinity. There is also this site [5] for monastic accommodation in the US which you could check for information. This site [6] also has some useful links. In theory, many monasteries may offer accommodation in return for some donation. Of course, you will have to follow some rules. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 13:53, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

It sounds a little like the section of Herman Hesse's novel the Glass Bead Game, where the protagonist is sent as an intellectual emissary to a Benedictine monastery. 14:13, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah, my apologies. I couldn’t remember whether I had asked about this, and couldn’t find it in the archive. . . An understandable mistake, you will grant, since no one could help me the last time. In any case, Cookatoo’s answer is helpful and will get me started. Thanks! --S.dedalus (talk) 21:44, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

This is supposed to be an actual religious monastery, or just a metaphorical "monastery" for academics? Just curious --71.111.194.50 (talk) 08:24, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Image location?

Does anyone know where my friend is standing in front of?

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Rob_morgan.jpg

Thank you. KSLaVida (talk) 13:30, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

If it is your friend in the picture you must at least be able to narrow it down to which country and/or city that the picture was taken in. That would make guessing for us a little bit easier, especially since it is such a low resolution that zooming does not reveal much. --Saddhiyama (talk) 18:00, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

And if you get real desperate, you could ask him. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:59, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I believe that's one of the matching fountains in St. Peter's Square. See the image at right. Deor (talk) 00:47, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Pretty clever, Deor, I must say!--Wetman (talk) 05:16, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Especially since I haven't been there for 36 years and can't manage to remember where I set my cigarette lighter down ten minutes ago. Deor (talk) 10:48, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Japanese presense in southeast asia: c1920s

Just curious to know what the Japanese were doing in varios parts of Asia, in particular in Sandakan, Borneo. I came across this from the film Sandakan No. 8 which tells a story about a karayuki-san (prostitute) and brothel in Sandakan. One article says that these japanese brothels existed in conjunction with the expansion of Japanese business interest and colonial empire (link). ie: that the prostitutes were brought in mainly to service japanese men abroad. What sort of business interest did they have here? And has it got something to do with with the expansion/invasion of the japanese empire during WWII, even though the brothels existed around 1920s? Which is at least 20 years before the japanese army invaded Borneo. ќמшמφטтгמ^torque 16:01, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

The Japanese were involved in extensive trade relations throughout Asia and also globally by the 1920s. Our article on Sandakan indicates that the main trade item during the 1920s would have been timber. Japan was then rapidly urbanizing and would have been importing timber for that purpose. Throughout its industrial history, Japan has had to import raw materials, such as timber, from other countries, principally other Asian countries. A desire to gain control of these raw materials was certainly one of the main motives behind Japanese imperialism during the first half of the 20th century, which was in turn one of the principal causes of World War II. Just to be clear, Sandakan was not part of the Japanese Empire in the 1920s. It was the capital of British-controlled North Borneo. It was not occupied by Japanese forces until 1942. Those forces were expelled in 1945. Marco polo (talk) 17:52, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Japan was importing oil, as well, and I know Borneo is a major oil producer. Was it back then? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:29, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

It started in Sumatra in the late 1800s. Not sure about Borneo. Googlemeister (talk) 20:55, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, I found the Balikpapan article, which mentions that in that area, In 1897, the first drilling of oil began by a small refinery company. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:29, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

However, the region around Sandakan (then British North Borneo and today Sabah) has never produced much oil. It wouldn't make sense for Japanese merchants to be in British Sandakan if they were after oil several hundred kilometers to the south in Dutch Borneo. If they were in Sandakan, they were there for timber. Marco polo (talk) 01:56, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

What was the first battle that firearms (small arms) was widely (or almost widely) used?

What was the first battle that firearms (small arms) was widely (or almost widely) used? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.89.186.165 (talk) 16:50, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Check out History of firearms. From what it says there, it looks like in 1288 a battle definitely took place using guns (since we found one there) although it's likely they were used a century or so before. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:36, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Early Modern warfare has a lot of info about gunpowder weapons in general, as well as canons, was used in 1260. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:37, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Of course one probably could not consider a cannon small arms, and finding one gun does not indicate that they were widely used. Googlemeister (talk) 18:40, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

No, but it provides a time frame for a question that that is, for all intents and purposes, impossible to answer completely accurately. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:08, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

It really depends on your definition of "widely used". I'd say it happened during the Thirty Years' War, when Gustavus Adolphus shifted from the classic pike-heavy tercio pike and shot formation, to a linear one with emphasis on flintlock muskets. --Carnildo (talk) 00:30, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

One suspects that the answer is contained in the first paragraph of the History of firearms article:

"The earliest depiction of a gunpowder weapon is the illustration of a fire-lance on a mid-10th century silk banner from Dunhuang [China]. The Tê-An Shou Chhêng Lu, an account of the siege of De'an in 1132, records that Song forces used fire-lances against the Jurchens." DOR (HK) (talk) 06:22, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

what's the deal with this "one suspects" thing, are you a blast from the past, circa early eighteen hundreds? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.230.64.45 (talk) 15:54, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

The Battle of Cerignola (1503, France v Spain) is "considered the first battle in history won by gunpowder small arms". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alansplodge (talk • contribs) 20:14, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

With widely used, i meant something about, 1 in 25 soldiers used firearms (small arms).187.89.112.108 (talk) 21:47, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I think I remember there was some battle toward the end of the hundred years war, I forget where but it might have begun with B, where the French (rather unfairly) set guns and cannons against our archers and won. 148.197.114.207 (talk) 19:51, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Copyright on Norwegian stamps?

Hello, I've had an email sent to me recently, asking whether a 2002 Norwegian stamp would qualify as public domain. I know stamps in some jurisdictions are PD, but aren't in most. The stamp in question is from 2002, and I uploaded it to Wikipedia as fair use in 2004. The gentleman who asked is writing a paper on group theory, and would like to use the image. Any advice on whether it would be more than simple fair use? -- Zanimum (talk) 18:11, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Editors that patrol Wikipedia:Media copyright questions may be better equipped to answer your question than those that patrol this reference desk. You could ask your question there... --Jayron32 19:20, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Why not just contact the Norwegian post office and ask for permission to use the image in the paper? As it's non-commercial use, I don't think there'd be a problem getting permission even if they do claim copyright on it. On the www.posten.no web site I found the mailing address "Posten Norge AS, 0001 Oslo". (If you don't speak Norwegian, don't worry, lots of people there speak English. It would be polite to apologize for writing in English, of course.) --Anonymous, 03:11 UTC, October 21, 2009.

You might use the following Norwegian wording (preferably with information added about where the paper will be used or published):
Jeg ber om deres bekreftelse at et bilde av det Norske frimerket kr.5,50 "Nordia 2002" som avbilder Neils Henrik Abel kan brukes i en matematisk rapport.
Translation: I ask you to confirm that a picture of the Norwegian stamp kr.5,50 "Nordia 2002" that shows Neils Henrik Abel may be used in a mathematics article. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 22:10, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

mormons in the military

What % of the US military is made up of Mormons? Googlemeister (talk) 20:00, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

The best I can find is this table of recruits by state, which shows that while Utah made up 1.2% of the population, it contributed only 0.6% (1999) and 0.7% (2003) of military recruits. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:36, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

This may be because many military-age mormons go on two-year missions. Wrad (talk) 01:38, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

A couple of additional points to consider: Utah ≠ The LDS Church, and The LDS Church ≠ Utah. While the two are obviously culturally and historically linked, only about 60% of the state's residents are LDS, and only about 15% of LDS Membership is found in Utah. (A few years ago, the church crossed the mark of having more members outside of the USA than within.) The point about missionaries sounds logical. Another possible reason is that raw population data doesn't specify what percentage are within the age window to join the Armed Forces-- at least 17 to join but not older than 28 (Coast Guard), 29 (Marines), 35 (Navy and Air Force), or 42 (Army) (Citation). According to the Census department, 31% of Utah residents are under 18 (compared to a national average of 24%). Also notable is that almost 10% of Utahns are under 5, compared to a national average of 7%). This seems to indicate that fewer residents of the state are eligble to join, independent of religion.

All that being said, though, it has always been the tradition of the LDS Church to honor and support the U.S. Armed Forces. There is no prohibition against serving, and in fact, military service is considered similar to missionary service. Even during the Church's hastened exodus from the recognized borders of the United States, the Church accepted a request from the government to muster volunteers and form The Mormon Battalion. In my own local congregation in Massachusetts (about 500 people) I can come up with 10 members off the top of my head, who either have served or are currently serving, including a decorated WWII veteran who served as a paratrooper in both theaters. Robert C. Oaks and Bruce Carlson, both members of the Second Quorum of the Seventy, were both four-star generals in the Air Force. All in all, the Church in general supports and honors military service. Kingsfold (talk) 12:32, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Oisiu-Eiseu and the Tomb of the Unknowns

The description of this monument on Wikipedia and several other sites indicates that this name is included in wreaths that represent major battles of World War I. Unlike the other battles of the war, some of which have articles that are "too long" this one is a red link. I find no reference to this on any other google searches, or to either half of the hyphenated name. Was this an actual battle better known by another name? The information is consistent with information provided by the cemetery's website. SDY (talk) 22:32, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Minorly, the cemetery's website spells it differently from our article as Oisiu-Eisue, which is equally unhelpful in both Google and Wikipedia searches. SDY (talk) 22:40, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Also spelt Oise-Aisne United States campaigns in World_War I#Oise-Aisne, 18 August - 11 November 1918 not sure what is actually carved on the monument meltBanana 23:20, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

The monument itself just has wreaths, not writing, as far as I can tell from the picture on the website (which is a 5 kilobyte .jpg that wouldn't show small details). I haven't been there in many years. Oise and Aisne are both departments and rivers in northern France, so that makes a lot more sense. Given that English and French use (more or less) the same alphabet, it seems odd that the spellings would be rendered so differently. Those departments have not changed their names. SDY (talk) 23:40, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

(undent) As a side note, there is a cemetery and memorial for the Oise-Aisne campaign in France. Our article on the subject is somewhat dominated by a rather unusual feature associated with the cemetery. The memorial there includes a substantial "Tomb of the Unknowns", which also includes the same dedication ("Here rests in honored glory..."). Is this a standard inscription used at all US memorials that include unknown soldiers? (There are 597 of them at O-A alone). I'm guessing that WWI and WWII produced no shortage of unknowns. SDY (talk) 00:01, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Is this a French / Flemmish issue; like Ypres / Ieper? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alansplodge (talk • contribs) 20:21, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

The cemetery's website, as linked above, contains several other spelling errors, (e.g. Sommes for Somme), so it is not surprising that this name should also be different from the correct spelling.Sussexonian (talk) 21:13, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Corporate vs Personal Income Tax

Is the portion of the income tax payed by the corporation tax larger than the portion payed by individuals? Also, did the amount payed by the corporation tax decrease during the 1980s and 1990s? Is the current corporation tax lower than pre-1980 levels?-- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.146.124.35 (talk) 23:30, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

What jurisdiction are you talking about? In a lot of places, individuals face a progressive tax scale, so your average tax rate may be higher or lower than the corporate tax rate depending on your income level. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:49, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I am talking about corporate and personal income tax rates in the USA. 99.146.124.35 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.146.124.35 (talk) 00:02, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Check Income tax in the United States and State income tax --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 00:19, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

According to the Congressional Budget Office, corporate tax only was 20.2% of individual income tax (only) in the 1980s, 23.3% in the 1990s and 23.5% in this decade. Note that this does not include the myriad of other taxes both companies and individuals pay. DOR (HK) (talk) 06:26, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

October 21

LORD OF THE FLIES QUESTION

I know this kinda isn`t supposed to be here, But I just couldn`t resist asking who from a book published this year, movie or tv show reminds you of Ralph,Piggy and Jack from LORD OF THE FLIES respectively. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.52.23.55 (talk) 00:01, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

The judges on American Idol. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:21, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

This is post a homework question? --71.111.194.50 (talk) 08:21, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Possibly. It's definitely a request for opinions. "If you need advice or opinions, it's better to ask elsewhere." AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 14:38, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I can see a teacher, trying to detect a student's understanding of characterization, asking them to find a modern example, and explain why, sure. As for an answer, we can't answer homework, but if you don't watch any modern TV or movies, do a search of various movies and TV shows of the past, as it sound like only the book needs to be one published this year. And, the "or" makes it sound like all three could be from the same TV show or movie. IIRC (and this was 25 years ago) Piggy was kind of slow but wise in his simplicity, sort of like a certain famou movie character from the mid-90s. that's all I'll give as a hint, and you're on your own on the others.209.244.187.155 (talk) 14:45, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Piggy was the clever one of the group. He was the stereotypical geek - thick glasses, asthma, no social skills, etc.. This sounds like an essay question to me, so even if we gave ideas it wouldn't really help the OP - they would still have to write the essay. --Tango (talk) 18:34, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Anatomy of a sonnet

There is a part of a sonnet which is often conventionally indented. It's the whole of the sestet, less the final couplet. Does that part have a name of its own? Marnanel (talk) 03:40, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• The Middle eight? Of course it depends on the type of sonnet, of which there are several (as detailed at sonnet). I suspect that this pattern is most common is English (i.e., "Shakespearean") sonnets, in which case you're looking at three quatrains and a couplet rather than an octet and a sestet - and it's the third quatrain that's indented. The third quatrain is usually the volta - a change in the theme or imagery - before the resolution of the couplet, so it makes sense in some ways for this section to be set apart from the rest. I don't know of any separate name for it however. Grutness...wha? 06:08, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Makes sense. Thanks. Marnanel (talk) 06:19, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Grapevine restraint

The (engl.) Grapevine Restraint was called "Polish Crouch" (Polnische Hocke) by the former East German Army. I assume that the origin of this term originates from an Ethnophaulism-like background: Not because it was used in Poland (at some time) but something like you can restrain a Pole in that way. To strengthen this "theory" I am interested to learn how this technique is called in other countries (also in an ethnophaulism-like manner?). Thanks for answers! --Grey Geezer 07:24, 21 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grey Geezer (talk • contribs)

Christianity In Nagaland-India

No references can be found on how Christianity actually started in Nagaland-India?

It might depend on who's doing the looking. Have you asked anyone, or searched yourself? -- JackofOz (talk) 08:02, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

The article Revival in Nagaland has a reference. There is also the book History of Christianity in Nagaland, The Ao Naga tribal Christian mission Enterprise 1872-1972 by A. Bendangyabang Ao, published in 2002, Shalom Ministry Publication (Nagaland). --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 08:26, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Benjamin Franklin quote

The following quote is widely attributed to Benjamin Franklin.

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch"

But I noticed wikiquote claims this is misattribution http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin#Misattributed. Is there any scholarly reference to prove it is misattribution? --Nyol55 (talk) 12:32, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Is there any proof that he said it? Generally, the burden of proof for any proposition is on the person asserting that the proposition is true. DO you have any evidence, such as an actual text known to be written by Franklin, in which the quote appears? Without any such proof, we have zero reason to believe he actually said it. --Jayron32 13:16, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

This book and this site say that the attribution is doubtful, especially since the word "lunch" is anachronistic. Franklin's papers are searchable here. He apparently never used the word "lunch" in all of his voluminous writings. The quote is probably a modern invention, although it's conceivable that Franklin might have said (or supposedly said) something similar, using different language. Any witty phrase eventually gets attributed to Franklin, Mark Twain, Winston Churchill, or George Carlin—and sometimes to more than one of those guys. —Kevin Myers 13:27, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Also to George Bernard Shaw and Oscar Wilde. 194.39.218.10 (talk) 13:31, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah. Comic Steven Wright also gets more than his share of bogus attributions. He reports having seen a collection of his quotes on a web site where none of the quotes were actually his. He's embarrassed that most of the fake quotes are lame, and regrets that he didn't write the few good ones. —Kevin Myers 14:18, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Or as Yogi Berra is often quoted, "I really didn't say everything I said." — Michael J 14:34, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

If with the literate I am

Impelled to try an epigram,

I never seek to take the credit:

We all assume that Oscar said it.

--Dorothy Parker

BrainyBabe (talk) 06:55, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

The thoughtless grammatical construction "X is + gerundive phrase", compounded by the ridiculous sequence "is two wolves" should not pass critical muster even in a modern context.--Wetman (talk) 05:06, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

You never heard "Love means never having to say you're sorry? 99.166.95.142 (talk) 15:51, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

With sayings like this, where it's not long even clear who the original speaker was, it's also usually unclear what the original wording was. For example, my recollection is that when I've come across this one before, it's been about "dinner", not "lunch"; and that version can also be found on the Net. The wording quoted by the original poster is typical present-day informal usage (yes, Wetman, it is), but someone could have "modernized" an original version from an earlier century. See Gresham's Law and Murphy's Law for other examples of that sort of change. --Anonymous, 05:25 UTC, October 22, 2009.

Such evolution of quotes may be also explained through memetics. — Kpalion^(talk) 09:33, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I've read that quote years ago, but it was "Democracy is not excuse. It/Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner/supper." It was unattributed. As for grammar, "democracy" is the singular.70.54.181.70 (talk) 19:44, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

What is on most maps this massive landform (one of the largest of its type in the world) is dissected by a dashed imaginary line?

What is on most maps this massive landform (one of the largest of its type in the world) is dissected by a dashed imaginary line?

This is not homework but I have looked all over the we. I thought maybe latitude and longitude and I would think it would be water but I am not sure. Does anyone have any ideas about this? Thanks for any direction or help you have to offer! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.162.128.52 (talk) 14:59, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Your question is very unclear. I'm not sure if you're looking for the name of a landform or an imaginary line. If the latter, I'd go for equator, Tropic of Cancer or Tropic of Capricorn. Or possibly Arctic circle or Antarctic circle. If it's a landform you're asking about, you'll need to explain better, or perhaps someone else will understand you better. --Dweller (talk) 15:02, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

This question was also asked a few days ago. Did you check out the answers there? Astronaut (talk) 15:24, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, I can't imagine a landform could be meant to be water. And, with too many of these, there is more than one (South America and African have the equator going through it, for instance.)172.166.225.140 (talk) 12:07, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

does anyone write with two hands? (simultaneously, for speed)

does anyone write with two hands, for speed? (simultaneously). Since just about everyone is s l o w e d way down by having to channel a sentence through a hand writing out all the letters, I'd think that at least SOME people would overcome that by forming letters with two hands (a pen in each). This doesn't require learning a lot of shorthand, but would only apply to ambidextrous people. I'm thinking of like writing an i with the right hand, then moving on to the t, moving on to the next letter etc, meanwhile the left hand dots the i, crosses the t, etc. Any precedent? 92.230.64.45 (talk) 15:48, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I've never heard of that, but it wouldn't surprise me if somebody has taught themselves to do that. Some famous historical figure (I don't recall who) would write with one hand, but alternating between writing normally and mirror writing backwards so there was no need to move the hand back to the beginning of the line each time, thus writing faster (he, of course, also had to learn to read mirror writing - this was for his personal notes). Also, I have a friend that writes with two pens at once, holding them both in the same hand and switching between them to write different words in different colours (when taking notes in lectures to highlight keywords) - it doesn't seem to slow her down at all. So, if people can teach themselves to do things like that, I can't see why they couldn't use both hands to speed up writing if they wanted to. --Tango (talk) 15:58, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Tangentally related, James Garfield, one of the few true polymath, or likely genius, U.S. Presidents could supposedly write simultanously with both hands, in two different languages. He supposedly could translate an English passage into Latin with one hand and Greek with the other. --Jayron32 16:07, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey! We have a mirror writing article! And Tango, you were probably thinking of da Vinci. —Akrabbim^talk 16:12, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Tangentially to Tango's mention of a fellow's writing alternate lines in normal and mirror script, see Boustrophedon. Deor (talk) 16:38, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

"James Garfield, one of the few true polymath, or likely genius, U.S. Presidents" -- right, right, hence his being Garfield's namesake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.230.64.45 (talk) 17:20, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

It's unfortunate that his doctors were lacking in the genius area, or he might have survived the assassination attempt. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:39, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

The simultaneous writing of Latin and Greek is also attributed to Branwell Bronte. However, when I tried to find a source for that, the first one to come up was this, which announces it to be a capacity shared by many mediums, as a form of automatic writing, so that doesn't seem too reliable (!), but it credits another source.
Our article ambidextrous is fairly useless, but you might enjoy this about [Henry Kahne], who could write with both hands, both feet and his mouth, simultaneously. Additionally, Sir Edwin Henry Landseer could draw/paint with both hands at once. And a related concept is Bi-directional text,and specifically Boustrophedon. Gwinva (talk) 00:31, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Literary device like a prolepsis.

What is it called when a story shifts ahead in time (not as an interjection but permanently)? A prolepsis or flash forward is by definition a 'temporary' scene interjected within the normal flow of the story. I believe the article for the film AI: Artificial Intelligence used to mention it (as having one of the largest such shifts in film), but the article has been changed hundreds of times since last I looked and I can't remember the name for it. Thank you. --66.188.84.217 (talk) 16:50, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Ellipsis (narrative device)? Recury (talk) 17:27, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

No, just where the story jumps ahead in time. I don't think an Ellipsis would be an accurate word for it because that's more of an implication of events than jumping forward. --66.188.84.217 (talk) 17:36, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Although, the more I think about it the more it seems you may be right, it's sort of the same thing from a different perspective, but I think there's another word for what I'm describing. --66.188.84.217 (talk) 17:42, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

fast forward?...Hotclaws (talk) 00:59, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Why does Jane Austen (and other 19th century authors) use a letter followed by a series of hyphens in lieu of some names and places?

I have run across this issue in multiple 19th century books including Pride and Prejudice and Wuthering Heights. Rather than give a specific name for an army unit, name a certain house, or even reference a real person, the author chooses to scribe a single letter (assumed to be the first initial to the alluded to item) followed by a series of hypens (creating a single straight line). An easy to locate example of this is in Mansfield Park when we first meet Fanny's parents in chapter 38. Mr. Price (Fanny's father) enters with multiple monologues dotted with the phrase "by G-----" (assumed to mean "by George"). Pride and Prejudice is full of this anomaly in each and every discussion involving the soldiers with whom the younger Bennet girls are so smitten.

Can you please explain this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.169.130.115 (talk) 16:55, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I've seen the same thing with years ("19--"). I think it is done to avoid pinning the story down to specific real life times, places, people, etc., although I can't see why it would be necessary to do that for a first name as in your example. --Tango (talk) 17:33, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

In that instance, George stands for Jehovah, which would have been considered unacceptable language (blasphemous) in some circles.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 17:41, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Why the past tense? I've seen comments on Youtube about how "these stupid atheists should just wait until they die and are judged by G-d and see who's laughing then." TomorrowTime (talk) 18:25, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Not writing the word "God" in full is common in Judaism. --Tango (talk) 18:29, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

For the specific example in Mansfield Park, Mr. Price is saying "By God," and the author uses dashes to avoid profanity. This is different from the noted frequent practice, in stories from that period, of using dashes to avoid specificity. John M Baker (talk) 19:07, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I think it's rather more likely that the exclaimation "by George" comes from the oath "by Saint George" the Patron Saint of England. A little less blasphemous, but still a bit risque in polite society of the time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alansplodge (talk • contribs) 19:10, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

For the Love of Pete, you don't say!—— Shakescene (talk) 05:54, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

The OED suggests that By George indeed refers to St George, citing the earliest example from Ben Jonson's Every Man in His Humour, in which both "by George" and "by St George" appear.--82.41.11.134 (talk) 21:22, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Besides the obvious cases of what would be considered profanity, it was also used in names and dates as mentioned. Mostly because most older novels and stories often tried to create the illusion that the fiction was indeed reality (probably stemming from the origin of modern novels in epistolary novels such as the works of Samuel Richardson). To complete this illusion of reality, names and places could be concealed so as to give the effect that it is to protect living persons from being compromised. --Saddhiyama (talk) 19:59, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I've observed the same thing in rather different works, too: for example, Dostoyevsky, writing half a continent and several decades away, will sometimes do this with the settings of his stories. Nyttend (talk) 22:02, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

His "secrets" were quite transparent to contemporaries: when he writes "Raskolnikov walked down Sennaya St., on the corner of K** Lane", the only choice is Konny Lane. Some "secrets" are unexplicable today but were evident then: the "canal" in White Nights is Yekaterininsky Canal (the only one that, indeed, was the canal in his days) etc. NVO (talk) 10:10, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Goshdarnit, I read the explanation somewhere recently, and I think on Wikipedia. It was fashionable in the 19th C to write slightly scurrilous memoirs and other non-fiction, in which the names of well-known people would be represented by the initial letter followed by a dash in order not to explicitly name them presumably avoiding libel). Fiction writers of the same period started using the same technique to add verisimilitude to their works, giving the impression that they were referring to someone famous enough to deserve having his name left out of the narrative. I don't know whether the people mentioned in the works of fiction would normally correspond to an actual person or not. Now I'll have to go and look for the reference... DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:36, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure a scandal sheet, in the 19th c., was a paper devoted purely to a series of nasty snippets of embarrassing information about people referred to only as Mrs. B----, or Mr. T--- H------, etc., apparently in the attempt to humiliate as many people as possible per inch, but we don't have an article on this type of publication. Maybe I've got the name wrong. There's a scan of the type of thing I have in mind here: [7] but it's almost illegible and isn't doing the thing with the dashes (perhaps because it's very early, 1709). 213.122.11.42 (talk) 22:54, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

To those who mentioned the purpose to avoid blasphemy, I have to disagree. This cannot be the answer to the question, since in Mansfield Park, one of the novels mentioned by the question, the Lord's name is in fact taken in vain without any atempt to disguise the expression.

To those who answer the question saying that it is the attempt of the author to avoid dating the manuscript, I must also disagree...as the same anomaly (an initial followed by an extended hyphen) is used in Tolstoy's Anna Karenina, which is dated quite conspicuosly within the novel itself.

No...there must be a better explanation.

To the last answer given (15:36, 22 October 2009)...in Mansfield Park itself, your information is somewhat validated. In the reading of the newspaper article regarding Mrs. Rushmore and Mr. Crawford, the couple is referred to only as Mrs. R and Mr. C. Something of this nature is often alluded to when a letter of some sort is written by a character in a novel of this period, as well as in the character of Mrs. Elton in Jane Austen's Emma. Mrs. Elton often refers to her husband as "Mr. E" and others by a similar title. However, this type of talk is considered in the novel by Emma to be somewhat vulgar or inappropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.169.130.115 (talk)

Origin of the word "sweetheart"

I remember reading a story about a noblewoman in medieval England whose husband died. She had his heart embalmed and carried it about in a casket, everywhere she went. She called it her "sweet heart and faithful companion". Can you point me at a source for this story please? --TammyMoet (talk) 17:38, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

If Scottish will do instead, see this about Devorguilla Balliol, wife of John Balliol, mother of King John of Scotland and founder of Sweetheart Abbey:

http://www.scotland.org.uk/guide/Devorguilla_Balliol —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alansplodge (talk • contribs) 19:04, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

That's probably the one. I do apologise to any Scots present, I had thought of changing it to "British" but didn't because that epithet wasn't relevant to the time period. Thank you!--TammyMoet (talk) 12:28, 22 October 2009 (UTC)T

What is the man-made wonder of engineering that required so many workers to complete that a town was built just to accommodate them?

What is the man-made wonder of engineering that required so many workers to complete that a town was built just to accommodate them?

I found Tongariro hydro-electric Power Development Project but I am not sure. Please direct me if possible. I did not see this question on here! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gijeanie (talk • contribs) 17:45, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Well I'm sure many construction projects in out of the way places involve work camps of some kind or another... Do you mean towns that were left afterwards? TastyCakes (talk) 17:49, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Surely there are multiple examples of such projects... the Hoover Dam among them. -- Coneslayer (talk) 17:53, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

The pyramids in Egypt had small towns full of workers and their families. 99.166.95.142 (talk) 19:10, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm thinking of the Snowy Mountains Scheme, for which the temporary towns of Cabramurra and Khancoban were built for the (mainly migrant) workers. Both towns became permanent settlements. -- JackofOz (talk) 19:26, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Or any of the large number of company towns that sprang up in the coal mining regions of West Virginia and Pennsylvania. Googlemeister (talk) 19:35, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

True. I was focussing on "wonder of engineering" and "so many workers". The SMS was certainly a wonder of engineering; and it required so many workers that huge numbers were recruited from many overseas countries (mainly European) - so many, that their numbers had a massive impact on Australia's post-war demographics, ultimately leading to us becoming one of the most multicultural countries on Earth. -- JackofOz (talk) 19:48, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Dutch John, Utah would fit your description, but I suspect that's not what you want. Nyttend (talk) 22:03, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

"Any large mine or dam or other engineering project built away from a major settlement." might be an appropriate answer. Seriously, there must be hundreds of such towns across the world. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 22:26, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

There are many, many examples of this worldwide. Twizel, New Zealand was built just to house the people who worked on the Waitaki River hydro scheme, for instance. Grutness...wha? 00:16, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

You mention Tongariro Power Scheme in your question, for which Turangi was laregly built. Are you looking for a New Zealand example? Twizel above, would be possible. Or Mangakino, for Maraetai. Or Otematata for the Benmore Dam. Or Tekapo for Waitaki. Or Cromwell for the Clyde Dam.... Or google for "hydro town" + location (eg NZ, Aust). (WDNHAAOE, it seems. Hydro town is red.) Gwinva (talk) 01:09, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Some of those existed long before the dam schemes - Cromwell was around during the Central Otago Goldrush, for instance. Grutness...wha? 05:44, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

If we are going by firsts then it is indeed the pyramids as mentioned by the IP-user, which had large cities placed next to them exclusively to accomodate the workers. The pyramids was incidentally also one of the original (and true) Seven Wonders of the World (New Seven Wonders of the World? Bah, humbug!). --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:33, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Panama Canal and many, many major engineering schemes throughout history have built small towns to accommodate workers. Astronaut (talk) 14:25, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• I can think of several coal mines that fit this description. --M@rēino 17:01, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

The OP's phrasing, "What is the man-made wonder of engineering that required so many workers to complete that a town was built just to accommodate them?" (emphasis mine) implies there was only one such case. But as others have pointed out there are numerous cases. Here's another: the town of Coulee Dam, Washington, built for the people working on Grand Coulee Dam. And Grand Coulee Dam is often cited as a modern "wonder of engineering". Another Washington example might be Richland, Washington, which houses the people working on the Manhattan Project at the Hanford Site. Richland was a tiny village before the government took over, evicting everyone and set it up as a company town. All the land and housing were government owned. I think the Manhattan Project counts as a "wonder of engineering", no? Pfly (talk) 09:10, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

A transparent allusion to the Great Pyramid of Giza.
Sleigh (talk) 17:18, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Check out Hoover Dam.

Many early British factories were built within entirely new towns for their workers. 148.197.114.207 (talk) 19:27, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

What seperates two continents and has many names?

What seperates two continents and has many names? I found many ideas on this but need more assistance! Can anyone direct me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gijeanie (talk • contribs) 17:49, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Water? TastyCakes (talk) 17:52, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Bosphorus/Hellespont? 99.166.95.142 (talk) 19:11, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

The Red Sea? —— Shakescene (talk) 20:13, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

The Atlantic Ocean, which is called Atlantischer Ozean in German. Googlemeister (talk) 21:09, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

My SWAG: "two continents" is separated by a space. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 22:13, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

A nickname for Istanbul is "The city on two continents". Obviously, Istanbul was Constantinople. Now its Istanbul, not Constantinople... Damn. Now that song's stuck in my head. -- kainaw™ 00:55, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Looks like we have an article on names of Istanbul. -- kainaw™ 01:03, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

It's nobody's business but the Turks...--Jayron32 02:37, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

"Con... stantinople... C, O-N-S-T-A-N-T-I-N-O-P-L-E..." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:06, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

It's nobody's business but the Turks'. 99.166.95.142 (talk) 15:54, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• The answer can't be Istanbul/Constantinople, because that city does not separate two continents. Quite to the contrary; it links them! --M@rēino 16:59, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I would have to say THE PANAMA CANAL. In an attempt to validate my answer, I googled "panama canal names" and found multiple sites referring to many names of the Panama Canal and the zone surrounding it. Here is one in particular. http://www.angelfire.com/tx/CZAngelsSpace/PCZplaces.html I think this would be your answer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.169.130.115 (talk) 21:03, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

The Panama Canal is completely within Panama. Panama is completely within North America. If the Panama Canal was along the border of Panama and Columbia, that answer could be valid. -- kainaw™ 21:09, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

The Panama Canal may be contained completely within Panama, but it still separates the continents of North and South America. A country is perfectly capable of being in 2 continents...a contiguous example is Russia (or the former USSR) which is on both the Asian and European Continents. Non-contiguous examples include all major first world countries. The US, besides encompassing a large portion of North America, also has territories in what is commonly referred to as the Oceanic Continent (or the Pacific Islands). Hong Kong (Asia) was for a long time owned by Britain (Europe). The Panama Canal's being completely within a particular country in no way voids its likelihood. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.169.130.115 (talk) 21:34, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

The other two classic examples of countries (both of them old enough to have several names) that straddle two continents are Turkey (which, even after 1923, has included part of Thrace on which part of Byzantium/Istanbul/Constantinople sits, in Europe) and Egypt [the former UAR] (containing part of Asia until the Six-Day War of 1967 and again after the Egyptian–Israeli Peace Treaty of 1979). I think there's also a fair amount of argument about whether Armenia and the former Republic of Georgia sit in Asia, Europe or both. —— Shakescene (talk) 05:33, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Can you explain HOW the argument that Russia is on two continents means that Panama is on two continents? Panama is completely on the North American continent. The North American continent and South American continent are separated by the border between Panama and Columbia. If you want to rationalize that a few miles of land doesn't matter, then we can claim that the Bering Straight is a better example. How about the Pacific or Atlantic oceans? By rationalizing what the requirements of the question are, you can get just about any answer you like. I can claim that the answer is the Greenwich meridian line that "divides" Europe into two parts and Africa into two parts - just by rationalizing that the question is asking for something that separates two continents - not from each other, but each one into two parts. -- kainaw™ 21:30, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

What is one of the four largest cities within a familiar geographical shape found by a man with controversial religious beliefs?

What is one of the four largest cities within a familiar geographical shape found by a man with controversial religious beliefs?

I am without a clue on this! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gijeanie (talk • contribs)

Do you mean "founded" by a man? TastyCakes (talk) 17:52, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• Your question is too vague to be properly answered. "Familiar", "found", and "controversial" all need to be defined better. Also, the lack of punctuation and poor phrasing make it unclear where the modifiers apply: does the man have controversial religious beliefs, or do the citizens? Did the man find the city, or the shape? If those terms and phrases are left vague, I could argue for just about any city on the planet: Mexico City, Provo, Pittsburgh, Naples, etc, etc! --M@rēino 18:19, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Give us some context. Where did this question come from? --Tango (talk) 18:27, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Amarna? 99.166.95.142 (talk) 19:12, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Providence, Newport, Portsmouth and Warwick, Rhode Island, founded by Roger Williams? He founded Providence (1636) and the colony, but not the other three towns that originally formed Rhode Island and Providence Plantations. Or how about (e.g.) Salt Lake City or Provo, Utah founded by Brigham Young? How familiar the shapes are really depends on who and where you are. —— Shakescene (talk) 19:22, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

The OP might be stabbing at Philadelphia, PA, USA. William Penn was certainly controversial, even before he decided that Cheese Whiz was appropriate on steak sandwiches. 19:25, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Or maybe Alexandria - Alex the Great certainly had some weird stuff with Egyptian religions going, and you will probably find enough Alexandrias to form any geometrical shape.... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:01, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with a little harmless, recreational fun, but User:Giljeanie has posted three of these confusingly-worded riddle-me-this posers in a row. —— Shakescene (talk) 20:11, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

if gore won the election in 2000

Would that mean that the vice-presidency would have been the highest-held position for a Jewish person in the United States?--99.179.21.44 (talk) 20:31, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

That would depend on how you defined highest-ranking, but if POTUS is #1 and VP is #2, then yes. Lieberman was the first Jew even on a ticket, iirc. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:49, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

¶ Since the three branches of the United States government are co-equal (although each can be dominant for different purposes or at different times), Jewish Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States would at least in theory (if not in all the protocol tables) rank as high. As I recall, Louis Brandeis was the first Jewish Justice, followed by, among others, Felix Frankfurter, Arthur Goldberg, Abe Fortas (who was almost nominated Chief Justice), Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Although never Vice President, Judah P. Benjamin was arguably the second-most important man in the Confederate States of America, actively advising President Jefferson Davis and executing many of his policies (in addition to his duties as, successively, Attorney-General, Secretary of War and Secretary of State of the C.S.A.), after Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens had withdrawn from active participation in government.

¶ I'm not sure how far Jews have ascended in the leadership of the other co-equal branch, Congress, although for many purposes, every United States Senator is equal to every other Senator, every U.S. Representative equal to every other Representative, and every Representative equal to every Senator. Barney Frank, presently chairman of the House Banking Committee, would be considered by many to be a good candidate for Speaker. Rahm Emanuel, presently Chief of Staff to the President, was Chairman of the House Democratic Caucus, ranking below the Speaker, the House Majority Leader and the Majority Whip among Democratic leaders in the House.

¶ And if Sen. Barry Goldwater (R.-Arizona) had been elected President in 1964, he would have been the first President of Jewish ancestry (although not religion, as his parents had converted to Christianity.) —— Shakescene (talk) 21:13, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Henry Morgenthau Jr., secretary of the treasury, was, for one week in 1945, first in line to the presidency. At the time, the Constitution had no provision for replacement of the vice president after a VP takes over for a dead president. Next in line at the time was the secretary of state. Between the resignation of Secretary of State Edward Stettinius, Jr. and the appointment of James F. Byrnes to replace him, Morgenthau was "a heartbeat from the presidency," as they say. By the time Nixon resigned, the succession law had been changed to put the speaker of the House and president pro tem of the Senate ahead of the secretary of state, so Henry Kissinger -- constitutionally ineligible to be president anyway due to his foreign birth -- was never "next in line." Nonetheless, secretary of state is often considered the senior member of the cabinet behind the president and VP, so you could make the case that Kissinger was the highest-ranking Jewish person ever in the U.S. government. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:21, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Not sure if the list of Jewish associate justices was intended to be complete, but Benjamin N. Cardozo was missed as another... --Jayron32 02:33, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

[That's why I put in "among others", because I thought there was a strong possibility that my list (off the top of my head) would not be exhaustive.] —— Shakescene (talk) 08:41, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

If they had recounted all the votes in Florida (i.e., the Supreme Court had not stopped the recounting), Gore would've won. See the media recount article for details. Imagine Reason (talk) 22:19, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Year a bust (art) was made

What year was this bust of William F. Friedman made? I called the museum it is being shown in but all they could tell me is that it was made by Richard Nachman. I found a page regarding that person here.--Rockfang (talk) 20:46, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

what's a word for something that's sneakily but cleverly pretending it's something it's not?

what's a word for something that's sneakily but cleverly pretending it's something it's not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.128.188.124 (talk) 21:13, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Disguise? If you give us some context, we might be able to give a better answer. --Tango (talk) 21:33, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

That's an IP with exactly 2 edits, the first of which was reverted. "Sneakily but cleverly pretending it's something it's not"? Well, it can't be a sockpuppet, because they ain't clever. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:46, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Doppelgänger; although it's most commonly used for people, you could reasonably use it for something like a product that resembles a well known brand ("it wasn't until I opened the box that I realised I'd bought 500 cans of Croca Cola, a doppelgänger for real Coke"). Doppelgänger specifically implies deception, so it may be more appropriate than simply saying "a look-a-like". -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 21:38, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Coatracking. See Wikipedia:Coatrack for the Wikipedia context. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 21:44, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I think mimic and simulant also fit except maybe not implicitly "sneaky", for that I probably like doppleganger better too. Another word i like which might fit in some contexts is clandestine, that implies sneaky and clever, but doesn't imply it's pretending to be something it isn't, but it certinally could be. Vespine (talk) 21:56, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Snake in the grass. Vranak (talk) 21:57, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Nihilartikel fits for some things, too. Then there's "Wolf in sheep's clothing", as well. Ther are numerous terms, and the context will be important in deciding which one is best. Grutness...wha? 00:19, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

In the field of encryption, it is called steganography. -- kainaw™ 00:48, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Impersonator or malware. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:57, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

People sometimes make claims in job applications that are strictly speaking true, but are worded so as lead the reader to assume they mean something that isn't true. Such as "I have a great deal of experience in customer relations". That would be assumed to mean something like "I have extensive experience in serving customers", but it might just refer to the fact that they've been a customer on many occasions and in many different places, and have participated in the process only from the customer's side of the counter. That's what I'd call disingenuousness or dissembling. -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 03:08, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

To dissemble is to put on a concealment in order to mislead. Oh, I see that was said, just above. Sorry, I didn't see that. Well, that's my own definition. It's different than a dictionary definition. Bus stop (talk) 03:34, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm surprised that no one has suggested counterfeit, which in many contexts would seem to be the usual word. Deor (talk) 10:43, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

How bout camouflage, chameleon, masquerade or obfuscate. 60.50.166.248 (talk) 11:04, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Imposter --Xuxl (talk) 18:12, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Manipulator, deceiver, wolf in sheeps clothing, smiler with a knife under the cloak (from Chaucer). Try looking up some of the words given in Rogets Thesaurus. That gives many other words - far too many to list here. 92.29.50.51 (talk) 21:07, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

On a related note to the original question, if a person pretends not to be interested in something he or she secretly does want, that's called accismus. 71.161.59.133 (talk) 22:39, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

If you truely mean some-'thing' then it would counterfiet, imitation, ersatz. 92.24.69.180 (talk) 22:47, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

No confidence in presidents?

To quote from the current In the News section: "President of the Marshall Islands Litokwa Tomeing loses a vote of no confidence in the Legislature and is temporarily replaced by Ruben Zackhras." I know that prime ministers in many countries can face votes of no confidence, but I've never heard of a system in which a president could face such a vote. Are there any other countries in which the position of "president" — either with this title or one that would more reasonably be translated "president" than "prime minister" or another term — is vulnerable to votes of no confidence? Nyttend (talk) 22:06, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Motion of no confidence#Presidential systems should explain everything. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 22:17, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

A quick look at the Constitution of the Marshall Islands reveals that the president is elected by the legislature and can be removed from office with a vote of no confidence. I suppose he's called a president because he's also the head of state. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:49, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

What I meant was motions with teeth (such as this), not the ones that the motion of no confidence article cites, such as the symbolic ones against members of the US presidential cabinets. Nyttend (talk) 04:02, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

The constitution can probably explain it most clearly, but perhaps it is expected that a politician resigns if he loses a confidence-vote, even if it is not actually required. ╟─TreasuryTag►Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster─╢ 13:33, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

An interesting example is Spain where the Prime Minister is officially known as the "President of the Government of Spain" (note not President of Spain) based on the translation of the Spanish title Presidente del Gobierno de España (not Primer Ministro). However the position is commonly known as the "Prime Minister" in English because the position is akin to that normal for a PM (and so vunerable to a motion of no confidence) and head of state of Spain is of course the monarch. Nil Einne (talk) 21:58, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Mocking murderers - Can they receive a harsher punishment?

In Argentina, the Justice sentenced Alejandra Ortiz (a woman) and Sebastián Rodríguez Vázquez (a man) to 20 and 25 years of prison respectively for murder (in a robbery, assault). Alejandra Ortiz mocked the victim's family all the time. Can the Justice, in that case, give her a harsher punishment for that?. Source to the case. [8] --Maru-Spanish (talk) 23:02, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

If you see the source, she is the red-haired woman. --Maru-Spanish (talk) 23:03, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure it depends on many factors, including jurisdiction, but I don't see why not. Judges factor in a lot of things when handing down sentence and I'm pretty sure I've heard "lack of remorse" used when justifying a sentence. Vespine (talk) 00:33, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

In the US, the law decides what the maximum (and minimum) sentences are for a given set of crimes, but the judges (often? always?) get the discretion as to what to give you within that range (I believe). Lack of remorse can definitely get you the upper end of the range, and can affect your chances at probation later. No clue about Argentine law, though. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:55, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) In a criminal case, the jury is instructed to examine mitigating and aggravating factors (in that order). The former can lead to a minimum sentence, and the latter a maximum. The court will look at items such as whether or not the victim was consenting, whether the offender was under duress, prior convictions, age, and yes, whether they "mocked" or "laughed" at the victims or their families. We have an article for Mitigating factors. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:08, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Vespine, Mr.98, the Judges (three Judges in Argentina trials) ordered that she will never be paroled (she MUST be 20 years in prison). Maybe... that's because of her lack of remorse? --Maru-Spanish (talk) 01:04, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, I neither know the law nor the case, but if someone seemed like a sociopath (and mocking your murder victims would appear to fall into that category), I would not be surprised if a judge did not give them a parole option, if that was up to their discretion. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:23, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

This is the reason we don't like to give legal advice here. I'm not saying this question is asking for legal advice, but the only people qualified to really answer this specific question are those 3 judges involved in that case. It is possible and seems likely that the lack of remorse played a part in the sentencing, however, none of us could say that even if she was remorseful and didn't mock the victims, she may still have got 20 years non parole because of any number of other reasons. I'm fairly certain if you were a defendant, any lawyer will tell you it is in your interest to appear remorseful, rather then lacking remorse. How much that actually plays a part in any trial very much depends on many other factors. Vespine (talk) 03:44, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Not really "legal advice", unless the OP is intending to commit murder and then mock the victim's family. That would not be the ideal way to find out the answer. Surely there must be some cases where the defendant's attitude cost him big time. Charlie Manson comes to mind, but he was going away for good, regardless. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:02, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

And, frankly, I think I was pretty up front about what I didn't know. I don't think anybody is going to be fooled into what I'm thinking I would be giving legal advice, even if this was something that could remotely construed as legal advice! (And, frankly, I disagree with your characterization that only the judges could report on this point. I am sure that anyone who was familiar with Argentine law and had followed the case would be able to make a plausible analysis of the sentencing. One can know a lot about what one is not directly taking part in.) --Mr.98 (talk) 12:29, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

As I said above, these factors are considered for most convictions (in America anyway). ~ Amory (u • t • c) 13:16, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

You just jogged my memory, i'm sure I've seen a clip of exactly that happening. Someone was being sentenced for drug related offences and they said something flippant, so the judge increased the sentence on the spot and basically said something like "you want to keep talking?". It was a while ago and I can't really search for video clips at work, so this is pretty anecdotal, but if someone flexes their google-fu they might find it.. Vespine (talk) 05:07, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

That's a different situation. That's a judge on a power trip. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:57, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

That sounds like contempt of court. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:32, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Judge: "Are you trying to show contempt for this court?" Mae West: "No, your honor, I'm trying to conceal it!" Yes, it's contempt of court, but she was already sentenced and the judge didn't have to do anything. He was just trying to show her who's boss. Power trip. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:19, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

October 22

Running dogs of capitalism

Who actually came up with the phrases "running dogs of capitalism" or "running dogs of imperialism"? That is, the phrase is commonly used in jest regarding Maoism, but is it actually from Mao? Or whom else? What's the origin? --Mr.98 (talk) 01:02, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

"running dog" is a literal character-by-character translation of the Chinese 走狗, a literary phrase in classical Chinese meaning "hound", "hunting dog". From there it extended to mean someone who runs around, literally or figuratively, in service of a master. It can be used to refer to oneself as a mark of respect towards another, as it implies that the other person is one's master. The modern meaning has become a little more pejorative, though the main connotation is still a servant or lackey.

The English version became associated with Maoism because the Chinese phrase became a stock phrase in propaganda. Its use as an attack label, however, is not limited to Maoism or even Communism. Lu Xun, the famed left-wing writer but by no means a Maoist, famously called Liang Shih-chiu a "running dog of the capitalists" (not capitalism). --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 04:34, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Exactly the sort of thing I wanted to know. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:28, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

A Google Book search suggests that the phrase first appeared in English in the late 1920s, when it was already associated with the communist movement in China. Warofdreams talk 12:36, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

why is copyright set in the future

I have noticed that newly published books often have a copyright date set for the year after the book is published (so a book published today will say it is copyright 2010). Why exactly is this? References would be ideal. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:07, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

You can't claim copyright from a future date - copyright subsists from the date when the work or other material is reduced to material form. Could you describe in more detail how exactly this "future" copyright claim appears in your boo? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 04:36, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Pre-publication copies. Like previews of movies or theater. Books with a publishing date 2010 have often all been printed by the end of 2009. --Wetman (talk) 04:43, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I was gonna say what Wetman did, also adding that the date on the book is the anticipated publication date of the book, and there may be reasons why a book ends up coming out sooner. --Jayron32 04:53, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

The question was about the copyright date, not the publication date. As PalaceGuard has already noted, a future copyright date makes no sense. Bielle (talk) 05:12, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I remember hearing of a US rule to the effect that if the date of publication was in the last part of the year, then it was permissible for the copyright notice to show the following year. In the days when copyright ran for a fixed number of years, always ending at the end of a calendar year, that would make some sense since it would mean that the short fractional year would not count against the fixed term. However, I don't have a cite for this and I could be mistaken.

Of course, any business producing any sort of dated product tends to look for ways to give as late a date as possible, so it will look more fresh. Just in publishing, annual reference books published in late 2009 will bear the date 2010 on the grounds that you'll still be using them in 2010 until the next edition comes out. Magazines in North America similarly bear the last date when they are supposed to be on the shelves, which is the date the following issue will appear. Morning newspapers bear the date after their actual production because that's the day when they expect you'll read them. And so on. So if they can legally print a copyright date later than the actual year of publication, even if it doens't given any benefit copyright-wise today, they may want to do it on the same principle.

--Anonymous, 05:36 UTC, expanded 05:42, October 22, 2009.

It's a marketing ploy: a book bought in February 2010 dated 2009 might be over a year old, so if it was published in November or December 2009, it might have a 2010 publication (not copyright) date, so as to extend its sales. DOR (HK) (talk) 06:09, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

But that would mean that in theory someone could copy the book in 2009 and sell those legally, right? --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:35, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Legality presumes a publisher's contract with the original author, a thing that "someone" cannot obtain. NVO (talk) 09:56, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Copyright subsists regardless of notice. A notice is merely a warning. Once the work is reduced to material form - e.g. written down - it is protected by copyright. Copying the final manuscript before it goes to print, for example, is still copyright violation even if there is no copyright notice. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:16, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Copyright is asserted once published in a lasting form. The material in those books was copyrighted before they were printed, when it was a manuscript waiting to be printed, and to a lesser degree as earlier drafts. At any rate, in America and most of the world, thanks to international regulation, you don't need to specifically note that a work is copyrighted. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 13:12, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I happen to work for a textbook publishing company. We have already completed work on a series of textbooks with a 2011 copyright date. The original plan was to print the books this year with that copyright date and begin distributing them to the sales force, though I don't think any actual sales could be made until 2010. We are told that the date is permissible so long as the books are not used in classrooms before September 2010. 76.118.100.84 (talk) 13:25, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

The worst case scenario in being "wrong" is that technically you might be violating the rules about making a false copyright claim, but even then, that's not entirely clear, and that isn't enforced whatsoever anyway. The actual legality of the copyright has nothing to do (anymore) with the copyright label on the book. --Mr.98 (talk) 20:00, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Ethical VS Aesthetic Free will argument (author? text?)

There exists an argument for the existence of free will that goes something like-

The mind, independent of a determined physical world, might face a situation where two equal motivations present. At this time, if the person is mature, and knowing reason, may decide between the ethical, or the aesthetic.

I think it was a response to d'Holbach; and I thought it was written by Kierkegaard. I'm having great difficulty finding this argument, or the author. I want to read the primary text from which this argument derives.

Please tell me the author, and the primary text.

Thanks, Alan

Arthur Schopenhauer's On the Freedom of the Will maybe? I cannot find that exact arguement, but Schopenhauer makes many similar styled arguements in that work. --Jayron32 05:34, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Why are Kathmandu and the Chatham Islands not on the same hour as the other time zones?

I went to this site http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/ at 9:03 AM THU my local time and all the times had :03 in the minutes section except for the Chatham Islands and Kathmandu, which had times of 2:48 AM FRI and 6:48 PM THU respectively. Darwin was at 10:33 PM THU and Caracas was at 8:33 AM THU so I can see them being on the half hour from most of the others, but 15 minute-difference time zones? 20.137.18.50 (talk) 13:13, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Why? Because they can. Our article on time zones has a fairly comprehensive list of the variations. Note also cases like China, which uses only one time zone despite being comparable in size to the US. — Lomn 13:27, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

What time zone is used at the North and South Poles? --rossb (talk) 17:47, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, according to time zone, stations in Antarctica use the time zone of their supply stations. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 18:15, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

The North Pole is in international waters, so there is no official time zone, and no residents, so there is no unofficial one either. At the Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station they keep New Zealand time for the reason stated by J.P. (According to a comment in the tz database, which cites the man's book, the station's first commander would have liked to keep GMT (UTC) but decided it would be too inconvenient.) --Anonymous, 19:08 UTC, October 22, 2009.

This non-authoritative-looking page hints at two reasons for Nepal's odd time zone: 1) It lines up with the central part of the country and 2) They didn't want to share a time zone with India (+5:30) or with Bhutan and Bangladesh (+6). -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:48, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Mwalcoff, the decisive reason behind Nepali timing is the wish to demarkate themselves from India. --Soman (talk) 14:16, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

What's the name of he phenomenon?

Which I guess is semi-ironic that I always forget the name of.

What's it called when you hear a new thing/concept and then you see it again or similar to that. chandler 13:46, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

A marketing campaign.20.137.18.50 (talk) 13:52, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Reinventing the wheel? There is nothing new under the sun? Deja vu? Yes, a marketing campaign, or the proliferation of an idea whose time has come. Bus stop (talk) 13:54, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Na not Deja vu, this is more like "I see a funny video on youtube and my friend links it to me 10 minutes later" or "I just read a book about [obscure subject] and the next day I see a article about the subject in the newspaper" chandler 13:56, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Coincidence? Internet meme? Warofdreams talk 13:59, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Sort of like "critical mass" has been reached? Bus stop (talk) 14:00, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

It might happen because of a meme or similar, but there is a name of the phenomenon chandler 14:02, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Is it at all related to the idea of the collective unconscious? Bus stop (talk) 14:04, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

"Frequency illusion" is a name sometimes used, especially of newly learned words that seem to suddenly pop up everywhere.--Rallette (talk) 14:08, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Synchronicity. We used to have an article about it called Baader-Meinhof Phenomenon, but it got deleted for some reason. See here. --Sean 14:11, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah that's it, I just found my way back to the link where I remember reading about it.[9] chandler 14:16, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

What I find particularly interesting is that no explanation is known for how it came to be called the "Baader-Meinhof Phenomenon." Bus stop (talk) 14:41, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I've made this edit. Bus stop (talk) 14:49, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Pure speculation, but the term Baader-Meinhof Phenomenon may refer to the fact that 4 members of the group (incarcerated in different cells of the same prison) attempted (1) / committed (3) suicide simultaneously (or, at least, in close temporal proximity). Andreas Bader was one of them. Ulrike Meinhof had committed suicide earlier at the same location, the Stammheim Prison. Not surprisingly, there is some doubt as to the coincidence of this synchronicity. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 15:26, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Priming. Your subconscious has been primed to see that pattern. Vranak (talk) 16:39, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Aha! Thanks. --Anon, 19:12 UTC, October 22, 2009.

Welcome. :) Vranak (talk) 19:34, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Quote regarding Military Generals vs. Musicians

Some cartoonist or political commentator, I think during the Vietnam War, apparently said something like, "[The President] takes his advice from military generals, not one of whom has ever released a hit record." My understanding was that it was meant against all of the political commentary being offered up by folk singers and the so-called "hippies." I've Googled it and looked on Wikiquote with all sorts of combinations of key words, to no avail. I'm sure someone knows the quote verbatim. Who said it? This is driving me crazy. Thanks much! Kingsfold (talk) 17:39, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Origin and explanation of common definitions of Atheism

WASN'T THIS SAME QUESTION ASKED ON A REF DESK RECENTLY? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:34, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi bugs, why yes it was, you may also note that it wasn't answered. Please also note that this comes from a different perspective that is somewhat distinct from the one on the language ref desk. Sometimes it helps to read the full text before interjecting random uppercase bold in a position which is at odds with wikipedia norms. Love, Unomi (talk) 23:46, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Fine, you can deal with this redundancy to your lovin' heart's content. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:30, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I have been going through some sources and I came across this:

“ The word 'atheism', however, has in this contention to be construed unusually. Whereas nowadays the usual meaning of 'atheist' in English is 'someone who asserts that there is no such being as God', I want the word to be understood not positively but negatively. I want the originally Greek prefix 'a' to be read in the same way in 'atheist' as it customarily is read in such other Greco-English words as 'amoral', 'atypical', and 'asymmetrical'. In this interpretation an atheist becomes: not someone who positively asserts the non-existence of God; but someone who is simply not a theist. Let us, for future ready reference, introduce the labels 'positive atheist' for the former and 'negative atheist' for the latter.

The introduction of this new interpretation of the word 'atheism' may appear to be a piece of perverse Humpty-Dumptyism, going arbitrarily against established common usage.

”

“ ... But the atheist in my peculiar interpretation, unlike the atheist in the usual sense, has not as yet and as such conceded even this. ”

This has been taken from the 1984 print of Antony Flew's The Presumption of Atheism, the work was originally printed in 1976.

Is Antony Flew a RS in the context of Atheism? Is there any cause to dispute that at that time the common 'modern' interpretation of Atheist was 'someone who asserts that there is no such being as God', besides the position of the 'innocent'? Unomi (talk) 19:41, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

On positive/negative, strong/weak, seen Atheism#Strong_vs._weak. The distinction seems to be quite old.

"Atheist" was originally a pejorative (and still is for many!) and was probably always intended to be "strong". (This is partially why Huxley coined "agnostic" as an alternative in the 19th century.) The OED entry for "atheist" is entirely unhelpful in regards to such a distinction, merging both of them ("One who denies or disbelieves the existence of a God."). The examples they give though make it clear that in the early usages of it, it did specifically mean "deny", the "strong"/"positive" atheism when used pejoratively. There is a nice 19th century quote from Gladstone though that recognizes the distinction: "By the Atheist I understand the man who not only holds off, like the sceptic, from the affirmative, but who drives himself, or is driven, to the negative assertion in regard to the whole Unseen, or to the existence of God." So in Gladstone's schema, the "weak"/"negative" atheist is really to be termed a "skeptic", while "atheist" is referred to specifically as the "strong" form.

I don't think Flew's argument that the understanding of atheism as generally referring to "strong" is a new thing is correct at all—it is much older than he lets on. --Mr.98 (talk) 20:52, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the input and the quotes, that the more inclusive definition has been uncommon also seems supported by:

Drange 1998 In this essay, I shall use the term "atheist" in its (more common) narrow sense. Martin draws a distinction between "negative atheists," who are without any belief in God, and "positive atheists," who deny God's existence.[5]) Applying that distinction, it could be said that I (and most people) use the term "atheist" in the sense of "positive atheist."

Gordon Stein 1980 The average theologian (there are exceptions, of course) uses "atheist" to mean a person who denies the existence of a God.

Dan Baker 1992 Basic atheism is not a belief. It is the lack of belief. There is a difference between believing there is no god and not believing there is a god--both are atheistic, though popular usage has ignored the latter.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/sn-definitions.html Michael Martin 1990] If you look up "atheism" in the dictionary, you will probably find it defined as the belief that there is no God. Certainly many people understand atheism in this way.

Are there any sources that support that the broad, inclusive definition has much currency outside of Atheist circles? Unomi (talk) 23:46, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Oedipus the King (Sophocles)

How did Oedipus become king of Thebes?64.166.144.11 (talk) 20:12, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Oedipus may help. Grsz¹¹ 20:22, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

What consumers and audiences like and want?

Marketing is too loose a term as it covers many other things apart from this. What textbooks and academic papers cover this specific area, and does it have a commonly accepted name? Thanks 92.29.50.51 (talk) 20:58, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

"Consumer demand"? (I'd link to it, but "consumer demand" is a redirect to "consumerism", which is different.) Comet Tuttle (talk) 21:00, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

The OP's questions are the subject of what is commonly called Market research. Another relevant article is Choice Modelling. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 21:32, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Market research is specific to particular products. Are there any theories textbooks or academic papers available about what consumers and audiences like and want in general? 92.24.69.180 (talk) 22:42, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

You could start with the hierarchy of needs and see where it takes you. In general, everyone wants food and shelter. Even at that, people want different kinds of food and housing. The theories you mention would be covered in a broad array of sources. And it gets slippery, because even knowing what people bought is no guarantee that that's what they really wanted, as often people have to "settle for less" based on many factors. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:05, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

There's an article called Consumer theory which is Econ 102, but which has a number of links to other articles. Maybe see where that takes you? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:07, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Economics - Consumer Theory. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 14:27, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I suppose I was expecting or hoping for something that would include things like News values, Aesthetics, Dramatic theory, products as badges of identity, Status symbols, Keeping up with the Joneses, Gadgets, Entertainment, The Theory of the Leisure Class, Fashion, Fads, Glamour, Kitsch, Taste, Style. and so on. Anything along those lines please? Preferably something derived from empirical research in psychology and sociology. Update: perhaps Consumer psychology is the correct name. 78.149.146.34 (talk) 18:13, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Is 78.149.146.34 the same person as 92.29.50.51? This is getting confusing. Bus stop (talk) 18:34, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Who were the earliest aethiests, going back in history?

Including those in the Christian realm. Did Darwin go to church? 92.29.50.51 (talk) 21:01, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

We have an article on Diagoras of Melos, which may be a starting point. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 21:11, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Charles Darwin was baptised in the Anglican Church, see the article Charles Darwin. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 21:21, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I would guess Ardi was an atheist. Googlemeister (talk) 21:25, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

The article Atheism in Hinduism notes that Cārvāka, an atheistic school of Indian philosophy, traces its origins to 600 BCE. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 21:27, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Not only was DArwin baptised, he played an active part in the parish and even became a clergyman before making his great discoveries. According to the article, by 1849 he had stopped going to church even though his wife still went. Thre is even an article specifically about this subject Charles Darwin's views on religion . Vespine (talk) 21:36, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, Darwin could not be realistically called an atheist, and even denied that he was. He described himself as an agnostic (to use a voting analogy, not a "yes there is" or a "no there isn't" but a "don't know). Grutness...wha? 22:10, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure there have always been atheists but a particularly famous one is Hippocrates Dmcq (talk) 22:37, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

If we take 'atheist' to mean one who does not engage in theological discourse or speculation, then it becomes not a matter of who was the first atheist, but who was the first theist. Atheism is the default state of being, so there is no limit to how far back you can go to trace its origins. Of course you must mean who were the first group of people to conscientiously reject a God-fearing view of things -- and I see other people have answered that already. Vranak (talk) 22:46, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure atheism is the "default state of being." The human brain appears wired for religion, or at least spirituality. It appears to be part of our development as meaning-making creatures. It appears to me to take a LOT more work to get to a totally naturalistic state of understanding of the world than it does to have a spiritual understanding. (Why does the wind blow? "Because there is someone magical blowing it" is easier to come to than "because of really complicated weather cycles, relying on an understanding of pressure, geography, and etc.") This is not the same thing as ornate, organized religion (or philosophy), of course. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:18, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I should have looked. Of course there is an article on History of atheism Dmcq (talk) 22:48, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

correct income level of dominican republic?

the world bank say that the dominican republic is an upper middle income country, but in wikipedia say that is lower middle income. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.166.138.216 (talk) 23:05, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

The World Bank has strange ideas. The CIA World Factbook estimates it has the country had a 2008 gross domestic product per capita of $8200, 118th in the world. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:42, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

That $8200 number also sounds like a mean number, not a median, which is surely lower and gives a better picture of "average" income there. Tempshill (talk) 02:29, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

To quote the World Bank's website: Economies are divided according to 2008 GNI per capita, calculated using the World Bank Atlas method. The groups are: low income, $975 or less; lower middle income, $976 - $3,855; upper middle income, $3,856 - $11,905; and high income, $11,906 or more. It's all relative, I suppose: Dominicans probably don't feel well-off compared to (USA) Americans, but they surely do compared to Haitians. --M@rēino 04:13, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

118th is the upper middle? No wonder a lot of people think the World Bank is screwing the poor. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:23, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's 76 by PPP, a measure that is more relevant for the people living there. And the list is skewed because many of the smallest countries are very rich, from Lichtenstein and Luxembourg to the Arab emirates and Singapore. India and China have lower incomes than the DomRep, and have one third of the worlds population between them. The next biggest countries (excluding the US) are Indonesia, Brazil, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Nigeria, all on the poorer side. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:39, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

The Inter-American Development Bank (iadb.org) lists the Dominican Republic’s 2008 GDP as DOP1,576.16 billion, equal to US$45.63 billion at an exchange rate of DOP34.54:US$1. On a population of 10.09 million, that works out to DOP156,210 or US$4,324 per person. The $8,200 figure is based on an artificial exchange rate derived from the concept of purchasing power parity. DOR (HK) (talk) 07:03, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Travel time Bloomsbury to Southease railway station in the mid 1920s

Virginia Woolf apparantly bought a second home near Southease railway station after the success of her novel Mrs Dalloway published in 1925. How long then would the train journey between there and her other house in Bloomsbury have taken in the 1920s? I do not know what the appropiate London station would be. I'm trying to get a sense of how remote the country place would have seemed in those days. Thanks. 92.24.69.180 (talk) 23:13, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

The appropriate London station would probably have been Victoria, as it is now. If Virginia was feeling successful, she probably would have traveled to the station by taxicab, or perhaps with her own car and driver, which probably wouldn't have taken much more than 20 minutes since traffic was much lighter in the 1920s. The train from Victoria to Lewes today takes about an hour, at an average speed of 49 miles per hour. This would have been an unremarkable speed during the 1920s, so the time was probably about the same. In Lewes, she could have connected to a train to Southease, which takes 6 minutes today, and probably about the same in the 1920s. Let's say she would have had to wait 20 minutes for the connection. This yields a total travel time of something like 2 hours, allowing for time to buy a ticket at Victoria. Marco polo (talk) 01:52, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I can't find a source, but I do wonder whether Victoria was the appropriate London terminus. Southease station is on the Seaford Branch Line and, according to our article, distances on that line are measured from London Bridge - suggesting that was probably the original terminus. Warofdreams talk 10:56, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

The track alignment would certainly allow trains to travel from London Bridge to Lewes (and on to the Seaford Line, though direct traffic from London to the Seaford Line is not now and probably never was sufficient to justify a through train). London Bridge was the original terminus for trains on the Brighton Main Line (including the branch line to Lewes that connects to the Seaford Line). The calculation of distances may have to do with the role of London Bridge as the original terminus, pre-1860. In 1860, service was established to Victoria, which in time became the more important terminus of the Brighton Main Line trains. There were certainly trains from Victoria to Brighton, and probably to Lewes, by the 1920s. There may well have also been trains from London Bridge, or more conveniently for Virginia Woolf, Charing Cross. We can only know for sure by finding train timetables from that period. However, the travel time would not have been very different from Bloomsbury to London Bridge Station as compared with Victoria. She could have cut her travel time to the London station in half (from maybe 20 minutes by taxi to maybe 10 minutes) if there were trains from Charing Cross, which would not have had a big impact on her total travel time. Marco polo (talk) 18:11, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Are any railway timetables available from those days? 78.146.236.231 (talk) 11:50, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

there are. If anyone is in the vicinity of the The National Archives, they could look it up... Tevildo (talk) 12:47, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

October 23

Scholars Cited on Wikipedia

I was happy to notice that my friend, Jan Westerhoff, has become one of the Wikipedia entries. Nonetheless, I then searched for other (very senior) academics in similar fields, and found that none of them were listed. For example: Kate Crosby (scholar of Buddhism, Pali and Sanskrit) Daud Ali (eminent historian of ancient and medieval India)

Would you consider including them?

Best regards, Mattia Salvini —Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.183.192.39 (talk) 03:15, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

This is emphatically not how it works. If somebody, unsolicited, sees fit to include references or citations to these scholars, so much the better. But the purpose of this project is not to affirm friends and colleagues' eminence in their respective fields. If the quality of their work is truly outstanding, chances are that it will find its way into Wikipedia sooner or later. Vranak (talk) 04:04, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

But Mattia Salvini didn't indicate that these others were friends or even acquaintances. Further, although people whose work in certain fields (e.g. recording voices for Japanese animated movies) is entirely humdrum are indeed pretty sure to get articles, those who are renowned in certain academic fields are very unlikely to do so. Behind me is a shelf with books by Frederick Newmeyer and Ray Jackendoff (actual articles), Peter Culicover and Lydia White (mere stubs), Alan Cruse, Andrew Radford, Barry Blake, Jerome Feldman, Robert Binnick..... Hoary (talk) 08:26, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

When Wikipedia calls itself "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit," it's not an empty slogan. This is a volunteer project, and that means you, too! You really can go ahead and create pages for these people. If you do, I recommend posting links to their most significant academic papers, and also to instances where other respected people or organizations have cited or lauded that person's work. The article WP:ACADEMIC has some guidelines on what sort of academics qualify for an article, and WP:RELIABLE has some very useful guidelines on what we consider the "reliable sources" necessary to check up on the claims that the article makes. If you have trouble with your article, just type "{{helpme}}" on your personal page, and usually one of Wikipedia's senior volunteers will wander over to help out in fairly short order. --M@rēino 04:09, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

However, Mattia, we do have a service under Wikipedia:Requested articles, where you can list any topic you think would be a reasonable inclusion as a new article, and someone will eventually consider it and make a call as to whether an article is appropriate or not, and if so, start one. -- JackofOz (talk) 08:05, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia's coverage of academics is spotty to say the least. At the level of "world famous scientist," it is pretty good, but other than that, it falls off the map completely. Part of this is that most academics don't appear in the kind of sources that Wikipedia editors read, and biographical information is almost nonexistent for most of them (other than the one-paragraph mini-CV that most post on their web pages). Additionally, the fact remains that even "eminent" scholars are probably known to a few dozen, maybe a hundred or so, people in the world to be such. That doesn't mean they can't be included (we have guidelines about that, linked above), but it does reduce the chance that anyone is going to bother including them. As far as I can tell, most "non-world famous" academics get added into Wikipedia because they are references for other articles—especially if they are contentious references. There are a lot of Darwin and Einstein scholars in here—because they are being cited in disputes about Einstein and Darwin, and being able to say, "my source is a high-grade, Ivy-league academic" does make a difference, and being able to say that with Wikipedia helps, too. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:22, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

How can fines be cheaper than parking?

Regularly I've read news stories mentioning some company such as FreshDirect parking their trucks on the street and paying hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines rather than parking legally. How can such a business model make sense? Do they play the odds and find that you don't get ticketed every time? Imagine Reason (talk) 04:27, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the time that they save by not having to find a legal parking spot factors into the equation. —Kevin Myers 06:28, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

This article [10] doesn't quite come out and connect the dots, nor does it say what their sales figures are, but they hire very cheap labor, and that probably helps offset the price of doing business. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:38, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

In Manhattan finding legal parking for each stop along a delivery route would be infeasible. In many places, finding a legal space for a full sized truck within a reasonable distance of the destination is impossible, much less on a reasonable schedule. So even if the fines end up being costly, they don't have too much choice. Rckrone (talk) 12:53, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

You mean unfeasible. 78.149.146.34 (talk) 18:04, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Both words are correct, and their Google counts show that "infeasible" is somewhat more commonly used. --Anonymous, 22:00 UTC, October 23, 2009.

Although stuff I'm finding on google says it's legal to double park while making a delivery provided there are no spaces nearby (except in midtown), so I wonder what exactly they do that's illegal. Rckrone (talk) 13:06, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

There's likely also a compromise reached after collecting together a month's worth of tickets and utilizing representation when visiting the clerk's office -- similar to paying back taxes and getting a substantial break. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 13:56, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

• Yeah, in DC it's a similar situation: some times they just plain can't find a legal spot, and double parking is only legal in very narrow circumstances. But the DC government doesn't want to run these guys out of business; they just want to collect enough money to compensate the citizenry for the trouble that the deliverymen cause travellers. So the fines are substantial, but not so high that it would make sense to spend 15 minutes looking for a spot, end up parking 4 blocks away, and then hauling the delivery 4 blocks. The company is better off getting tickets. --M@rēino 19:32, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Rckrone got it right - in a lot of cases the (delivery/taxi) drivers have no choice. They even have a show for that Parking Wars - very funny when you are watching this calm and collected at home, not so funny when you are the guy getting the ticket. Royor (talk) 05:59, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh I see. I've been under the impression that they park overnight illegally as well. That would not make sense, would it? Imagine Reason (talk) 17:58, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

US (state sizes)

Why are the western US states larger than the eastern ones? jc iindyysgvxc (my contributions) 05:31, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Eastern states were founded as the Thirteen Colonies, which were semi-self-governing dependcies of the British crown. Their borders and areas were established in the 17th century, and were often based on natural boundaries, such as rivers or mountain ranges. The area of these 13 states provided the original territory of the country; while a few states were divided out of the territory of these states (Tennessee out of North Carolina, Maine out of Massachusetts, Vermont out of New York/New Hampshire) most of the remaining states were created "on demand" as the U.S. expanded westward during the period known as Manifest Destiny. Most of the Western U.S. had VERY low population density, and was subdivided into areas known as "territories" which were granted limited local self government, but were still administered directly by the U.S. federal government, and these areas did not have the same rights as States did. When one of these territories reached a sufficient population, they often applied for and were granted Statehood, which gave them coequal status with other states. Since the territories themselves tended to be rather large in area, due mostly to low population, the states simply adopted the full area of the old "territory". Thus, Colorado Territory just became the state of Colorado. Only one large western state, Texas, had a serious movement to carve it up; the original treaty that annexed Texas to the U.S. left open the option of creating up to 4 additional new states out of its area; that never happened. --Jayron32 05:44, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

(ec)I was going to say "because they have more square miles!" and then write something along the same lines that you did. And to point out that even today there are large areas of the west that are very sparsely populated, a fact reflected in where county lines are drawn. The sparser the population, the larger the counties. You have some counties in western states that are larger than Rhode Island, for example. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:47, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

The largest American county in area is San Bernardino County, California, which is larger than the nine smallest states as noted in List of U.S. states and territories by area, 8 of which are eastern shore states and the other is Hawaii. Harney County, Oregon is another large county, larger than the six smallest states. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:53, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

The most sparsely populated state appears to be Wyoming, which ranks last in population among the 50 states as noted in List of U.S. states and territories by population, but is 10th among all states in terms of area. Vermont and D.C. are among the smallest states in area, yet are more populous than Wyoming. So when you see a "red and blue" map, it looks mostly red but that red is over much lower population densities. What would be nice here is a list that ranks states by population density. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:57, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Something like this perhaps Bugs? List of U.S. states by population density Googlemeister (talk) 13:02, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Probably just a slip of the mind or pixels, but DC is, of course, not a state. Grutness...wha? 07:06, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, yeh, but the point is that D.C., a city, if you will, has more people in it than the entire state of Wyoming. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:23, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

My state of Rhode Island has about a million people living on about a thousand square miles of land (about 1,000/sq. mile). Wyoming has about half a million living on about 100,000 square miles (about 5/sq. mile). Most of the 250-odd counties in Texas, and about half of the 58 in California, have larger areas than that of the entire State of Rhode Island & Providence Plantations. Large states weren't very practical until the development of railroads, although Virginia's original claim was quite large. —— Shakescene (talk) 07:54, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Obviously Alaska would be the most sparsely populated. It has something like 1 person per square mile. Googlemeister (talk) 13:00, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Area cartogram of the United States, with each county rescaled in proportion to its population. Colors refer to the results of the 2004 U.S. presidential election popular vote.

Bugs, are you aware of cartograms? The one pictured to the right corrects for the issue of large, sparsely-populated areas. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 13:15, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

The creation and delineation of US states is a topic more complex than one might at first suspect. Certainly there is something to the points given above. Over time it began easier to travel longer distances, thus making larger areas able to come together and form a government. And much of the west was arid with poor potential for the kind of dense agricultural development seen in the east. Despite major advances in irrigation and the like, the population density in the west is significantly lower than in the east (with a few notable exceptions such as California). But there were other factors in how new states were created. Politics played a major role, especially in the era leading up to the Civil War, when the average size of new states began to increase significantly. Since each new state meant two new Senators in Congress and perhaps in time quite a few Representatives in the House, the addition of new states threatened any political balance of power in Congress. In the decades before the Civil War, when there was a basic balance of power between northern and southern states in Congress, it became standard practice to admit new states in pairs--one form the south and one from the north, in order to maintain the Congressional balance of power. For either side it would have made political sense to create relatively small states, so that a larger number of future states might be created with northern or southern sympathies. The new states themselves typically desired larger sizes, especially as new states battled for access to rivers, ports, natural resources, etc. Then there was the sudden and rather unplanned addition of Texas and California, both far larger than anything previous. The large size of Texas in particular resulted in the southern faction of Congress fighting against the creation of smaller states in the north. Even after the Civil War politics played a major role in how new states came to be defined. In short, the large size of western states seems logical in hindsight due to the relatively low population density through much of the region, but at the time the states were being made population density was overshadowed by the political fighting and compromises between the parties of Congress. After all, it was Congress that decide whether a new state would become a state, and when, and with what borders. Do you think members of Congress base their decisions on rather abstract notions like, "the land is arid and may not ever develop a dense population", or do they base them on how their political party can gain, or maintain power? Two new senators per state tended to trump all other concerns. Pfly (talk) 09:44, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

As a sidenote, California (1851) and Texas (1846), two large states admitted during the Mexican War period and thus before the Transcontinental Railroad, were given the option of subdividing into two (for California) and as many as six (for Texas—or is it 5?). This would reflect both practical limits within the newly-admitted states before railroads had fully developed, and political convenience beyond them. The balance of Senators, and of states required to ratify Constitutional amendments, was important to the South when the balance of national opinion was turning against slavery and towards its restriction or abolition by legislation or constitutional amendment. Had Southern California (with Southern sympathies) become a separate state, she would likely have sent two Senators friendly to the South. Had there been more than two Senators from all the Texases together, they would also have added to the southern bloc. Southern California and Texan spin-offs would also have increased the number of states needed to amend the Constitution. —— Shakescene (talk) 19:31, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

List of U.S. states by date of statehood does not particularly support that premise. The chief debate was about slave states vs. free states, which came to a head and then become irrelevant as a result of the Civil War. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:03, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

You're treating that way too lightly. Pfly is correct; it was a deep part of why states are the way they are now, for decades. Comet Tuttle (talk) 15:56, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

You may notice that North Dakota and South Dakota are relatively small, as Western states go. Our article at Dakota Territory says, that among other reasons, the Territory was divided into two states so that the Republicans could have more representation in the Senate. 99.166.95.142 (talk) 16:18, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

A recent book by Mark Stein, "How the States Got Their Shape" (Harper Collins 2008) delves into the question. It notes that Congress post 1791 adopted a principle that new states should be created equal, as much as feasible. This is why most of the post-original 13 states have a similar width. For the original 13, the vagaries of colonization meant that they were of very different sizes, but it was felt that future states should have a more standardized size. Texas, California and Alaska were exceptions, but they were already well-defined entities when they became states, in contrast with the Kansas, Colorado, Oregon or Dakota territories from which a number of new states of roughly equal size were carved.

--Xuxl (talk) 18:41, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I've read that book and it is fascinating (for a geography nerd like me), but woefully lacking in references and citations. I found his claims about the goal of standardized sized states intriguing--especially in the specific details regarding lines of latitude and longitude. But when I tried to find further sources--primary sources--backing up his claims, I could not. His book, though a fun read, would never make Wikipedia feature class for lack of citations alone. Using his vague source hints I scoured the Congressional archives looking for some decision or agreement on the standardization of state shapes and sizes. I admit I did not read all the Congressional records, but I looked pretty hard and found nothing. Furthermore, Stein makes some plainly outrageous claims. For example, he states as simple fact that the 42nd parallel (today the border of several western states) was chosen during the Adams–Onís Treaty of 1819 because it had been specified in the 1792 Nootka Convention between Spain and Britain--at which time the 42nd parallel was chosen because that line more or less ran south of the Columbia River's drainage basin. But in 1792 no one had the slightest clue about the Columbia's basin. The river's mouth wasn't even entered until 1792. Furthermore, the Nootka Conventions contain no explicit boundaries and never mention any latitudes or any other border lines. That Stein could claim that the borders of several US states have their roots in the Nootka Convention is simply wrong. With such a glaring and easily debunked claim playing a major role in Stein's book, I caution against the rest. It is a good read, and much of it is probably true and accurate. But it is not a scholarly work, contains some basic errors, and lacks references. If anyone knows of a better source to back up the idea that Congress decided and worked to create states of a standardized size like Stein describes, I would like to know. I tried to verify it and failed. Pfly (talk) 10:03, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

It's worth pointing out that some of the original 13 states at first had no specific western boundary and claimed land far to the west of their heartland. Virginia and Connecticut both claimed land that became part of the state of Ohio. Georgia and Tennessee claimed land as far west as the Mississippi River. The states ceded their western land to the federal government between 1780 and 1802 -- see state cessions. Virginia remained pretty big until the separation of West Virginia during the civil war. -- 23:50, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

British Princes and Princesses

Some British Princes and Princesses seem to be officially referred to with the definite article in front of their names, for instand "HRH the Princess Margaret, Countess of Snowdon". Is there any general rule about when the definite article should be used? --rossb (talk) 17:56, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

See Forms of address in the United Kingdom. Basically, "the" implies holding a rank in one's own right, while absence of "the" implies a rank based on one's father's (higher) rank. So "John, the Viscount Norton" is the holder of an hereditary viscounty, while "John, Viscount Norton" is the son of the Earl of Norton. Tevildo (talk) 19:49, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

You are right, Tevildo, but that's not what Ross Burgess asked. Princess Margaret was "HRH the Princess Margaret" because she was a daughter of the Sovereign. The Prince of Wales is "HRH The Prince Charles, Prince of Wales, etc" because he is a son of the Sovereign, but his children do not have the definite article in front of their titles because they are not yet children of the Sovereign. Wife of "The Prince X" is "The Princess X"; for example Camilla is officially "The Princess Charles". Surtsicna (talk) 20:08, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Of course, my apologies. The system is consistent, fortunately - one is a prince or princess "in one's own right" if one is the son or daughter of the Sovereign, but "Prince" is only a courtesy title of the son of the son of the Sovereign. _Not_ the son of the daughter of the Sovereign - Peter Phillips, despite being eleventh in line to the throne, has no title of nobility at all (as his father was a commoner). Tevildo (talk) 20:43, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

You need to actually read courtesy title - the son of peer doesn't use the same title just reduced one level as a courtesy title, they use one of their father's lesser titles (which will have a different place name). --Tango (talk) 12:58, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Command and control still used by the military despite being very outdated in management or business?

In management the Command And Control style would be considered old fashioned and sub-optimal, although it probably still exists in more backward organisations and, I imagine, ignorant supervisors. Is Command And Control still the bee's knees in military theory, or has military theory begun to catch up with management theory? A side point that I anticipate someone asserting is that Command And Control would be appropriate during emergency situations such as on the battlefield, or in coercing reluctant squadies to risk their lives, but I'm not so sure. 78.149.146.34 (talk) 18:53, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

You're behind the times, it's C4ISTAR now. two more C's. They're attacking us on the left what shall we do? The control system in wikipedia is of course the acme of perfection, all decisions will be by consensus. Please ask questions in a more neutral tone, or better yet may I suggest you learn how to use the search box and then the wisdom of wikipedia will be open to you and you won't have to worry about being subjected to sarcastic replies. Dmcq (talk) 19:22, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Who cares if they ask questions in a neutral tone? Since when do we require our questioners to be neutral? Or even our answerers, frankly. I'm not neutral and I don't try to be. I'm not writing an encyclopedia article, here, I'm answering a question! --Mr.98 (talk) 23:11, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

(EC, response to the OP) You have to remember that the Military and Business organizations have very different goals. Business is primarily concerned with making money; or more importantly, with creating value for shareholders. That is its only goal. The military is primarily concerned with killing people before your own people get killed. This difference in goals will necessitate a difference in management styles to bring the different goals around. Its a bit hard to develop mission statements and have brainstorming sessions and teambuilding activities while bombs are falling around your head, and cubicle workers will only take getting screamed at for so long. --Jayron32 19:23, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

• I know a couple officers and enlisted men who studied business or politics, and they have been quite pleased with how flexible and adaptive military management can be. One Marine major describes his job as that of a consultant: soldiers from all over the division come to him with intel problems, and he pulls together ad hoc teams to solve them. That said, at base it is Command And Control, because there's still one big difference between the military and the business world -- if two people start quarrelling over who has what authority in the heat of a battle, people die. --M@rēino 19:26, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

There is a lot of discussion and consensus high up. At the bottom though what they really seem to want is to build tightly knitted teams, and to some extent that is accentuated by them not being able to answer back too much individually and therefore forming a group to unite. Dmcq (talk) 20:32, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Just curious -- what now-trendy management/organizational model(s) would you (78.149.146.34) recommend the military consider implementing so as to be more efficient and productive at what the military does, and why? Wikiscient 20:53, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Keep in mind that the army (and the military in general) doesn't use managers, they have leaders; the two terms are not synonymous. If you'd like an excellent discussion of the difference between the two, I would recommend Small Unit Leadership [11] by Dandridge Malone. In military communities, Command and Control has, in my experience, never been referred to as a management or leadership style, but rather used as a noun, e.g. you either have it or you don't during tactical operations. While the concept of management and leadership are related, they are different, and in the case of the Army, management usually refers to a system developed to aid in the accomplishment of a task (e.g. risk management) vs. the social interaction that encourages subordinates to assist you in accomplishing a task(e.g. coercive leadership, as the OP mentioned. "I'm telling you to do it and if you don't, I'll recommend you for Nonjudicial punishment." Another good example that may help to better understand the army leadership system would be to read Field Manual 6-22: Leadership. [12]Zharmad (talk) 22:23, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I like to second Wikiscient's question, and wondering if the OP would give example/situation when the army is being sub-optimal? Coercing reluctant squadies (soldiers) to risk their lives? Ho ho, you don't coerce, order - soldiers obey - death. (which is very hard and costly, if not impossible, for a business to get that kind of loyalty). Royor (talk) 05:51, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to point Royor and Wikiscient to the guidelines of the reference desk, at the top of the page. Turning the table back on the OP with such remarks, requesting solutions from the one who asks the question is not appropriate. You are supposed to be here to help. /Coffeeshivers (talk) 11:06, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

(Aside: Fair enough. I certainly meant no offense, nor was I trying to turn any tables. I was just curious, though, in part because, given the variety of "management styles" in use in the military depending on situation, mission, etc., I wanted to clarify what exactly was being asked. I'm new to the reference desk, so don't have a good feel yet for what's considered PC or not. Thank you for your patience with that. But: I don't see anything at the top of the page about not asking follow-up questions, and I've certainly seen it done by others since I started reading though answers a few days ago...! Wikiscient 19:48, 24 October 2009 (UTC))

Sorry, I guess I was out of line. I apologize. Royor (talk) 06:16, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I do not know what the latest in management theory is - it may be the Balanced scorecard. Having been both employed in a large government organisation and studied business and management, my impression is that the idea of things being run by The Leader is considered a bad thing. Rather, each invidual should be the selfless and impartial administrator of various procedures, codes of conduct, job role, ethics, laws, decision rules (such as seeking to increase the net present value), goals (like "maximising shareholder value", "good customer service", "reducing staff turnover"). Initiative within the preceeding constraints is good at all levels. The big problem with having a strong leader is that people are afraid to pass information including bad news upwards: without this feedback the organisation has no means to do maintenance and repairs, optimise, or react to a changing environment, and it therefore stops fulfilling its goals. People cover things up to please those with power over them, people are rewarded for lip-service, The Leader makes decisions on the basis of this fiction rather than actuality. The assessment and promotion of people on the basis of their willingness to give lip service can become institutionalised, and in my experience people can even internalise these values.

I can see how the "strong leader" may be effective where the leader is in the same environment as the subordinates and can see with his or her own eyes the same things that the subordinates are aware of without needing to be told by them. But where the organisation is too large for the leader to see for themselves what is going on, then the autocratic leader idea is ineffective. Another mistake that someone in a leadership position may make is to believe that their role is simply being that of a leader and to therefore neglect all the other duties of management as listed by Henri Fayol for example. 78.149.142.134 (talk) 12:31, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Your idea of the autocratic leader shows why totalitarian regimes tend to suffer after a while. In such regimes, it's expected that the people at the top know everything - so the military might suffer.

Take American football, for instance, as it has been compared to war in some ways by many, becuase of the very physical nature of the sport. A really autocratic leader might not listen to his players, when one of them sees some weakness in the other team that can be exploited. A slightly less autocratic (but still command and control) leader will allow some measure of control to subordinates - so the quarterback can, say, change the play at the line to take advantage, without having to get the coach's permission. that doesn't make the coach less command and control. It just means he is able to relinquish a bit of control at just the right moments.

Now, just translate that to the battlefield. A command and control person can still give his subordinates room for a little ingenuity, but they had better have a very good reason, that's all.209.244.187.155 (talk) 14:51, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

This idea of them doing things because they fear being shot by their own side, that isn't how it works except in extreme cases. What I was saying above about forming tightly knitted teams is more the goal - then you get them looking after each other's welfare and having the support of each other and sharing the risks. Dmcq (talk) 17:01, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Tell it to U.S. CEOs, lol! ;)

I respect the points raised by 78.149.142.134 and agree with 209.244.187.155's & Dmcq's comments. Basically: it's a delicate balance considering what the military is tasked, over-all, to do, but the idea is to have strong leadership without that leadership becoming excessively, counter-productively "authoritarian" (= bad leadership). Wikiscient 21:57, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

October 24

Jeffrey Dahmer and his homosexuality

Hi, can anybody tell me what did Jeffrey Dahmer think about his homosexuality? I am studying psychology and I am really interested in him, we're studying him and we know now that he was not an evil man, but sick, he didn't really want to kill, and we'd like to know his opinion on his homosexuality?. May you help me?, thank you. --190.50.100.195 (talk) 01:25, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

According to the article (the things I read for the Ref Desk's sake), Dahmer was found to be sane prior to his trial. In legal terms that would suggest he commmitted the murders voluntarily. Contrary to your comment, he did then "want to kill". In the final analysis, whether the man was sick or evil, I shall leave to others to consider. I found no commentary referencing his views on homosexuality. Bielle (talk) 02:10, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

"He didn't really want to kill"? I recall reading that he was killing and dissecting small animals when he was 5 years old. He was fascinated with death and control, which was a hallmark of the way he conducted his murders. He was a looney. But he was also aware of what he was doing, so he was legally sane. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:37, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

That would make him a sociopath, right? Someone who rationally acts in a way that would be entirely irrational to the average mind in society with it's social inhibitions? —Akrabbim^talk 03:52, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

That's a fair way to put it. The typical serial killer fits that description. Basically they lack a conscience, or empathy for others. Some would say they lack a soul. But one thing worth pointing out, which is at least vaguely in line with what part of what the OP is saying - Dahmer is the only serial killer I've heard of who at least pretended to have some remorse for what he did. Most of them are defiantly narcissistic to the very end. As to what he thought of his orientation, I can't say, but several sources about him are given in the Jeffrey Dahmer article. Because he was murdered by an inmate, just a couple of years after incarceration, I'm not so sure the experts had enough time to study him thoroughly. But the books writen about him might say otherwise. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:13, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I can't tell you what he thought of his own sexuality, and we'll never know now. But whether his sexual partners were same-sex or other-sex, it's a bizarre sort of sexuality where your main interest in the other person is killing and eating them. I think he was the sort of homosexual (if that's really the right label for him, about which I have my doubts) who gives homosexuality a bad name. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:44, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Six degrees of separation

My wife is going to be doing some business with the Trapp Family Lodge. So this has me curious about the six degrees of separation. Assuming that she meets Johannes von Trapp, or even Sam von Trapp, who is the most interesting/famous/etc (use your own definitions for those subjective terms) with whom I am, at most, six degrees away from? Would Hitler be within that six degrees? I see that Sam worked as a model for Ralph Lauren. Is it out of the ordinary for him to have met Lauren himself? If yes, then that puts me within striking distance of pretty much every major clothing designer of the last 75 years... Don't worry, I'm not looking for an exhaustive list. Just an interesting one. And yes, I'm asking this strictly out of personal curiosity.  :-P Dismas|^(talk) 05:56, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Ye ghods. Could be anyone - Hitler almost certainly. As a starting point, Captain Georg von Trapp was a highly-decorated officer and very likely met at least one Austrian or Austro-Hungarian head of state. So you can go many places from that - including most likely to Hindeburg and Hitler. In another direction, it's very likely that one or more of the family acted in a supervising capacity of some form on the film and/or musical, so you could get to quite a bit of the world of show business from there. Grutness...wha? 07:57, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

The whole point of the six degrees thing is that you're a short distance away from basically everyone. Yes, if you are European, you're almost certainly six degrees from Hitler, the Pope, the Pope before him, Churchill, Dame Judy Dench and basically anyone else famous in the last century. 83.250.228.169 (talk) 08:54, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. It doesn't take much work to find connections if you want to. My mum once met Tony Blair, so I can get to most of the rich and famous through that connection. I expect most people could find an acquaintance that has met a top politician and they have typically met enormous numbers of people (including top politicians in other countries that have met enormous number of people in their country). Journalists are a good intermediary step - if you've met one famous person, they will have met plenty of journalists who will have met loads of other famous people. --Tango (talk) 17:33, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Talking of famous designers, let me tell you that my son's godmother's (now ex-)husband's sister's husband is Pierre Cardin's second cousin. I kid you not. Synchronistically, I started the article on Maria von Trapp. -- JackofOz (talk) 11:37, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Neat! Dismas|^(talk) 12:55, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, so the folly of the original question has been sufficiently pointed out. And after talking to my brother about this, I find that I'm not that far from Hitler through him via Rommel. But thanks to Grutness who pointed out the show business "branch" if you will. Dismas|^(talk) 12:55, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Many of us are apparently closer than we think, to a Brush With Grutness. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:12, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

"Some are born Grut, some achieve Grutness, and some have Grutness thrust upon'em!" —— Shakescene (talk) 17:32, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Fuff. For what it's worth, I got my username (and the name of my art studio) from here. BTW, I am a part-time journalist who has met several people famous enough to know many overseas famous people (I count the following among my friends and acquaintances, among others: 1, 2, 3, I've met both 4 and 5, and am a friend of someone who had a major supporting role in one of 6's early films). You may well be only six degrees away from me :) Grutness...wha? 23:11, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

update on "I Love the Islands"

I was wondering if all of the "I Love the Islands" benefit concerts have been performed yet? If so, how much money has been raised so far? Plus, I'd like to know more about the "Hope for Samoa" benefit concert. Please let me know if more information available. Thank you.24.90.204.234 (talk) 06:29, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

The Wellington one's still to be held. They've raised over $NZ 250,000 so far - more info at [13] and various other google news links at [14]. Hopefully someone will write an article on it (is that what the info you're asking for is for?) Grutness...wha? 08:02, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

To tell you the truth, yes it was. There was also this benefit concert called "Hope for Samoa". I'm also hoping someone would write an article on that one, as well.24.90.204.234 (talk) 22:27, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Nancy Parkinson

Nancy Parkinson on the left, 1966

Who is Nancy Parkinson? In 1966 she has visited German President Heinrich Lübke. Has she changed her name after divorce/marriage. Please help. Regards 78.55.104.150 (talk) 09:34, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Answer by courtesy of the "German WP-Helpdesk": Nancy Parkinson. --Grey Geezer 11:06, 24 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grey Geezer (talk • contribs)

Thanks a lot :-). I gave her 2 sub-categories in commons:Category:Nancy Parkinson. Perhaps somebody wants to add some more. Regards 78.55.104.150 (talk) 11:48, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Why are rights part of deontological ethics?

The impression I got was that consequentialism is about the ends, deontological ethics the means, and virtue ethics the reason. This doesn't fit with rights thing though, as rights are clearly part of the ends. For example, if I were to vote for a proposition that violated a right, the actual act I'm taking is filling in a bubble or punching a hole or something like that. The actual rights violation is just a consequence of my actions. — DanielLC 16:38, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

"De-ontology," as the name implies, is concerned with how things ought to be as opposed to how things are (or will become). Its focus is on abstractions like principles, ideals, Kantian "good-willfulness," intentions, etc. The notion of "rights" falls into this category. Wikiscient 20:39, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

It comes from δέον (deon) which means obligation or duty. The first sentence of the article says that it comes from examining acts, and the third states that a good act can produce bad consequences. You just seem to be describing ethics in general. — DanielLC 02:02, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Well how 'bout that! :S (And, yes, this source does indeed back that etymology up).

Still, though, even if that's not what the etymology is, it remains in my view very much what the etymology just as well could be, lol! ;) Wikiscient 19:05, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

It's important to understand what we mean by "rights". "Human rights" is a _legal_ concept; if your human rights are violated, you can (theoretically) go to a court and receive appropriate compensation. The existence of a human right depends on the existence of a legal document (a Bill of Rights, or an international convention) that spells it out, and a court that can enforce it. "Natural rights" is a _moral_ concept; various philosophers, most notably John Locke, consider there to be various self-evident propositions which _would_ be enforceable as (human) rights in a morally-ideal society. Now, Ethics is concerned with the general concept of "right" and "wrong" - deontological ethics (mainly associated with Kant) asserts that being "right" involves "doing one's duty". This isn't necessarily associated with a "natural-rights" view of morality, although Kant did subscribe to it. On the OP's example, a consequentialist might say "I should vote against this proposition, as it will cause suffering to those whose (legal) rights it takes away," or, indeed, "I should vote for this proposition, as it will make those who support it happy, and they're in the majority." The deontological ethicist might say "It's my duty to vote against this proposition, as it's unjust, even though it has popular support." Note that the _consequences_ of the proposition being passed don't come into it. See Fiat justitia caelum ruat. Tevildo (talk) 09:33, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

These are difficult concepts for analytical denotations. As the school thoughts dismay as such the occurrences are interwoven in their reciprocal reliance, whether the consequences only to be the ends for any actions, or the actions are the means and ends, is a conceptual illusion.

On the question why rights are part of deontological ethics, one might argue that the current actions are important (at least in lesser degree) to allow human rights that are universal to humanity, rather than saying that natural rights are the consequential ends in any actions (in avoiding human rights) from the stand point ofconsequentialism.

Nevill Fernando (talk) 17:32, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Jeff Bezos---Amazon---Seattle

According to the article Jeff Bezos, Bezos "founded Amazon.com in 1994 after making a cross country drive from New York to Seattle, writing up the Amazon business plan on the way and setting up the original company in his garage."

Does anyone know why he did this? No obvious personal connection to Seattle/Washington. Business regulations? Workforce? Tax?

Thanks Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 17:00, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Historic stock prices

Do you know where I could find historic stock market prices from the first decades of the NYSE (which was founded in 1792)? Thanks. MMMMM742 (talk) 17:34, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

There were no across-the-board records kept of daily prices.--Wetman (talk) 21:51, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

You could try contemporary newspapers. At least in Europe many newspapers featured stock market and currency prices as far back as the early 18th century. --Saddhiyama (talk) 22:31, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Quality at the Centre

how do we place quality as a center of every organization? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.49.21.3 (talk) 19:08, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

This isn't a suitable question for a reference desk. There is no factual answer that you can find your a reference for - it is a matter of opinion. --Tango (talk) 19:29, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

This is an impossibly nebulous question. Every organization? Why not just start with one in particular. The devil is in the details. Second, who is 'we'? You? Me? We all have different agendas. And third, what do you mean by 'quality'? Does this mean placing the customer first? Because if you do that you may as well provide your service for free, in which case you'll soon go under. Vranak (talk) 19:52, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

See Project triangle, sometimes known as PQT or some permutation thereof: Price, Quality, Time. You can't have all three, you have to choose which two you will focus on. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:06, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

TQM 89.242.151.212 (talk) 23:30, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd say you need to set up an incentive system whereby every person's paycheck depends upon the quality of their work. Note that this means that other things which you might also think are important (like getting work done quickly), will now be less important to the employees than quality work. StuRat (talk) 05:50, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Quite simple. It all starts from the top (whether the will of shareholders or a single proprietor/CEO). That said, every in the original question is an unnecessary generalization; some organizations are designed for other specific goals where quality concern is a distant third. That is, a heroin lab must enforce basic quality, but their suppliers, weed growers in Afghan hills ... they just grow weed. NVO (talk) 07:16, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

which public school did James Jordan go to?

? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.128.188.238 (talk) 19:45, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Which James Jordan? Dismas|^(talk) 19:57, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

The Best Of Mrs Beeton's Kitchen Garden

This book was published in 2006. It looks like a reproduction of Victorian writings as it has Victorian-style illustrations in it, yet Chapter One mentions the Eden Project, which was only built a few years ago. No author is given. I did not think Mrs Beeton wrote anything much about gardening - am I wrong? I find it disturbing to read a book and not know if I'm reading a genuine compilation of Mrs Beaton's lesser known writings, or something written by someone recently, or some other out-of copyright old text that has been added to and passed off as being by Mrs Beeton. I believe there are a series of similar books recently published and purporting to be by Mrs Beeton. Does anyone know from when the text originates from and who is the real author? 89.242.151.212 (talk) 23:25, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I read one of the "Best of Mrs. Beeton" cookbooks at the local bookstore and noticed that every recipe was modern. I suspect that "Mrs. Beeton" is being used the way that writers of slapdash dictionaries use "Webster" - both names are in the public domain, so anyone can attach them to any book they want. (The well-known dictionary publisher is Merriam-Webster, not just Webster.) However, Mrs. Beeton did write a book of household management so it's possible that she did mention gardening. --NellieBly (talk) 01:15, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Kathryn Hughes' biography, The Short Life and Long Times of Mrs Beeton, is introduced in this bit from Times on Line, 2005. .--Wetman (talk) 05:03, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Chapter three mentions telephones, which had not been invented in Mrs Beetons time. As a copy of her Household Management book was a fixture in my childhood home I have read or looked at most of it, and it does not include any gardening. So regrettfully it seems the publisher has tried to pass off some modern text as being by Mrs Beeton, which seems a foolish thing to do. The link to the Times is not working. 78.146.96.70 (talk) 10:27, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

It's working for me now, and it states that the publishers deliberately pretended for marketing reasons that Mrs. Beeton was still alive and writing books. Of course, this sort of thing still goes on. Several Robert Ludlum novels appeared after his death with only a small note to the effect that another author had been involved in producing a publishable book. Books of card-game rules with Edmond Hoyle's name in the title were still appearing in the late 20th century, 200-250 years after his death. (And I have a photocopy of the title page of an "autograph edition", with his name as sole author and title page, 150 years after his death.) Similarly with Peter Roget and thesauruses and Noah Webster and dictionaries. The person's name becomes a brand name, which one company may or may not have trademark rights in. --Anonymous, 20:05 UTC, October 25, 2009.

October 25

colonies in Bangladesh

How colonies are there in Dhaka city? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.55.59 (talk) 03:16, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't know about "colonies", but the Dhaka article states that the city consists of seven thanas. —Dromioofephesus (talk) 03:36, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Thought exercise: Banning Divorce in California

Background: In the fallout of proposition 8 in California to ban gay marriage, there were some making tongue in cheek suggestions to create a proposition to ban divorce in the state. The premise was that such a movement would be opposed by many of those who supported proposition 8, exposing them as hypocrites if they really wanted to "protect marriage" (as opposed to simply trying to deny homosexuals of the rights already granted them under court rulings). Well, it turns out that a guy named John Marcotte had taken up the mantle and is ready to gather signatures to try to get just such a proposition on the ballot.

I am not here to debate prop 8 or this man's actions. Instead, I got to wondering about one provision of the proposition. Specifically, while it would ban divorce it would still allow a married couple to seek a civil annulment. Assuming that this measure passed and that couples began seeking annulments instead of divorce (and that the courts would grant them even for couples married for extended periods of time), I would expect that it would basically toss all precedent of divorce law out the window. While children conceived during an annulled marriage have always been explicitly legitimate, all the existing law involving children and divorce (custody, child support, etc) would go away. Similarly, property settlements, alimony, etc. would also be thrown into chaos. After all, how can you have community property if you were never married? The way I see it, whenever a settlement is to be had, the court would be stuck with the unenviable task of determining case by case who actually owns each piece of disputed property accumulated during the annulled marriage.

So, here's my question: What would the fallout be for annulled couples in this situation? Is my assumption that all existing legal precedent established under divorces going away correct (at least until the legislature passes an explicit "use the old divorce rules for annulments as well" law)? For that matter, how does the court currently determine such issues with an annulment instead of a divorce?

Thanks,

--KNHaw ^(talk) 06:18, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

The reference desks are not an appropriate place to engage in general discussion or debate or "thought exercises" about purely hypothetical situations. It is most properly a place to get references to help one find facts about things which one is having trouble finding. --Jayron32 06:28, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I assume that California already has legal procedures in place to deal with the consequence of an annulled marriage (on the grounds of bigamy, consanguinity, non-consummation, etc). Presumably those would be applied to a marriage that's annulled by mutual consent, if that's what the new law would introduce. Tevildo (talk) 08:47, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Archiving as this isn't the appropriate place for hypothetical debate or "thought exercises", as has been said. ╟─TreasuryTag►First Secretary of State─╢ 09:02, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Un-archiving. I don't see a real "thought exercise" here other than the title (and yes, we do plenty of "thought exercises" here—people ask all the time, "what would happen if" and etc.). The questions as put at the end are concrete, and if one knew something about annulment law (I don't), they are probably answerable with a range. Perfectly acceptable for the Ref Desk, though I don't know the odds of anyone here being clued in to this rather esoteric area of marriage law. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:01, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

And while I am at it—I just want to note how silly and contradictory our policy on legal questions is. If the OP had asked about annulment straight out, people would holler, "no legal advice!" If the OP takes pains to point out that this is just a hypothetical question, we get people saying "no hypothetical questions!" This is, to say the least, ridiculous. If you don't know the answer and don't care—just ignore it and move on! --Mr.98 (talk) 15:22, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't that be a violation of freedom of religion, as there are religions that demand divorce in certain situations? DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 17:05, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Banning divorce in California would pretty much destroy the entertainment industry, as they would have to move elsewhere, and that could have an impact on California's tax base. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:08, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

This is a commercial site, but it appears to give a fairly comprehensive overview of the existing California provisions on annulment. Among other things, it says that "A party to an invalid marriage or domestic partnership who has "putative" spouse or domestic partner status may be entitled to property, support and attorney fees/costs rights similar to those attaching upon the dissolution of a valid marriage or domestic partnership" provided that they believed in good faith that the marriage was valid. So in the event of your entirely hypothetical legislative change, it appears the lawyers might be able to argue the case for business as usual when a marriage ends. Then again, lawyers can argue pretty much anything as long as you can afford $250 an hour ... Karenjc 19:21, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

the belief that human ancestors were giants

I have a vague memory that people used to believe (in the 18th century, ealier?) our prehistoric ancestors were gigantic in size - a belief perhaps inspired by the discovery of dinosaur bones. Note that I'm not referring to biblical or other myth here. Can anyone direct me to texts referring to this?

Thanks Adambrowne666 (talk) 10:32, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

You may want to look at the articles Nephilim, Emim, Rephaim and Anakim for Biblical references. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 12:08, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Cyclops also might be worth a look - there's a theory that the legend of the cyclops was inspired by fossil dwarf elephant skulls. See Othenio Abel. Tevildo (talk) 12:51, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Have a look at this site [15]. The page deals with greek giants. Pollinosisss (talk) 13:24, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

There is also Cyclopean masonry. Adam Bishop (talk) 17:11, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Case/event question relating to international child abduction.

Relating to the article International parental abduction in Japan, specifically the specific cases section. There have been cases of Japanese men "kidnapping" their children to Japan, and more commonly Japanese women bringing their children to Japan (or retaining them within Japan), thus depriving the other parent of custody or visitation rights. However, my question relates to the definition differences between nationality and ethnicity/race.

Have there been specific cases of international, as it pertains to two individuals who have different citizenship/nationality at the beginning of the relationship, couple where both are ethnically Japanese, where one parent absconds with the child(ren) and uses Japans non-signatory status to the Hague Convention, in order to shield themselves and their children from the other parent? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 10:45, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Evolution and the Lemon test

The second criterion of the Lemon test says that any law must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion. Doesn't this mean that the mandatory teaching of evolution is unconstitutional because it has the primary effect of advancing atheism and inhibiting religion?

Also, would a law not specifically banning the teaching of evolution, but rather banning teaching anything about the origin of life, atheist or Christian, be unconstitutional?--75.39.194.188 (talk) 14:55, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Teaching evolution has the primary purpose of increasing knowledge and understanding of a widely accepted scientific theory. That is happens to contradict some religious teachings is irrelevant. It certainly doesn't serve a primary purpose of advancing atheism - plenty of religious people accept evolution. As for your second question, I don't know. I'm not an expert on the US constitution. I assume you mean banning teaching it in state funded schools - if you ban it altogether then it would probably be a restriction of free speech and fall foul of the 1st amendment. --Tango (talk) 15:05, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Science and religion are two different studies. Science does not oppose religion. I think the banning of the dissemination of knowledge (of science or religion) for no apparent reason would probably be "unconstitutional." Bus stop (talk) 15:08, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

The reason that past anti-evolution laws have been ruled unconstitutional is because they either specifically prohibit evolution or require teaching Genesis. However, banning all teaching about the origins of life would prohibit creationism/intelligent design as well as evolution, so it wouldn't advance religion. --75.39.194.188 (talk) 15:12, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

From a legal standpoint, evolution is primarily religiously neutral—it does not tell you that Christianity is right/wrong, that Judaism is right/wrong, that Islam is right/wrong, that Buddhism is right/wrong. It does imply that certain very strict interpretations of these religions are not supported by evidence, but there are plenty of people of faith who also subscribe to evolution. On the whole, the teaching of it its facts is separate than teaching its metaphysics. I suspect a court would not find that it's primary effect was to promote atheism. To put it another way, you can't teach or believe in Creationism without believing in a deity. You can teach and believe in evolution believing in a deity, or not. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:14, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

As for constitutionality of banning all origin stories from public school curriculum... I'm not sure. It's not a great idea, to be sure, but does it violate the constitution? I'm not sure it is clear on that. I suspect this is not a different question than, "can a state ban sex education altogether?", and as far as I can tell, the answer is "yes, it can." I've changed my opinion. If the teaching of evolution is religiously neutral (as I think the courts have indicated they consider it to be), and the teaching of Creationism/ID is not (which again, the courts have said), then the banning of all origin stories is identical with banning evolution (since you can't teach Creationism anyway). The law would not pass the Lemon test—it has no secular purpose, no purpose other than prohibiting the teaching of evolution. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:17, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Proponents of religion, if they are similarly proponents of reality, will see that evolution poses no more problem for religion than does rain. If the religious person asserts that God both created and continues to supervise the world, and thus asserts that God caused in to rain in a particular place at a particular time, there is no conflict with science stating that the rain was due to the water cycle in general and a cloud from which water descends in specific. God works in science -- so too does God work in science in regards to evolution. For those religious persons who deny science, they likely don't know science and probably don't even know religion. So a ban on teaching evolution is nearly similar to a ban on teaching genetics, protein synthesis and causes of precipitation (both weather-related as well as chemistry related -- ha, just thought of that one). DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 15:53, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Eh, I don't know. One can imagine making the distinction between teaching genetics with and without saying what it implies on the "big picture". When I learned biology in high school, genetics was a totally different unit than evolution. We could easily have just learned about all of those specific genetic reactions, and Punnett squares and all that, without getting into the question of what happens if you apply this over the course of a million years. In an idealized world of science, it's all connected inextricably, but in practice, there is plenty of detail to dive into at each of the topics without getting into the overall connections. I could easily imagine making a high school curriculum that included genetics, protein synthesis, and plenty of other biological topics but left out completely natural selection, common descent, etc. Watson and Crick could probably have accomplished their work without knowing a thing about evolution—for them it was all small-scale chemistry. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:27, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

You might have misunderstood what I meant -- I meant to speak about genetics as a wonderful example of inherent chance, probability and odds as a deciding factor in inheritability, gene mutation, etc. While scientists concur that such things do occur as a result of chance, the religious person may assert that such things are not chance, but are directed by God. The religious person who understands science would assert that God works through science, such that each individual case may be and effect of prayer (or the lack thereof), but would concur that, in the large picture, statistics obviously play a role. God working through the natural processes of the world doesn't seem to upset most anyone when it comes to saying that God makes simple recessive genes phenotypically expressing themselves with probability of 25%, but they sometimes do take issue with God working through evolution. Those people, I suspect, either have a hole in their knowlege about science, religion, or both. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 16:51, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, OK. I thought you were saying (as I have sometimes heard), than trying to ban evolution from schools simply wouldn't work, because you'd have to ban basically the rest of biology as well. --Mr.98 (talk) 17:21, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

It is important to note the difference between religion as a general concept and specific religions. There is certainly no conflict between science and the idea of some kind of supreme being(s). There is a conflict between science and all major religions that I've studied. For example, the Bible says that the Earth is about 6000 years old and various parts of it were created in a certain order at a certain speed; science says it is about 4.5 billion years old and was created in a different order at a much slower speed. That is a conflict. Most Christians resolve it (if they consider it at all) by saying that Genesis shouldn't be taken literally. What that boils down to is changing your religion to fit this new information (which requires a rather strange definition of "sacred", but that's their problem). So, you can accept science and religion, but only if you are willing to change your religion to fit with science. --Tango (talk) 16:06, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Not necessarily—there are plenty of non-literal traditions in religion whose non-literalness has nothing to do with science. You seem to be imagining that all religions are by themselves literal and that science has forced them to be non-literal. That isn't true on either a historical or individual level. And one should never underestimate the human ability to genuinely believe in two inconsistent things at the same time. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:27, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Tango -- you seem to assert the trueness of things that are false. For those who do not have a profound understanding for particular religions, it's very easy to see "clearing up of inconsistencies" as convenient contrivances. But for those who see religion as an overwhelming, all-encompassing world view, there can be no conflict with science, because if the religion is true, and the science is true, then they must comply. You may disregard claims of supernatural events, such as national revelation, as being outside the bounds of possibility, but if you do accept the possibility of miracles (defined here as "apparent violations of laws of nature), there is no trouble whatsoever. And Mr98 -- Judaism, which substantiates itself on the Old Testament in its original version and language, not only doesn't take some things literally, it claims to take almost nothing literally. See Talmudical Hermeneutics. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 16:59, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I've studied various religions in quite a lot of detail, so please don't dismiss my comments as ignorance. Miracles are, by your own definition, not compatible with science. You can explain all the inconsistencies away by just saying "God made it look like that to test our faith" or similar if you want, but that isn't accepting science as true. --Tango (talk) 18:00, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I never said science was the only reason people don't take religion literally, I said it requires people to take religion non-literally - that is a completely different assertion. --Tango (talk) 18:00, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

But you seemed to imply non-literal interpretation of the Old Testament as a contrivance secondary to apparent run-ins with science. It's important to make the distinction of reality from conventional wisdom that the Old Testament in laregely meant to be understood from a non-literal interpretation -- from the Jewish perspective. From other perspectives, I cannot fathom how they assert their understanding of a text if they don't even understand it in its original language, but it's obvious that they indeed fathom it. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 20:05, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, God provided us with an English translation, so it all works out. Adam Bishop (talk) 20:11, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

It's interesting how evolution is always the flashpoint for this. After all, anything taught in school might run counter to some religious belief. For example, pretty much all of science could be a problem for some animists. The mathematics of irrational numbers would be a problem for a Pythagorean, if there are any of those left. For some Muslims, teaching literacy to girls is a problem. And for the Amish, any education past the eighth grade or so is a problem, which is why they pull their children out of school at that point. Conversely, for the really strict fundamentalist, it's not just evolution that is a problem (although that's the hot button): it's also the entire science of geology, since it clearly requires an "old" earth. - Jmabel | Talk 17:26, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Totally in agreement with you there -- evolution has been labeled with some sort of probe, so that whenever it is mentioned, all hell breaks lose. But I can say with much experience that when such a thing occurs in circles of Judaism, it is because the "hell-breakers" don't know science and perhaps don't even know religion. At a conference of Jewish scientists once, an eminant astrophysicist got up and, to begin, said something along the lines of, "I don't know much about Judaism, but I think religion can be summed up by saying that it doesn't fit in with science." The rabbi got up and said, "I don't know much about astrophysics, but I think it can be summed up by saying 'Twinkle, twinkle, little star.'" DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 20:05, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's it, except that geology is not biology. It's the notion that man descended from something else, as opposed to being literally built by God, that the literalists have the most problem with. Biblical literalism, and the current scientific theories about geology and biology, are incompatible. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:52, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Prof. Sir Gabriel Horn has an interesting take on this:

"I see nothing incompatible between the teaching of science in schools and belief in the existence of God. Scientists seek to understand the universe through observation and experiment. Science is an empirical discipline. So far as I am aware, no empirical tests have been devised that provide compelling evidence to refute the existence of a God."

Rockpocket 19:10, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Biblical literalism and current evolutionary theory are incompatible. And the atheist would point out that they don't need to prove the non-existence of God. The burden of proof is on those who claim that God exists. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:25, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

No, the burden of proof is on the atheist to prove that evolution is true. That means that an atheist must show that every single change which has ever occurred to any organism has been beneficial and that all organisms descend from a common ancestor. --75.34.66.54 (talk) 19:56, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

75.34.66.54, Evolution, like all science, has shown sufficient reliability to be considered acceptable by a broad swathe of the scientifically-oriented community. That is not to say that it can't be supplanted by more broad-ranging theories, or even simply proven incorrect. Every change to an organism probably cannot be shown to be "beneficial." That in no was "disproves" the sturdiness of evolution as a theory. Furthermore I don't even know if it is posited that all organisms descended from a common ancestor. Couldn't life have sprung up more than once? Bus stop (talk) 20:21, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

75 shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the subject. In fact, evolutionary theory would hold that most changes may well be not beneficial. But there is a greater chance that those individuals will not survive. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:28, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

We don't even know what "God" is, so how can we debate whether God exists or not? I'm not even talking about any agreed-upon definition. As individuals we are not contemplating whether or not there is or is not a planetoid orbiting around the Earth at an orbit closer to the Earth than the known Moon and which in fact is larger than the Moon. That is not the sort of question contemplated when one is thinking about whether or not there is "God." Isn't God by definition unknowable? Isn't that entity by definition posited as being fathomless? So, how can we talk about whether God exists or not? Isn't it a given that we would be incapable of answering that question, if we fully formulated that question? It doesn't matter whether you say God exists or not. It is just a guess. And it has about as much significance as one's preferences in fashions. Bus stop (talk) 19:42, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

We don't need to know what "God" is to consider the question of whether the Big Bang and universe just randomly happened, or whether some "intelligence" made them happen. -- JackofOz (talk) 19:57, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

You are defining God. You are fitting God to "intelligence," but you don't know what intelligence means vis-à-vis "God." Perhaps God's "intelligence" is quite low. Is that not possible? Or, would God do exceedingly well on a standard human intelligence test? Bus stop (talk) 20:08, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Biblical literalism is not a religion. Furthermore, Horn's whole point is those studying science have no interest in proving or disproving the existence of a God, since it not empirically testable hypothesis. There is no burden of proof either way, since it is simply not a scientific issue. Rockpocket 20:20, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Biblical literalism by itself is not a religion, but it is a cornerstone of fundamentalist Christianity. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:28, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Uh, guys. This shouldn't become a forum for a general evolution/creation debate. The question was pretty straightforward and has to do with constitutionality. Can we restrict our discussion to that general approach, please? There are million of pages of internet available for those who want to know about evolution/creation more generally. --Mr.98 (talk) 20:24, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

It's a loaded question to begin with, as it asserts that evolutionary theory necessarily is atheistic. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:30, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, I took it more to ask whether or not evolutionary theory passes the Lemon test. I think it is pretty clear that it does, from a legal point of view, even if you take the point of view (as many prominent thinkers do and have) that taken to its logical conclusion, evolution supports atheism more strongly than organized religion. (Whether I myself think that is the case holds no bearing on the legal problem!) That's fairly specific, IMO, and is answerable without a long debate (the legal principle is separate from the philosophical one). --Mr.98 (talk) 20:54, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Russia Fresh Water

How does Russia deal with the problem of freshwater management, including water stress and sanitation?

I'm guessing they have Water treatment plants?? Also see Marina Rikhvanova.Popcorn II (talk) 19:58, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Lake Baikal? It contains a total of roughly 20 percent of the world's surface fresh water. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:03, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Electors and the US Electoral College

In reference to the above, I read about the mechanisms used to dissuade faithless electors, but it seems to me to be a ritual that may easily lead to a political catastrophe should a faithless elector actually cause the opposition to win an election. It's all nice and good to say it never happened, but if it should happen...I mean, it seems very similar to an outrageously terrible disease that strikes so ridiculously infrequently, yet, due to its exceedingly high morbidity (i.e. the degree that the condition affects the patient), a great effort is performed in establishing protocols for prevention and treatment, despite its extremely low incidence. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 16:12, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Did you have a question? --Tango (talk) 16:15, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

If it happened, they'd probably change the system. As with the disease analogy, there's a question of trade offs between preparations and incidence. If the threat is actually very low (as it historically seems to have been), then the effort that would be required to change it (which as I understand it is a state-by-state thing) may be seen as not worth it. With diseases, arguably we should not spend excessive funds on diseases that are extremely rare, as to do so is to take away resources that would be otherwise used for the things that are more common. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:32, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

They might change the law to deal with faithless electors, but the probability of doing away with the concept of the electoral college is fairly low. The whole point of the electoral college is to prevent the big states from overwhelming the small ones, which is why the small states are represented disproportionately higher in the Congress and hence also in the Electoral College. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:36, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Who's talking about doing away with the entire college? I just think this elector thing is pointless at best and dangerous at worst. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 16:43, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Overall, though, the ultimate decision for a U.S. presidential election is in the hands of the electors. That is one of the things that leads some sources [16] to state that the U.S. is not a democracy but a "constitution-based federal republic". —Dromioofephesus (talk) 16:38, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, in the Federalist Papers, Madison described the US as a democratic republic because we vote for people to choose for us -- sort like the other day's example of a democracy being 2 wolves and a sheep voting on what to eat for lunch, a democratic rebuplic would assign a shephard to decide the best course of action for all parties involved. But what could be the possible reason for such a system? Why not have no electors? DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 16:42, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

If there were no electors, then who would elect the president? —Dromioofephesus (talk) 16:57, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I think what Rosenbach is getting at is to do away not with the electoral college as such, but with the electors themselves, by making the electoral vote "automatic". That would prevent the shenanigans that have sometimes happened in the past. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:01, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to Bugsy -- my comment was conflicted and cut off :) But yes...that is exactly my question. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 17:02, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Where that idea would run into trouble is where some small states have decided to apportion their electoral votes, i.e. if the state has 3 electors, and 2/3 of the vote goes to one candidate, the electors would be split 2 and 1. That idea undermines what the founding fathers had in mind, though it hasn't yet tipped an election. That's another snag that would have to be decided upon. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:04, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

No snag -- it's automatic. Instead of having a machine tally the votes to present to an elector to enter into another machine to tally the outcome, just have the first machine tally the outcome based on whatever number of electoral votes were collected/assigned and how many are put towards each party (all-or-none or split up). DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 17:09, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I don't like the idea of political parties or the people directly electing a president, but I will not debate the point here. For those with an interest in the original rationale, [17] might be worthwhile reading. —Dromioofephesus (talk) 17:16, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs: that doesn't counter what the founders had in mind at all. They had no intention that states send uniform slates, nor even really that the electors reflect the specific presidential preference of the state's voters. All of that evolved over the next several decades after the Constitution. - Jmabel | Talk 17:30, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

They had in mind that the states, rather than the people directly, would choose the President. Obviously they didn't foresee the flaws in their original approach, which had to be amended pretty quickly. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:48, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Active Roman Catholic cathedrals

Are there any places where two actively operating Roman Catholic cathedrals (in other words, not historical and not Eastern Catholic) are found within walking distance of each other? I know of two instances: Rome and Winnipeg. Are there any others? Thanks! --NellieBly (talk) 19:12, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

List of cathedrals suggest there are more; two in Tirane and two in Shkoder, Albania; three (!) in Perth, Australia; two in Linz, Austria; etc etc. I'm sure not all of these meet your criteria, they might not all be active, but it's a start. Adam Bishop (talk) 20:04, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Note: The entry on Linz / Austria has to be corrected. The two entries are referring to the same cathedral wich is either called St Mary´s C. (Mariendom) or New C. (Neuer Dom). In theory, there are, indeed, two cathedrals there, the old cathedral being the church of St Ignatius (no entry on the en WP, but well known as Anton Bruckner was the organist there for 12 years or so). The old cathedral was the seat of the bishop until 1909 and is now a "plain church" of the Jesuits. It was replaced in the former function by the "New Cathedral". --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 20:28, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for confirming that. Some of the cathedrals in those lists are no longer the home churches of a diocese, so it's not quite what I'm looking for. (What do you call the process of turning a cathedral into a "plain church"? Downgrading? Decommissioning?) --NellieBly (talk) 23:14, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

How far apart are the two cathedrals in Velletri-Segni? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:38, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Remember not to blindly trust any list of cathedrals you find in the Internet, including unsourced lists in Wikipedia. Many people out there will refer to any big church as a "cathedral". I can think of three situations where there may be two or more active Roman Catholic cathedrals in one town:

1. two parts of one town belong to two different dioceses and each diocese has its seat in that town;
2. there's an additional cathedral for the military ordinariate (usually in a nation's capital city);
3. there's only one diocese, but there's a co-cathedral in addition to the proper cathedral.

I can give you one example for each of these cases, all in Poland: in Warsaw, there are three RC cathedrals: St. John's of the Archdiocese of Warsaw, SS. Michael and Florian's of the Diocese of Warsaw-Praga, and BVM the Queen of Poland's of the Military Ordinariate of Poland. Gdańsk has two RC cathedrals: Holy Trinity's in Gdańsk-Oliwa and BVM's Co-Cathedral.

Catholic-hierarchy.org is a pretty reliable site. It's about bishops, not cathedrals, but it should help you find some more of the cases one and two. For case three, perhaps googling for "co-cathedral" might work. — Kpalion^(talk) 21:40, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks everyone - you've given me some places to start (and thanks for the warnings too). I knew this desk would give me a good start! --NellieBly (talk) 23:05, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Ethics of Cocaine use.

I've had a look around the Cocaine page and the Drugs and prostitution page but I was wondering if we had a specific page on the moral/ethical use of coke. Obviously there are many links to crime cartels and sex trafficking, etc. which are good reasons not to use coke, but I'm looking for as many concrete reasons as I can get why not to put your money into the coke industry. If we don't have a page, can I get some thoughts please? BTW, I'm not interested in any health issues, just facts that appeal to one's moral decency.Popcorn II (talk) 19:50, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

You seem to wave away the idea that the "crime cartels and sex trafficking, etc." have anything worth considering, but I would imagine that is the primary problem. The cocaine industry has been responsible for crime cartels that have been tearing apart South America for decades, and have had definitely negative effects on the lives of its people and the functioning of its government. Purchasing a product that is produced in such an economic system is giving support for such a system. Whether the answer to that is to not purchase the product, or to attempt to have it legalized so that alternative economic systems are developed, is up for debate. But putting your money into such an industry is fairly unethical, if one cares about the ethics of what one's money supports. --Mr.98 (talk) 20:19, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

"...facts that appeal to one's moral decency." How about obedience to the law? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:24, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

At the end of an evaluation, there may be no moral issues that result in a reason to avoid cocaine use. One can have an evaluatory tool such that, "if I ceased involvement, it would still occur to the same or with a negligibly different effect, and so, my contribution is absent or negligible." I don't how much cocaine you're planning on using, but that may factor in. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 20:30, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Ethics and morality are not about whether change is hypothetically possible, but about one's personal calculus. If your money is used to support murder and kidnapping and sex slavery, and you know this, then you are morally and ethically culpable. This is quite straightforward. The question is where to functionally draw that line without becoming a hermit, given the way the world works. --Mr.98 (talk) 20:49, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Apparently, you don't speak for everyone. Check out veal Morals and ethics are not subjective, and although I suppose that many will take my statement as being subjective, all the pluralists who would would also be forced to accept my statement, as doing so would be embracing pluralism. But purchasing veal has been ruled as not in violation of cruelty to animals because one's purchase doesn't unilateraly drive the torture. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 01:12, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

So you don't see any ethical or moral problem with violating laws against production and distribution of cocaine? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:42, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Violating the law is not an inherently unethical or immoral thing. There can be immoral and unethical laws, and situations where following the law is the unethical or immoral action. Don't confuse morality with legality! --Mr.98 (talk) 20:46, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

That is not true. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:57, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Um, come on, just think about it a bit. If a law was passed that forced you to kick people when they were down, that would be pretty unethical. Laws are made by a bunch of fallible representatives who are anything but ethical and moral. Sometimes the laws suck. Sometimes they are immoral. The entire point of the Declaration of Independence is that sometimes you've gotta do the right thing, and sometimes that means breakin' the law. In an ideal world, our laws would be a perfect mirror of morality and ethics, but we don't live in that world—never have, never will. Murder isn't bad because it's illegal, it's bad because it is immoral. If it was legalized, that wouldn't make it any better! --98.217.71.237 (talk) 00:26, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Equating illegality with immorality is dangerous. After all, it was illegal to hide Jews in Nazi Germany, but does that mean it was immoral ? Under segregation and apartheid it was illegal for blacks to go into certain areas. Did that make it wrong for them to do so ? On the contrary, if the law is itself immoral, we should feel a moral duty to violate it. In modern Western society the laws aren't quite as bad, but there are still some seemingly immoral laws, like not being allowed to put a quarter in somebody else's parking meter (because this would deprive the government of their much-needed parking violation ticket revenue). I tend to think that anti-marijuana laws fall into the same category, as that certainly is no worse than legal drugs such as alcohol and tobacco. As for the harder drugs, they can cause major societal problems, but so does keeping them illegal. Perhaps a more nuanced approach is needed there, such as keeping them illegal for children, but allowing adults to use them only in supervised settings, so they can't drive while high, etc. Of course, such an argument could be made for alcohol, too. StuRat (talk) 20:51, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

The "greater sin" ethic comes into play there. It's a sin to lie, but it's a greater sin to expose people to murder. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:57, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Good, thanks, back to my question, I'm guessing we don't have a page. I didn't mean to wave away the idea that the crime cartels and sex trafficking, etc. have anything worth considering, I'm just looking for something to say to someone next time they pull out a wrap of coke and offer me some? I don't want to look like some dick that just thinks he's better than everyone else, thus I need some quick points of reference to throw back at them. Like "You're funding some pretty horrible crime when you buy that shit. Did you know that....."Popcorn II (talk) 22:28, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Eh, I've found that, "oh, thanks, but not today, thanks, I'm cutting back," works better than giving people a lecture, if you don't want to look like someone who thinks you're better than anyone else. Especially since, in my experience, the guys offering you coke probably think Tony Montana is real cool, and thus appealing to funding crazy homicidal crime lords who assassinate people will not likely have the desired effect. But this is not exactly an answer to the question, though. Google "cocaine effects Latin America" and you will get a ton of articles about crazy violence and political discord caused by the cocaine industry. --98.217.71.237 (talk) 00:26, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Is the Child Support Agency ( CSA) UK Unconstitutional and,therefore, illegal?

Is the Child Support Agency ( CSA) UK Unconstitutional and,therefore, illegal?

I have always believed that since Magna Carta it is an embedded principle of our Constitution that no citizen may be deprived of his or her life, liberty or assets without due process of Law. Uk citizens have never been afforded the opportunity of stating their case in a Court of Law regarding the effects that dealing with this Agency has had on their lives. The formula used to calculate the amounts demanded from "absent parents" bears no relationship to reality and has caused many to live in a state of penury. In my submission were the actions of the CSA subject to judicial review this unreasonable method of calculation and methods employed to obtain said amounts would never be countenanced.

Even when the absent parent has no assets the CSA allows the custodial parent to pursue the absent parent/ex-husband/wife/partner even when such a course of action would be challenged in a Court of Law.

I would argue that the Agency operates in an unconstitutional way in that due process has never been invoked. I would welcome your comments.

Angel

<e-mail address removed to avoid spam> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.28.119.33 (talk) 20:48, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

The UK has no written constitution, but rather an evolving set of customs and laws, some of which have taken on the character of a constitution. As such, the concept of "unconstitutional" is not really strong in British law. That said, I suspect you talk about child support payments. This is an issue between parents and child. The agency is only helping to enforce the rights of the child. As such, the Magna Charta has nothing to say on the issue - it deals with the relationship of the Crown and "the people" (which really meant "a small class of reasonably powerful nobles" ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:01, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

This question is based on the false belief that if you have something in your possession, it is legally your asset. Try that in real life. Go steal something and try to argue that the police can't take it from you because it is in your possession. -- kainaw™ 21:13, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Also the argument that there is no court involved could also apply to taxes. Very few people would argue that taxes are depriving assets without due process. I am pretty sure the CSA is legally sound. -- Q Chris (talk) 21:17, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, the question appears to apply the American meaning of due process to a British legal body (notwithstanding that nothing can be unconstitutional when there is no constitution). Rockpocket 21:43, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the American and British interpretations of due process are pretty similar. It is a common misconception that the UK doesn't have a constitution - it doesn't have a single written document, but it certainly has a constitution. See British constitution. However, the British constitution can be changed just by passing regular legislation, so there is no concept of a law being unconstitutional. --Tango (talk) 22:01, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

The UK's constitution has as one of its most important principles parliamentary sovereignty, which means that the Houses of Parliament are the supreme law-making authority, and can enact and repeal any law doing anything that they so wish. This was part of the settlements at and after Runneymede. Parliament chose to legislate the CSA into existence, and to empower it to do those things, and Parliament had every right to do that. End of! ╟─TreasuryTag►First Secretary of State─╢ 21:53, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I should also point out that the decisions of the CSA _are_ subject to judicial review - see, for example, R(Denson) v CSA, [2002] EWHC 154 (Admin). Tevildo (talk) 23:11, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

October 26

Jesus and Muhammed

[Moved from Talk:Jesus#Jesus_and_Muhammed]

I am writting a paper on Jesus and Muhammed and have a question. Christians believe that Jesus is God. Correct? And Islam believe that Muhammed was a prophet sent by God. Correct? So is it this the same God. Jesus? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.175.238.49 (talk) 21:59, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

The God of the Christians is the God of Abraham/Ibrahim, who was the father of Ismail and Isaac. The God of the Christians is thus the same God as the God of the Muslims - we are all cousins. Christians also believe that, about 2000 years ago, God sent his divine son to earth to live for a time as a human, who was named Yeshua (in Greek this name is pronounced “Jesus”.) Jesus was thus an ordinary human whose ordinary human spirit was replaced at birth with the spirit of the divine son of God. When the human body of Jesus was killed, the spirit of the divine son returned to earth briefly to finish its work, and then went back to heaven where it rejoined with God. This happened hundreds of years before Muhammed was called to service by God, so the son of God (which had lived in Jesus) was by then back in heaven together with God. Wdford (talk) 16:01, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. Marcionites and many Gnostics did not believe that Jesus was the son of the Judean god, but rather sent by a higher god (arguing something along the line that the "real real" god would not have created an imperfect universe). And I do think that "Jesus was thus an ordinary human whose ordinary human spirit was replaced at birth with the spirit of the divine son of God" is an opinion many mainstream churches would gladly burn you for (or whatever they do with heretics in these sadly civilized times). But yes, conventionally the god of Abraham is the god of Jesus and the god of Muhammad. Jesus is seen as an important prophet in Islam, but not as the son of god. See Jesus in Islam. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:55, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Correct. This question is as poorly worded as possible. All that is being asked is: "Does Islam consider Jesus to be God?" The answer is a simple "No." -- kainaw™ 21:10, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Another simple way of putting it is this: Christians believe that Jesus was God in human form. Moslems do not believe this, even though they believe in the same God. Grutness...wha? 21:36, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Why would you expect there to be a god, which you cannot easily find yourself? St.Trond (talk) 17:52, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Please refrain from giving your opinion unless you have something meaningful to contribute directly to the question asked by the OP. If you want to merely discuss your opinions on the subject, feel free to visit the countless religion discussion forums specifically for that purpose. Vespine (talk) 22:17, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm always puzzled by talk as to whether Christians and Muslims worship "the same god". Clearly the concept of God is quite different between the two religions. Most Christians believe that God is a trinity, in other words a union of three "persons", one of which became incarnate as Jesus. This is radically different from the Muslim point of view. So in what sense are they "the same God"? --rossb (talk) 22:22, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

The Trinity is a Roman Catholic doctrine that is by no means universally regarded as either true or significant by all Christian sects. Jews, Christians, Muslims all consider themselves to be followers of the God of Abraham. But they have different views and interpretations of the nature of that God. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:55, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

The Trinity is much more than a "Roman Catholic doctrine." Surely there are Christians who don't accept it, but please note the following from Wikipedia's article on the Trinity:

Trinitarianism, belief in the Trinity, is a mark of Oriental and Eastern Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism and all the mainstream traditions arising from the Protestant Reformation, such as Anglicanism, Methodism, Lutheranism and Presbyterianism. The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church describes the Trinity as "the central dogma of Christian theology".

--Dpr

Both Christianity and Islam are religions based on Judaism. The Hebrew bible, the Tanakh is pretty much Christianity's Old Testament which is also the basis for a lot of the Islamic scripture, the Qu'ran. From the Qu'ran article: The Qur'an assumes familiarity with major narratives recounted in Jewish and Christian scriptures, summarizing some, dwelling at length on others, and, in some cases, presenting alternative accounts and interpretations of events. Hence, it can almost be said that Christianity and Islam are just reforms of the Jewish faith, obviously quite radical reforms but they all still believe in the same God.Vespine (talk) 23:10, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Verily do I say unto thee: read carefully (and follow the links at) the article: Jesus in Islam.

To sum up: Christians believe that Jesus (BBHN) is the Incarnation/Manisfestation of Allah (from the Arabic/Semitic name for "God") on Earth. Be that as it may (or may not) be: Islam, Christianity, and Judaism are, together, the three main branches of all "Abrahamic" religion. Wikiscient 00:58, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Do people of other religions than christianity use their god to swear as commonly?

I think it's safe to say (definitely in America, at least) that it's fairly common to hear a very angry person say "Jesus Christ!" or "G-d dammit!" (self-edited in case there are sensitive ears here, but you know what I mean). I wonder if Buddha, Allah, and others get used in the same way as commonly in other parts of the world. 71.161.59.133 (talk) 01:07, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Such a statement would be taboo in observant Judaism. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 01:17, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Those statements are forbidden to Christians as well, but many self-identified Christians make them anyway. Marco polo (talk) 01:20, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not wondering about the forbidden-ness of the terms, I'm just wondering if blasphemies of the deities of other religions have established themselves in the lexicons of the other cultures of the world as those two phrases have. 71.161.59.133 (talk) 01:25, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

The greeks used to invoke gods in swears as well. Here is a page that talks about it [18]. Pollinosisss (talk) 01:31, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

It's common to hear (mainland) Chinese people exclaim "Oh my heavens!" or "Oh my god!" depending on how you want to translate it, although by Western classification they're nearly all atheist (or even shamanist!). Whether that phrase is endemic or has been adapted from exposure to English culture I cannot say. 218.25.32.210 (talk) 01:47, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Harry Truman, during talks with Stalin, the leader of an officially atheist nation, reported that Stalin invoked the expression "God willing" during one of their meetings. Even an atheist can ask for God's blessings, while a religious person can ask God to condemn. It happens. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:20, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

'Clock Question'

To whom it may concern:

Bsck in 1993 I was given a hand made clock with two cards (A and J)on the left, in the middle is the clock (with the back ground a 12 noon heart, 3 o'clock club, 6 o'clock diamond & a 9 o'clock spand symbols), and the top right side is a red chip with a very large 'B' and around the B is the words; ROULETTE, top and bottom. On the bottom of the right side ia a red book of matches that reads: HOLIDAY CASINO, ON THE STRIP, BETWEEN SANDS & FLAMINGO HOTELS, address is as follows: 3473 LAS VEGAS BLVD, SOUTH LAS VEGAS, NEVADA 89109 (all lettering is in white caps). The frame is square: 2" wide (all around), with a clear glass front.

I have looked all over the internet to see if I could find any item and or casino that even came close to this hanging item, I did come very close to finding a casino on the strip in Las Vegas, which made me fill pretty good. I also found a little info that Holiday Inn bought the Holidy Casino out around the early 70's.

Could you please help me find out some info on this item. I thought that maybe a collector or someone would be insterested in buying it.

I just want to say thank you for your help either way.

Bess Wilkins trouble2uall5@yahoo.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.16.134.33 (talk) 09:27, 19 October 2009 (UTC)